Well, I mean, I would only add that it doesn't necessarily come as any particular shock. I think the surprise here is the size of the payment and the subsequent impact on other programs. It was nice that you did whatever it is that you did. The resulting impact is now the 367 6/1/99 FINANCE - Res. 990326 BSRP program and a couple other programs will suffer as a result of a lack of resources. That's the primary issue, and that you have to make a $13 million payment out of a $68 million budget. It's a fairly significant amount of money. I think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of about percent. 9
Yes. The overall budget 10 is much larger than that, it's over a hundred 11 million. 12
Right. And 13 out 13 of 100 is not chump change, either. 14
Okay. And is there 16 any other possible funding source to help 17 alleviate the cutbacks that you're now 18 anticipating in the BSRP Program or other programs 19 that will now suffer as a result of the 20 $13 million repayment?
Because there is no other funding source. I'm not expecting a reduction in BSRP service, and the data presented this morning 368 6/1/99 FINANCE - Res. 990326 seemed to indicate that it will increase rather than drop.
You know, I mean, I got to figure out how to do this. You really can do more with less?
Combined with unspent funding, I anticipate that we'll do more during the coming fiscal year.
Okay. I guess we'll have this discussion next year when the reports come in. Okay, thank you. We shall see.
I just want to make sure the record's clear. The things that we accomplished with the borrowing of the money got done earlier and faster because we borrowed the money.
So when you look at the total issue here, you have to really plug in what was able to be done far and above what we 369 6/1/99 FINANCE - Res. 990326 would have had if we hadn't borrowed the money.
Mr. Kromer, with regard to the Institute for the Study of Civic Values, it seems to me that given the program's housing and job programs that we have -- and I understand, I read it and you also told me twice that we do not fund welfare to work, and I also read it in the plan. It seems to me that we must make some assessment of where people are. And isn't there some way we can work something out? It seems to me that somewhere in the system, we have to allow for who's on welfare being cut and who is not. I mean, what can we do to try to get past this impasse and work something out?
There are two opportunities that are provided for that. There is a massive amount of funding that is being made available by the federal government, the State government. And the City has had great difficulty in trying the to get any of that funding, which is over $200 million, released to address some of the 370 6/1/99 FINANCE - Res. 990326 needs that we have. Secondly, there's a substantial amount of funding that the Clinton administration made available to cities, including Philadelphia, specifically to address this issue of the impact of welfare reform. These are new funding sources that amount to millions of dollars. I do not support the use of a limited declining, in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, funding source, the Community Development Block Grant fund to also be put into use to address welfare reform issues. We've just talked about the limitations of funding. This is the only housing resource that the City has. Welfare reform couldn't be more serious, but there are substantial resources that have already been committed to address this. And Ed himself described the work that's being done very effectively with the PIC and with the other agencies that are managing that. The responsibility for creating the structure that he talks about really lies with those agencies that receive the funding to perform that work. If we start making a commitment to this 371 6/1/99 FINANCE - Res. 990326 new endeavor, however worthwhile, it is money that we will use that will be taken from those programs that were presented this morning that are placing people in unsubsidized, good-paying private-sector jobs. We simply, in this year of the program, with the limitations that we have, cannot afford to fund an agency to coordinate a process -- which is exactly how Ed described the work that the institute proposes to perform. We just don't have that leeway now, and there are other sources of funding and other local agencies that are working on this problem.
Let me ask you a question maybe in a reverse manner. Is it possible, given the work that the institute has done for us in the past then that you could intercede to see if the -- to see if they could not then work within the welfare to work realm. Would you intercede in that regard?
It seems clear to me that Ed and the institute are making use of every possible opportunity, but we will try to help pursue that as well. That's really the best use of the resources in the system that we have now. 372 6/1/99 FINANCE - Res. 990326
Since our hearing's about over, I'm looking at Mr. Schwartz to see, since we have the door open, if that will kind of get us where we need to go. (Ed Schwartz comes forward.)
And given the fact that I know I'm holding everybody up for meetings, give me just five minutes and we're out of here. So I know we've got to on and get this committee meeting going, but we do have a commitment that Mr. Kromer will in fact intercede to deal with other welfare-to-work dollars so that we keep the door open and try to take advantage of the excellent services you provide.
