Editor:

Answers to questions I have been asked regarding the county’s tax collection fees for the school districts:

Last fall, to avoid litigation with Beeville ISD, the county agreed to reduce the tax collection fee from $2 to $1.50 per parcel for the schools for 2008-09 tax year and agreed to form an ad hoc committee.

The purpose of the ad hoc committee was for the parties to accept the fair and unbiased research and recommendation in order to avoid the cost of mediators for the schools, the county and the taxpayers.

Doug Arnold, representing the schools, was the other member of the two man ad hoc committee with Joe B. Montez. Arnold was superintendent of schools in Pawnee and, I believe, Orange Grove.

(The group made its first presentation during the commissioners court’s second monthly meeting in June.)

Montez excused himself from a second presentation to the court, held during the commissioners court’s first monthly meeting in early August. However, the court was informed that their report would be presented to the school.

BISD had two or three board meetings during the seven weeks between Aug. 10 when the court first heard the committee’s report and Sept. 28 when the court adopted the committee’s recommended fee of $1.98/parcel.

I do not know why the schools did not hear the report.

I do know that in July of 2009, one month before the committee’s report was completed, all four school districts approved resolutions requiring the Bee County tax assessor-collector, Linda Bridge, to collect their taxes at a fee rate not to exceed $1.50 per parcel.

It was County Attorney Mike Knight, not the commissioners court, who informed the tax assessor collector and the school districts that the county could not collect the schools’ taxes without a written agreement on the fees.

Bee County collected $15,000 less in collection fees this past year due to our compromise to reduce our fee from $2 to $1.50 per parcel in order to give the committee time to study the issue and give its report.

The committee’s report is the first complete and independent study of this issue since the 2002 State Comptroller’s Financial Review. The CPA and attorney who studied and prepared that report developed a formula that disbursed 81 percent of the costs for tax collection to all of the other entities and 19 percent of the costs to the county.

The court’s most recent action combines fees from the 1 percent of collections contracts plus the ad hoc committee’s recommended $1.98/parcel from the schools totaling 46 percent of collection costs with the county picking up the remaining 54 percent of the costs.

Yes, the $1.98 collection fee was approved after all entities had approved budgets and set tax rates. However, a $7,000 budget amendment for BISD is far less than the budget amendments necessary after the tax increase election failed last year.

Although legal costs for the parties are unknown, it will probably cost BISD more than the $7,000 collection fee difference to mediate this suit.

The problem in 30 words or less: The state comptroller’s legal team differed in its interpretation and application of “actual costs” as determined, as final matter, by the commissioners court in Attorney General Opinion JM-996. Therefore, it is a legal issue to be resolved that can only be settled in district court.

The county has acted in good faith and has strived to be fair with all the jurisdictions for which it collects taxes by honoring current contracts and accepting the ad-hoc committee’s recommended fee for the schools.

No member of the commissioners court wants the taxpayers to suffer the costs of mediation or litigation. However, we will be forced to incur legal expenses to resolve this issue with the schools.

Respectfully,

Susan C. Stasny

Commissioner, Pct. 2