Maybe you5 could show how many jobs have been saved,6 not necessarily created.7
And I9 believe the number -- I don't want to10 guess at it, but I think the number may11 have been over 100,000 jobs saved since12 we started cutting the business and wage13 tax.14 But the number -- it's not15 jobs -- a jobs-creation number; it's16 actually jobs saved.17
Okay.21 Thank you. And that's the question you22 asked too, earlier, right?23 Okay. Let me just recognize24 some other people here, and I'll come25 121 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 back.2 The Chair recognizes Councilman3 Clarke.4
Let me ask9 you a question about if you can give me10 briefly the status of the City's two --11 at this point still proposed -- casinos12 proposed casinos. And if you can kind of13 summarize it 'cause I have a follow-up14 question that's budget-related.15
So,17 Mr. Agostino, you may want to be ready to18 come up.19
The status is as20 follows: Let's start with SugarHouse.21 The SugarHouse casino on the north22 Delaware, there is -- we have been23 working with them on their permits and24 approvals. They were actually issued a25 122 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 foundation permit, I believe, over a2 month ago.3 They are before the Gaming4 Board this week; I believe the hearing is5 this Wednesday, in Philadelphia, for the6 extension of their permit, which had7 expired. We're working with them and8 have submitted a letter in support of9 that.10 And they will be -- there's11 legislation before the Council that the12 Council will be considering, but in terms13 of their plan of development, they need14 to modify their plan of development to15 reflect their -- some of the changes they16 made to their design.17 But we anticipate and what the18 schedule is bringing that forward to the19 Planning Commission, and hopefully that20 will be concluded by June.21
That's the interim24 facility, which they project they would25 123 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 like to open essentially a year from2 today, if all goes well. And that's,3 again, their projected schedule.4 That interim facility is about5 1700 slots and -- and is actually a6 permanent facility, and then ultimately7 would expand to 3,000 slots.8
And then there10 would be a Phase II. So that's11 SugarHouse.12 Foxwoods, they are -- as you13 know, they are looking at the Strawbridge14 site at 801 Market. Similarly, there is15 legislation before Council. They would16 like to be on a similar timeframe in17 terms of approval of their plan of18 development also by June, and we're19 working with them on that.20 They need Gaming Board approval21 for relocation of their license from the22 South Philadelphia site to the Center23 City site, and they have to apply for24 that, and I believe they anticipate that25 124 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 anticipate that in May or June; I'm not2 sure of the actual date, I'd have to3 check with them.4 But we're working, again, very5 closely with them on a plan of6 development for approval.7
Okay.8 Mr. Agostino, can you...9 (Mr. Agostino comes forward.)10
Good13 morning.14 With respects to the timing --15 and Mr. Altman has laid out what we16 hope -- and based on the spirit of17 cooperation that is happening everywhere18 as a result of this, there's a likelihood19 that we will have -- and I'm pretty20 confident about SugarHouse; I still don't21 know where I am with Foxwoods. We will22 have something on line to reflect23 revenues generated for Fiscal '11; am I24 correct?25 125 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1
That's correct.2 I believe -- and I just sent a note back3 the my office to get the exact number. I4 believe it's in the low 20s, like5 23 million, beginning in FY '11.6
I believe it's9 for one of them. I don't know that it's10 both.11
I don't -- I17 don't remember how the numbers were18 arrived, and I don't know if they assume19 the same number of slots and the same20 revenues. But for your purposes now,21 let's say it's about that --22
So in our25 126 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 budget Five-Year Plan, all right, where2 are the revenues projected to?3
There is -- I4 can -- I'll pull that from the plan and5 give that to you in detail, but we do6 show a figure of additional revenue, and7 I forget if it's in non-departmental8 revenue that represents the income from9 the arrangements regarding the casinos.10 As you know, one of things we11 haven't shown are some of the related12 costs, and we also haven't shown related13 tax revenues associated with some of the14 jobs.15
I asked you16 a real easy question. Where does it17 show? It's either Fiscal '11 or Fiscal18 '12.19
So assuming25 127 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 that these move along in schedule,2 there's a strong likelihood that, worst3 case, we may have $20 million that's not4 being showed in Fiscal '12. Best case,5 40 million is not -- I'm sorry, '116 that's not being showed in Fiscal '11.7 Best case, upwards of 40 million in8 Fiscal '11 that's not being showed.9 If that happens, given -- and10 I'm going to use Council's budget11 proposal for these purposes. Given12 Council's proposals that Council has a13 proposal in the second year, we have14 shown interest-only payments of $2015 million.16 Worst-case scenario, we may be17 in the position to pay the interest on18 those interest-only proposals as a result19 of this $20 million that's not referenced20 in the Five-Year Plan.21
Councilmember,22 if the casinos were to begin, then yes, I23 think that your premise is probably24 correct, that we would show some revenues25 128 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 in either late half of '10 or '11 that we2 currently don't show in the plan.3 (Timer bell rings.)4
What we have not5 shown in the plan as well -- and I think6 we've said this on other occasions -- are7 costs associated with the things like the8 additional police presence that would be9 required, some of the traffic mitigation;10 we have not shown any of those costs in11 any part of the plan and assume that on12 some level, some of the additional13 revenue associated with the wage taxes14 and business-privilege taxes associated15 would be used to take care of those16 costs.17 But we have not demonstrated18 those costs in the plan.19
Well, would20 you acknowledge that it won't cost us21 $20 million for additional police and22 supportive services?23
I --24 Councilmember, honestly, I don't know.25 129 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 (Indiscernible; parties talking2 over each other.)3
I think I4 have a little bit of knowledge on that5 based on my early involvement with6 respects to leading up when we7 anticipated that this was going to8 happen, and it's not even close to that,9 not to mention the fact that you show no10 revenues associated with the construction11 side that will actually start, according12 to SugarHouse, on July 1.13
The wage16 tax, right, yeah. We're going to have a17 substantial number of jobs, purchase of18 services.19 So -- and I say this because we20 get a letter from Mr. Dubow that outlined21 the fact --22
Sorry,25 130 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 Councilman, I heard your point of order.2 I don't want to lose my train of thought.3 And I know Council President is4 ultimately in charge of this.5 That you have not shown any6 revenues associated with construction,7 purchase of services for those years.8 And I say that because we get a letter9 from Mr. Dubow that talks about our10 proposal that will require significant11 reductions both for the 25 million in12 cost savings and the interest payments.13 But the reality is that there's14 the potential -- I mean, best or worse --15 for a significant amount of revenue16 coming to the City to help repay the debt17 service on that borrowing.18
With respect to19 the casinos, Councilmember, you're20 correct. We have not shown because it21 was kind of difficult to understand the22 number of jobs and the wage taxes and the23 business-privilege taxes, so we have not24 shown that. You're correct.25 131 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1
Well, I2 mean, all you have to do is look at the3 document from two years ago. I mean, it4 was clearly laid out, you know,5 particularly on the SugarHouse, the type6 of jobs and the number of jobs that would7 be associated. So we don't have to8 reinvent the wheel.9 So, I mean, there is a10 potential to generate some significant11 revenues, and we're not showing it --12
The21 Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a22 point of information.23
Thank you,24 Madam Chair.25 132 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 Piggybacking on Councilman2 Clarke's question, could you please, in3 the years where you have revenue in the4 Five-Year Plan, provide to the Chair what5 expenses you have in additional police6 officers, additional fire, additional7 sanitation, or whatever you have in the8 Five-Year Plan that relates to the fact9 that the casinos are expected to be up10 and running.11 Say, in the Five-Year Plan in12 FY '12, you're saying that there's13 revenue in the budget. Your objection to14 us taking the savings and applying it for15 another percent of revenue in FY '1116 was -- you know, there are associated17 expenses.18 I'd like to see where those are19 outlined in the Five-Year Plan, those20 associated expenses that you say we'll be21 required to pay in FY '11 as a22 consequence of having the casinos.23
Councilmember,24 for the record, I did not object; I just25 133 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 said that we didn't have those costs in.2 We will -- if there's a document, we'll3 be happy to put this together --4
But we do not7 have anything -- to my knowledge, we do8 not having anything in the Five-Year Plan9 on the cost side associated with the10 opening and operation of two casinos.11
That's, I12 guess, my point. There is nothing in the13 Five-Year Plan with respect to associated14 costs, so you've got revenue in the15 Five-Year Plan starting in FY '12.16 If that revenue is in FY '11,17 then it's revenue because you weren't18 charging any extra costs in '12, you19 weren't saying we need 20 extra20 policemen, we need this, that, and the21 other thing. It's all taken care of in22 the big expenses and budget that we23 already have.24 Therefore, when we move the25 134 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 revenue up, we're not going to increase2 costs, just like there are no increased3 costs in FY '12. That's my point.4 Thank you, Madam Chair.5
Oh,12 okay. The Chair recognizes Councilman13 Rizzo for a point of information.14
In previous18 meetings, we discussed the concept which19 was embraced, I believe, by the20 Administration that for the costs for21 police, that we would create a model22 that's been so well done by the Airport,23 like the Aviation Fund that funds the24 police officers that are assigned at the25 135 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 Airport. And pretty much, those officers2 are assigned there. A significant issue3 could occur someplace else in the City;4 they stay at the Airport.5 And I thought that we were6 looking -- down the road, that we would7 create something like that, where the8 casino industry would contribute to a9 fund that would support the extra10 required police officers in the casino11 environment.12
Councilmember,13 I'm not aware of that. You'd have to ask14 others who have been more directly15 involved.16
Well, no, I17 think you were in the room when this was18 brought up, so maybe you just don't19 recollect, but it was discussed pretty20 thoroughly that that was going to be one21 of the considerations that would be on22 the table.23 And I'll recollect that there24 was then a controversy whether, you know,25 136 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 it's the Pennsylvania State Police who2 has the jurisdiction within the property3 lines of the casino, who's responsible4 outside. So we had a lot of5 conversations about this.6 It's been a while ago, but7 hopefully, that model would be8 considered.9 Mr. Altman?10
Councilmember, all11 I can say is that, look, it's something12 we have to look at in light of the timing13 of the casinos and also how they've14 modified their plans. We have to go and15 look at the costing of what the service16 is and how they would be provided.17 Obviously, for example,18 Foxwoods is going into Center City, is19 going to have a very different set of20 assumptions than when it was at the21 waterfront, and it will have a set of22 different kinds of impacts that we're23 analyzing now. Also, the size of24 SugarHouse going in, 1700. So we're25 137 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 looking at those costs now.2
Well, the3 same way for special events. When we4 have a Phillies game, Eagles game, other5 special events, that those officers that6 are there -- that are, let's say, a part7 of the requirement, but anything in8 excess -- obviously, the way we police9 those two locations today is going to be10 a lot different once casinos are11 full-blown.12 So I don't think that the13 taxpayers of the City of Philadelphia14 should have to pay for that extra15 coverage that will be required. Somebody16 else is going to have to pay the bill.17
Thank you,22 Madam Chair.23 Mr. McPherson, Council's CFO,24 just pointed out the budget detail to me,25 138 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 and there's $23,600,000 in additional2 revenue in Years '12, '13, and '14 in the3 budget for casinos. There are no4 expenses associated with that revenue5 during those years.6 And it is assumed that the7 extra economic activity that results from8 the casinos in terms of jobs, wage taxes,9 et cetera, will pay for the costs of the10 casinos. at least in the Administration's11 current Five-Year Plan.12 And so, I would ask the13 Administration to go to Chester or go to14 the Park, and take a look and see how15 many extra policemen or city services are16 provided there. There are none.17 So I think if we move it up a18 year, we'd move $23,600,000 more into the19 Five-Year Plan.20 Thank you, Madam Chair.21
Thank22 you.23 The Chair recognizes24 Councilwoman Brown.25 139 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1
I have a6 quick follow-up to Councilman Goode's7 question.8 In FY '09, the documents show9 that you had $2.3 million in contracts in10 Class 200. So my question is actually a11 repeat: Why does your MBE/WBE chart show12 zero dollars in total contracts for FY13 '08 and '09.14
And that's for the15 Commerce Department, and you're referring16 to the spend that we have on our for-17 profit contracts?18
For-profit. And so,20 we only track, for these purposes,21 for-profit contracts.22
The25 140 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez for2 a point of information.3
We do4 the commercial corridor contracting, and5 all of that stuff is done through PIDC.6 And while it's not in your budget, it's7 reflective of your activities. And8 that's why a chart this way doesn't9 reflect your activities.10
