Committee debates reappraisal funding: split payments and whether to raise the per-parcel fee

Lawmakers and Department of Taxes staff told the Ways & Means Committee on Feb. 6 that the current per-parcel payment structure is too fungible and recommended breaking it into distinct payments to improve budgeting and contracting.

Kirby Keane, legislative counsel, cited the department recommendation to “have per parcel payments for three different things and have those things distinct from one another” — explicitly separating payments for reappraisal, grand-list maintenance and the equalization study. Rebecca Samoroff of the Department of Taxes said the split would clarify municipal uses and reduce uncertainty in how funds are saved and spent over six-year cycles.

Members pressed fiscal questions. Staff noted that at the current statutory rate of $8.50 per parcel, saved over six years that amount “adds up to just over $51 per parcel,” which staff said covers roughly half of an average reappraisal contract; Kirby Keane suggested that math implies a potential 50% increase in the fee to better match cost shares. Committee members disputed tying the state’s contribution strictly to the share of taxes collected for education, and asked for more precise fiscal analysis of where increased funds would come from (pilot fund versus general fund) and how allocation by parcel or other formula would be structured.

The committee directed staff to draft language that isolates payment components and to provide more detailed cost estimates and funding-source options before considering statutory changes or appropriations.