All right. Thank you. We'll hear from -- I understand the union representatives are scheduled to testify at o'clock today?
Well, they're on the schedule. I don't know what time they're 123 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 coming in. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. Steve and John and. . . I'm going to read from here, and I want to follow up on A statement that I heard Councilman Nutter make as I came in. And my staff has been during the hearing, and I want to excuse myself for being late, but I had other things outside of Council. It says disproportionate needs of racial groups is, according to HUD definitions, for the purposes of the consolidated plan, a disproportionately greater need exists when the percentage of persons in the category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is at least 10 percentage points higher than the persons of the category as a whole. By this definition, Latino households in Philadelphia exhibit disproportionately greater housing needs. Latinos are disproportionately represented in the extremely-low and low-income categories -- 60 percent of Latinos, compared to 30 percent of the general population. 124 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Small Latino renters households have a disproportionately higher incidence of housing problems -- 84 percent compared to 74 percent of the general population. And large Latino households have a disproportionately higher incidence of housing problems -- 83 percent compared to 67 percent. The three tables on the following page, the greater incidence of poverty and housing are, among some Latinos, is an area of concern for the City of Philadelphia, as well it should be. Although we represent actually 10 percent of the City's population, Latinos make up one of the fastest-growing populations in the City. And I know that we have been doing some housing work, as you well note here. And we have done work with some of the CDCs that we have developed over the years. It's taken us around ten years, twelve years work to develop these CDCs to the point which they're at. But job development, which, if you're going to have housing and you don't develop the jobs and you do not develop the economy, the housing will be destroyed within a generation or 125 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 less. And in essence, we'll be throwing money down a hole. And Michael was talking about data, in essence. And I want you to give us what has been the impact of the efforts that we've had in terms of job creation in the neighborhood. And how have you measured that, if you have it? And I think Bill Hankowsky here can begin to address that problem.
Let me start out by saying clearly that a lot needs to be done, but I think we've accomplished a lot. The need is still there and needs to be addressed fully.
I agree. I think we have established some housing programs. I mean, obviously, the need is huge, and we need to be able to do that. But housing programs, without the job development, and that's what I've been bending Mullin's ear now for years, in terms of developing a cultural commercial zone in the barrio. Because I cannot see us putting housing in and not having job development. And it's nice, you know, I was reading 126 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Steven Mullin's testimony about, you know, investment in facade programs and so on, and that's nice, that's nice. I think the leap is here, and we want the money to fix up the facade of the streets and so on. But we're spending huge amounts of money in attracting businesses to the City -- Kvaerner, which is one. We are putting in at least 50 million, that I know of, and more money to attract Kvaerner. We have -- we're giving an incredible amount of tax breaks to different developers in different areas. What is our attitude in terms of developing the same sort of mindset in terms of neighborhood development? And my question has been so far is, what has been the impact of our efforts? Because I don't see the -- I don't see the joblessness rate going down in North Philadelphia, I don't see it, and that includes east of Broad and west of Broad. I don't see the jobless rate going down in North Philadelphia. So if we have a job creation program going on, and now we're going to have a 127 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Welfare-to-Work Program going on, what has been the impact of that job creation program to date and how have we measured that? And if we're going to measure also the impact of individuals who, from the City and the neighborhoods, who are working in all of these Center City projects that we have had?
Just a couple of things. And these don't address the core issue, but I feel they're important in terms of the Community Development Block Grant Program. We've tried to fund job-creating development ventures where we think they make sense. And the substantial commitment to the Gateway Plaza that APM is currently developing a full city block of retail is an example of that. There aren't a wealth of ventures like that, but those that make sense, that we think are feasible, we think --
I'm sorry. We try to support neighborhood development ventures that create jobs that make 128 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 sense. And we think one good example of that is the Gateway Plaza development that APM is constructing now. It's going to create some neighborhood jobs for neighborhood people. And the Commerce Department and PIDC support more of those. In addition, and I realize this doesn't address the core issue you're raising, but I did want to mention it. We have a lot more affordable housing construction going on now, thanks to the success of --
I understand that we have affordable housing construction -- how many -- because I've been --
And very soon, we'll have two schools being built east of Broad -- Hunter and Julio (unintelligible). But the employment and the participation, let's say, of businesses, like, for instances, Latino contractors in the overall participation of the construction in those areas is minimal. And I think of African-Americans contractors, the participation of African- 129 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Americans has been minimal. So -- and the job creation, the job -- if anything it's seasonal, and I don't think -- I would like to see the percentages in terms of ethnic groups in those jobs of Latinos and African-Americans and women along those lines because I don't think the numbers are very big.
Mm-hmm. That's the point I wanted to make because we have a neighborhood benefits strategy and a reporting system in place, and there was a presentation earlier by Kevin Brooks and Michael Bell. We can give you that report. A lot more has been done. I think you were at the press conference a couple of years ago, where APM and the Electricians Union announced that apprenticeships for electricians were being created as a result of the construction there. Earlier in this decade, we couldn't even report to you --
But we haven't finished. You're still -- I don't know what -- how you're measuring it and if you have any data along those lines.
The only data that I have relates to the specific construction-related employment in the development ventures that we're supporting. It seems to me that in addition to the broad economic issues, the economy of Philadelphia and its neighborhoods, the bigger -- the core of the problem is job-readiness, the public school systems and the training programs that we can make 131 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 available to the neighborhood residents. Our community and schools program has a substantial Latino enrollment from all over the public school system. And that's the kind of use that we try to make of our funding, where we can do something to what the schools --
In essence, what you're saying is that we've been involved in job development over ten years, whatever it is, how many years, and we have no data right now to say we have created these many permanent jobs in these neighborhoods. We don't have that data available.
We do have the data, but it's not going to show, as I expect you can guess, that we've turned the neighborhood around or we've turned the neighborhood economy around, it will not show that. But we do have the data, and we will provide that.
Because my staff told me that one of the examples of neighborhood economic development that was used was the parking lot on Fifth and Indiana. Well, I'm very grateful for that, you 132 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 know, but it took 16, years to get a 25-car parking lot. And I don't see that -- if we had been -- if the parking lot was tied into an overall plan of economic development of the whole area, that to bring in other stuff, it would be very good. But right, it is really obsolete because it -- the need is greater than cars, 10 and the need is greater than the small little 11 parking lot that is there. 12 And so that's what I'm trying to bring 13 up. If we're going to have a plan, if we've got 14 commercial corridors, I would like -- I've been 15 telling this to Bill and to Steven and to you for 16 a long time. 17 Why don't we just sit down and put down 18 and get together the plan that we've been talking 19 about for the Fifth Street Lehigh front, all the 20 way up area, in terms of economic development because in the long run, and coming from the liberal hearings here in City Council, it is going to be the business people that make the difference in terms of that -- not the social agencies and so on but the business people. 133 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 So what I'm trying to say is, can we just get seriously going during the next year or so and prepare something along those lines? So that we don't have to do a 25-parking lot and say that this is a great event.
Yes. Just for clarifications, the parking lot was a response to a question specifically about infrastructure. But your point is very clear. And, as you're aware, we have squared a neighborhood strategic plan for the community development corporations in east and north Philadelphia as well as some areas west of Broad. The Empowerment Zone Strategic Plan, I believe, was intended to be that kind of consolidated document. But, again, I understand your point, and we're not where we need to be.
I don't see anything coming out of the empowerment zone. I mean, I really don't. There's a lot of money, a lot of talk about process and so on, very few jobs, very few jobs, you know. And what I'm talking about is if we're 134 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 going to be talking about -- that we have an economic stimulus fund, I would like to see how much of that economic stimulus money is going to be invested in neighborhood economic and job development. And I don't know if -- Madame Chair, I don't know if they have testified as to how much of that economic stimulus percentage-wise is going to be dedicated to economic neighborhood development vis-a-vis the Kvaerners and the other aspects and so on. And if you have any data along those lines, I would appreciate it you giving it to the Chair.
My answer is yes, we can provide that. And in my testimony for the City's general fund budget, I identified the break-out of the proposed stimulus funding in neighborhood housing and business retention, but I --
Excuse me just a second. The stenographer can't hear you. Mr. Mullin.
