So we should see a spike in costs and then a gradual decrease in costs based on initial investment. COMMISSIONER GIORLA: I think what you're seeing now is an initial decrease in costs. You're starting to see the tide turn, probably for the first time in ten years. There is a -- The Pew Research Initiative is conducting a study which we expect to be released later this 136 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 year on prison costs over the last ten years, and they found some of the primary drivers are length of stay. And they haven't yet looked at our services and our service costs, but we're going to use that as part of our planning to address medical costs, housing costs and any other services we have to provide in the Prisons.
I'm happy. I don't want to give the indication that we aren't moving in the right direction, but accurate projections and accounting are an important part of what we need to do by way of figuring this budget out. So to the degree that we're optimistic when we want to be, pessimistic when we shouldn't be, we're going to look at that as well. If we can get a savings, we want it.
We want to accurately record it. 137 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 Thank you, Madam President.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a point of information.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just while you're there, Commissioner, there are many initiatives, including community courts, as Councilman Jones has mentioned, and other things that are going on in the criminal justice system. As you know, I sit on the Criminal Justice Advisory Board with you. At that Board, the DA has made clear and also made clear in the public that he intends to totally redo the way people are brought to trial, trying to bring many fewer people to trial if he thinks the case is weaker, et cetera, which would mean they wouldn't be pretrial detainees while they're waiting for trial, et cetera. Has the change in the policy, which is going to last at least four 138 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 years in the District Attorney's Office, informed these projections? COMMISSIONER GIORLA: Those reforms were announced following our budget development, so --
It's okay to say no. 9 COMMISSIONER GIORLA: We haven't seen any marked decrease in prison admissions as a result of any changes as yet. We don't know the eventual impact of that. Based on our history, which has only shown marked decrease over the last -- a portion of the last year, not the entire last year, we believe it's trending down, but we don't know whether the changes in the preliminary hearing process or other initiatives early on in an offender's entry into the criminal justice system will have any impact.
Well, if you look at last year's Five Year Plan and this year's Five Year Plan and the rate 139 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 of growth of the budget of the Prison System, you basically get roughly the same rate of growth in both sets of Five Year Plans, which at least suggests that the progress that we've made this year with respect to being way below what was budgeted for the Prisons and the anticipated progress we expect to make through new policies at the DA's Office and on CJAB and the exciting work that's happening there, et cetera, are not reflected in the Five Year Plan. And so what I'd like to ask you to do before you come back for your departmental hearings is to take another look and reconsider these projections in light of the policies that are now being put in place by CJAB, by the new District Attorney, et cetera, because I basically would have it trend down, not up based on everything I know that's going on in the criminal justice system. I know we can't control the crime rate. We also shouldn't be taking 140 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 credit for the lower crime rate. A lot of -- in terms of -- you know what I mean. It's just whatever the crime rate is. So I don't really need you to respond right now, unless you want to. When you come back for departmental hearings, I will be asking very specific questions about that, like we did last year. COMMISSIONER GIORLA: I'll be glad to have that information, Councilman.
Most of my questions are actually for the department, for the hearings when the departments come, but I would like to 141 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 know with the $25 million budgeted for IT, what is that going to do and when will we see a difference and how much of a difference, dollar amount, will we see?
I'll have our Chief Technology Officer, Allan Frank, answer that question. (Witness approached witness table.)
