Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Burleson council hears rival law firms on delinquent-tax contract, moves to keep incumbent by consensus
Summary
After 10–15 minute presentations by Linebarger and Purdue Brandon, Burleson council informally signaled to remain with incumbent Purdue Brandon for delinquent property tax collection; members pressed both firms on technology, local filings and any appraisal-district conflicts and requested a line-by-line operations comparison.
Burleson city staff presented competing proposals on April 6 to provide delinquent property tax collection services, and after extended presentations from Linebarger and Purdue, the council signaled by consensus to remain with the incumbent, Purdue Brandon, instead of terminating that contract.
The council’s roughly two-hour discussion began with a staff recap of the RFQ process. Deputy city attorney Matt Rubitsky reminded the council the city solicited qualifications and received responsive submissions from Linebarger and Purdue; staff described a close evaluation and multiple follow-up briefings to the finance committee and full council. Both firms gave 10–15 minute presentations and answered councillors’ questions.
Linebarger’s presentation emphasized scale, technology and a national footprint. The presenter highlighted an investment in collection software and cybersecurity and said the firm has “invested over $110,000,000 in our technology,” arguing that a larger ‘all-years’ litigation approach can lift long-term recovery rates. Linebarger said it stopped representing some appraisal districts in recent years to avoid conflicts and emphasized available local staffing and tools to improve collection outcomes.
Purdue Brandon’s presenter, Allison Callison, described the firm’s in-house TaxTracker platform and a local call center in Arlington, saying the system produces the client-specific workflows that allow tailored outreach, reporting and compassionate contact with taxpayers. Purdue noted long-standing representation of Burleson, monthly filings in Johnson County and continuity advantages from holding account histories. Purdue also said certain account categories (homestead deferrals, disabled homeowners and small mineral accounts) are legally not collectible.
Council members pressed both firms on the difference between first-year collection rates (letters/calls) and longer-term "all-years" litigation results, local filing activity in Johnson County, how each firm treats sensitive cases and whether past representation of the Johnson County Appraisal District presented a conflict.
Several council members emphasized relationships and local continuity in supporting Purdue. One council member amplified conflict concerns about a firm’s historical representation of the Johnson County Appraisal District; others said legal rules constrain collections practice and both firms must follow the same statutory processes. A council member requested line-by-line, point-by-point process comparisons from each firm to clarify operational differences.
Staff reported an informal tally of council preference—head nods—favoring staying with Purdue and therefore recommended not initiating termination proceedings for the existing contract; the council did not take a formal roll-call vote on terminating the Purdue contract.
What’s next: Staff will follow up with the council’s requested line-by-line procedural comparisons from the firms and will return any formal contract changes or termination items to a future meeting for action. The council did not direct staff to open termination proceedings at this meeting.
