Madam Chair, I'd like to go back to where you were and see if we can get Ms. Reed back up at the table. You had asked a series of questions.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Ms. Reed. Ms. Reed, I'm looking at the Defender's first page of testimony. The Chair asked you earlier about items related to this CPCMS, which I don't exactly know what that is, but the third paragraph of the testimony makes reference to an anticipated $475,000 deficit by the end of the current fiscal year, and what I'd like to know is what, if any, plans does the Administration have to deal with that particular issue, one? Second, was this anticipated at a time when you were at 84 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. the table not too long ago and we had an extended conversation last week with regard to the mid-year transfer? Why wasn't this issue dealt with as a part of the mid-year transfer?
Dianne Reed, Budget Director. The Defender's Association is a Class 200 contract. They are not a City department.
And as I said, we only just received this information. We didn't have their budget detail. There was no submission, that I'm aware of. And so we'll have to see what we have to do about '06. A discussion needs to take place.
Okay. But you are now aware of this $475,000 anticipated FY06 deficit?
Yes. I can see it on the page. 85 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
Now, with regard to FY07, the testimony seems to indicate the prospect of a $2.5 million deficit for FY07. Is this consistent with the information you seem to indicate you received somewhere in the past couple days?
What it is, is a new database that the AOPC is setting up and all county justice systems need to put their data into that system in the format that the AOPC has dictated. In the case of Philadelphia and several areas, that actually entails kind of a dumbing down 86 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. from our system. And there have been extensive conversations going on for months about what kind of accommodations could be made for Philadelphia so that we could continue to enter data into our systems and have it update this state system in a manner that will allow us to complete our business on a timely basis. I mean, one of the tests that --
Let me just finish. This is really interesting. One of the tests that the Police Department did was that under our current system, it takes them about 11 seconds to enter data with the kind of codes that we use. Using the drop-down menus that are in the AOPC system, it takes three minutes, three to four minutes per data entry. And, of course, there are hundreds, especially if in fact there's a conspiracy type of situation where multiple people need to report. And so the DA has actually gone to the 87 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. Rules Committee of the Supreme Court to try to get some consideration for Philadelphia. So this is all kind of working its way through, and it's very complex.
Is there a software incompatibility issue or is our software, it sounds like, slightly more sophisticated than the AOPC?
As I understand it, our software is more sophisticated. Our codes are slightly different. Although there are ways that these things can be patched together apparently.
Okay. Was any funding provided by AOPC for implementation or integration?
No. The First Judicial District has kind of -- was managing this for justice partners. We became concerned. In fact, starting with the conversation that we had with the Defender's Association when they came to us last January, they were concerned, and 88 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. so we actually have paid from the Administration for a GAAP analysis study and then a remediation study to look at all the justice partners who work with the FJD to try to make sure that we could get an enterprise solution that would work for everybody rather than having each of those agencies go by itself and try to come up with a silo solution that may not be compatible and might cost a lot more money.
Is there any opportunity here -- I don't know if it is within the guidelines. Is this something that we should be looking at from a Productivity Bank loan standpoint to bridge the financial gap?
Thank you. Budget Director, this isn't 89 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. part of Project OCEAN, is it?
I can hear the waves crashing in the background. Okay. Thank you. So you're going to get back to us based on your dialogue with the Chair and my questions as to the FY06 potential deficit, as well as the outstanding questions on the CPCMS system and then any financial impact from that or other components of the FY07 budget that might result in a deficit?
Okay. Madam Defender Greenlee, I read through the testimony. You made obvious references not only to the deficits that you might anticipate, but I know I heard somewhere in the course of this a discussion about salaries and parity and those kinds of issues. Is it possible to provide to the Chair in a kind of one-page document an outline of -- it 90 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. seems that you're making a bit of a budget request supplement or an enhancement to your budget. If you could lay out for us what the categories are and what the dollar amounts are just on one sheet of paper and then give us a total, that would be helpful.
If you could forward that to the Chair, then we would know exactly what the request is.
Thank you, Councilman. Are there any other questions for the Defender's Association? (No response.)
Thank you, Councilwoman. 91 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
Certainly. MR. McPHERSON: The next department is the City Commissioners.
Good morning and welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony.
