Here’s a source-backed rundown of every Tyler Technologies connection I can verify to the State of Delaware and New Castle County (Council/Administration under Matt Meyer, now Marcus Henry), with dates, what the product/service is, and where it lives in government.

​

New Castle County (NCC)

 

Property reassessment + CAMA (Tyler iasWorld + services)

• June 8, 2021: Council Admin–Finance Committee agenda item R21-110 to authorize a Software-as-a-Service and professional services agreement with Tyler Technologies, Inc. to implement a computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) system and conduct the FY2024 countywide reassessment. New Castle County

• Oct 12, 2021: County Executive Matt Meyer’s administration and Tyler announced public town halls to brief residents on the reassessment process. New Castle County

• Oct 21, 2021: Tyler announced it had been awarded an agreement valued at ≈$27 million with all three Delaware counties (New Castle, Kent, Sussex) to deliver reassessment services; New Castle County also selected Tyler’s iasWorld CAMA. (This confirms NCC’s portion and that the work was contracted county-by-county.)

• Project updates: NCC’s deck shows Tyler staffing/timeline and progress (ex: Feb. 28, 2023 update; subsequent update posted Feb. 15, 2024). New Castle County+1

• County FAQ (2025): NCC explicitly states “New Castle County worked with a vendor (Tyler) to conduct a reassessment of property values.” New Castle County

 

Departments/Divisions involved (NCC)

• Assessment / Board of Assessment Review for values/appeals; Department of Land Use hosts the reassessment info hub; Finance (Assessment Division) handles billing/credits logistics noted in FAQs. New Castle County+1

 

ERP/financials (Tyler Munis)

• NCC’s official RFI 21-002 (Hansen replacement), dated Sept. 24, 2021, states: “Tyler Munis is our financial ERP platform,” and seeks a land-use solution that integrates with Munis. New Castle County

• NCC’s public Vendor Self-Service runs on Munis Self Service (munisselfservice.com). (Active in 2025.) New Castle Countynewcastlecountydevendors.munisselfservice.com

 

Public Safety / 911 (Tyler New World CAD/RMS)

• NCC went live on New World Systems Aegis Enterprise CAD & Records on March 2, 2015 (New World was acquired by Tyler in 2015; the platform is now Tyler New World). New Castle County

• NCC job postings explicitly seek experience with Tyler New World CAD—confirming current use. Government Jobs

 

State of Delaware (Executive Branch / Statewide)

 

Open Data Platform (Tyler Data & Insights, fka Socrata)

• The Delaware Open Data Portal is hosted on Tyler Data & Insights (Socrata). The portal itself shows “Tyler Data & Insights”; Delaware originally launched on Socrata on Oct. 19, 2016 following Executive Order 57 (Jan. 27, 2016) and Open Data Council selection of Socrata. (Socrata was acquired by Tyler in 2018.) Tyler Data & InsightsStateScoopNASCIO

 

Public Safety (DSHS / E-911)

• June 24, 2025: Tyler announced an agreement with the Delaware Department of Safety & Homeland Security (E-911) to transition to NERIS federal reporting; the release notes Delaware already uses multiple Tyler public-safety solutions for dispatch, law enforcement, and fire. (Quote is attributed to Robert Williams, E-911 administrator.) Tyler Technologies Investor Relations

 

Where this intersects leaders & offices

​​

• Matt Meyer (County Executive, 2017–2024): His administration noticed/managed the 2021 Council action and Oct. 12, 2021 Tyler town halls tied to the reassessment program. New Castle County+1

• County Council (Admin–Finance Committee): R21-110 was introduced at the June 8, 2021 committee meeting (co-chairs George Smiley and John Cartier listed on the agenda). New Castle County

• Marcus Henry (County Executive, 2025– ): His administration has been handling the downstream reassessment/appeals phase and continuing comms (see 2025 NCC news pages that still reference the Tyler townhalls item in the archive). New Castle County+2New Castle County+2

• Connected NCC departments/divisions using Tyler products: Finance (ERP/Munis; Assessment Division), Administrative Services/Purchasing (VSS), Land Use (reassessment info hub and legacy Hansen replacement planning), Public Safety/911 (Tyler New World CAD/RMS). New Castle County+2New Castle County+2newcastlecountydevendors.munisselfservice.com

• Connected State departments/divisions using Tyler products: DTI & Government Information Center (Open Data Council; Tyler Data & Insights portal) and DSHS/E-911 (public-safety software + NERIS transition). NASCIOTyler Data & InsightsTyler Technologies Investor Relations

 

What I could not see online (and how to grab it fast)

​​

For exact contract documents (signed agreement, scope, change orders, acceptance certificates) and specific dollar splits by county beyond Tyler’s statewide $27M number, request by FOIA:

​​

• New Castle County: “Executed agreement and any amendments related to Resolution R21-110 with Tyler Technologies, including statements of work for iasWorld CAMA and reassessment services (June–Oct 2021), plus any vendor performance reports and deliverable acceptance memos.” New Castle County

• State of Delaware – DSHS/E-911: “Agreement and SOW for NERIS transition support with Tyler/Emergency Networking (June 2025) and any underlying license/maintenance contracts for dispatch/RMS systems referenced in the announcement.” Tyler Technologies Investor Relations

• State of Delaware – Open Data Council (DTI/GIC): “Current contract (and prior renewals) for the Open Data Portal platform with Tyler Data & Insights (Socrata), including term, cost, hosting, and SLAs (initial selection tied to EO 57 and Oct 2016 launch).” NASCIOStateScoop

​

​

​

II. People are asking me: "Is there a "Conflict of Interest" for Governor Matt Meyer and County Executive Marcus Henry?

 

 In reference to their current and /or previous government roles as County Executive Meyer and Marcus Henry in  his previous role in the New Castle County government as an appointed employee:  first as Economic Development & Policy Director for New Castle County and then as General Manager of Community Services"? I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice, however, for those interested, I'll share what I found.

