Let me ask 393 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 you a question. Let me ask it my way. If the person who -- the President's appointee or the Mayor's appointee -- if either person, since that is -- if the Review Team decides they want to do project A, and I as the District Council member say, "I don't approve; I disapprove. I want to do project B . . ."
The District Council member. The District Council member has the right to approve whatever is going to be done in their District.
The problem comes if the Mayor's Office proposes to spend $80 million in one District, and the representative of the entire Council thought that other Districts were not being given an equitable treatment under the Mayor's proposals, and we -- and the Council is of the feeling that it wanted its team -- its 394 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 representative to refuse to approve, to disapprove additional expenditures in that District, that he should be able to do so. If the District Council member were allowed to disapprove his disapproval of additional expenditures, then there's no meaning in having any Council Review Team. Council member -- Council representative on the Review Team. It becomes meaningless.
The Council member, it seems to me, should have the right to approve or disapprove any project. Right now in my blight plan -- one of my many blight plans --
-- I have leveraged twenty-five million other government dollars, which puts it in another category. So, I have private investment, as well as I'm requesting public investment.
But now, 395 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 what if I have -- I'm trying to ask the question so that I understand. What if I have a problem with that developer and I decided that I don't want that project? You're saying I don't have a right to disapprove it?
It's not disapproval. You have the right to approve or disapprove a project, but it's not the right to disapprove Council's representative on the Review Team's decision that enough had been spent in that particular District at that time, and that no action was being taken or insufficient action was being taken.
Then the language should reflect -- Then it should reflect -- And we can't disapprove when it comes to amounts, then. All right. Identify yourself. MR. McPHERSON: Charles McPherson, 396 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 counsel, technical staff. To the extent that a project is coming -- a District Council project is being recommended, the District Council person has the sole approval. It says that the President appointee shall not approve any matter for which the approval of the Project Review Team is required without first obtaining written authorization from each District Council person whose District is directly affected by such matter. So to the extent that there is a project that is going on in your District and you wish to approve it, then you approve the project and it goes forward. To the extent that it's a project or whatever it was, as you had indicated that you were not happy with and wished it not to go forward, by not approving it, it can not go forward in your District.
Yeah, but what about -- Excuse me, Madam Chair. If there is a project that you approve it, and then the 397 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Council representative decides that they don't approve, then you don't have final authorization on that project. MR. McPHERSON: As Mr. Ericson stated, there are two, I guess, points that the Project Review Team provide. One is to protect the assurance that a project does not go forward in a District Council person's District without their explicit approval. And if they don't like it, they don't approve it; therefore, it can't go forward. To the extent that, as Mr. Ericson had indicated, that the majority of Council feels that all -- that a disproportionate share of proceeds are going into --
Does the majority of the Council feel that way or does the majority of the committee? Because I don't recall any polling being taken.
No, that's not what he's talking about. 398 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 MR. McPHERSON: You are correct -- I would say you are correct in the fact that it is the Council President's representative.
That's right. And that person is appointed by the Council President solely. MR. McPHERSON: I understand that, sir. Let me rephrase it. So to the extent that the Council President, with whatever -- however input that information gets to the Council President -- that there is some concerns that an inappropriate amount or, you know, whatever concerns about proceeds going into one District and not all, there is a mechanism to at least stop and have some discussions.
And who determines what's inappropriate? That person on the Project Review Team? MR. McPHERSON: I would assume --
That allegedly represents me as a District Council person also?
Would 399 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 represent all of us.
I think we need discussion on this. I don't understand that because in my District, as I said, I leverage funds. I would have probably the most expensive park in the City, almost a million-dollar park, Malcolm X Park at 52nd and Pine, but I worked for that. I begged donations. I used all leveraged dollars. So I don't know what it means. You're saying that's different. So my project may have more money, but I may have taken money from every other project. I may have leveraged investment dollars from institutions and/or other private individuals, which I have. How was that impacted on the amount of money spent in the project? I don't understand what this section means. MR. McPHERSON: What this section 24 means is that --
So that 400 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 means if -- so if my park costs three-quarters of a million dollars and every other park costs a quarter of a million dollars, then I don't get the money because I worked like a galley slave to generate all these dollars? I don't understand. And what you're saying is not clarifying it for me, not so far. MR. McPHERSON: This only pertains to bond proceeds.
