That's what our funder requires, that's the information they require. That's the information that our funder requires, and that's the way that we've done it.
Is the CEU the central point of contact within City government for citizens seeking benefits?
If a citizen called 3-1-1, asking for help obtaining benefits, would he be referred to the 197 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 CEU?
What is the relationship between the CEU and local nonprofits and other government offices such as Community Legal Services, the Social Security Administration, the County Assistance Office, in terms of linking citizens to benefits?
We have a working relationship with the County Assistance Office. We are funded in part by the Bureau of Employment and Training, through the Department of Public Welfare through one of their programs, so we work very well and very closely with them. We work well and have a partnership with many community-based organizations. We have a -- actually have a list of the community-based organizations we work with. If you'd like, we can send you that.
Well, I'd 198 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 like to know what work you do with them, what services you provide, and how much it costs, how many people they each serve, you know, information that would take you, it sounds like, sixth months to prepare because you have to literally go through every case by hand in order to tell us that.
So I may be misremembering this, and I apologize if I am, but I recall a big press announcement over a year ago, and I don't remember whether it was through MOCS or not, where the Administration said they were going to be on a great push to bring everybody who comes into the system and make sure they get all federal and all state benefits available to them so that we can increase the amount of federal and state dollars that come to our citizens who are seeking benefits. When someone comes in for one thing, we were going to check and see 199 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 what other benefits that they would be eligible for based on the criteria we get from assisting them, say, with just LIHEAP. And that would --
Okay. So when someone comes into MOCS and, say, they want LIHEAP assistance --
-- okay? And you see, based on -- is there a system that kicks out eligibility criteria that tells you what else they're eligible for when they come in?
There is a system we use Compass, the Compass system. I'm going to let Otis Bullock talk about that. 200 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
I'm Otis Bullock, Deputy Executive Director of MOCS. And basically what the -- are you familiar with the Compass system? It's a almost like BenePhilly, where you enter a client's data, and all the benefits that will be available and they're eligible for will come up so we make sure that we're maximizing the amount of benefits that --
Okay. Well, how many people did you put into the Compass system last year?
I could not give you that number right now, but we can get 201 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 back to you with that information.
See, I wouldn't want to give you a hard number because I don't know; I can get back to you. But it's probably a lot at less than 38,000.
So I don't under -- when you say you serve 38,000 people and your job is to get them all the benefits possible, explain to me why every person that doesn't, you know, come through your doors gets into that system and then we determine what other benefits are available to them.
Well, to give you an example of a client that would not get 202 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 into that system is, we have a food bank, a food cupboard down at Our sixth and Lehigh office, where we partner with Philabundance. And, typically, they just come for the food and we typically don't put them through the system.
And you don't have the resources within your budget to have somebody at places like that to take down information and see what benefits that they might be eligible for?
Well, up until this point, we've only had eight organizers in community engagement, so we do as much as we can with what we --
So I'm very confused about the relationship between BenePhilly and Compass. Now, you mentioned that they're separate. If we had Compass, what was BenePhilly, and why are we reinventing -- it sounds like a reinvention of Compass.
I really can't 203 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 answer what BenePhilly was; we weren't involved with BenePhilly; I just heard about it. Compass is the tool that we use.
And does it do what you describe, it identifies all state and federal benefits?
And does it automatically apply for it for them, or 204 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 do you fill out separate forms? Does it create the forms?
We do have to fill out separate forms for it; it's not a automatic thing. It just informs you of what they're eligible for. (MOCS Witness Marc Spearman comes forward.)
Marc Spearman, Program Director, Mayor's Office of Community Services. The Compass system, if you were filling out a state entitlement, it will automatically populate. If it's not a state entitlement, you will have to actuality fill out the application for the entitlement and submit it to the proper agency.
Okay. So is it fair to say that we have a BenePhilly 205 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 in MOCS in the form of Compass?
BenePhilly, as I understood it, is -- actually, when we started to work with BenePhilly, we were in on the planning phase of it. And the BenePhilly system -- or I don't want to call it a program, but the BenePhilly effort was set out to look at PACE and food stamps and generally target people who were already in the system and weren't taking advantage of another entitlement that they may have eligible for. When we use Compass, it's more so, as you were saying earlier, a family will come in, and they will come in for a particular service, and we will notice that they may be eligible for it. So at the time, there were several times of systems that did this one-stop benefits bank, but those had limitations on how we could get information back. So Compass, in general, gave us 206 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 the broadest range of identifying these entitlements and allowed us to sign people up instantly for those.