I'm Allan Frank, the Chief Technology Officer. And in reference to the question from the Councilwoman on the use of the million 15 in 2011, roughly we're breaking out 16 spending in three categories, first of 17 all. Of the 25 million, again, roughly 18 about nine million is associated with 19 what we call our infrastructure, 20 replacing outdated hardware, things that 21 are breaking. We all know the issues 22 we've had with reliability and speed of 23 our network and replacing the equipment 24 around that to ensure that we have a 25 stable operating environment. So in many 142 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 cases, we're kind of fixing the potholes, if you will, on the highway. And, again, this is part of obviously a multi-year program, so this is year one. Roughly million of the is 7 focused on what we're calling citywide 8 applications. So that would be replacing 9 some of the core Legacy systems that are 10 driving, frankly, a lot of our 11 administrative activities, and given the 12 strong desire to increase efficiency, it 13 really lays the groundwork for us to be 14 able to not only eliminate paper, but to 15 significantly drive the speed and 16 efficiency with what we're doing. And in 17 those areas, what we're really talking 18 about is over a period of time -- so this 19 is kind of the first down payment -- and 20 replacing everything from our time 21 capture systems, which are right now 22 paper based, so that everything from time 23 capture, human resources and employee 24 self-service, our pension system, which 25 is outdated and no longer supportable, 143 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 and also our payroll system. So collectively that's one big chunk, and, again, there's a tremendous number of activities across the government focused on there. So this is really laying the groundwork then to be able to make process change and efficiencies across the City. The other areas in this year, we're spending what we're calling departmental applications, and, again, a lot of our initial spending is in fixing the highways, if you will, in this first year. So we're also chipping away in 2011 at some of what I would call the remedial technology needs of just the departments. And in particular, for instance, everybody knows how important it is for us to continue to increase the efficiency of, let's just say, Licenses and Inspections and how painful it is just to go to the basement of Municipal Services Building to do your business. Again, putting in place the foundation 144 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 for more -- the ability for our citizens to actually do their business with the City electronically. So a lot of this is really in the first year, we're laying that foundation, first around all the computers and things like that, but most importantly then, those business applications that will take -- they don't get implemented overnight, so it's a multi-year program. But it's generally what we're doing is, in those three buckets over a period of the use of that capital, we're chipping away at the City's remedial issues.
So the 18 million, when you say this is a down 19 payment, you're not speaking that -- 20
Well, I believe as 21 the Mayor presented it in his original 22 budget address, that we were intending on 23 allocating a total of 120 million over a 24 six-year period. So what I'm saying is 25 2011 is 25 million of that -- that's what 145 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 I meant by a down payment.
Again, though you didn't ask the question, as an example, the further things we will do in later years include how do we make much more efficient our procurement systems, how do we speed that up, how do we deal with the elimination of paper, moving on to all of our financial systems. And also I forgot to add that starting in 2011, we really are taking a very strong look at effectively rebuilding our phila.gov website and the internal, what we call, intranet with how the City government communicates with itself. And what we're really doing is putting in place the platform to become a very efficient government over a period of time.
Right. So this is more about efficiency than cost savings. I mean, eliminating of paper evidently is a savings, but how 146 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 much of a savings? That's not a large dollar amount, would it be? So this is -- so this whole IT project is more of efficiency and better ways for our citizens to take care of business with City government rather than cost savings?
Actually, yeah. I mean, in the end, it really is about making it more efficient and effective for our citizens to do business with us. On the other side of how -- and that means in order to make it easier to do business with us, we ourselves have to make it easier to do business with them. So I think that there's both a very -- particularly when we're talking about, for instance, rebuilding phila.gov and some of the ways we reach citizens, is that's a direct impact that they're going to feel right away. Then on the inside of government, how do we effectively change our own processes and systems so that we effectively can service our citizens quicker and more effectively. 147 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141
One more short question. So are you in charge of what used to be MOIS?
Okay. So you guys are the ones that also put together staff training?
We do have training and we have -- we use an outside vendor that is made available to the departments for specific computer training needs.
And we have a whole curriculum that we actually provide through a third party.
Okay. Only because -- I don't really know a 148 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 whole bunch about the training. I just know that I've been here a long time and I've always signed up for training and I don't receive it. I mean, it's just not accessible. And at one time, they actually came and did training at our desks, which sort of worked and didn't work. But at some point, I'd like to talk to someone about training. I know that the staff signs up for training, but I think at certain levels -- I had to sign up, I believe, for elected official and some other -- I can't remember the exact title, and I stopped signing up because it never happened.
I'm actually glad you brought that up, because I haven't had the opportunity to meet with you one on one, but I've talked to a number of members of Council really on how can we serve you better, and in fact training came up, and it's one of the things that I think is frankly very easy to do and it's something that I'd love to work with 149 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 Council on. There's no question that we could help provide much more direct and schedule training. I would like personally to understand specifically your needs and the broader needs of other members of Council. We also need to do the same thing with our own staff obviously.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Madam President. I think the most important point is that -- I think you all have to be commended -- is the fact that our system is in bad shape, our technology in this government. It works, but it doesn't work well, and this budget, I'm sure 25 million would have been -- you 150 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 could have found a use for that, but I think your commitment to make sure that we don't pass this on to another generation is impressive to me. So I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood that this is a commitment that you didn't have to make and you did.
Councilman Rizzo, thank you very much. And I do have to tell you, in 38 years doing this, this is probably the most, let me call it, interesting situation and it does take a very strong commitment and it doesn't get fixed overnight, but I'm extremely pleased, frankly, again coming into government that both the Administration and I believe my conversations with members of Council, which are continuing, I think we all see that this is going to pay some real long-term dividends. And it really has created a lot of pain in me when I saw, just coming into government as a part of a budget crisis, just how important it is that we make this 151 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 investment. And it's very interesting, because as I look historically, we've had these conversations before, and the time is now, and it's a tremendous opportunity also for us to leapfrog.
And it's also appreciated that the people that you report to understand your needs and the concerns that you have to allow you to move forward. So, again, I think it's so important.
Thank you. Mr. Armbrister, I guess I can direct this to you. Can you explain why prior year wage tax collections are estimated to be $24 million in Fiscal 2010 and only 12 million for every year thereafter?
I know you directed it to me, but Mr. Dubow is 152 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 probably going to answer it.
The delinquent collection numbers in 2010 include amnesty numbers. So they are higher than they would be in other years because of the amnesty numbers.
That's a 50 percent drop-off and it's flat. It just doesn't sound right, Rob.
Well, no. It's really -- if you look at 2009, it was 11.1 million. 2010 is the year that is thrown off by the amnesty, so that goes up a lot, and then 2011 it goes back to a little bit more than where it was in '09.
But aren't we making every effort to collect delinquent taxes and why wouldn't that show up?
We are, and that actually started in '09. So '09 was the year when we started all of the initiatives we talked about. So you actually see -- even if you look at 153 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 property tax, for example, there's still an increase from '09. It goes from 34 up to 42 in the year of the amnesty and then it stays at 40. So there's an increase over '09 there. Property and business kind of go to where they were in '09 when we had some of this initiative, and '10 is much higher in all of them because of the amnesty.
The FOP award -- I'm going to jump on something that Councilman Green was mentioning earlier. The FOP award has an opener for wages for 2013 and 2014. What are the Plan assumptions for these reopeners? Can we assume it's zero?
Do you really expect zero considering the fund balances you are projecting in the Plan?
Because that has to be negotiated, it's something that 154 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 we wouldn't want to put --
On the record. Very well. As part of the FOP award, they will move to self-insurance for medical coverage. If for whatever reason during the term of the current agreement their cost exceeds the City's payment, will the employees have to bear the total cost increase?
If I understood your question, I don't think that that could occur. Under a self-insurance plan, we are obligated to pay all claims.
Yes. But we should note that what the City has done to minimize some of that risk is that obviously we're going to maintain a reserve, number one. Number two, we have gone out and secured stop-loss insurance for catastrophic -- if there's some 155 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 significant catastrophic claims that would cover. So we have tried to mitigate, to the extent that we can, that particular risk.
Also as part of the FOP award, the City was granted the right to furlough police officers for up to 30 days a year. Under what circumstances would the Administration furlough police officers?
I'm not prepared to answer that at this time, Council President. We would leave that to the command staff at the Police Department to make recommendations about any potential furloughs of police officers.
Are there any furloughs projected in the Five Year Plan?
Thank you. 156 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam Chair. On Page -- I don't see a number. I'm sorry. In your testimony, Mr. Armbrister, you say, Before I turn to what we propose to do, let me first describe what we decided we wouldn't do. We are committed to holding our wage, business privilege, sales, realty transfer and property taxes at their current rates. Do you mean that?
