Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Reappraisal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assessor warns county lacks staff and funds for required reappraisal; commissioners ask for concrete plan
Summary
During an Aug. 5 work session, the county assessor’s office said Dona Ana County has not completed a full reappraisal in more than a decade and that current staffing and funds are insufficient; commissioners asked for cost estimates, in‑house vs. contractor analyses, and HR action on vacancies.
Get email alerts on the Property Reappraisal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dona Ana County’s assessor’s office told commissioners on Aug. 5 that the county has not completed a full property reappraisal in over 10 years and that the office lacks both staffing and funding to carry out a statutory reappraisal project. Assessor Gina Eugenia Montoya Ortega and Chief Appraiser Tanya Hazen said the office would need an estimated 20 temporary appraisers or an outside contractor to perform a countywide reappraisal that touches every parcel. “With our current staff right now, that would be impossible,” Hazen said, describing day‑to‑day duties that keep current staff from doing a full door‑to‑door reappraisal. The office estimated a desktop/hybrid reappraisal would cost more than $3,000,000 over two years, not including business personal property processing. Commissioners pressed for specifics. Chair Shelda Hernandez said the board needs a plan showing costs and timelines for in‑house staffing, temporary hires and third‑party contracts. Vice Chair Chaparro and other commissioners raised concerns about mapping delays, parcel turnarounds, and the continuity of funding. County Manager Andrews and HR committed to meet immediately with the assessor’s office to accelerate recruitment and to work with budget staff on funding and procurement options. The assessor’s office and commissioners also discussed the county’s reappraisal fund and the so‑called “one‑percent” reappraisal allocation. Assessor Ortega said much of the reappraisal fund has been used for daily office operations and that the fund lacks the reserves required for a full reappraisal. Commissioners asked staff to trace the history of prior fixed‑term positions created for earlier reappraisal efforts and to return with a clear plan and cost estimates. Why it matters: State law requires periodic reappraisals; a decade without a full reappraisal raises equity and revenue concerns because structures and property changes may not be on the tax roll. Commissioners asked staff for a detailed valuation‑maintenance plan, a costed in‑house vs. contractor analysis, and an expedited hiring timeline. Next steps: The assessor’s office will prepare a detailed reappraisal plan, and county management and HR will meet immediately to prioritize recruitment; budget staff will review fund availability and options for an RFP or temporary hiring plan.

