COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:20 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILL 080853, 080854, 080855, 080856, 080857, 080858 and 080859 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good afternoon, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill Nos. 080853, 080854, 080855, 080856, 080857, 080858 and 080859. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 080853. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 11 amending Sections of Title 4 (The Philadelphia Building Construction and Occupancy Code), 6 (Health Code), 9 (Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions), 14 (Zoning and Planning), (Finance, Taxes and Collections) of 17 The Philadelphia Code related to license 18 and permit fees and other charges by 19 modifying the amount of such fees, under certain terms and conditions. And our first witness is the Commissioner of L&I, Fran Burns. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good 3 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Committee of the Whole. I am Fran Burns, Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. To my left is Otis Haigler, Director of Legislative Affairs for Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill 080853, which, if enacted, will amend the fees that the City charges for the issuances of certain permits and licenses that are administered by the Department of Licenses and Inspections. The fees governing services provided by the Department of Licenses and Inspections in this bill have not been raised in years, the longest being 18 years since an increase. For a good majority, it's been eight years since an 4 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. increase and the most recent four years ago. I believe that an adjustment to the fees is justified to adequately cover the costs of the Department. The license and permit activity under consideration in this bill include licenses to regulate residential rental properties, last amended in 2003; vacant properties, both residential and commercial, last amended in 2003; certain retail food establishments, last amended in 2004; sidewalk and street vending activity, last amended in 1992; electrical contractors, last amended in 2003; hazardous chemicals in regulated facilities, last amended in 2003; commercial building permit activity to determine compliance with the City's Building Code and enforce State-mandated provisions of the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code, last amended in 2003. In addition, we propose an adjustment to the fee schedule that is found in the Zoning Code, which was last 5 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. amended in 2000. The activity governed by this amendment includes permits for zoning and use registration for commercial properties, accessory and outdoor advertising signs, preliminary zoning application and plan reviews, requests for administrative reviews that are conducted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, requests for reviews of zoning plot plans, requests for the reposting of zoning notices, requests for the issuance of a certificate which states a zoning permit is not required because there were no change in use, and requests for appeal hearings, including accelerated hearings before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. We are proposing that an adjustment be made to the fees charged for the one-time issuance of the business privilege license, which was last amended in 2003. I am also proposing an amendment to the original introduced legislation. The fee for the 6 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. certification statement will remain at $100 rather than the original proposed increase to $125. Also included with the testimony today is a chart illustrating the current fee, the proposed fee and the last year of the increase. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's testimony on Bill 080853. I respectfully request that the Committee approve the bill with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. I am happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you. Commissioner, can you tell us why has the Department waited so long before adjusting rates? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Possibly the -- I think the Department, even 7 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. though we want to recover our costs, whenever we do increase a fee, it is seen as a cost to doing business in the City. And so right now when looking at the finances, you really -- it draws you to take a closer look at when have you last increased your fees. But my presumption is that there is a real desire to keep the costs as low as possible.
Thank you. Can you tell us the amount that is now collected from the imposition of the fees that we are being asked to increase and how much will be collected if the increases are approved? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. We currently annually collect about $45.3 million, and from this increase, we expect to raise an additional 5.7 million annually. That's based on construction permits remaining at the rate that we saw in Fiscal Year 2007. And so some of this is based on the economy. 8 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
What are the costs that your department incurs that are related to the issuance of permits, licenses, plan reviews, et cetera? COMMISSIONER BURNS: The costs actually depend based on the license or the permit, but I'll give you some examples of what we look at when we look at our costs. In, for instance, a food license permit, we have a service representative that actually produces the license. We have supervisor and manager costs at a smaller rate. We think about the cost of the health inspector doing the inspection or the Licenses and Inspections inspector doing the inspection. We consider costs of benefits, employee costs. We look at the hourly rate and then the time spent by employee to actually produce the service. We include in the cap which is an administrative cost. We look at, as part of the administrative cost, supplies and 9 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. equipment.
Specifically, what costs are associated with the issuance of a business privilege license? Are there any enforcement costs, and, if so, for doing what? COMMISSIONER BURNS: The cost for the business privilege license, again, there's a clerical cost for actually producing the license. There's a cost for -- we consider a cost for the manager as a small percentage. We have an information technology support cost. We have a supply cost. We have a monthly billing and -- well, actually, the billing for the business privilege is a one-time cost. We have supply costs. And in terms of the inspection for the business privilege license, much of that for the BPL is complaint driven.
Is? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Complaint driven. 10 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
So is there a cost to holding hearings to revoke licenses, and, if so, can you tell us how often do licenses get revoked? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't have the information with me now on how often licenses get revoked. I also actually don't have that cost for the hearing. But there is a cost for an administrative hearing around licenses since we do have our personnel that conduct those hearings.
Could you forward us that information, please. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Certainly.
Thank you. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good afternoon. 11 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Just two quick questions. First, was there any particular reason -- and I'm not against it -- that the cert statement fee was kept at 100 as opposed to your changing it to 125? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. We recently actually increased that cost to $100 in June 2008 and that was overlooked when we -- in the first --
So you didn't want to do it again that quickly? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Correct.