I'm not sure, to be honest, whether the existing welfare-to-work dollars can be used for what I'm describing. If they could, I would go there. We are supported, in part, by some of that. On the other hand, there may be some private sources. I've got some commitments from some that would be forthcoming with some additional support with the collaboration of the office in trying to raise the money. 373 6/1/99 FINANCE - Res. 990326 So, you know, I do appreciate the difficulty here. I don't agree, I will say, with this decision obviously. And I don't agree that this is not a role that CDBG place. I think I'm familiar with the various agencies. And unfortunately, in a way, this is the specific role that I think CDBG plays. But it's the right of the agency to say, you know, we're not going to do that. On the other hand, if we manage to work together, there may be some other sources of support which would come for this and accomplish what I am trying to do, and I am willing to sit down with John and see if we can work something out on this.
Thank you. And Mr. Kromer, you agree as well that you two will sit down.
Thank you very much. Now it comes time for us to consider the calendar.
Mr. Kromer, have you seen this proposed amendment?
We need just a second so that all members of the committee can see it. What is with our opinion of the amendment, Mr. Kromer?
I haven't spoken to the Mayor or his staff, so don't know what the mayor's position is on this. But I certainly think that what is called for is doable, and that within this week, we can determine who's going to do it in terms of the division of labor between us and the economic development agencies and come back with a clear response about how this would be implemented. The only concern I have is about the frequency of the reporting every month, but I believe that's appropriate. Every year clearly is not sufficient; every month clearly is doable. I just need to consult with the other agencies and report back to you. And I can do that in file 375 6/1/99 FINANCE - Res. 990326 form before the end of this week.
Currently, on City construction projects that are utilizing taxpayer dollars, I believe the Mayor's Labor Department check the certified payrolls and have the information as to names, addresses -- I don't know whether it goes as far as age and gender and race. But do they have a lot of this information now from your experience when they do the certified payroll research on the prevailing wage issues, and couldn't that department simply provide this information to us?
The certified payroll reporting certainly is helpful. The only issue would be staffing to compile and publish the reports on a monthly basis. But as I said, that's doable. Councilwoman Tasco had mentioned that Hanford Jones, that the position he occupied is vacant, and that's a hiring that we can do and an assignment we can make to that person.
What was the job? 376 6/1/99 FINANCE - Res. 990326 I'm sorry.
A gentleman by the name of Handford Jones was detailed to us for a year from MBEC.
But would the Mayor's Department of Labor Division be one of the departments or one of people that you talk to about it?
If OHCD deems it is doable and albeit you haven't checked with the administration, if the committee deems then that it is acceptable, then we'll move on.
Okay. At some point, I need to read it into the record, but whenever you want to do that.
I think we want to now conclude our public hearing and enter into our stated meeting.
Yes. I need to read it into the record. 377 6/1/99 FINANCE - Public Meeting
Let's do the first two issues first. Councilman Kenney, would you give me a motion to approve Bill No. 990117.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990117 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and an additional request for a rules -- no rules suspension? No?
All in favor? Opposed? Councilwoman Tasco, would you give me a motion for Resolution No. 990337, that it be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation.
Madam Chair, I move that Resolution No. 990337 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation.
All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it, and so it is reported 378 6/1/99 FINANCE - Public Meeting out as recommended. Now, with regard to an amendment, we will ask Councilman Nutter if he will read an amendment to Bill No. 990326 into the record.
Madam Chair, I propose that Bill No. 990326 be amended on by adding a new section to read as follows: New section 13. The Office of Housing and Community Development shall be required to report to City Council on a monthly basis any data related to the residency of hires for construction-related jobs for any project supported by any funds received or pledged as security pursuant to this application or any previous applications whenever the percentage of hires for construction-related jobs who reside outside of the City of Philadelphia for any project that exceeds ten percent (10%) of the total number of hires for construction-related jobs. Said monthly report(s) shall provide a detailed listing of the current hired residency/non-residency rate of individuals hired for construction-related jobs, the race, gender, 379 6/1/99 FINANCE - Public Meeting skill or trade and locale of residency for all non-Philadelphia residents hired for said project(s) and an explanation as to the reason for the hiring of each non-Philadelphia resident for construction-related jobs.
All in favor of the amendment? I'm sorry. I move that the -- he already did. May I have a second?
Madam Chair, I move the adoption of the amendment as read. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor? Opposed? Madam President, may we have a motion for approval of Bill No. 990326 as amended?
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990326 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and also that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next if session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor? 380 6/1/99 FINANCE - Public Meeting Opposed? The ayes have it, so it passes. Let me thank all members of the committee, Mr. Kromer, and all members of OHCD and RDA as well as members of the public for your patience and for hanging in this with us all day. Thank you. (Adjourned at 5:43 p.m.) - - - 381 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, June 1, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON FINANCE BILL NO.'s 990117, 990326 RESOLUTION 990337 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter