We get some of that information, but not as consistently and as systematically as we would like to, and that's one of the areas we have to address more effectively.
We end up with receivables that aren't real, and that only inflates the collection numbers and negatively affects the financial outlook. Can you address anything more on that piece?
No, but we're very much aware that we need to get a true 252 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 receivable, that everyone understands what is there that is workable. And that has been some of the challenges because of some of the rules that we're required to carry the receivable, the way we carry it, years, and 7 no one else does that. 8 And in addition to that, our ability 9 to identify our vacancies, we used to use our 10 meter readers. Well, when we went to 11 automatic meter reading, our meter readers 12 aren't out there. So we are taking this on as 13 a project in our investigation area where 14 we're going out and we're looking at those 15 accounts where we don't have usage on them and identifying them and getting them moved out of an active receivable into the unvacancy category so that we can get that accounts receivable down.
Ms. Davis, do you have any indication as to how many properties have been demolished in the last year? Because I think that the Revenue Department should be made aware of it. Would you know how many? 253 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
I think it's extremely important that the Revenue Department be made aware of it, because I still think very strongly that you're probably carrying -- if, in fact, the Water Department is owed $185 million, then we're on the same road that we have been with PGW. But my gut feeling is that with many of the demolitions that have occurred in the last year, I'm sure that you're carrying those properties as being delinquent. And I think that you should be getting a list of the demolitions so that your records could be somewhat more accurate.
We are working on that, and that demolition listing is something that we could use. What we formed internally about a month ago was a group that's coming together within the Water Revenue Bureau that represents my investigation group, my meter 254 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 reading group and my accounting group. And what we're doing is, we're looking at the collection activity in relationship to how it's presented financially. So I'm having cross sections of groups that are communicating and we're seeing our actual collection activity, how it's related and how it's presented. I think one of the challenges has been is, we know what we collect, we know what the receivable is.
Well, actually, this year we will collect -- we're projected to collect $357 million, of which we are at approximately 321 million. That's what we're projected to collect here. But we understand that relationship to what's happening in collection, and the different enforcement paths that are taking place, that is something that we are working with. And with this group that I've put together for the last month or so, I'm real excited at what we are finding and what we are 255 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 looking at. In fact, those ones that you mentioned about vacancy, it was in that meeting that we began to say that, Oh, look, we have this receivable represented as this, but we're not getting the vacancies out. Why aren't we getting the vacancies out? We're not getting them out because we used to use meter readers and now we're not. So it's a lot of symmetry taking place.
And vacancies aren't just buildings that have been demolished. There are buildings that are still there, but they are vacant houses, they are abandoned houses and there's no activity there, but no one has filed what we call a discontinuance permit to let us know that that's no longer an active water customer. And if that's one of the properties that we don't yet have an automated meter, we don't even know that there's no usage there. And those are the ones that really escalate the balances, because you have a service charge every month and an estimated 256 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 usage charge that's based on whatever the activity was when it truly was an active property. Since we have 95 percent, approximately, of the residential structures with automated meters, we no longer have meter readers going out for residential properties. The meter readers only go out to the related commercial meters that have to be read manually. And that's what really has the negative impact. We have great benefits from AMR, but this is one of the negative pieces from AMR.
I'm going to ask that your answers be just a little more brief, because we still have quite a list of departments that have to come in. But we would like to have a breakdown as to the receivables by the years of delinquency, please.
Thank you, 257 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 Madam Chair. Let me just continue with the line of questioning President Verna has approached on delinquent properties. It's my understanding that delinquent properties have increased 42 percent to 143,000. Do you know that to be true, about one in four citywide?
Oh, property tax. I'm sorry. I thought you were still talking about water. I don't have an exact number here, but when we sent out the last series of notices, I think it was about 120,000.
I can get a more exact number in terms of our last number on delinquents.
I'd very much appreciate a more accurate update on what 258 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 you know those figures to be at this hour, because, of course, collection of the property tax, if we could get those dollars, then we would not have to look at things like a $4.4 million cut with the Arts and Cultural Fund and other related cuts. So get to us what you believe what the delinquent property tax to be at this hour, the percentage and what that means in terms of hard numbers.
