This editorial outlines my concerns regarding the performance of the Baldwin County Tax Assessor’s Office since the appointment of Wade Williams as Chief Appraiser.
I have worked in the Tax Commissioner’s Office (TCO) for 37 years, including 30 ½ years as the elected Tax Commissioner. I am currently the fifth-longestserving tax commissioner in the State of Georgia.
I share this to emphasize the stability of my office and my experience working with five previous Chief appraisers over nearly four decades.
The Tax Commissioner’s office and tax assessor’s office (TAO) work hand in hand as all property information such as maps, values, homestead applications etc. originate in the TAO and flows to the TCO for billing and collection.
My priority has been maintaining a strong, cooperative working relationship with the TAO to ensure we provide the highest level of customer service to the citizens of Baldwin County. I have always been grateful that, unlike some counties, Baldwin County has enjoyed a good working relationship between the two offices.
When Wade Williams was appointed chief appraiser in 2018, I approached the new partnership with this same goal in mind. On his first day, we met and had a positive conversation. I shared that I have lived in Baldwin County my entire life and that our citizens were “my people” and my top priority is to provide them with quality customer service.
For the first couple of years, operations appeared to be running smoothly.
Software Conversion Issues & Efforts to Assist
As the TCO had previously had repeated issues with our software, the former chief appraiser and I were given a demo by Tyler Technologies for a system that would encompass both offices and information would flow between the TCO and TAO electronically versus paper traveling between the two offices.
The former chief appraiser gave his nod to this new system and the Board of Commissioners (BOC) entered into this contract in March 2016. The TCO went live in June 2017.
When Wade was interviewed for the open chief appraiser position in late 2017, he was informed that the TAO would be converting to the new software and he understood this. The TAO went live about July 2019. After the TAO conversion, some errors were discovered involving frozen homestead exemption parcels.
Tyler Technologies identified all possibly affected parcels and provided a detailed spreadsheet to the TAO. There were approximately 2,000 parcels.
In the interest of cooperation and ensuring accurate tax billing, I hired a temporary TCO employee, paid from my budget, to assist the TAO. Her role was to assist the TAO in reviewing and identifying possible errors and serve as a second set of eyes, but the responsibility for final corrections remained with the TAO. She worked on this project for nearly a year before leaving in 2021 to pursue her Master’s degree. At that time, she provided the TAO with her remaining notes and list of parcels.
The chief appraiser suggested that one of my fulltime employees take over the work of the former temporary employee. I explained that she already had a full TCO workload, which is the reason I hired a temporary employee in the first place. And because the issues were on the TAO side of the software and the TCO does not make changes there, responsibility ultimately rested with the TAO.
The review/corrections of these parcels possibly affected continued to be placed on the back burner.
Each time I would address it with the chief appraiser, his response was always “we don’t have time to do that right now.” Tax bills continued to be potentially calculated incorrectly for about two years, resulting in both possible overcharges and undercharges for taxpayers.
Sometime in 2023, after exhausting all internal attempts to resolve the matter, I reached out to our software support team along with some of their upper management for assistance. Parcels were again identified requiring review and sent to the TAO. We received no confirmation from the TAO of completion. At some point mid-2024, I pressed the matter again, and was finally told, “we finished the list.”
Increasing Issues & Lack of Responsiveness
Over the past several years, a growing number of taxpayers have turned to my office for assistance after receiving little or no help from the TAO. As their elected official, they looked to me for guidance and resolution. As it was frequent, my staff and I addressed them as they arose and did not formally document each one. My staff and I increasingly found ourselves acting as intermediaries, placing an undue burden on the TCO. Citizens routinely reported that the chief appraiser or staff did not return their calls.
If citizens met with the chief appraiser, conversations often lasted two to three hours, which many considered unnecessary and would veer away from the subject at hand. Many have stated they felt at his mercy to sit through these lengthy meetings because he controlled their property valuations.
Over the last four-plus years, numerous taxpayers have described the chief appraiser using terms such as intimidating, condescending, and narcissistic.
Several reported that he incorporated excessive religious overtones into conversations unrelated to the business at hand. They would also say he spoke in circles or gave conflicting information, leaving them confused and seeking help from my office.
Frequently, citizens visited the TAO with an issue and were told by staff that the chief appraiser was the only person who could help them, as their file was on his desk. Yet employees could not say when he would return.
In contrast, my staff is trained to resolve issues when I am out, and they know to contact me immediately if needed.
The frequency of problems became such that I reached out to several members of the Board of Assessors (BOA) on more than one occasion. Each time I relayed information about issues, it was ignored and no improvements were made.
Emails to the chief appraiser have frequently gone unanswered over the last few years, leaving issues unresolved for months. The TCO began copying the BOA in emails to make them aware, but only since the performance review was completed by DOR has there been a slight improvement.
System Errors & BOC Support
When errors arise in the system, the chief appraiser frequently attributes them to “system problems” and “calculation errors.”
While some system issues have definitely occurred, many errors were ultimately traced back to TAO employee input. This pattern has persisted for years.
After comments from the chief appraiser that he and his staff did not completely understand how to utilize the software, the BOC offered to fund additional software training beyond the conversion training. Some of these training sessions were recorded and are available to the TAO. But problems still persist.
In 2023, during one of these training sessions with software support staff, an example was reviewed involving a parcel that repeatedly calculated incorrectly. During the session, the chief appraiser revealed that when settling appeals, he sometimes assigned a higher frozen base value than the settled appeal value, something he cannot legally do. The entire room was shocked.
I pointed out this practice finally explained why the tax bill had never calculated correctly — because the system was manually manipulated and not allowed to calculate as it was designed to do. He stated he would revisit the affected parcels, though we have no confirmation that this was completed.
To further support the TAO, the Board of Commissioners funded an additional position that was allotted for the BOC’s office and in May 2025, hired an experienced Appraiser IV who already possessed knowledge of our software system. However, the chief appraiser has failed to fully utilize his expertise.
Delays in Completing the Tax Digest
The Assistant County Manager regularly requested updates on the TAO’s tax digest progress throughout the year for projecting the county’s budget. The chief appraiser often responded vaguely, made excuses, or did not respond at all and provided no regular updates.
Under O.C.G.A. 485302, the tax digest must be completed by July 15 each year and submitted to the tax commissioner. This submission is critical to allow the BOC and Board of Education (BOE) to complete their processes so the tax commissioner can submit the digest to the Department of Revenue (DOR). Delays directly postpone the mailing of tax bills and ultimately disrupt cash flow for the county and school systems.
In early 2024, the Assistant County Manager attended a BOA meeting on behalf of the BOC to review the legal timeline and emphasize the need to meet the July 15 deadline.
Nonetheless, her request was ignored and the tax digest was again delayed until 8/28/24.
The dates the tax digest was turned over to the TCO are as follows: 2020: 7/28/20; 2021: 8/6/21; 2022: 9/15/22; 2023: 8/7/23; 2024: 8/28/24; 2025: 7/30/25.
Not a “Personality Conflict”
The issues that have been brought forth to the chief appraiser and the BOA have been explained away as a “personality conflict” between the chief appraiser and myself.
This characterization is untrue and dismissive. I have simply been trying to fulfill my duty as an elected official to ensure accountability and quality service to the citizens of Baldwin County.
If I had provided this level of inaccuracy and poor service, I have no doubt I would have been voted out of office long ago.
Conclusion
Due to the nature of the jobs of the TCO and TAO, I realize that not every citizen will leave our offices happy. Tax issues can be difficult, but citizens deserve professionalism and accuracy.
Because of the ongoing issues these last few years, the numerous complaints from citizens, and the lack of responsiveness from the chief appraiser and BOA, I felt it was my responsibility as an elected official for our citizens to be their voice and request that the Board of Commissioners take action as they serve the same citizens as I do.