That's right. And14 you'll begin to see that next year. When15 we sit here next year, we will be able to16 show you some different information.17 We don't have the information18 on the nonprofit contracting that occur19 throughout the City; we do in certain20 areas track it.21
I'm22 talking about your commercial. We have23 encumbered money through commercial24 corridors, cultural, corridors and so25 141 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 forth.2
Where4 are you going to reflect that, which is a5 reflection of your activities.6
The Cultural and7 Commercial Corridor Bond, we have some of8 that information for you.9
Councilmember,10 what you're talking about is how the11 funds have been spent on commercial --12 the 30-plus million dollars --13
The14 Commerce Department has a lot of15 contracting.16
-- it's24 a reflection of your activity. So this25 142 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 chart is inaccurate to your activity.2
We will be7 submitting a report. For example, on8 Commercial and Cultural Corridor Bonds,9 which is really, I would say, the10 principal source for Commerce, that's11 really the large majority of it.12 And we're going to be13 submitting a report, I think, within the14 next ten days, and we'll be able to break15 that down for you. We're looking at all16 of the contracts and what the percent is.17 We owe the Council a report on that.18
It flows through21 PIDC as the -- as the -- yes, as the22 project --23
Because24 they don't come before us to testify, I25 143 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 think not having that data as part of2 your activities doesn't actively regulate3 your activities.4
And we -- you5 know, it's -- that's right. We should --6 we will submit a report on that. Part of7 it's --8
That's9 all right. I'm only on a point of10 information.11
What we19 need to make clear is that going forward20 forever, any person who gets a penny from21 the City of Philadelphia, be it directly22 or indirectly, subcontracts, prime23 contracts, nonprofit, for profit, we want24 to see numbers that speak to MBE/WBE25 144 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 participation, period.2
And we're happy to5 provide that.6 I was going to say that part of7 this is how the budget is reflected, and8 so, the literal reading of the budget of9 what funds you have going out is zero.10 It doesn't reflect our contracting11 activity, which will be in our report on12 Commercial and Cultural Bond Corridor13 proceeds, which we'll get to you.14
On of your testimony, you indicate here that16 there has been a $3 million-plus increase17 over FY '09 for Hotel Tax Fund. What18 would you attribute that growth to?19
That growth is20 attributable to the increase that -- I21 believe of 1.2 percent that the Council22 approved. We had state-enabling23 legislation --24
Okay.25 145 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1
All right,4 then.5 In this peer report that6 Councilman Goode always keeps in his7 desk, it shows here that of industries8 and job growth over the last many years,9 the greatest area -- the area where we10 have the greatest indicators of education11 and job growth are in education and12 health services.13
With that15 in mind, is there any synergy with your16 office and the Philadelphia Visitors and17 Convention Bureau, which has various18 congresses to attract different19 industries?20
Yes. I mean, we21 work very closely with them. We work22 with all of the different23 economic-development entities -- the24 Convention and Visitors Bureau and --25 146 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1
In what2 way? In what way specifically as it3 relates to those industries.4
Well, a couple of5 examples. We work with them on the Life6 Science Congress for example.7
And that9 aggressively tries to bring in10 conventions and as well as just meetings11 of the life science industry.12
So we work to be14 supportive of those activities. Our15 office works directly with them, whether16 it's on marketing, making arrangements.17
We also, by the19 way, just on this, directly, though,20 because of exactly the fact that21 education and medical industries are such22 a key component of our economy --23
-- roughly out25 147 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 of jobs. The Mayor has convened the2 heads of all of the universities as well3 as the heads of all of the hospitals to4 engage them directly in how can we be5 supportive of your growth in the City.6 One of the things we've done,7 for example, is, in the Commerce8 Department, we have appointed someone,9 Indira Scott, whose job is just to work10 with them on coordinating all of their11 capital projects.12
There's probably a14 billion dollars in capital projects that15 will come to fruition over the next 24 to16 36 months in the pipeline if you take in17 the aggregate of all of the institutions.18
And we felt one of20 the things that we can be most supportive21 of is how to help them just even get22 through the process.23 So there are lots of ways like24 that that we're trying to work with them.25 148 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1
Okay.2 That's very helpful.3 Given the role that they play,4 the hospitality industry plays, in our5 economy, what is the role of the6 Department of Commerce when it comes to7 the Convention Center?8 According to your testimony on9 , the payment drops in FY '11 to10 $15 million annually. So that's on the11 financial, fiscal side.12
What role14 does your department play, if any, with15 policy or overseeing contracts or MBE/WBE16 participation goals, any role at all?17
No, we -- we -- I18 mean, on the finance side, we're really19 just -- it's a pass-through in the20 budget.21
So we're -- that's23 why our budget reflects many24 pass-throughs.25 149 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1
As you can see in3 that opening testimony, whether it's4 Aviation, hotel tax, and Convention, we5 work with them on the programmatic side.6 (Timer bell rings.)7
And so, for8 example, with the Convention Center9 expansion, we are working on what could10 be the physical improvements around the11 Convention Center on North Broad Street,12 on Arch, on Race, as well as in terms of13 what their future marketing is.14
So we work with16 them very much on the program side, but17 not on the funding or contract side.18
Thank21 you.22 The Chair recognizes Councilman23 Goode.24
Thank you,25 150 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 Madam President.2 Mr. Dow, getting back to3 departmental goal-setting --4
-- and using6 the Commerce Department as an example,7 the Fiscal Year '09 goal was 15 percent8 MBE, 25 percent WBE, 2 percent DSBE. The9 actual participation was zero, for10 reasons that we've noted, that11 essentially the Department did no12 for-profit contracting.13 The goal for Fiscal Year '0814 was the same: 15 percent MBE, 25 percent15 WBE, 2 percent DSBE. And the16 participation was zero because,17 essentially, we don't track for-profit18 contracting.19 So why were the goals set at 4220 percent DBE participation for Fiscal '0821 and '09?22
They were carried23 over from the previous years. In '06,24 '07, we have roughly 80 percent of the25 151 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 contracts for-profit contracts. There2 was only one; it was $35,000. And that3 translated into 80 percent of --4
Mr. Dow, you5 might be correct, but I don't know what6 document you're reading from because the7 document I'm reading from now has Fiscal8 Year '07 actual, zero percent.9
The goal was, not the14 actual, the goal. So the goal was15 carried over based on '06 numbers, and16 then, subsequent to that, carried over17 until today.18
But in19 Fiscal Year '07, it was zero percent, and20 Fiscal '08 was zero percent, and Fiscal21 Year '09 was zero percent.22
So why were24 there 42 percent goals set in '08 and25 152 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 '09?2
I would agree. I6 would think that that's where we need to7 do a better job of having conversations8 not only with the individual departments9 about what their realistic and actual10 spend is and then develop goals and11 objectives based off of that. That's12 what we don't do a good job of right now.13
Yeah, but14 let me just run down the list in terms of15 some different departments and the16 over/under. And this is for Fiscal Year17 '08:18 Public Property was 3 percent19 under the goal.20 The Board of Revision of Tax21 was 25 percent above the goal.22 The Managing Director's Office23 was 19 percent above the goal.24 L&I was 16 percent below.25 153 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 And then you have:2 11 above.3 22 percent.4 percent above.5 9 percent below.6 24 percent below.7 6 percent below.8 percent above.9 3 percent below.10 15 percent above.11 2 percent below.12 21 percent below.13 percent below.14 14 percent below.15 19 percent below.16 12 percent below.17 8 percent below.18 20 percent below.19 15 percent below.20 4 percent below.21 18 percent below.22 19 percent below.23 15 percent below.24 20 percent below.25 154 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 40 percent below.2 -25 percent below.3 -40 percent below.4 -30 percent below.5 -15 percent below.6 And I go through all of that, a7 long exercise of it, to say that there's8 no way to reach citywide goals if9 departmental goals are off that much.10 And I guess my question at the end of the11 day is: How close should you be in terms12 of matching the goal with the actual13 achievement?14
Even to some20 extent, maybe 10 percent above or below21 is not that big of a deal.22
But even24 with a 25 percent above, that means the25 155 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 goal was set too low.2
And with a4 45 percent -- a 40, 45 percent below, it5 may mean the goal was set to high, or it6 may mean that someone needs to have a7 talking-to.8
That's exactly right.9 I think what you see there is historical10 performance and (indiscernible), I can't11 shift that. We can take that, analyze12 that, and see why we were so off in that13 regard.14 So going forward --15
But if we're16 basing it upon historical performance,17 that means that the numbers are never18 going to move.19
Okay. So that's20 where we do a better job of educating --21 well, this is where that -- what Andy22 referred to as a three-pronged type of23 processes that we have here.24 One, the OEO world has to do25 156 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 a -- we have to do more work around2 engaging each individual departments3 around what their actual spend is; what4 are they actually spending, not only from5 a dollar perspective, but where they are.6
You should7 know for the record that each department8 has come here --9
-- and11 Councilman Brown, in particular, has12 asked them, Why did you spend that amount13 of money? And they always point back to14 Commerce and OEO.15
And they17 basically blame you for bad goal-setting.18 Now, we don't -- we actually19 within Council, I don't think, put it on20 you, but you should know that we can't go21 back and forth and play that game where22 departments say, "We didn't set the23 goals; they set the goals," and then you24 say, "Well, we have to work closely with25 157 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 them to set the goals," 'cause at the end2 of the day, the goals do not match the3 performance.4
And I'm6 asking, how do we get to a point where7 the goals actually match the performance?8 (Timer bell rings.)9
And then,10 lastly, how far off can we be in terms of11 goal-setting if we're actually going to12 achieve the citywide goals?13
For me, I think that14 that's the difference in new leadership15 that we're going to be able to provide.16 That's the difference in integrating them17 into the Commerce world.18 We will be able to look at and19 work with, on a very much proactive20 basis, much more so that we've done in21 the past, with the departments to22 establish realistic, achievable goals23 that have some stretch metrics in it.24 Then we will look at judging them based25 158 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 on that, holding them accountable2 throughout the fiscal year flowing3 through.4 Where we want to go is to5 identify where the gaps are. And then6 once we understand where the gaps are, we7 can look at, how do we increase the8 availability of firms to fill those gaps,9 working with the Office of Economic10 Opportunity, working with the Office of11 Business Services, to draw those as12 portals to fill those gaps.13 And then, over time, we should14 be able to see improvement in the numbers15 as well as fewer gaps in the overall16 accounting of it. And then, also, if we17 miss or go above or below it, that range18 of miss is much, much thinner.19
But we can20 agree that departmental goal-setting was21 not real.22
We can agree that23 departmental goal-setting was not done24 well.25 159 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1
But it was2 not real goals, because essentially, it3 was simply based upon goals set the year4 before, and those goals weren't real.5 So even if last year, what you6 did was base departments goals beyond the7 previous year, and that was real for you,8 you may have done that without realizing9 that the goal set for the year before was10 not real.11 And so, essentially, if the12 goal wasn't real two years ago, then the13 goal wasn't real last year. Is that14 fair?15
Councilman, let me16 say -- yeah, I mean, we certainly --17 there's been a -- you know, we aren't18 here to defend how it was done in the19 past or to, you know, in some ways,20 criticize 'em in the --21
No, but I think25 160 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 it's clear that there is -- the reason2 that the Mayor created the Economic3 Opportunity Cabinet and restructured and4 has an Office of Economic Opportunity and5 has that as part of Commerce, I think6 recognizes the fact that there is a7 problem.8 And what you're pointing out9 is, there's a problem in how you do the10 numbers, there's a problem in how you set11 the targets, but there's also been a12 problem in terms of -- I think we wanted13 to be clear and the Mayor wanted to be14 clear that there was accountability from15 the top.16 Each of the deputy mayors sits17 on the cabinet, the Finance Director is18 at the cabinet, the Chief Integrity19 Officer is at the cabinet. These are20 goals coming from the highest level;21 these aren't just numbers, as you say,22 that aren't realistic, and he's going to23 hold everyone's performance to it.24 So, unfortunately, I wish we25 161 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 could give you a more specific answer.2 All we know is that it's a system that3 has to change. We're going to be setting4 those targets differently. And we5 recognize, as do you, that this has been6 a problem.7
So I won't8 ask you for a answer right now; I'll just9 actually make a request. And I know my10 time is up, so I'll move quickly.11 The problem we've had in the12 past for all of the years that I've been13 here was, first, not getting information.14 We solved that problem by making a15 Charter mandate that we have an Annual16 Disparity Study instead of anticipation17 goals.18 Even when we did that, MBEC,19 OEO's predecessor, wanted to create20 participation goals that weren't based21 upon the Disparity Study. We thought we22 corrected that.23 And now we find that even when24 we set departmental goals and ask for25 162 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 them to be put within that study as a2 matter of law, that those goals are not3 real. And it's the first time those4 departmental goals have been made public.5
And so, at7 the end of the day, we're not able to do8 our job without the proper information.9 And to some extent, those departmental10 goals are false information.11 And it's not just a matter of12 us not being able to do our job; but more13 importantly, those departments can't be14 held accountable unless not only do they15 have real goals, but they are told those16 goals were meant to be real.17
Good22 afternoon, gentlemen.23 I want to complete that24 conversation with Councilman Goode,25 163 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 because it was very disheartening for me2 to have him request and Blondell Reynolds3 consistently from departments, and one of4 the things that we found was that the5 independent agencies also don't feel like6 they need to set up OEO goals.7 So my request on those lines,8 in addition to making sure that the9 departments, under our purview, are10 following these goals and setting11 realistic goals, but that there be some12 formal communication between this office13 and our independent elected offices,14 because what I don't want them to do is15 come here next year and say, "We've had16 no interaction with this."17 And we're talking specifically18 about the Courts and the independent19 elected office, who have absolutely no20 goals. And unless we make them, we'll21 have -- they will not establish any goals22 for us to hold them accountable to us,23 since they do also do run on tax dollars.24 So it's really important that,25 164 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 in addition to our local departments,2 that we begin a process to engage our3 independent elected offices so that they4 establish some goals; and, in this case,5 more realistic goals that we can hold 'em6 to. So that's important.7 I wanted to speak a little bit8 about the PIDC merger, and I'm all for9 efficiencies. But as I mentioned to both10 you, Kevin and Andy Altman, is my concern11 around any merger is: One, we haven't12 done some of these mergers well in other13 departments, but more important around14 diversity.15 In the rebalancing of last year16 in the Commerce Department, you laid off17 nine people, and seven were of color.18 And we want to make sure that as we19 transition PCDC, we understand that that20 level of diversity to deal with the21 different corridors and a lot of ethnic22 corridors that we -- that our office23 reflects that.24 So I want to make sure that25 165 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 when he ask you -- or when you submit the2 data that Councilwoman Blackwell is3 asking for, that we see those numbers4 improve in terms of your diversity.5 You talked about subcontracts.6 What's the data that you're going to7 request out of subcontracts to make sure8 on the diversity? because I'm concerned9 that we just ask for staff, and I'd like10 to see us, if we're going to make some11 requirements to our subcontractors or12 nonprofit subcontractors, that we look at13 board composition, that we look at14 employee composition as those factors.15 Is there anything else you're16 going to be requesting of the nonprofits?17
We'd like to look a18 little bit -- and there are a couple of19 areas that are already working in that20 regard. The Department of Health, under21 Don Schwarz, is doing some work and22 looking at some of those stuff.23 We need to do a little bit more24 step beyond that and look at what25 166 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 actually those nonprofits are spending2 their money on and look at giving them3 some objectives around utilizing diverse4 minorities -- men, women, those who are5 disabled -- within their own actual spend6 so we can look a little bit deeper.7 We not only support nonprofits8 from a programmatic perspective, but9 there are administrative costs that are10 available, and looking at, okay, helping11 them understand what's available to them,12 helping them understand that. Then we13 can put some language into our contracts14 that would engage them in meeting some of15 those goals and objectives.16
What is17 that pool of nonprofit vendors that18 Commerce currently uses? How many people19 are we really talking about?20
In our world? Our21 nonprofit world? I don't have the exact22 answer there, but I will tell you it's23 many. I mean, that's who we contract24 with. That's -- all our contracts are25 167 5/4/09 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - FISCAL '10 BUDGET1 with nonprofits.2
Okay.3 And in our contracting for commercial4 corridors as it relates to PCDC, are we5 looking to enhance any of those other6 contracts for folks who do commercial7 corridor work?8