And you're bringing it to the minimum amount which is --
In '04, $157 million; '05, $198; '06, $233; '07, $271; and '08, $293.
Ms. Davis mentioned that we have an unfunded obligation that we may have to meet in the near future. Could that future be a year from now, two years from now?
We have a schedule from our actuary that shows payments we'd be required to make 65 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 going out for 30 years. And throughout the course of those payments, we're --
That unfunded obligation, when will we have to meet the unfunded obligation? Over a 30-year period or a 5-year period?
The beauty of a government that doesn't get the luxury of going out of business is that your unfunded liability never goes away. You continue to fund into eternity. While we say we will amortize over a 30-year, some states allow amortization over 40 years. What you are, in fact, doing is continually amortizing. Because as you amortize one group out, another group comes in. So it's just sort of a shorthand to say that the current existing liability over the next 30 years will be gone. You're never at a point where there is not -- the liability is never gone.
And at one point the City's contribution will have to meet it.
We won't meet the entire -- 66 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 we would never meet the entire. Our payments to amortize it go up, but we will never come to a day when everybody comes due at the same time. If, for example, the City could go away and we could stop doing business, then we'd be forced at some point to provide the entire amount. If we were to do that, you're talking billions -- if we looked at what it's going to be in '04, you'd be talking about a $1.7 billion unfunded liability. But that liability never goes away. Our payments to amortize it will continually go up, and will go up slightly more quickly because we're not over-funding at this point. But we'll never reach -- or should not reach the level that they would if we were doing a less aggressive payment schedule. As I said, some states permit 40-year amortization. If we did something like that, then you'd see a more rapid run-up in your liability. But at this point, even with our funding schedule, by '08 we would have dropped to 63.8 percent funding. With this new one we dropped to 59.7 percent.
What is generally acceptable in the industry? 67 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030
There is a thought that 70 percent represents being covered for everybody who is currently receiving a pension and currently in the vested and going forward status; 70 is sort of a comfort range. Given what's happened in the market, there probably aren't many of us who started right above 70 who are still hanging in at 70. The City had gotten to 76 percent or 78 percent.
Our last funding status was -- and I'll have to check with the pension people. But where we say we'll be in '04 is 73.2 percent. I believe we were in the 75, 76 percent range as of the actuary report.
Councilman Ortiz, I'm sorry. Just make this your last.
Thank you. I would just like to ask a couple questions at this time. Outsource Custodial Services -- although most of the larger City-owned facilities currently used contracted custodial 68 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 services, there are still over 500 City employees performing custodial services for the remaining facilities. We are led to believe that the City plans to release an RFP during FY '03 to determine if Outsource Services across the City would be more cost effective than performing the work internally. What is the departmental breakdown of the 500-plus jobs?
Okay. Can you also tell us what the projected saving per year from this initiative would be, and what is the basis of these projected savings.
The savings are approximately $500,000 a year. And we got that really by looking at the costs in our -- in the buildings where we use private custodial services in comparing that to the cost where we don't use them.
Is the elimination of these positions reflected in the position schedule?
It is? Thank 69 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 you. Under NTI, regarding the removal and pruning of dangerous street trees, does this include overgrown trees that pose potential danger to property owners? Oftentimes we receive calls that branches are so large they're on someone's roof. And I guess we automatically send a letter of request asking they be pruned. If, in fact, the tree is dangerous, we ask that it be removed. We sometimes wait a year and a half. Do you see any improvement in that program occurring under NTI?
I can get you a written report on exactly how many trees and when we expect to have gone through the backlog of trees. There was a backlog of, I think, about 8,000 dead trees.
But my question to you is, will we see some improvement? And is each council district being earmarked for X amount of dollars for the pruning and removal of trees?
I'll get you a response 70 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 in writing.
Please. I see other Councilmembers want to be recognized. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Chief of Staff Wilkerson and Secretary Davis and Director Dubow. I wanted to come back to the area where Councilman Ortiz was regarding the Pension Fund. And I apologize for missing some of his questions. And if he went over it already, you can just let me know that and I'll read the notes of testimony. I'd like to better understand our earnings assumption rate. And I recall at the time of the Pension Adjustment Fund Bill a few years ago, our earnings assumption is 9 percent; is that correct?
