►
Description
Meeting of Council's Committee of the Whole to hear testimony on the following bills/resolutions: Bill Nos. 160170, 160171, and 160172 & Resolution No. 160180 regarding the FY2017 Capital Budget.
Testimony from:
Members of the public.
City Finance Director Rob Dubow
http://phlcouncil.com/FY17-council-budget-center
A
This
time
she
would
like
to
recognize
councilman.
Oh
thank
you
very
much.
Council
president.
With
your
permission,
I
will
introduce
a
amendment
during
the
public
meeting
portion,
but
during
the
public
hearing,
I
would
like
to
address
it
and
explain
why
I'm
introducing
the
amendment
please
do
councilman.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
am
setting
up
some
charts
that
I'll
refer
to,
but
I'm
just
gonna
read
from
a
op-ed
that
I
had
wrote,
earned
distributed
last
night.
A
There's
good
news
for
both
sides
of
the
soda
tax
debate
and
for
the
rest
of
our
citizens.
There's
enough
money
in
the
current
proposed
budget
to
fund
the
administration's
new
programs
without
raising
taxes.
That's
because
Philadelphia's
budgeting
process
has
historically
included
large
sums
of
money
parked
in
departments
for
for
future
use
without
identifying
the
purposes
for
which
they
will
be
used.
Regular,
regardless
of
whether
people
approve
of
how
the
money
is
ultimately
spent.
A
The
problem
is
that
they
are
not
able
to
voice
their
opinion
on
how
these
funds
should
be
spent
if
they
should
be
spent
at
all.
Here's
how
it's
done
every
year,
Council
approves
requests
to
fun,
city
departments,
the
admit
administration
budgets,
far
more
money
for
certain
departments
than
it
will
actually
allow
them
to
spend
later.
The
administration
will
request
that
the
extra
money
be
transferred
and
spent
for
some
other
purpose.
The
cycle
repeats
itself
in
each
year.
A
Funds
are
over
allocated,
excess
funds
are
reallocated,
and
then
they
are
spent
for
reasons
not
identified
in
the
budget.
That's
why
I'm
introducing
a
budget
amendment
to
stop
this
cycle
and
use
the
excess
money
to
fund
new
programs
without
raising
taxes?
As
of
today,
my
staff
has
uncovered
180
million
dollars
in
likely
disguised
over
allocations
in
the
proposed
2017
budget.
103
million
of
these
tax
dollars
can
be
reallocated
to
fund
new
programs
such
as
universal
pre-k
and
Parks
and
Recreation
infrastructure
repairs.
A
Otherwise
more
money
will
be
collected
from
citizens
than
is
needed
and
used
later
for
some
purpose.
Other
than
stated,
my
staff
has
calculated
the
average
difference
between
budgeted
and
actual
amounts
of
spending
in
each
department.
Over
the
past
seven
years,
we
found
that
one
office
was
allocated
an
average
of
nine
percent
more
than
it's
spent
over
the
past
seven
years
and
transferred
a
total
of
55
million
dollars.
Over
that
time,
another
office
was
allocated
72
percent
more
than
its
spent
for
material
supplies
and
equipment
in
2014
and
32
percent.
A
More
than
it
spent
in
2015,
a
commission
was
allocated
10
million
dollars
or
more
then
it's
been
every
year
over
the
past
seven
years,
which
would
be
about
70
million
dollars
in
over
allocations.
Finally,
one
line
item
in
the
budget
was
allocated
a
total
of
66
million
dollars
between
2014
and
2015,
and
none
of
those
funds
were
spent
for
that
purpose.
A
By
simply
applying
the
7
year
percentage
differential
in
spending
to
department
requests
each
year
we
can
cut
180
million
dollars
from
the
proposed
4.1
billion
dollar
budget
without
reducing
one
penny
of
actual
services
and
support,
but
in
order
to
be
cautious,
I
reduce
the
180
million
dollar
figure
to
approximately
103
million
by
evaluating
budget
items.
According
to
each
department's
pattern
of
spending,
some
departments
have
demonstrated
improved
ability
to
manage
their
funding,
and
so
I
did
not
propose
reducing
the
requested
funding.
A
On
the
other
hand,
I've
proposed
reducing
budgeted
allocations
for
departments
that
have
not
shown
improvement
in
managing
their
funding,
adjusting
line
items
to
a
more
realistic
figure
of
what
they
will
actually
use.
Why
is
103
million
out
of
4.1
billion
in
the
overall
budget
important
to
the
citizens,
because
extra
programs,
for
example,
26
million
dollars
for
universal
pre-k,
4.2
million
for
Community
Schools,
require
extra
money,
and
unless
that
money
comes
out
of
the
existing
budget,
additional
revenues
is
needed
through
borrowing,
taxes
and
fees.
That
means
additional
and
unnecessary
burdens
are
placed
on
our
citizens.
A
The
over-allocated
100
we've
identified
far
surpasses
revenue
projections
for
the
first
year
of
the
administration
soda
tax,
which
is
48
million
and
councils
projections
of
the
first
year,
costs
of
pre-k,
Community,
Schools
and
rebuilding
infrastructure,
which
is
60
million.
In
fact,
if
we
save
this
money
each
year
by
budgeting
and
spending
more
efficiently,
we
would
raise
515
million
in
the
same
amount
of
time
that
the
administration
would
raise
432
million
for
pre-k
and
community
infrastructure
through
the
soda
tax.
We
need
good
programs.
A
We
should
do
our
best
to
support
the
new
administration
whenever
possible,
but
we
also
need
jobs,
opportunities,
new
investment
and
better
fiscal
accountability
from
our
government
to
our
citizens.
Otherwise,
we'll
end
up
with
none
of
the
above,
but
the
citizens
will
pay
the
tab.
If
you
want
our
city
to
move
forward
with
universal
pre-k,
Community
Schools
improvement
in
parks
and
recreation
facilities
and
rebuild
community
infrastructure,
your
wish
can
come
true.
You
don't
have
to
believe
that
you
need
to
pay
extra
for
it.
Let's
get
the
city's
budgeting
in
order
before
we
resort
to
increasing
taxes.
A
Council
president
I'd
like
to
point
to
the
two
charts
they
illustrate
that
one
hundred
two
point:
four
eight
six
million
dollars
in
over
allocations
could
be
reallocated
from
the
budget
for
the
programs.
That's
only
2%
of
the
4.1
billion
dollar
proposed
budget
and
the
next
two
charts
will
demonstrate.
For
example,
one
of
the.
A
Departments
which
is
a
sinking
fund,
if
you
look
at
the
the
blue,
that
is
the
the
amount
of
money
that
it
has
requested,
or
the
amount
of
money
that
has
been
allocated
to
that
fund.
The
red
is
the
actual
amount
of
money
it
spends.
The
red
and
the
blue
have
no
correlation
money
is
put
in
there.
Money
is
spent
from
there
there's
an
excess
over
that
time.
I
think
2009
to
2015
of
about
53
million
dollars.
That
appears
to
me
to
a
department
that
holds
money
for
other
purposes.
A
The
problem
is
that
city
government
operates
in
one-year
terms
and
five
year
plans.
When
you
look
at
that
last
chart,
it
will
show
you
that
the
cigarette
tax
will
sunset
in
2019,
and
the
proposed
soda
tax
in
red
will
provide
a
level
of
money
in
addition
to
the
blue,
which
is
the
revenues
that
we
that
is
in
accordance
with
the
five-year
plan.
We
do
not
have
a
number
for
22
and
23
2020
to
2023,
but
from
testimony
from
the
administration
during
the
Nutter
years
and
now
under
Kenny.
A
The
testimony
has
been
that
when
the
pike
wage
tax
sunsets
in
2023,
it's
going
to
put
a
350
million
dollar
hole
in
the
budget,
so
I've
reduced
the
anticipated
revenues
by
350
million
dollars.
When
you
compare
that
to
what's
on
the
right,
that
is
the
amount
of
obligations
that
the
city
has
the
red.
On
top
of
that
is
the
school
district
debt?
It's
not
it's
not,
it
doesn't
add
up
altogether.
Each
year
the
debt
grows
until
it
is
at
six
hundred
million
dollars
in
2021.
A
When
you
look
at
2021,
the
school
district
is
short
six
hundred
million
dollars,
and
we
have
typically
and
historically
shouldered
that
burn,
because
the
state
does
not
put
in
its
fair
share.
We
will
probably
have
to
do
that
again
when
you
look
at
2023
on
top
of
that
six
hundred
million
dollars,
if
that's
not
taken
care
of
there,
will
be
three
hundred
fifty
million
dollars
missing
from
our
budget.
A
I
believe
that
it
would
be
wise
of
us
to
look
at
2023,
because
that
is
the
last
year
of
the
second
term
of
the
administration
and
we'll
whose
continuity
of
the
possibly
of
the
city
officials
that
are
looking
at
this
issue,
so
with
that
I
would
I
would
like
to
present
a
amendment
to
the
budget
that
relies
on
money
that
is
currently
in
the
budget
that
is
not
allocated
I,
don't
believe
for
the
purposes
that
they
have
been
categorized.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.