Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessor Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Porter County assessor defends six‑year pictometry contract as commissioners push for bids and price transparency
Summary
The Porter County assessor presented a six‑year Eagle View pictometry agreement with an annual cost the assessor described as $120,664.97 (a 4.5% increase); commissioners raised procurement and vendor‑lock concerns and asked staff to solicit competing proposals and show contract figures on future agendas.
The Porter County assessor (identified in the meeting as Sue) briefed commissioners on a six‑year agreement with Eagle View for pictometry imagery and associated software used by the assessor’s office and 79 authorized users across county and municipal offices. The assessor said the county’s annual charge under the new agreement is $120,664.97, a 4.5% increase over the prior contract.
Commissioners pressed the assessor on why the county had not rebid the service and whether the county was locked in to a proprietary software package. "There are other contractors out there, I promise you they contact me every year," the assessor said, adding the county has been satisfied with timeliness and quality of the flyovers. The assessor also said the county can cancel the contract if budget constraints make continuation impossible.
A commissioner said the county should seek competing proposals to ensure public funds deliver the best price. "I would love to have you come back here and say, ‘See, Jim, we took proposals on them and they are giving us the best price,’" the commissioner said. Another commissioner said the contract price should appear on the meeting agenda in the future: "We have to have those figures on the agenda."
Staff explained operational reasons the county values continuity with the vendor: timely scheduling of aircraft flyovers to avoid snow and leaf cover and the difficulty of comparing images if a different vendor’s software produces non‑comparable datasets. The assessor said the county uses the imagery for reassessments and other official purposes and that data is integrated into the county’s mass appraisal system.
Commissioners asked staff to check whether other vendors could meet the county’s timing and technical needs and to present competing proposals or a procurement history at a future meeting. The board did not take a final vote on the contract during the June 2 meeting; discussion closed after requests that contract figures be included in future agenda materials.
The next procedural step: staff agreed to follow up with the requested procurement comparisons and to ensure the contract amount is listed on the agenda when the item returns to the board.
