COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - City Hall, Room 400 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, March 1, 2006 10:40 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - BILL 060003 RESOLUTION 060099 RESOLUTION 060100 V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
Good morning, everyone. We are resuming the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call upon our first witness to testify.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President Verna and Members of Council. I'm Vince Jannetti, the acting director of finance of the City. I'm here on behalf of the administration, the employees of the Office of the Director of Finance to provide testimony on the department's proposed FY '07 operating budget. The Office of the Director of Finance is comprised of six divisions: 3 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Executive Direction, the Office of Budget and Program Evaluation, Minority Business and Enterprise Council, the Account ng Bureau, Office of Administrative Review, and Risk Management. Joining me here today are representatives from those decisions who are available to answer any questions. The Finance Office's FY '07 budget for all funds totals $1.2 billion. The largest single component of the fund's budget is employee fringe benefits at $952.7 million. This represents an increase of 96.3 million or 11.2 percent over the current FY '06 projection. The General Fund budget request is $1 billion. Of this amount 854.8 million is in employee compensation and fringe benefits. The office's budget this year includes funding for a new contract legislation unit. This unit will be responsible for implementing and monitoring the City's compliance with the finance contract legislation. 4 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. The proposed '07 budget anticipates 183 full-time positions, an increase of eight positions from the '06 adopted budget. Other significant elements of the Finance budget are legal services, which will increase by $659,000 from $33.6 million to 34.3 million; the City's $35 million contributions to the School District and 22.47 million for Community College and $34.1 million in indemnities, which represents an increase of 251,000 from the '06 estimated obligations. This concludes my written testimony on the proposed operating budget for the Office of the Director of Finance. Other departments and commissions under the direction of the finance director will be here to provide separate testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much. Mr. Jannetti, the City's 5 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. proposed 2007 General Fund budget for personal services is approximately 1.304 billion and employee benefits are over $845 million per the budget in brief. The fringe benefit budget is roughly 65 percent of the payroll expenses. The percentage of fringes to payroll in FY '05 was 56.6 percent. What has caused this dramatic increase? Does this mean that every employee the City hires we must add 65 percent of his or her salary to cover their benefits.
Council President, the biggest increase in fringe benefits is in the area of pensions. In '07 the pension payments are estimated to increase about percent of what they 19 are in the current year. 20
Well, I would ask again about what does that mean? Does that mean that every current employee that's hired we must add 65 percent to his or her salary to cover the benefits? 6 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
If that's the ratio, yes, but I would have to get clarity on it if that's the actual ratio.
Were you having some conversation back there for an answer?
While that's being done, can you provide us with an analysis of a hypothetical hire and its related benefits?
Yes. I think that's what we were talking about. 7 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
A new employee, when they are hired, would get their salary. They would be signed up for -- they would be signed up for Blue Cross or an HMO. They would get their dental, optical, prescription. They would have FICA, and they would have their pension.
So again I'm asking: What percentage would that be?
And I'm reminded per member, per month health and welfare payments, bargaining unit. Peggy is still working on the numbers.
While Peggy is doing that, I think we're running really behind schedule. I will go on with my other questions. In yesterday's hearing for OHCD they testified that the Housing Trust Fund will be included in their CDBG application. The funding for the trust fund is generated by additional recording fees on the transfer of property. Can 8 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. you tell us the amounts and where these funds are appropriated in both 2006 and 2007.
Council President, I will have to do a report on that and send that to the Chair.
Miss Reed, did you have the answer? Is that why you are approaching the table? If you do, I'd appreciate your coming up to the table and testifying.
The Records Department? What page? Good morning.
Peggy Van Bell. I'm deputy budget director. The Housing Trust Fund is not a part of the City's operating budget. 9 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
The City's accounting bureau determined that the nature of the legislation did not require that the Housing Trust Fund be part of the City's operating budget.
We will ask the accounting manager and get back to you on that also. He's here in the room.
Why doesn't he come up to the table to enlighten us if he will?
From where? 10 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
Michael Kauffman, director of accounting. The question about the Housing Trust Fund, when we read the legislation that established that, based on our analysis of that we determined that it could be set up as a special fund within the accounting system that didn't require Council approval of the budget every year. If I remember correctly, the legislation put all the spending power within the Office of Housing and Community Development, and that's a part of the reason that we made that determination.
Can you tell us the amounts and where these funds are appropriated in both 2006 and 2007?
While you are sitting there I hope, because we 11 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. are being told we will forward you information, and the budget is passed or voted upon and we never get the information, so I would like to get that.
Thank you. Can someone at the table explain for the record how these funds flow from the City to the trust fund in very clear language that we all understand, please?
Yes, ma'am. The money comes into the records department I believe and the -- for the -- I don't remember the exact tax this is for, but it's divided in half, and the half that goes to the Housing Trust Fund is deposited and credited to that account right away and the other half goes to the General Fund. So whenever a taxpayer pays that particular tax, it's split up and 12 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. the appropriate amount goes into the General Fund, goes into the Housing Trust Fund.
I do not see any reference in your testimony to MBEC. Can you give us an update as to the City's goals and what the City's performance is?
Council President, I think Michael Williams is here and I believe he has separate testimony.
Good morning. Thank you. Michael Williams, deputy finance director, director of the MBEC.
And my question is: I do not see any reference in Mr. Jannetti's testimony to MBEC. Can you give us an update as to the City's goals and what's the City's performance?
I handed in the 13 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. City's performance for fiscal year 2005 to the finance director, and it is my belief, after speaking to the finance director, that he handed that in to the administration.
And the administration is charged with giving that to City Council. So would the administration -- the Mayor's office. I'm sorry. Excuse me. Not the administration; the Mayor's office. Thank you, Councilwoman. The Mayor's office has that information. As to the goals, my team is setting up a retreat in two weeks to set the bench marks for the rest of fiscal year '06 and '07, and when we have those, we will forward those over to Council.
Whatever you had provided to Mr. Jannetti, I would appreciate it if you would forward it to me and to every member of Council. 14 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a point of information.
Per the executive order, a report is due to the Mayor after a 12-month period. They are supposed to show the experience of the prior 365 days, but also per the executive order there was a report due not only to the Mayor but to Council on July 31.
As per the executive order, I don't think that that information was just due to the Mayor for the Mayor to present to Council, but that information was due -- in fact, it says to Council. It says, "The MBEC shall provide reports to the Mayor and City 15 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Council on January 31 and July 31 annually setting forth the dollar value and percentage participation by M/W/DSBEs on City contracts. "Reports to the Mayor and City Council shall set forth as a measure of accountability the performance of each department as measured against its bench mark during the immediately preceding period. "The report shall also list the City-related special projects including M/W/DSBE's participation ranges in the federally assisted public projects of Philadelphia that have DPE participation ranges and level participation achieved on each project: "The MBEC shall deliver its first report on July 31, 2005."
Thank you, Councilman. We were late on the first report getting the information because we didn't receive the correct amount of 16 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. information from the City departments to generate the report. Once we did receive the report and reconciled the information from our computer-based reports and the reports from the departments, we took that information and gave it to -- presented it to the finance director. I will speak to the Mayor's office and --
According to the executive order, the report was due to both the Mayor and City Council on July 31, 2005.
I called you in, I believe, early September. You told me that information would not be available until late October, I believe, 17 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. at the earliest. In the Mayor's budget address the Mayor said that, yes, the reports were late but there would be a figure that would be provided in budget testimony. Is that not the case now?
As I testified, we handed the report to the finance director. He gave it to the Mayor's office. It was my assumption that the Mayor's office was going to release it to Council.
Well, the executive order says MBEC shall provide reports to the Mayor and Council on January 31 and July 31 annually. So you missed July 31, 2005. You missed January 31, 2006, but essentially if you have any report, whether it's for July 31 or January 31, according to the executive 18 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. order we are supposed to get it.
Councilman, I believe that when I sent it to the Mayor's office I erroneously did not send it to Council.
Can we get the report now? I mean essentially the executive order says we are supposed to get the report. Unless somebody told you not to give us the report, we want the report now.
I was going to suggest that somebody at the table make a phone call and have a member 19 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. of their staff deliver 16 or 17 copies, please. I'm sorry. I've been corrected. May we have 20 copies so staff can also see it?
Thank you. Mr. Jannetti, are we able to answer my first question now?
Good morning, Council President. Yes; in terms of the FY '07 General Fund budget, the percentage of payroll that makes up fringe benefits is 65 percent. The percentage of total compensation that was represented by fringe benefits is 36 percent. So while the calculation does equal 65 percent, we generally, when we 20 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. look at the cost of hiring a new employee, we don't apply that fringe benefit rate because a significant portion of fringe benefits is the unfunded pension liability and we only estimate the cost of the additional employee in our calculation because whether you hire someone or not, that unfunded liability is a fixed cost.
Wouldn't it be very helpful to show it in a different way in the budget? Because as it appears, it's really very misleading.
I believe what we could do is we could further break down our fringe benefit figure to show the pension payment in terms of normal cost and unfunded liability.
I think that would be much better than what we are presently showing.
We can definitely do that for you. 21 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
Thank you. Councilman Nutter, are you prepared to be recognized at this point in time, or should I go to the next person?
This may be a first. Go to the next person. That will not be the new policy.
And you don't want to make a habit of it, I'm sure.
Council President, we have an answer on the Housing Trust Fund.
The first part of your question, the other determination of why we did not include this as a budgeted fund is according to the ordinance, any assets remaining in the trust fund at the end of the fiscal year shall be carried into the next fiscal 22 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. year including all interest and income earned as well as any repayments of forfeitures of loans and/or grants.
What's the difference between this and the special gasoline tax which is shown as an appropriation?
I believe the special gasoline tax, everything has to be spent within one year and nothing gets rolled over into the next year. They work on a calendar year basis and that's the way that works.
I think that what we find a little provoking is the fact that there is nothing shown in the budget for 2006 and 2007. And we don't know -- I don't think you're making it very clear to me -- I don't know about anybody else -- as to why this isn't being shown.
It is currently not being shown because we have a few of those special funds that don't have to be 23 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. budgeted, and the balance in them just rolls forward from year to year. And that's what we understood the intention of this fund was, that the money would be collected and just spent for those purposes from year to year. With the other funds, whenever there is budgeting involved, the appropriations, if they are not spent by the end of a particular year, they lapse. In this case it doesn't happen like that according to the ordinance, but things were meant to go on from year to year, and they were authorized to be spent under a specific purpose. So that's why that decision was made.
Well, I think we should have a City solicitor's opinion on that.
Fine. The other piece of that that you'd asked, this fund has only been collecting revenue for fiscal '06, and to date we have $5.6 million collected in 24 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. that fund and it's available for expenditure, but there have been no 4 expenditures made or encumbrances against that amount. So it's $5.6 million so far in fiscal '06.
I have been told -- and I wasn't here for the OHCD hearing yesterday, but I'm being told that OHCD testified that there was over $11 million in that account. And they were projecting in '07. 13
All I can tell 14 you is what I was told here this morning, that there is 5.6 million. I will go back and verify those numbers, but the gentleman that gave me that information, I would expect that he would be a hundred percent accurate, so I'm not sure where OHCD got their figures from.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a point of information.
Thank you, Madam Chair. 25 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Based on yesterday's discussion, not that we should ever assume anything, but the conversation was that for FY '06 the Housing Trust Fund was supposed to have $11.5 million, one and a half million from NTI and $10 million from all of the fees. Now, maybe that is a projection for FY '06, and I don't know when you got your figures. We are a little more than halfway through the fiscal year. Maybe they are anticipating the rest of the balance to come in by June 30, but when you look at the budget, you apparently are showing decreases in funding from anticipated tax revenues on real estate transfer tax over some period of time. I will come back when it is my turn to get back into this whole in the budget, not in the budget discussion, but I mean that was the discussion yesterday, and the projection was 15 million for FY '07. But all you're testifying to is 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. what is actually in the account?
Yes, sir, what has been collected and allocated to that account through yesterday.
Good morning, Mr. Jannetti. And I'm sorry. I did not catch your name.
Mr. Kauffman, okay. I'm looking at Bill 050059, which is the bill that was passed to create the Housing Trust Fund passed by the Council June 9 of last year, signed by the Mayor July 8. What is it in this bill that you can tell me indicates that by creating the Housing Trust Fund it somehow took the dollars out of the 27 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. budget process for City Council?
Councilman, the quote is that it said it is the intention of City Council that the trust fund be used for the purposes of this ordinance. Therefore, any assets remaining in the trust fund at the end of the fiscal year shall be carried into the next fiscal year including all interest and income earned as well as any repayments of forfeitures of loans and/or grants.
So what is it about that particular statement that all of a sudden removes the funding and the Council authority through the budget process over those dollars?
As we interpreted that was that the original ordinance gave the authority over that to the Office of Housing and Community Development and then the nature of carrying over the fund, rolling --
Stop right there. 28 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Does it say that in the legislation?