And how long has our earning assumption been 9 percent?
I will have to check with the pension people and I'll get back to you. I'm not certain. 71 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030
But at least as long as your time, and you think a few years before that?
Yes, I believe it has been. At least since when the pension obligation bonds were done.
As least through the period when the pension obligation bonds were done.
And over the past, let's take at least a five-year time period, what has been our actual annual earnings rate?
I don't have the years before I got here; but since I've been, the last two and a half years it's been well below 9 percent. And, in fact, we've lost value.
Do you have a ballpark figure on what it actually has been?
Let me get the information from the pension. Our five-year overall fund has earned 2.04 percent over five years -- the last five years. That's their composite earning.
That's the 72 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 five-year?
I don't have the annual rate, but I can tell you at three years, it was a negative 5.2 percent. The one-year rate would be 9.79 percent. And year to date rate is a -- those are minuses, by the way. Minus 5.2, minus 9.7 at one year, and minus 6.22 for the year to date of this year.
Given what's going on in the market, either presently or in the most recent past, do you think it's still appropriate to continue to use a 9 percent earnings assumption?
We looked at using less than 9 percent. But what that has the impact of doing is increasing at this point the City's contribution. You usually see changes in your assumption at a time when fronts are, in effect, doing well.
I didn't hear the 73 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 first part of that. I'm sorry.
You get a change in your earnings assumption -- if the City were going to do a change in the earnings assumptions, they would have been better doing that in better times when their contribution to the fund was less. To change it now to a lower number, which is something I think we do seriously need to consider, would be to compound the fact that we are not earning now. Because the fact that we're not earning 9 percent and we are, in fact, losing value also says that we would not be earning 8 percent or 7 percent in this instance. And so we, in fact, would be compounding our problem. We had the actuary actually look at what a change in our funding policy would be to an assumption of 8.75 percent. And that increased the amount over the Five-Year Plan that we would have to contribute. So we were just -- we would just compound our problem. Instead of over five years being faced with a $1.4 billion contribution, we would have been forced to make a $1.5 billion contribution. So this is not the time, although I think it is something that the City does need to 74 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 consider as it goes forward, whether or not there is a more appropriate rate of return.
I'll have to get that information and present it when I give you the detail for all the other years.
Are you aware of a time period when the markets were doing better?
Oh, yes. In '97 -- '96-'97 time frame they were doing a lot better.
I understand. I know they were. Let me finish the question. Are you aware of any conversations that took place over at the Board during periods of greater prosperity where there was any discussion about changing the rate?
I would have to ask somebody who was there during that time. I wasn't.
I think I heard the new buzzer. I'll try to sneak in one last question, Madam Chair. Can you give us a sense of what the assumed rate of return is in other either 75 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 comparable funds or other governmental funds generally ?
They're mostly in the same -- 8 percent is assumed a fairly standard rate.
And most of the funds around us are having similar regression or retreat?
Yeah. I mean, it's not just the funds around us, but the funds across the country. When you look particularly at state funds, they're taking a lot of negative hits. I think, if I'm not mistaken, New Jersey has lost something like $25 billion over the last two years.
Thank you. Are we going to look at another tax lien sale in the future? I understand that we made 76 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 some --
If I could find someone willing to buy additional tax lien bonds, I would aggressively pursue it. But given the fact that those have not proven to be our best performers, I don't think we'd be able to find many takers on that.
You talked about, back on of your summary, the need to -- that you're making a significant investment in supporting Social Services so that we can eliminate the need for those services. Have we seen any impact, any changes in the need for the services? What have you done in the area -- we know about Safe Streets and what's happening on the street, and we'll be talking about that, I'm sure, in detail when that comes before us. But what about the prevention programs? Have the prevention programs contributed to the need to cut -- I mean, to cutting down some of the Social Service?
I'll have to ask some of the Social Service people to talk about whether there's a causal relationship, but we're seeing youth service center numbers at an all-time low. We 77 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 have had population figures that were around the 150 population. They're now down to around 90. We are seeing a decline in our prison population. It is too early, we think, to correlate it directly to Safe Streets, but the prison population is now down below -- it's around 7,400. That's lower than we've seen it in a long time. But it's still too early to start drawing causal relationships, but, you know, when --
That's right. Because we're trying to track things so that we could have a sense of what's working and why it's working.
The other thing, the increase in -- I know you're doing a lot of stuff with Safe Streets and dealing with the drugs. Have we seen an increase in the number of clients seeking treatment and has that driven up treatment costs?
We've seen a fairly dramatic increase in the number of individuals seeking drug and alcohol support.
You don't have to 78 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 call them. I'd just sort of like to get an idea because we will ask those questions of the departments when they come forward. No point in being redundant.
We're seeing a dramatic increase in the number of individuals seeking drug and alcohol support. It was slow in the very beginning phases of Safe Streets, but it's picked up, and the Department will talk about that.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President. To the Panel, the 50 employees that the Mayor had mentioned in his budget message that would be in this year, rather than a lot of things that have to happen next year, could you give us an idea -- I know it's not just the Mayor's Office; it's the Finance Department and -- was that it? Those two?
And the Managing Director's Office. And there are a smaller number 79 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 in one of the other city departments.
Could you tell us of the 50, how many are DROPs that will be leaving, if any, and how many of the positions are currently funded but unfilled or not staffed, if any?
We can get back to you. I think there are only two in the DROP and they were all positions that were filled.
Okay. I say it because we may be looking to do some belt tightening here and I'm just trying to get some comparative numbers.
And if that DROP number is wrong, we'll get you the right number, but I think it's only two.
On the attachment, the Revenue and Expenditure Assumptions in the Five-Year Plan, the wage tax revenues at the end of that second bullet says, "Instead of growing in '04 by 2.59, they would have grown by 3.5, but for the proposed tax decreases." Does anybody factor in that, if it weren't for the tax decreases we may not have the increase to begin with? There's a very strong 80 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 argument in lot of quarters that just as when you raise taxes you don't get -- the graph doesn't go straight up. It often disappoints you because your revenues actually go down when tax increases happen. And there's also a strong argument that tax decreases tend to generate revenue, particularly when you're talking about eight-year period. Is there anything built in on that? And I give the same question on the fourth bullet with the business taxes.
I understand what you're saying. And if we didn't think there was some impact on the economy and on our taxes, we wouldn't be doing it. What that really is, it's just a straight calculation. It's just saying you lose about .8 percent.
And it could even be wiped out, for all we know. It's a number that 81 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 we'll never be able to get our hands on.
Right. And economists have a whole different range of conclusions about the size and timing of that impact.
Councilmember, you usually see the benefit in some other tax. It usually shows up in another part of your revenue base.
Okay. But, for instance -- and I don't want to beat the horse too long, but a little bit, anyway. Because of the tax decreases, I am moving from the suburbs or I'm staying in the City because I like the trend and I'm hiring more people. That's real. And that is wage tax. That's not another tax. And so you might get more real tax, too, because I've expanded my building or I buy a building if I come in from the suburbs. But I do think there's a factor in there. I don't know what it is, obviously, any more than you. You've made it zero or a neutral factor. I think there's some part of our increase in wage tax that is due to the fact that we have decreased it over the years.
I should also add, though, that there really -- there aren't economists who say 82 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 that you get a large impact immediately. So from this year's reduction, we won't see much of an impact in this year. We may see it two years down the road. So in really looking at the net impact on that year's revenues on that year's cut, I think it's fair to present it this way.
One last question on that, so I'm clear. When you factor in what it would have been, when you use that number -- this would be 3.5 percent -- are you factoring in just this year's single, solitary cut or the cumulative cut?
Just this year's cut. I think it was between the 3.5 and the 2.6 -- or 3.25 and 2.6. It's just this year's cut.
The impact of the cuts over the Plan are 150 -- in this year, $319 million. I don't have it broken out in front of me by year, but I'll get you that.
