And I do just want to clarify one point. I know that the line item does show up as 4.2. The $200,000 is an allocation that has been in there for many years now for a program called the City Scholarship Program, which is separate from the 4 million for this core program.
For a different program, but, yes, to initiate and to launch this core scholarship program, correct.
But as it is 55 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 set up today, it is discriminatory. It excludes private schools, Archodiocan schools; is that true?
Well, as I testified extensively I believe yesterday and on other occasions --
Well, let me tell you, you have a problem. You have a real big problem. And I think everyone here, most of the Council members here, have sent you a real strong message, and that message is this scholarship program is in deep trouble, deep trouble. And I think that you're going to have to do something. As Councilman O'Neill said, you're going to have to do it very, very quickly. I would think that you would go to your offices today, meet with Mr. Vallas and see if we can get this cleared up. I'm very, very -- I should say I'm very surprised and very shocked that since speaking with Councilwoman Reynolds Brown, I thought this thing was supposed to be cleared up months ago. It was just a no-brainer that 56 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 you were going to include all schools. It makes no sense whatsoever the way you're doing it. So I would like to go on record as being strongly opposed to any program that's going to be initiated by either the School District or the City of Philadelphia that's going to be discriminatory against anyone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Just a couple of last questions, Mr. Jackson. One, let me make sure I'm understanding. The School District's position is -- and I'm not suggesting for a moment at this moment that there would be any lack of funding available from the City, but I just quite possibly didn't hear all of the answer. Councilman O'Neill I believe asked you questions with regard to the program going forward, either with restrictions -- or no 57 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 restrictions, actually, on City dollars or if somehow, some way at the moment only the School District dollars were available, would the program still proceed. Because I was slightly confused by at least a part of your response that I thought I heard, that somehow the arrangements that had been made or the financial commitments that were made were based on, I guess, the School District and the City dollars being made available. But you would still do the program. I guess ultimately you would have fewer dollars.
We would have fewer dollars and the program would have to operate in an altered form, correct.
We would probably have to look at either reducing the amount we could award to students or not awarding every student who is eligible.
And the expectation here is that every student who applies, as long as they meet the other 58 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 eligibility criteria, will get a scholarship?
Do you have a concern that you could, under that circumstance, just run out of money?
Based on the initial projections, if the program was fully funded by both the City and the School District, initially, no, that was not a concern.
And this particular program has no need-based criteria?
It has a need-based criteria only in that it is a last-dollar scholarship, which fills the gap between what the university awards and the cost of attendance.
Let me ask you a question. For the school children who went to college last year -- or I'll rephrase it. How many children did not go to college last year because of a lack of funds?
I'm not sure that we have statistics that would accurately 59 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 reflect that. There have been national studies done --
Don't tell me about the national. I want to talk about Philadelphia. How do you know the program will help if you don't know how many people didn't go to school because of a lack of funds?
We know that a number of students are forced to take on an inordinate amount of student loan obligations to try and meet the cost of college, and we know anecdotally --
And we know anecdotally that students have indicated that cost of colleges was one of their deterrents.
Again, we have national figures and we have anecdotal figures, but not a full-scale study within Philadelphia to give that amount. 60 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
$3,000 was based upon, one, history of a last-dollar scholarship program that's been implemented through the Philadelphia Education Fund, and additionally a study of the average financial award for students who meet the majority of our economic demographics in the City and the cost of attendance at a university.
But after all of that, you still don't know how many students of the -- you have 9,507 students that graduate and -- I'm sorry. What was the number again for last year, how many went to college?
Again, the national average is at about 30 percent. So our assumption is that roughly 3,000.
And I think from our earlier discussion, we don't know where the other 6,000 to 7,000 young people went --
-- or what they ended up doing, and we also apparently don't know of that 6,000 or 7,000 how many did not go to school because of funding --
-- problems? Do we know of the 6,000 or 7,000 how many of them even applied to college?
We have estimated figures that we had roughly 5,000 applications on average.
What do you mean "estimated figures"? Where did the estimate come from?
Those, again, are self-reported information from counselors.
Okay. On the School District side, are you going to administer your portion of the program or is this all going to be done by Philadelphia Education Fund?
Philadelphia Education Fund will actually process the 62 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 applications and coordinate with the universities for the issuance of the checks for the students.
I believe it is about 200,000, which is a cost being borne by a third party.
Now, I understand your position is you're -- are you the Director of College and Career Awareness?
That would be the Deputy Chief Academic Officer, Dr. Craig Williams.
And is he 63 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 involved in this program? Who is in charge of the program on the School District side?
Overall he has the responsibility. The day-to-day operations of the program is my responsibility.
Okay. And I guess my last comment would be, is your statement in response to Councilman O'Neill this morning in concert with or slightly different than the statement that we read in the paper this morning by CEO Paul Vallas?
And can you forward to the Chair a copy of the provisions specifically related to the funds that the School District is using for their portion of the program, whatever the statute is and the requirements and regulations that go with these funds?
And one last question. Are these funds only for scholarship or are they just for general use of School District students? 64 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
It is part of a program which is designed to increase college-going rates, the Gear-Up Program, a component of which has provision for scholarship.
So you can use some of the funds for scholarship, but you can use some of the funds for other things. And is there a requirement within the funding source that some portion or some percentage of the funds must be used for scholarship?
It's not a requirement, but it is an option available to grantees.
Okay. All right. When do you think you can have that statute?
I can go back and begin to pull that together today to have available by tomorrow.
If you can get it to the Chair, I would appreciate it.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Committee regarding the two witnesses? (No response.)
Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
I'm Janice Davis, the Director of Finance of the City. On behalf of the employees of the Office of the Director of Finance, I am pleased to provide testimony on the department's proposed FY05 operating budget. With me are Finance 66 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 representatives who are available to answer your questions. The Office of the Director of Finance's FY05 budget for all funds totals $1,062,522,407. The single largest component of the all funds budget is employee fringe benefits budgeted at $794,864,130. This represents a $127,194,500 or 19.05 percent increase over the current FY04 projection. This change is due to continued increases in pension fund and healthcare costs. The general fund budget request is $844,558,745. The general fund share of employee fringe benefits is $713,724,000. Other significant elements of the finance budget are legal services and witness fees, contributions to educational organizations and refunds and indemnities. This budget includes a contribution to the Community College of $21,717,924, a decrease of 750,000 from the FY04 contribution, but still $2.45 million more than at the beginning of this Administration. The Office of the Director of 67 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 Finance is comprised of six divisions: Executive Direction, the Accounting Bureau, the Office of Budget and Program Evaluation, Minority Business Enterprise Council, the Office of Administrative Review and Risk Management. The proposed direct appropriation in FY05 general fund budget for the office is $14,819,891, a decrease of $1,824,061 from the current projection for FY04. This decrease is the result of reductions in appropriations across all divisions, except for the Minority Business Enterprise Council. This budget anticipates 165 full-time positions, an increase of 10 positions from FY04-filled positions, six in the Minority Business Enterprise Council, two in the Executive Direction that are water funded and two in Risk Management. Our departments, boards and commissions under the direction of the Office of the Director of Finance will provide separate testimony. I am happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. 68 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
Thank you. Ms. Davis, on of the detail, I see that you were budgeted for 141 full-time positions in FY04 and you are requesting 159 full-time positions in FY05. What is the justification for this increase of 8 positions? 9
Part of those 10 positions are the additional positions that 11 were provided for MBEC -- 12
Part of those 15 positions are the positions that are in 16 Minority Business Enterprise Council and the 17 others are the clusters. We've gone to 18 clustering. And so a lot of the finance cluster happens to sit within the Finance Department. So a lot of the administrative people who would have been in other departments and are now housed in Finance --
They're not 69 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 actually an overall increase in the general fund. It's our way of reducing the administrative services, but they happen to be housed in Finance.
Okay. And would it indicate in the budget books that we have which departments these positions are coming from?
It's not indicated in -- you have to notice a reduction in those other departments.
Can you supply us with that information, please?
Thank you. During the hearings on fiscal stability, you mentioned that the City was looking into various self-insurance models for employees' health benefits and that there would be a savings of $5.6 million. Was that included in the FY05 budget?
It is 70 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 included? We don't know what we're doing yet, but we've gotten there. It's already in the budget.
Can you tell us what consultant services are required in this endeavor, how much did it cost and is it in the budget?
We will likely require consulting services. It is not specified as a line in the budget at this point and will come from the savings that would be derived.
But weren't the savings already taken out of the budget?
It is usually our practice never to take 100 percent of any savings that we anticipate, especially in those situations where we know that there will be expenditures required to reap those savings.
71 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 Please explain what is in the Administration's revenue estimates for the general fund with regards to the scope?
We still have the scope at the original 4.9, but that will be reduced.
If the Water Department's sinking fund reserves are paid over to PIDC to fund a portion of the Mayor's economic stimulus program and as a result of this the Water Department will not be able to pay the scope, aren't we, in essence, unbalancing the budget and the five-year plan?
The budget and five-year plan are already unbalanced at this point by the recent events related to PGW. So that will be part of our consideration as we go back to our rebalancing efforts.
Yes. We did hear yesterday that the Administration is waiving the $18 million for FY05 through FY08, and we will defer the 45 million, a lone payment, until FY09? 72 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
When will you be submitting your proposed adjustments to the plan?
We have to internally get together and start to work on it. I would expect that before -- I need a little deliberation here. We anticipate that we'll have something for City Council within two weeks.
Oh, I'm sorry. Does the Administration expect PGW to be downgraded again?
If PGW's attempts to restore liquidity are not successful, and that's what our foregoing of the 18 million is intended to assist them with, if those attempts are unsuccessful, then there is a possibility that the company will be downgraded. Our efforts, however, are 73 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 directed towards restoring that liquidity.
Ms. Davis, I would like you to comment on the City Controller's audit report of the City Treasurer's office for 2001 and 2002. The Controller found that the City's fiscal agent held over $15 million in unclaimed bond payment funds. Of this amount, over 10 million was held over two years and over $8 11 million was held over seven years. 12 It is my understanding that any 13 payments that have been unclaimed for two 14 years can be paid over to the City. Do you agree?
Bond fund payments are usually considered payments in trust. I'm not an attorney, so I would have to defer to the Law Department. However, we do derive the benefit of the interest that those uncollected bond payments are making.
And I'll get an answer from the Law Department as to whether 74 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 we have the right to spend those dollars.
I think you did receive a memorandum from the City Solicitor, Nelson Diaz, on December 24, 2003, if you'd like to see it.
These monies remain under our control and they're in the bank accounts under our control and we derived a benefit, which is what he says in there, and we're not subject to a sheet.
Well, doesn't that indicate that we could bring those monies into the general fund?
We could bring them into the general fund, but the liability to pay them still exists.
I notice that there are a number of Council members that would like to be recognized, but I think we have to be very specific on this. 75 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 Does this issue, is it reflected anywhere in the budget in FY05?
It would be a cash flow transaction. It would not be -- it wouldn't show up as a budgeted item if we're talking about pulling these as sheeted funds back in. Those are on our books as cash. We're not showing spending these dollars if -- maybe I'm not understanding.
Isn't it revenue to the general fund, Ms. Davis?
These would be revenues that would be offset by a liability. The liability to make a debt service to pay these funds is still there. So it would not have a material impact other than in cash flow. 76 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 I've never seen taking bond payments that are held in trust back into our Government's books as new revenue. I will be happy to investigate it. I've never seen that done, because the liability still remains.
I think it's worth looking into it, because it is a sizable amount of money.
Yes. I think our bondholders might have a problem if we started doing that consistently.
In your testimony I note that you're asking for six new positions at MBEC and in yesterday's 77 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 testimony in response to yesterday's testimony by the Chief of Staff, I noted with her that, in fact, there does not appear to be a hiring freeze, clearly because the first two offices in the departments that come before Council are asking for increases in the Office of the Secretary of External Affairs and the Office of the Inspector General and now at MBEC. And while these appear to be strategic investments, it also appears to be not necessarily a strategy, and she was not able to articulate one for what the new positions at the Inspector General's office would do. Can you tell me what the six new people at MBEC would do?
The six new people in MBEC are intended to provide a capacity and capability that we don't have now. We spend a lot of time on certification, very little time in monitoring. And it is a fact that we do not have enough people to actually do the level of monitoring in outreach that's required to make this --
Do you, in 78 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 fact, have a strategy that calls for a specific number of people and specific duties? Do you have, in fact, have a strategy that you can tell us about today?
We have not laid out what the assignment of staff will look like, if that's the question.
We have six people available. We have had a study that identified that many, the Ganz and Ganz report. If, in fact, that number is not needed, we are not going to fill positions that we will not need.
Let me ask you a few questions. How long have you been in the Street Administration?
Did the Mayor ever question you about your experience in minority business development or your plans for MBEC?
Did he give you any policy directives in your first term regarding MBEC or minority business development?
Did he give you any policy directives with regard to MBEC or minority business development in the first term?
Our directive was to increase minority participation. 80 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
But no 3 specific policy directives? No need to revamp the agency?
Did you come with any vision for MBEC before accepting the job of Finance Director?
I knew how minority programs worked effectively in other places. I've had responsibility over those areas previously.
So what is your understanding of the legislation passed by City Council last year related to disadvantaged businesses and minority participation and how it differs from what was in the Code before that?
What was passed by City Council was a goal-based program where we really didn't in the past have a specific goal-based program.
By "goal-based," you mean annual participation 81 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 goals?
So how do you intend to set those annual participation goals? Is it per the legislation or do you have a process by which you plan to -- or do you, in fact, plan to set annual participation goals?
We intend to comply with the Ordinance to the extent that it is permitted by law.
But the Executive Order differs from the Ordinance 15 with regard to setting annual participation goals; is that correct?
I'm talking specifically about the setting of annual participation goals.
Goals that would be set based upon the present 82 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 availability of qualified disadvantaged businesses, the utilization of qualified disadvantaged businesses, the past contracts, a for-cash of eligible contracts and basically how you're meeting, what capacity has been demonstrated and the amount of contracting you're going to do. Is that type of data-driven process and that type of monitoring going to be done in terms of deciding what the capacity is and deciding what the actual disparity is on an annual basis?
Tell me broadly more specifically, how do you actually believe the issue of disparity in city contracting is resolved?
It will be resolved when the entire region becomes more accepting of diversity, and that happens through our office providing outreach, providing opportunity.
I'm speaking specifically. How do you resolve the issue of 83 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 disparity in city contracting? For instance, four years ago --
Our efforts have to continue within the departments to hold them accountable for their individual department's performance.
But still there's no specific new strategy? Four years ago we identified the same type of disparity in small business lending to minority and low-income neighborhoods. Administration didn't take any steps to deal with that disparity. Can you tell me specifically, do you have any strategies that you can share with us today with regard to disparity in city contracting or disparity in small business lending?
We do not have the specific strategy identified today. 84 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
I look forward to my second round of questioning, but thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Davis, I wanted to go back -- and I apologize. I was slightly distracted. The issue of the -- is it 15.8 or basically about $16 million in unclaimed bond proceeds --
Apparently varying months of time. I think one statement was made that up to seven years. And I would 85 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 assume that there are some that have been outstanding longer. I've worked in -- I would assume that there are some that have been outstanding for a much longer period. I've worked in organizations where they've been outstanding for the full 20, 30 years. When on old lady misses the coupon or that bond and they find it after she's passed away and the estate then presents it.
Well, the audit of that seems to indicate that it's $8.8 million that's been outstanding over seven years and 14 million over two years, and the statute seems to provide that after two years, basically the money reverts to the City?
Under City's control, and we derive the interest from it, yes.
The interest is coming in, yes. It's part of our interest means.
What is the 86 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 plan for the $15.8 million? I mean, how long would we let it sit?
I will ask the Law Department if, in fact, our statute extinguishes an obligation to the bondholders. I've not seen that happen in other places, where you can just extinguish an obligation by the passage of time. And I'll be happy to investigate it. If these are funds that we can take in without liability, we'll be more than happy to use them, but I've just not seen that done.
This may go to your issue. It seems that the Bond Act out of Title 53, Impertinence, seems to say excess monies in the Sinking Fund, including monies for the payment of the interest, principal or premium of bonds unclaimed after the due date for two years, shall be repaid to the City for its general purposes or applied as may be provided in the Bond Ordinance, but such repayment of unclaimed monies shall not discharge such claim, which shall continue subject to applicable law. 87 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255
Yes. So I would still have to see a liability on the books if I use the funds. They would not be new revenue.
They would not be new revenue. They'd be revenue offset by a liability. So while I might have cash and the availability of cash, if someone presents that claim, that is still a valid claim.
So it's not really revenue in its truest sense. It's just a shifting in a position on a balance sheet.
Well, I don't want to have an accountant debate with you, but we make these kinds of judgments, I think, on a pretty regular basis about what we take in, what we send back out, the risk associated with it. I mean, this is a situation where at least for 8 million of the 15.8, a little more than half has sat unclaimed for seven years. I mean, the longer 88 Whole - 4/14/04 - Bill No. 040255 it goes, I think would you agree, the less likely it is that someone is going to show up?
Well, it's usually somebody lost something and they find it later.
Is this something where they passed away or forgot about it?
And I'll be happy to investigate what we need to do to pull those funds in.