Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Franklin County approves reassessment contract after debate over single bidder and appeals workload
Summary
Supervisors approved a countywide reassessment contract after a lengthy discussion about vendor availability, appeals staffing and options for in‑house reassessment; the board voted 5–2 to proceed as only one responsive bidder submitted a proposal.
After a long discussion on June 16, the Board of Supervisors approved a contract to perform the county’s four‑year reassessment, despite concerns about limited competition and potential appeals costs.
Supervisor Tim Tatum and others pressed staff on whether the county had alternatives; county staff and the RFP respondent said the market for large‑scale reassessments is thin and that two firms who previously bid had been acquired by Vision Government Solutions, the single responsive bidder in this cycle. County procurement staff said the RFP required a physical visit to each parcel, which limited the pool of bidders because firms without local field crews typically did not proposal that approach.
John Atkinson of Vision (present for the meeting) told supervisors the company built allowances into its proposal for informal appeals and possible board‑of‑equalization work and that any overages would require county approval. He described staffing assumptions used to calculate the quoted costs and said appeals rates typically run in a small percentage of parcels on four‑year cycles. The firm said it will provide in‑person, virtual and phone options for informal appeals to ease burden on residents.
Several supervisors argued for increased public engagement around reassessment results; board members asked staff to organize community meetings and to publish an easy‑to‑use web page explaining the reassessment process and appeals options. Vision and county staff said they welcome community meetings and that proactive outreach tends to reduce the number of formal appeals.
Outcome: After the debate the board voted to award the reassessment contract (vote 5–2). Supervisors said they will track appeals activity closely and expect the vendor and county staff to report monthly on appeals volumes, staffing needs and any contract amendments before additional expenses are approved.
What to watch: Supervisors asked for schedules and clear public‑education materials before data‑collection starts; residents will receive notices next spring and are encouraged to use the informal appeal process first if they believe an assessment is incorrect.
