So we share frustration on that front. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: And also, to some extent, we're actually doing work -- we're only supposed to be auditing the Finance Department. But to some extent, we're actually substituting for very low staffing levels in Finance. So our guys are doing work, I guess, for free in the budget sense. We don't get 104 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET credit for it, but we have to get those statements in shape to be audited. So we've simply -- we have been good sports and have tried to participate in this idea of showing everybody that we're not going to ask for sacrifices that we're not going to make ourselves, but the nub of our work is to establish productivity and to provide audits to the federal government and to show that these streams of revenue are being adequately cared for. And, you know, one of the concerns with the stimulus package is that there's going to be this whole -- these all new channels of money that could get stolen or all of these problems. And what happens when you have a problem like that, when nobody's watching the henhouse, is that the black eye that the City gets is devastating. So we have to keep up with all of these new streams of spending.
And 105 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET specifically with respect to the stimulus money, I'm a bit confused about who has oversight there because I think we've made Mr. Agostini, the Budget Director, our ARRA like officer, and it's them and it is he and sort of the Inspector General or other people in charge of making sure that we're following the federal law, and they're actually filing the reports about how the money is spent, and they sort of took accountability for that themselves. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: But we have to audit what they do.
Okay. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: So, I mean, that's a whole new area of function for us.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes 106 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Good afternoon.
Let me start out by saying as much as I agree with Councilman Jones' analogy, I will add that I appreciate the work that you do, as painful as it might be for many of us. And in listening closely to your testimony upstairs, I especially appreciated your goal to always look at solutions to the irregularities that you find. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Right.
Let me start off by following up on Councilman Jones' questions around the School District. And state for me again what the Charter commands you to do as it relates 107 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET to the School District. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Well, first of all, the Charter requires us to follow City money wherever it goes. And as you know and, as Councilman Goode a few years ago accomplished, you've been very generous in supplying streams of City money that go to the School District. So, first of all, we've got to make sure that that money is appropriately spent. Secondly, we have post-audit responsibility with regard to the financial statements of the School District.
Okay. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: And it's principally -- and if you're referring to the charter school review --
Yes. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: -- it's principally under that first mandate that you're sending City money to the School 108 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET District to make sure the School District does their job right.
And what is your office, or your agency's, standard operating procedure when you discover irregularities in terms of -- you produce a report and then what? CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: If there are indications of fraud or improper behavior, then we send it to the appropriate agencies that have authority for that to review. Now, in this case, it was a little different than that in that we knew, even at the outset, that there was a federal investigation in charter schools. So it wasn't a question of us generating that; it was a question of making sure that nothing that we did would interfere with anything that they were doing.
Okay. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: So for purposes of making sure -- so, for 109 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET example, there were certain schools that it was obvious that they were in; and as a result, we did not go into those schools.
Okay. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: And there were several schools where they looked at the report and said that whatever they were doing would be some output in jeopardy by us issuing a public report with respect to those schools, so that reports as to those schools were eliminated from the report.
Mm-hmm. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: If -- again, I mean, we will routinely make referrals to the District Attorney, to the U.S. Attorney. We don't make a habit of announcing those things generally.
Sure. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: I mean, it really depends on the...
The findings. 110 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: It depends on the nature of the findings.
Okay. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: It depends on whether there's a feeling that the facts could add up to criminality.
Okay. Where I'm headed with this question is, many, many years ago, when I worked for City government in the Evaluation Unit for program service delivery, after our findings and our recommendations, we had the practice of going to sit down with that agency and help them or show them where there was non-alignment of what they said they were doing and what they were doing and what the findings were. So in the case of the School District, is that a practice to go sit with the financial wizards over there -- in this case, Mike Masch and/or his designees -- to discuss how what they do should be more in alignment with whatever your controls are. 111 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Well, actually, we got the response from Superintendent Ackerman, actually. This must be in her half of her jurisdiction, and indicated that she wanted to adopt what our ideas were.
Okay. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: And we've been very careful. We've been very specific about not pillorying her on any of this, 'cause I don't think it really is her omission. But that we felt that the charter school office just really didn't have anything in place to do what's mandated.
Okay. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Now, I mean, there's a variety of things you could say about it. First of all, it may be that there was responsibilities imposed on them for which they didn't get enough resources to do it.