I understand. And the other question, a little more general. With all these fee increases, do you see the prospect of having services move a little quicker, particularly like say the issuance of permits or the time frame that it takes to get certain things, or is this more to just sort of tread water and stay even where we are now? 12 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't think as a result of this increase in cost that we're going to see necessarily, just based on increase in cost, a difference in productivity, but we are looking in the City on a few things to increase productivity as it relates to two of the things that you mentioned. One is the permits. We're looking at the entire development process throughout the City, L&I's role in that development process, where are there redundancies, where are there efficiencies, and we expect through that to be able to produce a better turnaround time. Right now our standards for permits are, we produce residential reviews within 15 days and commercial reviews within 25. Then for the licensing, on the licensing side, what we're looking at is how can we automate for online purchase a lot of our licenses and also how can we hopefully streamline -- we have 170 licenses -- the number of licenses that 13 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. we actually issue. And through those efforts, I think that we'll come out in a better place to service to the customer.
Because obviously -- and I'm sure you've heard it too -- at least some people will be willing to pay these -- or less opposed to these increases if they thought the services were going to come at least a little faster. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. But I believe that we're going to get better in our service.
Okay. We'll remember you said that. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, 14 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Madam President. Good afternoon, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good afternoon.
And Mr. Haigler. I want to ask a question about the permits relating to construction. I know there are some of these that relate directly to that. Traditionally you talked about some concerns about the cost of doing business in the City of Philadelphia, and particularly construction. One of the issues that I was wondering as it relates to affordable housing -- which we're always trying to keep at a certain level in terms of the costs associated with that, because it directly affects the City subsidizing these developments -- is there any thought or has there been any thought given about possible waivers to affordable housing developments where there's these very tight budgets, the 15 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. limited ability to raise the cost of the housing because the cost is mandated by both federal and state government to remain at a certain cost in terms of sales and in terms of rental, so there's not the ability by the developer, say, for instance, the Housing Authority, to increase the cost of the rents or increase the cost of sale, because the federal government won't allow it, but yet the cost of construction may increase as a result of the increased fees. And the only thing what ends up happening is, they come back to the City or the government and say, Hey, you got to give us more money. And that's kind of counter to what we're attempting to do. If we're increasing fees, it costs more money to build, then they come back to the City or the State for more money. That's really not getting us anywhere. So is there any thought about in instances where there's certain affordable housing components or agencies 16 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. that develop affordable housing for some waivers? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I haven't --
A different fee structure for those type of developments. COMMISSIONER BURNS: I haven't been in any conversations around that. I will say that these increases I don't think, in terms of affordable housing, while they are an increase to cost, I don't think they really have a, when you look at it, a great impact on it. I mean, a one-time permit fee that's increased by $50 for a project that's possibly millions or even just hundreds of thousands isn't a significant impact to the cost.
All right. I must say for the record that this question comes indirectly from developers who build affordable housing. I do know that the fee is not substantial, but 17 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. those questions were posed. And I guess the question is, per development how many of these fees apply as you relate to pulling permits? But if it is substantial, I guess the question would be relevant and I'm just -- I'm not a developer or contractor, but that issue did come up. So if you can kind of look at that and see if potentially -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez for a point of information.
For the benefit of the Commissioner, since she's new, during our budget discussions, in addition to that cost, because depending on who you ask, some permitting fees, costs related to construction could be almost one percent of construction costs, depending on what we're doing in terms of the water, sewer storm management, and we 18 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. had posed that question during the budget as it related to even our Capital Office, who budgets a certain amount of money in the work that we do in the City, our Capital Office to our facilities, who pay fees, permitting fees, for construction work. So that's something that you could look at. It was a discussion that was had during the budget process. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. One follow-up question, Madam President. The new Administration still hasn't given us a definitive answer on the inclusionary housing proposal that we put forth last year. We're kind of halfway through it. One of the issues that the BIA, the Building Industry Association, talked about was in the event that they cooperated in an inclusionary housing program in the City of Philadelphia, therefore creating a percentage of the units be affordable, 19 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. they would like to have seen the ability to have reduced fees associated with the affordable housing component of that development. We are obviously not doing that in this proposal. We're actually going in a different direction. So when you continue to have a review of what you're proposing, could you take into account that we're going to be asking as soon as that inclusionary housing, Part 2 of it gets prepared, we're going to be asking that the City consider some reductions in costs associated with the fees for the affordable housing component in the inclusionary housing program. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. I'll be mindful of that. I do sit on an advisory board with the BIA every month.
I mean, they were adamant about getting, as they call them, cost offsets, so if they're going to build the affordable housing, they really would like to see a reduction 20 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. in fees. And maybe in this case we can say, Well, you know what? We won't raise the fees for the portions of your development that we're going to do affordable housing. So just please take that into account. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner, could you please describe a process in the Department of Licenses and Inspection. I see here listed "accelerated hearing." Could you describe the process where employees at the Department of Licenses and Inspection take home work with them for review and 21 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. get paid an hourly rate and how that's managed for -- how that process is managed to make sure that it's working properly. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. People have the ability when they apply for a building permit or a zoning permit to also apply for an accelerated review, and there's a cost for the accelerated review, and that cost is directly correlated to the cost of overtime, to do the review on overtime. Our employees, actually our plan reviewers and our zoning reviewers, do that review on overtime. The contract with the union stipulates that we pay four hours overtime for permit reviews -- actually, for overtime for a building plan and zoning examiners. So right now what happens is, we get a request. We have a list of examiners, both building and zoning. If we have an accelerated fee, we make sure we get the fee first before 22 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. we assign the overtime. We then assign the overtime. And, actually, if the review takes less than the four hours, the plans examiner is required to do other work to fill the four hours. But that's how the program works.
I see here there's a charge for an accelerated hearing. Could you tell us what the overtime rate is for an accelerated review? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I think the -- I don't have the -- just to clarify, the fee for an accelerated building review is $440 for four hours of work. What's in this legislation as an increase for the hearing is an accelerated hearing in front of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
So there's no change to the accelerated review? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No. 24
So tell me, how much does the employee get for -- in 23 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. other words, where is the profit, for lack of a better word, for the City to do an accelerated review? In other words, I want to know what the hourly rate that the employee gets. Is it standard or is it based on their position at L&I? I'm curious why we would do this if there's no bang for the buck when it comes to -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: The bang for the buck actually comes in the ability to manage a large workload. So that we charge a cost for the actual overtime and then we do the accelerated review on overtime, which means that during the day, a regular day of work, we can handle the regular workload. So it helps us be able to meet those standards of 15 days review for residential, 25 day review for commercial. And then for folks, just residents and developers that want an accelerated review, we can get that turnaround time within four days of that review for them because of the fee that they're willing to pay. So the 24 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. actual -- we recoup -- it's cost neutral. It's a benefit. It's actually an incentive to an employee because they have a salary increase.
And they work at home. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Some work at home, yes.
My final question on this is, this has not -- this price is not going to increase, and has this program been affected by the overtime cut? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No, because --
Has your department been affected with overtime restrictions? COMMISSIONER BURNS: We are looking at a reduction in overtime, but I think it's rightfully so. I think some of our overtime use has been extravagant possibly in the past and that there's some management around it that we need to 25 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. make. With the accelerated review overtime, that's not impacted, because we recoup our cost.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good afternoon.
You're proposing to increase the fees from 500 to 600 for an expedited -- 500 to 625 for an expedited hearing and raising the fee for regular hearings by $25. What is the current waiting time for a variance hearing before the ZBA and what is the waiting time for an expedited hearing before the ZBA? 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Currently we're four months to get a regular hearing and ten weeks for an accelerated hearing.
Four months for a regular hearing and ten weeks for an accelerated hearing. COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's correct.
And how many variances are you doing per meeting compared to, say, historical norms? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Right now the Board hears about 40 cases per session or, I should say, per day. There's actually two sessions. So 40 cases a day. That is a reduced number from historically, actually a year or two ago, where we were hearing closer to like 75. I think there is a sincere effort to allow citizens to voice their opinion at hearings and for all parties to be heard, and there is a conscious 27 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. effort by the Zoning Board to be very deliberate in the proceedings and in the decision, and I think that that's added some time to the process. We are currently working on a process to take cases away from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. That could fall into -- we're going to set up different criteria of cases and model it on our Malt and Brewed Beverage Board where we allow protests -- we ask for protests to come to L&I, and then we'll have a full hearing if there's a protest. But if there's not a protest and cases are of such a magnitude of criteria that we develop, what we're going to do is have City Planning Commission review and understand if there's any community opposition and then hopefully handle a certain -- a consent calendar, like other large cities do, to relieve the burden on the Zoning Board and the number of cases that are heard at a full hearing.
So right now 28 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. it's fair to say, though, that we're increasing fees for something that takes months longer than it took two years ago, and so the question is, are increasing the fees, are they really going to generate savings or can we move people through the ZBA and L&I quicker? And the reason I'm asking this is because I'm wondering if the Department has done an analysis of what the lost opportunity cost in uncollected wage taxes, BPT, et cetera, do to developers and citizens having to wait four months to do construction on a project, where we need those jobs in the City of Philadelphia as quickly as possible as long as a variance can be easily given. What is the impact on our local economy of a one- or two-month delay in not getting projects done and people working, and do we need to use the extra revenue to speed things up to put people to work? 29 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Sure. Actually, the regular hearing is a month's difference from where it was before. It used to be at three months to get a hearing and now it's running about four months for a regular. And for the expedited, it was about eight weeks and now it's running at about ten weeks. I haven't looked at the costs associated to that delay from the wage side. I do know we have heard -- and I mentioned that we work with the Building Industry Association. We are working with the Building Industry Association on identifying the cost of doing business in the City, and through that, we look to identify the cost of that with the Appeal Board. I do think we also very much recognize the problem right now with having the hearings, which is why we're looking for the alternative to -- what we're naming it -- and we're working internally, but a quick track process and 30 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. a consent calendar to really get at the issue.
Have you performed an analysis of how many people simply skirt the regulatory process because of the long waiting times and proceed without permits or permission? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Could you repeat that for me, please? I couldn't hear you.
Is there any analysis of how many people skirt the process or estimate of how many people skirt the process because of the long waiting times; in other words, don't pay fees that otherwise would if the Department operated efficiently? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Right. No, I don't have an estimate of it.
