COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:50 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILLS 090212, 090213, 090214, 090215, 090218, 090219, 090220 and 090221 RESOLUTION 090226 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. This is a continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. We will hear from the Finance Department, please. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning, Councilperson Verna and members of Council. I'm Rob Dubow, Director of Finance, and I'm pleased to provide testimony on the Department's proposed Fiscal Year 2010 Operating Budget. The proposed budget for the Office of the Director of Finance supports a number of departmental divisions: The executive division, including the Administrative Services Center and the Contracting Unit; the Office of Budget and Program Evaluation; the Accounting Bureau; the Office of Administrative Review; Risk 3 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. Management. Joining me here today are representatives from these divisions who will be able to answer any of your questions. The FY10 budget as proposed includes reductions implemented as part of the Fiscal Year 2009 rebalancing plan, as well as further reductions proposed for the FY 2010 budget. The proposal presents challenges for the Department, but we're confident it provides the necessary funding for us to accomplish our objectives. 6 million from 2009 estimated obligation levels. The proposed budget includes $968 million in Class 100. 8 million from 2009. This funding is for our 141 employees and fringe benefits for all City of Philadelphia General Fund employees. Class 100 funding for Finance Department staff is projected to decrease by about $845,000 from 2009 as a result 4 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. of a net decrease of 28 positions, from 169 budgeted in FY 2009 to 141 in 2010. This includes a decrease of positions 5 which are being transferred to the Office 6 of Economic Opportunity, an increase of 7 six positions transferred from CPO and a 8 reduction of 15 positions as a result of 9 the FY09 budget rebalancing and 2010 10 planned position reductions. 6 million decrease from 2009. The 14 largest portion of this appropriation is 15 nearly $36 million for legal services 16 provided by the Defender Association and 17 Community Legal Services. 6 18 million decrease from the estimated '09 19 obligation levels results from about 500,000 in reduction in professional services contracts from the 2009 rebalancing, an additional $200,000 in reductions planned for 2010, the elimination of one and a half million for CORE Philly Scholarships, since that 5 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. 4 million in reductions for the Defenders' Association and CLS. We're proposing just about $450 million in Classes 300 and 400, which is a decrease of about 63,500, for materials, supplies and equipment. 8 million in Class 500 for contributions, which is a decrease of about million. 8 includes the City's 38 and a half million dollar contribution to the School District, which is an increase of 50,000 over the 2009 level; and a half 15 million for Community College; 18 million 16 for PGW; and 24 and a half million to 17 fund indemnities. That's a decrease of 18 about $11 million, and the proposed 19 decrease in indemnities is largely 20 because there were two large one-time 21 indemnity payouts this year. And we're 22 also proposing one and a half million in 23 Class 800, which is unchanged from the 24 Fiscal Year 2009 level, and that's to 25 supplement the projected 10 million in 6 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. fees and interest earnings that will be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund. The budget as proposed includes reductions made during the 2009 rebalancing plan, as well as additional reductions for 2010. Those reductions include the elimination of three vacancies throughout the Department, a reduction in eight filled positions, including two Destination fellows, reductions in professional services contracts such as that for maintenance of ACIS, reduction in risk management contracts, cancellation of the upgrade of Accounting's data warehouse and a reduction in Class 400 for the citywide equipment pool.
In addition to those expenditure reductions, the rebalancing plan included projected revenue enhancements related to an increase in alarm fee registrations and false alarm violation fines and increased recovery activity in Risk Management. Additional reductions in the 2010 budget include 7 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. elimination of the remaining three Destination fellows and further Class 200 contract reductions. Even with the proposed reductions, the Department will be able to perform its core functions at the levels proposed. Plan B for the Department, as included in the Five-Year Plan, includes an additional reduction of one and a half million. Plan B includes the elimination of an additional 12 filled positions for a savings of about $527,000. Those positions would be almost all divisions of the Department. The plan would also include further reductions of 587,000 in Class 200, about 37,000 in Class 300 and almost 300,000 in Class 400. The consequences of reducing the budget to this level include possible failure of the City's financial management system, potential loss of federal and state reimbursement, grant deposits not being made timely, delayed payments to vendors, possible delay in 8 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. processing payroll changes and even the potential declining revenue collections. The Office of the Director of Finance has an overall percent 6 participation rate in contracting 7 opportunities for minority and female 8 businesses, and for contracts related to 9 City bond issuances, the Finance 10 Department achieved a 28 percent 11 participation rate. 12 I appreciate this opportunity 13 to provide testimony and we're happy to 14 answer any questions. 15
Thank 16 you very much. 17 The Chair recognizes Councilman 18 Green. 19
My first question sort of relates to -- and I do understand that we're not going to get 9 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. General Fund help from the federal Recovery Act, but it sort of relates to a conversation we had yesterday with Mark Alan Hughes, who is in charge of gathering our requests, I suppose, and making sure they're submitted timely and then somebody is going to be in charge of having the money spent within a certain amount of time so that we don't lose it back to other municipalities or other things, and I think we can agree that when we spend money, whether it's for capital improvements, et cetera, it creates jobs, and I'm very concerned. And this now relates to your bailiwick because the Capital Budget Office is now part of Finance, so --
The Financial Unit of the Capital Program Office is in Finance. The operational portion is in Public Property.
Okay. Well, I'm still going to ask you this question, and, that is, in July 2008, we requested 10 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. from PICA 27 and a half million dollars for existing projects. We knew what they were. You went to PICA and said there were critical capital needs at fire stations and police buildings, requested 5 million to fund critical capital needs, installation of fire detection systems at 16 of the 30 fire facilities that PICA identified as not having fire detection systems. There were potential life-safety electrical corrections such as ground fault interrupt and circuit overload and also the repair of seven roofs that were in need of substantial replacement. Similarly, the Administration requested 5 million for critical capital needs at police facilities, including acute need to restore and upgrade mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, take on potential life-safety concerns and repair of roofs in need of substantial replacement. And this is the Administration's request to PICA that I'm 11 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. quoting from. How much of that 27 and a half million dollars that PICA made available in July 2008 has been spent on these critical life-safety elements?
We have not spent any of that. That is something that we need to address quickly and to start moving on. You raise a very good point, and that's something we need to address.
And it's our understanding that you're going to have a critical role in supervising the money that comes in from the federal Recovery Act.
Finance will have a role, and we also, I think, through the Recovery Act, we'll look to bring in some outside help to make sure that we monitor 12 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. it appropriately.
Okay. So it's your testimony that not one dollar of the 27 and a half million dollars that PICA has made available to you has been spent on critical life-safety issues at police and fire stations?
As I said, that's something that we really need to get on, and we will. We'll give you an explanation of what we're doing going forward to make sure that gets done.
Okay. During a briefing for Council yesterday, Mark Alan Hughes stated that the proposed FY10 Operating Budget includes over a hundred million in anticipated funding from the American Recovery and 13 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. Reinvestment Act. Can you provide the Chair a chart indicating by department and class where this funding is located and for what purposes it will be used?
Thank you. Okay. So I'm at Five-Year Plan, Appendix 4, . If you look at the Five-Year Plan, it appears that the FY10 fund balance is going to be 96.7 million; FY11, 154 million; FY12, 175 million. In the FY09 to '13 Plan, the fund balance decreased each year, eventually stopping at 34 million in FY13. So the Administration's FY09 Budget in Brief noted that the large fund balance it inherited masks underlying issues that continue to endanger the City's fiscal stability. For example, the City's fund balance would have been substantially lower if the City had been making larger contributions to the pension system or had pursued prudent infrastructure investments called for by 14 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. PICA and the City Planning Commission. In light of the Administration's prior position regarding large fund balances, why are we proposing such large fund balances for the FY10 to '14 Plan instead of investing in infrastructure, et cetera, especially when we're calling for large tax increases?
I guess we have a different definition of a large fund balance. The GFOA recommends that fund balances be at least five percent of your revenues. For us, that would be at least $200 million. So we still have a fund balance that's lower than what the Government Finance Officers Association recommends. So I don't think of these as big fund balances. I don't think they give us a lot of room in terms of contingency.
Well, we had this discussion last year where I said that fund balance was going too low, and 15 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. the response to that was, we have to make our infrastructure investments and spend on things that will cost us more money in the long run if we don't spend the money now, and I'm asking why that rationale does not apply this year with respect to the critical infrastructure needs of the City. (Bell rung.)
Well, we're entering it with, I guess, a different point of view of what these fund balances are. I don't think these are large fund balances given what --
But they ended at 34 million at the end of the Five-Year Plan last time and now we're ending significantly higher. The rationale for the low fund balance last time was investment in infrastructure, et cetera. Why do we not continue to invest in our infrastructure? What's the rationale?
Well, again, we're 16 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. going back and forth on what a large fund balance is.
Well, no. 5 We agree that it's a small fund balance. The difference is, we chose to spend it last year on things like infrastructure, et cetera. We're not choosing -- we're choosing to have a much higher fund balance at the end. And we've heard testimony from Mr. Frank that if he had $20 million or so, he could save $17 million a year, and instead of using the fund balance to make that investment to get those savings much earlier in the Five-Year Plan, what we're doing is reinvesting savings over time and slowing down the whole process of efficiencies from technology, plus investment in infrastructure, et cetera, that save money in the long run.
So the question is, why are we choosing not to spend this money where we can get a huge 17 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. bang for the buck in the out years of the Five-Year Plan, including $17 million a year of savings in the technology?
Well, first of all, let's go back to the original point. I won't classify this as a large fund balance. Secondly, the Plan still does include investments in infrastructure, obviously not at the level that any of us would like, and it includes investment in IT. We are still working with the CIO on his plan and where appropriate investments may be. But I think we have a fundamental difference about what a large fund balance is.
No, we don't. Our fund balance is not high enough. We both agree.
The question is what we're going to do with that money sitting in the bank and whether we can get a better return by investing it in 18 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. technology than we can by sitting there in terms of having an ultimately higher fund balance at the end of the Five-Year Plan because we've invested in things that are going to give us a two- or three-year ROI.
When you talk about money sitting in the bank, I mean, you should know that one of the things that has driven our Plan is that we have fairly low cash balances throughout '09 and '10, and that often there'll be kind of a disconnect between where your fund balance is and where your cash is. So you can have a fund balance that doesn't look quite as healthy, but a cash flow that is more healthy. We're not in that position now. One of the things --
So one of the things that we had to do in this Plan was 19 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. ensure that we took enough steps to make sure that we didn't run out of cash, particularly in the early years of the Plan. So that drove a good deal of what we were doing.
Oh, okay. Thank you. We'll find that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
A couple of quick questions. Number one, this testimony assumes certain revenue changes such as tax consequences generated from a sales tax increase from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a possible combination of real estate taxes and/or other municipal taxes that we raise?
It does. It also describes what would happen in the Department if we didn't get the state action, the sales tax and the change in the pension amortization.
It also assumes no increase in wage payments to the unionized labor that we employ?
That's true. It assumes no increase in wages and it assumes a $25 million annual reduction in benefits and -- through benefits and work rule changes.
In your testimony you also talk about savings realized through increased collections 21 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. under Risk Management recovery.
Sure. I'm going to ask Barry Scott, the Risk Manager, to come up and talk to you about that.
While he's coming up, can you explain the 11 positions being transferred over to, I 12 think it's, EOC and will they be 13 performing similar functions? 14
Sure. That is what 15 was formerly called MBEC, and it used to 16 report to Finance. Our view was that it 17 should be playing an economic development 18 role and that it more appropriately 19 belonged in the Commerce sphere. So it has been moved over and now reports to the Economic --
And you've 22 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. been able to achieve 28 participation in your bond work?
Nicely done. I say that on behalf of Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown. And you've gotten an overall 9 percent participation in your department. 10 Can you describe what that participation 11 is, and what was it in the last 12 Administration? 13
We actually -- we 14 have a chart we can give to you by 15 contract, if that's helpful, to give you 16 the participation rate. For the last 17 Administration, I don't know. So we can 18 get you that as part of the response. 19
Council has 20 a reputation for beating departments over the head when they do things that we don't agree with, but I also need to pat you on the back when you do things that are laudable, and your participation rate of 28 percent for the bonds and 20 23 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. percent participation overall has to be commended.
Thank you. I think the Risk Manager decided it was too risky to be at the table. He left.
Wise man. So are you going to tell me about this Risk Management recovery? State your name for the record, please.
Yes. Good morning, Councilman. My name is Barry Scott. I'm the Risk Manager for the City. During the year, the City experiences a number of losses to its property, most commonly City vehicles which get damaged by crashes and also City equipment, most commonly light poles, traffic lights and fire hydrants. Risk Management has worked to recover monies from -- especially from insured parties who provide that damage. We are looking this year to enhance our ability to recover those funds, and that's what 24 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. we're looking at in terms of the revenue enhancements.
So aggressive collection efforts are what you anticipate?
Thank you very much. By way of vendor payment and processing these cuts, you caution us that any further cuts may impede your ability to pay people we owe as a municipality. Can you tell me what the processing time on average is now and what it may be jeopardized going down to if we cut any further?
I think we have to get back to -- we'll have to get back to you with that time.
Because that also impacts our competitive edge when vendors look at the City of Philadelphia and whether or not there will be prompt pay. 25 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc.
A 15-day, 20-day, 90-day receivable impacts on our bottom line, because they actually put that in the price of the bid, the future value of money and the delay in payment.
We completely understand that. That's why we'd like to avoid having to do that.
All right. You have listed here $960 million in fringe benefits to fund all City of Philadelphia General Fund employees. Can you explain exactly what that means?
Right. That is our pension costs, our health benefit costs, our disability payments, our FICA payments. So it's all benefits that City employees receive.
And how far are you on this state-declared distressed pension fund plan alternative that you have?
We sent an 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. application to the Pennsylvania Employee Retirement Commission I think last week. It will probably be a couple of weeks before we hear back from them. (Bell rung.)
And what are your A, B, and C scenarios of that? If, A, they agree with you, what happens next?
If they -- we send an application asking that the fund be declared severely distressed, which is the highest level of distress. If we get that declaration, we're then required to take actions to reduce the cost of our plan, and we would then propose a changed plan that will reduce our costs and benefits.
What would that change possibly consist of? Give me a couple of --
I mean, potential changes would be reduction in -- your pension is calculated with a multiplier 27 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. for each year that you work. So a potential change would be reducing that multiplier.
What does that mean to persons contributing to that fund and then recipients of that fund that are actually retired persons?
It would mean -- well, another potential -- you're talking about contributions to the fund. Another potential would be increasing the size of that contribution that people make. So it would mean for participants in the fund, that there -- it has a different impact on different people. If you're vested, the only impact would be you might contribute more. If you're a new member coming into the plan, so you're a future City employee, it would mean that your benefits would be lower because the multiplier is lower. And --
So new people would have to pay more and get less at the end of the rainbow? 28 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc.
Existing people would maybe pay more but get the same expected payout as they thought they would?
The other -- I mean, I think that's -- the other scenario would be layering some kind of defined contribution on top of that. And the part of this is that pension costs have been really eating our budget alive and we have to figure out a way to address that.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski.
Oh, 29 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. thank you, Madam Chairman. Good morning.
Your testimony on refers to two large one-time indemnity payouts in FY09.
One related to the Move settlement, and that was, I think, about $5 million, and the other related to strip searches at the prisons.
Strip searches at the prisons, and that was also about 5 million.
Could you please provide a breakdown of how the money is spent that is going to the Housing Trust Fund. If possible, break it down by Council districts.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Mr. Dubow.
On of your testimony in the second paragraph, you talk about the contracted services with the Defenders' Association and Community Legal Services. How exactly does the Finance Department use those two entities? What do they do?
We really are where their cost contracts rest, but what they 31 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. really do is, they provide representation for indigent defendants. So the Defender does -- I'm sorry; represents people charged with crimes who can't afford their own attorneys. They also provide representation for dependent children, for kids in the DHS system. CLS does some of that dependency work also. And there's another smaller contract with Support Center for Child Advocates that do the dependency work also.
So actually you add to the Defenders' Association's budget?
Well, really for the work that they do in state court, we're really their whole budget. They don't really have other funding sources.
They have a federal unit too that's funded separately from us.
Are they the only two legal contracts that you have?
Those two and the Support Center, I believe, are the only legal contracts, yes.
On 4, Section 12 of the Operating Budget, can you describe in detail what the $1.5 million in Class 800 appropriations are? I'm not sure, did Councilman Jones ask that same question?
The one and a half million in Class 800? That's the Housing Trust Fund money.
All right. And what exactly is Class 900 appropriations? What are they?
We actually don't have any here, but in the budget the Class 900 is our Convention Center 33 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. payment. So it's our payment over to the Convention Center.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
I continue to receive letters in my office, mostly from seniors, who are distressed about the prospect of the increase in the property tax, and I've been struck by how the federal government; namely, the IRS, is making or taking provisions to accommodate extraordinary circumstances 34 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. of citizens around the federal tax returns. So have there been discussions in the Department as to how and if we figure out some type of, for lack of a better word, hold harmless situation for seniors who definitely can't afford it and other citizens who are on the fringe, knowing everybody has to pay something, but clearly recognizing they are hanging on by a toenail right now with their existing circumstances?
Yeah. There are programs in place for seniors, and I think we may have sent over a description of those, but we'll make sure we get that to you of what's in place for seniors now. We have had conversations about what to do for non-seniors who, as you said, are hanging on by a toenail. We haven't finished figuring that out, but that is something that we know is important and we're looking at.
I know we 35 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. discussed this once before, so the question becomes -- well, the follow-up question is the cut-off level in terms of income and how big is that pot. Because the pot is going to grow given this new proposal.
Okay. The employees that were transferred from MBEC to Commerce, as Councilman Jones stated, are strictly because? If you could finish the sentence.
Yeah. The whole function was moved over to the Deputy 36 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. Mayor for Economic Development.
Yeah. That person reports to Deputy -- to, I think, Kevin Dow.
Oh, okay. All right. An ongoing circumstance also with small organizations is because they are small, invoicing process from the City is complicated, typically delayed for reasons that you all would know better than us, and small organizations simply are not able to pay their workers while they wait for the reimbursements for the City. So to Councilman Green's continuing plea, are there discussions underway as to how to further use technology in a way that expedites those reimbursements to small organizations?
Yeah. I think there have been discussions with the CIO about that and about IT in general for 37 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. the Finance Unit.
Is the IT person here to give us an update on where those discussions are or what the plan is?
All right. So how do I get an answer to that question? You tell me.
We can get back to you with a description of what we're doing.
Please. A description as it relates specifically to further streamlining the process so that small organizations don't have to wait so long.
On of your budget, it shows multiple organizations that received funding in 38 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. FY08, but none in '09 and '10; namely, City Year, the Greater Philadelphia Film Office and the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Group. Were these programs -- why were they moved out of Finance?
No. I mean, what happens actually is, these come out of our Class 500 contributions and indemnities line and they're grouped in there. The payments are made during the course of the year.
They're made during the course of the year. So some of these groups will be getting payments again this year.
It's just -- it's not displayed well because they're in the larger 500 line. It's not broken out. If you'd like, we can get you a breakout of what those payments are. 39 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc.
That would be appreciated. Also on of your budget you show an increase of $50,000 to the School District. And those dollars are specifically for?
Well, we are required under state law to compensate the School District for any reduction in the wage tax. The wage tax means there's a reduction in their income tax. So that's the value of their reduction in the income tax that we're compensating for them.
I see. Okay, then. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Dubow, in prior hearings, I 40 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. had requested -- and this is kind of in the same realm of question that Councilwoman Brown has relative to the number of senior citizens, because that seems to be some of the biggest impact that we're hearing about.
The number of senior citizens that own property in the City, those that are eligible for PACENET, which would not experience any increase in real estate taxes, and those who participate in the real estate tax rebate program. Because unless we get that context, we really don't understand how many seniors are potentially hit and what their income levels are when they would really actually have to pay it. The other thing that would be really very helpful for me and hopefully the rest of Council and the public is to have a discussion about the impact that these regrettable requests for real estate tax increases would have on 41 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. commercial properties. I would suspect, without knowing the exact number offhand, that there is a very high number of commercial properties that would be paying this increase, proposed increase, in real estate tax.
Right. Straight residential properties, I think, are around 55 percent.
Everybody is asking for charts. I'm only asking for one chart here, a chart that shows how many people are impacted and to what level they're impacted and at what level they've become impacted if they're senior residential property owners and what is the amount of money to be generated, again, on the request for these 42 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. regrettable increases in real estate taxes, what does the business community pay. Because this whole argument has been couched that this is a burden solely on the residential property owner, which it is, but it's not solely on them.
So I would appreciate that context. The other issue is -- and I don't know if you've run any numbers and scenarios, because a lot of this is not known yet where we're going to come out yet. In the event you were forced to raise wage taxes in the City, despite whatever arguments we may have relative or suppositions we have relative to Harrisburg's reaction to that, could you give some indication as to what the potential increase in wage taxes would be and would you be forced to raise wage taxes on suburbanites as well as Philadelphia residents? 43 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc.
We would increase both the resident and non-resident rate, and we can get you what that would look like.
Have you also driven some numbers relative to the possibility that because of a wage tax increase or proposed wage tax increase, we do not get our sales tax?
Yes. We've looked at numbers. We can get you those. We looked at what would happen if we lost the wage tax relief, the sales tax money and the pension amortization.
Now, you could argue one way or the other whether we would lose it or not, but you have to look at the worst-case scenario, and if we lose the sales tax, do you have any ball park figures on the increase in wage taxes if we lose the sales tax?
We have those numbers. I don't know off the top of my head. It's three hundred -- 44 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc.
More than five percent, more than percent, more 4 than 20 percent? 5
The 8 Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a 9 point of information. 10
The sales tax increase brings in about $118 million a year. If we were not to get a one percent sales tax increase, it would be approximately three-tenths of one percent in the wage tax, raising both City residents and suburbanites.
And that also would include the possibility that we would lose -- could you also give me the scenario if we lose the pension 45 4/14/09 - WHOLE - BILLS 090212, etc. adjustments?