Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Reassessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Castle County councilors spar over auditor review of 2025 reassessment
Summary
Council members debated a resolution asking the county auditor to review the 2025 mass property reassessment, with sponsors citing constituent concerns and critics warning the measure politicizes an independent office and may not deliver the parcel-level relief residents expect.
Council members at the New Castle County Administrative Finance Committee meeting on Aug. 26 debated a resolution asking the county auditor to review the methodology used in the 2025 mass property reassessment.
The measure, introduced by Councilman Tackett, "came out of a lot of conversations with the community" and was drafted with input from the county auditor, Tackett said, as councilors sought clarity about how external contractors set fair market values and whether uniform standards were applied.
Supporters framed the resolution as a targeted review of methodology, not a parcel-by-parcel reappraisal. "It's not going to reassess any properties; it's just a high-level audit of some of the methodology," Councilwoman Durham said, urging a public meeting where reassessment examples could be shown so residents better understand the process.
Opponents cautioned that the resolution risks politicizing the auditor's independent role and creating unrealistic public expectations. "The way this resolution has been advanced ... has put the auditor in a position that I think is really untenable," Councilman Carter said, adding that parcel-level reviews residents demand would cost "millions of dollars" and exceed the auditor's statutory remit.
Other council members pressed for more public education about the appeals process and for transparency from Tyler Technologies, the contractor that prepared the mass appraisal. Councilman Cartier said a limited review by the auditor could reassure the public that industry standards were followed: "It will say to the public ... this reassessment was done properly by industry standards."
Several speakers urged that any larger audit or reassessment effort be funded and overseen by the entities that want it, rather than relying solely on the county to shoulder costs. Chair George Smiley said parties requesting deeper work should "pay for it" to ensure credibility and to avoid accusations of bias.
The committee heard public comment from Dale Swain, who asked the county to hold a public meeting led by the administration to explain what was done and correct misinformation circulating online.
No final committee vote was recorded on the substantive resolution during the meeting; committee members signaled differing views and recommended further outreach and clarification before council action.
