Right. Along with all the other processes, it will be done hopefully in early January with --
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski. 62 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
Thank you, Madam President. I think quite a few of the District Councilpeople have the same problem. I'd like an explanation on Resolution 071011, which moved $1 million of acquisition funding to vacant property stabilization for the 6th District. But it was never acted upon and the money was never transferred to the appropriate budget, and yet the resolution was certified by the Chief Clerk over two years ago.
Councilwoman Krajewski, I think that that was something that was brought to our attention recently. It was not something that was picked up apparently in the audit either. So we just got that information. We're going to look into what happened with that transfer.
Yes, you will. 63 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. But we just got -- we were surprised by that as well. It wasn't picked up in the audit, as far as we could tell.
I have a question for the RDA. Is someone from the RDA here?
I have some questions regarding a lot the RDA acquired through NTI. It is located at 7234 Keystone Street. The lot is still owned by the RDA, according to City tax records, yet a private entity has fenced in and been storing equipment on the lot for the past three years. My understanding was that the lots would be sold to an interested party for $1. The benefit to the City was the real estate taxes that they would receive. 64 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. Could you explain to me why the lot is still in RDA's name? Are we receiving taxes for the lot or is there a lease for it?
I can certainly find that out and I can get back to you by the end of today. I just don't know off the top of my head. 1734 Keystone?
Thank you, Madam President. I was actually just going to follow up on Councilman O'Neill's line of questioning with respect to the audit. I'm trying to get some clarity on it, because I think it should have been a relatively easy question to answer, particularly the part 65 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. about whether or not it was spent in the 10th District. Do you think this is an audit-related issue? Because I sat in on one of the audit meetings over in the Controller's Office and it was quite interesting. It was so meticulous that I actually got tired and I left, because it was like excruciating, frankly speaking. And the level of detail as it relates to the questions on every single dollar, and I'm trying to understand how -- I mean, there was actually some questions about something as low as like a thousand -- like $1,200, where did that money go. So it's just kind of amazing to me that -- was that in the --
My first response -- and I want to apologize to the Councilman for being somewhat maybe obstinate, but his question, as I understood it, his first question was where did that money go. I don't know where the 1.2 million -- 66 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
And I know. I know. So Deborah has knowledge, specific knowledge, that the money was not spent in your district. I did not have that specific knowledge. With respect to the 1.2 million, what we've been trying to do is trying to identify through sources where the money has actually been spent. We don't know where the $1.2 million that the Councilman --
But Deborah has confirmed that at least it wasn't spent in your district. So we do have that base of knowledge. And I don't know where the $1.2 million -- it is likely that it went to spend in some acquisition 67 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. in some other area.
It's actually 1.561, because there's two pots of money, and both of them disappeared. I'm still at zero right now and I should be at 1.561.
So the issue could be during the course of the audit, the exit audit, that that was not something that the auditor was looking for?
They couldn't tell us where that money went, right, with any specificity.
Did the 68 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. auditor not identify that or was it --
The reduction in the $1.2 million in the 10th Councilmanic District was something that was reflected in the audit.
To my knowledge. But I can check and see with the Controller. The Controller would probably be in the best position to answer that question.
No. I was deferring to -- 69 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
Yes, Madam President. I do have a question for the leadership at RDA unrelated to this topic. Please. (Witness approached witness table.)
I've been trying to get a listing of toxic land sites in Philadelphia. I've reached to the Planning Commission, with no success. And then I was instructed to go to the Department of Commerce, with no success. Does RDA maintain an inventory of toxic land sites?
Not for the whole City. We certainly could tell you for RDA-owned properties. So I can give you that. 70 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
I can help you get that. Are you saying you're having trouble getting that for the whole City?
We can get that for you. And I assume you want PIDC sites as well?
I want to talk to you about what exactly you mean by "toxic land sites."
Do you mean Superfund sites? So we should talk about legally what you're looking for.
But we can 71 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. certainly help you.
Including those, however. And in instances where developers are building on toxic sites for residents and then they discover after the fact that it's indeed --
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
For Ms. Gillen too, if I could ask a quick question. Again, I get slightly off the top --
The lots that RDA have that they're looking to try 72 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. to sell for fair market value, is there a schedule? Do they inspect those or try to maintain them in the interim? Because every once a while, I think we all get complaints about RDA lots, trash filled, weeds, that kind of stuff. What program do they have? Do you try to maintain those?
