Okay. Maybe we9 could start with the graduation rates10 since Laurie just joined us.11 In terms of -- we don't have --12 the budget doesn't set forth the actual13 projections for those items, but why14 doesn't Lori take the graduation goal.15 (Witness comes forward.)16
Good morning.17 Lori Shorr, Mayor's Chief Education18 Officer.19 Around the graduation rate,20 we've been sort of working on a couple of21 fronts, both what's happening inside and22 working with the District on what they're23 doing to increase their graduation rate.24 As you probably know, their25 71 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 graduation rate has been increasing2 steadily over the last ten years. We're3 not where we need to be at all, but --4
Let me stop5 you real quick. The question is: Do you6 have a goal for graduation rate or not?7
And if not,9 what investments have you made? I10 believe the Mayor did set a goal for11 graduation rate?12
And I'm14 assuming that there might have been one15 set by the school CEO's 2014 plan as16 well?17
Yes. So the Mayor18 has a goal, and it is in coordination19 with the Superintendent, of around an20 80 percent graduation rate five years21 from now.22
That's it.2 Poverty rate or prison3 population rate, either one.4
On the prison5 population, in terms of budgeting, the6 Fiscal '12 proposed budget includes about7 a $2 million cut to the Prisons' budget,8 and that is based on the assumption of9 keeping the prison census below 8,000,10 which it is below 8,000 now. And that is11 --12
Five years16 from now. This is a five-year plan and17 if there's a five-year strategy, then18 what will the prison census be five years19 from now?20 (Witness comes forward.)21 DEPT.
Good22 afternoon. Everett Gillison, Deputy23 Mayor for Public Safety.24 Working with the Criminal25 73 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 Justice Advisory Board and all of our2 stakeholders --3 (Timer bell rings.)4 DEPT.
-- we5 are looking to close a prison; and if we6 are able to do that, the goal would be7 that we would have prison numbers down to8 6500 in the five years.9
Okay, thank10 you.11 And I got the other question12 in, so you could answer the poverty rate,13 if someone could answer the poverty rate14 question as well.15 DEPT.
Councilman,20 I'm not aware that the Administration has21 set a goal for the poverty rate in22 Philadelphia. You know, as we discussed23 earlier, a lot of those things are24 outside our control, so we want to get it25 74 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 as low as possible, is our goal, but we2 don't have a stated goal.3
So the other4 part of the question is: So what5 investments being made within the6 Five-Year Plan, would you say, will7 impact the poverty rate?8
Well, some of9 the ones that I mentioned before. I10 think the work that we're doing in11 workforce development, we think, will12 have a significant impact.13 We think the investment that14 we're making in literacy and in15 educational outcomes, both not only for16 students, but for adults as well,17 particularly with respect to adults; a18 significant portion in population in19 Philadelphia are functionally illiterate.20 So we think that those21 investments, although modest, will22 generate significant benefits to the23 citizens of Philadelphia and to the24 economy.25 75 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
Okay. Thank6 you, Madam Chair.7 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:8 You're welcome.9 The Chair recognizes Councilman10 Clarke.11
Thank you,12 Madam Chair.13 Good morning -- good afternoon.14
Yeah, good17 afternoon.18 Actually, I want to follow up19 on the questions to Mr. Farrell, but I20 will get that on the comeback since now21 we only have three minutes.22 Can you tell me -- and this was23 not in your testimony, but it does have24 some long-term, five-years-and-beyond25 76 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 implication. The categories of debt2 service that we have in the City, say3 there's debt on various types of bonds.4
There's General8 Obligation debt, there's Authority debt,9 there's Water Fund debt, Aviation Fund10 debt.11 Is that what you're asking?12
And the13 numbers associated it. And I will14 understand if you can't give me the15 specific numbers.16
Sure. The17 General Obligation bonds and what Rob18 just referred to as the Authority lease19 debt, those are both General Fund20 obligations, and there is a page in the21 --22
The portion of25 77 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 pension debt that's General Fund-2 supported is also the 86 percent that3 relates to the General Fund will be4 included in the General Fund budget as5 well.6
So they would17 show -- that shows in one of two18 categories. It's either Class 200 or19 Class 700. If it goes through an20 authority, it's Class 200, so the NTI21 bonds, the stadium bonds --22
Right,23 okay, I gotcha.24 (Indiscernible; parties talking25 78 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 over each other.)2
So if we3 were in a position to infuse a4 significant amount of cash to pay off or5 pay down the debt, it would free up the6 General Fund in some respect 'cause we7 wouldn't have to make those payments; am8 I correct?9
You mean,11 could we relieve ourselves of the debt12 service?13
So, for16 instance, if we were able to have17 significant municipal asset sales -- and18 I think you may know where I'm getting19 ready to go with a certain parcel over at20 16th Street that's said to be conceivably21 worth $35, 40 million on the private22 sector, and we were able to apply that23 $40 million to pay down the debt on, say,24 the NTI bond other lesser bonds, that25 79 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 would enhance our ability, 'cause I don't2 believe in selling municipal assets for3 operating costs; I think that's not a4 good policy.5 But if you can reduce the debt6 on long-term issues and freeing up7 General Fund revenue, therefore being in8 a better position to enhance your9 operation of the City, do you believe10 that's a smart practice or a prudent11 practice?12
It can be,13 certainly. It depends on the asset. And14 like you said, if you're going to put it15 to good use to reduce long-term16 obligations, it could be.17 (Timer bell rings.)18
Wow, that19 was quick.20 Okay. There was one other21 asset going to throw it out there, and I22 know, Madam President, if you allow me23 to.24 One is the Love Park -- and,25 80 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 obviously, I have to cut to the chase now2 with three minutes. There's some thought3 it might be worth $40 million, and I know4 there was a particular interested party5 but -- and, actually, I think Councilman6 Green talked about this last year, the7 possibility in understanding that there's8 some State implications that need to be9 authorized as it relates to our ability10 to sell parking meters, understanding11 that we can't sell the enforcement 'cause12 State provisions require that it's some13 sort of municipal entity that does the14 enforcement, that there's a possibility15 of getting a significant return on that16 sale that could make a significant17 impact, if we're able to do it.18 That -- again, would you agree19 that that might be a -- anybody.20 Anybody.21
That is22 something we're looking at in terms of --23 you mentioned the Love Park garage.24 There's various other questions that need25 81 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 to be worked through in terms of if it2 makes sense for the City to own the3 garage, to operate that garage, but we4 are looking at that, so --5
I mean,9 we're talking about maybe not us going in10 more debt, but they're talking about the11 Parking Authority issuing a bond and12 going in debt to repair a garage that13 could actually help us reduce our debt.14
All right.21 And are you also looking at the -- well,22 I guess you will be now since I bring23 this up -- the possibility of parking24 meters?25 82 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
Well, not7 that I recall. There are two issues.8 And the control that we gave up years9 ago, I think, frankly speaking, if it10 proved to be something that we can get a11 consensus is a simple agreement that can12 be altered, that would allow us to do13 that.14 And I'm not suggesting that15 it's easy, but I think that it warrants16 us looking at it, given our ability to17 get rid of this significant debt when we18 talk about our pension problems and all19 of the other problems. I really would20 like to see us get aggressive and outside21 of the traditional box.22 Okay, I understand it's a very23 complicated issue that requires some24 State approval.25 83 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
I think those3 are good questions. And it is important4 for us to look at the cost benefit of5 ownership versus sale. That one might be6 very complicated, but it's something that7 we'll look at.8
Okay, all9 right. Thank you.10 Thank you, Madam President.11
Thank12 you.13 The Chair recognizes14 Councilwoman Brown.15
Thank you,16 Madam President.17 Good morning, Administration.18
On of your testimony, you speak to the22 Mayor's Commission on Literacy and the23 $1 million allocation. Thank you for24 that.25 84 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 How would that money be2 allocated, and will the commission be3 providing those services directly or4 engaging in subcontracting opportunities5 with outside organizations?6
