COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON HOUSING, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND THE HOMELESS - - - Thursday, December 8, 2005. 1:15 P.m. - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - - - RESOLUTION NO. 050871 - Resolution calling on the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless to hold public hearings on the administration's proposed reorganization of housing agencies. - - - PRESENT: JANNIE L. BLACKWELL, Chair JUAN RAMOS, Vice-Chair DARRELL L. CLARKE DONNA REED MILLER BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X RESOLUTION NO. 050871 Kevin Hanna, Secretary, Housing and Neighborhood Preservation-------------- Andrew Buss, Office of Housing and Community Development------------------ 23 Veronica M. Pankey, President, Local 1971, AFSCME, AFL-CIO------------------ 74 - - - 3 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05
Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. We will begin our public hearing. This is the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless. We will ask the clerk to read the title of the resolution.
Resolution 050871, calling on the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless to hold public hearings on the Administration's proposed reorganization of housing agencies. This hearing was previously scheduled for November the 15th, and then recessed until November the 29th, and then recessed from that point until today, December the 8th, 1 o'clock.
Thank you very much. We are very happy to see all of you, and certainly thank you for taking time out of your busy days in this horribly cold weather. We are happy to have this discussion. It is the responsibility of the 4 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless to consider this and other issues that deal with housing. It is our goal that out of this hearing will be a commitment to not do any reorganization that we're not made aware of. We regret that there have been some negative feelings in terms of this issue and this committee, but it is our goal to represent the citizens of Philadelphia. And it frightens us when the rumor mill abounds that housing reorganization will occur and neither the committee nor myself have any assurances that nothing will happen without us knowing. And that is our goal. And, Mr. Hanna, we welcome you. And if you will commit to us that nothing will happen without our committee knowing, that will get us at least started in an amiable fashion. And certainly the other part of that is that, we would like to hear that the various housing agencies -- and I know that they are all represented -- PHDC, Anthony 5 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 McIntosh whom I have seen who is here, who was here last time. Certainly I see Vacant Property Review Committee, Deb mcColloch from Office of Housing and Community Development, and Herb Wetzel, Development Authority. We will just ask if they have been negotiating with the unions; unless, Mr. Hanna, you are prepared to ask all questions. It is your choice. When we recessed at the end of our last hearing, we asked that the unions be considered and that you come back saying that there's been at least negotiations. And we want to hear about that there are negotiations with the union. We want a commitment that housing will not be reorganized without us having some input and discussion and at least notification. And, having said that, again, we say welcome, and we are happy to entertain your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 6 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 First of all, in response to your requests, you certainly have my commitment, the Mayor's commitment, to not do anything from a reorganizational standpoint without talking to you and providing you information. First step in that process would be today, this afternoon.
You are very welcome. Second of all, relative to our communications with the union, we have been in contact with the union, we have scheduled followup meetings, negotiating sessions, for next week. Well, they start next week. They may extend into the week after that. But the first of those negotiating sessions, which I think is with the negotiating team for OHCD, takes place next week. And we have, as far as I know, sessions scheduled for each of the other two over the next week to ten days or so. It is our hope that those renewed talks will create some means by which we can 7 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 get closer from the standpoint of our respective demands. So that process is back underway.
That's good. That's very, very, very important. And that's a major accomplishment, if we had made no other accomplishments. We wanted to know that the unions can look forward to negotiations. The other issue where we need a commitment is that, we talked at our last meeting about the Redevelopment Authority having one appraiser. And, as you know, the Redevelopment Authority agency is an issue; that the agency that acquires and disposes of properties, and all properties have to be appraised not once, but twice. So, obviously, a city cannot survive with one appraiser. Now, I understand, and after our discussions, I understand that it was not you or the Administration who created that number, because people retire or leave. But we would like a commitment from 8 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 you that, in your budget deliberations this year, that some additional appraisers will be budgeted for. Because it is my knowledge -- I meant to mention it yesterday, I had forgotten -- that, also, again through the rumor mill, that RDA would need a budget commitment from the Administration in order to hire appraisers, so that we can move the city's agenda forward.
Well, not to comment so much on rumors. We will commit to you that we will do everything that we can to hire not just another appraiser, but as many as we can. As we talked about, the issue isn't so much a matter of will, whether or not we want to; it is more a matter of the supply of appraisers. Appraisers in this real estate market are doing very well on their own. And it's difficult for us, therefore, to attract them to the city. As you mentioned, we've had a couple 9 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 of folks who have retired. And, in fact, that's one of the areas we're looking at to find, for us, new appraisers, retirees, to hopefully bring them back out of retirement and put them on our payroll. But, yes, we certainly understand the need for them and are working -- "we," the Administration, RDA, all of us are working -- hard to find and then get appraisers on staff. We understand that's a huge bottleneck.
Yes, that's very, very important. We are glad to hear that. And we will continue to try to monitor that issue. To my left is Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown, who is a part of this committee. And we thank her for joining us.
Madam Chairwoman, I have testimony that I would like to read into the record, and copies that I can make available to members of the committee.
Thank you. Would a sergeant at arms pick up copies of the testimony. Thank you. 10 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 The Chair notes that Councilman Clarke is here. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you very much, Mr. Hanna. Please begin your testimony.
Thank you. Again, my name for the record is Kevin R. Hanna. I serve the as the Secretary of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation for the City of Philadelphia. Good afternoon, Councilwoman Blackwell and members of the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless. I am here to testify on Resolution 15 050871. Pursuant to our discussion, Councilwoman, and agreement last evening, I will be representing the Administration on all questions regarding the reorganization. Our consultants will not be testifying this afternoon. Housing values in Philadelphia have reached unprecedented levels. Homes in neighborhoods throughout the city have skyrocketed in value and neighborhoods 11 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 themselves, many of which were once thought to be in irreversible decline, have experienced a turn-around that is nothing short of remarkable. Neighborhood transformation Initiative has been at the center of Philadelphia's neighborhood renaissance, serving as the catalyst for reclaiming city blocks, clearing blight, assembling land parcels for acquisition and development, and stimulating new investment throughout the City of Philadelphia. NTI's impact has been dramatic. Families are benefitting from rising home values across the city. Together with key city investments in both the affordable and private housing market, the city has seen unprecedented private residential development throughout Philadelphia. However, our current scope of housing services and programs do not impact the lives and conditions of enough Philadelphians. As a result, the city now seeks to 12 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 maximize the effectiveness of the housing services that it does provide so that all Philadelphians will benefit from this remarkable renaissance and so that city government can maximize the effectiveness of its taxpayer-funded housing programs and services. To get there, it is critically important for the city to build a coordinated system of housing programs and services, all working in support of the housing policies and strategies as set forth by the Mayor. The necessary first step in this regard is a reorganization of the city's three principal housing agencies: OHCD, PHDC, and the Redevelopment Authority. In an era of tight city budgets and reduced Community Development Block Grant funding, the city must maximize its shrinking resources by investing strategically, balancing affordable and market-rate housing, and eliminating redundant and wasteful administrative costs, even as it works to find new ways to generate revenue and streamline 13 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 the cumbersome process of buying and disposing of land. From a fiscal perspective, reorganization makes sense because it saves dollars. The city's fragmented housing agencies continue to operate almost independently of each other, with overlapping administrative functions, antiquated and disconnected technology systems, and separate and dissimilar labor agreements. Perhaps most importantly, reorganization fosters a strategic and coordinated approach to the provision of housing programs and services. In this regard, the current state of the city's land disposition and acquisition system is particularly telling. Today, land disposition typically involves as many as five different departments that employ a dizzying array of rules and procedures, some of which are so foreboding as to practically dare developers and others to do business with the city. To address these and other issues, a 14 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 team led by PFM and the reinvestment fund is working with key city housing officials and staff to craft a comprehensive reorganization plan for organizing the city's housing agencies. We believe the plan, when completed, will present an extraordinary opportunity for Philadelphia to provide housing programs and services in a more coordinated, efficient, and cost-effective manner.
Reorganization will put the city on a solid programmatic and financial footing to generate new momentum and extend housing services and programs to all neighborhoods. The plan will unfold in three phases. In Phase One, the consultants performed an organizational assessment of the three agencies. A team of consultants used a number of traditional tools to assess the current agency structures at OHCD, RDA, and PHDC. They interviewed management, they reviewed previous reorganizational documents, met with agency, quote, customers, end quote, 15 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 and conducted an employee survey based on industry standards. In Phase Two, they convened and facilitated five business process teams designed to assess current key processes. The goal of this effort was to develop recommendations regarding how the housing agencies can be improved and made more cost-efficient. The five teams were Administration, Housing Preservation, Housing Development, Real Estate Operations, and Best Practices. Teams were comprised of employees from OHCD, RDA, and PHDC. In the end, over 100 recommendations were proposed that can save money, streamline and improve current business processes. These are being assessed for their feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Overall, the consultants found that the housing agencies did the following: Number one, lacked a clear strategy that goes beyond the consolidated plan; number two, share a variety of common functions; number 16 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 three, are not integrated into the traditional business of the city; number four, have varying terms and conditions of employment; number five, manage information through multiple, sometimes incompatible nonconnecting, IT systems; number six, do not have a consistent means for evaluating their progress. Phase Three involves the Office of Housing engaging in discussions with the Mayor as to how best to structure the office to take advantage of these and potentially other cost-cutting and efficiency-improving efforts. Implementing these efforts on a timely basis becomes an even more important issue, in light of the potential further cuts in CDBG funding now being debated in Congress. That ends my formal testimony. I and members of the staff will certainly be available for questions. I would ask, though, that you direct specific reorganizational questions to me.
Thank you, Mr. Hanna. 17 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05
You are very welcome. I am sorry, there is one other thing I needed to add that is not part of the formal testimony. We had talked last night, Councilwoman, about the idea of providing some kind of a presentation on the vacant property management information system that I touched upon, I guess, in the first hearing a couple of weeks ago. Due to technical difficulties, we're not going to be able to do that. We had hoped actually to provide a Power Point presentation, but couldn't pull that together in a timely fashion. We will, however, commit to providing that kind of a presentation either to individual Council members or to Council as a whole at your convenience.
Thank you. We'll try to maybe convene a hearing. Given the holiday recess and Council's yearly recess around this time, we'll try to come up with a date maybe at the end of January or the first 18 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 week or two in February before we recess, and perhaps we can consider it at that time.
We are happy to hear that there is a strategy and overall plan to deal with this issue. Let me ask you a question as to a time line. Can you give us some time line as to when these issues will be considered? Do you have the results from these steps, the strategies? Is that much completed?
The time line for completing or implementing is really kind of up in the air; however, a de facto drop-dead date is going to be provided for us. Our budget hearings are coming up pretty soon. And I know I said I wouldn't respond to rumors, but there is a rumor afoot in Washington that we may be cut another 5 or 10 percent in CDBG for the upcoming fiscal year. If those rumors are correct, in order to make ends meet, we're going to need 19 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 to implement a number of these cost-saving proposals in anticipation of the upcoming budget. And, so, in answer to your question, right now the Mayor is considering all of the proposals, all of the information we have provided to him, and will give us some indication, hopefully some time soon, as to when he is ready to make a decision. But, in the absence of that, like I said, on a de facto basis, we are going to be forced to make some decisions by virtue of the budget.
We certainly feel that the housing agency should be a part and are a part of the traditional business of the city, and certainly want them to be integrated, and feel that they should be. And I don't really understand why they don't, and why they feel they are -- I don't understand why they're not -- I don't understand why they're not a part of the general business of the city. 20 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 Every area has its own boundaries, but I don't understand why -- maybe you can explain more what you mean about them not being integrated into the traditional business of the city.
Just to give you a couple of examples. Oftentimes when looking to do individual developments, whether large scale, small scale, or somewhere in between, our plans are driven more by finance; meaning, the availability of tax credits for a given developer who is looking to do a given development in a given neighborhood. Planning's responsibility is to plan for the orderly development of blocks within communities, within neighborhoods, within the city. In one sense, those two processes, the actual implementation of a given development and the planning, are disjointed. And, so, one of the things we are considering in coming up with a plan is better coordinating with the office of -- 21 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 reorganization plan, better coordinating with the planning department, when we put together deals or help put together deals in neighborhoods and as they put together neighborhoods plans. That's just one example; but, in our eyes, that's a very important strategic example of it.
I heard what you said last evening about sharing common functions. That's an easy one to understand. And in terms of employment, you know, we want to hear, again, and we will hear from the union, with how streamlining and sharing of functions, how that affects them. And with regard to IT systems, would the whole issue of IT systems help in the whole issue of employment and people being able to, maybe, share functions or being able to move from one area to another? Wouldn't the IT systems create more employment?
The IT systems that we 22 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 are talking about, to be honest, we're not really looking at it from an employment standpoint; it is more from an efficiency -- well, information and efficiency standpoint. What we contemplated with Vacant Property Management Information System is to, first of all, make available to us, all of us, starting with the Office of Housing and its three departments, as well as to Council and the city, information that we don't now have; namely, the whereabouts and the ownership of all of the parcels within the city. That's, for the most part, first and foremost. Second of all, being able to analyze and massage that information is also very important. Because right now not having the information, obviously, we can't do that. But the goal of VPMIS is more to improve efficiency, rather than to make or eliminate jobs.
Where are we? Just yesterday I raised a question, because we talked about legislation to charge taxes on vacant lots and vacant properties, 5 23 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 and 10 percent respectively. And my question to them was, whose lists are we looking at, and have we actually consolidated lists in terms of everybody's department identifying what's vacant, what's real. And my impression out of that meeting was that we're not tight in the city yet on who lives where, what's occupied, what isn't, what's a lot, and what isn't a lot. What is your feeling on that?
Councilwoman, I can't answer that level of detail. But I do have here Andrew bus, who is working on that project for our department. I will ask Andrew to come up and maybe address that and any other VPMIS specific issues.
My name is Andrew 24 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 Buss. I work for the Office of Housing and Community Development, and I am managing the business half of our VPMIS project.
Okay. Do you have any idea where we are? I mean, because this affects Licenses & Inspections, as well as the housing agencies, of wanting lists of what's a house, what's a lot, and what's a business, or what isn't.
As soon as we have the public component of what we're calling Build up and running, in the first phase we will have information from BRT, Revenue, and Licenses & Inspections. So as far as vacancy indicators, you know, L & I does their vacancy survey, I guess, every couple of years. So we would have that indicator. In the next phase what we want to do is, pull in information also from the Gas Works and the water company, just as more indicators for vacancy. So that's what we would be looking 25 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 at right now in terms of trying to determine which properties are vacant.
So we still, in our city, don't have a tight record? This is part of the questions that Councilman Clarke raised yesterday during other hearings on housing issues. Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown, you had a question.
First let me acknowledge the enormous amount of work that goes into taking what I know to be -- because I actually remember the early meetings of NTI and the early informal conversations and discussions regarding looking differently at our housing agencies. So when I look at where I know we started X number of years ago, in my first term of City Council, and where you have come to at this point, having to reduce enormous amount of findings into a four- or fiveRESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 document counts for something. So to the leadership of all the housing agencies, we need to acknowledge that. Secondly, it is not an unusual discussion being had across a number of city agencies where there is an effort, an interest to look at best-practice models. Right now Councilman Clarke and I are looking at Parks in a similar kind of way, and trying to figure out how we get from where we are to where the future probably requires us to be. With that said, can you speak to or list or cite, of the findings that you articulate on Pages 4 and 5, is there any level of consensus with any one or number of these amongst the various consultants and/or department heads with any of the findings that you have listed here?
Consensus amongst all the stakeholders that this is a prudent way to move. Councilwoman Blackwell just spoke to 27 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 number two, share a variety of common functions. And that's a finding. So --
Yes. And No. 5 would also be included in that group; that is, the management of information through multiple incompatible, nonconnecting IT systems. And that really is a function of how each one of the departments kind of grew up, having their own IT systems, their own IT staff. And there has been, I want to say, little, because there has certainly been communication, but not as much communication as perhaps there should have been, between and among the three functions. And, so, as a result, the IT systems kind of function in silos. That's one I think, I'm pretty sure, most folks would, for the most part, agree. 28 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 For the other four, there are going to be some who may come down on one side or the other. But on those two, there is pretty much a consensus of agreement.
And state again the answer to the question with regard to time line or time frame, and speaking to the phases you have outlined.
Phase One started maybe 12, months ago. Phase Two we got into 12 maybe earlier this year. And we are literally 13 in Phase Three. 14 Relative to when we can expect to 15 implement an approved or authorized plan, really is kind of on the Mayor's time line. We have had several discussions with him. He has asked for more information. He has asked to tweak certain aspects and change other things, for us to go back and take a look at still other things. And, so, to a large extent, we are on his time line. So for me to give you a date, a month by which things will be done, would be kind of difficult. 29 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05
The budget process has, as you know, certain dates by which decisions have to be made. If, God forbid, we are cut by another percent by Congress, then that's 9 going to entail our having to make some 10 savings, some savings decisions. A lot of these recommendations, as promulgated by the staff and the teams, are cost-saving measures. It would behoove us, therefore, to go ahead and implement as many of those cost-savings as possible, as we go into and certainly before we finish budget season.
And is there any signal or green flag as to when Congress will be making those determinations with regards to allocations to municipalities?
I am told that a Senate subcommittee earlier this week approved something. Now, I don't know if that means it 30 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 will have to go to joint committee in order to get something out, or if the Senate's version is any worse or any better than the House's version. But at least the Senate has passed, subcommittee of the Senate has passed, something.
Mr. Hanna, with regard to the IT system that you referenced, and its ability to help reduce time and improve the process for the collection of needed documents, such as reports, appraisals, et cetera, we understand that this may help the city move closer towards creating the goal of a land bank, to package parcels of vacant properties to offer to profit and nonprofit developers. How will this impact the development process so far as, one, who will manage the information; two, what will be the central point of entry for development ideas so that projects created, initiated by Council, won't 31 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 conflict with those initiated by the Administration and/or departments like Commerce, Housing, Planning, et cetera? And the third part of that question is, given this process, what assurances do we have that we will maintain our voice in the disposition of properties?
Why don't we start with -- we can go into a lot of detail in answering those questions. I am going to ask Andrew to talk a little bit, first of all, about how what is being developed will improve the flow of paper, maybe even eliminate the flow of paper. Then from there, I will try it address some of your questions
First of all, we will have as part of the Build system that I mentioned, we will have, basically, an electronic accumulation of all publicly owned properties. And, from my standpoint, that's all I can say about that, because I'm not dealing 32 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 with the land bank issue at all. We're also giving the RDA more of an automated system that I think really will make their jobs much easier, because there is just a lot less paper to deal with. So instead of, in a lot of cases, carrying paper around the city, you're able to do it in a more automated fashion.
Councilwoman, relative to land bank, there are currently -- well, a number of entities who either acquire and/or dispose of properties; PIDC, PAID, the RDA, Public Properties, and there's one other I want to say. But each of those four or five maintain different processes for disposing of land. The idea of a land bank is being discussed from the standpoint of trying to create a single, as you have used the term, a single point to which developers, as well as Council, can approach the city for land and can look to the city for the disposition of land. 33 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 Right now there are, like I said, four or five different ways for land to leave, quote, the city for development purposes. Our hope is that, with a land bank, we can narrow that down to two or hopefully just one means by which a developer will have to go through -- a process by which a developer will have to go through in order to acquire land. Right now City Council weighs in either on the acquisition side, but almost always on the disposition side. It's our expectation that that won't change; that Council, especially district City Council people, will continue to weigh in on what gets disposed of, where, when, and to whom.
"Weigh in" means it 34 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 doesn't happen until and unless the City Council person says it happens. Just like it happens right now.
Depending upon which process you are talking about. If you are talking about RDA, then it is an ordinance process. If you are talking about PIDC, it is not as formal a process. If you are talking about Public Property, Public Property typically transfers property to VPRC/RDA for the disposition of property, in which case it kind of goes through a little different process. So what I am committing to, what we committed to last night, was that Council will continue to have the final say in what gets disposed of, when, and where.
It is my understanding that any disposition of publicly owned property, regardless of the agency, must be disposed of by some sort of Council action; 35 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 i.e., resolution or ordinance. Are you saying that that process will stay intact?
No. Technically, that's not correct. Because with PIDC, to dispose of property -- and this is pursuant to legislation that was passed by Council back in the '60s -- currently, PIDC does not need Council approval for the disposition of property. But what I am saying is, with the creation of a land bank, that land bank's disposition policy will include something, whether ordinance or resolution, that's one of the things we are still working on, but something that would require Council approval before it is disposed of.
Council has to approve PIDC or PAID prior to the sale.
To my knowledge, I don't know. I don't think -- I can't speak for PAID.
PAID is the 36 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 entity that PIDC uses to --
I apologize. I am saying, "PIDC." I meant to say, "PHDC." My apologies. You are right. PIDC uses PAID. PHDC is the entity to whom Council gave authority back in the '60s to dispose of properties without Council. I apologize.
-- everybody else must go through Council with ordinance or resolution?
Right. We want it make that consistent from a single point of disposition, if we can work that out.
With regard to Commerce Department, how do you view that relationship, where City Council is concerned? 37 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 Because Commerce at times wants to make decisions that affect how we think and how the community thinks; but they are part of the Administration, and oftentimes we have issues there.
The Commerce Department especially, through PIDC and PAID, often gets into the land acquisition and disposition process issue, as you well know. Unfortunately, we have, my department in particular has, very little, if any, input as to how those type of decisions are made. So I'm real uncomfortable about trying to go into a whole lot of detail about Commerce's process.
We will talk to them during the budget process. Because we do at times have issues with the Commerce Department and their view of the world, that is not necessarily our view of the world. While it is significant that we spend up to 40 percent of every CDBG, 38 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 Community Development Block Grant, dollar in administrative costs, how do you view concerns, insofar as you can, about office operations, insofar as you can, given a part of this union negotiation, part of it may not, with operations such as legal, purchasing and procurement, accounting, human resources, et cetera? Can you respond to any of that?
I can respond by saying that that is certainly -- what you are talking about is what we, I, characterize in my testimony as "redundant services." That's certainly one of the things we are looking at very closely, especially in light of possible upcoming cuts.
We are very, very concerned. I hear you. All of us want the city to operate well. But certainly we are really concerned about people maintaining their jobs in this environment, where everything goes up except salaries. You know, we cut back, we lay off, 39 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 and, you know, taxes, we are threatened with full valuation that Council didn't agree with, higher gas costs, water rates, all of those things. And, yet, salaries either stay constant and don't go up with everything else in our environment. And people are threatened and frightened about the possibility of being laid off. So we are really, really concerned about those issues and how they affect the people who are here and people who work for these city agencies and who don't know where their future is. And, as you know, that's one of the reasons why we held this hearing, because we were really, really concerned about labor negotiations. And we are glad, again, to hear that they are underway and scheduled for all the departments where they are not -- or, have not in the past been meeting. The Chair also recognizes Councilwoman Donna Miller is here. She is 40 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 also part of this committee. We are glad to have her. Councilman Clarke, questions?
Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Hanna.
I just had a couple of questions about your testimony. First let me ask you this question: Are you familiar with the Brophy committee report?
Yes. This goes back three years. In fact, three years yesterday is when I started at the city. But when I first got here, I remember reading the Brophy report. So I vaguely remember having read it two or three years ago.
It went back way beyond three years ago. That's when I read it.
And you are 41 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 familiar with, the intent was to reorganize the city's housing agencies?
And you may not be able to answer this question, because you were not really around -- and I don't know if anybody is here that can -- but do you, to whatever degree, think it achieved its goal?
I really can't answer that. Number one, because I am a little bit unsure about what the ultimate goal was. There are all kinds of strata in reorganizing, and I'm not quite sure what the ultimate goal was. But, that's a tough question. I mean, that might be a better one for Mr. Kromer, maybe.
It was a very similar process. It didn't involve the level of public participation, i.e., of Public Hearing; but, during the Rendell years, former Mayor Rendell said that he wanted to reorganize the housing agencies. And they 42 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 hired this team of, quote, unquote, consultants. And Brophy, I guess, was the head of the consultant team. And they embarked on this process of reorganizing the agencies. Frankly speaking, from my perspective, it probably created more confusion than anything else. And here we are almost eight, nine, ten years later talking about reorganizing the agencies again. So I am wondering, you know, was that effort worth it, you know? Because I am sure traditionally consultants charge us a nice piece of change, and a whole bunch of interviews. (Applause.)
One of the things that I was concerned about -- at that time I actually wasn't a Council person, but I had a little ability, had some ability to be involved to some degree -- is that the level of participation by the elected officials was minimal, at best, in the whole reorganization efforts. I think that they, essentially, 43 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 embarked on a similar path of interviewing people, and then coming up with a finished product, not necessarily including people in the whole processing of that finished product beyond simply asking a bunch of questions. And, as I said earlier, at the end of the day, it didn't really achieve anything. And I don't know what your process now beyond your testimony that these consultants are going to talk to people and, I guess, ultimately issue a final report. And I don't know the level of participation in the formulation of that report, beyond simply asking a bunch of questions, you will have in this process. Because I believe that if it is not beyond a level that happened during the Brophy report, you may end up with a similar situation, where you didn't really achieve your ultimate goal. I'm glad to see that you are participating. I know Councilwoman Blackwell is being relentless, she is going to make sure that you all have the political structure 44 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 involved in this process. But I would hope that the employee structure of the process is more participatory as it relates to the formulation of the ultimate document, not just simply asking a lot of questions. Because one thing -- and I may not be here, you know, I might end up after a little while deciding I don't want to do this anymore -- but I hope we're not here nine, ten years later talking about reorganizing the housing agencies because we didn't do it in the appropriate way this time.
Let me just speak to that particular issue. Not necessarily for government department, but in certain areas it's not unusual to reorganize a department or a company a couple of times, you know, every couple of decades. If you think back to -- this is 2005 -- 1995, a lot of stuff was happening, changed since then. I mean, this Blackberry was -- nobody knew what a Blackberry was. In 45 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 fact, I don't even know if the company existed ten years ago. Fax machines were kind of the in-thing back in the early '90s. A lot of the technology that exists today didn't exist back in 1995. So just from a technology standpoint, if your organization hasn't evolved with the technology or with new ways of doing things, it makes sense to stop and try to shape things in one fell swoop, again, if it hasn't evolved in the past years. So from that standpoint, going every 10 or 15 years and then reorganizing is not necessarily a bad thing, and it certainly doesn't mean that the last time it was done, it was not done properly or effectively or to the full extent it should have. Again, I'm not opining one way or the other as to the effectiveness or the degree to which success was reached with the Brophy reorganization. But the mere fact that we're looking to reorganize now shouldn't speak positively 46 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 or negatively, shouldn't be looked upon positively or negatively, given the fact that it was done ten years ago.
I don't want you to think that I have a problem with reorganization. As Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown indicated earlier, we are currently embarking on a process where we will consolidate, hopefully, Fairmount Park Commission and the Recreation Department, because its time has come. We are the only municipalities that has two agencies. So I am not adverse to doing that. But I am simply saying that, if it is going to be done, it should be done in a way, and the formulation of that recommendation should be done, with the participation of all involved, not simply having a bunch of consultants running around asking a lot of questions, then they come up with a report without any real followup or any real -- taking the real advice of those individuals who will ultimately have to carry 47 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 out the duties and responsibilities. That's all I am suggesting.
Which leads me to my next question. PFM and Reinvestment Fund, TRF, are these two agencies or companies that have done this type of work before, reorganizing?
We went through an RFP process and reviewed somewhere about five different proposals from various organizations; some with roots in Philadelphia, others with roots as far away as Georgia. And this team was looked at as the best suited by virtue of, among other things, the fact that both TRF and PHM -- TRF and PFM have done this kind of thing elsewhere. I want to say PFM is doing it, a similar type project, in Pittsburgh, or at least in western Pennsylvania. And TRF has 48 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 done the same thing in -- again, don't quote me on this -- but I want to say Maryland, but somewhere nearby. But, yes, they both have pretty substantial experience.
So I am assuming their resume will show some levels of success in reorganization?
On your testimony, you talk about a lack of clear strategy that goes beyond, you know, the consolidating plan as a result of actions that are driven not only by overall strategy for neighborhoods, but for individual initiatives and projects. And I agree with that a hundred percent. In this reorganization plan, will there be -- well, let me ask you this question: To what degree will the city's planning agencies and other agencies that relate to strategies for neighborhoods and the city generally, for it being developed? How can you -- I am just trying to 49 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 understand how, if we are going to reorganize these agencies, and one of the focal points will be about being able to adequately define a strategy for the development of the city, how can that be done without the Planning Commission?
One of the things, one of the recommendations that we're discussing with the Mayor, is that of actually employing a planner or two or three, but at least a planner, in the Office of Housing, again, in an effort to better coordinate the way -- not so much the way plans are put together. But as plans are put together, better coordinate the implementation strategy that we are, for the most part, responsible for. So, to answer your question, the idea would be to have a planner in the Office of Housing who might have a dotted line to me, as well as a dotted line to the Secretary of Planning.
So a planner separate and aside from the Planning 50 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 Commission?
No. A planner, just like -- law, perfect example. Right now we have -- "we," the Office of Housing and Community Development -- has a law staff; I think two, two lawyers, secretary, maybe a paralegal. All of those folks work for Romi Diaz, but they are housed at our offices. Something along the lines of that kind of relationship is being contemplated.
So you could potentially have current city planners assigned to the Office of Housing, or would it be with the Redevelopment Authority, or --
It would be with the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, kind of the omni housing organization.
See, this is one of the concerns I have. And I know that you are trying to achieve this goal. So how would that work as it relates to the Redevelopment Authority and PHDC? And 51 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 I don't know what the ultimate outcome of all these agencies will be. When you have a PHDC, who is currently the development arm of the city, quasi development arm of the city, and RDA, who does land acquisition and disposition, is the planner rests solely under the auspices of OH --
That's not what I meant to infer. That the planner would not be responsible solely for OH and solely do work in OH. They would be responsible for and do work for the Office of Housing. And I use that term almost generically, so as not to say that they will only do work for one department or another. They would be available for and would do work for everyone who has anything to do with housing, provision of housing service in the city.
So would the Office of Housing essentially be the entity that develops the plan?
See, now you are getting 52 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 into a level of detail that I am not quite comfortable with. Because that's the kind of detail that we are talking to the Mayor about right now.
Thank you. How would this planner interact and work with Council members? And it would just be one planner for the entire city, or do you envision -- and I'm not asking for a job description; I am just asking about the role of the planner. And I guess we would still have whatever relationship we have with city Planning?
Yes. Absolutely. We are not looking to usurp your relationship with City Planning. Our goal -- and, again, we haven't burrowed down to that level of detail just yet. But the goal of having a closer 53 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 relationship with the planning department is to better coordinate what you all envision for your districts, how that vision is documented in the form of a plan created by the planning department, or planners, and then how that plan is implemented by us, the Office of Housing, to include PHDC and RDA. We're not looking to in any way usurp or otherwise interrupt your relationship with the Office of Planning. We are just trying to better coordinate what's in your head, in terms of what you would like to see, and how that gets to an actual project on the ground on a particular block within your district. But, again, as far as the detail as to, you know, how many hours they would spend, you know, in our office versus that office versus talking to you, what they would even do on a typical day, no, we haven't quite broken down to that level of detail just yet.
I think Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Miller -- also Councilman Juan Ramos is part of our 54 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 committee is here, as well -- I think Councilman Clarke mentioned workers. There is no way anybody has been around here for years. And if there is a disconnect between housing agencies and the city, input of the workers is vital, because they know. They know their jobs. And all you need do is ask them, and I am sure they know how we can be together in one entity.
Councilwoman, I agree with you. In fact, that particular issue, that of the disconnect between planning and housing, was one of the things that our -- I say, "our staff" -- the consultants gleaned from their gathering of information from the Office of Housing staff.
I think you did mention that. I am also concerned about the Brophy report, which I also have a copy of in my office from back in the day, as they say. And we are really concerned because 55 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 we found out that when the business or even universities -- and, you know, I have four in my district, and just received an award from Penn from the housing agency, Dale Grundy, who was here, so I work closely with all of them. But certainly -- and then we will give the floor back to Darrell, because we only interrupted him for a point of order -- but we are concerned that other business types, universities, come up with plans, academic plans, that govern how we live. And it doesn't work, it hasn't worked. It hasn't worked in the past. And I am very pleased that Councilman Clarke brought that issue up. Because, you know, from what you're saying -- and then I will defer to him -- from what you're saying, not only do we have to be concerned about Council's input, but we have to be concerned, it seems to me you are talking about growing another entity, your office, since you mentioned Housing, Neighborhood Preservation, as opposed to NTI or some other entity -- 56 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 (Applause.)
-- and maybe redirecting what happens with VPRC and PHDC and RDA and OHCD. That really concerns us. We believe their functions are vital to neighborhood development and housing development. And obviously we haven't seen a report, so I know we're speaking in the dark, but I don't know -- I'm not only worried about our input on our end; but I'm worried about your changing what those agencies do. And putting people under the housing and neighborhood preservation arm, growing that, diminishing the others, but changing their functions. We're really concerned about that. So, as I turn the mike back to Councilman Clarke, I hope that you will respond to that issue.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to the planning issue, to what degree does the Office of Housing -- I'm not sure if you can speak for the RDA or 57 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 PHDC -- adhere to the recommendations of the Planning Commission as we know it? Because I know that the Planning Commission has done a number of plans throughout the City of Philadelphia that recommend certain strategies for these neighborhoods. Before we go to adding planners to OHCD or wherever, or office of neighborhood and transformation, to what degree do we pay it any attention to the existing plans in formulating a strategy as it relates to funding, development, things of that nature? Do we to any degree pay attention to what the Planning Commission says now?
