Jones County assessors confront state review findings; staff and chief appraiser exchange testimony

At a meeting of the Jones County Board of Tax Assessors, board members and staff spent the bulk of the session debating a recent state performance review and related audit findings that the board and staff said have left the assessor’s office under intense scrutiny.

The board reviewed documents including a peer review, Department of Audits and Accounts findings and Georgia Department of Revenue guidance while asking the office to explain why the county missed required sales-ratio targets in recent years. Board members said the materials showed failures to meet sales-ratio thresholds for 2022 and 2023 and noted a large number of manual property changes that state reviewers flagged.

Board member Mr. Andrews summarized the materials the board had examined and asked whether Chief Tax Appraiser Anthony George believed a pending court case involving two board members created a conflict of interest for participation in matters tied to that litigation. Andrews said the state review and court filings overlapped and that a legal opinion would be required to determine whether any board member should abstain from particular votes. George responded that he did not see a conflict but that legal counsel was the proper source for a definitive determination.

Anthony George, chief tax appraiser, disputed several of the report’s implications and defended the office’s work and staffing constraints. George told the board the office had produced new county revenue and that staff shortages had hampered corrections: “We gave the county new revenue” and “it takes two to four years to train an appraiser,” he said, describing vacancies and the difficulty of scheduling state-required training classes.

Board members pointed to specific state findings summarized in the peer review and performance evaluation: the county did not meet the sales-ratio in 2022; the report said many manual grade or value changes had been used to keep up with sales, a practice reviewers identified as improper; and training and supervision shortfalls were cited. The transcript recorded one numerical example used in discussion: approximately 9,400 property-grade changes were referred to in the review, and state reviewers identified more than $300,000 in public-utility valuation shortfalls tied to reporting and ratio issues.

Several assessor’s office staff spoke at length in open session. Kim Adams, an appraisal staff member who described herself as a whistleblower earlier in the process, said the report had vindicated the concerns she raised: “Everything that I said that day has been vindicated by multiple state agencies as true,” she said. Lonette (staff), Tanisha (staff) and Bill Goodman (staff) described operational and interpersonal problems inside the office, disputed some factual claims in the peer review, and asked for clearer processes and training. Multiple staff members said they wanted an end to “disrespect” and repeated public criticism so the office could function professionally.

Staff also said operational tasks—such as processing homestead exemptions, preparing appeal work and applying Office procedures—were being performed even while employees felt under stress. Tanisha described routine homestead and exempt-value work and said the office was using the acceptable tools and tables available to staff; she asked for training opportunities to be made available when state classes open.

Board members and staff diverged on some factual points the review cited. George said the office had reduced override rates and was working on a revised price-per-square-foot analysis across multiple years to correct ratios; staff said many adjustments remained outstanding and that repairing the problems would take time. One board member urged separating factual, county-performance issues from personnel complaints to allow both problems to be addressed without conflation.

After extended public staff remarks, the board moved to recess for an executive session to address personnel matters. The board’s public discussion closed with direction to continue analysis, to seek legal guidance about any potential conflicts of interest, and to pursue staff training and communication improvements.

The meeting record shows the board did not take a final public action on employment or removal of the chief appraiser at this session; instead the board recessed to executive session for personnel matters and indicated follow-up would occur in further meetings or with legal counsel.