It has not been. All right, Madam Chair. I don't have any other questions. I just don't know what we're spending our time on.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm somewhat a little perplexed, and just to follow up to some of what Councilman Cohen said, when I read this, I tried to figure out what was the problem, and I do think the problem needs to be defined. And if there are people here from the carpenters union or wherever that can help me understand the problem, because as I see it too, it would impact those smaller neighborhood developers that are doing smaller jobs such as the Basic System Home Repair Program. 151 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 And I do have one question, though, of Mr. Kromer. Who set the guidelines around the number of units? Like this -- in the Federal Home Program, prevailing wage must be paid if it's 6 units or more. Who set that number 11? 7
And the number 10 2,000 in this piece, again, you were saying 11 earlier -- I think you said that the home repair programs are going to be excluded from this $2,000 limitation?
My understanding was that the -- in further discussion, the bill might be modified to exclude the home repair programs altogether so that that issue would not come up at all in the future.
Okay, thank you. But I would like to hear a definition of the problem.
I'm sure that we will hear from members of the union. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. 152 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Kromer, is there currently a contract compliance or wage compliance staff for the Redevelopment Authority?
The issue of wage compliance, I believe, is handled through the Deputy Mayor for Labor's office.
Again, my understanding is that the staff there is responsible for monitoring federally-funded construction work to ensure that federal standards for prevailing wage and other federal standards are upheld.
And is that -- so they essentially only deal with rental developments?
And any other development to which the federal regulations apply, yes.
All right. Question. When the decision was made -- and I always had a question about this -- on allowing the home ownership developments to be 153 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 non-prevailing wages, was that a federal decision or was that a local decision?
It was a federal decision. And I believe it's correct to say that the federal regulations simply did not mention sales housing development. And, therefore, sales housing development was not subject to those regulations.
Okay. So Mr. Feder, if a law is imposed to require these prevailing wages on home ownership development, how does that relate to the federal regulations?
Councilman, unless there's a specific prohibition in the federal regulations, we are free generally to impose pose additional requirements as long as we are involved in the contracting. Where there are specific prohibitions, we have proposed that there should be a waiver, but only in those instances.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions at this time.) 154 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221
Gentlemen, would you please remain until the conclusion of this hearing, just in the event that there are other questions. Who's going to testify for the union? Please approach the table. (Union witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. My name is Rick McNeil, and I'm an attorney in Philadelphia who represents a number of building trades unions. I'm here at Council today on behalf of one of my clients, the Metropolitan Regional Council of Carpenters. With me is Len Lombardo, who is a business agent from the carpenters, who will also provide you with testimony regarding specifics. With all due respect to the Administration and the agencies, we've kind of proceeded somewhat backwards here. We are speaking in favor of the bill and its proposed 155 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 amendment. You got a lot of questions that were raised, and obviously a lot of questions that are still in respective Councilpersons' minds, and I hope to clear all those up for you. What I'd like to do, however, is start by talking about what we're here to talk about here today and what we're not here to talk about today. Prevailing wage has nothing to do with labor unions. Prevailing wage has nothing to do with minority contracting. I will start by explaining what prevailing wage has to do with by giving you a little history of it, following up on Councilman's Cohen's request as to when the wage ordinance that's at issue went into effect. It did go into effect, as Mr. Feder pointed out, around the time of the City Charter, back in the '50s, but it was not the first piece of prevailing wage legislation in this country, nor was it unique. The very first piece was a federal act, the Davis Bacon Act, which you heard mentioned here, and that was passed back in the '30s as part of New Deal legislation. Following Davis Bacon, 36 states enacted what are called mini Davis Bacon Acts that 156 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 provide prevailing wage requirements with respect to the expenditures of State as opposed to federal money, and those states include Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. Other cities, besides the City of Philadelphia, have ordinances that impose prevailing wage requirements with respect to the expenditure of City dollars, and that's really all we're here today to deal with and all we're here today to discuss. That's what the changes to the bill that are proposed before Council have to do with. Now, the theory behind prevailing wages is very simple and it's not hard to imagine how it came into being in the Depression-era economy. Let's face it, if you wanted to buy a house in Overbrook or rent an apartment in Center City, Philadelphia, you're going to expect to pay a certain amount of money for that. That's just the standard of living here in Philadelphia. And if you were to drive 75 miles or so west to the Lancaster area or 75 miles or so south to the Dover, Delaware area, a house similarly situated to the one in Overbrook in a similar neighborhood 157 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 in one of those locations may cost significantly less. The apartment in the downtown area may cost significantly less. But there is a certain cost of living in Philadelphia as there is in any major metropolitan area. And that's really what lies at the bottom of prevailing wage laws. Because back in the '30s, when everybody was hungry for jobs, it was not uncommon for people to serve as itinerants going throughout the country and going into an area, and they'd come to Philadelphia and work for a lot less than everybody in Philadelphia was used to working for. With jobs being scarce, it was easier for people to find work that way. And the result was, it was destroying the living standards in local areas and destroying the local economies. Now, what the federal government said when it passed Davis Bacon was, when we spend federal tax dollars which come from our citizens on our construction projects, we're going to make sure that the wage standards and the living standards in the area where that work is being done are not going to be destroyed. We're going 158 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM.
