New Castle County Council introduces ordinance to extend reassessment deadlines; residents urge change to appeals' hearsay rule

The New Castle County Council introduced Ordinance 25-020 to extend deadlines related to property reassessment procedures under 9 Del. C. § 1371(f)(d) and scheduled consideration at a special meeting in March at 10 a.m., the council said during an introductory reading of the measure.

The extension affects homeowners currently in or approaching the county's formal appeal process for property assessments. Residents who came to the meeting urged council members to ask the county assessment office to relax the requirement that an appraiser or legal representative appear in person at appeal hearings so that certified appraisal reports can be accepted without live testimony.

Susan Handler, a resident of Sedgley Farms, said she pursued an informal appeal after what she described as an inflated reassessment and later paid $600 for a formal appraisal to meet appeal requirements. "Had I known at that time I needed a formal licensed appeal or appraisal, then I would have done that," Handler said. She said county staff initially told her corrections would be made and that she would receive a letter; when the letter arrived, she said the corrections had not been implemented and she was directed into the formal appeal process.

"The hearsay rules apply," Handler said, describing the requirement that an appraiser travel to hearings to authenticate their report. "I'm asking if the council can approach the assessment board and ask if the hearsay rules could be lifted." Handler asked the council to pursue the change because, she said, the current practice places an undue cost and burden on homeowners.

Nancy Magnus, a resident at Barley Mill Plaza, made a similar request, asking the council to allow certified appraisal documents to be submitted without the appraiser appearing in person. "We also would like to have that changed so that counsel or an appraiser doesn't necessarily have to be present with the process," Magnus said.

Councilman Smiley said he had already contacted the assessment department and left a message asking staff to review the issue generally and advise council on a potential path forward. "I'm waiting on either a phone call, an email, or a text message as we sit here now," Smiley said.

Jane Rotenney, speaking for county administration staff, acknowledged the concerns and said the administration had noted the question and would follow up on Councilman Smiley's inquiry with the assessment office. "We certainly have noted that question, and we'll follow-up," Rotenney said.

Mike Bigelow, counsel to the council, cautioned that evidentiary rules would need legal review. He told the council that some documents may be "self-authenticating" under evidence law and thus admissible without live testimony, and that the administration should evaluate whether that exception applies in the county's appeal hearings. "If it's self authenticating, then it does come in," Bigelow said.

Council members did not vote on changing the appeals' evidentiary rules at the meeting. The ordinance extending reassessment deadlines was introduced and set for consideration at a special meeting in March at 10 a.m.; council members and staff said the matter of hearsay in appeals is scheduled for discussion at the finance committee meeting on March 13. County staff said they would notify constituents through county records and direct contact if processes or deadlines are adjusted.

The meeting closed after routine business and adjournment motions.