That was a 112 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET follow-up question. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: It may be that there should be other agencies such as the Auditor General or people in Harrisburg that should be taking on more of this task.
Mm-hmm. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: It may be that there's some confusion about what the -- that the Charter School Office has kind of undertaken too many different responsibilities which don't rise to the level of importance as the enforcement of these compliance issues.
Okay. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: I think that the Charter School Office said that they only have seven employees working in this area. Um... I don't know. But the signals, the signs, the sounds that have come from the School District have been very supportive about trying to adopt --
The 113 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET recommendations. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: -- these procedures. I think the Superintendent has been very specific also in saying that she doesn't want this to interfere with the idea of granting charters.
Okay. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: That she still believes in charters.
Okay. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: But she believes they need to be accountable.
Very well. That's helpful. Has a similar look-see happened with the Prisons in recent years? CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: I mean, right now, we're in the middle of a review of the food service in the Prisons.
Okay, all right. Okay then. Well, I'll wait because we hear that -- CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: But 114 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET certainly, if you have ideas, or other members of Council -- I mean, often, we are stimulated based on information that we receive. If people have probable cause or have some reason to believe, then we will put it through a process and determine whether we're going to put it on the wheel and invest resources in it.
Okay, then. All right. That's helpful. So I'll have a similar follow-up sidebar. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Okay.
There's no 16 discussion in your testimony regarding MBE/WBE/DBE participation. Does your office have contract opportunities for potential vendors? CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Yeah, very -- I think we're doing --
Unless I missed it. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Yeah, 35 percent of our contracts have been 115 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET awarded to minorities in Fiscal Year 2010.
Okay. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Of which 33 percent is African-American, 2 percent is women. And that is generally in an upward slope. I mean, when we came in, in 2006, that figure was 7 percent. So --
Well, thank you for the improvement. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Right.
Thank you very much. Now let's go to the savings and accountability to evaluate efficiencies. Just speak a bit more about that. What was the trigger for that, and what is the -- your plan of action for going forward? CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Well, the trigger for it was watching the Councilmatic budget hearings and seeing 116 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET that there was an omission in thinking along those lines on the part of the departments. They're always playing catch-up. They're dealing with whatever the budget allocation is going to be. And many times, they're trying to catch -- they've been cut so many times, they're having a hard time accomplishing their core mission. But it looks like there's going to be a long-term need to accomplish things with savings in the City, that this is not just a one- or two-year problem. And I think that point has been hit home by members of Council who are demanding on the part of their constituents that we get things done for less, overall. So the idea is that -- is to ask the departments to have a plan on how they can accomplish what they're currently accomplishing with savings, and then to judge them at the end -- is to 117 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET look back at their plan and how will they're complying with their plan. So at least they start having a thought process.
This will not be optional for department heads, this process here. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: No, but we're kind of doing it on a pilot-program basis with four departments --
Okay. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: -- to make sure that our theories actually work in practice.
Okay. And those four departments are...? CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Well, it's the Fire Department, the Water Department, Department of Records, Licenses and Inspections, and Recreation.
Okay. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: We wanted to do service-oriented departments. 118 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET
Service- oriented, okay. On of your testimony, you state that you monitor the Cultural/ Commercial Corridors Grant briefly discuss that, if you would, where you are in that, I guess... CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: I will have Deputy Controller Thomas address that.
Okay. DEP. CONTROLLER THOMAS: Good afternoon, Councilwoman. My name is John Thomas, Deputy City Controller. What we do is, we're in the payment process. So although the Cultural Corridor Fund is administered by PIDC, all of the payments have to come to the Controller's Office for review to make sure that they're in compliance with the bond documents as well as the contracts. So we do a preaudit review process before the payments are actually 119 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET approved by PIDC and the trustee.
Well, I don't remember how many grants there were. So of the total number, how far down the road are you with that -- with review? How many grants was it, total? That was 36 months ago. DEP. CONTROLLER THOMAS: What we're doing is, we're reviewing the payments. The grants were actually approved -- most of the -- a lot of the approved most a lot of the grants were approved in the Street Administration.
That's right. DEP. CONTROLLER THOMAS: But now, it's a -- there were grants, and the vendors are reimbursed. So most of them are reimbursement type of grants. So some of the subcontractors, the grantees have spent the money.
