For example, well, we talked about recommending implementing communication and reporting protocols for the project, which is on page four of the Scope, number nine. It says, examine the City's and other stakeholders to determine what kind of data they hold. Can they produce? That's one 334 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 set. Conduct meetings with stakeholders to determine what kind of communications and reporting protocols are required. And as I said, we define stakeholders to include the City Council. And then there's other parts, if you go through. Wherever we use the word "stakeholders" that includes City Council.
All right. Okay. But I mean, there are tons of people that appear to be part of the stakeholder -- I think you're calling it stakeholder management?
Yes. I mean, we acknowledge, and the part of partnerships and collaborations. There are usually a number of people, from communities to other City agencies and departments, that have a stake in this, and it impacts on them.
So we just use that term to do that. We also further clarify in the program statement, for example, that when it 335 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 comes to planning and doing community meetings, that we would work at the direction of the District Council people with respect to that, just to make it even clearer, that we look to the Council to help with the planning to, you know, the convening of meetings and other communications protocol with respect to NTI. And that's what we had proposed when we met with the technical staff, and included it in our program description, to even make it clearer.
Because as you know, we've been meeting with members like yourself, you know, since October. We've been getting different feedback and ideas. And we're acknowledging, or as Joyce said, you know, very cognizant of the key role. And so we're doing our best to be responsive to those questions and concerns.
Has Hill met with either Council members or community people at this stage of their work?
As a part of this we 336 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 have begun to convene. With the scheduling of the hearings we had to stop that because we turned our attention, you know, staff-wise, to preparing for the hearings. But we had begun to reach out to set up meetings with District Council people. We had the opportunity, I believe, or their staff, to -- with the Hill group. So we had a meeting with Councilwoman Blackwell, who's the Chair of this Committee. We've also met with Councilman Clarke. We had conversations with the staff in Councilman Mariano's office. And I believe that -- I'm blanking, but there were one or two other individuals that -- Councilwoman Reed Miller. These were areas where we expect -- you know, where we had the highest concentration of dangerous buildings, so we kind of began to group people together, to start talking about how we managed the relationship.
Do you have a sense of when Hill might get around to meeting 337 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 with the rest of us?
As soon as we're finished this part of our process, we're going to be going back to scheduling the meetings. I mean, we just had to stop it because, you know, of this intervening meeting.
Are you saying the hearings interfered with your ability to meet with us?
No, not exactly. It's just that, you know, we've been working on this part, getting ready for the hearings, you know, since they were -- I think they were announced last Thursday.
The Hill team came under contract in September. They spent the majority of the month of October gathering data from the various City agencies so they can start developing the GIS model system. They've also been doing some of the 338 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 technical work like groundwater management, things of that nature. In November we began to look at, think about what we're calling the communications protocols for the project. And as we began to, you know, shape that and had something to show Council to get some feedback, we started to schedule the meetings.
In terms of the larger project or in terms of . . . As I said, we have not put together the final master schedule for the entire project. What we envision is that we'll have several types of bid packages going on throughout the city. It's not the intent to just say, just do one area of the City and just work there. 339 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 And that's one of the reasons why we're -- the multi-tasking of this project can be very complex. Because the idea is, you know, looking at where we have the concentration of dangerous buildings. Are there other criteria, with consultation with the Council staff, that staff members, that are critical areas, looking at different criteria. We'll start shaping and finalizing that bid package.
There will be a complete initial project schedule available at the end of their current contract term which will be . . .
And there are some preliminary ones coming out every month as well. But essentially in the beginning of March, we're 340 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 going to have an idea for process for the different parts of town that we need to be in, and how many bid packages there are going to be. Clearly, this is an interim process. And the one thing that I would like to emphasize is that despite whatever list or schedule we might come up with, that based on discussions, based on, you know, whatever might happen out in the neighborhoods, based on many factors, the list will change over time.
So . . . Just make sure I understand. You said you think you'll have an actual schedule, at least an initial schedule, in March.
Okay. And when would you expect to actually start doing work?
Well, I mean, one of our challenges is, again -- You know, we, right now are with the assumption that if money was available, that we could begin in April under what we call the large scale demolition aspects 341 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 of the project. We are hoping to figure out a way -- to test, do prototypes. As you know, the Hill Scope called for not only the planning of the project, but the idea of taking two sample bid packages and trying to run it through all of our assumptions. One prototype would be, as Bob Zabili talked earlier, you know, how do you demolish 150 properties? What type of bids will we be getting in? This will be information that will start helping to refine numbers and budgets. The second prototype will be one that's smaller in size, one that probably will be primarily all hand demolitions, not more than, say, fifteen or twenty properties. We ultimately see that in order to carry this out we've got to -- probably will have a mixture of large properties for a hundred -- you know, big packages, and smaller ones, because we want to be sure that we structure the packages in such a way that we can 342 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 have -- you know, brought economic opportunity participation. The two prototype projects we hope to be able -- I'm not sure we can keep that schedule. But using some of the existing demolition dollars that was appropriated by Council, to have something, I guess, around January. One will be 150. We're looking at areas within the Fifth District that would be appropriate to test that. And then we're looking at area within the . . . I think it's the Sixth -- is it Sixth? Councilman Mariano's Sixth District in the Frankford area. That looks like a good candidate for some smaller bid prototype. But this will be just to test our operational assumptions.
I think it was yesterday. I asked you what you thought your first offering was going to be. And you said it was $120 to $150 million.
For a couple 343 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 years of borrowing.
I mean, some of the final decisions that we will be making in consultation with the financial advisors and bond counsel and the like is the sizing of that first issue. What we were projecting, for example, if we went in the lower number, maybe taking out enough money to do two years of work. You know, if we went with the higher number, which might be more prudent. I mean, some of the pros and cons, I guess you would say, from a financial aspect, is right now we know interest rates are very low. So does it make sense to borrow more in private activity bonds now and taxable bonds now, where we kind of have a sense of where the interest rate yields are? And as we talked with the technical staff last night, just because we borrow it, you know, you don't have to expend it. It would be still subject to the expenditure and appropriation rules, of coming through the budget, or through the block grant, as we had 344 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 proposed. But putting that aside . . . So do you do that? Do you use smaller side -- you know. But on the other hand, Governmental Purpose Bonds, which is the money that's funding the demolition, there are, you know, very strict rules on expenditures within "X" amount of time period. And we're in the process of building capacity to do this large scale demolition. So that's some of the incising of the initial take -- you know, the initial bond. That's what we would be -- the types of issues that we would be grappling with. And then that, in turn, depends on what the different interest rate yields. You don't borrow taxable money, as long as you borrow tax exempt money. So all that comes into play. And what they usually do for you is, you give them a couple of serious assumptions. They run different numbers. 345 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 We're doing that in consultation with the Finance Director and the Budget Director, to see what makes the best sense for us.
Last question. In terms of the variety of work to be done in different areas, I know you mentioned earlier today or yesterday. Naturally, the Planning Commission will be involved. In the course of making the critical decisions that have to be made from time to time, differences of opinion, whether from a policy perspective or community perspective, may arise. Who ultimately decides what gets done and how it gets done?
Well, I think as in all things in life, when you have differences of opinion, I mean our approach is to try to find a way where we can find consensus around the issue. I am very open to different ideas. I've, you know, met with innumerable community groups, have gotten different kinds of ideas. 346 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 And it's been a formative process. In fact, as we keep saying, the idea of NTI is not a program and it's not a project, but it's a framework. And we want to leave open to the opportunity to say: Oh, maybe this particular opportunity or program makes sense and we can fund it. We want -- You know, we've always talked about that flexibility and having that flexibility respond to different needs in neighborhoods and communities.
I mean, in terms of the redevelopment process, you know, there's a long established custom and practices between Administrations and the City Council with respect to redevelopment projects. And we don't anticipate or see that at all changing, for everything from the approvals that are required in the creative urban renewal area, to do a redevelopment proposal, to dispose of land. 347 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Those -- you know, those -- they are not only laws but also custom and practices that have governed our work in that area.
Well, I understand that. That's usually in the realm of if something is actually going to go on or not going to go on. There are other circumstances and situations where, if you're just kind of not in the game, if you're not participating, you have no way of accessing what those dollars may be. I mean, there's a fair amount of that experience on the CDBG side.
You know, if something's going on certainly you have a voice. The ability to participate in the decision-making process about whether something's going to happen or not is totally different.
