[2:48] We have
[2:52] several people.
[2:54] We have several people online.
[3:00] Um, but we're gonna go ahead and
[3:02] get started. So, welcome. Um,
[3:04] this meeting is being held in
[3:06] person and broadcast on the
[3:08] General Assembly's homepage. If
[3:09] you have questions or comments
[3:10] about this meeting, please
[3:10] direct them to
[3:12] legislative.council at
[3:14] Delaware.gov or call the
[3:16] Division of Legislative Services
[3:20] at 302-744-4114. I'm gonna start
[3:22] by taking role. Welcome to the
[3:24] first property tax hearing
[3:26] group.
[3:26] Um, I will take the role of
[3:27] Romer present.
[3:28] Uh.
[3:30] Senator Manovinos.
[3:36] Present. Uh, Senator Buxton.
[3:40] Absent, but I did talk to him
[3:40] yesterday, so he is coming,
[3:42] coming, uh, Representative
[3:42] Spiegelman.
[3:44] Thank you.
[3:46] Uh, Gina Jennings here.
[3:48] here, Susan Durham.
[3:52] Uh, David Del Grande? Yeah.
[3:56] Michael Smith or his proxy?
[3:56] Rebecca Goldsmith?
[4:00] Here, here. Bob Older.
[4:02] Yeah Richard Morse.
[4:08] Absent Sydney Grosnickel? Yeah,
[4:09] yeah.
[4:09] Yeah,
[4:12] and Justin Imus.
[4:14] Here present. OK.
[4:16] Having a quorum being present at
[4:18] Here present. OK.
[4:18] Having a quorum being present,
[4:20] this meeting is now in session.
[4:22] Um, we don't have minutes to
[4:22] approve or anything like that,
[4:24] so we're, we're just going to
[4:24] approve or anything like that,
[4:25] so we're, we're just gonna head
[4:26] right into it. Um, first, I want
[4:27] to thank everyone. I
[4:30] My uh previous job, I've worked
[4:32] in systems integration and
[4:34] system software development my
[4:36] whole life. And um I always
[4:38] acknowledged at the beginning of
[4:38] projects that I recognize you
[4:40] have a whole job outside of
[4:42] this, um, that keeps you very,
[4:44] very busy, and this is just
[4:46] added on to it. I also recognize
[4:48] that for many of you,
[4:50] You may be on two property tax
[4:52] working groups that are being
[4:54] held this year. Um, and so, you
[4:56] know, I want to thank you for
[4:56] that and, and thank you, um.
[5:02] I do hope I know, um, we do have
[5:04] the hybrid solution right now. I
[5:06] do hope we can be in person as
[5:08] much as possible, um, mainly
[5:08] because this is a short working
[5:10] group we're meeting every 2
[5:10] weeks. I understand that, um.
[5:12] But
[5:16] I, and I'm sure all of you feel
[5:16] the same way. Senator Wetton,
[5:18] present.
[5:18] Hi, come on over.
[5:20] Susan,
[5:24] do not want this dragging out
[5:26] forever. Definitely don't want
[5:28] this, um, you know, dragging
[5:28] out, um, so which is why the
[5:30] every two weeks we really wanted
[5:31] to, you can.
[5:36] Wow. I think it's an ex.
[5:36] I don't know where they are, so
[5:38] that's all, OK,
[5:38] Wow. I think it's an ex
[5:39] I don't know where they are, so
[5:39] that's all.
[5:42] That that we can really achieve
[5:44] as much as possible. So, um,
[5:44] just to get us started, have a
[5:45] little presentation, and then
[5:46] we'll kind of be interactive in
[5:48] the middle of it. So first, um,
[5:50] this whole working group is, um,
[5:52] created by House Concurrent
[5:54] Resolution 150 establishing the
[5:56] property tax working group,
[5:58] Obviously many of you have been
[6:00] involved in this process from
[6:02] the very beginning, um, and
[6:03] understanding that.
[6:06] That a lot of the problems that
[6:06] we had, um.
[6:10] Had perhaps, um, groups taken
[6:11] this.
[6:16] 67 years ago or 5 years ago and
[6:16] 67 years ago or 5 years ago, um,
[6:17] and looked at what those
[6:18] statewide standards would be,
[6:18] um, you know, maybe we could
[6:20] have avoided some of the
[6:20] problems that we have now.
[6:21] So
[6:24] the composition of the working
[6:26] group, um, is here. I don't need
[6:26] to read it, but we did want
[6:28] representation from the General
[6:28] Assembly, the county leadership,
[6:30] state executive, public and
[6:32] business, technical experts, and
[6:34] the AG sector. Um, the way we
[6:36] set up this working group is we
[6:38] can, um, put additional members
[6:40] on here, um, and I will talk
[6:42] about an additional member that,
[6:43] um.
[6:46] That has requested to be
[6:48] represented. Um, the original
[6:50] resolution actually did not
[6:54] include the ag sector. Oh,
[6:54] Richard Morse is present as
[6:56] well. He just said he's muted.
[7:00] OK, um, and, uh, I appreciate,
[7:02] uh, the, uh, Sydney
[7:02] specifically, um, you know,
[7:04] reaching out to us and letting
[7:04] us know, um.
[7:08] I like to say sometimes in New
[7:08] Castle County, we can get a
[7:09] little.
[7:12] Siloed in how we see things,
[7:12] which is why I wanted to make
[7:14] sure that um the other counties
[7:16] are represented and um thank you
[7:18] very specifically for, for
[7:20] bringing up that, that ag is, is
[7:21] a significant um
[7:24] Part of the representation that
[7:24] we needed to fulfill in, in this
[7:25] working group.
[7:28] So, uh, the next is really just
[7:30] the introduction of the name. So
[7:32] I wanted to go around and just
[7:34] say your affiliation. Um, we'll
[7:34] start with the members present,
[7:38] Cindy Romer, uh, chair from the
[7:38] House.
[7:40] Senator Eric Buxton.
[7:46] From right across the street.
[7:48] uh, Cross people, Delaware Farm
[7:48] Bureau. Good morning, everyone.
[7:50] I'm David Del Grande, uh, Chief
[7:52] Financial Officer in New Castle
[7:52] County.
[7:54] Hi,
[7:56] Hi, Erin Drysdale over Tay, uh,
[7:56] New Castle County County
[7:57] Assessor.
[8:00] Hi, uh, Elizabeth Keller, County
[8:01] Executive's Office.
[8:04] Katrina Muir Sussex County
[8:04] Finance.
[8:06] Gina Jennings, Finance Director
[8:07] for Sussex County.
[8:08] Yeah.
[8:08] OK
[8:12] You wanna just call them out.
[8:14] Yeah, so we have Representative
[8:15] Spiegelman.
[8:20] Hello.
[8:24] Representative Spiegelman,
[8:24] representing Kent and parts of.
[8:26] Uh
[8:28] Hi, yeah,
[8:30] so hi, Representative Spiegelman
[8:32] representing Northwestern New
[8:32] Castle County and southwestern
[8:33] Kent County.
[8:34] Uh, Bob Older.
[8:44] Bob, can you introduce yourself
[8:44] and your affiliation?
[8:46] I am Bob Older. I'm with the
[8:48] Delaware Small Business Chamber,
[8:50] and we're here supporting all
[8:52] small businesses in Delaware.
[8:54] Thank you.
[8:54] Thank you.
[8:56] Justin Emers.
[9:06] Yeah, Justin Emers. I'm with the
[9:08] International Association of
[9:08] Assessing Officers. I'm an
[9:12] assessment advisor, and I'm here
[9:12] to help with assessment related
[9:13] questions.
[9:18] Deputy Secretary Rebecca
[9:18] Goldsmith.
[9:22] Good morning, uh, Rebecca
[9:24] Goldsmith again, Deputy
[9:28] Secretary of Finance, sitting in
[9:29] for the secretary. Uh.
[9:32] The Durham.
[9:34] Uh, OK, um.
[9:36] Susan Durham? Oh, she's not
[9:37] here.
[9:50] I have to reach out to.
[9:54] Kent County. Who else is we have
[9:56] uh, Senator Speros.
[9:58] Hi,
[10:02] Senator Spiros Manzovinos, 7th
[10:02] Senate District, New Castle
[10:03] County.
[10:04] Just
[10:06] Susan.
[10:10] These are the voting numbers.
[10:10] Anybody can
[10:11] She's great.
[10:14] She's like yeah, we're good. OK.
[10:16] thank you. So, so the
[10:18] expectations of the group, um,
[10:20] You can go to the next slide.
[10:22] are, um, that we are gonna meet
[10:22] You can go to the next slide
[10:23] are, um, that we are going to
[10:24] meet every 2 weeks, um, send
[10:26] your proxy if unable to attend,
[10:30] um, communicate changes to the
[10:32] chair. Um, I want to engage
[10:34] collaboratively in this and
[10:34] focus on solutions and provide
[10:38] transparency. I will say, I'm a
[10:39] little bit of a stickler for
[10:39] meetings, um.
[10:42] Because I don't want to have
[10:42] meetings just to have meetings,
[10:44] right?
[10:46] So if possible, I really would
[10:48] like attendance in person, if
[10:50] not possible, y'all are gonna
[10:52] hate me, but if you could have
[10:54] your cameras on, it's just, I
[10:56] want to know that I am somebody
[10:58] who reads body language too, and
[10:58] I can tend to be a little
[11:00] overpowering. I recognize that.
[11:02] So I need to know if somebody
[11:02] looks like they want to say
[11:04] something, and the only way I
[11:04] can do that is if you're either
[11:06] in person or have your camera
[11:08] online. So
[11:08] I'll be a little Romer for
[11:09] Romer.
[11:10] What's that?
[11:14] Representative Romer, for those
[11:14] of us on Zoom, um,
[11:16] Rebecca Goldsmith and I were
[11:18] just talking. There's no option
[11:19] for us to turn our cameras on.
[11:20] Correct.
[11:24] We will we will work on that.
[11:26] That's what this meeting is all
[11:26] about is working on those
[11:28] things. And also, thank you for
[11:28] saying that because I was like,
[11:30] really, nobody turned their
[11:32] cameras off. I mean, I even, I
[11:34] like, I, I combed my hair and I
[11:36] washed my face to be on camera
[11:36] and it doesn't even work. I'm
[11:38] very disappointed. We will make
[11:39] sure we'll have to figure that
[11:40] out. I don't know if everyone
[11:40] needs to be promoted as like
[11:42] co-host or something like that.
[11:44] We'll figure that out. Thank you
[11:46] for saying that. Um, I, I did,
[11:47] um.
[11:50] Like I said, I, I, I very early
[11:50] on in my career, I set a very,
[11:52] very, very low expectation for
[11:54] how you look. Like on Zoom, if
[11:56] I'm on Zoom, I'm like, I
[11:58] Have your, I don't care if your
[12:00] hair is wet, like I don't care,
[12:02] but I know me and I know that I
[12:04] have to see somebody who's a
[12:06] little bit more quiet is, is
[12:08] itching to say something, and I
[12:08] can kind of only see that. So we
[12:10] will figure that out for next
[12:12] time. Thank you for saying that,
[12:12] um.
[12:13] Thank you, appreciate that.
[12:16] Um, OK.
[12:20] I wanted to talk a little bit
[12:20] about, I think we all know why
[12:22] we're here, right? Um, but I did
[12:24] want to specifically talk about
[12:26] IAAO and and how that
[12:28] relationship has grown with the
[12:30] state, so.
[12:34] I think one thing we recognized
[12:36] during the hearings that
[12:36] happened last year is that there
[12:38] really is no state level.
[12:40] Expertise in
[12:44] In Delaware, um, all of you have
[12:46] expertise in what you do, but
[12:48] even this assessment in general,
[12:48] because we hadn't assessed in so
[12:50] long, was new for the counties.
[12:54] And so to be able to have, um,
[12:56] this international organization
[12:58] be able to come in and provide
[12:59] independent.
[13:00] Standards and recommendations is
[13:02] really something that we valued
[13:03] so um.
[13:06] The state did enter into, I
[13:06] think it's in the signature
[13:08] stage right now, um.
[13:10] In good faith. Justin's joining
[13:12] us today, but we're, we're
[13:12] executing that contract right
[13:13] now.
[13:16] It was worth the money. We need
[13:18] to spend that money and time,
[13:20] Um, Justin and IAA were
[13:20] extremely
[13:24] Thoughtful and generous with
[13:26] their time during last year's
[13:26] General Assembly answering our
[13:28] questions when we had it, but we
[13:29] also wanted to know that we can
[13:30] lean on them for their expertise
[13:32] and to, to come up with
[13:32] solutions, um.
[13:36] I think, you know, one of the
[13:36] things we're going to have to
[13:40] figure out as a group is, you
[13:42] know, where do we want this
[13:42] state oversight to lie. A lot of
[13:44] states will have, um,
[13:46] An assessment department. Some
[13:48] of them will have division
[13:50] revenue, some will have it in,
[13:51] you know, land use like.
[13:54] This is for us to create. It's
[13:55] for us to figure out where it
[13:58] makes sense. Um, and I, I'm
[13:58] hoping that with the
[14:00] collaboration of this group and
[14:02] then the um expertise of IAAO we
[14:03] can figure that out.
[14:06] So, um, they are going to serve
[14:08] as that independent advisor,
[14:10] perform a review of the mass
[14:12] appraisal. One of the things we
[14:14] identified last
[14:14] couple of weeks ago.
[14:16] Just
[14:22] Susan, no option for a
[14:22] microphone.
[14:26] OK, she's good now. Thank you.
[14:26] Um,
[14:30] hi, can you hear us? Hi, yes,
[14:30] Susan.
[14:32] OK, thank
[14:34] you.
[14:36] I appreciate that. Thank you,
[14:36] Susan, um.
[14:40] And Susan is from Kent County,
[14:41] um.
[14:44] Is that the that that the
[14:44] reports, and I understand it's
[14:45] because.
[14:48] Each of you have individual
[14:48] contracts with Tyler. There was
[14:50] different kind of reports and
[14:52] things that were given. So, uh,
[14:52] the city of Wilmington was given
[14:54] um, a full assessment report.
[14:56] Some of you were just given
[14:58] data, um, but IAAO is going to
[15:00] be looking at that, um.
