Chapter 6: The State of Revenue Generation in Cities - LGRC DILG 10

Looking at the elements enumerated above, it was obvious that there were cities thatrelatively failed in making their RPTAC systems highly efficient. A clear manifestationwas the absence of online computer-based information to taxpayers in half of the totalcities. That is, only 58 cities or 50% had computer-based information systems. Thenumber of cities that operated in a network interlinked with computers in the offices ofthe assessor and the treasurer also showed that there were needs for improvement. Onlyabout 61% or 71 cities operated in such computer-based network environment. Anotherrevealing fact was that only 77 cities or 66% were guided by an updated LRC in theirRPTAC. The absence of the abovementioned important inputs definitely affected theefficiency of the respective RPTAC systems of the cities in the Philippines.P RODUCTIVITYIn order to determine the productivity of the cities regarding revenue generation, thefollowing LGPMS output indicators were used: Percentage of ARR, RPT collection efficiency rate, Percentage of IRA to totalannual income, and Public enterprise profitabilityrate.Generally, the cities hadperformed well in terms ofoutput indicators. A little morethan half of the cities had highproductivity levels while about37% of them were within thebenchmark productivity level(see Figure 6.8). It wasnoticeable, however, that 13% ofthe cities fell below thebenchmark performance level.Figure 6.8 Performance Levels of 115 Cities Regarding State ofRevenue Generation, PY 200443(37%)11(10%)3(3%)Very High High Medium Low Very Low58(50%)Annual Revenue Realized. The rates of attainment of the revenue targets of the citiesdetermine not just their efficiencies in realizing their incomes but also their capabilities tocome up with feasible targets. To determine the productivity levels of the cities, thefollowing scheme for target accomplishment was used: 81% and above target accomplishment rate - very high 61% to 80% - high 41% to 60% - medium/ benchmark 21% to 40% - low 20% and below – very low34 THE STATE OF REVENUE GENERATION IN CITIES