Um, fabulous. Now back to yesterday (6/29):
Note the verbiage. "Lacks a commitment" from the Coordinators to support the amendments. When I receive the e-mail blast I may update this post.
Another note: Some of you will recall that The Post-Gazette got queasy over these adult negotiations regarding our city's well-being. Part of this attitude stemmed from an a belief that the Council "gave away its authority" at some point or another; most of it came from skepticism about the amendments' costs. I can only reiterate what I wrote in my long Act 47 post -- few of them sounded anything like the budget-busters some insist on maintaining that they are. Many of them simply mandate forms of operational discipline and professionalism -- many look to be cost-savers, though those effects have not been exhaustively determined.
Now, if it comes to the point where an agreement is not actually reached tomorrow: here are the funds the Act 47 Coordinators may consider petitioning the Secretary of the DCED to withhold in escrow from Pittsburgh until such time it does adopt a new Recovery Plan:
* 2007 and 2008 Main Street Grants: $1,000,000
* 2009 Main Street and Elm Street Grants: $500,000 anticipated
* 2007 HRA Grant: $2,070,550
* 2008 HRA Grant: $6,711,600
* 2009 HRA Grant: $5,000,000 or more anticipated
* 2007 Enterprise Zone Grant: $95,000
* 2009 PEMA Grant: $3,000,000
* Future DCED grants
* RCAP funds
* Liquid Fuels funds
* Recycling grants
* Support for BBI training, energy conservation
For what it's worth, I personally cannot imagine that Act 47 would withhold money for training in the Bureau of Building Inspection (BBI) for example, given their own alarming reports on the subject. Councilman Dowd asserted that "the vast majority" of the above fall into the category of U.R.A.-distributed funds. It is not known to me at what time the U.R.A. would be regularly scheduled to be in receipt of such funds, or at what time they would thereafter disperse them.