PENDER COUNTY — Controversy continues in Pender County, not only over 2026 revaluation numbers on pause — as a sample audit gets underway — but also with the county’s legal representation stepping down after 30 years.
In a statement to Port City Daily on Tuesday, Chairman Randy Burton dismissed speculation attorney Trey Thurman’s resignation was related to the board’s recent legal struggles over the 2026 revaluation.
READ MORE: Despite state warnings, Pender commissioners advance plan to pause property revaluation
ALSO: ‘God save the next board’: Pender County suspends escalated reval data, in favor of audit
“This was a decision that Mr. Thurman made himself,” Burton said. “It had nothing to do with tax revaluations. This is strictly a personal conclusion that he came to.”
Thurman could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
At the start of the Monday commissioner meeting he said it was “a wonderful privilege” to help serve the county during his tenure. Thurman also highlighted representing Pender County before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2009 redistricting case Pender County v. Bartlett, which centered on keeping counties intact during legislative redistricting. The ruling ensured Pender County remained within a single State House district.
The lawyer called Burton over the weekend to discuss tendering his resignation. Commissioner Jimmy Tate said he was upset for being excluded from the discussion.
“This comes as a surprise to me,” Tate said, while also taking issue with the commissioners voting 3-2 (Tate and Brad George dissenting) to hire Hartzog Law Group in the interim.
The firm currently represents Pender County in a lawsuit filed by The Pender Post and its publisher, alleging the board’s decision to move its legal advertising to the StarNews last year was a retaliatory act violating the paper’s First Amendment rights.
“I will say now is that in my many years of being on this board, since 2007, never have I seen commissioners been seen with such disrespect, where they didn’t even have the decency of a phone call to know that you all were considering hiring a law firm, then to hire one that we don’t even have a contract before tonight,” Tate added.
Thurman said he would assist in the transition of the new firm to ensure everything “transpires smoothly.”
Burton thanked the attorney for nearly three decades of service, dating back to the chair’s time as a Pender County Sheriff’s Office deputy in 1988.
“You’ve been through many, many, many trying times up and down throughout the years,” Burton said. “You will always be a part of the Pender County family.”
Thurman’s resignation comes as revaluations from 2026 were paused by the commissioners on April 7, due to what they have called “inconsistencies” in data. The county paid Vincent Valuations $2.3 million to do the revaluation, required by law every eight years. The last time Pender County conducted a reval was in 2019, creating sticker shock in escalating prices countywide over a seven-year period and accounting for the Covid-19 boom and growing development in the region.
Some homeowners have claimed property values doubled, tripled, even quadrupled, with Tate putting forth a motion at the beginning of the month to suspend reval numbers for now, despite budget season being in full swing. It’s unclear whether Pender County will utilize the 2026 numbers or the 2025 numbers to determine its tax rate for next fiscal year — though Tate’s motion to suspend the revals also included using 2025 numbers. However, the county learned last week the move runs afoul of state law and Tate has blamed county staff for not speaking up to let him know as much when he made the motion.
Still, commissioners didn’t overturn their decision. They plan to lobby state representatives — Senator Brent Jackson and Representative Carson Smith — about passing specific legislation legally allowing Pender County to halt the revaluation.
“As far as talking to Raleigh, I have talked to Raleigh,” Commissioner Jerry Groves said Monday. “I know what they’re going to do with this. We cannot make a law for Pender County out of 100 counties — that’s not going to happen.”
Commissioners Springer and Tate are scheduled for a follow-up meeting with Jackson and Smith on Friday, April 24, to discuss potential legislative paths forward.
In the meantime, commissioners voted Monday, April 20, on the direction of a sample audit. Though a firm has not been hired yet, commissioners want to see a 5% sample of Vincent Valuations appraised parcels and a free state review of housing market data, such as sales ratios. Sales ratios are used in the revaluation process to compare assessed property values with actual home values to measure whether valuations are aligned with the current market.
Commissioners hope the sample audit will determine if Vincent Valuation’s assessed property values are accurate, especially parcel-level data such as square footage and flood history, along with structural details like additions or renovations to homes.
County Manager Colby Sawyer presented three options to commissioners, the first being somewhat of a reval redo that could cost between $800,000 and $1.9 million. Sawyer referred to it as a “desktop reappraisal,” essentially involving a second company recalculating values in the county using existing property information and photos. But appraisers would not visit the properties in person.
The board rejected this option as too expensive and instead approved a cheaper, two-pronged approach.
It will involve first conducting a “statistical peer review” provided free by the North Carolina Association of Assessing Officials and the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners. Sawyer explained a group made up of professionals from around the state would conduct an assessment to determine if the county’s current results are statistically sound. He clarified the free process would not involve any actual fieldwork.
“They are not going to be coming in and looking at measurements and going out the field and saying, ‘Yes, this parcel was measured correctly.’ They’re going to be looking at statistics and looking at sales ratios,” Sawyer stated.
Complementing the free analysis, the board authorized a sample audit to be done by an outside firm, utilizing a physical inspection of a 5% random sample. This accounts for roughly 2,500 parcels chosen proportionally across the county’s five districts. Sawyer estimated this could cost between $30 and $40 per parcel, totaling up to $109,000.
Vice Chairman George questioned whether either option — the 5% audit or free state review — could catch detailed mistakes, such as proper square footage. George took issue with Vincent Valuation’s mass appraisal model, which uses exterior measurements and property history instead of interior inspections. He noted true appraisals that measure the interior of a home can run up to $600 per property, which could become costly.
“There’s a ton of square footage issues out there, I do know that for sure,” George said.
Unless the county pays for an appraiser to enter homes and measure interiors again, George thought another revaluation will repeat the mass appraisal method and only make assumptions about interior layout.
Commissioner Groves initially pushed back on the necessity of an outside audit, suggesting Vincent Valuations should be the ones to correct their own mistakes through the standard appeals process. Vincent has maintained concerns about incorrect values should be handled through appeals as well — a normal part of the revaluation process.
“I don’t understand the discussion here tonight,” Groves said. “We’ve already paid these people to do this. If it’s not right, send in your appeal and get it fixed.”
At the commissioners’ meeting, staff said 931 appeals were filed with the county, with the tax department having already processed 92. The board voted to extend the appeals date from May 15 to Oct. 1 to give residents more time to go through the process.
According to Tate, the contract with Vincent Valuations has an $800-per-day site fee to handle resident appeals. Every appeal does not deserve a site visit, only ones that include evidence suggesting historical data may be incorrect. Of the 92 processed, Ryan Vincent, CEO of Vincent Valuations, said “only a few” required property visits.
Tate asked to waive the $800 fee in the contract, “due to all of the inaccuracies and the undue stress it’s caused residents.” Vincent responded he was willing to talk about it, but would not waive the charge entirely.
Displeased, Tate requested to add an item to Pender County meeting’s agenda requesting Vincent Valuations amend their contract to waive the daily charge. Thurman, in one of his final acts as counsel, confirmed the board has the legal authority to request a contract amendment, though the onus would be on Vincent to agree to the change.
The motion to officially request the fee waiver will appear on the agenda for the May 4 meeting.
Groves questioned the move.
“If we take away the $800, we’re not gonna have anyone in the tax office to do these appeals,” he said.
Vincent Valuations handles reviewing and responding to property value appeals and the tax office of Pender County processes and formally records them in county tax records.
“The man’s not gonna leave his team of people in there working if we’re not paying. What am I missing here?” Groves questioned.
Groves said he heard from residents who had successful appeals yielding “good results.” The county manager explained of the 931 appeals to date, only 12 cited “incorrect data” as the reason.
Have tips or suggestions for Charlie Fossen? Email [email protected]
At Port City Daily, we aim to keep locals informed on top-of-mind news facing the tri-county region. To support our work and help us reach more people in 2026, please, consider helping one of two ways: Subscribe here or make a one-time contribution here.
We appreciate your ongoing support.