- Bill 990221 to require that wages that are in accordance with what's normally paid in that area are paid when those federal tax dollars are used. The mini Davis Bacon Acts that have been passed in the 36 states, including Pennsylvania, say the same things with respect to State money, that when something's going to be built within this state, in a particular area in this state, we're not going to permit the wage rates and the living standards in that area to be destroyed for the use of State tax money. And the City's ordinance says the same thing. Although it comes a little later, it says that when we use City dollars, we're going to make sure that we don't destroy on City construction projects the living standard in the City of Philadelphia. And that is really what we're here about today. Not much different than Councilman Cohen and Councilman Ortiz's concerns about a fair wage. This is one area where Congress has acted and state legislatures have acted for over 60 years to assure that at least in the construction sector, where public dollars are 159 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 spent on public projects, a fair wage is paid. Now, there are a lot of checks and balances in those systems as to where those wages come from. Municipalities like the City, states like the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the federal government do wage surveys. And prevailing wage means the wage that's paid to more people than everybody else for that particular job in the area. Now, in Philadelphia, which is a strong union town, collectively-bargained rates, which have been the product of the unions working in cooperation with management since the enactment o the National Labor Relations Act back in the '30s as well, are the prevailing rates. If you go to other parts of the country, you may or you may not find that to be so, and you may even go to some parts like South Carolina where you will find no 20 presence at all. But in Philadelphia, the prevailing rates, as determined by the federal government, by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and by the City of Philadelphia parallel collectively-bargained rates for carpenters, for electricians, for any 160 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 other trade that you can think of. It doesn't mean union rate, it's got nothing to do with labor unions. And the passage of the bill before you today would not guarantee that one other person from our union who's not already working is going to get on a job. What it's going to guarantee is that anybody who works on a project where City money is involved, whether it's for the City and its departments and agencies, as the ordinance now requires, or if it's also for those quasi City agencies that the amendments are intended to embrace, that whenever City dollars are spent, a prevailing wage will be spent on the construction workers working on that project. It's not about the contractors; it's about the people who work for them. That's all the bill really attempts to do. Although we've heard a lot of comments, there are some other things that the bill is not about as well. I wholeheartedly agree with many of the concerns that were expressed by Council when the Administration testified that we need to be 161 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 concerned about the number of residents of Philadelphia who get to benefit by working on these projects and get to benefit by the prevailing wages that are required to be paid. I can tell you that there is nothing in this amendment that would accomplish that. It's not intended to do that, it's not intended to set though ratios. It is merely intended to make sure that whoever works on those projects where City money is involved is going to get paid a fair, decent, prevailing wage, and that wage standards in Philadelphia area are not going to be eroded by carpetbaggers coming in here from areas where people are paid much less and destroying our standards of living, our ability to patronize local businesses, and pay our bills.
Now, Len Lombardo is here with me today, who is going to address some of the concerns that were raised about residents of Philadelphia working on projects. Obviously, if the union rate is the prevailing rate, we do have the chance, as a union, to benefit from City money being covered completely by this ordinance because it's likely that some of our members are going to 162 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 get to work on these prevailing wage projects. It's not guaranteed, but it's likely. Mr. Lombardo is going to explain to you a few things, and I'm going to let you all in on a little secret that Councilman Mariano's probably aware of that many of the rest of you aren't. There is a serious growing shortage of employees, skilled employees, in the building trades sector, and it's not going to change. It is incumbent upon us as a union to go out there and recruit and train people. Mr. Lombardo will tell you about the composition of the union, the enormous percentage of our members, our 10,000 members, who are residents of the City, and many of whom who are not residents of the City and are residents of the four counties surrounding Philadelphia. Mr. Lombardo is going to tell you about the apprenticeship training program and the journeymen upgrade programs that we offer those members, and how we are actively recruiting Philadelphians, and in particular minority Philadelphians, to come into the trades so that we can meet that labor shortage. 163 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 So although those issues are not presented in the proposed amendments, they are certainly issues that we are conscious of and issues that we will address if, by result of this change, our members and our contractors are working on those jobs. Now, I do wish, before I pass it on to Mr. Lombardo, to make a few responses to the comments that were made by the City. Mr. Kromer, quite frankly, may have been asked some unfair questions because by listening to his testimony, it appeared to me that he did not have an enormous understanding of exactly what prevailing wage laws are and what they require. To the extent he discussed prevailing wage laws with you, he discussed the Davis Bacon Act, a federal act, nothing about the City of Philadelphia's ordinance. To the extent that he told you that Congress had set those levels on housing projects of eight units or eleven units, he was incorrect because those have been done by regulation either through the Department of Housing and Urban Development on the federal level, or through 164 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 regulations concerning the Davis Bacon Act. They are not enactments of Congress. Mr. Hankowsky raised a very interesting concern which, listening to Councilman Cohen and Councilman Ortiz's concerns for the fair wage bill, kind of scared me. Because in essence, Mr. Hankowsky was asked the question about, Well, what if a contractor doesn't want to pay it? and kind of responded, Well, we sort of try and work with them, and extending it to our agency might prevent us from doing that. 50 an hour? Because that's the logical extension of what Mr. Hankowsky had to say. With respect to the legal points that were made by Mr. Feder, I must apologize because I just saw Mr. Feder's proposed amendments, they came from the Administration this morning. I do 165 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 not believe that the amendments defining the City agencies that are set forth in the bill that's proposed would result in the City directly relating what are essentially State authorities. So I disagree with Mr. Feder on that point. The second point is with respect to Davis Bacon. I think as he conceded in the last question that Councilman Clarke asked him, depending on the mix of money, the City does have the discretion to impose greater requirements than those required by Davis Bacon. And if there is no 13 City money involved, the amendments to this bill 14 and original bill itself don't apply.
