COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Remote location using Microsoft® Teams Tuesday, November 28, 2023 10:00 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR., CHAIR COUNCILMAN KENYATTA JOHNSON, VICE-CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE RICHARDSON COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY M. LOZADA COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Appropriations for November 28, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., and dealing with Bill Nos. 230765 and 230766, 230767 and 230768. And before we get started, Mr. Glass, will you please read the appropriate announcement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that state law currently requires that the following announcement be made at the beginning of every remote public hearing as follows: Due to the current public health emergency, City Council Committees are currently meeting remotely. We are using Microsoft Teams to make these remote hearings possible. Instructions for how the public may view and offer public testimony at public hearings of Council Committees are included in the public hearing notices that are published in the Daily News, Inquirer and Legal Intelligencer prior to the hearings and can also be found on PHLCouncil.com. Everyone who has been invited to the meeting to testify should be aware that this public hearing is being recorded. Because the hearing is public, participants and viewers have no reasonable expectation of privacy. By continuing to be in the meeting, you are consenting to being recorded. Additionally, prior to Councilmember Jones recognizing Members for the questions or comments they have for the witnesses, I will note for the record at this time that you will use the chat feature available in Microsoft Teams to allow Members to signify that they wish to be recognized. In order to comply with the Sunshine Act, the chat feature must only be used for this purpose. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Glass. And at this point, can you call the roll to make sure we have established quorum.
Sorry. This is Councilmember Thomas. I'm present. I just couldn't come off mute. Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning, colleagues. I am present.
I am present. We established a quorum. Mr. Glass, would you please read the numbers and titles of the bills.
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Bill No. 230765, an ordinance amending Bill No. 230144, entitled "An Ordinance To Adopt a Capital Program for the Six Fiscal Years 2024 and 2029 Inclusive," by revising various appropriation amounts and totals to conform to amendments to the Fiscal Year 2024 Capital Budget Ordinance, all under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 230766, an ordinance amending Bill No. 230145, entitled "An Ordinance To Adopt a Fiscal 2024 Capital Budget," by revising various appropriation amounts and totals, all under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 230767, an ordinance authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2024 from the General Fund, certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; and the Grants Revenue Fund, certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commission, to the General Fund, certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; the County Liquid Fuels Tax Fund, certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; the Municipal Pension Fund, certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; and the Transportation Fund, certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions. And finally Bill No. 23 230768, an ordinance authorizing transfers in appropriations from Fiscal Year 2023 from the General Fund from certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; the Water Fund, from certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; the Grants Revenue Fund, from all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; and the Aviation Fund, from certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions, to the General Fund, certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; to the Water Fund for certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions; and the Aviation Fund, for certain or all City offices, departments, boards and commissions.
Thank you, Mr. Glass. Before we get started, I just want to say that we have an aggressive agenda today and an expansive list of people to testify. What we will do is after each witness panel, after each table is metaphorically heard from, we will entertain questions from Members, and please use the chat to make sure that you are recognized. Do any of the Committee members have an opening statement? (No response.)
This is Councilmember Thomas. I'm sorry. I was just struggling a little bit to come off mute. I --
That's all right. I hate when that happens. Would you like me to -- please make your statement, sir.
Real briefly I just want to communicate some concerns that I have and other Councilmembers have based on negotiations that's been taking place around some other things that we recommended that's been to take place on. We understand that we're in a space and a place right now where we don't want to pick up a lot of recurring costs, but I think that there's some significant difference as to where we are right now on what we should be spending while agreeing with the philosophy of not picking recurring costs. So I'm looking forward to today's conversation and hope that there will be some level of compromise and put us in a position where we can all believe in the investment that we're looking to make this fall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to my colleagues for your advocacy and the work that you do as far as keeping your ear to the ground, especially the District Councilmembers in recognizing what your community needs and being willing to fight for those specific things. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Well said, Member Thomas. Well said. I can't believe my Councilwoman Gilmore Richardson doesn't want to weigh in and set the tone here.
I couldn't get into the chat. I'm having a lot of issues with the City computer. However, thank you for the recognition, Mr. Chair. And I too wanted to rise regarding my concern with this appropriations bill that we have been working on over the last several weeks. And I know that I've been working very closely with the Administration and relative to a number of concerns that I've noted even back to our original briefing, particularly around OHS and some of the other departments. But I wanted to highlight and underscore some of the overarching concerns that I have for this bill in its totality and what we'll have to do over the next couple of hours. I read with great interest the Econsult analysis relative to why we have such a robust General Fund balance, and I remain very concerned regarding our financial outlook going into the upcoming fiscal years. I think it's exceedingly clear that we have a fund balance for all the wrong reasons. We have a fund balance because we have at least an 18 percent vacancy rate. We have a fund balance because we really can't hire folks for a number of these positions. We have a fund balance because we have the benefit of federal support coming from the White House after the onset of COVID-19. And when all of that is gone, particularly after FY25 and that money has to be spent, we will be in a vicarious financial state. So I am looking at this Appropriations hearing and requests and all the requests that have been made with keen interest to say that I think it's important that we make strategic investments in our budget and in our future fiscal health. I think it's important that we look at this and realize that in the outyears of our five year plan it is anticipated that, particularly over the last two years, that our General Fund balance will be less than $100 million. And so, anything that we do the way I'm looking at this appropriations bill, anything that we do today and with this bill will have a detrimental impact to that fund balance. And I just want all of our colleagues and everyone who is on this call to understand that. Okay. And that is the perspective from which I'm coming for this particular appropriations matter. To be clear, we are stewards and we are fiscally responsible for the City of Philadelphia's budget, and I intend to be fiscally responsible today and I'm asking all of our colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the leeway you've granted.