-- when you go to the last page of your testimony, you say --
Point of clarification there. I guess you guys do 157 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 the point of clarification. But we're talking about broad-based rate increases.
Yeah. We mean we're not looking at rates for everyone who pays the tax. I mean, obviously one of our proposals has a tax increase for a specific area, which is different from increasing the rate for everyone. I think that was the point we were trying to make.
Actually, I wanted to point to the second-to-last -- some of the last few sentences in Mr. Armbrister's testimony, But we are also open to suggestions. If a member of City Council or the public has a better idea to bring our Budget and Five Year Plan into balance, we are more than prepared to listen. So I just wanted to clarify that you're prepared to listen as long as it's not a revenue measure that increases 158 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 property taxes, sales taxes, real estate transfer taxes or business privilege taxes?
No. I don't think that that's what that means. I mean, the first statement that we made is what we decided to do as an Administration. I mean, we are prepared to listen to anything that may come forward.
So you would be prepared to consider a mix of different taxes and potentially more cuts that met your overall revenue or expense-cutting objectives?
Okay. Well, that's good. With respect to the taxes, we are committed to holding our wage, business privilege. Mr. Dubow, what tax is the sugary drink tax? 159 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141
We are imposing the sugary drink tax as a business privilege tax.
So it is an increase in business privilege taxes of how much?
In the first year for the sugary drinks tax, it's about 38.6 million and then it's 77 million in the following year.
Okay. So we're increasing business privilege taxes by $77 million over most of the Five Year Plan for one single industry essentially?
Correct. As I said before, what we're talking about is we were not increasing these rates on a broad basis. So we're not doing it across everyone who pays, but that doesn't preclude, as I said before, doing it in this one area.
I have heard from several major retailers that they don't have a present intention to apply 160 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 the sugary drink tax to the specific products for which it is intended by the City, and I'd just sort of like your thoughts about the impact of that on the effectiveness or efficacy of the impact that the Administration was hoping to have on health and obesity in Philadelphia. (Witness approached witness table.)
Thank you for the question. You are correct that we are unable to tax specifically in a way that would assure that the increase is passed on. We are hopeful and will campaign with retailers to ask that they partner with us on obesity reduction in Philadelphia and pass the cost increase on specifically to sugary-sweetened beverages and syrup-related products.
And within the Five Year Plan, what was the impact of lower wage tax collection as a result of retailers close to the county line 161 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 losing their sort of weekend Coke binge and hot dog and hamburger purchase market? And I just want to know if the impact of that on that industry has been taken into account with respect to our general business tax collections.
I think for purposes of the Five Year Plan, we've not assumed any direct correlation in that with lost wages. I think -- and Dr. Schwarz could talk about this. I think what we're hoping to see is a change in behavior where people will change the types of beverages that they intake, be it soda, and many of those products are in fact produced by the same bottlers and other folks who would be affected by the sugary drink tax. But Dr. Schwarz could further...
Well, okay. So how much is the assumed falloff in total sugary drinks purchases in the out years of the Plan?
If we -- let me 162 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 try to give you numbers that will help.
In other words, today is the hundred percent amount of sugary drinks sold. Next year what percentage of sugary drinks will be sold and the year after.
So if we calculate just what is the -- if we look at current consumption rates two cents an ounce, how much would the City expect to collect.
But I'm going to get there. So we start with what would it be today and then we look at how much we have in the tax. I think that gets where you want to go; is that right?
Okay. So we have discounted from that initial number a little more than 50 percent. If we look at the --
You expect to impact the sales of sugary drinks in the City of Philadelphia by 50 percent?
We expect that the amount collected, based on current consumption, could go down as much as in order to be conservative.
Well, based on national estimates from the Rudd Center at New Haven, which talk about what are the numbers that we should expect potentially in Philadelphia -- so we're being conservative, as you know, from the Five Year Plan taking all of the reduction in the first year essentially. So it's flat thereafter.
The Rudd Center would suggest a number that's about 20 percent more than we've included. 164 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141
Well, the Rudd Center estimates that you will sell 30 percent fewer sugary drinks?
The Rudd Center expects that based on their estimates from what they can ascertain in terms of other states' excise and other taxes, that about a little under $100 million would be collected. We have discounted that by about percent, 20 to 25 16 percent. 17
So the Rudd 18 Center estimated that based on the sales 19 of sugary drinks being an excise tax? 20
They actually looked at a series of different kinds of taxes. So specific sales tax, excise taxes. In studies that are out there looking at the elasticity, the best of which was published actually just 165 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 yesterday, the expectation of what we should expect to collect in the tax was just under 100 million. We have discounted that further to be conservative.
Except there is no elasticity if retailers don't pass on the full extent of the tax.
That is correct. So that we could have more than we've estimated.
Well, but that's not the goal, is it? I mean, it sounds like we keep coming back to the revenue when I thought this was all about a healthy Philadelphia.
So if that's what was portrayed, I just want to be clear, when Mr. Armbrister presented his remarks, it's the way that we've thought about this, which is the City needs revenue. This is a measure which we can feasibly accomplish to improve revenue. As the Health Commissioner and the Deputy 166 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 Mayor for Health and Opportunity, one, I'm delighted.
And, two, I believe that it will have a long-term impact on obesity in Philadelphia.
Okay. And why did the Health Department reject options such as a junk food tax?
There are a number of reasons, and I will actually say the Inquirer yesterday had a very good summary of this, so let me go through the rationale. We know that solid foods sit in the stomach and expand the size of the stomach and give people a sense of fullness. Beverages, particularly sugary beverages, don't do that. They do, though, as they pass by the pancreas cause a burst of insulin, which makes people hungrier. So that from a biological point of view, there is rationale if we wish to make a difference 167 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 to obesity specifically trying to reduce the amount of sugar-sweetened beverage as opposed to other sugary products.
Okay. All of that, I just want to be clear for the record, is dependent upon retailers actually cooperating with the City and essentially demonstrating at the point of sale a two-cent-per-ounce higher price for those products?
I believe it's an important assumption and I believe we all in the retail community have a responsibility to try to pass that on to consumers, to join us in an obesity program.
Okay. I just mean in terms of what we're projecting in terms of the numbers in the budget, that's a huge assumption. 168 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141
If it's not passed on, then the good news for the City is, the revenue projection should be higher.
Okay. So I'd like to know from the City what the revenue assumptions would be. And not today, but if you could provide it based on -- first of all, I understand you went percent or percent down from Rudd? 16
But I still 18 didn't get a clear answer as to whether 19 that's -- we're down 50 percent from 20 total consumption. What Rudd proposed, 21 is that 70 percent of total consumption, 22 75 percent of total consumption, 80 23 percent of total consumption? 24
It might be 25 easier if we can provide a table that 169 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 lays it out for you.
I appreciate that. Are you familiar with the book City -- not you, Dr. Schwarz. Are you guys familiar with the book called City Limits? I know Mr. Agostini is.
The theory of the book is that in certain East Coast cities, circa 1970, principally New York City, Paul Peterson, who was currently teaching at Harvard, argued that there had to be care placed on the tending of the economy and on the development of revenue so as not to disadvantage the city with respect to retaining businesses 170 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 and people.
Yes. So a tax on a specific industry, sugary drinks industry, bottling, whatever you want to call it, retailer, given that there are City limits, what impact would we expect on overall economic activity in that industry in the City of Philadelphia as a consequence of this tax? And I want to be clear, I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm just trying to get the facts out there.
And as you were getting at earlier, Councilmember, and I think in a very important line of inquiry, it is really important how the industry reacts. If the industry reacts in a manner where it passes it on and there is indeed a replacement of existing sugar-sweetened beverages by water or 171 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 other beverages that they bottle, produce and sell, then there is an argument to be made that the loss should be minimal, to the extent it exists at all. If indeed the industry does not behave in that fashion and simply passes it along, then we would have to go back and rethink or at least reestimate what happens.
