COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thurs.,6/17/99, a.m. - - - 6 BILL 980834 - Authorizing transfers and 7 appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999 within the Grants Revenue Fund. . . 8 BILL 990445 - Authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999 within the 9 General Fund. . . BILL 990446 - Authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 from the General Fund. . . BILL 990447 - Authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 within the HealthChoices Behavioral Health Revenue Fund. . . BILL 990448 - Authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 within the HealthChoices Behavioral Health Revenue Fund. . . BILL 990449 - Authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 within the Grants Revenue Fund. . . BILL 990450 - Authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000. . . (Full text of all bills within transcript.) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA CLARK COUNCILMAN DARRYL CLARKE COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS I N D E X Bill 990445 Dean Kaplan, Budget Director . . . . . . . . . Albert Toczydlowski, DA's Office . . . . . . . 6 Deputy of Administration George Mosee, DA's Office. . . . . . . . . . . 13 7 Deputy of Narcotics 8 Bill 990446 9 Dean Kaplan, Budget Director . . . . . . . . . 16 10 Bill 990447, 990448 11 Dean Kaplan, Budget Director . . . . . . . . . 22 12 Bill 990449 13 Dean Kaplan, Budget Director . . . . . . . . . 25 Noel Eisenstat, Executive Director, RDA. . . . 32 Bill 990450 Dean Kaplan, Budget Director . . . . . . . . . 38 3 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Appropriations is now in session. I'm Councilman Nutter, Vice Chair of the committee. Councilwoman Krajewski will not be able to attend this morning's meeting, as she is attending to very serious business in her district. In attendance this morning is Council President Verna; Councilman Rizzo, who has been appointed to the committee this morning by Council President Verna; Councilman Clarke, and Councilman Mariano. Will the clerk of the committee please read the titles of the bills.
Bill No. 980834, an ordinance authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999 within the Grants Revenue Fund from the Director of Finance Provision for Other Grants to the District Attorney. Bill No. 990445, an ordinance 22 authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999 within the General Fund from the Department of Recreation, the Department of Recreation Stadium Complex, the Department of 4 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS Public Property Utilities, the Department of Licenses and Inspections, the Director of Finance, and the Personnel Director to the Mayor's Office of Information Services, the Managing Director Office of Fleet Management, the Police Department, the Department of Recreation, the Department of Recreation Stadium Complex, the Department of Recreation Fairmount Park Commission, the Department of Licenses and Inspections, the Procurement Department, the Personnel Director, and the City Commissioners. Bill No. 990446, an ordinance 14 authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 from the General Fund - Director of Finance Contribution to the School District/Tax Cuts and the City Representative and the Director of Commerce Economic Stimulus, and from the Grants Revenue Fund - the Director of Finance Provision for Other Grants to the General Fund, the Director of Finance and the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania. Bill No. 990447, an ordinance 24 authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 within the HealthChoices 5 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS Behavioral Health Revenue Fund from the Director of Public Health to the Department of Public Health. Bill No. 990448, an ordinance 6 authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 within the HealthChoices Behavioral Health Revenue Fund from the Director of Public Health to the Department of Public Health. Bill No. 990449, an ordinance 12 authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 within the Grants Revenue Fund from the Director of Finance - Provision for Other Grants to the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. And Bill No. 990450, an ordinance 18 authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 within the Grants Revenue Fund from the Director of Finance - Provision for Other Grants to the City Representative and the Director of Commerce.
Are there representatives from the Administration who wish to be heard on these bills? 6 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990445 (Dean Kaplan comes forward.)
Yes, thank you. Good morning, Councilman Nutter and members of the Appropriations Committee. I'm Dean Kaplan, the City's Budget Director, and I appear before you today to offer testimony on each of the bills recited by the clerk, which make transfers between and among classes and departments in various funds of the City for FY 1999 and FY 2000. I'll address them each in turn. The transfers in Bill No. 990445 are needed to realign FY appropriations in the General Fund. There are nine transfers that involve the change in total appropriations for a particular department or cost center. The largest is an increase of $835,000 to the Mayor's Office of Information Services to cover the cost of making the City's information technology systems Year 2000-compliant. Specifically, these funds will be used to cover the cost of upgrading the City's e-mail system, fixing noncompliant systems in the Sheriff's Office and Personnel Department, testing system in Police and Records, including the preliminary arraignment system, and providing 7 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990445 project management support above and beyond what that staff could provide this year. There are $650,000 requests for the Procurement Department to cover costs related to increased advertising expenses, mostly election-related. There's $600,000 for the Police Department for the rental of vehicles for narcotics surveillance and accelerated installation of mobile data terminals and police vehicles, which has resulted in increased air time costs for the Police Department once those MDTs were in operation. Additional increases beyond that include $500,000 for Fleet Management for replenishment of their parts inventory. $300,000 for the City Commissioners for increases in the general and primary election-related expenses. $200,000 for the Recreation Department to cover an increase in the cost of the contract for cleaning the Vet. And $172,000 for Fairmount Park for the cleanup from several storms last year, which has 8 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990445 caused them to have a shortfall in Class 200, as well as the cost for the maintenance of the City-owned Johnson art collection at the Art Museum. We are proposing to support these increases with a transfer of $2.5 million from the Director of Finance appropriation, which has become available because the payments on the band width sale, which we discussed a couple weeks ago at the 800-megahertz hearing, will not be made until FY 2000. When we put together the budget in FY '99, the timing of those payments had not been finalized, and we assumed they would be made his year. They will not be made until next year, and as a result, we have an additional appropriation authority available there. And then there's an additional $720,000, which is available because of the warm winter, which has produced savings in electric, gas and steam costs for the City. There are three other transfers in this bill which are between -- within department and don't include increased appropriations in all. They include $55,000 also for the Recreation Department; this is for their -- in their 9 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990445 non-stadium budget to fund increased transportation costs for the after-school program. $50,000 for L&I for transportation for inspectors and their IT support services. And $25,000 within the Personnel Department for computer purchases. That concludes my testimony on Bill No. 9 990445. I respectfully request your favorable consideration on this bill and suspension of the rules to permit consideration of this ordinance on the first-reading calendar at your next meeting.
Okay. Mr. Kaplan, just a couple questions that I have, but first, Councilwoman Clark is also in attendance, for the record. I'm sorry. Your testimony was just on Bill No. 990445?
I'm sorry, my question is on a different bills. Any questions on 99045. 10 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990445 (No questions.)
Bill No. 980834 makes FY 'appropriation transfers between departments within the Grants Revenue Fund. It includes just one transfer for the District Attorney's Office from the Director of Finance Provision for Other Grants. During the months of March, April, May and June last year, additional funds forfeited in the police seizures was deposited in Grants Revenue. The DA's Office does not have sufficient authority to transfer proceeds of these seizures, which they use to support their narcotics investigations, so they have requested, and the Administration supports, an increase of a half million dollars in Class 100 power for them so that they may use these forfeited funds to support police overtime, their own investigations, and prosecution of narcotics investigations. Again, in addition to supporting the bill, the Administration requests a suspension of the rules.
I understand. 11 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990445 On that particular matter, Mr. Kaplan, I read in the testimony that there was this, I guess, excessive amount of -- I won't say "excessive" amount of money, but a significant amount of money became available in March, April, May, and June of last year. Can you explain again what the problem is that's presented by having -- what is it, $754,000 at the tail-end of fiscal year?
Yes. In FY '98, there were not sufficient appropriations to cover the forfeiture money that was seized during the year. Over the last five years or so -- I don't have the exact numbers with me -- but forfeiture seizures have declined fairly steadily; and as a result, over time, we've slowly decreased the appropriation for this. Normally, obviously, we leave them a little bit of room, but we don't want to over-appropriate for any purpose. What happened was that this additional almost three quarters of a million dollars was well beyond what they had the ability to spend in '98. And, of course, by that time, in '99, we had already passed the -- the Council had already 12 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990445 passed the budget. It was enacted, and that was the number which couldn't be accommodated in '99, either. We --
I'm sorry to interrupt you. You said that the seizures, drug seizures had gone down?
