Corrected Scan of Payment Plan Documents

The original scan posted of the payment plan documents had 140 contracts. I mentioned at that time that there were some documents that may have double fed into the scanner as I had been billed for 143 documents. After going back through and double checking for anything that hadn’t made it to the posted PDF, I added eight more contracts bringing the total number to 148.

I apologize for the error and want to stress that it was an issue with scanning on my end of things–not something on the county side. You can download the corrected PDF using the link below.

PDF of Payment Plan Contracts

Susan emailed me to clarify why many of the contracts were not signed. Many were handled through the mail and people didn’t sign and return them after they were received. As long as the payment plan wasn’t letting people do anything that they couldn’t have done on their own, it really didn’t make a difference if they were signed or not. It may have helped people schedule out their payments, but that wasn’t something people couldn’t have done for themselves.

7 thoughts on “Corrected Scan of Payment Plan Documents”

  1. I just wonder why Susan and Rodger did not sign their own contract and why does Susan’s say that she has paid her 2007 taxes when the computer says she hasn’t . She surely did not mail her contract out. Just wondering.

    1. I noticed on this run through that R Quick, S Quick had all years on one contract and I know that this one was not part of the first scan. I was surprised that if it were for the multiple years and done previously that 2006 would not have been listed and marked off in June 2011 when it was paid off which appeared to be the standard. Obviously, after she paid off 2006 in June this year (eligible for tax sale – I collected a list of those and will calculate the appraised value to see what the estimated value of the properties would have been since they would not have brought enough at auction to make it worthwhile) – she made contracts for the next 4 years but since it was past the redemption period for 2006, all of those taxes, interest and fees should have been paid at that time which I felt was built into the system to keep people from always being MORE than 3 years behind. The auditor had said that 6% were not signed when he reviewed them but within these documents the percentage is much higher but, of course, we had 143 people on the contract in September and now have over 200 people on a contract, or that is what the auditor found. I am not being critical of the auditor as I am sure he is correct but so many changes? I thought adding people to the payment plan was halted after the list was given out?

      1. I noticed on this run through that R Quick, S Quick had all years on one contract and I know that this one was not part of the first scan.

        Just to be clear, this document was in the first set I received. I was provided with all the documents in this scan, but at first a few pages were pulled in on top of each other. So the reason it was missing was my error.

        1. No so much that it was missing in the first scan being the error but 4 years on 1 contract and I can’t remember but was the total for the years actually there because I did not think I saw a figure that high which would indicate that?

          1. OK, this time I made notes. S & R Quick’s contract: undated, unsigned and for years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 with an amount of $2,240.32 for a period from August 1, 2008 to Jun 1, 2010. Taxes for that period per the tax history totaled $3,993.76. I am confused that a payment plan for the year 2006 did not start until 2008 since if I remember right, her name was not published for 2006 delinquent taxes? Also, no payment plan existed for the year 2010 and again, her name was not published in the original publication this year. This contract would be one of the 94% suggested to be dropped. The more I look at it, the more the 6% was probably the additional just not signed versus not signed and not making regular payments because that would probably put the auditor’s figures in the ballpark I am looking at.

  2. An auction must cost a heck of a lot of money. I roughly computed the total of the appraised value of the properties on the payment plan that would have been sold and this would not include the additional properties that where eligible for auction with delinquent taxes 2006 or before to be auctioned last year when there were not enough properties to justify the cost of a sale: I got almost $600,000 worth of appraised value for delinquent properties on the payment plan. Not worthwhile. Even if those people went in to redeem their properties, imagine the revenue on that total?

  3. I do not understand why the contract of R. Quick and S. Quick was marked paid for 2007 when you published these contracts on September 26, 2011 and she actually did not pay these taxes until 10-13-11. This was not an error on the computer as it was hand written.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *