COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:25 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILLS 100115, 100116, 100117, 100118, 100131 and 100141 - - - 2
Good morning. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. The first department to testify this morning will be the Finance Department. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Rob Dubow and I am the Director of Finance. I am pleased to provide this testimony on our proposed Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Budget. The proposed budget for the Office of the Director of Finance supports a number of departmental divisions, and representatives of those various divisions are here today. The budget, as proposed, provides funding for the Office of the Director of Finance and totals $1.14 billion. That's an increase 3 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. of $141 million from 2010. The increase is caused by a $130 million increase in pension costs, a seven and a half million dollar increase in indemnities costs and the creation of a small contingency line to cover unexpected costs, like those created by this year's snowstorms. The budget includes a little over 970 million in Class 100, and, again, that's an increase of 130 million over 2010 levels. The line pays for 143 Finance Department employees and funds fringe benefits for all City General Fund employees. There's 40.4 million in Class 200. That's a decrease of about $340,000 from 2010. The largest portion of this appropriation is nearly $36 million for legal services provided by the Defender Association and Community Legal Services. The 338,000 decrease results mainly from the transfer of technology contracts to the Division of Technology. About 113,000 in Class 300 and 400 is for materials, supplies and 4 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. equipment, representing no change from 2010. There's 125 million in Class 500. That's an increase of 7.5 million. It includes 38 and a half million of our contribution to the School District. That's an increase of 60,000 over the 2010 level. There's $26 and a half million for Community College, million 11 for PGW. Both of those are unchanged 12 from 2010. And $42 million to fund 13 indemnities. That's an increase of seven 14 and a half million over the 2010 level. 15 This proposed increase is linked to one 16 case regarding work schedules for 17 paramedics, and then there's the four 18 million that I discussed before for the small contingency line. The Office of the Director of Finance has an overall 38.6 percent participation rate in contracting opportunities for minority and female-owned businesses. We're committed to supporting the Administration's 2011 5 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. goal of 25 percent participation. Based on the availability of funding for contracting opportunities, we have an FY11 participation goal of 39 percent. I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
There's growing concern and pushback on interest rate swaps, the notion that the federal government bailed out financial institutions and that those institutions are now financially exploiting city and state governments that are hurting from the recession by taking excessive profits from interest rate swaps. Even the 6 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. Auditor General has cited the billion dollars the School District and DRPA. Can you explain our interest rate swap situation and whether we're at risk?
Sure. And swaps can be very good. They can help you hedge your interest rate risks, and that's the way we've used them, or they can be very bad if you don't understand what you're getting into, and particularly for some smaller jurisdictions, they've gotten themselves into real trouble with swaps. Our swaps right now are not actually costing us anything. They're helping us reduce our interest rate costs. We have not entered into any new swaps in this Administration, but there's existing swaps from prior years.
I'm sorry. I 7 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. didn't hear you.
I don't believe they are. The Treasurer can answer that -- can give you a definite answer when she comes in later, but I don't think they are.
We have a swap policy that we've actually developed within the last year. We can provide that to the Chair. We have a new swap advisor, who was very helpful in developing that policy. So we have rethought it and we have a written policy on swaps.
You're welcome. Councilman Jones. 8 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc.
Thank you, Madam President. In your financial analysis and different scenarios as we start to consider different revenue enhancements, has there been any scenario that you can share that actually the economy improves and we start to realize some revenues from the sales tax, the transfer tax and the other related taxes that might trigger a formula by which we do a sunset to some of the proposed revenue enhancements? Is there a combination of factors that could say that we got through the rough patch and are able to then restore proposed trash fees, soda taxes and the like and even possible real estate taxes? Has there been an analysis that includes that scenario?
Our projections do assume that the economy recovers. So even to get to the numbers that we have in the Plan, we need the economy to get healthier. We haven't looked -- if 9 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. you're asking what rates of growth we'd need to see before we could sunset revenue measures, we haven't done that, but if you'd like to see what rates those would have to be --
I mean, there has to be some scenario. I know that's optimistic, but it seems to me that we could at least look at what scenario of revenue streams that could recover, what that would mean to our treasury and, therefore, give some relief to some people in the community who haven't seen any relief, Wall Street, Main Street, my street scenarios.
Yeah. We can look at where those -- I mean, we can look at where those growth rates would have to be and what that would mean for the national economy, local economy.
I mean, a best-case/worst-case scenario and then somewhere in the middle that would trigger the possibility of sunsetting 10 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. some of these things. Now, I know we have the authority to do it every year, but we also would like to do that in partnership and even give the taxpayers some anticipation of when that relief might happen.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Dubow, it's Groundhog's Day a little bit. We're having the discussion we've had before, and it really boils down to what I refer to as true budgeting, because that's the only thing I can think of what I'm looking for. And I think everyone else does, except the City of Philadelphia, every 11 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. other entity out there, not just governmental entity. If I'm wrong, I would welcome the correction. But there isn't a department in this city, including yours, that reflects its true budget. Prisons don't reflect their true budgets. We're having budget hearings and the very premise of what we're discussing is not correct. It's an incorrect premise. So we all look at budgets. The courts are the one that are always in the newspaper, because we have that newspaper waiting for us when we come in every day, the legal newspaper. And always has, Our budget can't go below $99 million, or 115 million was last year's can't go below. And we know that's not their budget. They legitimately believe that's their budget. And I use the courts as an example because that number has been thrown around so often. But it could be City Council, it could be the Finance 12 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. Department, it could be the Prisons. For instance, as an example, because the Prisons is -- people talk about the courts, and, boy, if we only got reimbursed by the state for the courts because they're state employees and it's a state function and all that, where in fact -- when in fact we know that at least there's a substantial offset in the courts for the fees that we're allowed to keep that are collected. So whether their budget is $99 million or $99 million plus another 38 million, which is probably their true budget, now you're at 137, there's somewhere around 60 million or so that offsets that. So their real budget, even if you add in the benefits that are not in their budget now, it's somewhere 70-ish, 80-ish that is our true cost. Then you get to the Prisons, and their budget is approximately? I don't need exact numbers.
Two hundred and 13 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. thirty, I think. I think about 230.
So if you asked the Prisons what their budget is, they're not going to give you their true budget, because we don't put their true budget in the budget book. We put their true budget, except for the 38 additional percent on average of benefits that are housed in the Finance Department. So when somebody is cutting their budget, there's not a true budget to start cutting from. Your budget, for instance, starts out with, the Finance Department, as a billion 143, up 141 from last year. If you're reviewing a budget of the Finance Department, to me the only way you can review it -- and this is true of 14 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. any department -- what's it cost the Finance Department to run its budget based on the comparison to other departments? I don't want to hear about all the City's or see all the City's -- it's like the junk drawer. I'm seeing all the City's pension costs and medical costs in the Finance Department. In your home, that's the junk drawer. If you don't have another category for it, it's not the silverware drawer, it's not the place where you put your dishes or your towels or whatever. You put it in the junk drawer. So the Finance Department has become the junk drawer of the City budget, because City Council's budget does not reflect 38 percent of our budget, neither does anybody else's. And you are so far over your budget that we don't even really know what your budget is, because if I'm reviewing a budget, I don't want to know what Risk Management is unless it's separated. I don't know 15 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. what the -- I want to know what the Finance Department is with its employees in Class 100 and what its 200 expenses are, and we don't get that. And you're not the first Finance Director that's done this, but we've never been under the crunch that we're under now either. The best example I can give is, if I have -- and I can be any department head. If I have somebody that could be on a contract doing the work and I can save the benefits, I might give the person a few thousand dollars more than their salary, but I'm saving 38 percent for the City. Same job. It's done all the time in the private sector. I lose. I lose money doing that. I don't save anything in my department. It's not real savings. And I can tell you there are departments that have told employees, We can't do that, that will cost us money. If your salary is $75,000 and we're going to give you 80, that costs us $5,000. It saves the City approximately 16 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. $30,000, $35,000, but because of our antiquated, inaccurate budgeting picture, the model we use, that department is being honest with that employee, but it's hurting the City and its budgeting, because there's no incentive to cut real costs. If I cut a staff member whose salary is $50,000, I don't get 50,000 plus the 38 percent as a savings. It's never going to be reported in any story because it's -- that's all in the Finance Department. But when you boil it down, I don't even know what your budget is, because I've got this enormous one billion -- how many employees do you have, Rob?
A hundred forty employees and I've got a billion 143 million-dollar budget. Just tell me what your budget is if we're another department, whether 17 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. you include the 38 percent before or after for fringe benefits. It just should -- there should be -- everything above those 143 employees and what it costs to run that department like any other department. And we can come back to this, because I don't know how we can continue to have a budget when we're trying to really save money and find savings that has 38 percent approximately sitting out there in space. No one else does it. We could do it whether it takes five minutes or 50 minutes or five hours. All you do is estimate it, what the fringe benefits are going to be for each department, the same way you estimate Class 100, and then you reconcile at the end of the year if it misses the original projection. But putting it all in Finance, it's sort of -- it's a lazy way of doing it. I don't know how else to describe it. It's a way that's easier, it's more complicated the other way, and if it were 18 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. better, every government and every business would be doing it our way. There's a reason that everyone does it the other way. They know the cost in every department of the actual cost of that. They know what the cost to the Finance Department is separate from indemnities or Risk Management. Just what it costs for your employees, their benefits cost, your contracts. We don't have it here, and I thought after last year's discussion that we wouldn't be coming back with the same thing, because I thought we had come to an agreement that this wasn't hard to do. It wasn't hard to separate it out. Let the courts know what the real budget is, let City Council know, let the Mayor know what their real budget is, let the Prisons know. When the Prisons say, We don't get a dime of state help as a county prison as a state agency, that it's not 230 million, it's 230 plus almost 40 percent higher than 19 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. that, which takes you over 300 million. That's significant. That's not a couple million that they're missing their real budget by. It's a significant difference. Is this too hard to do? I mean, is it impossible to have a budget that's accurate and reflects real departments' true expenses and savings if they decide that they want to try to do things that are done elsewhere, not just in the private sector but in the public sector? For instance, finding people who are willing to come in because of whatever reason and maybe work on a contract and save that 38 percent. Maybe you have to give them a little more than you would have with salary, but you're saving an enormous amount of money. And it's not the one person. Obviously if you do it system-wide, you have 20,000 plus people you could be looking at doing that as part. 20 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. I don't know how we can keep doing it the old way when this is supposed to be the new day, and we're just doing things like we always did. This is not reforming anything.
Yeah. I mean, it is more complicated, but we are putting that data together and we plan to have it to you before next week's hearings. So you should have all your information you're looking for.
But will the budget be amended to show that -- will you be recommending the budget be amended to show the true cost of every department?
I think we'll give it to you separately. I don't think we'll actually amend the budget, but 21 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. you'll have all that information.
But, Rob, if the departments still think their budget is X, not X plus 38 percent and we just have like internal information, I have that now. I mean, I know there's a fringe benefit that's not in the departments, but why don't the departments have it as -- when they come in and they say, This is your budget, this is what we need cut, tell us how you can do it, we're 38 percent off when we give them the number to start with.
Right. I mean, obviously it's not just fringes. It's things like rent and utilities. So, I mean, it's more complicated than just taking a fringe rate and applying it.
Yeah, but you know it's more complicated, but it's not complicated attributing real cost to each department.
There are parts of it that aren't complicated and parts that 22 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. are more complicated. That's what we're working through.
Right. Can we start with that? And you can tell me or us what the complicated parts are and maybe we can --
-- work on that later, but the fringe benefits are a huge part of that.
Yeah. Right. Health benefits are relatively simple. Pensions are more complicated because you have the unfunded liability portion.
So health benefits, pretty simple. The normal cost portion of the pension costs are pretty simple. Unfunded liability --
Well, can 23 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. we agree that unfunded liability, however you want to define how you would do it, is not part of a department's ongoing expenses? That's sort of like the indemnities or something else that's kind of --
-- something the City is responsible for, but it's not an individual manager's responsibility?
I mean, I understand. Pension costs would be for today's employees that we're paying it.
No. I just want you to understand that there are complications to it. And we've heard you and we know it's an important thing to do. It's just that it's not as simple as 24 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. it seems.
