Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Revaluation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commissioners table revaluation contracts after discussing two bids, staffing and method

3410420 · May 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board discussed two proposals for property revaluation — one priced at about $500,000 and another at $543,000 — and tabled a decision to allow more time to compare methods, staffing needs and flyover versus on-the-ground review.

The Swain County Board of Commissioners tabled action on contracts for the county's property revaluation after a detailed discussion of two proposals and related staffing questions.

Staff described two proposals: one proposal priced at about $500,000 and another at about $543,000. Both proposers offered a per-parcel pricing model; one firm (the contractor who completed the last revaluation, described in the packet as C.B. Ferris) proposed an approach that could include a flyover and boots-on-the-ground review. County staff noted that the proposals did not clearly state whether contractor hiring of additional personnel would be included in the bid or billed as extras.

Commissioners and staff discussed the tradeoffs between a largely aerial (flyover) revaluation and in-person, boots-on-the-ground inspections. Staff warned that relying only on flyovers can miss significant on-the-ground conditions — for example, houses that appear intact from above but are gutted or used for storage and therefore have reduced taxable value in reality. Commissioners also flagged potential tax-revenue impacts if revaluation costs were high and if parcel valuations increased.

Staff said a contractor timeline would begin in summer and complete by 2028 and noted the county could consider doing the work in-house but that temporary hires, training and benefit costs could offset savings. After discussion, a motion to table the decision passed; commissioners asked staff to return with clarifications about personnel, method and final pricing and to aim to have a decision by June if possible.

Ending: The board tabled the decision to the next meeting to allow staff to clarify whether contractor personnel needs and potential extra costs are included in the bids and to provide further comparative documentation on flyover versus ground inspections.