[15:02] And then they're going to guide
[15:04] us on those quality standards
[15:10] for COD, PRD, um, PRB and and
[15:10] median ratio. They are going to
[15:12] provide guidance on the CAMA
[15:14] models developed and the
[15:16] methodologies and we'll deliver
[15:18] um some technical input on when
[15:20] we start to get into draft
[15:22] legislation form as well, um,
[15:24] and like I said earlier, really
[15:26] figuring out where we want this
[15:26] framework to lie.
[15:28] Um.
[15:32] The working group's authority is
[15:32] really twofold. We wanna.
[15:36] Create these statewide standards
[15:38] to ensure, um, future
[15:40] certifications are, are of, uh,
[15:41] the
[15:44] Meeting the guidelines that that
[15:46] the state will set, but we also
[15:47] want to preserve that county
[15:50] autonomy. So, um, we want you to
[15:51] be.
[15:52] Forthcoming with your feedback.
[15:56] I can guarantee you at no point
[15:56] has anyone.
[15:58] In the state said,
[16:02] We should do this ourselves. So
[16:02] there is no desire. Maybe you
[16:04] have a desire, but there's no
[16:06] desire for us to take this
[16:06] under, um.
[16:10] State control, um, it really is
[16:12] more about, um, setting up
[16:14] standards and allowing the local
[16:16] counties to have that autonomy.
[16:20] Um, we also are going to talk
[16:22] about, um, statutory legislation
[16:24] versus, uh, regulatory,
[16:24] um.
[16:26] Um,
[16:28] you know, there's some things
[16:30] we're going to want to put in
[16:32] state law. But there's other
[16:34] things that maybe make more
[16:34] sense under regulations so that
[16:36] every time we learn something
[16:37] new or
[16:40] You know, the models evolve or
[16:44] the the landscape of the area
[16:44] evolves that we don't have to
[16:46] come back to the General
[16:48] Assembly every time to give you
[16:50] guys the autonomy to be able to
[16:52] do what you do best. So, um, I
[16:54] think we're going to figure out
[16:56] those foundational principles we
[16:58] have to figure out as a group
[16:58] where we believe,
[17:00] that state oversight should
[17:02] exist, um, and then set up some
[17:04] of those statutory parameters
[17:06] again, while allowing the county
[17:06] to do what it does best, um, so
[17:07] allowing the state oversight.
[17:10] While regulating the county so
[17:11] that so that we're not.
[17:14] Over legislating.
[17:18] What the counties do for the
[17:18] assessments.
[17:20] So we're going to be looking at
[17:22] 4 core policy buckets. We're
[17:24] going to be looking at the
[17:26] methodology, uh, the quality
[17:28] control, administration, and
[17:30] transparency. Um, this is again
[17:30] where we're really going to be
[17:32] needing feedback from you, what
[17:34] worked, what didn't work, um,
[17:36] and also best practices from
[17:36] IAAO.
[17:42] And then our deliverable is
[17:44] really a property tax package
[17:46] for this, um, and I think
[17:48] outlining for the General
[17:48] Assembly and the public.
[17:52] Why we made the decisions we
[17:52] made, what we want to be in
[17:54] legislation, what we want to be
[17:56] under policy and what that
[17:56] rollout is going to look like.
[18:06] Before we get into the actual,
[18:07] um,
[18:10] More collaborative conversation,
[18:10] is there anything anyone wants
[18:12] to add for that, I think? No,
[18:14] no, I mean, I'm
[18:18] interested in seeing where we,
[18:18] where we move
[18:20] Say that. No, I'm interested. I
[18:20] have some thoughts and
[18:21] questions. I don't think they're
[18:22] right for now. It's better
[18:24] served to just follow along.
[18:26] You're doing great. OK, thanks.
[18:28] Thanks. And we have a hand
[18:28] brake.
[18:30] Oh, Bob.
[18:32] And,
[18:32] From the small business chamber.
[18:36] You should be unmuted, Bob.
[18:46] All right, now can you hear me?
[18:50] Oh, there we go. So I have a
[18:52] question real quick about this.
[18:54] So, this is not something that's
[18:56] going to be guaranteed that
[18:56] legislators are going to pass,
[18:58] is that right? I mean, these are
[19:00] just suggestions we're doing,
[19:00] but is there any guarantee what
[19:02] we come up with will become part
[19:03] of the
[19:04] The standard in the future.
[19:06] That's correct.
[19:08] We have to get it passed.
[19:12] Typically what I will say is,
[19:14] you know, when I first came to
[19:18] the legislature 5 years ago, um,
[19:20] there was this idea that working
[19:21] groups are where good ideas come
[19:22] to die, right? That used to be
[19:24] it. And I will say my
[19:26] experience, and maybe it's the
[19:28] way people are doing them now,
[19:28] but I, I feel like the aging
[19:30] caucus was a great, or I'm
[19:34] sorry, caucus on aging, not just
[19:36] the old, um, it's a great
[19:38] example of that, that when they
[19:38] were created, they came out with
[19:40] legislation and continue to come
[19:41] out with legislation.
[19:44] As to how some of our um senior
[19:46] citizens are are existing in
[19:48] some of these like nursing homes
[19:50] and rehabilitation centers and
[19:52] independent living facilities.
[19:56] Um, I've seen it with other, uh,
[19:56] working groups as well, and they
[19:58] come out with like a slate of
[20:00] packages, so I, I have seen a
[20:04] lot better progress, um, on
[20:08] that. I think that it's not a
[20:10] guarantee, but I'm extremely
[20:10] As to how some of our um senior
[20:11] citizens are are existing in
[20:12] some of these like nursing homes
[20:12] and rehabilitation centers and
[20:13] independent living facilities.
[20:14] Um, I've seen it with other uh
[20:14] working groups as well, and they
[20:15] come out with like a slate of
[20:16] packages, so I, I have seen a
[20:16] lot better progress, um, on
[20:17] that. I think that it's not a
[20:18] guarantee, but I am extremely
[20:18] confident that something will
[20:19] get passed.
[20:19] Um, and that.
[20:19] The feedback from this group is,
[20:20] that's why it's so critical that
[20:21] we have the right people in the
[20:22] room.
[20:22] Does that help?
[20:26] Yes, it does. Thank you very
[20:27] much. I appreciate that.
[20:30] So maybe I would like to just.
[20:32] Over the next couple of weeks,
[20:36] whatever it might be, um, one of
[20:40] the things that I hope is that
[20:42] we lean heavily on, we've moved
[20:42] past the fact of how we got
[20:44] here, right? We can talk 30
[20:46] years, 40 years, it's not
[20:48] relevant anymore. What I hope we
[20:50] focus on is through the initial
[20:52] shock of the implementation of
[20:53] the assessment.
[20:54] And the
[20:54] Byproduct of that.
[20:56] Right.
[21:00] What were the mistakes that were
[21:00] made that were curable?
[21:02] Uh, what are the ones that are
[21:04] out there that are still left
[21:06] unchecked because I think there
[21:08] was a lot of work and effort
[21:10] that went into it, especially
[21:12] Sussex and Kent. No negative to
[21:14] Newcastle, you just way more
[21:16] complicated is what it appears
[21:18] in a little later than the
[21:18] process we had.
[21:22] So I think there's a lot of
[21:22] value in listening to books. I'm
[21:24] happy Susan Dorham's on, cause I
[21:26] know she's a go to person for
[21:27] me.
[21:30] But I think there's going to be
[21:32] value in the current system that
[21:34] we have now that the initial
[21:34] shock is gone.
[21:38] In that system, what actually is
[21:38] working.
[21:40] What are some things you need to
[21:42] assist on, and then what is it
[21:43] that we can do.
[21:46] Acrossed all three versus
[21:47] remaining independent.
[21:48] Right.
[21:50] That that's kind of what I just
[21:52] wanted to initially say at the
[21:54] beginning here. No, I, I
[21:54] completely agree with you. I
[21:56] mean, I, you know, uh, we are
[21:58] going to talk about a little bit
[21:58] of lessons learned, but mostly
[22:00] to make sure that IAAO is um
[22:04] On board, but it's not to beat a
[22:06] dead horse at all, because
[22:08] agreed, like we, um, and you
[22:10] know, it's, it's interesting to
[22:10] talk about like what happened in
[22:14] the aftermath, because it is,
[22:16] and that's more of a political
[22:16] discussion and a policy
[22:17] discussion, but,
[22:20] When there is a public outcry
[22:22] for changes, um, reactionary
[22:24] policy versus really well
[22:26] thought out and, and we had a
[22:28] lot of conversations, um, very,
[22:30] very specifically about the city
[22:30] of Wilmington. And it
[22:32] Really took.
[22:34] IAAO having a conversation
[22:35] because
[22:38] Full transparency. Like I just
[22:38] wanted to fix it. I was like,
[22:40] we've got to fix this. We've got
[22:40] to fix this. And,
[22:44] Rather than trying to, you know,
[22:46] shove a circle into a square and
[22:48] being like, no, we're going to
[22:50] fix this, we realized that the
[22:52] foundation had to be fixed and
[22:52] the structure had to be fixed,
[22:54] and if we have those guidelines
[22:56] then then we'll have better
[22:56] quality of the assessments
[22:58] moving forward. So the
[23:00] assessments are what they are.
[23:01] We're here now.
[23:04] Moving forward, what have we
[23:06] learned? What are we dealing
[23:06] with now today still,
[23:08] Um-hum. Um, what is it that
[23:10] actually maybe is working even
[23:12] if it does stink. This is a crap
[23:14] sandwich. I mean, you had to eat
[23:16] it. It is what it is, but given
[23:16] that.
[23:17] Moving forward,
[23:20] What is it that, you know, we
[23:22] can massage and improve on, and
[23:24] then maybe what are the outliers
[23:24] that are still getting us, you
[23:26] know, kind of hung up. I mean,
[23:28] I'll just throw one out there.
[23:28] We need to have a serious
[23:30] conversation about every 5
[23:30] years, the cost, the
[23:32] effectiveness of that, but I
[23:32] know I'm getting ahead of
[23:34] myself. That's OK. That's OK.
[23:34] That's OK.
[23:36] Um,
[23:38] And this is how I want it if
[23:38] people have feedback, you know,
[23:39] um.
[23:40] we do want to have.
[23:42] Have this give and take so.
[23:46] Um, so then what we really
[23:48] wanted to talk about on this
[23:50] next, and again, this is, I want
[23:50] this to be very collaborative
[23:51] is.
[23:54] Are there missing perspectives
[23:56] or stakeholders like looking at
[23:58] this group of people that are,
[24:00] are on this call, and I wonder.
[24:02] Does everyone know because we're
[24:04] not all in person, does everyone
[24:06] know who's exactly comprised of
[24:06] this group?
[24:08] So I can, I can list them. Not
[24:10] the voting numbers. I didn't
[24:12] know who they were. So we have
[24:12] the Senate and House
[24:14] represented. We have Sussex
[24:18] County Administrator, um, Gina
[24:20] Jennings. We have Kent County
[24:22] Administrator Susan Durham. I, I
[24:22] realized that's fine. Uh, New
[24:24] Castle County Executive designee
[24:26] David Del Grande, uh, Secretary
[24:28] of Finance designee, uh, Rebecca
[24:29] Goldsmith.
[24:32] Delaware Small Business Chamber
[24:34] is represented. We have Rich
[24:36] Morris is our taxpayer advocate,
[24:38] OK? He, um, just a little bit of
[24:40] background as well, he was with
[24:42] Classy, um, so he's, he's
[24:44] definitely more of a housing,
[24:46] um, a lot of housing knowledge
[24:48] in that. um, Sydney Gross Nicol
[24:50] from the Farm Bureau, um, and
[24:52] then we have Justin Emmers from
[24:54] the IAAO. It has been requested
[24:56] that we add somebody from the
[24:58] city of Wilmington, um, on it
[24:58] just because we do have, um,
[25:02] The farm bureaus so we have like
[25:04] we have small business but um we
[25:06] don't have specific
[25:06] representation from our biggest
[25:08] city, but I opened that up to
[25:08] the group for conversation.
[25:12] Uh, maybe.
[25:14] Jeff, uh, Representative
[25:16] Spiegelman might have a thought
[25:16] on this, but
[25:18] Someone locally in the
[25:20] assessment world. I know he is,
[25:22] but he might wanna have an
[25:22] assist, somebody like a Phil
[25:24] McGinnis or something, but I'm
[25:26] asking you specifically, uh,
[25:32] Jeff, if you think that's
[25:32] needed.
[25:36] Yeah, um, I was just about to
[25:36] get up and, and go get myself a
[25:40] cup of coffee. Um, but yes, um,
[25:40] I do think
[25:46] That somebody who is a licensed
[25:46] appraiser, um.
[25:50] If not as a voting member, then
[25:51] certainly we should bring
[25:54] One or two of them in to show
[25:56] some of the problems.
[26:00] that have caused so many
[26:00] appeals.
[26:04] Um, in, I mean, obviously, in
[26:04] particular, we're still working
[26:08] through about 54 or 5500 appeals
[26:10] in New Castle County. Um, so I,
[26:12] I do think bringing in somebody
[26:13] who can
[26:16] Uh, I don't know whether voting
[26:18] member or not, because at some
[26:20] point, a task force or a working
[26:22] group gets bloated. Uh, but I do
[26:22] think bringing in somebody who
[26:24] can show us, hey, this is what
[26:26] Tyler did and why underus Pat,
[26:30] and this is why it's problematic
[26:32] when, when it hits the local
[26:34] individual property owner and
[26:36] why you're seeing so many
[26:36] appeals and why so many appeals
[26:38] are being overturned. I think
[26:40] that would be an important thing
[26:42] fairly early in our experience.
[26:46] This working group in order to
[26:46] talk about quality control.
[26:50] On the Wilmington thing and I,
[26:52] I, and I see Speros put his hand
[26:52] up when, when we mentioned the
[26:54] word, uh, when we mentioned the
[26:56] Wilmington thing. uh,
[26:56] Representative Romer, if you'll
[27:00] recall, during the hearings last
[27:01] summer or the summer before at
[27:02] this point, I don't remember.
[27:03] Um,
[27:08] One of the biggest points of
[27:08] contention.
[27:12] was the finger pointing that
[27:12] went on between the city of
[27:14] Wilmington and the county and
[27:16] Tyler, when it came to like
[27:17] building permits.
[27:20] Um, so if that was such a huge
[27:22] point of contention during
[27:24] reassessment. I do think having
[27:25] somebody from the city.
[27:28] It's probably an important part
[27:28] of this.
[27:30] And with that, I'll go get a cup
[27:32] of coffee. Thank, thank you.
[27:34] I appreciate that, Jeff,
[27:36] or Representative Spiegelman,
[27:36] uh, Senator Lancevinas.
[27:40] Uh, thank, thank you, um, uh,
[27:42] Representative Spiegelman can
[27:42] send me a cup, that'd be
[27:43] awesome, um.
[27:46] Anyway, uh, you mentioned the
[27:48] city. I think we also need to
[27:48] take a look at the smaller
[27:52] municipalities too,
[27:52] because I do know that, you
[27:54] know, I do have the town of
[27:56] Ellesmere and the town of
[27:58] Newport, um, you know, they are,
[28:00] they are affected by this as
[28:02] well with these assessments, and
[28:04] they, you know, are operating at
[28:04] a little different level than
[28:06] the city of Wilmington. Again,
[28:06] no disrespect to the city of
[28:08] Wilmington, but I think having
[28:10] their perspective of the smaller
[28:12] municipalities as this works
[28:13] through, uh.
[28:16] Especially as we consider, um,
[28:18] you know, we have residential
[28:20] and nonresidential rates, and
[28:22] we've done that, and that
[28:22] certainly has had an impact. So
[28:24] I would just think, you know,
[28:26] just offer that idea. Uh, the
[28:28] second thing too is, is there
[28:30] any way to have an average
[28:32] homeowner. I know we have a
[28:34] taxpayer advocate on the group,
[28:36] but I think, you know, we, you
[28:38] know, either from a senior's
[28:38] perspective, and I do appreciate
[28:40] the shout out to the caucus on
[28:42] Aging, not the aging caucus. Um,
[28:43] but I think
[28:46] You know, having someone who is
[28:50] actually cutting the check or
[28:52] who is, you know, feeling this
[28:54] and has their own perspective
[28:56] Again, nothing, you know, not
[28:56] that the advocate taxpayer
[28:58] advocate wouldn't be sharing
[29:00] that, but you know, as we hear
[29:02] these, as we've all taken phone
[29:04] calls from our constituents, you
[29:04] know, there's certainly, you
[29:06] know, something different, a
[29:08] very different perspective from
[29:08] the folks who
[29:12] are sharing their stories
[29:12] directly. So again, you know, to
[29:13] Representative Spiegelman's
[29:14] point, we don't.
[29:16] want to make this too too big of
[29:18] a task force, so it's
[29:20] unworkable, but I think those
[29:20] kind of perspectives would be
[29:22] very helpful and in all this,
[29:26] especially if we are looking for
[29:26] somebody who's paying, maybe
[29:28] somebody who is a senior
[29:30] as well. So thank you.
[29:36] You know, I'll be honest, I, I
[29:38] don't think the task force is
[29:40] too big right now. Like, I'm,
[29:40] oh, and I'll, I'll turn over to
[29:44] David. So right now, outside of
[29:48] the legislative, um, 1234567,
[29:49] You know, I'll be honest, I, I
[29:49] don't think the task force is
[29:50] too big right now. Like, I'm,
[29:50] oh, and I'll, I'll turn over to
[29:51] David. So right now, outside of
[29:52] the legislative, um, 12345678
[29:52] members on it.
[29:53] Based on what I'm hearing,
[29:54] adding maybe 89, 10, like an
[29:56] additional 4 or 5 I don't think
[29:58] is a problem. um I do wanna make
[29:59] sure that.
[29:59] Um,
[30:02] You know, if we have a smaller
[30:04] municipality as well that we
[30:06] make sure, or as we're doing all
[30:06] of these things that we're just
[30:08] making sure that Kent and Sussex
[30:10] are equally represented based on
[30:11] um.
[30:14] on the group, um, I'm OK with
[30:15] that before we.
[30:18] David, don't, yeah,
[30:20] for, for New Castle County, I
[30:20] think having a lead assessor
[30:24] that's a certified assessor on
[30:24] the committee would be
[30:26] beneficial.
[30:26] That person experienced the
[30:28] whole reassessment process, is
[30:30] certified and licensed to
[30:32] understand the, the legitimate
[30:34] uh answers and concerns on how
[30:36] to, what, how to approach them.
[30:38] So I think having them uh added
[30:40] to the committee would be a huge
[30:41] benefit for us.
[30:44] That's great.
[30:48] OK, so what I heard is City of
[30:50] Wilmington, an assessor, smaller
[30:52] municipalities, maybe 1 or 2.
[30:56] Maybe one from each county.
[30:58] You
[30:58] respectfully ask the lead local
[30:58] government and maybe they can.
[31:00] OK,
[31:00] that was gonna be my thought as
[31:01] well.
[31:02] They probably turn the grass.
[31:06] And then an average homeowner.
[31:08] Anyone know what an average?
[31:12] Technically we all are, right?
[31:14] Well, I am.
[31:16] I know, right? We are, we're
[31:17] all, um.
[31:20] How about this? You don't have
[31:22] to think about it right now, but
[31:22] let's do we just take a vote or.
[31:24] I'll be honest, I've never run a
[31:26] property. I've never run a
[31:26] working group, so I'm like
[31:28] unsure sometimes of of where we
[31:30] need to vote. Um, I don't think
[31:34] we necessarily have names right
[31:36] now, but we can email those um
[31:37] within the next like maybe if
[31:38] everyone can get me any names.
[31:42] Um, maybe by Friday of people
[31:42] that you would maybe suggest,
[31:43] um.
[31:46] We can, we can move that way,
[31:50] um, do I, I don't know.
[31:52] Circle back, we'll circle back
[31:54] on the votes. Um, we may have to
[31:56] take a vote to add additional
[31:56] members to the group, um, but
[31:57] for right now.
[32:00] Can I make a comment real quick?
[32:01] Yes.
[32:04] I'd be very cautious inviting
[32:06] one or two small towns. I
[32:08] understand why you're doing it,
[32:10] but I'd be cautious of that
[32:10] cause you're gonna start getting
[32:12] a lot of the other incorporated
[32:14] towns, there's a lot of them in
[32:14] Delaware, they're gonna wish
[32:16] they were at the table as well.
[32:18] So, I'd be a little cautious
[32:18] about inviting one over the
[32:20] others, because each
[32:22] One is then gonna want to have a
[32:23] voice as well.
[32:30] OK, OK.
[32:34] Yeah, Bob, Bob, to your point,
[32:35] that's one of the reasons that
[32:36] I, and I, I think Senator Buxton
[32:38] said it, that the, all the
[32:40] little towns have a trade
[32:42] association called the League of
[32:42] Local Governments. And so if we
[32:44] were to reach out to the League
[32:44] of Local Governments, we're at
[32:46] least reaching a trade
[32:48] association that represents most
[32:50] of the small towns. And to your
[32:50] point, that way, nobody feels
[32:51] left out.
[32:52] OK.
[32:54] Uh, yeah, I think the League of
[32:55] Local Governments could be a.
[32:58] Yeah, OK,
[33:00] as opposed to picking specifics,
[33:02] OK. Just explain to them and
[33:03] if they could offer.
[33:06] Someone to be a representative.
[33:06] OK.
[33:08] Or 2.
[33:12] One additional thing that came
[33:14] up is the recorder of deeds.
[33:16] Does anyone have thoughts or
[33:16] let's have a conversation about
[33:18] that. I didn't really understand
[33:20] that the recorder of deeds is
[33:22] what was explained to me is that
[33:22] you get a lot of your data from
[33:24] the recorder of deeds. Is that
[33:26] accurate? And are there issues
[33:28] with the data that you get from
[33:28] the reporter of deeds?
[33:30] No,
[33:32] we have no issues. You have no
[33:32] issues.
[33:36] I, I'm sorry, I have to
[33:38] disagree. Uh, when, when we do
[33:39] appraisals,
[33:42] Um, a lot of times the recorder
[33:42] of deeds information.
[33:44] Um,
[33:48] Is, is OK, and a lot of times
[33:50] once we do the calculation of a
[33:54] property size, either land size
[33:56] or physical improvement size,
[33:58] they are not accurate. And so a
[33:59] lot of it's
[34:02] The deed information combined
[34:04] with the permit information
[34:06] oftentimes can grow or shrink a
[34:10] property um significantly when
[34:12] it comes to appraisal techno uh
[34:13] when it comes to doing the
[34:14] appraisal. And if you're doing
[34:16] the mass appraisal, you don't
[34:18] have the time to drill down into
[34:19] each individual property. It's
[34:20] kind of the point of a mass
[34:24] appraisal. And so, uh, the 3
[34:26] reporters of deeds do a really
[34:28] good job of getting that
[34:28] information kind of to the
[34:29] different ways.
[34:32] Websites, but a lot of times the
[34:32] information just doesn't match
[34:34] up with the reality of property.
[34:38] Um, sometimes with, so in an
[34:38] assessment office.
[34:42] A lot of times registered deeds
[34:44] is the ones that, that tell the
[34:46] assessor, hey, you know, there's
[34:48] been a split of this property or
[34:50] a combination of the property,
[34:52] uh, the property is transferred,
[34:54] that kind of thing. So, it's
[34:56] kind of the, um, the downline
[34:56] from the assessor's office, they
[34:58] kind of get some of those, some
[35:00] of that information, they still
[35:01] have to qualify it and make
[35:04] sure, you know, like Jeff said,
[35:04] it, it, you know, was accurate
[35:06] and that kind of thing, but it,
[35:08] it can be an indicator of a
[35:09] change with the property.
[35:12] Yeah, I mean, I'm, I'm working
[35:14] on run right now. In fact, I,
[35:16] I, I just brought it up as, as
[35:18] the conversation came up, um, to
[35:20] your point, Justin, I'm looking
[35:22] at one where the deed and the
[35:22] assessment say the property
[35:26] lines are about 25 ft longer.
[35:30] than what they actually are. And
[35:32] so there's some issues somewhere
[35:34] with the deed versus the actual
[35:34] property. And given that the
[35:36] property is only a quarter of an
[35:40] acre, an extra 25 ft in length
[35:42] contributes a significant amount
[35:42] to the lot, which means the
[35:44] person's being charged more
[35:46] proportionately, cause they've
[35:46] got a larger lot in a smaller
[35:47] neighborhood. So,
[35:50] Things like that. I, I do think,
[35:52] I do think that deeds office has
[35:56] Uh, a part to play in this, in
[35:56] this big puzzle. Yeah, and
[35:58] sometimes the assessor can go
[36:00] back to the, you know, whoever
[36:02] filed the deed and say, hey, are
[36:04] you sure that this is what you
[36:06] wanted to file, um, and so it
[36:06] can kind of work as a, a QC
[36:08] within the whole process too.
[36:12] Susan?
[36:14] In Kent County, we wouldn't go
[36:16] to the deeds office for that
[36:18] kind of information. You go to
[36:18] mapping.
[36:22] She says.
[36:24] So
[36:26] how does that happen? So if the
[36:26] deed information is wrong.
[36:30] Is the information that gets
[36:32] sent to the recorder of leads,
[36:34] is that
[36:36] based on you, like the home
[36:38] appraisal the owner paid for,
[36:39] like, how does, who does.
[36:40] Who fills out that information
[36:42] to give to the reporter of
[36:42] deeds?
[36:44] Well, Cindy, before somebody
[36:46] answers that, let me just point
[36:48] out you're hitting on the reason
[36:50] why a survey is required on all
[36:52] properties that are sold in
[36:54] Delaware because the surveyor
[36:56] will tell you exactly where the
[36:58] property lines are. So when the
[37:00] property is sold and they update
[37:02] the deed, when the attorneys and
[37:02] the surveyors and everything is
[37:04] looking through the deed, they
[37:04] can actually match up and
[37:06] correct any errors, but a lot of
[37:08] times in older properties where
[37:10] that hasn't happened in a long
[37:12] time, that's where you begin to
[37:13] run into a lot of problems.
[37:16] and those older properties,
[37:16] those legacy ones,
[37:18] are the ones that we saw such
[37:20] massive increases in New Castle
[37:21] County.
[37:24] So to piggyback on what Susan
[37:26] said, Sussex, it's not recorded
[37:28] deeds. They don't interpret
[37:30] anything. They're just required
[37:32] by law to file whatever is given
[37:32] to them. That's how we have been
[37:34] told by our attorney. It then
[37:36] goes to our mapping department
[37:38] to map out what they read as the
[37:40] deed, and then it also is is set
[37:42] to assessment as far. So it's
[37:44] mapping and assessment are
[37:44] responsible for interpreting
[37:46] that deed, not report our deeds.
[37:48] They just record. Do they ever
[37:50] find differences? They do, but
[37:52] it plays out with attorneys.
[37:54] Attorneys are the ones
[37:56] responsible for that filing of
[37:58] that deed. And in Delaware, we
[37:58] are to record it. We are just an
[38:00] Attorneys are the ones
[38:00] responsible for that filing of
[38:01] that deed. And in Delaware, we
[38:02] are to record it. We are just
[38:02] an administrative arm of the
[38:03] reporter deeds. That's, that's
[38:04] it, just administrative in
[38:06] Delaware. I don't know how New
[38:06] Castle is, but it's just like
[38:07] what Susan said.
[38:10] So I have a property that and I
[38:11] do a little bit of real estate,
[38:12] not as much as Jeff, but
[38:14] Um, we
[38:16] Changed out a garage, made it,
[38:18] now it's a 4 bedroom versus a 2,
[38:20] and we're going through the
[38:20] process of changing that the
[38:22] county and through the
[38:22] reassessment office.
[38:24] Eventually ends up recorded.
[38:26] Um,
[38:28] And then my assumption, I guess,
[38:30] and Jeff might be better is.
[38:32] During an assessment property
[38:34] where your property then gets
[38:35] reassessed in this whole thing.
[38:36] The actual owner would.
[38:38] Challenging.
[38:42] During the appeals process that
[38:42] they thought there was a need to
[38:44] do it, because I don't know.
[38:48] How the deeds office could
[38:48] verify.
