Well,5 I'm glad somebody hears us from time to6 time. We were told, as I said, last year7 that nobody, but nobody, was applying for8 it. So I think you've done a good job.9 Thank you.10 Can you tell us, why aren't11 they cross-trained?12 FIRE COMMISSIONER AYERS: There13 are several reasons for that. One is14 that, when we did cross-training at one15 period in time in the Philadelphia Fire16 Department, we found that there was many17 folks who did not go through the entire18 training, and they were actually cross-19 trained firefighters.20 They would go back to their21 firefighter position, and we would have22 lost a lot of money putting resources in23 training and those persons not going24 through completely. We were losing up to25 117 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 50 percent of our training dollars.2
Okay,3 thank you.4 The Chair recognizes Councilman5 Rizzo.6 Thank you Commissioner.7
Thank you8 for accommodating me, Madam Chair.9 Clay Armbrister you could10 probably answer this question, or the11 Commissioner. If this has already been12 addressed, I apologized, but I'd like you13 to repeat it since I missed it, if that14 is the situation.15 With the increase in the Fire16 Department's budget for Fiscal Year '12,17 the -- is it $4.4 million?18
Yes, with the23 overtime and the other equipment that24 we're --25 118 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
And I2 earlier heard you say that that did not3 include a Fire Academy class?4
Are you11 going to eliminate, stop those now with12 another $4.5 million?13
No. The14 current Five-Year Plan continues that15 operation.16
Well, what17 do you really need to eliminate the18 rolling brownouts? If you're going to19 ask for $4.4 million and still have the20 controversial role of --21
We need the22 people, actually; we need the personnel.23 And as I mentioned in my24 testimony is that we are at least a year25 119 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 to 18 months away from being able to hire2 personnel that would account for the3 overtime, some of the overtime, that4 we're spending. But the rolling5 brownouts were designed to save on6 overtime; and they are, in fact, doing7 that.8 So that's in the budget as well9 as money to pay for the additional10 overtime required because we are 7011 firefighters short -- or 60 firefighters12 short.13
So there's14 no way -- since you're not having a Fire15 Academy class, there's no way to16 lessen -- even lessen the number of17 rolling brownouts?18
Well, that's19 certainly an operational decision for the20 commanders, and it was their21 recommendation when we gave them the22 target that they needed to hit for their23 budget, so --24
So we should25 120 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 not see -- and if you need to bring the2 commissioner back, I'd suggest you do3 that.4 So we don't anticipate any5 change at all, not even lessen it,6 increase it?7
No, because it8 would just increase the overtime9 expenses.10
We'll have11 to have more to say about -- talk about12 that.13
Okay. Thank15 you, Madam Chair.16 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:17 Councilman Jones.18
Thank you,19 Madam President.20 I want to congratulate the21 Administration on reversing the tide of22 population loss and finally moving it in23 the right direction. And, again, I said24 it on the floor of Council during25 121 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 session, that the attraction of new2 citizens here is a beacon that we're on3 the right track.4 The one disturbing statistic5 from the census is that we've increased6 the amount of poverty in the City of7 Philadelphia. And I was wondering that8 the Five-Year Plan calls for, again,9 postponing the Cohen tax.10 And if, in fact, we're having11 more poor people, wouldn't this be their12 rendition of a stimulus package to maybe13 put more money back in the local economy14 in light of the fact that on our sales15 tax increase, we actually received16 $88 million in revenue? I believe you17 quoted that statistic.18
I think that's23 about right. He's concurring, I think,24 with that number.25 122 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
That's4 correct. The credit for low-income wage5 earners is something that I'm sure the6 Council and others have struggled with.7 The dollar-amount -- how much8 is it, Rob? It's about a $50 million9 cost over the life of the plan, and it's10 a matter of making a balanced judgment11 about whether or not there will be other12 cuts that would have to be made that13 might be, you know, deleterious to the14 people we're trying to help versus15 maintaining that particular -- or not16 implementing that particular tax17 reduction.18 So it's -- on balance, it is a19 $50 million cost and one that, you know,20 we struggle with, but that is the current21 proposal from the Administration.22
All right.23 I just wanted to understand that we24 are -- we -- the last time we asked to25 123 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 postpone it, we were kind of assured that2 it wouldn't happen again, and here we are3 again, and I understand the cost, and I4 wanted to put that on the record. Fifty5 million is not small money.6
And I want11 my colleagues to realize and underscore,12 as Blondie says, and an exclamation point13 behind her, that we are, in fact, asking14 this as a part of adopting this plan.15 Thank you, Madam Chair.16 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:17 You're welcome.18 The Chair recognizes19 Councilwoman Sanchez.20
Thank21 you.22 Good afternoon.23 PANEL MEMBERS: Good afternoon.24
I wanted25 124 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 to make a special request for2 departmental report-outs to Council.3 Over the last couple of years, with4 obviously the hard work of my colleagues5 Goode and Blondell Reynolds-Brown, we've6 gotten to a place where departments are7 coming in with some EOP plans and some8 contracting goals.9 The one area that we have not10 reported out and I'd like to -- I could11 send this in a letter, I'd like to get12 departments to report out the existing13 demographics of their staff and the new14 hires, particularly as it relates to15 minorities and language accessibility.16 Echoing the point that my17 colleague Jones made, the census data18 shows us the new immigrants and the19 diversity in the City, but we haven't20 quantified department by department who21 do we have working here -- women,22 minority -- and how many of them can23 speak other languages other than English.24 So I'd like for the departments25 125 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 to make a small chart just to be able to2 tell us who are they existing, where3 we've hired, are they rank-and-file, are4 they supervisors, and the demographic5 information of them.6 And the other thing that I'd7 like the departments to report out is,8 have any departments requested the9 creation of bilingual positions or of10 bilingual lists. So I'd like departments11 to start reporting that out.12 I don't want to spend ten years13 asking the same question, but this is my14 fourth budget cycle, and I asked the same15 questions. It might be easier if16 departments report out. And then,17 therefore, we can have a discussion about18 that.19
So it's21 existing, new hires, which is22 supervisors, which is rank-and-file, and23 language accessibility.24 Thank you.25 126 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 Thank you, Madam President.2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:3 You're welcome.4 You know, I'm happy to see that5 the prison population is declining. Can6 you tell us how many detainees are7 currently being held in the prisons?8
It's under15 7,000, but...16 (Witness comes forward.)17 DEPT.
7726.18 Good afternoon, Deputy Mayor Everett19 Gillison.20 The numbers are 7,726 today.21
And22 of that number, how many of them are23 detainees?24 DEPT.
The25 127 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 normal way for us to look at it is, about2 three-quarters of them are detainees.3 That means that they have not been4 convicted of anything yet.5
What6 are the prisons currently projecting to7 spend on health care this year? And can8 you give us the cost for detainees and9 those who are sentenced?10 DEPT.
And13 is anybody ever going to look at the14 health-care issue with the prisoners and15 the detainees?16 DEPT.
Oh,17 absolutely. I can tell you that the RFP18 was done for the health care --19
I'm20 sorry. Pull the microphone closer.21 DEPT.
I'm22 sorry. The RFP was done on the health23 care and was actually let last year. And24 I know that Dr. Herdman actually did a25 128 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 very good job of keeping the relative2 costs to a minimum increase. We have a3 very good -- we have a very good contract4 going forward.5 So the cost, I'm sure -- I6 don't have it with me right now, but I7 can get it in just a couple of minutes if8 you'll allow me just to go back. I can9 actually pull it back out.10
The13 current costs is -- the health-care cost14 is $65 million. Dr. Herdman is right15 behind me.16
I17 don't know what's wrong, but I cannot18 hear you.19 DEPT.
The cost24 is $65 million for the health-care costs25 129 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 for the prisons, but we did not break it2 out by detainee and sentenced. And I can3 try and see if that can be available for4 the Chair, if you need it.5
I6 think we'd all be interested in seeing7 what that is, because we've been talking8 about that also for a number of years.9 DEPT.
On16 , the plan reflects a chart of17 health-center visits. Can someone tell18 us what the wait time is for an initial19 visit and also for an appointment?20
Yeah. Dr. Schwarz21 is coming up.22 (Dr. Schwarz comes forward.)23
Ah,24 the good doctor.25 130 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 (Laughter.)2 I know you're going to know3 that answer off the top of your head.4
Well, I only5 heard half of the question so I have to6 apologize.7
Okay.8 On , the plan reflects a chart of9 health centers. Can you tell us what the10 wait time is for an initial appointment11 or visit and also the time one has to12 wait for an appointment some.13
I can tell you in14 general. I don't know today center-by-15 center, but I can tell you the range.16 So it varies tremendously by17 center. The center which has the longest18 waiting time is Health Center 10.19 Waiting time for a new patient at Health20 Center 10 is somewhere around 248 days.21 And that reflects both the22 increase in poverty and uninsured in the23 neighborhood around Health Center 10 and24 the lack of other providers who take25 131 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 uninsured patients in that area. So that2 we are fairly well alone in terms of3 providing care to people -- the4 increasing numbers of people who have no5 other source of care in that6 neighborhood.7 It's the reason that we brought8 to this Council the health authority9 bill, and we're trying hard to find10 another provider for the Northeast.11 The other centers' wait time is12 much more reasonable. So it --13
It varies from16 about three weeks for a new-patient visit17 to about six or eight weeks for a new-18 patient visit on average.19
It's20 a shame. It seems that District 10,21 their wait period is worse now than it22 was last year.23
It's actually24 just slightly better than it was last25 132 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 year.2
Yeah. Last year,5 I think it was 258 days, and I think6 we're down to 248 days or so, but it7 varies by season and it varies by month.8 So we keep track on a monthly basis of9 that -- we actually keep track on a daily10 basis but we publish information on a11 monthly basis.12 The issue is, no matter how13 much service we deliver, more people need14 care. We've seen about an 8 to 9 percent15 increase overall in use of the health16 seniors since the recession began.17 And we have been able to keep18 up in that waiting times haven't gotten19 worse, but we haven't been able to bring20 down the waiting time.21
The22 Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a23 point of information.24
This is a25 133 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 tough question to ask.2 With that kind of a delay, lots3 of people either get better or they die.4 Do we know how many people die because of5 the delay in getting health care?6
So this isn't a7 delay in getting health care; it's a8 delay in a well visit. So if someone --9
The difference is12 that this is a scheduled appointment for13 a checkup. If someone has a problem, we14 have at all of our health centers what we15 call "walk-in," so you can walk in any16 health center. You wait during the day17 but you are seen. And depending on the18 health center, it can be up to 50 percent19 of the visits at the health center are20 walk-in visits.21 So we've tried adjusting22 schedules, we've tried doing all sorts of23 things. The issue is no-show rates and24 the fact that we are the only show in25 134 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 town for many people.2 So we have maintained the3 policy of you can walk in for care;4 you'll just have to sit and wait until5 you're the next one taken.6
With that7 kind of a delay for an appointment, do we8 have some type of a system like a normal9 doc does where the office calls and10 reminds you about your appointment and --11
What I'm20 hearing with these long delays, I assume21 the alternative is the emergency room22 that gets no compensation.23
So we have a24 single call center so that we offer25 135 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 people a visit at another health center.2 One of the things that seemed obvious to3 us was if the wait is so long at one4 health center, we could distribute it5 over the others. People generally, for a6 routine visit, would prefer to have an7 appointment months ahead than to go to8 another health center that's farther from9 home.10 But, yes, the alternative is11 the emergency room for many people or12 walk-in for us, and we have maintained13 walk-ins so that people don't have to go14 to the emergency room.15 What we know from the managed-16 care companies, who are responsible for17 Medicaid in town, we have some of the18 lowest proportions of people using the19 emergency room, and we believe that's the20 walk-in.21 So essentially, instead of22 going to the emergency room, you can come23 to one of our health centers and be seen24 Monday through Friday and an evening a25 136 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 week at each health center, two evenings2 a week at Health Center 10, and on3 Saturday, at two of the health centers.4
Thank7 you, Doctor. I still this you're the8 greatest.9 On of the plan, it10 mentions that you will be implementing a11 new licensing few for tobacco retailers.12 Can you tell us what the fee will be, and13 will it be implemented administratively?14 MR. McPHERSON: I think we need15 to get Dr. Schwarz back.16 (Dr. Schwarz returns to witness17 table.)18
I think you asked21 what the fee will be, what we're thinking22 of for the permitting fee?23 MR. McPHERSON: Yes.24
Yes.25 137 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
We're working on2 that now. I don't have an answer today3 but will very soon.4
So,5 okay. While you're looking at it and6 when you come back to visit us again --7
--9 maybe you could tell us what the revenues10 are that you expect to receive from this11 fee.12
And14 if they're going to be in your revenue15 projections.16
We have not -- I17 can tell that you philosophically, we18 don't want this fee to be a deterrent to19 people from registering, so we have not20 anticipated a high fee.21 We believe that it's more22 important to have people permitted so the23 City has some ability to act on bad24 behavior, but the purpose is not revenue25 138 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 generation particularly.2
And3 that will be administrative -- that will4 be implemented administratively?5
Okay,7 thank you.8 The Chair recognizes9 Councilwoman Brown.10
Thank you,11 Madam President.12 I had a follow-up to13 Councilwoman Quiñones-Sanchez's request.14 And in the figures that you're going to15 share with us, can you also indicate and16 specify staff exempt separate from civil17 service when you present those numbers?18 And it will be helpful if you19 will do what departments have been done20 for the last few years: just simply make21 it a part of the testimony, put it on the22 back end of the testimony, and that way,23 we see it.24 and 8 of the testimony25 139 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 talks about how Governor Corbett's budget2 will impact General Fund to the tune of a3 $7.5 million cut to our Department of4 Human Services. And Councilwoman5 Blackwell has already spoken to how it6 indeed serves many of our city's most7 vulnerable populations.8 How might this impact our lead-9 abatement activities?10
Among the most11 flexible dollars, which include, I guess,12 the HSDF, I think there was $75,000 that13 had allocable for that effort.14
For lead17 abatement. And it could significantly18 deter our ability to get lead abatement,19 but Dr. Schwarz is here and ready to give20 you a little bit more detail.21
Well, I22 will say for the record that23 Dr. Schwarz's office and professionals24 are meeting with my staff to prepare for25 140 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 hearings around a lead-abatement bill.2
So there are --3 the chief source of lead abatement4 dollars from the State comes from the5 Human Services Development Fund.6
In the past8 couple of years, we've spent between9 3 and $400,000 of those funds on lead10 abatement. That money goes through Class11 200 to abatement contractors.12 In addition, we receive three13 different sources of federal funding; one14 is through CFBG, the Community Services15 Block Grant, which goes through MOCS.16
That money, the18 current proposal from the president is to19 cut by half and put out for bid. The20 good news about that is that it will be21 put out competitively, and we may compete22 well, but we use about 5 to $600,000 of23 that money per year for lead abatement24 and inspection.25 141 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 Then there are two other2 sources. One is the Centers for Disease3 Control, which has announced its4 intention to cut by 50 percent dollar for5 childhood lead-poisoning programming.6 And then the final is from Housing and7 Urban Development.8 And while they initially cited9 a complete cut in lead abatement dollars,10 they have since changed their mind, and11 the information we have now is that they12 will rebid lead abatement dollars. So13 it's better than we had thought.14 But between the State cut, the15 CSBG cut, and the CDC cut, the potential16 for a $2 million to $3 million loss in17 lead services for children is very real,18 and we're advocating hard to maintain19 those dollars.20
So with21 the funding prior to cuts, what was the22 scale of treatment or impact that the23 City had, period?24 (Timer bell rings.)25 142 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
I mean,2 just given the dollars as they were last3 year, how much difference were you able4 to make in terms of the number of5 properties that you now have moved to --6
I believe that's10 the number we do on an annual basis.11 It's really, as you know, expensive to12 abate a property, and it's the reason13 that we do for many properties what's14 called "a super clean," which is much15 less expensive.16
Okay,17 thank you.18 Thank you, Madam President.19 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:20 You're welcome.21 The Chair recognizes Councilman22 Jones.23
Thank you.24 It's my understanding that we25 143 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 are about to receive for the Philadelphia2 Corporation for the Aging $46.3 million3 in new resources; is that accurate?4
I'm not sure5 about that, Councilman. The 46. -- what6 was that?7
Oh. I think10 our executive director of the agency is11 here.12 (Witness comes forward.)13
You know,14 it's interesting. Most of the15 Administration sits behind each of the16 pillars, but we still can see you; you're17 not invisible.18 (Laughter.)19 (Witness comes forward.)20
And, Madam21 President, this doesn't go against my22 three minutes.23
Hi. I'm24 Lydia Hernandez-Velez, Deputy Managing25 144 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 Director for Aging for the City.2
Part of4 those dollars that PCA funds are direct5 services to individuals: The Senior6 Community Services Employment Program,7 which the Mayor's Commission on Aging8 operates; the Apprise Program, which is9 the Medicare Advisory Program that the10 Mayor's Commission on Aging provides; and11 then through the rec centers, through the12 older-adult centers throughout the City13 and various other programs that are14 funded not directly through the Mayor's15 Commission on Aging but through other16 agencies.17
Correct.24 The agency is a conduit for federal and25 145 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 the lottery funds that fund the Pace2 Program for prescriptions and the other3 services I just mentioned.4
And thank5 you for agreeing to being a part of the6 "Aging in a New Age Workshop," which is7 at WHYY, it's going to be broadcast. It8 asks that departments take look at the9 impact of Philadelphia becoming a grayer10 city and planning for that.11
And in light13 of that, are we looking at what the14 naturally-occurring aging community --15 what is it called?16
The term17 is "The Natural-Occurring Retirement18 Communities."19
And we21 have several areas of Philadelphia where22 the age of the resident population is23 above 55.24 And so, looking at what25 146 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 services need to be provided in order to2 maintain those citizen-residents in their3 homes for as long as possible and4 delaying their transition to higher-care5 facilities such as nursing homes, with6 some intermediary services that will keep7 them in their community; and if we can't8 keep them in their homes, at least keep9 them in their community through other10 services.11
It's12 interesting to me that as a community13 becomes a retirement community, they go14 from upside potential income, overtime,15 whatever it is, to a fixed income, and16 whether or not we are planning for that17 as a municipality, that eventuality.18
Yes, we19 are. We are actually looking at our20 opportunity to partner with different21 neighborhoods in the City to figure out22 what has to happen across agencies in23 order to maintain folks in their homes24 safe, in a quality of life, and also25 147 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 maintain the diversity within2 communities, because it's important to3 have all kind of ages and the4 interactions between those different5 experiences to make it a stronger city.6
I'm7 encouraged by your being a part of and8 look forward to the data and adjusting9 our plans accordingly.10
Thank you.13 Thank you, Madam President.14 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:15 You're welcome.16 The Chair recognizes Councilman17 Green.18
Before that, can I19 just answer the tobacco registration fee20 question?21
We are looking at a24 fee of $50 that could cover our costs of25 148 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 implementation, and we assume that would2 generate about $250,000.3
Thank you,7 Madam Chair.8 I just want to state for the9 record that despite reports in the paper10 this morning, I'm not Mayor Nutter's11 chief rival on Council or critic or12 anything else; I'm just here, doing my13 job, which is to make sure we get14 questions answered for ourselves and for15 the citizens so we know what is happening16 in City Council.17 That being said --18 (Laughter.)19
Does that count24 against his three minutes?25 149 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 (Laughter.)2
So it's my3 understanding that for the budget4 preparation process, the Administration5 asks the departments to prepare, I think6 it was, a modest 3 percent budget7 reduction scenarios, and the proposed8 budget increases funding for some9 departments, maintains level funding for10 most departments, and doesn't reflect the11 reductions in State aid, as we've already12 discussed.13 So, you know, assuming the14 budget reductions are going -- as a15 result of our previous conversation, I'm16 working under the assumption that the17 budget reductions are going to come in18 the departments where the State made the19 cuts and not in the departments that20 we're hearing now. But, you know, as21 we've discussed each year, I, or other22 members of Council, may not necessarily23 agree with that premise.24 And so, we have to face a25 150 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 choice about whether to absorb the cuts2 entirely within those departments or make3 reductions in other departments to4 reserve something we think is important;5 say, the support CBH is giving to6 Veterans Court when they can't get7 federal funding to divert a prisoner,8 which ultimately still saves the City9 money, for example.10 So can you provide us with what11 those cut scenarios were so that we have12 that context as we're looking at the13 ultimate cuts you're going to provide.14 And, you know, it's sort of the final15 budget you give us so that we can see16 what departments suggested for their own17 3 percent cuts.18
Just to clarify19 the process, we asked for 1.5 and 320 percent cuts from the departments as well21 as the justifications for additional22 spending.23 And as you mentioned, you know,24 we had very -- we did do cuts in a few25 151 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 different departments. Prisons was the2 biggest, but there were multiple3 departments that we did cut smaller4 amounts from, and then we did the very5 modest increases that we've spoken about.6 So after cutting the way we've7 cut over the last two years, it's very8 difficult to find places to cut at this9 point.10
I appreciate11 that. At the end of last year's budget12 process, Council recommended and the City13 took $17 million of cuts it did not14 propose rather than increasing taxes at15 12.1 percent for real estate, as was16 requested by the Administration versus17 the 9.9 percent that it voted for.18 So I understand that's your19 position, but ultimately, we may not20 agree on whether or not a department can21 absorb more cuts or not.22
And so, the24 question -- really rather than getting25 152 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 into the specifics of any department at2 this point, we can deal with that when we3 get to departments -- is I'd like the4 Chair to be provided with a copy of those5 budget scenarios.6
Mm-hmm. Okay.7 What the departments -- the 1.5 and 38 percent cuts?9
You will get16 us their response to your request for 1.517 and 3 percent?18
Yeah. I mean,19 it's pages and pages for each department.20 There's also a summary. So I think it21 would be best -- we'll get you something22 that is complete and --23
I don't want24 you to have to do more work. I mean, in25 153 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 other words, go -- I mean just feel --2 what I would like is for you to provide3 the Chair with what you have.4
And we'll6 decide sort of which of it is relevant or7 not.8
I think what the9 Budget Director is saying is that some of10 the material we got, if we just sent it11 to you raw, it wouldn't have much12 meaning.13
So we want to put15 it in context. We're not looking to hide16 anything from you; we just want to make17 sure it's understandable.18
No, I19 understand. I also am sensitive to the20 fact that, you know, each year at budget21 time, each question we ask you creates22 work for people that can otherwise be23 doing something else. And so --24
It just might25 154 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 end up creating more work for us if we2 sent it raw data-wise to you and then it3 wasn't understandable.4
Okay. And9 what's the realistic time frame for10 getting that, do you think?11
It shouldn't12 take too long to get it over to you. I13 mean, I would say, you know, a few days.14
So15 definitely by the 28th, by next Monday,16 do you think?17
Okay. With20 respect to health-care costs, the current21 Five-Year Plan projects level funding of22 health medical and costs at $370 million23 a year. The new Five-Year Plan shows24 about $15 million in savings in the25 155 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 current fiscal year, a reduction of 3702 -- from 370 to 356, and a further savings3 of 10 million in FY '12. But the plan4 shows increases in health-care costs of5 10 to 16 million in each of the final6 four years of the plan.7 What is the underlying cause of8 the reduction next year? And what is the9 underlying cause of the projected growth10 in the out-years?11
The growth in the12 out-years is growth in costs for FOP.13 They went to self-insurance. We're14 assuming there's some increase in15 health-care costs that's then reflected16 in their cost. And that's kind of the17 biggest part of it. And we assume some18 increase in the City-administered plan.19 Those are the two components of20 the increase going forward.21
And the decrease22 that you're seeing is actually the result23 of the DHS move out of the General Fund.24 So we can get you, if you want, something25 156 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 that --2
Benefits7 associated with employees in DHS out of8 the General Fund.9
If it's10 reimbursable, then we moved it to the11 Grants Fund.12
And one other point14 on the health-care costs: A portion of15 the 11.8 million in savings that we show16 (indiscernible) instead of workforce17 savings would be in benefits.18
Even though23 DHS has been in the General Fund,24 portions of the benefits, including25 157 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 health care, have been reimbursable in2 the past.3
So we're not5 taking reimbursable dollars and changing6 them into health care.7
Okay. So14 can you divide up for me the increase in15 the out-years between FOP and, I guess it16 would be, employees not covered by union17 plans?18
You'll get24 it for me, okay.25 158 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 With respect to -- there's a2 line item in the -- well, just sticking3 on health care for a second, that assumes4 no increase in health-care costs for our5 other represented employees over five6 years.7
It assumes some8 portion of the savings at 11.8 million9 would be health care. So it actually10 assumes probably a reduction.11