Okay. DEP. CONTROLLER THOMAS: Now 120 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET they're coming back to get reimbursed for those dollars, and we're making sure that the expenditures that they're trying to get reimbursed for are proper expenditures.
Got it. DEP. CONTROLLER THOMAS: And making sure that they comply with the terms and the conditions of the grants.
Okay. On of your testimony -- and I may have missed this, coming from my office down here -- you state that there are 341 tax holds on vendors stopping $9-plus million in payments. Provide detail of those vendors if, you would, additional dollars owed to the City. DEP. CONTROLLER THOMAS: You said to provide --
On of your testimony, you talk about this $5 million you've been able to stop as a result of 341 tax holds on vendors. Talk 121 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET about what that means. DEP. CONTROLLER THOMAS: Well, it means that, typically, if a vendor owes the City business-privilege tax or real-estate tax or any type of tax and they have a contract, and the department will verify that they haven't paid their City taxes, we'll hold their actual vendor payments until they comply with paying their taxes. Either they pay their taxes or they enter into an agreement --
An agreement. DEP. CONTROLLER THOMAS: -- to pay the taxes.
Is that a new function of the office, or is that a ongoing staff function? DEP. CONTROLLER THOMAS: It's an ongoing staff function. It's something that we are aggressively pursuing in this administration.
Okay. 122 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET That takes care of my questioning. Thank you for your testimony and for your good work. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Thank you.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, thank you very much. CONTROLLER BUTKOVITZ: Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: Our next department is the Board of Revision of Taxes. (Witnesses come forward.)
123 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET Please identify yourself for the record for the record and, if you will, proceed with your testimony.
Thanks for allowing me a moment to get settled. My name is Charlesretta Meade; I'm Chairman of the Board of Revision of Taxes. With me today is our Vice Chairman, Harvey Levin, and members of our senior management team. They are: Kevin Keene, who's the Real Property Assistant Administrator; Michael Piper, who's the Acting Real Property Assistant Administrator; Veronica Daniel, our Administrative Services Director; and Barbara Krauss, our Senior Programmer Analyst. We've submitted our budget today and --
Oh, also, I'm sorry, Board Member, Attorney Howard Goldsmith is also here with us today. 124 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET May I also say that there may be some board members coming in late. We have an alternate Board of View Panel sitting, and some of those members had to sit at the same time as this, and that was prescheduled. We submitted our testimony, and I apologize for it being late; thank you for accepting it. And we'd like to offer that written testimony into the record. And then we're prepared to take any questions that you may have.
Thank you. Is there something that you would like to add to your statement?
No. Basically just to offer the testimony and request that it be admitted to the record as our official testimony for today, the written testimony.
Very well. The stenographer does have a copy? THE STENOGRAPHER: (Nods head.) 125 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET
I note that your testimony -- good afternoon. I note that your testimony mentions the legislative mandate of the BRT, and the first two are to uniformly value all real property at actual value, and then to hear an appeal -- to hear on appeal the petition of property owners and taxpayers. Could you describe what it is that you and your team are doing to fulfill these mandates today?
Okay. On the issue of the valuation of the property, may we have Kevin Keene come forward? (Witness comes forward.)
Mr. Keene, before you get to what you're going to do in the future, if you could describe the activity that's being done today to 126 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET assess real property.
Well, today, we're in the process of going -- of writing standards and creating building models that will allow us to apply uniform values throughout the City for all types of property.
Excuse me. Do you mind pulling the microphone closer to you and speak into the microphone; we can't hear you.
We're in the process of building models that will allow us to accurately value properties uniformly in all areas of the City. We had a run of actual value last year, and we're now just working to improve on the performance of those models.
Are there properties in the City of Philadelphia that are on the rolls too high or too low compared to their actual value?
Well, there's 127 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET always exceptional -- properties that are exceptional in some way; some of them are going to be high, some of them are going to be low.
There are some undervalued and overvalued properties --
What are you doing, before you roll out AVI to correct that problem with the assessors on your staff?
