A few more questions about the upcoming revaluation
I agree with the concerns expressed by previous letters to the editor regarding the proposed $332,000 revaluation contract award to Wampler-Eanes, and would like to add a few of my own.
A Google search says that W-E is located in Virginia, which made me wonder how much of that contract price consists of travel expenses, lodging, etc. Why wasn’t the lower bidder identified, where are they located and why isn’t the board “shopping local” as we are so often urged to do?
Since W-E did the previous revaluation, they must have already done much of the preliminary groundwork required; thus I would expect their bid to be lower than any others rather than nearly 15 percent higher. Does this contract (or the previous one) require them to turn their work product over to the county for purposes of future revaluations? If not, I think it should since we are paying for it.
If the revaluation is not until 2021, why is there such a rush to get the contract awarded? Why not spend a little more time getting bids and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of all of the competitors?
Becky Walker, Tryon