Well, as Miss Wilkerson said, I think the block grant . . . The program in process, I think, is an example of that. We envision using that. 348 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 So, Council must approve by ordinance the Community Development Block Grant plan each year. And in that, we propose showing the expenditures of program. We've talked with technical staff about that.
Ms. Smith, why don't I help you out here. Based on my experience with the CDBG program, you would not necessarily want to utilize that as a model of people getting resources in their communities.
Oh, I thought you were talking about the Council oversight process.
Yes; I know. We have oversight. It's not a model for getting dollars into various areas of the City.
You don't 349 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 really want to use that as a model.
I thought you were talking about the appropriation and budgetary processes.
You can appropriate and you can budget all you want. If you don't have anything to show for it at the end of the day, it's been a meaningless experience.
Okay. And in response to that, we all acknowledge and recognize -- I mean, one of the things that we all have said about the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, in terms of its objectives, is that historically the City has just really looked to the CDBG block grant, and I added to that the McKinney money and the HOPLA funds and all of the dollars that have come in for a, 350 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 particularly, housing development within the City, have been Federal grant dollars. And they carry very stringent regulations and requirement, particularly when it comes to income limits, even affordable as 80 percent or below. I mean, you heard from some representatives who feel you need to target even lower --
And even in 17 areas where there is eligibility . . . 18
. . . because of policy decisions that have been made, both in the past, and in current times. So I'm not talking about trying to 351 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 put dollars that have income restrictions into areas where there is ineligibility. I'm talking about programs that are for people who are eligible, who never see the benefit of those dollars. And that was a process that has participation, has appropriation. If nothing comes out of the pipeline, it really doesn't matter.
And again, I encourage, you know, Members of Council, as well as community groups and others we've met with over time, that if, you know, ideas that you have on how we can deliver resources more effectively and efficiently to areas of the City that have been under served, you know, we're more than open to that, to the ideas.
I mean, that's been why, to get back to we say it's a framework. The framework gives you opportunity to, you know, not try to spell out every, you know -- dot every i and every t. So I think we're in complete 352 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 agreement with that.
Good. I look forward to a very exciting CDBG hearing process. Thank you.
Tell me. I have a lovely pleasant chat with you or with the Mayor. We have differences of opinion. Who's going to make the decision?
Deciding what project, in what District, under what circumstances. Who ultimately makes the decision?
Well, it depends -- I really feel that depends on the circumstances. As we --
Well, the 353 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 circumstances is that I want an apartment house at 16th and Grange fixed. I can't understand why for the last twenty years the City has let it rot and deteriorate. The community has complained many, many times. I believe it's an important part of the blight program. And so I go and I talk to you, because I like you, because I know you, because I respect you because of the position you hold. You say, "That's fine. I'm going to talk to a lot of other people." And we all talk. And then the day comes: Some point talk stops, and a decision is made. Who makes the decision, saying to me, "Councilman, it's a good thing; we're going ahead with it." Or "it's not a good thing." Or it's a good thing but we can't afford it. There are other better things. What role do I have in actually making the decision? I gave the example earlier. This 354 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Mayor, who I regard as a good personal friend, despite differences on maybe political issues from time to time, this Mayor knows how to use power. I gave you the illustration. For four years I was Chairman of Law and Government and didn't get a single bill sent to my committee because the Mayor, when he was Council President, his first term, decided that he didn't want my committee to deal with anything. I couldn't be trusted, or relied on, or God knows what was in his mind. But he had the power. He made that decision. I could talk to him. I could say, "How come I'm not getting any bills?" And he could say, "Well, I'll look at it again." But the decision making was his. I want to know here precisely: Who's going to make the decision?
The reason I came up here is because I think this is probably the critical issue about NTI. My name is Joyce Wilkerson. I'm the Mayor's Chief of Staff. 355 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 I think this is really where the rubber meets the road. If at the end of the day all we do is provide more money for doing business the same way we've always done business, we're going to have the same result we have right now. What NTI proposes is a framework for making decisions differently. Within that framework, I think we can talk about, you know, that within this framework for making decisions, so that there are decisions that aren't just based on: Well, I want this done, it has to be for a reason. It has to fit within the context of rebuilding a neighborhood.
Who makes that decision that it fits within the reason?