Well, in the course of the next year, the next year to 18 months, we're going to be conducting visual inspections of all properties in the City to make sure that the data that we have on them is correct. 128 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET
What about when you do the visual inspection on a property, are you determining using --
-- using methods that have existed for, you know, 80 years and that are methods that people who don't have CAMA systems, you know, use all the time to value property? Are you going to be valuing or assessing any property and sending out notices to homeowners of a higher or lower value on their property based on the work that is being done in the next months? 17
Well, the first 18 thing is to make sure that all of the data is correct before we get the values done.
Well, I'm not talking about computer-automated, mass appraisals; I'm talking about, you know, good, old-fashioned, the way we've done it for many years, appraisal of 129 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET priorities.
So it's your testimony that for months, basically 7 nobody's property will be assessed or 8 changed so that every person whose 9 property is currently overassessed will 10 continue to pay a higher burden than the 11 law should require them to pay. 12
Well, anyone who is 13 overassessed is open to file an appeal 14 and have that case heard. Or they can 15 just -- they can file an inquiry with the 16 Citizens Service Unit, and we'll take a 17 look at those properties. 18 We have been looking at a number of them. Even since December, we've been looking at a number of them that are teardowns. There have been a number of reductions that have been put through on properties that appear to be overvalued.
So it's your 130 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET testimony that it's up to the public to be proactive and that the BRT, for the next months, with respect to real 5 property values for homeowners in the 6 City, will be only reactive and will only 7 address an overvalued situation when the 8 homeowner comes in and makes an appeal 9 themselves. 10
No, that's not 11 exactly accurate. 12 We're finding, through 13 inspections and through permit work, that 14 there are reductions that are warranted, 15 and we're going ahead and making those 16 reductions on a routine base. 17
And what 18 about, when you're finding through permit work or new-building permits or your visual inspections, that properties are undervalued?
We're not revaluing -- doing routine revaluations at this time; we're working under a moratorium on routine reassessment. 131 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET
But you're no longer working with the Mayor; isn't that correct?
Well, our feeling was that as long as the data is not correct and that we cannot guarantee that the reassessment's going to be uniform and going to be accurate, that we're essentially --
Well, with respect to any particular property that's undervalued or overvalued, by changing the value to its proper value based on the methods that have been used for a hundred years, aren't you making the system then more uniform even though we haven't achieved the goal of every 132 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET property being exactly uniform, which, of course, is not going to be achievable in the first instance.
Well, our -- we've done analysis on looking at small types of projects where we try to address specific properties. And in terms of the industry-standard measurements, they don't really improve uniformity. In other words, we're not --
So you're going to continue the self-imposed moratorium and continue in place, with making no progress for months, the 16 nonuniform and illegal nature of our 17 property-assessment system; that's your 18 testimony?
I think it's important to understand that the -- up until April 5th of 2010, the board was operating under a memorandum of 133 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET understanding. And in the -- with that, a Mr. Richard Negrin was in charge, as Executive Director, of the Assessment Unit the moratorium. The moratorium, it is my understanding, was a moratorium that was placed by the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia. At this time, the board has been, for the past two weeks, trying to negotiate with the Mayor to see if Mr. Negrin would return to his position as Acting Executive Director. The board -- it appears that in the absence of the memorandum of understanding, that's not going to happen. And at this time, the board has not taken any action in terms of what will occur with the assessment functioning. But ideally and specifically, we would be in charge of that function, and we will be doing that over the next few weeks in terms of making a determination as to how we will go forward at this time. 134 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET I understand your concern because there is the concern that we cannot continue to perpetuate and do no 5 activity in the face of nonuniformity. We're convinced still that the appropriate way to handle the issue of uniformity, fairness, and equity is to go forward with actual value. But absent being able to go forward immediately with actual value, then we do need to review what should be done and what must be done so that the system doesn't stay as unequal as it is. And we haven't evaluated that at this time, over the past couple of weeks.
Well, I appreciate that. With respect to, you know, the process, the way the appraisal process works, a value is generated, it's sent to a homeowner, there's an opportunity for appeal. The data that I've come through basically has -- and you know, based on 135 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET Inquirer reports and other things, basically is fairly accurate. There are some anomalies, there are situations where you have homes listed with no 6 bathrooms that obviously have bathrooms. But the value that the CAMA system put on them with the data that even existed is fairly -- fairly close to accurate, even without all of the data points.
And so, my question is: Why wouldn't we roll out the system and allow an appeals process, even an extended appeals process, give people two years' notice as to what their value is going to be, send people -- so that you could start gathering information through -- you know, through the responses of people. Here's the data on your property that we have, here's a direct mailing. Based on this, we think your value is X. Please, you know, if you 136 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET disagree with this valuation, you know, check these boxes off for us, which is data you don't have, and then get that data back. I mean, there's so many things you can do rather than waiting for someone -- you know, rather than waiting for the big bang of, you know, computer- assisted, mass appraisal with every single necessary data point, which is an unachievable goal; we're not going to have any data point. I mean, I just feel like you have to make progress.
And, Councilman Green, as I said, the board has not officially over the past weeks, now that's taken the reins again, taken any action on that. But speaking for myself, as Chairman, and what I've seen and the information that also was shared at meetings that we had with Council with the preliminary numbers, it appears that 137 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET there is a satisfactory level of accuracy in the numbers. They're not perfect. But, as you said, there will never be a perfect system. That's why the International Association of Assessors has standards that are utilized and coefficients of dispersions and other standards that express that if you're within those standards citywide, then it is acceptable to utilize those numbers. There was some concern about commercial numbers, which our people were working on and are working on. The residential numbers, there was a high level of comfort with those, they were within the coefficient of dispersion. And all I can say right now is, I have a belief, a strong belief, that we can take action sooner as opposed to later. And, as I said, the board has to take it up; I can't speak for the 138 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET board on this issue, but I can tell you the board's intent over the next few weeks is to review this issue and to take some action.
Okay. So just so I'm clear, it's your testimony that you are within the statistical boundaries that would say that even the CAMA valuations, the mass-appraisal valuations, generated are accurate enough to go live.
Right. And understand, I'm basing this upon the statistical information that's provided to me by staff and by the consultants that we hired. Where I saw a problem based upon their data was in the commercial areas. And we're working on those commercial areas, and the staff is working on those commercial areas now. Mr. Robert Zambrano, who's in charge of that, is out today, so he can't speak on how far along they've come. 139 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET But as I said, as soon as that information is available, then we can review and make a determination of how to proceed at that point.
Okay. So just to sum up the questioning and the testimony, you're -- you agree that the system is currently nonuniform. You are planning currently, until the board meets, to wait months 12 to really do anything about that. 13 And the data which is currently 14 available to the BRT, which could be sent 15 out to property owners for residential, 16 is within the statistical variance -- 17
-- such that it would meet the international appraisal standards.
Mr. Levin wants to speak, but before he does, may I clarify that point, that on the issue, the second issue, I believe it was, and that was the waiting of 18 months, that was not my 140 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET testimony to wait 18 months.
My testimony was that the board has not reviewed as a matter of policy that issue, and we would be reviewing that issue now that we're back at the helm.
Would you please provide the Chair what the resolution to those issues are going to be?
Oh, you're fine? Oh, okay. 141 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET
Mr. Levin, did you want to add to the testimony that's been given? Do you want to be recognized?
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Madam President. Miss Meade, Mr. Levin, I guess Bill did a really -- well, Councilman Green did a really good job of trying to get to the question of valuation and what its impacts were. I'm going to go to a more human concern. Since this last fiscal year and the requirement for the staff to make their shifts and also take civil service tests, what has been the net impact on your workforce? What percentage of staff have actually passed that test? 142 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET
Again, I can't speak to that issue because that's -- that issue was handled specifically by the City Administration through Mr. Negrin, the Mayor, the Finance Department, and the School District. Basically, the information I have is one of rumor. The one thing that I can say about the entire transition is that -- and, again, in my opinion, speaking just for myself -- the staff is very upset, they don't seem to have a clear understanding of what's going to happen to them. And since we're on this subject, I'm not speaking to the issue of whether or not it should occur; that's something that I think it's appropriate for City Council, the City Administration, and the School District to determine how that money is utilized. However, I do want to say that we have people who work for the School 143 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET District, are School District employees, who are very valued employees. And I hate seeing them go through this difficulty, because they've worked hard over the years. They've been slandered because they are committee people; some of them are committee people or ward leaders and active in politics actually. So they're actually slandered almost to the point of being abused by the media and by others because they care to participate in the democratic process and because they care about their city and because they volunteer and work hard to do things that they want to do. There's the image that, as employees that have that kind of relationship, that they are people who don't do a good job. And to the contrary; those are some of the people who have the most interest in the person who walks through our door and who needs assistance. 144 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET And those are also the people who importantly will get the information out about the Board of Revision of Taxes, how to file an appeal, any revenue programs, and anything else by virtue of what they do. So I can't answer that question; I have to refer you to the City Administration, I have to refer you to the School District. I just want to state for the record that we have should very valued people who work there, and I hope it works out for each and every them.
And I've said this about different departments in the name of reform, which we all, all of us, are for.
There's sometimes unintended consequences, whether we talk about the private sector and Enron, whether we talk about the public sector here, the people who wind 145 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET up paying the heaviest toll are the people who have the least ability to impact public policy. And I'm going to save those questions, in fact, for the Administration and the School Board. But you haven't noticed any -- you haven't heard of any change in requirements, early requirements? These are things that I am hearing.
Yes, we have had several people who have spoken about retiring, a few who have chosen to retire. I can have our Administrative Services director speak on that as well. What I've heard from School Board employees, some of them share with me, is that many of them don't want to give up the right to be active in the political spectrum on the level in which they participate, and that concerns them. And I would only want to point out, in the spirit of reform, whether or not you participate in politics, it doesn't dictate whether or not you do a 146 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET good job. And I think -- I believe that our own -- the City's own Ethics Commission has suggested that it would be appropriate even for civil service employees, in their opinion, to be active. So that's the problem. They signed on for a job where they had that -- with the School District, that ability. And now, some of them being faced with not having that, have chosen to take another course. But if you want specifics on numbers, then Miss Daniel -- this is Miss Veronica Daniel, who is our Administrative Services Director.
My name is Veronica Daniel. I'm the Administrative 147 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET Services Director for the Board of Revision of Taxes.
Did you hear my question? I wanted to get a sense of what the reform movement's impacts were on the workforce, so you can start by telling me the exact number you have onboard now.
We have 70. We started off the beginning of the year with 80 employees; and right now, we have 70.
Is that above or below the normal attrition rate for that department?
It's probably above. We've had some employees who left 148 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET specifically because they knew about the process of becoming City employees, so some employees have taken on other positions.
And did you do an analysis to see what the skill levels were? Are these -- vital are these upper-end professionals, are these clerks? Are these -- did you look at what the actual job descriptions were that were impacted by that?
We didn't, but they all are clerks. All of the titles -- well, we have a couple of different functions for the School District staff. But for the most part, the titles are all Real Property Assistants. Some of them might serve as court officers, and we have a couple who do personnel work. But they're all clerks.
And are you aware of any statistics of the number of people that have actually taken the test?
Out of the -- 149 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET well, the current 70 employees, there are 44 total employees who are on the City list. There's two existing lists, and the total for both lists are 44.
So do they have their scores? Did they pass, all of them pass?
All right. And are the remaining balance scheduled to take a test?
The test was given once. There were, I believe, 50-something applicants. And out of the 50-something applicants, there were 44 who passed the exam. Not all of the employees chose to take the exam, so they didn't all apply.
So when you say did not apply, is that in addition to the ten people that have opted to retire? This is another number, or is that a 150 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET combined number?
It's a combined number; it's including. So we began the year with the 80. And out of the 80, a total of 7 have left. But during that whole 8 process, 50-something of them applied for 9 the civil service position, and then 44 10 passed.
I mean, we -- there has been some discussion about what the process would be. And the only thing that I have been told is that there would be a definite end and a definite beginning to civil -- there would be a definite end to School District employment and a beginning to civil service.
Okay. So we can assume that on top of the ten, there 151 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET will be another group that joins the ten?
Well, out of the 70 that's left, it's 70 minus 44, so we have 44 eligibles out of 70.
The test can be re-given. I mean, as a personnel manager, I would anticipate that we would need to, because I can't anticipate that we would be able to continue what we do now, going from a staff of 80 to a staff of 44. So my anticipation is that we would definitely need to retest. And those who have not passed the first go-around would get an opportunity to 152 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET retest.
