The Washington County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to direct a further investigation after a resident produced receipts he said showed he had paid 2023 property taxes that county records later flagged as unpaid.

The dispute came during a regular meeting when a resident identified in the transcript as "Mister Norris" told the board, "I got my receipt for my taxes that I paid. And for some kind of reason, some excuse, she said I didn't pay it." He said he still held printed receipts for the payments and asked the board for help resolving the apparent discrepancy.

The county tax office, represented at the meeting by the office manager, Katrina Bost, and by Miss Lee (identified in the record as the tax office official), said the apparent discrepancy arose because clerks sometimes void a printed transaction after a customer changed their mind. "If this particular transaction ... the clerk came back to my office and told me that the customer did not wanna pay that particular PIN number," Bost said, describing the office's reversal and follow-up process.

County Attorney Griffin and other staff urged procedural changes to avoid recurrence. Griffin told the board the office should discontinue handling multi-parcel cash transactions in a single batch, saying the practice creates confusion and advised tightening reconciliation so voided transactions are documented and justified.

Supervisor Brooks made a motion "to continue investigation and allow the tax collector to pull the receipts and bring them back for review"; Supervisor Gordon seconded. The board voted to continue the matter for further review and asked the tax office to provide copies of the specific receipts in question. The board initially discussed resolving the case at the next meeting that had been referenced as Jan. 20; later the board clarified its next meeting falls on Jan. 21.

Why it matters: If validated, mismatches between customer receipts and county records can lead to properties appearing in tax-sale notices and to improper collection status for taxpayers. The board’s action requires the tax office to find and produce the printed receipts tied to the disputed transactions so the county can confirm whether the payments were applied.

What the board ordered: the tax office was asked to identify the two or three receipts Mr. Norris cited, supply copies to the county administrator and board, and permit the board to resolve the matter at the next regular meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

The board also asked the tax office to consider operational changes that staff described at the meeting, including processing payments parcel-by-parcel rather than batching multiple parcels and better documenting any voids or reversals.

The board made no determination about liability or reimbursement at the meeting; the matter will return to the board for resolution once staff have produced the requested receipts and reconciliations.