COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON HOUSING, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND THE HOMELESS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:00 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO RESOLUTION 050871 - Resolution calling on the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development, and the Homeless to hold public hearings on the administration's proposed reorganization of housing agencies. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
As soon as all the other Councilpeople come, we will begin. They told me they were coming. Thanks for your patience. Thanks for being here. God bless you all. Thank you. (Applause.) (Pause.)
Good afternoon. Again, let me thank you all for coming. Those who are here on the floor of Council and those who are in the balconies, certainly we thank you all for being here. (Applause.)
This is the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless. This is the fourth hearing that we are calling with regard to Resolution 050871. We'll have the Clerk read the title of the resolution and then we will proceed from there.
Resolution 050871, 3 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 calling on the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless to hold public hearings on the Administration's proposed reorganization of housing agencies.
Thank you very much. We note we do have a quorum. To my left is our President, Ann Verna. To my right, Councilwoman Donna Miller. Councilwoman Marian Tasco is here, Councilman Frank DiCicco, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown, who is on the Committee, Councilman Michael Nutter. So we have more than the required Committee members who are present. We thank them all for coming. (Applause.)
Let me note that this Committee has met 11/15/05, 12/8/05, 2/9/06 and now this is our fourth meeting, the 3/16/06. So obviously we are as concerned as you are with regard to housing reorganization, 4 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 what it is and how it affects our City and how it affects all of you who live and work here. Let me note that our witness list does include the Administration. They are here. They said they're happy to respond to our concerns. They do not have questions. They are Joyce Wilkerson, Chief of Staff; Kevin Hanna, Secretary of Neighborhood Preservation; Catherine Califano, Deputy Secretary of the Office of Housing and Community Development. We also have Veronica Pankey, President, Local 1971. (Applause.)
The Chair notes and we welcome members from the Gas Workers Union. (Applause.)
Cement Masons, Mike Fera, President. You are all here. (Applause.) 5 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
Teamsters Local No. 500, Chuck White. (Applause.)
And that does not include members of the organizations. We know they were subpoenaed, but they've always been here. We saw Herb Wetzel, head of RDA. (Applause.)
We have Anthony McIntosh, head of PHDC. (Applause.) 6 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
Deb McColloch, I'm sure she's here, Office of Housing and Community Development, someplace. We have John Coates, head of VPRC, Vacant Property Review Committee. (Applause.)
So we thank you all certainly for being here and many other guests whom we haven't called on, the former head of BIA, we thank Mr. Russ, and so many of you who are here. I understand that many of you will have to go back to work and so we will let those who have to return to work speak first. It is our first interest to call on Veronica Pankey for her statement, Local 1971, President. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience, and we welcome your statement. 7 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, members of the Neighborhood and Homeless Committee and attendees. My name is Veronica M. Pankey, President of AFSCME Local 1971. This is Joseph T. Wills, newly elected Vice-President of our Local. (Applause.)
I am here to testify on the impending housing reorganization plan and the impact thus far it has had on the 205 members represented by Local 1971 and their dependence before you. Permit me to reiterate a portion of my testimony before this Committee on November 15, 2005, December 8, 2005 and February 9, 2006 by informing you of the work performed by AFSCME Local 1971 union members and the agencies for which we work, the Redevelopment Authority, the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation and the Office of Housing and Community Development. 8 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 The Redevelopment Authority coordinates real estate activity and acquires and disposes of property for development purposes. It finances and oversees the development of housing and rental projects undertaken by non-profit and for-profit developers. It also issues debt to finance specific projects and for programmatic purposes such as low-interest home improvement loans. The Redevelopment Authority staff authorizes site improvement contracts for street improvement, including curb and sidewalk, street lighting and street trees, and awards demolition contracts for Authority-owned buildings. The Redevelopment Authority is by state law the only body in Philadelphia that can issue housing bonds and acquire land through eminent domain for the public good. PHDC administers the weatherization program and oversees the rehabilitation services provided through 9 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 the Basic Systems Repair Program by contractors to income-eligible homeowners. PHDC acts as a developer for projects as directed by OHCD and is responsible for the Homestart Program, which involves the rehabilitation of homes for sale to income-eligible first-time home buyers. It administers the Adaptive Modification Program to eligible disabled citizens to afford them safe mobility throughout their home. It also manages and maintains a few low and moderate-income scattered site rental projects. OHCD is responsible for establishing housing and community development policy for all the City housing agencies, setting priority, and coordinating planning efforts. It administers the housing budget and contracts with the Redevelopment Authority, PHDC, the Philadelphia Housing Authority, as well as sub-recipient 10 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 non-profit organizations to conduct planning activity and perform services in support of the overall housing plan. As you see, theoretically, virtually all the work performed by Local 1971 union members and the agencies for which we work could be affected by this reorganization. Therefore, we have a crucial interest in this implementation both as employees, residents and taxpayers of the City. (Applause.)
Since testimony on February 9, 2006, the City Administration has only partially and poorly responded to concerns and issues raised by Local 1971 and this Committee as requested by Chairwoman Blackwell. On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, Kevin Hanna of the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, along with Anthony McIntosh of the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation and Deborah McColloch of the Office of Housing and Community 11 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Development presented to the leadership of AFSCME Local 1971 a 15-frame PowerPoint presentation on the proposed housing reorganization, nothing of substance and, more importantly, nothing in writing. Essentially, what Kevin Hanna presented to our union members was the same limited public relations stunt presentation that he has previously used as testimony before this Council. Like City Council, we were not impressed and found very little in the way of common ground in this presentation. (Applause.)
This presentation discussed two issues, the deficit of $7.8 million in federal funding, which represents a ten percent reduction over this fiscal year's budget, and the proposed new agency structure named the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. When members of Local 1971 12 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 started asking legitimate questions about the lack of information in the plan and aggressively questioned the various components of the proposed reorganization and the Administration's motivation in pursuing such an ill-advised scheme, we were met with the same kind of arrogant disdain and stonewalling that has characterized all the Administration's actions in prior discussion and testimony on this matter. In fact, towards the end of the first briefing yesterday, the Mayor injected himself into discussions and, in a very offensive and disrespectful display of arrogance, proceeded to berate and ridicule the members of Local 1971 for having the temerity to question his proposed grand scheme and the severe negative impact it could have on their jobs. (Applause.)
There were two important things to note that came out of 13 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 the Mayor's tirade yesterday. One, he openly admitted, and I quote, he had the money, end quote, to make up the $7.8 million deficit that the three housing agencies face, as a result of the cuts in federal funding. Two, he also stated that he knew that if Local 1971 took him on and fought his attempt to break up our union, that we would win and that he would not be Mayor two years from now when such a confrontation would possibly be resolved. I have to tell you, with his record so far in interacting with our union on this matter, the fact that he will not be Mayor in two years is not something that we necessarily view as negative. (Applause.)
It is the position of Local 1971 and many of our labor union allies that this Administration is utilizing the federal budget to justify the proposed reorganization and breaking 14 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 up our union. Further, like the Mayor's stated goal of reorganizing to eliminate redundancy, achieve savings, improve services and program delivery, while becoming more effective and efficient, it is the opinion of this union that the creation of another bureaucracy filled with political appointees of the Mayor will not achieve those goals. Additionally, there was nothing in the presentation referring to labor input or the unionized positions within the new entity. Rather, we were informed that we would have to resign our positions and reapply and compete for gainful employment for positions we previously occupied. (Audience booing.)
This was later retracted. Regardless of the unfair treatment and exclusion this union receives from this Administration, we continue to produce. Despite the recent 15 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 layoffs of 2004 when at least 28 of our members among the three housing agencies were affected, despite every employee who has either retired or sought other avenues of employment within the past four years, specifically at PHDC, has not been replaced and the work has not decreased for those departments affected by these vacancies, and despite the increased volume of work at the Redevelopment Authority with NTI, VPRC, development and Convention Center expansion and insufficient staffing, we, the members of Local 1971, meet the full level of production, budgetarily permissible, for each of these agencies at the end of each fiscal year. (Applause.)
The Redevelopment Authority over the past ten years has completed 173 projects creating more than 7,000 units of affordable housing and generating more than $1 billion in development. 16 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 (Applause.)
Within the last three years alone, projects were 5 completed with 161 units of new home 6 ownership. Currently, 24 housing 7 projects equivalent to 584 units are 8 underway. Twelve projects are in the 9 review stage and the remaining 12 10 projects are under construction with a 11 three to 80 percent completion and a projection date of completion within nine months. Additionally, 31 rental projects equivalent to 1,039 units are in progress. Thirteen projects of 458 units are in a five to 97 percent completion, while the remaining 18 projects are in the review stage pending zoning, funding or grant approval. The Phil Loan Program has surpassed the $70 million mark in low-interest home improvement loans to homeowners, and the MBE/WBE contract participation rate of more than 32 percent is among the best in the City. 17 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 (Applause.)
As demonstrated, the Redevelopment Authority is not just a housing agency. At PHDC over the last ten years, 365 newly constructed or rehabbed homes have been completed. For Fiscal Year 30, housing preservation completions are as follows: 930 Tier properties, 2,298 Tier properties and weatherization homes completed were 889 homes. To date, 582 Tier 1 properties have been dealt with, 1,525 Tier 2's and 633 homes have been weatherized and completed. And for this, we get no 17 recognition. (Applause.)
Local 1971 is being held hostage by a reorganization plan for which we have no reliable information, and negotiation sessions have been stalled at two agencies as a result. The Redevelopment Authority once aligned with the City has pulled away and 18 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 resumed contract bargaining sessions due to their dissatisfaction with the reorganization plan and the Administration's negotiation tactics. At the meeting with Kevin Hanna on March 15, 2006 regarding the reorganization, Local 1971 again emphasized to the City Administration that our Local is willing to work with the City and the three housing agencies to ensure a smooth reorganization and to help improve the living and working conditions of all citizens of the City. Further, the union has a legal and moral responsibility to protect the rights, benefits and working conditions of the employees we represent. The union has repeatedly asked for transparency and to be privy to the planning process regarding any reorganization on a continuing basis, not after such reorganization has been finalized. We were told that the City will sit down and talk with the union 19 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 about the reorganization at a point when they have some idea where they needed to be going, how they planned to get there and, most important to this union, who were going to be affected. Yet, we are still excluded. Local 1971 came before this Committee on November 15, 2005 requesting assistance in obtaining transparency of and participation in the planning process of the impending housing reorganization and the impact it has on our stalled contract negotiations. Despite the City Administration's claim that it wants to work cooperatively with Local 1971 and to ensure fair treatment of employees, the Administration continues to stall negotiation sessions. Proposed reorganization language and numerous concession demands from management remain on the table. Local 1971 reiterates our desire to meet with the City Administration to negotiate and obtain a fair contract. 20 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 (Applause.)
AFSCME Local 1971 is extremely concerned about the employees we represent. Officials have not said which current housing agency employees will be laid off, who will be hired by the new agency, where the employees will be assigned, what their wages, benefits, hours or working conditions will be and who will represent them. Based upon the Union's experience in dealing with the City Administration, especially after the arrogant and abusive tirade by the Mayor yesterday, we are exceedingly apprehensive about the future employment and working conditions of our union members. (Audience chanting.)
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee of the Whole, on behalf of the members of Local 1971 and their dependence as we stand 21 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 before you, I respectfully ask City Council not to authorize any service agreement nor approve any budget pertaining to or inclusive of aspects of housing reorganization until a fair contract is reached with our union. (Applause.)
Furthermore, we ask that you restrain from taking any action on this matter until you receive and have had time to thoroughly review a certified summary report from Public Financial Management and until such time the City Administration meets with the representatives of Local 1971 and works with the union and City Council to ensure that current union-represented employees are not adversely affected. (Applause.)
We of Local 1971, District Council 33, thanks you, Madam Chairwoman, the Committee and City Council, for your support. (Applause.) 22 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
Thank you very much, Ms. Pankey, and thank you for being here at every hearing. The Chair notes Councilman Frank Rizzo is also with us. I believe we announced everyone else. (Applause.)
And as you know, we have been very concerned about this. We will read a statement from the Mayor. Are there any questions from members of the Committee for Ms. Pankey? (No response.)
We will ask then if the Clerk would -- Madam President.
Thank you. Ms. Pankey, I don't know if you were in the union leadership at the time of the Brothey Commission report. Were you?
No, I was not in 23 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 union leadership, but I was a union member.
And is your memory, as I guess mine is, that the changes in positions that occurred were in fact negotiated through the unions?
My memory serves me correctly, just as yours does, that union leadership was directly involved in the Brothey report process, as well as the reorganization that took place in the early '80s. And that is what this Administration fails to realize, that in any reorganization that has taken place within this City, it was directly involved with labor, and that is why it was always such a smooth transition. And we have never ever, ever -- (Applause.)
There is documentation on the record dating back to 1998 under the leadership of Jeff Brown, who was President of this Local at 24 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 that time, who at which time expressed not resistance to this process but direct involvement, and we have been from day one totally excluded. (Applause.)
Do you know if there has been any opinion by the City Solicitor's office that states whether or not this reorganization as currently proposed is legal?
We have no 13 information that has been provided by this Administration regarding the opinion of not only any Councilmember but any other department within this City on their position with the process that has been taking place. We certainly have our attorneys working with this, and we are very well on top of the process and will take the necessary actions that we need to. But in terms of the position taken by either any of the Councilmembers or any other department within this City regarding what was either recommended by 25 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 the consultant, who they paid a half a million dollars for, which we do not have a report for, or just their own synopsis of what has been proposed, we have no 6 information on that.
Well, do you know if your attorney is looking into the reorganization as proposed if that is legal?
For the record, we just received in writing the 15-frame PowerPoint presentation yesterday. All we had as of March 1st, the leadership of Local 1971, was the presentation to view. At that meeting on March 1st, we asked for something in writing, and the response was it hadn't been determined. Certainly we spent our time in that meeting copying down each frame and we transcribed on our own the information that was presented to us on March 1st and certainly did present it to our attorney. As of yesterday afternoon with the presentation given by Mr. Hanna, he did 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 provide me with a print screen of the 15-frame PowerPoint, which will be submitted to our attorney, as well as a response to a letter reiterating the union's position from the March 1st meeting. He gave me that packet along with a copy of the PowerPoint, and that will be submitted to our attorney this afternoon after these sessions.
You know, we keep hearing about a plan, but nobody knows what this plan is, and I think -- (Applause.)
If I may, I think it's truly sad, truly sad -- let's have respect for each other, please. I just think it's truly sad that we get all of these people in here feeling that their jobs are in jeopardy, you don't know what the plan is and neither do we, and I think it's truly unfair that all of us in this room, all 27 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 of us could be treated in that fashion. What is the plan? That is the question, and nobody can answer it. (Applause.)
Let me say this, Madam President, just yesterday, and to all members of the Committee, I spoke with someone -- I had heard last week about a person at RDA who had nine years in, almost ten years will be vested, and they cried because they were afraid they were going to lose that. Yesterday I talked to a woman who had 36 years in with the City. She'll be 55 next year, where she was going to enter the DROP program, and she cried because she's afraid she's going to lose her time. That's not fair. Not fair. (Applause.)
Certainly the members of this Committee, we are all from the same City. We all live and work here. We all love our City. And everybody deserves to know 28 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 what this plan is, who it affects, how it affects and what the plans are for the future. It's just not fair. We're with you. (Applause.)
I found interesting on of your testimony where you talk about the layoffs in 2004 when you had 28 people to leave and -- well, they were affected. I don't know whether they left or not. But then you also had retirees and you had people in the DROP program. Has anyone done a financial or statistical analysis to see what the dollar value is of these drop-offs, layoffs to the budget?
In response to your question, certainly this is a 29 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 grievance process that we're going through and we are actually in arbitration, and that information had been compiled by the union as evidence of the monies that had been saved as a result of that. We are still in the grievance process, and the decision has not been made. Whether management is going to counter the numbers that we have as presented, we don't know at this position, but we certainly have worked it up and it was certainly well over more than it should have been for no 15 justification for a layoff.
Thank you. Councilwoman Reynolds Brown and then Councilman Nutter.
Follow-up question. You mentioned that a number of you have seen a PowerPoint. We're here discussing whether or not we've seen it. 30 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Who exactly amongst the leadership or membership has seen the PowerPoint you just referenced?
The PowerPoint presentation that was presented on the 1st of March to the leadership of this union, in attendance was Kevin Hanna, Tony McIntosh, Deborah McColloch, Madeline Massey, Cathy Califano and Pat Heron. They were in attendance from management. And for the union leadership, it was myself, Joseph Wills, Christie Williams-Jackson, Sheila Penn. We are the first officers of the Local, as well as the Chief Steward from PHDC, which is Vance Mitchell, and Angela Price from the Office of Housing and Community Development, and we also had two representatives from District Council 33 in attendance. That was on the 1st of March. On the 15th --
Since our last gathering here. 31 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
Since our last gathering. On Tuesday, the 14th, I received an e-mail from Mr. Hanna's office stating that he was scheduling a meeting yesterday, two sessions, one for o'clock, the other for 1 o'clock, to 9 present this PowerPoint and that the directors or agency heads of the three agencies were to arrange for their employees to attend. The morning session was certainly more filled than that of the 1 o'clock session, but all employees were told to come.
Yes. They were actually ordered to come, for the most part. It was on the company's time, and that included bargaining unit employees as well as exempt employees. And I will say, not that we represent the exempt employees, they were just as much in dismay and dissatisfied and disappointed 32 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 as the union has been for the past eight years.
And the principal goal for the March 1 gathering was what, as you understood it to be?
My understanding of it was, and the e-mail clearly stated, that they wanted to present it to the leadership of the union first. And the question came about in that session by myself to Mr. Hanna if he intended to present it to the membership. His response to us at that time was, We haven't decided.
So at the March meeting, presented to the leadership for reaction, feedback, FYI, what?
What we were told is that he was looking for feedback on this plan, as well as suggestions from 33 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 the union regarding the layoffs.
And my response to him was in order for this Local to give any form of intelligent feedback, we needed to have it in writing. That was the first thing. And the next question was, is it his intention to present it to the membership in order to get any form of feedback. He said, We haven't decided.
I see. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Councilman Nutter, would you yield? I neglected that Councilwoman Miller has been waiting for a while.
Absolutely. Always to a Committee member. Yes. 34 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Madam Chair. When you were giving your presentation, I thought I read in here somewhere, and I can't find it right now, that the union was willing to work on the reorganization plan.
Yes. We have from day one, Councilwoman Miller, always, since 1998, always demonstrated our willingness to participate in this process. It has been the Administration's position to exclude us. They did reach out to us in March of 2005. We had a PowerPoint presentation in the Mayor's reception room on February 3, 2005 to give us the status of their consultants, which was in the Phase 2 stage. At that time, they formed committees and they asked for people to volunteer to be on this committee. Members of this union as well as exempt employees were on those various 35 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 committees. However, what a number of the members found, the union members found, was that the consultants was seeking out their jobs, what is it that you do, how does your job intermingle with other people in other agencies, which that consultant, Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, even the agencies for which these individuals work have no right to go to the members to negotiate their jobs. That is the leadership's responsibility. That is what we're here for. (Applause.)
What some of the members -- once they realized that, they pulled out of the committee in frustration, realizing that they were being used. And when information came to us in the latter part of December, early part of January to show that they in fact had been seeking their attorneys or whoever it is they were seeking, having conversations with individuals, City 36 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Administration regarding revising our job specifications, and that in fact was presented in the Power presentation that they in fact, "they," the Administration, intend to revise job specifications, when contract language at all three agencies say we must meet, discuss and agree. And that has not happened.
To my knowledge, because I'm still a young girl a little bit, but I've only been with the City since '88. I know that there was one that took place about six years prior to me coming and there was one that took place while I was there. There probably were others, but they're the two that I have knowledge of that took place. And the knowledge that I clearly know is that union involvement has always been there, not at the end, not in the middle but at the very beginning, at the very beginning. 37 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
And this is, again, the first time that the union has not been involved in the reorganization effort?
Excuse me one minute, Councilwoman. We also note the presence of John Dougherty, President, Local 98, the Electricians Union. (Applause.)
So just to be clear, when you say that you don't know the plan, does that pretty much relate to you don't know -- because the PowerPoint is what we all saw, too, and that's about it, and we haven't seen anything in writing, and I think you have something we don't have. You said you have --
And I will certainly provide you a copy of the print 38 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 screens that they provided me yesterday.
Right. Now, so basically what you're saying -- or I would think that a part of the plan that you are unknowledgeable about is actually what jobs will be eliminated, what jobs will go here or there. Is that it, or exactly what is it?
We do not know -- we know what departments -- the same organizational chart that you saw is what we saw. It has a development department. It has a real estate department. It talks about inspectors. The same exact information that you were provided, we were provided. We clearly asked when was it going to take place. The response was, Not in a couple of days, not in a couple of weeks, not in a couple of months, it's going to be smooth, we know we need to have it in place by June 30th or July 1st, not everything is going to be in place, it's going to take a while. 39 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Then we also asked, how many people are going to be affected? It won't be a hundred. We only have 205 members. How many of us will be affected? It won't be a hundred. Is it 99? Is it 50? Is it two? Is it 90? We can determine by the structure what departments are being targeted, but as to who will directly be affected, we cannot determine. We don't know how they intend to get those individuals from one agency to the other agency. In the past, history will show it wasn't reapplying. It certainly wasn't resigning. (Applause.)
We sat down, the leadership at that time, sat down and negotiated, and they were transferred. They were transferred. And all benefits, wages, job titles, we did what we had to 40 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 do. In 1998 -- I'm sorry; 1993, '92, we had a whole department, a whole real estate department, that left PHDC and went to the Redevelopment Authority. It was clear that when those individuals left, for instance, that they would have to adopt the Redevelopment Authority's pension plan. They have a different pension plan. No problem. We all wish we could have that plan. It was negotiated and agreed upon. That's for certain. Okay? However, that was the understanding. Those folks went down there with time they had on the books, both seniority and accrued time. They went with their longevity. They went with their salary. The only thing that changed, the only thing that changed immediately was the pension plan. Some folks were reclassified by mutual agreement of both management and the union and the employee that was being affected. 41 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 The same process happened when folks came from OHCD and PHDC in the early '80s. Some of these folks that will be affected in this process are going to be affected again. Now, they're going to have, what, three pension plans possibly? Or are they going to make provisions where those who were vested at PHDC can continue to put back into that plan? Some folks are already drawing their pension from PHDC's plan. Have they even looked? Do they even care the impact that this has? (Applause.)
They don't. They clearly don't, because they haven't come to labor. They have not talked to us. They don't have a concept. They don't have a clue. They don't have a care. They don't have a care. (Applause.)
This is my last question. On of your 42 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 testimony, you do talk about in Paragraph 3, you say that -- I know I had heard before that you had to resign and all those other things, but then here you say "but later this was retracted." So what was actually retracted?
In the presentation to the leadership on March 1st, Mr. Hanna said to us that we would have to resign our positions, reapply for gainful -- and compete for gainful employment.
We caucused. He came back. I repeated what he said to give him the opportunity to correct himself, and he reiterated it again, totally ignoring the contract language. Nothing in there says that we resign. It says laid off as a result of reorganization, the language says. Lay off as a result of reorganization. It does not say anything about resigning. When I presented his response 43 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 to him with the opportunity to correct himself, he did not. However, in both presentations yesterday to the membership, the question was raised from the floor, not that he initiated a response to retract his words, the question was raised from the floor and he thanked the member for bringing that up and he stated that he spoke incorrectly. But he didn't say he was going to be laid off. He didn't say what you were going to do. He spoke incorrectly. He still didn't say how the transition was going to take place.
So the fact of you needing to resign or laid off is retracted?
Yes. Yes. The fact that he stated that we would have to resign was retracted, but clarification was not given in terms of what's going to happen.
Okay. All right. Thank you. 44 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Thank you, Madam Chair.
That was to apply, I'm told, under a new entity, Office of, OH&P, Housing and Neighborhood Preservation.
Councilman Nutter, would you allow us to read a statement from the Mayor that was sent up?
Thank you. We're asking the Clerk to read a letter that was just given to us from the Mayor.
Dated March 16, 2006, delivered today, March 16, 2006. Dear Councilwoman Blackwell, when I announced the Neighborhood Transformation 45 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Initiative in April 2001, I spoke not only about the need for the physical transformation of our communities, but also about the need to transform how the City conducts its business. In the ensuing years, the City has achieved stunning results in neighborhoods across the City. Our neighborhoods are cleaner. Drug corners are gone. Abandoned cars are gone. (Audience yelling.)
Abandoned, dilapidated structures are disappearing, replaced by clean lots with wooden fences and trees. New housing is appearing in areas of the City that were too long neglected. These results, in part, are the result of the hard work of men and women in City government and in its supporting agencies. They have been challenged to do more. They have been challenged to work differently. They have met the challenge. 46 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 In proposing housing reorganization, I am not criticizing the leadership in the agencies involved nor the people who work there. However, as the conditions in our neighborhoods have changed, as technology has emerged as a tool to enhance efficiency, as federal funding has decreased from almost $100 million annually to just $75 million this year, we have not changed our housing delivery system. The inefficiencies in the housing delivery system now compromise our ability to achieve the goals that we all share for our neighborhoods. The need to implement changes has become urgent, because of the continuing reduction in federal funding support. This year alone the City will experience an additional ten percent cut in funding. President Bush's budget for next year proposes an additional 20 percent cut in support for community development. 47 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 In the weeks ahead, I commit to respect and work with the union. I share your concern about the men and women who work in these organizations. I do not like layoffs and am sensitive to the fact that many of the employees in these organizations have worked there for decades. Our goal is to assure that people do not lose employment. We will reserve opportunities within the rest of City government, to the extent possible, to minimize any job loss as we move forward. With warmest regards, I remain, sincerely, John F. Street, Mayor. (Audience booing.)
Thank you very much. The Chair notes the presence of Pete Matthews, President of District Council 33. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Mr. Matthews, would you like to make a statement? 48 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
Yes. Thank you, Councilwoman Blackwell. I'm sorry that I'm late. My mother is ill. Business is business, but mom is mom. I had to make sure she was straight.
I wanted to make sure I'd be here. I know I missed a lot of the testimony. I just wanted you to know, Councilwoman, we have been trying to negotiate this contract for the past two years. The City did all it could to try to negotiate this contract for Local 1971 and our major contract, which they could not do. Tried unbelievable tactics. They tried to get it done. This is a separate issue. They knew it was a separate issue. That's why we're here today. I think from what I understood in the past and what I'm hearing now, I think everybody is in a quandary trying to understand just what the hell is going 49 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 on here. What we've seen and realized for the past couple years, that any way you look at this, this is an attempt to break this union up. (Applause.)
Now, I know there's some outside people that come in and are part of the Redevelopment Authority, but these people have to understand something here. This is supposed to be a union town. I keep hearing that about a union town. And what I understand where these people come from, these right-to-work states, the things that they want to happen that happened out there are not going to happen here. Now, we are -- (Applause.)
We are and have been willing to sit down and negotiate this contract fairly. We understand there's supposed to be a $6 or $7 million deficit in the Authority. We also 50 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 understand there's a $160 million surplus. So the numbers seem to add up where we could work something out. (Applause.)
If sometime we can simply work this out. I say this emphatically. I've talked to John Dougherty. I've talked to Congressman Brady. They can't understand what's going on here. If this is union, then speak up for the union. Speak up for the people in this City that do the job. We are sick and tired every time we have to negotiate a contract, we go through hell. It seems like nobody puts away money for the expected, what they know is going to happen. The money is never there. Then they come up with these tricks. This is nothing but a last-minute ploy to force us to do something that we're not going to do. So we're not foolish to go out on strike. We're not going to do that. Our people are going to continue to work, and we 51 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 want to sit down and work this out. So the people that want to sit down and work this out fairly, no dog and pony shows, no points of interest, let's sit down and work this out. We are sick and tired of this. We will do whatever we have to do to work this contract. You will not -- excuse me, Councilwoman Blackwell, not you. This Administration will not break this union up. (Applause.)
Thank you, Mr. Matthews. We noted at our first hearing, this is the fourth one, back on November 15th when we asked about a contract, we were told you didn't get one last year and that the plan was for this year so that the organization would be complete and there would be that much more pressure placed on the men and women who work in our City.
Well, you talk about reorganization. The reorganization 52 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 is nothing more than an attempt to break up this union and make it easier for management to do what they have to do. They're saying it's the same jobs that are going to be done, just more management jobs. Why do you continue to break up -- why do you want to break up the workers in the City? I just don't understand that. All these City workers do the work in the City. When are we going to be recognized for the work that we do? (Applause.)
So, I mean, the tricks won't work. If you want to sit down and honestly negotiate a contract, we've always been more than willing to do that, but the tricks won't work. We're going to be here. We're going to stay here. We're not going to settle for getting anything back. And one of the most ridiculous things that I heard when they talk about some of the benefits that some of the members in these locals have, 53 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 some of them have better benefits than we have at District Council 33. Am I mad? Hell, no. That just gives me something to strive for that I got to get for my members. (Applause.)
So you have all this talk that workers have too much, workers have too many benefits, that's what's destroying this country today. The workers do the work. You got all these CEOs making all this money, millions and millions of dollars, these corporations going bankrupt, and the workers always suffer. So now you want to draw the line? They drew the line. All they're doing is helping the union to get stronger. We want to sit down and work this out. We're more than willing to do that. (Applause.)
Thank you, Mr. Matthews. And we note that we 54 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 have raised so many questions. Again, this is our fourth hearing. Even at our last hearing we asked about the negotiations for the contract, with whom they are negotiated, when, where, who was included, was there a request for proposals, was it a low or no-bid contract, what about a pre-selection process, who was on the team, who they met with in government, who were the contracting officers and so on and so on and so on. I just mentioned a few of the questions we've asked over time. And we have continued to say and continued to ask for negotiations with unions, and we have said we would continue these hearings, and we said that to Ms. Pankey each time. Each time we've asked her if there were meetings with regard to the contract, and each time she said no or very little. And now at least there were meetings yesterday, but obviously matters were not resolved to anyone's satisfaction. 55 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 So we will continue as a body to try to work with you, to try to get our projects done, to try to work with the people who live and work in our City and to let you know that we are here, we care about you, and we understand the value of the work you do perform. (Applause.)
Are there questions or comments for Mr. Matthews? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Matthews. The union leaders, Orankin File 17 (ph), who have to go back to work, certainly if you let us know -- yes, Mr. Nutter is next. His questions are next, but it was not for Mr. Matthews. But he's next in line, Councilman Nutter. And certainly we do welcome anyone else who wants to speak, and we certainly have the Administration represented here for any who pose questions for them. 56 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Councilman Nutter.
No problem. I never mind following Mr. Matthews and the great table, and I don't mind yielding for a letter from the Mayor. I never mind following the Mayor. Maybe something that I'm interested in at some point in time, I might want to follow the Mayor. Ms. Pankey, let me ask you just a couple quick questions about your testimony on . You mention a meeting that took place, and you've referred to it a couple times, just yesterday. What was the sum and substance of that particular meeting?
