Committee Hearing, February 24, 2003

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA BUDGET HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, February 24, 2003 10:05 a.m. - - - Bill No. 030004: An Ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2004. Bill No. 030008: An Ordinance amending Section 10 19-2604 of the Philadelphia Code, relating to tax rates, credits, and alternative tax computation for the business privilege tax, by reducing certain tax rates, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 030010: An Ordinance amending Section 13 19-1301 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Real Estate Taxes," by restating the rates of tax in tabular form. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center Plaza, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X BILLS 030004, 030008, 030010 Joyce S. Wilkerson, Chief of Staff, Mayor John F. Street-------------------------------- Rob Dubow, Budget Director---------------------- 19 William B. Grab, Director, Mayor's Office of Labor Relations------------------------------- 94 Delia Gorman, Deputy Director, Labor Relations-- 107 Joseph Tolan, Deputy Director, Labor Relations-- 154 Dianah L. Neff, Chief Information Officer, MOIS- 157 Jim Cray, Director of Enterprise, GIS----------- 169 Howard Baker, First Deputy, CIO----------------- 173 Ralph P. Blakney, Executive Director, MOCS------ 208 Eva Gladstein, Executive Director, Empowerment Zone, MOCS------------------------------------ 210 Leon Simmons, Director, Supportive Work Program, MOCS------------------------------------------ 214 Malik Aziz, Safe Schools, Safer Communities Program, MOCS--------------------------------- 218 Steven Blackburn, Director, Frankford Family Development Center, MOCS---------------------- 247 Gilbert Coleman, Director, Fatherhood Initiative, MOCS------------------------------ 263 Odessa Clarkson, Director, Community Services, MOCS------------------------------------------ 272 Phyllis Royal, Director, Foster Grandparent Program, MOCS--------------------------------- 273 Terry Flores, Fiscal Officer, MOCS-------------- 291 Kevin Hanna, Secretary of Housing & Neighborhood Preservation, Office of Housing & Community Development----------------------------------- 308 Deborah McColloch, Director, Housing, Office of Housing & Community Development--------------- 310 Roderick Lyles, Fiscal Officer, OHCD------------ 321 - - - 3 BILLS 030004, 030008, 030010 - 2/24/03

Good morning, everyone. This is the Public Hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, 030010. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the titles of the bills.

Bill No. 030004, an Ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2004; Bill No. 030008, an Ordinance amending Section 19-2604 of the Philadelphia Code, relating to tax rates, credits, and alternative tax computation for the business privilege tax, by reducing certain tax rates, all under certain terms and conditions; Bill No. 030010, an Ordinance 16 amending Section 19-1301 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Real Estate Taxes," by restating the rates of tax in tabular form.

Thank you. Ms. Wilkerson, good morning.

Good morning. I am Joyce Wilkerson, Chief of Staff for the Mayor. I am here to present testimony for the Office of the Mayor. I would like to thank you for this 4 BILLS 030004, 030008, 030010 - 2/24/03 opportunity to provide testimony regarding Fiscal Year 2004 Operating Budget for the Office of the Mayor. The total amount requested for the Mayor's Office from the General Fund for Fiscal Year 2004 is $3,983,407, a decrease of $704,097 from FY '03 estimated obligations. Of this total amount, $3,783,407 is for employee compensation and purchase of services, materials, supplies, and equipment, the largest portion of the request. The Class 100 appropriation includes $2,905,763 for 48 positions and represents a decrease of $681,717 from FY 2003 estimated obligations. The 48 positions represent a reduction of positions from the authorized level of FY 19 2003. And the request in Class 100 appropriation reflects a 19 percent reduction. There is also a reduction of $18,891 in Class 200 appropriations and 3,489 in Class 300/400 appropriation. The remaining portion of the General Fund, totaled $200,000, is for City Scholarships. 5 BILLS 030004, 030008, 030010 - 2/24/03 This amount will continue the existing Mayor's Office Scholarship Program for Philadelphia students who attend classes at area colleges and universities. The Grants Revenue request for FY 2004 is $4,460,049, an increase of $1,454,209 from FY 2003 estimated obligations. This figure principally reflects state and federal grants to the Mayor's Commission on Aging and the Mayor's Commission on Literacy. The grants will enable funding for occupational training for older adults, literacy programs for the community, and staff support for the Mayor's Action center and the Office of Transportation. The Mayor's Office is taking the current physical situation very seriously. The dramatic reduction in positions reflects our understanding that we must focus our efforts on our core activities and makes sacrifices. The Mayor's Office staff will be expected to work more productively and will hopefully serve as a model for the rest of government as we all look for ways to become more 6 BILLS 030004, 030008, 030010 - 2/24/03 effective and efficient. You will be hearing from the Mayor's Office of Community Service, the Office of Housing and Community Development, Office of Labor Relations, and the Mayor's Office of Informational Services for their Fiscal 2004 operating budget requests later in these hearings. I would like to thank you for your support, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Do any members have questions of Ms. Wilkerson? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Ms. Wilkerson.

Good morning.

In the testimony, you make reference to, it says, the largest portion of this request, the Class 100 appropriation, includes $2.9 million for 48 positions and represents a decrease of the FY '03 obligations. It later goes on to talk about a 7 BILLS 030004, 030008, 030010 - 2/24/03 reduction of 19 positions from the authorized level for FY '03. Who are the 19 people?

We will be announcing the 19 later on this week. The Mayor committed to doing it within 30 days of his budget address.

And is it actually people or is it 19 positions? 10

I am sorry. I was 11 mixing two things. 12 The Mayor committed to announcing the 13 50. Those are actual people. The 19 reductions 14 includes some that were positions that aren't 15 currently filled. 16

Okay. How many of 17 the 19 represent actual people? 18

That would be included 19 in the 50? I don't have that actual number at this point.

Let me make sure I am understanding. Are the 19 a part of the 50?

Some portion of them will be. 8 BILLS 030004, 030008, 030010 - 2/24/03

I don't understand.

There are some positions that are currently vacant that won't be filled. There will be additional positions that will be eliminated, or positions that employees that will be terminated. What we have done in the budget is, identify a target number out of the General Fund that would be absorbed by the Mayor's Office. Exactly, you know, which positions, which individuals will be laid off, we have not finalized that list yet.

I understand that. But maybe what I was not understanding was your response. I asked you whether the positions 18 were all a part of the larger 50 positions that the 19 Mayor announced at his budget address, I believe, 50 positions across three branches -- I am sorry, three departments of the government; the Mayor's Office, Managing Director's Office, and the Finance Office. Is that what the Mayor said back at the budget address ?

