executive report tax management systems research

EXECUTIVE REPORT

TAX MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

RESEARCH

December 17, 2012

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background Research & Methodology .......................................................................... 3 Executive Summary........................................................................................................ 4 Section I-General Information ...................................................................................... 7

Population of Counties ............................................................................................. 7 Functions Tax Office Provides ................................................................................... 8 Collection Installments Primary Property Tax .............................................................. 9 Provision of Payment Programs................................................................................10 Number of Real Property Tax Bills ............................................................................11 Number of Personal Property Tax Bills ......................................................................12 Size of Office Staff ..................................................................................................13 Changes in the Number of Staff ...............................................................................14 Number of Work Stations ........................................................................................15 Number of Public Kiosks ..........................................................................................16 Number of Branch Offices .......................................................................................17 Audit and Collection Field Personnel .........................................................................18 Public Access Over the Internet to Property Tax Information ......................................19 Public Access Over the Internet to Property Tax Information (By County Population) ....19 Tax Transactions on the Internet ..............................................................................20 Original Source of Present Tax Management System (TMS) ........................................21 Purchased Tax Management Systems (TMS) .............................................................22 Length of Use for Current Tax Management System (TMS).........................................23 Hosted In-House vs. Remote Location ......................................................................24 Present Tax Management System Integration with other Offices .................................25 Satisfaction with present Tax Management System (TMS) ..........................................26 Adoption of New Technology ...................................................................................27 Start of the Fiscal Year ............................................................................................28 Approval Date for Your Budget ................................................................................29 Planning To Replace Present Tax Management Software System .................................30 Timeframe for Replacing Present Tax Management Software System ..........................31

Section II—Views on Tax Management Systems .........................................................32

Advanced Features of Importance a Tax Management System Should Offer .................32 Issues of Importance When Selecting a Vendor.........................................................34 Needs a Tax Management System is Required to Meet ...............................................37 Current Tax Management System Capability to Solve Issues .......................................41 Awareness of Tax Software Management System Providers ........................................42 The Best Tax Software Management System .............................................................43 Participation in Vendor Group Meetings ....................................................................44 Top Industry or Association Publications ...................................................................44 Ranking Conference, Trade Shows, and Forums ........................................................44

3

BACKGROUND RESEARCH & METHODOLOGY Advanced Analytics (AA), a division of Hidalgo & DeVries, Inc., was commissioned to conduct the jointly sponsored, Second Annual Thomson Reuters-National Association of Counties (NACo) Tax Systems Research Study (in association with the National Association of County Collectors, Treasurers and Finance Officers—NACCTFO), amongst tax officials in U.S. counties. On June 26, 2012, a self-administered online questionnaire was emailed to tax officials in counties across the country. The e-mailing database of 2,392 names was generated by NACo. As in last year’s study, a major objective of the research was to investigate the present views and future needs of tax officials, and to compare, where appropriate, 2012 results with those obtained in the 2011 study. The research topics covered both general information descriptive of the processes used, and services offered by the officials’ offices, as well as specifics regarding their views and ratings of various tax systems and their features and benefits. By the cutoff date of July 30, 2012, a total of 162 (6.8% response) questionnaires had been completed online. The information contained in the total number of completed questionnaires, forms the basis for this report. The following information presents a summary analysis of that data. About the Sponsors of this Study Thomson Reuters, the provider of GRM Tax—a leading software system in use in jurisdictions across the country, is the world's leading source of intelligent information for governments, businesses, and professionals. Combining industry expertise with innovative technology, we deliver critical information to leading decision makers. GRM—our Government Revenue Management suite—simplifies the revenue management lifecycle for governments around the world. Our unique combination of technology enhanced by experience enables you to optimize revenue generation, support sustainable growth and improve services to the public. For more information about GRM Tax, visit www.grm.thomsonreuters.com The National Association of Counties (NACo) is the only national organization that represents county governments in the United States. Founded in 1935, NACo provides essential services to the nation’s 3,068 counties. NACo advances issues with a unified voice before the federal government, improves the public's understanding of county government, assists counties in finding and sharing innovative solutions through education and research, and provides value-added services to save counties and taxpayers money. For more information about NACo, visit www.naco.org.

Research Notes: Specific counties and county officials are not identified in this report. E-mail addresses are not, and have not been matched to completed surveys, only recorded in order to provide premiums and Executive Report of findings to all respondents who made such requests. All information is presented in aggregate form, with additional cross-tabs by county population—Small (S), Medium (M), Medium/Large (M/L) and Large (L)—shown where appropriate. A research industry accepted statistical significance of 95% confidence interval and a +- 3% confidence level applies to the data presented here. As with all research studies, there are certain limitations to the data. Although improbable due to the high interval and confidence levels of this report, it is possible that certain data could be affected by non-response bias which is common to all market research.

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. About the Respondents Size of Counties—Population size of responding counties ranged from less than 5,000 for the smallest responding county to a high of over half-million for the largest. When grouped by size according to NACo’s grouping guidelines, responding counties offer a fair representation of the average population range of counties across the United States.

• 59% of responding counties=populations of <50K compared to 70.5 %* nationally • 15% of responding counties=populations of 50-100K compared to 12.5 %* nationally • 17% of responding counties=populations of 100-250K compared to 9.7 %* nationally • 9% of responding counties=populations of 250K> compared to 7.3 %* nationally

*Source NACo

Titles of Officials—the most used title to describe the function of the respondent was that of Treasurer (67%), followed by, Tax Collector (17%). B. General Information Nine in ten of respondent’s offices are responsible for collection/cashiering and property tax billing. While seven in ten are responsible for the development of personal property tax billing and revenue distribution. Other services mentioned by approximately half of respondents included development of tax bills, tax sale, and special assessment tax. In addition, six in ten of responding jurisdictions collect primary property taxes in two or more installments. Jurisdictions offering payment programs include: payment plans for past due taxes (48%), pre-pay option (34%) and coupon books (5%). The estimated number of Real Property Tax Bills sent during the last billing period varied according to the population size of the responding jurisdiction; with 30% of respondents sending out between 10-25K, 21% of respondents sending out less than 10K, 18% sending between 25-50K, 18% sending between 50-100K, and 13% sending more than 100K tax bills during their last billing period. (This last figure includes respondents who sent 1 million or more tax bills). The estimated number of Personal Property Tax Bills during the last billing period also varied according to the population size of the responding jurisdiction; with 28% of respondents sending out less than 1,000K, 25% of respondents sending out between 1,000-2,500, 11% sending between 2,500-5,000K tax bills, 18% sending between 5,000-10K, and 19% sending out more than 10K tax bills during their last billing period. The estimated number of License, Fees and other Tax Billings sent in the last billing period averaged 23k bills. The amount of collected tax revenues by respondents’ jurisdictions ranged from a low of 50 thousand dollars to a high of more than $800 million. The number of tax dollars collected increased from the previous billing period for counties with populations of: < 50K by 9.9%; 50-100k by 7.7%; 100-250k by 8.2% and 250k + by 11.4%, while the number of delinquent accounts by county size decreased: < 50K by 13.4%; 50-100k by 10.1%; 100-250k by 4.5% and 250k + by 4.4%.

5

The size of staffs was in most cases directly related to the size of the taxing jurisdictions. There was no significant change in the number of staff reductions or staff hiring from last year’s study. Only two in ten of respondents reported they currently use field personnel for auditing and collections, with the numbers skewed towards the larger population counties. About four in ten of respondents indicated that they provide public kiosks in their offices. A large increase is noted in the 85% of respondents that allow access to property tax information over the internet—an increase from 69% in the previous year’s study, with a commensurate increase of those who allow transactions, such as payment of taxes to take place online to 80% from the previous year’s 67.8%. In addition, five in ten of all respondents have single location offices, with 47% offering at least two locations (branch office). Seven in ten respondents indicated the system in use in their offices was purchased from a solution provider. Of those 59% purchased a packaged product, while 34% had their system custom developed to meet specific needs. In addition, two in five of respondents indicated they operate on leased systems, while one in ten of the respondent’s systems have been internally developed. In terms of integration, eight in ten (78%) respondents indicated that their TAX system is integrated with other county office systems such as CAMA and recorder. This is a modest 3 basis point increase from the previous year study. The age of systems in use in six out of ten of the respondent’s offices is eight or more years. With slightly more than two in five of respondents’ systems have been in place for four to seven years. In addition, eight in ten of respondents indicated that their systems meet their present needs either very well or well, while two in ten of all respondents indicated some degree of dissatisfaction with their system. Two thirds of respondents indicated their systems are hosted in-house, while the balance indicated that their systems are hosted at a remote location. When it comes to adopting new technology, one third of respondents identified themselves as an Early Adopters (22%) or Innovators (12%). While almost four in ten self-identified as Late Majority (30%) or Laggards (9%). 14% of respondents indicated they are planning to replace their present Tax system. Of those, almost four in ten (35%) plan to do so over the next 12 months, while almost one on half (48%) plan to do so over the next 24 months. C. Views on TAX Systems A great majority of respondents, nine in ten, indicated that a state-of-the-art TAX system should offer key features such as collection and cashiering, delinquent tax processing and notification, automated interest and penalty calculations and, internet inquiry and payments. In addition, eight in ten of respondents added: maintains unlimited history, tax management, and real time accounting updating. Seven in ten of all respondents further added: tracking of property splits and combinations and tax billing with postal certification.

