Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Dubow, I just want to be 86 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 crystal clear about this. The BRT employees who are currently compensated by the School District, could you tell me -- or at least I think I heard you right, that presently if these employees are still required, even going after your process and whatnot, is it your opinion that the School District will continue to compensate these employees? Even if they are transferred to a City department, the City would be reimbursed for these employees?
Yes. It's slightly different from them compensating those employees. They would either compensate them or the City would -- the General Fund would, and the School District would reimburse us. One of those two models, yes.
All right. They would be compensated from the General Fund?
But the School District would then reimburse us. 87 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
And if the School District had decided that it would be a line item?
Yeah. The way the School District laid it out in their budget was for the first quarter of the year, they showed these positions being on their payroll, and then for the rest of the year, they showed having a contract with the City to pay us for those employees.
Would they be eligible then to slash the contractor, slash the numbers?
In other words, they could change the whole thing, which means that we would not be compensated and these employees would 88 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 probably be lost.
Well, I mean, we'd then be in a position of deciding whether we thought that we wanted to keep those employees and how we would pay for them.
Well, I think we'd probably enter into some discussions with the School District about it.
I just want to go back to earlier questioning from Councilman Jones about the members of the Board. Regardless if we pay them per diem or we pay them an annual salary, are they under contract? By that, they're not employees of the City?
If they were paid per diem, would they be part-time employees, which would they not receive health benefits?
I'm going to let Al 89 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 D'Attilio answer that. I'm going to let the Human Resources people answer that since they're professionals at it.
I just want to know if they were paid annually, would they be employees, which would entitle them to health benefits. (Witness approached witness table.)
I think that if they are paid annually on a salary, they would be entitled to benefits.
They would be. If they were per diem, I would have to research how other per diem Board members are paid. I do not believe they would be entitled to benefits.
They would be, in other words, a part-time basis and part-time employees would not?
That's my belief right now. I haven't researched 90 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 that for you, but that's my belief.
Okay. I just wanted to make clear of that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As it relates to benefits of just the annual salary, the current BRT members, do they get any benefits or pension or any of that now?
I think they do, but we'll make sure and get back to you. I'm not a hundred percent sure.
So in addition to the set salary, you may believe that they also receive other 91 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 benefits?
So the package is much more than 68 or 63 thousand dollars?
Right, but I agree with Mr. D'Attilio, we need to make sure that that's right, so we'll get back to you on that.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a point of information.
Thank you. Just to follow up on both of my colleagues there, during this process are we looking at automation computerization to see if the number of School District employees is going to be required going forward? What analysis of the process is going to be undertaken to see exactly what the staffing levels are? 92 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
Well, certainly we are going to discuss the staffing levels with the management of the current BRT. We are also looking at staffing levels in similar jurisdictions throughout the country, and that's part of the analysis that my department will be undertaking in the next few months.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm understanding that computerization and some of the modern techniques that are used to do this work leave a little bit to be desired over there.
We are -- one of the other things that we're doing is having them work directly with our Chief Technology Officer on looking at their systems and how we can move them forward.
Without that, I wouldn't really think that we've done a good job at reevaluating this operation. Thank you, Madam President. 93 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
You're welcome. Rob, I'm just a little curious. We've been talking about reevaluation for a couple years now. Can you tell us what it has cost from when we first started talking about it until now? We've talked about consultants, we've talked about computers. I'd like to know what has it cost the City heretofore to address the problems that we have had. (Witness approached witness table.)
Steve, I knew you would have the answer. That's why I asked.
Madam Chair, members, I wish I did. I don't know what the answer to that is, and I think it's a very fair question, and perhaps what we should do in the next month or so is try to put that together for you.
Would you say it's in the vicinity of 7 94 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 million, 8 million, million? 3
Well, Madam 4 Chair, if you were to combine some of the computer projects like the Computer-Aided Mass Appraisal, CAMA -- there's a data component of that as well -- those projects themselves were -- I think the CAMA was 7 million. There were a couple of others that were in that range. We're talking in the millions, and that does not include consultant time or staff time. So that would be a fair statement.
So spending all the millions that we have, we still perceive all of this as a problem.
How many more millions do you think would address the problem?
Well, Madam Chair, what we're trying to do right now is make sure that the computer elements; 95 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 most notably, the data capture and sort of the unified database for property, is done and done well in the next few months at significantly less than the millions that you have observed have been spent. In addition, I think that there is a way to do the modeling for the calculation of new assessments at significantly less than millions. But we probably should come back with some sense of what that would cost to do properly.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the City Solicitor. (Witness approached witness table.)
The Finance Director mentioned a Memorandum of Understanding with the BRT, which I'd 96 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 assume your office was involved in drafting or working with in some way. I guess it would be my understanding of state law and even under the rules of the bylaws and everything of the BRT, that until that Memorandum of Understanding is approved at a public meeting of the BRT, it is not actually effective. And I know process is very important to this Administration and I just wondered if you had given that advice to the BRT or you don't believe that that step would be required.
I am obviously not going to speak to the question of advice that may or may not have been given to the BRT. We haven't been asked either for an opinion as to the procedure that they employed in -- been signing or affirming the agreement. I think there is a question under state law as to whether or not it's the kind of personnel matter that is subject to the Sunshine requirements, but, again, we haven't been 97 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 asked to render an opinion.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President. I thank my colleagues Kelly and Tasco for answering and getting partial but not complete answers to my first question, which was the whole issue of what are we really paying people now and what we would really be paying people under the new proposed model in the bill 23 if they are full-time salaried employees receiving a 38 percent -- I'm still working on you with the other -- all of 98 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 our departments think their budget is 38 percent less than it actually is, and I'm sure it's a ten-minute exercise at the Finance Department, but it hasn't happened yet to tack that money on. But you're going to give us a complete answer, but --
-- I think the answer is going to be they're considered full-time employees and they get full-time benefits and pension and health and all that.
If the whole Board, except for the Chairman, is per diem that we'll save. That's assuming a quarter million dollars in costs for the per diem. So that's pretty 99 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 high. The other thing I wanted to know was -- and this is my only other question -- is the Mayor's position on School District employees throughout the City. I know because of this issue, the School District employees at the Board of Revision are under scrutiny and it's the subject of a lot of these questions, but I know Councilman Green asked the questions about the Controller's Office and any other place, and I think this record is not complete until we know that what you have put in today gives us information like are they full time, part time, what's it cost, what are the benefits, and also is this an Administration position on School District employees who are in other departments or are the Board of Revision of Taxes employees -- because of all the places that I would think you would hold out as not wanting to be political would be the auditors. And so I just want to 100 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 see if we have a consistent position or it's an exception to that. So if you could put that on the list, I really want this record to show what the Administration's position is on School District employees overall.
Yes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a point of information.
And in particular as you render that opinion, I'm curious about the effect of declaring someone a City employee under previous testimony by the Personnel Director. We just were told that if someone is a City employee and they get a salary, they're entitled to pensions and health and all that other stuff. What is the legal effect not just of saying that they're a City employee, but what other impact does that have. 101 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Also, last year during budget testimony I asked the Commerce Department for a list of all City employees that were paid by PIDC. Would this opinion affect PIDC-paid employees and other -- which I have not received yet -- and other employees? So this could have profound impacts throughout government and I'd like to know the answer as it applies to everybody.
We actually recognize that the answer to the question about School District-paid employees at the BRT will have implications beyond just those employees and that's part of our analysis.
Councilwoman Tasco, do you have any other questions? 102 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
We talked earlier about the Chief Assessor being exempt from civil service. If these employees from the School District come over to the City side and they're performing the functions for the Assessor's Office, because it seems that's where they would go since the new BRT Board is just a review board, and the Appeals Board, it seems to me that those employees would probably end up in your office with the Chief Assessor.
Well, it would be a separate office, like the Revenue Department reports to the Finance Director.
So why can't they be exempt? Aren't there other exempt employees in your office?
Well, I think because -- if I get this wrong, either the HR Director or the City Solicitor can correct me. I think it's because the work that they do is similar to other 103 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 civil service work, so I think they would be doing the same work as civil service employees.
A secretary in the Mayor's Office does secretarial work that's done in other offices that are civil service, but they are exempt.
Mr. D'Attilio can amplify this, but I can just tell you generally that there are specific provisions that relate to executive secretary functions that don't necessarily -- like secretaries in the Mayor's Office, for example, that wouldn't necessarily -- that distinguish them from a secretary who performs otherwise similar duties in civil service, and that's why those positions are permitted to be exempt. But what the Finance Director described is generally correct, that to the extent that employees who are exempt now on the School District payroll at the BRT 104 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 perform functions that are identical to civil service functions in the BRT, if they are brought into the government, we have to consider whether or not it's appropriate for them to have civil service titles.