I do not have the legislation in front of me. I have an excerpt.
You may want to hold onto paper. It's not a bad thing. Those Blackberries are going to be shut down. Can you tell me what section of the bill says that since it's under the purview of OHCD it takes it out of the City's budget process?
Councilman, I have to look at this and make sure I see where we were making our decision, what it was based on.
Well, you made an interpretation. I'm sure you gave it long and hard thought. And given the fact that we don't take dollars out 29 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. of the City's budget process on a regular basis, I would think it would stand out in your mind as a quite unique situation. You may have created history. I only see a reference to OHCD once in this entire bill, and that's on under Section 8 4 where the Housing Trust Fund makes recommendations to the Office of Housing and Community Development regarding the types of projects and programs to be funded with trust fund monies. That's the only reference I see so far to the Office of Housing and Community Development in the bill, and you're telling us that you've made an interpretation that based on one paragraph in the legislation you have, in effect, removed us from direct budgetary process. I'm trying to understand how you got the interpretation. By the way, what is the legal status of the Office of Housing and Community Development?
I'm sorry, 30 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Councilman. I really can't answer that question.
The other question, as far as where we got this information from, is in this bill. In 21-1602 it says, "Establishment of the Philadelphia Housing Trust Fund."
Right. It says you're going to create a separate fund by the finance director.
It means established as a separate fund not to be commingled with any other fund. And in the second paragraph after that it says, "It is the intention of Council that the trust fund be used for the purposes of this ordinance."
Well, that's 31 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. what we used as our deciding factor on this particular instance.
Okay. Did you think that that was significant? Have you ever done that before?
Whenever there is -- other funds have been established and they were established differently.
Other funds have been established, and I believe they were established differently that were meant to be -- or according to our interpretation, they were meant to be included in the budget.
Right. Can 32 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. you think of a recent occurrence where anything else like this has been created and was outside of an appropriation power?
Excuse me, sir. We generally don't establish too many new funds. I think this and the other new fund we established in the last five years or so would have been the car rental tax fund.
Yes, which was created by action, I believe, of the General Assembly, enabling us to create such a fund. Obviously we didn't have that situation here, right? And it goes through our budget process, correct?
I mean, look, you're trying to do your job. You read something. Maybe you didn't participate in the hearings, but I can only suggest to you if you have such a 33 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. unique situation that you don't do on a regular basis, you may either want to find out, A, what was the legislative intention by the body; B, you might want to touch base with the Law Department to see what it's all about; and, C, if you come to the conclusion that you have obviously come to, you might want to let us know before you get into a budget hearing to now tell us that $11 million in '06 and $15 million in '07 is anticipated to not be a part of the budget process. This is what we do. You just cannot make that manner of interpretation and not tell anybody. So where do we go from here?
Councilman, I think we will ask the City solicitor for an opinion on this, and for this year at least we can report to you the activity to fund, what we have collected, what has been disbursed, for what purposes.
Well, I 34 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. don't think there has been any disbursement.
Okay. All right. Madam Chair, I have other questions not on this particular topic. I don't know what's on the board. This is a very serious situation. It really gives me grave concern about how people are functioning and operating and what's going on and interpretations being made, and with every respect to you and what you do and you're serious about your job, I think I have to honestly say to you that this kind of decision and interpretation may have needed to go up the chain a little bit before you arrive at such a conclusion. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have other questions. I'll come back. 35 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
Fine. Thank you, sir. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
I just want to ask a question. Mr. Jannetti, you said that you have given the report from MBEC to the Mayor. I will just cite that during the Mayor's budget message he pointed out -- he says, and I'll quote, I'm pleased to report that the City has substantially increased its minority participation on City contracts. A comprehensive report will be presented during our budget testimony. I do want to assure Council Members Tasco and Goode, who have been leaders on this issue, we will continue to do more. So is the study prepared, report ready for us today during the budget, course of the budget discussion?
I believe that Mr. Williams has asked that copies be 36 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. produced for the Council.
What is the status of the revised DJ Miller disparity study?
My pleasure. There has been no further movement except by the drafting the executive order from the DJ Miller report. I think that's --
I, as I told you I guess a couple years in a row, brought them over here and I forget what Councilman participated -- I think it was Councilman Nutter -- said they are in the 37 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. building. I will send a letter to the administration to ask if we can send this report out to City Council.
Do you believe that the study is still in the building?
I do believe, Councilwoman, that the study is still in the building.
I will send a letter to the Mayor's office and ask that it be released to the City Council.
October 7 I also wrote a letter to the Mayor requesting the report that was due July 5. Of course, we have not received a response to that letter. Do you believe, Mr. Jannetti, we will get the report today? 38 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
For the participation numbers for '05? Absolutely. We will actually get them -- I spoke to someone on Mr. Jannetti's staff and on my staff and we will get those reports over to you. They are being copied right now. So you will get them before the session is over.
Will you look at the report and then also go back to the disparity study and do an analysis to see if there has been any progress?
Point of information. 39 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a point of information.
Thank you, Madam President. That was too many absolutlies. My particular problem is that I don't care about the former disparity study, which I do have a copy of. My particular problem is even if we have participation numbers in our hands right now, that's not enough data. I mean essentially what the bill that we passed in 2003 did was call for annual disparity studies that would do a measurement of the capacity of disadvantaged businesses versus the amount of work that they are actually getting. So the percentage of participation is just one part of the formula. We also need a measurement of how many businesses were actually qualified to do that work so we can actually look at what the 40 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. underutilization is. So suggested percentages of how many people were used doesn't fully tell us the disparity. What tells us the disparity and what the underutilization is is also measuring the capacity of how many disadvantaged businesses could have been performing that work. And unless you actually have that information, have been working on that, then it absolutely meant nothing is not true, because unless you know how many businesses were qualified to do the work versus how many businesses got the work, you haven't done your job. And that's what MBEC was created to do. That's what the law we passed was intended to do. That's what the executive order was supposedly to do, but participation numbers are only part of the equation. What we really need is a data-driven process that is focused on disparities to show how much those businesses are being underutilized.
Thank you, 41 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Councilman. We will get you the information that the executive order asked us to give to you.
What about the information that was required by law? Even if you don't acknowledge the law, you can acknowledge the information that was supposed to be done under that, given under that law.
I don't have that information. I am not -- I have heard of the law. I may have read about the law when I first came in, but I don't know anything else about that. I don't have that information.
In the end -- if you say you went from 2 percent to 10 percent to 15 percent in the end means nothing to us because if there were enough qualified businesses with capacity to perform those services at 30 percent and you are at 10 percent, that means you discriminated against two-thirds of them, and we need to know that. 42 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Thank you, Madam President.
You know, I don't want to shoot the messenger because the messenger has been -- but I think that what clearly -- what is clear is that there is no real commitment on the part of the administration to -- and the numbers might be so poor that they don't want to share them, but clearly after all of this tug-of-war through these years we have not gotten the information. There is no real commitment to follow the ordinance as it was passed and/or the executive order. It was all done, to me, for show but not a real commitment to making any difference in how we do business in the City. And until there is a commitment there, I mean we will go through this ad infinitum, until the end of the term to see just what is happening in terms of dealing with minority participation in 43 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. City government, and so we will just wait to see what we get, but, again, Councilman Goode points out all the information that should be produced so that we can have a clear picture of what's going on in the City. And if that's not going to happen, it doesn't seem like it is going to happen, so I don't have any faith in it happening. Thank you.
Are there any other questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Mr. Jannetti, two items for you: First, what's the status of the proposed I guess reform, if you might call it, on the bond financing process? We have had some discussion over time about competitive bid and how the professionals are selected. You and I have talked about 44 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. this on a couple different occasions. And then there was a proposal or, if not a commitment, that there would be an executive order covering these particular issues. What's the status of those items at this point?
Councilman, we have been working on that document for three or four, five months now.
There are a lot of issues around fitting what we do into the legislation, and so part of the process has been involved and, you know, I'm confident and hopeful that we are coming to the end of this road very soon and so the status is we are working on it and we are hopefully almost done.
Can you 45 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. tell me just a little bit more? I know you to be a hardworking guy, so I'm not questioning whether you are working on it. I mean what are you doing? What are its components?
For example, bond insurance, insurers, how do they fit into the legislation?
I hate to refresh your recollection, but the City solicitor determined that the bond financings, or at least some components of it, were not covered.
You're on the were; I'm on the were not, because I don't have to worry about the were anymore. I want to know about the were not. So where's the were not part?
You're talking about like underwriters, how are we going to select underwriters?
We are going to have a competitive process that will, I guess, get us to where we need to go. We need to, you know --
Even for 47 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. you, Mr. Jannetti, you are being unusually evasive.
And will counsel be covered by that as well, counsel as in legal counsel?
Bond counsel, underwriters' counsel, all the other professionals in the --
Yeah, we have been having major discussions on whether or not underwriters' counsel is covered. That discussion would be two or three or four days.
Really? 48 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. The conclusion was?
The conclusion was I forget on underwriters' counsel. Bond counsel, obviously the answer is obvious.
Okay. Now, second question: What is the nature of the finance director's relationship to the City treasurer?
City treasurer is a person who reports to the finance director. City treasurer's office is in the finance cluster of departments. So the City treasurer reports to the finance director.
City treasurer reports to the finance director, okay. City treasurer is responsible for payroll? 49 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
Well, the formulation of the payroll is a payroll division which is a subset of accounting in finance. The City treasurer's office gets the checks. The checks are printed. The treasurer's signature is printed on the checks and they disburse them, but the checks, the actual formulation of the checks, is done in finance with information from all of the departments.
Okay. And then what's the City controller's role in the whole payroll process?
The City controller approves the payroll before it is actually disbursed, as he does all disbursement checks in the City.
If the controller decides not to process a group of checks or a check, then it cannot be disbursed? 50 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
I would think so. That has never happened on a payroll check, but I would think yes.
Do you have any authority to stop a check from being paid or issued?
I think probably yes. The people who formulate the checks are under me, so I could --
So if you told them not to process someone's check, they would not do it?
Yes, but he question is in my mind would that be proper for me to do that, depending on the circumstances, you know.
What kind of circumstances do you think would be appropriate?
I'm not really sure. I haven't really thought about it. If you have an employee who hasn't worked and you found he has falsified his time sheets or time data or whatever, you know, he really doesn't deserve a paycheck.
Because 52 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. they falsified their time sheet?
How about in a situation where a person has violated some other provision of the Home Rule Charter?
If we knew about that and -- let me -- we have the ability to hold a check if there is cause, and the City controller obviously also has that ability.
So whether it is falsifying a time sheet or violating some other provision of the Home Rule Charter, you have the authority to hold a check. So in a specific matter where a person has falsified their residency, a clear violation of the Home Rule Charter, they have admitted that they violated the Home Rule Charter, do you think that is an appropriate circumstance to hold that person's paycheck? 53 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
I'd have to get -- I would truly get an opinion from the solicitor on that one, on whether we should hold that or not.
You are the finance director. You are in a very unique position.
Well, my personal opinion as a gentleman who was born in this City who has always worked 54 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. here and never lived outside the City, I think that if you come into the City and you -- this is my personal opinion --
So it's your personal opinion if a person has not established their residency as is required by the Home Rule Charter, they should not be paid by the citizens of the City?
I think there is something on the paystub -- on the paycheck when you sign that you are verifying that the information on the check is true. I have not seen a blue check in a long time, I must admit, but I think that, and I think that a regular check has your address on it. 55 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions from members of committee? Seeing none, I thank you. Thank you. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call the next department.
I am William Gamble, Commissioner of the Procurement Department. With me today are Deputy Commissioners Barbara Evans and Sandra Early. I'm presently for your consideration the Procurement Department's fiscal year 2007 budget request. The Procurement Department is 56 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. requesting a total appropriation for all the funds of $5,456,489, of which $5,341,827 is the General Fund. The General Fund budget for the fiscal year 2007 provides $2,898,075 for Class 100 payroll expenses, supporting 64 employees $2,369,309 for Class 200 purchase of services and $74,443 for Class 300 and 400 supplies and equipment. This budget represents an overall increase of 368,458 from the fiscal year 2006 projected obligations of $4,973,369. The Grants Revenue Fund budget provides $50,000 for Class 200 purchase of services and the Water Fund budget provides 64,662 for Class 100 payroll expenses for two employees. The fiscal year 2007 Class 100 General Fund budget is increased by $83,458 from the FY '06 projected payroll expenses. The increase is due to the wage increase effective 7/1/06 and the increase in the projected lump sum 57 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. separation payments. The Class 200 purchase of services budget is increased a total of $285,000 for new contracts. An increase of $87,000 is for a contract of Internet auction services for surplus supplies and equipment and 198,000 is for Webprocure maintenance. The mission of the Procurement Department is to obtain quality goods and services and construction in a timely, cost-effective and professional manner through a competitive, fair and socially responsible process in accordance with the law. The FY 2007 General Fund budget request will provide the resources necessary to accomplish this mission. The Procurement Department is comprised of three divisions. The Services, Supplies and Equipment Division centrally purchases products and services required by City departments to provide their services to the public, monitors the City's Class 300 inventory of 58 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. supplies, accounts for personal property, and disseminates bid information to the public. The Public Works Division processes capital projects and concession bids, administers the Citywide advertising program and coordinates the inspection and disposal of City property. The Administrative Services Division provides the executive direction for procurement. Madam President, this concludes my testimony. I will be very happy to answer any questions that you or any member or Council may have regarding my testimony.
