Boone County Council debates hiring assessor staff as reassessment bids stall and tax deadlines loom

The Boone County Council spent the meeting's longest block of time weighing how to finish the assessor's 2026 real-property reassessment after two vendor options stalled.

Alex Burgin Schmidt, who introduced himself as a Boone County taxpayer representing the assessor, told the council that missing statutory assessment deadlines would force the county to issue provisional or estimated tax bills in 2027. "If we don't get the assessment work done this year, the county will be the only county in the state of Indiana not to send out tax bills on time next year," he said, warning that delayed or estimated bills depress collections and create mortgage-escrow problems for homeowners.

The split over next steps centered on two options: the assessor using the statutory authority to hire deputies and technical staff to perform the reassessment in-house, or reopening the existing RFP process to solicit new bids limited to real-property assessment work. Council attorney Jewel told the council the statute permits inviting new bids off an existing RFP but cautioned that the RFP on the street currently requests items—such as personal property and abatements—that the code for reassessment of real property does not allow evaluators to require. Jewel said that narrowing a solicitation to real-property assessment could speed the timeline.

Assessor Jennifer Lashley described the months of meetings and follow-up needed to get the work done. She told the council she had previously proposed a compromise (a one-year extension for the current vendor while re-bidding) but later received legal pushback and a letter from a vendor that threatened litigation. "I've had no direction," Lashley said when describing the sequence of meetings and counsel she has received.

Commissioner Beyer and other speakers disagreed on whether bids were "rejected" or a contract was refused; Beyer said the commissioners rejected a contract compiled from the bids because it was not the lowest and best contract presented to them. Jewel and others warned the council about potential litigation: if the county reassigns contractual funding to payroll lines and a bidder successfully sues, the county could be required to reverse the appropriations and potentially terminate newly hired staff.

Speakers suggested hybrid paths to reduce taxpayer risk: (1) authorize the assessor to continue or re-engage a vendor for personal property and other services that are not governed by the reassessment statute, and (2) solicit bids limited to real-property assessment and reassessment as permitted by statute. Alex Burgin Schmidt urged urgency: "We have 40,000 parcels. If we don't get the assessment work done this year, we can't just use last year's numbers and send out regular tax bills in 2027."

No final, binding decision to transfer contractual funding to payroll was recorded in the transcript provided; council members asked the assessor and county counsel to clarify options, legal exposure and timing before a final vote. The council's attorney suggested that inviting new or additional bids focused strictly on real-property assessment could proceed immediately and might be the quickest path to start work while limiting exposure.

Next steps described on the record included additional legal clarification, the possibility of soliciting bids limited to the statutory scope for real-property reassessment, and continued discussion of whether to authorize a short-term employee solution to meet looming deadlines.