There are not two bills in Appropriations right 71 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 now. Where within the bill in front of the Appropriations Committee does it say that any money is going toward Police, Fire, Recreation, or toward capital needs or infrastructure?
What we said is that we're asking the committee to transfer the $30 million to the Council budget until we can amend the Capital Program and the Capital Budget. We tried to get both bills listed at the same time. That's why our testimony list the other two bills. The money would be transferred through the amendments to the Capital Program and to the Capital Budget.
So, in fact, in the only bill that's actually before us, we would be transferring $30 million from the fund balance to City Council, which City Council could spend on anything it wants.
City 72 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 Council's not going to -- we have a companion bill. The bill would go --
Well, we have to deal with the -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
It doesn't 73 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 say anything about capital needs, it doesn't say anything about infrastructure.
And it does not limit City Council from spending that $30 million on anything that it wants.
City Council does not have the intention, because we introduced a companion bill 14 to amend the Capital Program and to amend the Capital Budget. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
Well, they're not before us right now, but they will come, and we have some integrity --
-- because the issue here is to support the Fire Department, the Police Department, and 74 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 the Recreation Department.
I am a member of this Council, and I don't trust us to transfer $30 million from the fund balance into City Council.
It's in Class 800, and there's no other way we can spend it.
That's ridiculous. We can spend anything Class 800 expenses allow.
You know, it's just a shame that there were three bills that were introduced, and I had asked that they all be listed at the same time. And it's sad to say Councilwoman Krajewski did, in fact, agree to have the Appropriations bill 21 listed. However, the two finance bells are still outstanding and pending.
And we do -- and Councilwoman Blackwell has agreed to schedule a hearing for those 75 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 bills on January the 27th.
The 31st, okay. Well, I think it's very important for us to look out for and protect the infrastructure of our city-owned facilities. It just goes to the lack of -- I think the Council President has a question.
Yes, thank you. I'm going to continue with my line of questioning and follow what the Councilwoman has indicated is of great importance to each and every one of us. May I ask you, Ms. Reed -- I don't know whether you're with me -- since you are opposed to using capital pay as you go to fund a portion of our capital infrastructure needs, and we 76 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 don't have sufficient debt capacity to fund our needs in what I call "a meaningful manner," how do you propose that the City address the -- that the City address its ongoing capital requirements?
We have, um, some studies by the Capital Program Office, which shows us which properties are the most important to receive work from a life-safety point of view. The administrative pro -- the Administration process of reviewing Capital Budget proposals for the next fiscal year has just concluded its interviewing process with departments. They were given the opportunity this year to ask for about $80 million of funding requests to give the Administration a larger amount of need to consider in terms of determining wat action will be in the $59 million available Capital Budget that we're going to have for the next year. 77 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 We have been using carry- forward funding; we're running out. You know, we hope that the Council will authorize the '06, '07 and '08 loan authorizations because we're rapidly running out of money.
Well, hasn't City planning said we would need a minimum of $185 million?
We have a high level of general need. The projects that are life safety are about 64, so they're about in the range of what is available, and --
Ms. Reed, I would assume that you've had an opportunity to read the City Controller's report issued on, I guess the -- in November of '06 regarding the deplorable conditions of the police facilities that we have throughout the City?
No, I have not specifically read it. I -- 78 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833
Well, I think you should read it, my dear, because it is absolutely horrible. And I would venture to say that the fire stations are equally in deplorable condition, and I don't even want to go to some of the conditions of our recreation centers. So I just don't understand. And then it's my understanding that the -- it is said that the Office of Budget and Program Evaluation and their response to the Controller stated that City Council introduced to them an amendment that would add $10 million in operating revenue to the FY 07 Capital Budget for spending on improvements to existing police facilities. The fate of that legislation is unknown at this point in time. Can you tell me what that means?
(Addressing a colleague.) Could you come up, please? 79 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, City Council. My name is Rick Tustin. I'm the Director of the City's Capital Program Office. I did not write that section of the response, but my interpretation, when I read that response -- 'cause I did read the report several times now, once in draft form and in final form -- was that that language that was used was meant to interpret the outcome of this particular Council hearing.
