[0:30] Are we, we're live. We're good.

[0:31] OK.

[0:34] Um, members of the committee,

[0:36] we, we, this is our normal

[0:38] script for our committee, and we

[0:38] all know this, uh, as

[0:40] legislators, but so that you're

[0:42] aware, um, those microphones

[0:44] when they're green, um, they're

[0:46] alive, they're hot. So whatever

[0:48] you say, even under your breath,

[0:49] it

[0:50] gets

[0:52] picked up if you need to say

[0:52] something.

[0:54] Just tap it and it'll turn red

[0:56] and you can, you can say

[0:58] whatever you want, um, but

[0:58] please be aware they are, they

[1:00] do pick up conversations easily.

[1:00] The mics are connected to the

[1:02] live stream so the public can

[1:04] watch, uh, the property

[1:06] assessment working group meeting

[1:06] is called to order. Members of

[1:08] the public are available to

[1:08] participate either in person or

[1:10] virtually through the Zoom

[1:12] webinar by registering via the

[1:12] meeting link that's posted on

[1:13] the General Assembly's website.

[1:16] Instructions for providing

[1:18] public comment are posted on the

[1:18] General Assembly's website under

[1:20] this committee meeting's notice

[1:22] and will be provided during the

[1:24] public comment portion of the

[1:26] hearing. Written comments may be

[1:28] submitted to catherine. Bowman@

[1:30] Delaware.gov. Kate at my aid.

[1:30] and any comments received within

[1:32] 24 hours after the hearing will

[1:34] be included into the public

[1:36] record. Members of the public

[1:36] physically present for the

[1:38] meeting may sign up if they

[1:38] would like to provide public

[1:40] comment at the end. Please note

[1:42] that, um, when we do take votes,

[1:44] they are done by roll call. So

[1:44] we'll start today by taking.

[1:46] A roll call of the voting

[1:48] members of the working group

[1:48] present.

[1:52] present. Representative Senator

[1:54] Mansabvinos is absent. The port

[1:56] is doing the um groundbreaking

[1:56] today. So

[1:58] he is absent but will be here

[1:58] next time.

[2:00] Representative Spiegelman

[2:00] present.

[2:01] Representative Senator

[2:01] Mansabvinos is absent. The port

[2:02] is doing the um groundbreaking

[2:02] today. So he is absent but will

[2:03] be here next time.

[2:04] Representative Spiegelman.

[2:04] Senator Buxton is on his way.

[2:05] Um,

[2:06] Rebecca Goldsmith,

[2:08] uh, Gina Jennings, present,

[2:09] present.

[2:10] Susan Durham, present. David Del

[2:12] Grande present. Justin Immers.

[2:16] Present. Present.

[2:16] Bob Older.

[2:20] Absent, um, Rich Morris present.

[2:24] And Sydney presents present

[2:28] present. Excellent. So, um, we

[2:28] do not have the minutes, uh, for

[2:30] the last meeting, so we will

[2:32] approve those typically we would

[2:34] have to approve the minutes. We

[2:36] will do that um on August 31st

[2:38] in our next meeting. So, yes, I

[2:39] do want to thank all of you for

[2:42] being here. Um, I, I do kind of

[2:44] apologize in advance. I know

[2:44] some of the things we're going

[2:46] to be hearing are um

[2:48] retrospective, um.

[2:50] Be assured that our following

[2:52] meetings will be looking

[2:54] forward.

[2:56] um, and I want to thank all of

[2:58] the counties for, um, finishing

[3:00] that questionnaire. I know it

[3:00] was pretty quick turnaround

[3:02] time. So for the other members

[3:02] of the committee, um.

[3:06] Myself and and Kate and Justin

[3:08] had created a Google doc

[3:10] um of questions about um

[3:12] basically where they were at the

[3:12] beginning of their last

[3:16] assessment, um, staff wise, um,

[3:17] property counts, different

[3:18] parcel counts, we'll go over

[3:20] that information with you.

[3:20] Justin will go over that

[3:22] information with you, um, and

[3:24] then where they are now so that

[3:26] we can look and see still are

[3:26] there additional gaps that need

[3:28] to be um to be looked at. So,

[3:30] um, I want to thank.

[3:32] All of the um.

[3:36] The the counties for being so

[3:40] forthright and really direct. I

[3:40] tried to put that huge

[3:42] disclaimer on the thing. Please

[3:42] don't overthink this. Don't be

[3:44] like, I gotta have my attorneys

[3:46] look at this first. It was not

[3:46] to say you said there were

[3:48] 209,000 properties and it was

[3:49] not to say you said there were

[3:49] 209,000 properties and it's

[3:50] The the counties for being so

[3:50] forthright and really direct. I

[3:51] tried to put that huge

[3:52] disclaimer on the thing, please

[3:52] don't overthink this. Don't be

[3:53] like, I gotta have my attorneys

[3:54] look at this first. It was not

[3:54] to say you said there were

[3:55] 209,000 properties and it was

[3:55] actually 208,000. Like it wasn't

[3:56] about that, it was to get a

[3:57] general overview for uh for

[3:57] Justin mainly to, to really

[3:58] identify where we are as a

[4:00] state. Um, and then on the last

[4:00] section, Justin will get into as

[4:02] well, is really like how can the

[4:03] state better support you.

[4:04] Because I know, um.

[4:08] You know, this is a really eye

[4:10] opening experience, uh, for

[4:12] those of us in the General

[4:12] Assembly, um.

[4:16] To realize how, quite frankly,

[4:18] the state also failed in this as

[4:18] far as, you know.

[4:20] Before I got here, but, um,

[4:22] really realizing like.

[4:24] Wow, we haven't done this in 40

[4:26] years. It might not go well.

[4:28] Like, instead, just kind of

[4:30] really relying on the counties

[4:32] to do, to do this work. And so,

[4:34] um, one thing that I'm really

[4:36] impressed with the General

[4:36] Assembly that we have had in the

[4:38] past few years is that we're not

[4:40] kicking problems down the road

[4:40] anymore. You've seen that with

[4:42] um school education funding,

[4:44] you've seen it with, um,

[4:46] hopefully now with with property

[4:48] tax, you've seen it with a lot

[4:48] of different things, um,

[4:50] redistricting potentially

[4:52] we're we're really saying, um, I

[4:53] know we had our.

[4:54] retirees and, and, you know.

[4:54] that

[4:58] Healthcare, we're just not

[5:00] kicking problems down the road

[5:00] anymore.

[5:02] um, we're really tackling them,

[5:02] and this is part of that. So,

[5:06] Thank you for your honesty and

[5:08] everything on that. um, Justin,

[5:08] um, today's agenda is we are

[5:12] going to be going through that.

[5:12] Um, some of the actions, and

[5:14] next thing on our agenda is the

[5:16] actions from the last meeting.

[5:18] um, we had had a conversation

[5:20] about adding additional voting

[5:22] members to the committee, um, so

[5:24] we had talked about adding

[5:24] somebody from the League of

[5:26] Local Governments. We talked

[5:28] about adding somebody from the

[5:28] city of Wilmington, and we

[5:29] talked about adding.

[5:32] Uh, potentially an assessor or

[5:34] an appraiser, and then

[5:36] throughout the conversation, we

[5:36] decided not to add the

[5:37] oppressor.

[5:40] The assessors, but to have them

[5:40] more come in and maybe do a

[5:42] presentation of some of the, the

[5:44] experiences that they had, um,

[5:46] or suggestions that they have

[5:48] moving forward. So the two that

[5:50] are really on, um, on the

[5:52] On the um

[5:56] on the list for today is really

[5:58] to vote yes or no

[6:00] on adding the League of Local

[6:04] Governments or adding um uh

[6:06] who's her name is Janelle

[6:08] Cornwall, and, um, I spoke to

[6:08] them last week and I also spoke

[6:10] to Christian Wellauer. So I'm

[6:12] just going to take a role on it

[6:12] unless there's any discussion.

[6:14] Does anyone wanna have

[6:16] discussion? I mean, it's, I want

[6:18] this to be open conversational

[6:18] whatever the group feels I want

[6:20] to do the right thing. Does

[6:26] anyone have conversation on

[6:26] either one of those. All right,

[6:27] well, we will vote on Janelle.

[6:30] First, so Janelle Cornwall,

[6:32] well, sorry, is from the League

[6:34] of Local Governments, and I will

[6:36] take a role on this, um, to add

[6:38] her to the committee.

[6:40] Representative Homer, yes. Uh,

[6:40] Senator Mancivino is absent.

[6:42] Representative Spiegelman,

[6:44] voting yes. Yes. Senator Buxton

[6:46] absent, but he is on his way.

[6:50] Uh, Rebecca, yes, yes. Uh, Gina

[6:52] Jennings. Yes. Yes, Susan

[6:54] Durham. Yes. David Del Grande.

[6:54] Yes. Justin Imers.

[6:56] Yeah.

[7:00] Uh, Bob Older's absent, Rich

[7:02] Morse, yes, yes, and Sydney

[7:04] Grassnickel. Yes, yes, yes. So

[7:06] congratulations or apologies,

[7:08] Uh, Janelle Cornwell has been

[7:10] added as a voting member to the

[7:12] group. Uh, the second person is

[7:14] Christian Willauer. I, I will

[7:14] say I did look at the other

[7:18] working group and um they do

[7:18] have somebody from the city of

[7:20] Wilmington. What I will commit

[7:22] to this group is I will make

[7:24] sure we do not go down rabbit

[7:26] holes of hyper-specific, um, if

[7:27] she gets voted in

[7:27] hyper-specific.

[7:30] Conversations about um.

[7:34] One specific area unless it

[7:36] addresses the overall, like how

[7:36] the assessments are done. If

[7:38] it's like more of a case study

[7:38] on how this happened, kind of

[7:40] like for, for Sydney has brought

[7:42] up um some of the issues with

[7:44] agriculture. We may look at one

[7:45] particular issue with

[7:45] understanding that that's more

[7:46] of a.

[7:48] A holistic problem, it's just

[7:50] anecdotal, um, but I know, I

[7:52] know this isn't a Wilmington

[7:52] A holistic problem, it's just

[7:53] anecdotal, um, but I know, I

[7:54] know this isn't a we'll meet in

[7:54] working group, but again,

[7:55] Yes,

[7:56] I was just gonna say on

[7:56] Wilmington, it's, I think it's

[7:58] worth noting that from the Tyler

[8:02] reports, there was a type of

[8:04] problem in Wilmington that

[8:04] didn't show up anywhere else. So

[8:06] I think from that perspective it

[8:08] would be very useful to have

[8:09] some Christian.

[8:10] agreed.

[8:12] Excellent. All right,

[8:14] Representative for Christian

[8:14] Willer, Representative Romer,

[8:16] yes. Senator Mancivino's absent.

[8:18] Representative Spiegelman, yes.

[8:20] Senator Buxton, absent.

[8:22] Uh, Rebecca Gold, I keep

[8:24] mumbling your last name. I can't

[8:24] Excellent. All right,

[8:25] Representative for Christian

[8:25] Willer, Representative Romer,

[8:26] yes. Senator Mancivino's absent.

[8:27] Representative Spiegelman, yes.

[8:28] Senator Buxton, absent. Uh,

[8:28] Rebecca Gold, I keep mumbling

[8:29] your last name because I can't

[8:29] remember if it's Goldsmith or

[8:30] Goldsmith. OK.

[8:30] Excellent. All right,

[8:31] Representative for Christian

[8:32] Willer, Representative Romer,

[8:32] yes. Senator Mancivino's absent.

[8:33] Representative Spiegelman, yes.

[8:34] Senator Buxton, absent. Uh,

[8:34] Rebecca Gold, I keep mumbling

[8:35] your last name because I can't

[8:36] remember if it's Goldsmith or

[8:36] Goldsmith.

[8:36] I a better scene, right? Like

[8:37] it's like when I keep going,

[8:38] it's Rebecca Golds like that I'm

[8:38] like just address it, Cindy

[8:39] Goldsmith, uh, yes,

[8:39] uh, Gina Jennings, yes, uh,

[8:40] David Del Grande, I have a

[8:41] question. Yes. Is it possible to

[8:41] have someone from

[8:42] administration?

[8:42] Wilmington versus a city council

[8:43] member.

[8:44] For consistency.

[8:48] It is, um, I'm gonna be.

[8:52] Really honest in my opinion on

[8:53] this, um.

[8:56] Uh

[9:00] I'll be really honest on this,

[9:02] OK, with the group.

[9:04] When I called the city of

[9:06] Wilmington to talk about what

[9:08] went wrong when we were in the

[9:08] hearing phase.

[9:10] They were like, county didn't do

[9:12] the permits, the county didn't

[9:12] do the permits, so they didn't

[9:14] get the permit data. Come to

[9:14] find out.

[9:16] They didn't send the permit

[9:18] data. It had been asked of the

[9:20] city. They didn't send it.

[9:22] And then I went and looked at

[9:24] the law and said, oh, let's

[9:24] change the law and make sure

[9:26] they send it. It was already law

[9:26] that they were supposed to send

[9:27] it.

[9:28] And so my only concern in in

[9:30] inviting somebody from the

[9:32] administration is, to be honest,

[9:32] how forthcoming they're going to

[9:34] be with really what's going on.

[9:36] And I, and I'm not trying to

[9:36] throw anybody there specifically

[9:40] under the bus. But I, in good

[9:42] faith when I ask a question, I

[9:44] want a good faith answer. And

[9:46] that to me just didn't feel like

[9:46] very good faith. And so that's

[9:48] my only concern about inviting

[9:50] the administration, but open up

[9:50] to everybody else and their

[9:52] concern, their questions. Thank

[9:53] you. I appreciate that.

[9:56] OK.

[9:58] Um, Justin.

[10:02] Yes, yes, uh, Bob Older, absent,

[10:04] Rich Morish, yes, and Cindy

[10:06] Grass, yes, yes, OK, having

[10:08] required the num number of votes

[10:08] for both of these, um,

[10:10] individuals, we will add them on

[10:11] as, um,

[10:14] New voting members. Um, Janelle

[10:15] is on, is Christian?

[10:20] OK, so Christian is not, I can

[10:20] text her if she cannot, um, come

[10:22] in, otherwise she'll just be

[10:24] here for the next, for the next

[10:26] meeting. So thank you, thank you

[10:27] all again.

[10:30] Say anything you feel, say

[10:30] anything you want. This is, this

[10:32] is how we're going to get things

[10:34] done. Um, I'm going to turn it

[10:34] over to Justin.

[10:38] Um, who has a presentation for

[10:40] us, um, going through the

[10:41] surveys again.

[10:42] Which is why I should have

[10:44] brought food. This is gonna be a

[10:45] Which is why I should have

[10:45] brought food. This is going to

[10:46] be a little repetitive, uh, with

[10:48] some of the things, um, but I do

[10:49] think at the end,

[10:52] especially when he gets through,

[10:52] um, to the suggestions for the

[10:54] state. He has some really good

[10:56] feedback for us on what other

[10:58] states do and and how we can

[10:58] move forward. And like I said,

[11:00] um, you know, it's going to be

[11:02] the recommendations of this

[11:02] group, and I was looking through

[11:04] some of the feedback you have,

[11:06] and I was like, yeah, yeah,

[11:06] yeah, like these are things

[11:07] that, um.

[11:10] That the state really should

[11:12] provide more support on for the

[11:14] counties, um, especially

[11:14] considering how much of that

[11:16] bill is for state schools.

[11:18] they're not county schools,

[11:20] they're state ICU ICU, Gina,

[11:22] Uh, these are state schools, not

[11:24] city schools. I think you may

[11:24] have even been the one that put

[11:26] it on the thing, but these are

[11:27] state schools. These are not

[11:28] county schools, um, we don't

[11:30] have counties, uh, schools in

[11:30] That the state really should

[11:31] provide more support on for the

[11:32] counties, um, especially

[11:32] considering how much of that

[11:33] bill is for state schools,

[11:33] they're not county schools,

[11:34] they're state ICU ICU, Gina. Uh,

[11:35] these are state schools, not

[11:35] city schools. I think you may

[11:36] have even been the one that put

[11:37] it on the thing, but these are

[11:37] state schools. These are not

[11:38] county schools, um, we don't

[11:38] have counties, uh, schools. So

[11:39] I'm going to turn it over to

[11:40] Justin, unless anyone has

[11:40] questions before. OK.

[11:41] OK.

[11:41] Right.

[11:41] OK. Thank you very much. Um, I

[11:42] would also like to thank the

[11:44] counties, uh, for their time

[11:46] putting together all the, the

[11:48] answers to questions that we

[11:50] asked, um, I know they spent a

[11:52] lot of late nights and weekends

[11:54] even answering some of these, so

[11:54] I really appreciate that.

[11:58] OK, so, um, we're just gonna

[11:58] kinda go over.

[12:02] You know what, what happened in

[12:02] the reassessment and in

[12:03] counties.

[12:04] You know,

[12:08] if, if they have something else

[12:10] to add at any point, or I

[12:10] misrepresent anything, you know,

[12:11] please jump in.

[12:12] So,

[12:18] OK, just a little bit about me,

[12:20] just so you know who's who's

[12:22] talking here. Um, I'm an

[12:22] assessment advisor with the

[12:24] International Association of

[12:26] Assessing Officers, we promote

[12:28] fair and equitable property

[12:30] values around the world. I'm a

[12:32] former Miami County, Kansas

[12:34] County appraiser. I've been in

[12:36] the assessment industry for over

[12:36] 20 years. Uh, I've got a

[12:38] bachelor of Science and

[12:40] Economics from Kansas State

[12:41] University.

[12:44] I've got an assessment

[12:44] administration designation from

[12:46] the International Association of

[12:48] Assessing Officers, and I'm a

[12:48] Kansas registered mass

[12:49] appraiser.

[12:50] Um,

[12:54] A little bit about my

[12:54] background, other than just like

[12:56] those high level stats. Um, I've

[12:58] worked every job in an

[13:00] assessment office from measuring

[13:02] homes on site to building

[13:04] valuation models to property

[13:08] valuation to testifying in a

[13:10] court of Tax Appeals. Um, I've

[13:12] been a county appraiser, so I've

[13:14] been in charge of, it's the same

[13:16] as county assessor in charge of

[13:18] the whole assessment process for

[13:20] multiple years. Um, I've helped

[13:22] complete 18 countywide

[13:22] revaluations.

[13:24] I've got experience valuing all

[13:26] types of real estate from single

[13:28] family to um.

[13:30] Pretty much any commercial real

[13:32] estate property type or

[13:34] agricultural property type. Um,

[13:36] I've supported assessment

[13:38] processes in, in my current

[13:40] position in Texas. I've, I've

[13:42] worked in Louisiana, Vermont,

[13:46] Kansas, Michigan, Ontario, and

[13:48] the United Kingdom. Um, I'm also

[13:54] an IAO course instructor. So

[13:54] enough about me, um.