Actually, my question more relates to the industry cooperates, pass it along. How would the theories within City Limits suggest the -- what would the suggestion be of the impact on what I'll just call for ease of use the sugary drinks industry in Philadelphia? Shouldn't we expect to see a decline in the sugary drinks industry, with an intendant loss of jobs, loss of all kinds of taxes, wage taxes, business privilege taxes, et cetera?
Again, I think if the impact is one where there is no 25 replacement of those beverages by other 172 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 beverages, then the possibility of lost businesses, lost jobs, lost wages and lost economic activity exists.
Well, there probably will be a replacement of those beverages, but they very well may be beverages in Montgomery County or Bucks County or Chester County. That's the point I was trying to make. In other words, people may still buy Coke. They'll just buy it in bulk at Costco in Bucks.
They may. I thought you were talking about the bottlers themselves, and with respect to at least one of the bottling entities that we have met with, there are alternatives that they bottle where they are a significant provider, producer, manufacturer of those items that suggests that if they move into these alternative because there's demand, then the losses in jobs and activity should be diminished. 173 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141
So based on our discussion, I guess it's just fair to say that we haven't looked at the potential impact in terms of overall economic activity or tax revenue, other than with respect to the projections on additional income as a result of this tax?
In looking at the proposal, one of the things that I did was to look at the prospect of lost wages or lost jobs. And, again, the fulcrum, if you will, in this is what happens to people's preferences who are actually the consumer who makes a purchase. Do they make the kind of decisions that you're suggesting is possible, which is quite accurate. Do they go elsewhere. Do they not buy that particular product, or do they move to a similar product that simply doesn't have the sugar-sweetened. And because this is a relatively new field for most of us, it's going to be a little difficult for 174 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 us to understand that. I think the study that the Health Commissioner referenced that was published yesterday and was referenced in many newspaper articles probably is the first best indication of what the activity or what the change in economic behavior will be.
I understand, relying on the assumption that is passed on.
Thank you. Councilwoman Miller, do you have any questions?
Thank you. This will conclude our public hearing for today.
He's not done. 175 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 He's just warming up.
-- sit in for you. During last year's budget hearings, I asked for detailed information about position levels in City government, specifically a chart showing every position by department, job title, job duties and salary that had been eliminated by layoff, retirement, not filling a vacancy or otherwise since July 1st, 2008. I also asked for a chart showing every position within City government by department, job title, duty, salary, source of salary; in other words, what department pays it, that has been added since July 1st, 2008. The information I received back was incomplete and did not include job duties 176 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 or salary, and I'm making the same request again and I'd like it before the departmental hearings. Also last year I asked individual departments about their Class 100 salary spending and staffing levels for the balance of the 2009 fiscal year through FY10, specifically breakdowns of what the department actually expected as Class 100 salary-only spending to be through the end of the fiscal year, a description of any currently vacant positions in the department, the number of positions the department planned to fill by the end of the fiscal year and the projected Class 100 salary-only spend for the fiscal year if the department stayed at its current staffing level. I did not receive answers to any of these questions last year.
This is outside of what's already provided in the QCMR, which does much of what you've just described? 177 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141
Well, perhaps I can sit with you and your staff, because much of what you've just asked for is either in the budget detail, in the QCMR --
I really -- I mean, we have had many discussions about the QCMR, and the numbers it projects for positions at the end of the fiscal year are different than the numbers you're saying are current City employees, and we have not been able to in our discussions tick and tie one to the other in a way that I can understand it. The Five Year Plan has --
I think I've explained that to Sophie, but I'm happy to sit with you again to do that.
In the Five Year Plan, it has the number of City 178 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 positions increasing every single year and I want to try to understand why would we be contemplating that when we're making significant investment in technology that, in theory, will increase productivity over time and lower the number of employees that we need in the City of Philadelphia, which would make the costs in the Five Year Plan come down significantly. I mean, et cetera, et cetera. So the reason I'm looking for this is so I have a base to start with that I can then tie into the rest of the budget.