Okay. Just a 83 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 couple more. The PGW is, in the Mayor's words, back on its feet. It's the Phoenix risen from the ashes. I was never a big fan of lending the money because I thought it was throwing it away. It's comforting to know that they're back on their feet. But are they back on their feet -- to me, back on their feet means that they can pay their bills, including to the City. Are they back on their feet all the way or are they still kind of --
The Phoenix might be a tad strong. I think that the company is off of life support. I think it is no longer a proposition that threatens even the City's fiscal stability and I think --
In a cold winter, they're the only people in the City happy.
No. We're normalizing, so we're giving credits at this point. But the good news is, they are paying their bills, including to the City. In the past two years, they've had to defer their $18 million to the City until the end of the year. I am happy to report that they have now 84 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 started making their payments in accordance with the agreement, so that we have already received the first of the four payments that they make to the City that will at the end of April or so be equivalent to $18 million. We've received their first payment.
And we expect that the $45 million will be repaid according to --
The bullet says FY '03 for the $45 million repayment. The Plan assumes that the City receives the repayment of the $45 million loan in FY '03.
'07. So while they're doing well, they're not doing that well.
They're not going to pre-pay that, you know, sort of inexpensive money.
Last question: 85 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 $37 million for DROP separation payments; could you explain those in some detail? I don't know what they are.
When people leave the City, they get payments for their accumulated vacation time and for a third of their sick leave time. And with a huge number of people leaving, those payments are bigger than normal. That's all that is.
And mainly because it's the first DROP class, if you will?
Rather than spread out over future years, which we may or may not have in the near future. On the DROP, I was fairly involved with those hearings and remember a lot of it. There were about or cities that had the DROP when we got 19 involved and none of them, to my knowledge, had ever 20 ended it after they had started it. I know some of 21 this was fairly new when we were doing it, but some 22 had gone back to, I think, 1980, I'm not sure if it 23 was Baltimore. And I remember Commissioner 24 Hairston, who actually brought the DROP to the City, 25 and I think it's been the greatest morale booster, 86 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 at least in the uniform departments that I've seen in the years. What is the experience elsewhere? 4 I mean, I see initial impact problems and I see 5 problems when the pension fund is doing lousy. It's 6 doing lousy for everyone. But I still think it's -- 7 I remember the actuary testifying on why it's good 8 or we wouldn't have done it. It wasn't part of any 9 union negotiations. It was done because it was a 10 win/win. Part of it was being able to better 11 actuarially predict our costs. And, yes, you have 12 good years and bad years. When we were 9 percent 13 and we were getting 13 percent, there was the 14 argument, why aren't you increasing your actuarial 15 assumption so the bonus pool gets more money. Now, 16 why aren't we reducing it when we know, if somebody 17 is getting 9 percent, they're going to get all the 18 money be invested in the United States right now. 19 So do you have any record on what other cities have 20 gone through like we are now and whether any of them 21 have dropped the DROP? 22
We don't have the 23 information on what they have done since they've 24 come into this bad market. We have to try to do 25 some research. 87 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030
Well, there's two things, Ms. Davis. You've got the bad market, and many of them might not have that until now either. And to the extent that they are seeing maybe a renewal period come up for their own DROP, we may want to look at it, but I'm also thinking of this huge bump where the first group is in and all leaving at the same time and, because of our fiscal constraints, we can't give them any leniency. We may give one or two, if there's a special circumstance. I'm sure the greater majority, if not every DROP person, is going to be disappointed that they can't stay an extra year or two, even if it would help in transitioning so you don't have so many people at once, so many new classes at the academies, those kind of things, because the finances just don't permit it. But I hope we can get some experience from others and not act rashly, because I think a whole lot of City employees are looking forward to the day they can DROP and give the City three or four years notice of their retirement. It does move some people out. I know a lot of people who would like to stay that are leaving. They've had second thoughts. But they 88 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 probably in many cases should be leaving and let other people move up, lower salary people move in and it kind of keeps the system going. I hope we look at everything, including other cities' experiences when we're making recommendations, either to the Mayor or to the Pension Board or both.
We'll do that. We'll do a survey and also expand a little bit on the experience that this City has had as a result of DROP.