In fact, we have an in-house maintenance shop that is made up of building trades workers that -- you know, laborers, carpenters mostly, but the other building trades that maintain our lots and do a lot of work, encapsulation and things on the buildings that we have. In fact, the RDA spends about a million and a half dollars -- 1.2 million -- 1.5 million a year on the maintenance shop, which is what we do on maintenance. We also do a little bit of work with the Horticultural Society on their Clean and Green program, which does some lot maintenance as well. Yeah. I mean, we are in a very 73 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. similar position as the City, which is that there's not enough money to do the level of maintenance that we all would like to do on these lots, but I think we try to respond to requests as we get them. But if you're hearing that we're not being responsive on a particular parcel, please let me know. We spend a lot of money on this, so if it's not getting done in a way that's at least adequate -- I'm not shooting for good in this economy, but I'm shooting for adequate and safe, is our standards -- I'd like to know.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. 74 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
Obviously there's a lot of frustration around NTI, and I would be remiss if I did not go on the record and say how important the infusion of NTI was to districts like mine in the 7th Councilmanic District, allowing us to demolish and create affordable housing opportunities and redevelopment opportunities. And while I share my colleagues' frustration, I think what I'd like to hear from the Administration this morning is -- because it's easy to throw -- previous Administration folks were not here. I guess what I have yet to hear is an articulation of -- we're in this months between the audit, and the 20 initial response was, We need the audit 21 completed. Now we have the audit 22 completed. Now we've identified some 23 major issues, whether it's going back and 24 liening the demolition liens or all these other things. What I'd like to get a 75 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. sense from you that's very important to me is, is there the political will to fix this in whatever means necessary, including the swapping of QRBs with CDBG, and if so, what is a timeline? Because what I don't want to be is in a situation where we're doing the budget next year and we're in the same discussions. And how are we going to ensure that the distribution is done in a way that is fair for those Council folks who don't have money but, more importantly, allows us to move this issue forward? And I say that only because I know that the City is going to hold tight in their City Significant pot, and I really want to ascertain what is the political will to like bring this to some sort of resolution.
Councilwoman, the Administration has the political will to try to get this done. As you recall, shortly after we came into office, we joined in the Council's request to try to 76 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. figure this out. Unfortunately, it did take a long time. I think as the auditors, as the Administration got into what had happened at the RDA or, quite frankly, what did not happen at the RDA in terms of record-keeping, we were all kind of unpleasantly surprised at how poor things were run over there. That being said, I think we are prepared to go forward. I mean, that's why we tried to meet the deadline that was imposed that we -- a self-imposed deadline of trying to get you a Program Statement in 45 days. We're here today to discuss the priorities and the relative balances about how we allocate these funds. We've given you a preliminary indication of how those funds could be spent, and we have been working with the Council through the Oversight Committee, with Councilman Clarke and his staff and my staff trying to figure out ways, thinking of creative ways to expand the pot as much as we can, and we as an 77 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. Administration are willing to listen to any rational, reasonable idea about how we can move this thing along. We want to get this money moving as quickly as you do.
So it will be fair to say that in the beginning four weeks, six weeks, we should have, one, is whatever legal opinions relate to the NTI situation but, more than that, a fair distribution of QRBs and exempt bonds?
Right, and the only limitation being the law. I mean, we obviously want to make sure we are in compliance with the law, but, I mean -- and there are certain things that we think are important, things that are reflected in the allocations of the Program Statement, the BSRP repair, but those are things that are open to discussion with the Council. If there are other priorities that you'd like us to look at and that we can agree to, 78 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. that's fine.
What would you say are the three major impediments right now for us to bring this to a resolution?
Well, I think there are a couple. One is that there's a shortage of flexible dollars and the limitation that the QRBs can only be spent in those areas where there are QRBs. That's really the biggest limitation. But that being said, the staff is painstakingly going through those 1,500 properties trying to identify things that we can swap out. I think in my testimony we estimated that we might find as much as $3 million to that effect. And we're committed to doing that, to try to expand that pot as much as we can, and then to sit down with the Council and try to make a reasonable allocation of how we should use those monies across the various programs that 79 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. we have.
How much unspent CDBG money correlates with the years in NTI that we're looking at?
Are CDBG allocations for those years, how much of those years are unspent monies, not commitments, monies that could potentially be swapped out?
If I understand your question, what I indicated in my testimony is that there are about $10 million in CDBG monies that remain and there was about $2.9 million left in DCED monies that remain. Now --
My question is, was there anything that we spent in that year CDBG that correlates with our QRB zones that we could potentially swap?
I don't know. We can certainly look into that. I don't 80 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. know.
We still haven't figured that out? I mean, that was one of the bigger issues.
If I understand your question, you're trying to say if there are any unallocated CDBG monies unspent --
The spent money in QRB, what percentage of our QRB -- of our CDBG money was spent in a QRB zone that we might be able to swap out in projects?
I don't know, because that's where we have to look at the 1,500 projects individually. So that's what we're doing now. We've estimated that that might result in about $3 million.
So 81 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. you're saying when we come back to Council, you'll be prepared to give us what your recommendations are for the swaps?
Yeah. We continue to work. I think we should be done by the end of -- the beginning of the new year, that's correct.
In the interim, are there any projects that folks have on the pipeline that are being impacted by our inability to move this NTI money?
I would anticipate there may be. I don't know personally, but I could certainly ask. But the one other thing that we need to keep in mind, one of the conditions that the Controller made or recommended before we spent any money is 82 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. that we have the systems in place to track it. We're not there yet. We should be there, again, by the end of the year, first part of the new year. What the RDA has been working with the consultant in doing is putting together an interim system to be able to track the money, and I think ultimately the Finance Director is supposed to sign off on that and then a longer-term project to really make sure that there are systems in place longer term to make sure that we can continue to spend the money. Our goal is to try to put this interim system in place so that we'll be in a position to spend money as early as the new year if we can get this approved.
If we're looking to create new systems, why would our handling of NTI be any different than our streamlining of the RDA process for purposes of development? I mean, you're saying that you need to come up with an interim process. 83 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
It's really a tracking. It's more of a financial accounting system, is really what I was talking about.
How is that going to be different from the traditional RDA system?
Well, quite frankly, the system that -- or the lack of system that was in place is evidence as one reason why we're sitting here today. There was no system as related to these funds. And because of all of the requirements, legal requirements, it's probably -- and I'm not at the RDA day to day, but it's probably a little different from what their normal funding cycles are. So they are developing a system to make sure that they can track this program and make sure the kind of problems that we're all suffering from now don't reoccur. So we're hopeful that that will be in place by early January.
Can I 84 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. get Terry to kind of articulate how she sees integrating the NTI tracking system with the traditional RDA tracking system?
Sure. Again, Terry Gillen. Yeah. We're doing the two things in parallel tracks. You are correct about that. The tracking system under the NTI program, there were two problems with it, I would say. One was that the tracking was done by project and not by parcel or not by address. So we've got to have a system -- so that was partly what slowed down the audit, right? Because auditors wanted to come in and check, say, every tenth parcel. Well, we don't track by parcel. So that's really the main reason that the audit took so long. So we've got to put a system in place that tracks by project. So Cecil B. Moore acquisition zone would be an example of a project, but also that tracks addresses. So it allocates the appraisal cost by address and things like 85 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. that. The other thing that we've got to do is, we've got to put a system in place that ties in the work that the real estate folks do with the work that the fiscal folks do. Because until now, the real estate folks have really kind of driven the project budgets, and the fiscal folks haven't had any ability to say, Hey, you're over budget. That's how we got into this problem. So we're putting in a pretty simple -- it's really kind of an Excel-based system that will do that. At the same time, what you're talking about is, I would say, a more systemic rethinking of how we do the vacant land overall. Now, what we're doing, NTI will eventually have to tie into that, so when we put the permanent system in place, which will be an IT-based system, it will tie the two pieces together. But right now, as Clay said, we're really just trying to get an interim system in place 86 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. that makes sure that we won't run into this problem again.
How is that system going to interface with Public Property around City-owned property?
It won't. All it does is, it just tracks NTI land acquisitions. Do you mean the larger system, how is the larger system --
We haven't figured that out yet. I mean, that's partly what we have to work on.
So how are we interacting -- for instance, if there are properties that are under Public Property that were NTI properties, I mean, how are we bringing those all in line if they're, for instance, in the portfolio of Public Property for the purposes of maintenance and appropriately liening some of these properties where we 87 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. might have done encapsulation or demolition?
Yeah. Well, right now it's literally by people talking to each other and e-mailing, and it's a very inefficient system. So, yes. I mean, Clay knows what we've got to do is have one entity be the gatekeeper that tracks not only Public Property's property but PHDC's property as well, and all three of us have got to have a single database, which is what I think the vision that you and some of the other members of the working team have started to put together.
And how is this interfacing with our decision for what land is being managed through our land management contract?
Oh, yeah, yeah, 88 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. yeah. That's a good question. I don't know. That's a good question. We have to -- I'd have to think about that and get back to you.
-- it will be a budgetary impact about what happens -- in my case, I have thousands of land, vacant land. So one of the great concerns is at what point is all of this going to come in line and who manages what. And I know that last year we made a decision because of budgetary to freeze all new land management remediation and just sustain ours, and I'm very concerned about what's going to be presented in next year's budget about some of that stuff, because that does impact -- I think the Councilman was talking about his lots and some of his stuff, and we're in near neighborhoods. That's a great concern, and it's impacted 89 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. by our inability to move some of these properties because of NTI. So I guess my issue is, this continues to cost us money. Every day we're not moving this costs us, and it's really hard for me -- and we had this conversation around departments not understanding that our inability to move and manage some of this stuff, it impacts L&I. So we're still paying for this. I mean, I know it's under a different budget, but it's still costing us money. So at what point does it not become more efficient to say, Let's just move some of this, even if we're not ready with a full system? Because Clean and Seal is $2,500. A land management remediation may be a thousand dollars a year. The land may be worth ten. Three years of doing this, we bought the land three times, and not to mention that it's not a tax-producing lot.
Right. I couldn't agree with you more, and I just want you 90 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. to know that when I went over to the RDA last year with the expectation that the audit would take six months, no one is less happy than I that this audit has taken longer. No one has pushed harder since getting to the RDA, as you know, to sell land and to get land out into the hands of whoever more than I have, precisely because the maintenance costs us money, but because it's not adding economic value. That's why we did the brokers sale pilot program, for example, this year, because we know that getting these properties out into the hands of investors is the only way we're going to get money in. One of the things that we're looking at, as you know, which is why we're looking at the Genesee County model, is, is there a way we can provide an incentive to do some of this by revolving some of the sale proceeds back into maintenance, right? I mean, in lots of other places, that's the way they pay 91 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. for maintenance. We don't do that in Philly, but that's part of the model that we're looking at. So we absolutely are on the same page on this.
I'm very concerned, because in the discussions with 3-1-1, we have a backlog of 800 vacant lots for clean-up, some sort of intervention. If we've cleaned the lot more than five times and we don't have a long-term strategy for that, that's problematic.
Because all we're doing is facilitating this process. So what I'd like to be able to have for the next budget discussion is a discussion around the backlog that we continue to have, because we don't have resources either in our Neighborhood Services Division and really a correlation between Neighborhood Services, our vacant lot land stabilization, our PHS contract, all of 92 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. that so that we really can have a discussion, because all of those things should make these lands -- especially for the ones that are not in our pipeline, because my constituents don't care if the lot is City owned or not owned. In their minds, if we demolished it, we own it.
I really would like to see that for next time, because it is very frustrating, and it's hard to complain because I know we don't have the money, but we got to come up with a better mechanism for that.
Well, in Genesee County, they've found ways, right, by doing the taxes and penalties, by doing the bulk lien sales, which is something that we're looking into, by the way. I want you to know we're talking to Law and Revenue right now about doing that. So I think there are some creative ways we can get the resources. I don't agree that there can be no monies for this. 93 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
Did we clarify whether PHS now can lien for their vacant land stabilization? I know that was a discussion back in 2008.
Are we liening for the vacant lot work that PHS is doing? We were talking about that as a way of creating a revolving fund.
It's not happening, but we can find out. (Witness approached witness table.) MS. McCOLLOCH: Deborah McColloch. I've been in several meetings with representatives of the Law Department and PHS and L&I trying to work through the legal process of how a lien can be assessed for work that PHS does. The issue is that because PHS is not the 94 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. City, the City can't place -- just can't place a lien the way it could if City employees were doing the cleaning. So we have been working on that, and it has not yet been finalized, but we're trying to work through to create a legal document of some sort, my word, not a legal word, cooperation agreement or something that would allow the City to place that lien on behalf of work that PHS has done. But we're not there yet, but we're working on it.
If we're managing the land and PHS is just providing the services, I can't understand. I mean, this is an important issue, because we've been doing this for so many years, and it has to be a mechanism for us to create that revolving door and a revolving fund for PHS to continue to do its work. MS. McCOLLOCH: I agree with you, and that's why we've been trying to work through what those legal impediments 95 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. are. So we've been working with the Law Department.
So this will be resolved for next year? Because I'm not going to be satisfied with your proposal, obviously, of our vacant land stabilization. So I just want folks to know that I've been trying to help you identify more money, and it's important that this gets settled by the end of the year for next year. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to ask the RDA some questions, but I'm going to leave it alone today. Mr. Armbrister, with respect to the Program Statement, what do you think Council's limitations are in terms of amending the Program Statement, particularly as it relates to the various 96 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. categories of funding? Right now I think Council, in working with the oversight component part of the Oversight Committee, we think we have some solutions once there's a bottom-line dollar number identified as to how to fix the problem. If Council said we think this money should be here, that money should be over there and we can resolve the issues with these non-QRB-qualified areas and amend the Program Statement to reflect those changes, what do you think our limitations are with respect to that in terms of categories of funds?
I'm not going to play lawyer and talk about what the limitations are. I hope we can work together to figure out exactly what either your suggestions are and something that really is a program that we can all support.
I hope so, too. 97 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc.
I don't want to talk about limitations. I just hope that we can work together to get something done.
I don't know. I really don't know. I'd have to -- I don't know.
All right. Okay. That's all I want to know. That's all. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman O'Neill.
Yes. Mr. Armbrister, I just want to -- first of all, I was tougher on Ms. Gillen than I should have been, because I really don't know that she was involved in the 98 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. oversight, lack of this oversight group doing its work, and I apologize. Because if you don't direct it from those meetings, no one is getting direction, because you're the only one there representing the Mayor, correct?
So that was beyond my knowledge, whether RDA was involved in not doing something that seemed to me to be obvious that was cleared up very quickly when Ms. McColloch came up. But I can't describe to you sufficiently how disappointed I am when you've had about a half dozen meetings, both formally and informally, of that group. I know that Mr. Wetzel and 99 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. Mr. McPherson have made the very same suggestions to you face to face in those meetings that, first of all, you can determine -- "you," the Administration -- can determine very quickly whether the money was spent in the 10th District. Then you work backwards to the lack of reallocation or whatever the problem was that gave a district a zero balance that should have been at least on that particular page a million two. And I know you have someone there with you in those meetings that you delegate to, correct?
I don't want to call her up as a witness, but I 100 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. can assume that after those meetings, you never gave her an assignment or delegated an assignment to find out whether that money was spent in the 10th District.
Councilman, let me try to address this concern of yours. The question that you asked initially -- and I know you got off that question. Maybe I didn't get off the answer. But the question that you asked initially was whether, at least as I interpreted it, was whether we knew where the 1.2 million was spent. I understand that your budget for land acquisition was 1.5 -- $1.45 million, that there had been a reduction. Where the 1.25 million went, I don't know.
But you first have to make sure it wasn't spent 101 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. or it's really a meaningless exercise.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "spent." I think the 1.25 million probably was spent, and that's probably -- but it wasn't -- but then you changed the question to whether it's spent in your district, and I acknowledge, along with Ms. McColloch, that it is very likely that it wasn't spent in your district. But the $1.25 million that your budget was reduced by was probably spent somewhere. I don't know where it was spent.
Or it was never reallocated and that's why you have as much to reprogram that you think you have. And I know this has come up in meetings, too. I think the Administration has ignored the simple way of solving this, which is, one, was it spent. No, it wasn't spent. Two, then we don't have 13 point something or 14 point something million, we have 1.2 102 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. less, because it wasn't reallocated. That's all there -- this is very simple, if the Administration wants to do it. If the Administration doesn't want to do it, it is similar -- I can't think of a better analogy than finding out that one Council district through some error in the Finance Department had a million two less in their capital budget than they were supposed to have. It really doesn't matter where it went. As long as we have capital money available, we move it back and make sure that that million two is put back in that person's budget. This isn't complicated. There was no shady deal here with the Street Administration. Nothing. This is pure allocation/reallocation, not where the money was spent, because it doesn't matter where it was spent as long as it wasn't in my district. What matters is that you have the money, and the best answer is that it just wasn't reallocated, that's all, and that's why 103 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. you have a million two more than -- you think you have a million two than you actually have. There's another issue, and I'm going to give you a piece paper because --
-- on February 8th, the other money that's missing that has a zero balance actually has the $361,000 escrowed. This is out of the 410,000 for demolition and encapsulation. So in February of 2008, while we were all waiting for this audit to get rolling and get finished, there's a document that shows that this money was escrowed. They still can't find that. I would like you to keep the two numbers in mind, because we got to straighten out the whole thing, and I'm not sure that you're aware of the escrow. Has this come up in the meetings at all, the escrowed money on 104 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. the -- Mr. Wetzel or Mr. -- it has come up? So this document is not new to the Administration?
It's a report from the Administration. I'll share it with you. I can get another copy.
No, that's okay. This is a report from the Administration. I just really wanted to clarify that.
But it just shows that it was escrowed as of 2008. No money has been spent since then, so that should be really easy, because that's money that's been escrowed 105 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. for the 10th District. Out of the 410, it's split between demolition and encapsulation. The million two, I don't know an easier way of solving it, because it's the only logical way, is, one, it hasn't been spent --
-- in the 10th District. Two, we still have the money. The 10th District gets its money, that's all.
Councilman, the only thing I would modify by what you just stated is that we can't tell -- and I'm not -- we can't tell if we have the money. We don't know if that $1.2 million that was removed from your budget has in fact been spent someplace, and it, quite frankly, doesn't matter, but I --
It doesn't really matter, but that's the point, and if it was as easy as you've described it, 106 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. it wouldn't have taken the Controller and this accounting firm as long as it did to try to figure this out. There were no 5 records at RDA that they had to reconstruct. It is not as simple as you make it seem. The money was reduced from your budget. We don't know if it's been spent, because there were no records.
And I understand your point about whether it's spent in your district, but it's not as simple as saying that the money exists because it might have been spent someplace else. And if it was spent someplace else, that means that we have to go and find $1.2 million from another source, right?
I will bet you it was never reallocated. All it has 107 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. to do is be allocated. We're making this very complicated --
-- in order to get 13.3 or 14.8 or 17.2. There's different versions of what money is available.
And that's the point that I was trying to answer, because I don't know if it has been reallocated. I don't think it's quite that simple.
Well, we hadn't spent much time on the document I just gave you. How about the 361 that is not in the 1.2 but is still missing? Do you have any progress on that?
I don't know why you've been having all these meetings and telling me and others that we're doing everything we can, we're 108 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. working as hard as we can, and you have an assistant there that apparently isn't even given any work to do in these matters. I'm not saying she hasn't been given any work to do.
But you can't have an NTI program until you get this straightened out. So why are we asking, can you support the NTI program, when there's an essential part that is still -- I mean, there's other essential parts, I'm sure, but this is one that clearly has to be corrected. I don't know how --
Okay. I just heard best effort. I didn't hear best effort today. I've been hearing best effort for a long time. This is not best effort. This is worst effort, if anything, to not be able to come up with 109 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. these simple answers today when they've been brought up meeting after meeting. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you. With regard of the disposition of RDA's properties or lots, do you agree that the District Councilperson should be in agreement with its use or reuse?
Do I agree if the District Councilperson should be in agreement?
With the disposition of lots or properties that are in RDA inventory.
I mean, my personal opinion would be that I think 110 12/16/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090890, etc. that the overall -- if there's an overall strategy that the City Administration and the Council has agreed to, as long as that strategy is being followed, they should be in harmony with each other, that the Councilperson and the Administration should be in agreement, as long as there's an identified strategy.