Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Finance Tax Collection topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Scranton School District reviews third‑party tax‑collection proposal that would take up to 25% commission

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

Board discussed an unsolicited proposal from a third‑party delinquent tax collector that claims it can recover 'seven figures' for the district; attorney review is underway and potential exclusivity with existing collectors remains to be resolved.

The Scranton School District board discussed a proposal from a third‑party delinquent tax collector, referred to in the meeting as "e‑collect," that proposes to identify and recover uncollected local taxes for the district in exchange for a commission. District staff said the firm proposed a contingency fee model and has previously worked for the district.

Attorney Moran has the proposal under legal review, district officials said, and staff will check whether the proposed agreement would conflict with current collectors or any exclusivity provisions in existing contracts or resolutions. The district currently uses the Scranton single tax office (which collects real estate, business privilege/mercantile and local services taxes) and Bergheimer (which collects earned income and a recently levied payroll preparation tax).

During the discussion staff said the vendor described past results for other clients and told the district it had identified opportunities that could yield seven‑figure recoveries. District staff also said the firm previously recovered roughly $600,000 for the district in work done around 2017–2018. The proposed commission reported in the meeting was about 25% of amounts recovered, though staff said structures could vary by agency.

Board members asked staff to verify whether the proposal includes any exclusivity clause that would conflict with the single tax office or Bergheimer and to provide a recommendation. Attorney Moran noted a prior relationship with the vendor and said he was reviewing the proposal with disclosure to the board.

No motion or vote on the proposal was reported in the work session; staff said they would return recommendations following the attorney review and contractual due diligence.