The amount which was eligible for this sort of seizure, and perhaps it's best if I ask -- I think the question you're asking is probably one best answered by the DA, so I might ask Al Toczydlowski, who's here from the DA's Office, and George Mosley to come up. But that number will fluctuate, depending on the level of police and DA activity. And perhaps they can explain better why the changes occur in that number. I might mention, while they're sitting down, that as a result of this, we did request that Council introduce a transfer ordinance, which was done in November; and for a variety of reasons, it has not been scheduled for a hearing till now. So that's the other reason for the fairly substantial lag time in getting to this issue. 13 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990445 Messrs. Toczydlowski and Mosee come forward.)
My name is George Mosee. I'm the Deputy for Narcotics in the Philadelphia DA's Office.
Albert Toczydlowski, Deputy for Administration in the DA's Office. And that's T-O-C-Z-Y-D-L-O-W-S-K-I.
Hold on for a second, please. Mr. Mosee, you were sitting in the back. Did you hear the question?
Basically, it boils down to three factors. There was a significant increase in the number of seizures by the Police Department. There was a lull in the speed at which the seizures were ultimately forfeited, and the monies were then received from the Police Department which maintained custody of the money 14 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990445 until the time that forfeiture orders were obtained. It just turned out that everything arrived at the same time -- toward the end of the fiscal year.
I understand but does that answer the question raised by Mr. Kaplan's testimony? Mr. Kaplan said that the drug forfeitures had gone down.
That is correct. They had gone down, and there was a significant increase in the number of seizures by the Police Department during Fiscal '98.
Okay. Do you know what the -- it's my understanding that there is a sharing of these proceeds between the DA's Office and the Police Department.
Now, is the total amount to be shared the $1,335,159 figure? Is that the total amount they could share between the two agencies?
Actually, there's an initial disbursal of expenses up front. The Police Department gets $200,000 up front. The 15 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990445 District Attorney's forfeiture expenses are covered up front, and they amount to about $725,000. After that, everything is shared 50/50 -- at least that's the way it was in prior fiscal years. And in Fiscal 2000, the money --
So you're talking about a million dollars right off the top in terms of expenses --
That's correct. And the rest is shared 50/50. In this fiscal 2000, in Fiscal 2000, the money will be shared 60/40 after the initial expenses are split.
All right. Are there any other questions on this particular bill? (No further questions at this time.)
Thank you. 16 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990446 Mr. Kaplan?
Thank you. The next bill in numerical order here is Bill No. 990446, which would realign the FY 2000 appropriations in the General Fund for the First Judicial District. It provides for a transfer of $53,763,000 to the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania and $2.86 million to the Director of Finance, for a total of $55.867 million. This funding is transferred from the General Fund Appropriations from the Director of Finance, the City representative, and Provision for Other Grants. This ordinance is necessary because, as all members of Council are well aware, the FY 2000 budget as adopted did not provide funding for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, consistent with the Supreme Court's directive of July 26, 1996 requiring that the General Assembly enact a constitutional funding scheme for the courts. As you know, the Administration has taken the position for the last several years that the State should adopt full funding for the FJDP and other court-related agencies, and we have 17 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990446 regularly tried to work with the State to provide that funding. This particular legislation would provide funding for the first six months of this fiscal year. This particular year is a little bit different from the last several times we've gotten through this exercise. Most of you are aware that the First Judicial District has, as it did last year, brought suit against the City to provide funding. The City is awaiting a hearing schedule on that matter. However, both this body and the State legislature will be out of session before that hearing is resolved, so we wanted to have the ability to be in a position to fund the courts so that the justice system can operate on July 1st. The second thing that's slightly different this year is that the Governor has proposed for both of the last two years -- we believe, at least in part, as a result of this strategy -- that the State begin funding the courts, and has included funding for the senior cord administrators across the State in his budget submission. Last year, the General Assembly enacted a provision which required -- that 18 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990446 mandated that that money could not be spent until a comprehensive funding plan for the courts is put in place and for those -- essentially that those appropriations were authorized, and that never happened. This year, there is legislation to achieve that. It has been passed by the State Senate as S.B. 3. It is in the House, and it's the Administration's understanding that this is one of several pieces of legislation which is under active consideration by the House as it finishes its session today and tomorrow. Obviously, we're encouraged by this action and believe that this shows some good-faith effort on the part of State and the State legislature to help resolve this. So, therefore, we are again supporting this transfer, and requesting a suspension of the rules and first reading.
Mr. Kaplan, let me ask this question. On the front page of the bill 23 the "from" section, Section 2.46, Director of Finance Contribution to School District/Tax Cuts. And you have in the contributions, indemnities, 19 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990446 and taxes line, $23,140,447 coming out of that. What is that particular budget category? And what is the impact on the School District of this?
As you know, several years ago, the Mayor stated that were the State to adopt funding of the courts, he was inclined to propose to this Council that we would use the savings generated to assist the School District to pay for additional economic development and to pay for further tax cuts. During his budget address this year, the Mayor proposed that, in fact, school funding would be primary area he thought we should direct any saving to. Because we know that this has been a somewhat contentious issue and one where, again, we do not wish to be in the position of having to close the courts, we have regularly budgeted the money that we would have put in the FJDP line in the line called "Contribution to the School District and Tax Cuts," and then another amount of money in a line called "Commerce Director Economic Development." Those lines make it available for us should the State step up to the plate on this; 20 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990446 and if not, we can use it, as we are proposing today, to transfer to the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania. To answer your specific question --
Well, do I understand that for that total line in the FY 2000 budget, 2.46, you've set aside $40,560,000?
In essence, that's where part of the court funding money is.
Is all $40 million in that line the new hiding location for the First Judicial District?
I would not call it a new or a hiding location. We've used both these lines for three years or so.
Well, they're old, 21 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990446 and it's an open hiding location.
Yeah, and I think we've been quite clear about what we are doing here.
Yes. And I think that the final piece of your question is that, obviously, we believe it would be a tremendous advantage to the School District if either the State met what we believe to be their funding obligations to the School District or if we were allowed to use money that we otherwise would spend on the courts in that purpose. However, this line is not a line which was presumed in our budget to be available for the School District unless the court situation was resolved.
Okay. Are there any other questions? (No further questions at this time.)
The next two pieces of 22 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990447, 48 legislation are Bill No.'s 990447 and 990448. Let me discuss both of those together. Both of these bills request the approval of expenditures of reinvestment monies from the HealthChoices Behavioral Health Revenue Fund, more commonly known as "Community Behavioral Health," or "CBH." The first bill, 990447, requests approval of a little over $6 million for the homeless services provided in response to the enactment by Council last year of the sidewalk behavior ordinance. The services would include supportive independent living arrangements for formerly homeless people, shelter support staff, the addition of new residential facilities, including entry-level safe haven and recovery housing, a shelter assessment treatment team, and enhanced outreach in case-management services. These are essentially the pieces of the program that we had discussed at some length with Council in a transfer earlier this year, and these monies were assumed in the FY 2000 budget and the FY 2000 and 2004 five-year plan as the first piece of the long-term funding for the sidewalk 23 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990447, 48 ordinance response. This money would fund the first months of the next five years in the 4 plan, and then the plan assumes General Fund 5 monies for the last three and a half years of the 6 plan. 7 As you've no doubt noticed in the Daily 8 News last week and in the Inquirer this week, 9 there have been very laudatory editorials about 10 the success of the sidewalk ordinance to date. 11 While we are very pleased to see that that success 12 has been recognized, there is clearly a lot of 13 work to be done in this area, and the continued 14 funding for the outreach teams for the housing and 15 for some of the intensive shelter services is 16 critical if we are going to continue the progress 17 that was noted in the newspaper. 18 As you know, the process for approving the expenditure of these reinvestment monies requires both Council approval by this transfer ordinance and State approval. The Health Department has received approval for Bill No. 23 990447 -- that's funding for the sidewalk ordinance. However, at this point, we do not expect immediate approval from the State for 24 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990447, 48 990448. Therefore, we are requesting that you approve and suspend the rules for 990 447 with that for now, and that you hold 990448 pending further discussions between the Health Department and the State on the expenditure of the proposals in that particular ordinance.
I have a question, Mr. Kaplan, on the supported independent living arrangements and the new residential facilities. Do you have a breakdown on just what they are and where they may be? Can that be made available?
I don't have that with me. We could make that available, yes. I'd be happy to do that.
Okay, any other questions? (No further questions at this time.)
Please continue, 25 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 99044p Mr. Kaplan.
The next transfer in numerical order is Bill No. 990449. It's a request for a transfer of $3.2 million to the Office of Housing and Community Development from the Director of Finance Provision for Other Grants. This transfer will allow the Office of Housing and Community Development, primarily through the Redevelopment Authority, to fund additional acquisition of blighted tax-delinquent properties for rehabilitation. This is a matter which has been under some discussion between the Administration and Council and the housing agencies for a few years. What it would do is allow what we call the "recycling" of funds which normally would be used -- come in from blighted properties when we condemn them and go into the General Fund to instead be used by the RDA and OHCD to purchase additional blighted properties. We believe that the amount of this bill 23 will allow for the purchase, condemnation, and remarketing by RDA of approximately 1100 properties, the vast majority of which these 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 99044p properties are valued under $10,000 and many of which have tax delinquencies which far outstrip the actual value of the properties. Again, in this case, we request Council suspension of the rules and passage of this bill 7 today so that it could be considered at Council's next meeting.
On this particular issue, Mr. Kaplan, is it my understanding that this proposal came out of some combination of a series of public hearings held in the Commerce and Economic Development Committee as well as subsequent effort that I know that former City Joe Duretsky (ph.) was involved in? I've had some discussions with my chief of staff and a number of other people participating in that effort. Is this the result of those discussions about how we used these dollars that end up as, I guess, in your words, end up going to court when we're trying to acquire properties but we have to put up -- is it collateral or some kind of escrow in case the owner suddenly resurfaces?
Yes. As the submitted testimony that Executive Director of the RDA 27 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 99044p points out, these monies are normally paid into court, and the City can normally draw against that amount to satisfy liens on those properties. And essentially what we're proposing is that we would, rather than take that money when we do satisfy those liens and just deposit them in the General Fund. We would now reappropriate it and make it available to do more of the same. So hopefully, that would dramatically increase the number of properties that the RDA can handle. And as pointed out, this is something which has been a close collaborative effort between Council, community groups, the housing agencies, and others in the Administration. This is clearly a joint and collaborative effort.
So, again, are you saying that rather than those dollars leaving that fund and ending up in the City's General Fund, they would go back to the housing agencies?
Yes. What we would do is, normally, as in any case when there's a lien on a property, quite often the City has the primary claim on those dollars. So particularly in these cases, these properties where the value is far 28 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 99044p less than the amount of City liens, the City would get their or or or $5,000, whatever that amount was; and as with all liens, would deposit it in the General Fund for general City activities, and that would be the end of that. What we're proposing is from an accounting point of view, we can't just release those liens; we have to deposit them to show it, but we're suggesting that we would appropriate the amount of those liens back to OHCD, and OHCD would make them available to the RDA to do further acquisitions.
So what, every year or maybe in the midyear transfer ordinance, you would try to figure out or you would make some determination as to what that amount was? And then just through the appropriation process, since you just said, you can't take the money directly, you would give it back to the agency?
Yes. What I believe would happen is, we think about 2.25 million of this amount is for properties which are currently eligible for this, which are kind of in the inventory now. About a million of this amount 29 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 99044p would be for new properties in FY 2000. In future years, I believe -- obviously, this administration will not be making the proposal -- but I would recommend to the subsequent administration that they just include this in the budget as a grant line for OHCD we. And we think about a million dollars is probably the right number, but that could be adjusted, as you're suggesting, by transfer.
Lastly, do you anticipate that this will have any impact on the speed which, you know, at times, is a misnomer in the acquisition disposition process as a word. But, you know, do you anticipate that this will shorten the process of acquisition and disposition at all?
Yes, we do. I think it would be a little bit premature to say how much but we anticipate that this should increase the speed of acquisition.
Any other questions? Mr. Kaplan, this is the first time we're doing this? This is a new proposal? 30 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 99044p
A new idea? Okay. Thank you for collective creativity. Did you estimate what this dollar amount -- do I recall you saying that this should cover about 1100 properties?
Mr. Kaplan, how do you plan on reducing blight using this technique?
Well, because this is a new proposal, at this point, there is no funding in the five-year plan for this technique, and that's one of the reasons we're asking for this today. And, as I mentioned, this would allow about 1100 properties to go forward, of which about two-thirds, more or less, of that money would go towards those we already have available. I don't know if the money ties exactly to the number of properties, but let's say, for argument's sake, it's probably relatively close. And then at this point, based on discussions 31 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 99044p between RDA, OHCD, and Finance, we believe that about a million dollars year would be needed to do the properties they believe are eligible. As Councilman Nutter suggested, if we were to find that this is a particularly successful method and that there may, in fact, be more properties that we can use this for, I don't think there would be any objection on the part of any of the people involved on this side to increasing that amount to meet additional need if it's out there. I think this is kind of our best estimate at the time of what we would need going forward. So my assumption is, to answer your question the short way, in the future, we would be proposing to have about $5 million in the five-year plan, or about a million a year.
One of the things that has caused a great deal of criticism is the number of rehabilitable houses that are standing and getting worse and the number of people who need affordable housing. It seems to me that this is a real tangible step to bring in the need and the resource together. And if it works, then we 32 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 99044p need to have a plan for reducing the blight and increasing the number of rehabbed houses. And I guess that's where my question is headed. Maybe it's best directed at the Redevelopment Authority but I would like to see us put some kind of structure on such a plan.
Yeah. I think that is a question that is best addressed by Mr. Eisenstat from the Redevelopment Authority, so I will defer to him. (Noel Eisenstat comes forward.)
My name is Noel Eisenstat. I'm the Executive Director of the City's Redevelopment Authority. The action as presented to you today only deals with the existing pipeline of activities that are already ongoing as it relates to the cycling activity. There is a second element of this that Councilman Nutter knows a little bit about because of the activities of former solicitor Joe Duretsky, which is that part 33 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 99044p of the revenue generate from this will also allow the Authority to open a program within the -- by the end of this calendar year now that would allow the acquisition of an additional thousand properties. The decisions surrounding that were in fact to start the program in a process in this coming year where we would first deal with vacant lots. We weren't going to tackle structures at first from an issue of speed and demand. And the feeling of the Acquisition Task Force Subcommittee that many individuals participated on, the objective is to start a program this year that would increase the acquisition of new vacant lots as a result of this program by, as I said, a thousand parcels.
And when taken together, we have dilapidated housing and the acquisition of vacant lots does go a long way toward removing blight, which is the greatest problem that older neighborhoods are facing. And I guess I'm trying to see whether this is a one-time shot in the dark or whether it's a plan.
Well, I think it's a 34 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 99044p plan, and I think that those who have been working through that process -- notice I didn't use the word "speed" in that description -- believe that we can't expect to take a program that started at 40 or 50 per parcels a year and now appropriate a thousand. We want to double that. It would be very nice if I could come before you today and say that we have figured out a way to take a system that's now to do 10 or 15 parcels a year -- that's just not going to be the case. There's an --
Well, I'm not interested in your telling me pretty stories; I just want to know where you're headed and how likely we are to get there in any date certain.
We'd like to open a system in the next few months that will open these thousand parcels that have been dubbed a "gateway center," and this really is a program that will be directed to property owners in neighborhoods who have attempting to acquire vacant lots for years. The Vacant Property Review Committee, which many of you all know about, really addresses the needs of individuals with vacant lots that the City had 35 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 99044p acquired in previous years for sheriff's sale, and that there is no, for lack of a better term retail program where John Q. Public can show up and say, "I want the lot next to me and it's in private ownership." And we think that we want to press this acquisition system as much as we can. But in terms of that, we think trying to do an additional thousand units is appropriate. We think anything more than that would overload the system and the current staff loads.
Good morning, Mr. Eisenstat. Mr. Eisenstat, recently, Council passed a vacant lot nuisance abatement bill. Does this particular program that you're speaking of today somehow enhance our ability to do that? Or is this separate and aside from that, or will any funding, as a result of this, help staff that 36 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 99044p particular --
I don't believe that this program will help staff that program. I can assure you that there is no -- that that's not what the intention of this activity is today. However, I would tell you two things. One is anecdotal and the second is specific to this. In fact, the new program you speak of will clearly be able to be piggybacked here in terms of the fact that we may identify lot owners, we may acquire the property, and utilize the powers that were permitted in this new piece of legislation that we're now beginning to implement. What I would also note -- maybe you know or do not know it, but a number of Council colleagues have come to us, including most recently, Councilman DiCicco yesterday, and we're beginning to work with them on amending the 1202 ordinance to allow additional Council awards in areas to be included in the program.
Okay. My concern is that the intention of the bill was to expedite the process of allowing homeowners or community organizations access to these privately-owned 37 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 99044p vacant lots. And I'm somewhat concerned that we may basically be duplicating ourselves.
No, not at all. The bill you're mentioning allows a property owner or a community group or an adjacent owner the rights of possession before title is vested.
This process gets you the title. So think of this as -- that bill that you speak of, which I know you were very instrumental in crafting if not drafting, that's the beginning of the train, and this is the end of the train. This allows the system --
So once we get license agreement with the homeowner, then ultimately, this bill will actually help us get the title.
Right. This bill does funding. The result of some of that funding will allow that to happen.
So it is, in fact, potentially the enhancement of our particular --
Well, I think it's more than potentially; it very much should be. 38 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990450
Any other questions? (No further questions at this time.)
Thank you. The last bill 9 we are proposing today is Bill No. 990450, which requests the transfer of $2.66 million to the Commerce Department from the Director of Finance's Provision for other City Grants. Those of you with relatively lengthy memories for the arcane details of the budget will recall that we had actually appropriated this money originally in FY '98 to the Municipal Energy Office and the Managing Director's Office. And this is a project which would allow the development of a compressed natural gas station and bus fleet at the Airport, basically allowing the expenditure of federal grant dollars. As the project has developed, it has become clear that it will be more easily administered by the Aviation Division of the Commerce Department, and all we are requesting 39 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990450 today is, essentially, a reappropriation of that money to Commerce rather than MDO, because both the Municipal Energy Office and the Aviation Division have determined that it will be easier to comply with a grant affording requirements and other requirements of the grant by having it located in Aviation. So this is not new money or a new program, but merely a kind of relocation of the grant dollars. Again, we recommend its approval and request for reading -- a suspension of the rules for first reading today.
Mr. Kaplan, a couple of last questions. In the budget line item 8.20, to the Director of Finance Provision for Other Grants, Advances and Other Miscellaneous Payment, what is that line item?
There is generally, as you notice today, there are a number of grant proposals where we have asked for provision for 40 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990450 transfer of grant money actually from that line to other grants in the government. As you know, the Charter will not allow the City to increase appropriations beyond the amount that's appropriated in the budget except under extraordinary circumstances, great emergencies. The only time I know that we have done it in the last two administrations has been for the blizzard. So in order to deal with that fact and also the fact that we frequently receive grants during the year that are in excess of what we had planned that are different or new, we would otherwise be constrained to not do anything with those grants and sometimes miss grants, State or federal money, especially because we didn't have appropriations elsewhere in the budget available. So that line is calculated each year largely on the basis of our historical experience of what grants might come particularly DHS and health grants that we might need additional appropriation authority for. When that occurs, we come back to Council and ask to transfer money from that line elsewhere. The Finance Department 41 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990450 actually hold very, very few grants, so they tend not to be expended from Finance at all, but normally, we come back here and ask for your approval.
Okay. And item 10.5, to the Director of Finance Community Development Block Grant to be Allocated advanced another miscellaneous payment, $20 million.
I believe that's a similar line for CDBG appropriations again because those tend to fluctuate from year to year.
Okay. Lastly, Mr. Kaplan, you had written back to me -- these were are on budget items and specifically with regard to Fairmount Park three issues, and I have not received -- you indicated that you wanted Fairmount Park to respond to you in anticipation of today's transfer ordinance hearing or Appropriations Committee hearing on three issues -- Papa Playground, the Japanese House, and Kelly Pool. Have you received a response from the Fairmount Park Commission on those issues?.
Yes, I have just received 42 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990450 a response from them, and my understanding of the -- and there are also now several other things that have occurred.
Okay. Their report, which I will forward to you on Papa Playground is that they have reached some accommodation with the community groups and others at the playground. On other two issues, my understanding is that the hiring of the appropriate recreation specialty instructors has been approved for a couple weeks, and they are proceeding to hire those people.
Okay. Do not respond to this question, but if you could forward to the Chair -- if you could give us a list of the line items or departments that for FY '98 and for FY '99, at the end of those fiscal years, had the largest surpluses, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Kaplan? 43 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Bill 990450
Is Mr. Kaplan requesting the suspension on all of the bills?
Yes, I am requesting a suspension of the rules on all of the bills before you today.
All right. Let the record reflect -- and I don't think I took care of this earlier -- that Councilman Ortiz is present. If there are no other questions for Mr. Kaplan, we will now move into a public meeting for the purpose of reporting out bills. - - -
The Chair recognizes Council President Verna for a motion on Bill No. 990445.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 990445 be reported out of Council with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the rules of Council be 44 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Pub. Meeting suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor say aye? All opposed? The ayes have it regarding Bill No. 9 990445. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Clark on Bill No. 980834.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990446 be reported out of --
I move that Bill 21 No. 990834 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first consideration at the next stated meeting of Council. 45 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Pub. Meeting (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded. All in favor shall say aye? Any opposed, say nay? The ayes have it, and Bill No. 980834 will be moved out of committee. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 990446. And that's Councilman Clarke, with an E.
I am requesting that Bill No. 990446 be reported out of Council with a favorable ruling and a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor of the motion, say aye? Any opposed, say nay? The ayes have it, and Bill No. 990446 is reported out of committee. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a motion on Bill No. 990447.
I recommend that Bill No. 990447 come out of this committee with a 46 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Pub. Meeting favorable recommendation and a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, say aye? Any opposed, say nay? The ayes have it, and Bill No. 990447 had been reported out of committee. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano for a motion on Bill 990449.
I make a motion that Bill No. 990449 be voted out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and I ask for a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, say aye? Any opposed, say nay? The ayes have it, and Bill No. 990449 is reported out of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz for a motion on Bill 990450.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 990450 be moved out of committee 47 6/17/99 APPROPRIATIONS - Pub. Meeting with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading in the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded. All in favor, say aye? Any opposed, say nay? The ayes have it, and Bill No. 990450 is reported out of committee. And, again, Bill No. 990448 has been held at the request of the Administration. There being no further business, the Appropriations Committee is now in recess. (Adjourned at 9:48 a.m.) - - - 48 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, June 17, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS BILL NO.'S 980943, 990445, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter