Guest Post: The Property Reassessment Controversy
By Mediawatch:
Like you, I’m still trying to figure out who should be in the crosshairs.
A couple of things going on here:
1. There was minimal uproar last year in Kent because it’s the smallest county. There has been relatively little outrage in Sussex because property taxes are so damn low and there’s a smaller percentage of commercial sites there. So everything gets magnified in New Castle County.
2. There was little public reporting prior to the setting of the tax rates of the disparities between residential and commercial assessments. Yeah, I realize that there was some early grousing from folks thinking their homes were overvalued by Tyler, but I think most people assumed the increased valuations for residential and commercial would be pretty much the same. In other words, if our taxes were going up, we expected residential and commercial to be screwed equally.
3. For those reasons, many were shocked when residential valuations increased by significantly more than commercial, and then we wondered why the county and Wilmington set separate rates for commercial and residential but the school districts (which account for more than three-quarters of the tax bills) did not.
So, now we’ve got to look at solutions, and it’s good that the General Assembly is planning to come back in special session. Some thoughts:
1. The General Assembly has to give school districts the same authority as cities and counties to set separate tax rates for residential and commercial.
2. Tyler’s methodology has to be corrected to eliminate an obvious commercial vs. residential imbalance. You have to use the same effective date for both categories. You can’t base commercial values on a time frame when many businesses were closed or limited because of COVID while using the post-COVID July 2024 date for residential values.
3. We need legislation that spells out the criteria for performing the assessments. Also, given that these assessments will be performed regularly in the future, and that most property tax revenue goes to schools, the state should pay for future assessments and oversee how they are conducted so there is consistency among the counties.
4. The law permitting 10 percent collection increases post assessment should be eliminated because residents will feel they are being gouged every five years. However, we cannot let our schools starve. Let’s change the laws governing tax rates and referendumsl to let school districts increase their rates by 2 percent per year (Sorry, seniors — and I’m one of you — but that’s less than the typical Social Security COLA so it’s something we should be able to budget for.) If schools need more than a 2 percent hike, they should be able to say why and take it to the voters for approval.
5. The counties have to be more transparent about assessment appeals for commercial properties. If Amazon, or Chase, or DuPont, or Buccini/Pollin, or Christiana Mall wants its assessment lowered, that request should be publicly advertised, and experts other than those hired by the companies should have a say at any appeals hearing.
6. Districts that bumped up their rates to compensate for the federal bucks they thought they would lose but now will receive should set aside any additional funds collected in a separate account, make a public report on it next spring and offset their rates for 2026-27 by that amount.
I’ve been thinking about this for days, but that’s all I’ve got in the half-hour I’ve spent writing.
Hats off to Christian Willauer in Wilmington, Kim Williams in the GA and Kevin Caneco in the county for jumping on this issue. They all have good ideas.
I’m sure that the good folks who read this blog will have some more ideas that we all will be welcome to read about.
But, PU-LEEZE, quit bitching and start proposing solutions.
Logical post.
I hope that every legislator gets a chance to read this.
Caneco has been right on with the “kicking the can down the road” analogy he did again the other night. The state special session wants to move reassessment from 5 years to 10 years. That would be wrong, wrong, wrong…
Doing that puts us right back in the problem we had previously, we should do rolling assessments every three to five. We absolutely should not move the assessments backwards again.
Your suggestion about raising rates up to 2% a year is logical, based on COLA I would even be inclined to say 3%.
People do need to realize that they have been paying an outdated amount for school taxes due to houses not being reassessed since the 70’s and 80’s. Our funding model says we fund schools based on property values but when we haven’t adjusted those values for forty years there are going to be sharp increases. That said being able to have different tax rates for residential and commercial properties is reasonable but let’s make sure those areas with lots of government/state buildings in Kent are not negatively impacted just so NCC can benefit.
Id like to make a larger point. If this is how democrats respond to increased taxes, in some cases many of the same people who want to expand a variety of social programs in the state, then we should just stop pretending that Delaware will actually do anything of great importance for the society and culture here. The response has just reinforced my belief that Delaware will never be anything more than what it is and has been, and it’s looking to get much worse. That’s a tragedy for all of us.
Hats off to Caneco, or gloves off?
Ehhh not sure Caneco deserves much praise. He has openly antagonized school districts the last few weeks, while being relatively silent on necessary criticism of the county/Tyler Tech here.
I’m not sure what his ultimate goal is here, but he’s been a bit cranky through this whole affair.
If we’re going to seek better assessments the next time around, we need to understand the process, and hold Tyler to it. Please download and save and read this document:
Mass Appraisal For The Masses: The Basics
How are property tax assessments calculated, and how can we know if they’re fair? Let’s find out!
at https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/mass-appraisal-for-the-masses-the
It begins:
“Real estate property valuation is an obscure and mysterious topic for many, which invites confusion and even suspicion. Over the next few months I’m going to teach you more than you ever wanted to know about it.
In today’s article, I begin by showing that real estate valuation need not be arcane and arbitrary, explaining its basic principles in a simple and straightforward way. I conclude by showing the reader how to perform objective tests that evaluate the accuracy, consistency, and overall fairness of any mass appraisal valuation.”
Share this link with your neighbors, your County Council representative, and your state legislators. The more we-the-taxpayers and they-the-deliberators understand about what happens in mass assessment and what we and they need to look for, the more effective will we and they be.
Shouting complaints without understanding the process isn’t going to move anyone closer to solving the problem.
We have most of about 4 years before the next assessment begins. It needs to be a learning process for us all.
You might also explore this 3-page Residential Valuation Schedule, from a high-end Connecticut town: http://www.westportnow.com/Revalmodel022704.pdf, primarily for how it is structured.
My sense is that we need to see what sort of model TT developed for each of our counties, and perhaps there are different models for each school district. Or more likely the City of Wilmington has its own. Our County Council should be exploring the models.
And they should be asking for a land value map, color-coded like the one that shows up when (or before?) you open this YT link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swav2lfUvfo and at 10:36 and this photo https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/greenwich-assessor-ted-gwartney-to-retire-2282265.php
Here are the sections of the video:
The Role of the Assessor
Market Value Approach
Cost Approach
Income Approach
Assessors Parcel Map
Home Assessments
Residential Buildings
Commercial Assessments
Commercial Valuation
Visit Assessors Office
Test Valuation Models
Assessment Questions
Revaluation
Why Do Values Change?
A transcript is available.
the assessment method is ridiculous. how does a house directly across the street from me with on more full bathroom, a finished basement, swimming pool and larger acreage coming in valued less with a lower tax bill?
how does a house 6 doors up from me with a valuation $40k more come in with a $300 less tax bill?
The latter could be because of the senior tax credit of $500 if the owner is 65 plus. Obviously if you both are, it’s a wash and explains nothing.
I think the public county property tax website should show whether the valuations posted are accompanied by any appeals and whether a senior discount was granted so that the valuation differentials are more clear.
They are younger than us. So no senior discount. It’s a completely flawed methodology
Really struggling with this one.
Do we really want to limit the ability of school districts to raise revenue without referendums?
Seems like we fought so hard to accomplish reassessment over so very many barriers. DECLASI and the ACLU fought hard to make this happen for Delaware students.
There were even bills floated to preempt the lawsuit and VC Lasters decision.
Feels like backsliding to forego all that progress now.
Educate me, am I missing something?
Not sure who your “we” is, but I agree that, in some people’s ideal world, should districts should be able to set tax rates without going to referendum. Yes, in that framework, I would be one of those “some people” but it’s highly unlikely that we’re ever going to give free rein to Delaware school boards to set tax rates.
To the point you’re raising: what I wrote — and wrote rather quickly — addresses only what I think the GA and county governments can reasonably address to fix the major issues associated with the messy outcome of the reassessment.
Longer term — and this is where the fate of referenda comes in — it’s going to be up to the Public Education Finance Commission to make recommendations that relate to how local tax rates are set in whatever restructured school funding mechanism is created.
I’ll have plenty to say on that topic when the funding reform proposals are finalized.
Meanwhile, I think we all can agree that it would be a shame for the GA and the counties to say we ought to wait until the Finance Commission issues its report before we address the messy reassessment outcomes.
Is the Problem Reassessment, or Failure to Reform Delaware’s Education Funding System after Ignoring the Challenge for 50-Year Challenge
Over the past five decades, Delaware has undertaken multiple efforts to study and reform its public education funding system. Despite persistent warnings from task forces, commissions, and national consultants, the system remains heavily reliant on local property taxes, governed by an outdated funding model that fails to account for student need or economic equity.