Well, perhaps we can sit down, because a lot of what you've just asked for is in the detail and in the QCMR, so there are clearly some things that you're not finding, so let's sit down so I can understand what that is.
Well, I don't want to get into a debate about 179 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 what's there and what's not, but I'm happy to do that. I'm looking for it by department, by position specifically. Not 54 positions, salary range. I'm looking department position, every position. We can talk about -- I don't need that for the Police Department --
Because we don't budget on that basis, I would have to go through an exercise with every department to create that for you.
Well, I mean, I've asked for it every year. I don't know why -- I now see why you don't have it, but, I mean, all that implies is that we're not doing any kind of zero-based budgeting at all, that if you're budgeting based sort of generic there's 54 positions at this salary range, you're really just plugging numbers, going up and down by a percentage every year, and we're never going to get to the goals that I think you and I agree on as to how we need to 180 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 move the City budget ahead.
I'm not aware of many, if any, governmental entities that are currently using zero-based budgeting.
Or certainly in the U.S. budgeting for outcomes, something that you know I'm a very significant advocate for.
But it is the case that this city, unlike other cities I've worked in, simply does not construct its budget in the manner that you are suggesting, which is not to say we can't do it. It's just going to be -- going to take me a little time to do.
So if we had invested in PeopleSoft and had all that data about every single employee in a program like that, it would be very easy to produce this kind of data, wouldn't it? 181 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141
Actually, in my experience, the PeopleSoft financial module doesn't do that.
Four years ago, I spent seven months investigating a new financial and budgeting suite for Milwaukee County, population of a million one, slightly over a billion one budget. The cost of that, just the financial and the budgeting module that would provide the kind of information detail that you're suggesting, which I would also like, at that time was a $12 to $13 million item, and what that would cost today, I don't know.
Can you name a major public corporation with a $4 billion market cap that -- or actually name one with $4 billion in revenue or 182 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 market cap that would not be able to answer that question?
Unfortunately, there are a lot of American municipal governments that fall under that category.
I can't speak to that, because I'm not familiar. I'm familiar with American municipal governments, both at the city, county and federal level, and unfortunately, there are a lot of them that fall into that category.
I understand. So if City Council were to pass an ordinance requiring this level of detail for next year's budget, is it possible for you to deliver on it?
Yes, it's certainly possible. It would take me a significant amount of time and I'd have to do things a little differently than 183 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 I've done currently. It's not to say it can't be done, and I think I can provide that to you in the coming weeks, but it's just a significant thing.
What I'd rather do is focus energy on making it easy to produce without a lot of manpower next year, and maybe we can work on that.
During last year's hearings I asked various departments for lists of all contracts they plan to enter into for FY10, descriptions of the specific services provided to the citizens under the contracts and an explanation of how they monitor the contract to assure that citizens receive value from it. Again, this question was not answered.
That's also in 184 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 the detail. There is a Class 200 breakdown in the detail which lists every anticipated contract and the rationale for it.
What is provided in the budget detail, I am informed, is a very generic level of detail.
It doesn't say what buildings it's going into. There is no detail as to the expenditure. It doesn't say the descriptions of the services provided to citizens under the contracts.
If you want access to the actual system so that you can see that in detail -- 185 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141
Well, see, but we're talking about budgeting. I'm not talking about stuff that's been let. I'm talking about you're asking for appropriations in Class 200 for things that you want us to approve.
But you're not telling us, other than in a generic way -- outside consulting for personnel services, that doesn't tell me anything about what the purpose of that expenditure is. I'd like to know in Class 200 what the money is going to be spent on, so that when I appropriate it, I'm informed. That's all. I mean, I don't want to get into a debate with you guys. I'm just -- and we can sit down and talk about what you can realistically provide, but I really do think that that's the kind of detail that we should expect and that should be provided to us on an annual basis. The Administration did analysis 186 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 last year in its Five Year Plan that basically took a Washington study and looked at the impact of the proposed property tax increases on families with different wage groups and what percentage of the income they'd pay --
-- by neighborhood, et cetera. Have you done any sort of analysis like that for the trash fee?