Assessors approve tax notices, outline three‑year reappraisal plan and warn of staffing shortfalls

The county Board of Assessors approved routine tax dispositions and a 30‑day assessment notice and spent most of the meeting on administrative matters, including implementing recent state legislation on exemptions, a planned three‑year reappraisal cycle and staffing shortages that may require outside vendors.

The discussion mattered because the assessor’s office said the new laws change how homestead exemptions are calculated and that many property owners have questions about higher assessed values. The office also described plans to update parcel data countywide on a three‑year cycle to comply with state guidance and said it will continue using its WinGap software contract while considering outside help for data collection.

At the start of new business, an assessor’s staff member told the board the office is preparing next year’s budget and is exploring whether a personal‑property vendor could relieve staff workload. The staff member said assessment notices have been mailed and that the office has received “a good response from the public” from property owners coming in or calling for explanations. “The biggest thing that we’re running into with people is getting them to come in and let us explain,” the staff member said.

The staff member explained the practical effect of two bills the office cited as House Bill 581 and House Bill 92 and said the laws mean the statewide floating exemption is calculated differently for each homestead: “It depends on your first house up to 5 acres. There are so many variables ... it’s different for everybody,” the staff member said, noting the office has been doing manual checks to confirm computer calculations before notices were mailed.

The office summarized its plan for cyclic reappraisals. It said the county is splitting parcel updates into thirds: fiscal year ‘25 covered the first third of the county; fiscal year ‘26 will cover the second third; fiscal year ‘27 the final third, after which the cycle repeats. The staff member said the procedure implements the three‑year reassessment interval described in the legislation and that field appraisers are using a grid method and a field appraiser app to update parcel information.

On software and vendor support, the board discussed the WinGap (Gap Group) contract for the coming year. The staff member reported the county has used the vendor for many years and that the service cost the county about $3,500 per year; by contrast, proprietary alternatives cited during the meeting were described as costing “over $100,000 a year.” The assessor’s office said it has already signed the county’s WinGap contract where required and still needs the chair of the Board of Assessors to sign as well.

Staff also told the board it plans to retake aerial photography next year to capture recent construction and said quicker, yearly updates appear to yield faster processing results when integrating new imagery.

Multiple speakers warned the board is short‑staffed. The assessor’s office said it recently lost a field appraiser and a clerk is out on medical leave, and staff recruiting has been difficult. “It is so hard to find people that are willing to come in and get the education that’s required and do this work and stay here,” the staff member said. Board members discussed that vendor help may be necessary if in‑house staffing cannot meet demand.

Procedurally, the board moved and approved the agenda at the start of the meeting, approved minutes from the previous meeting, approved the presented tax dispositions and approved the 30‑day assessment notice. A motion to adjourn carried and the meeting ended at 8:54 a.m.

The meeting included repeated clarifications that assessed market values have risen substantially in the last three to four years, producing notable increases for some properties; staff gave examples of increases that in some cases reached about $100,000, and said some owners experienced 25 percent increases while others saw smaller changes. The office said it double‑checked many values and that property owners who disagree with components of their total assessed value are encouraged to provide additional information to the assessor’s office for review.

No formal policy changes were made beyond the routine approvals recorded in the meeting minutes; the board’s discussion emphasized implementation steps, public outreach and the possibility of contracting for additional data collection or processing if staffing levels remain insufficient.