Habersham’s commercial-property assessment plan still lacks a documented contract

Habersham County’s plan to bring in McCormick Solutions for a countywide review of commercial and industrial property assessments remained unresolved in the public record after officials discussed a path to signing the agreement in July 2023. Staff told officials the county manager had been approved to sign after county-attorney review, but the chairperson asked to review the contract before it was signed, and the minutes do not record an executed agreement.

The proposed contract could affect how the county values a broad class of taxable property, not just a single appeal or parcel. McCormick was expected to value commercial and industrial properties, measure buildings and take photographs, while county field appraisers focused on residential reviews. Assessors presented that division of work as a response to a staffing shortage in the Tax Assessors Office.

The documented effort began June 26, 2023, when the Board of Assessors approved a recommendation that county commissioners hire McCormick Solutions. A month later, discussion shifted from the recommendation itself to the proposed contract’s review and signing. By November, the board was discussing a broader reevaluation process anticipated to begin in tax year 2025, with members saying commercial properties should be handled first and expecting information from WinGap in early December.

The Board of Assessors backed the McCormick recommendation as a way to direct scarce county appraisal capacity toward residential work while an outside firm handled commercial and industrial reviews. In the July discussion, staff described attorney review and asserted that the county manager had authority to sign. The chairperson, however, sought to see the contract first. In November, board members favored a commercial-first sequence for the contemplated reevaluation and discussed state recommendations involving WinGap.

Several actions are documented: assessors approved a recommendation, officials discussed contract review and signing, and the board continued reevaluation planning. What is not documented is equally important. The July minutes preserve staff’s statement about signing approval but contain no motion, vote tally or signed contract. They also do not establish that the Board of Commissioners acted on the recommendation, identify final contract terms, or show that McCormick performed the proposed work.

The next meaningful public step would be a county commission action or an executed agreement that identifies whether McCormick Solutions was formally retained and on what terms. Later assessment or reevaluation records could clarify whether the commercial-first plan discussed for tax year 2025 proceeded and whether WinGap information informed it. Until then, the record leaves unanswered whether the assessors’ recommendation became a completed procurement and how any planned work was carried out.