Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Collections Contract topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bandera council approves contingent-fee collections contract for court fines, terminates existing firm

2809051 · March 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City of Bandera City Council voted 4–0 to approve a contingent-fee contract with a collections law firm to pursue municipal court fines and fees and to terminate the city’s current collection company.

The City of Bandera City Council voted unanimously to approve a contingent-fee contract with an outside collections law firm for collection of municipal court fines and fees and to terminate the city’s existing collection company.

Councilmembers said they sought a vendor that would provide more active collection and transparency. Representatives from the firm described a statewide collections program that includes a web portal for court staff, monthly reporting to the city administrator, skip tracing for locating defendants, coordinated marshal/warrant campaigns and text-message outreach. The firm told the council that, as described in the meeting, an add‑on collection fee for fines and fees is statutory and typically added to outstanding balances at 30%.

A city judge and councilmembers pressed for metrics and background on outstanding balances. Council asked the judge and staff to provide numbers on how much is currently outstanding and how previous vendors performed. The firm’s representative said success depends on case age and locality; during the meeting the vendor described a typical collection rate for relatively recent cases in the market at roughly 35–40%, while utility collection and older cases may collect at significantly lower rates.

Debbie Green moved to terminate the existing collection firm and to retain the firm named in the motion (as recorded in the meeting). Lynn Palmer seconded the motion; the council voted 4–0 in favor.

The contract is for a contingent-fee arrangement and includes termination and wrap-up provisions that a representative said would allow the city to end the contract with notice and receive a transition period to close accounts. Councilmembers requested staff provide the current outstanding amounts and a comparison of commission structures before any long-term commitments beyond the approved contract.