Well, who made that report? If you didn't make that remark, who did? (Witnesses confer privately among themselves.)
As a result of the fact that we didn't know what the outcome of this bill would be, we thought that this amount might be appropriate, but it's all prospective.
80 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 Ms. Reed, let's continue on, because I know we're going to have an extremely long day. Can you tell me how long you have been aware of these risks and uncertainties that you mentioned in your testimony? If you feel that the City needs to be conserving its resources as a hedge against these risks, why didn't you mention this during the hearings on the arts and cultural borrowing of $150 million? If that proposal were held till these risks were dealt with, we would have had an additional $54 million over the life of the current plan; would you not agree? And can you explain why you withheld these concerns from us during those hearings on the bond issue so that we could have certainly been concerned of these risks in our deliberations as to the merits of the borrowing? 81 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 We think nothing of going out and borrowing $150 million, and yet we're looking -- our infrastructures are in the most deplorable condition that anybody could ever imagine, and we're bickering over $30 million that is possibly available. I find it absolutely ridiculous that we would even have to be having these hearings (Applause.)
I have to agree with you, Councilwoman. I was up to the 15th District just about a month ago, and I don't know how any policemen and -women work under the conditions in the Fire Department or the Police Department. We're not taking care of them. They're there hours a day, yet we're 22 putting $3 million, from what I hear, 23 into the prison that's 110 years old, 24 that's filled with asbestos. It's out of date. And yet we're not taking care 82 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 of our Police, Fire or Recreation Centers.
To answer the Council President's question first, the debt service for the $150 million borrowing was passed in the budget. The hearings about the use of that and, you know --
And to approve the borrowing had to do with the fact that that is an important economic stimulus initiative that will enable us to have a lot of revenue in the future to help pay for general operating costs. You know, because, I think it's pretty clear that the NTI investment helped to raise the values of neighborhoods whose property values were on the market. You know all the boats rose in the last housing boom as a result of that. Abandoned cars taken 83 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 away, the vacant were lots cleaned. And this is similar to that --
Well, I'm going to get back to the other part of this. We keep a list that we revise every day of expenditures that are likely to come in higher than what we had in the plan, and we are not concealing this. In fact, we hope to present, you know, a lot of detail on this to the Council. The Mayor has asked for a briefing the week after next where we can go through here what the plan is likely to be for Fiscal 12 based on the new information that we have. We are trying --
Madam Chair, Madam Chair, we are really running late, and I think we're dealing with a budget hearing at this point in time. 84 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 I have asked a question and I don't think I have gotten a response to it, and that would be the last question that I would ask. I think I asked you why you did not bring up these issues when you came before us to ask for a $150 million borrowing issue?
Well, Ms. Reed, I'm assuming you're here for the Administration.
I don't care who came in to testify. All of the concerns that you are now mentioning today were never indicated to us at the hearing on the borrowing of $150 million. Now, what do we pay over the lifetime of that borrowing --
Well, there's going to be a great deal more, but it's only 6-and-a-half-million in this year's budget 'cause it's -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
You know, we were hoping that we would be able to contain the --
(Inaudible; off mic.) -- our police and fire stations and recreation centers, and then I'll believe you.
Madam 86 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 Chair, I just have one comment to make and then I'm done with this.
Chairwoman Krajewski, can I answer your question about the investment being made at the Holmesburg? As part of the Prison's attempt to try to figure out what to do about the excess population, to try to decrease the amount of time people spend, you know, in initial holding and in triple celling, they were hoping that they might be able to convert some space in Holmesburg on a temporary basis. That turned out to be way more expensive than anybody ever thought it was going be, and that has been taken off the table. That's not going to happen. Now, that was from some 87 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 abatement money that was spent, but that's not going to go forward.
You're telling me that there is no more money going into Holmesburg?
Are you telling me that they're going to be completely out of there as far as workmanship?
I think that there are a few beds being used there but there is not going to be any conversion of additional beds, and I think that it's --
You know, opportunities are opening up for other out-of-county placement, you know, so we're going to try to, you know, make this as good as possible for the inmates.
Are 88 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 the 80 people still there?
We're looking for other placements for them, and, you know, one of the things that should have happening by now is that the census should have gone down. It usually starts going down in October, and it's at it lowest in December. And it's about, you know, a good 300 people above where it usually is, so --
Well, they're also deplorable conditions too since we're on the subject. Councilwoman?
Councilman Rizzo. 89 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm pleased to support a transfer of $30 million to the Council budget for the reason that, for years, I've sat here and talked exactly and get yessed to death from the Department of Public Property, from the Police Department about exactly what the City Controller is talking about. For example, for years, we've been talking -- and, Mr. Tustin, if you could come to the table. (Witness comes forward.)
For years, we've been talking about a program that the Administration has assured me was on track -- and I'll apologize if I'm wrong here. It has to do with the Fire Department, and we all know that the ingesting of diesel fumes is an issue. When the firefighters start cold, there's a lot of particulate inside of 90 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 the fire houses. You, the Administration, assured me that this program was on track, and I'm finding -- and I just can't believe what I've heard -- that it's not been completed. Many of the firehouses do not have the ventilating equipment. You personally assured me that this was going to fast-track, that this was going to happen. What happened?
Rick Tustin, again, Capital Program Office. I'd be pleased to answer that question. Councilman, we were on fast track. We completed the first four phases. There was a total of seven phases to get the work done; we actually completed five of those seven phases up until, I guess, maybe even a year ago, when we were asked to stop doing the work on it because there was an issue that had been brought up by the Firefighters Union concerning the 91 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 contractual obligations between the City and them on the type of system that was being installed. We were told to stop by both the City and the Firefighters Union. We put that project on hold, the last phase of that project. It was bid at the time. The contractor was ready to start working at the time. We had to tell 'em, Don't start work; just hold off until the issue gets resolved between the Firefighters Union and the City Administration. And we are still ready to go to finish that last phase of -- I think there's 15 stations in that last phase. We're ready to go and complete it once we're given the approval to move forward with the project.
Well, I'd like you to send some information to the Chair because that's not how I understand it, and I'm not going to debate that 'cause time is of the 92 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 essence right now. But these are the issues. We talk about the deplorable conditions in the police stations. I went to a police station recently. The tile on the floor was broken. You know why nobody pays attention? Because the majority of the citizens don't have to go to a police station. And for a police officer to have to work under that condition -- there isn't one person in Capital Budget that would tolerate working in that condition for five minutes; they'd be screaming loud. And that's why I'm going to be supportive, because I believe if we have some control over that money, some stuff will happen because we're being conceived deceived here. I've been talking about this issue. The custodial services that the police department, by the way, is 93 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 responsible for -- you pull up to a police station, it looks like a landfill. There's so much dirt and debris in them. And because the majority of the people don't have to go into that facility, it's put on the back burner. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I've read this report several times now, and I don't disagree with it, quite frankly, Councilman. I think you're absolutely right. I think the condition of the police stations are in very bad shape. And if you look at and read the 37-page report from the Controller's Office, approximately 35-and-a-half pages of that report go to janitorial and maintenance -- replacing ceiling tiles, capping wires off that are being 94 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 held -- that are not properly sealed off. They're maintenance-related issues. When we come to you each year and ask for capital funds, we ask for money to do more -- it's more than maintenance, because we can't spend capital money on maintenance. We ask to put new air- conditioning systems in, we ask to put new roofs on, we ask to put new windows and doors on. These are not maintenance. And 35-and-a-half pages of the 37-page report does not focus on capital issues. There are three items in this report that focus on capital issues: The 97th Police District, which we've written a response to. We've done an engineering report as long as ten years ago on the condition of that. We've spent substantial money reinforcing the stairs and other areas within the building that need to be 95 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 reinforced. The building is in a flood area along the creek, and every time we have a heavy rain and a flood, we have flood damage; it's not a good location for a police facility. The City recognizes that, and we're looking for a place to relocate that facility to so that it doesn't continue. The 15th District, which was also in the report. In fact, I'd like to read our comments to the report on that if you would you will allow me. On the 15th District, we visited the facility several times. This had to do with some cracking in the walls on the first floor. We visited the facility several times, and we noted the condition. The building is over 50 years old, and the first floor was built on what's called "a floating slab." It's a construction technique that we used at the time. The floor slab isn't 96 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 connected to the foundation walls, and that's why it's called "a floating slab." Okay. As such, that slab does move, and why it's called "floating." And as such, it will create cracks in non-load bearing walls. It has no 9 effect on the structure. Is it a maintenance issue ongoing? Yeah. We have to go in and we're going to have to fill some cracks in the walls, and we're going to have to adjust doors that will get wrecked or out of position. That's the way the building was built 50 years ago. We make it a point of going in and doing what we have to do to address those issues when they occur. But there's nothing that we can do about the way the building was built. But we have addressed those capital issues, and we have stated that in the report. 97 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 The third issue in the report had to do with emergency generators, and although they said there were nine, there's actually only seven in their matrix, where they're referred to. Out of those seven, I believe five of them are in construction right now to replace those five or to add five to those facilities. The other two will be in our next phase of work. So out of the three capital issues in this report each one of them has been addressed. The issue here is janitorial, the issue is maintenance. And I think moving money from Operating to Capital defeats the purpose because capital money cannot be used for maintenance. It needs to stay with Operating so that some of that could be used to do the cleaning, to do the replacement of the ceiling tiles, which are Operating Budget issues not Capital.
Madam Chair, 98 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 Mr. Tustin, I asked Capital Programs to look at the 92nd District. I even gave you a location to look at. I told you that while the New Gustine Lake was under construction -- and I believe that there were some Recreation Department facilities. I asked the police department and I asked you. As a member of Council, we're supposed to be the conduit to you to give you opportunities, ideas to be able to consider alternatives. The 92nd District could have, if somebody took it seriously, been possibly located or at least office facilities at that site that was just recently constructed, ribbons cut, but if nobody is creative enough to think about that, there's a lot of places the 92nd District could be relocated to. I even gave you the suggestion that if the police moved out of there, a private venue could have probably taken it over to do the reconstruction and 99 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 spend thousands of dollars that are needed there, but nobody did it. The Police Department -- I went as high as the Deputy Commissioner, asking them to explore the opportunity to re locate the 92nd District. Again, if you don't care, nothing happens.
Councilman, it's not that we don't care because the information you've provided was actually passed on and the fact that a committee has been put together to look at all police department facilities citywide and how they can strategically be relocated to better suit their operational needs. And one of the major issues in there is the 92nd District and the areas that could be considered for relocating that. Several areas have already been identified. The full report on the strategic plan for the Police Department has not yet been completed and presented 100 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 to the Mayor, but it has not been ignored.
There was a golden opportunity during that construction project at Gustine Lake to find a space that could accommodate the 92nd District, which is a small, small operation. You missed the opportunity, and now you will spend ten times as much money with a study and looking for a location to build a stand-alone district. My point is that we are very frustrated here because we assume when we get yessed to death here that the Police Department shakes their head, "Oh, yeah, we'll take care of it." You pull up to a fuel pump at a police station -- trash all over the place, soda bottles, debris, paper. I'd be embarrassed to bring a visitor from another police department to one of our police facilities. 101 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833
Just a point of order. Mr. Tustin, when do you expect that report to be complete?
I know a draft of that report has already been written by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. They're a part of the committee. The committee consists of the City Planning Commission, the Police Department, the Department of Public Property, the Capital Program Office. We've all met to put together a plan. The City Planning Commission is taking the lead on drafting the report and has already completed the draft of that. 102 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833
Is it safe to say that we would have that in time for the next budget round? 'Cause I think that would be the most appropriate time. Like the Council President said, I feel like we've been in a budget hearing all day.
I can't sit there and promise that. We're not taking the lead on it, but to me, it would make sense that if a draft is already complete, there should be something available.
Madam Chair, I'd just like to note that we do have one other person to testify, but I also want to submit the Police Commissioner's testimony, which he delivered to me. 103 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 He was here this morning, but whether he was to testify or not, he did submit testimony for this as well as Officer (indiscernible) on this matter, and we have someone here to talk about the Recreation Department.
I would just like to add one thing here. I would like the Administration to forward to the Chair a breakdown of capital funding expenditures by Council District relating to Recreation, Police and Fire facilities over the past five years, not including the capital allocation as it relates to 1.2 million for each Councilperson received in '05.
Broken down by the ten Council Districts. 104 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833
I believe that we have Mike McCrea here, Philadelphia Recreation Advisory, and Rob Dubow from PICA. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Please state your name for the record. MR. McCREA: Good morning. I'm Mike McCrea, and I'm President of the Philadelphia Recreational Advisory Council, and I am very pleased to be given the opportunity to testify in favor of Bill 060883. Contained in that bill plus the other two accompanying bills of City budget surplus is 10 million for Police, 105 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 10 million for Fire, 10 million for Recreation. While the amount for Recreation doesn't match our needs, it will certainly meet some of our crucial requirements. We appreciate the support of City Council. Even though these bills serve as a reminder of why we're in such desperate needs for Capital funding. The Mayor's refusal to accept at least a reasonable compromise has left us without any capital budget for the last two fiscal years. This has caused the Recreation Department to spend some of its under-funded operating budget on items that should be paid for with capital dollars. We all know, or should know, that these operating-budget dollars could be much better spent on vitally-needed programming and services. The need for capital investment was laid out almost a year ago when the recreation facility assessment was 106 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 erased by the Capital Program Office. The report ranked each item in the degree of urgency from replacing them immediately to replacing them within a year to replacing them anywhere from one to five years. 7 million a year ago. 1 million. But remembering the report is already one year old, so the original time line has to be accelerated. Adding additional costs for other inflationary and other materials, the amount increased to more than $18 million, and that is our immediate need by the City's own report. 5 million that we needed next year and another over $10 million a year after that. And A particularly disturbing 107 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 element of this is that list does not even include pools or ice rinks. Last month, these issues came up in a debate on Bill 060692, and the Philadelphia Recreation Advisory Council contacted all members of City Council, voicing our opposition. This bill 9 authorizes the City to borrow $150 million in capital funds strictly for commercial corridors and cultural institutions. Our communities, along with public recreation, once again, were left out of the mix. After two years of no Capital Budget, we were offended that Council could see its way clear to pass this without any thought of the city's existing infrastructure. We would, however, like to thank those who voted against this bill, specifically: Council President Verna, Councilwoman Tasco, and Councilman O'Neill, all of whom are now sponsoring 108 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 this bill. As volunteers, we've watched our children and young people in every neighborhood cut down and caught in the current wave of violence being unreleased on such an unprecedented scale. We continue to support our youngsters in every community across the city. As we have always done, Public Recreation stands on the front lines of these crisis of violence, and all we've ever asked for was the support of this administration. Unfortunately, the Street Administration has made it abundantly clear that it has more important priorities than the children and young adults that we serve and provide for. The Administration has consistently cut the Recreation Department's operating budget, frozen hiring of additional staff that have left some of our facilities unmanned, 109 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 cut programming, attempted to close recreation centers, playgrounds, and swimming pools, and has allowed the deterioration of facilities that have managed to stay open. Any way you look at it, it's a very sad record.
The one bright spot has always been City Council and its effort to put the children and youth of our city on at least the same level (indiscernible) and smoke and mirror and gimmicks handed to our communities by the Street Administration. These bills, though not the entire solution, are a clear step in the direction of shifting our priorities back to where they belong. We urge that these bills not just be passed, but passed with a veto-proof majority. Thank you.
Thank you. MR. McCREA: Thank you. 110 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833
Good morning Councilwoman Krajewski and members of the Committee. My name is Rob Dubow. I'm the Executive Director of PICA, and with me is today Uri Munson PICA's Deputy Executive Director. I'm here testify in support of the bill, which would transfer $30 million to be used for pay-as-you-go capital projects. Last month, PICA released a paper on the city's higher-than- anticipated FY 06 fund balance. After showing the fund balance was about 53 million higher than that included in the '07-to-11 Five-Year Plan, the paper said that so long as the City is able to balance the next plan that it's doing, it should use its larger-than- anticipated fund balance to address the key long-term financial issues facing the City. One of those issues is its 111 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 crumbling core infrastructure. The City Planning Commission has said the City should be investing $185 million annually in its infrastructure. Instead, the City plans to invest no 7 more than 71 million in any capital budget for the next six years. It's clear that the City needs to increase its investment in its infrastructure. It's also clear that the City can't afford to keep adding to its fixed, costs for the Sinking Fund, for unfunded pension liability have both increased dramatically. But the combination of increasing fixed costs and underinvestment of infrastructure means the City must find a way to increase its infrastructure investment without taking on new debt. This bill that's being considered today would be an important step towards doing just that. By making repairs to police, Fire, and Recreation 112 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 facilities, the City will start to make desperately needed improvements and will not be incurring any long-term obligations. There are, however, some caveats to our support of the bill. As we said in our report on the '06 fund balance, the first step the City should take in considering how to respond to having a larger-than-anticipated fund balance is to assure that the next plan will be balanced. The quarterly report that the City submitted to PICA on November 15th shows that the City is forecasting an ending fund balance for this year that is $32 million higher than the amount included in the approved plan. While an increased balance of $32 million would make it appear that the City should be able to afford a one-time expenditure of $30 million, there are a number of substantial risks included in the plan, including 113 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 assumptions that: PGW will repay its $45 million loan; That the State will assume its full financial responsibility for the Convention Center beginning in Fiscal Year 2010; That the City reduces its number of police officers, beginning this fiscal year if the State assumes responsibility for patrolling State highways in Philadelphia; That City employees won't receive salary increases after the expiration of their current collective bargaining agreements; That the City will be successful in its appeal of arbitration awards to the Police and Fire unions; That the prison costs will not grow, or will grow slowly, despite rapid increases in the census; That the net cost to the City Department of Human Services will not 114 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 increase, despite the continued threat of reductions in federal funding; and. That the City will be able to slow the growth it its health insurance cost. Clearly, that's a long list of risks, and the plan already assumes that the General Fund's balance will drop by $130 million over the next three years. If any of the risks mentioned above increase the City's obligations or reduce its revenues, the plan will face even more pressure, and the City's task in balancing the next plan will be even more daunting. But because investing in the City's core infrastructure is so important, all of those risks do not necessarily mean that this ordinance 21 should not be passed.
The risks do mean, however, that the Administration should demonstrate how it can balance a Five-Year Plan that includes this 115 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 $30 million. It is crucial that the City take this opportunity to make this essential investment a priority and that the investment will be included in the FY-08-to-FY plan. 7 That concludes my testimony, 8 and I'd be happy to answer any 9 questions. 10
Thank 11 you. Are there any questions from 12 members of the committee? Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Dubow, it was mentioned before that this bill doesn't say anything about Police, Fire, or Recreation; is that correct?
And you give a long list of risks within the Five-Year Plan, assumptions among them that PGW will pay back the $45 million, which we know will not happen; that 116 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 health insurance costs will not rise, which we know will not happen. We know already that there's no salary increases built into this plan for the municipal unions after their deals are gone, and a whole host of other things. In fact, you mentioned that the fund balance will drop $130 million in the next three years. Do you think it is wise that we pass this bill without the companion bills and literally give City Council $30 million in Class 800 funds; is that sound fiscal policy?
Well, I trust that Council actually would spend their monies in the way the bills indicate that they would be spent. So from my perspective, the fact that just one bill is being heard now and the other two will be heard January 31st don't necessarily cause a problem.
