Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Revenue Collection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council picks GTS Government Tax Solutions to pursue delinquent property taxes over one dissent
Summary
The East Point City Council voted June 15 to award delinquent tax collection services (RFQ2026-1928) to GTS Government Tax Solutions despite concerns about prior contact with the vendor; the motion passed with a roll‑call vote and one recorded no.
The East Point City Council on June 15 approved a professional‑services selection for delinquent property‑tax collection, awarding the contract to GTS Government Tax Solutions (RFQ2026‑1928). Staff said the vendor will undertake outreach and preparatory work at no cost to the city; the vendor’s fees are charged to delinquent taxpayers.
Procurement and finance staff told the council they required the vendor to provide staged outreach services; during discussion staff summarized the vendor’s staged fee structure for taxpayers: a $65 charge tied to the first intent letter, a $225 fee for more intensive research and title/skip‑trace activity, and an additional $100 per parcel associated with tax‑sale processing (all fees are charged to the delinquent taxpayer, not to the city). Staff said vendor activity is initiated by lists provided by city staff.
The selection prompted objection from Councilwoman Heming, who said she could not support the procurement given concerns that the vendor had been presented to the city before a formal solicitation and that the public deserved documented scoring sheets and a clearly documented, competitive process. “While that fact alone does not establish wrongdoing,” she said, “it raises legitimate questions regarding the fairness of the process.”
Council supporters argued the city must pursue unpaid taxes to avoid passing costs to compliant taxpayers, noting this year’s homestead relief under state law reduced collections and increased pressure on the city budget. After debate, council voted to approve the award. A roll‑call recorded in the meeting shows four members voting in favor and one opposed: Council Members Heming, Atkins, Cummings and Codwell voted in favor; Council Member Martin Rogers voted no.
The contract calls for the vendor to perform outreach and preparatory collection activity; staff have authority to transmit targeted lists (for example, commercial categories) to the vendor but the council was advised that any deliberate policy to exclude or target classes of properties should be enacted by council to avoid arbitrary treatment.
Council asked staff to ensure the vendor’s rates and contract language were explicit in the agreement and requested that any segmentation of property classes for collections (e.g., commercial only) be made by majority council policy rather than by ad‑hoc staff decision.
