zahringer v wilmington bd civ auth

1
VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Windham Unit
7 Court Street
Newfane VT 05345
802-365-7979
www.vermontjudiciary.org
Case No. 24-CV-05445
George Zahringer III v. Wilmington Board Of Civil Authority
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
This matter is a property valuation appeal pursuant to 32 V.S.A. § 4467. Appeals of this
kind are de novo proceedings to determine the fair market value of the subject property
as of the relevant date, here April 1, 2024, to find a homestead value where appropriate,
and to ensure that the listed value is equalized so that the subject property is listed
comparably to similar properties in town. 32 V.S.A. § 4467; Boivin v. Town of Addison,
2010 VT 67, ¶ 6. “The goal of a property tax appraisal is to list all properties at fair
market value so that no property owner pays more than his or her share of the tax
burden.” Vosinek v. Maidstone, 2020 WL 6551080, at *1 (Vt. Nov. 6, 2020) (unpub.
mem.). See also Cashman Fairfield Farm Tr. v. Town of Fairfield, 2024 WL 5207207,
at *1 (Vt. Dec. 20, 2024) (unpub. mem.).
I. Hearing
A hearing was held in this matter on April 28, 2026, at the Windham County
Courthouse in Newfane. Plaintiff-Appellant George Zahringer, III, appeared and was
represented by Attorney Robert Fisher. Defendant-Appellee the Wilmington Board of
Civil Authority was represented by Attorney Edward Adrian. Plaintiff testified and
presented testimony from David Buckley. Defendant presented testimony from Russell
Beaudoin. A number of exhibits were admitted.
II. Findings of Fact
On January 5, 2024, Jill Remick – the Director of the Property Valuation and Review
(PVR) Division at the Vermont Department of Taxes – wrote to the Wilmington Town
Clerk regarding the 2023 Equalization Study.
Excerpt from Exhibit # 4

2
The letter noted:
The common level of appraisal (CLA) is determined by dividing the
education grand list by the equalized education grand list (32 V.S.A. §
5401). A number over 100% indicates that property in your town is
generally listed for more than its fair market value. A number less than
100% indicates that property is generally listed for less than its fair market
value. A CLA below 85% or over 115% necessitates a reappraisal (32 V.S.A
§ 4041a). The homestead and nonhomestead tax rates in your town will be
adjusted by your town's CLA (32 V.S.A § 5402).
…
The coefficient of dispersion (COD) is a measure of how fairly
distributed the property tax is within your town. It is calculated as the
average of the (absolute) difference of each sales ratio (list price divided by
sales price) in the study from the median ratio. That result is then divided
by the median ratio to get the COD, which is expressed as a percent (32
V.S.A. § 5401). A high COD means that within your town many taxpayers
are paying more than their fair share, and many are paying less than their
fair share. A COD over 20% necessitates a reappraisal (32 V.S.A. § 4041a).
Id. (emphasis in original). Based on both the CLA and COD from the 2023 equalization
study a townwide reappraisal was required. A town-wide reappraisal was conducted.
On December 26, 2024, Dir. Remick sent a letter to the Town regarding the 2024
Equalization study:
Excerpt from Exhibit # 5.
Plaintiff George Zahringer, and Natalia Mirontchouk own property in the Town of
Wilmington1 located at 21 Aldrich Road. In 2024 Wilmington conducted a required
town-wide reappraisal. The assessor valued the property at about $ 938.000.00.
Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Board of Civil Authority. The appeal was denied.
Plaintiff timely sought de novo review in the Windham Superior Court. 32 V.S.A. §
4467.2 Plaintiff challenges both the fair market value of the property and the
equalization of the property.
1 A town in Windham County. 24 V.S.A. § 14.

3
A 2024 equalization study by Property Valuation and Review at the Vermont
Department of Taxes established a common level of appraisal for the Town of
Wilmington of 91.38% and a coefficient of dispersion of 18.23%.
