Mid Valley tax collector asks board to consider pay increase; later attempt to raise statutory fee fails

Chris Patrick, the tax collector for Alifinborough and Mid Valley School District, told the school board at its January meeting that he and two fellow collectors oversee collection of roughly $18,000,000 in taxpayer dollars and asked the board to consider increasing their compensation.

Patrick described the workload of the district tax office and said the three collectors together receive about $35,000 in compensation before taxes. “I make somewhere before tax the neighborhood of $10,000 collecting for the school,” he said. He also said that by keeping his books open into January he collected an extra $81,034 for the district over three years that otherwise would have been routed to the county.

The request came during the meeting’s public-comment period; Patrick said tax-collector compensation is reviewed every four years and asked the board to consider a “bump” to pay. He answered questions from board members about hours and recordkeeping, and said he would start logging hours if that would help the board’s review.

Separately, during board business the board considered a resolution that would set the compensation rate for real-estate tax collectors. The motion originally read that compensation would be “50¢ per tax bill collected,” then was restated by the mover to “$5.50 per tax bill collected” with an additional 0¢ per installment. On a roll-call vote the motion failed. The roll call recorded these votes: Kasurit — yes; Lechanski — yes; Shimkus — no; Tanner — no; Pesotta — no; Lane — no; Bayard — yes; Dixon — yes; Vadisinski — no. The chair declared that the motion did not pass.

Why this matters: compensation for local tax collectors affects local administration of school and borough taxes and can shift administrative workload or financial outcomes between local collectors and county systems. The board did not adopt a new compensation rate at this meeting; discussion and any future proposals remain matters for a later board action.

Board materials attached to the meeting agenda listed other personnel and financial items the board approved under consent; the tax-collector compensation matter was handled separately and failed on the roll call.

Questions or requests for detail raised during the meeting included how collectors log time and the district’s prior comparisons to neighboring districts’ pay rates. Patrick said he would provide additional records if requested.

No additional formal direction to staff about revising collector pay was recorded at the meeting.