My name is Bob Lee. I'm the Voter Registration Administrator for the City Commissioners Office. I'm here for the Commissioners to present the budget.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present our Fiscal Year 2007 operating budget. The City Commissioners' proposed budget as laid down by the 92 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. Administration is Class 100, $4,737,354; Class 200, $2,786,964; Class 300, $551,652; and Class 400, $50,145. This operating budget class of 100 represents an additional $99,924 over our FY06 estimated obligations, which provide the funds for a three percent wage increase. However, it does not provide any funding to replace employees lost to attrition. It does not provide any additional funding as requested to bring our employment levels up to 101 employees. We've lost two employees since December. We were at 89 in December. We lost two employees since. We're losing another one in May. We requested new 18 positions back in FY01, which would have 19 taken us to 109. That never happened. 20 Budgetary constraints have prevented us 21 from even reaching the 101 level that we 22 think is the minimum needed to properly 23 staff the office. 24 We made every effort to reduce 25 our expenditures where it's possible, and 93 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. we've been successful in obtaining more than $20 million in federal Help American grants. In fact, it's $22 million. We'll continue to try to effect cost savings as we go about our work, but our problem is that recent changes in federal and state law is putting a massive workload on the department. It was interesting listening to the previous testifiers talk about a statewide system, because little or no 13 people know that the voter registration office is now on a statewide voter registration system that we went on in December 27th, 2005. We attempted to avoid going on that system at all costs until the very last minute where we had to go on by federal law, and the reason we attempted to avoid it is because the system is slow, it's cumbersome and the laws and the system processes require numerous additional steps in processing a single voter registration application. We believe this new system is 94 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. going to substantially increase our workload and require that we have additional employees and additional funding at least up to the 101 level of full-time employees. We've been using it for four months. We've learned its handicaps. We also had to implement a new electronic voting system, which we did successfully in 2002, and we've been using it since. However, recent federal law and a court agreement settlement in federal court required that we upgrade the voting machines so that they would provide an audio device that would allow those visually impaired voters the opportunity to vote independently and in private. Both the court agreement and the federal HAVA Act required that that be completed by January of '06, and I'm proud to say that Philadelphia County is probably one of two or three in the state that met that deadline, thereby ensuring our qualification for our $22 million in 95 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. federal funds. We recently conducted a special election on March 14th in the 174th District for state rep, and all of the precincts in that district had at least one machine that was audio equipped for visually impaired voters to vote independently. These new systems naturally bring new expenses. The voting system has an annual software maintenance fee of $100,000. The absentee system has a software maintenance fee of $38,000. None of those items are included in our budget. We requested the money for that and it's not in the budget. We requested additional funding to cover increased postage costs that we're going to be incurring because of mandated mailings and notices that are required to be mailed out of the new SURE system, and that has not been included. We requested additional funding to bring the employee levels up to 101, 96 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. and that has not been approved or put into the budget.
Our budget is basically static. It's not changed. It's not increased to allow us to meet these increasing workloads. Thank you for the opportunity. I'll answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much. You're requesting 16.5 million in the Grants Revenue for '07. Can you tell us who the grantor is and how these funds will be spent?
The grantor is the federal government. Under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, Congress set aside a certain amount of money to implement election reform changes after the Florida election in 2000. The way the grants work is, the money is sent to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has to submit a Commonwealth state plan to get the funds. They did that, and 97 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. they've been awarded the funds. Each county has to submit a county plan as to how they intend to spend their allocations under the grants. Philadelphia County did that, and we've been awarded approximately $22 million in grants. Some of the funds are earmarked for specific purposes by the federal government and also by the state government. Some of the other funds are discretionary in our use. And we use quite a bit of that money. The discretionary money in 2004, we probably ran one of the most extensive voter education programs on our voting system than was done anywhere in the Commonwealth. We spent over $500,000 placing advertisements in newspapers, telling people how to vote, the new ID requirements, the availability of provisional ballots, and we also mailed to every voter in the City a postcard giving them information on the new law, 98 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. listing their name and address as it was in the records, telling them where their polling place was, and if they needed to bring ID, we informed them of that fact to bring ID to the polls. And in November '04, we had a very high turnout in Philadelphia. And considering the new laws -- this is the first presidential election that a lot of voters were voting on our new system -- everything went very well.
