MANDATE:
Act 46, Sec. 9 (1999).
"a) A committee shall be established to study the maintenance of, location of,
indexing of, costs relating to, and access to the municipal land use permits issued by
municipalities, and to develop and recommend a simplified and standardized process for
recording permits in Vermont's land records so that those permits may be more easily, more
reliably, and less expensively searched. The committee shall also investigate the use of
technology to expand access. The committee shall obtain information on efforts inside and
outside Vermont to maintain, index, and make available land use permits."
MEMBERS:
Michael Brands, Zoning Administrator, Woodstock (co-chair)
Linda Spence, Town Clerk, Manchester (co-chair)
Kathy DeWolfe, Secretary of State's Office
Gail Fallar, Town Clerk, Tinmouth
Ken Lerner, Planning Office, Burlington
Liam Murphy, Langrock, Sperry and Wool
Gregory Sanford, State Archivist (Secretary of State's Office)
John Yacavoni, Public Records, Department of Buildings and General Services
The Committee thanks Molly Dugan of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns for her
participation. The Committee also thanks the firm of Langrock, Sperry and Wool for
providing the resources to conduct a survey of municipal clerk, planners, and zoning
administrators.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Committee members encompassed a variety of perspectives as creators, custodians and
users of land use permits. The Committee met five times, conducted surveys with municipal officers (clerks, zoning and planning
administrators) and lawyers and paralegals, and sent a representative to the December 10,
1999 Vermont Land Surveyors' Association to gather further input (including information on
the land record system being implemented in the Province of Quebec).
Municipal officials made it clear to the Committee that recent changes to municipal
land use permit processes have strained local resources and that additional mandates would
not be welcomed. Others, notably representatives of the legal community, made it clear
that Bianchi v. Lorenz altered the practice
of title searches, requiring changes in how land records are managed and researched in
order to diminish new potential liabilities confronting landowners, lawyers, banks and
others. The Committee heard recommendations ranging from returning to pre-Bianchi
practices to making wholesale changes to how land records in general, and permits in
particular, are managed.
The Committee noted the lack of mechanisms for sustained and effective communication
among all those who must record, preserve, and use land records and permits. Consequently,
there is little measurable data from which issues stemming from Bianchi can be
defined, much less addressed. Anecdotal testimony, for example, suggested that land use
permits and land records were often stored in different locations, creating barriers to
access. This was not borne out by the Committee's survey; in 170 out of 174 responses,
permits were held in, or "nearby," the same building as the municipal clerk's
office.
Until effective tools are developed and implemented for measuring the management and
use of land records and permits, any attempt to address issues will be seriously hampered.
This suggests the need for sustained communication among the interested parties and
adequate resources to better identify and address issues.
Coupled with the need for better tools, the Committee believes there has to be more
effective follow-up to those resources that already exist, ranging from the model of a "memorandum
of municipal action" developed in response to Act 125
(1998, Adj. Session) and currently posted (Note: no
longer posted-9/03) on the Public Records Division webpage, to the report of the Committee on the
Computerization of Land Records (also created in response to Act 125 and posted on the
Secretary of State's webpage).
The Committee found the lack of effective tools or sustained legislative support
surprising in light of the amount economic activity associated with land records and
municipal land use permits. A review of State figures from 1998 indicates there were
31,257 property transfers, involving $1.9 billion, and raising $18 million in state
property transfer taxes. These figures closely parallel the findings of the Committee on
the Computerization of Land Records for 1997: 35,362 property transfers involving almost
$1.6 billion and raising almost $17 million in state property transfer taxes. Despite the
amounts of activity and dollars involved, the State has not committed resources towards
achieving its apparent intent of establishing a more coordinated system for our land
records, including the implementation of computerization.
Therefore the Committee recommends:
--The General Assembly should review and act upon the recommendations of the Committee
on the Computerization of Land Records, notably the recommendation for creation of an
adequately funded oversight committee of interested parties charged with addressing all
aspects of the management and use of land records and permits.
--A system for providing unique identifiers for land parcels, based on tax lot numbers,
E-911 numbers, or some other existing system, to facilitate access to land records and
permits.
--The General Assembly should provide funding to municipalities to implement, or
convert to, a uniform tax map system.
--Every municipality should have written, posted policies on its record filing system
for land records and permits.