Yeah, but in addition to which -- and excuse me if I'm not correct -- in the budget -- if in fact there is a line item budget disapproved by Council, I do recall that there's some language that only allows ten percent flexibility on the expenditures. So aren't we capped in terms of the amount of fluctuation of that approved budget by Council? So you could not, in fact, have this scenario where the District Council person gets together with the Mayor, and I guess you're talking about the Fifth District Council person. 401 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 Let's all put it out there. All right. Gets together with the Mayor, and comes up with this strategy to move all of these bond proceeds into the Fifth Councilmanic District, based on the language and the line item budget that's approved by the Council in the percent 8 flexibility language, how can that happen? 9 MR. McPHERSON: It depends whether 10 or not the budget then approved is specific to a geographic location.
But if it's a line item budget that's approved by Council, how can that go beyond that 10 percent flexibility? MR. McPHERSON: Well, again, the 10 percent is by budget category. And to the extent of projects, I believe as the testimony was a little earlier, what they all are and what are the geographic locations of what they are, at this point I believe was not known.
I'm sorry. 402 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
Also -- I mean, I don't understand -- in addition to -- in addition to that question, I'm asking the question about veto power. Does the District Council have veto power over what happens in his or her District? MR. McPHERSON: Yes.
My issue is, how does this person, who is appointed -- not elected -- make determinations, first of all, on whether or not it is an appropriate use of financing; secondly, does not have to adhere to the District Council person wishes and can simply make the decision, based simply on whatever criteria that that person so deemed necessary. And that's my issue, particularly given the fact that in the language that's in here, it clearly states that there's only a flexibility of 10 percent. MR. McPHERSON: The issue became, 403 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 as I understand it, that on the budget that you approved, to the extent that it is approved by Council, then how can it be changed by going into the Eleventh Councilmanic District, if one existed? The issue becomes, I guess, the specificity with which the Administration is prepared to come to City Council with the budget, and does it actually have the geographic location and breakdown by dollar figure as to what is going to be spent. To the extent that it doesn't and the budget categories are broad, then there is -- then there is no mechanism for any type of reviewer to stop to ask the questions as to the resource allocation by District.
So if you require, say, for instance, on the demolition aspect -- and I think there's a number associated with the demolitions. 5,000 -- 8,000?
Imminently dangerous, 10,000. There's clearly some 404 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 geographical information associated with that which will be used by -- the bond proceeds will be used on; am I correct? MR. McPHERSON: Absolutely, but I would -- again, I would doubt that the budget and that those would be allocated in the budget up front by geographic boundaries.
There's going to be a set number of dollars, whatever it may be: 160, 170, 150, designated for demolition of dangerous buildings, imminently dangerous buildings. We know now, to some degree, where those buildings are, and so we can then determine geographically what Council Districts those buildings are. MR. McPHERSON: And my understanding is there were more than just imminently dangerous buildings that were to come down. 405 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
I said dangerous and imminently dangerous. MR. McPHERSON: Okay. I'm sorry. Apologize.
No. You don't have to apologize to me. Similarly, on the development standpoint, I need to have an understanding as to what that person can deem inappropriate, and what parameters that person is operating under. Because I think you're giving this person wide latitude and wide-reaching powers beyond any Council person, be it at-large or District. How does this person now have the ability to disapprove projects throughout the City of Philadelphia?
That person is there to monitor what is going on City-wide, and to listen to the concerns of individual Council members, as to what is occurring or not occurring in their District. And then it's going to be a question of satisfying a number of Council 406 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 members as to whether or not --
Yeah, but what number of Council members? See, this is mystical.
