Travis County Commissioners Court
March 8, 2005
Item 31
Now, number 31 is to consider and take appropriate action on request to issue a request for proposals to contract for the collection of Travis County delinquent real property taxes.
>> judge, the purpose for the item is not to criticize anybody for the work that they had done, or to be -- to say that we are not doing a good job. That's not the purpose at all and I was hoping that no one would get defensive about the -- about the effort to -- to simply publicize I guess publicly the job that we do internally. The question always comes up, whenever we are out and about the state of Texas, now that we're the only county that does this work internally, we've always said that we do a very good job internally and of course the information is, well, but you know we would like to see that information. So I was hoping that -- I think the item that is posted here would enable us to look at the reports that we are collecting from the county attorney and from the tax office, I mean the tax office, about the job that we do. That information however I guess is not publicized in the way that the public knows about the job that we do, and so -- the item also does not necessarily say that this -- that we are going to go and contract with somebody about it. But I think it would offer an opportunity to -- to have a -- to have I guess an analysis, a public analysis with what the private sector would say that they would do for us as opposed to what we do for the taxpayers. I don't think it necessarily means that we will indeed cart but I think we will be giving an opportunity to compare the information, the internal with the external information that would be submitted and I believe that we would have the opportunity to say, well, we want to continue doing the business the way we always have. Because it shows that we are doing it -- a much better job for the public. And so -- so that -- that is where I知 coming from on this and certainly I think to have -- to kind of get this issue off of the table, once and for all, say we did go public with this, we had the opportunity to compare and then make a decision based on the information that we have at hand. Both from the public side and the private sector. So i'll let Commissioner Daugherty add his --
>> can anyone tell me why we are the only county that collects our taxes? I.
>> I can.
>> we do a great job at it.
>> I know we do a great job.
>> because you have a 99.75% collection rate. In your delinquent taxes in Travis County.
>> all right.
>> we don't need anybody else to do it.
>> we are one of the few counties, not the only county, but one of the few counties that does in-house civil legal work. Because you get more bang for the buck and as long as the quality is fine and especially in delinquent tax collection. The only thing that I differ with you Commissioner Gomez, not that we do a good job, I think we are both extremely proud. The only difference that I have with you is we do an excellent job. Surpassing what you will find out there. But so that's it. It's for the same reason that this Commissioners court has supported the fact that -- that for less money and for more of these revenues that go to use what you want to use them for as opposed to the private sector you are getting that.
>> because we do that kind of job, david, does it make sense that we would put that information out there and compare it.
>> there are a lot of different ways to do that.
>> compare it. I mean, if we come out a plus, that's a bigger feather in our hat.
>> I think nelda is going to say, someone should have asked us, we have done this before, gone through this procedure before. I don't shy away from it. I知 proud of what we do. I don't shy away with this procedure. I try with this Commissioners court to be up front, open, honest, come to you, issues, it was a surprise to me this was just --
>> it really shouldn't be a surprise because when we've had or i've been part of many conversations in this particular county --
>> no, no, no, wait a minute. In this particular county, in this particular courtroom, open government.
>> I知 for that.
>> we do all of those things well. Why, I think it's just taken that extra step of -- for the taxpayers to know. For the public to know.
>> I want to help with that step. It would have been great if you come to me a few months ago, put together a great process to do this.
>> I think we have in the past. But somehow it's kind of fallen through the cracks. We've had reports from p.b.o. For instance when they gathered the information, but it kind of just went halfway and then fell through the cracks and it didn't get picked up after we had more time to have a four or five month process. I知 all for that process. You know this court does that, many, many times. Of rolling over items until the entire process is fulfilled.
>> I知 for that. That wasn't my point [multiple voices]
>> I think I will have to say that I have felt that that we kind of do go halfway, it falls through the cracks and we don't pick up the item later so that we will have that full process, that you talk about. I知 for that as well. And but I think it's -- it's something that's out there at least I hear it, it just makes good business sense, doesn't it, to go ahead and say here's our information, this is how we do our job and now let's see if you can do it better than we can.
>> love to be a part of any of that, my point, I didn't communicate it well, was I wish someone approached me, said this is what we are interested in. Everything that you have laid out. I would have said that makes good sense, be glad to be a part of that up front rather than catching it --
>> I think that we have tried that before.
>> no, no one has called me.
>> we have in years before.
>> no.
>> not this particular year --
>> different administrations, I understand, I can only speak for mine.
>> I can also speak for mine as well. And but I think that we need to have that process. It needs to be one where we lay it out for everyone to see. It's just open government. And so that we don't constantly hear about this, you are the only county that does that well. Let's prove it.
>> I think we have with you I知 willing to do it again.
>> let's do it.
>> but approving it isn't by an rfp, approving it might be all different kinds of of process. Last time we did it a different way.
>> well, I think that still it leaves the room for some kind of question that we haven't fulfilled the process in such a way that we do all other processes that come through this court. And we -- we all -- I feel that we have followed the full process and other issues, but we haven't yet on this one.
>> well, five years ago, we -- started looking into this issue. Quearted a lot of information and sort of towards the earned backed off of it. Christian has backup to this item, gave us a copy of his -- his work from 2000 and dusty provided us some information, too. So I think we ought to do two things, this will simplify it. One is if we could update this information, it would help. Because I think at some point we would compare whatever an outside vendor could would do, whereas compare to with a we would do ourselves. The second thing is whether or not we can do a simple rfp that's two or three pages, where we put responsibility on the others, show us what you can do if you are interested or if you think that you can do better than we are doing, show us why. Now, my guess is the average private vendor would say, well, how are you doing? And if that is the case, wouldn't we hand over ours, say here where we are. If you can't beat this, don't waste your time and ours either. If you can beat this, show it to us. The question to me, though, is whether, I don't know if we ought to do just a whole lot of work if it looks like the end result would be -- would be the two --
>> is it a lot of work, judge?
>> is it a lot of work to update what we have here?
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...i can certainly understand it if we were starting from scratch and said nothing and were trying to figure out what way to go. But I am absolutely convinced after 10 years on this job that our investment is a good one. I do agree with Margaret that it is always good to step back and say do we still come to that conclusion? It's been five years. But I it tell you it's not done with an r.f.p. Because that implies to others that we are indeed looking at something else. If you want an rfi, we're just simply requesting information out there, that's always good to get. And if folks want to go with rfi, that's a different thing, but putting out an r.f.p. Implies that we're looking at changing things. And I don't have any kind of evidence that the current system is broke and that these folks have something that they could do a better job on behalf of the taxpayers. I also want to be respectful that even though this decision would be of the Travis County Commissioners court, of what our tax collector wants to do on this because she is the face of the whole tax collection system. And I知 going to be respectful of what nelda would like to do on this. I also want to remind folks that when you read through the materials that christian gave us is while it may be our choice related to Travis County, we cannot require folks of the other jurisdictions that we collect delinquent property taxes for, to join us in our opinion. And I will tell you five years ago when this came up, I had at least one school district say they do not want their trustees solicited and hammered to try and switch and go with one company versus another company. They like the fact that Travis County and elected officials are overseeing this process and that their trustees will not be lobbied to try and get a piece of the pie in terms of these private collectors. I think we're doing a great job internally and I think if we want to have an internal process to say are we still pleased with our investment, that's one thing, but to say rfp that sends out a message that we are going to change, there is -- that does take a lot of work with the purchasing office, etcetera, and I think we ought to check with our customers who are the taxing jurisdictions of Travis County about whether they are displeased with the job that they are doing. Remember, those private property tax collectors cannot start collecting until after July first. And there's a tremendous amount of effort that goes on starting February first until July first so that we have an exceptional rate of collections that are already in-house when other jurisdictions have to wait around until July first to even begin getting tax dollars in.
>> let me ask, we get to go after people after January 31st?
>> you bet you.
>> do we file lawsuits on those people?
>> eventually. Not on February first.
>> not always on February first. It has been done.
>> we can. Is that the norm or not the norm?
>> not the norm.
>> folks, this is just -- to me, when somebody walks up to me and asks me why that's not being done I can tell them all day long because that's 99.97% that we collect after five years. My question would be what is the .25, what is the amount of the .25 that we don't collect?