​

Using Tyler across multiple New Castle County systems is not, by itself, a legal “conflict of interest.” Conflicts arise if (a) a public official has a personal/private financial interest in Tyler or its competitors, or (b) the procurement process was steered, improperly restricted, or otherwise not compliant. That said, the overlap does create real legal and oversight risks—organizational-conflict-of-interest (OCI) exposure, vendor lock-in, impaired objectivity in reassessment workflows, and heightened cybersecurity liability—each of which you can and should probe.

​

I’ll lay out the issues, the law, and concrete “what to pull” next.

​​

What’s actually in place (why “overlap” exists)

• Reassessment + CAMA: NCC hired Tyler to run the 2025 reassessment and provide CAMA; Council calendared R21-110 on June 8, 2021; the County and Tyler held public town halls; Tyler’s statewide PR confirmed the Delaware awards. New Castle County+1Business Wire

• Appeals structure: Informal hearings were scheduled with Tyler during rollout; formal appeals are decided by the Board of Assessment Review, not Tyler. tarabicosgrosso.comNew Castle County+1

• Other County systems: NCC uses Tyler Munis (ERP) and runs Vendor Self-Service on Munis; NCC Public Safety runs New World CAD/RMS (now Tyler). New Castle County+1newcastlecountydevendors.munisselfservice.com

• State systems: Delaware’s Open Data Portal runs on Tyler Data & Insights (Socrata); in 2025 the state’s E-911 office engaged Tyler/Emergency Networking for NERIS transition support. Tyler Data & InsightsState of Delaware News+1GovTech

• Leadership context: Matt Meyer is now Governor (sworn in Jan. 2025); Marcus Henry is County Executive. WHYYState of Delaware NewsNew Castle County.

 

The law that actually governs “conflicts”

• State (Delaware) ethics: 29 Del. C. § 5805 bars officials from acting on matters where they have a personal or private interest, restricts representing private enterprises before your own agency, and imposes post-employment cooling-off rules. Appearance matters too. Justia Law

• County ethics: NCC’s Ethics Code prohibits conflicts and the appearance of impropriety; the NCC Ethics Commission explains the “reasonable minds” test used by Delaware courts. New Castle Countyadvisory.nccethics.org

• Procurement rules: Delaware’s Title 29, Ch. 69 requires competition, bans artificially fragmenting purchases to evade bidding, and allows sole-source only with written, well-supported findings; NCC’s code likewise defaults to competitive bidding with narrow exceptions. budget.delaware.govDelaware Code OnlineNew Castle County

Where the overlap can become a problem (and why)

Think in OCI buckets (the federal FAR 9.5 framework is a helpful lens even when not binding): biased ground rules, unequal access to information, and impaired objectivity. Congress.gov

1. Biased ground rules / spec steering

   • NCC’s 2021 Land-Use RFI says, “Tyler Munis is our financial ERP platform, so the ideal solution will integrate easily with Munis.” That can be legitimate interoperability—but it also risks baking in a single vendor’s ecosystem if not justified and tested in the market. You’d want to see whether later procurements required proprietary interfaces (de facto sole-source) rather than open standards. New Castle County

   • Risk: A protest could argue the County wrote specs that unnecessarily restrict competition. Mitigations: brand-neutral specs, interface documentation released to all bidders, and a formal sole-source memorandum only when truly unavoidable. Delaware Code Online

2. Unequal access to non-public information

   • If one vendor maintains the ERP/financials (Munis), runs reassessment pipelines, and interacts with assessment data, it may have informational advantages over competitors when future RFPs drop.

   • Mitigations: strict data-segregation clauses, “level the playing field” disclosures in RFPs, and firewalled teams for any advisory work preceding competitions. (These are standard OCI cures under the federal playbook.) Congress.gov

3. Impaired objectivity (vendor judging its own work)

   • Red flag: when the same vendor that values properties also hosts informal reviews with owners. While formal adjudication is with the Board of Assessment Review, the optics and potential confirmation bias in informal stages can be attacked—especially now that multiple NCC officials and media are calling for an independent audit of Tyler’s numbers. New Castle CountyDelaware Public Media+1

   • Mitigations: independent IV&V (validation sampling by a different firm), publication of calibration studies, and explicit no-role for Tyler in formal appeals.

4. Vendor lock-in / serial contracting

   • When your core finance, CAD/RMS, CAMA, and data portal all touch a single vendor’s stack, switching costs soar. Delaware law doesn’t ban incumbency, but it frowns on defaulting to “sole source”—you must document why competition is infeasible each time. Expect challengers to scrutinize change orders and piggyback/cooperative purchases. Delaware Code Online

5. Cybersecurity & data-handling risk (heightened because of concentration)

   • Tyler sustained a company-wide ransomware incident in 2020 and a 2024 cloud breach impacting a D.C. regulator; concentration of sensitive tax/911/financial data with one vendor means blast radius is larger if something goes wrong. Your contracts should show indemnities, breach notice duties, and audit rights. ReutersStateScoopTyler TechnologiesDISB

6. Appearance of impropriety / public confidence

   • Even without a technical violation, NCC’s appearance standard is expansive. In a politically charged reassessment, broad vendor overlap + public dissatisfaction can become an ethics complaint narrative if decision makers appear overly deferential to the vendor. Recent press calling for audits heightens this risk. advisory.nccethics.orgCoastTV

Do Governor Meyer or Executive Henry have special legal exposure?