[13:58] A little bit about my

[13:58] organization, just, you know,

[13:59] A little bit about my

[13:59] organization, just so you know,

[14:00] kind of where we're at, where we

[14:01] come from,

[14:02] um, professional consulting

[14:04] services of IAAO is a wholly

[14:06] owned subsidiary of the

[14:06] International Association of

[14:10] Assessing Officers. Um, we, we,

[14:12] do IAAO does education,

[14:14] research, professional

[14:16] standards. Um, we deliver

[14:16] independent data-driven

[14:18] consulting services tailored

[14:20] specifically to those in mass

[14:22] appraisal and assessment

[14:22] industry community.

[14:26] Um, we're, we're number one in,

[14:28] in the US as far as all all

[14:28] these.

[14:32] Things go, um, we're pretty much

[14:33] go to, um.

[14:36] And then a little bit about

[14:38] IAAO, our parent organization,

[14:40] founded in 1934. We've got over

[14:44] 8000 members around the world.

[14:46] We've got 38 chapters

[14:47] internationally.

[14:50] We have 15 standards on

[14:52] assessment best practices.

[14:54] We offer 16 assessment courses,

[14:56] 23 workshops. We've got an

[14:58] assessment conference in Calgary

[15:00] this year, and we've got one

[15:00] every year. No, they're

[15:04] typically in North America, uh,

[15:06] GIS evaluation Technology

[15:06] conference every year, uh,

[15:08] international evaluation

[15:10] symposium. A lot of times those

[15:12] are are over in Europe and then

[15:14] a mass appraisal evaluation

[15:16] symposium that's virtual, so

[15:18] just sort of some of the things

[15:20] that we offer and we do as an

[15:20] organization.

[15:24] Um, so what are, you know, what

[15:26] is PCS helping with? Um, we're,

[15:28] we're serving the working group

[15:28] as an independent technical

[15:30] advisor and subject matter

[15:32] expert. So, just trying to give,

[15:34] um, you know, outside Delaware

[15:38] perspective, um, best practices,

[15:40] standards, sort of perspective

[15:42] on, on what's going on within

[15:43] Delaware.

[15:48] Um, OK, so a lot of people are

[15:50] kind of wondering, OK, how did

[15:52] the assessment go? And I know

[15:52] everyone's got their own opinion

[15:56] on it. But this is sort of my

[15:58] perspective based on the

[15:58] information I've seen so far,

[16:00] um, and, and I think it, it

[16:02] helps it kind of add some

[16:04] perspective to the reassessment.

[16:08] And one thing is, is an

[16:10] appraisal or an assessment is an

[16:10] estimate of value. So.

[16:14] Typically it's not right on the

[16:14] dollar amount of of what the

[16:16] property is going to sell for.

[16:18] It's an estimate. And so, you

[16:18] know, typically, you're trying

[16:20] to get within a reasonable range

[16:22] of what it would sell for.

[16:26] Um, assessors goal is to produce

[16:28] as perfect of a reassessment as

[16:28] possible. They're working really

[16:30] hard to get that number down,

[16:32] you know, as close to market as

[16:34] they can get it. Do they always

[16:36] hit it? No. Uh, no reassessment

[16:38] is perfect. I can tell you that,

[16:39] and, you know.

[16:44] Working on 18 revaluation, um,

[16:44] that, you know,

[16:48] None of them ever goes perfect.

[16:50] Do you try to get him as perfect

[16:50] as possible, yes, but when

[16:54] you've got literally thousands

[16:54] of

[16:56] processes you're going through

[16:58] and you're looking at, you know,

[16:58] 100s of thousands of properties.

[17:00] It's, you know, you try to get

[17:02] it as good as you can, never

[17:03] gonna be 100% perfect.

[17:06] Uh, Delaware hadn't reassessed

[17:08] property in 40 or 50 years.

[17:10] That's, that's a long time to go

[17:12] without a reassessment. Some

[17:14] states reassess every single

[17:16] year, and so 40, you know, 40 or

[17:18] 50 years, that's a really long

[17:19] time, um.

[17:22] When you haven't reassessed in

[17:22] 40 years. Every process is going

[17:24] When you haven't reassessed in

[17:24] 40 years. Every process is gonna

[17:25] When you haven't reassessed in

[17:26] 40 years. Every process is going

[17:26] to be new, uh, new for counties,

[17:28] new for property owners. It's,

[17:28] it's sort of one of those things

[17:30] where it's like everyone's got

[17:31] When you haven't reassessed in

[17:31] 40 years. Every process is going

[17:32] to be new, uh, new for counties,

[17:33] new for property owners. It's,

[17:33] it's sort of one of those things

[17:34] where it's like everyone's gotta

[17:35] get their brain around, OK, what

[17:35] is this supposed to look like or

[17:36] what does it look like? I think

[17:37] the next, the next reassessment

[17:38] cycle should be a little bit

[17:40] easier because people know what

[17:42] to expect, right from the last

[17:43] reassessment.

[17:48] Um, another thing on

[17:48] perspective. So,

[17:50] Different areas like

[17:52] heterogeneous areas, areas that

[17:54] are rural, or maybe they're

[17:56] older. They're, they're a little

[17:58] more difficult to value versus,

[18:00] say you have a new subdivision

[18:00] in every home in the

[18:02] subdivision, you know, every 5th

[18:04] house is the same. Those are

[18:04] pretty easy to buy, right? I

[18:06] mean, um, you probably don't

[18:08] even really need to be an

[18:08] appraiser to get within the

[18:10] ballpark of what a property

[18:12] might sell for on those, but

[18:14] when you've got homes up and

[18:14] down the street that were, you

[18:16] know, maybe built 100 years ago,

[18:18] and they've been cared for in

[18:19] various.

[18:22] Ways, you know, maybe remodeled,

[18:24] not remodeled, that kind of

[18:26] thing. Your values can vary a

[18:28] lot and and those property types

[18:28] are, are pretty difficult to

[18:29] value.

[18:32] Um, conditions of homes, like I

[18:34] said, can, can vary the

[18:34] evaluation quite a bit.

[18:38] Um, you know, one thing I think

[18:40] that's important to keep in mind

[18:41] is that your current assessed

[18:42] values are a lot better than the

[18:43] ones you had before.

[18:46] So you're, you're definitely

[18:46] working in the right direction.

[18:48] Um,

[18:52] Sales ratio statistics.

[18:54] You know, I, I looked at all. I

[18:56] got the, the data from each

[18:56] county.

[19:00] And actually I thought

[19:00] everything looked really good.

[19:02] Um, I mean, yeah, you've got

[19:04] some little areas where they

[19:06] might be below IAO standards,

[19:08] but overall, you're looking

[19:10] really good and, and to find a

[19:12] jurisdiction in the country that

[19:14] didn't have a zone or a

[19:16] neighborhood or or a, um, you

[19:16] know, an area within their

[19:18] county that

[19:22] was below IAO standards, you

[19:22] know, it's, it's pretty common

[19:24] to see some areas that are maybe

[19:26] difficult to value that might

[19:26] fall a little below, um,

[19:30] Um, so that's not out of the

[19:32] norm at all, um, even for a good

[19:33] reassessment.

[19:38] OK, so I wanted to go through

[19:40] the assessment process, and I'm

[19:42] not sure, um, you know, I, I

[19:44] think you'd probably get some a

[19:46] little bit of information about

[19:46] this here and there, but.

[19:50] You know, these are, uh, kind of

[19:52] some of the steps that that

[19:56] assessors go through to get to a

[20:00] a value and certify a role. So,

[20:00] uh, one of the first things

[20:02] that's done is collecting

[20:03] property data.

[20:06] OK, so you know, if in in that

[20:08] data goes into a camera system

[20:10] generally or a computer aided

[20:12] assisted, uh, mass appraisal

[20:14] software system is where that

[20:16] data is stored, but assessors

[20:18] have to collect that data, and

[20:20] whether it's, you know, boots on

[20:20] the ground, people actually

[20:22] physically tape measure, you

[20:24] know, on the home or they're

[20:26] using some kind of technology,

[20:28] um, like an Eagle View software

[20:30] where they're looks like Google

[20:32] Earth and they're looking at

[20:32] images of different angles of

[20:33] the property and

[20:36] They can measure it using that

[20:36] software um is another option.

[20:40] So, um, the next step would be

[20:42] quality control, checks of

[20:44] property data. So you've

[20:44] collected that data, and now

[20:46] you've got a quality control

[20:48] check it, you know, did, um,

[20:50] were appraisers, when they went

[20:50] out and measured these

[20:52] properties, did they measure

[20:54] them properly? Did they list

[20:54] characteristics properly, that

[20:55] kind of thing.

[20:58] Um, next thing is sales. Sales

[21:00] are the kind of the gold, the,

[21:02] the lifeblood of, of an

[21:06] assessment or an appraisal, um,

[21:06] you know, you've got to review

[21:08] those sales, so you get

[21:08] information in that a property

[21:10] is transferred. You might

[21:14] contact a buyer or seller about

[21:16] the transaction. You're gonna

[21:16] Um, next thing is sales. Sales

[21:17] are the kind of the gold, the,

[21:18] the lifeblood of, of an

[21:18] assessment or an appraisal, um,

[21:19] you know, you've got to review

[21:20] those sales, so you get

[21:20] information in that a property

[21:21] is transferred. You might

[21:21] contact a buyer or seller about

[21:22] the transaction. You're going to

[21:23] research your transaction, go to

[21:23] the property, make sure that all

[21:24] your characteristics are

[21:25] correct, so that way when you're

[21:25] using that that transfer or that

[21:26] sale as a comparative.

[21:28] You, you know exactly what's

[21:30] sold, um, that's really

[21:32] important. Um, so you're gonna

[21:34] quality control check that sales

[21:36] data also is very important

[21:38] because if, if your sales data

[21:40] is wrong, your evaluation models

[21:42] can't be right. So that's,

[21:44] that's kind of the base, having

[21:46] good data, having good sales

[21:48] data, um, then permit data,

[21:50] that's also important. I heard,

[21:52] um, Representative Romer bring

[21:54] that up. Um, you know, having

[21:54] that permit data clues you into.

[21:56] Hey, there was a change made to

[21:58] this property. And so then an

[22:00] assessor can go out, take a look

[22:02] at the property, say, oh yeah,

[22:04] they added a deck or they added

[22:06] a new patio or a room addition,

[22:07] so they can make those

[22:08] adjustments to the record to

[22:10] make sure the value reflects

[22:10] those changes.

[22:14] Um, then after all the data is,

[22:16] is corrected and cleaned up, and

[22:18] it's been quality control

[22:18] checked, then um.

[22:22] Then you're gonna analyze the

[22:24] data. So you're, you're gonna go

[22:26] through that data and you're

[22:28] gonna say, OK, you know, these

[22:30] are, um, we're gonna group out

[22:32] single family homes in, in, in a

[22:33] certain area, and we're gonna

[22:34] group out single family homes

[22:34] in, in, in a certain area, and

[22:35] we're going to see that ranch

[22:36] homes sell for a certain amount

[22:37] or row homes sell for a certain

[22:37] amount.

[22:40] Um, we're gonna move on to

[22:42] setting evaluation models based

[22:44] on that analysis, then we're

[22:46] gonna do a sales ratio check on

[22:48] those valuation models. So we

[22:50] don't just do a sales ratio. Uh,

[22:50] a lot of people have heard, you

[22:52] know, the sales ratio, um,

[22:54] checks. We don't just do them at

[22:56] the very end, we actually do

[22:58] them during the process so that

[23:00] way we make sure our values are

[23:02] good before, before we get to

[23:02] the end and, and there's a

[23:04] problem. So, um, then you move

[23:06] on to sales ratio, uh, valuation

[23:07] model.

[23:10] after you, uh, set the models

[23:12] and then we're gonna buy

[23:14] property, right? So.

[23:18] You get the properties valued,

[23:18] you're gonna have to quality

[23:20] control check those values. So

[23:22] you, you can see in this

[23:24] process, there's a lot of

[23:26] quality control checks. Um, then

[23:26] you're gonna, after you're,

[23:28] you're sure you're OK with those

[23:30] values, you're gonna send

[23:32] valuation notices to property

[23:32] owners.

[23:34] Um, you're gonna answer this

[23:36] property owner's questions,

[23:38] You're gonna schedule informal

[23:40] appeals, conduct informal

[23:40] appeals, conduct in formal

[23:44] appeals, uh, modify the role as

[23:44] required.

[23:48] Get values adjusted, uh, certify

[23:52] a role, an assessment role, um,

[23:54] and then you're gonna handle any

[23:54] remaining appeals. There's

[23:56] always, even after you certify

[23:58] the role, there's always appeals

[23:59] after that, um.

[24:04] And um, OK, I kinda got

[24:06] backwards on this, but anyway,

[24:07] um,

[24:12] We're gonna handle the, we've

[24:12] got to handle some of these

[24:13] different appeals.

[24:16] And certify the role, and then

[24:18] we might have to modify the

[24:24] assessment role after the fact.

[24:26] So, OK, so I'm gonna go through.

[24:27] Um,

[24:30] There again, thank you again for

[24:32] the counties getting us this

[24:33] information in a short window.

[24:36] I'm gonna go through some of

[24:36] these parcel breakdowns.

[24:40] And I'm sure you all have seen

[24:42] some of these numbers already.

[24:44] Um, so first off, I've got over

[24:44] on that column, I've got the

[24:46] counties and the percentage

[24:48] change for each county.

[24:50] Or the percent of the total

[24:52] parcel count. So this is parcel

[24:54] count breakdown. So we've got

[24:54] residential, commercial,

[24:56] industrial, agricultural, exempt

[25:00] utility, and then the totals. So

[25:00] for New Castle County, we had

[25:04] 219,000 parcels. Sussex, we had

[25:08] 203,000 parcels in Kent, we had

[25:12] 90,000 parcels. Um, so total

[25:14] statewide parcel count was

[25:16] 513,000 parcels. You can see if

[25:18] you look over on the

[25:18] residential, uh.

[25:20] Column, I've kind of totaled up

[25:22] so you can see, you know, what

[25:26] makes up, um, parcel counts for

[25:28] residential, about 90% of the

[25:30] parcels in the state are

[25:30] residential in nature,

[25:34] commercial, can I, can I, can I

[25:34] ask a question right there?

[25:36] Yeah, the agriculture and

[25:38] residential columns, the

[25:40] agriculture are just

[25:42] agricultural improvements? Do

[25:44] they include or not include the

[25:44] homestead of an agricultural

[25:45] property.

[25:50] I don't have that information to

[25:50] I don't have that

[25:51] information. I'll have to ask

[25:51] the county. They do not include

[25:54] the houses. OK, they do not. So

[25:54] the homestead is counted as

[25:56] as residential and then the

[26:00] agricultural improvements are

[26:02] counted as agriculture here. OK,

[26:02] that's,

[26:04] so I figured you're not have

[26:04] that info.

[26:05] I don't have that information.

[26:05] I'll have to ask the county.

[26:06] They do not include the houses.

[26:07] OK, they do not. So the

[26:07] homestead is counted as as

[26:08] residential and then the

[26:08] agricultural improvements are

[26:09] counted as agriculture here. OK,

[26:10] that's, so I figured you'd have

[26:10] that in front. I figured you'd

[26:11] have it.

[26:11] Good question. Good question.

[26:12] All right, um, and then you can

[26:12] see, you know, we've got

[26:16] agriculture at 2.5% of the state

[26:18] total and exempt at 4.1%,

[26:20] utilities at 0.2%.

[26:24] So just kind of an interesting

[26:26] just showing the breakdown of,

[26:28] of, and that's his parcel count,

[26:30] so that, that's not necessarily

[26:32] reflective of, of, say, you

[26:34] know, tax where the taxes are

[26:38] being paid, it's just the, the

[26:38] number of parcels is all. So,

[26:42] um, taxable assessed value, and

[26:42] I'm sure some of you have seen

[26:44] some of these numbers before

[26:48] also. So we asked the counties

[26:48] for the, the prior assessed

[26:50] values before they reassessed,

[26:52] And you can see those numbers

[26:53] there on that 2nd column.

[26:56] And then the 3rd column over or

[26:58] And then the 3rd column over are

[26:58] the the current assessed values,

[27:00] so you can see what those are.

[27:04] Um, I've got the change amount

[27:06] in there and the change percent,

[27:06] which I know a lot of people get

[27:08] caught up on that change

[27:10] percent, but, you know, you

[27:14] haven't re revalued in in 4 or 5

[27:16] decades, so, um, you know, milks

[27:18] went up, the price of a new cars

[27:20] went up. Everything's went up,

[27:21] you know.

[27:26] 500+% probably so, um, so these

[27:28] numbers also, one thing to keep

[27:29] in mind, these numbers would

[27:30] include things like new

[27:32] construction or additions and

[27:34] and that kind of thing too, so,

[27:36] and I don't have breakdowns on

[27:38] on all of that, but, um, just

[27:39] something to remember.

[27:44] OK, so staffing levels, another

[27:46] question we'd ask the counties,

[27:50] Uh, Newcastle currently has 21,

[27:52] uh, full-time equivalent staff

[27:54] in their assessment department.

[27:54] Now, they've got open positions

[27:56] for 29, but they have 8

[27:58] vacancies. Um, I'm

[28:00] You know, I'm guessing it's hard

[28:02] to recruit assessors in a state

[28:04] where reassessment hasn't

[28:05] happened in a long time.

[28:08] And, um, and so I, I think

[28:10] there's probably some challenges

[28:11] there, um.

[28:14] Sounds like an easy job to me,

[28:15] yeah.

[28:16] Um,

[28:18] Well, just, just the fact that,

[28:20] you know, when you haven't done

[28:20] them, why would you have, you

[28:22] know, a lot of assessors, so,

[28:23] um, it.

[28:26] And then Sussex at 18, Ken at

[28:27] 11, so.

[28:30] In the state currently, it looks

[28:32] like you've got 59 assessors on

[28:33] on staff at the counties.

[28:36] OK. Um,

[28:40] So just a little ratio here of

[28:44] parcels. This is one way that um

[28:46] assessors look at kind of

[28:46] staffing ratios and that kind of

[28:50] thing. It's a parcels per uh

[28:52] full-time equivalent staff

[28:54] position at the county. Um, and,

[28:56] you know, it's, this is.

[29:00] This is something that it's,

[29:02] it's hard to look at sometimes

[29:04] from state to state and

[29:06] county to county because you

[29:08] have to think about what, what

[29:10] kind of scope the county staff

[29:12] is covering, um, you know, how

[29:14] much do they, do they contract

[29:16] out? How much do they do

[29:18] in-house? Um, what kind of, you

[29:22] know, are they having to um come

[29:22] up with new parcel numbers? Are

[29:24] they having any big projects

[29:26] that they're having to work on

[29:26] to kind of, um, improve.

[29:28] assessments and that kind of

[29:30] thing. So a lot of that kind of

[29:32] thing, growth rate can really

[29:34] matter in staffing ratios. So,

[29:36] um, they're here. I don't know,

[29:38] without a lot of context, it's,

[29:40] it's kind of hard to tell, you

[29:42] know, whether they're right or

[29:42] wrong or, or anything else, so.

[29:46] All right, assessment budgets.

