THE FORTY-YEAR
TAX STORM

How New Castle County let reassessment sleep, who woke it up, where the money moved, and what limited moves we can still do – right now

by Karen Hartley-Nagle, former President, New Castle County Council (2016–2024)

​

I. The letter that changed the tone of every kitchen in the county

​

The envelopes landed like hail in July. “Revenue-neutral,” we were told. But neutrality didn’t feel neutral when your bill jumped and your paycheck didn’t. Phones lit up. Neighbors compared notes. And the same questions kept hitting me everywhere I went – and the calls – they haven’t stopped since (It’s been eight months since I was the Council President, people remember I was talking about what to expect with reassessment, since 2021): Who decided this? Where did the money go? Why weren’t we told plainly, early, and often?

​

What follows is the fuller story—names, dates, account transfers, bids, prices, and fixes – told straight, the way I wish every family had heard it before the bills hit the mailbox.

​

II. Before the avalanche: why reassessment mattered and why nobody dared touch it

​

New Castle County’s last full reassessment was 1983. Kent’s was 1987. Sussex’s was 1974. Every year you delay, assessments get more uneven; every year you wait, correcting them becomes more explosive. Everyone knew it. No one wanted to own it.

​

2015: The grenade on the dais.

Councilman George Smiley introduced a reassessment funding package. He didn’t have the votes. With the 2016 primary weeks away and alliances calcifying, he withdrew the bills. Nothing moved.

​

My perspective:

​

I write this as your former Council President and now a private citizen committed to constructive zeal. In 2015, Councilman George Smiley introduced reassessment legislation — then quickly withdrew it after the first measure failed to get votes. To me, the timing was telling: a seasoned politician like Councilman Smiley could have foreseen its defeat, especially with politics already swirling ahead of the 2016 primary. That legislation dropped into a year marked by very public clashes between County Executive Tom Gordon and Council —including Smiley himself — while Smiley, Councilwoman Janet Kilpatrick, and Councilwoman Elisa Diller were openly backing Matt Meyer’s challenge to Gordon. The measure failed to gain enough votes, and after Meyer’s 2016 victory, reassessment legislation was never reintroduced by Smiley — effectively buried once again. From that point forward, alliances solidified around the new administration. These are my observations and opinions, grounded in what I personally witnessed and in public political activity. Readers are encouraged to verify through public endorsements, finance reports, and council records.

​

2020–2021: The courts finally pulled the pin.

The Court of Chancery said the quiet part out loud: you can’t run a constitutional tax system on Reagan-era values. Settlements and stipulations followed. In 2021, New Castle County committed to finish reassessment on a schedule. After four decades of political dodging, the timer started.

​

III. The money trail: every dollar, every account, every vote

​

When the court clock started, Council had to build the funding to pay for the work. Here’s what we did—exactly:

​

Ordinance 21-014 (Introduced Feb 23, 2021; Adopted Mar 9, 2021)

• Moved $26,640,000 from the General Fund Tax Stabilization Reserve Account → to a new Reassessment Reserve Account.

• Purpose: pay for a lawful, countywide reset while keeping the County portion of taxes revenue-neutral overall.

• Sponsors included Smiley, Kilpatrick, Carter, Woods, Hollins, Cartier, Hartley-Nagle.

 

Resolution 21-110 (Introduced June 8, 2021)

• Authorized execution of a Software-as-a-Service + Professional Services agreement with Tyler Technologies to provide CAMA (the assessor’s system) and perform the general reassessment.

• Sponsors: Smiley, Cartier.

 

Ordinance 21-078 (Introduced June 8, 2021; Adopted July 2021)

• Appropriated $8,000,000 from the Reassessment Reserve → to Department of Administration – “Reassessment 2024 Capital Project.”

• At the time, the County’s total reassessment/appeals cost estimate hovered around $18,000,000 (County-wide, not all Tyler).

 

Ordinance 24-055 (Spring 2024; Approved June 2024)

• Moved $8,000,000 back from the Reassessment Reserve → to the General Fund Tax Stabilization Reserve, with fiscal notes stating roughly $10,000,000 would remain to finish—including the appeals wave.

