A stricken proposal would have let county offices demand records or testimony when they or an appealing owner used income or cost comparisons to value property.
County assessment boards and finance offices could have required testimony or records about a property's value when they or an appealing owner used income or cost comparisons.
If someone ignored a properly delivered subpoena about a property value assessed or appealed using income or cost comparisons, a county finance official could have sought a court order. Ignoring that order could have brought court penalties.
A Delaware business that refused a court order enforcing a subpoena for a property assessment or appeal using income or cost comparisons could have faced a case to cancel its state charter.
County assessment boards and finance offices could have required witnesses to testify or provide records. This covered assessments and owner appeals when a county office or the appealing owner used income or cost comparisons to value property. The records had to bear on whether the property's assessed value was correct.
A county finance official could have asked Superior Court to order someone to respond to a subpoena. This covered subpoenas for property assessments or appeals using income or cost comparisons in New Castle, Kent, and Sussex Counties. The person had to be properly served and then fail or refuse to respond. The court could have ordered a response and punished disobedience as contempt.
The Attorney General could have started a case to cancel a Delaware business's state charter. This covered Delaware corporations and other Delaware business entities in property assessments or appeals using income or cost comparisons. The business had to refuse a court order enforcing a subpoena issued for that property value case.
No hearings or votes scheduled.