[29:50] So prior to reassessment, um,

[29:52] or, you know, and, and this is

[29:54] part of this is, you know, we

[29:56] ask questions, the counties

[29:56] might have interpreted some of

[29:58] the answers differently, so

[29:58] hopefully, we're not

[30:00] misrepresenting anything. Um,

[30:04] Newcastle prior budget 2.9

[30:08] million, um, which might be 2025

[30:10] budget is my guess. Uh, 2026

[30:12] budget was 3 million, um,

[30:13] average.

[30:16] You know, cost per parcel about

[30:20] $14. And then we asked also for

[30:22] the vendor costs, so this is

[30:22] what they would have paid Tyler,

[30:24] um, and you can see what those

[30:25] are there.

[30:30] You know, 19, 9.6 million, 4.4

[30:32] million, so you can see what

[30:34] that total was to Tyler for the

[30:36] reassessment. I know, um, and I

[30:38] don't have a ton of details on

[30:40] all the counties, but I know

[30:42] like Newcastle, for instance,

[30:46] had, um, had to go through and,

[30:48] um change the way that they

[30:50] identified parcels, and I'm sure

[30:52] that added to the cost quite a

[30:54] bit. That's typically a, a very

[30:56] large project, um, and I'm sure

[30:56] all the counties.

[30:58] had their own challenges and

[31:00] projects. So, trying to, there

[31:02] again, trying to compare the

[31:02] counties against each other head

[31:04] to head is a little difficult

[31:06] because they all have their own

[31:06] unique challenges. Excuse me,

[31:08] Justin. Yeah,

[31:10] uh, Dave Del Grande, New Castle

[31:10] County, just for, for the

[31:14] record, our 27 approved budget,

[31:16] which was effective July 1st,

[31:18] we're at $4.2 million for our

[31:19] assessment office.

[31:22] Which increased to 10 positions.

[31:22] So I just want to let everyone

[31:23] know that.

[31:26] So we, we added about $1.2

[31:28] million from 26 to 27.

[31:32] Yeah, and I appreciate that, and

[31:34] the county had provided me that

[31:34] information.

[31:36] So thank you,

[31:38] thank you. I'm sorry, another

[31:40] real quick on that slide, uh,

[31:40] So thank you, thank you. I'm

[31:41] sorry, another real quick on

[31:42] that slide for everybody's

[31:42] information.

[31:44] New Castle County is going to

[31:46] have a higher vendor cost per

[31:46] parcel.

[31:48] Because of the size, one reason

[31:50] would be the size of the

[31:52] commercial properties in New

[31:52] Castle County and there's

[31:54] nothing in Kent and Sussex that

[31:56] even comes close to some of the

[31:58] size commercial properties

[32:00] outside of like Dover Downs. Um,

[32:02] and so those parcels, you know,

[32:04] the big Amazon plants, uh, big

[32:06] colleges, that kind of, they're

[32:08] going to have, it's gonna be a

[32:10] higher cost per parcel, uh, just

[32:11] in New Castle County versus the

[32:12] other, other counties.

[32:14] just so uh just sort of a

[32:16] related question, does anyone

[32:17] know if that

[32:20] The gap, if you will, or the

[32:20] ratio

[32:22] of basically Newcastle being

[32:23] about

[32:26] Roughly twice per parcel from

[32:28] the vendors and the others,

[32:30] whether that's justified by the

[32:34] The difference in the size of

[32:34] some commercial properties. I

[32:36] I would guess part of it is the

[32:37] size of some commercial

[32:37] properties. I, I would guess

[32:38] part of it is, is the difference

[32:38] in size and complexity of those

[32:40] properties. It's a lot easier

[32:41] to, to.

[32:42] You know, uh, assess.

[32:46] A housing development that just

[32:46] went up in Sussex County versus

[32:48] a housing development that's

[32:50] over 100 years old in New Castle

[32:52] County versus the big box plants

[32:54] versus the big industrial sites

[32:55] that are found in New Castle

[32:56] County, but the other problem is

[32:58] they also had to change,

[33:00] they had to make some pretty big

[33:02] vendor changes uh with the way

[33:02] they were analyzing the

[33:04] properties in New Castle County

[33:06] that weren't acquiring Sussex

[33:08] County, I believe. Yeah, John,

[33:09] you can correct me on that.

[33:12] I guess the hope is though that

[33:12] going forward, that the vendor

[33:16] cost per parcel, in particular

[33:18] New Castle County comes down now

[33:18] that we have a better handle on

[33:20] what we're doing or that might

[33:22] be something that this group

[33:24] needs to tackle. Yeah, Senator

[33:24] Buxton, and then David. I'm

[33:26] sorry, before we go on, if John,

[33:28] is that what I just said is, is

[33:30] that I'm sorry, Justin, Justin,

[33:32] excuse me, John Justin begins

[33:34] with a J. Uh, Justin, is, is

[33:34] that.

[33:36] Everything I just said was that,

[33:38] at least in part your impression

[33:39] as well?

[33:42] Yeah, yeah, I think so.

[33:42] That sounds reasonable.

[33:46] Um, OK. Oh, actually we have a

[33:48] couple more, um, questions, uh,

[33:50] Senator Buxton and then David.

[33:50] So

[33:56] that, so the vendor cost, that's

[33:58] reflective of this next

[34:00] reassessment, or is that

[34:00] reflective of the prior one?

[34:04] Good answer, and that's what he

[34:04] said, um.

[34:10] And then just explain in the

[34:10] average annual cost per parcel.

[34:14] Uh, the $10 greater for king.

[34:18] What's the uniqueness of Kent?

[34:18] It's the way we budget because

[34:20] we put indirects into our call

[34:22] centers and neither one of the

[34:24] other counties do. If I took

[34:26] that out, it would reduce it

[34:28] probably to about $15 a parcel.

[34:30] Would that say that again? You

[34:31] did what? And that was, I'm

[34:32] sorry. Sorry, I couldn't hear

[34:34] you. We, Kent county budgets

[34:34] differently than the other two

[34:36] counties which include what we

[34:38] call indirect costs where you

[34:40] absorb the cost of the

[34:42] supporting departments like IT

[34:44] and everything. So if I pull

[34:45] that out.

[34:48] We would be more relative to how

[34:50] the others budget like an

[34:52] accounting difference, OK, OK.

[34:54] She's very tight.

[34:54] No, I mean, that's actually a

[34:56] really smart way. I, I think

[34:58] it's a, it's a more

[35:00] comprehensive way. There's a

[35:00] cost of doing business

[35:02] The commissioner is in control

[35:02] Yeah,

[35:04] As the best you can. I want one

[35:05] more, sorry, one more, um.

[35:06] Question.

[35:08] The increase in the number of

[35:09] positions.

[35:12] Is that reflective of the

[35:14] The requirement now to.

[35:16] Reassess every 5 years and would

[35:18] it change if it was every 7 or

[35:20] 10 or it wouldn't matter. It is

[35:22] what it is right now, it's to

[35:24] get us up to speed on the

[35:26] current process. So, um, we

[35:26] could even use more, but we

[35:28] didn't feel budgetary-wise, we

[35:30] could actually add 25 more

[35:32] hire that many more people.

[35:34] Um, Justin, I'm not sure what

[35:36] the industry averages per, you

[35:38] know, parcel per employee, but I

[35:39] think if we're.

[35:42] 10,000 or 11,000 per employee.

[35:46] I heard the number was 2500. I

[35:47] don't know if that's true or

[35:47] not, but um.

[35:50] Uh, we're, we're a little bit

[35:52] off on the number of people we

[35:54] need, not to mention where you

[35:54] put them, buying them equipment,

[35:56] um, and then the taxpayer

[35:56] expense to do all that.

[35:58] Is a, is a concern of ours.

[36:02] Justin, can you speak to that

[36:04] what the national averages are

[36:06] for uh

[36:06] ratio.

[36:10] Um, it, it, it depends on

[36:12] reappraisal frequency, how much,

[36:14] you know, how much the county's

[36:16] contracting out versus doing

[36:18] in-house, uh, as far as those

[36:18] ratios go. So like I said, it

[36:22] can vary quite a bit. If, if the

[36:22] county was doing 100% of the

[36:26] work in-house. I would think you

[36:28] would want to be in the 2500 to

[36:32] 3500 parcels per staff range.

[36:34] um, you know, the more you

[36:35] contract out, that number could

[36:38] shift up, um, some. So.

[36:42] Question. Yes, Susan. Oh, sure.

[36:44] So, when your vendor calls for

[36:45] reassessment, did that, because

[36:46] you had a different package than

[36:48] we did. It included converting

[36:50] the software going with their

[36:52] stuff. Did that include? That's

[36:52] what all that in there? Correct.

[36:54] That's what I was getting to.

[36:56] This is our all-in cost as of

[36:58] today or at last week for the

[37:00] cost of reassessment, which

[37:02] includes our legal fees, costs

[37:04] of appeals, all those things.

[37:06] So, um, just the cost of the

[37:08] Bet Tyler alone, I think

[37:08] initially was like around 17.

[37:12] million which includes includes

[37:14] the software. See that would

[37:14] need to be taken out to compare.

[37:16] That's what I was wondering

[37:18] Yes, so

[37:20] software not gonna be an issue

[37:22] next? How much was the software

[37:22] pieces I believe I don't have it

[37:23] directly in front of me. I

[37:24] believe it was around $3

[37:25] million. And then there's the

[37:26] annual maintenance fee that goes

[37:28] with that and so forth.

[37:30] Have you heard, I know that um

[37:32] Kent and Sussex are in the RFP

[37:33] process right now. I

[37:36] I could be wrong, but I feel

[37:38] like I remember in the hearings

[37:40] that we had, um, about this time

[37:41] last year.

[37:44] I feel like I remember Tyler

[37:46] saying something about $62 a

[37:46] parcel. Is that?

[37:47] Uh

[37:50] Yeah, so they gave me a

[37:50] preliminary number. I think it

[37:54] was $65 a part $65 I mean

[37:54] because we've done the initial,

[37:56] right, they said the prices that

[37:57] they're bidding currently was

[38:00] $65 a parcel, and that was even

[38:02] just a desktop review when we

[38:04] went out to bid in 2021, those

[38:06] were the prices, but they had

[38:08] skyrocketed, so we'll know this

[38:09] week,

[38:09] right,

[38:10] they said the prices that

[38:11] they're bidding currently was

[38:11] $65 a parcel and that was even

[38:12] just a desktop review when we

[38:13] went out to bid in 2021, those

[38:13] were the prices, but they had

[38:14] skyrocketed, so we'll know this

[38:14] week,

[38:15] this week,

[38:15] what those per parcel numbers

[38:16] were are gonna be, but yeah,

[38:16] they're not gonna be

[38:17] here

[38:18] um and I just wanna ask one.

[38:20] Oh, you go ahead, go first,

[38:22] Senator Buxton. No, no, no, no,

[38:24] I didn't want to cut off anybody

[38:24] else, but I just, when you're

[38:26] done, I'll have one more

[38:26] question.

[38:28] I was just thinking, I don't

[38:30] know what the outcomes of this,

[38:30] uh, working group are gonna be,

[38:32] but one thing we have talked

[38:34] about a little bit and just I'll

[38:36] get to it way later on is are

[38:38] there cost savings in going

[38:38] under a state contract, and I'm

[38:40] just wondering what is your

[38:42] timeline if you're already

[38:42] starting the RFP process, what

[38:44] is your timeline, which is why

[38:46] we started this group so

[38:48] aggressively time-wise, um, and

[38:49] only made it a 6 month group.

[38:50] What is your time like what is

[38:52] your timeline on signing that

[38:52] contract and.

[38:54] Do we have the ability to

[38:55] potentially

[38:58] Have for this assessment, some

[39:00] sort of collaboration among all

[39:00] three or under the state.

[39:04] I'll answer that, so we, the

[39:06] 3 of us did discuss. That's why

[39:06] 2 of us are going together. We

[39:08] feel like New Castle County is

[39:10] so much more complicated, and we

[39:12] knew their price per parcel was

[39:12] a lot higher than the two of us.

[39:16] So we did go out to bid together

[39:18] just to see if coming together

[39:20] at least 2, we can bring the

[39:20] price down. The problem is the

[39:22] timing of it. It took 4 years to

[39:24] do the last one. We're now at

[39:26] year 3. Like, we have to go out.

[39:27] Like, I know when we were having

[39:28] the hearings, I told, I said, we

[39:30] got to get going. So this was

[39:31] the latest I felt comfortable.

[39:34] going out to bed and getting

[39:36] them in the door as quick as

[39:36] possible. So it could

[39:38] potentially be a 20.

[39:40] 35.

[39:42] Where we're looking at.

[39:46] State level support. I mean, our

[39:48] goal is just that, you know,

[39:50] our, our discussion about the

[39:50] state getting involved is only

[39:52] to help bring costs down, not

[39:54] for any other, any other thing

[39:54] at Sydney, uh.

[39:56] I do have one actually, yes,

[39:56] from Boston and then Sydney.

[40:00] Um, well, speaking to that one.

[40:02] In the lawsuit itself, right,

[40:04] because we're up against the

[40:06] clock and the clock, that's the

[40:08] question. I recalled the all,

[40:08] See actually I sort of read it

[40:09] because I was at the county

[40:10] then.

[40:14] Um, the 5 years is self-imposed.

[40:16] The court's directed us that you

[40:18] shall reassess and the property

[40:20] shall be assessed at fair, fair

[40:22] market value. It didn't say

[40:24] every 1 year, 3 years, 5 years,

[40:24] or 10.

[40:26] It said you better figure it out

[40:28] or we're gonna do it for you. Is

[40:30] that accurate? So that's

[40:32] Some of the problem challenges

[40:34] we have is this self-imposed 5

[40:35] years.

[40:38] That on paper we want to do

[40:40] that, but in theory, is it

[40:41] creating

[40:44] Is it going to prevent us from

[40:44] getting it right the second time

[40:45] out of the sheet?

[40:48] You know, that's the fear I have

[40:48] is that our desire to meet the

[40:52] five years that's self-imposed

[40:54] is gonna force us to then have

[40:55] to make all our proper

[40:55] corrections.

[40:58] After that, which means 10

[40:58] years.

[41:00] So maybe, maybe we create a

[41:02] buffer, a timeout, time out for

[41:03] a second.

[41:06] Sydney and then Rich, um, this

[41:08] is kind of for context for me,

[41:10] but when the decision to start,

[41:12] or the need to do the math uh

[41:14] reassessment. Was there a reason

[41:16] why everyone went with mass

[41:18] reassessment rather than a

[41:18] rolling reassessment.

[41:22] Um, or was that in a part of the

[41:23] conversations? I'm just curious

[41:24] because I feel like rolling

[41:26] reassessments usually help like

[41:28] your staffing and whatnot, since

[41:30] you're spanning it out over

[41:30] multiple years. I think the main

[41:32] thing it was because we hadn't

[41:34] done it in 40 years, you can't

[41:36] do something rolling until you

[41:38] have a good. OK. Uh, back, a

[41:40] good starting point. Right.

[41:42] Yeah. Also, uh, you know,

[41:42] rolling is, I mean, I know

[41:44] that's what they do in Maryland.

[41:44] Yeah.

[41:45] But, uh, that's not,

[41:48] I'm not for that, so

[41:50] Yeah, that's helpful. And also

[41:52] just rolling we're gonna be take

[41:54] it takes a year to do everything

[41:54] so

[41:55] to defend Kent,

[41:58] Sussex's number is a little low.

[42:00] What I meant in the survey was

[42:00] it costs us 2.5 million each

[42:02] year for the reassessment

[42:03] process.

[42:06] It's been added to the budget,

[42:08] so you need to add another 2

[42:10] million to our number, so there

[42:10] was confusion in the answer to

[42:12] the survey, so our number is not

[42:14] that low. I, we look great,

[42:14] awesome, but I.

[42:16] I was very I was very.

[42:18] I couldn't talk to you

[42:20] afterwards. I was very generous

[42:21] of you.

[42:22] Transparency, that number's too

[42:24] low, but again, I really

[42:26] appreciate you guys getting it

[42:26] back and not overthinking it

[42:28] because we wouldn't be able to

[42:30] have this conversation if we,

[42:30] you know, we're, we're, we're,

[42:32] we're moving really, really

[42:32] fast. So yeah, the other person

[42:34] to ask to answer this question

[42:34] is Cindy Cindy and I are just

[42:36] talking. I don't remember. I

[42:38] know it was talked about the

[42:40] rolling reassessments. I

[42:40] know it was talked about the

[42:41] rolling reassessments, and I

[42:42] remember the counties had issues

[42:42] with it, but beyond that, I

[42:44] don't remember. That might be a

[42:45] question actually for

[42:46] Representative Wilson Anton

[42:48] because it was her bill, OK,

[42:49] um.

[42:52] I, I just, do you remember? No,

[42:54] I, I, I, I don't.

[42:56] I, I just, do you remember? No,

[42:56] I, I, I, I go to

[42:58] Rich, and then Senator. Sure, I

[42:58] go to

[42:59] Rich, and then Senator Buck.

[42:59] Sure, I just wanted to add two

[43:00] facts and to answer in part to

[43:00] answer in part Senator Lumpton's

[43:01] question.

[43:04] The 5 years, while it is, as you

[43:06] say, self-imposed.

[43:10] Doing it in 5 years as opposed

[43:12] to kicking the can down the road

[43:14] for maybe 10 years is going to

[43:16] improve things for all the

[43:16] taxpayers, because even if

[43:22] Enough changes aren't made as a

[43:24] result of legislation coming out

[43:25] of this process. The next

[43:26] reassessment, just like the last

[43:30] one is gonna make assessments on

[43:32] average a lot more accurate than

[43:34] they have been, so it's going to

[43:36] improve it for taxpayers even if

[43:38] it doesn't get us as close to

[43:40] perfect as everybody would like

[43:42] to be. So that's the downside to

[43:42] sort of.

[43:44] You know, changing it from 5 to

[43:46] 10. In the court case, I will

[43:50] tell you we had a conference

[43:52] where we basically let sort of

[43:54] raised with the judge the issue

[43:54] of his ruling, how often it had

[43:58] to be done. And what he said

[44:00] was, I only order that.

[44:06] If if the proof gives me reason

[44:08] to worry the counties won't do

[44:10] it again within a reasonable

[44:12] time, and we never got to that,

[44:12] but if it got changed to 10

[44:14] years and somebody wanted to

[44:15] file a lawsuit again.

[44:18] The counties will, I think, be

[44:20] opening themselves up to that.

[44:20] whereas at 5 years, that's

[44:22] obviously not going to happen

[44:23] and in

[44:24] The counties will, I think, be

[44:25] opening themselves up to that,

[44:25] whereas at 5 years, that's

[44:26] obviously not going to happen,

[44:27] and, and respect, and I could,

[44:27] now's not the time to say, yeah,

[44:28] but this is what I'm thinking

[44:30] because, but your, your points

[44:30] are fair. I think I could argue

[44:32] a couple other points. We both

[44:34] agree with what you said. The

[44:36] judge said, you figure it out,

[44:38] I'll figure it out for you. So

[44:40] my question now is, it, it, and

[44:40] I'm not saying 10.