I know that7 they are in the process, Councilwoman, of8 planning that. I'm not sure that those9 plans are firmed up at this point.10 But the money is housed over in11 the Library, with the Mayor's Commission12 on Literacy, and working with the13 Library, the Mayor's Chief Educational14 Officer, and others that are working on a15 plan to figure out how those monies are16 going to be allocated.17
I would18 ask that at the appropriate hour for19 those Councilmembers that are interested,20 we get a briefing on that.21
'Cause23 what we don't want to see is what we've24 seen happen a little too often in the25 85 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 Department of Human Services, where2 smaller legitimate providers of service,3 for right reasons or wrong reasons, get4 squeezed out of those kind of5 opportunities.6
Okay. And9 I'll ask this question, with an answer10 coming later: I'd be curious to know how11 many commissions we have in government12 and what the total budget is of all of13 those commissions.14 And think through how and if15 there are ways to -- and I know that, you16 know, this involves Charter change17 activity, but exploring -- there's no18 penalties in just exploring.19 Those two answers first. How20 many we have and what the bottom-line21 budget is of all of those commissions.22
You also24 talk about in the Office of Property25 86 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 Assessment, there would be technology2 investments. What type of contracting3 opportunities will be available there,4 and what will be the process for ensuring5 that MBE, WBEs, and DBEs have access?6
Okay. I'll7 start, and Mr. Dubow could jump in.8 I wanted to at least state that9 the Administration's position as it10 relates to making sure opportunities are11 available for all contracting and that12 the OPA, or Office of Property13 Assessment, would be treated no14 differently than any other process that15 we have in this administration, which is16 to make sure that those opportunities are17 made far and widely known to all18 participants.19 We've had a very good year. It20 was about a year -- I was looking at some21 old testimony. It was about a year ago22 last year, just before we had brought on23 Angela Dow Burton, who's done an24 outstanding job in making sure that25 87 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 throughout this government, there's2 infused responsibility among the managers3 for making sure that there are4 opportunities available.5 (Timer bell rings.)6
So without7 fear of contradiction, I would beg to say8 that certainly opportunities in OPA, just9 like in any other department, will be10 made available for all bidders who are11 capable of doing the work.12
Okay. The13 clock has struck. So I'll pick up on the14 back end.15 Thank you, Madam President.16
Thank17 you.18 Well, the committee will stand19 in recess until 1:30, and wherever the20 Councilmembers are on the schedule, we'll21 come back and recognize you at that time.22 (Short break taken.)23 (Proceedings resume.)24
The25 88 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 Committee of the Whole is now back in2 session.3 The Chair recognizes Councilman4 Jones.5 Councilman, just a moment,6 please. I understand Mr. Armbrister7 wants to make a statement.8
Thank you,9 Council President.10 I justed wanted to clarify.11 There was a portion of my testimony that12 might have been a little misleading13 related to L&I that I'd just like to14 clarify.15 The sentence on referencing L&I's reduction on the17 backlog of clean-and-seals is a little18 misleading because it's out of context.19
The sentence22 reads: "L&I reduced is clean-and-seal23 backlog to nothing, and turnaround time24 for service is now 10 days versus 27025 89 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 days just a few years ago."2 What that doesn't take into3 account is that for the Clean-and-Seal4 Unit to actually abate the property, they5 actually need to give the property owner6 an opportunity to fix the property7 himself.8 So that actually adds more9 time. So I didn't want to give the10 impression that it's only ten days. It11 takes ten days after it's gone to the12 Clean-and-Seal Unit, which allows for13 time for the property owner to fix it.14 So it's about seventy days, but15 it's still a remarkable reduction --16
-- from the19 eight to ten months that we had20 previously. I just wanted to clarify21 that for the record.22
Very23 well, thank you.24 Councilman Jones.25 90 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
Thank you,2 Madam President.3 I want to go back to my4 original line of questioning, and the5 difficulty is, by the time you recycle to6 the original question, you may forget.7 I was responding to8 resolution -- or speaking to Resolution9 100848, which deals with the analyzation10 of whether we contract out our contract11 or retain work internally to perform.12 And one of things that I wanted13 to do was -- a part of that resolution14 calls for an RFP committee, which is to15 look at opportunities in addition to16 contracting out in a similar model that17 we used to do stimulus dollars. We had a18 coalition of people from the19 Administration and City Council to look20 at opportunities from the federal21 government.22 It's a two-part question. One:23 Where are we with the stimulus dollars,24 and how much is left, and have we25 91 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 expended them, and did we get drunk off2 of them, and how are we going to sober up3 in this fiscal year based on them drying4 up?5 And whether or not we are going6 to have that kind of continual RFP model7 to attract new revenues, new resources to8 various City departments.9
In terms of --10 I'll answer the easiest part of that11 question first and then leave the details12 to those who are better qualified to13 answer.14 The answer to the question as15 to whether or not we got drunk off of the16 stimulus money, the answer is an emphatic17 no, we did not.18 The one area of additional19 expense in our budget proposal that we've20 included is some money for the fifty21 probation officers that we did hire22 through stimulus money, and we think it's23 prudent to retain those, so there is24 money included in the budgets for that.25 92 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 Other than that, though, in2 terms of operating dollars that would3 affect our General Fund Budget, no, we4 did not get drunk off those monies.5 And in terms of actual6 expenditures, I'll turn it over to Rob7 and his staff.8
In terms of the9 amount that's been spent and obligated,10 it's about 50 percent that has gone out11 so far. Most of the projects were two-12 or three-year projects.13 So it's not surprising that it14 hasn't all gone out the door; and,15 obviously, we're trying to push it out as16 quickly as possible 'cause we want to get17 dollars on the street and get people18 working, but we're still, you know, in19 the processes.20
Were the21 vast majority of those dollars capital-22 related dollars as opposed to23 programmatic?24
It varied. I mean,25 93 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 some of them were programmatic and some2 of them were capital. I don't know3 whether we've looked at it that way in4 terms of doing, you know, the percent5 that was capital, but...6
Can you7 provide for Madam President a breakdown8 of what those anticipated expenditures9 will be coming up and to see how they are10 by department so we can --11 (Timer bell rings.)12
We can actually15 talk to that right now.16 (Witness comes forward.).17
My name is Maari21 Porter. I'm the City's capital officer.22 In terms of capital funds,23 about 25 percent of our funds is on24 capital works; that's 65 million, 6-525 94 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 through 07, 6-1-3 [sic] in our funds are2 for capital.3
About, yeah. I5 can just go quickly through what they6 are.7 So we have for the Airport, we8 have what's called "baggage screening,"9 where we're basically updating the10 baggage there. That's 26 million.11 We have the City repaving in12 different and various neighborhoods13 across the City. There's $15 million14 there.15 There's also the rehabilitation16 of the runway, of one of the longest17 runways that the Airport has. That's18 5.7 million, and that work has been19 completed already. I'd like to say ahead20 of time and on budget to the dollar.21 We also had $200,000 going to22 waste water loans. That's also been23 completed.24 And we've recently been awarded25 95 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 17.2 million from what's called "a Tiger2 Grant," but it's basically bike trails3 along the Schuylkill and along the4 waterfront.5 So that's just a very quick6 overview of the capital projects.7
I didn't8 hear -- and I don't know if this is a9 different category, but the grant we got10 for the streetlights.11
So, actually,15 that's not included in those dollars.16 That's part of what's called "the EECBG17 Grant," and it's a $14 million grant.18 You're correct, actually. The19 LED lights were part of -- they were20 Capital funds, and actually, I should add21 to that that also, we used some money for22 BigBellies. We bought, I think, about23 just about $1 million in BigBellies, but24 I can get you the LED data and also the25 96 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 BigBelly data as well.2
And what3 about the weatherization money; is that4 included in that?5
That's not6 included in the City's calculations in7 terms of ARA. That was given to PHDC;8 that's their money. That weatherization9 money is $15.8 million, but that's10 nothing that -- you know, the Recovery11 Office, we watch what they're doing, but12 that doesn't come through the City;13 therefore, that's through their own14 budget.15
If you could16 do for Madam President a quick17 calculation not held to the penny --18
