The City Council of Saint Marys on Oct. 28 voted to adopt three resolutions formalizing an outside firm as the collector and tax hearing officer for the city’s local service tax and approving a cost-of-collection schedule that would be charged to delinquent taxpayers.

The measures — Resolution 25-12, appointing Berkheimer as collector of the local service tax; Resolution 25-13, appointing a hearing officer for local service tax disputes; and Resolution 25-14, approving a cost-of-collection schedule for delinquent accounts — passed after brief discussion and unanimous voice votes.

Manager Joe (city manager) explained the resolutions were requested by the collector and formalize the relationship. A council member noted the city previously had an agreement in place but that Berkheimer asked the city to adopt formal resolutions. Shane (council member) moved to approve Resolution 25-12 and Tony (council member) seconded; the motion carried on an affirmative voice vote. The council used the same motion/second pattern and voice votes to approve Resolutions 25-13 and 25-14.

Council members asked how the collection fees would be paid. A council member clarified that collection fees would be charged to delinquent taxpayers and would not be paid out of municipal funds. The discussion noted that Berkheimer already handles earned-income collections and therefore has access to employer payroll data that can help identify taxpayers.

The council did not record individual roll-call tallies in the meeting transcript; the mayor announced that “the ayes have it” after each voice vote.

What the resolutions do
- Resolution 25-12: Appoints Berkheimer as the official collector for the local service tax.
- Resolution 25-13: Appoints a named hearing officer to handle disputes related to local service tax collections.
- Resolution 25-14: Approves a cost-of-collection schedule to be applied to delinquent local service tax accounts; those costs would be charged to the delinquent taxpayer, not the city.

Council comments emphasized the firm’s existing role in collecting earned-income tax and its knowledge of local payroll sources as a reason for the appointment. Concerns raised included the percentage fee charged and whether the city should hire in-house staff; one council member noted the fee is “2% of what they collect” as discussed during the meeting.

The council approved all three resolutions and moved on to other agenda items.