 

Ordinance 25-095 (Adopted July 22, 2025)

• Hard-wires annual July 1 transfers from the Tax Stabilization Reserve → to the Reassessment Reserve ($5,000,000 or 50% of balance, whichever is less) until the Reassessment Reserve reaches $15,000,000.

 

That’s not “vibes.” That’s the ledger.

​

IV. The bid that chose Tyler — and what bidders were told from day one

​

Bid 21PP-001 — Real Property Reassessment Project

• Pre-proposal meeting: February 10, 2021 (Public Q&A; watch here: https://youtu.be/dYjYOYy6E8g?si=3nfiedXSFcf97oOj).

• Bids received: Tyler Technologies, Vision Government Solutions (VGSI), Pearson’s Appraisal Services.

• Process: Purchasing ran the competition; the Administration (County Executive Matthew Meyer) recommended; Council authorized the agreement; the County Executive signed.

 

Scale & method (what the County asked for):

• Roughly ~212,000 parcels countywide.

• About 7,500 income-producing commercial/industrial parcels received Income & Expense (I&E) surveys.

• On-site / street-level inspections plus desktop review and aerial tools. By late May 2024, field inspections for the reassessment phase were reported complete, with residual inspections for new construction and changes.

 

The professional standard the industry expects:
The International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) recommends reappraisal and a physical review of property characteristics every 4 – 6 years. That doesn’t mean every parcel gets a clipboard visit every cycle, but it does mean your data is physically checked on a schedule that keeps error from compounding. We waited forty. That guaranteed a rough landing unless the Quality Assurance and communications were surgical.

​

V. The overlap most people never saw (until it mattered)

​

Well before reassessment, the County was already deep in the Tyler stack:

• Enterprise ERP (Munis) for finance and purchasing,

• Content Manager for records,

• Enterprise Public Safety (New World) for CAD/RMS,

• Open Finance (Socrata / Tyler Data & Insights) for budget and checkbook dashboards.

 

The State’s Open Checkbook also runs on Tyler’s data platform. Standardizing on one platform can help data flow – but when the same corporation touches your ledger, your transparency portal, and your reassessment, residents reasonably ask about independence. The fix isn’t drama; it’s governance: post every contract and change order; stand up independent QA (not the platform vendor); and commit to a 5-year reassessment rhythm so we never stack 40 years of change into one shock again.

​

VI. Receipts: the checks we wrote to Tyler (actuals) vs. the ceilings we set (appropriations)

​

From the County’s Open Expenditures (Checkbook) export for TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC – actual disbursements:

• FY2022: $3,722,699.68

• FY2023: $5,793,314.11

• FY2024: $5,512,633.05

• FY2025: $4,420,948.14

• FY2026 (YTD as of Aug 11, 2025): $1,289,293.45

Total paid (FY2022 → FY2026 YTD): $20,738,888.43.

 

Downloads for your own reading & sharing:

• Excel workbook (By-year totals + summary): Download

• Chart (PNG) – payments by FY: Download

• Checkbook Data CSV (by FY): Download

​

Appropriations/Policy (the ceilings):

• $26.64M → Reassessment Reserve (O21-014).

• $8.0M → Dept. of Administration – Reassessment 2024 Capital Project (O21-078).

• Annual transfers every July 1 until the Reassessment Reserve reaches $15M (O25-095).

• Spring 2024 re-balance returned $8.0M to Tax Stabilization (O24-055), with about $10M left to finish including appeals.

• ​Appropriations say what we could spend. The checkbook shows what we did spend.

​

VII. Why “revenue-neutral” didn’t feel neutral in your mailbox

​

The County set separate tax rates for residential and non-residential and pledged revenue-neutrality on the County portion (school taxes are separate). But neutrality in total is not neutrality to you. Forty years of market shifts came due in one year. Housing values rose; parts of the commercial base (office, some industrial) softened. That rebalanced who pays what.

​

And the timing was brutal:

• Foreclosures: In Q1 2025, national filings rose quarter-over-quarter; Delaware had the highest foreclosure rate in the country. Yes, Delaware is first in the country in foreclosures. (~1 in 763 homes).