Thank you. You're requesting 12.3 million in payments to other funds as part of your grant request. Can you tell us what funds you will be paying and if there are restrictions placed on any use of these funds?
Those other funds are not determined by the City Commissioners Office. This is basically a reimbursement or money that has been allocated to Philadelphia because it 99 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. replaced its lever voting machines after the November 2000 election. Back in April of 2001, Commissioner Tartaglione testified before a Congressional panel and asked that any funds be made retroactive back to November 2000, and fortunately for us, we signed our contract for our voting system in March of 2001. So that's basically what qualified us for these funds.
Thank you. We'd like to ask our Budget Director how these funds will be used.
Dianne Reed, Budget Director. The payment from the Grants Revenue Fund of 12 million 3 reimburses the capital expenditures for the voting machines, and this is the amount that we estimate will be required in '07. We had an appropriation of about 18 million for this in '06 and we haven't actually received the amount that we expected by 100 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. this point. So the '07 appropriation includes receiving that perhaps in '07 if it doesn't come in in time for '06.
It is in the '07 budget request. That million 3 would 12 cover getting the money in '07. We also have an appropriation in '06. So whichever year the money comes in, we'll be able to make the reimbursement to the Capital Fund.
Where is the payment reflected to another fund then? We don't see it in the capital budget.
I don't know where it is in the capital budget. I will try to find that out for you.
Thank you. We would like to know where that is 101 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. and what that is, and ask that you get back to us so that we may distribute that information.
Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of quick questions. One, what do we pay the temporary workers, the 90-day workers?
Ms. Reed, Council passed a law recently requiring an increase in the minimum wage locally for companies that contract with the City of Philadelphia. I think Councilman Goode sponsored that bill.
That was 150 percent of the minimum wage, whatever it is, the living wage bill. I think that most City contractors are above that amount already, so that will only be like 8 something an hour, since the minimum wage for PA right now is only 5.15.
So we passed a bill in Council requiring any contractor/vendors to pay more than $6 an hour?
So how can we, the City of Philadelphia, only pay people that are working for us 5.15?
From your perspective, do you think that's somewhat inconsistent?
It could be inconsistent, but there were a lot of 103 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. clauses in that, so it may be in an excluded class. On the face of it, it doesn't look like it's consistent.
The people that work for us are different. So if you're a public employee, you can make less than the required amount. At a minimum, I think that the Commissioners Office should probably bring that to the table. And I'm not attempting to tell an independently elected official what to do, but I think that there should probably be some reference to our requirement; i.e., legislation that was passed by this Council, signed by the Mayor, and what individuals are being paid who work for the City. It probably should be referenced to the Council President and members of Council. Would you agree, sir?
You made another statement. You made reference to 104 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. the maintenance of the machines, the new machines, and that money wasn't allocated for that long-term maintenance.
The machine maintenance, let's say when we signed the contract --
Software maintenance is the key element, yeah. There's a $100,000 software maintenance fee and support fee for the voting system and there's $38,000 for the optical scan absentee voting system that we have. Those are not included in our budget.
Well, there were different costs. There was no software maintenance fee obviously because they were mechanical machines, but you had different costs with bringing in outside mechanics and technicians to work on those machines. There was more extensive 105 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. printing costs in printing ballot strips and things like that. So the costs with the system are different. We no longer use the outside technicians, except for Election Day. We use them to provide coverage of one technician per ward throughout the City, but we don't use them for preparing and maintaining our machines and setting up for election. That's done by all City employees now. The only time we would use outsiders if we had to is under the result of a court order where we were made to do a change at the last minute.
Shouldn't the elimination of that cost associated with the old machines, the physical maintenance of those old machines, offset the costs associated with the new machines?
You would think so, but there's some issues that -- I mean, because these are electronic machines and the issues that are out in the election 106 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. world, we do an awful lot of testing. I mean, we test these machines twice between each election and then we test it with the actual election ballot on there before they are shipped, every single machine. And then when they come back, they're tested and audited again. So what we may have saved in time and labor expenses on using mechanical machines, we're eating up in doing a lot of testing just to make sure the machines are consistently and accurately recording what's cast on the machines. I don't know what you save on the outside mechanics or the printing.
You don't have to do it now, but through the Chair, can you get some numbers on the cost of maintaining the old machines that we no 22 longer have the responsibility and compare that with the cost of the new software maintenance?
Yeah. Robin, our 107 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. Budget Officer, says we anticipate saving approximately 175,000.
All right. If you could just break that down, forward it to the Chair, the elimination of the cost of the old machines versus the requirements on the new machines as it relates to maintenance.
Thank you. Councilman Nutter. 108 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, can I have the Budget Director back? I want to finish up in the area where you were just a second ago.
In response to the Chair's question with regard to the capital budget item, the total amount that we're anticipating from this HAVA reimbursement is 12.38 million; is that right?
And you indicated that it's in the Grants Revenue Fund. These were obviously capital dollars. My recollection is, the total cost of the machines was $21, $22 million?
Right. We have been receiving the money over a few years and we expect it to be ending at this point 109 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. when we get these final payments in.
You've been getting reimbursement for the previous expenditures?
My 15 recollection was we spent $21, $22 16 million on new voting machines, right? 17 What money are you talking about? 18
The outstanding 19 reimbursement that we're waiting for, the 20 money that has been spent. So this is a reimbursement from the federal government, which goes in the Grants Revenue Fund, and then the Grants Revenue Fund reimburses whatever capital account this is coming out of. 110 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
You're saying we have received previous reimbursement already?
What's the total amount that we're going to get reimbursed?
I don't have those 111 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. records with me, but we can get that information back to you.
That will go to pay off whatever capital account the expenditure was actually made from to pay for the voting machines.
So you're saying the department that paid for it, they get the money back?
Well, it may just be an account that the City uses. We have equipment accounts.
But it wouldn't have to go there? I mean, these are capital dollars. They are ours. I mean, we can use them essentially however we want for any -- 112 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
No, I doubt it. Since this is a federal grant, federal grants require strict accounting, because that's one of the conditions of federal grants. You cannot supplement or use those funds in any other way. So, no. 8
What are the restrictions? I mean, they're reimbursing us for something that we spent and we could have spent those dollars on anything. So how can they tell us how we can spend a reimbursement? I mean, it was ours to start with.
The receipts have to match the grant amount. So you cannot use this money in any sort of a supplemental way.
But we paid for them already. We bought our voting machines before this mess ever started. 113 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. We passed a bill. The voters approved it. We bought our machines. The last days of the Rendell Administration into the Street Administration, we cobbled together dollars to buy these machines. Then Florida happens. The Congress, they do whatever they do, and then they decide everybody has got to upgrade and they want to give people money back. We had already started before the hanging chad situation ever happened.
But I don't think this comes from any GO-supported capital account. This is some other kind of capital account that I will have to get you information on.
Okay. Mr. Lee, I'm assuming you've been working with this for a little while. What's your understanding of this situation?
Well, there's approximately $22 million that's going to be provided to Philadelphia County. Of 114 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. that, Congress specifically earmarked in the HAVA Act that each precinct be reimbursed to the level of $4,000.
Each division, $4,000 per division. They then funded that at a level of about $3,200 a division. So whatever money came to Philadelphia immediately as a strict reimbursement for the replacement of lever machines, there was $5,366,121.87. That's a definite reimbursement.
That's mandated by Congress. That's in the Commonwealth's state plan. In addition to that --
No. You didn't get it yet. It's still in the state bank 115 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. account.
In addition to that, when the Commonwealth broke the money out and they did the state plan, they also allotted another amount for voting systems to Philadelphia, and I can give you that amount in a second. I think it was 8 million and 80 thousand or something like that. Of that amount, the Commission was permitted to use ten percent for other than voting system expenditures, which we have opted to do. It was $8,081,878.18. The Commission has opted to use ten percent of that funds for other than voting system expenditures.
Yeah. So the balance of that, plus the $5,366,000 will be coming to the City of Philadelphia as a reimbursement towards that $21 million expenditure. 116 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
Other funds in the grant, $1,457,000 we just got notified was approved. We got the confirmation of that today. That money can only be used for modifying polling places and making polling places accessible for people with disabilities.
It's called HAVA Section 251 money. There's $1.4 million. It's specifically for polling place accessibility, nothing else.
So this has nothing to do with the machine replacement?