There is one last problem that I wish to address before I move on to Mr. Lombardo and his comments. If you take a look at Section B in the bill itself, you'll note -- and there was a question on it -- concerns about off-site sheet metal products, and if they amount to over $2,000, they should be included. I do not represent the sheet metal workers. I don't know, in response to Councilman Clarke's question, whether modular homes are covered by that. But I gather from it that there is some problem with pipe being 166 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 fabricated that's for buildings that's covered under contracts being done off-site where contractors claim that they're not covered. We have a similar concern with respect to cabinetry, mill work, and other carpentry products that can be fabricated off-site and would propose that the bill be slightly modified as if -- if you take a look at Section B, I have copies of the modification. " And I do have copies, Madam President, for all Councilmembers here for distribution, and I have highlighted the operative sections on there. With respect to Mr. Feder and the City's proposed amendments, other than to comment on them as I have, I have to say that my initial assessment of them is that we wind up in the same place -- although the Administration and us seem to be going by different roads to get there. So 167 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 to the extent that the Council wants to consider the City's proposed amendment, we would also like to add the language in the same logical place before sheet metal work that's contained in the City's proposal that we just proposed in what was circulated. So in either version of it, we would lying to insert that language. I would appreciate it if we would allow Mr. Lombardo the opportunity to speak to you about using residents, training development, what our union is all about. And when he's finished, both he and I would be glad to entertain any questions you may have.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon Mr. Lombardo.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
My name is Len Lombardo. I'm the Council Representative for the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Good afternoon, everyone. I guess by starting out, I'd like to 168 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 say that I heard a lot of confusion from the table before us, from the City management. We have had numerous meetings with Mr. Kromer's office, and they're ongoing, about complaints that we, as trades people, have -- not strictly as unionists, but as trades people for, as Councilman Cohen so eloquently put it, for the dignity of all workers. I personally don't just go out there and represent union carpenters to get the prevailing wage. If we find contractors coming into this City cheating, we represent the nonunion carpenters, we take them to the Wages and Standard. And we present our concerns to Wages and Standards. The biggest problem with the rules that we have, I guess, for lack of better terminology, from OHCD, is that it's not on an even playing, as Councilman Ortiz said. It's not so much the developers that are cheating, to answer your question, it's the subcontractors. When you go into a development that is not dictated by the prevailing wage, they tend to pay their employees considerably less money. When they are cheating on the prevailing wage, they 169 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 still tend to pay their employees considerably less money. And the way this is superseded -- and I' won't make allegations or accusations here, this is just fact from what I've accumulated through the history of being in the street. Most of the time, the men that work for the subcontractors that are being cheated on or that are being cheated are afraid to speak up. We have to approach them, we have to go to them. They receive a check at the end of the week that has a certain designated amount of money that is supposed to be paid, they sign the check, they turn it in and they get paid in cash. We find it all the time. In defense of the Wages and Standards, they are overburdened with cases right now because when we do call, they go out and they do check immediately. But the person that's being cheated has to come forward. They have to be willing to put their job on the line and to testify against the company that's cheating them. And a lot of them are afraid. They're afraid because they don't know us, because they don't know that we'll protect 'em, and they're 170 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 afraid of losing their jobs and the food on the table for their families. And that's the biggest problem out there. That's the reason for this. If we put all the contractors on an even playing field, if the certified payrolls are mandated and are checked by the developers who ultimately become responsible once these contractors go out of business, they become responsible for the wages, and they become responsible for the benefits. Having said that and gotten that off my chest, I came on the street about four years ago, four and a half years ago and immediately met Senator Kitchens, who at the time was not the senator, and was made to realize that there was a need for City people, City residents. I grew up in the City and there is a need for City residents. It took me two and a half years to get into the carpenters union. There was a criteria that has to be met to become a carpenter, a union carpenter, and you have to pass a test to be an apprentice. If I go in on a job site and I find a skilled journeymen, a nonunion journeymen working for a contractor and 171 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 he fulfills the qualifications of being a journeyman, he doesn't have to be an apprentice, I can bring him in as a journeymen. But if they don't have certain skill level, as Councilman Cohen was saying, then we put 'em into our apprenticeship program and we train them. And right now, I believe we have some 735 apprentices in the carpenters union, and quite a number of them are City residences (sic).
The exact figure I cannot give you, but I would imagine close to half. I also heard some confusion about statistics about City residents working on City jobs. Well, I've never heard a statistic about how many City residents go outside the City every day to work, that we send into the counties to work. They're still bringing that money back into the City, and I understand we have a concern about putting City residents on City jobs. But as was stated, I believe, by Councilman Mariano, we can't dictate where our membership works. Some prefer to go to the counties to work. As far as minority residents go or minority participation in our union goes, I sit on 172 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 the Kenny Gamble's advisory committee down at Universal, I sit on the advisory committee at Tasker Pre-apprenticeship Program, I sit on Congreso, I sit on a lot of advisory committees throughout Philadelphia. ) was going to build St. Anthony's, we approached them. When Mrs. Bruce was doing Vineyard Estates, I approached her. When Raymond Rosen was built, we approached them. They didn't have to come to us; we went to them for City residents. And we brought them in and we trained them. And like I said, whoever needed to be an apprentice to be trained to be a skilled, qualified professional journey person in our trade, we've done that. To those that became that were qualified journey persons working throughout the area, we brought them in as journey persons, and they got the full rate. It is our intention that the prevailing rate be paid in Philadelphia to let everyone sustain a living, to keep the money in 173 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 Philadelphia, to let them spend their money in Philadelphia, and to put the residents in Philadelphia on the City jobs in Philadelphia. But we need help from Council and through this bill in order to maintain that. We have a job right now that they're talking about ratios of eight houses and eleven houses. Well, there's a 250-unit project up in Germantown right now that's non-prevailing rate, and I guarantee you, you won't find 10 Philadelphia residents on that job, but you'll find a whole lot of people from the counties out there. And that came out of the City agencies. And we fight this all the time. Oakdale Street, 26th and Oakdale, a contractor from Bucks County did the job. The two City residents on that job are now members of my local. It goes on and on. We need this bill to help us regulate what we do. Thank you.
Thank you very much. And may I say that I think the training program that you have initiated down at 174 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 Tasker Homes is just fabulous.
And I'm sure that many of the residents there are taking full advantage, are they not?
As we speak today, as a matter of fact, I came from the advisory committee meeting committee down there this morning. I believe right now, there are nine residents -- nine applicants, excuse me, coming into the carpenters program in probably about a week and a half. There letters of application were sent by Carl Green's office.
I think the painters took six, the electricians -- how many did you get, ten? I believe the electricians took ten. And Phase II of that program is getting underway starting in July.
So, believe me, a program like that is something that the whole country is looking at. That is a true jobs program down in there, you know, from welfare to 175 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 work.
I totally agree. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
All right. First let me say that I'm not sure that you and I have ever had direct discussions, but I certainly know a number of people at the carpenters union and have great respect for the leadership and the work that you do. I did want to follow up on a couple of the figures that you had put out. You said that presently, there are 735 people in an apprentice program?
And do you have any estimates on the issues of both City residents for 176 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 those 700 or any demographic data on those folks with regard to either race or gender?
No. To be perfectly honest with you, I don't. I would have had all this -- not to be evasive, but I didn't know I was coming here until I was at a PHA meeting and I was summoned to come here. But I can make that available to you.
Okay. Take me through -- you talked about a training program, I think the most recent one you mentioned was down at Tasker?
What happens in the training program? And then what are the next steps after that? Where does the person go, what do they do, what's -- what do the next couple years kind of look like with that person?
The training program is a partnership between America Works, the City of Philadelphia, and the building trades. It's a 16-week program of residents -- primarily started out at Tasker but will be opened citywide now. They go to a 16-week training program 177 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 of both practical and scholastic to take the apprenticeship test for the building trades and for which particular trades they're interested in.
Well, there are other stages involved with that because there are requirements that some of the trades have to have to have a GED. So America Works is also -- excuse me, Top Win is involved to help get GEDs, and they are being paid while they're down there.
And how do people find out about the training programs? Is it something that happens at the work site or near the work site? I mean. . .
I believe that the first -- we're only in the first phase of this right now, it's the first class that's gone through. The graduation is June the 16th.
It's brand new. There's a lot of federal money into it that's helping this program move along. And as in any program that's 178 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 being initially -- there are bugs to be worked out. Hopefully, there -- I mean, not hopefully, but they are being worked out, you know, quite expeditiously. They really are coming along very well. Phase II starts in July, our class 2 starts in July for their 16-week program. When they -- upon completion of their 16-week program, like I said, they will take an apprenticeship test in whichever building trades their desire is, they participate in the program. And then they will be inducted into the apprenticeship program, and they will be placed with contractors on job sites or with PHA. Now, there's a stipulation with PHA. They go in as provisional employees, they can only stay a minimum of six months or a maximum of one year, and then we put them with private contractors through the rest of their apprenticeship. And their apprenticeship for us is four years.
And then is the 179 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 next level -- you know, I'm asking these questions because, as compared to some of my other colleagues, I don't have a lot of experience in this particular area. The next thing after the apprentice, is that the journeyman?
Okay. So you stay four years and then I assume you have to take a test to be a journeyman also?
You must complete the program. You have to take a test to get in. The apprenticeship school is regulated by State laws as well as by our own collective laws or our own laws. You must maintain a certain average, you must maintain a certain attendance.
But you're in school and getting paid for it. 180 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221
You should go visit the school with us one day. I think you would be quite impressed.
Okay. So you go for the training program to apprentice. That's four years for carpenters; it could be different for others.
And then after that, you go to the journeyman level, but while you're an apprentice, you could end up working for a private contractor while you're still an apprentice.
There's a sponsorship program. Once you pass our test, you need a contractor to sponsor you to come into our program, sponsor you for work.
It's a pretty simple matter. 181 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221
I'm sorry, at what stage does this sponsorship -- is this after you've been accepted into the --
It's after you pass the entrance exam for the carpenters yes.
Okay. Then a contractor has to sponsor you to go work for them?
I know that not everyone gets sponsored the first week or sometimes the first month, especially when, you know, we have -- I believe we had 350 new apprentices pass the test back in May. It will probably take till the end of -- to be perfectly honest with you, it will take to the end of the summer to get everybody sponsored, but I really don't know of anyone that hasn't been sponsored.
Okay, thank you 182 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 very much.
The information was very helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
I just want to -- I'm trying to go back to the problem and where the breakdown is. You said in your testimony, if I heard you correctly, that the subcontractors are not paying the workers the prevailing rate. Are they on jobs where the prevailing rate is supposed to be paid and they're not doing it?
That's part of the problem. I mean, let's be realistic, we're in America. Enforcement has long standards sometimes. I mean, there's processes through enforcement. You just don't take a gentleman in there and say to the Labor and Standards, Okay, 183 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 this guy's not getting paid the prevailing wage. It has to be proven too. He has to have pay stubs. Even though -- there's contracts that are involved so there's legalities for the City that are involved with the contractors. They can't just go out -- actually, I'm wrong, they can go out and shut a contractor down, but they don't do it just because one man goes in there and says, you know, I'm not being paid the prevailing wage. Like I said, it has to be proven first. Sometimes, in order to prove this, it takes a longer amount of time than what hopefully would be necessary to do this.
In order to answer your questions, Councilwoman, a lot of what you just discussed is what I would view as an enforcement problem, and this bill is not designed to address that. The problem this bill is designed to address is that there is City money being used to 184 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 fund public contracts, the bulk of which, under the ordinance, are already covered under prevailing wage laws, and the employees are supposed to be getting paid prevailing wages. But some of that money is going to the quasi agencies. It's City money, it's being used for public construction, but the employees who are working on those projects are not receiving prevailing wage, not because the law is being violated, but because the ordinance at present doesn't extend to those quasi agencies.
Well, obviously, we heard from two of them today. I'm not sure of the complete list. PIDC and Mr. Kromer's group would be two. I don't know whether there are others. But that's really what the problem is and what the amendments are intended to address. It's the expenditure of City money by the quasi agencies without requiring prevailing wage to be applied.
There is some concern about the home program. Would you have 185 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 any objection to -- well, I shouldn't ask you that question. I'll put it back. Because it does cover smaller contracts usually, not larger contracts, the Home Repair Program is not covered by the prevailing wage. However, on some of the problems -- a problem that Councilman Kenney raised about the larger developers designing or implementing their programs in phases -- their construction in phases, that is a way of -- it kind of like circumvents the prevailing wage, and there's something that can be done administratively to correct that. I just want to know the agencies that are quasi agencies that are supposed to be -- because the first bill says "City work," which -- City is City is City is City. So I want to know what agencies are not conforming to the original prevailing wage laws.
Well, at a minimum, we've had some examples that have been mentioned both by Councilman Kenney and Mr. Lombardo concerning Mr. Kromer's group. I think PIDC has recognized that they would be an agency within the definition 186 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 of this. I would have to defer to Councilman Kenney who I think drafted the bill with respect to other agencies because I'm not aware what's out there now and what isn't out there now. And in addition to that, there's always the possibility that other City authorities or agencies that meet this definition would spring into action in the future for one reason or another that may be covered by it as well.
There are certain jobs where PHDC -- where a PHDC-governed job does not come under the prevailing wage criteria, and there are certain jobs with the Redevelopment Authority that do not come under the prevailing wage umbrella, or they're so deemed not to.
Are there reasons why they would be exempt, Mr. Kromer? Are you disagreeing with this statement?
The Philadelphia Housing 187 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 Development Corporation and Redevelopment Authority are not exempt from the HUD regulations. The regulations go with --
I'm sorry, Mr. Kromer, you're going to have to speak into the microphone.
The regulations go with the funding. The federal funding goes from HUD to the City through the Office of Housing and Community Development, and the City contracts with the Redevelopment Authority and PHDC for certain development activities. The federal requirement goes along with that funding, and any federal requirement that relates to prevailing wage is passed on to those implementing agencies, but the fact is, as --
Yes. Some kinds of development, such as Community Development Block Grant-funded sales housing is not mandated to be prevailing wage. This bill, as I understand it, would require that type of development and other development to be prevailing wage. 188 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221
If I can just interject something to that. The confusion, I guess, on our part or on my part in being a tradesman, is that when you have, as Mr. Kromer mentioned before, Nehemiah West, which was 105 units, I believe?
195 units, non-prevailing. There's wage no prevailing wage implemented in there at all. What was the other one mentioned before?
Cecil B. Moore is going to be close to 500 units by the time -- someone was asking about -- Councilman Ortiz was asking about phased out. Okay, Phase I was actually, I think, 35 units, if I'm not mistaken, with the renovation units. Phase II was 42, Phase III -- and it goes on and on to about 500 units. There is no implementation of the prevailing rate in there.
And this bill, of course, Councilwoman, would correct that. And I would note in doing it that it would also have two other 189 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 benefits. Benefit number one is that the people who work for low wages on a project would now make a living wage as we view that in the construction industry. And in addition to that, there have been multiple studies -- in particular, both in the states of Utah and Delaware by Professor Peter Phillips -- which have proven that efficiency, productivity, and in value are better when prevailing wages apply to building projects as opposed to when it isn't.
If a person is working on a project where there is prevailing wage, does that person have to belong to a labor union?
So those subcontractors who are working on those projects now, hire people from the neighborhood would be required to pay the prevailing wage, but those people don't necessarily have to be a member of any of the trade unions?
No. That is an across-the-board law in the federal, State, and the City ordinance level as it stands now. It's 190 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 any person, it's regardless of whether they're a union member or not. If they work on the project and there is, depending on the law, City, State, or federal money involved, under a prevailing wage law, they're entitled prevailing wages.
Mr. Kromer, under the Sales Housing Program, the costs are designed -- I guess you develop the cost of the house based on -- the price of the house based on the cost. Is the cost of the labor tabulated or calculated in the price? And what is it calculated on? Is it calculated on just a normal average salary for various trades, or is it calculated based on the prevailing wage?
For ventures such as the Poplar-Nehemiah, the Redevelopment Authority accepts competitive bids from various developers, and I believe evaluates them in terms of the standards for materials of labor costs, and prevailing wage may not necessarily enter into that. I believe it's the case that with respect to Poplar-Nehemiah, there was a mix of some trades, which were union workers and, therefore, prevailing wage and others which were not. 191 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221
Could you give us a breakdown, say, if you had a project like Nehemiah and you -- it was constructed without prevailing wage, could you give us the price it would cost with prevailing wage? Do they pay the workers that much lower?
I can give you a breakdown of the unit cost, which Councilman Clarke had requested. And I can't say one thing or another, but I can show you the unit cost for specific ventures that we have funded.
Mr. Lombardo, I wasn't ignoring you. Go ahead. I wasn't ignoring you; I was just trying to get my question out before I forgot it.
Councilwoman, if I may pick up on that. There's essentially on any construction project three components to what the person who's buying it is going to pay.
Essentially, there's three components, all right. One is materials, and unless you're a really big player who can negotiate big discounts from supply houses, 192 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 everybody pretty much pays the same for materials.
The second component is labor costs. When there's a prevailing wage ordinance in effect, every contractor bidding a job is required to pay the same wage rates. So in that scenario, everybody would have fixed labor costs. And then the third, of course, is going to be the contractor's profit. So theoretically, if you have a prevailing wage situation, as Councilman Ortiz has already recognized, you level the playing field for all contractors. And the lowest bidder is really going to be the person who's willing to take the least profit, which means that you get quality work done, you get well-trained employees because you're paying freight for those, you're getting a competitive bid, and the taxpayers are probably getting the best value because they're getting the best bid with the lowest profit margin built in. When you throw the prevailing wage component out, dollar figures can be all over the 193 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 lot, and I don't know whether saw my head shaking up and down when you asked whether non-prevailing wage rates are that much lower. They are. For example, you may have a company who regularly does roofing work in Philadelphia that pays contractual rates, and they're about 30 bucks an hour for a roofer. And then you may have somebody come up from Lower Delaware whose roofers customarily nail corrugated tin on chicken coops paying their employees 6 bucks an hour. So you can have those kinds of discrepancies when prevailing wage isn't involved. And then it doesn't become a question of the three components deciding which contractor's willing to take the least profit. But it becomes a question of which contractor is going to pay his employees the least and line his pockets with as much profit as possible.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. McNeil, Mr. Lombardo, I know today 194 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 you indicated that you were here to talk about this particular bill and not necessarily unions and other related issues, but there's a certain reality in life. And having been around in some way, shape or form related to this type of activity, traditionally, when you talk about prevailing wages and you come into a community such as the community that I represent, those jobs tends to be union jobs. I mean, that's just the reality. I mean, I'd say 75, 80 percent of the jobs end up being union jobs. I mean, although West Poplar was not a prevailing wage, the majority of the workers on there were union. The same thing with Cecil B. Moore Home Ownership Zone. And if this bill addressed certain unions, I would be very happy, because the reality is that there are certain unions that are very aggressive in their outreach approach -- the carpenters, the laborers local, the electricians, I mean, they have a very aggressive program. But there are also certain unions who don't do any outreach. And when they come into these 195 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 communities and when it's then required to do some union work, people in the community that I represent don't get an opportunity. So I guess what I'm saying today is, we need your help. I need you to help me figure out a way that if somehow this bill passes and then ultimately requires that all of this work that's done in conjunction with this CDBG of City-funded development activity requires that these other unions don't traditionally reach out to our communities reach out. I mean, do you have an idea of how we can get that done? 'Cause, you know, personally, I'd like to see a person get a good union job 'cause I understand what that means long term.
I think, Councilman, although I don't know whether it's appropriate for this forum that you and I and some of my clients ought to sit down and have some further discussions on it. If it's any consolation, I think you've already heard today the commitment that the carpenters have. I am aware of the commitment the laborers have since they are also one of my 196 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 clients. I'm aware of-- not the laborers, the electricians. I'm aware of laborers' commitment as well. I'm also that some of the trades don't have those outreach programs. But the reality of things is that there is such a shortage of skilled people out there right now, that even if you and I engaged in no 9 efforts whatsoever to make those folks outreach, they're going to have to outreach. But I think probably some dialogue between my clients and myself and your office would probably be helpful. The carpenters, as I said, are very committed to that outreach program. And it's not just a commitment to Philadelphia. I mean, you know, Len and I both come from Philadelphia. I came from Southwest Philadelphia. The carpenters union is here, my firm is here. We're committed to Philadelphia. But if you go past that commitment and just practicalities dictate that we have to outreach because if we don't, we're not going to have enough people to man the jobs in the future. We have to do it.
But, you know, 197 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 frankly speaking, I'm not saying that level of outreach from certain unions, you know, as the carpenters do and as the electricians and the laborer, and I don't see any evidence that that is changing. And I', concerned about requiring that all of these jobs basically have to be union jobs. And if there's no incentive for those people then to do the outreach, I'm trying to figure out how we get there.
With all due respect, I'll defer to Mr. Lombardo to answer the rest of that.
Actually, I was just going to ask him a question, but he'll correct me if I'm wrong. If this bill passes, Section 3 becomes prominent in this bill, and the unions that you're talking about --
Section 3 is new hires. And you know, you don't bring in anybody new, you don't have to hire anybody.
Well, I understand that. Like I said, we can't speak for the other unions, but we can come to the table and, like he said, not at this forum, and speak with the other unions 198 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 and possibly help you with them.
I mean, a union person will listen to you before they'll listen to me probably, see what I'm saying? I'm saying that, you know, I mean, we really need help on this and this is something that --
They'll listen to you now because you're on the other side of the fence.
Okay. So we can have your commitment in spite of what happens to this bill?
A meeting? Yes, absolutely. (Councilwoman Krajewski assumes the Chair.)
I'm still in search of what the problem is 'cause I don't think we ought to legislate on the basis of a theoretical problem that may exist. For example, if there is a problem, we have a -- as Council, we have a problem of oversight of City agencies. If the City agencies 199 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 don't do their job right, we want to know about it because it could be from one of two points of view. It could be -- it could be that the agency is just not enforcing the law, and we want to change that. Or it could be that the law is deficient. When a bill is introduced and the indication is that there is a conclusion that the law is deficient, we have to have a change somehow in law, and that's what I've been hunting for and looking for. And generally -- not generally. I'd say in every case I've known, we know what the problem is. We get names, we get circumstances that indicate there's a problem. We call in the city officials, we say, Why is there this problem, why don't you resolve it? And usually it gets resolved without legislation. Sometimes it doesn't get resolved because the City -- just the law is insufficient. I'm searching for here to find out where the law is insufficient. And it's, you know, very difficult for us when the City officials in charge of the program tell us that if there were a problem, they'd be happy to deal with 200 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 it, and when we try to find out what is the problem, we just can't put our fingers on it. And so I have that problem. Second problem I have is on the prevailing wage in general. You recited very effectively, I thought, one of the great virtues of the New Deal. People don't believe in the New Deal today 'cause they believe that one of the Ten Commandments was one relating to prevailing wages. They don't understand that it was a part of the New Deal program that was aimed at making sure that workers and all people were treated properly. And the prevailing wage law is one of the things, like Social Security that exists for the purpose of protecting working people. But the problem is different -- we don't have itinerants coming in, do we, taking away the jobs? Well, if we did, I'd like to hear about it. I'd like to know what the problems are that we're trying to resolve. I think we ought to take the first step, and the first step ought to be find out what is the problem and why can't the City fix it -- if, in fact, there is a problem. And I'd like to 201 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 get to the point where I can pinpoint Mr. Kromer and Mr. Hankowsky and say, why didn't you tell us about that problem, why have been hiding it? So far, I can't do that to them 'cause I don't what problem we're even talking about. So I think that what's needed at this time on this bill is the establishment of what the facts are and a hearing at which, if it becomes necessary to have such a hearing, in which we probe with City officials, why are you permitting this illegal activity to continue to exist? I assure you that if there is a problem, we're going to resolve it. We're going to resolve it by either using the laws that currently exist or by moving ahead with a change in the laws because I think this Council's record in support of decent wages and working conditions for workers is very clear. It's been a very strong record, and we intend to keep it that way. But we would like at the same time to clear up the misapprehensions. You say that -- you know, you use that figure of 700 or so. We'd like to get details of your apprenticeship program, because I can tell you out in the 202 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 community, the feeling is strong among minority groups that unions don't accept everybody, that it's very difficult to get into an apprentice group. And then if you do get in, it's very difficult to complete it. And if you do complete it and finally get into the union, you find that you don't get many work assignments.
And if you do finally get work assignments, you find you get the worst, the furthest away from home. Now, they're complaints. I'd like to see those complaints dealt with, you know, and corrected 'cause --
-- it's in everybody's interest. Now, they're the kind of things I'd like to say and I thought that the discussion between you and Councilman Clarke was a very good own. I'd like to get to the bottom of all of these things so we can really resolve them. But right now, I just don't see any problem that this bill addresses. If there is a contractor violating the law, let's go after him, 203 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 and that's where I sit on this bill. I just don't know why we're taking all of this time on a problem, the existence of which we don't know about. And if it does exists, we have a whole group of people who have pledged during the testimony -- Hankowsy and Kromer, the two top officials in this area, have pledged to do everything they can to resolve the problem, and they said they had never received complaints about the problem.
Councilman, for the last three years, I've been sitting here and I sit next to you in caucus. And I listen to you like a tender foot Boy Scout, and all your words of wisdom coming from you, and I soak it all in and I digest it. And one of the main things that always comes out is, "Rick, don't trust the Administration." In this case, you want to trust the Administration.
No, I don't want to trust the Administration. 204 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221
These guys work for -- not these two, but those other people work for the Administration. They're going to say whatever they're told. Come on, Councilman, you come here and you say statements, and I have to stick up for the building trades. I've been in Council for three years as a Councilman. I worked for Jim Kenny for two years, I worked for Dan McElhatton for a year. In that three, four, five, six seven, whatever it is, years, nobody's ever came to me except one person, maybe somebody else and said, Rick, you know a little bit about unions and the building trades. I have a group of minorities that needs to get into the electricians, the carpenters, the plumbers, okay? There's malcontents in every business. There's malcontents in City Council, there's malcontents in the carpenters union. With all due respect, that's a brass statement to say. There is ways for minorities to get into the building trades, and I'll personally work with Councilman Clarke. But I'm tired of sitting here and 205 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 hearing this stuff all the time. What are you supposed to do, hold people down because they've been successful and they want to move out of the City? I would rather stay in the City. Congreso de Latinos Unidos, they're doing just we're talking about. Lenny Lombardo talked about the Tasker Home Projects, Top Win. There's projects, but nobody uses 'em. The people are finding out themself. Now, I know your intentions are good, but to say statements like what you said about the building trades, I just can't have you say that without some kind of rebuttal. The building trades are trying. These guys are businessmen. His boss knows there's no way he's going to keep his employees employed for the rest of his tenure as the president of the carpenters if he don't have minorities and women in his union. That's the cost of doing business. The guy that runs the electricians, Johnny Dougherty, grew up at Second Street, an issue kid from South Philly. He's constantly recruiting women and minorities 'cause he knows. And guess what, if he doesn't recruit 'em, other 206 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 people come around the country and other parts of this state, Councilman, and they exploit they exploit minorities and women. The only persons that are going to help are the unions. It's not going to be some guy making the buck. And the big thing everybody's looking past here is, there's three components. There's the workers. The workers are workers no 10 matter which side they're on -- union, nonunion, prevailing wage, not prevailing wage. The contractors, they're still contractors. The guys building houses, he's building houses. Union, nonunion, prevailing wage or not. The developers are the key, and nobody's talking about the developers. The developers are the same guys that do the big project that Jerry Murphy as to chase around to pay the money, the prevailing rate. Then they know they're the guys that are skirting the law. And the reason you're not hearing it is exactly what Mr. Lombardo talked about. Why should some carpenter who's barely -- maybe he has four kids. Maybe he works for a 207 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 nonunion contractor. And that's the deal. You shut your mouth, you sign that paper, or you don't get the work. You're going to work in that prevailing rate job on Tuesday, but Saturday, you're working on my non-prevailing rate job for free. It happens, I've seen it, I was an organizer, I know. The electricians have a guy just like Lenny like, Timmy Brown. It's Timmy's life. Timmy could tell you stories of people coming from Nebraska and taking inner city kids and giving 'em $7 an hour to do work that's traditionally electricians' work and charging the customer $30 an hour. Now, that money's not going to the kids from West Philly or North Philly or from Councilman Clarke's district or mine or yours. It's going to the developer, and he's taking that money and he's going back.