>> a little over $500,000.
>> there's only $500,000 that's not collected --
>> she's speaking -- we have provided information to one law firm already. I took the data that I provided to one law firm and picked up -- this is five years of collections for the 1999 tax year, would be your fiscal year 2000. We started that year with $210 million in levee. There is now 500,000. Probably most of that is personal property that we may not ever collect because we don't take the uncollectibles off our roll. Now, we can go back and look at each one of those individual whatever makes up -- a lot of them are going to be -- I was looking at them. A lot of them are under $50 for the total bill. How much time do you spend to collect $50? That adds up if you have enough of those type of properties. Nine thousand of the bills that we just sent out as delinquents, the Travis County amount was under $50, what we just sent out two weeks ago. So how much time do you spend on those, the court costs is more. We are certainly targeting, we will certainly continue the collections activities, but you may not ever see some of these. At some point if it is real property, at some point it will change hands or something will happen to it and you will get paid eventually and the title company will get it. It's the personal property things that you have to work with.
>> but if our question to a private vendor is simply if you think you can beat this, show us how with. Would an rfi get that for us?
>> I think we can do it that way.
>> then I have no problem with it.
>> I have no problem with an rfi.
>> may I say something after you conclude here.
>> after finish. It soundedlike you were winding.
>> hopefully I am.
>> if our position is this is our information, we say this is our information for the last five years, if you think you can beat it, show us how. Now, that was my position five years ago. And when people asked me, I would say I think we did an outstanding job. When they wanted specifics, well, I don't know all of that. What you got in mind? Of course, they often say so and so and so and so. This is the opportunity. These people are not going away. I think the way we put them to the test is --
>> unless you tell them to go away.
>> here's an rfi, I can -- here's an rfi. In simple english where we can understand it and in numbers that we can understand ourselves, you show us out you beat these, then I think we will have done ourselves and them a world of good.
>> and I will tell you that in terms of the lobbying that could occur with your other jurisdictions, it was about five years ago when one of our jurisdictions wrongly thought that they could just go out and due something separate on delinquent property taxes in terms of everything else in terms of collections. And it was unbelievable the pressure that was put on a small group of folks in a small town, do not get paid money, and it was ridiculous the amount of lobbying that was put on them. And again, a separate school district -- the money is in these school districts. They do not want their trustees lobbied. And so that's another question that needs to be asked is of a little ace and the six other large school districts in this community, are you all unhappy with a 99.75 collection rate? We don't make this decision just on our behalf. We are making this decision on behalf of others, who if they are not happy, could go someplace else as well.
>> I don't want to leave the impression that I don't respect nelda and the job that she does or david with the job that he does or any of our county employees, but I think that I want it understood that I also have an obligation to respond to people who approach me about why haven't you looked at what you do after doing that business that way all these years? Yes, I quote the rates of collection that we have, but that doesn't make the issue go away. And it's a lot of, well, let us look at this information, let us meet with you and let's look at this information. So we're all elected officials around here. We all have certain pressures, and they're not less for you than they are for me. It's not about lack of respect.
>> now, our tax assessor-collector, ms. Nelda wells spears, now has the floor.
>> well, I do feel disrespected. Nobody came to me and brought this up as a concern or an issue or a problem. It just went on the agenda. And they didn't ask david either. Whatever you want to call it, nobody talked to david, nobody talked to me. And yes, we are elected just like you, county wide.
>> if we apologize for not talking to you...
>> that would be a start.
>> I apologize. On behalf of the Commissioners court.
>> thank you.
>> now it --
>> you didn't apologize to david. [ laughter ]
>> I apologize to everybody in Travis County. [ laughter ]
>> doesn't it make sense and isn't it good government to take a look?
>> certainly.
>> so the decision today is should we take a look. And I知 saying that we really ought to. Now, whether we go beyond this really depends on information that others provide. It may well be that they look at dusty's memo and conclude, why are we wasting our time putting together this.
>> like they did the last time and the time before that. And the time before that.
>> if we do this every five years, then I think we're in good shape. It would be a different thing if we did it every five months.
