MINUTES OF THE VALA ANNUAL MEETING
The
meeting was called to order by President Mark Paulsen at
Mark
informed the membership that this would be his last year as President.
Listers, especially new ones,
were encouraged to use the funds allocated by the State for education, whether
it be for classes or books. Since the
Legislature has designated funds for this purpose, they need to know that the
money is being used or they might feel that they are over funding the
program. Another issue that needs to be
worked out with PV&R is the inclusion of IAAO courses held outside
Committee Reports
Education: John Vickery ---VALA will be conducting two
workshops at the MOMs conferences in October.
John and Tom Vickery will be co-teaching a workshop on the comparison of
“level of appraisal” to the “common level of appraisal.”
The other workshop will be on
the income and expense reports provided by subsidized housing—allowable
expenses, etc.
Since PV&R are holding a
workshop on Current Use at the same time, suggestions were made that perhaps an
adjustment could be made in the schedule so that Listers could attend both
workshops.
Legislative and
Exemptions: Caroline Lockyer---There
will be more meetings regarding subsidized housing. VHFA have agreed that there are problems in
reporting income and expenses. Some
subsidized housing groups thought the new law was to reduce taxes. However, the aim of the law is to gain
consistency in reporting and assessment throughout the state.
The laws regarding exemptions
need revising, and while there is nothing on the agenda for this year, some
legislators are interested in revisiting the issue.
The House Commerce Committee
wanted a study on utilities before the legislative session. Peter Rimsa and Randy Viens will be involved
and by November something should be happening.
Also under Legislative—part
of VLCT’s platform that all appraisal of property be done by the state, which
would eliminate Listers, was briefly discussed as being a back door method of
addressing Act 68. Concerns were
expressed but since Steve Jeffrey would be available later in the day, it was
suggested that comments and questions be held until that time.
CAMA: Pauline Moore--- Two and a half years ago,
Priscilla Robinson and Pauline Moore met with Tax Commissioner Tom Pelham to
discuss problems towns were experiencing with Microsolve and the CAMA
program. $25,000 annually has been
earmarked to deal with correcting these problems and making the necessary
changes. The consensus of opinion was that there are a lot of CAMA programs
available, and if they can do a better job of adapting to the needs of the
towns, why can’t Microsolve?
Equalization: Tom Vickery --- No action
By-Laws: Howard Burgess---No action
Other business: Public Records—The Legislature needs to make
a new definition of what is public information.
Because of the requests/demands of groups who want all of our appraisal
and grand list information, and the resulting concern of Listers and others who
raise a privacy issue, the state put a one year moratorium on the release of
all information. Grand lists on disc are
still given/sold to a requesting party.
The Secretary of State feels everything should be available to anyone
but some legislators are not comfortable because of privacy issues. There is a fine line between abiding by the
open meeting law and giving out information and giving out information which
amounts to an invasion of privacy. We
need to be able to balance between invading privacy and being able to use and
manipulate data for helpful reports.
A suggestion was made that
VALA have a committee to keep VALA members up to date on legislation to keep
towns in compliance—perhaps PV&R would be willing to keep people posted.
Lister of the Year: Galen Mudgett, Jr. of
Mark prefaced the
announcement with a brief overview of Galen’s work ethic and dedication to his
job. (A
copy of his remarks is included at the end of the minutes.)
Unfortunately, Galen was not
in attendance to receive his award and the recognition of his fellow Listers. Congratulations, Galen.
A
motion was made by Randy Viens to accept the Treasurer’s report. The motion was seconded and passed.
The
Treasurer’s report is as follows:
Balance
Deposits 5,055.00
Expenses (3,083.31)
Balance
It was moved by Phyllis
Newton to accept the minutes of the
Chris Miele from NEMRC
reminded the membership about HS 131 downloads and answered questions regarding
down loads, tax bills, etc.
Mark introduced the speaker,
Representative Alison Clarkson.
Rep. Clarkson began her
remarks by saying that the more she researches the Current Use program, the
more she doesn’t know. She is very
concerned about the use and abuse of the program. She represents
Other issues with the program
include
Equity—private benefits at
huge public cost
Corporate shield protection
Development penalties—the
legislature reduced the penalties so that the cost of withdrawal from the
program is not a detriment
Double whammy—inflated prices
of land affects the CLA, which when land is enrolled in Current Use, the owner
is only paying use value, while the rest of the taxpayers pick up the
difference.
Denied access to enrolled
land. Since the rest of the taxpayers
are picking up the difference, they should have access to the land they are
paying for.
Should resident and non resident
owners of current use land be looked at differently?
With the concluding of her remarks,
Rep. Clarkson opened the floor for questions and comments.
Concerns and comments
included:
Reasons
why people enroll in the program—it isn’t necessarily to preserve the land, but as tax relief
Poor
or no monitoring of land use—i.e. forest and agricultural management
Penalties
for early withdrawal not stiff enough—people can buy land, put it into current
use and reap the benefit of low taxes, then subdivide and sell
If a
property owner subdivides land, it should be immediately removed from the
program after the first subdivision
Current
use should be a program for residents, not non residents
Denial
of access to current use land—since the rest of the taxpayers are picking up a
large part of the tax burden for enrollees—the land should not be posted
Problems
with administration—should be a better flow of information from one department
to another in
Listers’
reporting of the misuse of the program is ignored
When
people don’t meet the criteria—they should be thrown out of the program.
Value
per acre is too low
Terry Knight—PV&R
Because there weren’t enough
people signed up for the upcoming data collection class, it will be
rescheduled. Anyone planning on
attending the Apex sketching class may bring their own lap top. Most classes will be scheduled after
After lunch, Mr. Tom Pelham,
the Vermont Commissioner of Taxes spoke briefly on the status of education
funding. He said that
He provided the membership
with numerous statistics, some of which are listed as follows:
Listers, through the property tax, bring $870,000,000
into the education fund
Education
spending is increasing at 5% to 6% per year while the student population is
decreasing at 1% per year.
Average
increase in earnings for Vermonters is 3 to 3.5% per year
Cost
of the income sensitivity which comes out of the education fund has increased
10% annually from $65,000,000 in 1999 to a projected $185,000,000 for the next
fiscal year.
Next
year, the cost of income sensitivity is expected to surpass the cost of special
education
The
education fund serves two purposes—1.
funding of education, our school buildings, etc. and 2. to raise money and distribute it for income
sensitivity.
25%
of non residential property is owned by people who live in same town
25%
of non residential property is owned by people who live in
29%
of non residential property is owned by people who live out of state
Balance
of non residential property is commercial
Education
grand list is expected to increase by 13.1% next year.
Mr. Pelham closed his remarks
by saying that while he did not vote for Act 68, he believed that it could work
if the legislature would leave it alone instead of trying to please everyone
and making changes every year.
There followed a time of
questions, comments and concerns. The
issue of Microsolve was discussed especially with regards to upgrades that come
untested. Mr. Pelham said a meeting will
be held to try to resolve some of the problems and that he is open to the
possibility of new CAMA vendors if necessary.
Steve Jeffrey spoke briefly
on the position taken by VLCT that all appraisals should be done by the state,
and which was presented in the draft of their 2007 Municipal Policy.
As long as Listers are
willing to do all the extra work that Acts 60 and 68 have created, things will
not change. Basically, the Listers are
doing the work for the state not their respective towns, because this is a
state education fund over which towns have no control. Steve answered questions and addressed
concerns by the membership.
(Because my recorder did not pick up most of what Steve had to say, I am
including for the membership his remarks via the email to the Marlboro Listers. They clearly and succinctly express the
reasoning behind VLCT’s position.)
With no more business to
conduct, the annual meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Hammond, Secretary
E-MAIL FROM FORREST
HOLZAPFEL, A MARLBORO LISTER TO STEVE JEFFREY
RE: VLCT 2007 MUNICIPAL POLICY WITH REGARD TO
STATE APPRAISAL OF PROPERTY
Dear Steve:
I was just
reading over the VLCT recommendations to the Legislature re: Education Finance
Reform. Much of what I read pushes the
laws in a direction I'd like to see them go, with one exception.
Being a
Lister, it's not hard to see why I might say this, but, the cost of
administering and assessing the entire State by an assessing firm will be
astronomical. Applying an approximately
$70 per parcel figure on the State Grand List would be a ballpark number. Professional assessing firms have used this
per parcel figure recently to estimate town-wide reappraisal costs. In this town, we Listers make a good wage and
can still reappraise our entire town for half of what these firms charge.
I also
think, along with the fact that local Listers know their own towns better than
any county or State assessor could, most people in small towns don't want more
State intervention in their lives. You
mention this in your discussion of town meeting and local control in education
spending. If people were told by the
State what their property values were, I think an even more hot-headed debate
would ensue. The hostility regarding
property tax is significant enough toward local Listers, so State assessors
would have their hands very full (grievance hearings anyone?).
Just a few
thoughts from the peanut gallery.
Thanks,
Forrest
Holzapfel
Marlboro Board of Listers
Forrest
-- thanks for writing. The proposal you focus on is a tough one for us,
but here are my thoughts on this.
1.
Local listers are propping up and succoring the continued existence of Act 60
and the state property tax through what amounts to, if not slave labor,
something approaching it. Because the state has been able to farm out all
the hard work maintaining the grand list, they have been able to perpetuate
this creation. Are you really serving the best interest of your
townspeople -- or for that matter, the taxpayers of the state -- by sustaining
this structure? As you point out, as soon as the state realizes how
expensive it would be to do the job you have volunteered for, it may
hasten the day they look for an alternative to the state property tax. By
serving this state purpose in your local office, you have allowed the state
intervention about which you are rightly concerned, but allowed it to do
so without it incurring the wrath it should rightly shoulder.
2. Despite your hard
work, it is not the local listers who determine what the value of your grand
list is, at least for educational tax purposes. It is the state through its
equalization process. You spend your time and energy maintaining the
grand list, and the state comes in and tells you that your values are only 75%
of what they have determined to be the true value, and oh, by the way, it's
time for your town to go out and pay for a reappraisal, for which they may
provide half the cost. All you really do on the education tax side
(perhaps 80% of what Marlboro collects in total property taxes?) is
determine the relative amount each of your parcels contributes to what the
state says you owe on what they say all property in your town is really worth.
3. It is the local
listers and treasurer who get to take all the heat for property taxes, when it
is the state that determines what people pay. This is a corollary of #1,
but it is a concern and something that sustains Act 60's continued existence.
4.
Act 60 has made listing so difficult and time consuming that it is driving many
listers out of office. Two weeks ago the listers in North Hero all
resigned. I got a call this morning from
This
is a terribly cynical set of statements, and may appear to be counter to the
best interests of the taxpayer in the short term, but I believe it has come to
that. VLCT is very supportive of local government of and by the
people. I think the committee that proposed this and the VLCT Board
believe it is time to call the state on this issue. This is not a
statement in support of centralization of the government, nor a condemnation of
your valiant efforts on behalf of your town and citizens.
Unless
we make some drastic demands, I'm afraid the dwindling number
of willing people like yourself serving as listers will be forced to
continue to support a tax that should be put out to pasture.
Thank
you for listening (reading?) my thoughts on the proposal.
ATTENDEES AT VALA ANNUAL MEETING
NAME TOWN COUNTY
Allan Lockyer Barre
Lois Trenn Benson
Lillian Smith Benson
Beverly Washburn
Ella-Mae Grady
Louise Ferris-Burt
Al Jerard
Gary Carrier
John Vickery
Bob Willcutts Cabot
Mark Paulsen
Pauline DeLaszlo
Alice Veraguth
Chris McLean
Doug Hamilton Dummerston
Jean Newell Dummerston
Bruce Shield
Randy Viens
Judy Reed Fair
Haven
Dani Roberts Fair
Haven
Noel
John Wetzel Fairlee
Clarissa Holmes
Patricia Rosson Hartland
Susan Pelton Hartland
Joyce Scribner
Pauline Moore
Perry Green
Caroline Lockyer
Chris Miele NEMRC
Charles Mason Pawlet
John Eugair Pittsford
Nancy Gaudreau Pittsford
Daphne Gratiot Pomfret
Caroline Kinney Poultney
Joseph Williams Poultney
Jessica Bunker Poultney
Peter Rimsa Proctor
Terry Knight PVR
Bill Johnson PVR
Pat French
John Fike Reading
Sandy Haas State
Representative
Bill Parent
Angie Abbatiello Shaftsbury
Elaine Koonradt Shaftsbury
Todd LeBlanc So
Bernita Tourville South
Hero Grand
Isle
Norene Swanson South
Hero Grand
Isle
Cecile Roy South
Hero Grand
Isle
Tom Vickery Stowe Lamoille
Janet Stowell Thetford
Donna Durkee Thetford
Gail Fallar Tinmouth
Pat Plaisted Topsham
Sheldon Smith Topsham
Yvonne Ruda-Welch Unifund
Phyllis Newton
Carol Hammond
Steve Jeffrey VLCT
Priscilla Robinson
Art Bradley Weybridge
Richard Unger Weybridge
William Koutrakos
Michael Simonds
Tambrey Vutech
Tom Pelham Vt.
Tax Commissioner
Camilla Roberts Rockingham
David Gould Rockingham
Ed Clodfelter Assessor
Lyle Morrison Grafton
Vicki Graves Burke
Dale McDowell Burke
Ted Nelson
Cheryl Tudhope Orwell
Alison Clarkson State
Representative
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Tudhope---Director Tom
Vickery---Director
Art Bradley---Alternate Bruce
Shields----Alternate
Dick Unger---Alternate
Pauline Moore----Director Sheldon
Smith---Director
Elaine Koonradt---Alternate Pat
Plaisted---Alternate
Peter Whitney---Director
Vicki Graves---Altenate
Randy Viens--------Director Lois
Trenn---Alternate
John Vickery------- Alternate
Carol
Hammond--Alternate
Sue Lawrence--Director
Norene Swanson---Alternate Tambrey
Vutech—Director
Cecile Roy--Alternate John
Fike---------Alternate