And you could give it to us in a way that we could amend the budgets?
So that if a department comes in and they say, I am so-and-so, I'm the head of this department, my budget is, and we'd have the real number?
-- is after we get it to you and we look at it, we should talk about how it makes sense to you.
Because if it doesn't go to your managers and your department heads, it really doesn't mean 25 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. anything.
Thank you. Mr. Dubow, on of your detail, you show a saving of $25 million in employee benefits for 2010 and 2011. Can you explain how you plan on achieving these savings?
Right. There are a few ways, and it's different in the two years. In '10, it's a combination of the changes that were in the FOP award and a sizable reduction in the workforce. I think those are the two biggest contributions. In '11, we hope to get that through the new collective bargaining agreements.
The City's indemnity budget has received large increases over the past few years. Can you tell us what steps, if any, the Administration has taken to reduce our risk and cost?
Let me first talk about kind of what's caused the increase. In part, it's just been an increase in the number of claims and in the cost per claim. So it's been both, but there have been a couple of big cases. The biggest single case was the paramedic award -- not award; paramedic decision where they got seven and a half million dollars overtime. So that will go away after '11 and you'll see a decrease. And there are constant action -- Risk Management always looks at ways to improve safety, to look at each department and figure out what they can do differently to try to reduce the City's exposure and to reduce the likelihood that there is exposure that would create for the public. So it's 27 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. kind of an ongoing process.
Thank you. On of the detail, it reflects a transfer of $170,000 to other departments. Can you tell us whose salaries are being transferred and the department that they're being transferred to and their work product?
Yes. I think it's two employees. One is the Department of Human Services. It's essentially their Chief Financial Officer. And the other is to the pension fund. It's a person in their Investment Unit.
On of the detail, it reflects an almost $80,000 contract to Trustees of Boston College for a DROP evaluation. Can you explain the scope of their services and, further, can we have a copy 28 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. of their work product?
Sure. We don't have their work product from them yet. They're still doing their work. But the contract is to do an analysis of the effect of DROP on behavior so that we can try to get a sense of what the cost, if any, there is of the DROP program.
When do you anticipate that the work product will be completed?
I think it should be done probably by the end of the fiscal year, this fiscal year.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
You have 40,000 in your budget for cost allocation, I believe. Is that to try to 29 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. address the things that --
There's a cost allocation study that is done routinely that we use in determining allocations to department for charges to the federal government for grants.
Thank you. Just to warm me up, right? Setting me up for the things to come.
No. You've been here -- or I don't know if you've been here as the other department heads have testified, but basically what I have done is gone through positions that have been vacant for a while or newly created positions.
Ask what the job duties are, who has been performing 30 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. that function otherwise and how they've been handled without that position being filled. And so that's what I'm going to do.
Administrative Services Center, there's an Executive Direction Division. There are two Account Clerk positions at 33,000 per year that were vacant as of the last run.
Right. In the Administrative Services Center, one of their functions is to provide administrative support for the Division of Technology. With the consolidation of the Division of Technology, they will have a lot more activities, a lot more support they have to provide. These positions are all related to that expansion of DOT's responsibilities.
Right, but every other department lost the people with respect to that, so were there -- 31 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc.
Right. We lost five people from the rest of the department, but this is just the actual support functions that are provided to DOT for their expanded work.
So we're replacing essentially five positions with two positions or five are going to remain unfilled and then we're --
No. Let me put it this way: There were five IT positions that moved over to DOT, but DOT doesn't do its own administrative work. The Administrative Service Center does that. So since DOT will be a much bigger department, they will need more administrative help. So this is the increase in that administrative help. But it's really for DOT citywide. It's not just for Finance functions. It's for everything DOT does.
There are actually 32 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. four positions. The two Account Clerks, the Procurement Specialist and the Clerk III are all for DOT.
So we need four full-time people in the Finance Department to deal with administrative functions for DOT?
Correct. That was based on the number of transactions that are done citywide for technology.
How were those transactions handled before DOT was its own department?
They were handled in the individual departments that had that work.
