SUNBURY - Compromise was not reached Wednesday between opposing sides of Northumberland County Tax Collection Committee members over the disputed selection of a countywide tax collector, and now the parties must wait for a verdict from a county judge.
The tax collection committee - an organization made up of representatives of 44 taxing bodies, including six school districts - met Wednesday and rejected each other's proposals on the selection of a tax collector and voting format for major decisions.
They now await the verdict from a civil trial held last month before county Judge William H. Wiest, who had held his verdict in abeyance allowing for the parties to compromise.
The committee has been meeting since fall 2009. A state law, Act 32, required formation of similar committees in all Pennsylvania counties, with the goal of making earned income tax collection, distribution and reporting more efficient and uniform. Northumberland County government has nothing to do with the formation or operation of the tax collection committee.
Plaintiffs in the case are Shamokin Area, Line Mountain and Milton Area school districts, Shamokin City, Milton borough and Coal Township. They're at loggerheads with the defendants, which are the remaining municipal and school district entities.
The plaintiffs contend weighted voting should be used to make major decisions and that such a voting method is what is dictated in the organization's bylaws. If a weighted vote had been taken earlier this year, the plaintiffs say Berkheimer Associates would have been named tax collector for Northumberland County.
On Wednesday, according to correspondence from their attorney, Howard L. Kelin, a counter-proposal was offered that would have called for a one-year contract with Capital Tax Collection Bureau, Harrisburg, to serve as county tax collector. It also called for a "confirmation" that weighted voting apply to all committee decisions, including major decisions.
Weighted voting would give each taxing body a greater or lesser share of the vote in proportion to its population and tax collections. The plaintiffs seek a simple majority, 51 percent, to either carry or deny a proposal.
Earlier this year, a non-weighted vote - one jurisdiction, one vote - was held, with Capital Tax winning the job and spurring the lawsuit.
The defendants contend the non-weighted vote was the proper procedure to reach such a decision. Their attorney, Ed Greco, argued last month that wording in the bylaws regarding voting strength is vague.
They countered with their own proposal, calling for a three-year agreement with Capital Tax and allowing for weighted voting; however, they sought a super-majority of a weighted vote for major decisions - 75 percent, according to Greco. A simple majority would have been OK for non-major decisions, he said.
Wiest had not rendered a verdict as of Thursday afternoon.
A tax collector must be in place by January.