This time. I was unopposed this time. I appreciate it, but --
No. But I was just saying, excuse me, it was a document given to me at that time, '99, reinventing government. Is that the same document?
And nobody has entertained addressing that from that point on, none of the departments, Administration?
Quite a few departments have utilized the redesigning 176 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 government initiative program. Licenses and Inspections has done an excellent job with it, where we have sat on it. The Law Department has started to do so the same. And we are looking at other departments that are willing to -- Board of Revision of Taxes is also right now looking at doing that.
Is there an existing Civil Service list for the court clerks?
There is not a list for the title court clerk or court clerk trainee as we bring them in on. A little bit of a history on this position. But, basically, we, in agreement with the central personnel, our list is attained through the Clerk 3 position in order to get us enough qualified candidates in order to deal with the position. Prior, whenever there was a written test taken for the court clerk trainee, it never attained for us enough candidates in the course of a year to deal with the vacancies that would typically exist. So we agreed that 177 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 we would go elsewhere against that list. So it is a Clerk 3 that we are going against.
Yes, there is. And we do have some approved work force request numbers that we are working against at the present time. That will kick into the vacancies that we have, but it is going to take us time. By the time we interview and select, it is still going to take several weeks.
Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Thank you very much.
Register of Wills is next. Good afternoon. I know you have a very short statement. However, if you would summarize it, we will give this to the stenographer, she will transcribe it in full. 178 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 So I would ask you that abbreviate your testimony, please.
Good afternoon, Council President and members of City Council. I am Ronald R. Donatucci, the Register of Wills and Clerk of the Orphans Court. To my right is my chief deputy, Ralph Wynder, and to his right is Anthony Derose, my Finance Officer. I will exercise brevity. I would just like to point out, on the second page, there was a typo error, in the second paragraph, after, "my office," "to better serve the citizens." I dictated this and I reviewed it and it was typed last minute. And I think, with all candor, it was signed, like, in the 11th hour the day before the election.
Council President and members, in our FY 2005 request, we are asking for $3,503,335. The majority of this, as in the earlier testimony of the Clerk of 179 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Quarter Sessions, the majority of it is in our Class 100. You will see an increase in our Class 200. This is as a result of our requests right now and the feasibility study to bring our office into the position as the role model for the whole State of Pennsylvania and the Register of Wills in the computerization. Basically, our system right now is internal. And the court system, through our Orphan's Court division, started to outreach through the web. And we will, basically, be able to serve the Bar Association and the public, once this system is implemented, to give total computer and internet access to the public and to the Bar Association to do similar procedures which we now require different lawyers to come into, which is also -- its revenue generated, I have to emphasize. As in the past, our budget and our revenue, I believe we are always, and Mr. Dubow is here, I think he will attest to this, 180 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 attest to the fact that our revenues were basically self-sustaining. We put some numbers on our statement that, by the end of this fiscal year, we are going to bring in over $3 million in revenue. And that's a little bit light. Because this past May -- well, this past May, this past -- well, today officially is our first day, we just raised our marriage license fees to be in line with some of the surrounding communities, and some of our probate fees. We were successful this past year. Many years ago, when I became Register of Wills, there were over 200 separate checking accounts for estates where at that time either the heirs were known or unknown heirs. What I did, Council President, is, I consolidated all these monies and invested it in government insured T-bills. And over the years, if you recall, some years back, when Governor Rendell was our Mayor, we came to an arrangement with Governor Casey to split some of this interest. But I 181 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 did not turn over all the interest. And I contacted the Governor, his office and the Governor, and I said, look, we are still talking approximately close to half a million dollars in interest. And why argue back and forth who really the money belongs to, is it the state or the city. And you know the fiscal problems of this city. And he agreed to split the interest. And approximately a month ago we gave the city $222,000 additional revenue. So our revenue this year should exceed way over what our present budget is. So we are, basically, asking to keep our present staffing because our duties have been expanded, once again, as a result of dealing with the court system. They are now, in our Orphan's Court we are dealing now through what they call banner, which was, to use a term, flown on the Register of Will's in our Orphan's Court division, where we basically have to give access to the Bar Association and different groups through the internet. 182 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 But we were not given any monies, additional monies. And I believe the city may be trying to collect some of this cost from the court system. And, furthermore, we are always expanding our services. We are the only office in the five counties where we are open Wednesday night. We have traveling probate clerks, where we go out to the public. We still provide some free services where we do go out, if it is somebody who is in a hospital and they want to get married, we will send them out free of charge, other than paying for the basic marriage license. So to continue in our role, we are not only there as a city office, but we are also there to totally serve the public.
Thank you. I see that, actually, your budget was cut in every category, Class 100, 200, 300. If you do not receive the funding that you are requesting, what's the operational impact going to be with the 183 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 operations of your office?
Well, first of all, obviously, we are going to have to cut the number of our staff, that's number one. Number two, we have raised fees to bring in additional revenue to the city.
Unequivocally. Because the Bar Association in particular, they have always been receptive of what we have tried to do. Not because I am sitting here, but I believe even me predecessors, we always had the reputation as the most user-friendly office in city government. They don't mind paying these additional fees, if they are getting service. When a lawyer walks in to probate an estate, we try to get him out within a reasonable amount of time. If an attorney has to come in -- if I have to cut probate clerks, and he has to hang around for two to three hours to probate 184 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 an estate, they are not going to be happy whenever we try to raise our fees. It is like a Catch 22.
Thank you, Madam President. First of all, good morning, gentlemen, and thank you for your explanation with regards to MOIS and the role that they will be playing in further computerizing your operation there. On , mid paragraph, you talk about an added service feature. Is this new? Fourth paragraph. Or, actually, third paragraph.
No; but we have expanded it. And once, through Michael Dean and the MOIS, once we get our system, this will bring additional revenues in. Because now if you have to check -- we have records go back to the late 1600s. Now, we have, believe it or not, 185 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Councilwoman, we have people from across the world that write into our office. We charge a fee to research. And if we do find the copy of what they are looking for, again, that's an additional fee.
Once we get this computerization and the internet tied into our operation, we will be able to expand, and we know it will bring additional revenue in. Because it is like anything else, if it is set up in the sense that, you know -- I will give you an example. This past year I was one of the few offices that we now collect our fees, some of our fees, we accept for marriage license, we encourage the use of a credit card. So we are in place already for credit cards. Once our internet and our web is set up, people, they will be doing a further research for their family trees, whatever. And, you know, this will bring additional revenues.
I see. This 186 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 sounds exciting. As of May 1, 2004, a number of fees will be increased. Procedurally what happens internally that moves you to this decision? And is it one that you can make independently?
Yes. What we have done is, how we usually do this, is, we contact the five surrounding counties -- obviously, we are one of them -- and we look at what they charge. And it was a number of years, I believe over three years ago, the last time we raised some of our fees. And we are very reasonable with our fees, because we realize a lot of our constituents in the city are from some poorer areas. And we try to keep the basic fees minimal in relationship to the services we provide. Obviously, if it is a big estate, you are going to be paying a much bigger fee. Our marriage licenses, again, we just researched. And I was watching television one night, when there was somebody 187 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 trying to apply for a marriage license in Bucks County. I guess it was over two months ago. And I saw the sign up on the wall, $50. We were only charging 40. And we just raised it to 50 because we are the only office where our staff, they actually work on Wednesday night. And we are the only office, that I am aware of, maybe city government, we don't pay a dime in overtime. My employees trade off. You know, they will come in later on a Wednesday. But they are willing to do that to provide services to the public.
I was going to ask you both about overtime and the DROP program.
We have zero in overtime. And the DROP program, it is my rule, nobody. You know, I don't think they want to come back ever. We have some employees retiring in their early '80s.
I think that 188 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 might be all. Thank you very much.
Madam President, I don't think our employees get overtime, either, do they?
I am not going to mess with the Charter. Let me stop. Good afternoon. Mr. Donatucci, how many employees do you have outside of your office? Like, I know in the North Philadelphia Municipal Services Building, you had an employee there. Do you have one in the other, the Northeast?
We don't have any full-time employee assigned on a full-time basis. We do it several hours a day.
Yes. 189 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 And they call our office and, you know, we try to provide that service. But nobody is sitting in an office all day.
Because I know one of the recommendations is to close the municipal service centers. I know the one on 22nd Street is scheduled to close. And I am assuming that that has no 10 budget impact on you, in terms of monies that your department has to pay. You just, essentially, from time to time place an employee there; you are not required to?
That is something that we did for the Northeast part of the city, the Bar Association in particular. It is a real service that we do provide in that part of the city because it is the furthest part away from the city. And senior citizens, again, we try to remember that the majority of people who use that office are bereaved, they just lost a husband or a wife, you know, or a child. And for them to travel all the way down, we try to take the burden off a little bit. 190 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 We still do not provide for marriage licenses. If you want to get married, my feeling is, you have to come to City Hall. I am still a traditionalist. And let them see this beautiful building.
One of these days I will do that. Thank you. That's all.
I would like to mention, if they do close the office in the Northeast, that we are going to make every effort to, even if we have to talk to some of the attorneys up there, if they are willing to let us -- and I want to check the viability issue. Because we do get a good volume out of that location, and I hope they do not close that facility. And we will do the same thing in North Philly, more in North Philly, because we do get volume out of both locations.
I just wanted to add to that, in the event that -- and the decision hasn't been determined yet -- but in the event that the North Philadelphia 191 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 municipal services facility will close, I think we have identified an alternative space.
I am willing to -- I don't know. Do you have an office in North Philly?
Unfortunately, we don't have a budget to have district offices.
But I am saying, I am willing to work with the local state rep or a Senatorial office.
We are, actually, looking at a place we have a library that's under construction in close proximity to the existing building, we are looking to ensure that we have adequate space for the operations that are currently held in the municipal services building. And put them in the library, and that might actually encourage people to read a book while they are in there getting other services, and I think that might be a good idea.
You have my word I 192 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 will make every effort to make sure that that's one service we will try not to cut out.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention on the record how the Register of Wills office is not just customer-friendly, but politician-friendly. I mean, we try to get help for people all the time. It is basically what we do most of the time. And if we get the same level of service from other agencies as we get from the Register of Wills, I think our jobs would be much, much easier. So, I really want to mention that to you. Because it is -- I'm sure it is, you know, the employees don't behave that way accidentally. It is something that is driven down from the top. But on the issue of the Northeast office, because it is a little further, I understand, from the Northeast than even North Philly to get down here to City Hall, 193 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 particularly the libraries, I would hope that we could explore those or even rec centers that have very little activity during the day, but may be able to be used during those hours, when they are not tied up with kids and rec leaders and everything. I think there's got to be an outcome that can work for us. And I know if it is capable of happening, Ron, you will make sure it happens.
Yes, Madam President. First let me underscore Councilman O'Neill's comments and put those in capital letters with exclamation points. Because in the four years I have been here, the customer service has been exemplary. And I do agree it does always start with leadership. To this question of fees again. These hearings have revealed for us that some, I guess it would be the Revenue Department or 194 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Water Department, do not do well in collecting revenues for their particular areas. Are fees paid on site in your office?
Yes. You can't raise an estate until you pay some of these monies. But, let me emphasize how computers help. Years ago our additional fees, where somebody will come in -- and I want to give a compliment to Mr. Glancey. His office has worked in conjunction where somebody, if our office -- I will give you an example. Somebody will come in and they will raise an estate. They will start the process, and you have to put the present value of the piece of real estate. We are now tied into the Board of Revision of Taxes at least to get a fair idea. A few years prior we would have individuals come in and say a house at 5th and Pine was worth $40,000. Now what problem does that create for us? Our probate clerks, because they take 195 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 an oath, people put 40,000, or whoever it is, they put 40,000. And after the estate has gone through the different steps, and then they put -- say the property is sold for 900,000. We have to go back and try and collect the additional fees. Our computerization internally, which is not tied into the web system, other than our access that we can go on through the CityNet to find out what the property is assessed at, we now, our additional fees, I believe, last year were two or three hundred dollars that we couldn't collect, as compared to maybe six or seven years ago, 40 or 50. Because the attitude was, once the estate was finalized, try to collect the monies, because the properties sold. So we usually get the money up front.
Okay. My final question would be for my own knowledge base. Could you please forward to the Chair the list of the type of fees your office does collect 196 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 and the amount.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Seeing none, gentlemen, thank you very much. Thank you for a job well done.
And the committee will stand in recess until 1:45. (Recess.)
The Committee of the Whole is now back in session. Do we have anyone here from the City Commissioner's Office to testify? Please approach the witness table.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself, for the record.
My name is Robin Zerbib. I am the Acting Budget Officer for the City Commissioners. 197 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
We did not receive any written testimony from your office.
We do not yet have written testimony. I have yet to meet with the Commissioner, and we were also not aware of the Council session today. The last transmittal that I got was opened Thursday in my e-mail that the testimony was due. And I haven't had a chance to meet with the Commissioner, as they are certifying the election. I will do the best I can to get that information to you as soon as possible.
I think we are just going to have to schedule you for another day. We will notify the City Commissioner what day she shall have to come in.
You are welcome. Thank you. Next to testify is the City Controller. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Madam President. 198 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
We did receive a copy of your testimony this morning. We will give a copy of it to the stenographer, who will transcribe it in whole. So if you would like to abbreviate your testimony, we would appreciate it.
It would be my pleasure. Madam President, I am accompanied by Attorney Tony Radwanski, who is the Deputy Controller for Administration. I have Tony McNeil and Albert Scaperotto here, with two other deputies, as well as Administrative Services Director Gene Laumer. The essence of my statement for the record today is that the General Fund appropriation is $7,314,505 for the Controller's Office. This is a 5 percent cut for 2005. For the last two years my office has gotten a 3 percent reduction. So over the last three years, we have had a total reduction almost 11 percent of the budget that we originally submitted. 199 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 I had met with the Mayor and told him that I would try to live within the guidelines of the budget that has been presented to me. That I doubt very strongly that that will be the case, you know. Because of the changes in the City Charter from the last election, I think it was 3 to 1 in the majority, my office has responsibility of auditing any department that is ancillary to the City of Philadelphia, that receives funds from the city, or has appointments from the Mayor and/or City Council. Besides the state law, which now gives us an opportunity, through my office, to audit the Parking Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I don't know at this point whether I may have to come back for additional funds or not. I told the Mayor that I would try to live within the means that have been presented to me, as I have the last two years. And that is a very big concern of mine. We are in need of additional 200 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 employees to fulfill our mandated responsibilities. And now, with these additional responsibilities as an independent controller, I may be in need during the next fiscal period of additional funds. So, that remains to be seen. I did make mention in my presentation about the Office of Inspector General, who has asked for additional funds. And there is a quote on the last page of my testimony which states that the Inspector General is asking for Civil-Service-exempt auditors and it is quoted as saying that, to conduct the entire range of audits, including economy and efficiency audits, of the various operations of the city government. This description is taken from the Home Rule Charter, which we are all familiar with, and is actually the mission of the city's independent auditor, which is the Office of the City Controller. I have met with the Mayor and told him I was concerned that the Inspector General was going to attempt to invade what has been 201 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 traditionally and, according to the Home Rule Charter, the provisions of the creation of an independent controller, and since 1951. So I have no problem with an Inspector General's Office having a function within our government when it comes to ethics violations or investigations thereof. To me, our office has 45 CPAs. All of them are Civil Service, protected under Civil Service and union regulations, and I think have done a tremendous job over the last number of years and have produced for an average of $8 million worth of recommendations per individual. The Inspector General also mentioned that they were thinking of doing internal control audits. If the Inspector General, who I have never met, by the way, wants to look and see what type of internal control systems should be changed, all he or she has to do is go back over the last number of years and look at the many audits that my office has done, as required by law, concerning the internal control problems that we have seen over the 202 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 last number of years in the City of Philadelphia. If there is any question on my written documentation or any other questions, I am more than happy to answer it.
All right. The Chair at this time recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Controller Saidel, let me ask this question: When you raise issues concerning the budget for the office, which I would have the same concern, doesn't the Charter provide, or seek to provide some, at least a requirement to properly fund the Controller's Office? It may not necessarily be a guarantee, but it seems to speak to that particular issue?
Yes. In fact, a number of years ago, as you might remember, Councilman, I was forced to sue the City of 203 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Philadelphia on a writ of mandamus when Mayor street was President of City Council because I felt that the budget was cut to such an extent that the office could not fulfill its mandated responsibilities under the Home Rule Charter. The sad part about that provision is, I needed the approval of the City Solicitor that is not only my attorney, your attorney, and the Mayor's attorney, and then the cost of hiring outside counsel was actually almost as much money as was additionally given to me. But, no; that's absolutely true. Which is why I am putting Council on notice that though I have always tried to live within the means of the budget that I have presented, and then subsequently received, I am concerned this particular year that I will not receive the funds that are necessary to do the job that has been entitled to us, certainly with the expanded responsibilities of the office based upon the changes in the Charter that were voted on here in City Council and passed overwhelmingly by the citizens of 204 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Philadelphia.
Let me ask this question: How many audits does the Controller's Office perform on average on a yearly basis?
We perform an audit of every department in the City of Philadelphia, every agency of the City of Philadelphia, as well as the Boards and Commissions. Yes, there are about 45 to 50 audits, not counting what are called performance audits and operational audits, which I try to be, as you know, topical during the fiscal year to have people set aside for -- and money set aside when there is outside help that's needed from outside accounting firms.
How many performance audits do you think are conducted? And can you tell me in the past year which departments or agencies did you perform a performance audit for?
If you don't mind, I will have Al Scaperotto come up, who is the 205 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 post-audit supervisor.
Albert Scaperotto. I am the post-audit deputy for the Controller's Office. For performance audits, we did the audit of the office of fleet management. We also looked at the rate reduction, the special discounts given to water and sewer recipients, the low-income allowance. We did the pension fund audit a few years ago, where we looked at the deceased beneficiaries. Currently we are doing the MBEC audit. And we looked, as part of the Treasurer's Office --
Yes. But it is not finished yet, Councilman. 206 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
The report is scheduled to come to me this Friday. We then go through our internal quality control procedures, and it should be out for exit to the department within three weeks.
Okay. And, so, when you talk about performance audits, it sounds like they are usually related to a specific issue within a department, as opposed to the overall operations and performance of that department. Is that a distinction?
That's -- currently, that's the case. We just do not have the time or the resources to go in and look at all facets of the department and then identify which area within that department we should concentrate on. We have been just zeroing in on 207 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 particular activities.
The normal audit would look to verification of cash in bank, the normal accounting processes that would exist. What I have had the office do is, as things move forward -- which is the MBEC audit and the investigations into the airport are examples of topical investigations that had to be begun.
Yes. In other words, to be fluid and be able to respond during the year, depending upon what came up. And if a member of Council, as Councilman Goode has asked us to do a number of times, run analyses. So those things come up during the year. What we try to do in the beginning of the year is look at areas we haven't looked at as a subset of each one of the operating departments. 208 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 This year I actually wanted to audit PIDC, Commerce Department, and a variety of other agencies that, based upon the new Charter change, should give us an opportunity to look and see what the flow of information is. Because wherever the Mayor makes appointments or Council makes appointments, we now have an opportunity to look at. And, again, what I am concerned about is, with an expanded opportunity to give you and other members of Council an independent analyses, that, with this budget constriction, I may not have the money and the wherewithal of employees to do something that's proper.
Now, you mentioned some of the new agencies, although I thought I heard you say, Commerce. You have always had the ability to do Commerce.
I have. In fact, the last time we audited Commerce, I tried to back in PIDC and a lot of the other agencies which would not give me an opportunity to look at 209 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 their books and records. But now, under the new law, as the system moves forward, we should be given an opportunity to look at all their records.
Just a few last questions. How many outside audit firms do you contract with?
It depends upon what the specialty is that comes up during the year. I will get an average for you. An example is, I am going to need outside help from an accounting firm that is familiar with parking authorities in this country when we attempt to do a constructive and bipartisan analysis of the current situation at the Parking Authority, as an example.
On your testimony, you make reference -- and this is all, I am sure, in a budget context -- you talk about with a technical staff of two inspectors, one certified engineer, and one CPA, it will not be possible for us to perform 210 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 the vital check and balance inspection on some $250,000,000 set to be spent as a part of the Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. And then you go on to say, although the Administration has agreed to fund our inspections in this program, no money has been received. Are you telling us that, at this point, there have been no audits of the NTI program?
Let me make sure the record is clear, because you said no and yes.
Well, not in the sense that I would like it to be, and I am sure in the sense you would like it to be. We originally had a variety of meetings with those individuals that are involved in NTI. And we were supposed to receive $200,000 to either be used for additional 211 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 employees or to bring in some temps with these types of specific backgrounds to be able to analyze the NTI as the process moved through in the pre-audit section. That money has not been forthcoming. So, what we are attempting to do, with the staff that we have, is to be selective based upon the amount on the invoices as they travel through the system. I would much rather have had, which was supposed to be the way it was, that we would analyze NTI as it moved through the system, be able to give people an opportunity, yourselves and other members of Council and the general public, an opportunity to understand where that money was being flowed to and how it was being flowed and a turn-around time between, say, demolition and demolition payments, what demolition was being done, and rates and a variety of other things. But I was supposed to get $200,000 from the Administration, which has not been received.
Other than 212 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 reports in the media, had your office noticed the significant escalation in costs related to demolition?
Yes. And I will ask Mr. McNeil, who is the Deputy Controller for Pre-audit, to step forward and talk about it. You know, as you know, the process was supposed to be that the city would borrow a certain amount of money; demolition would occur; and during that process, eminent domain would occur; demolition would occur; homes and income-producing properties would then be created; and that money would then be placed back in the pool and moved forward and, effectively, 250 million could be 3 billion, if you use it properly. As you know and I know and anyone who has followed the process knows, that that's not the case; that most of the money has been used for demolition. But I will have Mr. McNeil, who is the Deputy Controller for Pre-audit, answer some of the specifics. MR. ANTHONY McNEIL: My name is 213 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Anthony McNeil, Deputy City Controller. To answer, to add to what Jonathan was saying, because to tear down one house roughly a few years ago was $8,000, it now escalated to somewhere around $22,000. John pointed out some of the costs of labor, costs in materials, et cetera, and the type of NTI project. Their scope of how they want to do the job has escalated the price that much. They were talking about, the original plan, was to do 14,000 houses. But I don't -- we don't really see that at this particular time. Inspections that we do, we have, basically, four auditors, technical people, that go out and look at inspections in the past. Before we pay a bill, our inspectors would go out and look at the work, look at the test pits they would build when they tear houses down to see if there are any materials hidden or buried in the basements. We haven't had the opportunity to do 214 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 that because of the volume of the houses they tear down on a daily basis or a monthly basis. We don't have the staff to perform that. So we asked for additional money to work along with L & I and NTI, Hill International. As they do their inspections, we would have a designated inspector to go along with them at that time. That hasn't happened to this date. We did go out in January to look at some houses that have been torn down and some of the finished products. But while we were in the -- during the inspection, we saw four or five violations right in front of us, where Hill and the inspectors looking at it. We were supposed to do a certain kind of cement work, curing, and they didn't do the work properly. So we desperately need to get that money so we can have some people and make sure the job is done right.
So, Controller Saidel, let me, I guess, ask this question: 215 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 So at the time moment, based on your general, your normal standards, there have not been any serious audits of the NTI program. And we are, I guess, at least two years into it. We have the FY '05 budget coming up. At what point do you think we would actually be able to start auditing the program? And what happens to all the activity that happened prior to this point?
Well, it is not an audit in the true definition of what an audit is. But we were supposed to be involved -- and I am very disappointed in the lack of oversight. But understand that there is supposed to be a variety of agencies that are involved in oversight, besides myself. We are doing the very best we can and have analyzed things and held up payments on a variety of times to make sure that the agencies that are empowered by the Mayor to do what they are supposed to do, as well as Hill International and a variety of other contractors that have been hired to be 216 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 involved in NTI, do what they are supposed to do. I would hope that I would get the $200,000 as makes it possible to move forward in whatever phase the Mayor says he is in. But I think that -- and that money does not necessarily have to come out of the General Fund; it can come out of the capital fund. So there is a variety of ways that we can receive the funding to make sure that we live up to our responsibilities, as I believe we should. But as a bare-bones, we have held up a number of checks and forced people to do what they are supposed to do. But I think that with all these cuts that my office has had, you know, everybody wants to try to live within the means that they are given, but I wanted to come here today and put Council on notice not in a negative way. Because this budget is initiated by the Mayor's Office. But just to publicly say that, you 217 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 know, in the next couple of months, if I don't have the 200,000, if I don't feel that I have the capability of manpower and contracting power to fulfill our responsibilities, if I have to sue, I will. I will do what I think I have to do.
The 200,000 in question, was that for the current fiscal year, or was that for last fiscal year?
It is for last year. It would be an ongoing process. That 200,000, if I brought in some oversight and brought in some additional people on a temporary basis, would help us catch up on a variety of things. So that number was a give-and-take number that could be used for a number of months.
I understand. But I am assuming that you originally wanted it for the FY '03, which I think was the first real NTI budget. That didn't happen then.
It didn't happen then. But, to be truthful, they didn't do that much. 218 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 They didn't do that much.
I understand. Madam President, I just have a couple last questions. Mr. Controller, can you give us your perspective on the announced proposal by the Mayor and the Administration to, in essence, remove $125 million from the Water Department debt reserve fund for economic development purposes? What's your perspective on the idea, and any concerns you may have with regard to the loss of interest earnings?
Well, I have not been one in favor of what the Mayor has proposed, which is the transferring over of some of the SWAP money and a variety of things that have been in the last couple of years, that $125 million. I informed the Mayor that that money 219 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 could not be used in the General Fund, that that money couldn't be used any way his Administration saw fit, but could only be used for the furtherance of the Water Department's responsibilities and their capital improvements. You know, when you are asking for a 46 percent, or some number like that, increase in water rates, I think that that money could be better used. And I don't think it should be applied to this artificial category, I think, the Mayor placed when he gave his State of the City address, which is he wants to have a total of $500 million for a variety of things that have yet to be determined. So I don't think that that's a proper use of that funds and would be, respectfully, against any kind of movement like that.
I am assuming there must be some role for the Controller, in accordance with the Home Rule Charter, regarding the spending of any of those 220 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 dollars?
Well, it would be only in the sense that the Mayor, to use the money the way he wants, would probably have to get a legal opinion to say how he is going to delineate, how he is going to spend that section of the 500 million. I don't know where the other, you know, $375 million is coming from, either.
But for me and my office, I would disapprove any expenditure that was made that was not according to the law in relationship to bond proceeds being used by a revenue fund, as you know, which is what the Water Department is. And the law is that money can only be used back for the furtherance of capital improvements within the Water Department structure itself.
I think the proposal at the moment, what we have been able to glean from testimony, is that it would be 221 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 used for, basically, new infrastructure or upgrades to infrastructure that may or may not exist in at least three locations, somewhere on the Delaware River, the Navy Yard, and I think I have heard somewhere in the Schuylkill River Park area. I don't know what the infrastructure is presently in those locations. But I think we have to, for the moment, assume that there either is not any, and it would be put in to assist in development, or to significantly upgrade some systems that may be aged or failed or beyond their useful life. Do you think that's an appropriate use of those dollars that were, essentially, put in by the taxpayer?
No, I don't. And the reason I haven't commented is on it because there is nothing written down on paper, so it is almost impossible to vote on a budget like that, let alone --
Or make a decision as 222 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 to where I would stand as the Controller of Philadelphia. But the general proposition for me is that the money should be used -- you can either use the money to reduce the debt or you can use the money to fix existing infrastructure, which would effectively reduce the amount of revenue that was necessary to keep those pipings alive.
But I haven't seen as of today the specificity that I would need. Which is why I have always made the general comment that I am against, that I disapprove of the way it is being handled. But I need to see something much more specific, as I am sure everybody in this chamber needs to, from the Administration as to what they actually think they are going to do with the money, to make a judgment call.
Last question. of your testimony, and you articulated this, you raise a concern about the request by the Office of Inspector General for $550,000, 223 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 essentially to hire new people. Your statement here pretty much says it all. First, there is no legitimate basis for this request. And then you go on to talk about what, in essence, is the primary role and responsibility of the Controller's Office as the Charter-designated auditing agency for the government. Let me ask the question this way: From your perspective, do we need an Inspector General?
I think that an Inspector General's Office would be a valuable asset, if it existed. When I met with Judge Chen, and she asked me about the use of an Inspector General, I told her that, when it comes to perceived ethics violations and a variety of other functions which have hovered somewhere in the mist, that no one has ever said is their responsibility, I think an Inspector General's Office can be a valuable tool. But the problem always is that it is very difficult for an appointed official to 224 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 investigate the people that appoint them. So as far as the way, the makeup of the IG's office, as it seems to be envisioned, I think that's a waste of money. I think what you are doing is creating duplication. You know, as I mentioned in the prepared testimony, is that we already handle that function. We have handled that function from Controllers before me and Controllers after me that will have that opportunity to do these jobs. And they are Civil Service employees, protected by unions, and will be there long after I am gone. And I am --
Well, we are hoping that you are going to be there for a long time.
I'm sure you are. In whatever capacity. But the reality is, Councilman --
Is that I think the IG that's being created -- and I am amazed that I never met the Inspector General; I think I saw 225 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 a picture of him, when he testified at City Council --
We met him a couple of weeks ago, met him for the first time.
Oh. Is that the office is really becoming a controller like, it is becoming a miniature Controller's Office. Where I have 35 CPAs working for me, he wants to hire or people that are exempt, which is in clear violation of everything I have always been told about government. And I don't think that that's the proper role of an Inspector General's Office. So if it was handled properly, I think it would be a welcome addition. But if it is not handled properly, it is merely a duplication of effort.
Thank you. Mr. Controller, in this city treasurer's audit report for 2001 and 2002, 226 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 you mention that the fiscal agent is holding approximately $16 million in unclaimed bond payment funds. Of this amount, approximately $14 million was held for over two years and $9 million for over seven years. In your capacity as City Controller, what actions, if any, do you think the city should take with regards to those funds, as they are over two years old?
Well, as you know, Madam President, the Wachovia is our escrow agent. And we deposit money into Wachovia, and they are supposed to distribute that money to bond holders. The money that's been sitting there for not only two years, three years, but sometimes seven years, is money that is accruing interest, but it is money bond holders that have not been able to be found. We had originally thought that the money would go to the state. But the City Solicitor's opinion states that that money is ours. And since it is ours, the fact that 227 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 it is still sitting in Wachovia is beyond the pale of reasoning. That that money should be transferred back, so the city can use it for other areas. And I think keep a list of those bond holders which have not received payment. And if they, some time in the future -- you would think after seven years, if you owe somebody money, they are going to come forward when they find out they are not getting it. If somebody does come, then we can give them a check out of the General Fund. But you should also know that the interest we are being paid effectively is less than the cost and the expenditure that we pay to Wachovia to hold that money. So I think the money should be transferred immediately over and used for whatever purpose Council and the Mayor see fit to use.
Thank you. I know that you will have to make some recommendation or comment on the city's Five-Year Plan once it goes to PICA. 228 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Would you like to share with us any of your thoughts on the current plan that's before us, the Five-Year Plan?
I didn't know that you had a current Five-Year Plan in front of you.
We have a Five-Year Plan. How current it is, I don't know. It is certainly not current. But, the one that we have before us. You agree that it is not something that we can simply move forward on?
Yes, I don't think, Madam President, that the current Five-Year Plan that you have can be voted on, since the Mayor has made admissions that there is not going to be $18 million a year from the PGW. Which I have always believed should not go to the city; it should be used to reduce the costs to the ratepayers of the City of Philadelphia. But the process has always been that, once you have passed the Five-Year Plan and Council and the Mayor has signed it, that my office then does its due diligence, and 229 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 that due diligence, and the conclusions that we reach then goes to PICA, and PICA has a certain amount of days to make their own independent decision. They can use our information or not use our information. I think that the statements from the Executive Director of PICA initially on in the process, I think, was very premature. But last year -- just to give you some reference point, last year I didn't issue an opinion on the city's Five-Year Plan. So I didn't say it was good and I didn't say it was bad, I just didn't issue an opinion. This year hopefully the Mayor will resubmit a Five-Year Plan which will be more based upon actual circumstances that we can control, rather than some of the additional state legislation which he needs to make the plan whole. I have always been concerned about putting in additional revenue sources based upon an outside legislative body and an outside government which hasn't even looked at a bill, let alone passed a bill through its 230 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 House and Senate and signed by the Governor to give us additional funds. But I am looking forward to seeing the Mayor's new Five-Year Plan and then working with Council to see if it is something that I can voice approval for. But, again, my approval or disapproval is independent of what PICA does. By I do feel that PICA should not have made the initial statements in the beginning of your process, without having the opportunity to look at the numbers as they are presented by Council.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
I would like to get your reaction. You were just talking about PICA. 231 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 When they came before us shortly after that statement that you described, they came out with what I think surprised me, and maybe some of my colleagues, to see the in-depth operational audit they did of the Philadelphia Police Department. Would you comment on that. I didn't know that that was PICA's role, to do operational audits. And that, obviously, was an operational audit in depth. I don't know whether consistent with your audit, your last audit of the police department. But it kind of confuses me what exactly that was all about. They seem to pull it out of the --
It was confusing. I know that you had asked a particularly poignant question about, you know, who pays them. And I think their response was that the city doesn't pay them. I had no idea they were a charitable institution. But they are paid for out of bond proceeds, which is our money. I mean, effectively, somewhere along the line, it is 232 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 the taxpayer's money of the City of Philadelphia. They don't have a large audit staff. I think they have three -- three auditors. It has always been my belief that their responsibility is to look at our budget overall, which is one of the reasons why my office is empowered to do the due diligence and present information to them on an annual basis once a Five-Year Plan is approved by Council and signed by the Mayor, that our office actually acts as the staff in a limited respect to PICA. But I don't know how they paid for that audit, nor do I know what in-depth work they did on that audit to justify the conclusions that they had. I mean, when we do an investigation, as you know, Councilman, it takes a number of weeks and a number of man-hours. And you check and you recheck and you have exit conferences in order to talk to the departments that are being audited. And then they are given an 233 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 opportunity to present their opposing viewpoint, or their acceptance of that audit. And that opposing viewpoint or acceptance is attached to every audit that goes out so people have an even-handed opportunity to look at the department that we are looking at, our criticisms, and their responses. So I can't tell you how in-depth that audit was, nor the amount of man-hours that were used.
My next question, or maybe it is a comment, your point about the Inspector General here. Wouldn't you think for an Inspector General to be able to do what they do, just the semantics, or maybe just the way this was presented, is causing some of the confusion? Don't most Inspector Generals, whether at local, state, federal level, have to have some staff around them that have the ability to do an independent audit to be able to look at potential crime being committed? Wouldn't it be fair to say that they have to have some limited staff to be able to 234 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 do what they do?
Oh, absolutely. I think the word "investigation" is a proper word. The use of the word "audit" is a term of art. I am not splitting hairs, but there is a difference between an "investigation" and an "audit." And, as I had told the Mayor, that I am more than happy to meet with the IG and his representatives, or the Finance Director, whoever the Mayor wanted to, to make sure that there was no duplication of effort; that the Inspector General can have an opportunity to perform within those spirits of influence that the Mayor sees fit. What I am concerned about -- and you are right, you need proper staffing for that. In many cases they use IAD from the police department, as well as I use IAD under certain circumstances as additional manpower. And I think that the IG can provide a valuable role, if done properly. And since this is almost as if a creation of an Inspector General, as before 235 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 there was an IG, you know, I used to get confidential papers from them, but I don't know who they were. If it is done properly, it can be a useful tool. If not done properly, it will merely be an overlap of agencies that are involved now that I think are doing their job.
I would like to just spend a minute with the results of your hard work. I think you know I read some of this stuff that you send.
And you said something to me that was personally troubling; that you do your reports, but you don't have any enforcement capabilities. It must be tough to have a job where you can see certain deficiencies, and these operating departments, or whatever department of government that you are auditing, don't respond. At what point can you do something, especially when you see a particular 236 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 deficiency? Like, I have one now that I am not going to speak about publicly, but I hope the police department is listening, because there is a particular issue that I have an interest in that is beyond an example. In any of your audits, did you pick up the fact that the police department wasn't being reimbursed for the overtime that they were paying officers?
What did they do about it, when you brought it to their attention? It is mind-boggling that something so significant, with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars not being collected, you pointed out to them, and it is no big deal.
Well, do you know what, it is sometimes overwhelming that, when you find problems within a department, that those 237 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 problems are not rectified. I have always tried to make the audits that we do not specific to individuals, not saying that's this Commissioner, that Commissioner is not doing their job. Because the object is not to create a defensive posture, but to work with the Commissioners to give them an opportunity to make these changes. But, remember, that the definition of an independent auditor is that you do your job. Once an auditor become an enforcement agent, it is no longer an independent auditor. And the definition of being the Controller of Philadelphia is that there is a separation between management. Because if I had the power to enforce my recommendations, I would then become part of management. So I think that you have to always remember that the Controller makes recommendations. We have a bully pulpit. Hopefully Council Members can then ask particular questions based on the information we give, the public can ask questions based on 238 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 the information we give. But it is not -- I think a movement from the Controller's Office, having the ability to enforce its recommendations, would, I think, destroy the independence that is necessary for the Controller's Office, which is why you have a Mayor and an Administration and other elected officials within the government
Mr. Controller, if you saw something in an audit that appeared to be improper, potentially criminal, would you go to the District Attorney, would you go to the Inspector General, since you are not the enforcer? What would you do with something that would in fact be like I described?
In the past, when we have -- when I have found information -- I have never gone to the IG. But when I have found information after a series of exit conferences, where we believe that it has gone from merely a misunderstanding, a lack of accounting 239 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 controls, to criminality, we have referred those files to the District Attorney or to the U.S. Attorney's Office, depending upon what that topic is.
Thank you very much. And I appreciate your good work and, most important, your communications. Because I learn a lot about what goes on in this city by reading especially the executive summary. I think it is very much appreciated by me.
You are welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I just have a couple of questions. One, during the hearings on the Charter change referendum that subsequently enhanced your authority, did you testify? 240 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
I don't think so. Usually what happens is, what I have always tried to make a rule of, is, when you have seen fit, or Council has seen fit, to increase the powers of the office that I hold, it is a double-edged sword to say I want that additional power. I mean, I was fine with the powers that I did have. But if in a new topic, in a new direction, new Council, and the people of Philadelphia decided that the Office of Controller should have additional powers, it has always been my position in a general rule not to advocate additional powers because people may look at it the wrong way. You know, we are only temporarily here. I am only temporarily Controller. But I think that the Charter change amendments were a step in the right direction for an independent analysis. 241 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Certainly with the growing amount of -- and this is not the current Administration, but just in the last 50 years, the growing amount of outside agencies that have begun to exist that are outside the strict control of Council and the Mayor of Philadelphia.
All right. I asked you that more from a budgetary standpoint. I understand you are concerned about participating in a hearing, when it involves you personally and your office, in terms of enhancing your powers or the ability to do more audits. What I was going to ask you -- and I can't remember if in fact you testified -- at the time of that testimony did you indicate that there will possibly be the need for additional staff people?
To tell you the truth, 242 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Councilman, I don't think I did testify. But, you know, when I met with the Mayor, you know, which we are not adversaries, he asked me about living within our budget. And I have always -- any time in the last three years, I have always tried to live within the budget that's -- not that's the one I present, but the one that I receive. And he also had a concern that I would not be able to receive enough funds to live up to my responsibilities. And I told him, as a Philadelphian, I am going to try my best. And if I do need additional money for the Parking Authority and a variety of other things, then I am going to come back and ask him for it.
I know I myself participated in a number of Charter change initiatives. But we don't, first of all, when we place it on the ballot, we don't talk about the cost associated with that. Right now we are wrestling with another initiative, 243 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 creating the Office of Insurance Advocate. And we are trying to identify additional staffing levels to help the Office of Consumer Affairs, which I was instrumental in. But I also did not attach a dollar figure to that particular position.
You know yourself that there is a lot of things that we would like to do as Philadelphians. The only limitation we have to our dreams sometimes is the dollars that sit before us.
Right. On this issue about the Inspector General -- and Councilman Rizzo actually touched on a substantial amount of what I was going to ask -- you indicated in your testimony that in instances where you saw some potential improprieties, you never forwarded that information or contacted the Inspector General's Office. Is there a reason for that?
Never thought of it. If it reached a level where I felt, as a nonlaw enforcement agency, that it 244 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 reached the level that it needed to be inspected and looked at by the law enforcement community, I would just directly send it to that law enforcement community. Same way that if the Inspector General found something that he or she felt reached a level of criminality, based upon a layman's term, it is certainly advantageous to have the law enforcement agents of the city look at that, rather than myself.
So I take that to mean that you view your office on an equal level with the Inspector General's Office. So there is no need to refer anything to the Inspector General's Office, because you, essentially, do the same thing?
Well, I really can't say that, because I don't know what they are doing. The government is effectively creating an IG because of the significant increase in the budgetary appropriation; and is now trying to define, based on the study that was done -- and I spoke to Judge Chen 245 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 about an Inspector General's Office. I think, again, an Inspector General's Office can be a valuable asset for the people of Philadelphia. But the object is to define what they will be looking at so that there is no significant overlap. Because sometimes if two people look at the same thing, you may not get any information, if it is done, you know, in a quiet way. The other thing is, I told the Mayor that I have no problem having an ongoing conversation with his government to make sure that we all work in tandem, because we all want the same thing. But I have never thought of the Inspector General's Office as effectively someone that sends me confidential envelopes whenever I have been asked to look at something through the Administration.
The Inspector 246 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 General has been around for a while. And maybe I should know this, but I know that the Inspector General in instances has been involved in looking at potential criminal issues in a number of different developments across the City of Philadelphia.
More focus on that, than focus on other types of activity.
Again, that may be the case. They don't need to talk to me. I believe an IG, a Controller's Office, unless it violates some kind of constitutional protection, that the sharing of information makes for a better audit, makes for a better investigation, and effectively makes a better city.
Controller, I did have one last thing. 247 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 I just received, I think it is dated April 29, your regular -- what do you call this one -- monthly economic snapshot, and monthly economic forecast review. I just want you to know I do actually read these. Let's talk about taxes, tax cuts, tax collections. From the most recent report, it seems to indicate that, so far, if I am reading this correctly, wage tax revenues are up --
Yes. I don't have the paperwork in front of me, but that's been the growing trend. I have Marissa Waxman, who runs the budgetary analysis department, if you can specific questions on the document that you have in front of you.
That's the first one, just stating for the record that collections are up this year over last year. 248 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
Yes. I am Marissa Waxman, Assistant City Controller, and we get our data directly from the Revenue Department.
And it seems to indicate -- let me ask you this question, Marissa: These figures on this report, are you comparing the same time period to the same time period for the previous Fiscal Year?
Yes; that's what we do each month, is we compare it to the month from the fiscal year before and the year to date from the fiscal year before.
And it seems to indicate that the change from this year compared to last year is a 4.21 percent increase?
I don't have them in front of me at the moment. But if that's what it says there, that is what our data says.
All right. Let me go back to the Controller. Can you give us some of your perspective on the proposals first from the 249 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Tax Reform Commission and second from the 21st Century Review Forum related to proposals to change the tax structure in Philadelphia?
I think that the recommendations made by the Tax Reform Commission could be one of the most significant Commissions I have ever seen in the years that I have been honored to be 10 the Controller of Philadelphia, and I believe 11 in the last 30 to 40 years. 12 I think that it is a sensible 13 approach. I think it is a feasible approach, 14 both mathematically and emotionally, for the 15 people of Philadelphia. And then I think that beyond the few recommendations which would were incorporated into the Mayor's State of the City Address, I think that they should all be incorporated. The need for an independent agency to represent taxpayers in front of the Board of Revision of Taxes is important. Paying estimated payments to the City of Philadelphia doesn't cost us any money. And a variety of the reductions over 250 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 a ten-year period of wage tax, business taxes, I think is something that we, you know -- the argument always is that we can't afford it. Well, if we can't afford it today, when? I mean, there comes a point in time where you have to think out of the box and attempt to make dramatic changes for the future of Philadelphia, rather than thinking around the edges. So I think that the recommendations by the Tax Reform Commission should be commended and incorporated.
In your professional opinion and in your capacity as our city Controller, do you believe that we can afford fiscally the package as proposed by the Tax Reform Commission and the 13 bills that they drafted and that were introduced in this City Council?