Pender County residents assail reassessment; commissioners seek peer review, sample remeasure

At its April 20 meeting, the Pender County Board of Commissioners confronted large-scale public anger over a recent countywide property revaluation and appeals process, and voted to seek an independent peer review of the valuation statistics while staff develops cost estimates for a representative sample remeasurement.

County staff told the board that as of 3:30 p.m. on April 20 the county had received 919 appeals. "We've worked 92 of those; county staff cannot deny an appeal," the county manager said during a long agenda item focused on tax appeals and next steps. Staff said only 12 of the appeals filed through the portal cited incorrect data as the reason so far, and that an exhaustive full reappraisal would be costly — estimates provided in the meeting ranged from roughly $800,000 to more than $1.9 million for a full reappraisal.

Residents at the meeting urged stronger and faster oversight. "If it's not written down, it's just a bunch of hockey and it does not exist," Regina May Finel told commissioners, asking that the county mail clear, written notices to residents explaining the suspension of 2026 re-evaluations and the extended appeal period.

Other commenters described large percentage increases on individual properties and urged the county to limit harm to elderly and low-income homeowners. "We're being taxed out of our property," one resident said, describing several household assessments that rose by double- or triple-digit percentages and asking how families will pay.

The board considered several options discussed in staff presentations: a full third-party desktop reappraisal (very expensive), a statistically valid sample (staff estimated $30–$40 per parcel for a mass-appraisal-style field sample in initial planning discussion), and a free peer statistical review offered by the North Carolina Association of Assessing Officials and the Association of County Commissioners. The free peer review would examine sales ratios and the statistical soundness of the mass appraisal methods — the reviewers would not perform field re-measurements of homes.

A representative of Vincent Valuations, the contractor that performed the revaluation work, addressed the board and the public. Asked whether Vincent would waive an additional $800-per-day fee tied to an extension in the contract, the representative said the company was not willing to "wave the rate for zero for an unknown amount of time." The exchange increased pressure on commissioners to secure outside validation of the results rather than rely solely on the contractor's work.

After extended debate and public comment, the board voted unanimously to request a peer assessment from the North Carolina Association of Assessing Officials and the Association of County Commissioners to review the county's statistics and provide a written report. Commissioners also asked staff to return with a budgeted estimate for a representative, geographically and property-type stratified sample that could include field re-measurements of a limited number of parcels; staff suggested that a statistically valid sample of approximately 2–5% of parcels (the exact percentage to be determined) could be used to validate Vincent's mass-appraisal approach at far lower cost than a full reappraisal.

County staff emphasized that appeals remain the primary remedy for property owners who believe their valuations are inaccurate and that the tax office has been opening scheduled appointments and walk-ins to work appeals in person. "Please let folks know — if your property has incorrect data, file an appeal and we'll work with you," the county assessor's office told residents.

Next steps: the board directed staff to (1) send a formal letter asking the associations to perform the free peer review; (2) return with a clear timeline and a cost estimate for a statistically valid sample remeasurement plan (broken down by district and property type); and (3) add to the next meeting's agenda a discussion item about attempting to renegotiate the Vincent contract extension fee. The board did not adopt any emergency changes to tax rates at the meeting.

Provenance: Staff appeal counts and the peer-review motion were presented and debated across the meeting's tax-appeals discussion (topic introduction SEG 1241; discussion and motions through SEG 1955). Representative quotes from staff and Vincent are drawn from the county manager's remarks and the contractor's comments during that segment.