Allison Snell, a county staff member, told the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that the county's 2025 revaluation produced a 67% median increase in property values and generated just over 5,800 appeals.

"For our 2025 revaluation, as you recall, we had a 67% median increase in property values. The total number of appeals received was just over 5,800," Snell said. She told commissioners the appeals represented roughly 5% of the county's parcels, that the total value under appeal was just over $14,300,000,000, and that total value adjustments to date were about $1,700,000,000 (approximately 12%). As of Oct. 7, Snell said, the office had closed just over 3,600 appeals and anticipated finishing the local appeals process by the end of the calendar year.

The presentation reviewed North Carolina's legal requirement for routine revaluations and compared evaluation cycles used by other counties. Snell said state law requires a revaluation at least once every eight years and that many peer counties operate on four- or longer-year cycles; Wake County is already on a three-year cycle and is moving to two years.

Snell outlined potential benefits and costs of accelerating New Hanover's current four-year schedule to a two-year cycle. She said more frequent reassessments would "help maintain equity" by reflecting market conditions more frequently, could reduce the size of year-to-year assessment changes, and might lower the volume of appeals by reducing the "sticker shock" property owners experienced after the large increase. She cautioned, however, that more frequent revaluations could produce "revaluation fatigue" for property owners who must gather information and, when appropriate, file appeals.

On costs, Snell said the county now budgets $35,000 to $40,000 for printing, mailing and advertising every four years and that shortening the cycle would effectively double that outlay across the same span of time. She also estimated the tax office would need seven additional staff positions to manage a two-year cycle and said the annualized cost to hire and maintain those positions would be roughly $550,000. Snell described a multi-year implementation timeline that would begin with hiring in the 2027 fiscal year, phased staff training and technology acquisition, completion of a 2029 reassessment on the existing schedule, and an overlap period as the county moved toward a 2031 schedule on a shorter cycle.

Commissioners debated the tradeoffs. Several members said more frequent revaluations could reduce dramatic assessment jumps and fewer appeals, while others raised concerns about costs, potential public confusion or fatigue, and whether there was sufficient public demand to justify the change. One commissioner noted that the county's property values effectively doubled over an eight-year span (citing prior increases of roughly 35% followed by the recent 67%), which contributed to the present discussion. Another emphasized that most counties in North Carolina use a four-year or longer cycle and suggested polling the public before adopting a change.

Board members also discussed technology as an enabling factor; Snell said new valuation technologies and more automated appeals processes could make more frequent revaluations feasible and more accurate.

No formal motion or vote to change the revaluation cycle was recorded during the meeting. Commissioners asked staff to gather additional information and public input, and several said they expected the topic to return to the board for further consideration. Separately, staff agreed to revise a consent-agenda resolution to include a requirement that approved real estate excise tax refunds be reported back to the board and to provide an updated version for the next meeting.

The board did not make a policy change at this session; the discussion closed with commissioners asking staff to provide more data, solicit public feedback and return with recommendations.