Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves request for proposals for 2027 and 2029 reassessments after public concern about land-use tax disparity
Summary
The Savannah County Board of Supervisors authorized staff to solicit proposals for general property reassessments in 2027 and 2029, after multiple public commenters raised concerns about perceived unfairness in land-use assessments and related tax impacts.
The Savannah County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 on April 2 to direct staff to issue a request for proposals for general reassessment services covering the 2027 and 2029 cycles.
The board's action follows several public comments during the meeting in which residents said timber and land-in-use parcels were assessed and taxed at levels they described as inconsistent with market sales. During the board's later agenda item on reassessment, staff recommended releasing an RFP that would allow the county to compare costs for administrative reviews and full reassessments and return to the board with proposals.
The county's staff presentation noted the county spent about $358,007.61 across four fiscal years on the 2023 and 2025 reassessment effort and that third-party firms have consolidated, which may raise future costs. Staff also said prior contract rates were about $8.75 per parcel for an administrative review and $13.50 per parcel for a full reassessment (new-construction work had a higher per-parcel rate). The board asked for comparative proposals and added that if proposals appear prohibitively expensive the county could reexamine options, including performing reassessment work in-house.
Public speakers pressed the board for clearer explanations of how land-use taxation works and how the county calculates assessed value for parcels in agriculture or forestry land-use programs. Several residents said parcels enrolled in land-use classifications appeared to be taxed at far lower effective rates than properties with structures and asked for an audit or educational briefing. The board and staff acknowledged the topic's complexity and agreed to provide more education; staff said an ordinance is required if the county changes its reassessment frequency.
Staff will return to the board with RFP results and cost comparisons. The board motion instructs staff to pursue proposals that allow comparisons between administrative and full reassessment methods for the 2027 and 2029 cycles.
Ending: The board's vote sets in motion a procurement process; final decisions about whether to contract externally or shift reassessment work in-house will come after proposal evaluations and a follow-up board report.