-- of what20 the impact of the stimulus dollars from21 the federal government were to the City22 of Philadelphia, including SEPTA, PHA,23 and others, a rough amount of dollars24 expended to the City of Philadelphia.25 97 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
I don't know what2 SEPTA is, but I can tell you to the City3 of Philadelphia in terms of people, for4 example, at the University of5 Pennsylvania, as of the 31st of December6 2010, Philadelphia, as a kind of city7 region, got $2.1 billion.8
Thank you,15 federal government, President Obama.16 Thank you, Madam President.17 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:18 You're welcome.19 You mentioned that stimulus20 money, a portion of it was going for21 weatherization.22
Is24 any of that going for basic system25 98 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 repairs?2
Council3 President, to the best of my knowledge, I4 think it's not; I think it's going5 strictly to weatherization. But we can6 confirm that. I think that's considered7 a separate program, but I think the8 weatherization money was strictly limited9 to weatherization, but I'll confirm that.10
I'm11 being told that there are people who are12 waiting for year upon year upon year for13 basic systems. Can somebody give us more14 information on that, please?15
(Not22 completely audible; off-mic.) ...were23 going to the RFP stimulus committee?24
And if I25 99 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 understand your question, Councilman,2 it's whether or not that is a model that3 we might -- it's certainly something that4 we can sit down and talk about as an5 administration.6 Obviously, when the ARA funding7 came out, we were under very, very strict8 guidelines and time pressures, and9 thought it certainly in the best interest10 of the City that we made sure we had a11 very broad-based oversight of that.12 In terms of RFPs that are13 issued by the City departments, you know,14 we're all subject to Chapter, I guess, 1715 of the Code. And, you know, that's16 something that we can certainly take a17 look at to make a determination.18
I think19 maybe you -- similar to what we did with20 the stimulus committee, we looked at the21 federal government and maybe even state22 to look at opportunities --23
And I just25 100 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 think when we start talking about rate of2 return with a B, billion, it's a model3 that --4 (Indiscernible; parties talking5 over each other.)6
It's certainly7 something that we can take a look at,8 sure.9
Thank you.10 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:11 You're welcome.12 The Chair finally recognizes13 Councilwoman Sanchez.14
Thank15 you, Madam President.16 Good afternoon.17 I want to talk a little bit --18 we spent a little bit of time this19 morning talking about pension reform. I20 want to talk a little bit about the21 health care, 'cause in your testimony,22 the Administration speaks to the FOP23 becoming self-insured, and that's saving24 $67 million, and for non-union City25 101 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 employees, a savings of $6 million.2 Can you tell me which non-union3 employees fall under self-insurance, and4 are we managing that?5
It's employees who6 are in the City-administered plan, so7 that's our nonrep employees, our exempts,8 and DC 33 members who have opted into the9 City-administered plan.10 And, yes, we manage that.11
I don't know17 whether Al D'Attilio is -- oh, he's right18 there. I was looking the wrong way.19 (Witness comes forward.)20
My name is21 Albert D'Attilio, and I'm the City's22 human resources director.23 And the question is about the24 number of employees who manage the25 102 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 self-insurance?2
So10 there's about 6,000 employees. Are there11 any employees who could be in there that12 are not a part of the collective-13 bargaining agreement, or does that14 universe capture everybody that is15 non-represented, non-collective16 bargaining unit?17
It captures all18 non-represented civil service employees,19 it captures all exempt employees, and it20 captures approximately 1500 to 180021 fair-share employees, mostly in District22 Council 33.23
So the24 $6 million realized in savings is25 103 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 attributed to what?2
It's a3 combination of self-insurance. We went4 out to market on our four plans --5 medical, dental, health, optical and6 prescription -- and we made some minor7 plan design changes.8
Thank9 you.10 Mr. Armbrister, the Five-Year11 Plan calls on savings from the unions.12 What is the number that we're looking for13 savings from the --14