[44:42] Maybe it's 6, maybe it's just,

[44:44] enough, just pause it long

[44:46] enough for us to complete our

[44:46] work and, and accurately

[44:50] implement it, you know, but let

[44:50] me get to the last one, this one

[44:52] should, should be pretty quick.

[44:54] So you've put out your bids. Is

[44:55] Tyler the only game in town?

[44:58] We're pretty confident we'll get

[44:58] 2, right?

[44:59] I'm not

[45:02] anti-Tyler, but can you imagine

[45:02] if it's only Tyler, you better

[45:04] have your ducks in a row because

[45:06] everybody's gonna be coming at

[45:07] us.

[45:10] Yeah, oh yeah, yeah.

[45:10] OK, Justin, thank you.

[45:12] Yeah.

[45:14] OK. Um,

[45:20] Next slide. OK, so what camera

[45:20] system was used in the, and the

[45:22] counties can pipe in here if I'm

[45:26] misstating anything, but I, I

[45:26] believe they're all using the

[45:28] enterprise assessment and tax

[45:32] system with IAS world as as

[45:36] there came a system. Um, is that

[45:36] right, counties?

[45:38] I kind of got different answers,

[45:40] but I think, I think you're all

[45:42] on the same thing. Yes. Yeah.

[45:43] OK.

[45:44] All right.

[45:52] So current GIS tools, so they're

[45:54] all, uh, I think all the

[45:56] counties also are using very

[45:58] similar GIS tools, uh, Eagle

[46:00] View, which is an aerial image

[46:02] provider who provides.

[46:06] Ortho and oblique imagery, which

[46:08] is pretty much fancy words for

[46:10] straight down and at your

[46:10] cardinal.

[46:12] Different angles, northeast,

[46:16] southwest, um, these different,

[46:16] it's sort of like Google Earth.

[46:18] If anyone's used Google Earth

[46:20] before, where you can see the

[46:22] different angles around a

[46:24] building. It makes it a little

[46:26] more 3D or you can kind of get

[46:28] the different 3D angles anyway.

[46:30] um, yeah, it's also got

[46:32] measuring tools on it, so they

[46:32] can verify measurements of

[46:34] buildings or sizes of parking

[46:38] lots, um, different things like

[46:40] that, verify different parts of

[46:41] a property is being.

[46:42] You know, maybe this part of the

[46:44] property is agricultural and

[46:46] this part's residential, so they

[46:46] can kind of identify those areas

[46:50] using some of these tools.

[46:54] Alright, so appeal summary, um,

[46:56] new and each county kind of gave

[46:58] me a little different format, so

[47:00] I've got their own pages here.

[47:04] Uh, New Castle County had 11,407

[47:06] informal appeals. That's a 5.2%

[47:08] informal appeal rate, which to

[47:09] me is.

[47:12] Is very reasonable considering

[47:14] you hadn't had a reassessment in

[47:14] a long time. I would

[47:16] I would even think you would

[47:18] have higher rates than that, um,

[47:22] So close via stipulation, so the

[47:24] two parties agreed on the

[47:26] valuation. They had 3800

[47:30] parcels closed via deficiency,

[47:32] 193, other reasons you can kind

[47:33] of read these, um.

[47:36] So that's Newcastle.

[47:38] Sussex.

[47:44] Informal, they had 11,647. Pell

[47:46] rates 5.7, so not much different

[47:48] than Newcastle saw. Um, their

[47:52] change rate was 52%, so about

[47:54] half of the properties that were

[47:54] appealed at formal level, they

[47:58] made some some sort of of a

[47:59] change to the value.

[48:02] Then at uh formal appeals to

[48:06] referees. They had 11,700 or

[48:10] 1,723. That'd be an appeal rate

[48:14] of just 0.9% of the total

[48:18] parcels, um, and of those 65%

[48:20] were changed in in some way

[48:22] because of the appeal, formal

[48:24] appeal to the board. There was

[48:28] just 71, 25 of those were

[48:28] changed, or about 35% of those

[48:29] were changed. And then,

[48:32] Superior Court, they had one

[48:34] appeal. Um, there was no

[48:34] reduction made there, no change

[48:35] made there.

[48:40] Kent County, um, informal

[48:44] appeals, 4,274. They had 4.7%,

[48:46] so you know the other counties

[48:48] are in the 5 range, 4.7. They're

[48:50] all kind of in that same

[48:54] ballpark, um, 41.9%, 42% had a

[48:56] change at the informal level,

[48:58] then formal appeal to referees,

[49:06] uh, 676 of those and about 65%

[49:06] saw a change, and then formal

[49:07] appeal to the board.

[49:12] They had 313 and 19% of those

[49:14] saw some sort of a change, so

[49:18] pretty low change right there.

[49:20] You know, I think something

[49:20] that's interesting and when we

[49:22] were talking to Justin about um

[49:26] This over the course is, as a

[49:28] legislator who's in the state

[49:30] and has been receiving a lot of

[49:31] the feedback from, you know,

[49:32] constituents and as I'm sure you

[49:34] have, and as I'm sure you guys

[49:34] have.

[49:38] It felt so astronomical, right?

[49:38] And to have somebody come in,

[49:40] um, multiple times and be like,

[49:42] no, you haven't done it in 4

[49:42] years. That's actually normal,

[49:44] you know what I mean? And now

[49:44] seeing that you guys were all

[49:46] kind of in that same range,

[49:48] Like, it felt, and, but that's

[49:50] where I think the communication

[49:50] really broke down is.

[49:54] It's, it's easy to go on social

[49:54] media or something and be like,

[49:56] 5%, they, you know, whatever,

[49:56] and it's like,

[49:58] Know that this was actually.

[50:02] Probably even predictable um

[50:04] that those would be the things

[50:06] that we should have had happen

[50:06] and, and just.

[50:08] Really communicating better to

[50:10] the public because I, I felt

[50:10] like it was just such an

[50:12] anomaly, um, and obviously there

[50:13] are anomalies, but.

[50:16] It, it's just interesting to see

[50:18] that, how, how there is a lot of

[50:18] commonality.

[50:20] Yeah, and, and to give you a

[50:22] little perspective on this. Um,

[50:24] I was a county appraiser in

[50:26] Kansas. We valued every single

[50:28] year, we would put out brand new

[50:30] values, and our appeal rate

[50:30] averaged around 2%.

[50:34] Per year at the informal level,

[50:36] And so, um, and, and then I've

[50:38] worked with jurisdictions in

[50:42] Texas, and their laws are, they

[50:44] kind of encourage appeals, the

[50:46] way their laws are written, and

[50:48] they actually see 35% appeal

[50:48] rates every single year.

[50:54] Um, and so, you know, to see 5%,

[50:56] I think that's very reasonable

[50:56] for 4 to 5 decades.

[51:04] All right, um, New Castle County

[51:06] responses to questions. So we

[51:06] asked some questions and these

[51:10] are kind of open ended, so they

[51:10] gave the answers and I didn't

[51:11] want to really

[51:14] You know, I could have summarize

[51:15] You know, I could have

[51:15] summarized them a little more, I

[51:16] guess, but I just sort of put

[51:18] what their answer was because I

[51:20] didn't want to misrepresent

[51:22] anything. Um, provide an

[51:24] overview of the administrative

[51:26] capacity and governance

[51:26] structure. Compare your prior

[51:28] assessment to the current uh

[51:32] status, given the transitions of

[51:34] administration, the current NCC

[51:36] team cannot provide details on

[51:38] the outset, but can share an

[51:40] overview on what has occurred

[51:40] from 2025 to present day.

[51:44] Below is the present day

[51:46] overview. So, uh, currently the

[51:48] assessment office is now led by

[51:50] the county assessor, which is a

[51:52] brand new position for the

[51:54] county as of 2026. I, I think

[51:56] that's a good move. Um, this

[51:58] position requires appropriate

[52:00] certifications, whereas the past

[52:02] head of the office did not have

[52:06] such a requirement. Uh, IAA

[52:06] would also be in support of

[52:08] that. Um, additionally, the

[52:10] county assessor's, uh, report to

[52:11] the chief financial.

[52:14] Officer of the county and is

[52:16] supported by the administrative

[52:18] staff of 4 that includes 3

[52:20] supervisors and an assessment

[52:20] project manager.

[52:22] And then uh.

[52:24] To ensure appropriate

[52:26] governance, the assessor's

[52:28] office and county in early fall

[52:30] of 2025, instituted weekly

[52:32] touch points that include the

[52:34] principals of each of the

[52:36] following offices, uh, or the

[52:38] representatives, so, um, they're

[52:40] having these meetings on a

[52:42] regular basis, which is always a

[52:43] good thing.

[52:46] All right, um,

[52:50] Providing, OK, um, providing an

[52:52] overview of the county and

[52:54] vendor roles, responsibilities,

[52:56] and mass appraisal, including

[52:58] county staff oversight, compare

[52:58] your prior assessment.

[53:02] Uh, to the outset of the current

[53:03] status.

[53:08] So, um, and this one again, um,

[53:10] you know, New Castle County has

[53:14] seen some, some turnover in, in

[53:16] administration staff and that

[53:16] kind of thing. So they're just

[53:18] doing it from their current

[53:20] perspective. Um, it's important

[53:22] to note that the county's role

[53:22] and responsibilities and mass

[53:24] appraisal are governed by the

[53:26] contractual arrangement entered

[53:28] with the vendor who's chosen,

[53:30] uh, to complete the mass

[53:32] appraisal, the county outlined

[53:32] the vendor requirements,

[53:34] standards, and expectations,

[53:35] outcomes.

[53:38] Results sought through a request

[53:40] for proposal, uh, which

[53:44] Included review by IAAO. So some

[53:46] of my predecessors, um, when you

[53:48] started this process, uh,

[53:50] Actually helped out with the RFP

[53:51] process.

[53:58] All right, um, continuing, um,

[54:00] additionally, county is in its

[54:02] RFP and we've already talked

[54:04] about some of this a little bit,

[54:06] County's currently in their RFP

[54:08] process, uh, prior to the

[54:10] reassessment appraisal process,

[54:12] the county assessment office

[54:12] rarely relied on third-party

[54:14] vendors to assist in the day to

[54:16] day running of the assessment

[54:18] office, but they did rely on a

[54:20] vendor to assist completing the

[54:22] 1983 mass uh reassessment.

[54:28] All right, state your appraisal

[54:29] methodology, quality control.

[54:34] Um, completed standards,

[54:34] benchmarks, tax roll review, and

[54:38] certification for prior

[54:38] assessments. Given the uh

[54:42] You know, they transitioned

[54:44] administration. Um, so they're,

[54:46] you know, assessment office is

[54:48] always running quality control,

[54:50] and, and that's what Newcastle

[54:52] is doing, so that's, that's what

[54:53] they should do.

[54:53] Um,

[54:56] Probably the most recent um and.

[54:58] OK, so.

[55:00] The county used the base year

[55:02] method of reassessment before,

[55:04] so they were kind of going back

[55:06] to 1983. So even if you build,

[55:08] let's say you built a new

[55:10] property, they would factor it

[55:14] back to 1983, which is sort of,

[55:14] I mean, that's your only option

[55:16] when, when that's what you're

[55:18] doing. I think it's a little odd

[55:19] to probably property owners when

[55:20] you're like, well, uh what is my

[55:22] value again, and how do you

[55:24] calculate it, but um that's your

[55:26] option when that's your base

[55:28] year. So, uh, specifically an

[55:29] assessor would

[55:30] Calculate a cost approach value

[55:34] from present uh present property

[55:34] characteristics data and trend

[55:38] it back to 1983 using commercial

[55:40] cost manual, um, used primarily

[55:42] to buy new construction.

[55:44] So they would, they would have a

[55:46] commercial cost manual for

[55:46] commercial properties, a

[55:48] residential cost manual for

[55:50] residential properties, and they

[55:52] would come up with that cost

[55:52] value and then factor it back to

[55:58] 1983.

[56:02] Alright, um, and then the market

[56:04] sales or income approaches to

[56:04] value may also have been used to

[56:06] derive the 1983 values. So,

[56:10] That's also trying to factor

[56:12] things back to 1983, I'm sure

[56:14] has been extremely challenging

[56:18] for the, for the county. Um, the

[56:18] Office of Finance certifies

[56:20] assessment role to the chief

[56:22] financial officer, who then

[56:24] certifies the total value of the

[56:26] property located in the county

[56:26] to the county council.

[56:28] The Board of assessment reviews,

[56:30] reviews the annual role and

[56:32] assessment methods used.

[56:36] So you can see they've got some

[56:38] quality control checks built

[56:38] into their process.

[56:42] What a purchase value were uh

[56:44] generated or utilized for each

[56:46] of the following property types,

[56:48] residential, uh, did they use

[56:50] sales or market cost income

[56:52] on commercial properties? Was it

[56:56] sales, um, costs or income. So

[56:58] just so everyone knows, because

[56:58] I know everyone's not an

[57:00] appraiser. There's 3 approaches

[57:02] to value when you, um, value

[57:04] real estate, and that is the

[57:06] cost approach, the sales

[57:08] approach, and the income

[57:08] approach. And, um, so.

[57:12] They, they utilize each of those

[57:14] approaches in the evaluation

[57:14] just for clarification.

[57:20] As per as per useA standards,

[57:22] which is the standards for

[57:24] appraisers, mass appraisals only

[57:26] use two of the three approaches

[57:28] depending on the property type.

[57:32] For example, income approach is

[57:32] not used for residential

[57:34] properties, though it is used in

[57:36] agricultural properties, just

[57:38] for an example, so not all three

[57:40] approaches were used, which

[57:42] definitely got us into trouble

[57:42] during the um

[57:44] There was the working group last

[57:46] year when we were talking about

[57:48] the Amazon Boxwood plant where

[57:50] the comparable property approach

[57:52] was not used but it probably

[57:52] shouldn't have been.

[57:54] So,

[57:56] on, in, in your

[58:00] You're right. Sorry, go ahead.

[58:04] So you're right on that. Um, so

[58:06] some of the, and getting a

[58:08] little more detailed on that

[58:08] residential property.

[58:12] Typically a single family home,

[58:14] you're not some people buy them

[58:16] to rent them, and so you could

[58:18] use an income approach, but

[58:20] yeah, most of the time you're

[58:22] going to use a a market approach

[58:24] or a sales approach and a, a

[58:26] cost approach. Those are the

[58:28] most common approaches to use on

[58:30] a residential property, and then

[58:32] on commercial property, um, you

[58:34] know, you do see sales approach

[58:35] use.

[58:38] Rarely, but it's, it's hard to

[58:38] do because you don't have a lot

[58:42] of sales generally and to do a

[58:44] mass appraisal and do some kind

[58:46] of regression analysis or a mass

[58:48] kind of evaluation model on

[58:50] sales. A lot of times you just

[58:51] don't have the sales data,

[58:52] enough sales of, of, say, an

[58:56] Amazon warehouse facility to

[58:56] come up with a mass appraisal

[59:00] model sales model, and so, yeah,

[59:02] a lot of times they'll use costs

[59:03] and income on those, and then

[59:04] they'll, they'll kind of verify

[59:05] it or check.

[59:06] With the sales, so.

[59:10] So is that being changed moving

[59:10] forward though? It's a federal

[59:11] guideline.

[59:14] So in other words, if there,

[59:16] it's a federal guideline for

[59:17] mass appraisals.

[59:18] Um, the problem is.

[59:24] If you were to contact an

[59:26] appraiser to appraise that

[59:28] Amazon plan. They would

[59:30] oftentimes use all three

[59:30] approaches for an individual

[59:32] appraisal, which would be pretty

[59:34] standard, but for a mass

[59:36] appraisal, the federal standard

[59:38] is to not use a sales approach.

[59:40] The biggest problem with that is

[59:42] the sales approach is the most

[59:43] reliable.

[59:44] Uh, indicator of value.

[59:48] And so when we're talking about

[59:50] individual properties like that

[59:50] property.

[59:52] becomes problematic when using a

[59:54] mass approach. Now, if you're

[59:56] asking me if for large

[59:58] properties like that, if you

[1:00:02] could bypass the mass appraisal

[1:00:04] standards that are federal and

[1:00:04] go and say, hey, this one in

[1:00:06] particular or with properties

[1:00:10] that go way up or way down in

[1:00:12] value to use a third approach to

[1:00:13] try and better assess.

[1:00:16] I don't know the answer. I don't

[1:00:18] know if you can do that by

[1:00:18] federal standards. It would be

[1:00:20] something that we could explore

[1:00:22] Justin might have a better

[1:00:22] understanding than that, than I

[1:00:24] do. Yeah, some something that's

[1:00:26] not part of this working group

[1:00:28] necessarily, but I would like to

[1:00:30] further explore with uh like New

[1:00:31] Castle County is like those

[1:00:32] commercial properties that are

[1:00:34] being um quality checked now. It

[1:00:36] would be nice to see like what

[1:00:38] ended up being the indicator?

[1:00:40] Was it like, oh yeah, we did

[1:00:42] these quality checks on these 50

[1:00:43] properties and it was most of

[1:00:43] the time.

[1:00:46] The approach or it was most of

[1:00:48] the time like what went wrong

[1:00:52] with those is to be able to, you

[1:00:52] know, move forward and not have

[1:00:54] that happen again for a lot of,

[1:00:55] them, I think, and it's

[1:00:56] something we've talked about for

[1:00:56] a lot of them, and again, I

[1:00:58] don't, I'm not, I don't wanna

[1:01:00] point fingers. The lack of

[1:01:02] permits is a big deal, um,

[1:01:02] because if you're taking the

[1:01:04] property through the, the New

[1:01:06] Castle County property card, and

[1:01:08] that, and that's what Tyler is

[1:01:08] using as the basis of the

[1:01:10] property and that New Castle

[1:01:12] County property card does not

[1:01:13] have the permits for a building

[1:01:13] on it.

[1:01:16] Then Tyler's going to assess it

[1:01:17] at land.

[1:01:20] And if it's assessive land, the

[1:01:20] value is going to be

[1:01:21] considerably lower.

[1:01:24] Um, there is an appeals process

[1:01:28] for getting the properties that

[1:01:30] are overassessed down to a

[1:01:32] proper assessment, but we didn't

[1:01:34] really have a process this time

[1:01:34] around for getting properties

[1:01:36] that were way under assessed

[1:01:36] into a fair assessment.

[1:01:40] Um, and situations like that,

[1:01:42] and, you know, when I was

[1:01:44] talking to appraisers, uh, they

[1:01:46] would provide examples of New

[1:01:46] Castle County, in particular,

[1:01:48] New CAT scanning, again, I'm

[1:01:49] not, not picking on, on you guys

[1:01:50] in particular, but.

[1:01:50] Where you have

[1:01:56] Only 2 of 3 existing buildings

[1:01:56] on the property that were

[1:01:57] assessed and things like that.

