Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Tax Collection topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council signals intent to keep current delinquent-tax collector after 8 years without competitive bid

2397222 · February 25, 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

Purdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins & Mott LLP told the council its collection contract rolls year-to-year at no cost to the city; councilmembers said they were comfortable continuing the firm's services rather than issuing a new RFP.

Rosenberg councilmembers heard a brief presentation at their workshop from Mike Darlow of Purdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins & Mott LLP, the law firm that handles collection of delinquent property taxes for the city. Darlow said the firm's contract can roll annually and that the collections work is performed at no cost to the city; collection penalties and statutory fees are paid by delinquent taxpayers.

"The services that we provide are at no cost to the city," Darlow said, adding that the collection penalty is imposed by statute and paid by the delinquent taxpayer. He said the firm has provided municipal tax-collection work for the city since the 1980s and personally has represented Rosenberg since 1983.

Darlow described recovery rates: the tax office collects roughly 98% of the current levy each year, and the firm typically collects around 80% of older levies during the first 12-month collection cycle after turnover to collection. Councilmembers asked about payment plans and assistance for taxpayers in hardship; Darlow said the office facilitates payment agreements and routinely negotiates them on the city's behalf.

Council direction: After discussion about due diligence and whether to re-solicit the contract, councilmembers expressed satisfaction with the current arrangement and the perceived lack of cost to the city. Several councilmembers said they saw little benefit to re-bidding a no-cost service. The council signaled consensus to continue with the current contract rather than issue an immediate RFP.