The Mayor said that he 9 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 would eliminate -- the 50 positions would be terminated. It is in the Finance Department, the Mayor's Office, the Managing Director's Office, and then there are some positions that are being eliminated from one of the delivery departments. The positions are not -- 8

Which delivery 9 department? 10

It is the Health 11 Department. 12

All right. So now 13 it is 50 positions across four departments? 14

Yes. 15

Okay. So my 16 question was, the 50 positions are across the now 17 four departments, although back at the budget 18 address on January 28, the Mayor's statement reads, 19 "Within the next 30 days I will eliminate 50 Administration positions mostly in the Mayor's Office, the Finance Department, and the Managing Director's Office. So my question was, the 19 from the Mayor's Office, are they from the larger universe of 50? 10 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

Some. Some portion of them are; not all of them. The positions that were vacant, unfilled positions, are not part of the 50. So, you know, that portion of the 7 that are not filled positions are not part of the 50 8 that we intend to eliminate. 9

So when the Mayor's 10 address talked about 50 Administration positions, 11 you are talking about, actually, 50 people? 12

That's right. 13

There may be a 14 larger number of positions, some of which are 15 unfilled? 16

That's right. 17

All right. So for 18 the 19 positions, can you tell me how many are 19 actually filled and how many are vacant? Or are you saying that all 19 represent actual individuals?

No, all 19 don't represent actual individuals.

Okay. Of the 19, how many represent people? 11 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

If you look on Pages 10, 11, and 12.

Of the?

Of the list of positions for the Mayor's Office.

I am sorry. 10, 11, and 12?

2-10, 2-11, and 2-12 in the budget detail.

You are talking about in the big book?

In the budget detail.

All right. I have got 2-10. You are saying 2-10 and 2-12?

2-10, 11, and 12.

10, 11, and 12. Okay.

If you go from the FY '03 to the '04-'05 position, you can see which positions are filled.

Are we talking about Columns 5 and 7?

Yes.

Okay. So, for 12 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 instance, on Line No. 3, Fiscal '03 budgeted positions, we have three assistant deputy mayor positions. And now you are showing for Fiscal '04, two?

Then there is a run that's done in November --

I am sorry.

-- 2. And then in '04 the budgeted is 2.

I am sorry. I didn't hear the last thing you just said.

You have the Fiscal '03 budgeted. Then we also do a run in November that reflects if the position is filled at that point, and then we have the budgeted.

Okay. So let me make sure I am understanding. So we are really looking at Columns 5, 6, and 7; is that correct?

Yes.

So in FY '03, when the budget was passed, you anticipated that there would be, in this example, three assistant deputy mayors. But when you did your run in November of 13 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 '02, this is now prior to the budget message, you found that there were only two positions filled?

Yes. Well, the Administration has had a hiring freeze for some time now, and so we have been working to constrain the size of government. And so, you know, positions were budgeted. You know, we have been taking austerity measures.

Sure. So let me make sure I understand the significance as we get to, then, Column 7. Are you then saying that you are anticipating in FY '04 that there will be the two positions, which I am making the assumption -- you will correct me if I am wrong -- that those two positions are actually filled?

No; we will be decreasing further off of that.

I want to keep track of the one that changed from the start of the budget year to November. In the count of decrease in positions, are we including that one which was not filled as 14 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 far back as November as a decrease in positions?

No. The 50 that we are counting that the Mayor set as the benchmark would not be the one position that is held from the budgeted to the November run. When we made that statement, we were looking at people who were currently on payroll as of the beginning of the year.

Okay. And in this particular example, there were only two people on payroll, even though there were three positions designated?

That's right.

So let's go back to the original question. The are active, filled positions, 18 people -- I am sorry. Some part of the 19 are not 19 active. What have the answer to that question?

The answer is, we are looking at -- some part of the 19 are positions that were not filled. Those unfilled positions are not part of the 50.

Got you. How many 15 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 of the 19 are not filled?

I think 12 were unfilled.

All right. So we are really talking about seven?

Roughly seven, yes.

So of the that 9 are being eliminated, 12 are unfilled, and we 10 started the budget year with those in the budget. 11

Uh-huh. 12

And 7 are presently 13 filled. 14 And, so, for accounting purposes those 7 15 are a part of what the Mayor talked about, this 16 larger universe of 50? 17

Yes. We are still 18 refining, but it will be approximately that. 19

So there are actually seven people who presently work in the Mayor's Office, or who are listed in the budget books in the Mayor's Office, seven people will be -- now, are they being laid off or are they actually being terminated from the payroll?

They are being 16 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 terminated.

Okay. And I am assuming they are being classified as a layoff?

I don't know what the -- yes, they are being laid off, right.

All right. And where are the other 43 positions?

The remaining positions?

Well, we have 7 out of the 50.

Oh, they are in the other departments. They are in the -- I am sorry. I am not feeling well today. They are in the Managing Director's Office, the Finance Department. And then the Mayor, I believe, as you indicated, said mostly from those departments. Seven come out of the Health Department.

Did you say seven?

Seven.

Seven.

Of the 50.

7 of the 50 are in 17 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 Health?

Yes.

So that leaves 36 out of MDO and Finance?

Yes.

And do you know at the moment how many from each?

No. 10

Have the individuals been notified?

Not everybody.

Tell me a little bit about the size of the Mayor's Office over the past two or three years in terms of number of filled positions. I am sorry. Strike that question for the moment. The 48 positions that you are showing for FY '04, are they all filled? The testimony says the 48 positions represent a reduction of 19 positions from the authorized level of FY '03, and the requested Class 100 appropriation reflects a 19 percent reduction.

Yes.

The 48 positions, 18 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 are they all actually filled?

Yes, they are actually filled.

They are actually filled. Okay. What was the filled position level last year?

There were 55 as of November.

November '02. But that's still in FY '03. What was the filled position level for FY '02?

61.

61?

The year end for '02 was 63, I am sorry. The year end for FY '01 was 56. And the year end for '00 was 72.

Now, Fiscal Year 2000 started July 1, '99; right?

Yes. Year 2000, yes.

I think you would have been on the other side at this time, but maybe Mr. Dubow knows. 19 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 What was the filled position level in FY '98?

Rob Dubow, the City's Budget Director. I would have to go get that information. I don't have it with me, the '98 level.

Well, let me ask this question: Was there any significant increase in hiring somewhere in the course of FY 2000 in the Mayor's Office?

Yes. This Administration undertook additional initiatives. Some of those positions are in the Mayor's Office. For example, as you will recall, the Home Rule Charter was changed in order to create additional responsibility for the Mayor in the area of education, and so this Administration has a Secretary of Education. And there are two support people working with Deborah Kahn. Those are three positions that did not exist in the previous Administration as a result of --

I remember that well. 20 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

Well, I mean, this is where some of it comes from, as a result of initiatives and responsibilities that change from Administration to Administration. The Mayor also defined as a major goal the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. This Administration's approach to neighborhoods has been dramatically different. What we wanted to do and have been working to do is to realign government's approach in neighborhoods. And, so, some of the staff reflects increases as a result of that. And, so, I think as you move from Administration to Administration, you find differences in that regard. But those are just some of the positions that did not exist under the previous Administration. Also, Mr. Borrell's position with External Affairs is a new position. The Administration also created a Secretary of Boards and Commissions. The city has over a hundred boards and commissions that, as came out in testimony the other day, oversee various 21 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 functions of government. Yet, there is no real mechanism within government in order to coordinate and harness any of those activities that go on. And, so, the Administration established a secretary responsible for boards and commissions to try to better coordinate the activities.