Certainly we pay attention to the community development plans that the Planning Commission completes. In fact, I get a copy of every plan that's completed. In fact, I am consulted periodically on the progress on plans. So, no, it is not a matter of our not knowing about them or, once they are done, we ignore them. That's not it at all. 58 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 What I am talking about is just a better relationship with the planning department and a closer working relationship with planners when it comes to plans for specific neighborhoods and specific councilmanic districts.
So wouldn't it make more sense to just work with the Planning Commission on the development of strategies, as opposed to bringing more staff to your agency?
We may end up there. I don't know. The question was asked, how might we improve this. And my answer was, here is a recommendation.
Let me ask my last question. I know other members have questions. Again on , there was an acknowledgment that the agencies are currently not integrated into the traditional business of the city. Is the implication that possibly some of these agencies could be a part of the 59 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 city, i.e., cross-employees, cross-unions, things of that nature; or would there just simply be more sharing of information, or would there possibly be the physical transformation of employees to other city agencies? As an example, the Department of Licenses & Inspections has inspectors, I believe the RDA has inspectors, and possibly PHDC has inspectors.
Would there be some intermingling of employees as it relates to that?
All of the above, to what you just suggested. There could be commingling of employees, there could be better sharing of information. All of those things literally are being considered, are considered, when you address that particular issue.
So this consolidation could go beyond the three housing agencies? There could be other 60 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 agencies involved in this consolidation process, are you saying?
Lot of what we do affects other people; obviously, L & I, Planning, a lot of --
Let me be more specific as it relates to its employees.
As an example, could there be a situation that, if there is an inspector in one of the housing departments, one of the agencies, and, as a result of the interaction with L & I as it relates to some strategy for better determining things, that those two agencies could interact in order to provide a service for the city in the neighborhood, could there be the possibility that that employee, who was now in the Redevelopment Authority, end up working for the Department of Licenses & Inspections, or vice versa?
No, not in that strict sense of the term. 61 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 L & I inspectors do different things from our inspectors, both PHDC and RDA. And I will tell you that what's being considered -- that is not one of the things that's being considered. You used the specific word "possibility." Might that be a possibility? Who knows. It may be. But that's not one of the things that we are currently considering.
How come you can tell us what's not being considered, but you can't tell us what is being considered? (Applause.)
That universe is much, much larger than the universe of what is being considered.
So if the Chair decided to hold these hearings for the next 30 days, we can just wear you down. Through process of elimination, you could tell us everything that's not being considered. And whatever is left, we would then know what's being considered?
That could be a 62 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 strategy, Councilman. That could be a strategy.
Councilman, we are continuing this until January at 8 10:00 a.m., so let's see what happens. 9 (Applause.) 10
Thank you. 13 Thank you, Madam Chair. 14 I have a question. And I guess what 15 I would like to receive, Mr. Hanna, is a copy 16 of the organizational structure, who works 17 where. 18 Like OHCD, who your employees are, 19 their titles, their role, their gender, their 20 race, for each of these housing agencies. 21 And I also have a question 22 regarding -- or just a comment or a question 23 regarding the recommendations from the 24 consultant. And it is under No. 2, that they 25 share a variety of common functions. 63 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 Are we talking about decreasing staff, decreasing the number of employees in this reorganizational plan? Because I would think that the workload, the volume of the work remains the same. And, so, I would wonder -- I mean, I can see you incorporating, but what needs to get done still needs to get done. And, evidently, you still need the same number of people to do it. And I don't understand anything right now, I don't have a clear picture of the reorganization of the housing agencies, because I have not seen anything written about this. And if we didn't have these hearings, we would probably know less about it. Because all I have heard for years is just talk about it. And whether it needs to be done or not, I'm not going to say it is a good idea or a bad idea. But I do know that volume still -- the work still has to get done. And, so, even if you consolidate departments, to me, the volume of work won't 64 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 decrease. So if you have ten people doing whatever they are doing now across agencies, I would think that maybe you might even just want to incorporate, but not lower the number of staff people. Because I think -- (Applause.)
Because sometimes we're backlogged now, and I just wonder why we are backlogged. And if you get rid of people, then we are just going to remain in a backlogged status. So, is that part of this? Will RDA no longer exist? Will PHDC no longer exist? Will any of these agencies no longer exist? Or, will they still exist in name only? I mean, I am just like real unclear about what's happening here. And I also, I really, really -- I don't have a good sense of who works where. I mean, I know the leadership, and I know a lot of the key people in the agencies. But who else works there? And that's why I want a list of each organization and structure, its 65 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 staff, what they do and their gender and their titles and their race.
Thank you. Because I was thinking, if these consultants have made recommendations, some of those recommendations, I would think, can even start to happen. I'm not saying anybody should be laid off. But, for example, the one on the nonconnecting IT system. I mean, do we have a good IT system in use right now from one of the agencies that actually helps us here in City Council, also? And I keep trying to tie this into what we do in our role as Council members. And I think in budget hearings, we've talked about a new computer system that would help us with land acquisition and tracking, you know, what's going on out there in the neighborhoods which we serve, in terms of our ability to really talk to developers and really target certain areas and try to do 66 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 planning for development in certain areas, be it housing or commercial.
That particular effort, I mean, we are in mid stream with that particular effort. And as you weren't here, Councilwoman, when I committed before, we will be happy to come and give you a briefing, any of the Council people, a briefing relative to where we are with management information, the improvement of the management information system.
Because you really don't have to go with reorganization to do that; right?
No, you don't. But if you are going to reorganize in an effective way, that's one of the foundational pillars that needs to be in place. I mean, you can't really look to improve the efficiency of an organization, when the IT system is still 19th or 20th Century, and everything else is 21st.
Who has the 67 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 most modern IT system between the four agencies?
You will take the Fifth. Okay. Well, whoever has the most modern should take the lead in the IT systems. I mean, I am just saying this. But, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am sorry for being late. So if I am asking something that has already been addressed, please stop me. Are you saying that at this time, Mr. Hanna, you cannot answer whether the RDA or PHDC or any of the other housing organizations will be disbanded or merged with a new structure?
No, sir, I really can't. 68 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 I can't respond to that in any real detail.
And that's because you are still in the planning stages, and you are going to wait until you get these other --
That's because the Mayor is currently reviewing several proposed structures. And until he kind of comes down one way or the other, then, again, it would be premature for me to say anything.
Are you permitted to talk with, you know, for example, the RDA about this merger now? Or have you, and how are things going?
Certainly we have talked to the RDA and PHDC and OHCD staff before we have gotten to this point. In my mind, we're at a point now where the Mayor needs to, and in fact is, giving us direction as to which way he wants the thing to go. That's the thing that people need to understand. This isn't Kevin Hanna's reorganization. It is not the Council's 69 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 reorganization. This is something that the Mayor mandated, as I understand it, before Kevin Hanna was hired for the job. I certainly take ownership as being the Secretary of the Office of Housing. But I look at my mission as doing the best job I could in gathering information, getting input from the best minds available, internal and external, putting together a proposal, and then having a discussion with the Mayor and letting him decide where the chips fall.
I understand your reasoning for the way you're answering questions. But I sure hope that I would understand that your best minds are probably internally. Because these are folks and agencies that know, you know, what they're doing. Maybe not to perfection. But that I know that, these different agencies, people at all levels have worked very hard to provide services to the people. So I think that we would -- I would want to see you and your colleagues in this 70 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 process, the Mayor, to make sure that we hear, you know, from our rank and file employees, to our people in management level, that have done the different parts of the big housing afield. So that if there is, in fact, going to be a restructuring, that it takes into account all of that knowledge that we have in-house and protect, as we go along, that knowledge and those people that have contributed so much to the city in providing services in all the varying areas of housing. I, along with the members that are here today, probably get more visits to our offices about housing than anything else. There is always housing and employment, usually unemployment. And those are our realities. And we do see ourselves calling different housing agencies to find out who does what. But we always find people on the other side, on the other line, that are committed to helping people resolve their housing concerns. Maybe we need to bring the Mayor, 71 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 Madam Chair. (Applause.)
Tell Mr. Hanna to get the Mayor for our next hearing. Unless he is available now.
When I talked to the Mayor as recently as yesterday, the Mayor said he had not yet reviewed the materials; and, so, he didn't know what he was willing to do, because he had not reviewed them. And, so, therefore, he wouldn't respond, nor did he want the people who prepared them to respond. Because they are people we also subpoenaed, to make sure we could have a hearing today with other than union members taking off from their busy time to come. But the Mayor said that he had not yet decided what to do.
I know that the 72 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 committee, you have established a time frame at least to have another hearing in January. Is there a time frame that you are aware of, Mr. Hanna, on when we will be able to get more information and get this restructuring going?
No. Again, given where we are and given who needs to decide on what, it is all kind of dependent upon the Mayor. But, as I had stated before, to some extent, some of these, hopefully many of these, cost-saving type recommendations by the staff, by the consultants, will be implemented, if for no other reason, than to help ends meet as we look at, again, God forbid, yet another federal cut in the block grant. So one way or the other, we are going to have to make some decisions anyway, if not final decision, on what the Office of Housing will look like. But some decisions will be forced on us, I think, by virtue of federal budget cuts, which are going to have to translate into 73 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 local changes.
Thank you. Are there more questions? That frightens us, as well. Mr. Hanna, would you wait? Before we call Ms. Pankey, Councilwoman Miller has a question for you.
Mr. Hanna, in your testimony, you said that, in the end, over 100 recommendations were proposed that can save money, streamline, improve, et cetera. Did they happen to make a recommendation on who should be the lead agency? The consultants.
Thank you, Councilwoman Miller. Mr. Hanna, would you stay around, in case we have questions after the next witness? 74 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05
Veronica M. Pankey, President Local 1971, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, AFL-CIO, we invite you to come forward and to bring whomever you would like with you. (Applause.)
We thank you for your patience and invite you to begin your testimony. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and members of the Neighborhood and Homeless Committee and attendees. My name is Veronica M. Pankey, and this is Caswell Curtis, President and Vice-President of AFSCME Local 1971, District Council 33, AFL-CIO. I am here today to testify on the impending housing reorganization plan and the impact thus far it has had on the 205 members 75 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 for whom we represent. Permit me to reiterate a portion of my testimony before this Committee on November 15, 2005, by informing you of the work performed by AFSCME Local 1971 union members and the agencies for which we work; the Redevelopment Authority, the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, and the Office of Housing and Community Development. The Redevelopment Authority coordinates real estate activity and acquires and disposes of properties for the development purposes; it finances and oversees the development of housing and rental projects undertaken by nonprofit/for-profit developers. It also issues debt to finance specific projects for pragmatic purposes; such as, low-interest home-improvement loans. The Redevelopment Authority staff authorize site improvement contracts for street improvements, including curb and sidewalk, street lighting, street trees, and award demolition contracts for authority-owned building. 76 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 The Redevelopment Authority is the only state agency and the only body in Philadelphia that can create housing bonds and acquire land through eminent domain for the public good. PHDC administers the weatherization program and oversees the rehabilitation services provided by contractors to low-income-eligible occupants. PHDC acts at a developer for projects, as directed by OHCD, and is responsible for the Homestart Program, which involves the rehabilitation of homes for sale to income-eligible first-time home buyers. It administers the adaptive modification program to eligible disabled citizens to afford them safe mobility through their homes. It also manages and maintains a few low/moderate income scattered site rental properties. OHCD is responsible for establishing housing and community development policy for all the city housing agencies, setting 77 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 priority, and coordinating planning efforts. It administers the housing budget and contracts with the Redevelopment Authority, PHDC, the Philadelphia Housing Authority, as well as subrecipient nonprofit organizations, to conduct planning activities and perform services in support of the overall housing plan. As you can see, theoretically, virtually all the work performed by Local 1971 union members and the agencies for which we work could be affected by the reorganization. Therefore, we have a crucial interest in its implementation both as employees and residents of the city. Since testimony on November 15, 2005, the city Administration has not responded to concerns and issues raised by Local 1971 and this committee as requested by Chairwoman Blackwell. The only initiated contact that Local 1971 received was Monday, December 5, from OHCD and RDA to arrange dates to resume contract negotiations. Coincidentally, just 78 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 prior to today's public hearings. As it pertains to PHDC, I spoke with Sandra Barnhill, their chief negotiator, on Wednesday, November 30. She stated that PHDC's position had not changed since September 19, last negotiation session; however, if the union had changes, we could meet. I responded that the union does have revisions to submit; however, there is no need to meet for this Administration to continue to attempt to strip us of the foundation for which unionism was established and to shove proposals of concessions, give-backs, take-backs, a less-than-four-year contract, no 17 retroactivity, no economic and reorganization language, and we receive nothing in return.
On Monday, December 5, the union presented in writing to OHCD and PHDC a revised proposal for economics. As for Kevin Hanna and the Office of Housing and Community Preservation, their continued ignorance with the concerns of Local 1971, and apparently for those on this 79 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 committee, is consistently demonstrated by their unwillingness to provide information regarding the reorganization status and its impact not only on the future of the city, but, more important, to Local 1971, our members' future employment. Regardless of the unfair treatment this union receives from this Administration, we continue to produce; despite recent layoffs of July 2004, when at least 28 of our members among the three agencies were affected; despite every employee who has ever retired or sought other avenues of employment within the past four years, specifically at PHDC, has not been replaced, and the work has not decreased. And for those departments affected by those vacancies, and despite the increased volume of work at the Redevelopment Authority with NTI, VPRC, development projects, convention center expansion, and insufficient staffing, we, labor, meet the full level of production budgetarily permissible for each agency at the end of each fiscal year. And, for this, we get no recognition. )
To further demonstrate the unfair treatment by the Administration, nonunionized employees of OHCD and PHDC received the economic package of $750 and 2 percent. Additionally, contract language proposed and rejected at the bargaining table was imposed upon the memorandum document for the representative supervisory unit at PHDC, along with the economic package this despite -- I'm sorry, this despite of the newspaper article quoting the Mayor that every city agency received the economic package. Local 1971 is being held hostage due to a reorganization plan for which we have no 18 knowledge and negotiations sessions have stalled at these two agencies. The Redevelopment Authority, who once aligned with the city, has pulled away and resumed sessions; this, due to their dissatisfaction with the reorganization plan and the Administration's negotiation tactics. On February 3, 2005, AFSCME Local 81 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 1971 last met with Kevin Hanna and the consultants regarding the reorganization. The union again re-emphasized to the city's Administration that Local 1971 is willing to work with the city and the three housing agencies to ensure smooth reorganization and to help improve living and working conditions for all citizens of the city. We also explained that the union had legal and moral responsibility to protect the rights, benefits, and working conditions of the employees we represent. The union has repeatedly asked for transparency of and be privy to the planning process regarding any reorganization on a continuous basis, not after such reorganization has been finalized. We were told that the city would sit down and talk with the union about the reorganization at the point where there was some idea where they needed to be going, how they planned to get there, and, most important to this union, who were going. 82 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 The Administration made an investment with PFM, Public Financial Management, with the expectation of receiving a service in exchange for $550,000. As identified in a providers agreement, Exhibit PA-1 identified as Scope of Service, I quote, it quotes, The contract between OHCD and PFM shall provide support for review and assessment, work plan development, and implementation of reorganization of the housing agencies. Activity shall be completed in the time frame as indicated in Attachment 1, end quote. Attachment 1 shows 52 weeks, one year, from the commencement date of the contract; with the terms of the contract being July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. Full production was budgetarily providing -- full production was budgetarily permissible, should have been achieved, by June 30, 2005. Today it is six months beyond the expiration date, and there is no finished product, no evidence of it even existing. 83 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 Compare this to the finished products, the projects and achieved levels produced of PHDC, RDA, and OHCD, and you will find fully expended budgets and full evidence of completed projects and their existence. Yet, this Administration is not willing to invest in a fair contract with Local 1971, with a guarantee on their return, nor provide us with information that impacts our future. Local 1971 came before this Committee on November 15, 2005, requesting assistance in obtaining transparency of and participation in the planning process of the impending housing reorganization and the impact it has had on our stalled contract negotiations. Despite the city Administration's claim that it wants to work cooperatively with Local 1971 and to ensure fair treatment of the employees, the Administration continues to stall negotiation sessions. Proposed reorganization language and numerous concessions from management remain on 84 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 the table. Local 1971 reiterates our desire to meet with the city Administration to not only obtain answers to our questions and concerns, but to resume negotiation sessions and obtain a fair contract.
AFSCME Local 1971 is extremely concerned about the employees we represent. Officials have not said which current housing agency employees will be laid off, who will be hired by the new agencies, where the employees will be assigned, what their wages, benefits, hours, or working conditions will be, or who will represent them. And they will not negotiate a fair contract, in spite of. Based upon the union's experience in dealing with the city Administration, we are extremely apprehensive about the future employment and working conditions of our union members. Madam Chairwoman and members of this Committee of the Whole, on behalf of the members of AFSCME Local 1971, I respectfully ask City Council not to authorize any service 85 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 agreements pertaining to or inclusive of aspects of housing reorganization until a fair contract is obtained and written details of the housing reorganization plan, in a certified summary report from Public Financial Management, are provided, and the city Administration meets with representatives of Local 1971 and works with the union to ensure that current union represented employees are not adversely affected. We of Local 1971, District Council 33, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, the committee, and City Council for your support. )
Thank you. Mr. Curtis, would you like to make a statement?
Thank you. We are checking on our authority, Ms. Pankey, one moment. Thank you for your excellent testimony. I was certainly checking with our 86 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 labor leader and our attorney on our authority as a legislative branch, as opposed to the executive branch of government, Council versus the Mayor. And it appears to me that we have a commitment from them with regard to housing reorganization not taking place without coming back to us. Unfortunately, I don't believe that we have the authority to authorize or not authorize service agreements. We do have a commitment from them with regard to not doing anything until we know what this housing reorganization plan is all about. And we intend to get a copy of these reports that have been commissioned by the executive branch. Certainly we have not received one piece of paper, either, just as you have not, and albeit we have asked for it last time and this time and have continued this hearing because of that. We were also told as recently as yesterday that -- I was told by the Mayor 87 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 himself, that we would not have the consultants here, nor would we be given any written documents when we talked about meeting with Kevin Hanna, with whom I met Kevin Hanna, Joyce Wilkerson, and Kathy Califano last night from about 4:30, for the next couple of hours. We still received no written documentation, nor have we talked to the consultants. So, in that review, we too are in the dark. And we too, as a committee, are struggling to understand various aspects of this plan. But I am encouraged because we have been assured by Mr. Hanna that nothing would happen without our knowing what's happening. So we are with you in that regard. We are worried, as your representatives, as to who is working, who isn't, and what will happen. So it seems to me that what we have to do is continue to meet and continue to raise questions and continue to let you know that we are here and that we are concerned about reorganization, as we've told them, as 88 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 well. Having said that, does anybody have anything they need to add? Ms. Pankey, Mr. Hanna, is there anything that you would like to respond to at this time about Ms. Pankey's statement? Okay. Is there anyone else here to would like to testify in this regard dealing with any of this?
Just for the record, I wanted to enter the dates, the tentative dates, of negotiations that we have for each agency.
For OHCD, tentatively we have the 13th of December, the 20th of December, and the 29th of December; for the Redevelopment Authority, we have the 15th of December and the 28th of December; we have nothing for PHDC; and certainly nothing for the Office of Housing and Community Development, in terms of them providing us information for reorganization. 89 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05
Thank you, Ms. Pankey. We will certainly ask that those departments respond and make sure that, by the time we meet again, we will expect -- we know this is some movement, but we would certainly ask that Mr. Hanna, since you are speaking for all agencies, that all agencies have the opportunity to meet with the union so that their employees know there is some light at the end of this tunnel somewhere. So we will ask that all agencies have scheduled meetings. We are going to continue this hearing again so that we can help monitor this and help keep ourselves and everyone else on their toes, so that we can monitor this whole issue, as is our responsibility as a legislative branch and as a Committee on Housing Neighborhood Development and the Homeless. And, therefore, if all minds are clear, there are no other questions or concerns, we will continue this hearing until 90 RESOLUTION 050871 - 12/8/05 January at 10:00 a.m. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Thank you, members of the committee. Thank you. (Hearing adjourned at 3:00 p.m.) - - - 91 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, December 8, 2005, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON HOUSING, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND THE HOMELESS _________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD