Okay. The bell rang, so I have to let you go for now, sir. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Madam President. I just want to go back to Councilman Green's earlier questions that have to do with the sales tax. Have you 187 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 or anyone from the Administration contacted any officials or any representatives from the surrounding counties to see if they have any interest in raising their sales tax to -- from 6 to 7 percent?
We have begun to try to ascertain what their interest is in raising the tax, so we've started those discussions to try to find out, to the extent that anybody wants to tell us, but no one has indicated yet what their interest is in raising their level of taxes, the sales tax.
We haven't gotten a definitive answer from the various county commissioners outside of Philadelphia.
Okay. On 188 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 , you have your estimated annual real-estate tax burden for a hypothetical family of three. Do you have any reason why you picked three as a family?
Councilmember, the reason we picked that, it was a data set that the City of Washington, D.C. does annually and has done so for --
Well, my point is, for a $50,000 family -- or a family who earns $50,000, you have a tax burden would be on mills would be 14 $446. But a family of five or six, it 15 could be, you know, significant increase. 16 That's my point. Do you have any reason or any studies that say that most of the families in Philadelphia are three or under?
Actually, I think the -- there is an average household size per the census for 2007. I think it's under three; I think it's 2.5 or something like that. But we'll get you 189 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 the exact number, but it is under three.
Yeah. It's based on the 2005-2007 census. I'll see if I can get it for you right now.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Madam President. Two things. One, we look at your estimates that there is going to be a drastic increase in projected 190 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 disability, and I wanted to understand more clearly why we jumped so high during the five-year report. I believe that some of it has to do with the sanitation workers or something like that. Can you help me out with this? I believe it says it's going to jump from 4 percent to 9.5 percent in Year and then decrease in Year 17. I 11 think it's Appendix 8, . 12
I think we'll have to get back to you. I have to talk to our risk manager who puts those numbers together --
The other piece that I would like to look at is: Have you looked at the City Controller's report on cost-savings and analyzed some of that?
What I found 191 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 interesting was, some of the recommendations were recommendations that were also agreed upon by what is now infamously known as "The Freshman 15," where the Controller concurred that we had some outstanding receivables due to court fines inclusive of bail. And he cites that it reflects about $69 in court fines that have gone uncollected. And he also cites in another portion about electronic transfer of checks from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and he says that that savings is about $1 million annually. And I wanted to know if we've made any progress on resolving some of those leaks by way of our revenues.
There were a couple of different things. Are you talking -- on the electronic-fund transfer --
Right. We're still working with the Treasurer's Office up 192 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 there. There are still some issues on their end that they need to resolve, so we are continuing to work with them and push them on it. So I don't know that we've -- we don't have it resolved yet, I guess, is the short answer there.
On the court fines, we think there is a number. We think it's a lot smaller than what the Controller has, but we think there is something there and, you know, the courts are actually pushing hard to get that revenue. So I mean that's --
I'm not clear of your answer. "We're working hard?" What do you mean?
Well, it's also Clerk of Quarter Sessions, it's 193 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 bail, and I understand it's under the purview of the Law Department.
The Law Department. On the bail side, there's an RFP that went out to improve collections there. I don't know whether a selection has been made yet, but there's an RFP process to get someone to help us with those collections.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm back a little bit on the property-tax increase and kind of came up again with your discussion with Councilman Green about studies. And I'm sorry if this was asked already; I apologize. But has there been any study 194 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 done as far as the impact of real-estate increases as far as people either losing their homes or moving if it gets to a certain percentage, if I'm making sense? Particularly -- and this will be harder to factor in given that it looks like, at least right now, we're going to the full value in a year. 'Cause -- the reason I'm asking that is, obviously, there's an argument -- and I'm not saying it's not a good one -- against the wage-tax increase, but my prediction is, there will be constituents who will way, "Well, that's great, but what about the impact on us?" You know. And I'm wondering, has there been anything -- is there anything being looked at? You know?
Councilman Greenlee, whether there's an existing study or not, I don't know.
But what this 195 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 administration had to do was, in a very tough situation, make the decision.
And that's what we did. We sat down and we talked to as many people as we could. We had a very public process as much as we could. We talked to many people. And ultimately, we had to make a decision.
We made the best decision that we could with the information that we had in the time that we had. There may be countervailing views; that's what this hearing process is about.
If there's 196 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 information that would make us make a different decision, that some people may think is a better decision, we're open to hear that. But we didn't sit around, going to try to find empirical evidence and studies for everything that we tried to do. What we tried to do was try to get the best information we could and make the best judgment we can for the benefit of the citizens of Philadelphia for the short and the long term.
That's what we tried to do. So I don't -- you know, whether there's a study that does that, these guys may know; I don't.
Okay. Again, the only reason I bring that up is sort of in the discussion of balance, you know, because obviously, you guys found out -- and I don't blame you, 'cause you're trying to make your argument -- 197 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 some study that showed the impact of wage-tax increases, okay? And I understand that. You know, should there be -- and maybe that's our job, maybe we will have to go out and find it. If there's something that says what impact real-estate taxes have at least to a certain point. Now, you know, it might not be easy to find out. But it -- I got to think that that has some impact, too. You know, it has to have some impact. Maybe it gets to a point -- and I don't know what that point is and even if we could determine it -- where people say, "You know, these taxes, even though I know they're higher in the suburbs and all" -- it's perception of people to say, "You know what? With all the other problems, the heck with this, I'm leaving." It's just like people would say with the wage tax, "The heck with this, I'm leaving." 198 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266
You know, I'm just trying to think how we can determine this.
Yes. And I want to say two things. One, we found -- it wasn't just one set; we found a number of studies, and they do talk about the wage tax and the property tax. And it's definitely true that whatever tax you increase, there will be a negative impact.
We're not disagreeing with that. But what the studies we've seen have all said is that the negative impact of the wage and business tax is bigger than the negative impact of the property tax.
Just one 199 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 other question on a whole different subject. The 3-1-1, I know it's up and going now. Has the cost for operating that now, has that enabled you to cut costs other places? And can you give a couple examples? You know, by sort of bringing that together, if I'm making sense. Everybody is pointing to someone else.
Oh, all right. (Witness comes forward.) MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: Good afternoon. I'm Camille Barnett, Managing Director. I believe the question was, have we consolidated any staff with the beginning of 3-1-1? 200 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266
And what the cost impact is of that? MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: I will say that one of the things we did this year, when we were establishing 3-1-1, was to make sure we staffed it with people who were already City employees.
Okay. MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: This helped a great deal in the rebalancing, because there were many people who were laid off from their previous departmental assignments who then became 3-1-1 agents. And so, in that sense, we were able to reduce the cost by making sure those transfers happened. We're in the process now of looking at all of the call centers that we have to see what kind of changes in staffing might be appropriate, particularly now that we've had some experience with 3-1-1. My expectation is that we'll 201 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 continue that through this next fiscal year because we're getting a lot more calls from 3-1-1 than we have anticipated, and we haven't done any marketing yet. So there's clearly a migration to the 3-1-1 system.
Mm-hmm. MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: I'll get you the total labor cost; I just don't have it off the top of my head.
Okay. No, that's fine. MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: It's all internal.
If you could get that, that would be great. MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: Okay.
Yes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke 202 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 for a point of order.
Councilman Greenlee, I thought the question was: Did it save any money? Or was there any cost-savings associated with it?
Well, I think she said she'd get us the number. She said she'd get us the number so I guess we'll --
And can you make sure that you net that, please. MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: Yes.
'Cause there was -- 3-1-1 did not exist prior to this administration; it was a cost associated with creating that department. And so, when you look at whatever savings or changes, can you make sure, 'cause if we 203 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 look at -- MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: Yes. And we'll have to look at it in terms of not just the staffing costs, because obviously there were some startup costs with equipment and software. So we'll give you a full accounting of that again so that you can see where we are. But I think that our general sense is that even in these early stages, it's much more effective and probably also saves us money as we structure for 3-1-1. But we expect the real savings to come in this next year and beyond, when we really begin to change the way we do business in the departments, not just change the way we answer the phone.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Managing 204 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 Director, could you also add to that information the fixed monthly costs to operate 3-1-1. An example, the Verizon costs to direct 3-1-1 calls, et cetera. MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: Yeah. We'll put all the costs in there, and we'll distinguish between the startup costs versus the ongoing costs.
Okay. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski.
Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to go back to the property taxes.
I'd just like to say that I have major concerns with the size of this tax increase and the lack of information given to Council about the potential impact of the full valuation tax increases. 205 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 While the position of the Administration is that full valuation will be revenue-neutral, I think that we all know that a good deal of our constituents will be affected by the process and will see their taxes increase yet again in three years, which means that some of our residents will never see their taxes returned to the 2009.
I think that's right, that when you get through the full value project, there will be some people who will see their assessments go up and some go down --
And see their taxes go up and go down. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
Right. They'll see this tax increase go away, but they'll 206 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 still have the impact of full value, that's right.
There will be some who will have decreases and some who will have increases.
Yeah, 'cause, I mean, there are some people whose homes are under-assessed and some who are over-assessed. The ones who are under-assessed now will see their taxes go up, and the ones who are over-assessed will see them go down.
Well, you'll see that we get that information, anyway. 207 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266
Okay. Let me just go off one more. A lot of concern was expressed regarding the cost of outside legal counsel at our Appropriations hearings in February. The cost of hiring outside lawyers will cost the City about $7 million this year alone. With the recent downsizing of a number of law firms in the City, is the City looking at ways to attract some of these attorneys in an attempt to fill vacancies and also to add so much-needed expertise to the Law Department? (Witness comes forward.) SOLICITOR SMITH: Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. SOLICITOR SMITH: I'm Shelley Smith, City Solicitor. Good afternoon Madam Chairperson and Councilwoman 208 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 Krajewski. Yes, we have -- we have, in the past several weeks, received approval from budget to hire several positions within the Law Department to fill vacancies, particularly on the litigation side and labor and employment and general litigation, where our need was the greatest and where our outside-counsel costs have been the highest over the past few years. We are also, as you point out, because of the downsizing of law firms, seeing what I'll call a different class of résumé than we might have seen in the past. We are seeing people who are leaving law firms, who have been downsized by law firms, and we have been interviewing those people. And several of the hires that we've been able to make in the past several weeks have come from those résumés that we've seen from lawyers leaving large firms. So we do expect 209 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 that that will continue. We've also received some communication from law firms who are anticipating some hiring issues in the future, and they've asked us to work with them with some of their incoming class of associates. And so we're looking to do that as well.
Yes, point of information. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
It's also for Miss Smith, the Law Department. (Ms. Smith returns to witness 210 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 table.)
Hi, good afternoon. SOLICITOR SMITH: Good afternoon.
Can you tell me, what is your process for selecting outside firms? Is it a bid? no 10 bid? What actually happens? SOLICITOR SMITH: It's an RFP process. We post the opportunity describing generally the work that we need done. Usually, it's a category of work because our -- because we have a general idea of the kinds of cases that are going to come up where we might need outside counsel. And we need, because of the requirements of the court, to be able to bring people in on an expedited basis when we have a need for outside counsel. So we put out an RFP for categories of work, and then we select firms based on the responses. 211 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 We pay -- the billable rate is the same, no matter what. So we have a maximum billable rate. So basically, the firms all get the same amount of money for the work. And then we evaluate the firms, the responses that we get, based on the capacity of the firm to handle the kind of work that we need done. There might be particular areas where we think, for example, it might help -- it would be helpful to have the resources of a larger firm, whereas there are other matters where a smaller firm or a small practitioner might be able to handle the volume of work that's required in a particular case. But in any event, we put out an RFP, we select firms. And then, as we need outside counsel in individual matters, we hire from those firms that we've already selected from the RFP process.
Okay. So who does the selection? Who is the "we"? 212 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 SOLICITOR SMITH: The attorneys who have the subject matter expertise review the RFPs that we get in response -- review the proposals that we get in response, rather, to the RFP and make several recommendations that we do on sort of an internal informal spreadsheet. And then from that, from those recommendations, we choose -- the First Deputy and I use the recommendations of the attorneys with the subject matter expertise to make the ultimate selections.
When we had our Appropriations Committee hearing back in March, or late February, I asked a question regarding the number of minority firms. SOLICITOR SMITH: Yes.
And outside counsel. And I got a response from your office on March 4th; are you familiar with that? SOLICITOR SMITH: Yes, I'm 213 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 familiar with it. I don't have it in front of me, but I am familiar with it, yes.
Okay. Well, the inclusion numbers are not good; I mean, they are just terrible, actually. And, you know, at some point, we're going to do legislation to figure out -- we've been talking about it for the last week or so because the City has to practice what it preaches. And that's just to put it mildly. SOLICITOR SMITH: Yes. I absolutely -- I absolutely agree that the City should hire as many -- as diverse a group of lawyers to represent its interests as are capable of handling the nature of the work that is required to be handled by outside counsel. I also, frankly, believe that the City's legal interests are not served by sacrificing the quality of the legal work for any other factors, and I don't say that to say that there are not 214 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 minority firms that are qualified to work, but I think we have to --
Well, I'm glad you clarified that because I know that capability is certainly what you're looking for. SOLICITOR SMITH: Yes.
But this number represents less than one percent, and I know -- I hate this microphone. But anyway, this is something that we were actually going to call you and meet one-on-one about and not have to actually talk about it in this setting. But since you were here and since courtroom Krajewski brought it up, I needed to bring it up, I needed to add to that. Okay, thank you.
You're welcome. Any other questions for the Law Department? (No further questions at this 215 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 time.)
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. Mr. Dubow, looking at , Appendix 3, Plan B, if for some reason -- which I hope we don't find ourselves in this place -- you go to Plan B, I note there that the permanent tax increase of 5 mills would be permanent.
But this additional five mills would not. We would need it for all five years of the plan to stay balanced. 216 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266
Okay. One other thing. In your of Appendix 2, Plan A, there are zeroes for the City Commissioner, the City Council, for the Clerk of Quarter Sessions, the DHS, Division of Technology, Fairmount Park, (indiscernible) Fleet, Library, Historical Commission. And what does that mean? What does that mean?
Right. What that means -- we had two rounds of cuts, one in November and one that we proposed in this plan. This shows the impact of new 217 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 actions to balance our plan as part of the second plan, the January plan. So it's new actions that agencies were taking in 2010 to balance their budgets. So, for example, if you had a proposal -- if there was something that you were doing in '09, that wouldn't show up on this list; this only includes things that start in 2010. But if you wanted to see kind of how a department's budget changed from where it was originally in '09 to '10, the best place to look is in Appendix 11, and that lists each department, and it takes from you what their actual expenditures were in '08 to their adopted '09 budget to their current estimate of expenditures, and then gives you the '10 budget.
The Council President asked this question earlier. 218 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266
Yes. They're doing two different things. One is just showing the impact of new cost-savings actions in 2010. That's the table that you're looking at.
Yes. So those are just new cost-cutting actions in 2010 and what they're worth.
Cost-cutting or revenue or if there's a fee increase, it would be a revenue generator too.
So these are revenue numbers that are -- if you take action in the Board of Ethics, you reduce it by $90,000?
Correct. They're taking actions in 2010 that will reduce their expenditures by $90,000. And that would be on top of whatever they did in 2009.
Okay. So 219 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 you're saying that when you get to the Commissioners or the City Council, it's zero?
Right. So, for example, for Council, Council took action in 2009.
There's a $1.8 million cut, but there's no new action in '10. So this shows you the new actions in 2010.
How do you increase your revenue estimates for survey charges when the Streets Department is reducing the size of the unit? (Witness comes forward.) COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Good afternoon. Clarena Tolson from the Streets Department.
Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I'm sorry, 220 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 Councilwoman. Could you repeat the question?
I said, how can you increase your revenue estimates for survey charges when the Streets Department is reducing the size of the unit? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Individual survey charges are increasing. We'll be increasing the charge that we have for oversized vehicles. The charge that we have for that is going from $40 to $60, for example, as a way to increase revenues while, at the same time, possibly decreasing the size of the staff. So it's individual fee increasing but not a staff change on the upward.
So you're reducing the size of the unit, right? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
Okay. But you're going to charge more for the 221 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 survey? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: For the fee, correct.
What's the quality of output? Will that be okay? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. We're going to be improving the quality of the output. In fact, we are going to be automating the process so that we can do things online and so it will be faster, quicker, better service. In addition, I should note that we will be charging for some fees that we presently don't charge for. There will be some survey work that we presently do not have any fee or service charge for which we will being to serve -- have a service charge for.
Okay. Wait a minute. I have some more questions while you're here, the Streets Department. The plan proposes to reduce highway crew sizes from four to three, 222 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 which is a $825,000 savings. What is the operational impact of this reduction? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Surely. The main implication operationally is that we will see our response time diminish. Pothole response time will go from one day, which is where it stands now, to possibly a little less than three days. Our ditch response time will increase from approximately to 30 days 14 to likely 45 days. 15
So you're increasing -- you're cutting down the size, and then you're also cutting down the time it takes to get things done? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Correct. The response time will change.