Is it possible for us to identify people who are on food stamps in the City and run them through Compass and inform then them of what benefits are available to them?
I believe it's a possibility, but talks would have to happen between the agency and the state to release that information.
How many people that actually participate in Compass get more benefits than they came in for? Do you have any --
A lot of times what we find, especially if they're already TANF recipients, a lot of the entitlements have already, you know, been offered to them. 207 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
Okay. Thank you very much for that clarification. Miss Mariner's testimony indicates that the CEU also provides residents with the necessary referrals to emergency services and/or linkages to meet their needs. When the CEU staff are in contact with a citizen, what do they assess the person's full scope of needs and eligibility -- how do you make the assessment of what the person's needs and full scope of benefits are necessary for services?
-- you generate every single year? 208 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
And how many people are involved in doing the intake on paper?
Right now -- last year, we only had CEU staff and we have 8 program staff in all of our -- we have a total of 72 staff. So out of the 72, probably 60 do intake on paper.
Wow. Okay. So -- and then, when the person comes back in, you've done the intake on paper. Then after the paper intake, somebody does data entry of that information?
Oh, okay. So when the citizen comes back in, say, two years later, how do you know what services you already provided and et cetera?
We have to do a new intake because we are required by our 209 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 funder to document income for the 30 days prior to the date of service and have a current intake form on the person.
So at that time, we do an interview with the person and talk to them about the services, what they have --
And you write down -- and if you had their old file in an electronic format, of course, you could pull that up and just put in what's changed, maybe?
Quite a bit, actually. That's why we have a contract right now and are going through (indiscernible) for a data system, a data-collection system.
And are you buying it commercial, off-the-shelf system, or are you using our Oracle database, or are you having someone program a new system?
The system is a system that's, again, going through CTO. It's bassed on SQL server technology. It's a Windows-based system. It's proprietary to the Progress Resources, Incorporated, which works with the -- our funder, uh... 211 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
I'm sorry. Worked with the Department of Community and Economic Development to not only take -- do the intake but case management and also reporting of our data. We actually vetted it through several companies, and we've looked at it for over a year, trying to find the best solution. We worked with DOT, who actually came in and showed us some other types of solutions. But because of the complexity of the reporting back to the fax system, we found out that this one would probably give us the best outcomes for the least amount of dollars.
Thank you. So in the future, you'll be able to track the success of referrals through this system also?
Okay. And 212 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 do you know how many of the types of referrals we're talking about, emergency services and/or linkages to meet their need?
How many referrals did the CEU make last year in that category?
We'd have to get back to on that same exact number; I don't have it.
Okay. And is that something you'd have to do by hand right now?
Okay, great. A lot of my questions are about systems, so I have to go through here. Last year, you testified that you were performing a needs assessment in conjunction with Temple University to 213 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 help MOCS develop programs and services to fill identified gaps. We asked for a copy of that assessment last year and were told that it was not yet complete but that it would be provided to Council when it was complete. What is the status of the project?
The project is complete. Temple is reporting out to us, but the needs assessment is in draft form, and they've asked us not to give it out to anyone yet. We have another report out to us and all of our staff coming up in early April. Once that's completed, then we will have the final needs assessment, and we certainly will make copies available to Council.
The primary finding of the needs assessment? The number-one issues of the 214 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 residents who filled out both the needs assessment questionnaire and attended the forums, their number-one responses were crime, employment. Off the top of my head, I don't want to say them in order and get them out of order.
If you'd like that information, I can give it to you now if you'd like that information.
Thank you. During last year's budget hearing, MOCS identified that it had completed a study of best practices by community action agencies across the country and identified several program areas of interest. When asked for a copy of the study, MOCS testified that it was an anecdotal study but that it would put the conclusion in writing and forward them to Council. 215 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 We have not received those conclusions; are they available?
Are you aware of this anecdotal study that was testified to last year?
I was here at the testimony last year, but I wasn't the Executive Director or Acting Executive Director.
Was there, in fact, a best practices by community action agencies anecdotal study that you were aware of?
Thank you. Most of my questions about that study I can -- you saved yourself a bunch 216 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 of questions with that answer. (Laughter.) The truth shall set you free. What of MOCS's work is proactive rather than reactive to citizens' requests?
It's the same exact question you asked last year; yes, it is. And --
It's the same exact answer. We tried to do some proactive work as far as community outreach and notifying the community of things that are important to them like the census; we're very involved in the census. We try to get information as much as we possibly can out into the 217 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 low-income communities. So in that sense, I think we're proactive. I believe right now, that's probably the only way we're proactive.
Well, I want to make a suggestion to you that you can report on the success of this when you come back next year, or failure of this idea.
Once you have this new system implemented, get the data about who has what benefits from the state level to the extent you can legally get it, and then let's identify -- put them in the system, and then let's identify all of the benefits that our citizens are not currently getting that they are entitled to.
You can be proactive and do that with the systems you're putting in place. If you have electronic systems, you can receive 218 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 electronic records from the State, put them in Compass, put them in this new intake system, and have a record of everybody getting benefits in the City to the extent, you know, we legally can.
But to whatever that extent is, let's use these grant dollars to do that.
Okay. Please explain what role you play in the Community Services Block Grant services funded by ARRA that you subcontract out.
What role we play? We wrote the work plan that was required for CSBG, because they're CSBG funds, and we oversee the funds and the contracts. We issued RFPs where necessary and identified -- worked with some other folks in this administration to identify the areas that we would fund with CSBG dollars, R dollars, that also met the 219 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 State's requirements.
There are two new positions in the Administration: the Director Of Anti-Poverty Initiatives in the Mayor's Office.
And the to-be-filled grant-funded Chief Service Officer position, both of which seem really closely tied to what MOCS is supposed to be doing --
-- with your grant dollars. What role is the Director of Anti-Poverty Initiatives taking in steering the work of MOCS?
I work very closely with that person in the Administration, and it's a new working relationship that we have, and we're working very closely.
I mean, in terms of the dollars available to deal with that, that the Administration has 220 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 control of, aren't they in MOCS?
Not that budgeted position but in terms of the way to deal with poverty --
No, they're not all in MOCS because the Health Department deals with people in poverty.
Sure, sure. But, I mean, in terms of BenePhilly-type things, Compass we just talked about, has that been a part of the conversation with the Director of --
No, not really. No, not now. We were very honestly working to get the CSBGR dollars work plan in and get those dollars and get those contracts out.
Did that change significantly from last year? 221 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
The -- we didn't get our contract from the State until January for the CSBGR dollars, yeah, so it was difficult.
But I mean, in terms of the people who get that money, did --
We know -- the people who got the R dollars are people that, for the most part, except for OSH, are people that we typically don't give CSBG dollars to. For example, we generally do not fund Community Legal Services for their services. PHA is new for us to fund.
And did that come from the Director of Anti-Poverty Initiatives or --
No, it didn't come from her. We worked together as a 222 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 team and identified what the State wanted us to do with these dollars and what the best source for these dollars would be and how to outsource these.
What do you foresee -- what relationship do you foresee with the new Chief Service Officer.
Will the existence of these new positions in the Administration free up resources in MOCS for planning and policy?
Well, they free up resources so that people who are in policy and planning positions can actually deliver services because now policy and planning is at a different level? 223 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
Okay. So I guess you'll talk about that next year. And then I guess, finally, it occurs to me that with 60 people involved heavily in paper processes, we would expect to see, going paperless, at least a 30 percent efficiency.
That we're talking -- let's call it a percent 14 efficiency. We're talking 12, 18 15 positions that will essentially -- 16 full-time equivalent positions that will 17 be freed up as a result of not having 18 that paperwork. 19 So what I'd like to know is, do 20 you intend to take those efficiencies and put those dollars to work through community organizations, or do you intend to increase the productivity of your office and serve many more people?
Well, I'd like a plan for that in connection with the technology investments that you're going to do so that there's a clear stated goal about how we're going to increase the efficiency, the productivity of your operation because of this freed up time, or eliminate those positions and put the dollars to work directly in the community, without salaries being paid. Is that a fair --
You're welcome. Are there any other questions from the committee? (No further questions.)
Thank 225 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 you. MR. McPHERSON: We'll next hear from the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. (OHCD Witness Debra McCullough comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. MS. McCULLOUGH: My name is Debra McCullough, and I'm the Director of Housing. Does everyone have copies of my testimony?