Now, you said that there's 5,366,121.87 sitting in a state account right now?
What do we 117 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. have to do to get it? I mean, what are they waiting for?
Well, that money will be released to us when we put in a request for them to send it here as working capital. However, we're not permitted to do that until we are fully HAVA compliant, and that means not only voting systems, but every other HAVA requirement. It's our position that we are fully HAVA compliant. I would expect that sometime after the use of the machines in the first election for federal office, which will be May 16th, that we can put in an application to get both the Section 102 money, which is the 5,366,000, and the other Title 2 voting system money, which is the 8 million less 800,000. So I would expect that the Commissioners will be signing a funding request for those funds shortly after we certify the returns for the primary, and our position will be that we qualify for 118 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. them because we are HAVA compliant and we've conducted an election with a HAVA-compliant system.
Okay. Now, the earlier testimony was that we had received some reimbursement funds related to the voting machines. Do you have any information about that?
The City Commissioners was awarded other funds under this grant. I believe 1.9 million was for Title 3 requirements, not voting systems. They could be used for voting systems, but they're earmarked for Title 3 requirements. We spent about --
Implementing provisional voting, voter education, poll education. That's what I alluded to earlier where we spent more than $550,000 before the November '04 general election, educating voters and sent out a voter notice of where to go to vote and about 119 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. the new laws. So the funds that we spent -- and we spent those out of our '04 operating budget, hoping that the grant money would be here. It wasn't here. We went into default on the budget, had to use '06 money. It eventually got put back in there through a year-end transfer. It was a real long process. It delayed paying the poll workers for May of '05. But those reimbursements were not for voting systems.
Now, Ms. Reed, the $12.3 million that's been the topic of discussion this morning, if it is a pure reimbursement and eligible for capital use, wouldn't you be able to add that $12 million to the now anticipated $52 million FY07 capital budget?
No. That's a GO-funded budget. This is an index code in the Finance Department for a capital account. It's not the same at all. 120 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
Wherever the capital account in Finance, which probably was a transfer from another account. So it's an accounting transaction.
No, but you have cash. What are you going to do with the cash when the check comes in? What are you going to do with it?
Complete the accounting transaction. This is an accounting matter. We'll have to get --
Debits, credits, cancel out, whatever. You have $12.38 million that someone has dropped 121 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. in your lap for a cost that you paid four years ago. What are you going to do with the $12 million?
It's an accounting transaction that will go in to replenish whatever account that came out of. So that is a cash transaction. This is not a capital budget transaction.
Okay. Fine. You replenish the account. Now that you have satisfied that need to replenish the account and make all the accountants happy, what are you going to do with the $12 million that they sent us?
The transaction is completed. There's nothing else to do. I mean, we'll have to get some information from the Finance Accounting Department for you on this, but it's not like this is GO money that you can add to the GO capital budget.
Okay. If I didn't have a speaking engagement 122 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. tonight, I would probably just bang my head right on this table right now. Okay. You'll get an answer to the Chair?
Thank you very much. All right. If there are no 13 further questions, we will recess until 1:15 when we will hear from the Law Department and the City Rep and Director of Commerce. Thank you all. (Luncheon recess.)
Our hearing will resume. We now have the Law Department. Thank you. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Councilwoman. 123 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
I'm Romulo Diaz, City Solicitor. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of the Law Department's budget request for Fiscal Year 2007. I'm accompanied today by Donna Mouzayck, First Deputy City Solicitor; Don Marino, Chair of Litigation; Barbara Ash, Chair of Social Services; Dan Cantu-Hertzler, Acting Chair of Corporate and Tax, as well as Chris Lane, Director of Administration. I will summarize my prepared statement, in the interest of time.
Thank you. We will submit it for the record in its entirety.
Thank you, Councilwoman. In FY2007, we will continue critical reforms and initiatives, including collection of delinquent tax 124 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. and non-tax revenues owed to the City; implementation of contract reform legislation authorized by voters last November; and planning for new financial assistance requirements effective July 1; preparation for local gaming facilities; development of Wireless Philadelphia, which will help bridge the digital divide, promote economic development and tourism and reduce costs of government; and removal of barriers to the permanent placement of children and emphasis on programs that will allow more families to stay together. Overall, the Law Department requests $15,155,824 in the General Fund for FY2007, a net increase of $1,108,081 from estimated obligations for FY2006. The Department will also increase its General Fund staffing levels from 185 in FY2006 to 197 in FY2007. I refer Councilmembers to my written testimony for our request in connection with other City funding sources. 125 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. I am proud of the Department's many accomplishments in FY2006 and will mention only a few of them. With your help, we established financial hardship agreement guidelines and a Conditional Forgiveness Program providing payment options and relief to eligible homeowners who owe delinquent real estate taxes and, thus, could be threatened with the loss of their homes. Older delinquent real estate tax accounts were referred to outside counsel working for a statutory legal fee at no cost to the City and with excellent results. For the first half of FY2006, the results for all collection efforts by the Law Department, including outside counsel, were the best in six fiscal years. We project non-tax fines involving Air Management, Building, Electrical, Fire Prevention, Health and Property Maintenance codes will reach $14.7 million, nearly equal to the Law Department's entire General Fund 126 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. operating budget. Despite potential liabilities of $14 to $17 million, we achieved a major victory in reaching a no-cost settlement of the 25-year-old Metal Bank Superfund case. The Law Department played a key role in negotiating a federal, state, local settlement with a major Philadelphia employer, yielding $500,000 in fines and tens of millions of dollars in air quality improvements that will benefit Philadelphia residents for years to come. Finally, I am proud of our commitment to diversity contracting, which resulted in nearly 43 percent of our contracts being awarded to minority and women contractors in FY2005. In addition, the Law Department continues to place a high priority on maintaining a diverse workforce. Of the total Law Department staff in February 2006, 68 percent were women and nearly 50 percent were minority 127 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. and disabled. In short, the Law Department reflects the people we serve through our commitment to diversity and opportunity. That concludes my oral summary, and I appreciate your direction that my formal written statement will be entered into the record. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
Thank you very much. I have just two questions, and may I note we think that you're a good City Solicitor and appreciate the job you're doing for us.
On of your testimony, you state that older delinquent real estate accounts have been referred to outside counsel working for a statutory legal fee at no 24 cost to the City but with great results. Results for the first half of Fiscal Year 128 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. '06 were the best in six fiscal years. Both the Revenue Department and now Law mention how good delinquent collections are doing, yet the revenue estimates in Fiscal Year '06 for prior real estate is being reduced from 48 to 38 million. Maybe the Administration can respond to this anomaly. Are collections improving or are they deteriorating, or how is the money being logged and, if so, where? How are these --
Our collections are definitely improving, Councilwoman Blackwell. Through January, I believe, of this year, we had collected in all of the Law Department collections on taxes, I believe it was $74 million. And so I'm not sure where the numbers that you're referring to might be coming from. If I could have just a moment.
The budget and brief, our green book, where the revenue and the prior No. 2.
I understand that 129 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. there may be a coding error in the Finance Department designation of certain collections, and I understand that the Finance Department will be getting back to you for the record on that. We will make that request, but that's what Mr. Lane advises me.
Does that mean we may have more money available than is listed?
I understand the Finance Department is going to be issuing a letter. The numbers that -- the reason for my hesitation, Councilwoman Blackwell, is that the numbers that you're referring to are not reflected, I believe, in the Law Department budget submission, but I'm advised by our administration budget officials; that is, from the Law Department administration, that a letter will be forthcoming from the Finance Department clarifying that particular situation.
Thank 130 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. you very much.
My last question is, you mention your NTI Regulatory Affairs Unit has contributed to City collections through their high rate of closing matters and collecting fines involving Air Management, Building, Electrical, Fire Prevention, Health and Property Maintenance codes. It does not appear that these additional collections are included in the revenue estimates. As an example, Health Department revenues in, quote, "other category" are being reduced from 2.8 million in Fiscal Year '06 to 600,000. Are collections improving or is the Administration not recording or listing these revenues?
I can only speak, Councilwoman, for the Law Department. Our collections in those areas are definitely improving, but as this issue has come up previously and I checked into 131 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. it, the collections are reflected in the budget submissions for the individual department or departments to whom those revenues are credited. For a collection on behalf of a Health Department fine, for example, those collections would be credited to the Health Department revenue sources and not reflected in the Law Department. So I think that may be the background on that particular issue.