That formula calls for BISD to pay $18,829.89 to the county for tax collection services this year — $2,329.89 more than the $16,500 the school district offered earlier this month.
Commissioners spent about an hour in executive session Friday afternoon discussing the proposed settlement offer.
“For the taxpayers of Bee County, I too want this issue resolved,” Precinct 2 Commissioner Susan Stasny said when the court reconvened in open session. “Therefore, I move to approve the resolution approving the offer of settlement from BISD as prepared by our attorney, which is the same as the formula presented by BISD.”
Precinct 3 Commissioner Eloy Rodriguez seconded the motion.
“This is not the ideal situation for us but in the spirit of cooperation and getting rid of the lawsuit I second the motion with the intent of ending this lawsuit, even though it is not the best situation for the county,” Rodriguez said. “Again, for the amount of money we are going to lose (in tax collection fees), in comparison to the amount of money we would have to pay out to an attorney, I think this is the right thing to do.”
Tweaking the math
Although the formula approved by commissioners is the same one offered by BISD, Precinct 1 Commissioner Carlos Salazar noted that there is a small change in one of the figures used to calculate the tax collection rate.
Specifically, the school district’s formula called for the county to base its tax collection rate on one half of the annual salaries of the tax assessor-collector’s office multiplied by 15 percent. The school district figured the salaries to be around $220,000 annually. However, commissioners say that figure is closer to $251,065. Stasny explained the $30,000 increase in the formula.
“The BISD trustees’ offer is 50 percent of all the salary and benefit costs of the tax collection office, times 15 percent, and the trustees had no way of knowing that 65 percent of the workload of that office is related to tax collection only,” she said. “It is my understanding that BISD administration and trustees had not had access to the most recent tax office time study prepared solely by the ad hoc committee, but information from the tax assessor-collector who has been a full-time employee in that department for nine years.”
Why the dispute?
The county charged the school district $19,000 to collect its 2008 property taxes. Commissioners voted last summer to increase the rate from $1.50 per parcel to $1.98 per parcel, which would have hiked BISD’s fee by an additional $7,000 or so to $26,000.
Commissioners say the higher rate ensures the county is covering its costs for tax collection services.
BISD has always maintained that it is being overcharged for tax collection services. School district officials believe BISD should be paying closer to $1 per parcel for tax collection services.
BISD filed a lawsuit against the county last September after the school district was notified of the rate hike and also notified that the county would not collect taxes for a lesser amount.
A judge ordered both sides into mediation.
Mediation standstill
Representatives from BISD and the county met in mediation on Dec. 16 but “came to an impasse” on the formula to use to resolve the dispute.
BISD trustees extended an “olive branch” to the county two weeks ago in the form of a compromise formula which would have the school district paying $16,500 for tax collection services this year.
Commissioners were to meet Friday to consider accepting the offer.
However, BISD apparently altered their settlement offer immediately prior to the commissioners court meeting, much to the chagrin of county leaders.
“The court was able to push forward, at least, a resolution that we can offer to the school district,” Bee County Judge David Silva said Monday. We’ll see what happens there (at BISD).”
‘Olive branch’
Stasny, who three days before had made the motion to accept BISD’s “olive branch” settlement offer, was less than pleased by the school district altering the settlement offer at the last minute.
“Thirty minutes prior to our meeting on Jan. 22, the county received a different offer of settlement though our attorney from BISD,” she explained, reading from a prepared statement. “The new offer replaced the olive branch with a huisache branch complete with thorns.”
She said the new offer used a different figure in the formula to calculate tax rate collection fees, one that would have BISD paying less for tax collection service than it would cost the county to collect the school district’s taxes.
She did not say what the figure was or what the new settlement offer was, but clearly it was not as much as the original settlement offer of $16,500.
“Judge Silva always takes the high road, and I respect that about him,” she said. “I never take the low road but I am known for taking the straight and true road. So on Jan. 22, I voted with this commissioners court to accept the original olive branch with a fee determined to be less than the actual county’s cost of $1.98 per parcel by the ad committee, using the direct and indirect cost method, and less than the actual cost determined by Tax Assessor-Collector Linda Bridge at approximately $1.68 per parcel — without her salary and staff benefits costs — using an incremental cost method.”
Taxpayers lose
“There are no winners in this lawsuit, only losers, and they are our taxpayers,” Stasny said. “It compromises my integrity and my responsibility as a commissioner to accept less than the actual cost incurred to collect the taxes for the Beeville school district, but like all the members of this commissioners court and all of the taxpayers, I want this lawsuit to end. Bee County did not file this lawsuit nor can we end this lawsuit filed by Beeville Independent School District.”
‘We’re on track’
Beeville ISD Superintendent Dr. John Hardwick Jr. said the commissioners’ decision to accept the school district’s formula will likely end the lawsuit.
“We’re on track,” he said Wednesday. “Everything is looking good.”
He said the school board will likely have no problem accepting the 65 percent salary figure rather than the 50 percent figure proposed by trustees earlier this month.
Hardwick said the board did its best to determine how much time the tax assessor-collector’s staff spent on collecting taxes. Trustees set that figure at 50 percent knowing it could be a little higher or a little lower, Hardwick explained.
“I think the county originally thought the $220,000 figure was correct — and we used that number knowing it could be adjusted,” he said.
Post a Comment