Talk to me about the RFP process. You say that you will soon be putting out an RFP. Walk with me what happens.
We have a committee internal in the department that includes people from both the tax and the water sides of Revenue who will be reviewing any proposals that come in. We have first met to establish the criteria that we would use for evaluating proposals. In order to keep the final number 259 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 of proposals to a manageable level, we're going to go out first with what we refer to as an RFQ, request for qualifications, where we ask a larger number of entities to identify their financial background, their size, the kind of experience they have so that we can verify that we'll be getting proposals in terms of costs and other information about the way they do their work based only on those who meet a threshold that makes them viable to do our collection work. And those proposals will come back in, be reviewed by an internal committee of about, I think it's, about eight or nine people coming from different disciplines in the department, and they will make recommendations that my other deputy, Jim Haley, and I will review in terms of whether or not we concur or we have questions about the recommendations that they're making, both in terms of the number of agencies that would be hired and whether or not they are the most cost effective and capable of doing the work.
Would this 260 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 be considered a professional services contract?
With a professional services contract, there is not a direct interface with Procurement.
We do work with MBEC. They have already given us our goals in terms of participation. That will be part of the RFP.
I'm still trying to get my arms around the role of Procurement and the role of MBEC and when and when they do not interface with department heads like yourself. So let me make sure I understand what happens with Revenue. For a professional services contract, the Revenue Commissioner does not interface with the Procurement Commissioner, correct? 261 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
And is that the SOP, standard operating policy, for all commissioners of departments for a professional services contract, they do not interface with the Procurement Commissioner?
Walk me through, help me understand the role of MBEC with what you've just said.
With a professional services contract, we identify the services that we are seeking and request from MBEC goals for participation for that service. And we use that in terms of seeking a response and we identify what the goal is in terms of any subcontracting opportunities. One of the points of evaluation of a proposal would be whether or not they are proposing a team that will meet those goals. That's not the only criteria, but that is one. And I know in the past we have, 262 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 in reviewing contracts, whether for collection agencies or for other services, if we found that one respondent meets the goals and another does not, we would be inclined to go with the one that does, unless they can't perform the services. That is really the key criteria. They have to be able to perform the services. But then if they are otherwise equal in performing the services, we would be eliminating the one that does not have participation, or going back to them and asking them to include that.
So then the Procurement Commissioner has to rely on accuracy and really the integrity of the information provided by the -- no; the MBEC office has to rely on information provided by the City agency commissioners before he or she could make a determination on whether or not the goals have been met, correct?
Yes. I think that was what I alluded to in the testimony earlier. Because you can have a 263 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 proposal, you can have a contract that we enter into that identifies participation, but whether or not it actually follows through is something that comes in the monitoring process down the road. And so with a professional services contract, you can have a proposal, you can enter into a contract that has certain participation, but you need to check afterwards to see whether or not it's actually happened.
That's the role of MBEC, for the monitoring of the professional services contract, even though the selection of that company was not done by MBEC, right?
True. And that's one of the reasons why we are looking at using requisitioning as the initiator of all transactions. If we can identify at the point that a department has made a decision to procure anything that this is, in fact, going to happen, it gives MBEC a heads-up that they need to be involved. 264 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 Until the creation of the Contract Review Committee, we did not always know when a department head had an intention of doing anything, and, in fact, a contract could have gotten to the point of being awarded before MBEC even knew that it had been involved. So that's one of the reasons why, in our whole look at their technology, we're looking at requisitioning as a starting point for all procurements in the City.
Very well. We will continue to follow that. Let me move to another topic. Spring of 2002, I introduced a business privilege tax, New Start provision, Bill No. 020115. It was approved by Council November 2002 and signed by the Mayor later that month. During the hearings and in letters thereafter from myself and City Comptroller, Jonathan Saidel, there was clear communication that the regulations would be established to allow for the estimated payments. I know this is in no way -- this is all old news. 265 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 I'm also told that you testified to the Tax Reform Commission that these regulations would happen. Please give me an update on the execution or implementation of this New Start provision.