I'm pointing the wrong 135 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 way, I'm sorry. Steve Mullin. And in my general fund testimony, I outlined the proposed allocations for the stimulus funds. And I would also like to note that I'd be very happy to continue to meet with Councilman Ortiz about this planning. Where we do keep information on employment is through any of the projects or programs where we have any type of financing assistance. We do keep measures of employment both initially and throughout the project. The one thing to remember, though, and that is the number of jobs perhaps at a specific location, but over time, those could be different individuals. And some of those individuals could be from Camden, some of those individuals could be from South Philadelphia. In other words, if they say there are jobs here and there are 24 jobs 2 years from 21 now, we don't know necessarily know exactly where 22 those people are. 23 In addition, we do keep track with PIC 24 and with the programs that Councilwoman Fernandez asked about. With the block grant job training 136 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 programs, we do keep track of how many people get placed and how many people are continued on jobs 4 or 12 months out. But, again, that might be an 5 individual, and that job might be anywhere in the 6 metropolitan area. So there's a little but of a mismatch when we're talking about the data, which always makes it puzzling. We do look at the very top level of the data, the information that we'll see every quarter coming out in the newspaper from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which publishes the employment statistics for the City, for jobs in the City, regardless of where you live. That's our -- that is our first basis of information for employment, but that does not include sole proprietorships, that does not include a variety of other types of employment. So we know that's not perfect. In addition, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Department of Commerce collect information -- collect statistics that they, by their own admission, recognize is not very -- is not very, very strong in terms of the detail because it's -- their sampling abilities -- they 137 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 can't get to this, and that is employment by residence; in other words, how many people who are residents of Philadelphia are employed, regardless of where they're employed. And that data is not available as frequently as the job data, but it is also -- there are some significant errors on that. We try it -- the big picture is to try to take a look at those numbers. In other words, what's the story with the employment of our residents, what's the story of employment in establishments inside Philadelphia?
Well, I'm glad that you're looking at that, but I'm interested in even more detail. I'm interested in bringing it down by ethnic group and by available geographical areas and so on. And Kathy brought this chart to me about monies and contractor summary. I'd like to see in terms of these contractors, Mr. Kromer and Steve, you know, how many of these contracts have gone to Latino contractors, you know, and so on, along the lines. And what is the percentage of those in this type of sheet here. 138 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228
Would you identify yourself for the record, please. (Kevin Brooks comes forward.)
Kevin Brooks. I work in the Office of Housing and Community Development, Councilman Ortiz. And we provided testimony earlier that summarized some of the subcontracting and employment activities, both on housing projects. And I apologize we didn't provide a full report, but we can provide you a full report that shows not only the breakdown of minority contractors -- Latinos versus other minority groups -- but also by location and the zip codes. We have moved pretty far ahead, and I'm trying to demonstrate that Philadelphia residents are benefitting from our projects. And we have the ability now to sort by location, by race and gender, and we produce a report that does that. And we have also produced ad hoc reports that --
Could you make that available to the Chair? And she will make it available to -- 139 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228
In addition, we have recently been working with Congreso de Latinos Unidos on specific construction-related apprenticeship training programs. So our office, as graduates of this apprenticeship training program emerge, will be looking to place them on housing and on development projects, as well as downtown commercial development projects.
Mr. Mullin, wouldn't 32 additional jobs in the Latino community be a big feather in the cap of your department, maybe rival the number of Latino positions you've secured? And I'll let you fill in the period of time.
Any number, I think, would 140 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 be considered very positive. And any time there are dollars spent and they can be provided for Philadelphia residents and Latino residents, I would say that that would be something that we would like to try to promote.
Well, do you see a role for yourself in the situation I raised with the Rohm and Haas and Aramark situation?
Yeah. I agree with Bill 11 Hankowsky's testimony, that certain of that -- just the practical logistics of finding out about that type of activity. Rohm and Haas must have 6,00 contracts, they are one of 30,000 firms in Philadelphia. And we do try to -- we, PIDC, and PCDC do try to make contacts among firms and --
Yeah, and those sort of things, we would certainly -- I mean, all the way up to, as Bill mentioned, when the -- when we get a warn letter from a company talking about eliminating positions, even though that's pretty much the last thing they do, so it's a foregone 141 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 conclusion. Oftentimes, we will, with the Mayor, sit down with the company and see, isn't there any other thing that you can potentially do? Is there any other way -- can we help with unions, can we help with trying to find job-training funds or on-the-job training funds or other types of things to try to prevent this. So those are the things that we do very much like to, one, get information from. And the story that you gave here, I just want you to know, there's probably .00000001 of what's going on out there, so we're constantly trying to do an outreach with business firms, with lawyers, with accountants as to where these things are happening so we can potentially play a role.
Well, the one thing I would suggest in general is a much closer relationship with the labor movement 'cause it seems to me that there is an intensive relationship with the corporate world. And I'm not opposed to that -- I think that's good and even enlarge that. But, simultaneously, you ought to be 142 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 enlarging your information because it's the unions that will know first about threats.
And I think you're right. Generally, some companies tend to not want the City to know about what they're doing --
-- until they're in a position where they're compelled to do so.
But I would like to see aggressive action, particularly since they're both Philadelphia corporations. And I recommend you do that. You might want to contact Aramark first --
-- since they were the company. And we understand they're very anxious also to have a renewal of the contract.
I will do that, and I do want to note for the record -- and this anecdotal, but I would say that at least half of the time that we hear about situations like this, it is through the labor -- the labor union or the 143 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 bargaining unit who will contact us. And when I say "us," it's the Mayor, the Mayor's Office, Commerce Department, PIDC, PCDC. So our communications on that side -- and you're exactly right, that's sometimes -- what's where you hear the earliest bits of news in some cases. And we consider that a valuable connection.
Can we just agree, then, that we're going to sit down and look at the economic stimulus fund that is there, see how it applies to neighborhoods and so on, and develop some very concrete plans to invest some of that money in the job creation in those areas. So, I mean, to go beyond just the PCDC facade-building and so on to real aspects of real investment.
Councilman Ortiz's position, I think, would represent a very strong position of most of the Councilmembers. 144 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228
Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Mullin, you will stay the remainder of the day?
Just a couple of questions. I apologize for being late. I had a school appointment this morning. I have -- could you tell me how the stimulus money is determined, how you determine whether you use Community Development Block Grant money or stimulus money in a community. I have a sheet here that has housing and commercial projects contracting economic benefit by Councilmatic District, and I see a zero-balance for the 9th Councilmatic District. I'd like to know what that means. What are you telling us here? And also, I want to know about the stimulus money and how that money is appropriated, how you determine it's appropriated.
Okay. Councilwoman Tasco, I'm not sure what data you're looking at there. 145 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 And I'd also, with regard to the stimulus program for the housing allocation, I think John Kromer can address how he determines which --
But what we call neighborhood economic development and the business retention -- oh, thank you.
Business retention and neighborhood economic development. I think the best way to characterize how we look at what funds -- what funds can we potentially put together for a particular project or for a business, we will literally, literally, sit down and take it if it a business looking to expand. For example, what type of -- what are they looking at? Are they looking at -- are they looking at building a building, expanding a building, buying - purchasing equipment or machinery. Do they need working capital loans? Are they planning to staff up maybe 20 new employees? All of these are signals to us of what type of financial assistance we might be able to 146 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 provide. We also, obviously, ask what type of equity do you have, or what type of other funding might you have, what are your relationships with commercial banks or other commercial lenders? And we'll try to mix something where we will try to use the more appropriate, in terms of our funding -- and by the way, our funding, when you're talking about PIDC, includes State loan and finance programs since PIDC administers that. So we sort of sit back here with -- in a sense, one tap of this, one tap of this, one tap of this. And what we try to do is use the funds. If there's a specific thing for machinery, for example, we would like to use a loan fund that specifically goes to machinery so that we're not using something that's more flexible when we can't use that. Now, there are some times -- for example, huge dollar amounts in the block grant are obviously restricted by employment, potentially location, and other criteria. And there might be certain things that we cannot fund with block grant dollars. 147 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 And so that's the type of thing that we might look at stimulus funds for a loan or neighborhood development fund loans or even a Section 108 loan, those type of things.
Okay. Is this your -- you're going to answer about this and subcontracting economic benefits?
Kevin Brooks. Councilwoman Tasco, I apologize. This is my infamous summary. A number of Councilpersons have asked about this report. This is information drawn from a quarterly report that we submit that shows where contracts have been awarded. It lists the name, the dollar amount, and location of a general contract. This is housing-related construction information. And I just gleaned the information from our quarterly report. And there's been a request to have the full report. It's done every quarter, so there's four quarters. So maybe in this period, there was no activity to be reported in that Councilmatic District. But our experience has been that it 148 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 really does level out because we do activities all over the City. And I will be providing a full report, maybe for the entire year last year, of where contracts -- who contracts are awarded to by race and gender, dollar amounts and location, zip code as well. And that's going to be forthcoming.
One question to the -- it's a throwback to the Director of Commerce. Do you know whether that project on Limekiln Turnpike, just west of Ogontz Avenue, that business incubator -- they're also going to have a health center. It's on the 6100 block of Limekiln Turnpike. Congressman Foglietta, shortly before he became the ambassador, had gotten a federal grant, I think, of a million and a quarter, or something in that area, to take over what had been a church and its building that the church didn't have enough money for. And then the church turned in the direction, I think, of establishing that. I know that there's work ongoing on it. I spoke to the minister who seems to be in charge, and I had an impression that there were 149 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 funds from the City, or that at least there were funds being administered by the City, but he did not know precisely where the funds were coming from.
Right. I can -- it's my understanding -- I know that in the category -- in the classification named giving of self partnership on that, and I will find out --
Well, with the Chair's permission, could we get that report?
That would be fine. Thank you. I would ask, if there are any Councilmembers that still have questions, that they hold them, if they have questions of anybody from the Administration. We do have witnesses that have been waiting since before 9 o'clock, and many of them have to leave. So at this point in time, I would like to start our list of witnesses. Is there anyone here from Philadelphia Green? 150 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 (Blaine Bonham comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Madame Chair and members of Council. I am Blaine Bonham, Vice President of Programs for the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. And its Philadelphia Green program is a budget item in the City's Year 11 application to HUD for our work in communities. 12 The CDBG funding provides us with a 13 great ability to leverage City support to attract 14 a whole wide range of public and private 15 investments. 16 I want to give you some of the few 17 brief highlights from our activities this past 18 year. This year, we are helping to develop close 19 to 100 new greening projects, and it's close to 20 200 existing sites make improvements. 21 Our Garden Tenders Project started in 22 the fall of 1995. It's completing its seventh 23 class of neighbor groups. And, to date, 99 groups 24 of residents have produced 52 new green spaces. And this program is both a training program and a 151 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 screening program for people who are committed to improving their neighborhood. " It has converted vacant lots while working with Bell 8 Arbor, which is the nonprofit tree farm that was 9 established at 11th and Washington Streets, where 10 they are buying and also sharing trees with 11 neighborhoods in other parts of the City. 12 The southwest CDC has developed six 13 lots. They've been trained by us, and now they 14 are holding their own workshops, getting their own 15 resources, and they are a part of a large Citywide 16 network. 17 Our Tree Tenders Program has, over the 18 past 4 years, passed through 71 groups, including 19 700 people who now tend 8,000 trees and have 20 planted 1500. And what's interesting to note about this is that these groups, once they have been trained, have been able to raise almost a quarter of a million dollars in public and private sources other than ours and OHCD. They've gone to federal 152 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 and State for funding and also to private sources. So the money that we're investing in training has been leveraged to attract funding from a wide range of sources. With the School District Service Learning Program, Tree Tenders is training teachers, and the City's actually paying teachers to come learn about how to work with school children on environmental projects and lessons centered around trees and the urban environment. On another project, in Port Richmond, a supplemental environmental project, which was the result of a suit against Conrail for environmental degradation, and almost $250,000 was awarded to the Port Richmond community through us, with the efforts of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. And now we're working with the residents in the business district. Over the next year, we will be planting 350 street trees and 150 trees in open spaces in the neighborhood. And the Port Richmond CDC is really thrilled that it has brought a ground swell of community interest and commitment. 153 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 The Parks Program that we are now working with, in close cooperation with the Department of Recreation, has resulted in some very dramatic changes in some of the community parks. Malcolm X Park, at 52nd and Pine, has made notable progress. Its main focus is to address the terrible appearance in the years of deferred maintenance and vandalism. It's a newly-formed group of residents, business people, churches, and schools that also includes the Mercy Hospital and the 52nd Street Revitalization Project and the Partnership CDC in West Philadelphia. Part of the focus not only is to improve the physical appearance, but now there is a whole range of programming that's taking place in that park. We are conducting art classes with the Mural Arts Program. And schools like the Huey School are using it as a focus. There was recently an Arbor Day event there, and a thousand kids came out on that day to celebrate Arbor Day in the park. At Elmwood Park, in southwest Philadelphia, they've gotten a really good start. 154 COMM.
ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 It's been a really neglected park, and one of its serious problems is drainage -- you probably know about that. In fact, some of the area residents swear that they have lake-front property at some times of the year. But because of our working with them and the Department of Recreation, a large nature remediation project is underway, and it's going to take care of the drainage problem in that park. It's a very strong, committed group. We're building -- we're working with them to build a stronger coalition, become incorporated. And they also told me that they wanted to express their grateful thanks to Councilwoman Verna for her support, so I don't want to be remiss in doing. And that there have been a number of programs with local schools like Patterson and the Archdiocese schools. In Carol Park, in West Philadelphia, they have a stellar start to their efforts. This is a really a committed group of mothers and grandmothers who are working with the enthusiastic schools, the Carol Park Community Council, and 155 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 they too are very grateful for the support from Councilman Nutter for his help in getting them extra funds to improve the park. As a result of all of this park work, we recently received a grant from the Lila Wallace Reader's Digest Fund, in New York, because they're looking at our Parks Program in Philadelphia as a national model. So, hopefully, with funding that we can attract over the next year through Lila Wallace, we're going to be able to expand this program in Philadelphia. Last year, I talked to you about the new Kensington Open Space Management Program. And as a result of the progress we've made there, we worked closely with Councilwoman Fernandez, with Barbara Kaplan from the City Planning Commission, John Kromer, and the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. And recently the Horticultural Society received a grant from the William Penn Foundation to conduct a vacant land reuse study for Philadelphia. We will be looking at a large geographic area in North Philadelphia, east of Broad Street, from Spring Garden Street to Lehigh, 156 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 and Broad Street to the river, as an experimental pilot area to take the new Kensington project and expand it to that whole area and identify appropriate resources needed, the appropriate roles of the CDCs of the City and of the private sector, and with the hope of producing a model that then can then be used throughout the City to help it manage its land. And other parts of that grant include working with the City Administration to take the recommendations that the City Planning Commission produced in their 1990 report to -- how to change the systems and the procedures and the policies of the City so that the City can manage its vacant land in a more effective manner and support communities. And then, lastly, we are going to be working with the City to help them look at the financing mechanisms to enable the City to entertain dealing with vacant land in such a massive way. I think it's been recognized that the vacant land problem is one of the big issues facing communities. And CDCs and neighborhood 157 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 groups continue to clamor for solutions for this. And I will be glad to keep Council abreast as this continues and develops over the next year.
We thank you for coming in to testify today, and we certainly want to thank you for your patience. And I personally want to thank you for all of the wonderful work that your organization does.
Dr. Lee Kaplan -- Capkin. (Dr. Lee Capkin comes forward.)
