The work done by this -- is it called Percus Rose RSI? Was this related to the proposed new skateboard park in Center City?
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.
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?
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 --
-- 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?
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.
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?
Just one last question in the health czar area. Can you tell me about the size of that office, how many people work there?
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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 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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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, 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 --
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
Keel Communications you have for -- I think you have said that. That's $68,000.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
I don't have the exact projects that they worked on, bit I will get that for you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 --
You are welcome. Councilman Cohen, your light is on. Do you want to be recognized?
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?
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.
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.