COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400 City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:45 a.m. - - - Res. 000041 - Hearings on the dangers and damage caused by the deterioration of retaining walls driveways, and alleys. . . Bill 000660 - Amending Section 11-506 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Alleys, Driveways and Retaining Walls," by providing additional methods by which the City may pay contractors PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Vice Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 11/21/00 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE I N D E X Page Res. 000041 Ted Dallas, Managing Director's Office. . . . 4 Paul Lonie, Streets Department. . . . . . . . 11 Michael Carroll, VERSA-LOK Representative . . 52 Willie Seward, Past President of Hapco. . . . 69 Michael Moffitt, Berks Street/Euclid Street 76 Bill 000660 Paul Lonie, Streets Department. . . . . . . . 90 Ted Dallas, Managing Director's Office. . . . 91 3 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 P R O C E E D I N G S
We will be hearing one new bill today, and we'll also be taking additional testimony on Resolution 000041 from a prior hearing, which was recessed for the purpose of conducting the continuation of the resolution. With us this morning are my colleagues Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Cohen, Councilman Clarke, myself, who is the chair of the committee, which establishes a quorum, and we also have in attendance Councilman Michael Nutter. The clerk will read the title of the bill. We'll do the bill and then we'll go back to the resolution, which is the retaining walls. What do you think, Paul, does it matter?
Resolution No. 21 000041? The clerk will read the title of the resolution.
Resolution No. 000041, authorizing the Council's Committee on Streets and Services to hold hearings on the dangers and 4 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 damage caused by the deterioration of retaining walls, driveways, and alleys, and the complications involved in coordinating necessary repairs by abutting property owners, and to determine the scope of these dangerous conditions throughout the City and the cost to repair them; and further authorizing the committee to formulate a program to correct these hazardous and dangerous conditions in neighborhoods through the City.
Dallas, D-A-L-L-A-S. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm here today to provide you with an overview of the strategy that we have come up with regarding the repair of retaining walls and common driveways. With me is Paul Lonie of the Streets Department, who can answer any questions that you might have about the actual repair process. I would first like to emphasize that 5 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 the Administration believes that retaining walls and common walls are private property and, therefore, not the City's responsibility. As a result, no funding has been made available at this time for their repair. We are here today because Council's asked to us come up with a plan to repair retaining walls and common driveways with the assumption that funding would be made available. Please note that the Administration continues to believe that these matters are best dealt with by private homeowners. That notwithstanding, should the City choose to proceed, our plan to repair these structures is as follows: As you may be aware, the previous process for repairing retaining walls called for private contractors to repair retaining walls and then to seek payment from homeowners on either side of the retaining wall. Since this process required contractors to collect payments themselves, it became virtually impossible to find anyone who would be willing to complete the work. Our proposal would be to reverse this process 6 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 through the creation of a $3 million revolving loan fund. Through this loan fund --
Would be to reverse the process through the creation of a loan fund of approximately $3 million. Through this loan fund, the City would contract with private contractors to repair the retaining walls and common driveways on blocks, where at least 75 percent of residents on the street agree to participate in the program. And Paul will outline the process for how we would get that, you know --
Is that revolving loan similar to what we do -- to what the Water Department does, as an example, for --
Councilman Cohen asked the question, what does that mean? In certain instances, when the Streets Department and the Water Department are making repairs or reconstructing a particular street, and there is damage to the lateral, as an example, that leads 7 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 into the private property of an individual, the property owner's notified that they're in violation and that they have to make the necessary improvements to the lateral. And many times, folks are in a position where they're not able to afford to get the work done immediately. And in order to come -- be in compliance, the Water Department offers a no-interest, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong --
I thought it was no-interest, but it could be a very low-interest loan to the property owner, pay that over a period of time, which makes it more affordable for the individual or the family to be able to meet the requirements of the code. And they do it in such a way that it's, in most cases, I think, allows for people to be able to buy into the program without really affecting the cost of living on a daily basis.
I believe that the -- the Water Department is the lender? 8 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
The question is, are payments -- who is the lender and to whom are payments made?
Well, I believe it would be to the City through the -- we would administer it through the Streets Department or, you know, I think we'd -- whatever the fashion the Water Department used, we'd probably model it on something very similar to that.
