Cumberland County discusses overhaul of tax-collector pay model, delays ordinance decision

At a Cumberland County Finance Committee meeting, county commissioners and members of the Cumberland County Tax Collectors Association discussed possible changes to how the county compensates local tax collectors but took no formal action, saying staff needs more data before drafting an ordinance.

The topic matters because the county covers printing and mailing costs for collections while many tax collectors operate from home and differ widely in workload; commissioners framed the issue as one of budget constraints and equity between small and large municipalities.

County officials said they asked the association for detailed data on hours, reimbursements and how municipalities and school districts compensate their collectors, and that some requested information arrived only recently or remains outstanding. "We had asked for some very specific information that was not given to us," said Jen Garner, a tax collector who addressed the board on behalf of the association.

Association members and individual tax collectors told commissioners they bear many office costs themselves, including equipment, stationery, postage and printed envelopes. Several collectors described different local practices: some receive stipends from school districts or municipalities, some are paid per-bill or by percentage, and others receive multiple small payments from several taxing authorities. County staff said those three funding streams make it hard to compare net compensation across jurisdictions and to design a single countywide model.

Commissioners and staff discussed several possible compensation models: a tiered rate that would pay more for the first set of bills (for example, higher per-bill pay for the first 1,000 bills) and less for additional bills; and an association proposal described in the meeting as a "two-step increase, 15¢ per bill, for 5.54 increase." County staff said they will verify the proposal’s exact units and total budgetary impact before any ordinance is drafted.

County financial staff and the chief financial officer are compiling payroll and reimbursement data and running impact scenarios. A county staff member said the plan, if commissioners direct it, would be to draft an ordinance, advertise it next week and, if timing holds, bring it back for possible adoption at the Feb. 13 board meeting (referred to in the meeting as the POC meeting). No ordinance was introduced or voted on at this meeting.

Speakers repeatedly raised process and standards questions. Commissioners asked whether some operational requirements tied to older local ordinances — for example, frequent weekly settlement and reporting requirements during the discount period — remained necessary given modern banking and software. One county commissioner said the law’s minimum office-hour requirement is low and noted that the county nevertheless expects responsive customer service from elected tax collectors.

Commissioners indicated support for some increase in compensation but said they are not prepared to set amounts without clearer, comparable data from municipalities and school districts. County staff said they would continue gathering the missing information and present detailed budget impacts for commissioners to review. The meeting concluded with no vote on compensation; commissioners said they will revisit the subject when staff provides the compiled data.

Votes at the meeting were limited to routine business: the committee approved the minutes from the Dec. 26 meeting (motion and second recorded; vote recorded in the minutes as "all in favor, aye").