The meeting held yesterday was called by Kevin Hanna, Secretary of the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, by way of 57 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 e-mail on Tuesday evening to all of the department heads of the three agencies. The meeting was to call for those department heads to arrange for time at either the o'clock session or the 1 7 o'clock session to present the PowerPoint 8 to all employees of those three agencies. 9 The assumption was it's the same PowerPoint that they had presented to the leadership of Local 1971 on March 1st. So that was the purpose of the meeting yesterday.
I will provide you with a copy of what they provided me yesterday afternoon, as well as a copy of the letter, which was responding to a letter that I had sent to Mr. Hanna.
And what 58 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 was the conclusion of the meeting? I mean, what came out of it?
Absolutely nothing more than we knew going in, and I made that statement clear yesterday to Mr. Hanna. If he thought we were any more knowledgeable leaving the Mayor's reception room than we were when we came in there, he was sadly mistaken. Information that is very pertinent to this union affecting these employees and when it will take place and who will be affected was not presented, could not be answered, would not be answered.
The first session started at 9 o'clock, about five after 9:00, and that went on until, I believe it was, about 11 o'clock, maybe a little longer. It was the presentation of the 59 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 PowerPoint, and Mr. Hanna gave his explanation to each frame of the PowerPoint. And then there was a question-and-answer session, and then the Honorable came in, and it got to be a little disruptive, because he had his agenda and we had our agenda.
And he had his agenda. He wanted to take us back down memory lane, and when we wanted to take him back down memory lane eight years ago when we asked to be a part of this process and we've been ignored, he didn't want to hear our memories. He wanted to tell us about his 28 years in service and his hot dog cart and how he knew us when we were 2 years old. And we want to deal with business. We want to deal with when are you going to include the unions since 60 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 we've been asking for eight years. He didn't want to talk about that. He didn't want to be reminded of the statement that he made three years ago when he stated through Kevin Hanna when he presented himself to the three agencies, new to the City, that we would not be displaced. No member would be displaced. That was the message that we got. We were told that no member would be displaced as a result of the reorganization.
So you're saying that in the course of a two-hour meeting with a PowerPoint and at least a discussion with the Mayor of the City, you left with -- (Audience yelling.)
-- no 21 concrete explanation of what this is all about?
You can ask any one of the members here from Local 1971 where they know they stand, let's just 61 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 say, next week. We're not even going to try to reach July 1st. We'll just ask for next week. We have no idea. I mean, we understand where they want to go in terms of their accomplishments. We understand that they want to hire six deputies. We understand they want to hire a chief of staff. We understand that they want to put these departments under these individuals. We clearly understand that. We clearly understand they want to take departments from one agency and put them under this agency. We understand that. We don't know who is going to staff it, we don't know how we're going to get there, we don't know when it's going to take place, and we don't know what's going to happen to those who don't come along with us.
Thank you. Excuse me one moment. Let me note the presence of Councilman Juan Ramos. 62 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. Ms. Pankey, did you get any sense from yesterday's meeting, do you know what the proposed timetable is for implementation of this reorganization?
It won't happen in two days. It won't happen in two weeks. It won't happen in two months.
Okay. Last question. At the bottom of your testimony right near the end, you make reference to respectfully asking City Council not to authorize any service agreements nor approve any budget pertaining to or inclusive of aspects of housing reorganization until a fair contract is reached with your union. What is your understanding or what information might you have about any service agreements or any other documents that may or may not find their way here to City Council? 63 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
I'm not certain what City Council has in their possession. As it pertains to the budget, I'm certain you all have seen a preliminary budget.
Well, I guess we'll have to compare notes, then, because we have very little. However, in reference to the budget testimony presented by Deborah McColloch here in Council Chambers, as well as the preliminary budget, what we know is that the structure of their budget is different than that of any prior budget, where the Office of Housing and Community Development had their employees' budgeted money separate in what they identify as a Class 100, and the Redevelopment Authority and PHDC employees are identified in what they state is Class 250. What they're proposing is a $13 64 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 million budget in both Class 100 and Class 250 straddling. One is labeled reserve. They don't know which one yet, you know. They're dancing. They don't know which one, because depending on how you approve the budget and as it pertains to the reorganization, then that's where they'll go. If you don't approve it, which we're hoping you don't, then they'll take the money from Class 100 as it pertains to Office of Housing employees and they'll utilize that money, and then they'll take out of the Class 250 what they intend to use just for PHDC and RDA. And we understand. We don't need to be CPAs. We understand a $7.8 million deficit. But guess what? They claim they had a deficit in 2004. We dealt with it. We've dealt with every deficit they've had. They're two separate issues. They're separate issues. But conveniently, they have looped them together, and they are 65 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 standing on the ground that because of the deficit, that justifies a reorganization. We don't agree with it and we never will. (Applause.)
Councilman Nutter, the Chair notes -- thank you. The Chair notes that we were cut 7.8 million from the Community Development Block Grant application, but that we've been informed that this reorganization saves 1.2 million only. So I don't know why we're going through all of this for so little when it won't solve the problem. Those are part of the questions. And as the Councilman has said, for all of those, we have said this at every hearing, we have no documents, we have no information, and that's one of the reasons we continue to raise questions, because we have zero information. Councilman Nutter. 66 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
Madam Chair, thank you. Last comment. Ms. Pankey, when you make reference to Line Item 250 in the City's budget, I would only point out my recollection is is that that line item is usually reserved for professional services contracts under the City's budgeting process. So I will have a heightened interest in seeing where those dollars are going as we move through our budget process and where they're dedicated to do. So I appreciate your testimony and your commitment to represent your constituents, and I think there is a heightened attention to this particular issue, and I appreciate what you're doing. Thank you.
Thank 67 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 you very much. Councilman DiCicco and then Councilwoman Tasco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Most of my questions have already been asked by members of this panel. I do have one question for Ms. Pankey. You mentioned in your testimony that there was a PowerPoint presentation, correct me if I'm wrong, either in February or April of '05? Did you mention something about a presentation?
Yes. On February 3rd, 2005, there was also the same type of town meeting called for the employees of the three agencies by Mr. Hanna at that time, and we again attended the Mayor's reception room. That PowerPoint presentation was to deliver or inform the employees where the consultants stood during their process. Because, again, the consultants were under contract 68 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 beginning July 1st, 2004 through June 30th, 2005. That's the Public Financial Management Group that was hired to come up with some understanding or some recommendation of this reorganization. On February 3rd, 2005, a town hall meeting was called here in the Mayor's reception room to inform the employees of all three agencies where the consultants stood with this process. At that time, they were entering the Phase 2 stage, and at that time, they had designed -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: "They" meaning the consultants?
"They" meaning the Administration, along with the consultants, felt it necessary to do these committees. And I know from last testimony back in February, I'm not certain who it was, it may have been Councilwoman Blackwell, who asked who was on those committees and what the outcome was. We were never informed of -- we in 69 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 fact requested by letter information and feedback about those committees from each one of the agencies, Redevelopment Authority, PHDC and OHCD, and we in fact -- we got a response saying that they weren't part of that, they didn't have information, but we never got anything from that of Mr. Hanna. And to this date, we have not gotten any information regarding the outcome of those committees that were formed, nor the recommendations or suggestions by Public Financial Management, whom they paid $550,000 to. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I guess my question will have to wait for Mr. Hanna, but I'm still a little bit confused. Presentation was made back in February '05 and there was a recent presentation as recent as yesterday, the PowerPoint.
Yes. The presentation in '05 dealt with the status of the consultants on their Phase 2. The presentation yesterday, the PowerPoint 70 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 yesterday, is the roll-out plan. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is the result of the PowerPoint that took place in February along with the consultants?
We can assume that. Because we weren't told this is what was recommended by Public Financial Management, we don't know where the PowerPoint came from. We don't know if they chucked what Public Financial Management gave them and this is their own design. We don't know if it's any aspect of their recommendation. We don't know where it came from. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right. Because I was one who saw the PowerPoint -- I assume it's the same PowerPoint presentation that you saw yesterday. My way of thinking was, that was the result of the original presentation back in February. Whether we agree or disagree with the findings, that's exactly what it was -- that was their mission, to come up with something, 71 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 and the reorganization and how all that came about is in the current presentation, I would assume. There were some other questions that came up in my meeting with Mr. Hanna and his team about have there been any discussions either by way of attrition reducing the workforce, questions concerning what the current healthcare package is for Redevelopment Authority employees. Have there been any discussions in regards to those kinds of issues with Mr. Hanna and his team?
No, there have not. Those issues are being negotiated among the three agencies, certainly with the Redevelopment Authority, PHDC and OHCD. It is a negotiated item for the Redevelopment Authority. It's also a negotiated item for PH and OH. They want to increase the current co-pay that the employees are paying. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is 72 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 the current co-pay?
It varies depending on the plan that you selected and what your coverage is, whether you're single coverage or family coverage. And then you have a co-pay, whether you have HMO or whether you have Personal Choice. It depends what your coverage is. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because I heard one side. Now we're trying to get the information back from the other side.
Well, see, that's what the problem is, that we're hearing rumors. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I've heard zero co-pay. I've heard -- I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I'm just trying to get --
Let me just, for clarification purposes, let me just state to you that at OHCD and PHDC there are co-pays for their medical. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: There are what? 73 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
There are co-pays. There are payroll deductions for their medical, regardless of the plan in which you select, at both PHDC and OHCD. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No 7 incentive package, early-out kind of stuff has been discussed, I assume?
Clearly not with us. It may have been something that they're speaking among themselves. But let me just finish my statement -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I brought that up and I just was curious if there's been any further discussion about it since I --
There hasn't been any discussion with labor. The most discussion we had was at the PowerPoint presentations and the questions that we presented, for which most of them we did not get an answer. But back to your healthcare question or issue or concern. Again, 74 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 PHDC and OHCD, yes, they do have a co-pay regardless of the coverage that they have. The Redevelopment Authority, fortunately for those employees there, no, they don't have a co-pay. However, that was negotiated and agreed upon. We didn't take it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not arguing with you.
And I'm not stating that you are, Councilman -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because I'm hearing conflicting comments about it.
-- but those who are in disagreement with it, what they fail to realize is that that was negotiated. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Sure. It's part of the contract. I understand.
That was negotiated by many folks that are still around. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I 75 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 understand. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
No. I just have some questions, but not of Ms. Pankey. I have more questions --
Excuse me one moment. Point of information, Councilman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of information. When was that negotiated, that zero co-pay?
They've never paid anything. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. When was that contract negotiated?
Was 76 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 not your last contract -- this is your second year without one, so it had to be agreed to two and a half years ago.
Either the 2000 contract or maybe the '96 contract. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry?
It could have been either the '96, 2000 contract or the 2004. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Six years ago. Okay. Thank you.
If you didn't have a contract, we know this is the second year.
So that three years ago, there was some contract agreement where things didn't change; am I correct?
For the most part, yeah, about six years ago. Yes, nothing changed.
Thank 77 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 you. Questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
The Chair wants to note again that all of these questions have been asked at each hearing. The transcript is available for those who would like, for any of these hearings. We have raised the question. We have been concerned, because, again, we have zero documentation on what housing reorganization is. We're as worried about you as we are about our programs and projects and how it affects and who it affects. And so we're worried as well. Councilwoman Tasco.
I'm sorry. I keep going back and forth in terms of whether I want to ask you the questions.
We can't hear you. Talk into your mike. Thank you. 78 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
Let me just ask you a question. You have not had -- and you've said this over and over again. I'm just trying to get it in my mind. There hasn't been any discussion about what the new organization would look like?
There has been discussion. There has been a presentation of what the new organization will look like. That was presented to the union leadership on March 1st and to all three agencies yesterday in that 15-frame PowerPoint presentation.
There was no narrative as to why the changes were made, no written documentation as to why the changes were being made and what impact they would have or what the benefit of the change would be?
Just yesterday we were provided a copy of actually the actual PowerPoint.
But does 79 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 the PowerPoint say, We have these two departments and we need to do away with one and put this one over here because the benefit over A is better than the benefit over B?
No cost analysis or anything like that associated with that?
What you're going to find, and I will certainly provide each one of you a copy of what was presented to me if you haven't already gotten it from Mr. Hanna's office, the only financial information that was presented is one page that's dealing with the budget deficit, where compared Year 30, I believe it's Year 30, with Year 31, current year with next year, to show the $7.818 million deficit. That is the only financial information that has been provided, and that's in this packet.
Well, that's my question, Madam President, 80 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 because I want to find out where the deficit comes from, because we know the Community Development Block Grant dollars were being proposed cut last year, but my work with the National League of Cities and with this Council and cities across the country stopped the federal government from cutting the Community Development Block Grant dollars. And we're trying to do it again this year. (Applause.)
So my question is, how do we -- and that's the question we'll ask of the Administration, where does the $7.8 million deficit come in and if we've been able to work through this year if there was a deficit or are they proposing that it will be a deficit in the fall. That won't be decided until Congress passes the budget.
And what was presented, and you'll see in the information, is that that $7.818 million deficit is due to a cut in CDBG funding. 81 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 And what was explained to us is that -- and, of course, without seeing anything, we can only -- I don't know whether we should accept what they say as truthful, but in any event, it was originally going to be -- and that $7.818 million deficit represents ten percent from this current year. What we were told was that what was originally proposed was $50 million. And in terms of how they're going to obtain any savings from or how much savings they're going to achieve in this process, the only financial information for the first time that we heard regarding any savings was a nickel from a phone call. If we call from RDA to PHDC or OHCD, it costs them a nickel. If they call from RDA to RDA or within the agency, then it doesn't cost them anything. And we got a display of the Blackberry. You know, technology changes and this is what's required. We don't have Blackberries. So go back to old 82 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 times. Walk over there or write a letter. Just because times change, that doesn't mean you have to adapt to everything with the change in time, and a Blackberry, in my opinion, is not that necessary.
Well, I haven't seen the PowerPoint, and that's not because it hasn't been offered, I just haven't had the time to look at it, but will look at it, and certainly we'll ask the appropriate questions at the point in time when they come for the budget presentation. In yesterday's discussion with the Mayor, did he outline any of the financials with you at all?
The Mayor didn't want to have much discussion with us. He wanted to take us down memory line. His response to us was, and I quote, I have the money, but you have to work with me, and don't fight me on this. You'll win, but you don't know who you're going to be 83 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 dealing with in the future. Well, with the arrogance like that, we'll take our chances with the future. We'll stand fast where we are and keep what we have. (Applause.)
Thank you. Before I call on Councilwoman Reynolds Brown, let me note that at every hearing, we have talked about the fact that there's one appraiser for RDA, and every property that's conveyed has to be appraised twice. We have one appraiser for the City. So that alone is unbelievable. And we've been very, very concerned again about this whole issue of employment and who works where and where we go from here.
Yes, 84 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 ma'am, and then Councilwoman Reynolds Brown.
I guess I should have seen the PowerPoint. I might have been a little more knowledgeable.
In your review of the PowerPoint and from what you have, there was one piece of this that's been rumored -- again, I have to read this -- that there would be an effort to take away the power of the Council to involve in land deals or whatever. You have to come to Council and get our approval. Is that something that you're aware of?
It's certainly mentioned in there and the manner in which they deal with Council. The specifics of how they're going to -- the appearance gives they want to get your approval up front so they don't have to come back. For instance, if they have a 85 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 group of lots per se, they want to get approval, say, today on how to deal with these lots as opposed to bringing them to you -- my understanding is they bring them to you in intervals. That's not efficient. There's too much back and forth. They want to deal with you at one point and that's it. That's the impression that it gives, but you'll come to your own understanding of it once you get a copy of or get the opportunity to see it. They're limiting -- I think the word in there, and I can't remember exactly what it is, there's too much communication going back, too much -- I forgot what Mr. Hanna's word was in terms of talking with either homeowners or developers. So they want to streamline their communication, and that includes that of Council as well. So there is certainly some mention specifically with Land Bank and how they intend to deal with Council. 86 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 And whether that's satisfying to Council or not, I don't know exactly what that process is. He did explain it. That wasn't of interest to me. Our jobs are more of interest. And that's not degrading or disrespecting anyone, because everyone has their own interests, but our position is our jobs as it pertains to the Land Bank. There certainly is mention of how they intend to interact with City Council, and I can tell you that it's certainly different from how they deal with you now.
Thank you very much. And the Chair also notes that the whole issue of inefficiencies and overlap that we heard about initially that were rumored before we introduced the resolution and started these hearings, we've always said we're open to have any discussions about what works. Nobody is saying that we can't improve. 87 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 We can always improve, but we can't do it on the backs of people who work, and we should not morally transfer people to other departments with no regard -- how do you take somebody who is nine and a half years almost vested or somebody who has 36 years in and is getting ready to apply for DROP next year and just do away with all that? That's wrong and that's morally unfair. (Applause.) Councilwoman Reynolds Brown.
And to Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell's comment, not being privy to the PowerPoint, not having seen it yet either, is there any discussion in the body of the PowerPoint as to how circumstances like that will be handled during this proposal?
In your best estimation, what did you believe to be the next step following the PowerPoint and/or the meeting?
I can certainly tell you at this point as of this morning we received an e-mail from Kevin Hanna's office that they have three dates of availability to sit with the union to discuss issues: March 21st, March 22nd, March 23rd at 2 o'clock. And this union has committed to all three dates to find out what the matter of discussion is. What I am assuming is going to happen in that meeting is that they're going to talk about how to get to where they're going. That's the assumption. There was nothing in there -- I'm certainly going to speak to Mr. Hanna again. I did speak with him briefly this morning to inform him that I did confirm all three dates, although he stated to me he was only looking for one, but I want all three, plus some more. However, I 89 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 will certainly ask him what the intention of the meeting is, because I certainly want to be prepared to have detailed discussion about the 205 members and where they do want to take them.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I've been through a lot of reorganizations in my life. The ones that work well were the ones that had a spirit of cooperation. The red flag for me when I got very interested in this is, one of my staff came from one of the very initial briefings, and we've been involved in every one, when really there was no 23 information. There was an environment of secrecy. They brought us to a briefing and didn't tell us anything. 90 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 So I think that most people in this room would be cooperative if they were being treated appropriately and communicated with information. And I know that if somebody was going to pull the plug on my job, I'd be here sitting in one of these chairs right alongside them. So my point of my statement is the fact that I think that the Administration shot themselves in the foot because they haven't handled themselves very well in -- (Applause.)
I think if you treat people with decency, you get respect. (Applause.)
And I don't think that's occurred. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. (Applause.) 91 3/16/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
Thank you, Councilman. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Is there anyone else who would like to testify who is here today? We promised we'd give you an opportunity if you would like to. Your leaders are doing a great job. Anyone here who wants to testify? (No response.)
Seeing none, what we will do again is -- and we try to keep our hearings as brief as possible -- we will continue this hearing until Tuesday, April 18th at 10:00 a.m. right here, Room 400, City Hall. Thank you all. God bless you. Let's hope for the best.
Thank you. (Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless adjourned at 3:00 p.m.) - - - 93 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 March 16, 2006, 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.)