Plaintiff bought the property in 2020 for $ 675,000.00. The property consists of about
44 acres in current use and a single-family contemporary home with four bedrooms and
three bathrooms. Two of the bedrooms are upstairs and have pitched ceilings. The
stairway leading up to these bedrooms is very narrow. The property card shows a
finished area of 3,402 sq. ft.3 The home was built in the late 1970’s and is about one and
a half miles from town. The property includes a garage attached to the house by an
unheated breezeway and a tennis court. Although the tennis court is presently unusable
because it has not been maintained.
The property card shows the change in assessed value over time.
Excerpt from Exhibit # 1.
Plaintiff has made a number of renovations or improvements to the property – some
before the reassessment and some after. These include replacement of the cedar shingle
roof which is approximately 70 % complete, replacement of windows, interior and
exterior painting, replacement of shades and replacement of the cooktop and
refrigerator. A black mold issue in the home has been remediated.
2 Court records show that on or about December 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice with the
Wilmington Town Clerk stating
I would like to appeal to the Windham Superior Court the Wilmington Town
Board of Civil Authority (BCA) decision rejecting my appeal of the April 1, 2024
change in my assessment.
I believe that my property (21 Aldrich Rd.) was assessed higher than comparable
properties and does not reflect fair market value as of April 1, 2024.
Further, I presented to the BCA an appraisal of the property prepared by a
licensed real estate appraiser. BCA did not question the appraisal and did not
provide any evidence or facts to show that the report was not accurate.
Nonetheless the BCA upheld the town’s assessors valuation.
See Town of Wilmington filing dated December 23, 2024.
3 David Buckely’s appraisal report noted that the property had a “gross living area above grade”
of 3,334 sq. feet. Plaintiff, however, testified that the house was “small” consisting of 1,500-
1,700 sq. ft.

4
In January 2025 Plaintiff4 wrote to Dir. Remick raising concerns about the 2024
townwide reappraisal. Plaintiff asked that PVR order (1) “a new re-appraisal of the town
of Wilmington,” and (2) “ the Town to re-instate the Board of Listers recently removed
by the town select board.” Exhibit # 14. Dir. Remick responded:
I am not able to order a new reappraisal for Wilmington, nor do I have any
authority to override a decision by the Selectboard in the matter of
removing the board of listers.
In 2023, the Vermont Legislature implemented a six-year reappraisal cycle
effective for 2025. We are implementing that new cycle, in addition to
continuing to uphold existing reappraisal orders under 32 V.S.A. § 4041a.
Therefore, at this point Wilmington will be under order for 2030.
According to our recent Reappraisal Evaluation, Wilmington conducted a
satisfactory reappraisal, ensuing at least 95 percent of all parcels show a
change in listed value, and the percentage change in the listed value is
approximately equal for both sold and unsold properties.
Plaintiff retained David Buckley as an expert. Mr. Buckley has been licensed as a
certified general real estate appraiser since 1991. He has served on the Vermont Board of
Real Estate Appraisers, been appointed a State Appraiser, is the Assessor for the Town
of Bridgwater, was formerly as state appeals officer for the PVR Division and has
testified on numerous occasions.
In an appraisal report dated April 1, 2024, Mr. Buckley determined the fair market value
of the subject property to be $ 715,000.00. Mr. Buckley inspected the property and
noted various points: it was 1970s construction; built on a slab and over a crawl space;
the interior was generally similar to what it was at the time of construction; there were
no railings on steps; and, there was limited storage because it was built on a slab. Mr.
Buckley testified that the appraisal process is a “measure of buyer and seller behavior.”
He used a sales comparison approach to determine fair market value. Mr. Buckley
identified sales that occurred within one year to 18 months prior to the assessment. The
comparables were “roughly” within five miles of the subject property. In identifying
comparables Mr. Buckley testified that “anybody can do it.” The report makes the
following adjustments which Mr. Buckley characterized as a “subjective attempt to
narrow a range”:
Subject
Property Comp # 1 Comp # 2 Comp # 3 Comp # 4
Quality of
Construction Average Average Average Plus5 Average Plus Average
Adjustment 0 -20,000 0 0
4 Plaintiff was one of two signatories to the letter to Dir. Remick. The other signatory – Zdzislaw
Zyskowski – also appealed his assessment to this court.
5 This is not a USPAP standard for quality grade.

5
Room Count
Total 9 8 7 7 8
Bedrooms 4 4 3 3 4
Bathrooms 3 3 2 2.56 3
Adjustment 0 +10,000 0 0
Gross
Living Area 3,334 2,592 2,144 2,454 1,942
Adjustment +15,000 +30,000 +22,000 0
In comparing the properties, Mr. Buckley noted that the subject property was
functionally a two-bedroom residence “for comfort purposes.” He noted the steep
stairway to the second floor and that the upstairs bedrooms were under the eaves.
However, Mr. Buckley did not make adjustments in his appraisal report based on his
opinion about the usefulness of the upstairs bedrooms. The adjustments that Mr.
Buckley made to the comparable properties show no consistency and appear to be
subjective.
Mr. Buckley also conducted what he characterized as an analysis to determine what he
believed would be an appropriate equalization ratio. This initially consisted of a review
of all real estate sales in Wilmington from October 2024 through May 31, 2025. Mr.
Buckley’s data included the price the property sold for and the Grand List appraisal for
the property. Based on the data and spreadsheets he prepared, Mr. Buckley calculated a
CLA of 70.28 % and a COD of more than 20%. The data used by Mr. Buckley and his
analysis was flawed. For example, Mr. Buckley used inaccurate grand list amounts. He
also included vacant lots and commercial properties in his calculations despite clear
precedent that such calculations must be by property type. When asked to explain these
inaccuracies he responded that “they were the numbers available.” In another
spreadsheet Mr. Buckley only looked back four months rather than a year. When asked
to explain why he responded, “no reason.” Mr. Buckley refused to accept personal
responsibility for clear and obvious errors in his appraisal report. The court finds his
testimony to have involved both dissembling and obfuscation and his analyses to be
misleading and without persuasive value.
Russell Beaudoin is the Assessor for Wilmington, Barre and Eden. He has many years of
experience with reappraisals.
Mr. Beaudoin determined an appreciation ratio for single family residences in the Town
of Wilmington between 2020 and 2024. Use of a median ratio in such circumstances is a
standard practice. Sales data reveals a 66% increase in median sales price for such
single-family homes between 2020 and 2024.7 Mr. Beaudoin determined that using this
approach the 2024 market value of the subject property would be about $ 1,120,00.00.8
6 According to Mr. Buckley, half bathrooms “are not worthy of adjustment.”
7 Plaintiff’s fair market value calculation of $ 715,000 would mean that the value of the property
had appreciated a mere 6% between 2020 and 2024.

6
Mr. Beaudoin also completed a market adjusted cost approach. This approach revealed a
fair market value of $ 950,000.00. These results are congruent. Mr. Beaudoin
persuasively explained how each analysis was conducted and why the results are
persuasive.
III. Conclusions of Law
“A taxpayer or the selectboard members of a town aggrieved by a decision of the board
of civil authority … may appeal the decision of the board to … the Superior Court of the
county in which the property is located.” 32 V.S.A. § 4461(a). Upon appeal, the “court
shall proceed de novo and determine the correct valuation of the property . . . .” 32
V.S.A. § 4467(a). If the “court finds that the listed value of the property subject to appeal
does not correspond to the listed value of comparable properties within the town, the . . .
court shall set the property in the list at a corresponding value.” 32 V.S.A. § 4467(c)(1).
Establishing the correct value of a property is a two-step process:
First, the fair market value (FMV) of the property is ascertained. Next, this
value is “‘equalized’ to insure that the property is listed comparably to
corresponding properties in town.” Kachadorian v. Town of Woodstock,
144 Vt. 348, 350 (1984) (citations omitted). Equalization is necessary
because we recognize that a town cannot feasibly list all property at its
FMV every year, particularly in a rising real-estate market. Allen v. Town
of W. Windsor, 2004 VT 51, ¶ 2, 177 Vt. 1. Thus, we have held that a
difference between listed and fair market values of real property is
permissible as “long as the ratio between listed and fair market values is
consistent among properties.” Id. (explaining that need for uniformity
derives from constitutional command that “no taxpayer pays a
disproportionate share of the public tax burden”). “The burden of
persuading the trier of fact that his property is over-assessed, which is the
underlying issue, remains with the taxpayer throughout the entire
proceeding.” Kruse v. Town of Westford, 145 Vt. 368, 372 (1985); see also
New England Power Co. v. Town of Barnet, 134 Vt. 498, 508 (1976) (“It is
to be emphasized ... that the burden of persuasion as to the contested
issues in a § 4467 hearing remains at all times with the taxpayer.”).
Dewey v. Town of Waitsfield, 2008 VT 41, ¶ 2, 184 Vt. 92. “The burden of persuasion as
to all contested issues remains with the taxpayer.” Green v. Town of Manchester, 2024
WL 4194642, at *1 (Vt. Sept. 13, 2024) (unpub. mem.).
Thus, the first step is determining the fair market value of the property. The fair market
value is the price which the property will bring in the marketplace taking into
consideration its availability, use and limitations; making adjustments for location, type
of land, accessibility, and sale price of comparable property where appropriate.
8 $ 675,000.00 multiplied by 1.66.

7
Kachadorian v. Woodstock, 149 Vt. 446, 448 (1988); 32 V.S.A. § 3481(1)(A). See also
Barrett v. Town of Warren, 2005 VT 107, ¶ 6 (quoting § 3481).
Vermont law “does not prescribe the method nor limit the manner in which evidence of
fair market value may be presented.” Sondergeld v. Town of Hubbardton, 150 Vt. 565,
567 (1988). In property appraisal disputes, the court is “free to weigh any competent,
relevant, and probative evidence of valuation.” Scott Const., Inc. v. City of Newport Bd.
of Civ. Auth., 165 Vt. 232, 237 (1996). “It [is] within the superior court's discretion to
determine the credibility of the valuation method used ….” In re Bilmar Team Cleaners,
2015 VT 10, ¶ 15. “In the past, “[t]he court has noted that the cost approach, the income
approach, and the market data approach offer the parties means of determining fair
market value.” Lake Morey Inn Golf Resort, Ltd. P'ship v. Town of Fairlee, 167 Vt. 245,
248 (1997) (quoting New England Power Co. v. Town of Barnet, 134 Vt. 498, 505
(1976)).9 This is not an exhaustive list of methods of determining fair market value. Id.
“Any and all” methods are “appropriate subjects” for expert testimony before the court.
Id.
In a taxpayer appeal under § 4467, when a town produces evidence of fair
market value, there is a basic presumption that a town’s appraisal is “valid
and legal.” Kruse v. Town of Westford, 145 Vt. 368, 371 (1985). “This is a
bursting bubble presumption ....” Vanderminden, A Family Ltd. P'ship v.
Town of Wells, 2013 VT 49, ¶ 8. This “locative” presumption places the
initial burden of coming “forward with evidence” on taxpayers challenging
a town's appraisal, but they “are without any independent probative
value.” Rutland Country Club, Inc. v. City of Rutland, 140 Vt. 142, 145
(1981). Taxpayers therefore have the initial procedural burden of
overcoming this presumption by producing “evidence fairly and
reasonably tending to show that [their] property was [appraised] at more
than fair market value.” Jeffer v. Town of Chester, 138 Vt. 478, 480
(1980). The hearing officer must determine only whether the taxpayer has
produced admissible evidence that affords “a basis for a rational inference
of the fact to be proved.” City of Barre v. Town of Orange, 152 Vt. 442,
9 The Court has stated that “The statute does not mandate any particular method to determine
estimated fair market value,” but “when a recent bona fide sale exists to illustrate fair market
value, no method of estimation is needed.” Barrett/Canfield, LLC v. City of Rutland, 171 Vt. 196,
198 (2000). Additionally,
The “market data approach” and the “income approach” are appropriate “means
of determining fair market value.” New Eng. Power Co. v. Town of Barnet, 134
Vt. 498, 505, 367 A.2d 1363, 1368 (1976). “In the market approach, the appraiser
finds similar properties that have been sold recently, and extrapolates a value for
the subject property by comparing it to those recent sales.” State Hous. Auth. v.
Town of Northfield, 2007 VT 63, ¶ 15, 182 Vt. 90, 933 A.2d 700. The income
approach, on the other hand, determines “market value by converting the future
benefits of property ownership into an expression of present worth.” Beach
Props., Inc. v. Town of Ferrisburg, 161 Vt. 368, 372, 640 A.2d 50, 52 (1994)
(quotation omitted).
Jackson Gore Inn v. Town of Ludlow, 2020 VT 11, ¶ 4.

8
444 (1989) (quotation omitted). Because the applicable standard concerns
the admissibility, rather than credibility, of the facts used to overcome the
presumption, “[t]he evidence required to burst the bubble is ... modest.” In
re Bilmar Team Cleaners, 2015 VT 10, ¶ 11.
Jackson Gore Inn v. Town of Ludlow, 2020 VT 11, ¶ 35. Stated simply, “if the taxpayer
presents evidence that the property was appraised above fair market value, then the
presumption disappears and ‘it is up to the town to introduce evidence that justifies its
appraisal.’” Cashman Fairfield Farm Tr. v. Town of Fairfield, 2024 WL 5207207, at *1
(quoting Adams v. Town of West Haven, 147 Vt. 618, 619-20 (1987)). See also, Meyer v.
Town of Putney, 2026 WL 2474338, at *2 (Vt. Aug. 21, 2026) (unpub. mem.) (“[i]f the
taxpayer presents evidence that the property was appraised above fair market value,
then the presumption disappears and “it is up to the town to introduce evidence that
justifies its appraisal.” )
Plaintiff has not presented evidence that fairly and reasonably tends to show that his
property was appraised at more than fair market value. Mr. Buckley’s appraisal was not
persuasive or reliable. The subjective adjustments to the allegedly comparable
properties and Mr. Buckley’s own inconsistent testimony establishes that Mr. Buckley’s
report is not competent evidence of fair market value. The court acknowledges that it
must not make a credibility determination in the first step of this first stage of its
analysis. City of Barre, 152 Vt. at 444. However, the court must exercise a gate-keeping
function with respect to expert testimony – and the testimony here is indubitably of
matters subject to V.R.E. 702. USGen New England, Inc. v. Town of Rockingham, 2004
VT 90, ¶¶ 25-26. In exercising this gate-keeping function at a bench trial a court may
admit expert testimony or evidence and then exclude or disregard it if it does not meet
standards of reliability. In re Salem, 465 F.3d 767, 777 (7th Cir. 2006); SD3, LLC v. Rea,
71 F. Supp. 3d 189, 196 (D.D.C. 2014). Mr. Buckley’s testimony and evidence fail to
establish that his opinions are the result of reliable principles and methods. In fact, the
obfuscatory manner in which he testified leads this court to conclude that he is not
applying any discernible principles and methods in support of his calculations. Since
Plaintiff has not presented admissible and reliable evidence on the fair market value of
the property the bubble has not burst and he has not met his burden in this appeal from
the Town’s assessment of the fair market value of 21 Aldrich Road as of April 1, 2024.10
10 Vermont law provides that “[a]n owner of real property is competent to testify as to the value
of the property. Atwood v. Hill, 2024 WL 4583268, at *4 (Vt. Super. Ct., Rut. Civ. Div. Sep. 05,
2024) (Burke, Supr. J.) (citing 12 V.S.A. § 1604). See also Snelgrove v. LeBlanc, 2018 WL
6167392, at *3 (Vt. Nov. 21, 2018) (unpub. mem). Mr. Buckley is not an owner of the subject
property and, thus, the statute does not render him competent to provide an opinion as to the
value of the property. Vermont law, however, is flexible regarding the competency of witnesses
to testify as to value.
Any person who knows the property and has an opinion of its value may give that
opinion in evidence for what it is worth. It is enough if the witness is shown to
have some peculiar means of forming an intelligent judgment as to the value,
beyond that possessed by men in general.