Yeah, the Water Department and/or Streets Department, I'm not sure of the actual mechanics of it, but the money is lent through their department and is paid back to them. And, again, it's over -- yeah, I mean, I've had several of those blocks where most of the folks were senior citizens and living on fixed income, and a $1,000 or a $1500 plumbing job would really be beyond what they could afford to do immediately, even when we, the City, would do the work and then have like a five-, ten-year payout, I'm not sure of the exact terms, but, it's spread out over a long enough period of time where it's 9 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 manageable for them to be able to afford it.
Well, is there -- I was wondering what -- I'm wondering whether there are any regulations or anything in writing that describes the program including, say, to whom is the payment made. Say, if a person is sending a check or a money order, who do they write is the payee?
Councilman, if you could let me finish up my testimony, Paul, I think, can address some of that stuff.
It sounds like a very fine program; I'm just interested in getting the details.
Okay. All right, under this proposal, program participants would pay their share of the repair costs through a four-year low-interest loan or through an up-front lump-sum payment equal to approximately 90 percent of the total amount of the loan. The table that I had submitted with my 10 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 testimony shows that we estimate the City could use this fund to make approximately $9.5 million worth of repairs over years for an initial 5 investment of only $3 million. Assuming that the 6 City would repair retaining walls and common 7 driveways in a ratio of approximately 1 to 2, this 8 means that we could repair approximately 30 9 retaining walls and 58 or 60 common driveways in 10 the first year of the program alone, and repair as many as 190 retaining walls and 365 common driveways over 10 years. Without the creation of the loan fund, this investment of 3 million would only provide for the repair of approximately 60 retaining walls and 115 driveways in total. And that's just based on the assumption that we would go in a 1-to-2 ratio. I think it would mostly be driven by the what the actual requests were and that kind of stuff. Just for the purposes of trying to figure out what we could do, I just made an assumption of 1-to-2. Paul Lonie, from the Streets Department, can describe in a little more detail how we would envision this process to work.
Excuse me for 11 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 interrupting.
I stand corrected. I thought we needed four for a quorum; I understand we need five. The Council President, Anna Verna, is here now, and I believe she will be making an appointment of Michael Nutter to this committee so that we will, in fact, establish a quorum. Good morning, Madam President.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Resolution No. 000041: The Streets Department believes that the loan fund described earlier would be a viable method for addressing retaining walls now and in the future. At this time, the development of a 12 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 new material, VERSA-LOK, which I have some representatives of this company here today with us, has allowed the Department to substantially reduce the estimated cost of these repairs and make the program relatively affordable. VERSA-LOK IS PennDOT-approved and HAS AN expected useful life of 35 to 50 years. Should this program be implemented, we would like to set up the following system for Councilmatic requests, AND I think this is kind of importance: The District Councilperson should submit a written request for the repair of the driveways to the Streets Commissioner. The Streets Commissioner will review the requests and assign it to the driveway and alley coordinator, an already-established position within the Streets Department. A community meeting will be established by the Streets Department, and notice of the meeting will be sent to the abutting property owners. The community meeting will include the alley and driveway coordinator, the district surveyor, a representative of the requesting District Council Councilmember's staff, and all 13 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 interested abutting owners. The district surveyor will provide a price estimate for the repair at this meeting at this meeting. At this meeting, the abutting property openers will be appraised of their responsibilities and the total cost of their repair and their ability to do this on their own if they feel it's necessary. The abutting owners will also receive an approximate individual assessment. At the conclusion of the community meeting, a petition will be left for the abutting owners to sign. At least 75 percent of the abutting owners must be in favor of the necessary repairs in order to proceed. Should this majority be reached, the petition will be returned to the requesting District Council office; the District Councilmember should then forward the petitions to the Streets Commissioner. Upon receiving the completed petition, the Streets Department will contact by written request the Health Department for condemnation of the driveway or wall. Upon receiving a written request, at that point in time, the Streets 14 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 Department will, based on a variety of factors, including public safety issues and available funding, put the project on a prioritized list. City Council will be provided a copy of that list on a quarterly basis. Thank you. That concludes the formal testimony, and we'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lonie, thank you for your testimony. I just have a couple questions. You mentioned that at least 75 percent of the abutting homeowners must be in favor of the necessary repairs in order to proceed. Can you tell me a little bit about that and how that was developed. And isn't that a fairly high, if not, in some instances, almost insurmountable standard?
Well I think that 15 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 percentage is the same percentage the Streets Department uses to close a block for a block party. I think it was felt by the Administration that --
What's it cost to close a block to throw a block party?
Oh, okay. Have you ever had one that lost the 75 percent referendum?
All right, we could do that. I think it was felt by the Administration that this was a percentage that they felt if that amount of folks were in favor of doing this, that they would then agree to pay the money back from this loan fund; and, therefore, the loan fund itself would be viable, allowing other driveways and alleys to be -- to be finished. It might not be done if a lesser majority was in favor of this.
I understand. Let 16 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 me ask you a couple questions about other programs that we have. First, how many -- how many signatures or how many people do you need to agree to have a street repaved?
And how many people do you need to agree to get a house demolished?
Okay, and some of these driveways and retaining walls are dangerous, right?
Some of them would be public safety issues in that we would have to take a look at doing them even if you didn't get the 75 percent; and in that case, we would probably have 17 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 to lien the property owners, you know, for the value of the repair, if it was a public safety issue.
Right. And, I mean, to change a direction of a street or get permit parking, what are the standards for those in terms of neighborhood participation?
That -- that's a -- a trial period. For the changing of directions of a street, it's -- there's no requirement.
Councilman, I think that -- I mean, one of the primary reasons behind that was the hope that we would keep the loan fund actually revolving. If it was lower than that and we didn't get the kind of repayment that we had, the program could still go forward; it would just -- the loan fund would run out of money, and we wouldn't be able to --
I understand that. I am tremendously sensitive, and I was sharing with my colleague Councilman Clarke, please try to understand that, I mean, notwithstanding for the most part any of my questions, and if we at times seem to be crossing comments or swords, you have 18 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 to understand that it's in the context of this is something that myself and many other Councilmembers, even way before me, have worked on. And to this administration's credit, this is the first time that, in my view at least, this much time, attention and dedication and even a program, or the elements of a program, have been put forward and testified to. So I mean, that, I think, needs to be laid out and you should get the appropriate credit for that. Having said that, there is elements of a program and then there's a program, so at least we've defined the box and, now we're going to argue a little bit the details in the box and some of the operational aspects. One of my concerns about that number is, and I'm mindful of your concern about you want the fund to revolve; you don't want it to go out there and never come back.
Part of my problem, though, is that in many neighborhoods, they don't necessarily have the strongest, if you will, home ownership responsibility, which, in many cases, is 19 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 why some of these problems have been outstanding for 10, 15, 20, and in one particular instance, and you might hear from one of my constituents, years. In that situation, many of the 6 residents are not necessarily the homeowners. And 7 so, in that case, they're not necessarily 8 particularly responsive. 9 I think part of our dilemma is, how do 10 we make sure that we have a program that functions 11 and operates the way we want to and revolves, 12 versus how do we solve serious public safety 13 problems? Because while we're trying to figure 14 out how to make sure the fund revolves, we have 15 children and adults, and we used to have City 16 workers who long ago decided that they weren't 17 going to use the driveway behind the 5200 block of 18 Berks Street for fear of their own safety, but it 19 still represents a very serious public safety 20 issue. And so while we're trying to figure out 21 operational issues, we still have an outstanding 22 serious problem. 23 What I'm trying to figure out, without 24 a whole lot of the back and forth, is how do we 25 solve the one problem while making sure that our 20 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 program doesn't bog down from possible non-repayment. The goal certainly is to have the money and have revolving dollars, but I think our ultimate goal is to make the City a safer place and upgrade the quality of life in communities, and I think the latter should outweigh the former. So that's what my concern is with regard to the 75 percent standard. And if that becomes a barrier to getting public safety work done, then I think that defeats, quite honestly, part of the reason that we're doing this in the first place.
Well, I agree with you, Councilman. I think my testimony might have -- is a little remiss 'cause I had left it out. I think that we always envisioned anything that was actually a public safety hazard that the City --
I'm sorry. Anything that was a public safety hazard, that we would have a process where we would have to lien the homeowner to abate that public safety hazard, just as we lien buildings that we're going to demolish that 21 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 are dangerous and that kind of thing and --
Well, tell me a little more about that then. I'm -- I'm -- you're intriguing me now. What are you proposing in that situation? So are you making a distinction between, let's say, a wall or a driveway that's been condemned and is deemed to be a public health or safety hazard by either the Board of Health or the Streets Department versus you get a letter from a group of constituents and they say, Well, you know, our driveway is, you know, kind of messed up, or we think our retaining wall, you know, looks ugly, or we got a tree growing through it or something like that and we'd like to have some work done. Is a distinction being made between kind of regular and routine things that may need to be done versus this is a public safety, imminently dangerous situation, and we're going to immediately take action to abate it?
I think the answer is a mixture of that. I think that in the reality of how much money we have to spend with this fund, 22 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 there's obviously a priority. The first priority would be public safety. Within that and within -- depending on the type of condition, depending on the hazard, and depending on the funds available, those would be the first priority. And given situations where, you know, the danger is at a certain point, then I could foresee going in and liening those properties to get the property owners to be in compliance.
I'm sorry, I'm a little bit (unintelligible) on that question.
Has there always been the case that in that past, when we had a very active program, that part of that program involved a finding by the City that there was danger and that the area was condemned? Wasn't that the basis for the action? The Streets Department would send out investigators? And the only time there would be action would be when there was a finding of public danger because each homeowner would then get a letter from the City 23 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 saying that the properties were condemned and that they had to take action, and that was the basis of finally getting the -- most of the people in the community at that time, they were homeowners -- together or all in agreement to pay the contractor. That's in the days when there was a private contractor. So the -- the -- and there's always been this element of public safety. The City never got involved if it was only a matter of convenience or a desire to take care of a little problem. It was only when there was a serious problem such as City trucks not being able to go in for fear of danger or any other kind of public safety danger. Isn't that the case?
That's correct, Councilman Cohen. Under State law, we cannot abate this nuisance unless it's been condemned, the nuisance itself, by the Department of Health. The properties aren't condemned; the driveway or the wall or the alley is condemned. And, therefore, under State law, we couldn't go in and abate that nuisance.
Well -- and I think 24 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 that's what we're talking about.
The total range -- I think every case that we would be concerned about would be a case of abating a nuisance because that's when it becomes a real problem.
I think that one of the things I need to emphasize again is that this whole discussion is based on the assumption that there is some way the City could provide funding for this loan fund. At this time, the Administration still believes that this is private property and an issue that's best dealt with by the homeowners. This whole discussion we're having here is, you asked us to come up with a plan should funding be made available, and that's what we did. And I just think that we all --
But all within the concept of abating nuisances. Never -- from my knowledge, never from the point of view that the homeowners would prefer to have a repaving 'cause it would look better, you know, or there was some minor imperfection that they wanted to take care 25 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 of. It was always within the concept of abating nuisance, and I think that's what the problem is today. The nuisances have grown until they have become big public nuisances.
You referred to the back driveways, back alleys as private property?
The common driveways, I believe -- I mean, the Law Department has said that they are private properties.
Did the Sanitation Division get permission from the private property owners to collect refuse in those back alleys? 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 Which, in my opinion, has contributed a lot to the damage, because the Streets Department has upgraded the size of those vehicles, and each time they ordered new ones, they got bigger and bigger and bigger, and those back driveways were never designed to support that heavy a load. So I think that there's an area there, you know, where maybe some of this damage was done by the City of Philadelphia.
Well, I can't disagree that the trucks did cause some damage. But surprisingly enough, those driveways were designed with exactly the same specifications that streets are. And it's not the design of the driveway that caused them to erode; it's the underlying ground, and that's why some driveways last 70, 80 years if it's on good solid ground. Other ones don't last as long. And about your other question, yeah, we would only collect trash in a driveway that the property owners have requested us to go there. We have no authority to go up those driveways without being invited. And in every case, we are invited. And if people don't want us to do that 27 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 anymore, then we can go out and collect in the front, but most people and our own employees don't want to do that 'cause there's no cars going by and it's a lot safer to collect trash in a driveway.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to respond to a couple of statements that you made with respects to Councilman Nutter's question on street paving and the direction change of streets. I was always told, both as a constituent services person and as a Councilperson, that -- particularly on street directional changes, that a petition was required by the residents of the block. Are you now saying that that's not the case?
No, no. A petition is required, but I'm not sure exactly of the specific number of people that have to be on there, but it's also -- it's generally, if the people want to do that but a Councilmember can request that and 28 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 we'll do what we call a trial period for eight months, and if we receive no complaints and everything like that, then we'll submit an ordinance.
Without any resident participation on that block, you would do a trial period?
I'm not really sure. You really need to deal with the traffic code or talk to Charlie Trainor about the specific numbers. I'm not sure.
But you have to talk to Charlie Trainor about that stuff.
I'm not really sure. I don't want to give a specific answer. And, again, the Councilman asked me on something like that, and the percentage on that, I'm not sure. If 29 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 anywhere, it would probably be in the traffic code. And we could -- I could let you know about that.
All right. And I was also told that about street paving. It apparently expedites that request is what I was told, if you could get the residents of the block.