Thank you so much, Member Richardson. And I've listened attunely to some of your observations and insights to various departments and expenditures and look forward to the discussion and debate about priority because that's what budgeting is about, establishing priorities that are both fiscally sound and both beneficial to the populous that we are sworn to serve. So with that, are there any other Committee members that wish to put a comment on the record? (No response.)
Hearing none, Mr. Glass, can you give us the first panel of witnesses to testify.
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our first panel will be Sabrina Maynard and Rob Dubow.
Mr. Dubow and Ms. Maynard, this is not your first time, so welcome back.
Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Good morning, Chair Jones and members of the Appropriations Committee. I'm Sabrina Maynard, Budget Director, and I'm joined by colleagues from departments that have requests in one or more of the transfer ordinance bills. I'm here to testify in support of all four bills, so I will read them out again: The FY23 year-end transfer ordinance, FY24 mid-year transfer ordinance, the two capital ord -- and the two capital ordinances, amendments to Bill No. 230144, entitled "An Ordinance To Adopt a Capital Program for the Six Fiscal Years 2024 to 2029 Inclusive, and amendments to Bill No. 230145, entitled "An Ordinance To Adopt Fiscal '24 Capital Budget. You also received my full written testimony as well as testimony from every department that has a request in one of the above-referenced bills. I thank you for this opportunity to testify today. And I would like to request a suspension of the rules so that these ordinances can be considered at the next session of Council. If anyone has any questions, we would be happy to answer them. Thank you.
Thank you so much for your testimony. Mr. Dubow, are you going to testify?
Okay. My question would be, and I had the benefit of hearing some of the analysis that has -- it's good news and bad news. Why don't you give us a roundabout picture of where we are with the budget surplus. Member Gilmore Richardson has put on the record her concerns about the tentative nature of that surplus. Can you give us and the listening audience an overview as to where we are fiscally?
Absolutely. As you know, the City received $1.4 billion in ARPA funding, the Federal Rescue Plan money, which sounds like a really big number but our loss was 1.5 billion which is bigger than the 1.4 billion. And so, we used this money to stave off some pretty catastrophic cuts that we otherwise would have had to take. The money is in place until its end date, which is the end of Calendar Year 2024 which is in FY25. It's our next year, and the money is one time and then it goes away. So our fund balance and our finances at the moment are sort of buoyed by this one-time money. But when we look past December of 2024, things get a little bit shakier. So a couple of things drove our sort of high fund balance at the end of 2023, things that we think largely nonrecurring in addition to the ARPA money. We had some nonrecurring underspends in Class 100 and 200, and these were sort of driven by challenges in hiring. As Councilmember Gilmore Richardson mentioned, we have a roughly percent vacancy rate 15 across the City, which is not -- 16 we're not unique in that way. 17 We've been struggling to hire as 18 other cities have as well. And then there were a couple of areas of revenue that came in a little bit higher than projected, we had some higher than expected interest earnings. We had slightly higher wage tax and revenue from other governments. But we're really keeping an eye on one tax in particular, which is our realty transfer tax. And as you may have noticed, there's less real estate transactionizing happening out there at the moment. And so, we've had to adjust our FY24 numbers, roughly 125 million just ahead in 2024 alone from what we had projected at the beginning of the year. Some of that carries out through the plan, so that's definitely something we're keeping an eye on. We're also always keeping an eye on our other volatile tax sources, including our business tax. And then there's just general uncertainty about a bunch of things. As you know, the ARPA funding is programmed. We have a pension obligation balloon payment that'll pop up in our next five year plan. So that'll pop up in 2029, so it'll be higher --
If I recall, that's 400 million. I think you mentioned a number, 400 million?
Yeah. That 400-and-something is our total debt service that year. The pension obligation bond portion is in the 200s because of 80 million in that single year.
So, yep. And then continued inflation is a challenge. Kind of keeping an eye on the federal government as they continue to pass these sort of continuing resolutions to fund the government in short clips and keeping an eye on a potential recession. So there's certainly a lot going on that we're keeping an eye on even though the numbers at the end of 2023 were stronger than we had expected.
And we're looking forward to labor negotiations of all of our municipal unions next year, correct?
Okay. Are there questions from members of the Committee?
Mr. Chairman, Councilwoman Gilmore Richardson would like to be recognized.
Yes, I'm on mute. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. For the record, I just wanted to get a few things on the record for this hearing. Can you just notate the anticipated fund balance for FY25, '26, '27, '28, and '29?
So our '24 fund balance we are projecting 682 million, and the rest of the numbers we have not published because things are still influx and when we do a new five year plan, we'll have new numbers --
Pardon me. Pardon me for the interruption.
Okay. Can you help me out there because I thought that number was different. I thought it was 96?
So the FY23 ending fund balance was 982. And the number for '24 is 682.
Okay. Let me just get this for clarification. FY23 is 986. FY24 is 682?
All right. Let me stop you, okay, because I want to get this straight. FY23, how much?
When does the federal money come offline?
The middle of FY25, so December of 2023. Almost a year from now.
And just to be 20 clear, what those are, those are 21 adjusted for changes we've seen in 22 tax revenue and adding our proposed 23 transfer ordinance, but not other 24 adjustments. So those numbers will be different by the time when we actually do a five year plan. But they give kind of a sense of the scale of what it will be.
Right, and thank you for that clarification. Do you have FY29?
We do not yet. We will have that when we do our next five-year plan.
Okay. Just asking. So for the record, you're saying FY24, 982 million anticipated fund balance. FY24, 682 million. FY25, 507 million. Middle of FY25, December of 2025 the federal money comes offline. FY26, 185 million. FY27, million. FY28, 20 20 million. Is that correct? 21
That's 22 correct using the preliminary 23 numbers with all the caveats Rob 24 just talked through.
To be clear based on Rob's comment, you have adjusted this because I thought one of the years was close to around 80 or 90 million in '27 or '28. But this has been adjusted for changes in tax revenue which would include the realty transfer tax but also the proposed ordinance. And if that's the case, at what amount?
So the realty transfer numbers we can -- how we applied them by year, I don't have them off the top of my head, but I think we assumed that it would be a larger hit in the earlier part of the plan and then it would recover to some extent towards the tail end of the plan, but that's predictive based on guesses about the real estate market, so there's some open questions there. And then in terms of the recurring costs from the transfer ordinance, I think that was roughly million, but we can get you that exact number as well.
Okay. So you're 5 putting in from an assumption 6 standpoint, is it 20 million for 7 each fiscal year or 20 million for 8 this year? I'm just trying to get 9 clarification on how you did the -- 10
Yeah. It's 24 11 million, roughly 24, 23, 22 from 12 '25 to '28. And in the first year 13 it's 78 because it has a lot of 14 one-timers. 15
Okay. So first year 17 is 78 because of the one-time 18 expenditures? 19
Okay. And for the record if you can just notate I think FY23 possibly will be the only year that we have the GFAO's recommended amount for actual fund balance?
So we're so, so close to it but not actually there. We're just a little below it.
Got you. Just like right there. But the percentage is what, is it point what? Is it 10 16.7? What is it now? 11
Two months, 12 so it's 16.666. So we usually say 13 17, but it's an average. 14
Understood, so it's two months. So with the numbers you have for FY24, what's the percentage and then graduated on down what's the percentage for each year? And the reason why I'm asking this is because my concern is that based on where you think we may be, that will make our borrowing ability in how much we have to pay in interest, which is something else we have to be cognizant about moving ahead. So if you can just notate what the percentage will be each of the Fiscal Years '23 through '28.
I'm on mute so you can't hear me. Okay. FY24 is roughly 11 percent. The other years I would need to calculate. I don't trust my ability to do math on the fly, but we can get you those percentages.
And obviously by '28, it's basically around 0 percent because it's million 5 over 6 billion. 6
Understood, 8 understood. I just wanted to get a 9 couple of these figures on the 10 record there. Okay. I will hold 11 the balance of my questions for the 12 next panel. 13 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 14
Thank 15 you, Member Gilmore Richardson. 16 Chair recognizes Member 17 Thomas. 18 (No response.) 19
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you. Thank you to my colleague Councilmember Gilmore Richardson for that first round of questioning. I want to try to take it into a different direction a little bit. I definitely agree with Councilmember Gilmore Richardson's concern around the spending that we have, the fiscal stability in the future of our City, looking at a possible recession and anticipated debt, so that is a concern on my end. One of the things that Councilmember Gilmore Richardson talked about was staffing and issues with staff as it relates to not being able to hire. When we began these negotiations, one of the things that I was concerned with was some of the issues around Parks & Rec, hiring for Parks & Rec. I also have questions around some of the dollars that were requested by the Administration and how they would be disbursed, so I never got answers to those questions. So I'm wondering if somebody can help provide some level of clarity as it relates to some of the concerns that I communicated around Parks & Rec.