[1:01:58] Um,

[1:02:00] Doesn't matter which approach

[1:02:02] you take there, you're going to

[1:02:04] get a, a faulty value. Are you

[1:02:04] getting the permit data now?

[1:02:06] For

[1:02:08] From the cities, yes, we are.

[1:02:12] Mhm thank you. OK.

[1:02:14] Uh, yes, right. Given this

[1:02:16] mention of permanence, I've got

[1:02:16] a question relating to that.

[1:02:18] And

[1:02:18] and that is.

[1:02:22] To what extent would having the

[1:02:24] permit

[1:02:24] information.

[1:02:28] Provide the accurate information

[1:02:30] for who'sever doing the master

[1:02:31] reassessment for.

[1:02:34] Renovations within buildings and

[1:02:36] small things. So as I understand

[1:02:38] a permit that someone has to get

[1:02:40] to add a building to the

[1:02:42] property would be really useful

[1:02:44] information. But again, going

[1:02:46] back to the problem that

[1:02:46] apparently occurred in

[1:02:48] Wilmington for the Tyler report

[1:02:54] where some homes were renovated

[1:02:56] inside but not outside, so

[1:02:58] Tyler's people walking through

[1:02:58] couldn't see what happened.

[1:03:02] We're if the law is being

[1:03:02] followed, are permits required

[1:03:03] for small jobs?

[1:03:06] In houses that in residences

[1:03:07] that improve their value.

[1:03:10] Yeah every municipality and city

[1:03:11] has their own permitting.

[1:03:14] Process. So, um, City of

[1:03:16] Process. So, um, Sydney

[1:03:16] Wilmington, for example, has

[1:03:17] their own.

[1:03:20] And we rely on their permitting

[1:03:20] process. So, um,

[1:03:24] Now we're receiving every single

[1:03:25] permit that they.

[1:03:28] Approved or really we're looking

[1:03:30] for certificates of occupancy.

[1:03:30] That's the, that's the critical

[1:03:32] piece for us. But for maybe you

[1:03:34] don't know the answer, but for

[1:03:36] example, if I decided I wanted

[1:03:38] to renovate my kitchen, and I

[1:03:40] could spend a whole bunch of

[1:03:42] money on that, and it would

[1:03:42] increase the value of the house.

[1:03:44] Would,

[1:03:46] would I have in throughout the

[1:03:48] state what I, I have had to get

[1:03:50] a permit so I'd be permitted to

[1:03:52] do that, or could I just hire a

[1:03:54] contractor who could do that

[1:03:54] without getting a permit because

[1:03:55] you don't need a.

[1:03:58] Permit for that kind of internal

[1:03:58] work. I think it depends on the

[1:04:00] type of work being done to the

[1:04:02] kitchen. We're primarily looking

[1:04:04] at um gross square footage. So

[1:04:04] if you're enlarging your

[1:04:06] kitchen, that would have an

[1:04:08] obvious impact on the assessed

[1:04:08] value of your property since

[1:04:10] your property value is going up.

[1:04:12] If you're simply replacing

[1:04:14] cabinet for cabinet, it may not

[1:04:15] necessarily have a large impact

[1:04:16] or any at all on us. I asked

[1:04:18] because I'm thinking of my, I

[1:04:20] heard my neighbor who has a big

[1:04:22] house, but they spent $40,000

[1:04:23] renovating their kitchen.

[1:04:26] Didn't make it any bigger. They

[1:04:26] just made it way nicer.

[1:04:30] And I, I, you know, if you'd

[1:04:32] think that would have increased

[1:04:32] the value of a house by a lot.

[1:04:34] We don't. We don't go inside,

[1:04:36] correct.

[1:04:36] Yeah, it's not a true appraisal.

[1:04:38] It's an assessment. Yeah, yeah.

[1:04:40] let me, let me answer the

[1:04:42] question just a bit. So again

[1:04:44] it's, it's the difference

[1:04:44] between an appraisal and

[1:04:46] assessment, right? And it's a

[1:04:46] bit. So again it's, it's the

[1:04:47] difference between an appraisal

[1:04:48] and assessment, right? And it's

[1:04:48] the difference between a mass

[1:04:49] appraisal and an individual

[1:04:50] appraisal, an individual

[1:04:52] appraisal on the same house

[1:04:54] you're talking about, by

[1:04:56] necessity, I have to go examine

[1:04:56] the house and base the opinion

[1:04:57] of value on my.

[1:05:00] Personal inspection of the house

[1:05:02] on a mass appraisal, by

[1:05:04] definition, it's not gonna be

[1:05:06] anywhere near as accurate as

[1:05:06] what you're talking about

[1:05:08] because they're gonna take a

[1:05:10] block of houses and house at the

[1:05:12] beginning of the street, house

[1:05:12] at the end of the street are

[1:05:14] going to look exactly the same

[1:05:16] from a satellite, but unless

[1:05:18] we're talking about personal

[1:05:20] inspections going in, because

[1:05:22] the opposite is also true. A

[1:05:22] house could look fine on the

[1:05:24] outside and have no floorboards

[1:05:26] on the inside, and a mass

[1:05:27] appraisal is not going to know

[1:05:27] that.

[1:05:28] And unless we're talking about.

[1:05:32] Assessing each individual

[1:05:32] property with a personal

[1:05:36] inspection, we've got at least

[1:05:36] to some degree accept the

[1:05:37] limitations of.

[1:05:40] And what concerns me about that,

[1:05:42] and this may have been the

[1:05:44] problem that generated a lot of

[1:05:44] the noise from Wilmington is.

[1:05:48] You, you know, again, if let's

[1:05:50] take my block for example with

[1:05:51] the 8 houses on it.

[1:05:54] If my neighbor spent 40,000

[1:05:56] renovating or a developer came

[1:05:58] in and renovated the inside of

[1:05:58] the house and made it a lot

[1:06:00] nicer, and it's, and then sells

[1:06:02] it, so it's the only.

[1:06:04] House on the block.

[1:06:06] That sells.

[1:06:08] It's going to give a false.

[1:06:12] Impression of what houses in

[1:06:14] that neighborhood are worse, and

[1:06:16] I, and I'm thinking the, the

[1:06:18] process that we suggest has to

[1:06:20] deal with that. Well, so that

[1:06:20] people won't in effect get hurt

[1:06:21] because

[1:06:24] But but the the opposite is also

[1:06:26] true though. The opposite is

[1:06:28] also true. If that same house,

[1:06:30] that same town home block, for

[1:06:32] example, one house was sold as a

[1:06:34] project home, a home that was

[1:06:36] heavily dilapidated, and it's

[1:06:38] the only one in that town home

[1:06:40] block that's sold, then the

[1:06:40] other houses assessments are

[1:06:42] going to be lower as a result of

[1:06:46] cure, um, it is a limitation of

[1:06:48] a massive risk. Yeah, and, and

[1:06:48] what I'm saying is if, if you're

[1:06:50] concerned about fairness.

[1:06:52] That we need to figure out some

[1:06:54] way that

[1:06:56] The people who live on the block

[1:07:00] where there's one project house

[1:07:00] that got sold are being

[1:07:04] Given lower assessed values than

[1:07:06] they should,

[1:07:06] and the people who live in my

[1:07:08] hypothetical neighbor's block,

[1:07:12] getting too much, that's, yeah,

[1:07:14] I think the, the process we

[1:07:16] recommend for legislation needs

[1:07:18] to figure out a way to deal with

[1:07:20] those two problems. One of the

[1:07:22] ways that has happened is

[1:07:24] through the appeals process

[1:07:24] whenever one of my constituents

[1:07:25] has contacted me.

[1:07:28] saying, hey, look, my house was

[1:07:30] assessed at this, it should be

[1:07:32] lower. I've recommended an

[1:07:33] appraisal

[1:07:34] and I have an appraisal and I

[1:07:36] have to disclose that when I

[1:07:38] talk about stitchitus, of

[1:07:38] course, but I'd recommend an

[1:07:40] appraisal because the appraisal

[1:07:41] will go in and say, oh, you

[1:07:42] don't have granite countertops,

[1:07:42] you know, you don't have this,

[1:07:44] you don't have that through

[1:07:45] personal inspection, something

[1:07:45] that.

[1:07:46] Tyler would have a difficult

[1:07:47] time though.

[1:07:48] So,

[1:07:54] I

[1:07:58] Years and years ago implemented

[1:08:00] the city of Wilmington's

[1:08:02] permitting and code system in

[1:08:04] the city of Wilmington as a

[1:08:06] contractor at Diamond

[1:08:06] Technologies, which, which is my

[1:08:08] other job. I designed the

[1:08:10] certificate of occupancy, fun

[1:08:10] fact, um.

[1:08:14] And so there are permits that

[1:08:14] get installed. So if you're

[1:08:16] going to do a big kitchen

[1:08:18] renovation and you have

[1:08:18] electrical work and you have

[1:08:20] maybe the gas line or something

[1:08:21] like that, yes, they do need a

[1:08:22] permit for that. So if

[1:08:22] somebody's just going to go and

[1:08:24] install carpeting or maybe do a

[1:08:26] thing, but if you have like a

[1:08:28] contractor, so in that case, if

[1:08:28] you have a contractor coming

[1:08:29] out, they're going to do that.

[1:08:32] That come and get a permit. What

[1:08:34] I don't recall because it was

[1:08:36] literally like 2008 or something

[1:08:38] like that, 2007 something, um.

[1:08:40] What I don't know is if they do

[1:08:42] that, if they just get a

[1:08:44] complete permit or if there's a,

[1:08:46] I'll find out. Or if they do it

[1:08:46] or if they do another

[1:08:48] certificate of occupancy. I

[1:08:50] would hope though that if

[1:08:50] they're doing the permit, that

[1:08:52] is a data piece because now

[1:08:54] while the city of Wilmington is

[1:08:56] not going to tell you what the

[1:08:58] new assessed value of that

[1:08:58] property is based on that new

[1:09:02] renovated kitchen. They do have

[1:09:02] on the permit application how

[1:09:06] much the contractor was telling

[1:09:08] them that work is. So it does at

[1:09:09] least give them and thank you.

[1:09:10] because it's been a long time

[1:09:14] since I've done this, but, um,

[1:09:18] so they do have that permit data

[1:09:20] as well. New carpeting isn't

[1:09:22] necessarily going to change the

[1:09:22] value of somebody's home. A

[1:09:24] $40,000 20,000 dollars kitchen

[1:09:25] renovation will.

[1:09:28] So I guess the question is, and,

[1:09:30] and this might be for Tyler or

[1:09:32] maybe Justin can answer this is

[1:09:32] if they have a permit.

[1:09:34] Given to the counties that says

[1:09:38] a $40,000 kitchen renovation was

[1:09:38] done.

[1:09:42] For this property, does that

[1:09:44] data point, should that data

[1:09:44] point get loaded in and affect

[1:09:46] the model and how that valuation

[1:09:47] comes out for that property.

[1:09:52] The information, sorry, go

[1:09:52] ahead. Go ahead. No, I want,

[1:09:54] yeah, I, I, you say yes and then

[1:09:56] you say what you were going to

[1:09:56] say, and then we'll go to Susan.

[1:09:57] Go ahead, Justin.

[1:09:58] OK.

[1:10:00] Yeah, I mean, uh, the county

[1:10:02] should be keeping track of that

[1:10:04] information. It's not gonna be

[1:10:06] like a one for one if they spend

[1:10:08] $40,000 on a kitchen renovation

[1:10:09] doesn't mean that.

[1:10:10] You know, it's going to increase

[1:10:12] their value by 40,000 or

[1:10:14] whatever, so, um, they're going

[1:10:16] to have to make, make some sort

[1:10:18] of adjustment in the chemo

[1:10:18] system to affect the value,

[1:10:20] though typically on something

[1:10:21] like that, I would think.

[1:10:24] So are you loading that

[1:10:24] information into the camera

[1:10:25] system?

[1:10:28] We learn stuff like if you

[1:10:28] finish your basement and it was

[1:10:30] an unfinished basement.

[1:10:32] Because that is something that

[1:10:33] would

[1:10:34] Changes the square footage

[1:10:36] changes how you even value that

[1:10:37] basement.

[1:10:38] It was based and it was valued

[1:10:40] as an unfinished basement

[1:10:40] instead at a much lower rate.

[1:10:42] Once you finish it, it's a

[1:10:44] living area now, and that

[1:10:46] changes that. But if you go and

[1:10:48] say only people that get a

[1:10:48] permits gonna get their

[1:10:50] kitchens uh jacked up. What

[1:10:52] about all the other houses in

[1:10:54] that development on the mass

[1:10:54] appraisal that we never went

[1:10:56] inside and sold their kitchen.

[1:10:58] How are we going to defend that?

[1:10:58] I would appeal that if I was the

[1:11:00] constituent knowing what I know

[1:11:02] now, I would come say, how can

[1:11:02] you do that to me if you're not

[1:11:03] gonna.

[1:11:06] Uh, appraise everybody else's

[1:11:08] property versus assets. Now

[1:11:10] we're talking a lot more money.

[1:11:10] Pardon me? Now we're talking a

[1:11:12] lot more money. Yes.

[1:11:16] Staffing, I would expect too

[1:11:16] just when you're when you're

[1:11:18] updating your home, so to the,

[1:11:20] the point they made earlier,

[1:11:22] which is if you've got um you're

[1:11:23] renovating your kitchen and

[1:11:24] you're just putting new cabinets

[1:11:26] in, not just it's expensive,

[1:11:26] right? But you're doing that

[1:11:28] versus you're putting an

[1:11:30] addition on the back or you're

[1:11:30] adding a deck or something with

[1:11:32] actual square footage, it's like

[1:11:34] the volume of those permits that

[1:11:36] are gonna start coming through

[1:11:36] for every time somebody replaces

[1:11:38] the toilet or every time someone

[1:11:40] puts in a new vanity or every

[1:11:42] time you put in like a new set

[1:11:43] of cabinets.

[1:11:46] You know, again, different than

[1:11:46] like I'm moving the electric and

[1:11:48] the gas and something might blow

[1:11:50] up the house or tap into your

[1:11:50] system or whatever it is. I

[1:11:51] don't, I don't know how it

[1:11:52] works. I'm an expert, but I've

[1:11:54] had some stuff done to my home,

[1:11:54] and I, you know, I live in a

[1:11:55] very old neighborhood, um.

[1:11:58] Where truly like everyone who

[1:12:00] lives in the house has done

[1:12:00] something different.

[1:12:02] Maybe you all started out as

[1:12:02] like a cookie cutter shape, but

[1:12:04] like by the time it's like 80

[1:12:06] years old, they're all different

[1:12:06] on the inside, but I would, I

[1:12:08] would think as, as someone who

[1:12:10] represents just a general

[1:12:12] administrative office like when

[1:12:14] you do something like that, if

[1:12:14] that's a recommendation that's

[1:12:16] to come, I would, I would

[1:12:18] certainly, uh, wonder what the

[1:12:20] volume of that is and what the

[1:12:24] staffing would look like on the

[1:12:26] other side to properly manage

[1:12:28] that. Plus, the counties and the

[1:12:30] cities, the municipalities are.

[1:12:32] Not universal in their code that

[1:12:34] requires a building permit. So

[1:12:36] you could be in one area that

[1:12:38] doesn't require that and another

[1:12:40] area that does. So and I I guess

[1:12:40] I'm not thinking of a people

[1:12:42] value or people effort. I'm

[1:12:43] thinking of it just.

[1:12:46] Being a data point within the

[1:12:46] model that generates.

[1:12:52] The, the valuation, but David, I

[1:12:53] feel like you want to say

[1:12:53] something.

[1:12:54] Sorry, my brain is spinning

[1:12:56] right now. Um, yeah, it, it's

[1:13:00] If we want this to be 110%

[1:13:00] correct.

[1:13:04] We have to throw 100s of people

[1:13:04] and millions of dollars at it,

[1:13:06] And

[1:13:08] Exactly, it, it almost recall

[1:13:10] requires knocking on every door,

[1:13:12] walking through every property,

[1:13:12] going through every floor,

[1:13:14] counting every piece of crown

[1:13:18] molding, carpets, new kitchen

[1:13:18] cabinets. What, what's the,

[1:13:20] what's the level where we say

[1:13:20] that's enough?

[1:13:22] And where is the level where,

[1:13:24] like, um, Susan said, we have an

[1:13:26] appeal process, or I'm sorry,

[1:13:28] Representative Steve Steven so

[1:13:30] we have an appeal process for

[1:13:32] all this. So if there's one

[1:13:32] outlier on a block or a couple

[1:13:34] of outliers in the neighborhood,

[1:13:36] they can appeal and they can go

[1:13:38] through the process to have that

[1:13:40] looked at individually, but for

[1:13:42] us to go through

[1:13:44] um an individual appraisal

[1:13:46] versus a mass assessment.

[1:13:48] It is monumentally costly and,

[1:13:49] and.

[1:13:52] I agree. I just don't understand

[1:13:54] why you have to. It's just data.

[1:13:54] I don't understand why the

[1:13:56] system can't do it. Like I'm

[1:13:58] just, my mind is like, why can't

[1:14:00] the technology do it for you?

[1:14:02] It's like it's still, I'm sorry,

[1:14:06] if you had a $40,000 permit that

[1:14:06] only has an appraised value of

[1:14:08] 10,000 because you decided to

[1:14:09] get

[1:14:12] The top notch or a contractor

[1:14:12] that costs a lot more, but yet

[1:14:14] the appraised value is only

[1:14:14] going to.

[1:14:16] Make it 10, you can't just do it

[1:14:18] on your desktop. How would you

[1:14:20] know that that, you know, just

[1:14:22] from that uh, that's my opinion.

[1:14:24] yeah, and, and think, hey, what

[1:14:24] if, what if people do it on

[1:14:26] their own? I mean, I don't need

[1:14:28] necessarily a permit to do new

[1:14:30] cabinets on my house, but that

[1:14:30] could have an effect on the

[1:14:31] appraised value.

[1:14:36] Um, if I'm a handy person, which

[1:14:36] believe me I'm not, but if I was

[1:14:38] a handy person, I could do all

[1:14:40] sorts of work in my house that I

[1:14:42] wouldn't necessarily need a

[1:14:42] permit for.

[1:14:46] Um, and by the way, um, each

[1:14:48] appraisal, for me to appraise a

[1:14:48] single family house.

[1:14:52] is roughly around 8 hours of

[1:14:54] work, 8 to 10 hours of work for

[1:14:56] just one approach per house.

[1:14:58] Multiply that by

[1:15:00] You know, New Castle County,

[1:15:02] we're looking at 175,000

[1:15:04] multiply that by the man hours

[1:15:05] you need.

[1:15:05] Who?

[1:15:08] That's a lot of money.

[1:15:10] I, I, I think, I think what you

[1:15:12] have to do, unfortunately I

[1:15:14] think we have to is obviously

[1:15:16] the appeals process for houses

[1:15:18] that are, are assessed too high,

[1:15:20] some sort of process for

[1:15:22] properties that are assessed too

[1:15:24] low, and then I honestly think

[1:15:26] the only way to do this is just

[1:15:27] to accept the limitations of a

[1:15:27] mass appraisal.

[1:15:28] Amen.

[1:15:32] I guess unfortunately agree with

[1:15:33] I guess unfortunately I agree

[1:15:33] with that,

[1:15:34] Rebecca and then Justin, but one

[1:15:36] of the things we keep talking

[1:15:36] about is like the gift within

[1:15:38] reason, right? There's a

[1:15:38] reasonable range, and I don't

[1:15:40] know what the industry standard

[1:15:42] is for a reasonable range, but

[1:15:44] it's like if you're not perfect,

[1:15:44] you're at like low or high or

[1:15:46] whatever else like is that 5%,

[1:15:48] 10%, like what, what is there,

[1:15:50] is there a definition of what a

[1:15:52] reasonable range is. Uh.

[1:15:56] There is a definition, just

[1:15:58] correct me if I'm wrong here,

[1:16:00] there is a definition for what

[1:16:02] is kind of an within reason for

[1:16:04] a mass appraisal in a property,

[1:16:06] but I don't think it's for

[1:16:08] property though. I think it's

[1:16:10] for the countywide or the

[1:16:12] assessed area wide.

[1:16:16] Um, so to your point, I think

[1:16:16] where you need to

[1:16:20] Where you, where this would need

[1:16:22] to fall was in the quality check

[1:16:24] part of it that if you do have a

[1:16:26] bunch of properties that go up

[1:16:28] in value or down in value of

[1:16:30] more than 1%, there needs to be

[1:16:32] a check at the county level as

[1:16:34] to why

[1:16:36] they went up and down and was

[1:16:38] there an addition to the right,

[1:16:38] Yeah, exactly. I mean, a lot of

[1:16:40] the calls I got in Kent County

[1:16:42] were from people who said, oh my

[1:16:44] gosh, my assessment tripled. OK,

[1:16:46] well let's go back. How long

[1:16:46] have you had your house? I

[1:16:47] bought my house in 19.

[1:16:48] OK, well, let's start there.

[1:16:48] That's.

[1:16:52] Yes, the assessment is going to

[1:16:52] go up. Have you done anything?

[1:16:54] Yes, I put up a pole barn and a

[1:16:56] pool with no permits and a

[1:16:56] fence. Well,

[1:16:58] yeah, I got bad news for you.

[1:16:59] Um,

[1:17:02] But and but the county needs to

[1:17:06] be able to meet, and I don't

[1:17:06] know if this is a state thing or

[1:17:08] a county and I really don't need

[1:17:10] to be able to say, OK, the

[1:17:12] Amazon plant went down in value

[1:17:14] 300%, 200%.

[1:17:18] Why and where is the quality

[1:17:18] control check there this

[1:17:20] property here

[1:17:20] went down.

[1:17:26] 60%. 0, because it should have 3

[1:17:28] warehouses, only 2 were

[1:17:28] assessed, things like that that

[1:17:30] needs to be a big part of.

[1:17:32] What we're doing now we did do

[1:17:34] some things around that this

[1:17:35] previous year.

[1:17:38] But again, it's one of the

[1:17:38] limitations what we're talking

[1:17:39] about.

[1:17:42] I, I think Sussex, I believe you

[1:17:44] guys brought into the Republican

[1:17:45] House caucus.

[1:17:48] Some information that showed

[1:17:49] like the top.

[1:17:54] I think it was 50 properties was

[1:17:54] 50 properties which what

[1:17:56] what how much they went up pray

[1:17:58] pray wise, but not only that, it

[1:18:00] was the property type and who

[1:18:02] owned them and and like 47 of

[1:18:06] the top 50 were properties that

[1:18:08] were on the beach, owned by an

[1:18:10] out of state entity, right? I'm

[1:18:11] not saying we shouldn't care,

[1:18:11] but

[1:18:14] We cared a lot less, right, than

[1:18:18] it would be if it was grandma or

[1:18:20] grandpa's farm, right? Um, but

[1:18:22] there still needs to be a

[1:18:24] quality control and those

[1:18:26] properties went up 200, 300%,

[1:18:28] but probably should have, you

[1:18:30] know, they were in England bay

[1:18:32] properties that in 1980 you

[1:18:32] could have bought for.

[1:18:36] $20,000 an hour should be

[1:18:38] assessed at 500. OK, I'm going

[1:18:38] to turn it back over to Justin

[1:18:40] because he I think he's like,

[1:18:40] Cindy, we've got slides.

[1:18:44] Yeah, I'm about halfway through

[1:18:44] the slides,

[1:18:46] so

[1:18:50] 18 in, so just, um, and, and I

[1:18:52] think these are all good

[1:18:54] conversations, so, um, I do like

[1:18:56] this. Uh, and just my two cents

[1:18:58] on the permits. Um, I think

[1:19:00] they're a good indicator that an

[1:19:00] assessor should take a look

[1:19:04] potentially at the property, but

[1:19:04] I don't know that the state

[1:19:06] wants to get into legislating

[1:19:08] like specifically how an

[1:19:09] appraiser does.

[1:19:12] Does some of their job anyway,

[1:19:16] just because you get too nuanced

[1:19:18] and it's um it needs to be kind

[1:19:20] of left up to them, because

[1:19:20] they, they're sitting there

[1:19:22] studying the market all day, so,

[1:19:24] can I clarify on the record that

[1:19:26] yeah, I would not be in favor of

[1:19:27] all that

[1:19:28] of getting too much scrutiny.

[1:19:30] No, I agree. And, and now all

[1:19:32] the counties like you a lot,

[1:19:32] Justin.

[1:19:34] They're all they're all smiling

[1:19:36] like I like grinning ear to ear.

[1:19:40] No, not. That's why we want to

[1:19:42] have a conversation with off the

[1:19:44] table. We're good, we're good.

[1:19:46] OK. Yeah, OK, so, um, New Castle

[1:19:48] County, identify challenges,

[1:19:50] lessons learned, and issues for

[1:19:52] the working group. So this was

[1:19:56] really good. Um, so a, a large

[1:19:56] share of non-residential

[1:19:58] property questionnaires were

[1:20:00] never returned during the

[1:20:00] reassessment, limiting the

[1:20:04] accuracy of data collection, uh,

[1:20:06] establishing a more effective

[1:20:06] process to ensure full

[1:20:07] participation would improve.

[1:20:10] Clients, uh, reducing the

[1:20:14] volume, subsequent appeals and

[1:20:14] make the overall assessment

[1:20:18] workflow efficient, um, more

[1:20:18] efficient for all parties. So,

[1:20:20] one thing, you know, we talked

[1:20:22] about just a minute ago, um, you

[1:20:26] know, permits and appeals and

[1:20:28] that kind of thing, but you can

[1:20:30] also send out questionnaires or

[1:20:30] you can encourage people to get

[1:20:32] on your county's assessment

[1:20:34] website and say, hey, you know,

[1:20:36] if a, if a change has been made

[1:20:36] to your property, let us know.

[1:20:37] We can make that.

[1:20:40] Change before it it gets to the

[1:20:42] evaluation notice, you know,

[1:20:44] part, and before it gets to

[1:20:46] appeals, let's get it right

[1:20:48] ahead of time, um, which can be,

[1:20:50] it's, it's a lot better for

[1:20:52] everyone, really. Um, so limited

[1:20:54] availability of uh reliable

[1:20:56] sales data, often due to

[1:20:58] properties being recorded with a

[1:21:02] nominal value of $10. Sale

[1:21:02] prices slow the, uh,

[1:21:04] reassessment process and

[1:21:06] restricts appellant's ability to

[1:21:07] obtain credible information to

[1:21:07] support their.

[1:21:10] So this is a really good point.

[1:21:12] Um, a lot of states require a

[1:21:14] sales validation questionnaire

[1:21:16] with the actual sales amount on

[1:21:18] it, and there's like a fine if

[1:21:20] they, if they're, you know, if

[1:21:22] they put $10 on there and it

[1:21:24] really sold for a million

[1:21:26] Um, I've seen states do that,

[1:21:28] that can be a way to kind of

[1:21:30] ensure that the counties

[1:21:30] actually get good data so they

[1:21:32] can come up with equitable

[1:21:34] values and property owners,

[1:21:36] realtors, um, fee appraisers can

[1:21:37] all have that data.

[1:21:40] than 2, when they go to try to

[1:21:41] value a property.

[1:21:44] So at the end though from the

[1:21:45] RTT cost.

[1:21:48] That's, you can still

[1:21:48] extrapolate.

[1:21:52] It's, there's too many outliers

[1:21:52] to make it accurate. Yeah, I

[1:21:54] mean, not arm's length

[1:21:56] transactions. I understand that.

[1:21:58] Yeah, it's, it's, and the

[1:21:58] recorder need system is not.

[1:22:02] Uh, pair up with the, on the

[1:22:04] county side for assessment. So

[1:22:06] this has been, uh, this was a

[1:22:08] big challenge for us, especially

[1:22:08] for our folks going through

[1:22:10] appeals. Many of them were

[1:22:11] sending in, uh,

[1:22:14] Appeals with, with no, with no

[1:22:16] comps, uh, no credible data, and

[1:22:18] they, and their biggest

[1:22:18] complaint was, I went to the

[1:22:20] county site and couldn't find

[1:22:22] any sales in my area that were

[1:22:23] disclosed for.

[1:22:24] Other than something other than

[1:22:25] $10.

[1:22:28] So it puts an additional cost on

[1:22:30] our um appellants.

[1:22:32] To go through something where

[1:22:32] they shouldn't really have to

[1:22:34] have a cost coming out of their

[1:22:36] pocket to go through the appeal

[1:22:38] process. So, it's, it's a simple

[1:22:40] process. Having the $10 limit

[1:22:42] has been a restriction and also

[1:22:44] when the RFP goes out.

[1:22:46] The bidders are looking at our

[1:22:48] ability, their ability to pull

[1:22:48] that and going through

[1:22:50] additional resources.

[1:22:54] Adds to the cost of the

[1:22:56] reassessment. Also, one thing

[1:22:56] with those sales validation

[1:22:58] questionnaires, you can ask

[1:23:00] qualifying questions too, like,

[1:23:02] you know, was any personal

[1:23:04] property included with this

[1:23:06] transaction? Was there a

[1:23:06] business sold, you know,

[1:23:08] especially when you're looking

[1:23:08] at uh commercial real estate,

[1:23:10] you know, was a business

[1:23:12] included with the sale price?

[1:23:14] Um, was there any other, you

[1:23:16] know, were related parties, uh,

[1:23:18] involved, you know, was it a

[1:23:20] sale between a a father and son

[1:23:22] or something like that. So, you

[1:23:23] know, having that information.

[1:23:26] for the assessor trying to

[1:23:28] validate sales. It can be a huge

[1:23:29] tool, and it, it really helps

[1:23:32] speed up the process of uh of

[1:23:33] verifying sales data.

[1:23:38] All right, um, so a limited pool

[1:23:38] of certified assessors is

[1:23:40] available to carry out the

[1:23:42] specialized work required by the

[1:23:44] county assessor's Office as well

[1:23:46] as by private sector entities.

[1:23:48] It takes a significant amount of

[1:23:50] time to recruit, hire and train

[1:23:50] personnel to perform the

[1:23:52] assessor's function. So I've

[1:23:54] been there, done that. Um, it,

[1:23:58] it literally takes years to get

[1:24:00] people up to speed. You've got

[1:24:00] to send them to training.

[1:24:02] They've got to get educated.

[1:24:04] They've got to learn uh internal

[1:24:05] process.

[1:24:06] Um,

[1:24:08] they have to get the experience

[1:24:09] and, and it really takes them

[1:24:10] years to get the experience to

[1:24:12] fulfill some of these, uh, roles

[1:24:14] and responsibilities. And so I

[1:24:16] think the next, you know, the

[1:24:18] next assessment's gonna get

[1:24:20] easier, and if you've got a

[1:24:20] regular schedule of assessments,

[1:24:22] It makes it easier for the

[1:24:24] counties to plan and hire

[1:24:26] accordingly and train

[1:24:28] accordingly. So, I think you'll

[1:24:29] see some improvements there, I

[1:24:29] would hope.

[1:24:32] Um, the assessment process is

[1:24:34] costly for all parties,

[1:24:36] establishing a state funding

[1:24:38] source to support reassessment

[1:24:40] on a five-year cycle would help

[1:24:42] reduce the burden on taxpayers.

[1:24:44] Each appeal defense cost New

[1:24:44] Castle County thousands of

[1:24:46] dollars, expenses that

[1:24:48] ultimately must be covered

[1:24:50] through property tax revenues,

[1:24:52] and then it's continued. Um, the

[1:24:54] county is in the process of

[1:24:56] preparing to release RFP. We've

[1:24:57] already talked about that a

[1:24:58] little bit, um.

[1:25:02] So some of the results could

[1:25:02] impact that process and then

[1:25:03] continued.

[1:25:04] Uh,

[1:25:08] municipalities in Delaware have

[1:25:10] the opportunity to adopt county

[1:25:12] property assessment for local

[1:25:16] tax purposes and must make this

[1:25:18] decision yearly. Even so, under

[1:25:18] the Boris rules, uh.

[1:25:22] Municipalities which elect to

[1:25:24] use the county property

[1:25:26] assessment list may appear and

[1:25:28] be heard in defense of the

[1:25:30] appellant at a formal hearing of

[1:25:32] the Bora. In other words, as

[1:25:32] part of the appeal process,

[1:25:34] municipalities may with their

[1:25:38] county assessment office consent

[1:25:40] to be involved in defending the

[1:25:40] current assessment value of the

[1:25:42] parcel that is under appeal

[1:25:44] because the municipalities do

[1:25:46] not otherwise participate in the

[1:25:48] assessment of property, this

[1:25:49] dynamic of municipalities.

[1:25:52] Sharing the county's assessed

[1:25:54] values adds additional

[1:25:56] complexity to the reassessment

[1:25:58] process, so they're just saying,

[1:25:58] you know, there's more, more

[1:26:00] chefs in the kitchen, I guess,

[1:26:02] and it's make it can complicate

[1:26:03] things a little bit.

[1:26:04] Um.

[1:26:08] Any additional information you'd

[1:26:08] like, uh, for the working group

[1:26:10] to know, um, so.

[1:26:14] Newcastle wanted to point out

[1:26:16] that on November 26, 2008, a

[1:26:18] committee formed by the 144th

[1:26:20] General Assembly issued its

[1:26:22] final report, the 144th General

[1:26:26] Assembly sought recommendations

[1:26:26] to provide a mechanism for fair

[1:26:28] and equitable reassessments of

[1:26:30] all real property within the

[1:26:32] state. The report was delivered

[1:26:34] to then Governor, uh, Minor and

[1:26:36] the members of the 144th General

[1:26:38] Assembly. The primary

[1:26:38] recommendation was the

[1:26:40] development of the state RFP to

[1:26:41] establish a single.

[1:26:44] Statewide real property database

[1:26:46] system to be administered by the

[1:26:48] state of Delaware, which is

[1:26:48] supported by New Castle County.

[1:26:50] These recommendations within

[1:26:52] this report should be revisited.

[1:26:56] So, um, this is something that I

[1:26:56] think would be a great idea is

[1:26:58] having a statewide database. It

[1:27:00] would help the counties out a

[1:27:01] lot, especially on, you know,

[1:27:02] you've got a, say, Amazon

[1:27:04] warehouse or any, any warehouse,

[1:27:06] it doesn't really matter. And it

[1:27:06] might be that one county doesn't

[1:27:08] have a lot of sales of them, but

[1:27:10] the next county does. If they're

[1:27:11] sort of can share.

[1:27:14] Share some of this data, it can

[1:27:16] help a lot. Um, also, if there's

[1:27:18] a, a central database, the

[1:27:20] legislature's got questions and

[1:27:22] needs data, you know, hopefully

[1:27:24] that could be accessed and, and

[1:27:25] data could be provided.

[1:27:28] You know, quicker, cleaner, that

[1:27:30] kind of thing. Everything would

[1:27:32] be in a, in a similar format,

[1:27:34] hopefully, um,

[1:27:36] to kind of expedite some

[1:27:36] processes.

[1:27:40] Um, in addition, strengthening

[1:27:41] assessment authority for

[1:27:42] accurate evaluations. Continue

[1:27:44] to allow Newcastle to have

[1:27:46] enforceable subpoena authority

[1:27:48] to obtain financial information

[1:27:48] needed to perform income

[1:27:50] approach valuations for

[1:27:52] commercial and non-residential

[1:27:54] properties. Uh, current

[1:27:56] authority has expiration date,

[1:27:58] but could be helpful for the

[1:27:58] next reassessment.

[1:28:00] Um, and I think these are all

[1:28:02] things that, you know, maybe

[1:28:04] this, this group should think

[1:28:06] about, you know, as we go

[1:28:06] through all the county

[1:28:08] recommendations, uh, defined

[1:28:09] Um, and I think these are all

[1:28:09] things that, you know, maybe

[1:28:10] this, this group should think

[1:28:10] about, you know, as we go

[1:28:11] through all the county

[1:28:11] recommendations, uh, define

[1:28:12] error consistently across

[1:28:14] relevant statutes to reduce

[1:28:16] ambiguity and allow timely

[1:28:18] correction of assessed values

[1:28:20] continued align, uh, statutory

[1:28:22] language across counties to

[1:28:24] ensure uniform assessment

[1:28:26] practices statewide.

[1:28:28] Required the state's Department

[1:28:30] of Finance to produce statewide

[1:28:32] reassessment related contracts

[1:28:34] with a single approved vendor,

[1:28:36] reducing redundant county level

[1:28:38] procurement time and ensuring

[1:28:40] statewide consistency, um.

[1:28:42] Which that could be a good

[1:28:44] option. Uh, consider

[1:28:46] establishing a state tax court

[1:28:48] to centralize and expedite

[1:28:48] tax-related, uh,

[1:28:52] Litigation, improving statewide

[1:28:52] efficiency. That's something

[1:28:58] I've seen in other states.

[1:29:02] Click to the next one, sorry.

[1:29:06] All right. Um, clarification on

[1:29:08] FOIA requirements in certain

[1:29:10] public meetings, going all

[1:29:12] virtual, if we can get to a

[1:29:12] point where a referee hearings

[1:29:16] can be held 100% virtually and

[1:29:18] not have to have someone in

[1:29:18] person and

[1:29:22] Anchor location, that would make

[1:29:22] things much easier logistically

[1:29:24] moving forward. Sounds like.

[1:29:26] A potential cost savings there

[1:29:27] also.

[1:29:30] All right, um, modernize appeal

[1:29:32] classification, administration,

[1:29:34] adjustment process. So, um,

[1:29:38] Clarify the Superior Court

[1:29:40] appeals standard to eliminate

[1:29:40] inconsistent judicial

[1:29:42] interpretation and streamlined

[1:29:43] appeal review.

[1:29:44] Uh,

[1:29:48] explicitly authorized limited

[1:29:48] administration adjustments to

[1:29:52] assessment roles outside formal

[1:29:54] appeals under defined

[1:29:54] conditions, so counties can

[1:29:56] correct systematic anomalies

[1:29:57] more efficiently.

[1:30:00] Yeah, continue on this, uh,

[1:30:02] update and define

[1:30:04] non-residential property

[1:30:08] classifications, so operational

[1:30:08] impacts can be managed with

[1:30:10] adequate lead time.

[1:30:14] There could be conflicts if

[1:30:16] changes are made to tax code

[1:30:18] that do not comport with IAAO

[1:30:20] standards, enhanced transparency

[1:30:22] and modernization in real estate

[1:30:24] transactions require every real

[1:30:24] estate transaction to be

[1:30:26] recorded with actual purchase

[1:30:28] amounts reflected in the deed

[1:30:32] record throughout the appeal

[1:30:34] process. It was a, a consistent

[1:30:36] complaint for propellants that

[1:30:38] it was difficult to find

[1:30:40] comparable sales when deeds are

[1:30:40] reflected or reflecting.

[1:30:44] Dollar sale amount, uh, in

[1:30:46] addition, extra work was

[1:30:46] required by Tyler to pull sales

[1:30:48] data using other means during

[1:30:50] the reassessment period itself.

[1:30:58] All right, New Castle County,

[1:31:02] what did I miss on, uh, on that

[1:31:02] information? Did I miss

[1:31:03] anything?

[1:31:04] You'll get A plus.

[1:31:06] OK. Thank you.

[1:31:06] OK.

[1:31:12] All right, uh, Sussex County's

[1:31:14] responses to questions. So

[1:31:14] provide an overview of

[1:31:18] administrative capacity, um, and

[1:31:22] governance structure and the

[1:31:24] assessment division operated

[1:31:24] independently prior to

[1:31:25] reassessment. During the

[1:31:26] reassessment, there was more

[1:31:28] involvement by, uh, finance

[1:31:30] administration to help with

[1:31:32] communication and contract

[1:31:32] oversight, which makes a lot of

[1:31:34] sense since the assessment

[1:31:36] department hadn't been, um,

[1:31:38] You know, hadn't had a big

[1:31:38] reassessment and so.

[1:31:40] Administration would be good.

[1:31:42] Good to help with that.

[1:31:44] Uh, provide an overview of

[1:31:46] county and vendor roles,

[1:31:46] responsibilities, and mass

[1:31:48] appraisal, including county

[1:31:50] staff oversight, compare your

[1:31:52] prior assessment to the outside

[1:31:54] or outset of the current status.

[1:31:58] So Sussex hired Tyler Technology

[1:32:00] to the entire reassessment

[1:32:00] project, which included data

[1:32:02] entry, data verification, data

[1:32:04] mailers, neighborhood

[1:32:06] delineation, uh, appraisal

[1:32:08] services, including developing a

[1:32:10] residential improvement cost

[1:32:12] table and index, commercial and

[1:32:13] industrial.

[1:32:14] evaluation, market analysis,

[1:32:18] income valuation models, ratio

[1:32:20] studies, income and expense data

[1:32:22] analysis, communication plan

[1:32:24] with website host, uh, staff

[1:32:26] referee, and board training,

[1:32:28] informal appeals, monthly status

[1:32:30] updates to Sussex County.

[1:32:32] Um, and there's a lot of details

[1:32:34] within this. They're just kind

[1:32:38] of listing out the major stuff

[1:32:39] here, so.

[1:32:40] All right, uh,

[1:32:44] Sussex County was responsible

[1:32:46] for approving all communication

[1:32:48] plans and documents sent out by

[1:32:48] Tyler participating in public

[1:32:52] meetings about the process, 10

[1:32:52] monthly status meetings with

[1:32:56] Tyler, uh, project team, quality

[1:32:57] control checks.

[1:33:00] Uh, reassessment results and be

[1:33:02] trained on the methodologies

[1:33:04] used by Tyler Technologies.

[1:33:06] Sussex provided current building

[1:33:08] permit, property record, cards,

[1:33:10] customer information along with

[1:33:12] current digital parcel

[1:33:12] information and sales

[1:33:14] information. Today, Tyler is not

[1:33:16] involved in any assessment

[1:33:18] process with Sussex. All current

[1:33:20] assessment processes are done

[1:33:20] in-house.

[1:33:24] So state your appraisal

[1:33:26] methodology. Uh, Tyler used the

[1:33:28] cost method, sales method,

[1:33:30] income approach. Um, so similar

[1:33:32] to, I think all three counties,

[1:33:34] Tyler did, did the processes,

[1:33:36] They're going to use similar

[1:33:36] processes in all three counties,

[1:33:40] so that's, that should be a good

[1:33:40] thing.

[1:33:42] Right. State your quality

[1:33:44] control checks completed.

[1:33:46] quality standards, benchmarks,

[1:33:48] and tax roll review and

[1:33:48] certification for prior

[1:33:52] assessments. All evaluations

[1:33:52] done by Tyler's staff went

[1:33:54] through a two-step verification

[1:33:56] process before finalizing the

[1:33:58] data in the Cus system. Tyler

[1:34:00] completed a formal sales ratio

[1:34:04] study. Per the contract, IAAO

[1:34:04] performance standards uh were

[1:34:08] used in to be met, single family

[1:34:10] residential over 15 years, and I

[1:34:11] can go through all these.

[1:34:12] But it's, it's pretty much they

[1:34:14] looked at IAAO standards on

[1:34:16] ratios. I think you all have

[1:34:18] probably seen some of these, um,

[1:34:22] but I'm not going to read all

[1:34:22] this out.

[1:34:23] Um,

[1:34:26] And it kind of goes on here. Uh,

[1:34:30] Sussex sat with Tyler project

[1:34:32] leaders going over the results

[1:34:34] of the ratio studies, Sussex

[1:34:36] performed multiple independent

[1:34:38] checks on data by pulling

[1:34:38] similar properties.

[1:34:42] Um, and comparing results and

[1:34:42] pulling all properties with

[1:34:44] certain characteristics to make

[1:34:44] sure appropriate classifications

[1:34:46] were identified, so lots of

[1:34:48] quality control going on,

[1:34:50] looking for outliers, looking

[1:34:52] for properties that don't feel

[1:34:52] like they fit, um, that kind of

[1:34:53] thing.

[1:34:56] What approach of value were

[1:35:00] generally utilized um for each

[1:35:00] of the following property types.

[1:35:02] We already talked about this

[1:35:04] also, um, residential marketing

[1:35:06] costs are generally, um, the

[1:35:08] most applicable on the

[1:35:10] commercial costs and income are

[1:35:12] typically um where you've got

[1:35:14] most of your data, a lot of

[1:35:16] commercial property owners, they

[1:35:18] buy it based on its income

[1:35:18] producing property or

[1:35:20] or properties, and so, um, you

[1:35:24] know, market is, is typically

[1:35:24] used as a check against the

[1:35:25] other, um.

[1:35:30] Approaches just to make sure

[1:35:32] they're in line. So identify

[1:35:34] challenges, lessons learned, and

[1:35:36] issues for working group review.

[1:35:38] The last reassessment presented

[1:35:40] several significant challenges,

[1:35:40] including the following public

[1:35:42] understanding and expectations.

[1:35:44] You know, it's like, why would

[1:35:46] the public have a good

[1:35:48] understanding or expectations of

[1:35:48] what's going on when it's been

[1:35:50] that long, right? So you're,

[1:35:52] they, you know, they're really

[1:35:53] starting from scratch.

[1:35:56] Uh, understanding countywide

[1:35:56] property records after 50 years.

[1:36:00] Without a reassessment. So yeah,

[1:36:02] I could see where that would be

[1:36:04] challenging. Um, we learned that

[1:36:06] communication is key. We held

[1:36:08] public meetings, regular council

[1:36:08] updates, spoke at events when

[1:36:10] asked, developed and published

[1:36:12] multiple videos that helped

[1:36:12] explain the reassessment

[1:36:14] process, potential impacts on

[1:36:16] taxes, developed a tax

[1:36:20] estimator, and once rates became

[1:36:22] available in in-depth tax

[1:36:22] calculators showing the impact

[1:36:24] of reassessments at the parcel

[1:36:25] level.

[1:36:26] It's all good.

[1:36:30] Alright, um, identify challenges

[1:36:32] continued throughout the

[1:36:34] process. We also took the

[1:36:34] opportunity to continually

[1:36:36] review and test the data for

[1:36:38] accuracy and consistency. We

[1:36:40] analyze differences in values

[1:36:42] among properties with similar

[1:36:44] characteristics and within

[1:36:46] comparable neighborhoods, while

[1:36:48] also reviewing prior year data

[1:36:50] against the proposed post uh

[1:36:52] reassessment values. This

[1:36:54] comprehensive review and testing

[1:36:56] process helped validate the

[1:36:57] results and provided.

[1:37:00] Confidence in the overall

[1:37:00] outcome of the reassessment.

[1:37:06] How could the state support your

[1:37:08] county in the next reassessment,

[1:37:10] OK? So reevaluate the five-year

[1:37:14] requirement, uh, assist in

[1:37:16] paying for the ongoing costs. It

[1:37:20] seems vague. What were you

[1:37:21] getting at, Gina?

[1:37:21] beat around the bush.

[1:37:24] All right, Sussex, what did I

[1:37:24] miss?

[1:37:26] Did I miss anything? Great job.

[1:37:28] No, good job. Anything else you

[1:37:30] wanna add though about anything

[1:37:32] you saw specifically with the um

[1:37:34] recommendations from New Castle

[1:37:36] County, um, well, we can go

[1:37:38] through that in the future, but

[1:37:40] yeah, we'll think about because

[1:37:40] I think I think all these are,

[1:37:41] yeah.

[1:37:44] I think all of these

[1:37:44] recommendations from the

[1:37:46] counties, I think this group

[1:37:48] should at least discuss whether

[1:37:52] it's something that they should

[1:37:53] discuss further.

[1:37:56] OK. Kent County responses to

[1:37:57] questions. So provide an

[1:37:58] overview of administrative

[1:38:00] capacity, governance structure.

[1:38:02] Um, the county had some

[1:38:02] questions on this, and we, we're

[1:38:06] on such a tight time frame that

[1:38:08] we didn't, they didn't have an

[1:38:10] opportunity to answer and so I

[1:38:14] totally fair. OK, I'm not, I

[1:38:16] think that's fine. Um, provide

[1:38:18] an overview of, plus that

[1:38:18] question was kind of broad, so,

[1:38:19] um.

[1:38:20] It, it can be a little hard to

[1:38:24] answer. Uh, provide an overview

[1:38:24] of county and vendor roles,

[1:38:26] responsibilities, and mass

[1:38:28] appraisal, including counting

[1:38:30] staff oversight, compare your

[1:38:30] prior reassessment to outset of

[1:38:32] county and vendor roles,

[1:38:32] responsibilities, and mass

[1:38:33] appraisal, including counting

[1:38:34] staff oversight, compare your

[1:38:34] prior reassessment to the outset

[1:38:35] of current status. Um, so there

[1:38:36] was consistent communication

[1:38:36] between the vendor and the

[1:38:38] county staff. The vendor found

[1:38:40] issues, areas of concern, and

[1:38:42] immediately communicated these

[1:38:42] to the finance director and

[1:38:44] assessment supervisor. These two

[1:38:46] county staff members were

[1:38:48] heavily involved in all the

[1:38:48] aspects of the reassessment

[1:38:49] process.

[1:38:52] The project manager from Tyler.

[1:38:54] Post reassessment, the assessors

[1:38:56] were collecting data and

[1:38:58] generating values on.

[1:39:02] The data their oversight came

[1:39:06] from the two supervisors and the

[1:39:07] finance director.

[1:39:08] Right, state your appraisal

[1:39:10] methodology, quality control

[1:39:12] checks completed, quality

[1:39:12] standards, benchmarks, and tax

[1:39:14] roll review and certification

[1:39:18] for prior assessment. Again, the

[1:39:20] county was working on that, but

[1:39:20] it's, you know, kind of a broad

[1:39:21] question they.

[1:39:24] We kind of ran out of time on

[1:39:26] that one, so there was a lot of

[1:39:26] back and forth between.

[1:39:32] Uh, the county and myself, so,

[1:39:32] um, anyway.

[1:39:36] All right, um, what approaches

[1:39:38] to value were uh generated or

[1:39:40] utilized for each of the

[1:39:44] following property types. So

[1:39:44] there again, um.

[1:39:46] Pretty, pretty similar answers

[1:39:48] here to the other two counties.

[1:39:52] Identify challenges, lessons

[1:39:54] learned, and issues for the

[1:39:54] working group to review. So no

[1:39:56] major challenges. Our biggest

[1:39:58] issue is mobile homes on private

[1:40:00] land, sometimes the old mobile

[1:40:02] home information remained on the

[1:40:06] suffix in the which is, it's

[1:40:06] kind of a way of keeping track

[1:40:10] of things. Um, and Tyler added

[1:40:12] the mobile home info on the

[1:40:14] land, so it's duplicated. We

[1:40:16] know to check this issue in the

[1:40:18] future when found notices we

[1:40:19] were removed immediately and

[1:40:19] made taxes.

[1:40:22] Adjustment. So when you're

[1:40:24] putting stuff into a, into a CAA

[1:40:24] Adjustment. So when you're

[1:40:25] putting stuff into a, into a

[1:40:26] camera software system. You

[1:40:26] know, there's always potential

[1:40:28] for, you know, well, this wasn't

[1:40:30] coded in the right way or the

[1:40:32] right place, or we didn't

[1:40:32] understand that it was, so we

[1:40:34] didn't see it the right way. So

[1:40:36] there's always learning, and it

[1:40:36] doesn't matter if you've been

[1:40:38] doing this. This is your first

[1:40:40] time in 40 years or you've been

[1:40:40] doing it every year for 40

[1:40:44] years. Um, you're always finding

[1:40:45] issues like this, so

[1:40:45] that's

[1:40:48] To be expected, and they, it

[1:40:49] sounds like they got it fixed,

[1:40:49] so that's good.

[1:40:50] Um,

[1:40:54] How could the state support your

[1:40:54] county in the next reassessment,

[1:40:56] provide funding, the biggest

[1:40:57] How could the state support your

[1:40:57] county in the next reassessment,

[1:40:58] provide funding. The the biggest

[1:40:59] benefit uh factor of the

[1:41:00] reassessment is the schools, all

[1:41:00] the work and complaints are

[1:41:02] handled by the county staff, and

[1:41:04] we feel the state should have

[1:41:08] monetary skin in the game.

[1:41:10] I just want to state for the

[1:41:10] record the counties did not

[1:41:12] collaborate

[1:41:14] on that.

[1:41:14] they didn't.

[1:41:18] We actually sent the

[1:41:20] questionnaires out separately to

[1:41:20] each of them, so they didn't see

[1:41:21] each other's answers at all.

[1:41:24] OK.

[1:41:24] Uh, Kent, did I miss anything?

[1:41:26] OK.

[1:41:28] OK.

[1:41:30] Alright, how can the state help?

[1:41:36] All right, so IAAO has a

[1:41:38] standard on this. So, um, and

[1:41:40] from the county's perspective, I

[1:41:42] know this says oversight, and

[1:41:44] that can be a little scary, but

[1:41:46] let's think of this more as like

[1:41:46] support, um.

[1:41:48] I know I, I had a lot of

[1:41:50] interactions with, uh, state.

[1:41:54] Um, in Kansas, it's a property

[1:41:56] valuation division of the

[1:41:58] Department of Revenue, and they

[1:42:00] had a staff and they would run

[1:42:00] quality control checks on what

[1:42:02] we were doing, and they would

[1:42:04] say, you know, and we would

[1:42:06] submit things to them, and they

[1:42:08] would handle education and help

[1:42:10] us out with forms and help us

[1:42:12] out with reports and help us out

[1:42:16] with uh Cra support and just

[1:42:18] training and everything. And so

[1:42:20] it was more, it was an

[1:42:20] adversarial relationship. It was

[1:42:21] more

[1:42:24] a relationship of, it was almost

[1:42:26] like an extension of the the

[1:42:28] county assessor's Office, and so

[1:42:30] we worked with them, uh, you

[1:42:32] know, a lot to, to make sure

[1:42:33] things were getting done

[1:42:36] properly. Um, I really looked at

[1:42:36] him as a county appraiser, I

[1:42:38] looked at him as an extension of

[1:42:40] my office as far as quality

[1:42:40] control checks too, because not

[1:42:42] only am I checking things

[1:42:44] in-house? They're checking

[1:42:44] things, um, from their

[1:42:46] perspective too, and I thought

[1:42:48] that was good because we always

[1:42:50] want our values to be as good as

[1:42:50] possible, and so, uh, the more

[1:42:51] quality control checks.

[1:42:54] Some more eyes on things, you

[1:42:54] know, if there's something

[1:42:55] wrong, I want to know about it.

[1:42:58] So, um, anyway, IWO is standard

[1:43:00] on this, uh, complex property

[1:43:02] evaluation assistance. So, let's

[1:43:04] say your county has a, and I

[1:43:04] don't know what it has, you

[1:43:06] know, let's say it has a, um,

[1:43:10] you know, a power plant, and you

[1:43:10] know, maybe there's only a few

[1:43:12] power plants in the whole state.

[1:43:14] It might be that that's

[1:43:16] something good for maybe the

[1:43:18] state hires a fee appraiser to

[1:43:20] to do a power plant evaluation

[1:43:21] project and they.

[1:43:24] all three of the power plants,

[1:43:24] so the county doesn't really

[1:43:26] have to worry about that. It's

[1:43:28] gonna probably be cheaper for

[1:43:30] the state to hire one appraiser

[1:43:32] to value all 3 power plants,

[1:43:34] then each county to go out and,

[1:43:36] and have an appraiser that they

[1:43:38] have to hire to, to value a

[1:43:38] PowerPoint. So,

[1:43:40] um

[1:43:40] all three of the power plants,

[1:43:41] so the county doesn't really

[1:43:41] have to worry about that. It's

[1:43:42] gonna probably be cheaper for

[1:43:43] the state to hire one appraiser

[1:43:44] to value all 3 power plants,

[1:43:44] then each county to go out and

[1:43:45] and have an appraiser that they

[1:43:46] have to hire to, to value a

[1:43:46] PowerPoint. So,

[1:43:46] um.

[1:43:47] all three of the power plants,

[1:43:47] so the county doesn't really

[1:43:48] have to worry about that. It's

[1:43:49] gonna probably be cheaper for

[1:43:49] the state to hire one appraiser

[1:43:50] to value all 3 power plants,

[1:43:50] then each county to go out and

[1:43:51] and have an appraiser that they

[1:43:52] have to hire to, to value a

[1:43:52] PowerPoint. So,

[1:43:53] what now? Power plants are a

[1:43:53] sore subject at this point.

[1:43:54] Yeah, yeah, I'm sure. So that's

[1:43:55] the reason I'm saying, you know,

[1:43:55] some of those things can be nice

[1:43:56] though, because, um.