Within the framework, what we have proposed in discussions with City Council, is that we set up a general framework. And we described that as the program statement of NTI. It talks about making decisions that are based on data. It talks 356 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 about making decisions that are based on planning. It talks about making decisions that won't end up with an isolated development here --
Joyce, you keep talking about: It talks about making decisions.
The Administration, with proposed budgets, projects, specific transactions, as a result of discussions with Council.
But who will make the decision? I understand there will be talk.
We engage in a lot of talk in a lot of places. Who is going to have the power to 357 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 say: "This is what's going to be done"?
The final decision is made by Council. What we have talked about with the staff is, we would bring you a budget that articulates in detail where the proposed developments would happen, what they would look like, how they would be funded. Any bond proceeds would be reviewed and approved by Council by resolution. We would try to do it at the same time we process the CDBG. So we're not just looking at a discrete pot of money. So that we're looking at all the resources we have in front of you. When I talk to you about what you want to have happen at that location, I should also be talking to you about what PHA intends to do in the area, what kind of capital programming is going to be happening in the area. We would come to you with proposals based on interaction we've all had, and it would be City Council's final determination, by resolution, what will happen in that year. 358 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 That's the vision I have.
You're telling me that that final resolution will include a specific project?
When there's specific projects. Sometimes a lot of what we're talking about here is not project specific. A lot of what we're talking about here -- What Ruth Birchett talked about was providing a subsidy so she as a homeowner could do a repair to her house. That is something that comes from -- People call a number and say, we want to -- I want this in my house. What we can talk about is having a geographically based --
Suppose the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia said to you following this discussion, "There is to be no 22 money going to any homeowner who wants a grant. It's a great idea. It's not current now. I'm not going to utilize it." Who could reverse that decision? 359 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
What we're talking about is bringing City Council a budget that has specific projects and activities, you know, that would identify . . . What we were talking about is identifying by location where that activity would happen, what it would look like, because it's not going to be the same in every area. When you talk to Councilwoman Krajewski, she wants to do encapsulation with the specific CDC. She wants to have it wrapped in around a program of services, code enforcement services. There will be, what? The way I envision is, when we come to City Council, that would be there. It would be project defined. It would be, you know, "X" number of dollars. The delivery mechanism would be articulated.
Everything will be articulated. But the decision will be made by the Mayor and/or a representative of the Mayor, under the Mayor's bill. There is no basis on which the Council can assert its power and its responsibility. 360 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
What we have accepted is, as a good recommendation from City Council, is that it is appropriate for Council to have budget review and approval over these bond proceeds. That's an appropriate role for City Council. Charley -- You know, what came from City Council was something that talked about a line item budget that referenced the Criminal Justice Center and the Convention Center. I went back. I pulled those documents. Those documents talked about foundation costs. It talked about costs of electrical service. That didn't make any sense in this context. I go back -- We went back -- We've had a lot of conversations that -- you know, that we don't get feedback. I mean, our concerns are: Let's talk about a budgeting process that makes sense in the community development context. Talking about foundations doesn't make any sense. What you need -- what we need 361 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 to be talking about are projects. What is the project? What's the project going to meet in this neighborhood? How much money is going to be spent? You know, that's the kind of information that I think the Administration ought to and is prepared to come to City Council with. That's the kind of information that allows a Council member to make a decision about what's going to be happening. This whole notion that somehow at the end of the day reviewing a bid package; a contract; you know, approving a construction -- The game is over by then. You need to be in at the front part. You need to begin at the very beginning.
At the end of the day -- Joyce, I see lots of sweet talk.
No. But I think what the challenge is is trying to reflect in 362 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 the document before us the kind of program we want. If that's -- if what you want is for the Administration to have to come with a budget that articulates something that's measurable so at the end of the day you'll be able to say, "I was promised this. It did not happen." So that you have enough information. We can draft that. We've drafted things a lot more complicated than this. We sat across the table and come up with a lot more complicated transactions than this. You know, we haven't thrown up our hands and said: Wait, wait, wait, you know, we can't get it done. We do complicated deals all the time. What we've never done in this transaction is sit across the table and negotiate. How do we get to where it is we all want to be? We've never had that opportunity. It hasn't happened. I sit there and I say, "Well, you know, this is what I want, you know." I come here. I get amendments. We haven't yet engaged in any kind 363 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 of constructive dialogue about where we want to end up.