Yes. MS. McCULLOUGH: Okay. Good afternoon President Verna and members of City Council. I am Debra McCullough and I'm the Director of Housing. I am here today to present testimony on the Office of Housing and Community Development's (OHCD) proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2011. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 under the Community Development Fund, Grants Revenue Fund, Housing Trust Fund, and General Fund will also be presented in the spring to the Finance Committee on its hearing on the Consolidated Plan ordinance. That hearing will authorize the submission to HUD of the Consolidated Plan, which includes the budget for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and other housing programs for Fiscal Year 2011, CDBG Year 36. Ideally, the Consolidated Plan hearing should occur prior to the consideration of the Operating Budget by City Council. However, as in the past 17 years, the hearings are reversed. Should the results of the Consolidated Plan hearing require adjustments to OHCD's Operating Budget, as adopted by Council, there will still be time subsequent to the adoption of the Consolidated Plan to amend the Operating Budget. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 of the Consolidated Plan hearing. Due to the nature of its funding, OHCD is required to plan its annual budget to comply with the federal objectives as outlined in the annual Consolidated Plan. HUD's mandated goals are the creation of suitable living environments; the provision of decent, affordable housing; and the creation of economic opportunities. In Fiscal Year 2011, OHCD will continue its multi-year effort to maximize efficiencies through the consolidation of backroom support functions as well as the reduced staff through attrition. 9 million in total development costs. 5 million. These housing developments included: -- 181 homeownership units; -- 411 rental units, and; -- 132 special-needs units. An additional 513 affordable housing units were under construction on December 31st, 2009. OHCD saved 1,681 homes in 2009 from foreclosure through the Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion program. OHCD awarded $14 million in Community Block Grant funds through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, known as ARRA. These funds will support commercial development, affordable housing development, the Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion program, the Basic Systems Repair program, the Utility Emergency Services Fund, and the Creative Industry Workforce Grants. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 construction. 9 million in competitive -- was awarded -- excuse me. 9 million in competitive Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funds from HUD, part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. These funds will be used to return foreclosed-upon residential properties to private ownership and to support residential development. The Office of Housing and Community Development is committed to supporting the Administration's goal of percent minority-, women-, and 17 disabled-owned businesses participating 18 in City contracting. OHCD's 19 participation goal for Fiscal '11 is 32 20 percent. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 budget from all sources, awarded a total of $149 million in contracts to non- government vendors, of which approximately 27 percent went to minority-owned firms, 6 percent to female-owned firms, exceeding the City's goal. 8 million in Fiscal Year 2011. 4 million will be contracted to the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, a nonprofit, for its vacant land management program; -- $50,000 will be contracted to Philadelphia VIP, a nonprofit, to support the Tangled Title program; -- The remaining $350,000 supports Settlement Assistance Grants to first-time homebuyers, which are administered directly by OHCD. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 Year 2011, there are no contracting opportunities. Reductions in federal funding in recent years have had an impact on community-development programs in Philadelphia.
Federal funding has decreased by percent over the past 9 eight years. 10 At this time, we have not been 11 informed of our Year 36 award amount. 12 However, additional funds from the 13 Neighborhood Stabilization Program are 14 anticipated in Fiscal Year 2011 and 15 account for a planned increase in funding 16 for Class 200 activities. 8 million in the General Fund. This Operating Budget represents the cost for all housing programs as well as salaries for all OHCD, Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, and the Redevelopment Authority staffs, rents, materials, and supplies. Then the testimony has the breakdown. There's a net increase of 135,729 in employee compensation projected in FY '11, despite the fact that budgeted positions at OHCD were reduced from 79 in Fiscal Year '11 to 77 in Fiscal '11. The increase is primarily due to the lower level of salaries recorded from furlough leave in FY '10 as well as annual increments due employees in FY '11. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 the neighborhood stabilization programs. The decrease in Budget Class 300 is primarily due to an expected savings in printing costs. The increase in Budget Class 400 is due to a projected upgrade to office and computer equipment supporting all three housing agencies. OHCD will return to City Council this spring to present the complete Fiscal Year 2011 proposed budget as part of the Consolidated Plan hearing. I will be happy to answer any questions that you or other members of City Council may have, and I'll see you again in the spring.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. 234 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 MS. McCULLOUGH: Good afternoon.