6

Ranked in order of importance, all respondents (100%) indicated that the issue that is “Very important or important” to their jurisdictions when selecting a vendor is support after installation. Over 90% of the jurisdictions also indicated that cost, followed by quality of training, tax domain knowledge and experiences, conversion expertise, provide periodic system enhancements, and certified project management expertise were “Very Important or Important.” In addition, over 80 percent of respondents indicated that local sales/support representation, leading edge technology, robust base of successful deployments, provision of a scalable system, and no “offshoring” of design and development were also “Very Important or Important” to them. When ranking the most important jurisdictional needs that a TAX system must meet, the majority (67%) of respondents identified: Improving accuracy of tax bills as their first or second need, followed by improvement in the reliability of data (50%), and improvement in the efficiency and productivity of staff (49%). In addition, when rating the degree (“Very Good or Good”) to which their present TAX system solves issues in their jurisdiction respondents rated the top areas as follows: Improves accuracy of tax bills (93%) and improves on-time billing (89%).

As far as awareness of Tax System providers, nearly seven in ten (69%) of respondents indicated their awareness of Manatron as either “Very Aware” or “Somewhat Aware.” Tyler received the second highest awareness rating of 49%. *While based on a 1st or 2nd rating, Manatron was chosen by 87% of respondents and Tyler Technologies by 86%, as the top Tax systems. *Note: This data represents the views of respondents who indicated that they were aware of the tax system provider mentioned. Refer to the chart on page 42.

NACo (39%) and Governing (21%) are the top two read industry or associations’ publications. The major conferences ranked in order of importance, are: NACCFTO (86%) and NACo (78%).

7

Section I—General Information

Population of Counties

Nearly three fifths (59%) of respondents reported the population of their county to be 50,000 or less, with one fifth of those reporting a population between 10,001 and 25,000 and less than 10,000 and the balance indicating a population between 25,001 and 50,000. Slightly under one fifth (15%) of respondents reported a population between 50,001 and 100,000, while counties reporting populations above 100k amounted to three in ten of all respondents—101,001 to 250,000, (17%), 250,001 to 500,000 (6%), and 500,001 to 2,000,000 (3%).

8

Functions Tax Office Provides

Roughly, nine in ten respondents indicated that Collection/Cashiering (96%) and Property Tax Billing (86%) are functions within their offices, followed by Personal Property Tax Billing (74%), Revenue Distribution (74%), Development of Tax Bills (62%), and Tax Sales (59%). Functions indicated by less than five out of ten respondents were Special Assessment Tax (48%), Motor Vehicle Tags (27%), other self-reported taxes (27%), Business Tax or Licenses (24%), and Taxes Assessment (11%).

Functions Tax Office Provides (By County Population)

Less than 50,000

50,001 to 100,000

100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

Tax Assessment 7% 25% 11% 20% Development of Tax Bills 52% 71% 78% 80% Property Tax Billing 87% 79% 93% 80% Personal Property Tax Billing 70% 79% 81% 73% Collection/Cashiering 94% 92% 100% 100% Revenue Distribution 71% 71% 74% 87% Motor Vehicle Tags 30% 38% 15% 20% Business Tax or Licenses 19% 50% 11% 33% Special Assessment Tax 44% 63% 44% 60% Tax Sales 60% 50% 59% 60% Other self-reported taxes 20% 38% 37% 33%

9

Collection Installments Primary Property Tax

A majority of respondents (65%) indicated that they collect primary property taxes in two installments, while two in ten (22%) collect primary property taxes in one installment. The balance of 12% collected primary property taxes in three installments (2%), four installments (4%), and “Other” (6%) respectively.

10

Provision of Payment Programs

Nearly nine in ten (87%) of all respondents indicated having payment programs in their counties. Of those, almost half (48%), offer payment plans for past due taxes, while one-third (34%) offer pre-pay options and less than one in ten (5%) offer coupon books.

Approximation of Enrolled Constituents Respondents that reported providing payment plans also indicated, the average amount of constituents who are enrolled in each plan is: 487 in Payment plans for past due taxes, 273 in pre-pay options, 444 in coupon books. Approximately how many constituents are enrolled in each program (By County Population)

Less than 50,000

50,001 to 100,000

100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

Payment plans for past due taxes 137 166 604 2755 Pre-pay options 120 233 239 2513 Coupon books 444 N/A N/A N/A Other 30 N/A 1508 1000

11

Number of Real Property Tax Bills

Slightly more than half (51%) of all respondents estimated the number of Real Property Tax bills sent by their office during the last billing period to be less than 25,000. Of those, 30% indicated the number to be between 10,001 and 25,000 with the remaining 21% indicated the number to be less than 10,000 bills sent last billing period. About four in ten (36%) of respondents indicated the number to be between 25,000 and 100,000. The remaining 13% of respondents said estimated the number of Real Property Tax bills sent by their office during the last billing period was between 100,001 and 1,000,000+.

Number of Real Property Tax bills (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to

250,000 250,000+

Less than 10,000 33% 4% 0% 7% 10,001 to 25, 000 48% 9% 4% 7% 25,001 to 50,000 19% 39% 4% 0% 50,001 to 100,000 0% 48% 59% 13% 101,001 to 250,000 0% 0% 30% 53% 250,001 to 500,000 0% 0% 0% 13% 500, 001 to 750,000 0% 0% 0% 0% 750,001 to 1,000,000 0% 0% 0% 7% 1,000,000 + 0% 0% 4% 0%

12

Number of Personal Property Tax Bills

More than half (53%) of respondents indicated the number of personal property tax bills sent by their offices for the last billing period are less than 2,500. Of those, 25% indicated the number to be between 1,001 and 2,500, while 28% indicated the number to be less than 1,000. The remaining 47% of respondents indicated the following: 19% sent out 10,000+, 11% between 2,501 and 5,000, 9% between 5,001 and 7,500, and 9% between 7,501 and 10,000 property tax bills.

Number of Personal Property Tax Bills (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

Less than 1,000 41% 14% 8% 14% 1,001 to 2,500 34% 23% 12% 7% 2, 501 to 5,000 10% 18% 8% 7% 5,001 to 7,500 5% 14% 23% 0% 7,500 to 10,000 4% 5% 15% 29% 10,000 + 6% 27% 35% 43%

Number of licenses, fees, etc. During Previous Billing Period (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

Estimated Average 4,867 11,426 49,330 143,100

Tax dollars Office Collected During Previous Billing Period (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

Estimated Average Previous Year Variance

$16,808,173 +9.9%

$67,912,018 +7.7%

$248,251,129 +8.2%

$318,271,286 + 11.4%

Total Value of Delinquent Account In Previous Billing Period (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

Estimated Average Previous Year Variance

$5,258,914 -13.4%

$5,304,471 -10.1%

$16,402,321 -4.5%

$31,007,100 -4.4%

13

Size of Office Staff

Almost eight in ten (76%) of respondents’ offices have ten or less employees. Of that group of respondents 54% indicated they have less than six employees in their office.

Size of Office Staff (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to

250,000 250,000+

Less than 5 82% 25% 7% 0% 6-10 18% 21% 48% 13% 11-20 0% 46% 33% 40% 21-40 0% 8% 7% 27% 41-75 0% 0% 4% 13% 75+ 0% 0% 0% 7%

14

Changes in the Number of Staff

Four in ten respondents indicated they had staff reductions in the last year, while 6% indicated that there was an increase in staff in the last year.

15

Number of Workstations

Roughly four in ten (43%) of all respondents indicated that their office staff uses less than five workstations in their office. As expected, there is a strong correlation between the population size of the county and the number of workstations.