The legislation, of course, required state enabling legislation. That happened in a timely enough way that the taxes that were filed last April, almost exactly a year ago, were filed under the new provisions with the tax being retrospective instead of prospective. The tax was filed last year with a reconciliation for 2002 and an estimated payment for 2003. The business privilege tax returns that are due tomorrow are for a reconciliation for 2003 based on actual activity in tax year 2003, and taxpayers are being asked to pay an estimated amount for 2004. The regulations that implement that were filed and were in records. They are, in effect, backing up and supporting the rules 266 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 under which the tax is paid and the returns are filed. I know one of the issues that you and City Controller Saidel had was whether or not taxpayers could have more than one date on which to pay an estimated payment. We were hopeful that we would be able to go to two estimates this year. Last year it was too confusing, too little time to put it into effect. We thought we'd be able to go to two this year, but we found that there was so much confusion last year, with so many people who overpaid their tax and had to have refunds, that we felt very strongly that they needed to have one year of stability where they had the same rules as they had had the year before. We are finding that people are understanding the tax a little better without having the same confusion and questions as they did last year. And so now as we prepare to do the return for 2004, which will be due next April, we'll take another look again at whether or not we can go to more than one estimated payment. 267 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 We do have the issue, however, of trying to keep this tax fiscal year neutral, which means that a payment that goes beyond June 30th is a payment that affects the wrongful school year. So we are very constrained in that and it's an issue that we struggle with, because we understand that people would like to be able to phase out or stage out those payments. But it's a difficult thing for us to do within the constraints we have.
So are the constraints related to adequate personnel to get the message out accurately or is it related to technology, or what's the hurdle?
The main constraint is in terms of the fiscal year in which the payment comes in, because we need to get the payment in in the same fiscal year as it would have come in with a simple payment on April 15th.
So the answer or response to City Comptroller Saidel would be what? It's fixed or not or we're 268 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 still in this transition and moving to this new way of conducting business, or what?
As of right now, we have a single payment on April 15th as the estimated payment, with a reconciliation the following year. We're sensitive to the issue and concern that's been raised that a number of taxpayers would like to be able to make that estimated payment in installments, and we're trying to find a way to do that while still being fiscally responsible for the City. We haven't found a good solution for that. Some have suggested that those payments be in April and June. That could work, but I'm not sure that that gives the relief to the taxpayer that the taxpayer is really looking for.
Thank you. My final question is around the school income tax. Has anyone asked you questions about the school --
Because I don't want to be redundant. 269 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 What are the revenues from that currently?
It's about $20 million, but if you can bear with me one second, I will be able to give that to you more exactly. Actually, it's a little lower than that. It was 16.9 million in fiscal '03. The School District is estimating 16.8 million for this year, but it's too soon for us to know how close to that we will be because the due date for that tax is tomorrow.
So then is it premature to ask what is the uncollected level of that tax?
In October -- our receivable balance in October of '03 was only $343,000.
And unlike most of the others, since it's self-assessed, by the time we know what's due, most people pay with return that they send in. Where the 270 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 difference comes in, that's one of the taxes that we've been using the IRS information for matching, and we identify a lot of the potential payees, those who have a liability and have them paid through the Federal data. And some of those receivables are probably from people we have assessed and have not yet paid us. Although we have a compliance rate there, but we do end up with some receivable.
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Councilman Clarke's light is on, but I don't see him. Is he in the room? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
You said that the legislation will not allow you to 271 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 write off these receivables for years. What law is that? Is it state, federal or local?
I believe 6 it's -- I'm getting conflicting comments here. 7 I'll get the exact citation for you. It's one 8 of the things that we would like to consider 9 changing, and I have requested some 10 information on how we could go about doing 11 that. And so we'll get -- 12
That's where 15 I was getting the conflict. One person was saying state and one was saying local. So we'll clarify that and provide that information.
It's one of those things it's been done historically and I am told it is in law, but I have not seen that, so I need to verify that and see -- if it's only by practice, we will have a much 272 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 easier way of changing it, most certainly.
