Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vendor Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boone County meeting stalls as assessor and commissioners spar over vendor choice, staffing
Summary
At a Feb. 10 Boone County meeting, the county assessor defended months of research on RFPs while commissioners pressed for a practical path—either hiring staff or approving a vendor such as GUTS—to meet an approaching March 1 ratio‑study deadline.
At a Feb. 10 meeting, Boone County officials debated how to move forward on property assessment work after six months of unresolved procurement and staffing disputes. The county assessor defended her office’s vetting of proposals, saying she did "lots and lots of research" on the RFPs and shared findings with the commissioners, while other officials pressed for a faster operational fix.
The disagreement centers on whether the county should contract with a vendor or hire additional employees to perform personal‑property and real‑property assessment duties. Speaker 1 opened the discussion saying the situation had been "going on 6 months" and urged that the assessor provide a clear, Boone County‑specific list of vendor requirements so officials can pick the best provider; Speaker 1 also said, "Our job was done in October '25." Speaker 2 responded that their office "provided the information and the recommendation" and had relied on outreach to other counties and a third‑party reviewer.
Speaker 3 suggested practical steps to keep work moving, asking the assessor to "get the personal property tax up and running with Guts" or consider other in‑state vendors or a subcontractor arrangement so the department would have capacity while the procurement dispute is resolved. The transcript records Speaker 3 noting that the assessor had hired an attorney "on your own dime," an issue the speaker said was "beyond the scope of this meeting." The transcript also contains a name that appears as both "Hostetter" and "Hoffstetter"; the roll call later in the meeting records "Hoffstetter."
Time constraints were a recurring point. Speaker 2 said a ratio study is due March 1 and that mobile‑home accounts needed to be submitted to the auditor before that deadline. Participants discussed a minimum two‑week window to solicit responses to new bids; Speaker 4 said two weeks was a reasonable estimate and mentioned a possible commissioners’ meeting in roughly two weeks. Speaker 1 asked whether the council could call a special meeting by the end of the month if commissioners rejected new bids; Speaker 4 noted a special meeting requires 48 hours' notice.
The meeting recessed after Speaker 4 moved "that we reset," a motion seconded by Speaker 3. The group recessed at 10:34 a.m. for 10 minutes after a voice/roll call in which Plunkett, Ritchie, Williams, Van Horn, Lamar and Hoffstetter were recorded as voting in favor of the recess. The motion passed.
Next steps recorded in the discussion included the possibility of the assessor soliciting new bids, commissioners reviewing those bids at an upcoming meeting, or the council holding a special meeting with 48 hours' notice to act on a vendor recommendation or staffing plan.