It's -- as you know, since I've been in this seat and you've been testifying, it's been very tough budgetary times for the City of Philadelphia, and there's been a number of efforts throughout government to try to create efficiencies and eliminate duplication and the -- I'm blanking on the agency -- was just divided between -- PCDC was just essentially functions and duties and positions divided between the PIDC and the Commerce Department, which eliminated an entire agency and presumably saved us resources. And we are told at least the same functions and services are going to be available. Given the number of organizations within government and outside government that are involved in housing and community development, can 235 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 you make any recommendations with respect to -- or how can we create more efficiencies within the housing and community development community? For example -- you can answer this specifically and then answer the question more broadly. Could you eliminate supervisory and duplicative executive-type positions by rolling PHDC into your agency? MS. McCULLOUGH: Let me say generally we have tried to, and continue to try to, create efficiencies particularly between the three major agencies: OHCD, the Redevelopment Authority, and PHDC. As I mentioned, we have one IT, information technology, unit, which is housed at OHCD that provides services for OHCD, the Redevelopment Authority, and PHDC. We have -- the office services functions are -- again, are housed at OHCD to provide those services for all 236 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 three services as a way to try to streamline the services that we can. The PHDC and the Redevelopment Authority are both, in fact, separate entities; as you know, they're not the City. So there are certain functions that they can carry out, which is why we have three different agencies, because they can perform different activities. Could they all be, uh, whatever you said molded into one? I'm sure what word you just used. We've been through housing reorganizations in the past, we've studied it many times over the many years that I've been here. At the moment we're in right now, we have the three agencies.
Right. The question is: Could consolidating those agencies save us money? MS. McCULLOUGH: I don't exactly know how to answer that because each agency -- as I say, each agency has its own function -- 237 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
Sure. MS. McCULLOUGH: -- some of which can't be consolidated at the City.
Well, I mean, there was an entire report done by the Street Administration; I think TRF and Jeremy Nowak worked on it. MS. McCULLOUGH: Yes.
The original called for I can't remember who, the one housing -- maybe it was the RDA, maybe it was you, I don't remember -- to be in charge. Then the politics got involved and it switched to another agency. But basically, they were consolidating the three agencies and maintaining, for purposes of keeping its powers, an agency with sort of no 20 employees, much as PAID is today. Obviously, PIDC does the work, but PAID exists to do the financing and et cetera. MS. McCULLOUGH: Right.
So obviously, it's possible to do that. 238 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 So if you could take away the problem of needing the authority of the agencies, which, obviously, is easy to do, by leading the agency with no 6 employees in place or, you know, with an employee duly assigned in place, would we save money and have more money available for actual housing and community development or more money for the General Fund if we consolidated these agencies? MS. McCULLOUGH: I think it would depend on how you structured each of those agencies.
Of course it would -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.) MS. McCULLOUGH: I mean, I don't know what each -- what the activity that each one would have to do.
Well, we wouldn't have three executive directors, for example; we'd have one. We wouldn't have three budgets to prepare within City 239 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 government; we'd have one. Those sorts of activities certainly would save us money and time. And then, within the agencies themselves, I think you would agree that there is still some duplication. MS. McCULLOUGH: Yes, I think -- because they're three separate agencies, there have to be three fiscal departments.
So we would eliminate that duplication as well. So can you explain to me why, as we're raising taxes $180 million a year and all this other stuff, we haven't taken the opportunity of this crisis to really tackle what has been an issue we've know about and, as you say, there've been reports about for twenty years, consolidating these housing agencies, why we haven't taken this 240 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 opportunity to do the hard work, to upset the stakeholders and to get this dons with once and for all and make government more efficient? Has that been part of the discussion? MS. McCULLOUGH: There hasn't been a discussion of consolidating the three housing agencies in the last two years.
And is -- I guess it's not fair to ask you why, but it is your testimony that we could create efficiencies through a consolidation? MS. McCULLOUGH: As long as each of the activities that were being carried out by those agencies could still be carried out.
Sure, yes, okay. You don't have a guess as to how much we could save; would it be $5 million, 7? MS. McCULLOUGH: I don't know. 241 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
You don't know. Do you think maybe we ought to figure that out? MS. McCULLOUGH: If the goal was to --
The goal is to provide the same services more efficiently or to provide more services with the same amount of resources, and that's a policy discussion we can have. MS. McCULLOUGH: Right. And as I testified, we are trying to achieve those efficiencies now at OHCD through some of the consolidations that we've done.
I'm not being at all critical of you. You're in charge of OHCD; you know, you do a good job. I'm just wondering why this general discussion isn't a part of the budget question. (Budget Director Stephen Agostini comes forward.)
Councilmember, I 242 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 believe, as Miss McCullough pointed out, I think almost all but 2.8 million of the $241 million that is going into OHCD is not General Fund. Similarly, the General Fund support for the Redevelopment Agency and some of the other agencies you mentioned is, I believe, close to zero, if not zero. And so, to your point, when we were making our deliberations and considerations about ways to save dollars in the General Fund, given that there were not General Fund dollars to be saved in -- at all, our attention focused elsewhere. Nevertheless, some of the questions you raised about consolidation make some sense just from the sense of overall savings and efficiencies. But that was really the reason: There was just minimal, if any, General Fund impact of doing something like that.