I can't personally can't tell because, for the most part, my work is in personnel, so I basically am dealing with, you know, those functions. So in terms of how it has affected the Real Property section of the department, I don't know.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, Miss Meade. I believe it was about last year when you testified at budget 153 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET hearings that you release data from the Actual Value Initiative?
That you released data from the Actual Value Initiative.
You released data from the Actual Value Initiative last year at the budget time.
Yes. That was around budget time? Yes, that was -- I've lost track of time. I'm sorry. Yes, that was around the budget time.
And at that point, how accurate did you believe that data was a year ago?
We -- the -- we made a presentation to Councilmember on that data. I did not -- did anyone bring that information? 154 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET Yeah, I did not bring that information. But within that information -- and we'll get it for you -- it expresses how close to what are called the coefficient of dispersion, which basically is how accurate the data is. And that basically -- it shows -- the number that is coefficient of dispersion is by, IAAO standards, 11 percent is acceptable. 12 Because this is an urban area, 13 it's 20 percent acceptability, yeah. And 14 that means that there are 15 to 20 15 percent that may need to be looked at, and there are 80 percent that were right on point. And the staff was looking at that percent -- that percentage that 20 was not within the acceptable range to try to refine those points.
So you believed 80 percent of the data to be accurate last year?
For the most part, 155 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET in the residential area. As I testified, what we saw was, there were some concerns with the commercial area. And what had happened was that the commercial numbers had not been done by computer; they had been done individually by staff. And that's the area that needed the most concentration. And so, the thinking was, while staff reviewed and refined the commercial data to try to get those -- the commercial data within the acceptable range, that a refinement would be done to bring those areas of the residential that were outside in to even make the numbers better.
So with regard to the residential data that was considered to be 80 percent accurate, how does that compare to the assessment process previous to the Actual Value Initiative?
Previous to? It was impressive. And... 156 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET
Let's start with saying, was the work done that was released last year the most accurate assessment that has been done during your tenure?
During my tenure, yes. And even our consultant, I think, Kevin Gillen, was one who was impressed with that, and he has done quite a bit of this work that clearly it was so much better than had been done before. And he acted as consultant for us in doing that. But previous to that, one of the reasons we chose him, he was also one of the critics, when articles were done by Tony Wood and other people in the paper in terms of looking at the crisis of uniformity within the City.
Is there anything that has been revealed last year with regard to that data from the Actual Value Initiative as it relates to the residential properties that would suggest that it's not 80 percent accurate? 157 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET
Councilman -- partially in response to your question, also, Councilman Green, we have been advised by our experts --
I'm sorry. Would you identify yourself for the record, please.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Harvey Levin, Vice Chairman of the Board of Revision of Taxes. We have been advised by our experts -- and that's the same folks that were used by the Tax Reform Commission -- that about 385,000 single-family row dwellings and semidetached row dwellings, one- to four-family units, were, in fact, good to go; meaning that those actual value numbers would fall within the 15 percent standard deviation that is 158 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET acceptable by IAOO.
So to you, nothing has been proven since last year that the residential data from the Actual Value Initiative is not at least 80 percent accurate.
Well, the numbers that I just gave you are the ones that we were fully confident of. And these numbers, by the way, so we're clear, were given to us about eight or nine months ago, so there's been more data input. I doubt if there's been any measurable change in the market that would take them outside of that acceptable means of standard deviation.
So the game plan was to redo the commercial property assessments and to update and sort of perfect the residential assessments. I guess my question is, at some point, we've moved into a memorandum of understanding with the City and the BRT. Under that memorandum of understanding, 159 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET who actually has the authority to impose a moratorium on assessments?
Well, if I could finish answering your questions, other than the 380 or 385,000 single-family dwellings, specifically the commercial properties, industrial properties, special-purpose properties, multifamily over four units, they were not ready to go; we were not confident that the actual values were ready to go. And that's what our staff is focusing on, getting those (indiscernible). So I just want to be clear on that, where we are on actual value.
Okay. Under the memorandum of understanding, who has, or had, the authority to impose a moratorium on assessments?
And with all due respect to everybody in the City, the Mayor believes that he and the Administration had the authority to 160 4.20.10 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 2011 BUDGET impose the moratorium. We weren't consulted about the moratorium, so he believes he has that authority. And I only say that because he --
The memorandum of understanding was between two parties.