Number of Workstations (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to

250,000 250,000+

Less than 5 67% 17% 4% 7% 6-10 31% 38% 59% 20% 11-20 2% 38% 30% 33% 21-40 0% 8% 7% 33% 41-75 0% 0% 0% 0% 75+ 0% 0% 0% 7%

16

Number of Public Kiosks

Nearly six in ten (56%) of all respondents indicated that they do not have public kiosks in their offices. Four out of ten (39%) respondents indicated they have one to two and the remaining 5% indicated they had three or more public kiosks.

Number of Kiosks (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000

100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

0 61% 64% 48% 27% 1-2 37% 32% 48% 47% 3-5 1% 5% 4% 13% 5+ 1% 0% 0% 13%

17

Number of Branch Offices

Nearly half (47%) of all respondents indicated having no branch offices, while four in ten of all respondents indicated having one branch office. With larger jurisdictions indicating a larger number of branch locations.

Number of Branch Offices (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to

250,000 250,000+

1 46% 65% 23% 33% 2 0% 0% 23% 0% 3 0% 4% 8% 13% 4 0% 0% 0% 7% 5 0% 0% 0% 13% 5+ 1% 0% 0% 0% None 53% 30% 46% 33%

18

Audit and Collection Field Personnel

Eight in ten (80%) of all respondents do not utilize field personnel for the auditing and collecting of taxes. The remaining 20% are utilizing field personnel for the auditing and collection of taxes.

Audit and Collection Field Personnel (By County Population)

Less than

50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

Yes 13% 25% 31% 40% No 87% 75% 69% 60%

19

Public Access Over the Internet to Property Tax Information

Almost nine in ten (85%) of all respondent’s offices allow the public to access property tax information over the internet.

Public Access Over the Internet to Property Tax Information (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to

250,000 250,000+

Yes 76% 100% 100% 87% No 24% 0% 0% 13%

20

Tax Transactions on the Internet

Of the respondents that allow public access to property tax information over the internet, eight in ten (80%) indicated they allow transactions such as payments of taxes to be done over the internet.

Tax Transactions Over the Internet (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to

250,000 250,000+

Yes 70% 83% 100% 87% No 30% 17% 0% 13%

21

Original Source of Present Tax Management System (TMS)

Approximately seven in ten (69%) respondents reported purchasing their present TMS, while 17% reported their present TMS are leased. Jurisdictions where TMS have been internally developed represents 14% of the total base of respondents.

Original Source of Tax Management System (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to

250,000 250,000+

Internally Developed 8% 13% 23% 43% Purchased 73% 71% 65% 57% Leased 19% 17% 12% 0%

22

Purchased Tax Management Systems (TMS)

Slightly less than six in ten (59%) of all respondents who purchased their TMS purchased a packaged product, while 34% had their TMS custom developed. The balance indicated they did not know if their purchased TMS was packaged or custom developed.

Packaged Product vs. Custom Developed (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to

250,000 250,000+

Packaged Product 67% 28% 67% 40% Custom Developed 25% 61% 33% 60% Don't Know 8% 11% 0% 0%

23

Length of Use for Current Tax Management System (TMS)

Slightly more than six in ten (63%) of respondents said they have been using their current TMS for eight years or more, while 24% indicated use of their current TMS is between four and seven years, with the balance of respondents using their present TMS for less than three years.

Length of Time Current System In Operation (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to

250,000 250,000+

Less than 3 years 6% 4% 23% 47% 4-7 years 25% 4% 42% 7% 8+ years 69% 91% 35% 47%

24

Hosted In-House vs. Remote Location

Almost seven in ten (68%) of respondents host their TMS in-house, with the balance hosting in remote locations.

Hosted In-House vs. Remote Location.

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to

250,000 250,000+

In-House 63% 70% 77% 80% Remote Location 37% 30% 23% 20%

25

Present Tax Management System Integration with other Offices

Nearly eight in ten (78%) of all respondents indicated they have integrated their TMS with other jurisdictional offices.

Present Tax System Integration With other County Offices (By County Population)

Less than 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

Yes 82% 75% 73% 67% No 18% 25% 27% 33%

26

Satisfaction with present Tax Management System (TMS)

Eight in ten (80%) of respondents indicated that their TMS meet their present needs either “Very Well” or “Well”, while 19% of respondents indicated some degree of dissatisfaction with their TMS.

