Brandywine board removes 1.7% add‑on, votes to split tax rate to ease residential burden after reassessment

The Brandywine School District Board of Education voted Aug. 18 to remove a 1.7% allowance that had been added to the district’s 2025–26 tax rate and to split the district tax rate between residential and nonresidential parcels at a 1.85 ratio.

Board members said the combined action is intended to restore, as closely as possible, the distribution of tax burden that existed before New Castle County’s recent property reassessment and to provide relief to most residential taxpayers who saw sharp increases in assessed values.

The change follows a special session of the Delaware General Assembly that authorized New Castle County school districts to reset 2025–26 tax rates and to split rates between residential and nonresidential property classes (House Bill 242), and other bills that set installment payment options and refund rules for taxpayers. "The difference between the two numbers, the $6.987 million, is the referendum," Mister McCoy, who presented the financial materials to the board, said when explaining how referendum revenue ties to the new rates.

Why this matters: New Castle County’s reassessment realigned assessed values across neighborhoods. The district’s finance presentation showed residential parcels’ share of the school district tax burden rose from about 67% before reassessment to roughly 79% afterwards. The board’s chosen split — residential rate 0.5609, nonresidential 1.0382 — was calculated to be revenue neutral for the district while restoring prior burden proportions and preserving referendum revenue. The district estimates the split will produce an average residential reduction of about 15.8% in Brandywine’s portion of the tax bill; nonresidential parcels will see increases, concentrated among higher‑value commercial and apartment properties.

What the board approved: Board members first voted to rescind the 1.7% increase the district had included in its originally adopted tax warrant (the 1.7% was intended as an allowance tied to federal funding assumptions). The board then approved a motion to adopt split rates at a 1.85 ratio between nonresidential and residential properties. Both motions carried following voice votes.

Public reaction: Several residents who spoke during public comment urged the board to consider hardship for elderly and fixed‑income taxpayers. "Many of the elderly residents pay their taxes in one lump sum… some of them are looking at increases of $1,600 to $2,000, and they just don't have the money for it," said Maria Blasucki, who identified herself as retired from the district and said she was speaking on behalf of neighbors. John Pope, a resident who spoke later, said he felt the scale of increases was "shock and dismay" for many homeowners and asked the board what cost reductions had been pursued before approving the referendum and reassessment changes. Ying Zhang, an online commenter, said the bills that arrived were much larger than she expected and asked whether the district would reimburse taxpayers; McCoy and board members responded that reimbursements were not in the board’s authority and pointed to the county reassessment and new state laws as the drivers.

How the split was calculated: According to the presentation, the district first calculated the revenue-neutral tax rates that would recreate the pre‑reassessment tax burden for each property class, then added the portion of referendum revenue attributed to each class to reach the final rates. The recommended split (1.85) was within the statutory cap that nonresidential cannot exceed two times the residential rate. The district also showed alternate split scenarios, including a 1.5 cap adopted by New Castle County, and outlined how different splits would change the percentage relief to residential taxpayers and the increases to nonresidential taxpayers.

Next steps and limits: New Castle County will issue adjusted bills and reconcile payments already made. House Bill 241 provides an installment plan option for residential taxpayers who experienced increases greater than $300; House Bill 240 requires county processes for refunds on overpayments. Board members and staff cautioned that splitting rates relieves many residential taxpayers but does not erase all increases caused by the reassessment and that some businesses and high‑value nonresidential properties will see substantial increases. The board’s action sets the district’s tax warrant submission to the county under the new state rules.

What the board did not do: The district did not, and cannot in this action, alter county reappraisals or directly refund taxpayers; the board limited its vote to removing the 1.7% allowance and setting the split tax rate. Several board members noted the decision shifts burden among property classes and that no option would avoid producing winners and losers.

The board said it will post details and examples on the district web pages and encouraged residents with questions to consult the New Castle County parcel search and the district’s tax‑warrant documentation for parcel‑specific impacts.