Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Collection Abatements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on tax abatements and write-offs during consent-agenda discussion
Summary
Public commenters and council members debated the town's practice of writing off old motor-vehicle and tangible tax receivables and the limits on collections; council ultimately approved the consent agenda with abatements retained for later review.
The Foster Town Council faced extended public comment and questioning on June 12 over tax abatements and the town's collection practices for long-delinquent motor-vehicle and tangible property taxes.
Multiple residents said the list of abatements represents a large amount of forgiven taxes and pressed the council for clarity on why some debts remain uncollected for many years. A speaker using public-records data said principal abatements total about $50,000 and that with interest the total approaches $117,000.
Finance staff explained the legal and practical limits on collections. The finance director said collection agencies typically will not accept accounts older than 10 years and that the state's tools for enforcing motor-vehicle and tangible tax collection are limited compared with real-estate tax collection. The director explained the town cannot selectively apply payments only to principal and that interest typically must be applied per legal practice.
“Motor vehicle and tangible taxes are the two worst taxes because you cannot force people,” the finance director said, noting the town has used delinquent-registration holds in the past but that state enforcement has changed. The finance director described existing practices including contracted collection agencies, payment plans for residents who engage with the collector, and occasional litigation handled by contractors.
Council members moved to remove an item from the consent agenda for separate discussion and later voted to accept the consent agenda as amended (with abatements addressed separately). A subsequent motion to accept the specific consent abatement item was later made and approved during the meeting.
Speakers urged more proactive collection and transparency. One resident questioned whether certain high-dollar taxpayers (a single taxpayer paying about $95,000 per quarter, according to a public commenter) could be contributing more to capital needs; the resident suggested that a single large taxpayer could underwrite major projects if the revenue were redirected.
Council and staff said they would continue using collection agencies, pursue payment plans where appropriate, and that certain categories (motor vehicles and tangibles) have systemic collection challenges that limit recoveries. The council did not adopt new collection policy at the meeting but directed staff to include abatement items on future agendas for continued review.