Mr. McPherson and Mr. Ericson, in addition to his question --
-- you know, who these people are making these decisions.
If we have veto power, why can't we put our disapproval? What's the difference? MR. McPHERSON: The veto power is by not approving. It is not -- By not approving, it is disapproved.
Why can't we have -- I don't understand why we can't say "approval" or "disapproval." I'm back to my question. Explain to me the difference, why we can't say "or disapproval." 407 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 If the District Council person has the say, the ultimate say, in what happens in his or her District, what difference does it make?
If a District Council person is getting allocated $150 million out of the $295 million pot, and the representative of the entire Council who is on -- who's monitoring this activity brings it to the attention of the Council President that this is really disproportionate, the individual Council member who's getting the $150 million is not going to approve that. He's going to disapprove his ability to slow down work in that Council person's district [sic], until everybody else has a chance to get their say and to make sure that they get some sort of equitable treatment, with the limited amount of funds that are available.
So, he revisits the entire budget. 408 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
This does not sound like people who have any sense of what housing and development is. So you're in the middle of building a project, and you stop in the middle because something cost a hundred thousand this year and then the project is done. I have no idea what you are talking about, because development doesn't flow like that. You got to build a whole building. You can't build a third of a building and stop until you probably get a third of a building built. I have no idea what you're talking about. That does not make sense. You finish a building, and then in the next go-round the next person gets it if you're in the middle of a project. I have no 19 idea what you're talking about.
Madam Chair, point of order. I can't hear the witness answering the question.
As a member of the committee, I think it's important I be able 409 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 to hear that.
I think as a member of the committee you be able to hear that, too, as well as all of us. I'm trying to get some clarity on the issue, because I'm stuck at one-third of a building. MR. McPHERSON: Hopefully we'll get the other two-thirds in place. The project, when it can come to the committee, to the extent that a project is moving forward, the funding would be in place, I would assume, for the project to be completed because you wouldn't start the project, theoretically, without having the funding in place, and then the project could be approved by that individual, and the project would be completed.
But I reserve the right to raise outside dollars to get private contributors, to get institutional natural development. I don't know -- Where does all that fit in, then? MR. McPHERSON: It does not. 410 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
If I'm a hustler, if I work hard, like I do in my District, I reserve the right to keep going. If I get people out there, if I get volunteers, if I get contractors who donate, as I do in my District . . . They don't call it 8 hours a day, 7 days a week . . . It makes a big 9 difference. 10 But I don't do that so that 11 somebody can limit my ability to work in my 12 District. 13 MR. McPHERSON: None of those funds 14 would come under the purview of the Project 15 Review Team. 16
Well, I 17 don't know about that. I think that -- 18 MR. McPHERSON: It's limited to 19 bond receipts. 20
Well, if 21 there's no problem, then I don't know why we 22 can't have "or disapproval" because I don't know 23 any of the stuff that you're talking about, in 24 terms of -- I don't want any -- MR. McPHERSON: Madam -- 411 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
It seems to me that the way we're talking, this Project Review Team adds a whole 'nother -- adds a whole 'nother political, bureaucratic level. I don't know what you all are talking about. I really don't. And I've been here all day, and nobody has said anything to me, in terms of this language being crafted, either way. I've seen people come in and out all day.
The language was crafted at the request of a Council member.
Well, that's fine but nobody said it to me, and I'm chair of this committee, and I have a right to know. And I hustle for development in my District.
It was just completed. At the request of a Council member, we reviewed what had been presented 412 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 yesterday, worked on it and it was just prepared.
Nobody talked to me. And until I understand it, I reserve the right to continue to ask questions until -- maybe everybody -- maybe everybody -- Well, I know. But maybe everybody else had time to think and mull over it and all of that. But I think if it doesn't matter, everybody has their rights and I don't know why we can't say "or disapproval" and everybody in here be satisfied. I don't understand that.
