Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance Billing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge review of Jordan Tax Service contract after billing and delinquency complaints
Summary
Multiple residents told council they received late notices, high delinquency fees and poor customer service under the borough's contract with Jordan Tax Service; council and staff said they will press Jordan for better service and explore alternatives where permitted.
Several residents used the public‑comment period to criticize the borough’s tax collector arrangement and how that relationship affects trash billing and delinquency fees.
"This $34 fee on top of the $340 means that my late fee gives them almost 10% of the income from the trash service," said Kelly Burgess (Park Street), pressing the council to allow direct contracting with private haulers or to renegotiate service terms with Jordan Tax Service.
Councillors and staff acknowledged repeated citizen complaints about missed notices, inconsistent customer service and large delinquency collections. Council members said they have invited Jordan Tax Service to discuss customer‑service improvements and that staff will pursue alternatives where legally possible. "We will keep pushing them to get better while we also consider what else we may have out there," a council member said.
Staff explained there are legal and administrative limits on diverting collections for certain levies (for example, the Earned Income Tax is controlled through a multi‑entity taxing body), and that allowing residents to contract separately for trash could raise collection and enforcement issues and increase per‑household costs. Still, council said it will shop for other billing and collection tools where feasible and asked residents who experience unresolved errors to escalate to borough staff so the borough can intervene.
Residents recounted specific examples: missed bills sent to previous owners, late notices that arrived long after the first bill, and repeated back‑and‑forth attempts to correct accounts. Council members said they would add the matter to committee discussion and that staff would provide contacts and RFP options for potential alternatives.
Next steps: staff advised residents to contact borough staff for case assistance and said the finance committee will review Jordan's performance and potential alternatives in upcoming meetings.
