Committee hears bills to modernize local tax collection notices and allow recovery of collection costs for business and county taxes

The House Finance Committee held a public hearing in Harrisburg on two related measures, House Bill 852 and House Bill 853, that would change how local taxes are collected and how collection costs are recovered.

Representative Joe Webster, sponsor and member of the committee, described HB 852 as a targeted modernization that “removes the requirement for a certified letter from the tax collector to the delinquent taxpayer.” He said the change responds to delivery problems in gated communities and multifamily housing and intends to reduce inadvertent delinquencies caused by reliance on certified mail.

Why it matters: Sponsors and testifiers said the measures aim to help municipalities and contracted tax collectors collect taxes already due while reducing procedural burdens on taxpayers who may not receive certified mail. Supporters said the change could increase collection rates and reduce administrative cost inefficiencies.

Dave Gordon, general counsel for Bergheimer, testified for the bills and told the committee that including business‑oriented local taxes in the list of recoverable collection costs and relaxing the certified‑mail requirement would align procedures across tax types. Gordon said county per capita and county occupation assessment taxes currently lack a consistent cost‑recovery mechanism and that the bills would make collection practices uniform across municipal, school district and county taxes. He also described practical problems with the certified‑mail requirement before wage garnishment, saying taxpayers often respond only after an employer receives a garnishment demand.

Committee members pressed for due‑process protections. Representative Kephart asked whether dropping certified mail could leave taxpayers unable to prove they never received a notice; Webster and Gordon said the bill’s amendment would permit either the existing certified notice or a minimum of three first‑class notices before some collection remedies are used. Webster summarized the amendment option as allowing “either process” and noted the practical idea that three first‑class letters are less likely to be lost than one certified notice.

Members raised constituent service concerns tied to contracted tax collectors. Representative Devanzo sharply criticized Bergheimer’s customer service, saying his family and constituents had long waits and delayed responses; he called the customer service “embarrassing and it’s awful.” Committee staff said they would pass contact information to members and asked Bergheimer to investigate cases where callers could not reach customer care.

The committee chair noted the bills apply to all tax collectors in the Commonwealth (Philadelphia is covered by a separate law) and that an amendment removing subsections c and d (language borrowed from section 707 of the Local Tax Enabling Act) will be included in materials for the scheduled voting meeting. The committee did not take formal action at the hearing; members were told the amendment deadline for the voting meeting is 1:00 p.m. the following day.

Next steps: The committee scheduled a voting meeting for Thursday at 10 a.m. in room B‑31 to consider these bills along with other measures. No formal votes were recorded at the hearing.

Ending: Supporters said the bills are narrow technical changes intended to improve collection while preserving options for due process; critics urged the committee to ensure adequate customer service and oversight of contracted collectors.