Assessment hearings an absurd joke

I was amused by your recent report that Sussex County’s assessment hearings were “winding down” (Jan. 7). Based on my personal experience, I wasn’t aware that these hearings had ever begun.

In my more than 40 years’ experience as an attorney, I have generally understood a “hearing” in this context – even an informal one – to mean that the person presiding over the proceeding will examine the evidence, ask questions if necessary to clarify that evidence, bring other relevant evidence to light, and based on the evidence and the law, either render a decision or, short of that, make a recommendation to the ultimate decision-maker. That isn’t what I got from Tyler Technologies.

Foolishly expecting an informal hearing, I followed the instructions sent by Tyler and Sussex County, dutifully assembling the “acceptable forms of evidence” described in their notice’s “informal review procedures & guidelines” – primarily photos and comparable sales. Further observing their advice and a follow-up reminder, I made a special trip to Georgetown the prior week to drop off this packet, since its size was not easily susceptible to being emailed.

On my hearing day, I soon learned that the Tyler staff member assigned to my case hadn’t looked at my evidence and had little interest in seeing it. She told me it would be looked at by some other unnamed, unknown “assessor” who would review my case after she spoke with me. She couldn’t explain why we were encouraged to send or bring in our materials in advance. She seemed to have only one question: What did I think my property was worth?

Only because I insisted did she search her computer to find that indeed my material had been uploaded into Tyler’s database. And once she understood the basis for my challenge – namely, that before, on, and after the key assessment date of July 1, 2023, the structure on my property had been largely demolished in advance of a renovation – she suggested that Tyler’s assessors would have to come back and examine the property to determine the “correct” assessment. She took great umbrage when I objected that July 1, 2023 was the “correct” assessment date and that she was not in a position to choose a different date now. At that point, it had become evident that this “informal hearing” was nothing more than an absurd joke.

To give credit where credit is due, I discussed my experience shortly thereafter with County Assessor Chris Keeler, who seemed genuinely concerned about my experience and promised to take it up at his next meeting with Tyler’s project management team. But if my experience was indicative of the kind of “informal hearings” most taxpayers received, we have been denied the most basic procedural due process rights, and Tyler has put at risk the integrity of the county’s entire reassessment process.