Beginning in the late 1970s, Delaware’s Governor’s School Finance Task Force (1978–1980) first raised concerns about equity and called for greater state support to reduce local tax burdens. However, the core structure—a state-local funding partnership anchored by a rigid “unit count” formula and local property tax referenda—remained intact. In 2001, a seminal report by Augenblick & Myers, commissioned by the State Board of Education and the Rodel Foundation, recommended replacing the unit count system with a weighted student funding model that would better reflect the needs of English Learners, low-income students, and students with disabilities. Despite its influence, the recommendations were never implemented.
In 2008, the Vision 2015 initiative further emphasized the importance of aligning funding with student needs, while in 2015–2016, the Wilmington Education Improvement Commission (WEIC) highlighted stark disparities affecting city schools. WEIC called for governance reform and equitable funding solutions, but its recommendations were ultimately sidelined in the face of political and jurisdictional challenges.
The system’s deficiencies were once again laid bare in a 2018 report by the American Institutes for Research, which concluded that Delaware was one of the few states without a weighted student funding formula. The report criticized the lack of targeted support for disadvantaged students and called for greater transparency and accountability. These findings set the stage for the 2020 Delawareans for Educational Opportunity v. Carney lawsuit, which challenged the constitutionality of the funding system. The resulting settlement committed the state to invest $60 million in Opportunity Funding for low-income and English Learner students, establish an Equity Ombudsperson, and deliver ongoing reporting. It also required the a statewide reassessment of property taxes. The Redding Consortium for Educational Equity, reauthorized in 2022, has since carried forward many of these priorities, renewing calls to make weighted student funding permanent and formula-based.
All of these reform efforts have grappled with the same core structural problem: Delaware’s education funding is inextricably tied to property-based taxation. Public school funding comes from a dual system—approximately 60–65% from the state and the remainder from local property taxes raised through voter referenda. School districts must seek voter approval not only to raise operating tax rates but also to fund capital improvements, a requirement that often leads to financial instability and planning uncertainty. When referenda fail, school districts are forced to make immediate cuts, regardless of growing enrollment or student needs.
The reliance on property taxes creates deep inequities. Districts with high property wealth can raise more money at lower tax rates, while those in economically struggling areas struggle to maintain basic services. Moreover, until the court-mandated reassessment in 2024, property values in Delaware had not been updated since the 1980s or earlier—meaning that tax burdens were increasingly disconnected from real property values. Even with reassessment now underway, the unequal distribution of taxable wealth across districts continues to result in widely varying school tax rates and outcomes.
Fixing this system requires both structural and fiscal reform. Policymakers have long called for a shift to a weighted student funding model, which would direct more state resources to students based on need rather than headcount alone. Equalization aid must also be strengthened so that state dollars help close the gap between property-rich and property-poor districts. Some have called for ending or replacing the referendum requirement, perhaps by ensuring that the state provides a base level of operating funding and districts vote only on enhancements. Others have proposed property tax “circuit breakers” to shield low- and fixed-income residents from sharp increases following reassessment. Longer-term solutions may include expanding the revenue base—such as through state education surcharges or impact fees tied to development—and redefining the state’s constitutional responsibility to guarantee adequate and equitable education for all students.
Delaware has no shortage of analysis or recommendations—it has lacked only the political will to implement meaningful reform. After 50 years of study and uneven progress, the path forward is clear: replace outdated systems, reduce the burden on local property taxes, and build a modern, student-centered funding model that supports every child, in every district, every year.
But now, after 50 years of study, taskforces, court orders and State Legislative inaction, I guess it all comes down to fighting the reassessment. After all, doing so helps direct us away from the actual problem – a Broken Education Funding System in Delaware that is breaking the backs of many property owners.
You’ve given our readers a great summary of Delaware’s troubled history of ignoring basic needs in education funding, something I’ve been following and writing about (under my real name) for about 50 years.
I agree with the conclusion you’ve reached, but we have an immediate issue at hand — the reassessment mess — which should be addressed now, not by waiting until the Public Education Finance Commission comes up with its recommendations for the GA to consider next year.
If we wait to fix the reassessment issues, it would merely throw another complication into the broader finance reform effort, and make it all the more likely that the PEFC will come up with a more half-assed set of proposals than it already seems headed toward.
First, I am in favor of a portion of the property tax — the portion that falls on land values, totally ignoring whatever improvements the owner or his predecessors have put onto the site — being used to fund education.
Second, though, I don’t think it should be used locally; rather, it should be part of a state-level fund that is meted out in part in relation to local land values (because I have in mind hearing that 85% of a school district’s costs are for salaries, and those may vary from place to place in Delaware — one thing in Seaford, another at Cape Henlopen, for instance.
