We hadn't, and part of it was just the sort of press of time. I think if that's something you'd like to see, I'll take a stab at it.
What would you suggest the outcome would be? Would that be more regressive than a property tax increase or less regressive than a property tax increase?
I think it would 187 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 be really hard for me to say without spending some time with the numbers.
Our preliminary analysis based on the numbers that were provided last year in the Five Year Plan would suggest that it's extremely regressive compared to a property tax increase that's across the board.
Sure. The five-year proposal notes that in mid-February, the Administration hired a company to organize focus groups of Philadelphia's residents to weigh in on the City's budget. What funding source was used for the focus groups?
You are more than welcome to see the written report. 188 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 I'll provide that to the Chair so that everyone can see it.
Thank you. The Plan notes that in 2009, investigations by the Inspector General resulted in 34 job terminations and 8 arrests. To put those numbers in 9 context, prior to the hearing on the IG's 10 budget, I'd like detail about what work 11 the office performed in each of the 12 referenced cases and all cases so far in 13 2010. In other words, there are 19 14 people in the Inspector General's Office, 15 and it looks like it's almost a 1.5 to 16 ratio in terms of what we're doing, and I 17 guess it's -- 18
You're just looking 19 for terminations? You want to see what 20 else -- because not everything resulted 21 in a termination. There are lots of 22 other results in there. 23
And the 189 1 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 Inspector General, she's going to be issuing a report this week.
Oh, okay. Great. And that will have this kind of information?
I think it will address a lot of the concerns you just expressed.
I was pleased to see the Five Year Plan refer to efficiency savings generated through the use of technology, and I have questions about three of the measures that were highlighted. First, the Plan noted the Revenue Department automated the previously manual process of performing a tax clearance for the Controller's Office for the release of vendor payments. This automation has been streamlined -- this automation has streamlined the process, requiring minimal manual intervention and saving both time and money. 190 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 How much time and money was saved?
We will get you that. We don't have that with us today, but we'll get that.
Presumably this meant positions were no longer needed now that the function was automated, and I'd like to know --
Right. And in some cases, particularly in the Revenue Department, what we've done where we found savings is not taken the money out of their budget, but let them reallocate that to other areas that would help generate revenue. So we can describe what we've done there.
Okay. Great. Also with respect to Revenue, the Plan notes the department implemented direct entry of tax returns and the creation of an online no tax filing option. Both measures, quote, "reduce 191 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 processing times by eliminating the processing of a paper return." How much were processing times cut? Were any positions no longer needed now that the function was automated, salary costs saved, work hours saved, et cetera? I assume the same answer?
What other paper-based functions or filings is the Revenue Department planning to automate? You don't have to answer that now. I'll save that for -- that will be a question I'll ask the Revenue Department. Does the Plan --
Okay. Does the Plan project savings from additional automation?
The Plan does not, and the reason that we did not -- and I'm sure we'll get into this in 192 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 Alan's both capital hearing as well as his operating -- is that much of what he is doing is sort of basic infrastructure. One of the systems he's looking on a citywide basis to implement would be a replacement of a human resources information system, where savings were already taken. And so because there were many instances like that, we just thought it was prudent not to project savings. Now, that doesn't mean we won't see them and in future years we shouldn't be looking to allocate them, but in the Plan you have before you, no, there is no 16 estimate of that.
Okay. On the topic of paper, one of my favorites, on August 13th, 2008, I sent a request to the Administration for a list and copy of all paper forms used by City departments. I sent it a couple other times. I reiterated this request during the Managing Director's budget hearing last April 7th. The response I received back 193 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 on May 8th was that the issue would be discussed at the April 15th, 2009 PhillyStat session. Although Allan Frank discussed paper forms generally at that PhillyStat session, no list or copies of paper forms have been provided to me to date. We wanted that information, along with how many times the paper forms were actually used, what employees were -- how many employees were involved in each paper form, et cetera. And I'm going to request of every department this year that they have that information when they come testify.
Or provide it in advance. That's all I have, Madam Chair.
You 194 3/10/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100141 didn't hear me. I said are you sure that's all?
This Committee will stand in recess until Tuesday, March the 16th at 10:00 a.m. Thank you all very much. (Committee of the whole adjourned at 3:15 p.m.) - - - 195 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on March 10, 2010, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)