The morning edition followed the public money and the new taxes connected to housing. The afternoon edition follows the property itself, because Vermont is simultaneously changing how often real estate is reassessed and how different kinds of non-homestead property may eventually be classified for education-tax purposes.
Those two changes should not be confused with each other. Act 68 addresses valuation and reappraisal cycles, while Act 73 created a framework for new property classifications that has since been modified by Act 170 and remains subject to further implementation work.
Act 73 Created a New Classification Framework
Act 73 established the framework for separating Vermont property into homestead, non-homestead residential and non-homestead nonresidential categories. The Department of Taxes was then required to determine how those classifications could actually work, what statutory definitions were still needed and what administrative systems would be required to identify the properties correctly.
The implementation report makes clear that the process is much more complicated than simply adding another code to a Grand List. Vermont needs definitions for dwelling units, rules governing long-term rentals, property-use information and procedures that local officials can apply consistently across municipalities.
The Department also modeled how different tax-rate multipliers could redistribute the education-property-tax burden among classifications. Those models matter because a new classification is not merely descriptive once it can carry a different tax multiplier; it can change who pays what share of the statewide education-property-tax requirement.
Act 170 subsequently revised important parts of the Act 73 implementation framework, and the Department’s current reappraisal guidance expressly notes that several Act 73 provisions were repealed or altered in 2026. The completed three-class system therefore should not be written about as though Vermont taxpayers are already receiving final bills under it.
The State Still Has to Decide What the Property Is
One of the strongest parts of the Department’s implementation work is the survey of Vermont listers and assessors. When asked whether it was feasible to distinguish seasonal camps from dwellings suitable for year-round habitation, 60 of 96 respondents said yes and 36 said no, producing a 62.5 percent to 37.5 percent split.
The comments explain why nearly four out of ten respondents were unconvinced. Town officials may not know when a property has been upgraded, actual use does not always match the property’s appearance, and a structure that functions as a seasonal camp in one case may be occupied year-round in another.
That is not an outside objection to the system. It is the administrative problem identified by Vermont’s own Tax Department while trying to determine how the new classification structure could actually be implemented.
A Seasonal Camp Is Not Automatically a Second Home
The distinction matters because Vermont’s public housing debate increasingly refers to seasonal property as though every such parcel represents a conventional house that could otherwise be occupied year-round. Vermont tax policy itself is more careful than that, because the Act 181 second-home transfer-tax provision applies specifically to residential property fit for year-round habitation.
The Act 73 implementation work similarly focuses on defining what qualifies as a dwelling and how seasonal property should be treated. A primitive camp without year-round water, septic capacity, insulation or other basic systems is therefore not automatically interchangeable with a conventional second residence simply because both may be occupied occasionally.
That distinction becomes important whenever statewide seasonal-property counts are used in a housing argument. Census seasonal, recreational and occasional-use data and Vermont Grand List classifications are not necessarily measuring the same universe of property, so one number should not be substituted casually for the other.
Then Comes Act 68
Act 68 changed the valuation side of the equation. Effective January 1, 2025, municipalities must conduct full reappraisals every six years unless the Director of Property Valuation and Review approves a longer period, and Vermont is now moving towns into recurring reappraisal cycles rather than relying solely on the older triggers.
That means classification and valuation are changing on parallel tracks. The State is bringing municipal assessments toward current market values while also developing a system that could eventually separate different kinds of non-homestead property for different education-tax treatment.
VT4VT began collecting municipal Grand Lists because assessment percentages alone cannot tell taxpayers what happened. The relevant comparison requires the old assessment, new assessment, old rate, new rate and ultimately the actual tax bill.
New Haven Showed Why the Rate Matters
New Haven became VT4VT’s first complete public-record case study. The town’s homestead Grand List increased from approximately $208 million in 2024 to roughly $475 million in 2026, an increase of about 128 percent, but that does not mean homestead property-tax bills increased by 128 percent.
A reappraisal changes assessed value while the municipal and education tax rates are subsequently applied to the new Grand List. The New Haven work therefore became the foundation for the methodology VT4VT now uses in every town: follow the valuation change through the tax-rate change before describing what happened to the taxpayer.
Colchester Gave Us the Tax-Dollar Calculation
Colchester gave us a more complete case because the as-billed records allowed the analysis to move beyond assessment percentages. The townwide real-property Grand List increased from approximately $2.299 billion to $4.774 billion, or about 107.7 percent, while the major municipal and education tax rates fell substantially after reappraisal.
VT4VT’s calculation from the as-billed records found state education property tax generated increasing from approximately $41.1 million to $50.5 million, about 23 percent. Municipal property tax increased from approximately $15.4 million to $16.5 million, about 7 percent, while the combined amount increased from roughly $56.5 million to $67 million.
That result illustrates why neither side of the reassessment argument can stop at a single number. Saying “the Grand List doubled” is incomplete, but saying “the tax rates fell” is also incomplete, because the actual tax generated increased after both changes were applied.
Utilities Show Why Distribution Matters
The Colchester records also revealed that the reassessment was not distributed uniformly across every property category. VT4VT found aggregate Green Mountain Power assessments increasing from approximately $37.91 million to $59.65 million, Vermont Gas from $20.91 million to $35.62 million, and VELCO from $9.77 million to $17.99 million.
Those percentages describe valuation changes rather than tax increases. The applicable municipal and education rates still have to be applied before the resulting property-tax expense can be determined, and regulated utilities raise a second question about whether property-tax expense later appears in rate cases before the Public Utility Commission.
Stockbridge reinforces the need to keep those pieces separate. Its 2026 tax bills identify municipal and education taxes independently, with the bills showing the applicable municipal components and the nonhomestead education rate rather than blending them into one unexplained number.
The broader question emerging from the Grand List project is therefore not simply whether property values are rising. It is where the tax burden is moving after reappraisal, which classes of property are absorbing more of the taxable value, and whether statewide changes that look neutral in aggregate produce very different results for particular households, businesses and utilities.
The evening edition follows the other side of that property relationship. Vermont has changed how land is valued and may eventually change how it is classified, but Act 181 and Act 250 address where housing can be built and what review that development must undergo.
Afternoon Edition — Sources and Further Reading
Vermont Department of Taxes — Property Tax Classifications Implementation Report. Primary source for Act 73 implementation, non-homestead-residential/nonresidential classifications, multiplier modeling, administrative difficulties, seasonal-property treatment, other-state comparisons and the lister/assessor survey.
Act 73 Property Tax Classifications Implementation ReportVermont General Assembly — Act 170 of 2026 / H.955. Supports the subsequent changes to the Act 73 property-classification and regional-assessment framework. The Governor approved H.955 as Act 170 on June 18, 2026.
H.955 / Act 170 Bill RecordVermont Department of Taxes — Reappraisals. Current State guidance confirming that Vermont municipalities must conduct full reappraisals every six years beginning in January 2025 unless PVR approves a longer period; the page also identifies changes made by Act 170 in 2026.
Vermont Department of Taxes — ReappraisalsVermont Department of Taxes — 2023 Tax Legislation / Act 68. State summary of Act 68’s reappraisal and property-assessment changes.
Vermont Department of Taxes — 2023 Tax LegislationTown of New Haven — 2026 Reappraisal Numbers Spreadsheet. Primary municipal property record showing parcel-level 2026 reappraisal values and prior assessments used in the VT4VT New Haven analysis.
New Haven 2026 Reappraisal Numbers SpreadsheetTown of New Haven — 2026 Reappraisal Open House Letter. The town explains that the reappraisal was complete and specifically cautions that the tax impact could not be determined from assessment changes alone because the tax rate had not yet been established.
New Haven Reappraisal Open House LetterTown of Colchester — 2026 Reappraisal. Primary municipal source confirming the townwide reappraisal and explaining why assessment changes and tax-rate changes must be evaluated together.
Town of Colchester — 2026 ReappraisalVT4VT — Colchester Reassessment: The Grand List More Than Doubled. VT4VT’s public-record analysis containing the townwide Grand List, tax-generation and utility calculations used in the afternoon edition.
VT4VT Colchester Reassessment ReportTown of Stockbridge — 2026 Tax Bills. Primary municipal tax-bill record showing municipal and State education taxes separately, including the 2026 municipal components and education rates.
Help Build the VT4VT Database
VT4VT is building an independent statewide database documenting Vermont property taxes, reassessments, Grand Lists, legislation, housing policy and government decisions.
Complete the anonymous Vermont Reassessment Survey:
Vermont Reassessment Survey
Submit your municipality’s Grand List:
Submit a Grand List
Vermonters can also help by sharing reassessment notices, final property-tax bills, municipal records and sourced research. Survey responses are used to identify statewide trends and are not presented as identifiable individual taxpayer records.
Read the complete investigation and VT4VT town reports at:
VT4VT Newsstand
VT4VT.com
Support Independent Vermont Research
VT4VT keeps these stories, public-record investigations and research available to Vermonters.
VT4VT is a program of Fort Aldrich Incorporated, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Support helps pay for public-record collection, data analysis, research and the tools being built to document Vermont property taxes and public policy.
Readers can support the work through a paid VT4VT Substack subscription or through the VT4VT donation option at VT4VT.com.
Checks or money orders may also be made payable to:
Fort Aldrich Incorporated
P.O. Box 302
Northfield, VT 05663
Write VT4VT in the memo if you want the contribution directed to the VT4VT program.
Can’t donate? Submit records, Grand Lists, reassessment information or sourced research. Building the database is part of the work.
YouTube: @Vt4vermont
Substack: VT4VT Substack
X: @vt4vermont
Instagram: @vt4vermont
TikTok: @vt4vt