[1:43:57] Because

[1:43:57] those types of properties, these

[1:43:58] high dollar, you know, $100

[1:43:58] million dollar properties,

[1:44:00] billion dollar properties are

[1:44:00] going to get appealed pretty

[1:44:02] well every year. Whether the

[1:44:04] values are good or not, they're

[1:44:06] gonna come in and appeal them,

[1:44:08] um, and, and so, you know, the,

[1:44:10] the counties have to be ready

[1:44:12] for that, and so, um, you know,

[1:44:14] you've, you've got to look at

[1:44:14] some of those things. So it

[1:44:16] can't help if the state kind of

[1:44:18] assists on some of those bigger

[1:44:20] expenditures like that. I mean,

[1:44:21] you could easily spend, uh,

[1:44:24] Um, you know, and the counties

[1:44:24] can tell you, I mean, you can

[1:44:26] easily spend 6 figures on an

[1:44:28] appeal on a, on a billion dollar

[1:44:30] property, and so it gets, it

[1:44:32] gets pretty expensive when

[1:44:32] you're looking at budgets and

[1:44:34] you're trying to keep budgets

[1:44:36] tight, but these things pop up

[1:44:38] and, and it gets expensive, so,

[1:44:40] um, education, certification of

[1:44:42] assessment professionals, so,

[1:44:44] and I don't remember. I think it

[1:44:46] was Newcastle was talking about

[1:44:48] having a certified assessor. So,

[1:44:50] you know, and that, that might

[1:44:50] be something that the state

[1:44:51] wants to think about is.

[1:44:54] Potentially saying, hey, you

[1:44:56] know, to be, to be the, the head

[1:44:56] person in charge, you need to

[1:44:58] have these credentials or to

[1:45:00] even value property within the

[1:45:02] county, you need to have certain

[1:45:04] credentials, um, and so that's

[1:45:06] something that we see in, in

[1:45:06] some other states and

[1:45:08] jurisdictions, um, financial

[1:45:10] assistance, cost sharing, we've

[1:45:12] already talked about that forms

[1:45:13] development. Sometimes there's

[1:45:16] um different, you know, forms

[1:45:18] that have to be filed when

[1:45:20] someone, you know, buys a mobile

[1:45:21] home or we talked about a sales

[1:45:21] validation.

[1:45:24] Questionnaire, maybe when

[1:45:24] someone files a deed with the

[1:45:26] title agency, they have to fill

[1:45:28] out a sales validation

[1:45:30] questionnaire. The state could,

[1:45:30] could kind of generate that form

[1:45:32] and make sure that all title

[1:45:34] agencies have that form on file

[1:45:36] and make sure that that's filled

[1:45:37] out at closing.

[1:45:40] That kind of thing, um,

[1:45:40] guidelines, manuals,

[1:45:42] specifications, so you've got

[1:45:44] specialized properties. You want

[1:45:46] to make sure they're valued

[1:45:48] probably the same across the

[1:45:50] state, right? And so if you had

[1:45:52] some specialized property, it

[1:45:52] might be that the state wants to

[1:45:54] work with the counties and they

[1:45:56] all want to get together and

[1:45:56] say, OK, this is the way we're

[1:45:58] going to value these properties,

[1:45:59] so we're consistent across the

[1:46:00] state. Uh,

[1:46:02] uh, investigation, research of

[1:46:06] taxpayer complaints, um, might

[1:46:06] be a, a thing, uh, legal

[1:46:07] legislative.

[1:46:10] Responsibilities. So, um, it

[1:46:12] might be that when the

[1:46:14] legislature has questions, you

[1:46:16] know, you've got someone at the

[1:46:16] state that kind of has

[1:46:18] commingled all that data, and

[1:46:22] they can produce information for

[1:46:22] the legislature,

[1:46:24] uh, perform evaluations, so it

[1:46:26] might be that the state does,

[1:46:28] uh, their own sales ratio study

[1:46:30] or they double-check that the

[1:46:32] county's, um, you know, reviewed

[1:46:34] all of the sales in their

[1:46:36] jurisdiction in a in a certain

[1:46:37] time frame or certain things.

[1:46:40] Things like that, and sometimes,

[1:46:42] like I said, it's, it's not the

[1:46:42] state necessarily coming down on

[1:46:44] the county. It's just making

[1:46:46] sure that everything gets done

[1:46:46] and it's kind of a QC process to

[1:46:48] make sure everyone looks good on

[1:46:50] the assessment process and the,

[1:46:52] the citizens have a, a proper

[1:46:54] process that's, that's happening

[1:46:56] because maybe we don't have the

[1:46:58] great professionals that are in

[1:46:58] the county now, you know, later

[1:47:00] on, and so we have to make sure

[1:47:02] that things are done

[1:47:04] consistently. Um, perform

[1:47:06] evaluations. OK, I talked about

[1:47:07] that. Professional associations.

[1:47:10] Involvement, um, might be that

[1:47:12] you have your own Delaware

[1:47:14] Association of assessors, and

[1:47:16] you kind of get together and do

[1:47:18] education and talk about issues.

[1:47:20] Um, you can have monthly Zoom

[1:47:20] meetings and that kind of thing,

[1:47:22] um, to kind of talk about

[1:47:24] issues. I'm sure you all already

[1:47:26] do a lot of that. Um, uh, public

[1:47:28] relations programs, the state

[1:47:30] could help out with that, um,

[1:47:32] just kind of some cost sharings

[1:47:32] Involvement, um, might be that

[1:47:33] you have your own Delaware

[1:47:34] Association of assessors, and

[1:47:34] you kind of get together and do

[1:47:35] education and talk about issues.

[1:47:36] Um, you can have monthly Zoom

[1:47:36] meetings and that kind of thing,

[1:47:37] um, to kind of talk about

[1:47:38] issues. I'm sure you all already

[1:47:38] do a lot of that. Um, uh, public

[1:47:39] relations programs, the state

[1:47:40] could help out with that, um,

[1:47:40] just kind of some cost sharing

[1:47:41] or idea sharing, uh, technical

[1:47:42] research reports, support and

[1:47:42] assistance.

[1:47:42] Um, so,

[1:47:43] This was kind of some of the

[1:47:44] things I had come up with to uh

[1:47:46] state could require buyers and

[1:47:48] sellers to file sales validation

[1:47:49] questionnaire. We kind of talked

[1:47:50] about this. Uh, it's common in

[1:47:54] some states. Consider making uh

[1:47:56] statutes consistent across the

[1:47:56] state. I'm not sure, you know,

[1:47:58] I, I'm coming from the outside

[1:48:00] and I see that the statutes for

[1:48:01] different counties are

[1:48:04] different. Seems odd to me, but

[1:48:04] I don't, you know, maybe there's

[1:48:06] good reasons for some of that. I

[1:48:07] don't know. Um,

[1:48:10] But in, in, I would say in my

[1:48:12] overall opinion, consistency

[1:48:14] leads to greater equity and

[1:48:14] clearer understanding of the

[1:48:16] laws from the citizens if, if

[1:48:18] things are different in

[1:48:18] different counties, it can be a

[1:48:19] little confusing.

[1:48:24] Right, uh, states should

[1:48:26] provide, uh, like general

[1:48:26] support, statewide campus system

[1:48:28] and tech support. If you, if you

[1:48:30] are gonna go like everyone's

[1:48:32] going with the same chemo. You

[1:48:34] know, you could have a CA

[1:48:36] contract with the state and then

[1:48:36] the state could kind of help

[1:48:38] orchestrate some of that and

[1:48:40] make sure there's consistency,

[1:48:42] tech support when there's

[1:48:44] upgrades to software that could

[1:48:44] kind of be managed through the

[1:48:46] state. The counties could kind

[1:48:48] of weigh in on on what upgrades

[1:48:50] should be made, uh, training and

[1:48:51] education, you know, a, a lot

[1:48:51] of.

[1:48:54] Of this is workflow, so it's.

[1:48:56] How are you getting data into

[1:48:57] the software? How are you

[1:48:58] getting data out of the

[1:49:00] software? How are you doing all

[1:49:02] your processes, so, um, you

[1:49:04] know, having training that's

[1:49:06] consistent across the state can

[1:49:10] help too, um, in many ways, uh,

[1:49:10] reassessment support.

[1:49:12] Uh, we already talked about

[1:49:14] forms, special properties. We

[1:49:16] talked about that, and then, uh,

[1:49:18] assessment standards and quality

[1:49:19] control.

[1:49:22] All right.

[1:49:26] Um, and we talked about data

[1:49:28] aggregation already, um, you

[1:49:30] know, kind of aggregating that

[1:49:30] data from the county, so it's

[1:49:32] all in one place, so it's a

[1:49:32] little it it can be a

[1:49:36] A good thing for the assessor's

[1:49:38] offices in the counties for

[1:49:42] sure, having read, you know,

[1:49:44] more easy access to, to other

[1:49:46] county data, um, you know, the

[1:49:48] statewide sales database is one

[1:49:50] of those things, uh, assessment

[1:49:52] of utilities. Some states uh

[1:49:52] handle the assessment of

[1:49:54] utilities because the utilities

[1:49:56] cross county lines and that kind

[1:49:58] of thing, and uh utility

[1:49:59] assessment.

[1:50:00] Um, you know, a lot of times

[1:50:02] it's, it's kind of a statewide

[1:50:04] thing, and then you have to kind

[1:50:04] of block it up and figure out

[1:50:06] what portion goes to this county

[1:50:08] and this county, and if you had

[1:50:10] 11 entity doing that, it might

[1:50:12] simplify things somewhat.

[1:50:16] Um, reassessment monitoring, you

[1:50:18] know, just kind of making sure

[1:50:18] all the T's are crossed, I's are

[1:50:20] dotted on the reassessments, and

[1:50:24] And we already talked about

[1:50:26] public relations, so sorry to

[1:50:28] beat a dead horse. Um, so

[1:50:28] benefits of state support, um,

[1:50:32] You know, the, the state taking

[1:50:32] on certain responsibilities has

[1:50:33] a.

[1:50:36] The benefits of potentially

[1:50:38] reducing costs could also shift

[1:50:40] some of the cost load from the

[1:50:40] counties to the state.

[1:50:44] Um, which I guess depending on

[1:50:44] your perspective, that could be

[1:50:48] good or bad. Um, added benefits

[1:50:50] include more consistent

[1:50:50] processes across the state,

[1:50:52] consistent processes and

[1:50:54] messaging can help property

[1:50:56] owners to better understand

[1:50:58] processes, less appeals and

[1:50:58] confusion. Uh, the state.

[1:51:00] Could be an extension of the

[1:51:02] county assessment office and

[1:51:04] that some process could be

[1:51:05] completed at the state level.

[1:51:10] So supporting counties in the

[1:51:12] reassessment process can help

[1:51:12] make assessments more accurate,

[1:51:13] more efficient.

[1:51:16] Um, what can the state do to

[1:51:18] make assessments more seamless,

[1:51:20] you know, so just trying to

[1:51:20] figure out, you know, these

[1:51:24] different workflows, how this

[1:51:26] works, um, how the state can

[1:51:26] support that process to make

[1:51:30] more equitable values, so all

[1:51:30] your property owners are being

[1:51:32] treated as fairly as possible.

[1:51:33] It's important.

[1:51:34] So I appreciate your time.

[1:51:36] Um,

[1:51:38] And it looks like we still have

[1:51:40] 9 minutes for questions or

[1:51:42] anything else. Well, and, and

[1:51:44] thank you. And again, thank you

[1:51:44] for your patience for these last

[1:51:46] two meetings that have been kind

[1:51:46] of getting us to, OK.

[1:51:50] Now we're gonna be looking

[1:51:52] forward. um, Justin, um, showed

[1:51:54] some of those on what the state

[1:51:56] can offer. Think of that as a

[1:51:58] menu, not a, not a, not a

[1:52:00] mandate. Um, I don't want to

[1:52:02] overcomplicate this. I don't

[1:52:02] want to take away local control.

[1:52:04] You guys know your property is

[1:52:08] better than um than than the

[1:52:10] state, um, but we do want to

[1:52:12] look at figuring out how the

[1:52:12] state can better support the

[1:52:14] counties, um, and also just the

[1:52:16] level of oversight that should

[1:52:16] be there because.

[1:52:20] It is, you know, it is bringing

[1:52:22] in a lot of our, our property

[1:52:24] tax for our, um, property yes

[1:52:24] It is, you know, it is bringing

[1:52:25] in a lot of our, our property

[1:52:26] tax for our, um,

[1:52:26] property brings in a lot of

[1:52:27] money for our schools. So we're

[1:52:28] going to be diving into in the

[1:52:30] next meeting some of these

[1:52:32] options and having conversations

[1:52:34] really just about the solutions

[1:52:34] and what do we want and to the

[1:52:36] point that like as an example,

[1:52:38] the sales, uh, $10 sales, do we

[1:52:40] want legislation on that? Yay or

[1:52:42] nay. Yeah, OK, we'll start

[1:52:44] drafting. Things like that. Um,

[1:52:46] we're going to talk about what

[1:52:46] types of things you want us to

[1:52:47] legislate versus, no, we want to

[1:52:48] handle.

[1:52:50] That within our policy because

[1:52:50] policy is where we can best

[1:52:54] pivot as needed based on um

[1:52:54] different geographic changes in

[1:52:56] our own counties, so, um.

[1:53:00] No one has anything else. We

[1:53:00] could go to public comment, but

[1:53:02] if anyone has anything they'd

[1:53:02] like to say.

[1:53:06] The slides will be available to

[1:53:08] us, yes, they'll be on the

[1:53:10] uh legis website as,

[1:53:12] yeah, yeah, we'll put it, but we

[1:53:13] can also just send our box.

[1:53:14] The last two slides or three,

[1:53:15] whatever they were.

[1:53:18] At that point in time, what I

[1:53:18] really wanted to do was stay

[1:53:20] paused, I think it's what you

[1:53:22] said, and then say, all right,

[1:53:24] we, what can we do to help him?

[1:53:24] Yeah, right,

[1:53:26] and that's absolutely when the

[1:53:27] next meetings are going to be

[1:53:28] going, um, we'll talk through,

[1:53:32] um, a lot of, uh, the

[1:53:34] suggestions and that Newcastle

[1:53:38] County had, um, because I, it

[1:53:38] was pretty comprehensive. And

[1:53:40] then the very direct slides from

[1:53:42] Kent and

[1:53:44] more funding and how we can do

[1:53:44] that and then we'll, we'll

[1:53:45] probably start getting into the

[1:53:46] conversation.

[1:53:48] Too, one of the things you kept

[1:53:50] hearing in some of the slides is

[1:53:52] that, um, based on how other

[1:53:54] states work, you know, where

[1:53:54] that office sits or where that

[1:53:56] person sits within oversight and

[1:53:58] is it, would it make sense to

[1:53:58] have be under the Department of

[1:54:00] Finance and and start getting

[1:54:02] into some of those

[1:54:02] conversations, so.

[1:54:06] Awesome, awesome. Yeah, I just

[1:54:08] want to thank the co-chairs and

[1:54:08] especially Justin for

[1:54:10] Putting all this information

[1:54:10] together, I know it's a lot to

[1:54:12] absorb, uh, in a short time. So

[1:54:13] thank you for that.

[1:54:16] Thank you. All right, Kate,

[1:54:16] we'll go to public comment and

[1:54:18] then we will, um, so I will have

[1:54:22] our, uh, speaker, um, put forth

[1:54:22] the nominations for the two

[1:54:24] people we agreed to have in the

[1:54:24] working group, and then they'll

[1:54:26] be active members next, next

[1:54:27] time.

[1:54:32] To Christian Millauer.

[1:54:36] Hi, thanks for giving me the

[1:54:36] opportunity to speak. Christian

[1:54:38] Willauer, Wilmington City

[1:54:40] Council, 5th District, and I

[1:54:40] just had a couple of issues that

[1:54:44] um I wanted to bring up. One was

[1:54:48] land values are um assessed as a

[1:54:50] separate category, and I hadn't

[1:54:52] heard too much discussion about

[1:54:54] land value assessments, but I

[1:54:56] believe that land value

[1:54:56] assessments, uh, there was

[1:54:58] especially a lot of inaccuracy

[1:55:00] in New Castle County around land

[1:55:02] value assessments and I'm just

[1:55:03] wondering what the uh process

[1:55:08] Could be to improve those land

[1:55:10] value assessments going forward

[1:55:10] or just flag that as something

[1:55:14] that needs attention. And the

[1:55:14] second thing is, is in terms of

[1:55:15] um

[1:55:16] Property.

[1:55:20] Improvements. I think where

[1:55:22] property improvements really

[1:55:24] comes into play is in places

[1:55:26] where there's a lot of um

[1:55:28] serious upgrading going on to

[1:55:29] properties?

[1:55:32] So that an unrenovated home is

[1:55:34] purchased at, say, 80,000 and a

[1:55:34] renovated home is purchased at

[1:55:38] Say 200,000, and if you go into

[1:55:40] a neighborhood like some of the

[1:55:41] ones that I represent.

[1:55:44] And you assess every property.

[1:55:46] At the value of a renovated

[1:55:48] property, it just doesn't

[1:55:50] reflect the value of those

[1:55:52] unrenovated properties. So I do

[1:55:54] think it'd be important to

[1:55:56] integrate building permit data

[1:55:57] into

[1:56:00] the assessment, um,

[1:56:04] system and the great thing about

[1:56:04] data models is you can include

[1:56:06] variables like that. So I just

[1:56:10] like to put a plug in or for

[1:56:12] investigating ways that we can

[1:56:14] have permitting data play a role

[1:56:15] in

[1:56:16] Getting more accurate

[1:56:16] assessments for

[1:56:18] Properties

[1:56:22] That's it. Thank you.

[1:56:24] Thank you, Christian. Anyone

[1:56:24] else?

[1:56:26] Sean

[1:56:32] Sokolowaski.

[1:56:34] Sean, can you hear us?

[1:56:44] Sean?

[1:56:52] You may have to um do like an

[1:56:52] ask to unmute or something, is

[1:56:53] that right?

[1:57:00] John

[1:57:10] Oh.

[1:57:14] Yeah, he, it looks like I don't

[1:57:15] know self back on mute or.

[1:57:18] Um, I apologize, Shawn, um, uh,

[1:57:20] you can,

[1:57:22] um, send an email to

[1:57:24] Catherine. Bowman@ Delaware.gov,

[1:57:25] um,

[1:57:28] Yeah, it looks like we keep

[1:57:28] unmuting you and then it keeps

[1:57:30] going back to mute, so.

[1:57:32] Apologize, um, or you can send

[1:57:33] me an email as well.

[1:57:38] Yeah

[1:57:40] OK, well, with no other, uh,

[1:57:42] discussions. We are adjourned.

[1:57:44] Thank you. And next week,

[1:57:46] solutions, 2 weeks, 2 weeks from

[1:57:48] now. Solutions. Thank you. Thank

[1:57:48] you. Thank you, everybody. Thank

[1:57:50] you. OK, thank you. Thank you.

[1:57:54] Why does it get so cold in here.

[1:57:56] It feels good, yeah. Yeah, I

Property Assessment Working Group

Transcript