27

Adoption of New Technology Six in ten respondents self-identified as being on the upswing of Roger’s Innovation Curve—Innovators (12%), Early Adopters (22%) and Early Majority (27%)—while four in ten respondents identified themselves as an and Late Majority (30%) and Laggards (9%) when it comes to adopting new technology.

28

Start of the Fiscal Year In total 86% of respondents indicated their fiscal years starts in either January (46%) or July (40%). In addition, one in ten of respondents selected October as their fiscal year start.

29

Approval Date for Budget There was a wide range of answers from respondents on their approval date for jurisdiction’s budgets. Nearly two in ten of respondents indicated September (17%) as their approval date and about one in ten of respondents indicated June (14%), December (13%), August (12%), and July (11%) to be their budget approval date.

30

Planning to Replace Present Tax Software Management System Nearly nine in ten (86%) of respondents indicated they are not planning to replace their present tax software management system.

31

Time-frame for Replacing Tax Software Management System Of the 14% of respondents that indicated they are planning to replace their current tax software management system, nearly half said they would do it within 24 months. Three in ten (35%) of respondents said they would replace their present tax software management system within 12 months.

32

Section II—Views on Tax Management Systems

Advanced Features of Importance a Tax Management System Should Offer

Nine in ten of all respondents indicated collection/cashiering (95%), delinquent tax processing and notification (93%), and automated interest & penalty calculations (88%) are the most important features a state-of-the-art tax management system should offer. Next most important features a state-of-the-art tax management system should offer are the following: internet inquiry & payments (86%), maintaining unlimited history (80%), tax management (78%), and Real Time Account Updating (76%).

33

Advanced Features of Importance a Tax Management System Should Offer (By County Population)

Less than 50,000

50,001 to 100,000

100,000 to 250,000

250,000+

Tax Assessing 49% 67% 72% 40% Tax Management 72% 83% 84% 100% Tax Billing with Postal Certification 64% 63% 76% 73% Collection/Cashiering 93% 96% 100% 100% On Demand Revenue Distribution 49% 63% 76% 73% Integration to High Speed Remittance Processors (Batch)

52% 58% 72% 67%

Internet Inquiry & Payments 79% 96% 96% 100% Tax Levy Management 53% 75% 68% 67% Tracks Property Splits, Combinations and Transfers

67% 54% 88% 73%

Automated Interest & Penalty Calculations

83% 92% 100% 87%

Maintains Unlimited History 74% 92% 80% 93% Delinquent Tax Processing & Notification

93% 88% 96% 100%

GIS Integration 51% 63% 84% 40% Automated Refund Processing 53% 67% 76% 60% Real Time Account Updating 69% 83% 88% 93% Hosted Solutions 24% 17% 36% 27% Integration With Other Systems in Jurisdiction

53% 71% 72% 60%

34

Issues of Importance When Selecting a Vendor

Respondents indicated that the key issue (Very Important or Important) when selecting a tax management system provider are: Support After Installation, followed by Training Quality, Cost, Tax Domain Knowledge and Experience, Conversion Expertise, and Certified Project Management Expertise.

Issues of Importance When Selecting a Tax System Vendor (By County Population)

Less than 50,000

50,001 to 100,000

100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

Cost Very Important 80% 63% 55% 79% Important 20% 38% 41% 21% Somewhat Important 0% 0% 5% 0% Not Important 0% 0% 0% 0%

Records Domain Knowledge & Experience Very Important 73% 91% 77% 73% Important 25% 9% 23% 27% Somewhat Important 2% 0% 0% 0% Not Important 0% 0% 0% 0%

35

Certified Project Management Expertise Less than 50,000

50,001 to 100,000

100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

Very Important 49% 68% 65% 47% Important 35% 32% 30% 40% Somewhat Important 13% 0% 4% 7% Not Important 2% 0% 0% 7% Leading Edge Technology Very Important 35% 61% 48% 47% Important 49% 30% 48% 40% Somewhat Important 14% 9% 4% 13% Not Important 2% 0% 0% 0%

Conversion Expertise Very Important 68% 74% 87% 60% Important 26% 22% 13% 40% Somewhat Important 6% 4% 0% 0% Not Important 0% 0% 0% 0%

Support After Installation Very Important 87% 96% 96% 87% Important 13% 4% 4% 13% Somewhat Important 0% 0% 0% 0% Not Important 0% 0% 0% 0%