Well, it does -- we try to set up the repaving program on a three-year basis. So we look three years out, and if we get special Councilmatic requests for some of those streets, if you receive a petition from a certain block that says, This is really a mess, come out and do it, we'll accelerate that a little bit, but it's not a requirement in there.
It's just something that helps us to know on a small street that we might not necessarily see that this needs to be done before another one does.
Mm-hmm. Getting back to question about the public safety issue with respects to retaining walls, and you may not be able to answer this question, and I don't know 30 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 if there's anybody from the Mayor's office, but in my particular district, I have this phenomenon of trees in backyards that often find themselves in public property, in the yards of individuals and sometimes in alley ways. And they are what I would deem as both a public nuisance and a public safety issue 'cause too often, after a storm, they fall. And I happen to have a situation -- a friend of mine -- where the tree -- I guess the tree is maybe 40 feet tall and has fallen across the fences of the rear. And the property owner in that particular case does not have the wherewithal financially to get that tree removed so it sits on everybody's fence back there. And, I guess, my question is -- and, again, I say you might not be able to respond to it. If somehow the retaining walls are deemed a public nuisance or safety issues, clearly a tree of that size and that magnitude can be construed to be a public safety issue. I would look to have the Administration come up with somewhat of a draft of a plan to address those problems, 'cause I have -- in my particular district, that is 31 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 increasingly the biggest issues as it relates privately-owned property, but individuals not having the wherewithal financially to resolve those issues. So if you can call the Commissioner, I guess that would be under the purview of L&I or the --
Yeah, I'm not sure of all of the issues. Maybe after this hearing, we can kind of talk about it and we can have someone go take a look at it and see whether it's private property or whether -- what we can and can't do in that area.
I don't know the answer to that right now, but if you give me a few more details about it, some specific locations, we can take a look, you know, would take a look and kind of get back to you about what we can and can't do there. 32 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
I've been able to get that every now and then, but I would like to see you address it more in a broader policy-related issue.
The question of the numbers that appear in your statement, the numbers of common driveways and retaining walls that would be covered, how does that stack up with your estimate of what the City need is? You say that over one year, you could do, with your proposed 33 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 revolving fund, you could do 30 retaining walls and 58 common driveways, and then give us a quota for years of 365 common driveways. I don't 5 know why the total shouldn't be 580, if 58 would 6 be done in the first year. Multiplying that 7 number by 10, I come up with 580. And with the 8 retaining walls, I come up with 300, and not 190. 9 But I wonder how those numbers compare 10 to the need in the City. And I would urge the City, as a secondary to that statement, to reconsider its question as to private property. I think it's a public safety problem and I think it's a public use problem. In general when properties get in disrepair and become abandoned, they become the responsibility of the City if they fall down, and the City's subject to all kinds of lawsuits if people are injured. So I don't know how anyone could possibly say that that's just private property and is the private owner's responsibility. The fact is that it's the City that's the insurer of last resort if there are any kind of problems. So the City definitely has an interest. We don't have to decide, you know, the 34 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 relative interest between the property owner and the City. And I'm in favor of the homeowner bearing some financial responsibility, but we have to take into account the needs of the homeowner. So first you would address the question of where you arrived at the numbers. Or did I -- was I out sick in the 2nd grade when I learned how to multiply? (Laughter.)
No, you're not -- no, you weren't. Basically, you -- first let me just go through how we kind of arrived at those projections. First, there's an assumption that the average retaining wall would be approximately $25,000. That's our assumption right now for retaining wall repair. And that a common driveway would cost about $13,000. So based on those assumptions, we set a 1-to-2 ratio. The reason why the numbers don't wind up being a -- don't double what -- aren't double what they are when you get out there is, also included in the numbers that are included with the testimony is the assumption that we thought it 35 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 would be more realistic to assume that not all of the loans would be repaid, that we would have a little trouble collecting or at least there would be delayed payments on some of them if people did not pay. You know, even if we had 75 percent said yes, that means percent might not be involved 8 and 75 percent may say yes and we may not get 9 repayment. 10 So the numbers that are here assume 11 that 80 percent of the people who live along the 12 retaining wall would contribute -- would 13 participate in the program. So, therefore, over 14 time, you'd have to manage the loan fund so that 15 we didn't spend more than we were taking in, and 16 that over time, the numbers would decrease. And 17 that is based -- and that's just a -- if a 18 100 percent payback -- we got a 100 percent 19 payback, we could fix more and we could pay for 20 more retaining walls. It's a function of how much 21 we actually get paid back and when the cash comes 22 in. 23 And then, I guess, in regard to your 24 second question, which was the need out there, we 25 know that there's approximately -- I think we know 36 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 of, I think, 90? -- 90 walls. And I think that Paul can obviously speak to this better than I can. That if did -- between what the Streets Department could physically handle in terms of doing in the first year and that kind of stuff, that 30 would help us get to the really -- some of the ones that were bigger problems early on in the first year or maybe a year and a half; and then from there on, we could have something that, you know, as time progresses and more retaining walls would enter the system, we'd have a vehicle for maintaining these repairs that we made initially.
When you say the City would do it, do you mean the City would do it with City employees or the City would arrange for contractors to do it?
How we envision this program unfolding, the City would hire private contractors to do that, and we would use the money available to pay them up front. That's always been our major problem.
We would hire private 37 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 contractors to make these repairs. We would do the design and the layout.
We would hire private contractors, which is what always done in the past, to make these repairs. And then we have the ability, if we do have this money made available to us, to pay the contractors for the work they did. Then we would turn around and bill the property owners and have that money come back in over time. But the contractors would be willing to bid on these projects knowing full well that the money is there, and as soon as they are completed their work, they would get paid. While I have a moment, one of the things that I think is very important to say to everyone on this committee -- one of the reasons that this program is viable, that maybe it's never been viable before, is the advent of some new products that are on the market now that we have not used in the past, we didn't want to. But now we feel that they've come to a point where we can do that. We can reduce the costs tremendously on 38 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 retaining walls and driveways. We have products out there now that were not available five years ago. We have computer systems within the Streets Department for the billing purposes that will take us a tenth of the time to do the billing work that's necessary and, therefore, save money to the homeowners. That was never done before. And I think with Councilman Nutter, what some of his concerns about the amount of money in this, we've kind of identified some products that will make this -- a driveway repair the way we like to do it now for percent of the 14 cost it cost 10 years ago, where we were repairing 15 things with 8 inches of concrete. 16 I have some designs here if you'd like 17 to see them with some cost estimates of exactly 18 how we would roll out to the individual citizens, 19 if this is funded to do this program. And it is a 20 good program, and we're looking to do the most benefit for the most number of citizens that we can.
Well, it's a strange thing. I think I may be the only Councilman-At- Large who's also currently a ward leader, and I 39 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 think that may be the first time that's ever happened, when I first came in as Councilman-At- Large. But I'm delighted that -- and I kept raising this issue but it didn't take hold until Councilman Nutter and then followed by Councilman Clarke got into the picture, and I'm very grateful that they've done so. Because in my ward leader role, this has been a terrible problem for many years, and it was a -- and your cost figures seem kind of out of line. I remember when I moved in my home -- and of course this is many, many years ago, 48 years ago -- we did -- we got quickly a notice from the City at that time condemning our driveway, and I had the impression that the cost then per homeowner was something like 2500 to $3,000 for a pretty wide driveway; it was not a retaining wall. But I think we're finally beginning to make progress, and I would like to see those designs and hear a little bit about the new products that are on the market. And it may be -- have some private homeowners been using them? 'Cause I heard of --
Well, I would like the 40 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 representatives of VERSA-LOK to kind of address that. Mike? (VERSA-LOK reps come forward.)
'Cause I've heard of one group in the Northeast who found a way to just cover over the driveway, got City approval to do that at about a third of the cost, and it may have been with the use of these projects.
Right. That's not the product that this gentleman's going to talk about. He's going to deal with the walls, but the product that we have found that's going to work our little miracle is a product called NOVA-CHIP, and NOVA-CHIP -- we've used it in our street resurfacing process. It's not an asphalt product, so it doesn't crack or break down. And -- whereas before, we were in the neighborhood of for your driveways at about $75 a square yard, and we feel we can use NOVA-CHIP for about $6.50 a square yard.
Councilman, before we go to the -- 41 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
Before we go the presentation about the materials, I'd just like to finish up some of the financial components. The gentleman can stay. Mr. Dallas, I was -- I had had the question, although your explanation is a very good one, about the 10-year projection going from the first year of 30 walls, 58 driveways to 190 to 365. What I didn't understand was the last line of your testimony where you said: "Without the creation of a loan fund, this investment of $3 million would only provide for the repair of approximately 60 retaining walls and 115 driveways in total." Are you saying that if you just put $3 million out on the street or within the Department, they said, you know, Go do as many walls and driveways as you could; is that --
Yeah. That's the basic -- the basic assumption was that we just take -- if we didn't create the fund, you would have $3 million to spend, and in a 2-to-1 ratio, that's approximately how it would shake out. 42 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
Okay. A couple last things on the money. I guess one, what was the genesis of the $3 million figure? Was that created as a result of you think you have $9 million in need, what do you need to start with that gets you to the million? Is that it? 8
The 3 million was 9 basically in discussions with the Streets Department of a -- it was a variety of factors. It was the amount of need of particularly bad walls out there, plus also I think a big factor is what the Streets Department could actually, you know, contract for and manage within the first year, especially since they haven't done this, you know, and just so that we could manage the program and that we could get the maximum benefit. This is actually pushing it a little bit, but. . .
Tell me a little bit about -- is it the current anticipation, although I thought I heard something slightly different, or maybe that came from Councilman Cohen. Is the expectation that the homeowner cost, which I think -- I see now you're laying out 43 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 over a 4-year period of time. Are you expecting out of that 100 percent homeowner repayment participation, or has there been any factor either thought about or anticipated with this particular aspect of the program that the total costs would be somewhat discounted?
I think that we would love to have 100 percent participation in the program. We know that, given the realities, that that may not happen. The numbers that are projected here assume an 80 percent and, you know, the numbers that we have for the --
No, I wasn't talking about on the repayment. What I was -- you're -- again, if I'm reading this correctly --
And I would like to go back to this particular figure, but I want to ask you two questions at the same time. The assumption on the second page is in the case of a failed retaining wall and a failed driveway on the same block, is that the assumption here?
No. The assumption -- well, it could be, but the assumption is that you 44 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 could have a case where it would be --
You have figured out that there were 50 houses, everybody has their share, and are you saying that the individual homeowner is responsible every year for 4 years for the retaining wall repair for $134.51.
In most West Philadelphia areas, you're going to have 40 to 50 houses. My question was: In some discussions, it has -- the issue has come up, and this will go back to a question that I haven't asked yet. In some situations, the cost is clearly more than $25,000 for you to repair the wall.
Again, I've got at 45 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 least one I know of off the top of my head up is, I think, up in the 220, 230 range, divided by, I think, 40 or 45 homeowners. And that number, I think, gets you to about $5,000 or so in maximum homeowner costs?
Councilman, can I address one of those issues in there? With the estimates that we had provided you before, we had provided the estimates based on a replacement of a stone masonry wall.
We find this new product to be about to percent of the cost of that 15 wall. We are looking at, maybe for that wall, a 16 35 or $40,000, not the 200,000 that we originally 17 estimated. That's why I asked this gentleman to 18 be here today. 19
Okay, all right. 20 So if you're at that level, then you're saying that we could, in a much more realistic fashion, then look for the homeowner to take 100 percent of their individual house-by-house cost assessment, because we're now not up in the 220, 230 range for some in particular, and there are some others that 46 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 are much cheaper. But you're saying that that particular situation might put you in the 30 to 40 grand range?
Yeah, 30 to 40,000 for that. Now, again, if the driveway needs to be done too, you're still up in the 50 and $60,000, but you're still only dealing with $1,000 of property.
Right, 50-60, 40-50, it's -- you know, it's a grand, it's $1100 divided by 4, and now you're talking about less than $300 a year for that person over the 4 years.
As compared to the earlier example, which had us up in the close to the 5 grand range.
The one question I've have -- and then maybe we should go to the gentlemen is, what's the -- in the -- let's go with the -- before we knew about the products and back when we were at the 220 range -- and what are you calling that, a concrete masonry wall?
Yeah, stone masonry. 47 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
What was the anticipated guarantee or life expectancy -- and I know they're different -- for that kind of job and that type of repair?
Well, the life expectancy was 50 years. Nobody was going to guarantee anything for that amount of time, but we would estimate 50 years.
The guarantee on any of our work is only five years; that's what the Law Department makes us guarantee. And, again, I'll ask these gentlemen here to address exactly the length of the newer products, but we -- we would -- we would base it on 50 to 100 years, I suppose. And that seems to be what the walls are lasting, somewhere around 100 years.
Well, I guess -- and then we'll have the gentlemen, but I do want to, I guess, state for the record that if we are going to pursue new technology at dramatically reduced costs, then I think one of the selling 48 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 points of it has to be a significantly increased guarantee in order to reassure the citizens out there, since, I mean, ultimately they are going to be paying for it, that they're getting a good- quality product, and that's no disrespect to the gentlemen. But if you, you know, if one day you had, even in a failure situation, a stone masonry wall and you know what the quality of that is and eventually, you know, everything does wear away, and you replace it with some new product, then, I mean I think there is not an inappropriate expectation from the citizenry that it had something, it did eventually wear out, but it's got, you know, 40 or 50 years on it and just started showing signs of wear and tear. Now you've brought in, you know, the latest, greatest brand-new idea but, you know, I'm only going to get five years out of it.
Right. (Inaudible.) If 49 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 you go out the Vine Street Expressway and turn west on the -- or going out Vine Street and turn west onto the expressway, and as you usually sit in traffic like we all do, if you notice the abutment that's next to you on the right-hand side there that holds up the expressway coming out of the --
Are you talking about as if you were getting off to go to 30th Street Station, those interlocking --
Right. That is the product we're talking about. I mean, we're not talking about something that's --
Right, it's not Legos. Right, right, okay. If it's on the expressway, I'm real interested in it.
And that actually looks nice and, you know, I've felt safe when I drove through there. 50 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
I just have one question. On the rollback loan, I think it's called, is there a income limit, similar to what we do with the Water Department, where if you make above a certain salary -- some of the seniors, as an example, were not entitled to the no-interest or low-interest loan.
Well, I think it's important because one of the issues I had when I first came to Council in '96, on the 1400 block of South Juniper, where we were doing those -- offering that program, a number of people didn't qualify because they had a considerable amount of 51 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 savings and their retirement and between their Social Security and their pension, funds it brought them beyond what the limit was. So before we make a blanket statement that it's for everyone, I think it's important -- and I'm not suggesting that you should or shouldn't have a limit, but I think we got to be clear in that.
Because I know what will happen to Councilman Nutter more than me: Somebody's going to say, Oh, I thought I was going to be able to get into that loan.
Right, yeah. The last thing I want to have any discussion about is a program with income limitations. That -- I mean, to some extent, has been a little bit of the bane of my existence here because, you know, I do have -- you know, there are many programs that exist in the City; unfortunately, many of my constituents don't qualify for them. And this always been envisioned because of the nature of the citywide problem, which cuts through all socioeconomic levels and 52 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 all neighborhoods, is that it would be a program that's available citywide. And I've never -- I've never had a discussion about income limitations.
No, we -- I don't believe on the other side of the street we've ever had that discussion either.
But the Councilman makes a very good point. We need to make sure whatever we have that we don't have that issue.
My name is Michael Carroll. Mr. Chairman and Councilmen, I just brought -- this technology is new but it's developed in like the '85, so it's relatively 15 years old. As Paul was saying, along the highway and in the expressway, you see actually the crosses or the diamond shapes on the -- it's the same technology. We use plastic as reinforcement; they use what is steel straps, the same type of 53 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 technology. The steel straps are actually -- they have some side effects. Basically you have to use select stone and select fill. With these types of properties, we'd actually use the soil that's there behind the retaining walls. It's based after the same concrete block designs and block buildings or the cut granite stones of the walls that the railroad bridges and stuff are done one. The big thing is -- I put a generic package here together to show you what different kind of products are available, representing -- there's six or seven different manufacturers within the State of Pennsylvania alone that all use the same technology. So it is a big cost-savings. And if you see some pictures in the back, we've done some major projects in the Philadelphia area and also in Delaware -- Christiana Mall, the Brandywine Race Track. We've done some very significant projects. And we are PennDOT-approved. For the durability access of it, with the City Department of Engineering, we would actually put in the specifications -- there is -- 54 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 it's just actually new. Within the last five years, the Federal Highway -- we just did -- really designated testing of it to freeze/thaw, which is how they test the durability of concrete products to do a life expectancy. You know, usually it is around 50 years with PennDOT. We've never did anything 100 years.
And it's same thing with stone, Councilman. There's actually been -- you can build a stone retaining wall too that would have a failure, you know, right away after it was built also. What these designs are -- and there are some wall cuts in there -- if you look at -- the walls aren't done vertically more, there's a little bit of a batter or a lean-back, right? There's clean stone behind it for drainage, big drainage pipes. You've probably seen the walls that have little holes in it. We just --
I'm sorry. Tell me that again? Is that what this is? You build it with stone behind the wall and that helps with drainage? 55 11/21/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
Yes. There's a drainage -- actually, there's some pipes through it. I think on of the engineering --