[38:50] All of that. So let me ask you
[38:52] something. If, if that happens,
[38:54] how does the recorder of deeds
[38:54] ever get updated? Like if you
[38:56] find a difference, you're like,
[38:58] that's not right. How does, does
[39:00] the information go back and
[39:02] forth, so we, we require a new
[39:04] deed to be so if the deed is
[39:06] wrong, because that is the main
[39:08] legal document. We require an
[39:10] attorney to file a corrective
[39:10] deed
[39:12] to make sure that all the
[39:14] paperwork because we cannot do
[39:16] anything different than what is
[39:18] in that deed. So it has to be
[39:18] refiled, um.
[39:22] If we make an error, uh, like
[39:22] clerical error, we just change
[39:24] it because the deed, if we have
[39:26] to represent what that deed
[39:28] says, whatever was recorded. But
[39:30] there are a lot of property line
[39:32] dispute issues because somebody
[39:32] will record a deed and then that
[39:34] property line has moved, it
[39:36] becomes then an issue between
[39:38] the property owners because that
[39:38] attorney filed the deed and we
[39:40] have to follow what the deed
[39:40] says.
[39:44] And then we get mapping
[39:44] involved, but again, in the end,
[39:46] it's attorneys going.
[39:46] with each other.
[39:50] No, exactly what
[39:52] Gina said, under a quarter of
[39:52] No, exactly what Gina said under
[39:53] a quarter these office is
[39:54] strictly just filing the
[39:54] document, period. They're not
[39:58] doing uh checking for lines and
[39:58] those types of things that that
[40:00] falls on, um.
[40:02] GIS mapping the assessment
[40:03] office.
[40:06] And but who communicates back
[40:06] that the deed needs to be
[40:07] changed?
[40:10] That will go through the
[40:12] attorneys at the at the
[40:12] settlement.
[40:14] It's the property owner we go
[40:16] back to the property owner and
[40:16] said, there is a problem here.
[40:18] and then they have to go and
[40:20] just dispute it with the courts
[40:22] or the other property owner.
[40:24] I think you did say that. I
[40:26] just, this is all new
[40:28] information, so I, I needed to
[40:30] like, you know, digest it and
[40:32] hear it again. So, so let me ask
[40:32] you this question then, um.
[40:36] Do we feel as if we need to have
[40:36] a conversation?
[40:40] Do we feel we need to bring in
[40:40] the reporter of deeds as like
[40:42] speaker of questions or nothing.
[40:44] Does anything need to change
[40:46] legally to, to change this
[40:46] process or it's not broke, don't
[40:47] fix it.
[40:50] I don't feel that we need to,
[40:50] um, I'll be.
[40:52] Happy to discuss that with
[40:53] anybody else.
[40:56] No,
[40:56] not needed.
[40:58] I was to Jeff and what he thinks
[41:00] after hearing that, but Jeff,
[41:00] what do you think at a minimum.
[41:01] Oh.
[41:04] I think if we're going to change
[41:06] any, I think it, it, it's, it's
[41:08] similar to bringing in a, uh a
[41:10] licensed appraiser if, if we're
[41:12] gonna change anything that will
[41:14] require changes to the deed
[41:16] system. We're probably gonna
[41:16] want to talk to them at, at, at
[41:18] that point. Bringing them in
[41:19] now, um,
[41:22] As voting members or, or
[41:24] whatever, it's probably not
[41:26] necessary, but if we're going to
[41:26] change the system that affects
[41:28] them, it probably will be at
[41:30] least, at least.
[41:30] As guests.
[41:34] Um, obviously, you know, nobody,
[41:34] you know, everybody here is on a
[41:36] do no harm kind of mentality
[41:38] when it comes to this task
[41:40] force. Um, and so we just want
[41:42] to make sure if we're heading in
[41:44] that direction that we get to it
[41:46] early before we have something
[41:48] that we're married to, and then,
[41:48] you know, the 3 recorders of
[41:50] deeds say, what have you done?
[41:51] What have you done? What have
[41:51] you done?
[41:54] OK, agreed, and Justin, does
[41:54] that all track with you?
[41:58] Yeah, 100%. I think that makes a
[42:00] lot of sense. I, I think if they
[42:02] were on here full time, they
[42:02] would be bored most of the time
[42:04] because we're gonna be covering
[42:06] topics that are, you know, don't
[42:08] pertain to them. Just hoping to
[42:12] go to meetings, you know, um,
[42:12] OK.
[42:14] Really, you didn't introduce
[42:15] yourself.
[42:18] I'm Kate Bowen. I'm
[42:18] Representative Romer's
[42:20] legislative aide, and also went
[42:22] extremely deep with me on
[42:24] property tax last session, so
[42:24] she's.
[42:28] After Justin, she's probably the
[42:28] expert on PRD CRD and all that
[42:32] stuff, uh, and this is, uh, I'm
[42:34] Wyatt. I'm Senator Manspinos's
[42:34] After Justin, she's probably the
[42:35] expert on PRD CRD and all that
[42:36] stuff, uh, and this is, uh, I'm
[42:37] Wyatt. I'm Senator Manspinos'
[42:37] legislative assistant. Thank
[42:38] you. And that's Adam who's doing
[42:38] all of our, our tech tech
[42:39] support so.
[42:42] Awesome. All right, so we'll
[42:44] just hold that. Thank you for
[42:44] the conversation, um.
[43:00] Hi, my name is Christian
[43:02] Willauer. I represent the 5th
[43:02] District on Wilmington City
[43:06] Council, and I understand this
[43:06] conversation is here about
[43:08] membership evaluation. Are there
[43:10] missing perspectives or
[43:12] stakeholders. We need to
[43:12] officially add members pursuant
[43:14] to the co-chair authority, and I
[43:16] would just like to request to be
[43:16] added as a um
[43:18] Member to the
[43:22] Working group because I do
[43:22] believe that the city of
[43:26] Wilmington um has an important
[43:28] kind of uh experience of the
[43:30] reassessment and I think that
[43:34] the, addressing the issues, it's
[43:34] important to bring the city of
[43:36] Wilmington, um, to the working
[43:38] group. So I'd just like to
[43:40] formally make that request.
[43:44] Thanks, Christian. I'm sorry, we
[43:46] kind of went out of order a
[43:46] little bit there. Um, yes, we
[43:48] actually did, um, have a
[43:50] discussion, uh, we're going to
[43:50] be adding somebody from the city
[43:52] of Wilmington, an active
[43:54] assessor, and somebody
[43:56] potentially from the League of
[43:56] Local Governments and also an
[43:58] average homeowner, so we are
[43:58] going to be expanding the, the
[43:59] working group.
[44:02] Did you want to say something?
[44:06] No, I'm good, I got you.
[44:06] Um,
[44:10] OK,
[44:12] So,
[44:14] Are there questions regarding
[44:18] the scope of work in this, that,
[44:20] uh, you have a copy of this
[44:22] here, um, what we're trying to
[44:22] accomplish, um.
[44:24] Sorry.
[44:26] Um,
[44:32] The scope of it, um, you know,
[44:32] there is a different working
[44:34] group working. Um, we are not
[44:36] here to talk about policy. We're
[44:38] not here to talk about tax
[44:42] exemptions or um split tax rates
[44:42] or
[44:44] There's a group doing that.
[44:46] There's a group doing that,
[44:46] yeah, sorry.
[44:50] Yeah,
[44:52] you didn't get put on that group
[44:54] though. We're the government and
[44:54] we're here to help. Yeah, yeah,
[44:58] exact, yeah, exactly. Um, but we
[45:00] very specifically, at one point,
[45:02] it was actually discussed about
[45:02] having one big group and we very
[45:04] much wanted to keep them
[45:04] separate because this is really
[45:06] about statewide standards, it's
[45:07] not about, um.
[45:10] Policy or any other kind of
[45:12] conversations is really a much
[45:14] more objective and just setting
[45:16] up the rules of engagement kind
[45:16] of thing, yes.
[45:18] Could, could you go back to the
[45:20] slide for our deliverables? It
[45:22] says um that our deliverable is
[45:24] a property tax package. Should
[45:24] it be?
[45:25] Uh, an assessment.
[45:28] Package or an evaluation. I like
[45:30] that. That's a good point. And
[45:32] that's, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
[45:34] that stands out as a, yeah, I
[45:36] don't want
[45:36] people thinking we're coming up
[45:37] with some
[45:37] correct,
[45:38] good call. Good call,
[45:40] um, because yes, this will be if
[45:42] that group comes out with a
[45:43] different thing that's gonna be
[45:44] a whole separate package we're
[45:46] not combining them so yes we
[45:46] will update the PowerPoint to
[45:48] show that uh before we put all
[45:50] of these online, um.
[45:52] Excellent point, so.
[45:56] Yeah. And this really has been
[45:58] my focus since the very
[46:00] beginning. Um, Senator Bucks and
[46:02] I both sat on the hearing
[46:04] committee and so much
[46:04] conversation was had about, uh,
[46:06] you know, what can we do, how
[46:06] can we provide tax relief, and
[46:08] to me, I never felt like.
[46:12] I didn't really want to jump
[46:12] into those conversations when we
[46:14] have a Rocky foundation, right?
[46:14] We're trying to build a house on
[46:16] a rocky foundation, and that's
[46:17] never a good idea, um.
[46:18] You know, I do know there are
[46:20] going to be conversations
[46:22] specifically, um, you know, New
[46:24] Castle County, because of SB
[46:26] 228, you guys have been able to
[46:28] go back and and quality check
[46:30] and how we move forward with the
[46:32] next set of properties because
[46:32] I, I realize it's a big
[46:34] undertaking, is going to be a
[46:36] separate conversation than than
[46:38] this one. So yes, correct, we
[46:39] will, we will update that slide.
[46:48] Rich. Yes, rich.
[46:48] One issue in terms of scope that
[46:52] I, I just wanted to raise is in
[46:56] the resolution and the recitals
[46:56] talk about ensuring that the
[47:00] certified roles meet the IAAO
[47:00] standards. Um,
[47:02] But that in my mind raises the
[47:04] But that in my mind raises a the
[47:04] question, what happens if the
[47:06] assessment doesn't meet the
[47:08] standards. So one thing I think
[47:08] we're going to need to have to
[47:12] deal with is what happens then,
[47:14] because even a, a, you know,
[47:16] even as this time around, even
[47:20] in places where the reassessment
[47:22] didn't meet the standards, and
[47:23] particularly Wilmington,
[47:24] um, the reassessed values were
[47:28] in general better than they were
[47:28] before the reassessment.
[47:30] So that's a different issue that
[47:32] I think needs to be added to
[47:32] what we deal with, what happens.
[47:34] If
[47:38] the standards aren't met in the
[47:38] next reassessment, for example.
[47:42] That's, that's a great point,
[47:43] um.
[47:44] One of the
[47:50] Conversations I had that Kate
[47:52] and I had with Justin earlier on
[47:52] was.
[47:53] Um,
[47:56] The realistic conversation of
[47:58] who can even meet some of these
[48:00] gold level standards, right?
[48:02] Just because you can't reach the
[48:02] goal that we haven't done an
[48:03] assessment in 40 years.
[48:06] We can't necessarily be like
[48:10] measured against a, a, a gold
[48:10] standard for that, um, or have
[48:12] that be an assumption, and
[48:14] Justin, you can probably speak
[48:14] to it better, but he, you know,
[48:16] every assessment is going to get
[48:18] better and better, um, and so I
[48:22] know a kind of a, an analogy I
[48:22] would use is.
[48:24] You know, midnight is your
[48:26] curfew. 12:10 is OK.
[48:28] 12:30 is not acceptable. You
[48:30] know, what are the parameters
[48:32] and then what are the allowable
[48:34] limits outside of that
[48:34] parameter, and I, I think that's
[48:36] where we're going to end up
[48:38] having to rely on Justin. And to
[48:40] your point, Rich is, is.
[48:42] Legislatively, we're going to
[48:44] have to figure out what if
[48:46] somebody can't assess those
[48:48] roles, like, let's say 2020.
[48:52] 2030 happens, it's the next
[48:52] assessment and.
[48:54] We won't keep picking on
[48:56] Newcastle. As I say Sussex
[48:58] County can't certify their tax
[49:00] rolls. What does that mean? Do
[49:02] they, um, not send out bills?
[49:02] How does that impact our
[49:04] schools? Do they send out bills
[49:06] that based on the previous
[49:06] years, um.
[49:08] You know, assessed values like
[49:10] what, how do we handle.
[49:10] Those
[49:14] Those things can happen when you
[49:14] don't certify your tax rolls,
[49:16] um, if there's, um.
[49:18] Certain areas that didn't meet.
[49:22] But you know, if, if, if, if
[49:24] Sussex County as a whole did
[49:24] meet,
[49:26] um, but then certain areas
[49:26] didn't like how do we manage all
[49:28] that and I think that's where we
[49:30] can rely on Justin's expertise
[49:32] in other states as well, or at
[49:34] least appoint us to other
[49:36] states. Some of those changes
[49:38] will be policy discussions as
[49:38] well, but what do we need to
[49:40] change, if anything? Justin,
[49:40] yes, please.
[49:44] Yeah, so I think part of this,
[49:44] um,
[49:46] I, I think you'll have less
[49:48] problems if you've got oversight
[49:50] in place ahead of time, and you
[49:52] can kind of QC the process as it
[49:54] goes. You've got a higher
[49:56] likelihood of, of success than
[49:56] I, I think you'll have less
[49:57] problems if you've got oversight
[49:58] in place ahead of time, and you
[49:59] can kind of QC the process as it
[49:59] goes. You've got a higher
[50:00] likelihood of, of success then
[50:00] in the end rather than
[50:02] Um, you know, and there could be
[50:02] situations where you do have a
[50:04] problem in the end and values
[50:06] aren't certified on time or
[50:08] properly or or whatever, but
[50:08] hopefully if you've got a lot of
[50:10] those QCs and you've been
[50:12] quality checking and
[50:14] double checking that processes
[50:16] are getting done for the full 5
[50:17] years. Hopefully they're in a
[50:18] good spot by the time they get
[50:19] there.
[50:26] Discussion about that.
[50:28] That's a really good point,
[50:28] Rich.
[50:34] I wanted to ask Susan Dorm. Yes,
[50:38] go ahead. Well, give her a time
[50:40] to get ready for it. It's not
[50:42] even a difficult one, the storm,
[50:42] but
[50:43] we've been asked basically.
[50:46] We kind of understand the
[50:48] mission and the path, path that
[50:50] we're on and all that. And do
[50:51] you have some thoughts on what
[50:52] you hope to get out of this on
[50:53] behalf of Kent County.
[50:54] Um, maybe.
[51:00] Tell us a little bit about what
[51:00] maybe you hope doesn't happen. I
[51:02] don't know. I'm putting you on
[51:04] the spot, but I just wanted you
[51:04] to maybe offer up some thoughts.
[51:06] And please
[51:08] be honest. That's a great point.
[51:10] What do you want to happen and
[51:10] what are you like, please don't
[51:14] let this happen. Yes.
[51:18] I need to raise my hand and I
[51:18] think your audio is what you're
[51:20] talking about. OK,
[51:20] um, well.
[51:26] Actually, we, we are happy with
[51:26] the way things went.
[51:28] And uh we're really
[51:34] Wanting to change much of
[51:34] anything, we were following.
[51:36] And then we thought we did good
[51:38] with the reassessment, uh.
[51:40] And
[51:44] I don't really have anything
[51:46] that wants to be changed. I know
[51:48] we don't want to have the, to be
[51:49] forced to do things that
[51:52] To help, you know, that to clear
[51:54] up the problems with Newcastle.
[51:56] We didn't want that forced upon
[51:58] us because we're just two
[51:58] different.
[52:02] Uh, counties, you know, we, we,
[52:02] our properties are not the same
[52:04] and our situations are not the
[52:06] same. But um,
[52:08] We really weren't looking for
[52:10] anything to change, basically.
[52:12] That we would need legislation.
[52:14] I agree.
[52:18] Can, can I ask you, uh, Susan,
[52:18] um, Miss Dorham.
[52:22] We are closing in. I mean, it is
[52:24] coming up on when Kent County
[52:26] will have to do this thing
[52:30] again. Um, if it was this year,
[52:30] if it was next week, whatever,
[52:32] the system that you have, you
[52:34] feel comfortable doing. Uh, do
[52:36] you see any bumps in the road?
[52:38] Do you see this thing other than
[52:40] just folks who don't like being
[52:41] reassessed?
[52:42] Is there anything left, left to
[52:46] be fixed or something that you
[52:46] would need assistance. I know
[52:48] you just said you like your
[52:48] system. I just wanted to.
[52:52] Is there anything out there that
[52:53] you're worried about?
[52:54] When you do it first.
[52:58] Um, I'm, we really aren't, uh.
[53:02] You know, I just can't, um,
[53:06] Cheryl's in here with me, um,
[53:08] and we really can't put our
[53:10] fingers on anything right now,
[53:11] anyhow, um.
[53:14] We feel like the system we have
[53:14] and the way we did it worked.
[53:18] Um, and nothing's perfect and
[53:20] There certainly were mistakes
[53:22] made along the way called human
[53:24] error that that's just going to
[53:25] There certainly were mistakes
[53:25] made along the way called human
[53:26] error that that's just gonna be
[53:26] a factor no matter when or how
[53:28] you do it and you really have to
[53:30] just, it's mainly managing your
[53:32] contract or your
[53:34] A contractor and stuff like
[53:35] that, so.
[53:40] We feel like what we have works
[53:41] for us.
[53:42] One last question and then I'm
[53:44] done. Do you feel like the cost
[53:46] One last question and then I'm
[53:46] done. Do you feel like the costs
[53:47] associated with the reassessment
[53:48] are going to be less this time
[53:50] around, or do you have no way of
[53:52] understanding that,
[53:52] no
[53:54] we have an RFP out there right
[53:56] now with Sussex County, and so
[53:58] we'll be able to answer that.
[54:00] Uh, in about a month.
[54:04] Cause the only question I have
[54:06] not today cause that's a bigger
[54:08] question. I know the lawsuit has
[54:08] something to do with the
[54:10] language, 5 years, all that.
[54:12] But just having that
[54:12] conversation about.
[54:16] Is a 5 year turnaround, a good
[54:20] thing necessary is 7, more
[54:22] suitable is 10, and it really
[54:22] comes down to cost and the
[54:24] effectiveness of a reassessment.
[54:26] So, is there merit in having
[54:27] that conversation?
[54:30] Yes.
[54:36] All right, thank you. That's.
[54:38] How about you? Anything um from
[54:42] That your same, same basic
[54:44] question. Um, I mean, some of
[54:46] this is gonna be us saying, OK,
[54:48] this did work, you know, the
[54:48] transparency did work, but that
[54:50] we need to still put it in state
[54:52] code that that is the
[54:52] expectation that people will
[54:56] have, um, you know, I know,
[54:58] like, here's an example. 11 of
[54:58] the frustrations I heard from
[55:00] people is like you have an
[55:00] appeals window, right? People
[55:01] can file an appeal.
[55:04] Some of the frustration we heard
[55:06] from homeowners is, why can't I
[55:06] file it anytime? I understand
[55:08] you have to have a point in time
[55:09] that you can't.
[55:10] that appeal is good for.
[55:12] Why can't I still file it when
[55:14] it's in my mind, and you don't
[55:16] do anything with it till the
[55:18] following year. Like that's just
[55:18] an example. It doesn't mean the
[55:20] system's broke. It doesn't mean
[55:21] that, oh my God, that's
[55:22] terrible, but it is a little bit
[55:24] of feedback of like maybe those,
[55:24] that's just like one example,
[55:26] but what are your thoughts on
[55:28] that? Or not that, but like on
[55:30] what's working, what's not.
[55:30] That's fine. No, um.
[55:34] We follow IAAO and those are
[55:36] standards. And I hope that we
[55:38] just, we create standards,
[55:40] that's fine, but we don't have
[55:40] to fit ourselves in a box
[55:42] because each property is gonna
[55:44] be different and I just, we just
[55:46] need to be able to provide some
[55:48] type of answer as why it might
[55:48] not have fit the COD or
[55:50] something like that for that
[55:52] property or anything like that.
[55:52] So I just ask that we're not put
[55:54] in a box because we just don't
[55:56] know what we don't know going
[55:56] into this that we'll just be
[55:58] able to provide answers. And I
[56:00] think that's what Sussex was
[56:01] able to do is if there was
[56:01] something off.
[56:04] I can provide you an answer of
[56:06] why it was off. And sometimes it
[56:08] has to be off because our
[56:08] properties are so different in
[56:10] our counties and it's so
[56:10] different, especially when we're
[56:12] talking about a beach community
[56:14] to the western side of Sussex.
[56:14] So that's important. I just
[56:16] don't want us to make sure that
[56:18] we have such strict guidelines
[56:20] that we can't end up working
[56:22] with the property owner, um.
[56:26] That worries me the most, um,
[56:26] and at no point have I ever
[56:30] heard Justin say a CRD or
[56:32] PRD PR anything would be at the
[56:34] property level. It'll, you know,
[56:35] I mean, you don't at the
[56:36] property class, probably things
[56:38] like that, you know,
[56:38] residential, commercial things
[56:40] like that, but we just need to
[56:40] be careful with that because we
[56:42] don't want to cause issues by
[56:44] creating such strict standards
[56:48] going forward. I agree. Um,
[56:50] that's my biggest concern. Um,
[56:51] again, we are
[56:52] out with an RFP right now. We'll
[56:53] know when.
[56:54] In a couple of weeks, we'll have
[56:56] responses back. We'll know what
[56:56] the cost is and see what it is.
[56:58] As far as the cost
[57:02] effectiveness, it cost us $10
[57:04] million and I expect it to be
[57:06] about the same, if not more,
[57:08] even if it's gonna be on a
[57:08] digital level. Um, we'll know
[57:10] more when we get it, but is it
[57:12] really cost-effective? But we
[57:14] are following what IAAO, their
[57:16] standards in there and says, you
[57:18] know, so many years you
[57:18] shouldn't touch a property. So
[57:19] we do need to
[57:22] Rely on them to see what that
[57:23] should be.
[57:26] $10 million. So where's, how
[57:28] much of that country and the
[57:28] state? Yeah,
[57:30] uh, nothing.
[57:32] and we collect $19 million in
[57:34] taxes in Sussex and it's costing
[57:36] us 10 million every 5 years and
[57:38] off balance you have more.
[57:42] Properties you're, you're on the
[57:44] same level as Newcastle as far
[57:44] as we have over 200,000
[57:46] properties.
[57:46] Kent, do you know their number?
[57:48] It's she sees on there, but it's
[57:50] 80,000 something like that. So
[57:52] that's why we're around 5
[57:54] million for reassessment, which
[57:56] is still a big number because we
[57:56] are the, we're the poor kids.
[58:00] How many did you say properties?
[58:02] 80,000. Yeah, it's 200 it's
[58:04] 85,000, probably about Susan can
[58:06] speak up if she wants, but ours
[58:08] is like 205,000 and I think
[58:10] Newcastle is close to that.
[58:10] 220.
[58:14] That 5 million number for us is
[58:16] huge. It's on the same par as
[58:18] the 10 million. I don't know how
[58:18] much yours was, probably.
[58:20] More than that, over 20 million,
[58:21] yeah.
[58:24] And and counting.
[58:28] And that's just and and still
[58:30] and still going and
[58:30] that's just money. I mean
[58:32] there's no dedicated revenue
[58:33] stream to
[58:36] Fund that or anything like that,
[58:36] it's just money.
[58:38] It's necessary, but
[58:44] Yeah,
[58:46] and we can, I mean, that's, oh,
[58:46] sorry, Rebecca Goldsmith, yes.
[58:48] And then Bob.
[58:52] Thank you. Real quick, we're
[58:54] talking about um areas of
[58:54] interest or things that, that we
[58:56] may want to look at further.
[58:56] Maybe the counties could talk a
[58:58] little bit to the recorder of
[59:02] deeds system versus the finance
[59:02] system and you guys, I may have
[59:04] this wrong, but I think in
[59:06] trying to acquire data from all
[59:06] of you, you know, there, there
[59:08] are two disparate systems that
[59:10] do not necessarily link
[59:12] together. So when you're looking
[59:14] for how much tax was paid or
[59:14] you're looking for an assessed
[59:16] value, you may be coming from
[59:18] two totally different places to
[59:18] figure out like who's current,
[59:19] who's not current, what was the
[59:20] assessment was.
[59:22] The zoning is in one system, and
[59:24] what was actually paid in taxes
[59:24] and other system, and we don't
[59:26] have to solve this today, but I
[59:28] mean, it, it, it may be worth a
[59:28] discussion about like, look, as
[59:30] you, as you do these
[59:32] evaluations, you know, what,
[59:34] what is the difficulty in
[59:36] actually getting the data and
[59:38] someplace that's like meaningful
[59:39] for evaluation.
[59:42] I don't know if the counties
[59:42] have thoughts on that or if they
[59:44] think it's fine, but, but my, in
[59:46] my experience, it's, it was that
[59:48] the data, the data was housed in
[59:50] two separate places that don't
[59:51] necessarily sync with one
[59:52] another. So when you're trying
[59:52] to match things up, it can be
[59:53] difficult.
[59:56] So
[1:00:00] So we do have a separate deed
[1:00:04] system, but we do have a link to
[1:00:06] our CAMA system, our assessment
[1:00:06] system, and there are some
[1:00:08] checks and balances, whether
[1:00:10] they record a sale and how we
[1:00:10] put it in there. So depending,
[1:00:12] there are two separate systems,
[1:00:14] We do try to link them up as
[1:00:16] the best that we can. Um, I know
[1:00:16] Rebecca and I have talked
[1:00:18] multiple times with other, you
[1:00:20] know, efforts to get that data
[1:00:22] out there, um, but we're always
[1:00:24] trying to better that linkage,
[1:00:24] but she is right, it's two
[1:00:26] separate systems.
[1:00:28] At least in Sussex can be
[1:00:30] expensive. Those can be, do you
[1:00:31] know what I mean? So the extent
[1:00:32] if you want to move forward or
[1:00:34] you want something integrated,
[1:00:34] if that's a, if that's
[1:00:36] ultimately a solution to getting
[1:00:37] information out. It's more a
[1:00:38] matter of those things, you
[1:00:40] know, in my experience, don't
[1:00:42] happen quickly and they, they're
[1:00:42] not cheap.
[1:00:48] If they're done well, can you
[1:00:48] break down a little bit I
[1:00:50] understand the reporter deeds
[1:00:52] system, but then there's the
[1:00:54] finance system. Do you have
[1:00:56] access to that, Gina? Yeah,
[1:00:58] yeah, so record our deeds, it
[1:00:58] records the transfer of the
[1:01:00] property. It's the main
[1:01:02] ownership and then we have the
[1:01:04] sales record as well. The
[1:01:06] finance side is more the
[1:01:06] assessment side with the where
[1:01:08] it has the appraisal, the
[1:01:10] comparables, and things like
[1:01:11] that. So we have to take the
[1:01:12] ownership from the deeds over to
[1:01:14] the finance system and then we
[1:01:15] also record the sales.
[1:01:18] Data that deeds would have over
[1:01:18] to that
[1:01:20] so that's the finance side,
[1:01:22] finance assessment type, no,
[1:01:24] just us finance at the state
[1:01:26] side absolutely doesn't link at
[1:01:28] all. None of those systems
[1:01:28] linked to theirs.
[1:01:30] OK. Same in New Castle County.
[1:01:34] Reported deeds is separate
[1:01:34] independent of the finance
[1:01:35] office.
[1:01:40] Would it help to have a feed or
[1:01:42] no, it's just, it's just, is it
[1:01:44] manual inquiry? I think a big
[1:01:46] part of it is that for our
[1:01:48] recorder of deeds, a lot of the
[1:01:48] information is not recorded by
[1:01:50] parcel, and we live in parcel,
[1:01:52] So if there was a direct link
[1:01:54] between parcel, it would be
[1:01:54] easier, but that's kind of where
[1:01:56] we found some of our stumbling
[1:01:56] boxes at.
[1:01:58] It's not, it's recorded more by
[1:02:00] a transaction and not a parcel
[1:02:01] and recorder of deeds, so
[1:02:02] getting the information out was
[1:02:04] It's not, it's recorded more by
[1:02:05] a transaction and not a parcel
[1:02:05] and recorder of deeds. So
[1:02:06] getting the information out.
[1:02:06] There's no personal ID in the
[1:02:08] there is, but the reporting of
[1:02:10] it, they rely on book and page
[1:02:12] number more so than there is a
[1:02:14] parcel number on there, but
[1:02:16] their system right now is a lot
[1:02:17] related to page.
[1:02:18] Yeah.