• Per se conflict? No. The fact that Meyer’s county administration contracted with Tyler and the State also uses Tyler does not create a conflict unless he (or Henry) has a personal/financial interest, accepted prohibited gifts, or interfered with procurement to favor Tyler. That’s the line in 29 Del. C. § 5805 and NCC ethics provisions. Justia LawNew Castle County

• Post-employment / “switching sides”: These rules bar former state officials from representing private enterprises on matters they worked on; they don’t bar a former county exec (now Governor) from overseeing state agencies unless he has a private interest. Still, voluntary recusals are prudent where there’s a close tie to matters he personally and materially directed as County Executive. Justia Law

• Practical risk: With the reassessment turmoil and audit talk, any new state-level award to Tyler under Meyer could face heightened scrutiny and “appearance” claims—so the record (market research, cost analysis, alternatives) must be meticulous. Delaware Public Media

Other actors who may benefit or influence

• Systems integrators/consultants who can implement around Munis, New World, and iasWorld—they gain billable work when one stack dominates.

• Realtor and appraisal stakeholders (e.g., NCC’s outreach to Board of Realtors on appeals) who shape public and policy response. New Castle County

• Cooperative purchasing groups or statewide contracts—if NCC “piggybacked,” that can speed buys but will be examined for fair-competition compliance. (Check the procurement file for cooperative justifications.) budget.delaware.gov

What to pull next (to prove or dispel a conflict theory)

Ask for these by FOIA (County) or PDR (State); each item is narrowly tied to the risks above:

1. Full R21-110 contract file (NCC ↔ Tyler): executed agreement(s), SOWs, amendments, change orders, deliverable acceptance memos, and any OCI/ethics disclosures attached to bids. New Castle County

2. Source-selection records for reassessment and for any Munis-related expansions since 2021: RFP/RFQ, evaluation score sheets, sole-source memos, market research, and “brand-name-or-equal” justifications. Delaware Code Online

3. Land-Use/Hansen replacement file (because it references Munis integration): RFI responses, draft specs, communications with any vendor (Tyler or partners). New Castle County+1

4. Appeals independence: contracts for “referees,” Board of Assessment Review rules/rosters, and any agreement defining Tyler’s role in informal reviews. Spotlight DelawareNew Castle County

5. Cybersecurity riders: Tyler SOC 2/ISO reports under NDA, incident-notice clauses, and any Delaware-specific data breach notices tied to Tyler systems. Tyler TechnologiesDISB

6. Financial-interest disclosures and recusals for key decision-makers (County and State) during the Tyler procurements. (NCC Ethics Commission filings; State PIC filings.) New Castle CountyDelaware Code Online

Bottom line

• Not automatically a conflict to use Tyler across departments or for both County and State.

• But the pattern raises litigable weaknesses if: specs effectively lock in Tyler without valid justification; Tyler’s informal-hearing role isn’t counter-balanced by independent validation; or if ethics/OCI disclosures and recusals are thin.

• Given public scrutiny and active calls for an audit, a documented IV&V and a procurement-file review are your best levers right now. Delaware Public Media+1

​

III. The New Castle County Open Finance and Delaware Open Checkbook portals, what they show?

​

How Tyler stacks up against competitors (costs, features, usability, customer sentiment), who chose Tyler, when, and what we can verify about RFPs and individuals.

What the Open Finance portals show (NCC & State of Delaware)

• New Castle County Open Finance: runs on Tyler Data & Insights (Socrata); the portal hosts interactive Budget and Checkbook views including CARES and ARPA spending. The site footer links to Tyler’s privacy policy, confirming the platform. newcastle.finance.socrata.com

• Delaware Open Checkbook: the statewide checkbook is also on Tyler Data & Insights (Socrata). Delaware’s open data site labels “Tyler Data & Insights,” and the Open Checkbook dataset listing sits on that platform. Delaware’s Open Data Council (via DTI) states the State entered into a contract with Socrata to provide the portal. Tyler Data & Insights+2Tyler Data & Insights+2DNREC

• NCC communications: the county explicitly said in Nov. 20, 2023 that its Open Finance site is “supported by … Socrata.” New Castle County

What Tyler provides to NCC (and since when)

Tyler highlights New Castle County as a 2021 Tyler Excellence Award (TEA) winner and lists NCC as a client since 2014 using Enterprise ERP (Munis), Content Manager, Enterprise Public Safety (New World), Open Finance, and Time & Attendance. The case study says the county evaluated multiple vendors and chose Tyler for breadth of out-of-the-box functionality and implementation support; it includes quotes from CFO Michael R. Smith and Chief of Technology Michael Hojnicki. Tyler Technologies+1

Separately, NCC’s public record shows:

• Reassessment & CAMA: Council agenda June 8, 2021 (R21-110) to authorize a Tyler SaaS & professional services agreement to implement CAMA and conduct the FY2024 reassessment; later updates document schedule/progress. New Castle County+1

• Public safety: NCC uses Tyler (New World) CAD/RMS (initial go-live on New World Aegis CAD/RMS March 2, 2015).

• ERP footprint: NCC’s procurement and vendor pages show Tyler Munis Vendor Self-Service in active use. newcastlecountydevendors.munisselfservice.comNew Castle County

RFPs / how selection happened (county & state)

• Countywide reassessment: Delaware Public Media reported on June 10, 2021 that all three counties put out RFPs for reassessment and decided to hire Tyler Technologies. Tyler later announced a combined, ~$27M award across the counties. Delaware Public Media

• Enterprise ERP (Munis) for NCC: Tyler’s case study confirms multiple-vendor presentations and peer recommendations; however, NCC’s ERP RFP/award file (naming competing vendors and scoring) is not posted publicly—this is a good target for a FOIA to the NCC Purchasing Division. Tyler Technologies

• State of Delaware open data / checkbook: Delaware’s Open Data Council (through DTI) “entered into a contract with Socrata,” which later became Tyler Data & Insights. If you want the original solicitation/contract number, request it from DTI or the Government Information Center. DNREC

Are any individuals in the article now working for Tyler?

• Michael R. Smith (quoted in the TEA case study) moved from NCC Chief Financial Officer to Delaware Secretary of Finance in 2025; there’s no evidence he is/was employed by Tyler. finance.delaware.gov

• Michael Hojnicki remains a New Castle County technology leader (Chief of Technology/Administrative Services; now referenced as “former CTO” at a 2024 event). There’s no evidence he is/was employed by Tyler. wilmu.eduNew Castle County
  (If you want, I can check employment filings/ethics disclosures, but nothing public ties either official to Tyler employment.)

Why they say they chose Tyler (their words)

From Tyler’s 2021 TEA case study on NCC:

• Chosen after presentations from multiple vendors; favored out-of-the-box functionality, self-service, and implementation support; NCC cites rapid deployment of Open Finance to show CARES Act allocations within 30 days; and significant process efficiencies by adopting “best practices with no customization.” (Quotes attributed to CFO Michael R. Smith and CTO Michael Hojnicki.) Tyler Technologies

NCC also publicized enhancements to Open Finance in 2023 (Socrata platform) to improve transparency. New Castle County

How Tyler compares to other providers (cost, features, ease, satisfaction)

Below are credible, citable points for the main product areas you asked about. Costs vary widely by scope; I’ve included live government examples to anchor numbers.

Transparency / “Open Finance” portals

• Tyler Data & Insights (Socrata) (what NCC and Delaware use): Provides “Open Budget,” “Open Checkbook,” interactive dashboards and the SODA APIs for developers; built-in data catalog and embeddable pages. Delaware’s dataset pages and portal labeling show this stack. Ease: Many governments like the “guided view” UX; technical teams value the APIs. Risk: centralization with one vendor (see cybersecurity notes). Tyler TechnologiesTyler Data & Insights+1

• OpenGov (competitor): Offers transparency modules with tight ties to budgeting & planning; marketed as part of a “cloud ERP for budgeting/financial management.” Customer sentiment in public docs is generally positive around budgeting workflows; OpenGov positions itself head-to-head with Socrata. (Vendor material; treat as marketing.) Cooper CityOpenGov

• ClearGov (competitor): Frequently used by smaller municipalities for transparency/budget book automation; public proposals emphasize easy budget books and personnel budgeting. Bristol Vermont
  (Neutral comparison pages exist but are vendor-submitted; they’re useful directional thumbnails, not primary evidence.) Slashdot

ERP (finance, purchasing, HR/payroll)

• Tyler Munis (Enterprise ERP): Strong adoption with counties/cities; staff reports show jurisdictions moving from legacy or CentralSquare to Munis and reporting positive references. Examples with prices (for ballpark only; scopes differ):

  • Wyoming County, NY: Munis SaaS not to exceed $1.4M (2019–2026). Wyoming County

  • National City, CA: Munis purchase $361,498 one-time + $125,172 annual (smaller scope). pub-nationalcity.escribemeetings.com

  • City of Los Gatos, CA: staff report notes “40 former CentralSquare customers have migrated to Munis in CA”; references were positive; city proceeded to negotiate with Tyler. weblink.losgatosca.gov

• Alternatives at county scale (~500k population): Workday (increasingly used by large cities/states), Oracle (PeopleSoft/Cloud), Infor CloudSuite Public Sector, CGI Advantage, and for smaller-mid markets Springbrook or OpenGov Financials depending on scope. (“Who else was considered?” is rarely named publicly; NCC’s case study confirms “multiple vendors presented,” but does not list them. Their evaluation matrix would be in the ERP RFP file.) Workday Forms

CAMA / Reassessment

• Tyler iasWorld / Enterprise Assessment & Tax: end-to-end assessment and tax billing; NCC used Tyler for reassessment plus CAMA. New Castle CountyTyler Technologies

• Alternatives: Aumentum Tax (Aumentum Technologies), Vision Government Solutions (VGSI), Patriot Properties, among others. (Public, vendor-neutral comparisons exist only as high-level snapshots.) Slashdot

Public safety (CAD/RMS)

• Tyler (New World): used by NCC. Competitors include Motorola Solutions (Spillman Flex), Hexagon (Intergraph), CentralSquare, Mark43, etc. Public review aggregators list these as common alternatives. G2Slashdot

Ease of use & “are customers happy?”

• NCC’s own Tyler-supplied case study claims strong ROI drivers (self-service, fewer spreadsheets, faster reporting) and praises out-of-the-box adoption. That is vendor marketing, but no County correction is in the record, and NCC kept expanding transparency on the same stack in 2023, suggesting continued satisfaction. Tyler TechnologiesNew Castle County

Legal/ethics angle (overlap, conflicts, and risks)—the short version

Using Tyler across NCC departments is not automatically a legal conflict of interest. Under Delaware ethics law and NCC ethics rules, a conflict turns on personal/private financial interests, improper steering, or non-competitive procurement—not on product overlap itself. That said, overlap raises real, auditable risks: vendor lock-in; impaired objectivity in reassessment workflows; unequal access to information; and cybersecurity blast-radius if there’s a vendor incident. (Delaware lawmakers and councilmembers have recently pressed for audits and scrutiny of the reassessment.) WHYY

Cybersecurity context (why overlap matters)

Tyler experienced a company-wide ransomware incident in Sept. 2020 and a 2024 incident affecting a D.C. regulator (DISB) hosted on Tyler’s cloud. When one vendor runs ERP, transparency portals, CAD/RMS, and assessment systems, the aggregate exposure is higher—so contracts should show security audits, breach notice duties, and indemnities. ReutersTyler TechnologiesDISB

Who else was considered? Was there an RFP for each?

• Reassessment (all three counties): Yes—RFPs were issued; Tyler was selected. (Press reporting confirms RFPs; the county files would name bidders and include scoring.) Delaware Public Media

• ERP (NCC): We can confirm multi-vendor presentations from the case study but not the exact solicitation number or bidder list from the public site. (FOIA to NCC Purchasing will yield the RFP, evaluation matrix, and any sole-source/cooperative justifications.) Tyler Technologies

• Open Data / Open Checkbook (State): The State contracted with Socrata (now Tyler Data & Insights); to confirm whether it was a standalone RFP vs. cooperative contract, request the DTI procurement file. DNREC

So…is there a conflict involving Gov. Matt Meyer or Exec. Marcus Henry?

• No per se conflict shown by the record. To have one, you’d need evidence of personal financial interest, gifts, improper steering, or violations of bidding rules under 29 Del. C. § 5805 and county ethics rules. What exists publicly are policy choices and platform consolidation—plus heightened appearance concerns amid reassessment controversy (hence audit calls). WHYY

What you may want to pull next (to name competitors and confirm process)

• NCC ERP: RFP/RFQ, list of proposers, evaluation sheets, negotiation notes. (This answers “who else was considered” for ERP.)

• NCC reassessment: full RFP responses list (competitors), award memo(s), and any OCI or ethics disclosures submitted by Tyler. (This answers “who else was considered” for reassessment.)

• DTI Open Data contract: solicitation/contract/renewals for Socrata/Tyler (establishes state-level selection rationale and term).
  (I can draft targeted FOIA wording if you want.)

Citations to key items you asked me to “check out”

• NCC Open Finance portal: menu for Budget/Checkbook and Tyler privacy footer. newcastle.finance.socrata.com

• Delaware Open Checkbook & Open Data portal (Tyler Data & Insights labels): Tyler Data & Insights+1

• State’s statement that it contracted with Socrata for the portal: DNREC

• Tyler TEA case study (NCC; quotes; products; “client since 2014”): Tyler Technologies

• NCC’s R21-110 reassessment authorization & project updates: New Castle County+1

• RFPs were issued for the counties’ reassessment (news) and $27M statewide award: Delaware Public Media

• NCC using Tyler Munis (VSS) & Open Finance enhancement notice (Socrata): New Castle County+1

• Officials’ current roles (no Tyler employment): Smith at Delaware DoF; Hojnicki as NCC tech leader. finance.delaware.govwilmu.edu

• Security incidents (2020 ransomware; 2024 DISB cloud incident): ReutersTyler TechnologiesDISB

• ERP cost examples in other jurisdictions (for scale): Wyoming Countypub-nationalcity.escribemeetings.com

• Market alternatives (ERP, public safety, CAMA): weblink.losgatosca.govG2Slashdot+1

​

IV.  The New Castle County Reassessment Story—What Happened, Who Drove It, What It Cost, and What We Need to Do Next...

​

I’ve sat on both sides of the dais—listening to people who just opened tax bills they can’t afford, and poring over the budgets, ordinances, and contracts that led us here. This is the full story—with dates, dollars, names—and a practical plan to fix what’s fixable.

1) The long fuse: how we went 40+ years without a general reassessment

New Castle County last completed a full reassessment in 1983. Kent did one in 1987. Sussex in 1974. Those stale base years created profound inequities that got worse every year—and every year it got harder politically to fix.

In 2015, Councilman George Smiley introduced a package to start funding a reassessment (O15-043, O15-046, O15-047, O15-051, O15-052). It stalled. The will wasn’t there yet.

The true trigger came later: education-funding litigation and settlements (2020–2021) that required all three counties to complete reassessments on a defined schedule. That’s what finally ended the 1983 base year in NCC.

Bottom line: the legal push was external—but the responsibility to execute well was ours.

2) The funding and the vendor: who moved what, and when

February–March 2021: Council created and funded a dedicated reserve: $26.64M moved from the General Fund Tax Stabilization Reserve into a new Reassessment Reserve (O21-014).
June–July 2021: Council authorized execution of a Tyler Technologies agreement for a CAMA system and countywide reassessment (R21-110).
June–July 2021: Council appropriated $8,000,000 from the Reassessment Reserve to the Department of Administration – “Reassessment 2024 Capital Project” (O21-078). The County’s estimate then put total reassessment/appeals costs around $18M (County-wide—not all Tyler).
April–June 2024: Council rebalanced reserves, moving $8,000,000 back to the Tax Stabilization Reserve (O24-055). The fiscal note projected about $10M remaining to finish—including appeals.

Who else bid? The procurement file 21PP-001 shows responses from Tyler Technologies, Vision Government Solutions (VGSI), and Pearson’s Appraisal Services. The Administration recommended award; Council authorized execution; the Executive signed.

3) Why it looks like “one company everywhere”

New Castle County has used Tyler since 2014 for major platforms: Enterprise ERP (Munis), Content Manager, Enterprise Public Safety (New World CAD/RMS), Open Finance (Socrata), and Time & Attendance. That’s not unusual in government IT—but it is a lot of critical plumbing tied to one vendor.

4) What residents actually felt

County leaders set separate tax rates for residential and non-residential to keep the County’s total take revenue-neutral. But “neutral in total” is not “neutral to you.” With parts of the commercial market soft (office/industrial) and residential values strong, the burden shifted. That’s the math behind the shock.

5) Commercial valuation—the process problem we need to fix

For non-residential property, Tyler leaned heavily on Income & Expense (I&E) self-reports and supplemented with market sources when owners didn’t respond. Without transparent I&E non-response rates, the default rent/expense/cap-rate assumptions applied when data is missing, and a published field-verification rate, the process can systematically undervalue parts of the commercial base. When that happens, the burden shifts to homeowners—exactly what many are now experiencing.

What to do:

• Publish I&E response rates and the default inputs used where data was missing.

• Publish industry-standard accuracy metrics (COD, PRD, PRB) and appeal outcomes by subclass (office, warehouse, industrial, retail, multifamily).

• Commission an independent audit to validate or correct the commercial models (see “Audit & fix” below).

6) What we’ve actually paid so far (separate from appropriations)

Using the County’s Open Expenditures vendor ledger for TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC, the County has paid:

• FY2022: $3,722,699.68

• FY2023: $5,793,314.11

• FY2024: $5,512,633.05

• FY2025: $4,420,948.14

• FY2026 (YTD in the export): $1,289,293.45

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

Assets for your post:

• Excel workbook: NCC → Tyler payments by FY — Download

• Chart (PNG): Payments by FY — Download

(These are actual disbursements. They sit alongside the earlier appropriations you passed via O21-014, O21-078, O24-055.)

7) The 2025 squeeze was real (and measurable)

This landed at the worst possible moment.

• Foreclosures: In Q1 2025, there were 93,953 U.S. foreclosure filings (+11.37% vs. Q4 2024). Delaware had the highest foreclosure rate in the country—0.131% (~1 in 763 homes) that quarter. March saw 35,890 filings nationwide (+11% month-over-month). (ATTOM data via The Mortgage Reports.)

• Utilities: The County’s own electricity spend with Delmarva climbed from $9.78M (FY2023) to $11.01M (FY2024) to $11.66M (FY2025), with FY2026 still developing. Residents felt similar pressure at home.

• Groceries and basics: Rising staples and insurance rounded out the hit.

Paper neutrality meets kitchen-table reality. That’s why people felt blindsided.

8) Is there a conflict—or a concentration problem that looks like one?

Using one vendor across multiple systems is not, by itself, a legal conflict of interest. Under Delaware and County ethics rules, a conflict typically requires a personal financial interest or improper steering in procurement. I have not seen public documentation showing that for Governor Matt Meyer or County Executive Marcus Henry.

But there’s a governance problem that looks like a conflict: over-concentration. When one company runs your general ledger, your transparency site, and your reassessment engine, three risks go up:

• Impaired objectivity — if quality checks aren’t fully independent, mistakes can propagate.

• Unequal information — platform vendors can have informational advantages for follow-on work unless the County levels the field.

• Switching costs & leverage — the more you rely on one stack, the harder it is to push for changes or competitively rebid pieces.

Cure: support an independent audit (IAAO standards) and a vendor-diversification plan. Those are standard fixes for “appearance” problems even when no legal conflict exists.

On tone: multiple people—some fearful of retaliation—have privately described aggressive pushback when they raise concerns. I’m protecting their identities. Whether or not every account is borne out, the perception of closure and silence from leaders is damaging in itself. The fix isn’t spin; it’s public data, independent verification, and clear relief families can actually use.

9) Audit & fix: the right way to get this back on track

Independent audit (90 days, public)

• Scope: commercial deep-dive (I&E non-response, default inputs, sales and cap-rate assumptions), accuracy metrics (COD/PRD/PRB) by subclass and geography, sales-chasing test, appeal outcomes by class.

• Standards: IAAO ratio-study and model-documentation standards.

• Governance: auditor reports to Council in public session; data and findings posted.

Immediate relief (next 30–60 days)

• Installments & penalty relief: automatic 6–12 month payment plans on request; targeted penalty/interest abatements tied to this cycle.

• Senior & limited-income offsets: temporarily expand eligibility/amounts; align with school districts where possible.

• Appeals triage: more referees, standardized evidence checklists, guaranteed timely hearing slots.

Structural changes (12 months)

• Every-five-years reassessment in code with a dedicated funding set-aside (so we never shock residents like this again).

• Vendor diversification: keep what works; split QA/analytics and transparency storytelling across at least one other provider; retain Tyler’s open data APIs but add an independent front-end if needed.

• Appeals ombudsman: small independent unit (retired assessors + pro-bono appraisers/Realtors) to help residents assemble cases; publish win/loss stats by category.

• Real-time transparency: a dedicated Reassessment Ledger in Open Finance tagging every project dollar—vendor invoices, referee costs, mailings, legal, staff OT.

10) The truth people deserve

This should have been handled with steady communication months in advance: neighborhood-level expectations, clear appeal pathways, and honest timelines. We didn’t do that. We can do it now.

Make the data public. Let independent experts check the work. Give families time and flexibility to pay. And never let 40+ years go by again.

Receipts (for readers who want the documents)

• Funding & moves:
  • O21-014 — moved $26.64M from Tax Stabilization Reserve → Reassessment Reserve (Feb–Mar 2021).
  • O21-078 — $8M from Reassessment Reserve to Dept. of Administration – “Reassessment 2024 Capital Project” (June–July 2021).
  • O24-055 — moved $8M back to the Tax Stabilization Reserve (April–June 2024; projected $10M remaining for completion including appeals).
  • O25-095 — now in code: on July 1 each year, transfer $5,000,000 or 50% (whichever is less) from Tax Stabilization to Reassessment Reserve until the latter reaches $15,000,000.

• Vendor & bidders:
  • R21-110 — authorized execution of the Tyler agreement (CAMA + reassessment).
  • Bid 21PP-001 responders: Tyler Technologies, Vision Government Solutions, Pearson’s Appraisal Services.

• Actual disbursements to Tyler (from County checkbook export as of Aug 11, 2025):
  • FY2022–FY2026 YTD total: $20,738,888.43 (year-by-year above).
  • Excel data & chart: Download Excel · Download chart

​

V. New Castle County has not published a “mistakes” count or a tally of how many assessments Tyler changed - 

​

- either during the informal reviews (Nov 2024–Feb 2025) or the formal appeals now underway. What we can quantify publicly so far is:

• Appeals filed: “Over 5,200” appeals were received after the reassessment; formal Board of Assessment Review (BOR) hearings began scheduling in July and will take months to finish. New Castle CountyTown Square Delaware LIVE

• Expected upper bound discussed earlier: in January the County said it could see up to 15,000 formal appeals, but the actual filings ended up far lower. Spotlight Delaware

• Informal review window: conducted by Tyler Nov 2024–Jan/Feb 2025; outcomes from those sessions (how many values changed) were not posted. Delaware Public Media

VI. So…how many were “wrong” and corrected?

We don’t have official outcome stats yet. The County’s July 14 update confirms 5,200+ appeals and says BOR decisions will take “several months,” but it does not report how many assessments have been reduced, sustained, or increased. New Castle County
Tyler’s project lead even acknowledged the scale: “There are 212,000 questions on this test; we’re not going to get them all right,” which implies some error rate is expected in any mass appraisal, but again—no County-published counts of corrections. Delaware Public Media

“What about people who missed errors or missed the deadline?”

• If you filed but your case isn’t resolved by the Sept 30, 2025 tax due date, you can pay and receive a credit/refund with interest if you win later. New Castle County

• If you didn’t file this year, you can’t change the 2025 bill, but you can appeal in a future year (file by March 14 annually; 2025’s deadline was extended once to Mar 31). Delaware Public MediaRichards, Layton & Finger

What numbers the County should publish (and hasn’t yet)

If you want true accountability—“how many mistakes?”—these are the minimums the County can and should release weekly:

1. Informal review results: # of notices changed vs. unchanged (by res./non-res.).

2. Formal BOR outcomes: # reduced / sustained / increased, by property class and council district.

3. Error-type codes: % due to data errors (SF, baths, condition), model issues, or I&E defaults on commercial.

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

5. Cycle times (days from filing → decision) and refunds/credits issued.

These are standard, low-lift exports from Assessment/BOR systems.

Estimating the “unseen” mistakes

No one can credibly count errors not appealed without an audit. The right way is a post-assessment ratio study and file review (random sample, stratified by property type) to estimate an error rate and bias—the audit Council members are asking for right now. Delaware LIVE News

If you want, I can draft a one-page resolution (and data schema) requiring the Administration to post a weekly BOR dashboard with those five data lines above and to commission an IAAO-compliant audit that will finally answer “how many were wrong?” with real numbers instead of anecdotes.

​

​

VII. The Forty-Year Bill

A New Castle County exposé in three acts

Act I: The Mail

The envelopes arrived in a July heat that made the glue tacky and the air heavy. Across New Castle County, people slit them open with butter knives and fingernails and found numbers that didn’t belong to their lives. “Revenue-neutral,” the line had gone for months. On paper it still was. In kitchens and on stoops, neutrality looked like a bigger bill due September 30.

A widow in Pike Creek put her glasses on and read the assessment twice, then called her daughter. A young couple in Middletown circled their new figure in red and texted the photo to their HOA thread. In Claymont, a retired welder did rough math on the back of a grocery list and understood he’d be short by about the price of his blood pressure meds. The phones at Government Center lit up. So did councilmembers’ inboxes.

From a distance it felt sudden. Up close, it was the slowest event in local government—forty years in the making.

Act II: How We Got to Now

New Castle County last reset everyone’s property values in 1983. Kent County followed in 1987. Sussex? 1974. Every year we waited widened the gap between what a parcel was worth and what it was taxed on. By the 2010s, everyone knew we were sitting on a fairness problem with a political fuse.

In 2015, Councilman George Smiley introduced a package to fund a reassessment. He didn’t have the votes. With a 2016 primary weeks away and alliances hardening, he withdrew the bills. The can rolled.

The courts did what politics wouldn’t. In May 2020, the Court of Chancery concluded you cannot run a constitutional tax system on Reagan-era values. In 2021, New Castle County stipulated to finish a modern reassessment on a clock. For the first time since 1983, the county had to look at what things are worth now and live with the answers.

Council built the war chest and the plumbing:

• O21-014 (Mar 9, 2021): $26,640,000 moved from the General Fund Tax Stabilization Reserve to a new Reassessment Reserve—the “gas tank” to pay for the overhaul.

• R21-110 (Jun 8, 2021): Council authorized the Administration to execute an agreement with Tyler Technologies for the CAMA system and professional services to carry out the countywide reassessment.

• O21-078 (July 2021): $8,000,000 appropriated from the Reassessment Reserve to Department of Administration – “Reassessment 2024 Capital Project.” Countywide costs were then forecast around $18M through appeals (not all to Tyler).

• O24-055 (Spring 2024): $8,000,000 returned to Tax Stabilization with about $10M projected to finish, including appeals.

• O25-095 (July 22, 2025): a standing rule—automatic July 1 transfers back into the Reassessment Reserve until it reaches $15,000,000, so we never do this on fumes again.

The work was bid. Bid 21PP-001 drew three responders: Tyler Technologies, Vision Government Solutions (VGSI), and Pearson’s Appraisal Services. There’s even a Feb 10, 2021 pre-proposal meeting on YouTube: what the county asked for, what vendors promised, captured in a single hour.

What the county asked for was enormous: roughly 212,000 parcels to value. About 7,500 income-producing properties—office, warehouse, retail, multifamily—would get Income & Expense (I&E) surveys. Field data collectors would measure, photograph, and verify; modelers would calibrate neighborhood by neighborhood; notices would go out; appeals would follow.

There is a professional clock for this. The International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) recommends reappraisal and a physical review of property characteristics every 4–6 years. Not every parcel needs a clipboard at the door each cycle, but every parcel should be examined by year six. Delaware waited forty. That guarantees a rough landing unless verification and communications are surgically good.

They weren’t good enough.

Act III: The Landing

Tyler’s yellow-vested field crews knocked for months. Tentative values landed in late 2024. 11,000+ informal hearings later, values were finalized in early 2025 and the County set separate tax rates—residential and non-residential—to keep the County piece revenue-neutral overall. (School taxes are separate, and several districts used a one-time state law to raise up to 10% without a referendum.) The result: neutral in total; far from neutral to many households.

What changed underneath? Before reassessment, homeowners bore about two-thirds of the base. After Tyler’s numbers, residential values rose so much that homeowners briefly accounted for roughly 76% of the base; the two-rate system later pulled that down to about 69%. The distribution shifted. The share moved.

And it hit into a headwind: in Q1 2025, Delaware posted the highest foreclosure rate in the country; families were already chewing through higher electric bills (the County’s own spend with Delmarva rose from roughly $9.78M (FY23) to $11.01M (FY24) to $11.66M (FY25)), and water rates rose under Veolia’s cases. Groceries and insurance climbed. Kitchen-table arithmetic got ugly.

The people behind the numbers

• Mrs. Alvarez, 78, New Castle. Owns her home free and clear. The new bill equals her winter heating budget. She brings a shoebox of receipts to a referee hearing and whispers, “I can’t lose this house.”

• The Dalys, Bear. Two kids, two jobs, one missed paycheck from trouble. Their assessed value jumped; a neighboring model match is $50,000 lower. They file, wait, and juggle.

• Mr. Patel, Wilmington corner grocer. A tiny storefront lands an assessment higher than a shiny suburban gas station. His taxes rise; his margins don’t.

• A quiet insider. A mid-level staffer says commercial I&E response rates were uneven and follow-ups thin under schedule pressure. “We defaulted more than anyone wanted to admit.”

The stories that lit a fuse

Residents discovered anomalies that made the rounds: a downtown bank garage valued so low you could confuse it with a single-family home; the new Amazon logistics center assessed at a fraction of its 2023 sale price; mom-and-pop storefronts landing higher than name-brand fuel corners. Some of this is the cold logic of the income approach in a soft office market. Some of it looks like model error or verification gaps. Without sunlight—response rates, defaults used when data is missing, field-verification rates for large assets, class-by-class accuracy metrics—trust craters.

Two councilmembers, David Tackett and Brandon Toole, called for an independent audit—IAAO-grade, with access to the data and model documentation. That ask is not radical; it’s standard hygiene after a once-in-a-generation reset.

The vendor in the middle of everything

By the time Tyler won the reassessment contract, the company already had a deep local footprint:
Enterprise ERP (Munis) for finance; Content Manager for records; Enterprise Public Safety (New World) for CAD/RMS; Open Finance (Socrata / Tyler Data & Insights) for the checkbook and transparency sites. The State runs its open checkbook on the same data spine. Standardization is efficient. It also concentrates risk and perception: when one company runs your ledger, your transparency portal, and your reassessment engine, the burden of independent QA has to be extra strong.

Follow the money (receipts, not rumors)

From the County’s own checkbook—actual payments to TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC:

• FY2022: $3,722,699.68

• FY2023: $5,793,314.11

• FY2024: $5,512,633.05

• FY2025: $4,420,948.14

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

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

That’s separate from the ceilings Council set ($26.64M into the Reassessment Reserve via O21-014; $8.0M to the capital project via O21-078; annual transfers via O25-095). Appropriations are intent. The checkbook is reality.

The politics everyone felt but few wanted to say out loud

The 2015 failed push. The 2016 realignments. A reassessment finally pushed by court order, then managed under one administration and inherited mid-stream by another. Councilmembers who wanted to fix and fund; legislators who amplified frustration; a City Council that labeled the outcome “evil,” yet voted to move forward because budgets must be balanced. Residents didn’t care who “won” the hearing. They wanted relief and corrections that mattered.

What the County Did Next (and What It Still Must Do)

• Appeals: More than 5,200 formal appeals filed by March 31, 2025. Council funded referees to expand capacity. If you paid and later win, you’re due a refund (with interest) on the County portion.

• Payment relief: Council authorized installment plans (with penalty relief) so families could spread the shock over months instead of a single September cliff.

• Reassessment savings account: O25-095 put the reserve on autopilot so the next cycle isn’t financed with hope and overtime.

• Cycle discipline: The county signaled support for a statutory 5-year reassessment rhythm—squarely within IAAO’s 4–6 year standard—so the next adjustment is a nudge, not a cliff.

The Fix—Concrete, Not Cosmic

1. Independent audit (90–120 days)
   A third-party IAAO CAE/MAS team—not the platform vendor—tests residential and commercial models, publishes ratio studies (COD/PRD/PRB) by class and geography, and truth-tests commercial I&E with market comps. Findings public, corrections continuous.

2. Publish the guardrails
   Post I&E response rates; the defaults used when data is missing; field-verification rates for large assets; and class-level accuracy metrics. Explain outliers in plain English.

3. Mid-cycle corrections
   Where the audit shows systematic bias, adjust mid-cycle rather than forcing families to wait a year. Protect the base and the trust.

4. Relief that’s legal, targeted, automatic
   We’ve done it before. In 1986, Resolution 85-397 granted refunds tied to over-65 and disability exemptions (those live today as §14.06.302–.303). Use that logic now for TY2025: once a senior or disabled homeowner is approved (or corrected), automatically credit or refund the County portion back to what it should have been as of July 1. Reopen filings 60 days. Offer 6–12-month installments. Publish weekly counts and dollars.

5. Lock the rhythm
   Codify a 5-year reassessment with a cyclical re-inspection plan (one-fifth of parcels each year). Fund a standing independent QA line—separate from any core system vendor.

6. Put the contracts on glass
   One page with every contract, SOW, and change order—in one place. Add a Reassessment Ledger to Open Finance: every invoice, referee hour, mail run, and modeling task tagged and visible.

Epilogue: What the Storm Revealed

This wasn’t just a spreadsheet event. It was a stress test of trust. It revealed a county that waited too long to fix something everyone knew was broken, then tried to fix it all at once while people were already stretched thin by utilities, food, and mortgages.

It also revealed the path back. When the county posted real receipts—ordinance numbers, reserve transfers, vendor payments—the conversation shifted from rumor to remedy. When families heard there was a lawful way to be made whole if they were 65+ or disabled, some slept for the first time in weeks. When councilmembers called for an independent audit instead of a press release, residents heard the note they were waiting for: we’ll check, and we’ll fix.

New Castle County can make this right. The blueprint is not romantic. It’s IAAO discipline, public math, timely relief, and a reassessment rhythm that never lets forty years pile up again.

The envelopes that landed this summer started the story. What we do next will decide how it ends.