COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:30 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN MARIA D. QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO, JR. BILL 100488 - An ordinance authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 within the General Fund from the Clerk of Quarter Sessions to the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania. BILL 100541 - An ordinance authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 within the Grants Revenue Fund from the Director of Finance... - - - 2
Good morning. This is the Committee on Appropriations. We have established a quorum. To my left, Councilman Rizzo, Councilwoman Maria Quinones-Sanchez, Councilman Wilson Goode and Councilman Frank DiCicco. Would Mr. Creelman please read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 100488, an ordinance authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 within the General Fund from the Clerk of Quarter Sessions to the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania; and Bill No. 100541, an ordinance 18 authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 within the Grants Revenue Fund from the Director of Finance -- Provision for Other Grants -- Federal Stimulus Funding to certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions. (Witness approached witness 3 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 table.)
Thank you. Let the record reflect that Councilman O'Neill and Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller have joined the Committee.
-- Councilman Clarke, members of the Committee. My name is Rob Dubow. I'm Director of Finance and I'm here to testify on Bill 14 No. 100488. The bill transfers $4.5 million within the General Fund from the Clerk of Quarter Sessions to the First Judicial District. The purpose of this ordinance is to transfer the appropriations of the Clerk to the First Judicial District. As you know, the functions of the Clerk and the personnel are being transferred over to First Judicial District, and that necessitates the transfer of the corresponding funding. 4 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 I request that you report this bill out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and I further request that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next session. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. There are representatives of the court and Deputy Mayor Everett Gillison here to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you. I guess the first question is, it's my understanding that there have been some concerns about the employees and their status. I'm hearing through the, quote/unquote, grapevine that there has been some resolution to that, and I don't know if it should be reflected on the record.
Thank you. 5 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 (Witness approached witness table.) JUDGE DEMBE: Good morning, Councilmembers.
Good morning, Your Honor. JUDGE DEMBE: To answer that question first, yesterday afternoon after finally squeezing an answer out of the labor lawyers by threatening to be real slow pace on their bill, they gave us the necessary information so that we were able to put together a memorandum of understanding with Mr. Davis and the other union representatives, and after a number of mechanical difficulties, we actually got it all printed out and signed. And I have an electronic signed copy, but I don't yet have hard copy, but that issue is taken care of.
Anyone else want to reference that particular issue? (No response.)
Okay. 6 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 Thank you, Your Honor.
I apologize if this was already addressed, but there was one other issue, and if it's not appropriate at this time to answer, but one of the issues that I understand is that District Council 33's representation of the employees is not -- if these folks retire -- it's the position. Will those positions be preserved for the future if in fact one of this group retires and a new person comes in? JUDGE DEMBE: I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. Let me address what I think you're asking. For the employees who left and wanted to stay with civil service jobs, they've gone on about their business. Ninety-three of the 104 or 114 people decided to come with us. We left those 7 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 who were in the DROP on the Clerk payroll, did not make them officially part of the FJD, because they had a great deal of concern that they might -- that moving from the City to the FJD might trigger a break in service and they would have to retire, and some of them wanted to get more time in the DROP. So they are there. That's why you've been hearing about an October 1st date, because when we were all discussing this at the beginning of the summer, the thought was that we would be able to get this done by October 1st so that they can then move over and work out their time with the FJD. Functionally they're working under us, but technically they're still in the Clerk's Office.
Not to belabor this, but, again, the positions in First Judicial that are going to be -- the employees that are going to be still represented by District Council 33 -- is that correct, there's going to be some 8 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 folks there? JUDGE DEMBE: Yes. Yes.
One of them retired, not a DROP person, just normal attrition. Will the representation of District Council 33 eventually go away when everybody that moved over retires or will positions be preserved? JUDGE DEMBE: No, I don't think so. My understanding -- and, again, I'm not a labor lawyer -- is that when you move a group of employees from one employer to another employer, City to FJD, if they are doing exactly the same work and they have essentially the same supervisors and all that kind of stuff, their union representation comes with them as a package. So things will just go on.
They retire. You hire -- JUDGE DEMBE: We are already hiring new people.
But I 9 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 believe the union believes that that's their position, that you'd hire a person that would be then represented by District Council 33, a new hire.
It sounds like to me, Councilman, you're saying that the arrangement that has been made; i.e., the memorandum of understanding, reflects the existing employees. Any future employees, will they be subject to that same memorandum as it relates to the tenure -- their status in the union under 33? JUDGE DEMBE: Frankly, it was my understanding that they would remain under the union, yes. So they will --
The position, not the person. JUDGE DEMBE: Yes. That's correct.
Is that reflected in writing anywhere? 10 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 JUDGE DEMBE: In the memorandum of understanding.
That's in the memorandum? Okay. If you could forward a copy of the final version, because I know there were several iterations, of that to the Chair. JUDGE DEMBE: I will do that.
Thank you. JUDGE DEMBE: I'm sorry I didn't understand your question.
No. I'm sorry. I had a tough time explaining it. JUDGE DEMBE: I only had one cup of coffee today.
Any other questions of this witness? Councilwoman Sanchez.
In your written testimony, you talk about needing an additional 11 clerks. How were those folks going to be hired and will this allocation or appropriation give you the 11 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 funding to do so? JUDGE DEMBE: Those -- we have already begun the hiring process, first to replace those folks who decided not to come with us, and we got to the clerks 7 as follows -- 8
Can you 9 explain the process, how are those folks 10 going to be hired? 11 JUDGE DEMBE: I can tell you, yes. What we did was, we posted the jobs. We developed the job criteria, and I will tell you, this is a wonderful time to be hiring. We were getting people with the most amazing qualifications and we were really able to pick cream of the crop, college graduates, people with computer experience, people with -- I mean, really high-level people. So we've got a group of people and we're going to start training -- have we started already? Yes, we've already started training them, but we were really able to 12 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 get terrific people.
So you've hired the positions? 5 JUDGE DEMBE: No. This was 6 just backfilling. 7
So how 8 many were hired and how many of those 9 were Philadelphia folks? 10 JUDGE DEMBE: All Philadelphia. 11 All Philadelphia folks. We need 11 more, however, and that's something I'll need to talk to you about in a minute when his testimony is finished.
So this allocation, this appropriation gives you enough money to backfill the 11? JUDGE DEMBE: No. 20
It doesn't? That's what I wanted to clarify. JUDGE DEMBE: And I'll explain why in a bit.
Thank 13 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 you.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other questions? (No response.)
Thank you, Your Honor. You said you wanted to -- you had some other? JUDGE DEMBE: I do. The City, I think, has recommended to you that you allocate four and a half million dollars, actually 4,549,000 and change. The City is also proposing to put $182,000 of that in reserve and make it not available to us. As to that money, it is our position that it is illegal for them to do that. We are not a City department nor a City agency, and they cannot hold up court funds. But we can fight that battle later on, if we need to. But the original appropriation -- the FY11 original appropriation for the clerks was about 4.9 million, and at that point, Council 14 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 had no real data about how that money was being used. What we have done in the month since we have taken over is, we have a very detailed organizational chart, and you're getting a summary of it here. We are moving to something in the criminal courts called Zone Court. So that on each floor of the Criminal Justice Center, all the cases from a given detective division will be heard there. So we're going to have -- and we're going to be bringing in -- and that will include the Municipal Court proceedings. So we will be bringing those in as well. So there's really only going to be a Municipal Court operation in one place at this point so we really have an absolute head count of how many clerks we need. And, as you know, the District Attorney and Supreme Court Justice McCaffery have been very strongly backing this. We will have in operation 46 Common Pleas courtrooms, 18 MC 15 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 courtrooms, a District courtroom. We need a couple people at the prisons to handle the paperwork there. Family Court was a disaster when we got there. We desperately need two more people there. In total, we need the additional 8 clerks, and that amounts to $366,000, 9 which Council had pulled out of the 10 budget back in June when it didn't have 11 any information to work with. Councilman Rizzo, when we were here last week, you had some questions about what efficiencies would be -- what efficiencies would result from this transfer -- I'm sorry. Councilman Goode. I told you, I only had that one cup of coffee. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It happens all the time. JUDGE DEMBE: Well, he would have if he were there. I apologize. The salary of the Prothonotary, who is acting as the Clerk of Court, and the Deputy are coming out of the FJD 16 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 budget, not out of the Clerk's budget. The budget office, data processing, procurement, human resources and a host of other functions are being eaten by the First Judicial District's budget. For instance, in order to have these clerks up and operating in these rooms, we've had to replace out of the FJD budget about $100,000 worth of computers, printers, recabling, that kind of thing. So there are efficiencies from the City's point of view there, but I still need those 11 clerks. Now, when you see the flowchart and how many rooms there are, probably it's going to occur to you fairly quickly, well, not all those courtrooms are operating every single day, judges get sick, take vacations and whatnot. We've reviewed the data, and on any given day, you have about a ten percent absentee issue, because you have people who are sick, people on vacation, people on various leave. And the other thing is 17 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 that because training is so crucial to doing this, we're figuring a five percent training, meaning about four clerks a day in some kind of intensive training so that the -- in order to keep the remaining courtrooms functioning, I really do need those clerks. 9
Judge, you talked about the efficiencies, but efficiencies are not always cost savings. You can streamline operation. It doesn't necessarily save cost, particularly if it's streamlined, but you're increasing costs elsewhere. So you did not attach a dollar figure to that in terms of cost 18 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 savings. Are there actually cost savings, and what is that dollar amount? JUDGE DEMBE: I will have to get back to you about that. What I can tell you, of course, is that what you have seen is that we've already distributed eight and a half million dollars to the City, which in just the five or six months we've been doing this is a 27 percent increase overall of last year, and we've got money coming into you at the rate of about $1.1 million a month.
I actually didn't pose those questions to you last week. I posed them to another witness. JUDGE DEMBE: I know.
And as I posed them to another witness, I did not pull you to the table to ask you the question. But the question I posed the other witness was, between the budgets of the FJD and the Clerk of Quarter Sessions, do you anticipate that in the 19 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 next budget year there will be less than the current budget year? And that's what we're really getting down to, and everything you've said does not answer that question as of yet. If next year the FJD budget, including the new operation, is more than this year's FJD budget and Clerk of Quarter Sessions, then we have not achieved any cost savings. And so that is the actual question. JUDGE DEMBE: Okay.
Which I'm assuming you don't have an answer right now. JUDGE DEMBE: Yeah. I'll give you my gut answer. We have not begun to prepare next year's budget. I'm going to anticipate that --
You won't be asking for less money. JUDGE DEMBE: We won't be asking for less money for a couple of --
I understand 20 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 why, but you won't be asking for less money. JUDGE DEMBE: Yes. We will be producing more revenue.
I understand. JUDGE DEMBE: But we will probably not be asking for less money. That may change at some point. There is a -- we're moving to an electronic document management system in the Clerk and eventually to electronic filing, and when that shakes down, there may be a position or two, but that's going to be a while.
And I understand that efficiencies eventually can lead to cost savings. I also understand that they won't automatically lead to cost savings and won't necessarily lead to cost savings right away, and that those efficiencies and cost savings were not identified in the reports done by the Committee of Seventy 21 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 or by PICA, and so the reports that they actually created led us to nothing in terms of efficiencies and cost savings, and that's the point I was making last week. Thank you. JUDGE DEMBE: Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions of this witness? (No response.)
There being none, thank you so much. JUDGE DEMBE: Thank you.
Mr. Dubow, do you have any more testimony on this particular bill?
Any other questions of Mr. Dubow on this particular bill? (No response.) 22 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541
Good morning, Councilman Clarke and members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Maari Porter and I'm the Recovery Officer for the City of Philadelphia. I appear before you today to offer testimony on Bill No. 100541, which makes FY2011 Grants Revenue Fund appropriation transfers between and among classes and departments. There are four transfers requested in Bill No. 100541, totalling $4,703,282. The transfers are required for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-funded grants awarded and made available to the City of Philadelphia. The Managing Director, Division of Technology, seeks appropriation for $4,491,372 for ARRA Broadband II grants. The Managing Director also seeks appropriations of 120,000, which includes 23 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 70,000 for the Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management to develop a Citywide Energy Assurance Plan, and 50,000 for the Labor Standards Unit to monitor contracts funded by ARRA for weatherization that are subject to Davis Bacon and Related Acts to ensure compliance with prevailing wage requirements. The Department of Health seeks appropriations for $91,910 for the ARRA IT Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity grant. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Committee today and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Additionally, representatives from all departments involved with these transfers are available as well. Thank you.
Thank you. A couple of questions, and I think some other members have some questions about this. 24 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 In the testimony, you talk about reaching over 14,000 of the most vulnerable citizens. Where does that number come from?
If I could ask Andrew Buss from the Department of Technology to help you answer that question.
I'm Andrew Buss. I'm the Director of Public Programs at the Division of Technology. To answer your question, I think the 14,000 number was what we extrapolated from all of the current sites' current service levels. So when we wrote the proposal, the grant proposal, we had to put in an estimated number of people served, and that's where 25 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 that number comes from. That would be across like 77 sites.
Hold on a second. I'm sorry. The noise level is much too high, as Council President says. You said under the sites that have been selected -- and I think that's going to be one of the questions to follow this particular question -- are you capped at serving 14,000 people?
Because there may be 14,000 people in my district alone that are vulnerable.
No. I think we're capable of serving a lot more than that. That was just what we felt was maybe a realistic number to put into the proposal so we didn't look like we were overreaching.
I just want to make sure that we're not doing something that's not going to give us an 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 opportunity to reach as many people as possible.
I guess I'll ask the next question and I'll turn it over to my colleagues. I know they have questions. This notion about these selections of these sites, have you talked to any of the District Councilpeople about these selections?
No, because we had such a quick turnaround from when the notice of funding opportunity came out. We had a 45-day turnaround, so it was really a very intense process of identifying sites.
That was probably not a good answer. You're telling me you had 45 days?
Did he say 27 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 45 hours or days?
I think we did work with the Recovery Office as we were identifying sites. So what we did to identify sites was send out like a survey form to well over 100 community organizations, and based on their response, we were really looking for sites that could support a PCC, a public computer center, lab, and that's how we went about picking sites. The other factor that went into this was, we were identifying sites that were in low access or low connectivity, meaning Internet connectivity, areas of Philadelphia, as that was one of the criteria for the grant proposal. So most of the sites, as you might imagine, are concentrated in North Philadelphia, part of South Philadelphia and then West Philadelphia.
Okay. I'm going back to my original question. It 28 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 seems like you've done a lot in those 45 days to do outreach to people who probably give you good information with respect to the demographics, the need in various areas, but I'm a little kind of taken aback that the District Councilperson in that 45-day period couldn't have gotten a call to solicit some of their advice and input as it relates to the possible location and some possible enhancements, and I say that as a District Councilperson in North Philadelphia as you reference. We had had earlier conversations with Ms. Reardon from the Philadelphia Library and the Director at the Cecil B. Moore site about having a computer center in that location for quite some time and actually started in earnest after unfortunately it was a burglary and folks broke in, and we talked about the need to make this a facility that was giving every opportunity imaginable for people to get assistance with employment, 29 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 education, all the other things, and, frankly speaking, I would have liked to have had that as a part of the conversation, given the fact that we had people, the librarian, the Director of the center, Ms. Reardon, who is the Executive Director of the libraries, as a part of that discussion. So I guess I'm a little -- trying to understand why in that time period you couldn't reach out to District Councilpeople and we hear about this in an Appropriations hearing.
Well, and I think probably what we were doing is trying to rely on the sites and the partners themselves to do some interfacing with Council. So that's probably my oversight based on --
Well, it was all of our responsibility. One possibility, though, for 30 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 including more facilities would be that we do have four mobile options, sort of four mobile labs, whose routes are not set yet. So that's kind of a good way to think about getting some more sites involved in this.
Right. We understand the issue, and I think there's still some flexibility in where the sites are and the people from DOT, and we will kind of work with you and walk through where they are and talk to you about the sites and make sure that they make sense to you.
The fact that you're coming here, you're asking for a transfer ordinance to support a very worthy effort, which I think we all support, but, I mean, how can we not know about this? This is like quite amazing to me. You had a 45-day window and a simple phone call saying, Oh, we're thinking about doing some facilities in your district to provide support. I mean, like we do know a little bit about our Council districts, contrary to some people's belief.
No, I understand. We will follow up with you, with each District Councilmember.
Yeah. I guess I was going to ask the same question. Is there a list of community partners and sites that you've identified?
Is there a reason it wasn't included as part of the testimony?
Did we make commitments to people already that we can't go back if there is, as Councilman Clarke mentioned, there were other things that were in the pipeline that could be leveraged?
No. And, again, I think the opportunity would be the mobile labs for that. That's kind of the way to work in additional sites. I mean, I think the feds approved our proposal generally based on the sites that we identified because they were in low connectivity areas.
So you submitted something in writing to the 33 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 feds with sites?
I guess, I mean -- and I know Councilman Clarke kind of alluded to that, but I guess the question is, what's going to be the process now? If we allow this to come out of Committee, what are you guys proposing to be the process to ensure District Council input?
We will set up meetings with each District Councilmember and walk through the sites, talk to them about whether those sites make sense to them, and we'll do that -- we'll start setting those meetings up today.
I'd just like to know how soon are we going to get a copy of the list of sites?
I can give it to you 34 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 today.
So you're going to give it to the Chair after this hearing?
I can't say I'm shocked by the lack of contact with Councilmembers, but it is really deplorable when somebody across the street in 45 days can't even make a phone call. And I don't want to hear about partners. Whoever is driving the truck is responsible for driving it correctly. And I'm going to make, Mr. Vice Chair, I'm going to make a request not to suspend the rules today, because I think we need at least two weeks to get those meetings together, realistically. I understand that there's one site in my district and none in the Chair's district. There are more people, particularly poor elderly and isolated 35 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 elderly, that if you had even just picked up the phone and called librarians, they would have told you about the need for this kind of contact, and also the immigrant community that has language problems that often enter into this. So I think we've got some work to do in redoing this, at the same time not killing it. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions? Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. When will these facilities be ready or when are you anticipating them to be ready?
We would like to start having labs in place by the end of the year, of this year, this calendar year. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Calendar year. All right. Thank you. 36 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541
Thank you, Councilman. Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses on this particular bill? (No response.)
There being none, we will leave the public hearing and now go into the public meeting. Councilman Goode, can I please ask for a motion on Bill No. 100488.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 100488 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. 37 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 Those in favor? (Aye.)
The ayes have it. Bill No. 100488 is reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. Councilwoman Sanchez, please give me a motion on Bill No. 100541.
I move that Bill 100541 be moved out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
The ayes 38 9/30/10 - APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 100488 & 541 have it. Bill No. 100541 will be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. This concludes the Committee on Appropriations. Thank you all very much. (Committee on Appropriations concluded at 10:00 a.m.) - - - 39 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on September 30, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. -------------------- MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)