Park County approves contract with Collection Bureau Services to pursue unpaid Justice Court fines

Park County commissioners voted on June 11 to authorize the county to sign a contract with Collection Bureau Services to collect unpaid Justice Court fines and fees, contingent on county attorney review.

The Justice Court judge told commissioners the court’s unpaid fines and fees total roughly $330,000 in arrears and described ongoing compliance work by court clerks to pursue payments. "It's around the number of $330,000 in arrears, for fees and fines owed to Justice Court," the judge said. The judge said turning long‑delinquent balances over to a collections firm would shift follow‑up work from court staff to the contractor and allow the county to recover outstanding amounts without adding county staff.

The judge said county courts that use collections typically allow the collector to add a statutory fee to the outstanding balance. "By statute, it is legal. … They would add 25 percent to it," the judge said, describing the charge as a cost borne by the debtor, not by the county. The judge and others explained the county would generally quash small warrants and transfer those accounts to collections; criteria mentioned for referral included repeated missed payments or failure to appear at show‑cause hearings.

County staff confirmed the contracts from two Montana firms—Collection Bureau Services (CBS) and a second firm referred to as Northwest—were forwarded to the county attorney for legal review. The judge said she preferred CBS based on responsiveness during contract discussions. The county attorney, Chad Spitler, was cited as reviewing the contracts, and staff told commissioners final signature would follow the county attorney’s approval.

A motion to approve signing the contract with Collection Bureau Services, "providing it passes all legal muster," was made, seconded and approved by voice vote. Commissioners recorded four affirmative votes. The judge who presented the item seconded the motion. The commission’s action authorizes the county to proceed with the CBS contract after legal review; the transcript records no ordinance number, resolution number or contract number.

Those supporting the contract said it could reduce county workload and jail costs associated with bringing defendants to court for nonpayment. "This compliance piece takes time," the judge said, noting staff hours spent on calls, hearings and warrants. A county finance speaker said collections revenues help multiple departments; "half of what comes into the general fund actually goes to the sheriff's office," the speaker said, describing how recovered funds flow through the budget.

The judge and commissioners cautioned that not all outstanding balances can be recovered—some accounts are too old or involve deceased defendants—and they did not guarantee the full $330,000 would be collected. "I don't perceive $300,000 coming through," one commissioner said; the judge replied that while the full amount was unlikely, the program would ease county workload and recover some funds.

The commission voted to approve the contract subject to county attorney review. Next steps in the transcript: the county attorney will complete his legal review and the county will sign the contract if it "passes all legal muster." No timelines or contract start dates were specified during the meeting.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Approve signing contract with Collection Bureau Services to collect unpaid Justice Court fines and fees, contingent on county attorney review. Moved by Commissioner (unnamed in transcript); seconded by Justice Court Judge. Vote: 4 yes, 0 no. Outcome: approved.

Clarifying details recorded at the meeting included an approximate $330,000 in cumulative arrears (described as "around" that figure and spanning multiple years), a statutory collections fee commonly described as about 25% added to outstanding balances, and proposed referral criteria including failure to appear at show‑cause hearings or repeated missed payments (more than three missed payments was cited as a likely trigger). The county attorney’s review of the specific contract language remained outstanding at the time of the vote.

The article is based on remarks during the Park County Board of Commissioners meeting on June 11, 2025; direct quotes and procedural actions are drawn from the public transcript and meeting record.