--Zoning administrators, planning officers, and municipal clerks should coordinate
their hours so, to the extent practical, land records and land use permits can be
researched during a single visit. If such coordination is impractical in municipalities
with part time zoning administrators, one or more of the following steps are recommended:
--a minimum number of hours when the records would be available, overlapping with the
clerk's hours, should be established and posted;
--arrangements should be made to allow municipal clerks to provide supervised access to
the permits;
--or, a policy for making appointments to review permits, coordinated with the clerk's
hours, should be adopted and posted.
--Land records and land use permits should be housed in municipal offices, preferably
within a single complex.
--The Secretary of State's Office or other organizations which routinely network with
municipal offices shall continue to maintain and publicize lists of municipal clerks,
zoning administrators, planning officers and their hours, addresses, and location.
--All municipal records series associated with property, including land records and
permits, should be reviewed and evaluated to determine how long they must be kept in order
to meet legal, evidentiary, fiscal, or other requirements.
--A custodian of municipal land use permits may charge the same user and copying fees
set for municipal clerks and the fees should be used to help preserve the permits.
--The Vermont Municipal Clerks' and Treasurers' Association, the Vermont Bar
Association, the Vermont Land Surveyors' Association, the Vermont Planners' Association
and other organizations should provide cooperative and coordinated educational
opportunities on the creation, maintenance, indexing, and use of municipal records.
ENVIRONMENT:
--land records and land use permits support significant economic activity, involving
$1.9 billion in property transfers in 1998 and $1.6 billion in 1997 and raising $18
million in state property transfer taxes in 1998 and almost $17 million in 1997.
--changes to recordkeeping made in the wake of Bianchi V. Lorenz have added
significant costs to municipalities, from increased pressure on limited and expensive
vault space to the need to purchase supplies conforming to the long term preservation of
municipal land use permits. For example, a ream of non-archival NCR paper costs $5.80
versus $50 a ream for archival quality paper. Without archival quality supplies, however,
municipalities would confront even higher, long-term conservation costs.
--responses to the Committee's surveys indicate a wide disparity of perspectives among
the creators, custodians and users of municipal land use permits and land records.
Anecdotal examples offered include:
(lawyers and paralegals)
--"I find the majority of places (in which I search) I need to go back or phone in
order to get access to Zoning records. The minority allow access and then there are those
who sign off for you and then claim no liability."
--"..you must pay [the town] to 'collect together the file' for you to review and
must request that they do so in advance. Usually it's not too much of a problem to plan
ahead, but...client's do not always give you the luxury of advance notice."
--"...the records are not organized, and only seem accessible for the last couple
of years. There is no index to speak of; my recollection is that they are kept in the
order filed. In a recent matter, I was investigating some development on abutting
property, and there was no way to tell from the records whether the development was
permitted, other than thumbing through a pile of permits and hoping."
--"my experience...is that each of the towns have a separate zoning office that
keep separate hours of operation--some are more part time than others. If lucky one can
co-ordinate viewing the permit files as well as the land records. Usually, however, one
must call ahead to be sure the officer is in and the office open."
--"The keepers of the records have extremely limited hours and each Town does it
their own way. Also, the hours that the Town Clerk's office and the Administrator's office
are open, often do not coincide. Two trips are the norm."
(municipal officers)
--"I feel very strongly that zoning permits should not have to be recorded as long
as they are indexed in the land records & filed so they are available for anyone to
see--If they have to be recorded, the Land Records would fill up so fast that we'd all run
out of vault space."
--"Currently by recording permits in the land records, I am duplicating all
permits. Our records are available to review in their entirety, indexed by tax map #.
Towns our size should not have double & triple paperwork in the same office
building."
--"It is redundant to have a book AND a card in the file in addition to the actual
permit--wouldn't the card suffice? we're slowly sinking under piles of paper."
--"The major cost [our town] has seen comes from staff time, all the extra
recording, protecting records because of increased use as well as increased time spent
helping lawyers (and bankers) complete title searches."
--"May eventually require add'l vault space be added. Zoning records previously
not kept in the vault but are now. Increased recording requires add'l time from town clerk
and space in land records. Recording has increased dramatically and books are filling up
faster and faster."
--there is no mechanism for sustained measurement against which anecdotal experiences
can be weighed or solutions developed. The Committee's surveys indicate that not
all-anecdotal accounts are widely applicable. While there were numerous references to land
records and land use permits being held in two different locations within a municipality,
98% of municipal survey responses indicate the records and permits are housed in the same
building or in a "nearby" building.
While numerous users noted that clerks and zoning administrators had different hours,
complicating research, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns' list of office hours
indicate that in 184 municipalities they have the same hours; in four they have "the
same morning hours;" in five, zoning administrators were available by appointment;
and forty-four municipalities did not have zoning. The Committee survey found that 150 of
172 responses said the municipal clerk had access to zoning and planning records when the
administrator or planners were not in.
--there is not mechanism for creators, custodians or users of land records and land use
permits to routinely communicate their requirements and perspectives, occasionally leading
to misunderstandings and complicating efforts to arrive at mutually agreeable solutions to
common problems.
RECOMMENDATION:
The General Assembly should review and act upon the recommendations of the Committee on
the Computerization of Land Records, notably the recommendation for creation of an
adequately funded oversight committee of interested parties charged with addressing all
aspects of the management and use of land records and permits.
GOAL: To provide the necessary mechanism and funding to effectively identify the
issues, develop responses, and implement any possible changes.
Issues surrounding the management, preservation, and use of municipal land use permits
and land records are complex and involve revisiting long established practices and
mandates. Municipalities do not want unfunded mandates, noting additional costs linked to
changes in how land use permits and land records are managed. There is no sustained,
coordinated base line information gathering to define issues and frame solutions. There is
a wide disparity of practices and perspectives among creators, custodians and users of
land use permits and records. Transactions dependent on land records and municipal land
use permits involve over a billion dollars a year and raise millions in taxes.
In 1998 and 1999 the General Assembly created study committees to examine aspects of
the management of land records and land use permits
Neither committee was accorded adequate resources. The Committee on Municipal Land Use
Permits had to rely on the resources of its members and their parent institutions to
conduct surveys and prepare a report. Other governments that have launched efforts to
explore the same issues, such as the Commonwealth of Virginia and the
Province of Quebec, provided sustained funding and other resources to define the issues
and develop solutions.
The goals suggested by the committees' mandates are important and the potential
economic impact great. The only way for Vermont to effectively move forward is to
adequately fund an oversight committee with sufficient authorities to move the concerned
communities toward those goals. The 1998 Committee on the Computerization of Land Records'
recommendation for a commission to modernize the management of Vermont's municipal records
affecting title to property is an appropriate first step and should be considered for
legislative action.
RECOMMENDATION:
Land use permits and land records should be indexed through a consistent system using
unique parcel identifiers, based on tax lot numbers, E-911 numbers, or some other system
to facilitate access land records and permits.
GOAL:
Facilitate access to the land records and permits using a unique parcel identification
number to a) track property through changing ownership and use and b) provide a common
reference point in a general index so all land records and permits associated with a
parcel can be identified in one place. A long-term goal would be to use the parcel
identification number to facilitate any move toward electronic indexing and searching.
Within statutory guidelines each municipality follows its own indexing practices. The
Committee's survey of indexing practices found that seventy-one municipalities used
alphabetical indexing for their zoning records, with nineteen further indicating they did
it alphabetically by owner. Forty-three indexed the records chronologically, six by
address, eighteen by permit number, and twenty-six by parcel ID or tax map number.
Users of these records expressed frustration with coping with these different
practices. They also reported difficulty in associating permits with land records over
time. Many municipal offices have adopted practices that could serve as useful models.
Many offices indicated a desire for guidance on indexing. Creators and users noted the
additional costs associated with inadequate indexing.
As the Committee on the Computerization of Land Records reported, any future effort for
a coordinated electronic indexing will be frustrated without common indexing practices,
including a common way of associating permits with land records.
RECOMMENDATION:
In support of the above recommendation the General Assembly should provide funding
to municipalities to implement or convert a uniform tax map or other indexing system.
GOAL:
To provide adequate support for any implementing any changes in current practices.
Any change in indexing practices will cause significant local expense, not only in
implementing a new system, but also in the possible conversion of existing indexes to a
new system. The state property transfer tax, which is dependent on accessible records
affecting title to property, is a logical funding source.
RECOMMENDATION:
Every municipality should have written, posted policies on its recordfiling system for
land records and permits.
GOAL: To provide users with an understanding of how a municipal office files it permits
and land records.
In the absence of a uniform system, written and posted information on a municipality's
recordfiling practices would alert users to how to access records and help alleviate some
of the confusion and delays reported in the surveys.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning administrators, planning officers, and municipal clerks should coordinate their
hours so, to the extent practical, land records and land use permits can researched during
a single visit.
If such coordination is impractical in municipalities with part time zoning
administrators, one or more of the following steps are recommended:
--a minimum number of hours when the records would be available, overlapping with the
clerk's hours, should be established and posted;
--arrangements should be made to allow municipal clerks to provide supervised access to
the permits; or,
--a policy for making appointments to review permits, coordinated with the clerk's
hours, should be adopted and posted.
GOAL:
To facilitate research by eliminating barriers to access caused by incompatible hours
among the custodians of land records and land use permits.
In almost all cases land records and land use permits must be researched in conjunction
with one another. Property owners, lawyers, paralegals, surveyors and others who must
research property titles and land use should be able to review both sets of records within
a single visit, or, at a minimum, know prior to visiting town offices when both sets of
records will be available.
In many municipalities the clerk's hours are more extensive than those of the zoning
and planning administrators and it is unrealistic to anticipate that zoning and planning
offices can be open whenever the clerk has hours (including special evening or weekend
hours in conjunction with other responsibilities). In such cases allowing the clerk to
retrieve the permits from the zoning or planning office and supervise their use could
facilitate use of the records. If that is not possible, if the permits are in a separate
location, for example, then the municipality should publish hours when the records can be
reviewed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Land records and land use permits should be housed in municipal offices, preferably at
a single complex.
GOAL:
Facilitate access by allowing users to go to a single complex in order to review
records.
Though land and land use records are primarily researched at the same time, in some
municipalities they are maintained at different locations. In a few cases municipal land
use permits are held in the home of the zoning administrator. This complicates the task of
those who must use the records, adding to the cost of research. Having the records in a
single, municipal building enhances access; would allow the clerk, if it is municipal
policy, to retrieve records when the zoning or planning staff are absent; and would
strengthen the authenticity of the records by keeping the records within the municipal
offices. If records are in separate buildings, those buildings should be in close
proximity (i.e. walking distance).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Secretary of State or other organizations that routinely network with municipal
offices shall continue to maintain and publicize current lists of municipal clerks, zoning
administrators, planning officers and their hours, addresses, and location.
GOAL:
Facilitate access to the records by providing potential users with information on when,
where, and through whom the records can be used.
Knowing when all offices associated with title searches and other land record research
are open can reduce frustration and produce savings in the costs of such research.
RECOMMENDATION:
All municipal records series associated with property, including the land records and
permits, should be re-viewed and evaluated to determine how long they must be kept in
order to meet legal, evidentiary, fiscal, or other requirements.
GOAL:
To provide the best possible recordkeeping system for municipal land and permit records
which meets legal requirements and enhances access.
A comprehensive review of land records and permit has not been conducted in years,
though statutes and case law have changed practices and requirements governing such
records. The increase in records that must be filed or recorded has added pressure on
municipal vault and office space with the potential for additional municipal expense. A
reappraisal of the records could better determine what records are being preserved,
whether duplicate records are held in more than one department, how (or whether) the
records are necessary for meeting evidentiary and other requirements, whether specific
statutory references to books and cards are adequate in current office environments, and
other issues. This would lead to a more precise identification of the records and how long
each series of records must be kept.
RECOMMENDATION:
A custodian of municipal land use permits may charge the same user and copying fees set
for municipal clerks (such as those in 32
V.S.A. §1671) and the fees should be used to help preserve the permits.
GOAL: To develop user-based resources to help defray the costs of preserving land
records and land use permits. These costs are associated with the cost of preservation,
storage and use.
While zoning and planning offices perform many of the same records duties that clerks
do, notably in maintaining files, allowing research in the records, and making copies they
cannot recoup any of the associated costs through fees. Fees consistent with those
accorded clerks would help maintain the records and the costs related to their use.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Vermont Municipal Clerks' and Treasurers' Association, the Vermont Bar Association,
the Vermont Planners' Association, the Vermont Land Surveyors, and other organizations
should provide cooperative and coordinated educational opportunities on the creation,
indexing, maintenance, or use of municipal records.
GOAL: Provide a common understanding among the primary custodians and users of
municipal land and land use records about respective recordkeeping and research
requirements. That common understanding can used to identify needs and courses of actions
that are practical within the environments the custodians and researchers must perform
their duties.
Records custodians and users often have different perspectives which can lead to
misunderstandings or to the ineffective preservation and use of records. To establish and
sustain a dialogue among the related professions can reduce opportunities for
misunderstandings, enhance better appreciation of the respective needs of each, and
provide a forum for seeking cooperative solutions and mutual support. For example, better
understanding of the recording, filing or researching of records could lead to a mutually
supported indexing system to the records.