>> the only people who ask me about this are the private law firms who cannot stand the fact that they are not making millions off of Travis County taxpayers in terms of additional costs that get added on to the bills that go to the firms and not to this county in terms of extra dollars. The dollars that are due are the dollars that are due, but there are huge sums of money that get tacked on to a taxpayer's bill. They've got rights here too in terms of they've already got problems paying their bill, so let's just make it that much worse by tacking on even more experiences for that person trying to get even on their tax bill.
>> but Commissioner, I look at other issues that affect homeowners in this community all over the place, and a lot of people who build homes and do all kinds of business are making millions of dollars. And we don't see some of that. I don't see some of that, but that's not what this is about. I知 not here to see how much money I知 going to make off of this, it's trying to conduct public business in an open way. So that's what I知 about. That's my only agenda here. I don't have any hidden agenda.
>> and I just want to make sure if we're talking about something like this we need to know that there's some public good that's going to come out of it or whether simply some outside firm can make money for themselves.
>> I知 looking for the public good. It was that way five years ago, it was that way 10 years ago. [overlapping speakers].
>> now, Commissioner Davis?
>> if this -- if the court decides to go in the direction where I think it's going to go, and that's basically try to get information or whatever, how long of a process would that be? For all of this to take place, all the number crunching, all these things that have to be done and the analysis and everything, all of it. How long will that probably take?
>> there are two or three firms that do this work now?
>> all right.
>> the rfi I have in mind we can have ready next Tuesday, I think. Now, I have been told that there's an rfi that other counties use all the time. And I think I told frank or somebody, why wouldn't it be just a good idea to ask the other urban counties and say send us the rfi you used last time.
>> judge, I was going to ex-pediatrician 80 that, but you need to understand not only are we the only county that we do our own tax collection, I believe we are the only county that are going to be asking what you're asking, which is the normal deal I think you will find in every county and every city and every one of these proposals is that they'll do your delinquent tax collection, won't cost you a thing, and they keep all the attorney's fees. Those numbers that you're accepting right here for dusty set a higher standard. So this in my opinion will be the first ever rfp -- rfi, I知 sorry, asking for something different. And I applaud this court for doing that, for thinking about that. So it might take a little bit of time. I couldn't tell you. I would hope that we could get it done in a week. It's something different. It's not asking another county for theirs because if we ask for theirs we will get the same thing they all have.
>> ask for theirs and get three, four or five, and we take those, pull the best parts out and do our own. I知 not suggesting that we just --
>> that's a good idea.
>> the other thing is there are intricacies about this deal that I知 completely unaware of. So we will need y'all's input. And the other thing is that when it's time to make the apples to apples comparison, there are a whole lot of factors that do not readily come to mind. But we would expect y'all to do the analysis and come back basically and be fair -- in the fairest way possible say we've compared it and here are the results.
>> and to replicate what we get, which is after five years we have a 99.75 collection rate. That's what we want to replicate or do better than. Not what would you do to get a certain amount of money. [overlapping speakers]
>> two comments. I wanted to start by saying the policy of our office hasn't changed from the previous administration to this one, is that we believe we're doing an excellent job, but if the Commissioners court's choice, and if they can find something better for the public, something that brings more revenue for the tough decisions you've got in these tough times, i'll be sitting there recommending you do it. And I知 proud of the work we do, but at the same time I follow you, Commissioner, in that we should be proud to let everybody see it, everybody test it, evaluate it and see. I知 confident of the results we're going to get. So the only real two concerns I had I知 very proud to say i've already heard you pretty much ratify those. The first was is to feel confident that this court would never go out and enter into a contract with a firm that wasn't going to be more official for the county. And i've -- beneficial for the k and i've heard you say by setting these numbers that's not what you're going to do. And secondly, that it be an open, fair process. And I think having cyd handle that, I知 confident it will be,.
>> now, let's give our tax assessor the last word.
>> I don't know if you want to really do anything on this issue today because what you've said in this agenda item is real property. There's 40,000 commercial property accounts out there. There's other personal property that you would need to make a part of this. Of this rfi.
>> okay. Well, we won't take a formal vote except to give direction.
>> cool.
>> all right? This is not the purchasing board but for our purchasing agent to look into the applicability of an rfi to make an apples to apples comparison to get vendors -- to give vendors an opportunity to allow us to make an apples to apples comparison of what they can do for us and what we do for ourselves. And what they would mean too is if taxes other than real property taxes ought to be put into the equation, then certainly we ought to do that. I just put down what most obviously came to mind to me when I saw information.
>> basically.
>> are you going to ask the other 83 jurisdictions what they want to do?
>> if we decide to move, at some point we really do. If the information in fact shows what we think it will, do you sigh what I知 saying.
>> all right then.
>> but at some point what you're saying is this is a whole lot bigger than Travis County. I just think Travis County is the beginning point.
>> i'd be interested in feedback from the big seven school districts because quite frankly, they're the ones who are -- have the most at stake here, the most dollars at stake here, that's the biggest part of the Travis County combined tax bill, and I am interested in feedback as we are requesting information as to what do our largest customers think of what service we provide right now. Because I would be interested in that information as well.
>> the last time they said judge, I rely on you and Commissioner Sonleitner's judgment. Y'all have done so well for our school districts in the past, let us know what you recommend. They figure we do the right thing. Y'all were not on the court then. Maybe they added your name too, Commissioner Gomez.
>> I think at the beginning.
>> and I don't mind saying that let's find the number of years that we look at this. I don't mean to wear anybody out with this subject matter. I mean, in two years, you're right, i've been asked. And I don't have a response. I can show them all day long 99.75, but that's not an acceptable response. It's acceptable to me, but I will guarantee you that you can go and ask the seven or eight school districts or whatever, let me tell you, you don't think some of them aren't being called right now? Because that's exactly what happens. They're going to start that whole process.
>> relentless.
>> and this thing does -- you know what? It certainly looks like good government and we need to do everything within our power to look like we do good government because there are so many people that are so cynical on the street about why aren't you looking at it? So the longer we kick and squirm about it -- if we can do it fast and sweet, I would think that these people are going to look at this and say boy, unless -- the question that I always have asked or the accusation is that we don't know that all the costs are put in. You know, everybody in here knows what is wrong. I don't have responses on that. To be an elected official, I at least need to say, yeah, we looked at it, we do a great job, but we went through the process, and I would think that people look at this and it would scare me to death if I was private.
>> they have no fear.
>> they have no fear? [overlapping speakers].
>> we'll obviously need the tax office and the county attorney's office. And you might want to have someone from pbo on the committee too.
>> since christian smith had enough initiative to send us this five-year-old memo, we'll put him on there. He's designee.
>> if your information, I respect that y'all get asked all the time, I forgot to mention earlier that I get asked too. But what I get asked is from other county attorney's and district attorneys in the state, how do you do that? How can we start that? On it's on both sides.
>> sure. It's just being ethical and being open is relentless business.
>> with this agenda item is my little one pager and christian's thing now part of the public record?
>> yeah.
>> the five years ago and what I have stated is now out there for people to look at.
>> this is open government. Any time you share with the Travis County judge, you share with Travis County.
>> and when we bring it forward next time, it will also make it all the way through, because this one didn't. We were prepared and it didn't get stopped, not by us last time. So I would be more than happy for anybody to see the documentation.
>> okay. In the interest of fairness we will not appoint a member of the Commissioners court to that committee.
>> and judge, we can't get this back in a week.
>> you should bring it back when it's ready to be brought back.
>> there's no way we can do it in a week. There's so much information. I haven't seen any of these memos and I have to collect a bunch of stuff.
>> I don't have a problem with how long it takes. Do it and do it thoroughly.
>> what I have in mind really is a request for information. And if we have to athat much attach this to it.
>> we'll have more time to look at all the information, but in the meantime I think just prepare an rfi.
>> but it's going to take more than a week is all I知 saying. I can't have it back here next Tuesday.
>> we'll take a full two weeks, how's that?
>> thank you.
>> any objection to those directions? The committee was purchasing, tax assessor, county attorney, pbo. Thank y'all very much.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, March 9, 2005 11:02 AM