You gave me the chart and all that and I don't remember any of that, but are you saying that there are other employees at the BRT now who perform the same services that are performed by the employees at the School District who are civil service? Is that what you're saying?
No. I think it's if -- and we're doing a questionnaire to find this out. It's a question of whether what they do is similar to what other employees in City government do, not necessarily just at the BRT.
I don't know if there's another assessment office in the City other than this, and they're the only ones doing that job related to 105 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 assessments.
I'm not sure that -- and this is one of the reasons that we're trying to examine what the -- if we're talking about the School District-paid employees at the BRT, one of the reasons we're trying to figure out what exactly they do is to figure out what exactly they do so we can figure out whether it is, for example, assessment related. It's my understanding, from the very limited information that I have, that much of what many of those employees are doing is performing clerical functions. If that's the case, then they may not specifically be assessment related. That being said, there are civil service positions in the BRT now, and so we have to figure out how what those employees do fits with not only what's going on at the BRT, but also in general positions in City government -- 106 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 other positions in City government that are covered by civil service as it now stands.
Well, if they are working for the BRT and they may be doing clerical work, you can't separate them out and say they're not doing work that's related to the BRT. You said you're not sure if they're doing work --
Assessment related as opposed to strictly clerical work that's, in essence, fungible.
Well, the clerical work would be associated with the assessment work that's going in there, on in the office. So if I'm working for an assessor and he's passing on work to me -- and I'm making this very simplistic. I'm just a very simplistic lady. I just want to know what the deal is. It's just these people have gotten a real bad shot. They got a real bad -- just like, oh, God, they're the worst 107 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 people in the world because they work for the School District and they are political. Give me a break. So I just want to know, if they're doing work associated with the Assessor's Office, then they have skills related to that office that no one else has, because there's no other office.
I think it's important, as the Finance Director said, that we figure out what the employees do, how it relates to the existing civil service system, how it relates, if at all, specifically to the BRT and make an evaluation once we have all those facts, and that's what we're attempting to do.
I mean, we're here because we're here, but it just seems to me that it's just bad to be political, but we work in a political environment. Give me a break. Thank you.
Did you want to respond to the Councilwoman's 108 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 question?
I did. I thought maybe I could help explain the difference. We have approximately 1,100 civil service job classifications in the City for approximately 24,000 employees. We have employees in the same classification in different departments who perform similar but different work based on their departmental structure. So a Clerk Typist II in the Police Department will be doing different work, will be supporting the Police Department functions, while a Clerk Typist II in Revenue will be performing Revenue Department functions. The type of work is still clerical. They're assisting in their departmental function. So it's quite possible that we may have a classification that is appropriate for the work that's currently being performed by employees paid by the School District in the BRT within our 109 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 civil service classification system. Does that make it clearer?
I just know when I was in the City Commissioner's Office -- I have to add this -- when they wanted somebody, they got them. Okay?
Thank you, Madam President. The Board of Revision has probably -- we're going to hear salary 110 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 plus 38 percent approximately in benefits added to that. There's also the Board of View, and I believe the bill is silent to the Board of View, but so is the Mayor's testimony, the Administration's testimony, because if you go -- if you follow -- I mean, there's no reason for the bill to have anything in it, because the bill is talking about salaried employees. But when you go to per diem, it really changes the dynamic of the Board of View and members of the Board of Revision of Taxes being also members of the Board of View. Will the Administration give us their position on how they think the Board of View should -- I mean, I can't imagine they're having per diem people from the -- seven per diem or six of the seven being per diem people from the new Appeals Board joining two people who with benefits will be making $70,000 a year for those things. So if you could --
-- get back to us on that, I'd appreciate it. And I think the per diem would be a lot less for the Board of View than for the Board of Revision of Taxes based on some things we've read. In getting to the question of, as we are hearing, we're going to hear for sure whether the Board of Revision of Taxes and Board of View members get not just a salary but full-time benefits. In other words, full-time employee status, the pension system, they get full-time health benefits, the same as any other employee in the City. Could you get back to us -- I'm certainly not going to ask you or Mr. D'Attilio now to tell us, but any other positions in the City where we pay benefits as a full-time status employee where the position isn't full time. Again, it's though you're singling out the -- I don't know if we have any others or if we have a hundred others or 112 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 more throughout the City where there isn't the normal workday involved.
Councilwoman Brown, I know we have a number of witnesses that would like to testify. I would suggest to my colleagues that we try to be as brief as possible. Thank you. Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My question was actually a quick follow-up to Councilwoman Tasco's observations. Could we ask the Human Resource professional/personnel to please come back to the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)
Thank you very much. Early on, I asked you questions about the process, and you stated that 113 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 the first step in that process was the distribution of position clarification questionnaires, correct?
So if we're to follow Councilwoman Tasco's concern, those questionnaires, once you get them back, will be reviewed against other similarly described positions in government as well? When you said that you're going to -- they will be reviewed by management, which is the next step.
So shall we conclude from that that there may be other positions in government where the tasks and duties are similar to those of the School District employees?
I think that's what we're trying to understand. That's why we're going through this process, to see 114 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 whether that's the case.
Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel consists of Paul Levy and Zack Stalberg. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for 115 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Paul Levy. I have copies of my testimony here on the table and I'll try to be very brief in delivering it. The first point I simply want to make is, having served as a member of the Mayor's Task Force on Tax Policy, we're very supportive of this effort in Council since this is key to getting the assessments correct. And I want to compliment Councilman Green in particular and other members of Council who took the lead on this. But I want to specifically speak as the President of the Center City District, because for over 18 years, we have been assessing property in Center City, over 5,000 properties now, using data directly from the Board of Revision of Taxes and my comments will be based on that. I should note that 12 other special services districts in the City 116 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 also rely on that data. So for us, this is 75 to 100 percent of our revenue, so it is as important to us as it is for the School District. But let me zero in on one very specific recommendation. Based on our experience -- I'm at the bottom now of in my testimony. Based on our experience working with the Board of Revision of Taxes' assessments, the Center City District is offering a suggested amendment to this bill. As it is currently worded, Paragraph 2-203, Subsection (3) of the ordinance would give the new Board of Appeals the responsibility to determine the amount of a property qualifying for an exemption or an abatement. That power is presently part of the assessment function, and we recommend that it remain there as a duty of the new Office of Property Assessment. In determining an exemption or abatement, the Office of Property Assessment should first 117 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 determine the full taxable value of improvements; that is, the pre-abatement value, and show them in its property tax database and then show separately the value of any exemption or abatement in a separate column. By placing the responsibility for both aspects of this assessment function at the OPA, it will give either party, the taxpayer or the City of Philadelphia, then the right to appeal to the Board of Property Tax Assessment Appeals and Review. Doing it this way I suggest is more consistent with the general pattern and intention of the ordinance to separate the assessment function from the review function. Based on a review by our attorney, we believe that the City can do this without any additional state approval, because the responsibility for granting an exception or an abatement under state law lies with the appropriate assessment agency, which is what we believe the new OPA would be. 118 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 I should note that Councilman Green's office has indicated they're supportive of the intent of this amendment. The final thing I want to say is simply that while so much focus has been on the personality and the jobs of people involved in this, I do want to highlight a more basic problem, and you raised this before, Council President, the need for state-of-the-art computer systems and databases that multiple departments that deal with real estate must deal with. The Department of Revenue, the Department of Records, the Law Department, Licenses and Inspections, this new Property Assessment Office need to all be working with the same database and they are not. So simply changing a department's name or putting a smart, capable person in charge is not sufficient if staff must still deal with antiquated computer systems and fragmented information. Funding the 119 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 recommendation of upgraded technology is one of the recommendations we made in the Tax Commission. I will not read the entire section from that. I'll simply conclude to say, today Council is taking an important step in separating the assessment function from the appeal function.
The Center City District is very supportive of that, but let's make sure that the people who must implement this are working with computer systems not from the 1980s, but appropriate to the 21st century. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here.
Thank you, and thank you for your patience. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Good afternoon. 120 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 I'm Zack Stalberg, President of the Committee of Seventy, a non-partisan, non-profit group that's interested in better government. I want to say clearly that we thank the -- this is Ellen Mattleman Kaplan, who is the Vice-President of the Committee of Seventy and in charge of policy. We very clearly -- I'll try to be brief here. We clearly support this bill. I want to thank the members of Council who have had a hand in it, particularly Councilman Green, but anyone who has co-sponsored it or had an effect in shaping it. I particularly want to thank you for the timing of the bill. I think we wouldn't have had an agreement to separate the assessment function from the appeals function if this bill wasn't about to be introduced. Just a few quick points. One is that -- one is on salaries. Under the current formula, the lowest paid member 121 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 of this new Board would be paid more than half what the lowest paid member of City Council is paid. That seems not right to us, and we'd favor a per diem arrangement, perhaps with a cap, given the point that Councilman Jones raised. We favor the selection process that's in the bill. As Councilman Kenney pointed out, it seems more inclusive. I'd hope that there would be a requirement that the names that were produced by the nominating panel and sent to the Mayor be made public so that the whole process is completely transparent. We favor the notion of putting all of the School District employees on the City payroll so that everyone is playing by the same rules, the same political restrictions and the same ethics restrictions. Looking forward to other legislation that I'm sure will be discussed, we will probably favor easing the political -- the rules on political 122 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 restrictions. But bottom line is that in this case, there needs to be a clear determination of exactly how many employees need to be in this new office, what the cost should be, and they should all have to play by the same rules. So I'm hoping that the bill is amended to deal with that, if possible. It certainly makes sense to deal with the Board of View at this time and probably a per diem compensation for the Board of View. Right now it seems like they're awfully highly paid for a very small amount of work. And we favor the same selection process for the Board of View that this bill envisions for the new Appeals Board. Finally, and this is slightly outside of the scope of the bill, but it appears that there will be at least a year between this point and the point in which a new process begins to fully take over, and I'd urge Council to hold periodic hearings with the Board of 123 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Revision of Taxes, the current Board of Revision of Taxes, and the Administration to monitor this process so that the public is guaranteed some periodic public reports of how the transition is taking place. There are many issues related to that. As Councilman DiCicco pointed out and as the letter from the current BRT members seems to indicate, they're not wildly interested in showing up in public and explaining what they're doing. I think that is an insult to the public, as Councilman DiCicco said. And I believe the only way that we'll get a regular report on how the Administration is moving on this and how the BRT is moving on this is if Council, perhaps using its subpoena powers, Council holds a periodic hearing to explain all this. That's it. I thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes 124 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Councilwoman Brown.
Mr. Zack Stalberg, could you please provide for us, if you will, the compensation of the Board of the Committee of Seventy?
Of the Executive Committee, what percentage are female, what number are female.
Frankly, I couldn't give that to you off the top of my head. It was originally, at the point that I took over the Committee of Seventy, a heavily male, a heavily white Board and Executive Committee. At this stage, it's becoming more and more diverse. The entire Board is in the neighborhood of 60 members, the Executive 125 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Committee about 21. I can provide you with the actual statistics.
Of the 5 members of the Executive Committee, what 6 number or percentage of them are African 7 American? 8
Again, I would 9 have to go back and do an analysis of 10 that. But we've been striving to make 11 the Committee of Seventy more and more 12 diverse. 13
What 18 number or percentage of them are 19 Philadelphia residents? 20
Let's walk through the 21. Daniel Fitzpatrick would not be female, African American or Latino. 126 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 John McKeever?
So the real numbers are five women, if I'm correct, 15 white males and one African American female -- no; one African American man.
I'll trust your 129 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 count here.
So the record shows that there are no African American women and no Latinos. Does that look like Philadelphia?
It does not look like Philadelphia, which is why we're trying to make the Board and the Executive Committee more and more diverse. That said, the Committee of Seventy works in the region, is doing next week a significant program in New Jersey on Election Day. So it's a regional group and it's much closer to representing the demographics of the region than of the City.
And that's stipulated in your, some might call that, mission statement? This is the first time I'm actually hearing -- and thank you for the update -- that it is a regional organization, not a Philadelphia-based look-see entity that 130 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 is interested in, quote, clean government, fair elections and informed citizens. It is a regional organization?
Yes, trying to become more and more regional, frankly, in line with just about all the other civic and cultural groups in town trying to represent the region more than just the City.
In what ways has the vision or mission of the agency changed under your leadership?
It was primarily focused on elections for a long period of time. It was originally begun in 1904 or so as a group focused on corruption in City Hall and the -- especially how that wave of immigrants that came in at the beginning of the 20th century was being handled. Over time, it became an elections-focused group. In recent years, it's become more interested in ethics issues and was a major defender of the campaign finance law, for instance, 131 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 which Councilman Goode proposed. And more recently than that, interested in making government work better in reform issues about how efficient government is. Most recent big piece of work that we did was a report called "Tackling True Reform," in which the BRT was mentioned. I'm striving to get this back to the point of the hearing.
Okay. Well, we use the hearings as opportunity to gather any and all information that we can from testifiers. So you will get back to Madam President on the composition and makeup of the 38 Board members?