• Utilities: County electric payments to Delmarva climbed from $9.78M (FY2023) → $11.01M (FY2024) → $11.66M (FY2025). Families felt that same climb at home.

• Water: Veolia pursued significant rate increases through PSC cases, with interim/final steps raising bills in 2024–2025.

• Groceries & insurance: Up. Wages for many: not enough.

 

Paper neutrality met kitchen-table reality. That’s why you felt blindsided.

​

VIII. Where the commercial methods matter – and what must be published now

​

For non-residential property, Tyler leaned hard on I&E self-reports. If an owner doesn’t respond, assessors use published rent/expense data and market cap rates. That can be fine if you publish the guardrails:​

1. I&E response rates by subclass,

2. the default rents/expenses/cap-rates used when data is missing,

3. the field-verification rate (especially for large assets), and

4. IAAO accuracy metrics (COD, PRD, PRB) by subclass and geography.

 

Without that sunlight, homeowners will assume the commercial side was undervalued and their bills rose to make up the slack. Two Councilmembers – David Tackett and Brandon Toole –have already called for an independent audit. Good. Make it IAAO-compliant, publish the data, and fix what’s broken.

​

(And yes – if there are specific large corporate parcels where numbers look absurd on their face, those should be top of the audit list.)

​

IX. The professional compass: get on the IAAO clock

​

The IAAO standard is simple and sane: reappraise and physically review property characteristics every 4 – 6 years. Not every parcel needs a front-door knock every cycle, but every parcel should be examined by the sixth year. If you keep to that rhythm, annual changes are a nudge, not a cliff.

​

Write it into law: New Castle County should codify a 5-year reassessment cycle, publish a cyclical re-inspection plan (for instance, one-fifth of parcels each year), and retain a truly independent QA team that is not the platform vendor.

​

X. Relief we can do now – lawful, targeted, automatic

​

We don’t need to invent a theory. We already have a precedent.

December 3, 1985 – Resolution 85-397
Council approved refunds of taxes paid when over-65 and disability exemptions were granted, referring to former §7-51 (Ord. 77-226) and §7-59 (Ord. 77-227). Those programs live today as §14.06.302 (elderly/65+) and §14.06.303 (disability).

​

Use that logic now – updated to 2025:

• For Tax Year 2025 only, once a senior (65+) or disabled homeowner is approved (or corrected), automatically credit or refund the County portion of the bill to what it should have been as of July 1.

• Reopen filing 60 days so those confused or delayed by the reassessment can get in.

• Offer 6–12 month payment plans and penalty/interest relief for these households while applications are processed.

• Publish weekly: applications received, approvals, dollars credited/refunded, processing times. (Show your work.)

 

I’ve drafted the resolution and a resident handout:

• Draft Resolution (Word): Credits/Refunds for Seniors & Disabled, TY2025 → Download

• If draft Resolution is sponsored & passed: One-page Handout (Word); How to Get Relief if You’re 65+ or Disabled (TY2025) → Download

 

Bottom line (put this on a postcard):

• **Yes, use the 1986 resolution – **it’s a strong, simple receipt that the County has already done refunds tied to exemptions.

• Anchor today’s relief in the current Code (elderly/disabled sections), and make it retroactive and automatic once eligibility is verified.

• Publish the numbers weekly so residents can see progress.

 

XI. What Tyler could have done better – and how to fix it without drama

​

• Data hygiene: Forty years guarantees stale attributes. A tougher pre-notice verification and post-notice callback blitz (with site checks) would have cut today’s appeals.

• Commercial I&E follow-through: When self-reported numbers drive values, structured verification (desk audits, market cross-checks, and spot site audits) must be baked in – especially for large assets.

• Documentation on the glass: Publish the model documentation (variables, land tables, condo factors) and ratio studies by class/area at certification – and refresh post-appeals.

 

Immediate course-corrections:

• Commission the independent audit (IAAO standards) with a 90 – 120 day clock.

• Publish class-level accuracy metrics and mid-cycle corrections where bias is proven.

• Create a live Reassessment Ledger in Open Finance that tags every project dollar – invoices, referees, mailings, staff OT – so the public can follow along.

 

XII. The human part: seniors, fixed incomes, and families on the edge

​

For seniors and disabled homeowners, this wasn’t an economic debate; it was weeks of lost sleep. For families living paycheck to paycheck, September isn’t a number – it’s the rent, the electric, and now a tax bill they didn’t plan for. Add higher utilities, rising food, insurance jumps, and a statewide foreclosure rate that led the nation in Q1, and you have a community on the edge.

​

Elected officials owe people more than explanations. They owe people a plan they can use.

​

XIII. A plan (Are elected officials willing to do it?)

​

I support putting a hold on 2025 reassessment, pay the same tax amount you paid last year and provide, the state, county, and school boards time to enact long-term solutions utilizing best practices and tapping industry specific experts.  It's clear the political will  is not there to that option.  My guess is because they have already spent your money. So...what can be done?

​

In the next 30–60 days

1. Pass a senior/disabled credit-refund resolution (with weekly reporting).

2. Stand up installment plans (6–12 months) and targeted penalty/interest relief.

3. Add more referees and standardized evidence checklists for appeals.

 

In 90–120 days
4) Independent audit (IAAO) – residential, commercial, industrial; publish findings and corrections; track appeals outcomes by cause (data error, model spec, misclassification).
5) Launch the public dashboard—appeals queue, corrections by type, credits/refunds issued.

In the next 12 months
6) Codify a five-year reassessment with a cyclical re-inspection plan (one-fifth of parcels each year).
7) Diversify vendors where sensible (keep the data backbone; place QA/analytics with an independent team).
8) Publish the contracts and change orders in one “Reassessment Room” online so no one has to fish for them again.

 

XIV. What you can do today​

​

• If you’re 65+ or disabled, apply (or re-apply if you missed the window) and share the handout with neighbors.

• Ask your Councilmember to support a credit-refund resolution and the independent audit.

• When it’s calendared, show up (or email in) with a 60-second story: your status, your bill, and why this relief matters to you.

 

XV. Receipts & reference drawer (for the detail lovers)

​

• 1977: County adopts over-65 (Ord. 77-226) and disability (Ord. 77-227) exemptions – today codified as §14.06.302 and §14.06.303.

• 1986: Resolution 85-397 – refunds of taxes paid tied to exemptions granted.

• 2015: Reassessment package introduced and withdrawn (Smiley).

• 2020 – 2021: Court findings and county stipulations set the reassessment clock.

• 2021 funding and award: O21-014 ($26.64M → Reassessment Reserve), R21-110 (Tyler CAMA + services authorized), O21-078 ($8M → Reassessment 2024 Capital Project).

• 2024 – 2025 funding management: O24-055 ($8M returned), O25-095 (annual transfers until $15M reserve).

• Bid 21PP-001: Pre-proposal meeting Feb 10, 2021 (YouTube link above). Responders: Tyler, VGSI, Pearson’s.

• Scale: ~212,000 parcels countywide; ~7,500 income-producing properties received I&E surveys.

• IAAO: Reappraise and physically review data every 4–6 years.

• Payments to Tyler (actual checks, FY2022→FY2026 YTD): $20,738,888.43 (downloads provided above).

• Utility context: County electric payments to Delmarva rose from $9.78M → $11.01M → $11.66M (FY2023→FY2025).

• Foreclosures: Delaware had the nation’s highest foreclosure rate in Q1 2025 (~1 in 763 homes).

 

Epilogue: Trust comes back the same way it left.​

With facts. With fixes. With relief people can feel.

​

Audit the work. Publish the numbers. Protect seniors and disabled homeowners now. And put reassessment on a steady 5-year clock so this never blindsides anyone again.

​

Attachments for you to use and share:

• Draft Resolution (Word): Download

• One-pager for residents (Word): Download

• Payments to Tyler (Excel): Download

• Payments Chart (PNG): Download

• Payments to Tyler (CSV by FY): Download