Third, some portion should be used to provide extra assistance to schools with “special needs.” Remember, too, that a significant percentage of elementary school-age children live in families whose incomes are not high enough to meet the most tautly defined description of the basic needs of the family, and with that in mind, I believe free lunches and breakfasts need to be part of the formula, in every elementary school. Kids can’t learn if they’re hungry. A friend yesterday described to me her hunger as a child when her parents could not feed the family. She finally confided in a teacher, who helped get her an opportunity to help in the cafeteria and feel that she earned her lunch. 60 years later, it is still very real to her. Look at the free lunch rates in our elementary schools. Later in parents’ working life, they may be earning enough to provide lunch and breakfast for their children — but by then it may be too late to reach and teach those kids.
Fourth, perhaps the millage rate for that primary fund is identical across the state, and capital expenses might still be handled by referendum, at least in the richer districts.
Good suggestions here. The free breakfast/lunch idea has already received consideration in the GA. If I understand correctly, we’re going to get free breakfast for all, but not lunch. The broader funding suggestions should be fodder for the Public Education Finance Commission. I hope those ideas receive some consideration.
P.S. — I believe I’ve seen some of your posts on the assessment threads on NextDoor. You make much more sense than many of the commenters on that site.
Remove the tax on improvements to the land and you’re letting businesses off the hook much more than homeowners. We have a community in Delaware built on this principle in Arden.
Mediawatch, I hear you.
But let’s be honest: there’s no magic fix for the so-called “reassessment mess.” While it’s become a political hot topic, the reality is that the new property values are more accurate than many are willing to admit. Yes, there may be some discrepancies, but most can and should be addressed through the appeals process.
The real issue isn’t the reassessment itself—it’s the outdated tax laws and policies that determine how those assessments translate into tax bills. That’s where we need leadership and political courage.
Instead of manipulating assessment data to soften public reaction, we should focus on meaningful reform. That’s why I’ve been advocating for a comprehensive set of short and long-term policy solutions—some that offer immediate relief, and others that address the deeper, structural problems in our tax system. None of them are new, and I believe you have the same historic institutional knowledge as I do, and know that some of these have been recommended over the decades. These include:
• Targeted grants or rebates to assist homeowners most affected by steep tax hikes—especially seniors and low-income residents.
• Circuit breaker programs that cap property taxes increases after assessments based on household income.
• Expanded homestead exemptions for seniors and those on fixed incomes.
• Property tax deferrals for older adults, allowing increases to be paid later when the property is sold or transferred.
• Annual caps on tax increases in fast-changing neighborhoods, to protect long-time residents from displacement.
• Repeal of the state preemption that prevents New Castle County from requiring adequate school capacity before approving new development—essential to slowing growth that drives up school taxes.
• Elimination of the law that allows school districts to raise tax rates by up to 10% after reassessment, without voter input.
• Comprehensive school funding reform, including a fairer balance between residential and commercial taxpayers, updated impact/voluntary school assessment fees, and even district consolidation.
• Split-rate taxation to shift the burden away from homeowners and small businesses, and toward underutilized commercial properties—something New Castle County has already begun implementing in its own tax structure.
We need to treat the disease, not just the symptom. That means tackling the root causes of unfair tax burdens with serious, long-term solutions, not just political pressure valves like disputing assessment numbers based on a few select example parcels or calling for an audit.
Hopefully, the dust will settle and our elected officials will get to work on practical solutions.
Much of my focus over the years has been on education topics. On the finance issue, I was hopeful that lawsuit and the subsequent AIR report would lead to substantive change but I was disappointed by the composition of the PEFC — with representation from every conceivable interest group. From the start it has been guaranteed to preserve as much of the 80-year-old system as possible and to slow-walk the implementation of the reforms that you and I would consider essential.
I defer to your knowledge and expertise on the housing and associated assessment/taxation issues. In principle, I share your support for additional relief from burdensome taxation for seniors and low-income individuals (although those with low incomes are less likely to be homeowners), but we have to be careful that breaks for seniors do not result in greater burdens for the vast majority of homeowners. My solutions (which means they would never be adopted are: increasing fees paid by corporations who do not have a physical presence in Delaware; raising personal income taxes on high-income individuals).
Thanks for adding your insights to this post.
“ My solutions (which means they would never be adopted are: increasing fees paid by corporations who do not have a physical presence in Delaware; raising personal income taxes on high-income individuals).”
100. Exactly this, mediawatch. With a democratic government here this should be a no brainer.