So it's something that's just been passed down through from commissioner to commissioner that you can't -- that you had to keep it for years? 7
We need to 8 get the verification for you. I don't have 9 that right here. 10
Now, given 11 the fact if you don't have any law requirement 12 that you have to do this -- 13
We certainly 14 would write them off if we could. I could 15 only tell you that about three, four years ago, there was an effort from the Water Department to write off a more substantial portion of the receivable. We have an Accounts Review Panel that meets once a year in accordance with the legislation that was approved by Council probably two, three decades ago, but establishes a process for the write-off of uncollectible receivables. And when the Water Department came to the Accounts Review Panel and requested the write-off of 273 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 those receivables, the Controller's representative indicated that that was not possible, they would not approve it, and the amount of receivable was reduced in terms of the write-off for that year. And we have not had an opportunity to have a more significant write-off because of the constriction that was placed.
What I would like for you to do is to request from somebody, the Law Department, the Controller's office, under what jurisdiction or what legal legislation of law prevents you from doing the write-off. I would like to have that.
I had asked about that once before and we didn't get it. I need to renew that request, and with your backing, I certainly will.
And if they don't write you, then you just write them off. The other thing is, how many of these properties are commercial businesses and how many of them are apartments in terms of -- 274 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
We'll have to get the exact numbers for you, but we do have it broken down that way.
In terms of the apartments, when landlords don't pay, is there an effort to work with -- who issues the business privilege license? You?
Actually, the issuance of the license comes from the Licenses and Inspections Department, but they do owe business privilege tax as well. I thought you were going in a slightly different direction.
Well, I'm saying, don't they have to have a business privilege license in order to do business?
Yes, they do. We use the provisions under the Utility Tenant's Rights Act, known as USTRA, in terms of collection from an apartment building or even an individual dwelling, a single-family 275 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 dwelling that's rented. The provisions of USTRA oversee our collection efforts. We can't turn off the water there without having had consultation with the tenant, because if the landlord was responsible for paying, the tenant needs to be given an opportunity to pay instead. And so that's one of the processes we go through in order to insure that a tenant has an opportunity to maintain water service. One of the big issues with turning off water at an apartment building, particularly a larger building with a number of tenants, is that we make that building uninhabitable, and then the Department of Licenses and Inspections comes in, declares the building uninhabitable, all the people have to be moved out and you have social service problem issues there in terms of homelessness. There are a lot of other issues that come up if we turn off the water in a building.
And the landlords know that, so that's why they don't pay. The same thing with gas. 276 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
The other issue, though, is the occupancy certificate if they are renting the building, giving them a right to rent.
That puts us back into the same situation of the tenants in the building having to be moved out of the building. If there's no occupancy certificate, then the tenants have to be moved out of the building. And so we walk a fine line there between trying to go after that landlord and trying to avoid a problem of dislocation of the tenants.
Let me ask you a question. Since you've been carrying some of these -- back to the ability to identify vacant properties. I think it would be a good opportunity for the young lady who has this internal committee to develop a dialogue with NTI. They have identified -- I know in my district, we've identified all vacant buildings for some action, whether it 277 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 is acquisition or demolition, and the L&I department has a list of all the vacant properties.
We have been accessing some of that data and need to do so in a more systematic way. I think one of the issues comes up, that we have some of the data, but we still have the old receivables there. You can correct the problem going forward, but you still have the old receivables that are there on the books for those same properties.
Well, if you have the old receivables -- and certainly in my area, in the Logan area, I'm sure some of those houses you're carrying have been demolished or not there any longer or they're vacant. And if there's no rule for you to carry them, you should just take them off. You're not going to collect.
Again, that's part of what we're trying to do, to write off those old receivables, but because of the procedures we followed over time and 278 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 the requirements that we have had to meet for Controller's audits as well, we have those old receivables. Even if we've taken them out of active service today and going forward, we still have those old receivables that are on the books that we haven't been able to write off. That's what we are trying to find a better way of documenting and being able to write some of those off so that we're not carrying -- we have dead receivables that are uncollectible as though they are collectible receivables.
Now, what receivables are the collection companies trying to collect? Are they the more current ones? They're not going back to the ones 15 years old, are they?
No. They're more current. They're probably going back two or three years in many cases. But we get them to them as early as we can, but they do sometimes include receivables that go back further than the most current. 279 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
I would think that given this discussion, and some of the Council members aren't here, but I guess those of us who are here would appreciate the fact that we would like for you to settle the issue of whether or not you have the right or not and the Controller should give you under what legal jurisdiction you have to carry these forward. If there is none, then I'd like to know. We'd like to know if there is an answer and if there's not an answer, because we would not like to have --
We would like to have that, too, and we'll certainly get back to you as soon as we have the information to answer that question.
I have one other question. During the course of the tax reform hearings we had, they stated that if the City increased property tax collection by one percent, the City could receive an additional 20 million, which would pay for 17 million, first year cost of tax reform. What steps are you taking to enhance 280 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 the ability to collect the taxes?
In addition to using collection agencies, we are, as I indicated in my main testimony, adding some staff for compliance projects with the Federal matching to expand the programs that we've done there. Those really emphasize, though, wage tax, net profits tax, business privilege tax. In terms of real estate tax collections, we're working with the Law Department on a couple of projects that will probably involve some outside collectors. I don't -- those are under the Law Department, so I don't know whether they're ready to be dealt with as an approved or something that's ready to go forward, but I know we're working with them in terms of identifying some additional collection activities that can and will be carried out to augment what we already deal with real estate tax. As you know, every year we lien properties for any delinquencies on real estate tax. Where a property sells, we have 281 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 first position to have the real estate taxes paid as a result of the title change on that property. We do have the Law Department suing people in court, filing judgments against them personally for delinquent real estate tax. And as I said, we are working on an expanded project that hopefully will get underway sometime early in fiscal '05 that will have some additional enforcement.
One final question. I want to go back to the collection of the water. We're now in the process of doing some takings in the Logan sinking hole area where we have settled with many of the property owners, but the others were taking. Do you get a payment for the water that might have been owed on the property when it was demolished? Because most of those houses have been demolished.
When you're saying "taking," do you mean through the Redevelopment Authority? 282 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
Generally speaking, if there's money paid into court as part of the condemnation process, it will be based on the value of the property at the time of the taking. And quite often if there is a real estate tax delinquency, it takes first position ahead of the water and sewer. And so basically with a condemnation, real estate will be satisfied up to whatever amount is available from the court proceeding on the taking, and if there is still money left over, then it goes to water next. Quite often we find that there isn't even enough to satisfy the full real estate tax liability. And then the remaining City liabilities, whether they be real estate tax, water and sewer, L&I, and also PGW files liens, those other liens have a second position and more often than not are written off as part of the taking process. So it really depends on how much is paid into court as the result of the 283 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 determination of the value of the property.
Thank you very much. May I ask a question? Rumor has it that some of the meters, the batteries are out so they don't record, and then if checked, they may record a high number and then a person gets billing as if they're delinquent, and also that some meters were installed by not plumbers. When they would put it in, they may be faulty meters. They were put in by other employees who were hired when we were doing a lot of that changing meters to automated. And I just wanted to know your feeling about all of that.
The meter installation process for AMR was managed by the Water Department and they're responsible for the meter shop. So I think the question you're asking about the installation of the meters and their initial performance really should be directed to -- 284 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
I haven't heard of problems with spiking. Have you, Marlene?
If the meter isn't working properly, it's a bad ERT, then the Water Department would have a program to address that. I think the problem that some people may be experiencing with the ERTs are best addressed to the Water Department since they're the ones in charge of those meters. If we get a complaint from a customer indicating that he feels that there's something wrong, then Revenue would pick up, the meter would be tested and what-have-you. And if we found out that something is wrong, an adjustment would be done. But the working, the physical working of that meter, and what-have-you is handled by the Water Department.
Thank you. Councilman Nutter? 285 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
Thank you. Commissioner Kammerdeiner and -- I'm sorry, ma'am. I didn't get your name.
I need to reconfirm some of the numbers that you gave out earlier. Commissioner, did I understand you to say that there was outstanding presently $4.3 million in transfer tax?
That was a number as of 10/31. Those are the reports that I have with me today.
We usually do these about two months behind because of adjustments that come through after the fact, 286 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 but the one I have in hand right now is at 10/31.
That's fine. Whatever we have. We'll just have that discussion. Real estate tax for the City was 120.2?
So the total excluding the real estate for the School District is $218.4 million; is that correct?
-- the quick math is 218.4, right? 287 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
And then do I understand that on the water revenue side, Ms. Duley, did you say that the total water revenue is $357 million?
Yes. What do you project will be the total billing? I understand the 357 is what you expect to 288 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 collect. That must be a percentage of some other number.
That would be an enforcement for collection, collection agencies, liens that are filed against the properties, judgments filed by the Law Department.
Isn't that about a 90 percent collection rate, a little more? 289 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 You expect to bill 387, you expect to collect 357, 30 million you may not collect. 30 million is less than ten percent of your total billed.
Okay. Some of the collections are from prior year receivables.
25 is a 20 prior. Let's take that out for the moment. 21 So you really expect to collect 332 off of 22 387? 23
Is that 25 right? 290 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
So it's really $50 million of the current year you would not collect -- 55 million, actually, which will go into enforcement?
It takes 13 you to where you were talking about, which was 14 82 to 85, right? 15
Now, you're saying that over the past few years, that has been your historical collection rate?
Slightly higher. I would have to get information for those back years for you to give you an exact figure.
Well, PGW 291 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 was in last week. They said theirs used to be 92, went to 87, which we thought was poor. They're now proposing a surcharge to deal with that particular issue. Yours is actually lower than PGW's. I guess the first question is, one, are you thinking about the same policy?
The rate structure is established through the Water Department. We feed information to them, and they use that to make their determinations. I have not heard that mentioned as a separate item or a surcharge item as something that the Water Department is considering there as a proposal.
Well, they may not have to consider a surcharge because they're now planning to raise the water rates 43 percent over the next three years, right?
And given the fact that the rate is what it is presently and you're planning a 43 percent rate hike 292 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 over the next few years, have you made any analysis or estimates on what the impact of the rate hike will be on your collections?
Historically when a rate goes up, there's a drop in collections initially because people either can't afford to pay or protest paying, and then it levels off again.
Have we had a 43 percent increase over a three-year period at any point in the past?
So have we done any analysis or projections on this proposed rate increase and what it would do to your collection rate?
Not at this time, but that's something that we'll be doing as we go through the process of reviewing the collections. That's one of the things we are looking at very closely, is what can we do to improve collection factors and what will the impact -- various issues be that will impact 293 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 on those collection capabilities.
Okay. Now, did I also understand you to say that you have $185 million outstanding presently?
That's everything, and it goes back as many as 11 years. 12
If the 15 person hasn't paid in 15 years, do you really think they're going to pay now?
No. That's one of the issues and concerns that we have. We think those receivable numbers look far too -- I shouldn't say look. Are far too high, because a significant portion of that is really uncollectible.
Well, for the moment if that's the number that you have. I mean, you have $218 million in a variety of 294 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 taxes. You got $185 million in outstanding water bills. That's $403 million of outstanding revenues. And we don't even know about some of the other taxes that may not be paid by taxpayers that owe them. Do we have a complete figure on the total amount of outstanding taxes due for all tax categories?
The numbers I was giving you reflected the tax liabilities for all types of taxes.
So the 218 figure at least, which excludes the water, is all the taxes that anyone could possibly owe in the City, there's $218.4 million in outstanding taxes due?
And the conversation with Mr. McPherson, when you look at this as compared to a deficit that we have, while cities always have revenue problems, it would appear based on $403 million of 295 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 outstanding taxes as compared to a $227 million deficit, that while we may have a variety of revenue issues, we also seem to have a very serious collection problem. Would you agree?
We certainly have collection issues that we continuously pursue in terms of attempting to increase those collection amounts, yes.
I've already mentioned that we use Internal Revenue Service data and match our local files to that information to identify taxpayers who either are not paying us and appear to have a Philadelphia liability or are underpaying us. We also, with real estate tax, put liens against the properties. The Law Department files judgments in either Municipal or Common Pleas Court and pursues some of the larger cases more vigorously in terms of lawsuits against the taxpayers.
What's been 296 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 the result of those efforts over the years? Councilman Tasco asked you about landlords and their buildings. Do we take landlords to court? Do we take them to equity court?
That's handled through the Law Department. I can get the numbers from them. I don't have them.