Upson County chief appraiser outlines sales-ratio shortfall, urges board to consider appeal by March 1

Charles, the county chief appraiser, told the Upson County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 11 that a Department of Audits review flagged the county's public-utility sales ratio as out of compliance for the review year and that the board, not the assessor's office or the school board, is the only body that can appeal that determination by March 1.

The issue matters for property valuations and the county's eligibility under House Bill 581, which changes how values and caps are applied. Charles said the county's in-house work produced improved ratios but that the Department of Audits' procedures can include moving or weighting sales in ways that change the final audited ratio.

Charles walked commissioners through the recent history: a 40 ratio in 2020, a sharp market shift in 2022 that pushed audited ratios into the mid-30s, and an arbitration result that moved the county toward 34.44 for the review year. He said the county then corrected appraisal records and neighborhood-level values and reported an in-house January'through'December 2024 ratio of 37.47, later improved through adjustments to 39.86 for certain windows and to 40.55 for January'through'December when weighted. Running all 2024 qualified sales through the system produced a final in-house figure of 38.86, which Charles said gives him confidence going into 2025 but leaves little margin if auditors reweight sales.

Charles said there are three practical options: do nothing, accept the Department of Audits' determination and the county's current conditional status, or have the board file an appeal by March 1. He warned that a consent order could be required if the county falls short again and described potential remedies the state sometimes uses, including a penalty (he cited a historical example of a $5-per-parcel penalty) or a consent arrangement negotiated with auditors.

Carl Gruder, the county attorney who spoke later in the discussion, confirmed the board must make a decision about appealing the audits determination and noted the county currently holds a conditional approval rather than being under active consent. Several commissioners asked clarifying questions about how an adverse finding could interact with House Bill 581'related caps and the practical effect on taxpayers if values change beyond caps.

Charles said his office has been working through a multi-year plan to address reappraisal backlogs and that roughly 3,200 of about 5,300 parcels flagged for review since 2024 have already been revisited. He said he planned to return to the board in about three months with a more detailed update on value adjustments and the appraisal side of the ratio.

Commissioners did not vote on an appeal at the Feb. 11 meeting; Charles repeated that the board must decide by March 1 if it wishes to file an appeal of the Department of Audits' determination.