Resident accuses Pike County of opaque sheriff‑sale contracting; commissioners and sheriff defend online auctions

A Pike County resident told commissioners during public comment that the county’s use of an online auction vendor for sheriff sales lacks transparency, diverts public revenue and has led to buyer problems; county officials and the sheriff’s office disputed those claims and outlined changes they say will address some concerns.

Resident Jesse Toshick said he had repeatedly asked the sheriff and county solicitor for records about the county’s contract with the online vendor Bid4Assets and described problems including failed closings, unqualified buyers and what he said were unauthorized fees. Toshick said a recent court hearing showed a 1.5 percent buyer premium had been paid to the private vendor from sheriff sale proceeds and that a Right‑to‑Know request submitted July 4th had not been answered within 30 days.

“I followed up with multiple emails and letters addressed to the sheriff, the solicitor, and you as the board. Today, I’ve not received a single response,” Toshick said during his public comment.

County officials and the sheriff pushed back. The sheriff’s office said that an online auction process has returned more excess proceeds to homeowners in recent months than prior in‑person sales did, citing figures presented at the meeting: about $83,710 returned to homeowners in the prior year and approximately $414,000 returned so far this year. Officials said the use of online auctions expanded bidder access and reduced costs associated with in‑person sales.

The commissioners and the sheriff’s office also announced the county will switch vendors: effective September (timing tied to advertising timelines), sales will move from Bid4Assets to a company called Real Auctions. Officials said Real Auctions charges banks a flat $250 per auction and will not impose the 1.5 percent buyer premium that Bid4Assets had charged in some circumstances.

County Solicitor Ron Boucher said the vendor waived a fee in the particular court case cited by Toshick so that the money did not come out of county poundage in that instance, and he added that the county would supply requested records under Pennsylvania’s Right‑to‑Know law within the legal timeframe. Boucher also said the sheriff has the authority to adopt an online process and can ban users who repeatedly fail to complete purchases.

The exchange included sharp disagreement about how often buyers fail to close and whether third‑party purchasers are more likely to default under the online system. Toshick and county officials disagreed about how many sales experienced failed closings and whether second bidders stepped in on those properties. Commissioners said they had discussed the change publicly and that the decision to move to a new vendor had been placed on the commissioners’ agenda.

The county did not provide documentary answers at the meeting; officials said the Right‑to‑Know response deadline is Aug. 14 and that they would provide records consistent with the law. Toshick said he would pursue the records and any follow‑up needed.

The commissioners did not take additional action on the public comment at the meeting and directed staff to respond to records requests and continue the vendor transition process.