Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Collections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local business owner says county's delinquency notices and collection fees are excessive
Summary
Chris Horton, owner of Auburn Manufacturing, told commissioners he received a delinquency letter followed rapidly by a demand notice from the county's collection vendor with a $6,445 service fee, which he said made his total penalty and collection charges about 61% of the underlying tax bill.
Chris Horton, who identified himself as owner of Auburn Manufacturing, addressed the commission during public comment to complain about tax delinquency notices and collection fees administered through the county's vendor.
"My name is Chris Horton ... I'm owner of Auburn Manufacturing," Horton said. He told commissioners he received a delinquency notice and, shortly after, a demand notice from American Financial that included a collection fee he described as $6,445. Horton said his underlying delinquent tax was $18,800 and that penalties and collection charges he was being asked to pay totaled about $11,471.50, which he described as "outlandish." "For an $18,800 bill that's 60 days old ... I gotta come up with an $11,000. That's extreme," he said.
County staff explained the county had changed its collections schedule: accounts that were delinquent were bundled and sent to the county's vendor earlier in the year rather than waiting until July certification. Staff noted statutory late penalties and described how cumulative penalties can increase if payments are not timely. A county finance staff member confirmed American Financial is the county's collection vendor and described the vendor fee as a percentage applied to accounts turned over to them.
The county's staff representation in the meeting also noted that the delinquency letter sent earlier this year was a courtesy notice and that the demand notice from the collection vendor is a legitimate step in the county's collections process. Horton said he would contact the treasurer and review the delinquency letter but expressed frustration with the timing and size of collection fees.
The transcript records Horton's stated figures and his complaint; county staff described the changed timing of collection referrals and the role of the collection vendor. The amounts Horton cited were presented by him in public comment and were not independently verified in the meeting record.