It's the developer here. We all have good intentions here, but I mean, I sit here week after week, day after day and hear the same -- I mean, before I became a Councilman, I would probably call it "bullshit," but I wouldn't say that now but that's what it 208 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 is. I mean, we can only get to a point by trying to work things out. But, you know, I'm embarrassed for these guys that came off the job and have to stand here and hear this rhetoric and rhetoric. They're here because their union asked them to come here. And this is something that has to be worthwhile. I mean, how can you be a union guy sometimes and not a union guy another time? Please help me Councilman, I'm confused.
Well, I'm just listening in amazement to this nonsense pouring forth from your mouth.
Well, I mean, we could debate this till the cows come home. It's not nonsense in my world.
I'm just sitting here listening. For three years, I've heard that.
Why don't we just deal with the problems that we're talking about?
We are dealing with the problem. I mean, Lombardo told us that 209 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 the people are afraid to stand up here and say what the problem is. But I'll tell you, it's the developers. And they're the developers that give donations to politicians all around the City of Philadelphia. There are little projects, big projects, and middle-sized projects. Now, all you have to do is take your research staff and start looking at some of them campaign disclosures and start figuring out who these developers are. And they're going to make money 'cause they're only in it for the money. They're not in it for you, me, the minority people in the City of Philadelphia, the majority people -- they're in it to make money. And guess what? When they make their money, they're taking that money back to Delaware County, Delaware, Bucks County, New Jersey, anywhere but here. They're the guys that are making money, but that's the American way. So this is the way that we see how we can help that. This is how we could stop that tide of money going away from our city. It may not be perfect but we're here trying to do so something. Thank you. 210 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221
Councilman Cohen, do you still want to be recognized?
Your light's on, do you still want to be recognized?
Are there any other statements or questions from members of the committee? (No response.)
Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Yes.
Would you please approach the witness table. (Chick comes forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Maritsa Ortiz. I'm here representing Esperanza CDC. And I have a letter from the president they he wanted me to read. 211 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221
Esperanza Inc. strongly opposes the proposed Bill No. 990221. If passed, this law will significantly increase the cost of creating housing for lower-income persons and make the creation of training and work opportunities for low-income persons in construction virtually impossible. We have developed over 49 units of housing for lower-income persons and have caused the employment of over 35 lower-income persons in construction jobs. The total construction costs of these housing projects has been approximately $6 million. It our experience that the payment of prevailing wages increases the construction costs by at least 15 percent. Without increased funding from the City, state, and federal sources, the increased cost of housing will reduce the production of housing. Further, some low-income persons obtaining initial jobs on housing construction projects where the sponsors requires a contractor to provide training and work opportunities, contractors may be unable to afford these training 212 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill 990221 and work opportunities if the union wages are required. As a result, many low-income persons and minority persons will be locked out of work if this legislation is passed. That's it. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Are there any questions of this witness? (No questions.)
Thank you very much for your patience. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, this will conclude our public hearing. - - - 213 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Pub. Meeting
Now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Resolution No. 990391.
Thank you, Madam President. I move for the adoption of Resolution 8 990391. Is that the first one? (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Resolution No. 990391 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Resolution No. 990392.
Thank you, Madam President. I move for the adoption of Resolution 23 No. 990392. (Duly seconded.)
It has been 214 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Pub. Meeting moved and seconded that Resolution No. 990392 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Resolution No. 990393.
Madam President, I move for the adoption of Resolution No. 990393. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Resolution No. 990393 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor signify will by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Resolution No. 990394. 215 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Pub. Meeting
Madam President, I move for the adoption of Resolution No. 990394. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Resolution No. 990394 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Resolution No. 990395.
I move for the adoption of Resolution No. 990395. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Resolution No. 990395 be reported out of Council with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? 216 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Pub. Meeting The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill regarding Bill No. 990288.
Madam Chair, I'd like to introduce an amendment which has been circulated which the Administration has agreed to regarding Bill 990288, and I'll hand it in and I'll just make reference to the section that it applies to.
And does the stenographer have a copy? Please proceed, Councilman.
Thank you. I refer you and my colleagues to of the bill. In Section 5, subparagraph B-2, all the changes that occur in this section in this -- after -- let me just read through the paragraph as it will be. The new paragraph will read as follows. "Interest on the member's DROP account balance computed at a rate determined by the Board and compounded monthly rather than replacing annually. The rate shall be 4.5 percent upon the 217 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Pub. Meeting effective date of the ordinance amending this title to provide for this test DROP, and shall be reviewed not less than annually by the Board at the beginning of each plan year. "The Board may adjust the interest rate" -- and this is additional language -- "prospectively or retrospectively following such review providing that the rate shall not exceed 10 percent (instead of 9 percent) and shall not fall below 4.9 percent" instead of the original 3.5 percent.
And did you indicate that the Administration was in favor of this amendment?
They are in favor, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'd also request that -- and I've talked to the sponsor, if this bill could have rules suspension so that it will be ready a week before we adjourn in case there are any further amendments.
So would you make a motion to adopt the amendment.
I move the 218 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Pub. Meeting adoption of the amendment. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly second that the amendment be approved. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 990288.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990288, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 990288 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will signify by saying 219 6/8/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Pub. Meeting aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. And the motion is carried. It is my understanding that Bill No. 7 9900221 will be recessed until Tuesday, June 15, at 2 30, at the request of the sponsors. Thank you all very much. This concludes our public meeting. (Adjourned at 3:08 p.m.) - - - 220 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 8, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RESOLUTION NO.'s 990391, 2, 3, 4, 5 BILL NO.'s 990221, 990288 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter