Montpelier's re-appraisal process has been extraordinary, to say the least. According to state law, a town-wide appraisal (for purposes of setting property taxes) is mandated when it is estimated that the grand list is less than 80% of the actual value of the town's property. Montpelier continues on a bit of a real estate “boom” track, and hasn't been hit by the housing sales recession in play in much of the rest of the state and nation, so prices are still up, up, up.
But the result has been a shock to many, with average appraisals going up by nearly 40%. My own house went up by about 80%. Many others have seen increases of more than 100%. All this while commercial properties have seen their appraisals stay level or even drop significantly. National Life has had its property evaluation drop by a staggering $11 million, leaving the residents to pick up the slack in the budget. Presumably this means that the average non-commercial increase was far higher than 40%.
In the theoretical, this has spurred renewed discussion of the inherent problems with the property tax (at least on primary, non-mansionesque homes) as a funding source, both in terms of fairness and practicality. But there are likely to be more immediate, more concrete repercussions for the town, as well as next years elections, when you consider the sheer totality of the mess created by the process and its mishandling:
- There was no information sent out with the new assessments on taxation; that is, people were left wondering how a doubling of their assessments would affect their tax bills. Would they too, double? (they wont, but if your assessment when up by more than that magic 40%, they will go up)
- In the narrow, two week window of opportunity to appeal one's assessment, city staffers were reported to have been rebuffing questions, reportedly comparing such requests to a judge advising a criminal how to beat the rap. This left confused residents with questions, no recourse but to file an appeal to have an audience – except for the fact that residents were specifically told the appeal process was not for q&a, and had to meet the textbook definition of a proper appeal. A classic catch-22.
- The assessor did not take into account land condition on the assessment because she did not feel qualified to. This despite the fact that it has been considered in the past. Residents with a high assessment and a cliff in their back yard are at a disadvantage if they don't read the fine print.
- The assessor opted to use new software, which required data to be hand entered. Reportedly, the new system is replete with mistakes.
- The assessor changed the way by which business properties were taxed, basing it largely on their potential rental income. Former city councilor Chris Smart received clamorous criticism a few years back at his suggestion that residential and commercial property should be considered differently, yet this appraisal represents a unilateral, bureaucratic change in appraisal methodology that massively benifits commercial properties (again, at the tune of $11 million for National Life) at the financial expense of homeowners.
- It's hard to find anyone who hasn't filed an appeal in Montpelier – including members of the Board of Civil Authority, which sits as the final appeal arbiters (appealing members will be recused), suggesting a paperwork and procedural backlog unprecedented in the city.
It's a mess which could have implications beyond Montpelier's borders, by echoing into next year's legislative election.
Mayor Mary Hooper is widely understood to be intending to challenge gubernatorial appointee Jon Anderson for his seat in the State Legislature. Before this reappraisal, she was a virtual shoo-in for the seat, having trounced the largely unpopular Anderson in the mayor's race.
But the fact is, although voters' memories are notoriously short-term, if there is one thing that they will hold active grudges about, its a bureaucratic clusterfuck that bumps up their taxes into the stratosphere – especially when that increase fills a hole left by commercial and corporate tax relief.
Fair or no, this issue will be more than just an albatross around Hooper's neck, it'll be a pterodactyl.
And Anderson is already making moves to keep the seat he has so badly wanted. Anderson, whose right-wing ideology is underscored by his strong support from not simply the Governor, but from conservative statehouse interests such as developer lobbyist (and GMD concern troll “Pizzaman“) Tayt Brooks, has been trying very hard to reinvent himself as a Montpelier leftist, broadly trumpeting his votes on impeachment and global warming legislation (and hoping folks will forget his support of a gubernatorial veto and alliance with the GOP and Vermont Right-to-life on campaign finance). He already has a campaign website up, (with a Dean-esque title, of course) prominently featuring the name of Treasurer (and Hooper predecessor as Mayor), Chuck Karparis.
By moving to the left, Anderson is also hoping city Democrats will forget how he undermined their caucus and used his personal pull with the Governor to get the legislative appointment. And he should not be underestimated, given that he has shown no qualms about using some behind the scenes political intimidation to quiet critics.
But Montpelier Democrats may be in trouble if they count on Hooper to deliver them if things don't change. Of the other two potential appointees originally nominated by the caucus, one is likely not to be up for a bruising, “from scratch” primary slugfest. The other – activist Matt Levin – certainly has the skills and the energy to defeat Anderson, but it's unclear whether he remains interested.
In any event, if Montpelier Dems leave Anderson unchallenged, the Progressive Party will undoubtedly see their best chance ever to take the Montpelier seat they have coveted. Montpelier's Progressives have generally not fared well electorally, but a run against a conservative D who has dissed the activist wing of his own Party and is associated with corporate interests (not to mention the Governor) is not an opportunity they will let pass.
Hooper could still make it work, though. The asessment process is so flawed and – by accident rather than design – so stacked against homeowners, it seems that the only just solution is to scrap it completely and start again from scratch with a more actively inclusive process with a fully, loudly vetted discussion on any changes in appraisal methodologies (especially if they are to the detriment of individual homeowners).
Short of that, Montpelier Dems would do well to start candidate shopping.