In that regard -- which I hadn't quite asked this question, but you reminded me of something -- is it possible to get a list of all of the boards and commissions and the members of those commissions and whoever is in charge, Chair, Vice-Chair, secretary, executive director?

Yes.

Thank you. With regard to the education issue -- and I certainly do remember that well -- given the change in governance, as the Mayor was certainly given that additional responsibility and the opportunity to appoint all of the members of the then Board of Education, now as a result of the Mayor's first discussions and then negotiations and then ultimate agreement to turn the schools over to 22 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 the state, is there still a need for that level of monitoring or oversight, since it would appear now that there's virtually no responsibility?

Of course it wasn't a decision to turn the schools over to the state. What the Administration has done is established a partnership between the city and the Commonwealth. And, so, there are two Mayor appointees on the SRC. There continues to be substantial involvement, day-to-day involvement. Some of what you have going on with the school district impacts the city in ways that are critical. For example, the CEO's initiative to create additional schools, to close some schools presents unique opportunities for the city to look at -- you know, as we talk about trying to right-size our facilities, one of the things we are looking at is whether some of those facilities ought to be housed in schools. The city also helps support beacon programs. There are a lot of areas of overlap between the school district and the city. And one of the things -- in addition to, you know, like the 23 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 financial affairs of the district. And, so, Debra Kahn remains no less involved in the affairs of the school district, in coordinating what's going on at the school district with the city. We also have a very complicated tax issue that is going on both at the state and locally which will impact on the school district. And, so, Debra Kahn is involved in addressing those issues for the Administration.

Councilman Nutter, there are other Council Members that would like to be recognized. So, if you don't mind.

I thought there might be. I will come back. Thank you.

You can continue on the second go-around. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.

Thank you, Madam President. I am very concerned when we talk about a partnership with the state. And I kind of regard it as a bit insulting to the City of Philadelphia to tell its people we are in a partnership. 24 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 We have no control. The majority is with the state. The only thing we are continuing to do, we were able to continue to do, is to pay the tariff. And in that case we are still paying most of the tariff. It is true the state has added a little bit. We have added much more than the state has added, did it quicker. So let's not talk about partnership. Let's say the city has fundamentally lost a basic right. Until the Mayor turned over the schools to the state, the city was in control. We even tried to give the Mayor more control by an amendment, which I was very fearful of and actually opposed. Because I did not believe that the Mayor was willing to undertake the responsibility for the schools, and that he would want to divest himself of responsibility for the schools as soon as it became possible. And, in my judgment, that amendment made it much easier for the Mayor to turn it over the schools to the state. So let's not talk about a partnership. 25 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 We have no partnership. The state any time it can, any time it wants to, can run with the ball. And a big unsolved problem is, how do Philadelphians get control of the school? Maybe to this Administration it is just a semantic thing who has control. But I think it is a basic issue when the vote has been taken away from the people of Philadelphia, when they no longer have control of the school system and have turned it over to a Board which they have no control over. In fact, nobody seems to have control. It is true Paul Valis, in his first actions, seems to be doing a splendid job as school superintendent. But he ought to be responsible to the people of Philadelphia and not to a group of names that Philadelphians don't know much about and who are under the control of the state, if they are under anybody's control. When you read the state law under which the state took over the schools, it is hard to see any responsibility owed to anybody by the members of the School Reform Commission. But if I wanted to concede, I would have Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 to concede, if they owe any responsibility to anybody, they owe it to the people at the state level and not at the city level. And I think that is a slight to the people of Philadelphia. You are telling the people of Philadelphia they have no right to control. Maybe they don't even have the ability to control. I don't know how more insulting it can be to a major city than to have total control taken away. So my suggestion to the Administration is, let's be honest and be open about it, and let's do something about restoring control. Paul Valis ought to owe his responsibility to us, not to unknown people at the state level. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.

Just a couple of clarifications on issues that Councilman Nutter raised. You said that of the 50 reductions of personnel, 7 of those 50 will come from the Health 27 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 Department?

Yes.

And where in the Health Department are those seven coming from?

We are abolishing an Organizational Development Unit.

You are abolishing the Organizational Development Unit. And what did that unit do?

I am going to ask Mr. Dubow to explain it more.

It was a unit inside the Health Department. And, according to the Health Department, it was supposed to help with developing the organization and help to get personnel issues. And it never really accomplished its goal, so it was abolished.

Who was the head of that?

I don't know the names of any of the employees in that unit.

And there are seven employees in that unit?

Yes. 28 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

And they have no 3 function at all in terms of services to health centers or anything like that?

No; no. That's correct. No 6 direct service.

I think across the board what the Administration has tried to do is minimize any direct-service input. And, like with the administrative clusters, trying to handle more efficiently the work.

How long has that unit been in existence?

I'm not sure of the exact number. It was a few years. It had not been around a long time.

Since 2000, '98, '97?

I can get the exact date for you. I don't have that with me.

So it had been in existence for a lot of years and nobody knows what it ever did?

Well, I don't know the exact year --

They didn't 29 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 accomplish anything? Nobody ever looked into it?

Because it didn't accomplish anything, that's why it is being abolished, that's right.

But if it didn't accomplish anything for so many years, then wouldn't somebody at least say, "Hey, guys, what are you doing"?

Well, maybe you are right, maybe it should have been abolished sooner.

So let me get it straight. You say positions. 14 Of those 19, 12, I would imagine 12, of 15 them are never been filled; is that true? 16

12 of them weren't filled as 17 of November. 18

That's right. They may 19 have been --

Have they ever been filled?

Yes. I would have to go back on each position and identify the last point where they were all filled.

Could you get us some 30 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 aspect? Because maybe positions were created, never filled. And then you come in and you say, "Well, we are eliminating these positions," but they were never filled.

I will try to give you something that will give you a more accurate snapshot. For example, when I have said that there is going to be seven fewer positions in the Mayor's Office, seven fewer people in the Mayor's Office, than there were previously, that's a net figure, because we will also be hiring some individuals. We had contracted out a large part of the Mayor's Communication Office. We've brought that back in-house. And, so, we have hired people for communications. So as you go through a year, you know, there are increases and decreases --

You have hired people for communications.

That's right. So the seven positions --

But you have a contract for communications with Mr. Keel. 31 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

No; that relationship no 3 longer exists. And, so, the Administration --

When did that relationship end?

September, I believe. September, October. I don't have the exact time.

Does Mr. Keel still have contracts with the Administration?

I believe he has some with some other city departments. He is not doing the Mayor's communication.

Can you give detail to us and send to the Chair the contracts that Mr. Keel has with the Administration?

Yes.

And how much?

Yes.

And the amount of contracts and what services is he to provide?

Yes.

So how many people did you add in terms of communications?

There have -- I believe there are three communication positions that have 32 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 been added.

That is Ms. Grant?