So who's going to answer those calls? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We will answer the calls and respond to the needs of our citizens. We don't believe that 223 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 the impact is detrimental in terms of what the impact will be to public travel in the streets.
Sustainable litter basket collection, $875,000. Is this a cost or a savings? If it's a savings, what are they? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The savings from the sustainable litter baskets is one that we are quite excited about pursuing. Now, these are solar-powered --
Commissioner, I'm sorry. We're having difficulty hearing you. Can you speak into the mic, please. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Surely, okay. The sustainable litter baskets are solar-powered litter containers that will be on the street, replacing our wire baskets in much of our city. These containers have compaction on them, which will allow approximately five times the 224 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 amount of debris being put into a can or to be collected at one time. So that means a 5-to-1 compaction ratio. So that which we now collect several times in a day can be collected only once in a day. Our collections will decrease from 17, where they are now, per week, per week, to 10 about 5 per week. 11 In doing that, we will be able 12 to reduce the number of crews that we 13 require to collect our litter baskets. 14 We presently collect litter baskets over 15 the course of four shifts throughout the 16 week so that we're covered every single 17 day, 24 hours a day. With the compaction on these litter cans, we'll be able to move to one collection over five days. And so our savings are in crews. Additionally, the improvement that we will have from the solar-powered cans is that we allow ourselves to get even greener in terms of our environmental impact. There will be a 225 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 recycling unit added to approximately half of the litter baskets placed on the street such that we will be able to have public recycling for the first time, ongoing public recycling, meaning that we will have a litter basket and a recycling unit connected to each other for the public to use or pedestrians to use.
What's a solar can? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: It's solar-powered in that it has a solar- power cell on the top, and that solar-power cell operates the compaction unit. It's not battery-operated or, you know, plugging into anything; it's operated by the sun.
Restructure condo trash collections from what to what? And how does this save $420,000? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We presently have a separate unit -- it's a fairly small unit, but it's a separate unit that services our condominiums. 226 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 We're moving that operation into the rest of collections, thereby eliminating the (indiscernible) positions that are a separate unit and making them a part of the rest of collections. The citizens will not feel any impact by that; it will be seamless for them.
It rang. But, Commissioner, as long as you're up at the table, there are a couple of questions I would like to ask. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
The commercial property collection fee of $7 million, what is that fee for; can you 227 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 tell us? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That is a fee -- I'm sorry.
Who will pay it, how will this program be administered, and what are the administration costs, and where are they budgeted? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We will be handling the administration of this program in-house. This is a fee that will be charged to approximately 15,000 small commercial establishments that presently have City service. They will be charged an annual fee of approximately $500, a yearly fee to recover costs. This is presently a service that has no 19 cost to the small businesses, no charge to the small businesses.
You're increasing hauling permit fees $230,000. What is the current fee and how much does it raise? What is the proposed fee? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The 228 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 current fee is $40, and it's going to $60.
What services, if any, does the City provide to the haulers? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The purpose of this fee is for oversized vehicles or wide vehicles. If you can imagine that a truck may come in to town that may be of a weight that is excessive, and so we want to make sure that they travel on the proper routes. You don't want a twenty-ton truck on a bridge that can only carry six. So as part of this service, we route these oversized vehicles either in weight or width, we route these trucks through City streets to get them safely through the City of Philadelphia.
How do you know? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Truckers or the hauling companies know that when they're traveling in jurisdictions that 229 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 they need to get clearance to travel through. Sometimes they also need to have a guide; they may have a police escort on the highway or on some roadways. So they contact the local jurisdiction, and there's a fee for that service.
Very interesting. I think one issue that has us all rather concerned is the closed citizen drop-off centers, which you indicate will save approximately $192,000. What is the tonnage that citizens drop off? And what is supposed to happen to this trash? I mean, I truly believe that many people are not going to haul a refrigerator or a gas range to the citizens drop center; they're just going to put it in front of their house or in front of somebody else's house. So don't you think it's going to 230 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 cost the City more than the $192,000 if the City, in the end, has to pick all of that trash up? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We presently have five convenience centers around the City, and those centers provide the opportunity for citizens to drop off trash on days other than their normal trash day; that's why they're called "a convenience center." If some people choose not to have -- if they have, say, crabs or fish for dinner and they don't want to wait until trash day and they want to take it somewhere on that day --
They'll put them in those litter baskets. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We do have that problem with some people.
Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That's called an abuse. That is an abuse of a basket. However, most of our law-abiding 231 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 citizens will take it to the proper location, which is a citizens convenience center. There, we receive the materials and dispose of them properly. Citizens have also brought us other larger materials that they don't want to leave in front of their home. Given our present collection regulations, people are bringing materials to us that we do not collect at curbside. Once people are in a car and are traveling to drop off material, whether they're dropping it off at one location in South Philadelphia or another location in Southwest Philadelphia, it really is, I think, a matter of just knowing the right place to go versus not being able to take it there.
I don't mean to interrupt you. We're led to believe we're not picking up bulk trash any longer, correct? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Correct. 232 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266
All right. So what is the bulk trash that will not be picked up? Give us an indication as to what that is. Is it a refrigerator? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
Tell us what other appliances, what else will not be picked up. And if they're not picked up and if I, for instance, were to go to a store to buy a new refrigerator and I would say, "Well, would you take my old refrigerator?" and they'd say, "No. We don't do that," what do I do? And if the price is right, why should I have to go traveling all around the City to see if some dealer will take the old refrigerator? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Surely. Most vendors of appliances have a 233 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 take-back program. And for a nominal fee, anywhere between $10 to $25, when they drop off an item, they also are willing to take back a like item. So when you buy a refrigerator from Lowe's or Home Depot --
They don't all do that, they don't all do that. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Our --
In the event that they don't do that, what happens? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: In the event that the vendor that you buy an appliance from does not take the appliance, you can -- you have a couple of choices.
So do I have to put it on my back and take it to the -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: You have a couple of choices. One, you could bring it to a citizens convenience center, or 234 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 you could take it a private --
So I have to rent a truck to take the refrigerator or put it on my back and carry it to one of the centers. That doesn't make sense. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Well, that's why I made the first statement about most vendors taking the appliance back. When we evaluated this option, we found that the vendors were willing to take them back, and they do it at a nominal charge. What happened historically was that people chose not to have the vendor take away the old appliance and, instead, would put it at the curb. The same as with, let say, a hot-water heater; most citizens have a plumber come in and install a hot-water heater, and the plumber can take away that piece of appliance and take it to a metal dealer or take to it a disposal 235 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 site. Most choose to leave it at the curb, but that is certainly an option, to take it to an authorized dealer.
All right, Commissioner. On , it says, "Close citizen drop-off centers." COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. That is --
So does that means they're closing? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: No. 14
Oh, it doesn't mean that? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: No. 17
Then why are we saying "closed citizen drop-off centers"? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I'm sorry. It should say "close two or three" of the five that we have. We have five of them around the City. We're not closing all of them; we're only closing some of them. And that's why I was making the 236 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 statement that citizens might -- right now, we have a couple in close proximity to each other. If one or the other closes, they still have an option to go someplace else.
Well, it just says "close citizen drop-off centers." COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I'm sorry about that. I'm happy to provide more clarification if needed.
Okay. Increase hauling permit fee, $230,000. What is the current fee and how much is it increasing? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The fee is $40 presently, and it's going to $60. That's the fee for the oversized vehicles, where we route them through the City streets.
Okay. We're going to eliminate leaf yard waste contract, $85,000. Would you please explain what services this contract 237 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 provides? And by discontinuing it, would it be adding costs to the Water Department for inlet cleaning. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That reduction in contract costs was for our ability to take leaves that may have surpassed the quantity that Fairmount Park could have handled. We don't estimate that we're going to surpass that quantity, and so we were able to eliminate that contract from our budget.
All right. I have other questions, but I know other people want to be recognized. Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam President. If we were to increase the wage tax by 0.10, would wage taxes be higher or lower than FY '09 in 2014?
Just by 0.10. And I refer you to the chart of wage tax 238 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 decreases that are going to come from -- I'm sorry. It's not in the testimony, but I think there is a chart of wage tax decreases.
There is. There's a graph that shows it by year, yeah. So are you saying if that 3.82 in 2014 was 3.92, would that be higher than the '08 level? Is that your question?