Training Quality Very Important 82% 88% 74% 67% Important 17% 13% 26% 33% Somewhat Important 1% 0% 0% 0% Not Important 0% 0% 0% 0%

Robust Base of Successful Deployments Very Important 31% 59% 52% 47% Important 48% 41% 43% 47% Somewhat Important 16% 0% 4% 7% Not Important 5% 0% 0% 0%

No "Offshoring" of Design & Development Very Important 41% 67% 30% 47% Important 33% 24% 39% 27% Somewhat Important 17% 5% 26% 27% Not Important 9% 5% 4% 0%

Prior Experience with Your Jurisdiction Very Important 35% 48% 36% 29% Important 42% 26% 27% 29% Somewhat Important 20% 13% 27% 14% Not Important 2% 13% 9% 29%

36

Provides a Scalable System Very Important 29% 26% 35% 43% Important 51% 63% 48% 43% Somewhat Important 18% 11% 17% 14% Not Important 3% 0% 0% 0%

Provides Periodic System Enhancements Less than 50,000

50,001 to 100,000

100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

Very Important 49% 65% 50% 73% Important 42% 35% 45% 27% Somewhat Important 8% 0% 5% 0% Not Important 0% 0% 0% 0% Local vs. National Presence

Very Important 38% 41% 30% 40% Important 30% 36% 26% 33% Somewhat Important 25% 18% 26% 7% Not Important 7% 5% 17% 20%

Local Sales/Support Representation Very Important 49% 61% 35% 47% Important 34% 22% 43% 33% Somewhat Important 12% 13% 9% 7% Not Important 5% 4% 13% 13%

37

Needs a Tax Management System is Required to Meet

Almost seven in ten (68%) respondents ranked Improving Accuracy of Tax Bill as the number one or second need a tax management system is required to meet. Improving Reliability of Data (50%), Improvement on the Efficiency and Productivity of Staff (49%), and Improvement of On-Time Billing (27%) followed.

Less than 50,000 Needs a Tax Management System is Required to Meet (By County Population) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Improve Accuracy of Tax Bills

46% 22% 9% 3% 8% 6% 1% 3% 4% 0%

Improve Reliability of Data

27% 20% 8% 13% 12% 9% 4% 4% 1% 1%

Improve Efficiency & Productivity of Staff

10% 19% 15% 21% 8% 12% 5% 5% 5% 0%

Integration with Other Jurisdictional Systems

11% 4% 3% 15% 20% 21% 16% 7% 3% 1%

Improve On-Time Billing

4% 13% 15% 5% 20% 9% 16% 13% 3% 1%

Improve Constituent Satisfaction

26% 23% 18% 9% 5% 8% 6% 3% 1% 0%

Improve Online Constituent Access to Records

4% 8% 14% 10% 15% 11% 11% 18% 4% 4%

Reduce Head Count 13% 11% 11% 15% 10% 4% 14% 15% 4% 1% Allow Payment of Taxes Through the Internet

0% 6% 4% 1% 3% 0% 3% 6% 36% 41%

Increase Throughput 2% 6% 6% 2% 5% 5% 9% 8% 23% 34%

38

50,000-100,000 Needs a Tax Management System is Required to Meet (By County

Population) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


33% 44% 6% 11% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%


21% 16% 26% 11% 16% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0%


6% 12% 18% 24% 35% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Integration with other Jurisdictional Systems

5% 11% 0% 16% 11% 5% 26% 21% 5% 0%


0% 11% 0% 6% 11% 33% 6% 33% 0% 0%


26% 16% 32% 11% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0%


12% 18% 6% 6% 6% 24% 6% 0% 6% 18%


0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 44% 38%


100,000 - 250,000 Needs a Tax Management System is Required To Meet (By County Population) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


33% 44% 6% 11% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%


21% 16% 26% 11% 16% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0%


6% 12% 18% 24% 35% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0%


5% 11% 0% 16% 11% 5% 26% 21% 5% 0%


0% 11% 0% 6% 11% 33% 6% 33% 0% 0%


26% 16% 32% 11% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0%


12% 18% 6% 6% 6% 24% 6% 0% 6% 18%


0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 44% 38%


39

250,000+ Needs a Tax Management System is Required to Meet (By County Population) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


23% 23% 15% 0% 23% 8% 0% 8% 0% 0%


38% 8% 31% 8% 0% 0% 8% 8% 0% 0%


0% 8% 15% 31% 15% 23% 8% 0% 0% 0%


0% 8% 0% 23% 15% 8% 38% 8% 0% 0%


8% 0% 0% 15% 31% 15% 8% 8% 8% 8%


15% 23% 23% 0% 0% 8% 23% 0% 8% 0%


8% 8% 8% 0% 8% 8% 15% 38% 8% 0%


0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 8% 0% 0% 38% 46%


40

Current Tax Management System Capability to Solve Issues

Nine in ten (94%) of respondents gave their Tax Management System a “Very Good” or “Good” rating for Improving the Accuracy of their Tax Bills, followed by a rating of 90% for Improvement in On-Time Billing, 85% for Improving Staff Efficiency and Productivity, 84% for Improvement in the Reliability of Data, and 81% for Improving Constituent Satisfaction.

Degree Current Tax Management System Solves Issues (By County Population)

Less than 50,000

50,001 to 100,000

100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

Improves Accuracy of Tax Bills Very Good 59% 45% 41% 71% Good 37% 45% 45% 21% Fair 5% 9% 14% 7% Poor 0% 0% 0% 0%

Improves Staff Efficiency & Productivity Very Good 36% 30% 36% 50% Good 51% 52% 36% 29% Fair 13% 9% 18% 21% Poor 0% 9% 9% 0%

Improves On-Time Billing Very Good 41% 35% 38% 50% Good 52% 52% 38% 36% Fair 6% 9% 19% 14% Poor 1% 4% 5% 0%

41

Degree Current Tax Management System Solves Issues (By County Population)

Less than 50,000

50,001 to 100,000

100,000 to 250,000 250,000+

Improves Online Constituent Access to Records Very Good 24% 35% 41% 29% Good 40% 43% 41% 57% Fair 19% 13% 18% 7% Poor 17% 9% 0% 7%

Allows Internet Payment Very Good 30% 52% 45% 50% Good 30% 22% 50% 21% Fair 20% 13% 0% 21% Poor 21% 13% 5% 7% Improves Reliability of Data Very Good 42% 43% 36% 50% Good 45% 22% 45% 36% Fair 10% 26% 9% 14% Poor 4% 9% 9% 0%

Integration with other Jurisdictional Systems Very Good 27% 39% 30% 36% Good 41% 30% 30% 50% Fair 17% 9% 22% 0% Poor 15% 22% 17% 14%

Improves Constituent Satisfaction Very Good 20% 35% 25% 29% Good 68% 30% 45% 43% Fair 7% 26% 25% 21% Poor 5% 9% 5% 7%

Reduces Head Count Very Good 13% 25% 19% 29% Good 48% 40% 48% 36% Fair 30% 10% 24% 21% Poor 9% 25% 10% 14%

Increases Throughput Very Good 16% 30% 24% 36% Good 47% 35% 43% 43% Fair 30% 15% 33% 7% Poor 7% 20% 0% 14%

42

Awareness of Tax Software Management System Providers

Nearly seven in ten (69%) of respondents indicated their awareness of Manatron as either “Very Aware” or “Somewhat Aware”. Tyler Technologies received the second highest awareness rating by roughly half (49%) of respondents indicating their awareness to be either “Very Aware” or “Somewhat Aware”.

43

*The Best Tax Software Management System

Based on a 1 (best) or 2 (second best) rating by respondents, Manatron (87%) and Tyler Technologies (86%) are ranked as the top tax software management systems. BSA (75%), ACS (70%), and TerraScan (67%) are the next best tax software management systems, indicated by respondents giving them either a 1 or 2 rating.

*Note: The data shown below, represents the views of respondents who indicated that they were aware of the tax system provider mentioned in the previous question. Refer to previous chart (page 42) for percentage of awareness per company.

44

Participation in Vendor Group Meetings

Six out of ten (63%) of all respondents indicated they do participate in user group meetings.

Top Industry or Association Publications

While respondents reported reading a broad range of publications, NACO, (39%) and Governing (21%) are the top two read Industry or Association publications mentioned by respondents.

Ranking Conferences, Trade Shows, and Forums

When ranking major conferences in order of importance, respondents chose as either #1 or #2: NACCFTO (86%), NACO (78%), GFOA (50%), and IACREOT (17%).

executive report tax management systems research

Documents