Perhaps it would be appropriate for us to poll the members of the committee, to determine whether or not they're interested in adding the word "disapproved." And if they're not, there's really no sense in belaboring this any further. 413 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
Well, I think in the -- in the . . . I think that we should have a discussion in the spirit. I mean it. I'm asking people not to try to push the bill, as you are, Mr. Kenney, trying to push the vote, so that we can have this discussion.
You all have been in and out all day having your private discussions.
Well, a lot of people have private discussions within this Council and, you know, that's unfortunate, but that's the way things have been over the last few months. But be that as it may --
-- better than most of us. 414 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
You should know better than most of us. I try to be a fair and --
-- should not be insulting to the members of the committee. 415 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
I find that members of the committee are insulting me.
And as I've said many times, Mr. Kenney, we can vote up with them --
And until I'm finished having my say, until I recognize you, you should --
Am I recognized 416 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 or not?
That's fine. I'll recognize you when I've had my say.
And I will reiterate: As Chair of this committee, I reserve this right.
Madam Chair, may I just a moment? 417 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
It might be helpful if the Council person who requested the amendment speak on this because I think we should hear it from the horse's mouth, as they say.
And maybe that will help us get to where we have to go.
And I would have been willing to suggest it earlier. Some of my colleagues are afraid to recognize people who aren't on this committee, which is why I did mention earlier. I thank you, Councilman DiCicco. Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. And thank you for allowing me to speak. Certainly I am not on the Finance Committee, but the NTI initiative is City-wide, 418 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 and I expect the Eighth District to be a part of what goes on here. Yesterday I voiced my concern about the lack of clarity, as I saw it, as it related to the inclusion of the District Council person in the decision-making process, as a part of the Project Review Team. The initial wording that we suggested, there's probably been about four, maybe five different amendments dealing with section c, or item c, in section 7. Today for several hours there were meetings. I was in and out because I also had to attend the Streets and Services Committee meeting. And I think where the confusion sets in, because the initial amendment that we suggested, the word "approval and disapproval" was in there because the initial . . . the initial bill had the word . . . words that basically meant approval and disapproval, in terms of the ability of the project team person to do that. So I felt that District Council person should have that ultimate authority. 419 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 I think the lack of including the word "disapproval" is very confusing, and as Council President stated, basically this was just completed, because I've continued to have questions based on why we cannot put the wording -- the word "disapproval" in this amendment. And I think what helps with the confusion is that the hypothetical example that people state is an example that some of us just can't even . . . that some of us haven't even thought of because it's something that we don't even think would really happen. So . . . And I think that's where a lot of the confusion comes in. I may not be able to help with the full interpretation of this because I'm still somewhat confused and uncomfortable, but submitted to this with the knowledge and the opportunity that I could always come back and introduce an amendment or this portion can be amended at a later date. So I may not have helped with the explanation, but it is very confusing. And 420 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 that's because I believe the hypothetical example is pretty much off-the-wall. But people -- some people here think it's something that could happen, that some District could get a whole lot of money, versus another District not being able to get enough. So, that's the issue here. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Am I ready for what? I'm not -- I don't know what I'm allowed to say now. I mean, the question -- the question -- I guess the Chair's not here, too, so I -- the issue -- the issue is that, how long do we debate this issue when I think the overall majority of the committee is willing to vote on the motion. I mean, I'm willing to listen to everything. 421 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 I guess we can stay here until tomorrow, or we could adjourn altogether and allow the Administration over the next few weeks or months to figure out what's going on, to negotiate as promised. I mean, I'll do either one. But at some point in time, something's got to give.
And I think we're all very anxious to see something on NTI go forward.
Thank you. We used to say, if I'm President one day, I'm going to be President.
Madam Chair. If I'm Chair of the committee, I'll be Chair while I'm Chair.