Labounty v. Lafleur, 113 Vt. 226, 227 (1943). See also New England Power Co. v. Town of
Barnet, 134 Vt. 498, 504 (1976) (“[t]he opinions of well-informed persons based upon the

9
“The second step of the two-step process strives to establish uniformity of taxation and
is derived from the constitutional command that ‘no taxpayer pays a disproportionate
share of the public tax burden.’” Geddes v. Town of Bolton Bd. of Civ. Auth., 2019 WL
1507799, at *1 (Vt. Apr. 5, 2019) (unpub. mem.) (quoting Allen v. Town of W. Windsor,
2004 VT 51, ¶ 2). This is equalization. The “overriding goal” of this process is
to ensure that, whatever the fair market value of a property might be, its
listed value corresponds with the listed value of comparable properties so
that no taxpayer pays more than his or her fair share of the property tax
burden. Generally speaking, “comparable properties” for purposes of
calculating an ER include “all properties within the class of property to
which the subject property belongs.
Dewey, 2008 VT 41, ¶ 18 (citations omitted). See also Alexander v. Town of Barton, 152
Vt. 148, 156 (1989) (taxing statutes contemplate equalizing values of properties in the
same class and not across classes). “By statute, each year a common level of appraisal
(CLA) is established for every Vermont town. towns are statutorily required to submit
fair market values to PVR, which then uses these values to arrive at a CLA ratio.” Boivin
v. Town of Addison, 2010 VT 67, ¶ 17. The CLA is “the ratio of the aggregate value of
local education property tax grand list to the aggregate value of the equalized education
property tax grand list.” 32 V.S.A. § 5401(3). In Boivin the Court concluded that
There is no indication that the Town here did anything but what it was
statutorily required to do—that is, submit its grand list values to PVR. It
was, therefore, entirely reasonable for the Town and the trial court to rely
on the CLA derived from statewide equalization studies, and taxpayers
have offered no reason to suggest otherwise.
2010 VT 67, ¶ 17, 188 Vt. 571. “[T]here is a basic presumption that a town’s appraisal is
‘valid and legal.’” Jackson Gore Inn, 2020 VT 11, ¶ 34 (quoting Kruse v. Town of
Westford, 145 Vt. 368, 371 (1985)). See also Snelgrove v. Leblanc, 2018 WL 6430734, at
*4 (Vt. Super. Ct., Orl. Civ. Div. Feb. 09, 2018) (Rainville, Supr. J.) (“Equalization
through use of the common level of appraisal is a reasonable method for determining
fair market value”). The taxpayer has the burden of bringing forth evidence to
demonstrate that the town-wide common level of appraisal was erroneous. Geddes,
2019 WL 1507799, at *3. “[A]lthough taxpayers are free to present sufficient evidence on
the fair market value of comparable properties to provide the court with a more specific
equalization ratio, if no such information is provided, then the town-wide CLA can be
used.” Wilson, Tr. v. Town of Wilmington, 2026 WL 2474464, at *2 (Vt. Aug. 21, 2026)
(unpub. mem.) (citing In re Milot, 151 Vt. 615, 617 (1989)).
purposes for which the property is suited are to be considered in arriving at fair market value”).
The weight to be accorded such opinions is entirely for the court. Id. The court declines to adopt
Mr. Buckley’s lay opinion as to the fair market value of the subject property for the same reasons
it declines to credit his expert opinion. The foundation for the opinion – whether lay or expert –
is entirely lacking.

10
Plaintiff’s calculations are based on incomplete and inaccurate data and are not limited
to comparable classes of property. Plaintiff has not met his burden to establish that the
CLA for the Town of Wilmington was erroneous.
IV. ORDER
Plaintiff having failed to meet his burden on appeal, the decision as to the fair market
value of 21 Aldrich Road as of April 1, 2024 is AFFIRMED. Additionally, the challenge to
the Town’s use of the CLA for equalization is DENIED.
Electronically signed: 9/1/2026 11:31:02 AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)
_________________________________________
John R. Treadwell
Superior Court Judge
As to the facts:
___________________ _____________________
Carolyn Partridge Lamont Barnett
Assistant Judge Assistant Judge