Council President Verna. I'm sorry. Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you. Joyce . . . Miss Wilkerson, one of the things that I talked to Council President Verna about today was to do just what you stated. And I want to present that same request to the Administration, that we all get together: City Council and the Administration, so that we can begin to have some dialogue that will address the issues and concerns and questions that people have on both sides, both side of Council Members and the Administration. And Council President Verna said she would be willing to expedite that with Council members. And I'm asking you if we can get 364 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 this happening with the Administration. And maybe we can have this meeting after December 20th, before we basically . . . We have to at some point, I believe, get together and begin to finalize a lot of the issues, that won't be impacted in the legislation for the bond proceeds, by December 20th. I hope that was clear.
Yeah. I mean, I think it's -- I think that . . . I keep -- You know, I am not hearing . . . You know, what I'm hearing does not reflect, you know -- and maybe I'm just not hearing enough. You know, what I'm hearing is an interest on Council's part to be involved in an integral way, and to have assurances that aren't based on my relationship and respect for the Councilmen. You want guarantees. I think that I hear Council saying: We want to have a process that commits to specific activities in an area and we want final -- we want budget -- we want to be able to sign off on it. We don't want the Administration having the latitude to 365 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 do whatever it wants. And I'm saying, that sounds appropriate. But it needs to be in a framework. We can't continue doing business like we do it now where somebody -- you know, somebody has the developer, and they have a parcel of land; and so all of a sudden all the resources go there. That can't be the way we do business. It won't have been worth generating this pool of money if we don't change how we make decisions, if we don't become rooted in planning, make decisions based on information. We're going to have more of the same. We're going to have --
No; but I'm just saying: Change all you want the way we make decisions. There's much to be criticized in the present method. But don't, in those changes, exclude City Council from having the power to come into an area of a total dispute with the Mayor, in which the Mayor does not have the final say. Maybe Council also doesn't have the final say. And then they got to find a way to 366 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 work out their agreement. Right now the Mayor has the final say. And you guard it so -- Why is it that the City Treasurer says he doesn't know what the role of rental income is going to play in the costs of various things, but the bond buyer in its Monday issue writes an article telling us that the gross revenue from rental car receipts, for example, are running much lower. Everybody knows that income is running lower, but the City doesn't come forth with that information. Why isn't the City forthcoming truthfully, talking with us about all of these facts? Are they saying to us there will be no 17 decision unless Council is also in agreement? We don't hear that.
Well, I think -- I mean, I think we can -- I think we can draft something that reflects an appropriate structure, what from my perspective what is -- you know, I keep saying this is critical -- is that there be a framework so that we're changing how we make decisions. 367 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Within that framework, the proposal is that we develop a budget that's specific, that we bring the City Council forward -- you know, what has been described as a line item budget, but I think is more appropriately is probably a project budget. But we are prepared to talk about what that budget will look like. We can attach that as an exhibit so that it's very clear that on an annual basis the Administration will have to bring to City Council a budget that has certain elements in it. And we can negotiate now what those elements will be so there are no surprises. What I need is predictability. I need to know -- You know, one of the problems with having the whole bond issue go forward without any kind of framework is, I can't then turn around and try to develop a budget for March because I don't know what the rules are. You know, what I think we can do is, knowing the rules, you know, commit to developing a budget that has certain -- that meets certain criteria. 368 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 We will bring it to City Council. We can talk about how much in advance of actually wanting it adopted it has to be presented to City Council, but I think we have the capacity, if we engage in a negotiation, to actually reach that point. We're not negotiating right now.
Councilman Cohen, if I can just ask for one clarification.
Madam Chief of Staff, in the example that you laid out, I guess what is probably causing the level of concern, if not a little bit of consternation, is probably the time in between. In the example that you had laid out, which I think everyone is generally in 369 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 agreement with, a budget is presented. It lays out whatever it lays out. In your earlier statement you said if somehow, some way whatever was supposed to happen doesn't happen -- I guess when you come back the following year, the Council person says, this is the budget that got passed last year. These things didn't happen. You're now here this year. I think the real question is: What happens in the interim, while whatever was supposed to be happening is not happening? And do you then just end up having to wait until the next year to say: Hey, by the way, what we passed last year -- whatever it was -- it didn't happen. And what people are trying to, I think, struggling to try to figure out is, if whatever was in that budget doesn't happen, how long do you wait before you recognize that it's not happening. Or in the alternative, what ability is there to, quite honestly, prevent spending outside that budget or redirection of resources 370 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 once a budget has been passed? There is no answer to that particular question.
No. One of the things we talked about last night was the kind of certifications that have to be made. Our proposal was that we would attach the budget to the . . . attach the budgeting requirement to the program? To the indenture, so that in order to draw down money there would have to be a certification to the trustee that the bond proceeds are being expended in a way that's consistent with the budget adopted by City Council. That's true not just for big chunks of money going into a tax credit deal. It would also be true for the home improvement grants that get handed out. Right now the Redevelopment Authority has a bond program. On a weekly basis they batch all the loans. There are certifications made. These bond proceeds are expended in conformance with, and there are all kinds of 371 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 certifications you have to make. I mean, I think we can come up with a lot of checks and balances. I think probably more important is that we set out a procedure so that along the way it's very clear what the process is going to be for talking about, you know, in advance of the budget what's going to be happening. And then a process for talking about what kind of reporting meetings there are going to be, you know, so we could sit down and say, you know, we've got a problem. We've got this money. We've put ads in the Water Department bills and nobody's signing up for these loans. I mean, I think we need to talk about a process. I think at the end of the day, development will happen in that way, that we can't fire across the bow and --
-- expect that at the end of the day we're going to have development.
All right. 372 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Well, I mean, I hear what you're saying and I understand it. I think, though, given your extensive experience around here, you could understand where people like ourselves may not want to be in a position where, kind of you're the ultimate arbiter of whether it gets done or doesn't get done is a trustee somewhere, you know, at a bank.
That's fine. We can talk about other devices. What my concern is is that we put the checks and balances at the wrong points so that they're at the point that a developer has spent two, three years putting together a deal; and then City Council, you know, has its right to exert authority at the very end of a two- or three-year process. We'll have people running out of the City, you know, if we try to do it that way. I think that, you know, the oversight -- you know, the oversight is appropriate. I think putting it in the right place is what one of the challenges is we have 373 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 to address now. Having it at the back end doesn't serve anybody's purpose.
That almost presupposes a scenario, though, where during that two- or three-year time period, I mean, you weren't working with whoever you were supposed to be working with. And then, I mean, you're saying that out of nowhere that Council member jumps up and says: Oh, I don't like that project any more.
Let's put the check and balance at the beginning, you know, not when somebody is out bidding contracts. That's the wrong point. These deals, first of all, don't happen that way. There are all kinds of -- As a real matter, there are all kinds of various stopping points before you ever get there. There's zoning. There's acquisition. There's disposition. I mean, there are a lot of other stop points. I think that if we sit down, sit across the table, and talk about the kinds of 374 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 activity we're likely to be involved in, we can come up with an appropriate scenario for engagement and oversight, that will have it occurring in a way that doesn't stymie development in Philadelphia in the long run.
I understand. I guess I'll just close with this: You said earlier that there have not been this kind of discussion. And I guess -- I mean, I'm slightly intrigued by that because . . . I mean, on more of a third-, fourth-, fifth-hand kind of basis, I mean, I thought that I was hearing over the past, if not couple weeks, month or so that there had been discussions between and among some parties who reside on the second floor, and parties who reside on the fourth floor, and, you know, maybe you meant on the third floor. I don't know. But I was under the impression that there were some meetings going on about this kind of stuff.
I think there are meetings but they are not negotiations. 375 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 For something like this, where you're trying to arrive at a document that reflects each parties concern, you know, everybody's got to understand what their scope of authority is, what their authority is to actually drive to that middle point. And those are the kinds of conversations we haven't had. We have to sit across the table and really drive to that middle point. At the end of the day, I'm not going to be happy; you're not going to be happy; but we will have talked enough about the transaction and the issues, you know, understanding what the -- where the real tensions are so that we can end up at some kind of middle point. And my sense is, we haven't done that yet. And when I sit here and hear people talk about what they want, you know, talk about how they see the -- you know, a process working that involves reasonable kind of exchange and oversight. I'm hearing a lot of middle ground. At the end of the day, we may not reach it. But 376 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 I haven't -- I have not -- I have not been party to the kind of conversation that's really trying to drive to that middle point where people have -- where people are sitting around at a table and saying, well, you know, maybe if we add this to the budget; maybe if we, you know, do a little process at the front, we can get there. We have yet to engage in that kind of constructive negotiation. Can't guarantee it's going to work out, but we haven't even tried yet.
Just one 377 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 question. I understand the Mayor on a couple of occasions has made the statement, quite publicly, to people that this is a decision between him and District Council members, and he doesn't want Council-at-large members to have any role to play. Please respond.
I think that the Administration has always tried to respect the prerogative of the District Council person, whatever that means. I think that . . . And one of the things that I saw as being particularly attractive about the budget process recommended by Council is, is that it really does expand the role. It puts people at the table who would otherwise be out of the process, while at the same time deferring to the Council person, who at the end of the day is the person who has to be accountable for what happens in the District. And so, you know, as the budget's being put together, the District Council person 378 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 will be the one saying, you know, this is what I need for my District, you know. This is what has to happen in my District.
So that do I accurately report or am I inaccurate in reporting the Mayor's comments?
I think that the Mayor on some of these decisions, for example, in questions about what demolition happens; what development, you know, what project happens . . . You know, does it happen on this block? Do we deal with that group? That it ought to be the prerogative of the District Council person. Those are the people that on a day in and day out, you know, basis we work with, you know. But I think that's one of those issues that . . .
Well, isn't that a matter for City Council to decide and not for the Mayor? What does he have to do with deciding whether or not one Council member has more clout than another Council member? 379 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 His job is to work with City Council as a body. And those that framed the Charter always believed that a District Council member's loyalty has to be primarily to the District that he or she represents. And the reason for Council members-at-large is to make sure there's a City-wide view, that interest of balance, that everybody's protected. And in City Council over the years we have had our differences, but we worked them out. But that's City Council's function. It's not the Mayor's function to decide the role of the District Council member or the role of a Council member-at-large.
I think we have questions from Councilman Kenney.
No; I just wanted to reference the statement that the Councilman made. 380 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 And I've been working here for twenty years, and I don't understand what's different now than what has happened over the last twenty years in terms of development, and in terms of even introduction of street ordinances that was a District Council person's prerogative. Now all of a sudden, somehow the District Council person should not have any jurisdiction or authorization to do anything in that District. Similarly, as I see you sit up here and have this discussion about final sign-off, and we have before us legislation that doesn't even give the District Council person the final sign-off on something in his District. I don't understand that. I know I'm not supposed to be debating with the panel, but somebody needs to explain something to me. What is different now?
Well, in his own way, maybe the Mayor doesn't want to hear from Council-at-Large members.
Well, 381 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Councilman, it is my understanding --
We don't have any problem within the Council. Council-at-Large members try to work --
We do have a problem within the Council, because right now we have legislation before us, whereas I can't -- I don't get final approval on anything in my 382 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 District, and I don't understand that.
Council, the Chair will intervene. Councilman Clarke, would you please read the language of the amendment to be proposed, for Councilwoman Miller?
Point of order. Point of order. Point of order. Point of order.
Point of order. First of all, we're still in a hearing. Second of all, I don't know of any circumstance which allows a non-member of a Committee to propose an amendment for that Committee.
I'm not proposing anything. I'm simply making a statement, which I think I'm allowed to do. 383 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
No. What I'm asking it for the point of order, and I'm asking the Chair for the point of order, is whether or not this is, in fact, reading into the record an amendment from a person who's not -- from a member of Council --
No. I didn't ask -- Well, if I said "read the amendment" then that is not what I meant to say.
-- have raised the point of order if you didn't use the word "amendment."
Well, 384 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 fine. All right. Then the Chair stands corrected.
I just want to know what -- if it's an amendment being read, for what purpose is it being read?
No, no, no. That was only the -- the . . . All of us know that various members of the Committee and members outside of this Committee who are on Council have an interest in the amendments, and have themselves worked on them privately. I was only talking about private. I did not mean any public meeting of any amendment. We are in our hearing phase, and we are not there.
I just want to make sure -- I just want to, with all due respect, get a clarification from the Chair -- 385 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
-- that only members and only members of the Finance Committee are permitted to offer amendments to this committee.