[1:02:22] I mean we can also look at
[1:02:22] recommendation, you know, it's
[1:02:24] not necessarily we're gonna
[1:02:24] change it, but we could look at
[1:02:26] recommendations because
[1:02:28] recommendations can help people
[1:02:30] budget those changes as well, so
[1:02:31] I, I don't think for this group
[1:02:32] it's necessarily a, a hurdle.
[1:02:34] It's going to be when we get to
[1:02:34] the other assessment group when
[1:02:36] we talk about programs and
[1:02:38] looking at data on properties,
[1:02:40] which
[1:02:40] got you Rebecca will serve as
[1:02:42] well as I know.
[1:02:42] S
[1:02:46] Uh, Bob.
[1:02:48] So I have a statement and then I
[1:02:52] have a question. Um, on the
[1:02:54] small business side of things, I
[1:02:56] mean, obviously, what happened
[1:02:58] this last time it hurt a lot of
[1:02:58] small business owners because
[1:02:59] they got hit at home and they
[1:03:00] got hit at work, but
[1:03:02] I think that one thing I've
[1:03:04] listened to here, and I've heard
[1:03:06] a lot of people say they were OK
[1:03:06] with the way it was done. I
[1:03:08] understand there's a big cost
[1:03:10] involved here, but I think the
[1:03:12] problem was, for a lot of us,
[1:03:14] was that it really hasn't been
[1:03:16] done in some cases up to 51
[1:03:18] years ago, so between 40 and 51
[1:03:20] years. And I think that's what
[1:03:22] hurt is that it was a big jump,
[1:03:26] and I, and I'm hoping that that
[1:03:26] in the future that you look at
[1:03:28] this, that there is a more of a
[1:03:30] better timeline. And, and my
[1:03:30] other, my question to this is, I
[1:03:31] know.
[1:03:32] You said you have another group.
[1:03:34] I'm hoping these two groups will
[1:03:36] talk to each other a little bit
[1:03:38] and share some things so that
[1:03:40] we're not hit at the end with,
[1:03:42] oh, they, they completely went
[1:03:42] against everything we stood for,
[1:03:43] so to speak.
[1:03:50] Thank you, Bob. Thank you. And
[1:03:50] we'll, we'll be following that
[1:03:51] other group, um.
[1:03:54] And trying to keep them updated
[1:03:56] on what we're doing as well and
[1:03:56] like I said earlier really
[1:03:58] making sure we're we're not
[1:03:58] dipping our toe into policy
[1:04:00] changes, so yeah, right.
[1:04:04] I, and I appreciate Bob's
[1:04:06] comments and, and for me
[1:04:06] personally, and I think on
[1:04:07] behalf of the county, um,
[1:04:10] We're not, we weren't OK with
[1:04:12] anything. It is what it is. It's
[1:04:14] what we were kind of saying, I
[1:04:14] think on behalf of the county
[1:04:16] cause I was actually a levee
[1:04:18] court commissioner when we were
[1:04:20] beginning this process, um, so I
[1:04:21] was involved in some of these
[1:04:24] early conversations. It was more
[1:04:26] to say, look, it is what it is.
[1:04:26] The courts have mandated it,
[1:04:28] we've got to go through it. Stop
[1:04:30] whining about it, and let's just
[1:04:32] figure it out. And so I think
[1:04:34] that's where Ken was anyway,
[1:04:34] was.
[1:04:38] We made the best of a difficult
[1:04:38] situation, and we think we're
[1:04:39] OK.
[1:04:40] And if there are any changes, we
[1:04:42] just like to be made aware
[1:04:42] cause we think we're good.
[1:04:46] I think it's fair for me to say
[1:04:48] that on behalf of the county and
[1:04:49] Susan can correct me if I'm
[1:04:50] wrong, but that's where I think
[1:04:51] we are.
[1:04:54] No disrespect to Sussex, I got
[1:04:54] your back, but you know, I'm in
[1:04:56] No disrespect to Sussex. I got
[1:04:56] your back, but, you know, I'm
[1:04:57] King County right now. Let me
[1:04:58] No disrespect to Sussex. I got
[1:04:58] your back, but, you know, I'm
[1:04:59] King County right now. Well let
[1:05:00] me ask this, does anybody have,
[1:05:00] it sounds like you know, you
[1:05:01] like your process. Does anyone
[1:05:02] have their process and
[1:05:02] everything documented? Like, is
[1:05:03] there a like you like.
[1:05:10] That we can also leverage um.
[1:05:14] Our administrative process is
[1:05:16] pretty well documented for the
[1:05:18] doc for the appeals process, all
[1:05:19] of that, um.
[1:05:24] But as far as standards or
[1:05:26] anything like that we do not
[1:05:26] have those
[1:05:32] Um, I was like, can we just wrap
[1:05:34] this whole working group up
[1:05:34] today? We'll just a doctor?
[1:05:36] No, no,
[1:05:36] If we could discuss at some
[1:05:38] point the appeal process. I
[1:05:40] mean, right now, it's very
[1:05:40] lengthy,
[1:05:42] very expensive, and we want to
[1:05:44] have every homeowner taxpayer to
[1:05:46] have their due process, but, um,
[1:05:48] going from informal appeals to
[1:05:52] appeal to uh referee to board of
[1:05:56] assessment review to Superior
[1:05:58] Court or um whatever court it
[1:05:58] goes to, it's very.
[1:06:02] Long and very pricey. Um, and it
[1:06:02] could be 6 to 8 months to, to
[1:06:03] settle.
[1:06:04] One single appeal.
[1:06:06] And since we're doing
[1:06:08] reassessments every 5 years,
[1:06:10] that is going to be a lengthy
[1:06:12] part of our process. Um, I do
[1:06:14] know the courts are having some
[1:06:16] concern about, um, appeals
[1:06:18] coming to their level and tying
[1:06:18] up the court and their ability
[1:06:20] to see them in a timely manner.
[1:06:22] So I think ultimately getting
[1:06:24] the assessment right is our
[1:06:26] goal, but we know there's going
[1:06:26] to be fallout every time, so
[1:06:30] something we can discuss to
[1:06:30] perhaps make that process a
[1:06:32] little more efficient.
[1:06:34] Are you guys experiencing the
[1:06:34] same thing with the appeals
[1:06:35] process?
[1:06:38] No, we have less than 1% and we
[1:06:39] have now.
[1:06:42] 4 this year, maybe 2 next year,
[1:06:44] so we're not at that we.
[1:06:46] Have as many as they have. Do
[1:06:48] you follow the same steps? Is it
[1:06:50] the same, uh, does it go through
[1:06:52] the same steps. So we had an
[1:06:54] informal process first when
[1:06:56] Tyler was there, and then we had
[1:06:58] a referee process and then to
[1:07:00] the board and then to court. Um,
[1:07:02] we only had one that went to
[1:07:04] court and then I think they must
[1:07:05] have dropped out cause we never
[1:07:06] heard anything since so that was
[1:07:08] it. Ours is pretty simple. I
[1:07:10] will say New Castle County has a
[1:07:11] more litigious they do.
[1:07:14] And more complicated,
[1:07:14] complicated,
[1:07:16] yes,
[1:07:20] yes, a huge percentage of the uh
[1:07:20] a huge percentage of the
[1:07:22] appraisal requests coming into
[1:07:24] my appraisal brokerage right
[1:07:26] now, a huge percentage of our
[1:07:28] business, I'm not handling them
[1:07:29] personally, are
[1:07:32] Appeals in New Castle County.
[1:07:34] And one of the reasons is
[1:07:35] because
[1:07:38] I, I have not heard of many
[1:07:42] appeals that were denied when
[1:07:44] the person came in with an
[1:07:46] appraisal or an appraiser. And I
[1:07:48] have heard of some that were.
[1:07:49] So,
[1:07:52] To the point of the, the appeals
[1:07:54] process being long and
[1:07:56] expensive, it's probably long
[1:07:56] and expensive on the county,
[1:07:58] It's long expensive on the
[1:08:00] homeowner or the business owner,
[1:08:02] and it's, it's clogging up
[1:08:04] appraisers, which means it's
[1:08:06] also clogging up other real
[1:08:08] estate transactions. Um, it's
[1:08:09] been
[1:08:12] It's been lengthy and
[1:08:12] interesting. Again, uh, uh, due
[1:08:14] to a conflict, I haven't not, I
[1:08:16] haven't done any, but my mentor,
[1:08:18] the one who I'm, the person I'm
[1:08:19] apprenticed under.
[1:08:22] Man, he is getting slammed by
[1:08:24] requests, and there's just not
[1:08:24] that many appraisers to go
[1:08:26] around to handle all of the
[1:08:28] appeals just in New Castle
[1:08:30] County. And again, not to pick
[1:08:32] on New Castle County, but that
[1:08:32] seems to be where
[1:08:34] A huge percentage of the appeals
[1:08:35] are coming from.
[1:08:40] I'd say that reflects our
[1:08:42] industry as well. We had some
[1:08:44] farmers who haven't like
[1:08:44] recently not got their stuff,
[1:08:46] uh settled from last year, we've
[1:08:48] had farmers who they were
[1:08:50] notified that Thursday that they
[1:08:50] had a hearing and they needed to
[1:08:52] get an appraiser for that next
[1:08:56] Tuesday, um, and so I think
[1:08:58] consistency among the three
[1:09:00] counties with how the appeal
[1:09:02] process is. I mean, New Castle
[1:09:04] County is incredibly dense and
[1:09:06] quite frankly, just, it sucked,
[1:09:07] it sucked for everyone, and so,
[1:09:10] We would be interested in
[1:09:12] talking about the appeal process
[1:09:12] too because for our guys we want
[1:09:14] them to, we want it just as fair
[1:09:16] because a lot of them don't
[1:09:16] understand, a lot of these
[1:09:18] appraisers don't understand the
[1:09:20] difference between land that
[1:09:20] you're growing crops on and land
[1:09:22] that you want to build a
[1:09:22] warehouse on, and so that's
[1:09:26] something that we appeal process
[1:09:26] and all would be very interested
[1:09:27] in talking about.
[1:09:32] So was the, were most of the
[1:09:34] appeals from the farming
[1:09:36] community based on the land
[1:09:38] valuations versus structures. Is
[1:09:40] that OK and structures a whole
[1:09:42] other ballgame and I, I, we were
[1:09:44] there all throughout the hearing
[1:09:44] last month, and you know, you
[1:09:46] all heard me beat my drum and we
[1:09:48] won't ever stop beating our
[1:09:48] drum, but that's a policy issue,
[1:09:52] so in terms of the statutory
[1:09:52] regulatory framework when it
[1:09:56] comes to um ag and structures
[1:09:58] and land, um, I think for us to
[1:09:59] not
[1:10:02] Mix in too much of the other
[1:10:04] stuff going on, um, it would be
[1:10:06] helpful to just talk about
[1:10:08] standards that could be
[1:10:08] applicable and doesn't
[1:10:10] necessarily just throw farmers
[1:10:12] into your commercial or throw
[1:10:13] them into residential, um.
[1:10:16] Something that's flexible and
[1:10:16] which I think we talked about
[1:10:18] with not keeping things in a
[1:10:18] box, but a little bit more
[1:10:20] flexibility, I think would help
[1:10:22] at least our community. So with
[1:10:23] not keeping things in a box, but
[1:10:23] a little bit more flexibility, I
[1:10:24] think would help at least our
[1:10:25] community. So was the appeals
[1:10:25] process challenging and, and
[1:10:28] Just the length and in Kent and
[1:10:29] Kent and Newcastle.
[1:10:32] I think just all of it. I think
[1:10:32] it was brand new, uh, it was
[1:10:34] brand new. A lot of these
[1:10:36] farmers look at this piece of
[1:10:36] paper and they're like,
[1:10:38] what am I reading? Granted
[1:10:40] all this, I don't know what
[1:10:40] you're reading.
[1:10:42] And so, um.
[1:10:46] In those terms, it also took a
[1:10:48] little bit more, I think there's
[1:10:50] a need for explanation, so at
[1:10:50] least in Kent County, we had a
[1:10:52] lot of farmers who, you know,
[1:10:54] both had poultry houses, but one
[1:10:54] poultry house was significantly
[1:10:56] newer than the other one, but
[1:10:56] they make the same amount of
[1:10:58] money and so explaining the
[1:11:00] difference in, you know, real
[1:11:02] estate then and, you know,
[1:11:04] structures in its own was the
[1:11:06] issue. When it comes to appeals
[1:11:08] though, I think it was more of
[1:11:09] the structures, especially our
[1:11:10] poultry houses, cause we had
[1:11:10] some poultry houses up north
[1:11:12] that uh were assessed at a
[1:11:16] Two, two-story buildings, um, I
[1:11:16] don't know if you've been in a
[1:11:18] poultry house. They're
[1:11:20] two-story. So it was, it, it's
[1:11:22] things like that where they did
[1:11:22] the aerial imaging because of
[1:11:24] biosecurity and our HBAI
[1:11:26] concerns that um I think during
[1:11:28] the reassessment process on its
[1:11:30] own, um, had issues cause you
[1:11:31] can't just look at a big
[1:11:32] building and you don't know what
[1:11:32] you're looking at if you've
[1:11:33] never seen a poultry house
[1:11:34] before.
[1:11:36] I have not.
[1:11:38] We can take you to one if you
[1:11:38] want. I know, I know,
[1:11:40] I know.
[1:11:44] Thank you, Sydney, thank you,
[1:11:44] uh, rich.
[1:11:48] Uh,
[1:11:50] It's uh hopefully I'm not muted.
[1:11:54] No, you're, you're good. We can
[1:11:55] hear you. Good. Uh,
[1:11:58] what was said a few moments ago
[1:12:00] about the recorder of deeds and
[1:12:02] the finance and communication
[1:12:04] between them, raised in my mind
[1:12:06] the idea of
[1:12:08] doing a better job of using
[1:12:10] technology to make the process
[1:12:12] more efficient and less
[1:12:14] expensive, and whether the state
[1:12:16] can play, can play a role in
[1:12:16] that with the states.
[1:12:18] Uh, technology office.
[1:12:22] Um, is, is one thing I think is
[1:12:24] probably worth exploring. I
[1:12:24] don't know what the answer is,
[1:12:26] but it's probably worth looking
[1:12:26] into that sort of thing. And
[1:12:30] also just generally looking into
[1:12:32] standards, talking about the use
[1:12:34] of computer technology. Uh, when
[1:12:36] we were doing the lawsuit, I
[1:12:38] talked to a uh
[1:12:42] municipal chief assessment
[1:12:42] officer
[1:12:44] outside of Delaware, where they,
[1:12:46] where they do the assessment
[1:12:48] every year, and there's there's
[1:12:48] good reasons for that in terms
[1:12:49] of fairness to the taxpayers.
[1:12:52] But they didn't have to do a
[1:12:54] full-blown assessment because it
[1:12:56] was computerized, and they had
[1:12:58] accurate data. Literally all
[1:13:00] they had to do was, you know,
[1:13:02] plug some numbers into the
[1:13:02] computer each year and got the
[1:13:08] Got, got accurate results, uh,
[1:13:08] so, I think it'd be worth it if
[1:13:10] we could look into those
[1:13:12] possibilities as ways of making
[1:13:14] this more efficient, more
[1:13:16] accurate, but cheaper for the
[1:13:16] the governments.
[1:13:20] Thank you, Rich. I would agree
[1:13:20] with that. Like I said, not
[1:13:22] necessarily even that we have
[1:13:24] legislation that comes out of
[1:13:24] it, but if this group ends up
[1:13:25] making
[1:13:28] Technological recommendations
[1:13:30] that potentially the state could
[1:13:32] do one time funding for, you
[1:13:34] know, that might be something
[1:13:34] that, um.
[1:13:36] That we could present to like
[1:13:38] OG for the recommended budget
[1:13:40] again it's more of a because
[1:13:41] some of this is sometimes one
[1:13:42] That we could present to like OG
[1:13:43] for the recommended budget again
[1:13:43] it's more of a because some of
[1:13:44] this is sometimes one-time
[1:13:45] funding. I mean, obviously you
[1:13:45] have to still keep systems up
[1:13:46] and running and there's a
[1:13:46] maintenance, maintenance, uh,
[1:13:47] portion of it, but at least the
[1:13:48] one-time funding to maybe get us
[1:13:50] to a better place, um, could
[1:13:52] help. Senator Manvinos, you had
[1:13:53] your hand raised.
[1:14:04] Sorry, sorry about that. I
[1:14:06] figured, um, yeah, yeah, no, I,
[1:14:06] I, I just sort of want to echo
[1:14:08] Bob's point and, you know,
[1:14:10] again, from Senator Buxton's
[1:14:12] point about costs, I mean,
[1:14:14] especially as we look at the
[1:14:16] cadence of reassessments, and I
[1:14:18] know we just kind of touched on
[1:14:20] that a little bit just now. I
[1:14:22] think, you know, we really do
[1:14:22] need to keep in mind the costs
[1:14:24] for the property owner, both
[1:14:28] commercial and residential, so
[1:14:30] that's really what I wanted to
[1:14:30] just kind of emphasize, I think
[1:14:31] also.
[1:14:34] To, and I'm not exactly sure how
[1:14:36] this could even be done, but I
[1:14:38] think a lot of the feedback I've
[1:14:40] received was for people who
[1:14:44] who live in one county have a
[1:14:44] friend in another with a similar
[1:14:48] size property or parcel or home,
[1:14:50] and you know they, they
[1:14:50] certainly
[1:14:54] lament the difference in their
[1:14:56] assessment. So I know that, you
[1:14:58] know, there are other factors
[1:15:00] that are involved, obviously
[1:15:01] location, location, location
[1:15:02] when it comes to real estate,
[1:15:04] but I think as we're talking
[1:15:06] about this, given the size of
[1:15:08] our, you know, the size of
[1:15:10] Delaware, you know, we are bound
[1:15:12] to be hearing comparisons and we
[1:15:14] just, you know, again, I don't
[1:15:14] know if that's anything we're
[1:15:16] going to be able to address in
[1:15:16] this task force, but it's
[1:15:18] certainly something as we're
[1:15:20] looking at this from a statewide
[1:15:20] level, we need to be aware of.
[1:15:22] So I just wanted to raise those
[1:15:23] two points.
[1:15:26] Thank you. Thank you. Justin.
[1:15:30] Yeah, some great, great points
[1:15:30] about, um.
[1:15:34] You know, doing things similarly
[1:15:34] across the state can kinda help
[1:15:36] You know, doing things similarly
[1:15:36] across the state can kind of
[1:15:37] help with communication, that
[1:15:38] kind of thing. But back to the
[1:15:40] appeals, um, I think it's
[1:15:40] important to remember that, you
[1:15:42] know, you hadn't done a
[1:15:44] reassessment in 40, 50 years.
[1:15:46] And so, you know, I think once
[1:15:48] people get a little more used to
[1:15:52] where the values are and they're
[1:15:52] closer to market, and they've
[1:15:54] answered their questions about
[1:15:56] the assessment process and that
[1:15:56] kind of thing, you should see
[1:15:58] those appeal rates drop
[1:16:00] somewhat, or that's what we've
[1:16:01] seen in other states.
[1:16:01] Anyway.
[1:16:06] That's good news for you.
[1:16:08] Take what I can get. Take what
[1:16:08] you can get. Yeah.
[1:16:10] And if I could add also,
[1:16:12] education is important, um.
[1:16:14] It, I, I keep calling this the
[1:16:16] largest group project in the
[1:16:18] state of Delaware's history, and
[1:16:18] there's more than just people
[1:16:20] here at the table and our, and
[1:16:22] our folks back in our offices
[1:16:24] who are doing this work behind
[1:16:24] the scenes, but communications
[1:16:28] is huge. Uh, we've, we, we, the
[1:16:28] Henry administration spent
[1:16:32] numerous hours and days putting
[1:16:34] out information as, as frequent
[1:16:36] and often as possible, but
[1:16:38] finding the, the, the balance of
[1:16:38] what is enough and what is too
[1:16:40] much is also a challenge as
[1:16:42] well. But getting our, our
[1:16:42] constituents.
[1:16:44] to understand the, the
[1:16:46] assessment process and what
[1:16:48] rights they have and where the
[1:16:50] information can be found if we
[1:16:52] were consistent across the state
[1:16:54] on our messaging and our
[1:16:54] branding, um, I think that would
[1:16:58] help a lot, uh, maybe avoid some
[1:16:58] issues in the future.
[1:17:00] I would agree with that.
[1:17:02] Anytime any of the counties put
[1:17:04] something out that we thought
[1:17:04] would be helpful for our
[1:17:06] members, we, we would share it
[1:17:07] immediately because
[1:17:08] We know everyone's just trying
[1:17:10] to do their job and since we
[1:17:12] have a large membership that is
[1:17:14] impacted by each and every one
[1:17:16] of the counties, um, we try to,
[1:17:16] you know, put that out as well,
[1:17:18] so maybe leveraging some
[1:17:20] partnerships with more folks. I
[1:17:22] mean, I think that consistent
[1:17:24] education explaining the
[1:17:24] difference between what's going
[1:17:25] on in Newcastle versus Kent
[1:17:26] Kenny was a very interesting for
[1:17:34] us. So I think, yeah, I, I like
[1:17:36] that. OK, so the next.
[1:17:40] Meeting,
[1:17:40] Me too,
[1:17:42] Oh, sorry. OK, um, so.
[1:17:44] This
[1:17:48] Next meeting she she signed her
[1:17:49] Next meeting she she signator
[1:17:50] Buxton's earlier point. This,
[1:17:50] this isn't about rehashing all,
[1:17:54] all the old stuff, but we do
[1:17:54] want our next meeting um to have
[1:17:56] Justin present because he's
[1:17:58] going to be the one really,
[1:17:58] really helping us with those
[1:18:00] recommendations. We want to make
[1:18:02] sure that he has a good
[1:18:02] understanding of what
[1:18:06] What did, what went, what
[1:18:08] happened, um, the good, the bad,
[1:18:08] you know what I mean? Like the,
[1:18:10] the good things that you have
[1:18:12] have going on as well. So, um,
[1:18:14] vendor procurement, um, staff
[1:18:18] oversight, and then the, the
[1:18:20] role certification. I think
[1:18:22] we've asked and you just be
[1:18:22] aware, it's, it's a little bit
[1:18:24] of an aggressive timeline, uh,
[1:18:26] for him to look at this so we
[1:18:28] have, um, Kate sent him over
[1:18:30] basically whatever we had, but
[1:18:32] there may be times in the next
[1:18:34] um week where he may have
[1:18:35] additional questions.
[1:18:36] I'll, I'll let him speak as
[1:18:40] well, um, that he may have, uh,
[1:18:40] additional questions that he may
[1:18:44] ask um about either your process
[1:18:48] or about um the model or about
[1:18:50] what the what the data ended up
[1:18:50] being because again.
[1:18:52] I think I forget who said it,
[1:18:54] but maybe it was Jeff like do no
[1:18:56] harm. We do not want to break
[1:18:58] things that are working, um, but
[1:19:00] to be able to make sure that he
[1:19:00] understands what we were doing
[1:19:04] in all three counties and the
[1:19:04] impact so that he can help make
[1:19:06] better recommendations moving
[1:19:06] forward, um.
[1:19:10] That's, that's gonna be for the
[1:19:12] next, um, assessment, I'm sorry,
[1:19:12] for the next, um.
[1:19:14] Meeting.
[1:19:16] But so that's really it. What
[1:19:20] was for today was, um, please,
[1:19:20] uh, so I'm gonna open it up to
[1:19:22] the public
[1:19:24] to member questions and then to
[1:19:26] the public. If there are though,
[1:19:28] people that you um feel by the
[1:19:30] next meeting I'll have those
[1:19:30] names and we can we can vote on
[1:19:32] those numbers, um, next time,
[1:19:34] um, just to refresh, we talked
[1:19:36] about the city of Wilmington, an
[1:19:38] assessor, um, League of local
[1:19:40] governments or somebody to
[1:19:42] represent smaller
[1:19:44] municipalities,
[1:19:44] um, and then an average
[1:19:45] homeowner if anyone.
[1:19:46] Wants to send those to Kate and
[1:19:48] I
[1:19:50] and we will, you know, have a
[1:19:50] conversation and then, and then
[1:19:52] bring it back to the group.
[1:19:54] But question,
[1:19:56] yes, Cindy, question, just
[1:19:58] clarification question. Are you
[1:19:58] looking for an assessor or an
[1:19:59] appraiser?
[1:20:00] That's.
[1:20:02] Assessor.
[1:20:04] OK.
[1:20:06] But again, I would, I, I would
[1:20:07] recommend.
[1:20:10] One of these meetings again,
[1:20:14] pretty early on, we bring in a
[1:20:16] certified general appraiser who
[1:20:20] has experience in the appeals
[1:20:20] process with New Castle County
[1:20:22] in particular, cause that's
[1:20:22] where we're getting most of
[1:20:24] them, to show some of the common
[1:20:25] issues.
[1:20:26] That are ending up.
[1:20:28] Being appealed.
[1:20:32] Um, I think that would provide
[1:20:34] an awful lot of guidance for us
[1:20:34] on
[1:20:36] What went wrong and what's being
[1:20:38] done to fix it. So, I do think
[1:20:40] a, a presentation from somebody
[1:20:42] like that would be important at
[1:20:43] an early upcoming meeting.
[1:20:46] Let me ask you this, do you
[1:20:46] think, uh, uh, like a special
[1:20:48] guest, or you, do you wanna add,
[1:20:50] I mean, we, the group's not too,
[1:20:54] too big at this point. Um, do
[1:20:56] you feel we need an assessor and
[1:20:56] an appraiser to add to the
[1:20:57] actual group.
[1:21:00] Well, the assessor is the one
[1:21:02] who does the initial property,
[1:21:02] you know, this is how much your
[1:21:04] property is worth, right? The
[1:21:06] appraiser is kind of the after
[1:21:08] effect here, the after the fact,
[1:21:10] hey, the assessor said your
[1:21:10] property is worth this, but I
[1:21:12] think it's worth that, and
[1:21:14] that's what we're gonna take to
[1:21:16] the appeals process. So I would
[1:21:16] leave it up to the group. If the
[1:21:17] group is
[1:21:20] Look, if, if, if we bring in an
[1:21:22] appraiser and they say, hey,
[1:21:24] these are the problems, and it
[1:21:24] looks like something that we're
[1:21:26] gonna need to keep bringing them
[1:21:28] back, uh, for future meetings,
[1:21:28] and yeah, we're probably gonna
[1:21:30] wanna add them as a voting
[1:21:30] member. I bring them in first.
[1:21:31] OK.
[1:21:34] What do you, you know, with your
[1:21:35] experience, what do you think?
[1:21:36] Do you, I don't necessarily
[1:21:38] think we have to add them to the
[1:21:40] group, but you. I think it's fun
[1:21:40] to have the discussion. I think
[1:21:42] there's a difference between
[1:21:44] mass appraisal and appraisal,
[1:21:46] whereas mass appraisal, we're
[1:21:46] just going through neighborhoods
[1:21:48] looking at homes from the
[1:21:52] exterior, whereas uh appraisers
[1:21:54] for specific pieces of property
[1:21:54] for mortgage purposes. They're
[1:21:56] going into the buildings,
[1:21:58] they're going into looking at
[1:21:58] bathrooms and conditions of the
[1:22:00] kitchen and those types of
[1:22:00] things. So for mass appraisal.
[1:22:04] We're simply doing a more
[1:22:06] simplified version. If you
[1:22:08] figure just on simplistic terms,
[1:22:10] it costs the county about $50
[1:22:12] per parcel, where to do a, a
[1:22:14] mass appraisal. But if you're
[1:22:15] having an appraisal done for
[1:22:16] your, for a mortgage, you're,
[1:22:16] you're probably gonna spend
[1:22:18] $500. So it's
[1:22:22] It's definitely a time
[1:22:24] constraint for us to send an
[1:22:26] appraiser with that mindset of
[1:22:28] a, a mortgage type valuation on
[1:22:30] a property, um, and it would
[1:22:32] take us years to go through
[1:22:34] those, uh, 220,000 parcels if we
[1:22:36] It's definitely a time
[1:22:36] constraint for us to send an
[1:22:37] appraiser with that mindset of
[1:22:37] a, a mortgage type valuation on
[1:22:38] a property, um, and it would
[1:22:39] take us years to go through
[1:22:39] those, uh, 220,000 parcels if
[1:22:40] we are entering every single,
[1:22:41] single building that we need to.
[1:22:41] So I guess that's part of the
[1:22:42] education process. Um, and I'm
[1:22:44] fine having that discussion. I
[1:22:44] think that's definitely worth
[1:22:46] having. The folks are expecting,
[1:22:48] um, when they have an issue with
[1:22:49] their property, uh, they're
[1:22:49] saying.
[1:22:52] Well, I, my, you, you haven't
[1:22:54] been inside my property. I, you,
[1:22:55] haven't been inside my property.
[1:22:56] I, this number is incorrect for
[1:22:58] this, for these reasons. And,
[1:23:00] um, and which is fine, they can
[1:23:02] appeal, but I think we need to
[1:23:03] have that discussion as to what
[1:23:04] is, what's acceptable, what the
[1:23:06] state considers an acceptable
[1:23:10] appraisal when it comes to mass,
[1:23:12] mass appraisals. I think,
[1:23:14] yeah, and I, I, I concur with
[1:23:14] everything there, about
[1:23:16] individual appraisal of every
[1:23:18] property for for this purpose
[1:23:19] is, is inconceivably expensive.
[1:23:22] Time consuming. But the opposite
[1:23:24] is also true when you go to an
[1:23:24] appeal.
[1:23:26] You don't go to a mass
[1:23:28] appraisal, you go to a regular
[1:23:30] appraisal. So the opposite is
[1:23:32] also true, marrying these two,
[1:23:33] look, there's got to be a margin
[1:23:34] of error. Of course, there is.
[1:23:36] mitigating that margin of error
[1:23:38] between the mass appraisal,
[1:23:40] which is gonna have more errors,
[1:23:42] and the individual appraisal per
[1:23:44] property which is too expensive
[1:23:46] and too time-consuming to do,
[1:23:48] Somewhere between there is where
[1:23:50] we need to be that we were not
[1:23:51] in the last assessment.
[1:23:58] So we're talking about bringing
[1:24:00] someone in for a part of the
[1:24:02] meeting to explain it versus
[1:24:02] adding.
[1:24:06] Two individuals to be a part of
[1:24:08] the entire task force and, and I
[1:24:12] What do you guys think? I think
[1:24:12] the meeting is definitely
[1:24:14] useful. I definitely would like
[1:24:16] to see that. I'm not sure we
[1:24:18] need to add him to the task
[1:24:18] force. What do you think, Jeff?
[1:24:22] I, I think the best approach is
[1:24:22] to bring them in, preferably at
[1:24:24] the next meeting if they can
[1:24:26] show some of the common
[1:24:28] problems. And if it looks like
[1:24:28] the kind of thing where we're
[1:24:30] gonna need to keep bringing them
[1:24:32] back, um, then we can talk then
[1:24:34] about adding them to, we, we
[1:24:36] talked about that, about the
[1:24:36] value of adding them to the, a
[1:24:38] member, as a voting member of
[1:24:40] the working group would be my
[1:24:42] I think it's not a bad approach.
[1:24:44] Fucking throw a name out to, to
[1:24:46] perhaps bring in with you Bill
[1:24:48] Smith from the New Castle County
[1:24:49] Board of Realtors.
[1:24:50] He has experience on both sides.
[1:24:52] Of the bone there.
[1:24:56] Any objections? Did you hear
[1:24:56] that, Jeff? Bill Smith?
[1:25:00] Uh, that's fine. Uh, I think
[1:25:02] there's a couple of people. I
[1:25:04] think given how busy appraisers
[1:25:08] are at the moment. I think, um,
[1:25:10] anybody who has the time to do
[1:25:10] it, I think the other uh
[1:25:11] I think there's a couple of
[1:25:12] people. I think given how busy
[1:25:12] appraisers are at the moment. I
[1:25:13] think, um, anybody who has the
[1:25:14] time to do it, I think the other
[1:25:14] suggestion was uh from Senator
[1:25:15] Buxton, which was uh Phil
[1:25:16] McGinness, which is who I work
[1:25:16] for, um, so if there's a
[1:25:18] conflict there, then, then don't
[1:25:20] worry about it. But I think, uh,
[1:25:22] given how busy they are, I
[1:25:24] think uh the better approach is
[1:25:26] to say, yeah, yeah, yeah, sure,
[1:25:27] come on in. Uh, we're just
[1:25:28] having you in for a, uh,
[1:25:32] For, uh, you know, to showcase
[1:25:32] some of these appeals, um, and
[1:25:34] then seeing if we can, uh, if we
[1:25:36] can guilt-trip them or beat them
[1:25:38] into joining as a working member
[1:25:40] if we need to. OK, yeah, I think
[1:25:42] there would be two, do you, can
[1:25:44] you send me, um, is everyone OK
[1:25:46] just using first names? I'm
[1:25:47] sorry. OK,
[1:25:50] yeah, I was, you know, uh, are
[1:25:52] you, can you send me Bill
[1:25:52] Smith's email? I have Phil
[1:25:54] McGuinness's but, and then we
[1:25:56] can kind of reach out to those
[1:25:56] For, uh, you know, to showcase
[1:25:57] some of these appeals, um, and
[1:25:58] then seeing if we can, uh, if we
[1:25:58] can guilt-trip them or beat them
[1:25:59] into joining as a working member
[1:26:00] if we need to. OK, yeah, I think
[1:26:01] there would be two, do you, can
[1:26:01] you send me, um, is everyone OK
[1:26:02] just using first names? I'm
[1:26:03] sorry. OK,
[1:26:03] yeah, I was, you know, uh, are
[1:26:04] you, can you send me Bill
[1:26:04] Smith's email? I have Phil
[1:26:05] McGuinness's, but, and then we
[1:26:05] can kind of reach out to them
[1:26:06] and see what see what their
[1:26:07] schedule. Can do.
[1:26:07] I was on a task force.
[1:26:08] 2 days ago, well, no.
[1:26:08] Thursday, whatever.
[1:26:09] I showed up in this room, I had
[1:26:09] a t-shirt on.
[1:26:09] Hey dudes,
[1:26:10] I, everybody else is in tie, so
[1:26:12] you can see I rolled up today.
[1:26:14] You're like, oh, I need to in
[1:26:16] business up top on the bottom or
[1:26:17] something like that
[1:26:17] Hey dudes, I, everybody else is
[1:26:18] in tie, so you can see I rolled
[1:26:18] up today. You're like, oh, I
[1:26:19] need to in business up top party
[1:26:20] on the bottom or something like
[1:26:20] that. That's that's what Zoom
[1:26:21] can do.
[1:26:21] Yeah
[1:26:21] OK.
[1:26:24] All right, then we can go to um
[1:26:28] public comments, um, and then
[1:26:30] we, I, we will send out the
[1:26:32] notes, the minutes, um, any kind
[1:26:32] of requests from Justin that he
[1:26:34] may have about some of the data
[1:26:35] and um.
[1:26:36] At that we're.
[1:26:40] Very on time we said 90 minutes
[1:26:42] for a movie. So very, very good,
[1:26:42] very good. Thank you. All right,
[1:26:44] Christian Willow, I will, uh,
[1:26:46] you are our first, uh, public
[1:26:50] hand raise and you, um, yeah, 2
[1:26:52] to 3 minutes, um, if you want to
[1:26:53] speak.
[1:26:56] Thanks very much. Again, I wanna
[1:26:58] um thank the Delaware State
[1:27:00] Legislature for continuing to
[1:27:02] work on accuracy and property
[1:27:02] tax assessments. It's super
[1:27:04] important and um a lot of people
[1:27:06] in the 5th District of
[1:27:08] Wilmington still uh are
[1:27:10] suffering a lot from property
[1:27:11] tax hikes that
[1:27:14] They weren't anticipating and
[1:27:16] that also are based on
[1:27:16] assessment values for their
[1:27:18] homes that are a lot more than
[1:27:20] their properties are worth. So I
[1:27:22] think this is really important
[1:27:24] and small businesses in the 5th
[1:27:24] District and across the city of
[1:27:26] Wilmington are also paying um
[1:27:28] property taxes on values much
[1:27:29] more than the properties are
[1:27:30] worth. So we definitely need
[1:27:32] resolution on these issues. What
[1:27:34] I wanted to bring up today was,
[1:27:36] in addition to the issues that
[1:27:38] you're looking at, I'd like to
[1:27:39] suggest that you
[1:27:42] This working group pay attention
[1:27:44] also to accuracy of the entire
[1:27:45] assessment.
[1:27:48] Which includes a land value
[1:27:50] component and a structure value
[1:27:52] component, and we've seen in the
[1:27:54] city of Wilmington that the land
[1:27:56] value component for properties
[1:27:58] in the city of Wilmington just
[1:28:02] has no relationship whatsoever
[1:28:04] to the actual fair market value
[1:28:08] of the land. And that we also
[1:28:10] see another dynamic is, is that
[1:28:12] the per acre value of smaller
[1:28:14] parcels and in particular, uh,
[1:28:15] smaller residential par parcels.
[1:28:16] is
[1:28:22] Very high, you know, 2 $3
[1:28:24] million. Whereas in the
[1:28:24] downtown, the commercial
[1:28:26] properties, which are actually
[1:28:28] do have the fair market value of
[1:28:30] the land is much higher. The
[1:28:32] assessed value can be, you know,
[1:28:38] $240,000 an acre or $119,000 an
[1:28:40] acre. Just, again, the land
[1:28:44] values have to be accurate as
[1:28:46] well as the total assessment
[1:28:48] value. So as long as this group
[1:28:50] is looking at addressing
[1:28:54] accuracy. Um, I'd like to
[1:28:56] recommend or urge you to make
[1:28:58] sure that you're paying
[1:29:00] attention to both components of
[1:29:01] the assessment. And the reason
[1:29:02] this is really important is in
[1:29:03] the context of
[1:29:04] Um,
[1:29:06] Tax abatements, they're usually
[1:29:08] on the approved value of the
[1:29:10] property. So unless the land
[1:29:10] value represents the actual land
[1:29:11] value,
[1:29:16] Sometimes you can have your tax
[1:29:16] abatements, um,
[1:29:20] Just, you can be collecting very
[1:29:22] little money on very valuable
[1:29:24] properties, which isn't good for
[1:29:24] the bottom line of the
[1:29:25] Wilmington City budget.
[1:29:28] Thank you, Christian. I actually
[1:29:30] did a little while ago, write
[1:29:32] down land versus structure and,
[1:29:34] uh, you know, because I think
[1:29:34] that's, that's not only an issue
[1:29:36] in the city of Wilmington, but
[1:29:36] it's been an issue with the
[1:29:38] farming. Sydney was shaking her
[1:29:38] head as we were going. I know
[1:29:40] we're not supposed to like
[1:29:40] respond to public comment, but,
[1:29:42] um, the land versus structure.
[1:29:44] So, um, and we'll, we'll make
[1:29:44] sure to have conversations with
[1:29:46] Justin about that as well. Lisa
[1:29:48] Rice, you're allowed to speak
[1:29:50] for the next 2 to 3 minutes. Um,
[1:29:52] welcome to the hearing.
[1:29:56] Hi, thank you very much. I'm
[1:29:58] Lisa Rice from Middletown. I
[1:30:00] sent in a written comment that
[1:30:02] basically points out what
[1:30:04] seemingly you already know
[1:30:06] regarding problems with property
[1:30:07] assessment.
[1:30:10] I wanted to add verbally that we
[1:30:12] may disagree on the reasons why.
[1:30:16] This is occurring because on a
[1:30:16] nationwide basis,
[1:30:20] assessments are not incorrect
[1:30:22] because property was not.
[1:30:24] Able to be assessed from within.
[1:30:30] It's more because they're being
[1:30:32] assessed on a mass basis.
[1:30:34] And so,
[1:30:36] Just off the cuff, I didn't
[1:30:38] think about solutions. I just
[1:30:40] wanted to present problems, but
[1:30:41] as I listened to the group,
[1:30:44] I just wonder if you wanted to
[1:30:46] incorporate technology.
[1:30:50] Is it possible to partner with
[1:30:51] Google?
[1:30:52] Or to create a system like
[1:30:56] Google yourselves and not
[1:31:00] necessarily to create a database
[1:31:00] for every single property in the
[1:31:04] state, but perhaps create a
[1:31:04] database of unique properties
[1:31:08] that don't apply to their
[1:31:08] neighboring homes.
[1:31:10] Um, I don't know if this is
[1:31:12] possible or feasible. It's just,
[1:31:14] like I said, an off the cuff
[1:31:16] suggestion because that's the
[1:31:18] biggest problem is some houses
[1:31:18] are assessed and they're very
[1:31:20] different from their neighbors,
[1:31:22] not necessarily on the inside.
[1:31:22] Um,
[1:31:26] And besides that,
[1:31:28] Just to uh my advice.
[1:31:30] would be if you were to pursue
[1:31:32] that avenue, just stay away from
[1:31:33] Zillow.
[1:31:34] Because unfortunately they've
[1:31:36] obviously become the nationwide
[1:31:40] go to for property, and they're
[1:31:40] often incorrect.
[1:31:44] And I say this not only from
[1:31:44] reading about it, but from
[1:31:46] personal experience. My husband
[1:31:48] and I sold a property 2 years
[1:31:50] ago and we sold it for double.
[1:31:52] The amount that Zillow said it
[1:31:53] was worth.
[1:31:54] That's a lot.
[1:31:58] Um, besides that, I don't think
[1:32:00] I have anything else to say, so
[1:32:00] thank you for your patience and
[1:32:01] time.
[1:32:02] Thank you, Lisa. Thank you,
[1:32:06] Lisa. Any final comments from
[1:32:06] the members of the group?
[1:32:08] If not with no objections, we're
[1:32:09] adjourned.
[1:32:12] Thank you. Also, Kate will be
[1:32:13] sending out calendar invites for
[1:32:13] like the next.
[1:32:16] Very nice. The next, uh, you
[1:32:17] know.
[1:32:20] Instead of needing until the end
[1:32:22] of the year. Yeah, yes, well,
[1:32:24] obviously taking into account
[1:32:24] holidays and things like that,
[1:32:26] but, um, there is nothing that
[1:32:28] keeps us to those, so if we get
[1:32:28] done early, we get to get done
[1:32:30] early. So, all right. Thank you
[1:32:31] all so much. Thanks so much.
[1:32:31] Thank you.
[1:32:32] I.