Thank you. In the Fiscal Health Section of the Plan, you mention the risk of receiving the funds due from the Parking Authority. What steps are being taken to ensure the receipt of these funds? The City has guaranteed the Parking Authority's bonds?
We have been sending them a barrage of letters requiring that they perform under the contract. Unfortunately, Senate Bill 1100 removed any requirement that they respond to us about their budgets or their spending or anything. We are to date still awaiting their audited 89 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 statements for FY '02 and have to request of GFOE an extension on our filing of our financial statement for the year because of it. We have also to date received roughly $4.8 million from the Parking Authority of a -- roughly $14.9 million budgeted 7 amount of revenue. We have requested of them that 8 they provide us an explanation for why we have not 9 received those funds, and to date have received no 10 such explanation. I believe the airport is in 11 somewhat the same situation, that they've not been 12 getting the reports nor the funds transfers on the 13 level that are anticipated. The City is seeking 14 relief from Senate Bill 1100 and we are looking at 15 other alternatives to deal with the Parking Authority, because it is a very real problem for us. And in this Fiscal Year could be as much as a $10 million problem, if we don't receive any other funds.
Does the proposed Plan include any General Fund payments on behalf of the Parking Authority?
May I ask how much? 90 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030
I believe there is $4 million in debt service for the Parking Authority bonds. And I think that's the amount I remember for those bonds for 8th and Chestnut and the Walnut Street property.
What is the status of the two projects and when will they move forward?
Eighth and Chestnut is now a surface parking lot. And Walnut Street, I'm not certain. We had had some discussions with the Parking Authority about the Walnut Street property and there are developers who still remain interested and engaged in that. But I could not give you the details of what it is now because we've not gotten any further updates on it.
We'll provide you with a report updating you on 19th and Walnut. That had been in litigation, but we'll get a status report for you.
Thank you. On of the Plan you state, "By the end of FY '03, the City will launch NTI quality of life improvement programs tailored to address public 91 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 nuisances specific to the City's different communities. These programs will represent a coordination effort among the Mayor's Office, the MDO, Law Department, several of the operating departments, members of City Council and community residents." Please explain these programs and their locations.
We're still fashioning the ones beyond the 6th and the 10th Districts and the 3rd District. The CLIP program has probably been one of the most popular initiatives. As you know, it was the brainchild of Councilwoman Krajewski. And what we want to do is have that same coordinated approach to nuisance problems in neighborhoods throughout the City. Different neighborhoods have different kinds of problems. We'll need slightly different approaches and we want to spend the time between now and the end of the Fiscal Year working with the different Councilmembers to talk about how -- what form the program might take in the various districts.
And when did you say each Councilperson will be -- 92 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030
Under the ordinance that authorized the issuance of the NTI bonds, we're committed to having a proposed program and budget for the coming Fiscal Year. There are a series of meetings that happen. I believe those are being scheduled now so that there is Council input. That final program won't be transmitted until probably until May -- I forget what the exact time line is, but that process is beginning now.
Is there an order in which the projected 2,000 property demolitions will take place?
We are meeting with the Councilmembers. We're moving around from district to district, and I don't have the exact schedule of what's happening, when I can get back to you on that.
Okay. Under NTI, you state that Conrail has committed $200,000 from an anticipated tax refund to fund a railway clean-up project in Port Richmond and Kensington. Is this amount sufficient for the clean-up? And what will we do if the tax refund does not materialize? 93 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030
It's probably not a sufficient amount. The City has an extensive strip of rail lines that cut across the City and a lot of these aren't maintained. We have been in constant contact with the rail lines encouraging them to do a better job. And when Pat Smith comes to testify, I will have her talk in more detail about what the plan is for trying to secure compliance. The Law Department has been involved in the negotiations with the various transit lines, but we will respond in detail then.
At this time the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
You ought to cite them. Send L&I out and cite them. Make them go to court. Councilwoman Blackwell asked a question earlier and I just want to follow-up on that question. We talk about the Capital Program and you said there would be no change in that. A number of us -- at least I do, have a project on the table that's up for bid right now. If the project is completed, what impact will Operating Budget have on the functioning of that facility, since you're 94 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 talking about closing some facilities? I'm really concerned about having worked on this project for about five years that we don't see it come to closure.