Thank you. Do we have any more questions? (No questions)
Thank you very much. This will conclude our public hearing. We will enter into our stated meeting. The Chair will recognize the President of Council for a statement and for the purpose of introducing amendments.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess we're going to do 386 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 this until we get it right. At the beginning of yesterday's hearing I explained that I would be offering amendments to Bill Number 010694, that followed discussions among Council members and with the Administration concerning this bill. Since yesterday, those discussions have continued; and the amendments that I intend to offer have been further revised. A copy of those revised amendments have now been distributed to the members of the committee, and I assume to members of Council. I would like to summarize briefly what these proposed amendments would do. First, the bill as introduced cap the amount of borrowing at $250 million. The amendments would lift that cap, provided the total amount of bond proceeds that could be used for demolition would be capped at $160 million. This amendment has not changed since yesterday. Second provision would be made to permit start-up expenditures of up to $20 million before approval of the first annual budget. Again, this proposed amendment has not 387 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 changed since yesterday. Next, the requirement that the land bank be approved prior to expenditure of any bond proceeds would be deleted. Instead, Council's approval of the land bank would be required only before land acquisition could be made with bond proceeds; and an exception would be made for land acquisitions expressly approved by Council so that any current procedure under the land acquisition takes place with Council approval could continue even before approval of the land bank. While this language is unchanged from yesterday, additional clarifying language has been added to make it clear that land acquisitions approved by Council will not also require approval of the Project Review Team. Next, an exception has been added to the requirement that the Project Review Team approve all contracts for work funded by the bond proceeds. If the City awards a contract to the lowest responsible bidder pursuant to a bid 388 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 contract -- bid package, excuse me . . . pursuant to a bid package approved by the Project Review Team, that contract would not have to be approved by the Project Review Team. This amendment is new since yesterday. The annual budget requirement would also be revised. Instead of requiring submission of an annual line item budget, the RDA would submit an annual budget in such form and detail as is acceptable to Council. And this, I understand, is quite negotiable. This amendment is also new since yesterday. Next, the language in yesterday's amendment concerning the participation of District Council members in the work of the Project Review Team, has been revised. Instead of language requiring District Council members to have a, quote, reasonable opportunity, end of quote, for review, comment and recommendation, the Project Review Team would be required to give District Council members the immediate opportunity to meet with the Project Review Team at the District Council member's discretion, in order 389 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 to provide review, comment, and recommendation. In addition, the Council President's representative on the Project Review Team would not be permitted to approve any matter without first obtaining written authorization from each affected District Council person. Finally, as was the case with yesterday's amendments, the exhibits to the bill 11 would be changed. Technical amendments would be made to exhibit A, the Service Agreement, to conform to changes made in the Mayor's form of service agreement. Exhibit B, the summary project budget, would be deleted in its entirety. Those are the changes that would be effective by the amendments which I will be offering. Again, a copy has been distributed to the members, and the copy highlights the changes.
The Chair notes that there -- 390 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
Thank you. On the question there is discussion with regard to page four, section c, the line: The one, two, third line from the bottom of that section in bold.
Page four. It would be section c, bold print, third line from the bottom. After the word "approval" or would -- the words "or disapproval" would be added. If those two words can be added, then we're -- then we're all --
All right. Then I would entertain some discussion as to why. If we say "approval or disapproval" what's the issue if it's approval or 391 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 disapproval? It doesn't say approval and disapproval. It's "or." I would like to entertain some discussion on the matter.
I'm Thomas Ericson, with the consultant, Council President's office. We have discussed this issue for quite a few hours.
Well, unfortunately, nobody discussed it with me, so we'll ask you to discuss it. And I've been here all day, like everybody else. So please discuss it on the record. Thank you. I'm sorry. Nobody discussed it with me. Nobody told me there was a meeting during which this issue was under discussion. I don't have any problem because I've been here. So let's just have the discussion. Thank you.
But just so you know: We did discuss this with the Council person who brought this up as an issue.
Okay. 392 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Thank you. That's fine.
Okay. And the feeling of the staff and a number of other members of Council is that if you put in the word "disapproval" whereas the individual District Councilman had the right to tell Council's representative on the Project Review Team that they disapproved that team -- that representative's disapproval of a specific project or specific contract, that that Council member would have veto power over what that representative, representing the entire Council, was proposing to do.
So in other words, to give you an example, if the representative of the Council thought that an inordinate amount of funds were being expended in one, two, or three Council Districts, and that other Districts were being ignored, those Council members will have no problem accepting as much money as they can get.