Thank you very much, Mr. Gamble. On of your testimony you indicate you are asking for an increase of $87,000 for a contract for Internet auction services. Would you explain exactly what that is please.
Yes. We are in 59 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. the process of going through a pilot program to see whether it is cost effective to implement a program that will use the Internet in order to do our optional services. Currently we are going through a pilot project that will deal with surplus automobiles or vehicles to see how effective it is, and if it is as effective as we think it is going to be, it will save us money, and we are going to put it out for bid and make it a competitive bid so that we can utilize the services not only in equipment but overall auction services.
And yet you are asking for an increase of $87,000. How are we saving money?
The increase is based on -- this is what the auction services will cost us for those services. 60 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. The company that we are using for this pilot, the services -- $87,000, that is what it will cost to use that service, but in order to use that service, we will be saving money.
So with the surplus automobiles, they would be put up for auction on the Internet? Is that what I understand you to say?
Yes. Basically, yes, we will be using the Internet as a way of auctioning surplus vehicles.
Would you buy an auto like that on the Internet?
Keep in mind we are talking about surplus equipment that we have discarded, so this is used equipment that we are trying to get something for. So we are not doing anything that is unique that other City governments are not doing. They are finding by doing this it has been very beneficial to them as well as cost 61 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. effective.
You further indicate on that you expect to increase revenues due to this initiative by 30 percent. What is the amount of additional revenues you expect to receive? It is on of your testimony. Did you find it?
Yes, I did. That simply means what we are expecting -- again, this is a pilot project that we are trying to see. And what we are anticipating is if by using the Internet we will be actually showing our services and our equipment to more than just the Philadelphia region. It will be on the Internet nationally and internationally, and we anticipate with the additional coverage, that will increase -- that may increase the percentage by 30 percent. Again, this is a pilot, so --
I 62 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. understand it's a pilot, but can you tell us where it is reflected in the revenue estimates? We should have some indication as to what the revenue estimates are going to be? And it's 30 percent exactly. 30 percent of what?
I'm sorry. Deputy Commissioner Sandra Early, Public Works. The surplus unit is in my division. We currently experience approximately $400,000 revenue per year for surplus vehicles and heavy equipment with our auction currently. That is the increase we expect to see, the 30 percent increase, based on the service suppliers, estimates of the general market now. And the revenue is offsetting -- the $87,000 that we are asking for to be put in the budget to pay for the services will be offset by the revenue 63 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. collected.
We have looked and I don't know where that is shown, where the revenue estimates are shown.
So 64 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. you are showing a hundred thousand dollar increase. That's a percent increase 4 and not the 30 percent increase as you 5 testified. 6
I say this is what 11 we're anticipating. This is not 12 necessarily what we guarantee, but it is 13 reflected in Line 54 of the Fleet budget. 14
I'm 15 not going to go there. 16 Let's go to of your testimony. You mention a new unit that you will be creating for market research and analysis. Can you tell us what this unit will do and how will it ensure that the City is getting the best price?
What this unit is going to basically do is identify best practices that's been utilized throughout the procurement by public agencies. We 65 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. are going to make sure that we are going to utilize the corporate purchasing segment where we will be comparing prices, our contracts to what other contracts in other cities are using, and be able to -- if we find our contracts are not doing that with the best prices, then we will be able to pay back and use those commodities or those contracts.
Mr. Gamble, how many employees will you need for this new unit?
Basically what we are doing is we have a unit called a standards unit and we actually are renaming that unit the market research group, so it is not new employees or new staff; it is just staff doing different things than we had done in the past.
Very well. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, 66 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Madam President. Good morning, Mr. Gamble.
Per Bill 7 050615 unanimously passed by City Council on December 1 and signed into law by the Mayor December 15, all City depositories are required to certify compliance with the Labor Disclosure Law created by Councilwoman Reynolds Brown by January 1 of each year. How many City depositories certified compliance with that section of the code?
Did you deem that one in compliance under provisions of that law that was passed?
And did you deem the other depositories not in compliance?
We didn't receive 67 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. anything from them, so, yes, they are in noncompliance. We haven't received anything from them.
So you consider all of the other depositories to be in noncompliance?
How many City depositories are currently under contract with the City?
I don't know. I would have to get that for you. I wouldn't know.
The City treasurer is actually here. I know he is coming up next, but if he could actually come up for that one question?
Please identify yourself for the record. Did you hear the question?
Councilman, do you remind repeating? 68 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
Good morning, Mr. Nacchio. The question was how many City depositories are currently under contract for this fiscal year.
Of the nine depositories that are authorized -- the word "contract" is a difficult term to identify, but I would say that of the nine we do business primarily with four, so we have business --
My question really was not how many you do business with but how many are under contract. And, as you know, there are two separate sets of requirements for City depositories. Almost all of them are under your purview, but there is also requirements under the purview of the procurement commissioner, and the particular requirements that I'm referencing today apply to Bill 050615, which requires that all City depositories certify compliance by January of slavery disclosure. And essentially 69 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. those letters go to the procurement commissioner rather than the City treasurer. So my question to the procurement commissioner was how many complied by January 1. His answer was one. My question was were they deemed to be in compliance per what they wrote and then, two, how many of those other City depositories are not in compliance, having not forwarded anything to the procurement commissioner. And based upon that my question then -- because that section of the code deals with prerequisites and execution of contracts, my question of the procurement commissioner was how many City depositories are actually under contract. So I'm asking a contract question.
Currently to my knowledge there are no contracts, only agreements.
Only? I'm sorry. 70 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
That answered my question. Thank you. I have other questions for the City treasurer when he comes back. I have a separate question for Mr. Gable though. Mr. Gamble, could you, in addition to requesting the legal opinion on the one City depository which did submit information in regard to Bill 13 050615, get a legal opinion on those that did not submit information and whether they are in compliance with that law?
Thank you. Are there any other questions of Mr. Gamble? Seeing none, I thank you all.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Sure. My name is John Nacchio, and I'm the City treasurer for Philadelphia. I was going to dispense with the written testimony and just have it enter into the record.
That would be fine with us. If you would just capsulize what you were going to say.
And we will make certain that the stenographer has a copy and it will be transcribed in full.
Sure. Just as a highlight, I wanted 72 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. to talk about the increases in personnel to the treasurer's office to add additional administrative and analytical resources so that we can identify opportunities for maximizing investments on idle cash in accounts. And such abilities had been over time budgeted out of the department and now returning to that would give us an analytical capability to identify those opportunities, which may develop revenue streams of possibly $2 million or more a year with what we are doing. Also, I wanted to indicate that raising the bar on what is considered fraud or proactive activity and fraud is to protect the City's bank accounts. Certainly the questions and issues revolving around identity theft on a personal level is also something the City has to consider in protecting its assets and all of its bank accounts. Currently I estimate that we have over 300 to 400 bank accounts around 73 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. the City of Philadelphia both under the City treasurer and under various departments, and raising that level of protection is very important in these times when theft electronically and also physically is a possibility.
Thank you. You mention on of your testimony that your department monitors over 30 investment portfolios, representing over $1.5 billion of investments. Please tell us what you mean by investment portfolio and also who manages these portfolios and how they are picked.
Currently the City has seven money managers. The accounts that they manage -- primarily six of the money managers manage funds that are kept in trust or kept by the fiscal agent in relation to bond issues. The single money manager that has to do with the City's consolidated 74 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. cash account is the one that's outside those funding sources. They were selected in an RFP process that was conducted by the treasurer's office prior to my becoming City treasurer.
Would you indicate what the investment limitations of these portfolios are, please? What are the limitations, if any?
There is an investment policy, if you are speaking to that, which is part of the Philadelphia Code and further defined by the investment policy that the finance director and the City treasurer sit on an investment committee, refined it down another level, but primarily it is within the City code.
And when you talk about investments, each of the portfolios 75 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. would have items like treasuries, corporate, commercial paper, and possibly money market funds.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning again, Mr. Nacchio.
Per a resolution passed by this Council on December 1, we had called on the Office of the City Treasurer to commission annual studies of money disparities of our City depositories. Is the treasurer's office prepared to do that in the next budget year?
Under the current request in the budget for 2007 the City treasurer's office does not have budgeted funds for that item. 76 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
That was your response on February 16. I asked you by the time that you came to testify in the budget hearing whether that situation would be rectified. You said you would talk to the budget office about it.
Sir, in my preliminary preparation for this testimony I indicated that that resolution had passed and that there would be a need identified for that. I have not gotten confirmation whether there would be a change to my budget at any time.
Good morning, Miss Reed. The resolution that was passed, Resolution No. 051161, on December we understand to be nonbinding. It's 77 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. similar to a resolution that I passed in February of 2000 regarding the Office of City Controller relating to small business lending. The controller's office has since that time complied with that request by Council through resolution that reduced annual studies of small business lending. Last year this Council actually authorized a more comprehensive study of not just small business lending but home loans and small business lending, a comprehensive study of lending disparities by our City depositories, and essentially contracted two years' worth of analysis, one for 2003 and 2004. And, just for the record, it is paying $35,000 per year of data. I don't see that as a major budgetary matter. And really I was wondering whether the treasurer's office can comply with this resolution, or is there some budget restriction that's going to keep the treasurer's office from commissioning an 78 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. annual study that essentially is only costing us $35,000?
Thank you. Mr. Nacchio, the next question is: In our discussion of how many contracts we had with City depositories, your response was we have no contracts; we only have agreements. What's the difference between a contract and an agreement?
I have to be honest, that's a legal question that only the Law Department can answer, but they are very similar.
Actually, you used the word "agreement" and you meant something by it versus using the term "contract."
I have only seen paperwork that said "agreement" and the word "contract" was not included in that paperwork. 79 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
So the agreement could, in fact, be legally a contract?
I guess legally it could be. I would say that every bank account that we have is the formality of opening up a bank account, which does enter into a legal arrangement when you have a bank account. The other items of custody do require an agreement of a different type, which are presently now with two of the banks, which is separate from banking on an individual level by account. But each account itself is like entering into a contract of sorts.
I'm glad you raised the issue of the agreements related to custody. How is it decided which financial institutions get those agreements?
This is a typical answer. Of course, it has always been that way and that's the way it has 80 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. evolved over time. The primary bank that we do business with has a succession of ownership under different bank names, which has been a relationship that continued, and, as they collapsed into one another, also into one banking institution; and an institution that can deal with the volume and type of customer that the City of Philadelphia is has developed over time.
Is there any requirement by the City charter, by any City ordinance, any executive order otherwise that suggests that that business cannot be opened to several businesses as opposed to giving it to the institution that has always had it? I mean is there any particular reason why one bank holds 80 percent of our custodial accounts? Is there any reason why if we had 1.6 billion in custody that one bank would be receiving 1.3 billion of it? Are other banks not qualified to receive that money? I mean 81 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. essentially they are only holding it for the investment managers. They are not investing it themselves.
So can't any City depository that is authorized essentially hold that money that is simply there to be managers by other investment managers?
The depository banks have a commercial retail type of business. Not all of the depository banks have a trust component.
The others, when asked for information, did not acknowledge the fact that they had that type of capability or interest in that trust function.
That's sort 82 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. of curious. I will just make a formal request. Could you, in fact, prequalify all of our City depositories in terms of whether they are able to hold those custodial accounts so that we know which ones are and which ones aren't rather than simply adhering to the practice that we always put our money there and therefore we have to put 1.3 billion there?
One of the questions that comes or arises in this is the definition of what a deposit is. A deposit is a deposit of cash. So primarily when we speak about depository banks, it has to do with the deposit of cash. When we talk about assets having to do with treasury bills and a portfolio, that's considered separate and apart from a deposit.
We can have this conversation by phone, Mr. Nacchio, so let me refine my request. 83 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. City Council has the sole authority to authorize institutions that can hold money that is in the City treasury. There are no institutions authorized separate from those institutions authorized under 19201; is that correct?
Well, in the legacy of banking acquisitions the custodial group under Wachovia as of January 1 became a part of U.S. Bank and U.S. Bank is not a depository bank for the City of Philadelphia.
That wasn't my question. My question is: That section of the code deals with deposits and investments, and City Council -- my question is per the Home Rule Charter, City Council has sole authority of who is authorized to receive money from the City treasury; is that correct?
So of those institutions that are authorized by City 84 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Council to receive money from the City treasury -- we don't have to quibble if we are talking about deposits or investments or whatever -- can you then prequalify how many of those institutions that are authorized are able to hold these custodial accounts?
I'm asking you beyond to your knowledge; to send correspondence to those financial institutions that are authorized requesting the information and to prequalify how many of our authorized institutions can hold that $1.6 billion that comes out of City treasury, because it is not acceptable to me for you to say that one institution has always had it and gotten the business because of their predecessor institutions and that there are only two of the nine qualified to hold it, unless that's your opinion and you are willing to put that in writing, 85 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. and I don't believe that to be true.
My guess is that there are other authorized institutions that can hold money from the City treasury that would want that $1.6 billion in business. And you need to one way or the other certify whether they are qualified to do so.
I have no problem with putting that request for information out. I will explain, though, the history of the custodial relationship is that banks typically do not consider custodial trusts a profitable part of their business. So not all of the banks do it to this degree or are willing to hold this much in assets. They may have some trust relationships that are small but nothing as large as the City of Philadelphia.
Let me ask a simple question then: Can that business 86 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. be spread around?
In the case of the relationship that we have in the past year with Wachovia and now with U.S. Bank, those funds, which are primarily water, aviation, all resulted from bond issues which have relationships that were contained in the issues themselves that required for them to be the agents. So I wouldn't have a choice of where they are being held. I only have a --
Yes. The only choice that the City has is in who manages the portfolio.
And in terms of future monies that might be placed in custody, can that business be spread around?
If it is dictated in the bond issue itself, yes. The only money that is outside of that, as I 87 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. mentioned earlier, is consolidated cash.
We are simply talking about the money that is in custody for our investment managers. That's all I'm talking about. And I'm talking about at this point what is over a billion and a half dollars. How much of that billion and a half dollars is restricted by bond issues, bond issue agreements?
Certainly you realize during the year it fluctuates, and I will just give you a rolling total of 1.5 billion. It sometimes goes up to 17. Con cash goes probably between 3 and 6. So I would say approximately during the year $1 billion to 1.3 is probably always involved in some bond issue relationship.
So it's restricted to those institutions in terms of who can hold it?
Yeah, because they are based on past agreements that 88 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. were in those bond issues.
That's a question that would be for the bond counsels when they put the deals together.
Last question: Based on conversation we have had so far, do you believe that U.S. Bank needs to be authorized by this Council to hold money out of the City treasury?
That's interesting that you say you would feel more comfortable because my position is that we actually cleaned up some things in December by authorizing Wachovia, which was not a City depository and there was money from the City treasury there, by authorizing the Bank of America, which was not a City depository, didn't have any money, but essentially was using Fleet status. 89 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. I don't believe that you can just use a status of a predecessor institution to be authorized separately to receive City treasury money. I don't understand how -- I let it go before, but I don't understand how U.S. Bank can have money from the City treasury if this City Council does not authorize them to hold money from the City treasury. That's the Home Rule Charter.
Certainly you would understand if I were to give direction to the custodian to withdraw the funds and place them somewhere else, that they would be under a legal requirement not to take my direction because of those arrangements that are already in place and that they consider a legal document.
I'm asking 90 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. you to explain that particular arrangement.
Because U.S. Bank bought the business and bought the contracts or agreements that were in place. So legally they became the entity that had control over those legal documents.
What's interesting is that there were some documents. I'm not sure they were legal. You are referring to them as legal documents. Does that mean that they are lawful? If under the City's Home Rule Charter the City Council has the sole authority to decide who can withhold money from the City treasury, then as far as I'm concerned, before any legal agreement can be made, we would have to authorize an institution, and any legal agreement is probably null and void if we have to authorize an institution. I would also counter we are probably not held to that bonding 91 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. agreement.
Councilman, I would just add that the clarity of that thought was probably not considered when the bond issues were put together.
I'm pretty sure, which in my mind means that we are not restricted by that bond issue because that bond issue -- that bond agreement because that bond agreement is, in fact, not legal, particularly if it changes hands without us authorizing a new entity. Can you get a legal opinion on that and have it forwarded to the Council?
I will say I have to work with the finance director's office because the bonds are currently handled under the finance director, yes.
You're welcome. 92 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Are there any other questions of this witness? Thank you. This committee will stand in recess until 1:45. Thank you all very much. (Luncheon Recess.)
The committee is back in session. I would ask Mr. McPherson to announce who will next testify.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon, President Verna and members of City Council. I'm Nancy Kammerdeiner, Revenue Commissioner. With me this afternoon is Marlene Duley, Deputy Revenue Commissioner for the Water Revenue Bureau, and I have others in the audience who may be available to help 93 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. answer questions should the need arise. We are pleased to be with you today to discuss the proposed fiscal '07 operating budget for the Department of Revenue. You have my written testimony, so I will try to hit some of the highlights and not go through it word for word.
But I would like to put on the record a few things about the amounts that we are requesting for fiscal '07. Our General Fund request for the department totals $17,702,237. This is an increase of $220,660 from the FY '06 estimated obligations. Most of this is for Class 100 where we are requesting $12,962,937. This will support 274 full-time and four part-time positions and provides for the 3 percent salary increase that has already been 94 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. negotiated, increments in longevity payments that are due to our employees, and the estimated cost of lump sum payments for employees who will be retiring through DROP. We are requesting $3,943,014 in Class 200. This is an increase of 117,240 against estimated obligations for '06 and provides for the postal rate increase that took effect in January of this year. We are requesting $689,971 for Classes 300 and 400. This is a reduction of 150,000 from the estimated obligations in '06. S. Postal Service. That expenditure will take place in '06 in the General Fund and therefore is being eliminated as an 95 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. expense for the General Fund in '07. I'll come back to that in a moment in reference to the waterfront because there is some additional cost there. The departments received three productivity bank loans and we have an allocation of $106,315 in Class 800 to repay the bank for those three loans, and information on the loans is included in the written testimony. Once again this year we are requesting $2 million in Class 200 for collection agency payments. As you know, our collection agency contracts are paid on a contingent fee basis and the funds will be expended only if collections have actually been made. In the waterfront we are requesting an appropriation totaling $20,707,875. This is a decrease of $2,405,296 from the estimated obligations for '06. Most of that again is in Class 100 where $11,400,870 will provide funding for 278 full-time and 10 96 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. part-time positions, and it also covers the additional costs needed for employee increments, longevity, and DROP payments. We are requesting $7,458,055 in Class 200 and $1,845,950 in Classes 3 and 400. There is an increase in Classes 3 and 400 that would complete the upgrade of the mailing equipment to meet postal standards by the end of December of 2006. That's the shared cost that I referred to a moment ago in terms of General Fund. The waterfront piece of that will be funded in fiscal '07. We have had a number of things happening in the department in this past year. We have spent time working with other departments on the implementation of the electronic bill presentment and payment system in expanding its availability. This started in the fall of 2004 and through January we've grown to a point where we have had a high of 5,999 -- just short of 6,000 -- transactions in a given month in terms of 97 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. credit card payments. We expect to see this service expand more and the numbers to increase as more people become familiar with its availability. You can pay real estate taxes on-line with a credit card now that is made possible by a service that we initiated a year ago that will let taxpayers view their real estate tax information on-line using either the account number or the property address, and that can be accessed from the City's Web site. I hasten to add that this is now the real estate tax due date time period. Yesterday was an extremely busy day in the department as the discount due date brought a lot of people in to pay in person. We encourage people to pay by mail and to take advantage of the credit card payment on-line, but we do have a lot of people who come and do stand in line in order to pay. The actual due date for the tax is at the end of this 98 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. month now on March 30, and so we expect some continuing busy times during this month.
I mention in the formal testimony that we are getting a lot of payments through the automated clearinghouse. That continues to expand as more and more businesses pay on mostly wage tax through the ACH process. Let me skip down through here. We implemented two new taxes during this year, as you will well recall. This Council and the Mayor approved legislation at the end of last fiscal year for valet parking to expand the parking tax to include valet parking operators and also approved an outdoor advertising tax. We have been in the process of implementing both of those and working to enhance collections on them. Approximately $239,000 had been collected in the valet parking through January and about $700,000 collected for outdoor 99 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. advertising by January.
Not at all. Through January the valet parking had brought in $239,000 and outdoor advertising approximately $700,000. We see with these, as we generally do with taxes that hadn't been collected before, that they are slow to start in terms of payments coming in as people become more familiar with their obligations. We have been in touch with every one of those who we know should have this kind of liability and we are starting the process now of going back to those who haven't been filing and verifying that they are in this business or not in this business so we know who actually has a liability going forward.
I was just curious to know how much the revenues have increased since Council adopted those two bills. 100 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
That's the amount we collected in essentially the first six months. Because the revenue, as you probably know, is collected by the operators of the valet parking operations or, in the case of the outdoor advertising, by those who own the signs and they pay that money over to us the following month, the collections from July came in August, and so the collections through January would only be for the first six months.
How do these figures compare to, say, last year at this time?
There were no collections at all last year at this time because these taxes didn't go into effect until July 1. So this is the first six-month period.
But because of a piece in the law, the parking 101 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. operators' definition did not include valet parking. It only included those with a surface lot or a garage. That was the change that was made by Council in that ordinance so that we could expand and include the valet parking operators.
Part of the law supervising or overseeing valet parking operations is that the valet parkers had to show the City I believe a 7.5 or 7-year lease with a structured parking garage or a surface parking lot. I don't know why, if that's the case, it would not include them in the same category as the structured lot operators and owners and the surface lot operators because by virtue of the lease, which I don't know if any of them even have because most of the time you see them valet the car across the street to an illegal spot on Broad Street or somewhere else and not put them in a lot, 102 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. I don't know why they wouldn't be part of that whole parking tax anyway?
There was actually a court case involving the parking operation at the Four Seasons Hotel that went all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that basically said that the only portion of the payment that you would make for parking your car with a valet operation at the hotel or any other similar establishment would be the amount of tax that was paid for the use of that parking garage or other parking facility under the lease. The additional amount that you would pay would not be subject to the parking tax. Basically what it meant was if they had an arrangement with the garage to pay $5 for your car to be there and you paid them $15, we would get tax on 5, not on the other 10. What this does, the amendment that you passed in the spring does, is let us tax the entire operation for the 103 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. valet parking operator. And we have -- because we wanted to track how much came in from that and members of Council asked us to do that as well, we've established the valet parking revenue as separate from the parking tax collected by the garage and lot operators so that we can track it separately.
So it is not technically a parking tax, the initial tax?
We are just tracking them separately. It is all parking tax, but we're tracking that which we receive from valet parking operators separately to ensure that we account for it.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. 104 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
I think you can see the rest of my testimony in the formal written piece and it's probably more productive to turn to questions.
Fine. And we will give a copy of your testimony to the stenographer and it will be transcribed in full.
I just have a couple questions. On of your testimony you mention various initiatives that you have been undertaking to generate additional revenue collections. Could you give us a brief overview of these initiatives and the additional revenues you have collected and where they appear in the administration's revenue estimates?
The copy I'm 105 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. looking at is paged differently, so I'm just trying to see where you are picking up. One of the things that we do on a regular and ongoing basis and have been putting particular emphasis on in the last couple years is match to IRS data. We are in an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service to receive federal information about all of those who file 12 returns from the Philadelphia zip codes, any zip code that begins with 191, so that would be both commercial and individual returns that are filed with the IRS. We match that information to the information we have on file for our taxes to try and see if there are people who are paying federal taxes but not paying us or who are underreporting to us in terms of what they are paying to the Federal Government. Our tax discovery unit generated about $5 million in assessments 106 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. for fiscal '05. That's up from just 1.6 million in '04. So you can see that that concentration on that activity did yield a substantial increase in assessments. I reference assessments because we identify what might be out there. We give an assessment to the taxpayer. We get them to file additional returns to verify how much they might have as a liability to us, and because we are coming from fairly solid ground in terms of what they actually might have as a liability, we have a very high compliance rate and a very high payment rate, in the 90 percent to a hundred percent range, on many of these assessments. So that generally is something that brings in a fair amount of additional revenue. And we also then add these people to our tax rolls going forward and have the opportunity to collect from taxpayers who might not have been paying in some prior years. So I think that's the one that 107 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. is probably the easiest to explain and most straightforward. The dollar amounts on the revenue forecast really are rolled into the various taxes. They don't show up as separate or special line items because what we are doing is collecting additional wage tax, business privilege tax, school income tax, and so we're factoring that in in terms of the revenue estimates for those particular taxes. We also have continued to work with the Law Department on implementing several technology initiatives. We're making things available within our tax system, tips that would let the Law Department enter payment agreements in our system and have them tracked electronically instead of manually, which is what they do today. The benefit of that is just starting to happen and really I would have difficulty in identifying the exact dollar amounts because the initial 108 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. collections are with the Law Department. We have also automated the transfer of information between the City, both Law and Revenue, and the Bankruptcy Court in order to more accurately and clearly identify which receivables we can collect on and which ones we cannot under a bankruptcy situation. That won't necessarily bring in more money, at least in the first instance, but it will ensure we are in compliance with federal law and bankruptcy and not dunning for collection people who have bankruptcy protection. But it will also later on yield better revenue because we will understand who is coming off bankruptcy and might be available and eligible for collection again. So those are a couple of things that we have been working on that, as much as anything, improve our efficiency and effectiveness but also then result in additional revenue.
I 109 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. just have a couple of questions. If you have already answered them, I was distracted and I don't know whether you have addressed it, but on of your testimony you state that the primary objective of the Revenue Department is to increase revenue collections, to streamline the tax return and payment processes, et cetera. Can you tell us how you propose to increase collections, the amount of the additional revenues you are projecting to collect, and where are these additional collections reflected in the revenue estimates?
Most of what we are doing right now is to improve our database and the information that we have about who is liable for tax and is not paying or is underpaying. That comes back to the increased effort and activity with federal matching, but it also involves better addresses. We do a lot of work with return mail. We're working 110 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. on accessing some information from the Post Office that would improve our ability to quickly find out where people go when they move so that we can get bills to them in a timely way. We know that timely presentation of a bill is going to result in more likelihood of payment than if a long period of time elapses between when the liability was incurred and we reached them. That's often a problem when someone moves, changes address, and we don't know where to reach them. We are doing things like that to assist us in getting to people in a timely way and making sure we bring the money in. In terms of exact dollar values, I don't have specific amounts for you to identify how much this will increase our collections. We're really trying to make sure that every dollar we can get comes in. These are included in our regular estimates for each tax 111 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. because it's a part of the basic forecast on how we will do on our collections.
Can you give us any idea -- I don't know if you would have this information on the top of your head, but what is the delinquency for real estate taxes for instance?
I don't have that on the top of my head. I can get the exact number for you, but we work with the Law Department on that.
Actually, no, I don't off the top of my head. I know that substantial portion of the delinquent accounts have been referred by the Law Department to an outside collection agent and that is increasing the payment rate that we have on delinquent real estate tax. I don't keep the numbers in my head. I'm sorry. But I will get that for you. 112 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
On we see no growth in prior collections, so I don't know what we are doing to try to --
Let me get that out. You are looking specifically at the real estate tax?
I was going to say there is an increase in the prior year's collections from one year to the other, but I see in this document -- this is prepared in the budget here. I'm not sure. I will have to check and see how this came -- how they developed these figures. I know we always are conservative. That is something you hear from us all the time about our estimates, 113 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. but I would have expected some growth there, and I will have to look into that.
Is somebody from Finance here that could explain? You know, it seems that -- I don't see us moving forward with the collection. If you look at the figures on , I think we are moving backward rather than forward with the collection of prior year taxes.
Diane, I want you to look at priors. And the original budget had 48 million and the estimate was 38.
Yes. I would say we budgeted aggressively for '06. The receipts are not coming in quite at that level, so we felt it was more appropriate to budget the '07 amount more at the level of our experience for '06. 114 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
What made you think we could afford to be a little more aggressive?
We had a spike in '05 because of the contract with Lineburner, which was the vendor for the oldest delinquent accounts.
If we had a spike, my dear, it didn't show in the --
But overall it doesn't really show. We could get you some detail on that.
Councilman Clarke, your light was on. Did you want to be recognized?
Excuse me. Before I recognize you, I don't think that's an answer at all. I 115 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. really don't. Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, do you want me to ask her the same question?
Please. Maybe you can get some clarification that I didn't.
I probably won't get an answer either. Good afternoon. I had a couple questions, one with respect to your earlier testimony on the parking tax and the billboard tax. What were our projected revenues for this fiscal year and for the five-year plan for both of those taxes?
I'm hesitating because I don't want to misstate what the collection estimates were. I think one was million and the other -- 2 million on the parking tax associated with valet parking and 4 million on the billboard or outdoor 116 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. advertising tax. Those were the original estimates.
We are behind that. I think we are showing some increases in those collections, but at the half year point we are definitely very much behind that. I remember when the vehicle rental tax was first implemented we had estimates on what that would bring in and the first year lagged behind but by the second year we were getting very close to what those estimates were and have continued to be close to those estimates on an ongoing basis. So I think part of that was an optimism about how quickly we could bring this on and have compliance from all of 117 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. those who were out there. Plus these estimates were based on guesses as to what the activity level would be. Outdoor advertising, for example, we know -- as we work with some of the people in the field, we are learning more about how they do business, and a lot of the ads were already placed and they had year-long contracts. We are now getting to the point in time when some of those contracts are being replaced or renewed, and I would expect if that holds true that we will see an increase in revenue, because the revenue is only collected at the time the transaction takes place -- the tax rather is only collected when the transaction takes place.
Well, I'm a little concerned because, one, these estimates seem to be overly optimistic given what we are taking insofar to date; and, two, at the time of the implementation of both of these taxes we were told that this was needed to allow 118 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. us to continue to sustain certain levels of services. You know, we were talking about closing fire stations --
-- and redeployment issues and other issues as it relates to other City services, rec centers. We believed at the time we took the vote that this was essentially a budget initiative that will allow us to maintain those services. If our collections continue to come in extremely less than what we had anticipated, how are we going to resolve this? Are we going to utilize the surplus in this fiscal year and hope that we have additional surpluses in out years?
That's a question I can't answer, but we will continue to work to bring those collections up to the level of those estimates and I would say it will take probably two years of collection to get to that point. The estimates for the 119 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. first year were probably a bit more optimistic than they should have been.
The question was in reference to the services that were to be provided as a result of bridging the gap between those two types of taxes and if they don't reach the same level of activity as the estimates, what will happen in terms of the services. Am I restating that properly, Councilman?
Then we will all have to pay attention. 120 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
The question centered around the fact that our estimates -- well, everyone's estimate, your estimates, ours estimates, as related to the revenue associated with the implementation of the two taxes, the parking tax, the valet parking tax, and the billboard tax, one, Miss Kammerdeiner said it would be between 6 and 7 million and we are woefully short of that number. I'm concerned that if we don't reach that estimated level of revenue that we will be here next year possibly talking about an additional budget shortfall based on our belief at the time when we voted for this that this money would ensure that we wouldn't have service levels cut and rec centers and fire departments. So if that money does not come in, where does that leave us as it relates to our ability to fill that budget gap in out years and this year? 121 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
I think part of the problem with the receipts this year so far is just the new tax effect and that they should be coming in more strongly. Some difficulty on the outdoor advertising side might result from the fact that there are ongoing discussions and lawsuits from the industry, but we don't anticipate that we will have to cut services as a result of that because some of the other taxes are coming in strongly and we should on a net basis be able to sustain the services.
So we believe that even if we don't reach the 6 or $7 million level, the increase in revenue from other taxes will more than --
Yes, right, because, you know, they are not like earmarked exactly for those services. They just went into the General Fund generally.
I understand. It is just last year we were 122 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. saying that we didn't do this. That rec center was going to close and we were under the belief at that time -- I think all of us, even the administration, were under the belief that the numbers were going to be really tight.
And we realized a relatively substantial surplus. And we suspect that some of the taxes associated with that surplus will continue in out years so this won't affect the fact that this is coming in --
-- much lower than anticipated. Okay. Another part of that, you had mentioned -- I was actually going to ask that question about litigation surrounding the billboard tax. I understand that there is either discussion of litigation or current litigation. Where are we at with that? 123 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
I would have to check with the Law Department for the current status on it, but I know that several of the billboard or outdoor advertising companies filed suit against the City on the collection of that tax. They attempted to have an injunction to prevent us from collecting that. That was denied by the Court. The suit itself is making its way through the court with hearings and the regular discovery and presentment process. I'm not certain of exactly where it is, but it has a way to go before it actually is heard in court and any final decision is made on it. In the meantime we are collecting and we are attempting to collect from all of the companies including those who are a party to the suit.
The ones that are a party to the suit, are they the larger billboard companies?
I know at 124 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. least one of the larger ones is a part of the suit. I'm not sure if all of the large ones are, but they cover probably the majority of the industry.
Are we collecting taxes from any of the participants in the lawsuit or are these --
Are we collecting taxes from any of the companies that are a party to the lawsuit?
Yes, we are. And for any that we might not be at this point, they are among the ones we would be pursuing. We are not making any distinction between those who are a party to the suit and those who are not, and my staff is in the process of following up with the ones that we identified at the outset and registered, and to the extent that they are not already filing, we are 125 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. working with them to find out whether it is they don't have any business to file 4 on or if they need to play some catchup in terms of some months that they have been nonfilers. So we are pursuing that. There aren't that many of them. It's a small universe in terms of the number of payers.
Has there been discussion already with regard to the on-line payment service you have implemented in your department as part of these proceedings, this hearing, today?
We won't 126 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. repeat that. Let's move to my favorite topic, New Start BPT Bill. First of all, tell me, how long have you been in revenue?
That period of time. I came to the department as the commissioner. I was with the City before but not in revenue. In fact, it is almost 11 years.
With that said, please give me an update on where that bill is. We know that that moved in 2001 or 2, whenever. The bottom line is last year you shared with us that there was a need to get the internal process in your office up and running. We are 22 months later. So I'm curious to know 23 where are you with the implementation and 24 execution of this new legislation.
That went 127 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. into effect almost immediately after the legislation was approved. We no longer have a separate new start provision. All businesses pay on the retrospective basis instead of paying on a going-forward basis. The tax returns that are due on April of this year are for 2005. So 9 they are filing on a retrospective basis. 10 Under the old legislation the returns due 11 on April 15, 2006 would have been for tax 12 year 2006. They are filing on a 13 retrospective basis and have been since 14 2002. 15
I would respectfully correct the record. Last year we had extended discussion and letters were exchanged between your office and my office and the former City Controller Jonathan Seidel's office on why the delay in making this new issue real.
I think the piece that you are referring to is the availability of an installment payment 128 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. arrangement for either all BPT payers or for new start payers. We had originally set this up in order to avoid having a problem of revenue neutrality in the fiscal year with an estimated payment for the next fiscal year being paid by all taxpayers. The thing that we have wanted to explore, but have not yet been able to implement, is an ability to pay on a quarterly basis instead of paying in one payment.
We have not changed the way it has been established. The one thing I would like to do, but with so many things that are going on we have not been able to do, is to provide for estimated payments in quarterly installments only for those who are new starts, that are starting a new business, to let them pay that first year tax amount on April 15 and then in installments afterwards pay the estimated 129 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. payment for the new year, but it's something that with so many other things that were happening with other taxes we haven't been able too spend the time on.
Would the investment of the time, which does get scarce, be beneficial when you look at the yield on the back end with the revenues generated from the institution of that practice as you just defined it?
We already have the effect of that because now someone goes out of business in a given year, they still have to file in their last year in business. That has been in effect since the 2002 tax year.
So that everything regarding this bill has been fully executed?
Okay. There was some discussion on dealing with considerable problems handling incoming calls. Knowing that a 130 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. number of the departments had to work smarter, what kind of efficiencies have you put in place that deal with that problem?
We already had an efficient phone system that identifies the calls, provides for queuing of calls. Our problem is that you still need people at the end of the line to pick it up and talk to the customer, the taxpayer, and get the information, look up their account and resolve the issues. So in this case we have the efficient system. We need the bodies in order to make use of that system. We have a much reduced work force, but we have had approval to add additional staff. We are in the process of doing that. We have done that to some extent. There is a long training period. On the Water revenue side that training period is at least two months and on the tax side, because of multiple taxes, it can 131 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. be as much as two years before someone is really knowledgeable enough to be truly proficient. And so bringing on new staff helps, but it doesn't solve the problem in the first instance because until you are really proficient you are slower at answering a call, you are slower at answering the questions that are raised. So we are heading in that direction, but it is still a situation where you need to have people answering the calls or you can't effectively bring down your call answer rate and can't have a short talk time, which is another thing that makes it more efficient in terms of answering phones. The more proficient someone is --
How many bodies do we need to efficiently operate this system? Has there been approval to hire? Have people been 132 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. trained? Give us some idea, please.
We have had approvals to fill a number of positions. Our problem is that we have as many people leaving as a result of DROP or promotions to other departments. Most of these positions are maybe not entry level, but they are fairly low-level positions, and so our staff will take promotional exams, and if there is an opportunity somewhere else, they often will move there. So it's a twofold problem. We get approval, but we lose people before we get the new people trained and on board. So it's a never-ending process. In terms of numbers, I really would need to defer to Marlene Duley in terms of Water revenue and my deputy, Jim Hailey, in terms of tax revenue. We could provide that now or provide something in writing to you in terms of the numbers.
If 133 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. you are setting up all of the necessary equipment and we need bodies to operate it, what are we doing?
We had sufficient staff. It is just we have lost so many people.
I don't think it was a secret, if you knew they were under DROP, that we would not have replaced them and trained them.
We did have constraints for a period of time. Because of budget constraints, we were not permitted to fill positions for several years in a time period that I would have liked to. We now have that authority, but it is very difficult to move quickly enough because we were so far behind that it takes a while to get it up to strength. We are working at it 134 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. diligently. I think you can see differences, particularly in Water revenue, on those numbers. We are not where we need to be, but we are doing a lot better than we were even six months ago in terms of answering calls.
We are not quite there because people leave before we get to the full complement. But we are working at it. I don't know how else to say it. Because each time we think we are there, someone else announces that they are going to be leaving.
They are going to be leaving, but you have four years, if it's the DROP program.
We have a number of people leave after two. We think we have four years and they will come in and say, "I want to leave in two weeks, not two years." So it's a combination. And some of the people are 135 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. taking promotions to other departments. It is not all DROP, but the effect combined is a dramatic one.
I think it's false economy. If we don't employ people to answer the phones, give the necessary information --
I couldn't agree with you more and was making that argument over a period of time, and because of overall budget constraints, we weren't given the opportunity, and more recently we have been given that opportunity and we are trying to follow through on it.
I would appreciate something in writing from you, please.
Thank you. Councilwoman, I'm sorry. Thank you for your time.
It is 136 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. quite all right. It helps me as well, Madam President. That's it.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner Kammerdeiner, we had a brief conversation about an issue that I have done a little more research on, the ability for taxpayers and other people, visitors, whatever, to be able to pay their tax bill and other fees and fines with the use of a credit card.
I have done some research, and many of the major companies, for example, Allstate Insurance and others, find it very beneficial because they get their money, and when that transaction occurs, it goes right into their bank account. And I 137 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. know that we charge the fee to offset the fees that the credit card companies charge. I hope we can get to the point -- because I did check. Other governments do not charge because they find it is a benefit. They get their money. And if there is a problem with payment, the person has to deal with the credit card company, but the government or the utility or the insurance company has received their money. And I know that we charge I think it was 3 percent and I had a constituent call just this week and complain the fact that PGW charged $4 I think for a credit card transaction. I think it was just a flat fee. I wasn't sure whether there was a percentage there. I think we ought to really seriously look at that because if we are having problems with collections in certain areas, that we get our money.
I agree that there are lots of instances where having 138 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. the City absorb those fees could be productive. I think if you look at a number of governments you will find the IRS does charge a convenience fee that is passed onto the taxpayer. Most of the states charge a convenience fee that they pass onto the taxpayer instead of absorbing it internally, but there are some services not just -- and with that I'm referring to taxes. And, incidentally, taxes you can have a percentage, but with other services the credit card company regulations require that you establish a fee based on the dollar value of that transaction and the frequency volume of that transaction, and so there are different kinds of fees for different types of services depending upon what the actual cost will be. So you will find variation over different services with that. I think you find that most of the state governments will be charging fees for taxes and things that they feel 139 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. that the taxpayer will have other opportunities or have other obligations to pay. When they are dealing with something that they really find it's cost efficient to have everything coming in with the electronic file that they get from the credit card company, they absorb the cost. I have read about the State of Arizona doing that with motor vehicle licenses. They offered the credit card option with a fee and had very little activity with it. When they did away with the fee, something like 50 percent of their residents started to use renewal on-line for their motor vehicle licenses. We're looking at it in a couple of places. One thing that we are looking at right now in terms of not charging the fee is with water shutoff crews. They go to someone's home and check to see if they can get a payment instead of shutting off the water. We want those people to pay and we want them to pay 140 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. with a credit card where it is more likely that we will actually get our money than a check that might be a bank return item and have additional costs that will occur. So we have a pilot program that the Water Department is going to be starting soon where they are accepting credit cards at the door. They have handheld devices to be able to do that. And we're considering not having the credit card fee paid by the consumer on that, that we would absorb it, because we will reduce our internal operating costs for doing that. So that will be the first foray we will have into that area, and we will start to look at it more and more in terms of cost effectiveness.
Commissioner, just a curiosity question. When you deduct your taxes, do you have to back the fee out, or can the fee for the credit care be included in the cost, 141 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. in the total amount of the tax paid?
You mean in terms of a federal deduction? I think you can only deal with the tax itself. I am not an expert on federal taxes, so I'm not certain.
As far as I know, it is only the tax itself that you have the opportunity deduct.
It is somewhere between there and 2-1/2. We have had to change it based on what the credit card companies have been charging us. It's not our fee. It's the credit card servicing company's fee, and so it is established based on their -- 142 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
So what I'm hearing is you are looking at it and the first step, the little step, will be --
We would rather collect money. And like you said, I think in most cases a credit card is a pretty safe bet to avoid a --
-- dig-up, to avoid a shutoff, and I think that's a good application and maybe we can move on from there because I had a lot of folks tell me, especially with these airline point junkies, that they want to use the credit card for everything humanly possible.
That person is using it as a convenience and it benefits them, and that's a case where it is not perhaps as much benefit to us. In the case of someone who simply does not 143 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. have the cash and is using the credit card in order to avoid having a problem like a water shutoff, then it is something that we really want them to do in order to save us money.
Commissioner, do you have a feel for how many people take advantage of the discount February 28 date?
If you were over at our offices yesterday, you would see it is a large number of people who come into our offices in order to pay, and in the next week we will get the volume of mail. It is a very, very high percentage. I could actually get numbers on that from prior years. But it is a very high percentage. Plus all of the mortgage companies that have escrow accounts take advantage of the discount for their customers, and so probably as much as two-thirds of the money that comes in comes in by the 28th because you get your 144 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. high volume dollars with your mortgage escrow payments, and yesterday we had never-ending lines, actually the last week, but particularly yesterday with high volumes of people coming in to pay in the offices because they were close to the deadline and I guess they didn't trust the postmark. But we do accept the postmark and for the next week we will probably be -- I can't give you the exact day, but once we see we are no longer getting mail with a February 28 postmark date on it, then we will switch over, but we will accept it and honor it as of February 28.
Thank you and thank you for always being available to help.
Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much, both of you. 145 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
I was going to ask you if you would abbreviate it. We will give a copy of it to the stenographer and it will be transcribed in full. So may I ask that you identify yourself for the record and proceed.
I'm Carl Coin, executive director of the Sinking Fund Commission, and I'm here to testify on behalf of the Sinking Fund Commission on fiscal 2007 operating budget requests. Shall I just read the whole thing? 146 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
No; I'm asking if you would be kind enough to abbreviate your testimony. We will give a copy of it to the stenographer and she will transcribe it in full.
Okay. Well, the total amount all funds for fiscal '07 comes to 482.6 million. The General Fund portion of this totals 109.3 million, which includes 94.1 million for capital lease payments and 105.2 million for debt service and other debt-related expenditures. The request in Classes 701 and 702 totals 83.8 million and provides for the General Fund's portion of the interest and principal payments on the City's general obligation bonds. These two classes combined reflect an increase of 18.3 million from Fiscal Year '06 estimated obligations mostly due to provisions for a new general obligation bond debt issue and overall increase in the interest rates. 147 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. In order to meet the City's annual temporary imbalance between the payments of obligations at the beginning of the fiscal year and receipts of taxes and other revenues early in the calendar year, it is expected that the City will issue tax revenue anticipation notes early in July 2006. These notes will mature prior to June 30, 2007. The request in Class 703 of 17.6 million provides for payment of interest at a rate of approximately 5-1/2 percent on these short-term loans, estimated to be in the amount of 310 million. The Water fund. The Sinking Fund Commission's request from the Water Fund for Fiscal 2007 totals 178 million, all in Class 700. This represents 7.2 million increase in the Water Fund request from the fiscal '06 budget. This increase is due to new revenue bond issues made in 2005. The total amount of this borrowing was 336 million. Aviation fund. The commission 148 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. request from the Aviation Fund for Fiscal 2007, 99.5 million, all Class 700, is to provide for payments of regularly scheduled airport revenue bonds. The increase of 9.5 million over Fiscal 2006 estimate is due to provisions for a year's debt service on a new airport borrowing in 2005 to fund improvements at the airport. The total amount of this borrowing is 355.5 million. This concludes the written portion of my testimony. I will be glad to answer any questions the Council may have.
For your first time testifying you did very well. I just have a question or two. Can you detail for us the proposed borrowings that have been included in your proposed 2007 budget and the estimated payments associated with these borrowings?
You're talking about 149 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. the new issues now?
I'm talking about the borrowings that are the new issues. I think that is a new issue. Are there several new borrowings?
There is a new issue that was going to be worked on in March, I believe, for 217 million. I only have in my budget for 200 million because back in November, December --
And there is also a provision for the 150 million for the commercial corridor, I believe that's what they are calling it.
And how about Trans? 150 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
So we have the three that you have spoken about or have mentioned. Can you tell us the estimated payments associated with these borrowings?
On the commercial corridor there is an $8 million interest payment for the first year, and for the new issue there is a $3 million principal payment and an $11 million interest payment.
For the 200? There is 3 million 2 I believe in principal and eleven five in interest.
Can you tell us how the proposed repayments 151 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. will be structured, the level debt service payments and other structures?
There's usually two payments a year, one maybe in April and the other one in October, or depending on when these issues are done, it could be October and February, every six months basically.
Mr. Coin, can you tell us when the administration proposes to issue the $150 million borrowing for the arts and commercial corridors.
Surprise, surprise. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Thank you, Mr. Coin. You did very well. You were nervous for no 25 reason at all. 152 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Next?
Miss Bell, I would ask you if you would also abbreviate your testimony.
And the stenographer does, in fact, have a copy of your testimony, which will be transcribed in full.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of City Council. My name is Gwendolyn Bell, executive director of the Board of Pensions and Retirement. Today with me here is Christopher McDonough, who is acting chief investment officer. The Board of Pensions and Retirement request for fiscal year 2007 $10,304,000. That's up from $7,783,000 153 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. for fiscal year 2006, an increase of 2,521,000. The increase includes an increase in staffing, in fringe benefits, and monies to cover beginning of a proposal for a new technology application to process pension payments and interact with personnel, payroll, and risk management. Some of the savings we had for last year were in overtime, which was reduced by $40,000, and we anticipate that that will further drop this year due to permanent position to work in the DROP unit. We have increased our retirement seminars substantially over the last year to accommodate requests for employees from 12 to 20 for the regular retirement sessions and for 14 to 18 for those specialized retirement sessions offered by deferred compensation. The technology program is very aggressive. We are working with an 154 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. application now that is more than ten years old. Actually, it has outlived what we thought would be the life of it. And in order to support our current program we have a list of more than 90 projects that we are trying to work through to get the current application to be more efficient. So we are looking to probably purchase an off-the-shelf package to replace our current pension processing program. We have budgeted $2 million to start that process.
During fiscal year 2005 the Pension Fund completed an asset allocation study that resulted in the implementation of several new asset classes including absolute return and real estate. Due to an average return of 3.2 percent over the past five years for the fund, the board voted to reduce the fund's actuary assumption rate on investments from 9 percent to 8.75 in February of 2006. 155 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
I'm sorry. I was distracted. Did you say what the benefit was to the Pension Fund of the change?
Okay. I heard you talk about going from 9 percent to 8.75. Okay. Sorry. I was distracted.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. It's a shame that the room is not more crowded than it is right now and there is not media attention here because I believe the current condition of the Pension Fund is probably the largest single looming fiscal crisis facing the City since probably 1991. 156 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. What is the current unfunded liability of the Pension Fund?
And what does that represent in a percentage of unfunded liability.
And in the City of Chicago, in the County of Chicago, which deals with both Cook County's Pension Fund school districts and the City of Chicago, they have an unfunded liability of 70 percent. And the member of the Chicago Civic Federation, which was in the process of reviewing and taking a look at the Pension Fund in Cook County and in Chicago, was quoted as saying, "This was a looming crisis, and now we have moved 157 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. beyond looming and are dealing with a full-blown crisis at 70 percent funded." We are at 59 percent. Do we have a crisis? The people in Chicago seem to think we do. They seem to think they do. What do we have going on?
The unfunded liability is very large. I think around 70 percent is average, so we are --
The goal in Chicago is 90 percent, so obviously that is a hard number to beat.
Yes; I think the average is around 70, so 90 percent is very good, but the average is around 70, so we are well below the average.
In the last 12 to 18 months we have implemented a number of strategies within the investment unit within the fund to try to augment returns and reduce risk including the use of absolute return strategies, real estate 158 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. allocation, and an increase to our private equity fund.
But we all realize that is not going to solve the problem.
Let me go through what the five-year plan numbers are because there doesn't seem to be a specific plan to deal with it in any substantive way because right now the General Fund contribution is about -- for '07 is estimated to be $325 million. Is that accurate?
The '07 General Fund contribution to the Pension Fund is slated to be $325 million?
So the 159 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. unfunded liabilities even with the $325 million payment continue to accrue?
In '08 we are looking at 350 million -- this is according to the five-year plan -- '09, 360 million; '10, 369 million; and '11, 371 million. And extrapolated out to 2015 with just the minimum payments allowed by state law, we are between 450 and $500 million out of the General Fund.
There are a number of other things that have happened. Over the last couple of years there have been several other changes that should help with what the fund is doing including replacing the pension consultant, investment consultant. 160 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. The asset allocation change looks at other things, and I think Chris can answer this better than I, but to include the types of investments where international and real estate and other things were, this fund kind of missed the ball over the last couple years.
Not being invested in real estate I think for -- I'm not sure exactly how long real estate did well, but the fund had none.
The last consultant was replaced and we have a new consultant placed about a year and a half.
Yes. Chris can tell 161 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. you who they are.
We have a general consultant. We have a consultant for private equity, and we have a separate consultant for absolute return.
Yes; we dismissed the general consultant and replaced them.
What process was undertaken to determine whether or not the new consultant -- who is that?
And what 162 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. process did the Pension Board go through to determine -- did we do a search nationally?
I don't know that number. I would have to get back to you.
I don't recall. There was a short list. I think the interviews -- I can't remember exactly, but there were at least five firms that were interviewed.
Was there a rating system, or what happened once the short list was accomplished?
The Retirement Board went through an extensive search and interviews, scheduled second interviews for those people that were considered, 163 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. looked at the recommendations by the firms and their experience, the education of the principals. The firm that was chosen, Miss Williams has a degree from Harvard and many years of experience in investment consulting.
But we all agree that even though we do better investments and more diversified investments and have a better return, we are not going to grow our way out of this problem; is that pretty fair?
It is going to be slowly -- we are going to be slowly digging our way out.
The problem is while we are slowing digging our way out of this, we are continuing to increase payments from the General Fund that could go for things like tax reform and enhanced services and the other kinds of things that we all debate about in here all the time. I mean the administration is 164 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. extremely concerned over a pretty modest reduction in the business privilege tax but doesn't seem to be all that concerned about the amount of General Fund dollars going into our unfunded liabilities, and the trend across the country, both in the private sector and the public sector, has been not only the investment side, but the benefit side. Has there been any analysis as to the issue of benefits and what's happening with them and what's trending in other municipalities and states? I know Ford Motor Company just went through a huge restructuring of their benefit packages, and I'm not suggesting that we do it retroactively, but going forward has there been any consideration of doing something different on the benefits side?
The benefits, you have to remember, are negotiated by contract, so there is not a lot the Pension Board can do to control those costs. 165 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
Let me stop you there. Does the board at some point in time interface and advise the administration, "Hey, folks, you have like a huge problem over here"?
Yes. Actually, most recently the Retirement Board did send a letter to the administration advising that they would recommend that the City contribute the full recommended contribution that the actuary recommended rather than the --
For the last fiscal year the funding policy amount was 380 compared to the MMO, which was 306.
Minimum 166 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. municipal obligations under Act 205.
I'm sorry. Hold on. My understanding for FY '07, $325 million is the recommendation of the administration in the budget?
And they have done that in a letter to the administration?
Yes. The amount that we are funding is the amount that the actuary agreed we could pay under the MMO.
I understand that. It is the minimum payment we could make. It is like having a huge credit card debt. It is like having $13,000 on your credit card and you pay 2360.
Madam President, could we ask Miss Reed to come to the table? We haven't been that rough, have we? Miss Bell, please finish your answer. I'm sorry. Maybe you can expound when she is through.
Because most cities are experiencing large liabilities with pension funds, the MMO was something that was acceptable and recommended so that 168 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. the liability could be spread over a longer period of time. So most large cities have adopted this.
In the letter that you guys sent to the administration based on the actuary's recommendation, is it 325 or 380?
We have an agreement from the actuary who made estimates of what the payment would be based on our earnings rate that a 325 payment was acceptable for the minimum municipal payment.
The higher amount would be at the City's old funded policy level I think, which we are no longer pursuing because of the budgetary constraints we're under. 169 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
This is a budgetary constraint. It is a major obligation that we can't get out of, and because we are unwilling or you don't want to look at it and we just continue paying the monthly minimum payment or the annual minimum payment, we're continuing to eat into resources that could be used for things like services and tax reduction. It is almost like a crazy logic. What we are doing is we are saving money now so we can spend on things like debt service for additional borrowings that we are having for River Cities and arts and cultures. We are going to lock ourselves into 30 years of debt for that, which has to come out of the General Fund, and now we are -- this is like a silent killer. It is like it is looming there waiting. The actuaries are telling us that 325 probably isn't what we should do; it should be 380, but we are going to go with 325 because we 170 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. have an agreement with them because this is what we can afford to pay. I don't see how we can afford to pay -- we should be able to pay what it is that is going to bail us out of this hole, not what will get us through the next two years and leave this bag of whatever for the next administration and the administration after that. I mean we took a huge hit back when the bubble burst and what did we -- we really didn't do anything to fix the problem.
Let me state for the record, pension people, I understand what your role is and I understand that the policy, even though it the board makes the decision, the money comes from the City, so what you are paying is what you are allowed to pay. I understand that. Miss Reed? 171 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
By going with a market rate, a rate closer to what the market is assuming for earnings, we are increasing the payment above what we originally planned in the MMO.
We originally were assuming that we would be earning 9 percent, so we were going to make a lower payment. So actually in '06 we are paying $28 million more than we would have paid under the higher earnings assumption. So that in fact we are accelerating our payment -- paying down the unfunded liability. Now, in fact, the unfunded liability is going to continue to increase until Fiscal '11 and then it is going to start to drop. And if we chose to --
Yes, because we are 172 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. paying a little bit more, so it extends a little bit more. But the thing about this is if we were to be paying --
Let me just respectfully interrupt you for a second. What you're telling me is in fiscal '11, based on the minimum payments that are talked about in the five-year plan, we are going to begin to regress and reduce the unfunded liability?
You are linking this to earnings too? You are linking this to earnings after 2011, our condition?
I think that the 173 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. payments are based on the earnings level we assume now and I think that just gets reviewed by the actuary every year and he does direct us -- his firm directs us to what our legal payment is.
I personally think, Councilman, we should get something in writing from the actuary so that -- and I don't know that you would have any objection to that?
And would you please get the necessary information and forward it to us?
Because, you know, from an actuary perspective you have not been able to, in my view anyway, tell us the benefit to the Pension Fund of the change in the earnings assumption from 9 percent to 8.75 percent.
I think the benefit has really accrued to the General Fund to 174 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. the extent that we have not had to pay an additional $55 million, which would have meant in a zero sum kind of way that we would have had to cut other areas of spending in order to make that very high -- the higher policy payment that we had in effect until we changed to the MMO.
We are reviewing a budget and five-year plan now that is increasing spending. We are not talking about saving what we are spending, saving the amount of money and the level of services and spending level. We are borrowing more money. We're being recommended to borrow more money and spend more money. We are not cutting back anything. So how does that improve the General Fund situation? On one hand we have this looming debt that we are legally responsible for and there is no way to get out of it. The earnings, the additional investments, and ways we are 175 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. investing are not going to bail us out of the problem. We are paying the yearly minimum amount. The General Fund is continually being hit as a result of it and we are going into more debt. How do you justify spending more money and going into more long-term debt when we have this long-term debt that we are facing that is to percent unfunded more 11 than -- unfunded less than other plans 12 throughout the country? I mean in Chicago if it is a 70 percent funded liability, it's a crisis for them. For us we are at 59 percent and we will borrow some more and spend some more. How do you justify it? This is the administration, this question.
Not according to the people in Chicago. They are scared to death. They say it is a crisis. Are they overstating it? 176 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
Well, that City seems to work pretty well so maybe they have something going on there.
I'm sorry I have taken so much time, Madam President, but I would like the record to be clear that this situation that we have -- and I'm sure that the professionals involved in this understand and they are probably not able to speak as freely as they like. This is probably the biggest fiscal issue facing the City since '91, since almost bankruptcy, and this is not sufficient for the future of City employees, for pensioners, for those people who are in public service now. I think there is some real serious danger to them and some serious danger to the long-term fiscal health of the City because we are not paying our bills in 177 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. the appropriate fashion.
The thing about the unfunded liability is this would only become a risk if, in fact, a huge number of people were to retire ahead of what actuarially they are expected to retire. And the personnel department keeps pretty careful records on what the likely dates are, and this is what the actuary takes a look at. So there is not imminent danger.
I would actually like to get a list. Actually, Madam President, I would be interested in knowing how many people went through the DROP program and came back in some form or another. I mean we hear anecdotes all the time about people who have gone through three, four years of DROP and then get hired back as consultants or are brought back. So I would like to get a list of how many people we are talking about there. I mean my understanding of DROP 178 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. was an effort to kind of weed out -- not weed out. That's not the right word because they are good employees -- trying to thin our higher level employment rolls by offering an incentive. I don't know what --
I appreciate it. But I think this situation is terrible for short-term and long-term future, and you guys have to do something about it because we can't do anything about it and I don't think they can do anything about it without providing the resources to fix the problem faster and better than we are fixing it now. Thank you.
Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, I thank you.
The next 179 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. department is the City Planning Commission.
We do have a copy of your testimony. I would ask you to be kind enough to abbreviate it. The copy has been given to the stenographer. It will be transcribed in full. So please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the City Council. My name is Thomas Chapman, acting executive director of the City Planning Commission. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present our budget this afternoon. Our proposed budget for 2007 is $3,815,018. The budget has three components: General Fund request for 180 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. $3,353,708, the Community Development Block Grant for $189,310 and a request for $272,000 in Federal Transportation Grant Funds. This year's General Fund request is $92,568 more than our FY 2006 estimated obligation level of $3,261,140. This increase in appropriations is entirely in Class 100, Personal Services, and provides funding for a 3 percent wage increase that will be effective on July 1 of this year. This year the commission was once again instrumental in obtaining four new Transportation and Community Development Initiative grants for the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission totaling $325,000. One thing that I would add, as you stated, Council President Verna, our testimony will become part of the record. I would be happy to answer any of your questions.
181 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. That's fine. Mr. Chapman, on of your testimony you mention three planning grants dealing with transit-related issues. How will the impact of gaming be factored into these studies?
Well, certainly the impact of gaming is going to be a consideration for any transportation study that is done in the City in the next couple years because obviously gaming is going to have an impact on any of our public transportation lines that will serve as sites that are selected by the State Gaming Commission. We have been discussing the impacts of gaming, the impacts gaming will have on the public transportation system, and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is also taking a look at that issue. We fully recognize that there will be impacts, that SEPTA will have to make some adjustments to accommodate 182 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. people coming to and from the gaming locations, wherever they happen to be located.
Is the study taking place as we speak, or will it be effective next year?
There are studies in the works right now and there are also studies that are at the RFP stage.
But if we don't know the locations of the gaming parlors, how can you plan as far as or study the transportation issue?
While we don't know the locations of the gaming parlors, I think that we -- since four of the five locations that had been identified in the City are along the waterfront, we know that we are going to have at least one along the waterfront so that there will be some impacts along the Delaware River waterfront somewhere in the area between Reed Street and Lehigh Avenue. And that obviously is going to have impacts on 183 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. lines such as the Market-Frankford elevated, the SEPTA lines that run along 2nd and 3rd Streets, as well as any SEPTA lines running along Spring Garden Street.
What studies are being undertaken with regards to parking along the Parkway as it relates to the central library renovations and the Barnes Museum? And can you tell us when it is expected these studies will be completed?
It seems like -- Councilman Kenney, I have to agree with you at times. This issue came up last year and we didn't have an answer and I don't know that we are going to have an answer this year either. See, once in a while I agree with you.
Madam President, I have asked for 15 years who gave the order to remove the broom and the shovel from the back of the trash truck. I asked the same question this 184 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. year, and the broom and the shovel, I don't know who gave the order, but it is gone. And the poor sanitation guy who tries, after the bag breaks, to keep the street clean has to go out with his hands on knees to throw it in the back of the truck, but that's another story.
That is ridiculous. Well, when the Streets Department comes in...
My wife got a ticket today, by the way. She sweeps the street every day and bags the trash. She forgot to bring it in today. So the guy came by and gave us a $25 ticket for sweeping the street. She likes a clean street, so she was running out and she forgot to take the bag in the house, and the guy in the green uniform came and wrote her up. So she is never going to sweep the street again she said. Not only is she not sweeping the street anymore, she's not voting anymore either. 185 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
Can you respond to my question, please, Mr. Chapman?
Certainly, Madam President. I'm going to ask Gary Jastrzab to address that question.
I'm Gary Jastrzab, Director of the Strategic Planning and Policy Division at City Planning. Regarding the question on Parkway parking, there is a two-phase study that is currently underway. Phase I is -- I believe that there are preliminary recommendations that are being reviewed by the Commerce Department and with the participation of City Planning concerning parking for the expanded library and Barnes Museum. And those recommendations are being reviewed. The second phase of the study is underway now. It includes a larger number of Parkway institutions and also includes a circulation analysis of the 186 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Parkway as well. And that work is underway. I'm not sure exactly when recommendations would be available from that study.
I think we can say for sure there is definitely a parking deficit in that area. How we address that is still up in the air.
Is there any money in the budget or five-year plan to correct the problem that you just described plus the need for parking? We are definitely going to need parking.
No doubt, no 17 doubt. We are definitely going to need parking.
Is there money in the budget or the five-year plan for this purpose?
There is no 23 funding in the capital program for sure, but there are -- there have been some preliminary recommendations that certain 187 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. on-street parking rules that are in effect now along the Parkway be changed to allow for a greater turnover in the parking spaces along the Parkway during the day. I believe that you can park now for like hours during the day there. 9 In other words, you can come in, park 10 your car, go to work and not worry about 11 getting a ticket. And if that were 12 changed, if there were some limitations placed on the amount of hours that you can park there, that would allow for a greater turnover of parking spaces.
I just have a question. Are you guys allowed to talk to the Parking Authority? It seems to me that if you have a parking -- if you are studying parking or looking at parking or talking about parking we have an authority in the City called the Parking Authority. Now, certainly the current hierarchy of the Parking Authority is not 188 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. exactly accessible to the administration, but they are there and they do have some capabilities and they have systems and they have analysis and they have some money. Do we talk to them at all?
How about this 12-hour parking deal? You think Vince Fenerty wouldn't want to put some meters somewhere or signs that would keep people from parking for 12 hours? I find them -- and this may be sacrilege to say this, but when I call them up they normally respond to issues and questions that I have and it is a resource that is there. Even though we don't like the politics of it, perhaps we could work together with them and maybe do something productive.
Councilman, the issue that I started to talk about, it is not illegal to park there for 12 hours right now.
I 189 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. understand, but we have agencies -- we have an agency and we have counsel that can address those things once we figure out what the research tells us. Do you guys talk to them or not?
Absolutely, absolutely. Joe Egan is an old friend. I know is not there anymore.
He's gone. He is not gone. He is in a different situation. He will be calling me up and telling me that he's gone. I find them pretty competent and cooperative. So you do have?
I've voted for Republicans in the past. I'm not that bad. I'm not like Councilman Cohen, God rest his soul. I don't think you are evil people, no. 22 But you guys do cooperate?
And they do have the capacity to do parking, to 190 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. borrow money and to build garages and to acquire land, and to me all of that planning on the Parkway should be done in concert with them and then make a request to them to build a garage or to somewhere. Is that part of the plan?
They have been a part of the process. In fact, at the most recent meeting there were I believe at least two, if not three, representatives of the Parking Authority attending that meeting.
The other possibility is that there are a number of development proposals in that area that have not -- they are certainly not under construction. They are in the discussion stage right now. And it's possible that some or one of these proposals could include some parking that could be used to serve as the library and the Barnes Museum. 191 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
And we have no indication as to when the studies will be completed?
I think, as I mentioned, there are preliminary recommendations for the first phase which are being reviewed internally at this point, and some of those recommendations do include the idea of freeing up some of those on-street parking spaces by changing the number of hours.
But how many parking spaces are there along the Parkway?
I don't know off the top of my head, but there is a surprisingly large number of them and that as well as looking at Parking Authority and/or provision of parking by private developers is part of the overall calculus of these recommendations that are being reviewed now.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo. If 192 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. you would like, I will take Councilman Nutter next, but he is on the phone too. They may be talking to each other.
Councilman Kenney, since you're paying attention --
I'm ready. Even when I'm talking on the phone I'm ready. Actually, Madam President, if there is someone -- I do have one question for the Planning Commission. It is only as it relates to the Parkway. I have a question for Miss Reed later whenever the Planning Commission is done, but speaking of the Parkway, can you tell me -- it's around 20th Street, 21st Street or so. Who put up the five yellow bollards? On the south side of the Parkway going east in the far outer lane there is an island. That strip of land between the far lane and kind of the main boulevard, roadway, there are five yellow bollards that were put up a bunch of 193 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. years ago. They don't appear to be protecting anything other than the fact that it seems that somebody was running their vehicle up on the green part for a long period of time. Can you check that out --
-- as we are having part of the conversation about the Parkway? If we are going into the yellow bollard business, I'm not sure, but they seem oddly placed. It is around 20th or 21st Street on the south side.
Thank you. I just wondered who put them there. Councilman Kenney, I wanted to mention to you in light of your revelation earlier that we have a number of initiatives here in the government. We have had Operation Safe Streets. We have had Operation Safer Streets.
Operation 194 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Smooth Streets.
Operation Smooth Streets, so you may want to pursue Operation Clean Streets as a result of the situation with your wife.
She is not cooperating. She is not going to do it. She is done sweeping and voting.
I understand. I am finished for the moment, Madam Chair. I have some other questions.
Thank you, Madam President. 195 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Good afternoon, Mr. Chapman and associates. We all know that many people have moved in the last decade from the City of Philadelphia to many of our suburban communities, and I would appreciate you helping with this because I received an e-mail from a gentleman that moved to the western suburbs but still works here in the City of Philadelphia. Every day he commutes, and it is hell to commute. There was once rail service from the western suburbs, from, I believe, Pottstown/Royersford, and if you listen to the traffic report every day, Route 422 inbound is a nightmare. SEPTA has abandoned that service, and I'm concerned that it's getting so bad with the growth that many of the people who still work here in the City will start looking for other places to work, and we will lose those jobs and that tax revenue. I understand that you have some 196 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. relationship with those types of issues with SEPTA, but can you imagine the growth of those suburbs and not having a way for people to commute? They have to drive, from what I understand, to -- as close as they can get to Philadelphia and park their car is Norristown. There is no public transportation, rail transportation, from the western suburbs to Philadelphia. And this gentleman who works here in the City told me that if something doesn't improve, that he's going to start shopping for a job out of the City. Again, he used the word it is a nightmare. It is an hour and a half commute from where he lives somewhere out in the western suburbs into the City. It's gridlock every morning and every night. I think that maybe the role of the Planning Commission is to push SEPTA. I understand the rail is there. One of 197 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. your colleagues is acting like he understands what I'm trying to express here, that that rail bed has been abandoned for some reason. What that would mean to have public transportation to people that aren't then -- if you have some information, sir, please sit down. I would appreciate it to hear it. To have people start looking for employment outside the City of Philadelphia -- and, as you know, that area is growing in leaps and bounds. Every farm, every area of land that can be developed is being developed, and guess who is occupying it? People who used to live here in the City of Philadelphia. And I don't want to see a double hit. I don't want to see us lose the residents and then lose the jobs. Do you have an organization within the Planning Commission that could work with SEPTA or at least ask some hard direct questions on what we can do to get 198 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. -- can you imagine people that live out there have to drive to Norristown to get to Philadelphia?
Gary Jastrzab of the City Planning Commission. You may remember a number of years ago there was a proposal that had been floated -- and this has been through several different iterations now -- for the Schuylkill Valley Metro. That was a regional rail project that would link up Center City Philadelphia with the City of Reading. That project has proven to be extraordinarily expensive and there has never been a financial plan for that particular transit service that all of the counties in the southeastern Pennsylvania region could agree upon. About a year, a year and a half 199 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. ago, the Governor created a special task force headed by the secretary of PennDOT to reevaluate the proposal for the Schuylkill Valley Metro and recommend to the governor an appropriate solution and potential cost for that service. That task force is still meeting and I believe that recommendations for that are running somewhat behind schedule. But they are expected this year. And our agency, working with the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, have been -- while we are not part of that working group or that task force, we are informed on a periodic basis about the negotiations and the deliberations of that task force. At this point the cost looks still to be very, very high. I think we are conceptually in support of that rail service. We are very concerned about the loss of residents and jobs from the City, but until we know what those 200 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. recommendations are, it's hard for us to make our own plans.
I appreciate what you've just said, but maybe you can provide me through the Chair some information. Don't we have a rail that's already in the ground? Don't we have stations -- I don't pretend to know that area very well other than the communication I receive. I believe we have a station that SEPTA closed in the western suburbs. I mean how do you close public transportation from an area that is growing? I mean something is wrong about that story. You add service; you don't close it. If eventually people say, "I have had it. I can't deal with this drive to Norristown" or "I can't deal with this commute to Philadelphia every day," could someone find out exactly what the circumstances with the rail that already is there, the right-of-way that is already there, the parking that is 201 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. already there, because I think that our Planning Commission -- and this is not meant to be disrespectful -- that that is a plan that's very important to me and it is a very important part to Philadelphia because if we can get a couple thousand cars off the expressway or get them off of the streets of Philadelphia, it's to our advantage. So I would appreciate it, Mr. Chapman, that that is something that we ask SEPTA and give us maybe a short report back on what it would take to reactivate that service. I mean it was maybe years ago, or I don't even know 17 when it was discontinued. When there was 18 nothing out there, that was fine, but 19 now... 20 Listen tomorrow morning to the traffic report. Every morning, 422. I have been listening since I got this e-mail. 422, gridlock coming into the city. Eventually those people are going to say, "I've had it." 202 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Would you do that?
You're welcome, sir. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I want to move just a moment to the Philadelphia Naval Business Center. Are you guys at all involved in either transportation planning issues or development planning issues at the yard? What is your role, if any?
Anything that's built in the Navy Yard comes through our office for a number of different reasons. Development reviews the fact that it may be in the floodplain down there. So I can tell you that everything of significance that has been done down 203 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. there has come through our office at some point.
Have you been involved at all in any studies relative to the extension of transportation opportunities into the yard including the extension of the Broad Street Subway or rail surface line in conjunction with what the DRPA has been planning, if the DRPA is still in existence, what they have been planning on Columbus Boulevard and connections with PATCO? I mean are you guys all plugged into all that stuff?
Yes, we are. In fact, we are in the process of pursuing some money to do a study.
And have you had discussions and contact with DRPA relative to their transportation planning?
We recognize that that's a key. It's a very important issue for the Navy Yard.
Thank you. Is that also -- not only the yard, but the service to the sports complex, is that also part of that whole process?
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Madam Chair, I need Miss Reed. 205 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
It does not, but I, quite honestly, wanted to put it on the record and make the request and then I'm going to leave, which will delight a number of people.
Councilwoman Blackwell, I believe, has a question for Mr. Chapman.
Thank you. We certainly have been involved and appreciate the effort being made on the other end as we leave the City on Baltimore Avenue and the work that we are doing in those counties there, and we certainly look forward to continuing it. One of the mayors called me just yesterday. So certainly we look forward to continuing that dialogue and trying to work together in spite of all the -- there are always issues, but we appreciate your working with us in that 206 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. regard.
Miss Reed, would you approach the witness table, please? Mr. Chapman, you can stay there. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Reed, thank you for coming up. This is a data request in light of I think you're kind of generally either the designated person or the highest ranking person on behalf of the administration.
I think I might have 207 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. the answer to your question. I was just making sure I had it available.
You're good. I'm still trying to figure out what the question is, but I commend you. And you think it is on that Blackberry?
Really? Okay. Let's give it a whirl. Miss Reed, what I would like is -- if you could provide through the Chair, I would like a comprehensive list, in light of the events of today, a comprehensive list of all public employees who live outside of the City of Philadelphia, the reason, whether there was a waiver granted, whether they're civil service or exempt, when was the waiver granted, where do they live, what department do they work in, how long have they worked for the City, and their salaries.
That wasn't the question I thought you were going to ask. 208 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. Sorry.
I thought you were going to ask if we had gotten the information you had called us about regarding the second employee that the CIO thought had been part of the higher education program.
I was not going to ask you about that. Your deputy was trying to tell me about that, but since you have the information, why don't you put it on the record for us?
The answer is that the CIO has sent a group of us a Blackberry letting us know that she was incorrect about there being a second employee. The person that she thought had filed for benefits under that program in fact did not. So he was in a higher education program, but he did not get reimbursed by the City for that.
Did the 209 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc. person seek reimbursement?
Did not seek. All right. Just so we are clear, when the chief information officer testified yesterday that there was another person who had already completed their studies I think last summer and had applied for the program and the costs had been paid, that was incorrect?
Okay. Thank you very much. But you will be able to get us that data?
You will forward it to the Chair? Thanks. Thank you, Madam Chair. 210 3/1/06 - Whole - Bill 06003, etc.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Seeing no one, I thank you all for your patience. Thank you for your testimony, and the committee will stand in recess until Tuesday, March 7, at 10:00 a.m. Thank you very much. (The hearing adjourned at 4:00 p.m.) 211 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the Committee of The Whole of the Council of the City of Philadelphia are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Wednesday, March 1, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ Cynthia A. Whyte, RPR (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)