Okay. You proposed eliminating Weights and Measures Unit within L&I on the grounds that it's a State function. The Rebalancing Plan indicates that the City intends to 31 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. terminate the Memorandum of Understanding and transfer the function back to the State. How many employees work in the Weights and Measures Unit? COMMISSIONER BURNS: There are employees in that unit. 9
How much 10 money is the City saving by eliminating 11 the unit? 12 COMMISSIONER BURNS: This is off the top of my head. On an annual basis, it's close to $450,000.
Four hundred fifty thousand. Has the State been notified that Philadelphia plans to close this unit? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I know I spoke to the Secretary of Agriculture and let him know that this was a serious consideration and, yes, that we were looking to do this.
Is the State 32 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. prepared to assume these responsibilities? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't know yet.
You don't know? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No, I do not. I think it's something that's being considered, but I don't have information that it's a definite.
So you'd like us to pass this bill without knowing that the State will enforce the weights and measures laws? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Actually, I think that the safe assumption, when looking at it since we don't know, is to assume that this is a service reduction with the elimination of this unit.
Well, weights and measures is a consumer issue, and what you're saying is, the City of Philadelphia is prepared to have no one perform this function within its borders? 33 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, actually, when we look at our service reductions -- and, actually, this is through Licenses and Inspections -- what we did is, we looked at all of the functions that the Department handles.
I understand the big picture. I'm just asking about this particular cut. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yeah. I think when weighed against life safety and looking at the fiscal state that we're in right now, that I would say, yes, that it's -- there's a willing risk that as the consumer protection myth, this goes away. But we are working with the State still on this discussion.
Working with the State. We've had one conversation with the Agricultural Secretary; is that... COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yeah. On my own behalf, yes. I don't know that there aren't other conversations outside 34 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. of my own that are or aren't happening.
Could you please provide that information to the Chair to let us know if anybody else has talked to the State about this? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Absolutely.
Are you aware that the City has its own code, City Code, regarding weights and measures? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.
So we plan to leave the law on the books and not enforce it? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Actually, I have to take a look at it more closely to understand what type of -- if we do need to produce legislation to that effect or --
It's Chapter 23 9, Section 1400. I would think we'd take a close look at these things before we ask City Council to act on legislation. 35 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. How much revenue is generated by the Weights and Measures Unit per year? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, in the last few fiscal years, we haven't seen any revenue from the unit.
And that's because they are not finding mistakes or being able to find people? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't know.
You don't know why there's no revenue? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No. 16
Can you find out and report that, provide that information to the Chair? If the City collected money, which apparently it hasn't, does it keep it or revert it to the State? COMMISSIONER BURNS: It stays with the City.
It would keep it? 36 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. That's correct.
Okay. If the State enforces weights and measures, would that revenue then go to the State? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Most likely. I think the State, if that were to happen --
If you don't know, if you could just provide the information to the Chair. COMMISSIONER BURNS: That's fine. Right now there's no State authority to do that, so they would have to get the authority to actually get revenue, and there would have to be some type of mechanism for the City to get that to the State.
You're proposing reducing the Street Vendor Enforcement Unit by eight positions. What revenue did that unit generate last year? COMMISSIONER BURNS: 37 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Absolutely. Actually, there's been a change from the eight positions. It's only five right now. The revenue -- L&I hasn't tracked revenue to a direct unit in the Department. It's actually something going forward that I look to try and get that type of data. But a lot of our revenue comes from -- the majority of our revenue comes from building permits and licenses, and a lot of those licenses that people get from L&I are not a direct result of an inspection and being found to not have it. Going forward, we have some plans on how to educate the business community and then get out and inspect. So we might be able to make a stronger correlation going forward.
So the question was, how much revenue did the unit generate last year. COMMISSIONER BURNS: There's not an answer for that. 38 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
There's no 3 answer? COMMISSIONER BURNS: No, because my answer is that the inspectors right now -- it's very hard to correlate an inspection and say that as a result of an inspection, a license came in. It's not something that in terms of data has been tracked, but it is something that as we go forward --
So for the record, we don't know whether or not the elimination of positions will actually cost L&I money or make L&I money, if you can't tell me what the revenue was? Is that an unfair characterization? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, I think it's fair. I think it also needs to be put in the context of five inspectors and a safe presumption that a lot of the revenue from licenses comes in by -- through the door already, and that's a very high amount. So it's almost $8 million. 39 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
The materials provided by the Administration to City Council indicated that the General Fund full-time positions in L&I are being reduced from 374 to 323, a loss of 51 positions. Aside from Weights and Measures and the Street Vendor Enforcement Unit, what other positions are being eliminated from L&I? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Actually, since employees haven't been notified, I prefer not to say that publicly right now.
Okay. If you could provide that to the Chair. Let me just put it this way: Are any of these --
Excuse me, Councilman. There are a number of other Councilmembers that would like to be recognized. We'll have a second go-around.
I have one more question and I won't need to ask -- 40 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
If you'll make this your last question for the first go-around.
Are any of these positions revenue generating; i.e., positions that involve inspection and enforcement of L&I regulations? COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't expect -- well, there's the Weights and Measures Unit. There's the Business Compliance, five inspectors there. I don't anticipate -- actually, I don't believe that any of the others bring in revenue. There are three positions that I can't say publicly that may impact inspections.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 41 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Jones.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Good afternoon.
I have a couple of brief questions. On these rates for various licenses and permits, how do we compare to other counties, surrounding counties and comparable cities? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Actually, we're extremely comparable. The one area, the business privilege license, a lot of counties have a two- to three-year annual renewable license, where we have a one-time. So there's nuances like that where we're different. Some counties do their building permits based on the cost per square foot 42 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. rather than -- which is what we do, and others do it per the cost of construction or the value of construction. So there are differences, and sometimes when looking at it, it's very hard to compare one municipality to another. But we are, in terms of what we believe, we think we're extremely comparable.
I cite that for reasons that this Council in other fiscal times has always wanted to remain competitive with our competitors in other counties and I don't want to be way above where we should be by way of permit fees and licenses. Second thing is, under the category of Outdoor Advertisement Permits, does that include billboards? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes, it does.
And by way of that fee, how does that compare to, let's say, New York? 43 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: I don't know. I'll have to get back to you on that.
Has there ever been a study conducted on what the revenues from billboards and outdoor advertisement has been? COMMISSIONER BURNS: There has. I don't have it with me now, but I know that there's that type of study in the Department. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a point of order. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Along that line of questioning, when you supply the Chair with the comparables on licensing fees for billboards, would you also take into consideration using Manhattan, New York as an example what is permissible in terms of outdoor advertising versus what we would permit? Because I think if you 44 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. use a raw number, I can't imagine that's giving us a true indication, because New York obviously has much more liberal advertisement -- permission for outdoor advertisement. Thank you.
Great minds don't just meet at the library. They meet in Council, because that was on the order of my questioning. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Oh, I'm sorry.
That's okay. What I'd like to, along with my colleague, see is where -- I know there's a strong concern about how Philadelphia advertises. I'm aware, keenly aware, of the mission of SCRUB and others, but it seems to me that we would measure what we take in by way of revenue by way of outdoor advertisement as we are on the verge of changing possibly how our City deals with lighting, electronic billboards and others. So to see where 45 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. we're going, we need to see where we've been by way of outdoor advertising. It is my understanding that there has been a study done of these potential facilities, buildings, opportunities, and I understand that many people consider outdoor advertisement as a form of pollution. But in tough times, economically tough times, we might want to look at what the revenue potential is for that kind of consideration and in light of all that we are making tough decisions about. So I'm going to say something that I say in budget times and welcome to Council. If it ain't measured, it ain't managed. So I expect that we measure that and then we can manage it, that resource or asset, more efficiently. We are talking about on that fee alone just a $65 increase? COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes.
And this is a one-time fee? 46 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. That's correct.
It's my understanding that these billboards can generate as much as -- depending on location, it varies, but high amounts of money. There was one brought to mind downtown that was almost a $12,000 a month revenue. It's a little higher? It may be even higher. So I would ask if we are really at the point what the market could bear on that particular fee and for us to evaluate what revenue comes out of it and evaluate what the revenue potential for this municipality is. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. We'll do that. There's also, in addition, what you see here for the fees are only fees that we're proposing to increase. I need to get some more information around the signs and the billboards, but there is an annual 47 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. license fee in addition that brings in revenue that's not shown here because we're not suggesting an increase there. But I'll absolutely get you some information around this and the study and information that we have already done.
Okay. The final question I have, Madam President, is -- and we talked about this in our briefing, and I just want to get it on the record -- COMMISSIONER BURNS: I understand.
-- that you are going to take a hard look at what segments of enforcement actually put together enough revenue to warrant additional staff because it is a revenue generator, also compliant with the Philadelphia Code. Now, what I mean by that in the Reader's Digest version is, if inspectors can go into areas that have issues with 48 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. town and gown issues and write tickets and do those kinds of things that warrants in fact a new salary, we need to evaluate where those areas of potential are and, in doing so, maybe solve a major problem that is germane to some areas that you are very familiar with. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Okay. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the opportunity to work with the Commissioner. In fact, with both individuals who are here. They do a good job, and they've worked closely with me and my district. Having said that, we are really concerned about these additional fees. I 49 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. have four minority -- I'm sure it's for the first time in the history of the City, but I have four minority developers who are working on the north side of Market in the Mantua area, Mantua, Belmont, Mill Creek. I have four minority developers, first time in the history of the City, I'm sure. But when we come up with these fees, fees like this, fees that we heard about that will allow them to charge developers for striking streets, but all these additional fees, then it's going to take new people who have waited to take their part in the American dream, minority developers who save their dollars, waited all this time, they're not going to be able to participate, Madam President, because they just can't afford it. So after coming so far and especially now with the economy on the downturn, we have new houses that were finally built and new senior citizen units, and we don't know if they're even going to be able to 50 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. sell them. This economy has put so much on hold, and to exacerbate the situation by increasing fees really makes it impossible for the small person to get a break and especially minority developers. As I said, I have four for the first time in the history of the City in the general same area, who have worked hard to get here. I think it is difficult. I think it's unfair, and I myself will have a very difficult time supporting it, in spite of the fact that I enjoy our working relationship. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Commissioner, thank you very much. COMMISSIONER BURNS: Thank you. 51 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill Nos. 080854 and 080855. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 11 080854, an ordinance amending Section 12 19-2604 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to tax rates, credits, alternative tax computation for the business privilege tax, by raising certain tax rates, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 080855, an ordinance 19 amending Chapter 19-1500 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Wage and Net Profits Tax," by revising certain tax rates and making technical changes, all under certain terms and conditions. And our first witness is the Finance Director, Rob Dubow. 52 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. (Witness approached witness table.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. I'm Rob Dubow, the Finance Director. I am here to testify on Bill Nos. 080854 and 080855. 080854 is a proposal to pause reductions of the business privilege tax rate at the current 2008 level, and Bill 17 No. 080855, which would change the schedule of reductions for the wage and net profits tax starting July 1, 2009. As you know, Philadelphia, like many state and local governments around the nation, is facing extraordinary financial challenge because of the swiftly deteriorating economy. The recent disruptions in financial markets 53 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. and subsequent slowdown in economic activity has led to significant losses in our pension fund and dramatic declines in tax collections, particularly from the real estate transfer tax and the business privilege tax. Combined, these factors create an anticipated $108 million shortfall this fiscal year and a $1 billion gap over the life of the current Five-Year Plan. Despite the suddenness and severity of the fiscal crisis, the Administration has put together a strategy to maintain balance while minimizing the harm to Philadelphians today and in the future. To determine the course of action, the Administration focused on three guiding principles: Preserving core services, minimizing the impact on vulnerable populations, and being mindful of long-term financial and economic impacts. The Administration has identified savings through efficiencies, 54 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. revenue enhancements and one-time savings in order to minimize painful program and service reductions. As a part of the revenue enhancement strategy, which includes more aggressive collection efforts and expanded audit activity, we must propose freezing City-funded tax reductions until economic conditions improve, but no later than 2015. Bill No. 080854 pauses planned reductions in the gross receipts and net income portions of the business privilege tax, retaining the tax year 2008 rates until tax year 2014, which is Fiscal Year 2015. I also actually have a proposed amendment to this legislation. We had always intended to restart the reductions in Fiscal Year 2015. We didn't do that in the original legislation. We'd like to amend the legislation to include that restart. Bill No. 080855 changes the 55 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. schedule of rate reductions for the wage and net profits tax beginning on July 1, 2009. 5 percent. 5 percent of the wage tax that is used to secure PICA debt service. The next scheduled reduction under this bill would occur on July 1, 2009 and will be entirely funded by State gaming revenues. Rate cuts supported by State gaming revenues will occur each July 1st. City-funded reductions will resume in Fiscal Year 2015. Until 2015, the proposed wage rate schedule maintains reductions, but much shallower ones than originally envisioned, without sacrificing essential City services during this period of economic turmoil. 56 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. The bill would generate about $151 million over the life of the current Plan. Together, the two bills would increase revenue by about $230 million through Fiscal Year 2013, filling more than percent of the estimated $1 9 billion budget cap without increasing 10 taxes. 11 The Administration remains 12 committed to decreasing the tax burden on 13 Philadelphia residents, employees and 14 businesses in order to attract and retain 15 jobs. We plan to resume reductions as 16 soon as conditions improve, but no later 17 than 2015. 18 I urge your passage of these 19 two bills to ensure that we can meet the 20 needs of our residents, preserve financial stability and speed our recovery. I also request suspension of the rules so that these bills can be considered on the First Reading Calendar at the next session of City Council. 57 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Mr. Dubow, do any of the bills before us authorize any reductions to any City department?
No, they do not. The bills today are all revenue enhancement measures.
And I'd like this to be made eminently clear. Does City Council have to approve any of the reductions that the Administration has proposed?
No, City Council does not have to approve any of the expended reductions.
Thank you. Mr. Dubow, why has the 58 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Administration requested that these bills be passed before we break for the holiday season, and what are the consequences if we wait until January to consider them?
Well, for the fee increase bills, the longer we wait, the longer we go without getting the revenues and the harder it is to fill our budget gap.
Can you tell us if the Administration considered raising City taxes instead of freezing them, and, if so, what was your conclusion?
Our view is that our tax rates already make us uncompetitive, so that they're already higher than they should be, so we did not want to increase them any further.
What 59 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. do you think the message is that the Administration is sending to the business community by freezing the tax cuts through Fiscal 2014, and have you had any discussions whatsoever with the Chamber of Commerce and can you share with us what their reactions were?
Sure. We have had conversations with the Chamber of Commerce. Obviously they're not excited about the step we're taking, but they understand that we are facing a severe fiscal challenge that actions are necessary and that shared sacrifices are necessary, and they have expressed a reluctant willingness to share in that sacrifice, which we appreciate. We think that shows real leadership on their part.
All right. I do have other questions, but I'd like to give my colleagues all an opportunity to also ask questions. Therefore, I guess we're going to have to go on the timer. So each Councilmember 60 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. will be given four minutes. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Rather than reducing or freezing the wage tax cuts, do you believe that there are additional cuts that are possible, not in the first year of the Plan but in later years of the Plan, within the bureaucracy of City government that could make going out to 2015 unnecessary?
When we went through this process, one of the first things we did was look for every efficiency we could find, and if you saw how the budget reductions broke out, about the first 40 percent of what we did was through efficiencies and revenue enhancements. That said, I mean, there's always more you can look for and more we will look for and more that we'll try to 61 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. do. There is nothing else that we had that we thought we had good enough implementation plans or good enough ideas for that we could include in the Plan at this time.
But dollars are fungible within the Plan, so tax increases versus service cuts versus tax freezes, et cetera, are all relevant in terms of determining whether or not this tax decrease or freeze is necessary in the context of the entire Plan and this bill; is that correct?
I think so. If I understood your question, I think that's correct.
I'd just like to take a brief second. Madam President, why don't you move on to somebody else and I'll go on the next round. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 62 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Kelly.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Dubow, I just want to get back on to the -- I asked you about the Rebalancing Plan according to the Fire Department-related cuts. The Rebalancing Plan indicates that ten and a half million dollars is going to be the reduction in the Fire Department's budget. Do you know if this amount is for the year 9 or is it annualized savings?
If it is, how much do the proposed cuts save for the remainder of '09?
Half of the amount. Are you familiar with any of the response time that the Fire 63 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Protection Association has given for fire departments in municipalities?
I just want to know, a fire department determines whether it is responding to fire alarms --
Councilman Kelly, I don't mean to interrupt you, but actually I don't think the questions that you're asking are pertinent to the bills before us.
Now, if you have an explanation for it, we'd like to hear it.
Point of information. 64 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Mr. Dubow just testified that in order to determine whether or not these cuts or the freezing of the wage tax is necessary, you have to look at all dollars in the budget, and Mr. Kelly is -- Councilman Kelly is simply questioning one dollar versus another dollar. It certainly is relevant to whether or not we need to freeze wage taxes, which is the question before us in this bill.
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I have a point of order as well. And I understand what your concern was about the response time, and it might not be the appropriate time, but it is dollars and cents, because I think that's where a lot of -- obviously most of this is about today. I'm going to -- I had a conversation with Councilman Kenney 65 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. earlier today, and I'm going to be proposing something in writing, but I'll say it verbally right now. No one wants to see cuts. No 6 one wants to see fees raised. When it comes to the issue of the Fire Department, the biggest issue for us has always been, at least for me and I suspect for the rest of us, has always been the issue of public safety. I am going to propose that each and every member of City Council figures out how to reduce or somehow come up with $12,000 out of their individual budget, which will give us somewhere around $200,000 so that we would be able then to pay for an independent study within the Fire Department. Now, I've already given up almost $50,000 out of my budget between the five percent pay cut that I've taken and $40,000 in unspent dollars as it would have gone for staffing. If I have to find another ten, I'll look for it. I 66 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. don't know how I'll do it without asking my staff to take a further cut, but absent that, I think it's a very small amount for us as Councilpeople to contribute to an independent study. Let's put our money where our mouth is and let's do that independent study, and from those findings, maybe we will be able to have some ammunition, if you will, to go back to the Administration. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. I didn't hear a point of order in Councilman DiCicco's point of order. What I heard was a proposal and a speech. And the important point for people to recognize is, we're being asked today to consider and recommend a series of bills 67 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. that constitute the Administration's Rebalancing Plan. Accordingly, today is our one opportunity in a public hearing to ask questions, not just about those bills and all dollars involved, but also about the service cuts and the dollars involved in those included in the Plan, including the proposed closure of 10 neighborhood branches -- 11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order.
-- 68 pools, five engine companies, two ladder companies. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order.
Given this Administration's prior willingness to share data, it is surprising that Council is being asked --
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If it was taken as a speech, it certainly wasn't meant to be a speech. I think we're actually on the same page. I'm probably on the same page as Councilman Green. We have an opportunity to make comments, make recommendations, ask questions. I posed my question in the form of a challenge that City Council, each member of City Council, figures how to get $12,000 out of their individual budget to do an independent study, because this rearrangement or reconfiguration of the Fire Department won't take place until the middle of January and I think we'll have sufficient time to do that independent study. I'm only asking that we do something that may allow us to have a significant amount of documentation to counter what the Administration has been proposing in 69 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. terms of cuts within the Fire Department.
I agree we're on the same page, Councilman DiCicco. Point of information.