But the 117 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 assumption here is that we would pass this bill out of committee and that the bill will have final consideration next week.
That's correct. The money will be put in Classes 800, meaning that it can only be used for expenditures that will go to other funds; and in this case, capital funds. So there are really restrictions on where the money could go. And, again, I trust that the intention of the bill is --
If something happened to the other two bills, then the money would be stuck; is that correct?
And the money wouldn't be spent and would stay in the fund balance.
Yes. It wouldn't be spent if the other bills didn't pass. 118 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 There wouldn't be a vehicle for --
We're transferring it from the fund balance to Council.
Yes. And not be spent. And at the end of the fiscal year, it would be part of the fund balance. The expenditures, in essence were coming in under projection, and the fund balance would be higher than --
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? 119 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 Councilwoman Tasco.
Okay, thank you. Madam Chair, I'd just like to say that when we discussed the $150 million for the Cultural Fund and when it proposed the debt service for the funding of the Cultural Funds, Capital Program Projects, we were told that everything was fine and that there were no problems. I think the Administration selectively gives us the doom and gloom when they don't want to fund something and the great picture when they don't want to fund something. I just ask the committee -- 'cause most of us were in the room 24 during the testimony of the $150 million and were told that there was plenty of 120 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 money around to take care of our infrastructure. And in Ms. Reed's comments, she talked about the recreation centers. So there's some inconsistency in the testimony, and I would hope that this committee would vote this bill out because it is an appropriation bill. And in order for us to have the discussion on the other two bills, we have to have the appropriation power, and that's why we asked you to list this bill today, so that we could have discussion. It would have been very good if we could have both bills at the same time; it would have been quite helpful. But since that did not happen, we will have the hearing at the end of January to make the final decision on whether we amend the Capital Program or amend the Capital Budget, that we will have the appropriation power to do so. So that's why this is 121 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 important.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Dubow, is it your understanding that regardless of what category or what class we put this money in, that if the Administration chooses not to spend the money, it can't be spent?
I understand that if it goes into Council, you could move it over to the Capital Budget, but if the Administration chooses not to spend it in capital, it would not be spent, that's correct.
And that's the problem we have now, why those facilities are crumbling, and I think we have a Charter responsibility to correct 122 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - BILL 060833 protect the health and welfare of the people who work for the City of Philadelphia.
All right. Thank you. I believe that ends our public hearing. * * * 123 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - PUBLIC MEETING
Now we will go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke for Bill No. 060833.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that Bill 9 060833 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a rules suspension so as to allow reading at our next session of Council. (Motion seconded.)
The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode as voting nay. Therefore, Bill No.060833 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to speak permit first reading at our next 124 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - PUBLIC MEETING session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke for Bill 060851.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that Bill 8 No. 060851 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for rules suspension so as to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Motion seconded.)
All those in favor? Opposed? Therefore, Bill 060851 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller for a motion on Bill 25 No. 060886. 125 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 060886 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and I further move --
All those in favor? Opposed? Therefore, Bill 060887 will be reported out of this committee -- 886, I'm sorry, will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation so that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next of session Council. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ramos for a motion on Bill 060887.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 060887 be reported our of Council with a favorable recommendation and I further move that the rules of Council be suspended to 126 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - PUBLIC MEETING permit first reading of this bill at our next Council hearing. (Motion seconded.)
All those in favor? Opposed? Therefore, Bill 060887 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for Bill 060888.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 060888 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Motion seconded.)
All those in favor? 127 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - PUBLIC MEETING Opposed? Therefore, Bill No. 060888 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo on Bill 060889.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I would like to report out favorably Bill No. 060889 and suspend the rules. (Motion seconded.)
Thank you all. All those in favor? Opposed? (Applause.)
Therefore, Bill No 060889 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules 128 12/7/06 APPROPRIATIONS - PUBLIC MEETING of Council will be suspended so to speak permit first reading at our next session of Council. That concludes our Committee on Appropriations. And thank you all very much for your attendance. 129 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee on Appropriations are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Thursday, December 7, 2006, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (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.)