Councilwoman Verna and members of the Finance Committee, my name's Lee Capkin, and I am the Executive Director of Housing Consortium for Disabled Individuals. 158 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 I have prepared a full written statement, which was given to you, I think, in sufficient copies for all to have. Therefore, I will basically just summarize some major points. We're here today as HCDI to indicate our basic support for the consolidated plan for Year 24, as prepared by OHCD. We've been very pleased with the progress that has been made over the past year and some of the continuing efforts for the coming year to bring housing counseling services for people with disabilities into a broader arena, giving them a choice of obtaining these services in the neighborhoods where they live or coming to a specialized agency such as HCDI. We've also been pleased about the accomplishments of the Disabled in Action Partnership Agreement, which was a landmark agreement between disability groups and the City to generally work on improving the housing situation of people with disabilities. One of the most outstanding pieces of that, which would be known in your Council districts would be the doubling of the funding for 159 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 the Adaptive Modifications Program during the past year. The funding is scheduled to continue at its high level for this year. And for that, we're very grateful. The housing situation of the disabled community will not improve, however, without sufficient information being available and sufficient assistance. And if this material and knowledge is not available, you, as Councilmembers, will continue to get very large numbers of contacts, visits, and calls from unsatisfied disabled people about their housing situation. OHCD intends to continue its Technical Assistance Program on the issues of housing and disability this year. For the past ten years, HCDI has had the pleasure of being able to be the provider of those services. And we're very much interested in being able to do that in response to the OHCD's request for proposal. We have gained experience in all of the City's key neighborhoods and in working with many of the CDCs in West Philadelphia, South Philly, 160 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Kensington, Frankford, and the greater parts of North Philadelphia. And we are sufficiently linked to most of the disability groups in the City. When the decisions are being made on the provision of these technical assistance services, we would appreciate the consideration of Councilmembers in reviewing the experience of groups involved. And it is our hope that we'll be able to continue providing these services. They will help people with disabilities in understanding about fair housing, understanding how to apply for and receive appropriate housing services, and how developers can work with the disabled community in creating housing that works both for disabled people and for all of the neighborhood revitalization plans in Philadelphia. The one final area that I'd like to talk about is the fact that we know full well that housing for people with disabilities also depends on raising their incomes and having people with disability become part of the jobs picture. And one of the things that you will see in our testimony is that, as the Mayor's plan for 161 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 welfare to work becomes a reality, we want to see people with disabilities being given adequate consideration in that picture. To that us, that means adherence to ADA policies in the selection of job training sites, groups that will provide employment training, social service agencies that will be involved in providing supportive services in relation to work.
And, generally, throughout the whole administration of this program, we want to see people with disabilities and ADA policies benefit so that disabled people will not be relegated to traditional disability employment, which has served them so poorly in the past. In conclusion, I just want to thank City Council again for the opportunity to come down and testify on the plan, and to indicate the willingness of our office to work with you on a regular basis. We have frequent contacts with various Members of City Council, and we attempt to assist your constituents in whatever way we can. And we only hope to be able to continue doing that in the 162 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 coming year. Thanks very much.
Thank you very much, Doctor, and a copy of your written testimony will be given to the stenographer so that it will be in the transcript of the testimony today. Thank you.
Vivian VanStory. (Vivian VanStory and Vincent Mason come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yours for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Vivian VanStory, President of Community Land Trust Corporation.
Good afternoon, Chairperson and City Council. My name is Vincent Mason, Vice President of Community Land Trust Corporation.
And this is the Community Land Trust financial report. This financial request of Community Land Trust Corporation's strategic economic plan for the fiscal year of 1998. The Community Land Trust Corporation ("CTC") is a multipurpose 163 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 corporation incorporated to stabilize the community in economic growth. The Community Land Trust Corporation's primary objective in a comprehensive fashion is the plan and design of the public outdoor environment of North Central Philadelphia, but not limited. It will provide an opportunity to promote the economic and social well-being of this area. The Community Land Trust Corporation wishes to provide local job training and employment for the community. This is a self-help program. The Community Land Trust Corporation is a nonprofit organization. We realized that we can help with the funds that we are requesting today within a strategic plan. We envision a new rehab building for our office, which would include the components of the organization. It will include the preservation of community parks, vacant lots, and other open spaces. It will supply services to the community in the area of housing and rehab, to make funds available to residents of the community, building new houses where needed. Our first phase of the rehabilitation 164 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 of housing will be the 18000 block of West Master Street, which is 80 percent homeowner-occupied. In rehabbing the houses that are vacant, it will only enhance the continual new construction in the area. We would like to address environmental issues such as pollution, health, crime, and safety, forming partnerships with experts to educate and advise. We would like to create recreational facilities. The Community Land Trust Corporation conducted a survey in 1990 that determined that there are no outdoor recreational facilities in the census tracts 140 and 147. The outdoor living room effect would expose residents to creative art in a depressed area. We are requesting and -- we are requesting $4.5 million for housing, which would include our office space. We are also requesting $2.5 million to educate residents on horticultural safe and healthy environment. This will allow us to create a safe haven for the community members. We, the Community Land Trust 165 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Corporation, await your decision and your request. Seriously, Vivian VanStory. And we thank you for the opportunity here to testify on behalf of the community that exists in a depressed area of North Central Philadelphia, which is now called the "Empowerment Zone," which we, the community, have not seen any money towards our self on revitalization. It's only been directed to the businesses that exist there.
Well, I think that's the first step that you should take.
I think that you should have a vision as to what you would like to see happen.
Oh, yes, I have met with them in previous years, yes, I have.
You have met with 166 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 them?
But that's something that you're going to have to do personally.
Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Well, I was told by HUD to testify here, by HUD.
I appreciate your coming in, but I think it's absolutely essential that you speak with your District Councilperson.
Clarisse Williams. Is Clarisse Williams here? 167 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 (Not present.)
Diane Grimes, from Dixon House? Is there anyone here from Dixon House? (No one from Dixon House present at this time.)
Do we have someone here from ACORN? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Yes.
Please approach the witness table. (Bertha Barksdale comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record, and proceed with your testimony.
Hi, good afternoon. I'm a representative from ACORN, and my name is Miss Bertha Barksdale. And I thank you for having me.
I'm sure you're familiar with ACORN and its issues. The issue that today concerns me is more money allocated for 168 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 low-income people to obtain homes. Home ownership would be giving them a foundation, a history, a home, being able to use this home to obtain other homes for family descendant. Home ownership for low-income people would improve the community, giving them strength that renters otherwise would not have. There is no American dream for us low-income Philadelphians. ACORN is part of the coalition effort fighting get Bill No. 970586 passed, to increase the income above the federal poverty line of 16,450. That wage is 7.90 an hour, plus benefits. Our neighborhoods are actually fading away. Houses are now becoming defensive lots. We need to attract new business, creating more jobs. As you see, the people here today have all stressed the fact that we need more money for these issues. If we don't get them, there will be lots an lots of homelessness an joblessness. You think it's something now, but in the future, the poverty level would be lower (sic) than it is, and it's a tremendous factor that -- that's extremely depressing. It really makes me sick. 169 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 If we don't get money, where will we be, what would our future be? How will we live? I had one woman follow me, asking me for $2; they no longer ask for 50 cents. This work-to-welfare (sic) issue, okay, the Mayor, he has things going on. I hope there are enough. The adequacy level, if it isn't enough, it's going to be terrible, worse than you've ever seen. It's scary. It scares me. And I hope it scares you enough to take this issue and the fact that we want this bill 13 passed. This bill stands for new jobs. Are you familiar with the bill? I'm sure --
Yes. What it stands for, the raising of the living wage here? We need that, we need that passed. Please consider it. Thank you.
Miss Barksdale, I think your groups has done a very 170 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 good job in lobbying the bill, and I think there's some amendments being discussed, but I think the coalition has been very active in making sure all Members of Council know about the bill. It's coming up soon, I think -- next week.
Our next witness is Len Lombardo, from the carpenters union. Is Len here? (Len Lombardo is not present at this time.)
Good morning. My name is Felipe Alvarez. I'm the Business District Manager for the Hispanic Association of Contractors and Enterprises. I'm here today on behalf of the residents, businesses and community organizations surrounding the Fifth Street and Lehigh Avenue business district to request your support for, as the Fifth and Lehigh Main Street Program. This nationally successful approach to commercial redevelopment was started out in July 171 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 as a demonstration project fully funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development. The Local Initiative Support Corporation has also committed to support cost of the technical assistance of experts in community development from the National Main Street Center. We are requesting the City to help us expand our resources in order to do a better job of coordinating the many private and public programs available to increase jobs in our community. The report that's being distributed outlines most of the key points of the program. While it is being distributed, I would like to acquaint you with the neighborhood surrounding the Fifth and Lehigh Business District. El CENTRO de ORO is home to the greatest concentration of Latino businesses as well as social, cultural and community organizations, not just in the city, but in the Delaware Valley. The business district is located in the Fairhill Neighborhood of North Philadelphia, Census Tract 176. Several recent studies of the neighborhood have confirmed a growing Latino 172 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 population, both in size and poverty. From 1980 to 1990, the population of the neighborhood increased percent as compared to the Citywide 5 decline of 6 percent. 6 in 1990. 9. Roughly 7 out of 10 residents of this neighborhood claim Hispanic ancestry. From 1970 to 1990, the percentage of the labor force unemployed increased to 220 percent, as compared to 150 percent for the entire City. Despite the social and economic problems faced by most inner city business districts, El CENTRO de ORO is currently economically sound and culturally rich. The new energy generated by the fastest-growing youngest segment of the general population as created a unique and festive "barrio," a Latino city within a city. That, in 173 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 turn, is attracting other Hispanics as they immigrate in increasing numbers. In addition to bilingual merchants and professionals, the multi-cultural and Latino organizations that have a strong commitment in this district by locating their institutions in the neighborhoods and sponsoring many of the events throughout the year. , the leading social services agency in the Latino community, is moving its headquarters of the expanding Hispanic organization to our district. HACE's own program in the revitalization of the HACE Mall, 1 of 15 vacant properties in 1982 has generated well over $100,000 in real estate taxes. Our key tenants alone, such as Esperanza Health Center, Health Partners, the District Office of Avon Products, and the West Kensington Boys and Girls Club, are not only providing valuable services to the area residents, but are creating hundreds of jobs in our community. The primary purpose of our funding 174 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 request is to hire staff to help me -- right now, I'm the only staff -- coordinate the diverse needs of the many community stakeholders in order to further develop the ethnic characteristic of the district, while diversifying our base of mainstream businesses and shoppers. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in front of this committee, and I'm now available to answer any questions that you may have on this program.
Mr. Alvarez, are you aware of what is recommended in the --
We are requesting a $50,000 fund from the City. We are also having funded from the State Department of Community and Economic Development, and we're asking -- from that point, we're asking to provide us money for 175 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 facade improvement as well as some property improvement. Basically, our request from the City is to be able to hire a community organizer and a staff assistant.
Okay. Just to clarify the record, you have made requests, and these requests.
Is being proposed, and we would like to -- this is a brand new funding request for the Council, and I'd like to make myself available if you have any questions about the purpose of our program.
Thank you. And attached are some examples of the work we've done for the community.
Thank you very much. 176 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Jeff Brown. (Jeff Brown comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record, and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Councilwomen. My name is Jeff Brown, and I'm President of AFSCME Local 1971, District Council 33. Our local union represents workers at the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, at the Office of Housing and Community Development, and at the Redevelopment Authority. These workers will administer and implement the Community Development Block Grant Year Consolidated Plan that City Council is 18 being asked to approve today. 19 The people at Local 1971 represents 20 that these three agencies include clerical, 21 technical, and supervisory employees. Their job 22 titles range from clerk-typist to housing rehab 23 inspector to neighborhood program coordinator to 24 architect to rehab financial supervisor, to many others. 177 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Most of these employees have dedicated their careers to preserving and expanding housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents of our City's neighborhoods. All of these employees must live in the City, and many live in neighborhoods targeted for housing and community development programs included in the Year Plan. They are, therefore, directly 10 affected by the Year 24 Plan, both as City workers 11 and as residents. 12 I'm here today to raise two issues 13 encompassed by the Year 24 Plan which critically 14 affect members of my local at OHCD and PHDC. 15 The first is the fact that 34 employees 16 in the OHCD nonprofessional bargaining unit are 17 the last remaining City workers that do not have a 18 collective bargaining agreement, which should have 19 begun on July 1, 1996. 20 The second stems from OHCD's reduction 21 of annual operating costs, which were a result in 22 the layoff of 16 additional employees that PHDC 23 see this year after the layoff of 22 PHDC 24 employees last year, in Year 23. Under the heading of the Year 24 178 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 administrative cost reduction, OHCD claims, quote, wage increases that occurred in December 1997 will substantially increase Year administrative 5 expenses for City development agencies. 6 That statement is so ludicrous with 7 respect to OHCD's bargaining unit, that it appears 8 to be intentionally misleading. 9 As we've pointed out to City 10 Councilmembers individually, OHCD bargaining unit 11 employees have not received any increase in 12 December of 1997. And to date, they have not yet 13 received the City-Council-approved 3 percent wage 14 increase. 15 Out of the 85 employees that work for 16 OHCD, Local 1971 represents a small 17 nonprofessional bargaining unit of 34 employees. 18 Eighty percent of the bargaining unit are women, 19 while 76 percent are minority. 20 Although the union began collective 21 bargaining negotiations in November 1995 for the 22 contract due to expire on June 30, 1996, which was 23 prior to District Council 33, our parent body, we 24 alone, among all City unions, do not yet have a collective bargaining agreement. 179 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 That's because OHCD has taken intransigent positions demanding that the union weaken contract language crucial to our members who are not civil-service employees. The concessions that OHCD is demanding are in addition to the ones that Local 1971, along with District Council 33, made in 1992. However, no other District Council 33 bargaining unit made or was even asked to make similar additional concessions during the 1996 negotiations. In order to force the union to agree their demands, OHCD will not provide the bargaining unit employees with the 3 percent increase that all other non-uniformed union-represented City employees have received, effective December 15, 1997 -- even though it was approved by City Council as part of OHCD CDBG Year budget.
20 Even if the OHCD bargaining unit 21 employees had received the 3 percent wage 22 increase, we estimate that, on an annual basis, 23 although the wage increase would have been five and a half months into the year, December 15, 1997, it would equal only $29,724. 180 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 98 percent, less than percent of the housing agencies' total annual operating costs of $28,220,000. How can any honest person claim that that tiny percentage is substantial? Regardless, Local 1971 will not give into OHCD's unreasonable demands, we will not make concessions that other non-uniformed union-represented City employees did not have to make in order to obtain the wage increase that other City employees have all received. That simply not fair. We have asked, and we continue to ask, for the support of City Council in obtaining the wage increase that it approved, that it approved, for CDBG Year and its assistance in obtaining a 22 fair and a just contract. 6 percent, or $1,233,000. 181 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 OHCD is calling for a reduction in the program delivery and/or general administration of the three development agencies that must administer the Year Plan. 97 reduction at 8 PHDC. 9 We've been informed by both OHCD and 10 the Redevelopment Authority that they can absorb 11 the reductions without laying off employees. 12 However, PHDC, which had suffered a layoff of 22 13 employees in CDBG Year 23, has notified the union 14 that the reduction will cause an operating 15 deficit, which will force PHDC to lay off an 16 additional 16 employees. 17 It should be noted that among the CDBG 18 Year 24 goals of the three-year strategic plan is 19 the goal of advancing employment and training 20 opportunities to help stabilize the City's 21 employment base and create or low- and 22 moderate-income jobs. 23 Throughout the plan, there are 24 countless references to the high priority of creating and retaining such jobs and how the City 182 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 has made advancing employment and training opportunities one of the primary goals in its housing and community development plan. In fact, PHDC itself is funded to operate a job center to provide employment and training referral services. Yet, passage of this plan will result in the loss of low- and 9 moderate-income jobs for Philadelphia residents. 10 I believe that it is counterproductive 11 and the complete opposite of OHCD's stated 12 priority to lay off employees currently working in 13 good jobs, who administer programs that improve 14 the housing and community infrastructure. But 15 that's exactly what this Year 24 Plan proposes to 16 do, and that defies logic. The Year 24 Plans assigns PHDC many functions, which are integral to the success of the Plan. PHDC acts as developer and undertakes projects directed by OHCD such new home ownership projects in Cecil B. Moore and North Philadelphia, and Sears Street in South Philadelphia. PHDC manages the Home Start Program, which involves the rehabilitation of homes for sale to income-eligible first-time home buyers. 183 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 It plays a significant role in the rehabbing of PHA row houses. " In fact, PHDC will receive one million more in the Year funding for the BSRP Program. 12 Why, then, is OHCD proposing to reduce 13 its budget, thereby forcing the layoff of an 14 additional 16 employees who must inspect and 15 administer these plans. 16 For your information, the employees who 17 will be laid off include people in the positions 18 of Clerk-Typist I, making $20,362 a year; 19 Maintenance Mechanic I, earning $25,405 a year; 20 Housing Rehab Inspector I, getting $29,631 a year. 21 These employees and their families fall 22 within the low- and moderate-income eligibility 23 guidelines for CDBG programs, along with living in 24 the neighborhood. And where does OHCD think that these 184 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO.
980228 people go home to at night, to the Main Line or to New Jersey? If they did, they would lose their jobs. Let me remind the committee that all of the employees in these three housing agencies are Philadelphia residents. By city charter and board policy as a condition of employment, all of the employees in these housings agencies are required to live in the City of Philadelphia. As a result, they must pay all Philadelphia taxes, as City residents, at City rates. They also spend the bulk of their housing agency paychecks on rent or mortgages, shopping, transportation, and entertainment in Philadelphia's neighborhoods where they live. Isn't that what the CDBG Year Plan 18 is attempting to encourage? What it says it wants 19 to strengthen the neighborhood economy? 20 Yet, once again, these employees seem 21 to be exempt from any consideration for job 22 retention. We're not asking that these employees 23 get make-work jobs. No, we feel they should 24 retain the productive jobs that they currently hold, that are necessary to improve the affordable 185 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 housing and community development plan and make the Year Plan a success. 4 Whether 16 or 60 employees are 5 scheduled to be laid off, these statistics 6 represent human beings and people's lives. 7 Housing agency workers whose jobs are eliminated 8 have families to whom they're responsible. 9 When they lose their jobs, their whole 10 lives change. They regress from productive 11 members of society to burdens of society. They no 12 longer pay the full amount of City taxes, but 13 become dependent on programs that cost tax 14 dollars, including unemployment compensation, 15 Medicaid, food stamps, and even welfare. 16 At a time when the Mayor's attempting 17 to find jobs for 15,000 people coming off the 18 welfare rolls, it's illogical to lay off 19 productive workers and increase the number of 20 people competing for those very scarce jobs. 21 To me, as a concerned citizen and a 22 union leader, layoffs are a tragedy and they 23 should be a tragedy to you, as public officials, 24 as well. Layoffs represent a failure of our society to provide meaningful productive work for 186 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 our citizens. City Council is frequently confronted with downsizing and plant closings and mergers in the private sector, and there's little you can do but lament the loss of jobs. In the housing agencies, however, you have the power to reverse the situation and to keep the residents working in productive jobs. And what happens to the work the laid-off employees were doing? Don't forget, it takes people to make the Year programs 13 function. The housing agencies have a legal 14 obligation to ensure that all funds provided to 15 outside entities are spent properly and in 16 accordance with all federal, State, and local 17 requirements. 18 There must be a sufficient number of 19 employees to provide professional and technical 20 oversight by the housing agencies. Therefore, it 21 makes no sense for OHCD not to even consider those 22 employees who work for the housing agencies worthy 23 enough to retain the types of jobs that the plan 24 claims to want to retain and create for other citizens. 187 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 I've seen in the past how layoffs and staff reductions result in decreased housing productivity. Layoffs cause an enormous amount of disruption. They require an inordinate amount of time to be spent on such bureaucratic functions as reorganization. The question of who will be laid off next causes a great deal of insecurity among the remaining employees. All of the disruption, which can continue for months, reduces the time and energy that could be spent on housing production. Let me just mention that the union has not objected the PHDC's having the head of the Philadelphia Housing Authority on the contract.
However, we do strenuously object to the layoff of the little people to do the work that PHDC is mandated to perform. In discussions with City Councilpeople, it was recommended that the union indicate where funding would go come from in order to avoid layoffs. Well, I'd like to suggest that we take a look at the Year proposal to subsidize the 24 City's Commerce Department to the tune of $668,000, finance to the tune of $45,000, and the 188 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Law Department for $308,000, and the City Planning Commission in the amount of $339,000. That amount totals $1,363,000, which is more than enough to cover PHDC's budget deficit. I believe that the City should use part of its general fund budget surplus to fully fund these City departments so that employees at PHDC who are primarily funded with CDBG monies do not have to be laid off. And why is the Housing Director ignoring City Council's request to provide the pay increase to OHCD bargaining unit employees? It's my understanding that OHCD is presenting the CDBG Year consolidated plan to City Council because 16 it's legally required to obtain City authorization 17 to apply for CDBG and other funding. 18 Well, as part of last year's CDBG Year 19 23 budget, City Council approved the 3 percent 20 wage increase that OHCD bargaining unit employees 21 should have received effective December 15, 1997. 22 I'm also aware, and I do appreciate the 23 fact that the City Council President has requested 24 that OHCD provide its bargaining unit employees with the approved 3 percent wage increase 189 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 retroactive to December 15, 1997. However, the Housing Director has not yet done so. How can this be? How can the Housing Director continue to ignore the instructions of the elected legislative body of this City? If he can continue to ignore City Council and do whatever he wants, why are we even here today bothering to obtain City Council approval of the Year Plan? 11 In conclusion, OHCD is asking that City 12 Council approve the CDBG Year 24 plan and budget, 13 which inaccurately refers to 3 percent wage 14 increases as substantial, even though they're less 15 than percent of the total operating cost, and 16 proposes to create and retain jobs for low- and 17 moderate-income neighborhood residents while its 18 passage will result in the layoff of low- and 19 moderate-income neighborhood residents who happen 20 to currently work for the housing agencies 21 administer the plan. 22 That's not merely unjust and a 23 travesty, but a complete contradiction of OHCD's 24 stated priorities, as well. 25 On behalf of the affected employees of 190 1 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Local 1971 and District Council 33, we request that City Council require that OHCD provide its bargaining union employees with the approved 3 percent increase retroactive to December 15, 1997, and negotiate a fair and just contract with Local 1971. We also ask that City Council prevent the layoffs of employees at PHDC. If it is necessary to defer action on the CDBG year consolidated plan to accomplish the above, we implore City Council to do so. We of Local 1971 and District Council 33 thank you and City Council for your support. )
Mr. Matthews please identify yourself for the record, and proceed with your testimony.
Yes, Pete Matthews, President of District Council 33. I'm sorry I was a little late. I heard Jeff's speech, and I wholeheartedly agree. And, you know, not to repeat Jeff, what I can't understand is why this contract isn't settled. We had four other contracts, they were settled. 191 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 And I would just hope that this is not some sort of personal vendetta against Jeff, who is a fiery union leader. It seems to be that some of these administrators basically don't like him because he fights for his members. But I can't understand why this is happening. I mean, this contract should be settled. It's not a lot of money. I just don't understand what's going on. And if you want good labor relationships in this city, I don't know why this would happen. So I would implore Council to do whatever it can to get this contract settled, and immediately give them the money that's due. We can probably work on some other things, but to get that money for -- those wages for those members. 'Cause this makes no sense. We're going into the year 2000, and I think going into the year 2000, I think we ought to get some of these things straightened out now. In fact, this is the last contract to be straightened out because, as you know, we're not satisfied with some of the things that have happened to us in the past, and we're prepared to 192 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 deal with that if we have to. And this is not going to help the City's situation at all. If we come into, I believe -- what is your membership, Jeff? How many members is there?
It's 34 members. And, you know, I think should be looked into. I mean, what is this, some kind of vendetta? I mean, 'cause the man works hard for his members. So we would implore City Council, you know, to do what they have to do and, you know, also to understand. You know, just like our officers come up for elections -- and, you know, this is not a threat to anybody here. You know, other people come up for elections too, and we're very political now in District Council 33, and we're going to remember a lot of things that happened to us. As I said, we're very political. These members deserve this money, there's no doubt about it. I mean, if we deserve ours, they definitely deserve theirs, so we're 193 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 talking about 34 members here, you know. So let's, you know, get on the ball and get this settled and give these people a decent contract. Thank you. (Applause.)
Mr. Kromer, is there an arbitrator, to my understanding, that's assigned to this?
Yes, there is. And this is -- it really speaks to your point, Mr. Matthews. There is a State-appointed mediator who has been engaged to work with both parties. The idea of engaging a mediator was the union's proposal. I think it was a good proposal. It was made last year, and the State appointed a mediator. We worked together with that mediator. I think the experience was generally good. We had 17 sessions with the mediator. During the most recent sessions, the mediator expressed some criticism of the conduct of Mr. Brown. And shortly after that time, the mediator was removed. We didn't ask that he be removed, he didn't ask that he be removed. Did Jeff or the union ask that he be removed? I don't 194 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 know, but he's gone after sessions. Now we have a new mediator. We've just begun working with a new mediator. We think she'll be fair, that we can accomplish a lot with this mediator. And we want to do that. As I indicated previously, we have a session coming up on Friday. We take that very seriously, and we want to go forward with that. But Jeff really has to make two decisions. One is whether he wants to go forward with the mediation, which he recommended, and we support it, we like that recommendation; or not. And he's here to say, apparently, no, he does not want to do that; he wants City Council to play a role that Council has not played in other labor negotiations. Secondly, Jeff really has to decide whether, in this situation, he's going to be like SEPTA and TWU, or like SEPTA and UTU. We've got some basic issues to negotiate and we've got to negotiate them. And I've got to speak with you and with my staff and the staff of the City's housing agencies whom I support and respect as a person in 195 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 this room who has the highest legal responsibility to the federal government and to our neighborhoods to implement an effective program. And that's the perspective I've got to take. If I came here today with the 1988 plan for Philadelphia's Community Development Program, you'd send me out the door. By that same token, I'm not willing to concede that contract terms that were established in the 1980s are appropriate for 1998. Everything that each side has described as an issue is an issue that we have to resolve together. We are committed to the economic terms of the contact, we have always been committed. However, we have also been very clear other issues that we had other issues that needed to be negotiated and that we wanted to negotiate those issues. The Mayor has supported this approach. We have coordinated this approach with the City's top labor relations personnel, and we have made our approach clear to the union from the start, as we have made clear our commitment to the economic terms of contract. 196 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Some people have suggested that we release the 3 percent pay increase and that we implement that. Well, we tried something similar twice before, and it didn't work. We released the so-called signing bonus of $1100 as a good-faith effort, expecting that that would be a catalyst to lead to some progress in negotiations. We didn't achieve the progress in the negotiations. We approved have Veterans' Day holiday without any substantial movement in the union. I don't really know of any effective labor relations negotiator who gives away the economics of the contract and then expects to negotiate an appropriate agreement. It just doesn't make sense. We've got to work together. I'm committed to doing that. I think Friday's session can be very productive, and I think that we can conclude discussion on the major issues on Friday if we're both committed to doing that. And to do that, we've got to negotiate. Councilman Cohen I thanked earlier for the time that he devoted to listening to my position the other day and expressing my point of 197 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO.
980228 view and challenging me to think over the contract terms again and our position again. And I did do that. And since Jeff has gotten into quite a bit of detail on the issues, I wanted to take this opportunity to give you a preview of the approach that we will propose to the mediator, which the union had recommended, on Friday just so that you'll have some advance notice of the approach that we intend to take based on my thinking after our meeting. We proposed a four-part approach to deal with major issues that have been on the table. This doesn't address all of the issues, and it is not four proposals; it is a single proposal with four parts. And it addresses the implementation of the 3 percent, new job classifications that the union has requested. C. 33 contract, which consists of merit and a 10 percent seniority credit. 198 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 And then, finally, we think that the layoff language that the mediator herself has drafted is a sensible approach to changing the layoff language. And with one moderate revision, we propose adoption of that language. Those four components of the proposal really would clear the table of some very substantive issues and, I think, enable to us move ahead. And so I wanted you to have that in advance.
Thank you, Mr. Kromer. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
No. 20 I just have great difficulty in understanding Mr. Kromer's position. And in addition, I am terribly disturbed by the notion of layoffs. I can't tell you how many hearings we've had here where the Mayor and all of his 199 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 people have proudly proclaimed that Philadelphia has a no-layoff policy. He keeps telling us time and time again, We accomplished whatever they did through privatization, City Councilman Cohen, see, other Councilmembers, we did it without a single layoff. And, suddenly, I'm confronted with this layoff question, which is separate entirely from the 3 percent. The 3 percent payoff has been agreed to. All that's happening is you're not paying. It it's like going to the bank where you have a small checking account and saying, "I want my money," and they say, "Well, before we give you back your money, you know, we have other things in mind we want you to do." And I would think that that would be outrageous. I would say, "Well, that's my money. You can't have any conditions attached to giving me back my money." I think that's the situation with the 3 percent. I think the money should have been paid when it was due. (Applause.)
And I don't see that 200 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 as an issue to be debated about. There may be other issues -- I'm not up to date, and I don't want to be involved in mediating. The discussion I had with you on Friday was aimed at dealing with something that in the 30 years since I first came into Council till now, I've never seen happen, where a contract with the union by the City has been agreed to. And then suddenly months after things were supposed to happen, we're still talking about making it happen. And so I think they're entitled to that money, no matter what happens in mediation. (Applause.)
I assume the question of these potential layoffs is before you because I think the whole City government has a responsibility in seeing to it that there are no 20 layoffs of City employees. (Applause.)
Maybe there's a technical difference between civil service and non-civil-service, but we haven't made the distinction. All the non-civil-service employees 201 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 have been blanketed in by the Mayor in all of his speeches to us here in City Council. They have all been protected as far as the layoff situation. I don't know what brings this about or why it does, but I have to tell you, I kind of share District Council 33's President, Pete Matthews, that there's something not being put on the table that is responsible for what I think is a very wrong anti-labor, anti-union position by a City agency. (Applause.)
Now, none of this, Madame Chair, none of this is a surprise to Mr. Kromer. He's heard me express these views in public, he's heard me express them in private when we had meetings on the budget that his office was presenting for City Council's consideration. That was the basis of our meeting on Friday. This subject came up incidently to it because I don't think we can deal with the budget problem until we resolve the labor problem. Now, in an unusual amount of conciliation from my point, 'cause I'm not known 202 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 particularly as a conciliator, there was a resolution before us to act, you know, and to condemn publicly the action of OHCD. We withdrew that resolution from action before City Council because we were led to believe that actions were being taken by others, the City Council President, people in the City Solicitor's Office, and elsewhere to deal with this situation. But I think, unless this question of the 3 percent, the other matters, I think properly belong in mediation, but I don't think that 3 percent belongs anywhere except in the pockets of the people. (Applause.)
So, Madame Chair, I think if we don't get an answer by the end of the week, that City Council ought to put back on the agenda, as a top order of priority, that resolution that was before us. We have tried, in the interest of good relations, to deal with it in some other way. But in view of the intransigence of Mr. Kromer, I think we're being left with no other option. Because it's a question of good faith. 203 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Why should these people be punished, be kept from the 3 percent, and we're told it is a big sum, and you know it's not a big sum -- it's a tiny sum, it's less that one 1/10th of 1 percent. It doesn't even amount to 1/10th of 1 percent of the budget. So it's not a significant figure at all. But even if it were, it's money that belongs to them and not to the OHCD. Thank you, Madame Chair. (Standing ovation.)
Just one small comment. All of your comments overlook the fact that collective bargaining is a two-way street. I need, for the benefit of Philadelphia's economy and its neighborhoods, to negotiate a fair contract for OHCD and for Local 1971. I'm committed to doing that.
But that -- the 3 percent has already been negotiated. That we don't seem to get through. I agree. I said that other matters like the layoffs belong in mediation. Because, I'll tell you, I will not 204 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 accept a policy that these people are different from all other people who work for City government. (Applause.)
Neither the Mayor nor I committed to implementing a pay raise without a conclusion of negotiations, and we did not commit to that.
You mean you're not covered by the Citywide negotiations?
We're absolutely committed to that, but we never committed to implement it without concluding the contract negotiations. As I said, no one supports a negotiation position of giving the money away and then trying to negotiate the (unintelligible). No 20 one would support that.
I know, but you can't money that belongs to other people and withhold it from them as a threat in a different negotiation. That 3 percent is not subject to negotiations. 205 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228
It's already been agreed to, and you have no right -- legal or otherwise -- to withhold the money from them. That belongs to them. (Applause.)
Either Mr. Kromer, Madame Chair, I've got to say we either have a government in Philadelphia that keeps the faith with working people, or we've got to do everything necessary to make the present Administration follow fair labor policies. You're -- (Applause.)
Madame Chair, can I respond to a few of the statements that John Kromer had made? First of all, yes, the union had suggested mediation. And if you're aware of collective bargaining, you can use mediation, you don't have to use mediation. You can be using it on one track and do other things on another track. There is nothing that says if you call in 206 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 a mediator that that mediator has to be gospel or what the mediator suggests. There is nothing that says that you can't agree to other things aside from the mediator. And if both parties don't want to agree, then whatever the mediator has to say doesn't really mean anything. There was a proposal that they had made at one point to have fact-finding, which is permitted under the law. We said to them, rather than go through fact-finding, we're willing to do that, but let's go to binding arbitration and have an arbitrator -- like the 111, the police and fire arbitrations -- to resolve the contract. 'Cause the fact-finder can come up with their facts, and then either side can ignore it. Why waste the additional time and money? So when they proposed fact-finding, we responded to them that we were willing to have a neutral come in and arbitrate, but leave that as a binding arbitration. They rejected that. The mediator -- and I'm not going to get into any personal things here, but there are other people who -- 207 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228
No, please don't, because we're not going to mediate the contract here. Just be very general, please.
Okay. I'm not getting in anything, as I said, about the mediator, but it was a common agreement. The mediator -- there was no problem with -- both ourselves and the mediator had no problem with the previous mediator leaving the mediation and someone else coming on. I had wanted to point that out. In addition, John Kromer, if he's been to one of those sessions or two of those sessions -- and we've been having them since '95 -- it's a whole lot. He does not show up at the sessions. He leaves -- and he doesn't have to, I understand that. But he leaves it up to people that have their own way of doing things and their own agendas, and I don't know if they always get back to John on what happens in those negotiations. In addition, let me point out that -- he mentioned that they gave Veterans' Day without getting anything substantial. We negotiated for Veterans' Day, we negotiated, and he knows that. If he were going to be honest, he would know that 208 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Pat Herron (ph.) sat in Pat Herron's office and worked out something on negotiating on Veterans' Day because we were going to have a picket line up if they made us work. We had spoken to Pete Matthews about it, and he suggested that I get together with Pat Herron, and we did. We negotiated that; it was not given out of the goodness of John Kromer's heart. In addition to that, there is nothing that we are asking for -- and all we're asking for is to retain what we have. And what we have is the same language, almost verbatim at the PHDC contract and almost identical with the Redevelopment Authority contract. We're not asking for more; we're asking for what those others agencies that have already negotiated contracts with CDBG money what they already have. John also says that the promotion language they're talking about is the same as District Council's 33 contract. He's never seen District Council 33's contract 'cause it doesn't deal with promotion language. They have a 209 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 civil-service system; we do not. We don't have a civil-service system. (Applause.)
We will not leave their interpretation of merit that has been challenged and lost in arbitration because they don't consider the merit of employees, we will not accept their determination as to what merit is. We don't have civil service, se don't have an objective way of determining that. John also says, Oh, there's a meeting coming up, there's another negotiation. I've heard this time and time again. Yeah, we've had meetings. And what happens is, we go into the meetings, and their position has not changed. Or their position -- we were -- it's really interesting that he handed something out in writing today 'cause since December of last year, we haven't gotten anything in writing from them. I sent them a letter last month saying, Give us your comprehensive proposal in writing 'cause we are not sure what you have on the table. We've given them ours in writing and we've given them whatever were the revised changes. 210 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 And we've made a lot of revisions and we've made a lot of compromises, but until right now -- and I haven't had a chance to look at this -- there was nothing given in writing by them. So, you know, things are not always as John Kromer says. (Applause.)
Councilman Cohen, do you have any further questions? You're light's still on.
I just don't understand the 3 percent holdup. I can understand there can be differences between management and labor that have to be negotiated. And, as the Chair said, we don't negotiate contracts, but what we're trying to enforce is a commitment already made by the City with respect to that wage increase, and there's no 20 reason, no reason at all, why that wage increase can't be made in the very next paycheck -- (Applause.)
-- while the negotiations continue on. (Applause.) 211 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228
Good faith -- Madame Chair, just one moment. Good-faith negotiations on these other issues can't -- there's no way of achieving it as long as you take the position that we're going to hold their money as a penalty to use against them to force a concession on their part which they might not be willing to concede in good-faith bargaining. You're holding them hostage, and it makes no sense whatsoever. (Applause.)
With all due respect, could I just note for the record, if the tables were reversed, I think union people would be quite upset if their leadership negotiated a contract on all the terms of employment and working conditions and said we'll wait till later to reach some agreement on the money part of the package. There are two parts, in my understanding, to labor negotiates -- the money 212 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 package, and the terms and conditions of employment. So, again, for the record, I think we have to be clear, that's my understanding of contract negotiations. The two are inextricably linked, and you need an agreement on the whole package.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. (Booing by audience members.)
Thank you, Madame Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Brown and Mr. Matthews. Based on these four points then as of Friday, there's an opportunity to again deal with the wage increase. All of these issues will be on the table on Friday, is that clear? So that we have an opportunity?
'Cause I've talked with both sides. And, quite frankly, I've kind of heard the same thing from both sides. And 213 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 it's been a while, it's been a while, I know, and things have gone on. And it's trying when things don't change. In fact, I talked with Mr. Kromer as recently as yesterday and I've talked with Jeff Brown, and he said the same thing about mediators and that sort of thing over the past several months. So then on Friday, what will happen? Can we hope to have a settlement that would deal with all of these issues?
If we can reach an agreement on the proposal that I distributed or something like it, we can go ahead with what is described in that proposal and negotiate the other issues, the other outstanding issues separately, but go forward with everything that is described in that handout, and that is what I'd like to do. I realize that Local 1971 will probably want to have some time to consider this, talk it over, and so on. We have a couple of days to do that, and I expect there should be more discussion with the mediator. But my hope is that we would resolve 214 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 all of these issues in a package on Friday.
Yeah. As I said, we haven't gotten anything in writing from them since December. For them to come here now in front of City Council and say, Oh, these are what we're going to propose, we have other thing on the table, number one. Number two, the items that I -- I haven't even taken a look at this because I've just gotten it right now. But, again, the items that we're taking about, they're proposing things regarding promotion language, and we haven't had a grievance on promotion language in over a decade. They're proposing changes among temporary appointments, and I didn't want to get into this detail, but since he handed the things out, I, you know I'm going. They're talking about excluding people -- temporary employees from the bargaining unit. This is a bargaining unit of 34 -- how many people do they want to exclude? OHCD has 85 or 90 people. We're only a small part -- we only represent a small part of 215 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 OHCD anyway, and we can -- we do have grievances on their exempt employees doing our work anyway, you know. And they also want to decrease retiree health benefits, things that nobody in District Council 33 had to agree to last time. And, remember, in '92, we made significant concessions, and we were willing to go along with District Council 33 and make those concessions. We don't know why, when we haven't had grievances over certain language issues, now they're coming back and asking for non -- some people, they say it's economic; other people, they say, it's non-economic of the issues. I don't know exactly what their issues are, and I don't know what's going to happen on Friday till we actually get to the table on Friday and find out. But just 'cause they hand something out. It doesn't mean that's what we're going to be -- that's what we're going to accept. We have to review it, we have to determine what is best for our members, because the position that they have taken -- (Applause.) 216 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228
The position that they have taken -- had taken up to this point -- and as I said, I haven't looked at this language yet. Our members, these people that are residents of the neighborhoods, that are your constituents in Council, that are low- and moderate-income people, they deserve much, much better than that. And OHCD wasn't going to give it to 'em.
Mr. Kromer, are you going to be at the scheduled meeting on Friday? You will personally be there?
I learned yesterday that I have to be away on Friday. A member of my family passed away, and I will be at a memorial service. So I will be out on Friday.