It is about data. Councilman DiCicco is exactly right. And given this Administration's prior willingness to share data, it is surprising that Council is being asked to endorse these bills without having been provided with crucial requested information related to the other side of the ledger, the underlying cuts. For instance, with respect to libraries, we have asked the information for underlying data about library usage, operating costs, specific data that the Library used for its criteria. It provided check marks, not turn-style counts. In response, we have received check marks. We have not received any of 70 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. the requested information, and this is our one opportunity to ask for this information from the Administration and have them provide it to the Chair prior to these bills becoming law in three Council sessions. The message seems to be that Council doesn't need or deserve access to this data. Rather than looking at the information ourselves and asking hard questions, we should simply trust that the Administration has reached the proper conclusions. This attitude not only evidences disrespect for a co-equal branch of government, it effectively undermines a key vehicle of citizen input into the budget process. Councilmembers, and especially District Councilmembers, hear daily from their constituents about the impact of City services on people's lives. Without access to the information the Administration relied upon in reaching its budget-cutting conclusions, we are 71 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. hard-pressed as Councilmembers to understand the proposed cuts, much less to defend them. I make two additional points. First, the question is not whether the City can afford to keep all our libraries. The question is whether we can afford to close them. Libraries, for each dollar we spend on them, return 5.5 times that amount. We are taking out of our economy $45 million with $8 million of cuts, according to a recent study by the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Second, the discussion about proposed budget cuts has been framed, in large part, by using comparisons to other cities. We're told, for instance, that while Philadelphia has 3.37 libraries per 10,000 citizens, the highest ratio of any of the ten largest cities in the U.S., Chicago has 2.89, et cetera. The conclusion we're supposed to draw from this, it appears, is that we 72 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. should engage in some kind of race to the bottom, reducing our number of libraries to fall in line with these other cities. I propose just the contrary, let's be proud of our nation-leading density. And in order to do apples to apples comparisons, we have to know how many school libraries in those cities, how many total librarians work for school districts and this city. These comparisons were not done, and that's the kind of information we deserve and have a right to. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Councilman Kelly, I think that was a long point of information, so I'll --
Yes. Madam President, let me go on the record as saying that I agree with much of what was said with Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Green, but I think this could 73 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. be maybe the only opportunity we have to get specific information regarding the cuts in the Fire Department. I think it's very, very important that we look at these cuts, because it may affect response time, it may affect, for instance, cutting down Engine 6. There's a new development going all around that area, such as I-95 and also the SugarHouse casino. Was there any input or any thought about closing those engines when all that new development is occurring? That's the reason why I wanted to get into response time and a lot of other things, because I think it is important. We're not talking about just some buildings being closed or some engines not being used. This could have a direct effect on the safety of a lot of people in those neighborhoods. Thank you, Madam President.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo. 74 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
Madam President, I think it's irresponsible of this Administration to suggest some of these closures of pools, libraries, eliminating engine and ladder companies. What is the problem? Can the Administration please address why there was an internal study done, but it won't be shared with us? Why would your Administration, this Administration, Mr. Dubow, have an internal study to make decisions and not share it with Council? Could you explain that?
We did share information. We had a four-hour briefing for Council on Monday.
The study. The briefing. Where is the document that led to the decisions to close or eliminate ladder and engine companies? I'd like to see the study.
Okay. There was a binder that we handed out at that meeting 75 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. that we can show you.
Yeah. That has -- that takes you engine by engine, ladder by ladder showing you --
Yeah. We can get the -- the detail was in there. We'll show it to you.
Well, I looked all through that binder and I didn't see the information that I needed.
Point of information. 76 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.
That is my point of information. There was not a study in that. That was the Administration's analysis boiled down for easy viewing. The numbers, the raw data behind what was presented, is what we're after, not the report. The data behind it. The bibliography. That's what we want to see in order to make our own determination. The same applies to libraries. I was on the phone with Councilman Greenlee on the 11th -- on 77 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. November 10th talking to Siobhan Reardon. Siobhan Reardon was reading to us from a spreadsheet that said, Turn-style count, circulation, number of students in the LEAP program, et cetera. I want that data from that spreadsheet, not check marks with criteria chosen by the Administration that if a library has under 5,000 kids in the LEAP program, 5,000 children in the LEAP program, then we're going to close it down. So it's 4,900 children who are in the LEAP program who can't walk two miles because they have to go through an unsafe neighborhood that are not going to have a place to go. That's the kind of analysis we need to do, and we want the underlying hard data. We deserve it. We have a right to it. We represent the people of the City of Philadelphia, too.
Thank you, 78 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. Madam Chair.
And what I suggest, I suggest that we hold these bills until we have that data. We had the L&I Commissioner tell us that there are certain things that she doesn't know, and I respect her for being straight with us, but if we don't know whether the State is going to assume certain responsibilities, then I think this all should be held, in my opinion. I plan to vote no for a lot of it, but I would rather see it held until we get the information that we need. Thank you, Madam President. (Councilman DiCicco talking without microphone.)
I can't hear you. (Councilman DiCicco talking without microphone.)
We did have a briefing on Monday. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We had an 79 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. opportunity then to ask the same questions.
This is the opportunity here. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But we had it at a briefing. We had two briefings.
You go do your study. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm asking you to put money up so we can do an independent study. I still haven't gotten an answer on that.
I want to see the -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Why don't you give up your car while you're at it.
I want to see the Administration's study first. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Why don't you give up your car, too, while you're at it.
Thank 80 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. you. Thank you, Madam President. I do want to support the request for the hard data as it relates to the numbers that were collected per library, because I agree that we should have had that so we could have a better and full understanding. We're the ones that's being asked to go out to these community meetings, even though I do know that the Mayor is going to have one, which is good.
If I could ask one question. When was that study taken?
It was done, I 81 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc. guess, over the last month.
It was an update of information that we had had from earlier years in the Department, and the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety went through that information and put it together as part of this process.
Thank you. And I'm not just talking about the data from the Fire Department, but the Rec, the pools and the Library. But anyway, Mr. Dubow, my question is regarding the tax collection. How much is the City owed in unpaid or debt that people just won't pay? And if we get aggressive collection, as you state here, how much do you anticipate raising in the tax collection, and who does the tax collection and in what specific area right now? 82 11/19/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080853, etc.