Ms. Grant is added. There is a Mr. Avery, and then there is a receptionist position that is added to the office. And so my point in saying that is that, when you talk about how many of these positions were filled, you know, during the course of the year you might have a position filled, unfilled, you might be replacing it. And, so... But we will provide you with a report that attempts to detail that.

In the Class 200, what is the total appropriations for the Class 200? You explained that there is a reduction of $18,000.

For '04 it is, Class 200 is, $736,765.

And how is that divided?

On page -- if you start on -13, you will see all the items that go into our Class 200.

And that total is being reduced from the previous year by $18,000? 33 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

That's right.

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.

Thank you, Madam President. I want to follow up on the statement that Councilman Ortiz just ended with in terms of the Class 200. Looking at -16 in the book, I notice there are some expenditures for NTI. Why are they coming out of the Mayor's budget, as opposed to the NTI budget?

The NTI budget largely funds acquisition, disposition, programmatic costs. We are not funding administrative costs out of the NTI bond proceeds. And so, for example, we are using the reinvestment funds to provide consulting services. And that's coming out of the General Fund, and not the bond proceeds.

How about the Hill Corporation?

The project manager for 34 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 the demolition is coming out of the bond proceeds.

Now, I know we have a need for lobbying in Washington and Harrisburg, but we have five lobbying firms. What does that buy us?

The Administration has had a very, very, very active lobbying year in Harrisburg over the course of the last year. And I think that we have had a deluge of challenges, both in tax matters with -- we have had our own agenda, we have had an NTI-related agenda that we have been moving. There have just been a whole host of issues that the City has had to be engaged in over the year. And, so, we have had lobbyists working with us in Harrisburg on our specific agenda. We have also been watching out for PGW issues. We, at the federal level, are continuously monitoring the federal budget. We are always trolling for discretionary funds that may be available. We work to keep our legislative delegations apprised of what's going on. And some 35 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 of those relationships are -- some of the consultants that you see identified help us manage those relationships.

Other than the very visible newspaper stories about activities in Harrisburg, and which are much more visible than your other agenda items, have you been successful in moving that agenda forward, the nonhigh-profile, visible like the Convention Center, the Parking Authority, those things? How effective have these people been with your other agenda items?

I think we have won some and we have lost some. I think the larger story, in some respects, is what didn't happen. Everybody knows about the Parking Authority, the Convention Center. But there were, you know, several tax bills that could have been devastating for the city. Those did not happen. The city was involved in lobbying to reform the KOZ legislation. That didn't get a lot of exposure. You know, there have been a number of issues. And I can develop a report, if you would 36 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 like, that talks about the City's involvement in Harrisburg and what we saw as some of the major challenges and how we fared with respect to those.

I want to go back to the seven staff people in the Health Department. Those are staff positions that will not have any impact on the delivery of services to our constituents?

They will not impact the health centers, the delivery of services at the health centers. I can have the Health Department prepare a report on why that department, why that unit was created, what they accomplished over the time period, and what the rationale is for its elimination.

Well, I think when they come to us, they should be prepared to address that. And if it is not enough, we will get a report. We don't need a report.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. 37 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Madam President. Councilwoman Tasco was in -16. And when I looked at that, saw a few items that I wanted to ask you a question about. What was the investigation by Donnigan Security Associates?

Those are services provided to the Inspector General's Office. The Inspector General at any given point in time will be conducting forensic audits, those kinds of activities. We don't have people on staff that do that. We don't have that expertise on staff. And so from time to time we will use outside consulting security.

Who is the Inspector General these days?

The Inspector General now is William Gill. William Gill, as you know, Benjamin Redman retired. William Gill comes to the city from the department of -- for a long part of his career he 38 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 was with the Department of the Treasury.

How many people work in the Inspector General's Office?

The Inspector General has three full-time individuals in his office. We have consulting services provided by Donnigan, and then there is some supportive work that is also provided by, I believe, the District Attorney's Office.

Is Donnigan, I mean, an actual security firm or are they more an investigative? I mean, do they have, like, armed guards? Or, what kind of firm is this?

No. I believe that we contract with them for auditing, forensic auditing type services, as opposed to private-eye type services.

And who is Carl Ludi.

Carl Ludi was part of the Administration's communications office at one point. He is not with us anymore, or we are not contracting with him anymore. 39 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

But not as a staff person; as a contract employee?

That's right.

The work done by this -- is it called Percus Rose RSI? Was this related to the proposed new skateboard park in Center City?

I believe so.

Or was that for the little lot over behind the Criminal Justice Center?

No; I believe -- the Administration was asked to look for alternative sites for skateboarding. And, in fact, did identify a site adjacent to the Art Museum, or right below the Art Museum, and used consulting services to help generate a proposal for what a skateboard facility at that location would look like.

So is that going to happen?

I don't know yet.

Okay. What does the health czar do?

The health czar is 40 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 involved in creating programs and initiatives in support of elevating the public's awareness of the significance of the healthy lifestyle.

Given our fiscal situation, is that something that we can really afford at this point? I mean, isn't there a fair amount of information out in the general public about whether people should try to live a healthy lifestyle or not? I mean, is that really one of the primary services to be delivered by a city government?

We believe that it is a very important initiative. One of the things that we are trying to do -- one of the tensions or one of the --

I mean, I am pro health as much as the next person, but I didn't need the health czar to tell me to eat better.

One of the things that the Administration is trying to do in certain situations is, find alternative funding support for initiatives that are currently funded out of the 41 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 General Fund. In the Mayor's Office, there are substantial numbers of individuals that are in fact grant funded. That, you know, we could reduce the positions, but in reducing the positions you are not saving anything out of the General Fund because the position was funded out of Grant Funds. And, so, for some of the initiatives where that is possible, we are trying to find grant funding. We believe that it is an important position.

But at the moment the health czar is a public employee paid by taxpayers?

That's right. That's right.

I mean, is this something that ultimately might be better delivered in terms of services by the Health Department, in terms of talking with people about their health --

You know, it may be appropriate in the Health Department.

-- as part of their 42 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 activities? I mean, there are on a big anti-smoking campaign now, they have a variety of initiatives that they pursue, lead paint, all kinds of things. I mean, I guess at a time when, as you indicated earlier, later on this week, at least 7 people out of the Mayor's Office and another 43 in other parts of the government are going to be told that their services are no longer needed. And, I mean, I am going to assume that they deliver a wide variety of services to the citizens. Even under those circumstances, the City can afford to have a health czar?

The Administration will be, later on this week, presenting something that reflects what our final decisions are about what we propose to have funded out of the General Fund and what, you know, we propose to eliminate.

Tell me about the Fund for Philadelphia. What is that?

I don't have an exact definition of the purpose of the Fund for Philadelphia. 43 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 I can get that for you, rather than to speak extemporaneously on that.

How do we do the contracts with the Fund for Philadelphia?

Rather than --

Why would the government be doing contracts with the Fund for Philadelphia? I thought it was initially set up to receive money from people who did not necessarily, for whatever reason, want to give money directly to the City of Philadelphia or have their money caught up in, I don't know, four-part bidding, lowest-responsible bidder, and a whole host of guidelines that restrict the government in how we do what we do. And whether people like those restrictions are not, they were put in place to ensure that we, you know, do things in a quite above-board fashion and that we are maximizing our resources. But, for some things, it is probably appropriate, certainly, to have another place for funds to come into the government, which then could 44 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 be used in a way for quicker, more efficient expenditure. I don't understand why the government then has contracts with the Fund for Philadelphia.

I will get you something in writing that details that.

Okay. Can you also lay out which departments or agencies have a contractual relationship or are utilizing the Fund for Philadelphia for pass-through purposes?

Yes.

Just one last question in the health czar area. Can you tell me about the size of that office, how many people work there?

I believe there are two.

And what do they do?

There is one support staff to the program director and then the program director.

So is it a two-person office or a three-person office?

I believe it is a two-person office. 45 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

So it is just the health czar and one other person?

Yes.

I thought I either heard or read in the budget address or in a news account that one of the areas being eliminated in the government is the Office of Productivity and Management. Is that true?

Yes. And the Finance Director can give you more information about that, but the proposal is to eliminate them.

I didn't hear the last part.

Yes, that's true, the intent is to eliminate the Office of Productivity, Management and Productivity.

And I will certainly ask the Finance Director about it. But I guess from the Mayor's Office standpoint or the chief of staff standpoint, again, given our financial situation and what I think the office was created for a number of years ago, which predates this Administration, but I think their 46 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 overall goal was supposed to be to figure out how to run a government in a more efficient or productive manner. Why would we be eliminating it, given our fiscal situation?

What we are not doing is eliminating the function. What we intend to do is address those issues in a different way, absorbing them more directly into the finance department.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.

Thank you, Madam President. Ms. Wilkerson, it seems to me everybody in the country has agreed that we are certainly in a period of economic uncertainty, if not some form of recession, possibly even depression, with reasons that maybe could be spread out over a wide field, whether it is a pending war with Iraq or other concerns. But it would seem to me clearly that the 47 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 need for community services is going to be vastly increasing. And I believe it has already manifested itself as the state. How much is the Mayor's Office of Community Services and the services themselves going to be increased to deal with the increased need?

The MOCS office is not increasing. They will be testifying later on. They are not increasing. The Administration has in other departments, I think, provided, you know -- and people in those departments will be testifying about -- the increase in some of the services that we are providing. You know, so there is some of that going on. But --

Some of what going on?

Some of the increased services. So we are increasing the after-school programming. We are doing more with beacon schools. We are trying to be involved in neighborhoods in a more aggressive way. 48 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 But it is something that's challenging in light of the decrease in funding. The Community Development Block Grant, you know, is shrinking. The Housing Authority's budget is shrinking. And, so, we find ourselves with contracting budgets, you know, contracting budgets in every quarter. But we are trying to, in making the cuts in the budget, trying to be mindful of the need to continue services in neighborhoods and in communities. But it is becoming increasingly difficult.

Are we cutting funds for economic development?

We are looking at that. We don't know yet where the CDBG budget will end up. We have gotten a number of different reports on that. But there may be some reduction. We are trying to skew it towards administrative positions, as opposed to dollars that we have to invest. But, you know, that is one of those areas that is under pressure, as well. 49 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

Well, I suspect that the wind up of questions about economic development is that we are going to conclude very much like the national government did; that if business is bad, then we need more economic stimulation. It seems to me the same thing applies in community services. When there is a greater need for community services, I think the answer is not to try to find ways to cover the fact that we are reducing them, but to find ways, like with economic development, to expand them. And I certainly would urge upon the City Administration every effort to do so. And along that line, I am very troubled that, at a time when budgets are becoming very difficult for individuals to manage, that we had a hearing with respect to Philadelphia Gas Works and, unbeknownst to us, the Administration apparently joined with the leadership of the Gas Works to call to ask the state Public Utility Commission to eliminate the senior-citizen discount at some future time. I guess they were smart enough to want to do it in steps to mislead everybody by saying, we 50 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 will grandfather in, but new 65 and olders won't be able to apply anymore. At least if they apply, they will be turned down after September. But we know that's only the beginning. It is an effort to eliminate what to me is a very basic pledge of sincerity made by the City government in 1973, when this City Council ordained as a basic policy of City government the maintenance of that senior-citizen discount. And if we have to choose between continuing that discount and getting the $18 million payment from the Gas Works, it would seem to me clear that we ought to give the senior-citizen discount, we ought to keep it -- if anything, maybe enlarge it, because the need is going to be greater for it -- rather than taking it away from citizens. What is your comment with respect to that and the Administration's role?

The Administration supports means testing the discount for senior citizens. The submission in the gas restructuring case pegs the income level for a family of two at, I believe it is, about $19,000. 51 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 Exactly what the appropriate point for the discount ought to be, I think, is something that the Administration is willing to take a look at. But we do not support making that benefit available without regard to income.

I think that's a terrible decision the Administration is moving in the direction of. Is the Administration trying to take advantage of the fact that it knows that whenever means testing is employed as a technique, that less than half of the people eligible apply? Is that what the Administration is trying to do as a first step? We know the second step will be to eliminate all senior-citizen discounts. But why would the Administration be so mean in spirit as to try to take away from senior citizens, that are having enormous difficulties now in meeting their budget, why would you try to make life more difficult for them. Maybe even make life impossible for many of them, so that they lower their heat and we get an increased number of deaths in the cold weather, and 52 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 discomfort increases everywhere. Why would you want to do that?

What the Administration is trying to do is balance a number of competing interests. That discount to people who don't need it is being paid for by a lot of other customers of the Gas Works.

Could you give us some statistics on that, Ms. Wilkerson?

I can get you a report on that.

Well, I don't know what you mean get me a report on it. Tell me, because you must know if this is the basic situation, how many senior citizens earning $100,000 or more are asking for discounts?

I don't have those figures.

Does anybody have those figures?

I will try to get them.

I think you will find that over the last eight to ten years, the PGW has 53 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 actually stopped checking that. Before it used to have a staff that did a good job in eliminating those people who don't deserve it. And what happens often is that if parents pass on, and the youngsters may take over the house, they keep the bills coming in the name of the parents in order to get the discount. They are not entitled to it, and nobody thinks they ought to get it. But instead of doing an efficient job and weeding out people that have no right to it, the City is trying to do it easy by just lopping off people no matter what the hardship is. I think it is bad politics, it is bad government. And I am urging you to take some actions to change it and to withdraw the request from the state PUC. You know, at the time the state was taken over by the PUC, there were many rumors like the kind we hear about the so-called friendly take-over of the school system. We understand that the take-over of the PUC and the Gas Works was kind of friendly; that they were told, "Well, you know, we in the city 54 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 don't like you taking over. But if you do take it over, please protect so and so, the rights of certain bond holders." In other words, it would seem to actually be an agreement by the City to have the state take it over. And there were many suspicions that the reason for it was that the City was anxious to get rid of the senior-citizen discount and to offer the PGW for sale to a private operator who could take vengeance. Not only eliminate the senior-citizen discount, but, in addition, twist out a lot of extra profit for PGW when it is privately owned. I would like to put all of those rumors to bed and to show that the City Administration is really interested in the welfare of the people by making it clear that the City wants to maintain its senior-citizen discount. But I think the City Administration ought to pay a lot of attention to it, instead of in other areas. Some years ago we had a hearing here, there was a finance officer of PGW testifying, who 55 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 in the midst of testimony admitted that he had rented an apartment in Philadelphia just for the sake of meeting the Philadelphia residency requirement; and that he actually did not live in Philadelphia, he lived outside the City. That fellow lost his job because we City Council were incensed that a requirement that was imposed upon other Gas workers was being flaunted by top officials. There are now rumors floating around that the top executive officer, Thomas Nucomb, who testified before us a couple of days ago, in fact does not live in the City of Philadelphia, but lives outside the City of Philadelphia, and that that policy is being condoned by the City Administration by giving him one-year contracts, which eliminate the need for his residence in the city. Can you tell us whether that's true or false?

I believe that's false. The -- I believe that's false.

Could you get verification of that?

Yes. 56 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

Because the rumor is mighty strong and the sources seem very likely to have accurate information. But if it is wrong, we would like to have it for the record. We would like to know where Mr. Nucom lives in Philadelphia. Because we certainly think that part of the integrity of the system requires that the chief executive of the Gas Works live up to the same rules that all other employees of the Gas Works have to do, then maybe he will share in the feeling that it seems like senior-citizen discounts are things that are to be treasured and not just gotten rid of.

Point of information.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.

Chief of staff, I think that's something you should be able to do like that, get us that answer. Could you get us that answer during the course of this hearing?

Yes, I will try.

Councilman Cohen, do you mind proceeding with your questions with the 57 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 second go-around?

That will be enough for the time being. I would like to get that answer quick.

Thank you.

And I would like for the chief of staff to know that this City Council, based upon a hearing we had the other day, does not intend to sit quiet while the senior-citizen discount is destroyed. We think that that would be terribly destructive for the whole city, if one of the few commitments this city government has made, one that's just about 30 years old, were just thrown into the trash can. We think that if the Administration wants to convince the people of Philadelphia that it has their concern at heart, it ought to take immediate steps to withdraw to, whatever extent it had asked the Public Utilities Commission or the state, to supplant the senior-citizen discount and withdraw it, to make it clear that that was an action which the city is now withdrawing. And I urge that the Mayor and the entire 58 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 Administration join in that action, and that PGW be requested by your office to also join in that action. Would you convey that information? I know you are not in a position to do it, but the Mayor certainly is.

I will convey it to the Mayor.

Because I think people ought to know this is a Democratic city. This is a city that cares about people. This isn't a city run by people who are only concerned about the rich. This is a city run by political organizations which puts as its number-one concern, the care of the average citizen, the citizen that needs the assistance of government.

The Administration is working with PGW to try to assure that people, senior citizens, other residents, don't fall through the cracks. We have reached unprecedented levels in our access of the LIHEAP program that helps close the gap between individuals' utility bills and what they can pay. 59 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 We also draw down unprecedented levels of crisis resources. And, so, we remain vigilant. We understand that --

The unprecedented levels hover about the 50 percent mark. And that means that 50 percent of the people that are entitled to LIHEAP help don't go for it because they are worried about government's attitude towards them. If low-income people and poor people felt that the government was friendly towards them, they would feel much readier to apply. Instead, they are concerned that they may be prosecuted if they apply and it turns out that later there might have been a minor error in their application. And, plus, poor people and working people have a real pride. You know, they want to feel they are entitled to something as a result of the work they have done, that it is just not to give them something for nothing. The senior-citizen discount is something they have earned through a lifetime of hard work, 60 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 and that not ought to be taken away from them. We would like to have a direct response from the Mayor on that issue.

All right.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.

I just have one followup question about the eliminated positions. Those, the services -- and I think Councilman Nutter may have asked this -- will any of the services provided by the eliminated positions be outsourced through professional services? Will you bring them back under a professional services category?

There may be. For example, as we go through some of the initiatives, the management and some of the cost-saving measures, you know, those, in concept, could be considered management and productivity initiatives. As appropriate, we probably will be drawing on consultants. But we will be trying to 61 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 keep a tight, you know, grasp of that so that, you know, those dollars don't go out of control. But it would be in specific instances where we needed a technical expertise that we don't have in-house. But there is no broader plan to outsource, for example, a whole function.

Are you finished, Councilwoman? Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Ms. Wilkerson. I am not sure of the exact title, what we call 5665, the answer to communications -- is that the communications department or --

It is a part of Public Property. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Public Property. I understand that there will be or has already been implemented some changes as to the work hours in personnel. And part of my question has to do, who has access to that number? Is that just for city officials, 62 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 department heads, or is that for general public use, as well?

I don't know the answer to that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If you could get back to me, let me know. Because I understand that some of the hours have been changed. Or at least the hours have been adjusted that, on certain days, especially on weekends, there will be less people who will be available to respond or answer those calls that are coming in. And I also understand the needs for reduction in payroll. But I know just recently, this past week, with the snow storm, this weekend alone I probably personally placed to 30 calls 17 through that agency, through that department, 18 seeking out various commissioners and department 19 heads to be able to service my constituents. 20 So I would like to have some information 21 as to what the plan is there. 22 As to the health czar -- 23

I will get an answer. 24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. As for the 25 health czar, did I understand that you are 63 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 reevaluating that or is that a position that is going to be eliminated?

No, we are not going to eliminate the position. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And it is the health czar and one assistant, staff person?

Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is the combined salary of those two?

I will have to get that for you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: When the health czar was hired, I think, back in 1999, it was reported that she was living in the State of New Jersey. Do you know whether she is now a resident of the City of Philadelphia?

I have no idea. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I would like to have that information. If you could supply all that information to the Chair, I would appreciate that.

All right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. No further questions, Madam President. 64 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Madam President. Just one last question. With regard to the 50 positions being eliminated, do we understand that the 50 people from at least the four departments that we have discussed, Mayor's Office, Health Department, MDO, and Finance, they will be leaving the government, or are any of them anticipated to be relocated into other parts of the government, either on the General Fund payroll or other agencies and authorities that may be away from the General Fund payroll?

We are making -- they will not be relocated to other city departments. So, for example, you know, they are not going to the law department, they are not going to, you know, some of the other departments. What we are doing is attempting to make their services known. You know, we are doing what we would do with other city employees. If we know of other vacancies that they are qualified for, you know, sending them over there saying there are other positions elsewhere. 65 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 But we are not, you know, we are not relocating all 50 people. You know, we don't have secret positions for them. That's not happening.

