Wilson County court disapproves proposed appraisal-district building after officials cite late notice and budget concerns

The Wilson County Commissioner’s Court voted on Wednesday to approve a resolution disapproving the Wilson County Appraisal District’s planned acquisition and construction of a new appraisal-district building.

The motion was made by Commissioner Martin and seconded by Commissioner King; the presiding officer called a voice vote and announced the motion passed. Commissioners and representatives of taxing entities said they had received limited notice, lacked key financial details and were concerned about how the purchase would affect the budgets of non-voting taxing entities.

Jennifer Coldway, chief appraiser for the Wilson County Appraisal District, told the court she will ask the CAD board to withdraw and resend the resolution at a board meeting scheduled for the next day so the district can gather additional information requested by taxing entities. Coldway said the CAD is constrained for space and had been seeking a long-term solution; she described prior use of reserves after a tornado and said the CAD has attempted to be a cautious steward of funds.

Coldway stated during her presentation that "since 2015 to 2025 the CAD has refunded $169,23967 to the county alone" and that "a total of $755,274 have be been refunded to all those entities in those years," remarks included in the CAD presentation. Coldway also said the district received a builder quote of roughly $1.9 million to add on to its current site and discussed two parcels on Highway 181 that the CAD reported as listed at about $1.5 million (land only).

Multiple county commissioners and representatives of non-voting entities—emergency service districts (ESDs), school districts and others—said the CAD did not adequately notify taxing entities and that the proposed debt would consume a meaningful portion of the cap those entities can increase without voter approval. One representative said the county’s share would be roughly $83,000–$84,000 and that the proposal represented about 10% of the cap the taxing entities can use next year without voter approval.

Luis Garcia, general counsel for the San Antonio River Authority, said the River Authority had not received notice of the CAD action and had not taken an official position, and that he needed more time to research whether notice was required under law.

Court members said they will ask the CAD to provide clearer documentation—including a performance "report card," procurement comparisons and additional bids—and to explain how the CAD would handle disposition of the current building and any audit or depreciation consequences if it were sold. Coldway said auditors and finance staff are evaluating accounting implications and that the district’s financing partner, Government Capital, could push the first payment out roughly 14 months if the CAD pauses the process, which Coldway said could move an initial payment into 2028.

The court’s resolution disapproving the proposed acquisition was approved by voice vote; the transcript records the vote as a court announcement rather than a roll-call tally. Commissioner Martin said he had spoken with many non-voting entities since the notice was circulated and urged the CAD to restart the process with broader outreach and additional detail. The court adjourned at about 3:40 p.m.

Next steps: the CAD board meeting scheduled for the following day and continued dialogue between the CAD, the county and affected taxing entities to clarify financing, appraisal and disposition questions before any revised proposal returns to the court.