[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.

[8:56] 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.

Property Assessment Working Group

Transcript