With the same number of employees that those individual departments have. So this consolidation -- in this consolidation what you're saying is basically we've moved everybody over, created no 24 efficiencies as a consequence of that, because everybody who was IT is now going 33 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. to be in DOT, with no identified redundancies or efficiencies to date? I know you're working on that.
Right. I mean, that's the Chief Technology Officer's assumption, is that he will find redundancies.
I understand, but this consolidation, which I think we all agreed would save us money, actually is causing us to hire four new people in addition to everybody who already performs that function citywide?
I think that's what it will mean in the very short run, but as the Chief Technology Officer goes through his department, I think you'll see a change in his staffing.
Okay. So what would be the consequence of us not allocating funding for all four of these positions?
Well, things like 34 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. payments would take longer, processing transactions would take longer. There would just be delays in the IT system.
All four of the positions in the Administrative Services Center.
Okay. Does that include the Departmental Procurement Specialist?
And the consequence of not hiring all four of those people is that we'll earn interest on our money longer because it will take longer to make payments?
I mean, if that's your theory, we could just not pay people forever. We'd earn a lot of interest. We might have to actually pay more for 35 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. our contracts when people realize what we're doing.
How about the Human Resources Professional position at 43K per year?
I'm looking at Human Resources Professional at 43K per year.
I think that's the Human Resources Associate III moved over. Give me one second. If you look at Line 13, that person --
No, no, but look at Line 13. See that position goes away? That person moved up to Line 24. So it's the same person with a promotion.
What's the salary change for that? 36 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc.
Okay. Budget Bureau, it looks like there was an unfilled Assistant to the Director of Finance position as of November.
That's been filled. That was sort of a receptionist position, although the person does more than just receptionist. She also worked on the Five Year Plan. So that's been filled.
Just a moment, please. Your time is up, so let that be your last question for --
That's fair, 37 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. Madam Chair. I'd just prefer to wait until everybody else is finished so I can go through my questions serially, just like yesterday.
That's fine. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning.
Good morning. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Dubow, it's almost a year since I had asked this question, and I'm not sure if I had the answer to it. You and I discussed and I think I discussed with the Mayor those folks that are in DROP, about possibly offering some incentive for folks that were in DROP to leave sooner than their DROP date would reflect. Did we ever get an answer on that, or no?
No, we didn't, because I -- no. I forgot about it. 38 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me just explain where I'm going. How many people are in DROP today, roughly?
I think it's like 1,600, but I could be wrong. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, we'll just say -- 10
Either there was 11 1,600 and 1,600 signed up last year and 12 we're like 3,000. I have to go back and 13 check. 14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What I was 15 asking Mr. Dubow and the Administration to look at was a possibility to reducing our workforce without having to do layoffs, because layoffs are a lot easier said than done. Most people don't understand when they say just cut. We have bargaining agreements, contracts with unions, that we just can't arbitrarily lay people off. What I had suggested is that maybe the Administration look at offering 39 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. folks who are in the DROP program a cash incentive for leaving earlier than the date that they would normally leave under DROP. Just by way of example, if you have two years left in the DROP program and using $100,000, which is the average salary of all employees when you add in salary, benefits and other --
Probably for people in the DROP since they're probably at a higher level. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So it's about a hundred thousand dollars. By way of example, if a hundred people were to take advantage -- and I'm just using numbers for example purposes -- were to take advantage of a cash incentive to leave two years before their due date, we would save $200,000, assuming that, again, their salary and the benefits equals a hundred thousand a year. If we gave them, again, by just way of example, a $10,000 bonus for leaving, you take the 40 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. 10,000 two years, it's off of the 200, we would, in effect, be saving $180,000 in salary, but we'd also begin to reduce our workforce without having to do layoffs. And if you did that by a hundred, you would have a hundred million dollars. Right?
(Mr. Dubow nods 10 head in the affirmative.) 11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So a 12 hundred people would take advantage -- of 13 the 1,600 who would take advantage of 14 that kind of incentive -- and, again, I 15 don't know what the number would be, but 16 I use 10,000 -- we would, in effect, be 17 reducing our budget by potentially a 18 hundred million or more, depending on the 19 number of people who would take advantage 20 of that. And, again, I ask that because I wasn't sure under uniformity, I know there's seniority issues that may have to be taken into consideration, but if you put it out there, I even think that the 41 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. unions would be somewhat supportive of that, because we're not looking to reduce membership or employees by way of layoffs or any cuts, other than voluntary early retirement.
As you say, there are a lot of issues with it, and I have to admit, I kind of forgot about it, so we'll have to take a look. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I would ask that you just take a look. Maybe I'm missing something here, and if I am, I'll be the first to admit it, but I just -- I see it in raw numbers in very simple terms, and maybe I'm oversimplifying it. So I would appreciate it if you would revisit that and let's see if there is some way of doing that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you, 42 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. Madam President. One of the things that we wanted to find out about is that last year, what was the total amount of money that we did in transfer ordinances?
Do you anticipate a fund balance this year and how much is that?
In the budget, we anticipated a negative fund balance at the end of this year, I think about 40 million.
So isn't that unusual or don't we usually try to factor in some cushion?
That's for 2010. For 2011 in the budget, we show a $64 million fund balance.
No. The GFOA, the Government Finance Office Association, recommends that you have a fund balance of between five and 15 percent. So on a $3.9 billion budget, 60 million is actually kind of low.
I'm aware that budgeting is a guesstimate and a work in progress always, but if we have a pattern of where we usually wind up at the end of the year with transfer ordinances at the end of the year, one of 44 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. the things is that if we could kind of predict that a little better, then we can get a little closer on our projections and not have to burden people with that revenue enhancement that we're talking about. If we know what we have left over and what we need it for, I mean, can we get a little sharper in our predictions?
So to the extent that we can avoid doing them. That's not our goal, to have transfer ordinances.
The other issue is again of pattern bargaining. With the award to the Police, how does that factor in to where we're going to be? And to what degree do we mimic what we are settling with one union to the 45 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. other and has that been factored in at all?
It's very -- in different years it's looked different ways. Sometimes contracts for one particular union can be really different from contracts for the others. So I don't think that you can --
In the average, let's go with what the extreme was, that the difference between what Fire got and let's say what 33 got. Over those contract periods, what has been the average by way of mean that we wind up -- how close do we come to one union to the other on average?
I don't think there's been a big tie between where Fire and non-uniform have wound up. For example, there have been a number of times where Fire will get a percent increase and the non-uniforms will just get a bonus. So I don't particularly know -- first year of a contract. So I 46 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. don't think there's been a big link between --
Yeah. The labor people have. I mean, the labor people can give you excruciating detail.
You're not the labor people, but in the budgeting part of this, there's probably some predictability. And I know zero is probably, on the Administration's part, overly optimistic. So in that, we haven't seen any of this. So our true number is not here, and I don't know where that is in your budgeting and where it might be, and I know you may be holding a card back somewhere for that, but I know zero isn't going to be it. I can tell you that.
I guess I don't want to kind of sit here and speculate on what might be in the contract, because that might then wind up being what's in 47 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. the contract.
I think, you know, we always look at a whole variety of scenarios for many different things.
Okay. I'll let you go with that. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Mr. Dubow, you mentioned earlier today that in addition to the health benefits, which are the 38 percent or so that we've discussed many times, that --
Active pension costs rather than retirees' pension costs are not controllable by any manager that's in government right now. 48 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc.
Okay. And these are the areas like -- I know rent and utilities, I believe, get dumped, for want of a better word, into Public Property.
So now we have at least three junk drawers, the first one being yours with this enormous benefit and pension cost. We have Public Property that if I manage a building, I'm 49 3/24/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. responsible for a building in my department and I leave the lights on all the time because I think it's cool that I can do it and not get charged for it, I don't get any penalty for that because it's not in my budget. It's in Public Property's budget. So it's kind of everything is lumped in there for rents, utilities. And then if I have ten cars in my department versus three cars, I get no benefit in my budget getting rid of the seven and going down to three, because it's in the third junk drawer. There might be other junk drawers. We're kind of developing --
-- the kitchen here. The kitchen is getting bigger because you need more drawers. But will those costs, when you give us this information in the next week or so, will they all be allocated that you're talking about?