[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