Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Contingency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated floor debate over SB 227’s ban on contingency‑fee contracts for tax collection; amendment fails
Summary
Senate Bill 227 would prohibit contingency‑fee contracts between counties (and other public parties) and private firms for property tax assessment/collection work. Senators debated fairness, county capacity and private‑contract limits; a broader amendment to ban all contingency contracts failed in a divided standing vote and the bill was placed on third reading.
A lengthy and contested floor debate on Feb. 25 centered on Senate Bill 227, which seeks to prohibit counties and commissions from entering contingency‑fee contracts with private firms to audit, assess, or collect property taxes.
Sponsor Senator Stevenson told colleagues the bill targets contingency contracts that can give private firms a financial stake in tax collections; he cited out‑of‑state court rulings that found contingency arrangements inconsistent with public policy. Stevenson said the bill does not prevent counties from using outside experts — only from contracting on a contingency‑fee basis that ties private compensation to the amount recovered.
Senators offered competing perspectives. Supporters argued contingency contracts create perverse incentives and can divert funds that belong to school districts and other taxing entities. Opponents warned the amendment would impede county options, particularly for small or underresourced counties that otherwise could not afford outside expertise. One floor amendment proposed replacing language that barred 'the commission or county' with language barring 'no party' from contingency contracts. That amendment would have extended the ban broadly to private contingency arrangements; it prompted heated exchanges about private contractual freedom and unintended consequences across non‑tax areas. The amendment was put to a division and failed. The Senate ultimately voted to place SB 227 on the third‑reading calendar for further consideration and negotiation.
Quote: “It only prevents them from using a contingency fee, which can give an appearance of bias and potential abuse,” — Senator Stevenson, sponsor of SB 227.
Next steps: SB 227 was placed on the third‑reading calendar to allow further negotiation; the Senate recorded the floor debate and division votes for the official record.