Thank you. Madam Chair, I just had a 422 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 discussion with Charley with respect to this line item budget issue. And he referenced the fact that the line item language is taken out. I was unaware of that. The issue centers around the flexibility of whatever budget is in for approved. And I'm assuming that if it's a budget approved on contracts, as it relates to some specific development initiatives, that there possibly should be a scenario where there is a limit on the flexibility. I don't know. Maybe that gets people to where they get, if they are concerned about some relationship between a certain Council person and the Mayor and their ability to develop this hundred million dollar development initiative. I only wish I had it that way. So that -- I mean, if people want to look at that, if there's some concerns about the ability to move that much money without some Council oversight, that maybe there needs to be some percentage put on whatever dollars, some level 423 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 of flexibility, some threshold that makes people comfortable. Because if, in fact, that certain Council person happens to have this grant development that's a hundred million dollars, trust me: I would love to come to the members of Council and the Project Review Team to attempt to get them to support that because I think that would be good, not only for that Council person's District, but good for the City. So, I don't know. Maybe there's a potential of having something like that. As I look back at Miss Wilkerson, I'm not sure the Administration is comfortable with that. But, you know, I don't understand, first of all, why there's this concern about the process that has happened over the years. I know there's been some discussion about where money is spent. I just offer the possibility of looking at some potential of creating something. 424 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 I just as a Council person fundamentally think that I should have the final authorization, disapproval or approval, given the fact that I have some of any greatest constituents over there, who you heard testify earlier, that whatever happens in the Fifth District, Councilman Clarke's going to have to take the weight. And I don't want some Project Review Person, who they will never know or never see, make those decisions, and I have to end up taking the weight for those decisions. I don't know, Mr. McPherson, members of the Council President's staff, if there's something that can be crafted that could create some limits in terms of flexibility on whatever budget is approved by Council. I'm comfortable with that, to a degree, although I don't think we need the Project Review team.
My only regret is that neither the . . . sitting here all day, I did not get to talk to Councilwoman Miller or her people. Obviously, I didn't get to talk to the President or her people. 425 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 And so, I did not get a perspective that there was a problem with the language. Rumor had it they were down there meeting. I assumed that they were down there meeting, and I thought they had worked it out. I would never, never ever vote for a bill that undermines my own rights as a District Council person. It's against every law of nature. You don't vote against yourself. I think I said this once before. Lu used to talk about the old days. His father told him a story -- And his father died in 1971 -- about people going around asking the old timers, old black folks, you know, "Can you read and write the Constitution?" "Then you shouldn't be able to vote, should you?" And they said, "No, they shouldn't because they couldn't read and write." It"s the same thing. How can District Council people vote themselves out of a vote? And I only regret that I'm being used as Chair of this committee to vote myself 426 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 out of a vote, and I absolutely regret it. I would hope -- and I'm sure that it will be passed out of this committee overwhelmingly, Councilman Kenney, as you, you know, so aptly tried to make your point that you were victorious. I am sure that it will be passed out of this committee. And I only regret, and I hope that District Council people will think before the final vote that you're voting yourselves out of a vote, to support any legislation that undermines your own right to choose.
Thank you. Councilman Clarke, I mean, our general tradition is not to ask each other questions, but in the spirit of friendship.
It's hard to be mean when Olivia is sitting on my lap. 427 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
That's another issue for another day, not getting paid.
Councilman, I know you put a suggestion out there. Do you have at the moment any additional thoughts on the . . . I'll use the word of the evening, the framework of your idea or proposal? Did I get the impression that you were talking about some particular, probably, percentage -- at the moment we're talking about a $295 million bond provision. Are you saying that some framework could be established where, if there were a percentage beyond a certain number that was going anywhere -- I'm not saying that it's necessarily going in your direction or anyone's direction -- that something else would have to happen under the circumstance?
Or what was 428 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 your idea?
My understanding -- and I may be incorrect. My understanding, when there was this discussion about a line item budget, it would not only talk about demolition; it would also talk about projects, what would be reviewed by the Council on a yearly basis --
Right now, under the existing process, OHCD advertises in the back of some newspaper somewhere, right? That they are going to move this money to that project. And most of us never see that. And we don't know that the money has been moved until we go to say, "Our project's ready to go." And it's, "Oh, by the way, we had to move that money because you 429 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 weren't ready to go." And I understand the concerns because, you know, I had the experience. Actually the other way around, but that's okay. And I understand that. And I thought as a result of the flexibility issue, as related to the line item budget, the percent, 9 that was a basis for that, to insure that if 10 anything has to be transferred beyond a certain amount, that it would have to become before this Project Review Team. That was my understanding, which is why I referenced that in my discussion with Charley, that I think the control's already built into that, in the event that this grand conspiracy happens, and the Mayor and the Fifth District guy gets together and tries to shuffle a hundred million dollars over to the Fifth District. It was my understanding, based on that document --
So, you 430 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 know . . . And I've simply said that Charley just said that the line item budget issue or the line item language in the budget was out.
I understand the Administration had some concerns. I don't know -- MR. McPHERSON: It now says --
Well, whatever language is in. If there's some percentage, like ten, fifteen, whatever it may be, in terms of the flexibility of moving money around, then I think that would suffice to not allow, and I --
And I think that goes to the earlier response which is -- I mean, if you have a budget that just says: Demolition "X" amount of dollars, residential demolition "X" amount of dollars, industrial -- I think that's what we're using -- home preservation programs with a dollar amount, and it's not . . . I think the terminology was . . . geographically specific, I mean in that level of a budget you still would not really know what 431 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 was going where. And I mean, it kind of doesn't get back to the location issue and how resources are being disbursed around. I mean, I think a part of this is a recognition, on the one hand, that there will be variances all over the place, in terms of where the dollars go. I think because of the limited resource -- I mean three hundred million dollars is a lot of money, but for the size of the problem it's not. And so I think people are trying to figure out a way to make sure that -- I'll never use in this context the word "equity" because you can't really make an equity argument. I mean, there will be no equity, dollar-for-dollar, for instance, in this discussion between the Fourth District and the Fifth District, given the level of need. The question is: How do you distribute the resources in a relatively fair fashion so that people feel like they're at least getting something that makes some sense 432 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 for what the needs are in their District. I mean, if you end up with a lot of demolition dollars -- and I'm assuming in most instances you're going to want that -- I may not need that level of resource. That's fine. I mean, I shouldn't be in that discussion, shouldn't be having that kind of problem. I think part of this -- the real issue here is one of fairness and who decides what the distribution of those resources is, or at least who's checking to see what the distribution of resources is. And if there is some number -- and I don't know what that number is -- but some number that is so out of line with whatever else you have left to spend, who says or who points out: There's something going on here that if it's carried out, there's no way in the world that a number of people are ever going to get anywhere near what anybody thinks is fair. And somebody has to at least raise a red flag and say, "What's the story here? Why are we doing this?" And then make a decision: How do 433 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 we go forward. I mean, that's --
I clearly understand that. I mean, that's what was said earlier. My issue is, understanding -- when I made my statement, understanding that there was this ten percent flexibility issue on the table, all right? which would not allow an opportunity to move that money all over the place without the Project Review Team, all right, I thought that safeguard in place would not allow the scenario that some people were talking about.
I thought -- As the language was laid out, I thought the ten percent had to do with the actual budget. If the budget was a hundred million dollars, that we had passed, I thought the ten percent variance issue was, they could spend, I guess, virtually up to 109 or maybe 110 without having 434 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 to come back to anybody.
But if you went ten percent beyond that budget, the overall budget, then there was an issue. Is that an accurate . . . MR. McPHERSON: By category.
I'm sorry. MR. McPHERSON: By whatever category the budget was approved in.
So I'm saying that if there's an issue about a budget that is approved -- and I'm assuming that that budget will have components of development initiatives, because I think at the end of the day this is all going to be folded together, the CDBG hearings -- whatever action is taken as a result of NTI, if there is some cap on the flexibility of projects, right? of projects that are approved by Council, then before that is changed, then that has to come before the Project Review Team. So then, therefore, you would be 435 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 voting on a budget that included projects earl on in the process, and if there -- if somewhere down the line somebody decided to move beyond that ten percent and dollars to some other District, they would have to come back before the Project Review Team for approval.
Councilman, the other part of the problem may be that --
Is what Councilwoman Blackwell said, in the discussion with Charley. When you're talking about development, you can't simply make a decision in two months that you're ready to proceed with development. Conceivably we could be five years in a planning stage, trying to leverage dollars 436 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 to do a development. We then go before the Project Review Team after five years of trying to leverage financing for development. That Project Review Team says, hold it. Time out. Right? This is too much money. We got to go back. Right? You can't do development like that, Councilman. You just can't do that.
Another one of the unanswered questions is, at least for the moment, is what will the budget look like and what will actually be in the budget, either from a general standpoint or a level of specificity, that would help you get to some of the answers to those questions. And at least for the moment, I don't know what level of detail these budgets are going to come in at.
Well, I'm speaking more so to the projects. The issue with respect to demolition, I'm frankly speaking not overly concerned about the review team, because that's something that we've never done 437 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 before. And I think there should be another level of all --
For my projects -- and I submitted a formal proposal at least five months after the Mayor said blight, we went to fight and got ours done. We submitted detailed information on every property that we want demolished. I'm ready. I have offered my services to other people. When I said I wanted to be Finance Chair and Majority Leader of this Council, I met with some of my detractors who did not support me. This is my interest, this and Education. It is that area in which I'm interested. I've offered that support. I have every information on every property that I want demolished. Nobody did it for me. I didn't go around City Council talking about it. I didn't go bragging on it because then everybody says, "Oh, the Mayor made a 438 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 promise to you." The Mayor didn't make a promise to my. I did my homework. I work hard. I work hard, work very, very hard in my District. I try to form partnerships with other people who can do it. And I resent somebody telling me that I'm going to be penalized for all that I do. I didn't just get here. Like everybody else, I worked hard for it. I know I got a lot of development out west. And people says because you got Penn. Penn doesn't do all my stuff. Jannie Blackwell works hard and works with everybody. I don't wait for people to seek me out. I find people. I form partnerships with people, institutions, private people, every company. Whatever you got to offer, I'm there. That's why we can have -- that's why we can have a party last night and have a hundred volunteers: White, black, young, old, gay, straight, rock, punk. You name it. Pink hair, white hair. Everybody was there helping to feed 439 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 other people. Am I right, Steve? You were there. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: Absolutely.
Now, you had a guy who looked homeless himself helping some kid. You couldn't tell, with his hair all spiked up, because we worked at it. I work with everybody. I work hard in my District and I've worked every day of my life to get here. That's the only advantage of getting old. I work hard to get here. And I don't give all this up lightly. I still say to my colleagues, the District Council people: I hope that they will reconsider giving up your right to fight for your area and have a say in what goes on there. I'll give it up. I'll lose a vote. But I'll be doggone if I'll like it. You are so wrong to give up your rights. My God, you're so wrong to give up your rights.
I agree, Councilwoman. I, like you, have worked tirelessly over the years to develop plans. I have more maps in my office than I know what to 440 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 do with. And I'm ready to proceed. I simply offered that suggestion, based on what I thought was in place. But I, like you, I cannot support -- and I understand, Councilman Kenney, am not on the committee. But, you know, at some point it will come before me. I will have to make a decision. I just can't simply support something that takes away what I thought was my fundamental right as a District Council person, the ability to approve or disapprove something in a District, and subsequently take the consequences associated with my vote, you know, and through my friends in my District, that's what I thought was my right. So I agree with you a hundred percent on that.
I was wondering whether the Chairman intends to move on the amendment. Meaning no disrespect, but if we're going to continue with discussion, it's my sense that we're never going to resolve that issue on that word or of the two words in there. And maybe we should table this, if 441 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 we're not going to act on the amendments that are offered by the Council President.
Well, so moved to what? And I'm not making it as a motion, just discussion I'm having at the moment, as to whether or not we're moving on the amendments. I'm prepared to vote on the amendments, but if we're not ready to go, and the Chair wants to continue discussion, my sense is we won't --
My sense is, we're not going to resolve that tonight, but I could be wrong.
Well, I would like to hold up on a vote, if the committee will agree. 442 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694
I mean, our intentions was to get this bill done and have it ready by the 20th. We all want to get NTI on the way. It may not be a perfect plan, but I think as time goes, and we begin to get it really into the meat of what NTI is about, I think adjustments can and will be made, going forward.
And I make that as a friendly suggestion. Councilwoman Tasco.
Well, I was just going to say, some of us look at things: A glass is half full, a glass is half empty. And certainly I have an appreciation for all the work you have done and certainly all the work that Councilman Clarke has done, and appreciation for all the work that District Council people do in their District. We all have some measure and level of development. I may not have as much as you do in your area because I don't have the same -- or as Councilman Clarke because I don't have the 443 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 same requirements in my District. I look at this amendment as a way of having some, as Councilman Nutter said, some measure of monitoring the projects, the whole program, in terms of fairness. And I may not require the same dollar amount. We all know that, because some areas are much more -- have greater needs than other Districts have. But certainly, I see it as a way that the project team, as a way to give the Council members -- not just the President -- because I see this person working for City Council -- monitoring and working to protect the interest of of all Council members in the entire process. And to call a halt so that there can be a discussion of what they believe is maybe an issue of fairness, it would still be up to the Council to move the project or inform the project team to move forward. They work at the discretion and the direction of the Council President and the Council. And I don't believe that the Council 444 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 President is of the mind to stop anybody's projects in their District, because I don't see her as a mean spirit or vindictive person.
And so therefore, I see the project team as being one as a monitoring mechanism for City Council as a whole, so that if there are issues that come up where protections for us are important, that that can be brought to our attention. And so, therefore, I look at this -- and we will all have our -- I don't see giving up my rights, because I still have the right to approve what goes into my District. And I explained that yesterday, where a project was funded in my District without any consideration to my needs in the District where I represent. So I want to be sure that I have some leverage and some input into the projects that are going on in my District, and this does not stop that.
I have 445 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 been around here a very, very long time, in Room 3 408 since January 3, 1976, to be exact. Before that, I served in the State House when Governor Schapp was Governor, so I've been around a real, real long time. Lucien Blackwell started the homeless program here in the City. So I served under Mayor Rizzo. I've been around a real, real long time. I was around here during the days of George Schwartz, when they just said, "Roll it," when every bill on the calendar had one of three people. Anna Verna wasn't President then. So I've been through times where if you don't have legislation that protects you . . . See, we may be fine with this President, but what about the next one or what about the one after that? I've been around a long time. I've been through a lot of Mayors and a lot of Council Presidents and a lot of colleagues. That's why I said, you know, it takes a long time to work where you are. 446 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 I can look from behind, as well as try to look forward. And I don't like legislation that has a potential to -- It may be find under President Verna, but I don't like legislation that has a potential to tie my hands and limit my rights. So I'll say again, if it is the will of this committee, that's fine. I only hope that the District Council people -- and again, I make my appeal -- will revisit this, will realize --
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments be adopted to Bill Number 010694. All in favor? VOICES: Aye.
Opposed? I oppose this amendment, obviously; always will. 447 12/12/01 FINANCE COMMITTEE - BILL 010694 The bill passes.