Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Collection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cochran council gets detailed update on delinquent tax notices; staff flags GSI data errors and audit options
Summary
At a Sept. 3 special meeting, Cochran officials received a presentation from Government Tax Solutions showing hundreds of delinquent-tax notices and dozens of parcels moving toward levy; staff cited GSI system errors and proposed third-party audits and possible fee waivers. No votes were taken.
Mayor Billy Yeomans convened a special Cochran City Council meeting on Sept. 3, 2024, to receive an information-only update on delinquent property-tax collection and related data problems.
Chris Laney of Government Tax Solutions told the council that GTS’s review of city records produced 983 initial intent-to-Fi.Fa notices totaling $815,345, 393 Stage 1 letters for real property totaling $354,310, 45 Stage 1 letters for personal property totaling $40,977, and 213 parcels approved to move to the levy process (about $210,000). He said 62 parcels remained in process toward an Oct. 1 tax-sale target. Laney described gaps in city staff training on tax-sales and noted that data issues commonly complicate municipal collections.
City Clerk Candace Summerall said she has spent several months reconciling records after taking office and identified a mix of system glitches in the city’s GSI billing software, inconsistent past record-keeping, and staff training gaps. Summerall gave an example where a 2020 tax notice showed no payment due while GSI reflected a balance, and she said she may ask the council to consider waiving fees on parcels where ownership changed multiple times and liability is unclear.
Tiffany Bryant, a city staff member working the accounts, reported 57 parcels still open, 43 of which cover multiple years. She told the council that unexplained added fees and interest in GSI required manual intervening adjustments on some accounts.
City Manager Richard Newbern summarized the city’s approach to budgeting and tax tracking, saying collections over the past seven to eight years generally matched budget expectations. Newbern outlined how the issue was escalated and presented two proposals for an external review of tax procedures: Mauldin Jenkins (estimated at about $35,000) and Rushton (estimated $18,000–$23,000). Council members questioned sample sizes proposed for audits and whether a standard review would suffice versus a forensic audit.
Throughout the meeting, Council Member Carla Coley requested raw historical collection figures from 2017–2022 to compare billed amounts with receipts, asked who narrowed the initial 983-parcel list to the 393 Stage 1 notices, and raised questions about how payments were handled from the front desk to bank deposits. Council Member Shane Savant pressed staff on the timing of internal inquiries between December 2022 and May 2023 and asked whether GSI had ever lost large volumes of data in other municipalities.
Mayor Yeomans asked Laney if GTS’s process would have detected any misuse or misappropriation of funds and sought clarification on whether both the city and county tax personal property such as boats. At adjournment, Yeomans reminded attendees of the municipal chain of command: "The city clerk works for the city manager, the city manager works for the council." The meeting closed at 8:50 p.m.; no votes were taken and no public comment was permitted.
Next steps identified in the meeting record: staff will continue parcel-level reconciliation, prepare requested historical billing and receipts data for council review, and return with recommendations on whether to pursue a procedural or forensic audit and whether to request fee waivers for specific parcels. The council did not take formal action at this session.
