Feb 15, 2018 3 min read

The software company hired by Washington County during the recent reassessment is refusing to provide records detailing how it arrived at the land values it recommended to Washington County officials.

In a letter sent to the county’s solicitor last week, an attorney for Tyler Technologies – which in 2013 entered a $6.96 million contract with the county to perform work related to the reassessment – said the company either doesn’t have the records a city homeowner requested showing how the company determined land values, or wouldn’t have to disclose that information if it did.

“It seems Tyler is trying to minimize the role it played in this assessment, and that should be concerning to all the taxpayers whose properties were reassessed and the county, which paid Tyler nearly $7 million to conduct this work,” said Mike Jones.

Jones, who is regional editor of this newspaper but made his request as a private citizen under the state Right To Know Law, initially asked the county for “the formula/methodology/algorithm” Tyler Technologies “used to calculate the land values for Washington County’s property reassessment” and “any other relevant information about how the company assessed individual land values” in early November.

In a letter dated Feb. 9, Tyler’s senior corporate attorney, Andrea Fravert, wrote that it “is worth correcting what appears to be a misunderstanding of Tyler’s processes and relationships with the County, as that correction will largely explain why Tyler does not have, or otherwise would not be required to disclose, the information” which Jones wanted.

Fravert’s letter, which is addressed to county Solicitor J. Lynn DeHaven, goes on to cite language in the contract that leaves “‘[a]ll decisions as to final assessed valuations, procedures followed, and forms used in the reappraisal will be made by the [County’s] Chief Assessor.’ “Accordingly,” Fravert added, “Tyler recommended appraisal values, but those values were ultimately approved or disapproved by the County’s Chief Assessor.”

She wrote that all “documents and information created or received by Tyler in performing its reassessment services were turned over to the County upon completion of the project and are in the possession, custody, and control of the County, not Tyler.”

She further argued the information Jones is seeking would be subject to a section of the state open-records law which exempts “a trade secret or confidential proprietary information” from disclosure.

“Tyler consistently affirms its position that its reassessment methodologies, best practices, formulas and algorithms are confidential and proprietary, and Tyler specifically stated this in response to the County’s (request for proposal) during the bidding process and in its final contract terms with the County.”