Is it possible that they could end up, for instance -- I mean, we have later on this morning's testimony, could some of them be relocated to MOCS or the Redevelopment Authority or the Housing Authority or the Parking Authority or PHDC or PCDC or PIDC? I mean, there is a whole alphabet soup of variety of agencies that are not necessarily directly on the General Fund payroll. So is it possible that any of these individuals could end up in some other parts of this larger universe called the government?

Yes. You know, some of those other parts of the government do have staffing needs. And, you know, what we are not doing is going to people, you know, going to other parts of the government creating opportunities. So, you won't find that happening. If other parts of the government have a need, that we are referring people for those 66 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 opportunities. For example, the Administration has, as one of its initiatives, the outsourcing of some of the maintenance work. At the same time, the airport --

I am sorry?

Outsourcing maintenance.

Who is outsourcing maintenance?

One of the initiatives proposed in the five-year plan is outsourcing certain maintenance functions. At the same time, there are positions being created at the airport for maintenance. You know, there are other security positions being created at the airport. And we are also going to be hiring -- because we are losing so many people out of the DROP program. So our commitment is, we are committed to constricting the budget. We are also going to do our best to assist individuals who are impacted by these budget cuts. We are also, Mr. Dubow reminded me, that 67 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 in some instances we are trying to find alternative funding sources. Where we think it is an initiative that is important that is currently General Fund -- funded out of the General Fund, if we can find alternative funding sources that don't impact the public revenues, we will be working to do that, too, and off load some of the positions into other funding sources.

What would some of those functions be? I mean, what would we be trying to fund from private sources? What is it that we think that we are going to lose that would need to be privately funded?

We will be in a better position to comment on that later. Our commitment is to have all these -- our commitment is to have the FY '04 budget reflect these constrictions. And, so, between now and then we are going to be working to accomplish that.

What departments or agencies have either unfilled positions or staff needs? 68 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

I don't have that. I can try to generate a report for you on that. I can't speak on that off the top.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.

Thank you, Madam President. It has been reported that the 50 positions are part of 67 that were added by the current Mayor when he succeeded Mayor Rendell. Can you comment with respect to that? So that, in other words, we are told that if in fact there is a clear reduction of 50 now, it will still leave the Mayor with an increase, net increase, of 17 in the Office of the Mayor and in whatever positions that the 50 involve.

I don't have the number of positions that Mayor Rendell had. What I can tell you, though, is, it is very difficult to compare the two. The 69 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 responsibilities that the different mayors have undertaken are different. Councilman Nutter and I discussed earlier, you know, the fact that we have, this Administration has, taken on additional responsibility in the area of public education. You know, so that did not exist previously. Mayors also use resources within different parts of government differently. So, you know, this Mayor has chosen to diffuse responsibility, not centralize it, you know. So it is just very difficult to compare the way one Administration chose to do business in comparison to another. But I will try to get you the numbers, the employment history during the Rendell years and juxtapose it to what's happened since 2000.

Well, I would agree that one Mayor should not be confined and behave in the same fashion as the preceding Mayor. But if the current Mayor is saying, "I am bringing about a reduction in the number of city employees," I would at least like to know what is he comparing it with. 70 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

All right.

And that's the reason I am raising this question. It is one thing to say, "I am going to pare down as much as possible. But since I have engaged in many additional duties, obviously I will still have more than previous mayors had." But, in that event, then one cannot claim he is trimming down the government. He may in fact be doing not only the opposite, but it may be desirable to do the opposite, as I indicated in my questions. I think there ought to be a strong increase in services to people in the community. They are suffering. They are suffering badly. They are suffering more than businessmen. Most businessmen have greater resources than senior citizens on Social Security have to combat the increased cost of living. And I favor not curtailment of staff. I favor enlarging it so that government can better meet its obligation to make life better for people. But I would like to know what the Mayor is comparing the 50 reductions with. And I would 71 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 appreciate it if you could get that information.

I will get the history. The 50 is a reduction off of the individuals who were on the payroll as of the start of the calendar year -- or at the start of November '02. But I will get the numbers going back so you can see how this Administration compares to the previous.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Councilman, I am sorry. Are you finish, sir?

Yes.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.

Do you see on 2-16, the professional services and care of individuals. And the title is care of individuals. Can you tell me what Donnigan Security Associates provides, and who are they?

Donnigan Security is the firm doing consulting work for the Inspector General. I believe they are largely forensic 72 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 auditing type services, but I could get you the full scope.

They work in the medical examiner's office?

No; Inspector General's Office.

But you say, "forensics."

Well, when they are trying to recreate where the dollars went; you know, that kind of an investigation. They will contract with firms that specialize in putting -- in doing that kind of auditing. But I can get you a complete scope of service for that.

Could you please do that. The Center for Applied Research, Incorporated, what do they do?

I don't recall that exactly. I will get you that scope of work.

Whitten and Diamond.

Whitten and Diamond is one of our federal lobbyist, as is Patton Boggs and 73 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 Borski.

Borski is a brand-new one; right? The Washington Linkage Group, is that the same.

Yes, that's also one of the Washington lobbying firms.

Keel Communications you have for -- I think you have said that. That's $68,000.

That was in FY '03.

Excuse me?

That's in FY '03. We don't have a contract with Mr. Keel any longer out of the Mayor's Office. And somebody had asked earlier what departments are still using Mr. Keel's services, and I committed to providing that information. I don't know it right offhand.

Carl Ludi, what type of services is he providing to the city?

He was part of the Mayor's Communications Office, providing services to that office. 74 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 We are not using his services any longer.

The 521 or 621? I can't read it.

Has been working with the Administration around work-force issues. There were a number of issues between the city and the WIB and the secretary and the Department of Labor. And we have been working through those issues, also taking a look at how it is that we are providing work-force services in Philadelphia. And 521 Management has been helping us with that.

Are they trying to give you strategies for slimming down the government?

No. 19

No?

No. 21

Produce better services? Or, deliver the services better?

Yes; in the work-force area. And also helping us manage some of the administrative issues. 75 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 The Work Force Investment Act creates one of the most complicated mazes of federal funding, state/local relationships that you have out there. And 521 Management has been helping to make sure that we stay in compliance, that --

Do you have any of the work product that they have recommended, and what they have done, and what, if any, services have they improved, and what savings they have brought to us in terms of their work product and so on?

I can get you something in writing on that.

And the Delaware Valley Reinvestment Fund?

The Reinvestment Fund provides consulting services to the neighborhood transformation. They have helped us create our database that gives us the ability to analyze the forces at work in neighborhoods. It is GIS based, and has been a very helpful tool. I can get you the full scope of service. But they have also worked with us on 76 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 developing additional program designs, considering different initiatives. I can get that for you.

Can you please get that?

Yes.

Centera, it says, NTI landscape architectural services. Do they go out and plant bulbs in empty lots?

No. That was something -- we are not using that this year, I believe.

So they are eliminated in 2004?

Right.

Sherrick, NTI planting and design.

We are not using them anymore.

What did they do?

I don't have the exact projects that they worked on, bit I will get that for you.