I think we're all going to have to spend the next year working carefully on the right-sizing initiative. Not all the properties that would be right-sized are in the Recreation Department. The City has over a thousand properties that it maintains and -- you know, the Police Department, the Fire Department. The right-sizing discussion is going to be a fairly expansive discussion. And I think what you're talking about is one of the challenges. We've all been putting money into these recreation centers, have a lot invested in them. What happens with that investment if it turns out that it appears to be a redundant facility? But those are the kinds of conversations we'll have in the coming months. We think that this is going to be one of the very challenging initiatives, doing an assessment, the quality of the facilities; are there opportunities that will be presented with the construction of new school buildings? Can the 95 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 service be co-located with something else that the City has to do in a neighborhood? Maybe you collapse a fire station or a police station into the same facility. Those are all the kinds of things we're going to be looking at as we move forward. In the meantime, we are not pulling the plug on maintaining the facilities we have or not pulling the plug on providing adequate operating support for those facilities. I think that that will all been part of the discussion as we move forward.
Certainly. In fact, should we break for lunch? It's up to you.
No. I'd rather we mush through this. I just need a quick break.
All right. Why don't we take a 15-minute break. (Brief recess.)
We're now back in session. 96 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we get into the book, in your statement, you say that the Plan also eliminated the projected deficit through increased fees and fines. Which are the fees and fines that have been projected to be increased?
There are three different types of fees that were increased or projected to be increased in the Plan. One is Licenses and Inspections fees.
It's those fee increases. That's what's assumed in the Plan. Records Department fees, that's also been approved by Council, so that was included in the Plan. And then the parking fees.
The ones that are in the ordinances before Council now. 97 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030
And those parking monies are going directly to the General Fund?
So how much of that is going to be transferred over to the City?
The Five-Year Plan projects that over the life of the Plan we get $95 million from the Parking Authority. Now, we get roughly about $14 million a year, so there's about a $5-and-a-half million increase assumed in the amount of Parking Authority revenue.
And what are the projected -- what's the amount of money in projected real estate transfer taxes?
Hold on one second. I'll have that. The Plan projects $ 99 million in '03, $93 million in '04, $90 million in '05, $92.2 in '06, $94.5 in '07, and $96.9 in '08.
You're assuming a 98 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 very active and healthy real estate market to be in place during all of those years.
We're actually assuming that it slows down a little from where it is now. Over the last couple years, we've had record high levels of transfer tax revenues. So we bring that down a little.
How much have we been getting in the last three years, for example?
Before the last couple of years we had what were historically high years and we were in mid to high 70s. In '02 we went up to $97 million.
Well, for the first half of this year, I think we're over 50. The first half of this year has kept pace with where it was over the last year.
Under state reimbursement for DHS, is that the TANF $30 million or is that other monies?
It's TANF. It also assumes that reimbursements for salaries and benefits go 99 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 from 80 percent, where they are now, to a hundred percent. That's something that actually other counties are pushing. If it was something that was just our initiative --
That's right. It's not in place yet. We're assuming that that happens.
You're assuming. And how much money is that? I just want to see what the assumptions are.
The other thing that assumes, there's about $15 million a year in increased revenue because the State changed the way it does its institutional placements for delinquents. Before, the State ran that directly. Now they're having counties run it and reimbursing them. So most of that, the increase we're showing is for that.
I'd like to put a number to the assumption in the next few years.
We can lay that out for you. There's about -- it's worth about $8 million, moving from 80 percent to a hundred percent. 100 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030
A year. And if that doesn't happen, that requires -- who is going to act, the State House, the Senate, or is that up to the Governor?
Because we're making assumptions about a budget that we're supposed to be approving by May 30th.
Good morning. John Zanier, DHS Budget Director. Delaware County is taking the lead --
Excuse me. You have 101 2/10/03 - FISCAL STABILITY - RES. 030030 to speak into the microphone.