If you recall,15 in our original Five-Year Plan, we had16 included $25 million worth of savings.17 Over the last two-and-a-half years, we've18 managed to realize some portion of that19 savings through the contract that we have20 with the FOP, and we anticipated savings21 that we've the gotten also from the22 non-represented employees that you heard23 Mr. D'Attilio just describe.24 Of that $25 million, we have25 104 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 saved approximately...2 (Timer bell rings.)3
Yeah, we're showing4 in the plan 11.8 million because we've5 achieved the other 13.2.6
So we've7 achieved 13.2. And so, we're showing8 $11 million in --9
That's what need to13 achieve --14 (Indiscernible; parties talking15 over each other.)16
In our17 discussions with the unions now,18 notwithstanding the fact that they've19 managed their health plan better than20 even we've managed it, but is health care21 one of those areas where you're looking22 to save some money?23
Have25 105 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 discussions happened about unions2 potentially doing the self-insurance?3
Not only have4 discussion been had, but one union has5 gone ahead, notwithstanding that we don't6 have an agreement, and gone to7 self-insurance, and that would be8 District Council 33. They've already,9 notwithstanding the fact that we don't10 have an agreement, gone ahead, and they11 are now self-insured.12
Okay.13 Are we going to get a union contract this14 year?15
I'm hopeful20 that we will ultimately come to a21 resolution with the outstanding unions22 and get a contract. I'm hopeful.23
Okay.24 My time is up. Madam President, my time25 106 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 is up.2
Thank3 you.4 The Chair recognizes Councilman5 Rizzo.6
I pass,7 Madam President, please. I'll be right8 back.9
Thank you,12 Madam Chair.13 I'll pick up where Councilwoman14 Sanchez left off. What does the15 Five-Year Plan tell us about labor16 contracts?17
It assumes that for21 the unions who don't have collective-22 bargaining agreements, we will wind up23 reducing our costs by $11.8 million24 through some combination of reductions in25 107 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 benefits and reductions in things like2 overtime.3
So4 financially, it assumes that without5 union contracts, we'll have to reduce6 spending by that amount.7
So there is,10 for lack of a better way of putting it, a11 negative amount of money in the Five-Year12 Plan, there's less money in the Five-Year13 Plan.14
For the unions that15 don't have collective-bargaining units.16 So for the FOP, for example,17 we've built in the salary increases and18 assume an increase in health-care costs.19 But for the unions without agreements,20 that's right.21
Okay.22 Another question I have, and if I can get23 them both in quickly. On the same theme24 of what happens over the next five years,25 108 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 at the end of five years, what percentage2 of City contract dollars is projected to3 be awarded to business owned by women,4 people of color, and disabled?5
I don't see6 Andrew (indiscernible), but I think the7 current -- I know you asked for the8 five-year; I'm not trying to9 (indiscernible) the five-year. But10 certainly, the current plan is to be in11 excess of 25 percent.12
Okay. Next13 question: Will the living wage and14 benefits standard be applied to all City15 contracts over the next five years? Is16 there a cost related to that, or will it17 be cost-neutral?18
I don't know.19 We would have to do some analysis on20 that.21
Can you22 please forward that through the Chair?23 'cause I would really like that in24 writing in terms of what the25 109 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 Administration's position really is. And2 if that means that there's going to be3 any waivers given, that it be said4 upfront, if you know those of waivers,5 because I have heard that certain6 contracts have been told that they would7 be given waivers before they've applied8 for them.9 And so, I will be asking that10 all of those departments on the record11 which contracts they believe have to12 adhere to this standard, and if they will13 -- if they anticipate any waivers and who14 will be enforcing it.15 And just lastly, for the16 record, as the budget process goes on,17 I'll be asking every department what is18 their largest contract, and will be19 asking them for several pieces of20 information about that contract,21 including the RFP process as well as22 business-diversity and wage-rate issues.23 Thank you, Madam Chair.24
I25 110 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 think I'm next, and you'll time me.2 I am going to ask a question3 that I've been asking for every year now:4 How many vacant EMT positions does the5 Fire Department have?6
It's -- I7 believe it's 73. I think the Fire8 Department could give more information,9 but --10 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:11 You're turning your face and I can't hear12 your response.13
Sorry. It's 7314 vacancies currently, and I think the Fire15 Department could speak about their plans16 to fire, if you wanted more --17
How18 many did we have last year at this time?19
I believe we had20 a little bit less; I think it was around21 67.22 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:23 You're turning your face, hon. I can't24 hear a word you said.25 111 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
I'm sorry. I2 believe it was 67, so there are a few3 more vacancies.4 And I think there were certain5 factors that made it hard to hire, which6 I think the Fire Department could speak7 more about.8 (Witness comes forward.)9
Good10 afternoon, Commissioner.11 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: Good12 afternoon, Madam President.13
Did14 you hear the question?15 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: Yes.16 And she was correct with the 7317 vacancies.18 We have moved forward with the19 hiring process. We currently will be20 hiring on April 25th 30 paramedics;21 that's our goal. April 25th, we should22 be having a class going in, and we're23 looking forward to it.24
How25 112 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 many did you say you will be hiring on2 April 25th?3 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS:4 Thirty is the goal.5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:6 Thirty is the goal.7 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: Yes.8
And9 what are you doing about the rest of the10 vacancies? And I'm sure that by the end11 of the year, you'll probably have many12 more.13 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: Yes.14 We've been working with Personnel. We15 have a list that's currently --16
Just17 a moment, Commissioner.18 Anybody having conversations,19 please do so in the corridor.20 Please continue.21 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: Yes.22 We work with Personnel, and we have23 another list that will be available to24 hire from almost immediately.25 113 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 So these thirty that's being2 hired, the rest of the folks that go onto3 that list, we'll process them. And as4 soon as this class is done, we'll hire5 another class.6
And7 how long is the training period?8 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: The9 training period is going to be about10 seven weeks initially, and then they'll11 go into the field for precepting, and12 that takes approximately another eight to13 nine weeks. And then they'll be prepared14 to go into service for the citizens.15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:16 Commissioner, can you tell us how many17 emergency medical runs we've had in the18 last year?19 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: Yes.20 About 223,000.21
About22 223,000.23 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: Yes,24 that's correct.25 114 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
So,2 we talk about the vacancies. Can you3 tell us how many EMTs we have?4 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: EMTs,5 we have approximately 1100.6
I'm7 sorry?8 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: We9 have approximately 1100.10
And11 is there quite an accumulation of12 overtime as a result of not having the13 complement that we need?14 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: Yes,15 and that's being paid in overtime.16
How17 much overtime?18 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: I19 can't tell you the exact number, but it20 would be multiplied by that 73.21
We22 talk about public safety, and I'll tell23 you, I think every year, we're either24 told -- and Commissioner, you will agree25 115 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 with me. We've been told in the past2 that we couldn't get people to apply; is3 that true?4 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: It5 was true. There were several things --6
And7 how do we suddenly find thirty people now8 to apply and just about thirty more after9 that?10 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: It11 was based on the efforts that -- you sent12 us away with instructions. We did13 advertising. We have a battalion chief14 that regularly goes to all of the schools15 in the area; he does the recruiting and.16 And also, we have changed the17 residency requirement, and that18 immediately brought on more people to be19 recruited.20 And so, that's how that number21 came about.22
And23 --24 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: And25 116 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 one other thing: We also had continuous2 enrollment, thanks to Personnel, and that3 helped as well.4