It assumes a12 reduction from -- as a result of what?13 As a result of 33, 47, and FOP ultimately14 going to self-insurance?15
Right. I'm18 sorry, firefighters, right. Ultimately19 going to self-insurance?20
Or some plan24 that costs less.25 159 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
So don't5 their plans currently cost less than our6 plan?7
Okay. As14 noted in the Inquirer, housing sales15 continued to fall, with sales of existing16 homes dropping 4.2 percent from January17 to February, and 5.8 percent lower than a18 year ago.19 The article quoted Joel Naroff,20 of Naroff Economic Advisors, saying:21 "The housing market has not, and it22 really looks like it will not, be a major23 factor in the economy's ultimate return24 to growth."25 160 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 I know you discussed it a2 little bit earlier, but we're taking3 growth in real-estate transfer-tax4 receipts up from above the original 35 percent growth to now 5 percent in '136 and '14, and I'm just wondering --7 obviously, that's a combination of number8 of transactions, which means credit9 markets are going to improve, and housing10 prices.11
I just13 wondered if you could, in the context of14 today's article, describe that a bit15 more.16
Sure, sure.17 Going back and talking about this year,18 Fiscal '11, the first half of the year,19 we saw very strong growth, so we had20 about 6 percent growth in the real-estate21 transfer tax, and now we are seeing22 declines year over year in the real-23 estate transfer tax.24 So built into the 0.5 percent25 161 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 projection for Fiscal '11 is declines --2 year-over-year declines in this fiscal3 year, if that makes sense, okay?4 We do expect to have the modest5 recovery in housing transactions, so6 there is an assumption that there is7 pent-up demand, that people have not been8 able to sell their homes and move for9 whatever reason and then that have to10 move at some point.11 We have that in Fiscal '13 and12 '14, and it's the strongest, the 513 percent. That is, again, below what our14 revenue consultant and also what the15 Federal Reserve Bank thought was16 reasonable; we took that down actually17 considerably.18
Another22 article in today's Inquirer talked about23 the fact that over the five years, the24 City portion of the real-estate tax25 162 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 itself would maintain continuity despite2 the fact that Council passed a law that3 said property taxes would decrease after4 two years by 9.9 percent, the same amount5 it was increased by.6
I'm not sure8 I understood the explanation that was in9 the paper for that, so I thought I'd ask10 you to explain how we're going to get the11 same revenue after we lower the tax rate12 by 9.9 percent.13 And let's just assume we don't14 go to AVI or full value, in answering15 this question.16
A couple answers.18 What we're assuming is that19 there's been growth in values actually20 going back to the last time we really did21 an assessment, which was, you know,22 almost a decade ago, so that we missed --23 I know that the market's come down, but24 we really missed the run-up in the market25 163 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 too. So we're projecting that kind of2 the net impact of the years we've missed3 is a substantial increase in values.4 Obviously, it's a projection;5 we'll see where we wind up. If the6 projection is wrong, we'll have to make7 other adjustments next year to the8 budget, either other revenue increases or9 expenditure reductions.10
And what is11 the increase -- how would you put a12 percentage on the increase that you're13 going to see overall in City property14 values as a result of the new assessments15 or assessments starting again?16
You know, it's a23 very kind of hard number to get at24 because what are you comparing it to?25 164 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 But our assumption is that you're2 probably, you know, on average seeing3 increases over the last decade of, you4 know, maybe to percent.5 So it's not rapid growth on an6 annual basis. But, again, there are ups7 and downs that get you to a net.8
So we9 actually increased the City portion of10 the tax not by 9.9 percent but by, you11 know, around 20 percent.12
I do want to15 clarify one thing you said before. You16 said that at some point, the17 Administration proposed a 12 percent18 increase; we never proposed that. Just I19 wanted to make that clear.20
No, we21 received a letter the morning the budget22 was passed from the Administration23 requesting either a 12.1 percent property24 tax increase or a sugar-sweetened25 165 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 beverage tax of I can't remember --2
I think what we3 said is, without enough revenue, we'd4 have to make additional cuts.5
And there had been8 legislation introduced by a Councilmember9 that was --10
There was a14 request from the Administration for15 12.1 percent or a sugar-sweetened16 beverage tax of a certain amount that17 would raise the same amount of money in18 the alternative.19
Right. It was a20 proposal that came from a Councilmember,21 and we were saying --22
-- that that25 166 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 revenue works or --2
I mean, the3 letter says what the letter says; we4 don't have to debate.5
I just want to make6 clear that it didn't come from us7 originally.8
I wasn't9 suggesting you proposed it; I'm just10 suggesting you --11 (Indiscernible; parties talking12 over each other.)13
Well, you said we14 proposed it. That was a suggestion that15 --16 (Indiscernible; parties talking17 over each other.)18
You proposed19 a 12.1 percent instead of the 9.920 percent, which was the Council bill.21 That's all.22
No. There was a23 Council bill for 12 percent. We24 didn't -- that wasn't our bill.25 167 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
The letter5 says what the letter says; I'll be happy6 to provide you with a copy of it.7
Which I did10 not vote for, since we are trying to get11 things on the record.12
Okay. So14 basically what you're assuming by keeping15 that steady for five years and really16 through -- between now and 2013, because17 of the lack of assessments, property18 values -- we will collect -- basically,19 there will be a 20 percent increase in20 property values.21
A 20 percent24 increase, so --25 168 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
But that4 we're going to capture that 20 percent in5 the next two years.6
That we will7 capture it by having accurate8 assessments, that these are values that9 weren't captured for about a decade.10 So that's not a two-year11 increase; it's really a multi-year12 increase. And we didn't do -- we didn't13 even -- under the old system, we didn't14 even do a real full assessment since, you15 know, the middle of the last decade.16
So just for17 the record, what the Administration is18 saying is that in the next two years, we19 will capture -- without going to AVI as a20 result of new assessors and new21 assessments, we will capture, having22 revalued all of the properties, 2023 percent more in essentially collections24 --25 169 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
What we're saying9 is that when we go to AVI, we will10 capture growth that's been building up11 for almost a decade.12
We don't13 have to go to AVI to capture that growth,14 right? I mean --15 (Indiscernible; parties talking16 over each other.)17
We can go to18 full value -- we can -- when we reassess19 the entire city, whether we're at full20 value or not, we have reassessed the21 entire city, and it has a new value.22 And in theory, if we don't23 change millage, that will result in some24 percentage increase to the City's25 170 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 treasury.2
I understand what3 you're saying now. You're saying just4 going to actual value.5
Yes. We're saying7 if you go to actual value and you get8 good assessments, that we will actually9 capture the last decade of changes in10 values, and that will result in a 2011 percent increase.12
So that15 would also mean when the School District16 submits its budget, it will project, or17 be able to project, a 20 percent increase18 in real-property tax receipts in the next19 two years.20
Which is25 171 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 dramatic for the School District.2
That would be a3 very big benefit to the School District,4 yes.5
And it's6 your testimony that they'll be able to7 budget for that.8
That's what11 you're projecting. Okay, you have12 cleared that up. Thank you.13
So for the15 Police Department, in FY '11, for the16 first time in the department's history,17 operational units received allocated18 budget spending plan so that commanders19 could monitor and better control their20 resources.21 This begs the request of how22 the departmental budget was managed23 previously, but it's good news24 nonetheless, and I want to commend the25 172 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 Commissioner and his team for really2 three great years of work.3 Can you provide Council with4 copies of the spending plans prior to the5 Police Department budget hearing?6
The plan11 indicates in FY '11, for the first time12 in the department's history, operational13 units received allocated budget spending14 plans so that commanders could monitor15 and better control their resources.16 Could you please provide us17 with a copy --18
-- of the20 unit plans prior to the Police Department21 testimony?22
Okay. Is24 this an approach that is being pursued25 173 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 within other departments?2
Not yet,8 okay.9 On of the plan, it10 notes that last year, the Department of11 Behavioral Health implemented Pay for12 Performance for its Health Choices13 Network providers based on 2009's service14 results.15 They implemented a series of 4016 system performance metrics that included17 both clinical and financial performance18 goals for system-level metrics that are19 reviewed quarterly. The performance20 metrics are appropriately linked to the21 Pay for Performance goals.22 Dr. Evans and his team really23 do continue to impress. I think this is24 a very impressive effort, but I'll get25 174 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 into more specific questioning about the2 Pay for Performance approach and the3 performance metrics during DBH's4 departmental budget hearing.5 My point for this morning is,6 we have an example right here in city7 government of how we should be doing8 budgeting system-wide; and that is9 budgeting for performance, budgeting for10 outcomes, rather than focusing on inputs,11 linking spending to achieving specific12 performance goals, and using data to13 track progress, and striving for14 continual improvement, both quantitative15 and qualitative.16 I have several bills before17 City Council that would require this for18 every department. They're "shorthand," I19 will call them, program-based budgeting20 bills requiring the Administration to do21 cost-benefit analysis for capital budgets22 and a bunch of other things.23 Is there any reason why we24 can't, over the next few years, try to25 175 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 roll this out citywide? And will you2 work with me on these bills to find a way3 to put in a time frame that is realistic4 for us to be able to achieve this kind of5 effort for all City departments?6
Well, I -- we're7 happy to work towards the goals that we8 share of getting to budgets that are9 based on outcomes.10 I still think -- I guess where11 our philosophical difference is, is we12 don't think it needs to be legislated.13 We'd like to work towards doing it, but14 we don't think it needs to be in15 legislation.16
It's been in17 legislation in most places where they've18 done it. When it was required in19 Washington State, they were able to20 achieve it within six months.21 So is your objection to the22 legislation not the legislation or the23 goal, even if we were to allow you to24 change it by regulation, but the fact25 176 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 that you want this to be an2 administrative initiative rather than a3 joint Council administrative initiative?4 Or I'm not -- I'm confused5 'cause it sounds like we agree on the6 goal, but you're opposed to the7 legislation.8
We do agree on the9 goal; we just think that, you know, we10 can work with you on it. There's no11 reason to have to go the legislative12 route. It's something that we both want13 to do.14
Well, except15 defining what outcomes are, defining what16 we would expect to see in terms of17 outcomes, define how we're going to18 measure and track data and performance19 and have reporting to Council during the20 interim, you know, during the year on a21 quarterly or other basis really is22 important because it is -- it's we who23 get the budget.24 I mean I think agreeing with25 177 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 City Council and the Administration on2 what budgeting for outcomes and3 performance-tracking in the City looks4 like is something we should be doing5 together, not that we should be sitting6 back and not, you know, saying by7 legislation what outcomes we want to see,8 how we want to measure it, et cetera.9
I don't know11 how we -- I don't know how we achieve12 that without legislation that can always13 be changed.14
We achieve it15 without legislation by working together16 on it. You know, I'm happy to --17
I mean, I've18 been pushing this for three years, and I19 don't know how we're working together on20 it other than you're opposed to the21 legislation.22
We're happy -- I23 know we've had meetings with you. We're24 happy to continue that. I mean --25 178 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
We sit down, we4 talk it through; I mean, the way people5 always work together.6
So do we7 form a separate working group, sort of8 like we're doing on the BPT stuff?9
Allow the15 President to appoint people and the16 Administration and have staff work on17 sort of putting together criteria and...18
I think that25 179 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 would be tremendous. Thank you for that.2 So on , the plan notes3 that one of the L&I's four main areas of4 focus for FY '12 is becoming results-5 driven, and that the department will look6 for measures that better tell a story of7 compliance and effective code management.8 This seems like a good goal,9 assuming the focus is on outcomes, not10 just on telling a story.11 I'd like to see the department12 link this results-focused approach to its13 budget if not for FY '12, then certainly14 for FY '13. Do you think that's15 possible?16
I guess that sounds17 like something we should talk about when18 we start our (indiscernible) group.19
Okay. So a20 lot of my questions have to do with21 outcome-based budgeting, and I don't know22 if you happened to read the op-ed I wrote23 that appeared in the March 6th Inquirer,24 but do you -- did you read that?25 180 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
Okay. So6 when you say we agree on goals, you7 basically agree --8
I read it. I9 didn't memorize it. I'd have to go back10 and look at it again.11
All right.12 In a Law and Government Committee hearing13 on contracted services several weeks ago,14 we learned that there is no requirement15 for departments to perform cost-benefit16 analysis before contracting services.17 Once again, I have several18 bills that would require cost-benefit19 analysis. The day after that hearing, I20 think Councilman Kenney introduced a bill21 that would require cost-benefit analysis.22 Is there any objection to23 pursuing with Council the idea of24 cost-benefit analysis before outside25 181 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 contracting and requiring that as part of2 the annual budget process?3
If I could4 just ask a question. When you say5 "outside contracting," do you mean for6 labor or for any goods or service?7
Well, we're8 talking about any goods or service. We9 should understand whether or not -- why10 we have made the decision that it is11 cheaper to use outside contractors than12 it is to do the service internally. In13 other words, what is the cost-benefit14 analysis.15 Every contract -- it should16 either be -- each contract -- and I think17 there are over -- I think there were18 2,000 professional-service contracts.19 There was testimony during that hearing20 that most of them have not gone through a21 cost-benefit analysis to determine22 whether or not, you know, that's23 something that the City could have done24 differently in-house.25 182 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
I won't speak2 to 2,000, but I would probably hazard a3 guess that many of them have an4 informal -- you know, a manager makes a5 decision about whether or not they can6 get the service or good within the7 constraints it has, or if it can't, and8 considering the time elements and things9 like that, may make a decision.10 I mean, I have a high degree of11 confidence in our managers, that they12 make those decisions hundreds of times a13 day. And to reduce -- I guess my only14 hesitation -- and this is only a15 hesitation -- is that it could16 conceivably slow down the effective17 operation of government that every time18 you need it, you know, you have to do a19 formal analysis as opposed to leaving it20 to the judgment and wisdom of the manager21 to make a decision for which he or she22 should be held accountable.23
How do we24 hold a manager accountable to a specific25 183 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 result or outcome on a contract, an2 outside contract, if they have not told3 us in advance that it has a positive4 cost-benefit analysis?5 In other words, if we don't6 require that, there's nothing against7 which to judge the contract two years,8 three years after the fact.9
I mean, I -- I10 probably disagree with the premise. I11 mean, the contract and the manager and12 person providing the contract would sit13 down and figure out what the objectives14 are, and the contract would be evaluated15 as to whether or not it met the16 objectives that were stated in the17 contract.18
Well, I19 mean, what are the objectives that would20 be stated in a contract with a provider21 of pharmacists to City health centers22 other than, This is how much we'll charge23 you for this person, for these hours, and24 we pay them.25 184 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 When you do that, what we2 should have is a cost-benefit analysis of3 what it would cost us to actually hire4 our own pharmacists, even if that means5 changing the salary grade in the civil6 service system or something else as7 opposed to contracting out.8 We currently don't do that9 analysis, and there's no way for us to10 hold the Health Department accountable11 for those decisions because if they12 haven't done the analysis that says, you13 know what, if we make a pharmacy tech --14 I don't know what the titles are in that15 civil service code. But if we make a16 Pharmacy I $89,000 instead of $69,000, we17 don't have to pay an outside service18 provider $110,000 'cause we can fill that19 spot if we just make our price20 competitive with the market rather than21 going to outside contracts.22 That what's I'm talking about.23 There's no way within contracts to24 determine whether or not it was the right25 185 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 decision, 'cause that's just a contract2 between parties, which is terms between3 parties.4 What I'm trying to get to is5 whether or not we can have on the record6 some measurement in advance of7 contracting that allows us to later8 provide the proper oversight and9 accountability to the department that10 made the decision to let that contract.11
I understand12 your point.13 But, again, I would just argue14 that I think, for many of our managers,15 they make those kind of calculations16 maybe not in a formal way but on a daily17 basis as to how they allocate the18 resources that they're given.19 But in certain situations,20 maybe in larger-scale things, maybe more21 review and analysis can be done before22 significant decisions regarding23 contracting out are, in fact, made.24
Okay.25 186 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 Hopefully, this is something we can talk2 about in the working group.3
In budget5 hearings for the past two years, I've6 asked for detailed information about7 position levels in City government. I've8 also asked about new or unfilled9 positions scheduled to be filled in the10 next fiscal year.11 Specifically, I requested of12 each department a description of any new13 or currently vacant positions in the14 department that are scheduled to be15 filled, the job duties of new or unfilled16 positions, how those duties are being17 handled currently, and what would happen18 if the position was not created or19 filled.20 Just letting you know in21 advance that I'll be reiterating those22 questions at departmental budget23 hearings. If the departments wanted to,24 I'd be happy to -- I mean, we'd be happy25 187 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 to accept them in writing in advance of2 the hearing so that we didn't have to go3 through that, if you want.4 I'm also reiterating my request5 for the last two years of budget hearings6 for departments to provide lists of all7 contracts they plan to enter into for the8 coming fiscal year, descriptions of the9 specific services provided to citizens10 under the contracts, and an explanation11 of how they monitor the contract to12 ensure that citizens receive value from13 it. And so, I'll be making that request14 again also.15 Obviously, if it's provided in16 advance, we can avoid that as questions17 that we then later have to receive18 responses from, and you know. At any19 rate...20 For capital spending on21 technology, really, it can be a part of22 the working group discussions, but is23 there any estimate today of what the24 $125 million proposed capital spend on25 188 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 technology will achieve in productivity2 increases or efficiencies or other3 savings?4 In other words, is there any5 ROI calculated currently for that6 expenditure?7
So before we10 spend that money, will the Administration11 agree not to spend it without having12 completed an ROI?13
In other15 words, not making an expenditure without16 knowing whether or not it's going to have17 a return? I'm not asking that it have a18 positive return, but knowing what the19 expected outcome will be of that20 expenditure.21
Yes. And when you22 put it that way, that's right. And I23 think we had this discussion last year24 too. It's not always a quantifiable25 189 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 return on investment. You know, you're2 improving efficiency; you're not going to3 get savings out of it necessarily. You4 may get, you know, a faster hiring5 process.6
Right.7 Well, which, I will argue, always leads8 to savings.9
But you may12 get a faster Internet access, which leads13 to another savings.14
But,18 Councilman, the only thing I wanted to19 interject -- and I'm not the DOT person,20 but I wanted to reserve the right.21 There may be certain22 expenditures that we may have to make23 just to keep this place running. I mean,24 I don't know -- I know I've been25 190 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 frustrated over the last several days in2 terms of, you know, e-mail and things3 like that. So I don't want to say --4
-- that no6 dollar will be spent before we do some7 detailed ROI analysis. I want to reserve8 the right to say that DOT, in his9 judgment, may have to make some10 expenditure of that money just to keep11 this place operating.12
Well,13 hopefully, those are operating dollars14 and not capital 'cause capital is, you15 know, five years --16
No, I mean,17 there are certain significant capital18 expenditures regarding the infrastructure19 that is the reason that we have so many20 problems now, and they may have to be21 made just to keep us functioning. So I22 just want to reserve the right to do23 that.24
Just to add to25 191 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 that, though, the material amount of that2 120, of course, we would -- you know, in3 developing the plan to spend that money,4 the return on investment or the outcome,5 what's important to the City is going to6 be looked at very closely. So the7 majority of those funds would not be8 spent before, you know, analyzing it.9
The10 Five-Year Plan indicates that the11 Administration is continuing its,12 quote/unquote, anticipated workforce13 savings. Of the 25 million in savings14 budgeted for FY '11, approximately15 13 million will be realized as a result16 of health-care plan reforms, and the plan17 trues up the budgeted health-care costs18 to actual costs. This leaves a balance19 of about 12 million in anticipated20 workforce savings to be realized, a21 number that is continued out each year of22 the Five-Year Plan.23 How do you plan to realize24 those savings over the course of 2012 to25 192 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 2016?2
It's through, you3 know, a number of things that could come4 out of the collective bargaining5 agreements: reduced health-care costs,6 changes in work rules that could reduce7 overtime. So it's any kind of -- any8 labor savings we can get; it's not9 necessarily benefits.10
So without11 contracts, the savings are not12 achievable, is another way of saying what13 you said?14
Well, without15 contracts, we would probably need to find16 the savings in different ways because17 without the contracts, we'll --18 (Indiscernible; parties talking19 over each other.)20
There won't21 be savings in line item as a result of22 not having contracts.23
There won't be24 savings from new contracts. It may be25 193 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 savings from --2
It may be savings6 from elsewhere in the workforce. So it7 may show up in the same place in our8 budget; it may just not be from 33, 47,9 or the firefighters.10
Okay. So11 basically, your testimony is, you're12 committed to achieving those savings; it13 may not necessarily be as a result of14 contract changes.15
Well, if we don't16 get them through contract, we'll have to17 figure out another way to get the budget18 in balance. So yes, we're committed to19 staying in balance.20
And do you21 have a current plan for where those22 savings would come from if there's no23 movement on your collective-bargaining24 agreements?25 194 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
It's $20 million2 worth of cuts, so that's what we would3 have to do.4
I mean, the5 expectation is that we get it from --6 that we get the workforce -- we get the7 savings from contracts.8
Okay. So if9 Council was to eliminate that line item10 or half of that line item, because I11 think half of it is accounted for in the12 health-care savings that you've already13 projected, or is that not correct?14
No, that's already15 been accounted for in that number.16 That's how the number --17
So, really,20 you need the whole 25 million from the21 things you described?22
The premise24 of my question --25 195 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
We had 25 million,2 and 13.2 of that would have been from the3 FOP and non-reps. So we've accounted for4 that already, non-reps and exempts.5
The part that's7 allocable to 33, 47, and the firefighters8 is the 11.8, and that's what's showing.9
Okay. So on10 and 27, the plan indicates the11 Administration is projecting zero percent12 wage increases for the firefighters over13 the life of the plan and, as we know, has14 appealed the raises included in the15 October 2011 interest arbitration award.16 The plan also projects zero17 percent wage increases for the FOP after18 the 3 percent increase for 2012 mandated19 by the 2009 interest arbitration award,20 which provided for a wage reopener for FY21 '13 and '14.22 It seems unlikely that either23 the wage reopener for the FOP or the24 appeal remand for the firefighters will25 196 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 result in zero wage increases for them.2 I guess -- I mean, this seems to be a3 hole in the Five-Year Plan to me that's4 not accounted for in any way, and I'd5 like you to explain that.6
It's not a hole in7 the plan. We still -- we project that8 that's where this will come out.9
So you think10 a zero percent increase in '13 and '1411 and a zero percent increase in12 firefighters for five years are realistic13 assumptions that you're presenting to14 City Council?15
I think we don't16 want to have collective-bargaining17 discussions at an opening hearing.18
Well, I'm19 not asking you to have a collective-20 bargaining discussion. I'm asking you --21
Well, you are.22 You're asking us whether what we've put23 in here is realistic for collective-24 bargaining agreements.25 197 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
No, I'm2 asking -- well, I mean, in 2008, the3 Administration introduced a budget which4 basically included what they thought were5 reasonable raises and benefits and6 changes for the City's workforce in the7 first budget.8 This budget -- I think what9 you're now saying to me is it is now the10 Administration's policy, regardless of11 whether or not they believe wage12 increases are likely, to not put in a13 placeholder for those wage increases so14 that -- is that correct?15
Councilman, if16 I may?17 I think one way to articulate18 it is that it's the Administration's19 policy that whatever contracts or20 agreements or arbitrations or whatever21 happens going forward, as it relates to22 labor, will have to fit within the23 context of the cost limitations that we24 have.25 198 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 So that's not to say that they2 can't -- you know, there may not be a3 raise, but there's going to have to be4 some corresponding reductions someplace5 else. So I think that's what we're6 saying here.7
And I think8 when you're asking me to vote for a9 Five-Year Plan, what I'm saying is, I10 want to understand what you'd cut to pay11 for that, if there are raises. And what12 you're asking me to accept is, Don't13 worry, when the raises come, we'll figure14 out what to cut.15
-- that in the20 context of our resource limitations, we21 will make sure that the plan maintains22 its balance. And that's what an23 administration is supposed to do, that's24 what we did. We came to you and we told25 199 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 you that, and that's our commitment.2
I'm not3 going to pursue this anymore at this4 time.5 I think that's all I have,6 Madam President. Thank you very much.7
Thank8 you.9 The Chair recognizes10 Councilwoman Blackwell.11
Thank12 you, Madam President.13 I'm interested in the issue --14 we've been dealing a lot with educational15 issues, and we have about five16 resolutions open, but one of them, when17 we met with the School District on18 Friday, an old issue that has come up19 that we raised before is the issue of20 probation officers in public schools.21 We raise that issue again here,22 and we raised it at the board, because we23 believe children or youth who are in24 trouble may benefit from having probation25 200 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 officers in schools as opposed to them2 having to leave their site, go someplace3 else, check in, and maybe come back.4 We think that we may lose young5 people if they don't have that service6 there. So I wanted to see where we are,7 whether it's City or State, where we are8 on that issue and what we can do to maybe9 help in that area.10 DEPT.
Good11 afternoon, Councilwoman Blackwell.12 Everett Gillison Deputy Mayor for Public13 Safety.14 We have a couple of different15 things on this particular issue that have16 been going on for the past couple of17 years. One, the School District and the18 Administration and a lot of the criminal19 justice partners have been going through20 a truancy project and a truancy pilot.21 And this issue that you're22 bringing up has come as a way for us to23 either try to figure out in putting24 probation officers at schools or whether25 201 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 there's another way to do it through a2 technology fix or even just cooperation.3 The School District has been4 very forthcoming in dealing with their5 challenges in how they just take6 attendance and how they transmit that7 attendance to the various partners.8 At a recent hearing -- not a9 hearing. At a recent meeting we had, we10 have now, along with Dr. Shorr, we have11 actually been able to get that kind of12 information flowing freely through the13 partnership.14 We have two or three pilot15 areas with schools, and the District16 Commanders are working with the School17 District to identify those that are18 truant and bringing them back to the19 School District and having the School20 District handle them.21 Now we're trying to see whether22 or not, in the upcoming year, we will be23 able to have an automatic process where a24 person who is on probation or parole, if25 202 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 they're not in school, we would get an2 automatic notification. So that our3 probation officers that are county and4 work with the FJD would be to be notified5 an go out and get the young men or the6 young women, because as, you know, if7 they're not in the school, they're just,8 you know, on the wrong path, and we want9 to make sure we emphasize getting them,10 keeping in school, and providing supports11 for them.12 So those are the kinds of13 things that are happening. Whether it is14 a technological fix or whether it is a15 probation officer in every school, we're16 still dialoguing with the School District17 about that.18 But I think that part and19 parcel of our overall plan will include20 aspects of both. Some schools may need21 probation officers made available, some22 may just need a technological23 notification, and we'll be flexible in24 how we handle the issue.25 203 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611
That's2 very good news.3 Well, we certainly look forward4 to working with you in any way we can on5 this issue, and we're glad to see that6 it's moving along.7 Thank you.8 DEPT.
Thank14 you.15 Any other questions from16 members of the committee?17 Councilman Goode.18
Thank you,19 Madam President.20 Mr. Dubow, I was going to let21 this go, but I can't. We won't deal with22 what the letter actually said or didn't23 say, and I'm not sure that that makes a24 difference, but you will admit for the25 204 3.22.11 - COMM. OF THE WHOLE - Res. 1100611 record that the Administration wanted2 more money.3