They worked on what?

I don't have the exact 77 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 projects they worked on. I can get that for you, though.

Percus Rose RSI?

That was the skateboard park we talked about earlier.

Have they done it? Have they designed it?

Yes.

Are they a design group?

I believe they are a design group. There was a presentation that was made probably four months ago to the Logan community and the members of the skateboard community that were concerned that the Administration had moved aggressively to enforce the Ordinance City Council passed that prohibits skateboarding on Love Park. And when we did that, the commitment was made to work on finding an alternative location. And, so, there were months spent looking for alternative locations in the city. There was one that appeared to be viable that's just below the Art Museum. And this 78 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 organization, Percus Rose, worked with City Planning to come up with an alternative design and figure out whether or not the facility might actually work there.

What happened with it? They decided it did not work there?

No. I think that it -- they received feedback from the community. I don't have the very latest information.

From the skateboarders?

Not just the skateboarders; it is in the Logan neighborhood. There have been a number of concerns raised about the project. There were concerns from the Art Museum stakeholders and concerns from members of the Logan community. And, so, people wanted to know how would this likely impact their neighborhood. And that's why you go to the next level of trying to do real designs, so that people can get a better idea on that.

So they got paid $23,000 for that? 79 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

I think that was the contract amount. I don't know exactly what was paid out on that.

Can you tell me how much money was paid out on that?

I can get that information for you.

The Horticultural Society?

That was in '02.

Right. And that's not included this year; right?

That's right.

Bellevue Communication Group, what did they do for their $25,000?

I don't remember. That was in '02. I can get you that information.

Michael Nix Communications?

I don't remember that, either.

Terry and Rouse, 80 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 miscellaneous.

The Rouse contract was in connection with the Love Park project and also the skateboarding. She also worked with the Administration looking at some arts and culture issues.

Would you see what you can get us on that and any other listing that I don't know, you know, of professional contracts that are projected for --

This is what we --

-- for '04? This is all?

That's it.

Thank you.

You are welcome. Councilman Cohen, your light is on. Do you want to be recognized?

Yes.

All right. Councilman Cohen.

Thank you, Madam President. Numbers are sometimes clarifying and 81 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 sometimes confusing. In an effort to figure out that 50 reduction, that number 50 that's to be reduced from the Mayor's Office, can you tell us what that was part of? 50 of what? 50 of 10,000? 50 of 100? 50 of 500?

I don't have that number.

Do you have any idea? Are we talking about 10 percent, 5 percent?

It would be the number of -- it is not just the Mayor's Office; it is the Mayor's Office, the Managing Director's Office, Finance, and then there is seven positions in the Health Department. I could get you the total numbers.

I would like to know what the 50 represents.

All right.

And I can't know what that means, whether it is a big number or small number, unless I have the basic number from which it extends.

All right. 82 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03

Secondly, since that is the number relating to people that are going to lose their jobs, is there a corresponding number for the no-bid contracts, for the lawyers, for the personal consultants that are employed? What's going to be the cut for them to correspond with the cut for personnel?

We actually reduced the legal services contract amount in '03, so that -- I think there was a percent reduction this year. 12 We can get you the exact dollars. 13 But the legal services contract number 14 that you are talking about in the law department has 15 been cut substantially, and we can get you the exact 16 numbers.

Well, is it being cut into the future?

Yes. It is staying at the lower number, so the reduction is staying in place.

Could you get me the figures on that?

Yes.

That's for lawyers. How about for the personal services contracts and 83 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 the no-bid contracts?

We can give you a break-out of what's happening with all of our professional services contracts so you can see what's happening. There were across-the-board cuts of 2 and a half percent. So each department is supposed to reduce its Class 200, which is where the professional services contracts are, by 2 and a half percent, you know, for 2 and a half percent in '04, 2 and a half percent in '05 and 2 and a half percent in '06. And we can show you a table of how that breaks out in terms of the actual dollar reductions in the Class 200.

And I am still waiting for an answer from somebody in the Administration to a question I asked a few weeks ago on the more-from-less theory. That somehow the Administration is posing to us that except in the police and fire, the uniformed departments, they are going to arrive at more with less people. However, somehow or other, that does not seem to work in the uniformed departments, where 84 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 there are going to be no cuts because, apparently, they can't figure out how to apply the more from less theory. And it seems to me that that is a very fallacious theory. And more from less must have some element, if it has anything, concerning efficiency and productivity. And I understand you are eliminating the office, so maybe you are not interested in productivity anymore. I don't know about that. But I do know that it makes absolutely no sense to say there is one theory for the nonuniformed and another theory for the uniformed. I think they are all equal. I think all of the employees of Philadelphia overall do a splendid job, whether they are uniformed or not in uniform. If any complaint they have, it is that they don't get enough pay and don't get enough benefits. But they all do a great job. What I can't understand is the strange theory of, we have got to do more from less, and then say, but that does not apply in the uniformed department. 85 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 It seems to me if it does in the apply in the uniformed departments, it can't apply anywhere else. I think that's really the theory. I don't think you get more from less unless you are being inefficient. And if you are operating at top efficiency, more ought to equal more productivity, whether it is uniformed or not. But I would like to get some explanation. Because I don't like to see our city Administration, which, incidentally, I fully supporting circulating petitions to try to get them reelected, but I do want them to be considering seriously how to correct the number of things that I think I would have to give them C minuses for currently. And I would like to promote them to B's and maybe even B pluses or maybe even A's at some point. So I would like an answer to that theory. Tell me, ultimately, was that a misspoken theory, or do you believe that somehow or other, when you put on a uniform, you lose the ability to produce more with less? But as long as you are out of uniform, you can do so? 86 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 Thank you, Madam President. So I am awaiting the answer. And just to stop me from being boring and having to reraise the question again and again, I would appreciate an answer to it. Thank you, Madam President.

Councilman Nutter.

One question and one clarification. Madam chief of staff, I think when you were responding to Councilman Ortiz with regard to some of the skateboard activity, I know you made reference on a number of occasions to the Logan community. And I think, just for the record, I think you were actually probably talking about Logan Square.

Logan Square. I am sorry. You are right.

In response to a question raised by Councilman DiCicco, I was actually trying to look through the two big books. And I thought Mr. Dubow, who I know actually memorizes every page of the two big budget 87 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 books, I could not find, in response to Councilman DiCicco's question, I couldn't find under the Mayor's Office -- and we have discussed it a couple of times now -- the health czar or that department. I looked under the Mayor's Office. I looked under the Managing Director's Office. I couldn't find it on either organization chart or listing in the detail. Can you tell us where that office is?

It is in the Managing Director's Office. The health czar is a deputy managing director, so there is a line --

So there is no 16 title --

There is a line, it will say deputy managing director.

So the person is actually not funded out of the Mayor's Office, it is funded out of the Managing Director's Office?

That is correct.

And the assistant? There was a staff person that was listed.

Also assistant managing 88 Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010 - 2/24/03 director. So they are both in the Managing Director's Office.