Good morning, Councilmember. We just shared responses with the Chair yesterday, so we can walk through those responses if helpful. One moment. Okay. So you wanted to know a little bit about Class 100 underspend and where sort of the positions were, and Parks & Rec can jump in as well if they want to add. So Parks & Rec had some Class 100 underspending in '23 due to some hiring challenges, but they are citywide national trends. They made a push to fill civil service positions and were able to fill 82 priority hires by the end of 2023. Despite that progress, they did have 124 vacancies across their divisions resulting in a $1.8 million underspend at the end of 2023. Parks & Rec is continuing its recruiting efforts in partnership with Human Resources, and those efforts include attending hiring events, posting job opportunities on LinkedIn, Handshake and the City's website. Job announcements are also shared with seasonal staff, part-time staff and various universities and colleges with matching degree requirements. And to assist in the recruiting process, Parks & Rec will coordinate with Council and send available civil service job opportunities to share with their networks. And, Parks & Rec, if there's anything you guys want to add. Someone's probably on from Parks. COMMISSIONER RENDON: Thank you, Sabrina. Yes, your response was perfect and spot-on. Again, we will continue to aggressively get recruitment efforts away, talking to universities as you mentioned, continuing to --
Excuse me. Can you -- COMMISSIONER RENDON: -- social media --
You got to state your name for the record please. COMMISSIONER RENDON: Sorry, Councilperson. Orlando Rendon, Commissioner of Parks & Rec.
Thank you so much. Please proceed. COMMISSIONER RENDON: Yes. So, yes, Sabrina, thank you. So we are trying to aggressively get folks in and making sure that we can get folks who are eligible by contacting our part-time staff and other folks to make sure that they match eligible degree requirements to get them on a full-time basis.
That's good. So I mean, one thing I will say is that we've been a part of the process to help push for people to accept positions at Parks & Rec. And a lot of people that I know have been denied, so I would definitely like to do a deeper dive into the process as it relates to some of the civil service positions and what we're doing wrong that we're denying people who I feel like are qualified, but at the same time giving money back because we can't hire when all of us want our rec centers open on nights and weekends. There were two other appropriations for Parks & Rec I wanted to be addressed. It said $560,000 as far as supplies, maintenance and things of that capacity and then another $92,000 to replace bleachers. And one of the things I communicated a while back from my office is the number of complaints we received specifically around housing and rec centers. So I asked for a list of rec centers that would be on the list to receive some type of services based on -- (Background interruption.)
Somebody got to go on mute. Somebody got to go on mute. I'm not sure who it is. I'm sorry, Commissioner or Mr. Dubow. If somebody can answer that, that will be helpful.
Sure. I -- COMMISSIONER RENDON: I'm -- I'm sorry, Sabrina. Go ahead.
I was going to read the response, but it was yours. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER RENDON: No, I'm sorry. You can read the response. I apologize.
Got it. Okay. So breakdown by locations, so the Parks & Rec items in the transfer ordinances include the following: The '23 year-end ordinance included $900,000 to fund additional unanticipated inflationary costs offset by an internal transfer. This is citywide but not tied to a specific location. In the '24 transfer ordinance, the items include 1.1 million for turf maintenance; 690,000 for vehicle purchases; $200,000 for increased chlorine costs; 200,000 for short-dumping prevention; 130,000 for emergency in tree services and a few other items, small items related to various supply and equipment price increases. The interdepartmental transfer of $1.8 million includes funds for the Kensington clean-up project. And so, that includes McPherson, Hissey, Hope, McVeigh, Scanlon and Harrowgate. Funds will also be used to replace a 25-year- old dump truck that's located at the Recycling Center in Fairmount Park. The other requests are for citywide investments that are not connected to a specific location.
So again when I started my statements at the beginning of the hearing, I don't want to make it seem like Houseman is my district. I'm not a District Councilperson. I haven't been in the rec center in years. This is just simply us responding to concerns around constituents. So this is just another example of how the Administration is one place, Councilmembers are another place. We specifically communicated concerns around the rec center multiple times as it relates to the young people not being able to participate in positive activities there. And based on my memory where Houseman is, if I live in that neighborhood I would either have to, A, go all the way over to Lawncrest to participate in activity or, B, cross over a 12-lane Roosevelt Boulevard at a very funny intersection to be able to go to Simpson Rec Center to be able to participate in positive activity. So again, haven't been there in a very long. It's not my district. It's not my neighborhood. But this is just another example of us trying to respond to constituents and talk about one-time investments that need to happen to improve the conditions that Philadelphians are facing and the request has been pretty much ignored. So I'm hoping that throughout the course of negotiating today we can begin to look at some of things that Councilmembers are advocating for, because again our ear is to the ground and all we're doing is responding to the things that constituents are telling us that are concerns in the neighborhood, and it doesn't seem like those things are being taken serious. I have a list of other things, Councilmember -- Mr. Chair. But I'm going to follow the lead of my colleague Councilmember Gilmore Richardson and just defer my time for now because I'm sure other Councilmembers have questions. And if there is a second round, I'll come back with other questions for this particular panel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the Administration for answering the questions. We appreciate it.
Thank you so much, Member Thomas, mostly for your advocacy. Although you are an At-large, you are welcome in all of our Districts. And we have equally as District Councilpeople been somewhat frustrated with the slowing of some of the promised capital improvements and some of -- more importantly or as importantly some of the repairs that are ongoing. And I know we had COVID. I understand we had some interruption within that labor force. But when you start to put a meter on the time you give a request for repairs at a particular center, it is overbearing to the public, and in particular Frank Favier, who is a one-man band for most rec centers, we were told that we could get a crew of skilled workers as a result of the sugary drinks beverage tax. And I wanted to get what is the status of that and whether or not that particular segment of the workforce has actually been hired? And that would be the Rec Department. COMMISSIONER RENDON: Thank you, Chairman. I have our Deputy Commissioner from Administration Marissa Washington on the line. I'm going to ask to see if she can give an update in terms of those hirings for skill trades for those special projects and for capital work on our rec centers.
Thank you so much. COMMISSIONER RENDON: Ms. Washington.
Good morning, Council, Councilman. Marissa Washington, Deputy Commissioner of Parks & Recreation. So like everyone else we are still struggling to fill our skilled trades positions. When we do get lists available, there might be two or three names on the list for the entire city. So we still have close to a 12 to 15 percent vacancy rate for our skilled trades positions. We are working right now to try to fill some of those, so our carpenters and electricians. We are working with OHR, but right now it still is a struggle for those skilled trades positions.
And what's the raw number of vacancies in that category?
I don't have it off the top of my head. I can give that to you. I know the last time I looked it was around 8 positions that were vacant, but we 9 have had some resignations and some 10 retirements since then. And that's 11 one of the things that our 12 department is facing. We do have a 13 fair amount of retirements or folks 14 resigning from the positions and 15 probably because they can get more money some place else.
-- myself and also the Chair of Parks & Rec, Cindy Bass?
Thank you so much. Are there any other Councilmembers ready to question these witnesses?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Councilmember Lozada would like to be recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want clarification. I heard Ms. Maynard mention the Kensington cleaning project pilot and we have a request for 5.5 on there. But I have been also asking for some clarification on the $70 million that is allocated currently to cleaning Kensington that Eva Gladstein mentioned during our Marshall Plan Committee hearing. And I still have not gotten a breakdown around that $70 million. Can't seem to get a direct response from anybody after multiple requests. So if I can also get a breakdown of where that 70 million is, who's getting it, what are they using it for very specifically. And then this 5.5 that request was put in for, it would be helpful, right. I want to be supportive. I know that or everybody knows that cleaning up Kensington is my priority and I want to be supportive as possible. But I can't do that if I don't have the information.
Yes, Councilmember. We'll work on getting you that information, and I will say that we are committed to continuing the Kensington clean-up work through the end of the year.
Thank you, Member Lozada. Mr. Glass, are there any others to be recognized?
Mr. Chairman, there are no other Members wishing to be recognized in the chat at this time.
Well, thank you for your testimony. Would you please --
If there's no other -- can I go for a second round real quick?
Thank you. So just one more question about Parks & Rec and a couple other things. So what's the current -- since you're saying it is progress, what's the current number of unfilled positions, either total number of unfilled positions or by percentage? COMMISSIONER RENDON: Commissioner Orlando Rendon. I'm going to ask our Deputy Commissioner of Administration Marissa Washington to see if she has the figures available for you.
Yes. Good morning. Again, this is Marissa Washington. Our current vacancy is we have 269 positions vacant. Most of our vacancies are attributed to the influx of new money that we received this year and last year. We probably have about 8 million that we received in FY23 and FY24 for just new positions, and that was coming out of COVID and a hiring freeze, so it makes it difficult along with everyone else in the nation trying to fill these positions. So although we did in FY23 with around 170 vacancies, we got new money in FY24, close to $3 million just for positions alone, so that takes us up to about 269. And you incorporate that with resignations, retirements and those sorts of things, it continues to increase our vacancy rate. But I will say that we are working to fill over the next three months about 80 positions. So those are our rec leader trainees, recreation outreach workers, our grounds maintenance facility workers positions and a handful of other positions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. And thank you for the answer. It's definitely very much appreciated. We -- you know what, I'll forfeit the rest of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
All right. Thank you, Member Thomas. Member Gilmore Richardson.
Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I don't know what's happening with this computer. Okay, there it is. So I just wanted to ask just a few additional questions that I wanted to get on the record while we have everyone here. I just wanted to notate for the record and thank the Administration for their willingness to meet with me ad nauseam and exchange emails even on Thanksgiving Day regarding the issues and the challenges that we are seeking to work through. I just wanted to briefly get a few things on the record so that we have it on the record and then proceed from there. I do have additional questions that I am going to email over to you all that I've been working on for the past couple of days, my office and I. And so, can we just hone in quickly on the $16.1 million request for the Office of Homeless Services. And for the record, the request is for $16.1 million. That would address some of the needs at the Philadelphia Nursing Home and then also address the needs for OHS. So the OHS's specific portion is 14.7 million. The total would be -- including the Philadelphia Nursing Home issue will be 16.1. For the record, if you all can break down how much it would be if we addressed FY -- all the previous fiscal years up until the end of Calendar Year June of 2023, so right before you go into FY24. If we address those periods only, how much would that be and then give you all the leeway and latitude to address anything that would come up starting in July of '21 -- July 1st of 2023, which will be FY24 in the next budget cycle?
Yes. Good morning, Chairperson Jones and members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is David Holloman. I am the Interim Executive Director for the Office of Homeless Services, and I'm here today to testify in support of that 16.1 that you indicated. Just to speak to that 16.1 and what does that cover, so 14.7 million is requested to resolve a current and prior year shortfall. Those years include Fiscal Years '21, '22 and '23. This also includes that 1.4 million for maintenance and facility operations at the Philadelphia Nursing Home. But just to go back to that one part of the question that you indicated on what will it take to resolve those issues, it will be that $14.7 million to resolve those contracts.
I'm sorry. May I speak? Hi. Good morning, Chairman Jones and the rest of the Councilmembers. I'm Peter Curran. I'm the Deputy for Finance at the Office of Homeless Services. To answer your specific question, Councilmember, the number is 9,607,346.
Okay. So that would cover FY21, '22 and '23 which is June 30th of 2023. And so, from the 9.6, give or take a few thousand, the remainder of the 14 -- the remainder of the 14.7 million would be to address the shortfall just from July of 2023 to October 30th of 2023, which is the first few months of FY24, is that correct, or would that address the entire FY24 issue?
Okay. So it would be the entirety of FY24. Okay.
And I just want to state too that the reason why the numbers for FY23 and '24 is because we as an office in partnership decided to do a pilot program that put out contracts on a calendar year. And so, that FY23 and '24 will cross over into two current fiscal years, so that's why that number is represented there.
Right. But to address specifically any shortfalls from previous encumbrances it will be the 9.6. And then just for this year for July through October 30th, so July, August, September, October, so four months it's an additional about million just for the four months or is it million 5 for the whole year? It will be from July 1 to June 30?
Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was clear.
Okay. I have a slew of additional questions, and I just want to be real clear that I am greatly appreciative of the opportunity to meet the ongoing dialogue that we've all been able to have over the last several weeks. I will remit the remainder of my questions in writing, for a response in writing to the Committee and for dissemination to our Committee Chair and for dissemination to the Committee. But I wanted to notate for my colleagues who are on Appropriations what the breakdown and the numbers would be based on what we may need to do today. Also, I just wanted to, Mr. Chair, for the PPD, can we switch gears here for PPD. We received the information this morning relative to I believe there is a $6.8 million request. It will be offset by less than 2 million, I believe we received in the email. I think the original numbers we had were in error, but I think this email has updated the information. I just want to make sure for the PPD portion because we did bring this up in the meeting that there is something there outside of just Class 100 and to address any Class 100 costs or overtime or whatever it may go to, that we are addressing the issue around the PPD recruitment issue that came up in the budget that I don't know was properly spent or allocated. And I think Councilmember O'Neill will be able to speak to this more than I can, but I just want to make sure with the numbers we received today, I think it was around 6.8 million, I believe if that will address the issue that Councilmember O'Neill stated.
Would you like to hear from Commissioner Stanford; is that your request, Member Gilmore Richardson?
Sure. Just a breakdown of what the 6.8 million will be. I know it's a small offset, but what's the --
Yeah. So here's a couple things, maybe you're referring to that FY23 year-end ordinance which had -- we had put an error in a document that it was a net increase of million. It was million. That number was incorrect, so I apologize. You caught it. We missed it. I think the second piece is around recruitment, so if someone from OHR or Police is able to speak to that piece and the status.
Good morning, Council. My name's Mike Zaccagni and I see Commissioner Stanford is on also so if he wants to add to this. But Mike Zaccagni, Director of OHR for City of Philadelphia. So is the question specifically around the 3 million for the recruitment activity?
Yes, the 3 million for recruitment activity, and if anything in this specific ordinance 23 that we are undertaking today addresses anything around recruitment. I just want to get that on the record because I know that was a source of contention.
For the police recruitment (inaudible), I would defer to the Managing Director's Office after discussions with them. And I believe that they had discussions with I believe Council President's office on diverting some of that 3 million that was identified for police recruitment to other public safety recruitment, including Prisons. And we're trying to work on piggybacking on a contract there to expand their efforts in advertising for correctional officers. So a chunk of that is going to go to that. And we're holding a few hundred thousand dollars in reserve as we move into the next year in case we can do something around 911 operators or other critical positions like that. In this ordinance, OHR has money for basically an effort to promote the City as an employer of choice to really get the message out there that this is a great place to work. We offer a lot from the standpoint of what you can give back to the community but also for you personally. So that's the money that's really identified within this ordinance that we're going to do a campaign. We have the RFP already out. I think we're already getting solicitations back from vendors.
Okay. And then anything relative from PPD that we need to be aware of based on the numbers that we have? COMMISSIONER STANFORD: So good morning. John Stanford, Interim Commissioner for Philadelphia Police Department. Good morning. So some of the money that we utilized was going into the campaign that we just essentially announced over the last month or so, Our City Needs You campaign. And that's going to be really pushing forward to try to drive in additional, you know, citizens that may be interested in joining the police department. I know some of the conversations around digital advertisement is moving forward and additional marketing efforts to get more people into the doors, so we're going to continue to push forward on that. We can get you additional breakdown as to some of the things we are looking to do and what has been done in terms of a dollar amount and get that breakdown for you. We can get that over.
Okay. That'll be great. Thank you so much, Commissioner. And thank you, Mike Zaccagni. I just wanted to make sure we got that on the record. And last thing, Mr. Chair, relative to the public safety portfolio I wanted to ask a question regarding the 911 staff. And I understand there are vacancies in that particular department or unit. For the record, if you can just notate how many vacancies and based on those vacancies, how much underspending they have in Class 100.
We may need to double check on -- okay. Sorry. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAHL- CAMPBELL: Good morning, everyone. This is Deputy Commissioner Krista Dahl-Campbell. I'm just jumping on here. Our vacancies in Radio fluctuate. I'm getting the exact number now. But we have done very well with hiring in the past few years. Our problem is retention. So we tend to lose a number of dispatchers after their training period and after a couple of years where they look to seek for higher wages, but we've done well with recruitment. But to that point, we are also looking to focus some of our recruitment efforts towards radio dispatch.
Okay. Thank you for that. I just need to know how much underspending you may have in Class 100 and how many vacancies you have. And for context, for the Finance folks for the Committee Chair and for the members of the Committee, if you can get us today on average how many vacancies you had and how much underspending you had as a result of that over the last three or four fiscal years. That will also be helpful for us in the deliberation today.
Yeah, I thought we were going to be able to --
Okay. So I can speak at a high level. We have a roughly percent vacancy rate 10 across the City. We would need to 11 pull the numbers if you want to go 12 back a couple of years. We can 13 pull that. 14
And even just for the 16 benefit of today for this hearing, 17 if you know what the vacancy rate 18 is as far as the number of positions and then how much in underspending that gives you for even this upcoming fiscal year, for FY24 basically.
You're talking about specifically the dispatcher; is that what you're asking about?
Right, the 911 dispatchers. The ones that answer the phone for 911.
Yep. Got it. Thank you. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAHL- CAMPBELL: Councilwoman, we're getting that for you now. I just want to give you the exact number. I'll be sure to raise my hand and have it for you shortly.
Thank you so much. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Member Gilmore Richardson, for focusing on those departments. Your pencil is sharp. You found a discrepancy in one of those numbers. But also particularly when it comes to 911 operators, we spent a considerable amount of visits, a considerable amount of hearing time looking into their operations and everything from their physical location in their offices and they moved, thank goodness, but also to some of the retention problems that were mentioned at that pay level that they have, and there is a process, I will say that before you do, there is a process that we have to adhere to. It is a collective bargaining unit. But the reality is that, that is the front line for public safety. When they get mandatory overtime and are overworked, it results in human error. And human error in that department can mean critical minutes that get missed, critical days that have gotten missed in getting citizens the help they need. I always remember that commercial that was used a couple of election cycles ago where they said press if it's a home invasion, press if it's a carjacking, and I never want for Philadelphia to be in that category. So, therefore, whatever relief and support we can give to the dispatchers of 911 I as an individual elected official and support above, but we do have to be frugal as you had pointed out, to know exactly how many spots are vacant and when that help would be able to be implemented. So I thank you for that. Member Thomas.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one quick thing, and I apologize for this. One thing I want to get on the record, one of the things we asked for money for, and it was a plethora of things that we thought were smart one-time investments, but one of them is our partners who deal with animal control and other things. As Councilmembers, we often get complaints about animals and different (inaudible), and our partner at ACCT are the ones who deal with the majority of this stuff, dealing with animal control stuff and things of that capacity. So I'm wondering because they sent us a letter, and I don't know if that letter only came to City Council but I'm assuming it went to the Administration as well too. And what they said is that if they did not get a significant investment from the City right now, they might be forced to close their doors next year or possibly cut off some of the services that they do. And so, when I go back to what Councilmember Gilmore Richardson talked about earlier as it relates to fiscal responsibility, it only makes sense that we make this one-time investment to help deal with some financial shortfalls that they're having because if we don't, then we're going to have to absorb the cost as a City as it relates to the services that they won't provide or we'll just have animals running wild across the City of Philadelphia and I'm pretty sure none of us want that. So I'm wondering what was the thought process behind not investing in ACCT as it relates to what we're looking to do this fall, and how can we do that as something as fiscally responsible if it will cost us more money in the long run to be able to absorb what it is that they would not be able to do if their doors are closed or if they're forced to be able to cut back on some of the services that they provide?
So there were a couple of things going on there, and I appreciate the question. One, they sent some information related to FY23 where they said they wanted 5.9 million and without that, they would have to scale back services or close down. And in response to that, we increased FY23 to about 5.8. And in the FY24 budget we increased that to 6.2 million. I think what they're asking for now is money for their employees to increase their pay. Their employees are in D.C. 33 so that would be a collective bargaining process activity. And what we do with that is we go through a process when that's finished, see what the costs are and then add money to the budget to cover it.
Thank you for the response. So basically what you're saying is you don't feel like there's a sense of urgency around investing in ACCT right now. You feel like that this is something that could be done in next year's budget negotiations and you're not concerned around them having to cut off staff or cut back services, things of that capacity. You don't feel like that's going to be an issue?
I think the '24 request from what I saw this morning is about increasing pay, and that should be addressed through collective bargaining and then we would provide funding and enter increases through that collective bargaining.
The communication from us told us that it wasn't just about salary pay, so I'm looking forward to going into negotiation around that issue as well so we can make sure we find some type of happy compromise in order to put us in a position where we're not increasing costs for the City by having one of our trusted partners be in a position where they have to cut back services or lay off staff or anything of that capacity. And I think it's important that we go back and define exactly what it is that money was spent on in the past so we can have clarity as it relates to what the record should be moving forward. So, Mr. Chair, thank you. I just wanted to get that information on the record. And of course, Mr. Dubow, thank you for communicating your perspective on that particular issue.
For someone who has had bats in their home and has cried for help, I appreciate the services provided. Chair recognizes Councilmember Johnson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to circle back regarding I saw in the chat a response from Commissioner Stanford particularly around the issue of the 911 dispatchers. I know there was a request to go through seeking support of the 911 dispatchers just to address the lack of staff (inaudible) regarding collective bargaining and salaries. And I just want Rob, if you could just clarify that for the record as well as Commissioner Stanford to also do a follow-up because I know it was a very, very robust hearing. This is something I believe that we should be addressing with a sense of urgency. And so, how are we going to work through those collective bargaining issues as well as addressing the staff shortages as it relates to making sure it's a very, very robust and efficient 911 department?
Sure, thanks for the question. So in addition to the collective bargaining element, there's also the civil service element, and the Office of Human Resources has been doing an analysis of compensation for the dispatchers and how they compare to compensation in other jurisdictions with the goal of at the end of that process in seeing how we compare and in seeing whether there are adjustments that we can make that would make us more competitive if that's what the results show. But I'll also ask Mike Zaccagni to come back on and to talk about that process.
Yes, Rob. Thank you. I'm Mike Zaccagni, Office of Human Resources. We have done some analysis. We're going back to look at that analysis to see whether or not there is some additional adjustments. One of the other things that we found is when the police is talking about retention issues, we also I think about a year ago, maybe a little bit longer, created an additional position in sort of a series for the operators so that they had some place to go and there's limited shall we say promotional activities. So we did look at that. We'll look at that position again and see whether or not we can make some adjustments around salary. We'll certainly share that with Council and we'll also look at the operator position itself.
Councilman Johnson, is there anything else that you -- any other specifics?
No, not at the moment. Just want to get additional follow-up from Commissioner Stanford. COMMISSIONER STANFORD: Good morning. Again, we're at 68. I put it in the chat. We're 68 short as it relates to 911 dispatchers and we put in an additional request as far as a justification request to raise the salaries of dispatchers, understanding that we know it is collective bargaining issues, but I think we are in support of that as well as what has already been discussed regarding supervisory positions for a tier type of system to increase pays. But that's again something that would have to be agreed upon through collective bargaining. But it is a priority for us. We will also be looking to do a little more around recruitment efforts for those positions in addition to the recruitment efforts that are being done for sworn positions. But that conversation came up before that we need to do a little bit more as it relates to marketing and advertising just to get the message out regarding some of those civilian positions that we have available to make sure that we get them filled as quickly as possible. So we are definitely in support of that and looking to do more moving forward as a department to get that done.
Thank you very much. And, Mr. Dubow, can you and your team also do additional follow-up with Councilwoman Jamie Gauthier regarding the collective bargaining component and how it plays a role into this actual transfer request that she's seeking right now? Just want for clarity to take a look at those two issues because obviously we can't do collective bargaining overnight so that's going to take some time. But nevertheless, she has taken the lead with a sense of urgency to address this issue. And so, it's my hope and I said it the last time on the record that rather now or either come when the Philadelphia Police Department comes in front of us for their official budget, right, that there should be a robust strategy and plan to build up and replace those vacancies that are in the 911 unit but also strategy and plan regarding the recruitment, looking at the morale of the actual workers who work in the 911 unit and basically help us restore confidence and public confidence that 911 is the official system that should be utilized and is utilized here in the City of Philadelphia. And so, those are some of the things we have gone back and forth with stakeholders on how to address this issue but also be supportive of the work that Councilwoman Jamie Gauthier is definitely taking the lead on something that's very, very important based upon the tragedy and mass shooting that took place in her District. And so, I think the whole public is paying attention to us around this particular issue because it is a quality-of-life issue here in the City of Philadelphia and goes to how people feel safe when they're calling 911 and feel confident that someone is going to be on the other line on the phone and actually pick up and actually respond. And so, hopefully that part of the conversation can take place for her and her team today as we go through the process hoping to determine how we move forward. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your time.
Thank you, Member Johnson. Real quick point of clarification. You said there were how many vacancies out of how many in the unit? Can you put that on the record again, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER STANFORD: Yes, sir. So we are authorized to have 353. We are currently at 285. We're a shortage of 68.