What about the suggestion and -- I mean, I think that it is well within the norm because we get other stuff. Anything in whatever the billing cycle was that particular month, anything put in the bills, or is that not your side of the house?
Right. We certainly would like to do that or would 73 Transportation & Public Utilities have liked to have done that, but oftentimes the timing of bills and the timing of the setting of these hearings are such that preclude you sometimes from being able to get that kind of information out quickly enough through the billings. I mean, obviously if we had enough time, if we knew long in advance when the hearings would be held, we certainly could have created a bill 12 stuffer or --
Let me ask this question: There's been reference made to this bifucated process, which I months ago actually knew that it was bifucated although quite honestly that was eight million hearings ago so I can't remember why it was bifucated. I mean, at some particular point you know that you're going to have hearings. And it would seem to me that if for some reason, whether it's advertising deadlines, billing cycles, and a variety of things kind of intervene so as not to avail 74 Transportation & Public Utilities themselves, I mean, the next logical thing to do maybe is to push the hearings back. Was that considered? I mean, there was no statutory deadline for any of this, was there?
We certainly had an issue with timing on the fiscal 2005 rates and that had to be fast tracked. The process already as it's constituted takes a good six months or so at best. And to add further weeks may affect, you know, the actual date of implementation. In other words, we would have liked to have implemented these rates on July 1, but we ran out of time.
I remember. It became a point it was clear that was not going to happen. So at that point, I mean, you know, it's like you just kind of deal with the hand that you've been dealt. And we knew back a little earlier in the technically last fiscal year it was never going to happen July 1.
I mean, I think when these hearings started we pretty much knew it wasn't going to happen July 1. Did you send anything or work with personnel? For instance, did we get anything in our pay envelopes about these hearings?
Could you look at that as an option as well? That's plus thousand people. Then 14 we've got the School District. I mean, 15 part of the point of all this is -- I'm 16 not going to beat you up for past 17 actions, but we'll certainly help to 18 inspire you for the future. I mean, 19 there are any number of ways for us to 20 communicate with people. And as exciting as the Water Department web site might be, we might also want to have this just on the general City web site. There are any number of things that come up on that first screen, you know, kind of right 76 Transportation & Public Utilities there next to the Mayor's picture that water rate hearings might actually catch someone's attention. So I understand your statutory requirements and, you know, if there are other ways through the code that we might provide some additional notice -- I mean, high rate increase, low rate increase, whatever it is, process and procedure is critically important. Maximum notification I think should be our watch word. And you're going to get whatever you're going to get at a hearing. And I think, as you indicated, you're not at the hearings anyway; right?
So someone gets hired, the gentleman in the back. Hopefully, he is paid well and he'll hear whatever he's going to hear and they'll throw whatever they're going to throw. You just kind of deal with it and he'll be happy because he's providing a good 77 Transportation & Public Utilities public service. And we'll have maximum notification. And if no one comes, that's kind of the way it goes. But you want to be in a position where virtually every ratepayer directly or pretty close to directly gets as much notice as possible. Then people will make decisions for themselves. Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you. Looking at the notice, the notice, first of all, it's a typical notice, but the way you've presented this to the public, effective date, additional monthly charge, total monthly bill, percentage increase, we talked about a 40-plus percent increase over three years. How did you come up with the figures, the percentage of increase?
These particular figures do not include the 12.8 percent that was decided back in January and then went into effect February 1. 78 Transportation & Public Utilities
Because this doesn't really -- you know, you referred to this as significant. You look at this notice, this notice doesn't appear to be significant.
Well, the original set of increases if I'm remembering these correctly were along the lines of 9.7, et cetera, but pretty much 9 and a half percent each of the four years. Now, you have to remember, of course, that was with the supposition that lateral -- new lateral service would be part and parcel of that. So the lateral service came out, which, of course, lowered the 43 percent overall percentage. And, please, I don't know what that lowered it to. But you had that and you've had these other economies, some economies that have been recognized during the course of things, and this is what is outstanding at this point in time. And this is what I will have to now opine on. 79 Transportation & Public Utilities
Commissioner, the point that I want to make is the fact that it sounds like we have such a rigid system here. We have a Hearing Examiner that I believe is flexible enough or reasonable enough to work with you to give you or whatever, if it's revenue, an opportunity to decide on hearing dates to give you an opportunity to appropriately advertise and not have the situation that you described today, up against it, not being able to get in this paper. Why couldn't there be a better relationship with the scheduling process with the Hearing Examiner to work out an accommodation that allows you to properly communicate?
I think it's certainly something we would look at the next time around as a way to improve. This is a process that has been around for about 13 years. And I would say that it has seen improvement over time and we do a much better job now. Insofar as the 80 Transportation & Public Utilities ad size, for example, I personally was out at one of the libraries about 1990, 1991 and 250 people showed up and we probably had legal size ads in those days. But the problem was we had a very, very high increase that was required at the time.
My last question before I give it back to the Chairman is we constantly referred today as the record being closed --
-- that you can't discuss a lot about what your decision will be. What can you do as the decision-maker to reopen the record if necessary, to delay your decision? What can you as the Commissioner do to allow more time for that record to be reopened? You heard that legal action -- I hope that wouldn't be necessary. What can we do to give you more time if you need it to gather more information?
This is a 81 Transportation & Public Utilities question for my attorney, I believe.
Councilman Rizzo, the process that we're involved with comes from three sources. It's the chatter and the code that was established by City Council and regulations that were developed pursuant to the code. The process is designed so that there is an end point, that the Commissioner has the ability to have a record in front of him that has been developed very carefully through a series of both public hearings and other hearings that are open to the public but which we referred to as technical hearings because they tend to be much more like a trial with various experts and attorneys questioning the experts. Those are also open to the public. The process of developing this record includes transcripts that are developed both in the public hearing and for the technical hearings. The parties who have decided to join formally in this 82 Transportation & Public Utilities process -- and the way they do that just as a point of information is the way they would do it for any regulation. If you are a person who takes issue with a regulation that the City has created, you basically send a notice to the records department indicating that you are aggrieved and that you want a hearing. And that's how people become part of this hearing process. So we had I believe four parties that formally or was it three -- I think there were three formal parties, and each one of those parties then was given an opportunity to participate very fully in the technical hearings. There's a whole series of measures that are taken in the course of the regulation for allowing those parties to present their views, including presenting evidence, providing witnesses. At the end of the hearings, they then can file briefs. They can file reply briefs to the briefs that are filed. And at that point the record is 83 Transportation & Public Utilities closed with regard to the evidence that has been allowed to be brought in, at which point then the Hearing Officer reviews that entire record. And I am assisting the Commissioner in the review of that record currently. I know there are at least four file boxes of evidence and briefs. It's a voluminous record. At any rate, the Hearing Officer then has that record in front of him to make his decision. As I said, each party has had not only an opportunity to take a brief but then to take issue with another party's brief. The Hearing Officer also in consultation with the Commissioner allowed each of the parties to file 19 formal exceptions to his report so that once the Hearing Officer's report was published, even though the record is now closed, each one of the parties had an opportunity to basically reiterate the arguments that they had in relation to the Hearing Officer's report. So there 84 Transportation & Public Utilities is an exception that was filed by the Public Advocate. In this case, I'm referring to Community Legal Services and also by a consortium -- an attorney representing a consortium of commercial customers that participated fully in the hearings. So that record is now before the Commissioner. The Commissioner will review all that. He will look at the exceptions as well. The exceptions don't bring in new evidence. They simply give those parties an opportunity to restate their views on the evidence. With regard to what the Commissioner can do today, I think actually Lance Haver put it quite well. There is a voluminous record and all the issues that Lance raised are in that record. They are in that record now.
But, counselor, you saw my reaction. Lance saw them. Did you see them?
We are reviewing 85 Transportation & Public Utilities the record.
My point is the fact even after your review you could have missed some of the points if we didn't have this hearing today.
Because the process is such that Community Legal Services with very able counsel presents that evidence to the Commissioner in the form of the brief that is filed for the Hearing Officer's process. So there is a brief from Phil Bertocci, who is counsel for the Community Legal Services. There is a reply brief and then there are exceptions that were also filed by Community Legal Services. So there are many, many opportunities for the Public Advocate to direct the Commissioner back to the record and to point out whatever failings there may have been in the 86 Transportation & Public Utilities review that was done by the Hearing Officer.
Well, some of the points that Mr. Haver made today, can you answer the question were you aware of some of the points that were made today prior to them being stated here at the public hearing?
By and large, yes. I can't specifically say that every single one of them, but I know that there is evidence in the record with regard to many of those issues. With regard to the Bucks County issue, there's plenty of evidence in there about the fact the money was received and what are the implications of that money. And each party would have a different view about how that money should be treated. I think one of the issues that's come up today that is not easily addressed and may not be fully reflected in the record would have to do with this affordability issue. And the direction 87 Transportation & Public Utilities that the Commissioner has is essentially what is in the City code with regard to how the rates should apply to customers. Basically, we have a charge that says that they have to be the same as they affect each class of customers. So if you have a residential customer, we don't have a provision in our code right now that says that we can treat low-income customers differently than we can treat other customers. We do have a provision that says that certain senior citizens can receive a discount if they're income-eligible, but we don't have that same provision with regard to other customers. I think that would have to be a direction that would be received from Council in terms of how it is -- what are the factors that the Commissioner takes into account when he sets the rates.
Counselor, in all fairness, for the record, months and months and months went by before there was even a Hearing Examiner 88 Transportation & Public Utilities appointed. I think how Commissioner -- July 1 was a date, but I believe it was even supposed to be before July 1. How many months are you actually truly behind on this request for this rate increase?
The initial rate increase -- the initial rate announcement goes back to January 2004. And we did achieve the rates for 2005, fiscal 2005, on February 1.
Commissioner, when you say you achieved the rates for 2005 on January 1, when did you want to have those rates in effect? July 1, 2004?
Oh, July 1, 2004, which is fiscal 2005. And the date actually was February of 2005.
So you wanted to have the first increase go into effect July 1, 2004, which is the beginning of the FY '05 fiscal year, 89 Transportation & Public Utilities which ended up not taking place until February 1, 2005; right?
Can I just add something to that, Commissioner? Are you in your decision going to try to go back and collect any of the money involving the delay? Is that any part of your decision to go after any of that?
In effect, we took care of that with the initial increase. We had to make sure that the water fund was made whole for fiscal 2005. So that percentage increase instead of being spread out over 12 months had to be punched up or, you know, compressed I should say.
It's already taken care of. 90 Transportation & Public Utilities
Commissioner, one other issue that was raised earlier about the program for low-income customers or seniors, rather. The issue seemed to revolve around the number who are eligible versus the number who participate. Do you have any data on the number of participants?
Okay. You heard Mr. Rodriguez testify earlier that based on a Philadelphia Corporation for the Aging report there could be upwards of 79,000 to 83,000, which is at least double the current participants.
Right. I'm assuming he's talking about households and not individuals because obviously --
Obviously, a senior household is how we look at it and it may affect more than the 35,000 households. There may be 50 or 60,000 seniors affected by 35,000 accounts.
Are there any plans -- I don't know what your level of control is over this. Does the department promote the program or does water revenue promote the program?
I believe people sign up through the Water Revenue Bureau. I stand to be corrected. And I can say that we certainly can make a stronger push in this area. Also, I want to mention that over the years since this program first began in 1974 -- I'm looking at Councilman Rizzo because you may know who was responsible for this program by looking at the date. Anyway, since it started, we have had a CPI -- we have a means test and we've had a means test since the early 1980s. And that gets raised with CPI. And currently it 92 Transportation & Public Utilities stands at $26,100. When the final rates or actually the final CPI figures I guess for this past month come in, they will be bumped up to a little bit higher level, whatever, you know, for this past period. And so that will be a little bit higher threshold for people to get under.
Could you work with or at least meet with Mr. Rodriguez to go over this eligibility versus participant issue and how we might be able to increase participation?
Thank you very much for the moment, but try to stay in the room if you can.
Meg Greenfield, East Falls Community Council; Bishop Leonard Goins, Chestnut Hill Church of God; and Marty Brill from Upper Norwood Community Council. If they could all come up, that would be wonderful. 93 Transportation & Public Utilities Is there a Bishop Leonard Goins? (No response.)
Is there anyone else whose name I have not mentioned who wishes to testify? If you would be so kind as to identify yourself. Is it Ron Chojnacki and Jerry McGovern? Okay. I'll have you up next. Ms. Greenfield, please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Marjorie Greenfield. I am first vice president of East Falls Community Council. And I really appreciate the heads up I was given yesterday about this hearing and the rate increase. I want to talk a little bit about the notice question. I'm a lawyer. I don't read every legal notice in the newspapers. I think it would be most effective and simplest if there was a notice printed on the bills as soon as the department 94 Transportation & Public Utilities started to consider rate increases saying we're thinking about raising your rates, please check our web site, please watch the papers, we will continue to inform you as this progresses. It might even say there's an enclosure with your bill 8 so look at it this month even if you don't usually do it. It's not very difficult. I'm not interested in what the legal requirements are. I want to know what's going to be effective. I don't read all the enclosures that come with my PECO bill and gas bill and my Water Department bill all the time, but I do look at the face of the bill and look and see how much I've used and what the amount's going to be. And if anyone's going to look at anything, that's what they're going to look at. And if you really want to get people on board with this and have them know what's happening, that's a very easy way to do it. The other thing I'm concerned about is the failure to contact community 95 Transportation & Public Utilities leaders. I certainly received no 3 information and I don't believe that our president received any information for East Falls Community Council, and I know also that there was no publication in our monthly newspaper. Now, we have a web site. I know the department has a web site. And today I went looking for information about the rate increase. Well, first of all, I would never have looked if I hadn't known about it in the first place. Secondly, it's buried about four layers deep. You have to get to the press releases and then you have to read down and you have to read through the description of the Water Department's rate increase, and then there's another document attached to which it refers which says initiatives and that is where we find some of the justification for the increase. So I took the time to look at the initiatives and I find it sort of interesting. And I think this relates as 96 Transportation & Public Utilities well to the increased cost of security after 9/11. There's a waterways restoration program. And I think that's great. I think it's wonderful that we are restoring the waterways to clean up our water, but why does the department have to include that cost in its rate base, which is regressive? Why does the department have to include the cost of homeland security measures in its rate base? That's regressive. We all benefit from that. It ought to be in the general tax, come out of general tax revenues, which is a lot less hard on people who can least afford this kind of increase. The Water Department is also involved in advanced regional source water protection plans. And it was funded in part by a grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and other partners included Aqua Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania American Water Companies. Now, they know what the issues are about the watershed. Again, 97 Transportation & Public Utilities since this overlaps with all kinds of concerns about pollution and not just supplying clean water, it seems to me that this is a cost which should not be part of the rate base. It just isn't fair to the people who can least afford it. Now, I guess I should put on the record that East Falls is a very diverse community economically and otherwise. We have people in Section 8 and public housing and we have people like our governor and judges and Senator Arlen Specter and everybody in between and maybe above in terms of income. So we're concerned we have a lot of senior citizens living on fixed incomes. This makes a difference to them.
And these people should have known about it and we didn't. And I read the paper. I listen to NPR. I read news on web sites every day. I didn't get it. I didn't get any effective notice. So I think there's one 98 Transportation & Public Utilities fundamental problem here in there's no 3 effective control over the Commissioner. He makes a decision. I understand it's based -- he will get a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner, but I've also been told -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that he doesn't have to follow that recommendation. I don't know and it's a question I'd like to ask whether there are specific clear financial criteria which have been set and standards which have been set as to what should or shouldn't be included in the rate base. Is there anything there which talks about things such as homeland security? Yes, it affects our water, but why should that be in the rate base? Are there ranges within which the predictions of income have to be accurate or expected to be accurate? I understand that there are collection problems. It's not like the Philadelphia Gas Works, but I'd like to know who the most delinquent customers are, not talking about the people who 99 Transportation & Public Utilities can't afford to pay but the people who just don't pay, and what efforts are being made to collect that money. I'd like to see the names of the top ten or hundred top delinquent people published. I'd like to know which of those are commercial owners, owners of multifamily properties. We shouldn't be bearing the cost of their delinquencies. And I would appreciate an answer to that question about what's being done about it. I know there are collection efforts and the accounts are sold, but who goes after the big guys? I understand there's a rate stabilization fund. And Mr. Haver may have talked about some of this before. A lot of this is very new to me, but I understand it's growing. If that's not legally required, why is it growing? Is it growing because there are underestimates every year of how much money is going to come in through bills? And if that's so, why is the department 100 Transportation & Public Utilities underestimating every year? I won't talk about the sale of water to the suburban counties because I understand that was addressed but I do hope that to the extent the Water Department is providing what is essentially a capital benefit to the counties that the counties are paying adequately to cover their share at least of that benefit. And an expert who was engaged to determine whether those rates paid by Bucks County, for example, are accurate and appropriate maybe shouldn't be somebody who is also serving water companies in the burbs, whether public or private, because you know where their bread is buttered. I'm not saying they did anything improper, but it just leaves me with questions. Finally, I understand that Mitchell & Titus did a report last year by way of uncollected funds being held by the sheriff. Frankly, I've never understood how that can happen in the 101 Transportation & Public Utilities sheriff's office, almost $25 million being held because they don't know what to do with them. I don't know whether that situation has changed since the year that I think was early 2001 was reported, but certainly the sheriff can't say and the Water Department shouldn't be saying we didn't know that the money was sitting there and we didn't know that we owed it to you. I mean, that money gets there because somebody initiated a foreclosure sale, a tax lien sale, something. So those people know the money is there. My personal experience with the sheriff's department is I had a client who had over $500,000 as a result of a sale and it took a lot of effort to get the money from the sheriff's office. And I never did get access to a statement of distribution. I don't know whether it was filed or not.
But I think there's a problem there and I think if the Water Department has any money sitting with the sheriff, there has to be a major effort 102 Transportation & Public Utilities made to pry that loose. And I'd like to know whether that is still the case. Mitchell & Titus apparently reported that it was. Maybe we've had an answer already and I've missed it. I would really like to know because that makes a difference on the rates and we shouldn't have to pay for that. And it's not money that's earning interest. I would ask that further rate increases be postponed until all of these questions are answered and satisfactorily answered and that there be further discussions with the customers. The department is supposed to serve and the department is part of the City. It's not a private company. There's no 19 competition. You can't even get the kind of competition you get from electric companies or phone companies. And the department owes it to its customers who are only customers in a very different sense from the retail environment to contact community organizations, find out 103 Transportation & Public Utilities what's going on, find out what community concerns are, and have a more transparent procedure that provides a lot clearer and fuller information to the public before rates are increased. And I thank you for the opportunity today.
Councilman Nutter, I'm sorry that I didn't include you in my written discussion.
Well, Mr. Brill, if you haven't included me in your written comments, then I can't listen to them.
Okay. All right. The point is well taken. When Councilman Rizzo's office called yesterday, it's the first I had notice of it or when my wife did know about it. And she probably would have been done here except for the fact she had to be at another spot. So I was interested in coming down and giving a 104 Transportation & Public Utilities little bit of hell to Mr. Brunwasser since I was formerly in the city administration as you well know.
I'm only interested in one particular thing, which I view as a microchasm of the problems that the department has had in construction. They seem to forget how to close and finish a particular job. And it drives me absolutely bananas. The one in particular that I'm talking about on Whitaker Avenue, that has been ripped up about 15 times over the past 20 years and they still haven't figured out how to do it right. And I think they're using Band-Aids for making the repairs. I'm sure --
It's Whitaker Avenue from Magee to about Longshore, but the first opening occurred because of a break at Whitaker and Kerper. 105 Transportation & Public Utilities
Water main break. Then there was another -- apparently whether they switched something around or not, another one broke at Longshore. Then they built a ditch from Kerper I guess it is up to -- from Knorr to Longshore at the west side of the curb, and that's still open. In fact, it's crumbling again. And all these patches are there, but -- and there's buses traveling over the area. Go ahead.
Mr. Brill, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I totally agree with you because right now I'm looking into the entire process of how it is so complicated when a department or a plumber -- if you knew what a plumber --
Councilman, I know about it. Remember, I was with your father's administration.
I knew I 106 Transportation & Public Utilities liked you from the very beginning. But my point is yes, and it is such a complicated process. We have a plumber that opens up an excavation. They're supposed to restore it temporarily. All they do is shovel the material back in. We get a rain storm and then all of a sudden you see a pile of wheel covers on the side of the road where people's vehicles are damaged. I just can't figure out why all these years -- since I've come to Council, I've been talking about this coordination. And they just can't figure out how to fill a hole properly, appropriately after they dig up the street. I don't know why it is so complicated, but I think the Commissioner wrote down that location because it's pretty much out of his hands.
Well, I don't know why it isn't the responsibility of the Water Department to 107 Transportation & Public Utilities go fix the holes that they open, but they turn it over to the streets department, it takes memos to get a by 2 repair job done. And I don't think it's about unions. I don't think it's about that. I think it's that nobody ever has focused on the process.
I think it's 12 exactly right. I think it's part of the 13 process too. 14
If we had holes like that in Center City when we were doing construction on the commuter connection, everybody would be killing me. It was bad enough when we had a water break right here at the entrance to the building, MSB.
I want to remind you the commuter tunnel is one of the best assets the City has ever had.
We had a long fight on that if you recall. 108 Transportation & Public Utilities
I know. Thanks for steaming me up a little bit. I was getting a little tired. Now I'm all back. That's one of my things too about that particular issue and I'm looking into the entire process.
It's a mess. It's a mess. And it's terrible when some person hits one of these depressions that weren't repaired properly. And, as a matter of fact, up in the northeast I was coming over Rhawn Street just the other day where they dug a ditch across Rhawn Street just east of Dungan Road, a disgrace that that contractor was allowed to let -- it had traffic backed up for three blocks. You're shaking your head. I think you know what I'm talking about. Thank you, Councilman Nutter.
Thank you 109 Transportation & Public Utilities so much. I think you'll probably see some action on that.
No problem. Mr. Chojnacki and Mr. McGovern. MR. McGOVERN: My name is Jerry McGovern. I'm a citizen of Philadelphia, 3,000 block of Almond Street. I'd like to continue where we left off on the closing up of the street properly. We've recently had a child hurt on the street who fell into a sinkhole which started out maybe at 6 inches and has grown now to about 36 inches in diameter in a short amount of time. I'm there 13 years and in that entire 13 years the street has never been correct. We have sinkholes that repeatedly pop up. I work for a company in the city here and if I treated my clients that way and said, oh, by the way, I haven't finished any of my work yet I have to raise my rates and, by the way, part of the expense of repairing 110 Transportation & Public Utilities this is now yours -- because most of the residents on our block have violations for lateral replacement that were broken due to the Gas Company coming in and replacing lines. It just doesn't seem right to me that I would have to -- you know, there's a rate increase out there that we have to absorb.
If you really have any significant immediate hazards out there, please let us know. MR. McGOVERN: I'd like to go on the record saying we have an immediate hole that a child can easily fit and now a large adult can fit in.
My aide's here. See this young man and give the location and we'll get the streets department to address it. Part of the problem is there's too many hands involved in fixing a simple ditch that's either dug up by the City, by the Gas Company, by the electric utility. And just recently I heard -- the first I 111 Transportation & Public Utilities heard it was on the news was the fact that now the utilities are going to start talking to each other before they start digging up the street. Well, that's genius that they would talk to each other before they start digging up the streets, but we'll get into that. And this is going to be another issue that I try to resolve before I finish this career in Council. But you give this young man the information after the hearing. Continue, I'm sorry. MR. McGOVERN: That's pretty much it. I would like to add about the notification of the rate increase, about the notification of the hearings, if they would simply deploy the same tactics they deploy when they want to let you know you're late with your bill that there's going to be a hearing, you'd need a bigger room. A lot of citizens on my block found out yesterday because the condition of our street got to the boiling point where everybody was out in 112 Transportation & Public Utilities the street complaining and that's when we found out today there was a hearing to increase our rates almost 43 percent.
I think what you are experiencing -- it's no 7 disrespect to the Commissioner. I think you're experiencing a minimum amount of communication that -- MR. McGOVERN: I'm not here to say whose fault it is, and I'm not going to pay any more money.
We agree with you something needs to be done above and beyond what the law requires and maybe eventually we'll be able to figure out a way to get a better form of communication rather than this ad that needs a little bit more work. Certainly, it's not what I open the paper to read. MR. McGOVERN: We live in the age of information technology nowadays. It's pretty easy. You can get a message to China in five minutes if you'd like.
My name's Ron Chojnacki. I am also a resident of the 3000 block of Almond Street. We had a water main break back in January, actually on New Year's Eve. And a swimming pool size hole was dug. How long did they work on that for, Jer? MR. McGOVERN: Months.
Two, three months the work was being done on it. It was just filled in and temporarily patched and left.
No. This was a water main break. Now, with the problems that we've had and the ground underneath these pipes, this is what we believe is causing all our problems, these sinkholes. We have like he said a gaping hole in the street. We have a few of them actually. We've seen rats. We've had a child fall into the hole now. Now we have health risks. Something has to 114 Transportation & Public Utilities be done about it.
I'm a Councilman-at-large. I represent the entire city. Councilman Nutter, it's not his district. I assure you, we will get a supervisor from the streets department. We're going to make sure that after the hearing we know how to communicate with you. And I'm going to ask the Chairman just to have the Commissioner before we end this today to comment on why we just can't get a very simple task -- you dig up the street, fix it properly. And one of the problems -- you know, I don't refer to potholes anymore because most of the holes that I experience in our city aren't natural decay of the roadway or failure of the roadway. In my opinion, the majority of the holes that I encounter that are damaging to a vehicle are a result of a repair that was not done properly. And if you're not watching the contractor and you're supposed to put 4 inches, they put 2. It 115 Transportation & Public Utilities lasts for six months, a year, and then you have the problem. It's a damn shame when some man or woman hits one of these at o'clock at night because you can't 6 see as well, you bend a wheel, you blow 7 out a tire. It's just not -- and we have 8 too much of this. You ride through 9 Center City, you need -- what's that big 10 truck that people ride around in, Humvee? 11 You need a Humvee to get up some of these streets. It's amazing. A majority of it is because they're not repaired properly.
We've also had in relation to the citations that were issued on the laterals, the broken laterals on the block --
We had a Water Department worker actually threatening people that they had to have it done in hours. 24 MR. McGOVERN: When there is a plan for them to go through that helps 116 Transportation & Public Utilities them out, they were told -- they weren't allowed --
The Commissioner has staff here and I'm going to ask the Commissioner to please have his staff communicate with you and get some of these issues resolved. He's got a lot of competent people here. And it's good that you've come down here today because you're obviously torqued up over this or you wouldn't be here because you're not talking about a rate increase.
Well, if we knew about the rate increase, we might have been here just for that.
Okay. We're going to make sure you have an opportunity to talk with the Commissioner's staff about the issues that are specific to your block. We'd like to get him back up to finish a couple of these items. But do you have any other information with regard to the proposed rate increase or any other 117 Transportation & Public Utilities details with regard to issues on your street? MR. McGOVERN: Other than to say I can't afford any more increases in any more bills right now.
We're a blue collar neighborhood, a lot of children on the block. We're hard-working families and we can't afford it.
I understand. Okay. Thank you for coming. Appreciate it. Commissioner?
Commissioner, I think you've been in this Council chamber for a lot of budget processes. One of the questions before you were Commissioner -- I didn't know you that well until just recently. And I think you've heard me discuss this issue that I discussed today. Why can't we get it right? Why can't we have a Water Department dig up the street and temporarily repair it properly? Because 118 Transportation & Public Utilities I call on municipal radio constantly, Water Department crew, plumber, streets department, whoever, but let's just talk about the Water Department. You've got your process. Your people dig up the street. At that point you lose control of the repair; am I right?
I think we backfill and then we refer the job to the streets department.
Do you know how long that could take? Months, months, months. And you talk about backfill. What burns me up about your people, here's backfill. I spent 30-plus years in a utility company, no cold patch in most cases. What they do, they dig up the street, they make the repair, they shovel back into that hole the material that they jackhammered out. They hit it with a couple compression devices or pneumatic tool and that's the repair. Sure, 80-degree summer day it works good. Three days later we get a thunderstorm, 119 Transportation & Public Utilities the vehicles deteriorate that temporary repair. And then you have a pothole -- it's not a pothole, a hole in the sheet that's inches deep. And I think it's a 6 crime. I think it's a crime when some poor blue collar person comes down at 8 o'clock, 11 o'clock at night after it's 9 rained hard for four hours and there's no 10 material left in the repair and they blow out a tire and bend a wheel, not enough to submit to your insurance company, you got to put on your credit card 3, 4 hundred dollars to get your vehicle fixed if you didn't damage the suspension of the vehicle. We that drive around in city cars, no big deal, put another tire on. But some poor person that has to pay for every repair to their vehicle, in my opinion it's something that's bothered me for a long time and I can't imagine that we don't get it right. For six months right out at Broad -- outside of City Hall here there's Water Department covering plates, a hydrant that was dug 120 Transportation & Public Utilities up. Commissioner Deputy, I had to communicate with you. If it weren't for you -- in our Center City, it was left -- it wasn't taken care of for weeks and weeks. I mean, it's so embarrassing to see that kind of a thing. It was a hydrant replacement or whatever. It had a metal covering plate left on it. A truck hit it, dislodged it, we had a hole in the street. Thank God somebody didn't get killed falling in it. So, Commissioner, I know you're a busy guy, Deputy Commissioner, but something's got to be done to give you control of repairing the excavations that you create. If you send a repair order to the streets department, it could take months. And if they're not, Commissioner -- and you're the operating deputy, right, Commissioner? If your people don't make a good temporary repair when they leave the site, that's not a good situation. And I can tell you if 121 Transportation & Public Utilities they're telling you that they're doing that, they're not. I think you get around the city as much as I do and when you see it, you should do something about it. MS. McCARTY: Debra McCarty, Deputy with Water. Councilman, a couple things you touched on. First of all, with the plumber's ditches, a lot of folks don't know that the plumbers are responsible for maintaining those ditches for 30 days and the entire permit process is supposed to trigger streets department to go back and repair it. And we have -- we are aware of them, we come upon them or folks such as yourself make us aware, we do contact the plumbers ourselves and get them to maintain that ditch for 30 days.
Commissioner, again, I don't mean to cut you off, but you got my hot button now. The whole process stinks. Why don't we come up with a program that makes the 122 Transportation & Public Utilities plumber responsible to repair the excavation to our specification? Thirty days? I mean, I come up some streets where six months the repair is done. The temporary repair sinks into the ground. It's like having a reverse speed bump in the community. In some communities, I guess they're pleased with that. But I think you need to address the issue to change the policy to do something that -- I have had my staff follow up on some of these plumber's ditches that the paperwork apparently fell between the cracks because the plumber's responsible to actually start the process. They have to send a card in or something to get the repair done. If the plumber forgets, what do we do, have a ditch that never gets repaired? MS. McCARTY: I might say we've recognized this and actually my predecessor has worked very hard and we are continuing to work with the streets department. And, in fact, we had a 123 Transportation & Public Utilities monthly meeting this morning where we're working on it and it's called ditch restoration. And we're working with the streets department to improve the process and the plumber's ditches is one of the things we're trying to improve upon. We're looking at having it so the plumbers don't have to come down to MSB to purchase the permits and tightening up on -- right now they can just get a general permit and then they're supposed to tell us the address. Well, when they can start to do it on-line, which is where we hope to go, that will stop and they'll be more accountable and it will be easier for streets department to track. This is -- I'm not trying to say it's not us, but it is a lot --
I think this is your strategy, the three of you, to get us off the rate increase. No. I'm just kidding. You totally distracted me now. I hear you. MS. McCARTY: It's an issue I 124 Transportation & Public Utilities think for all of us. We feel bad because it reflects poorly on the department. Most folks don't understand as you do that it's not the Water Department's responsibility --
When we come back in the spring -- in the fall, we are going to have a hearing about this whole issue of the coordination on utilities and the way we leave our streets. So you're going to hear more about this because you're going to be requested to come here when we have this hearing. MS. McCARTY: If I may add, you know, I know the streets department recognizes this issue too. And you might recall, the right-of-way ordinance is one of their major efforts to improve upon that, and that has begun.
It is a process that should be very easy to fix and make it run properly. And if it's about whose turf it is to fix the hole, whether the streets department or a 125 Transportation & Public Utilities contractor, I have enough confidence in the work that you do that I think if you were the responsible agency to repair the work that you do on the street, I think it would be done. Honestly, I believe that. I think you are a victim of a process. And I think that you guys can really figure out how to fix a hole that you create. If the money was in your budget to hire the subcontractor or to hire or have your own people, I don't know, but -- MS. McCARTY: In fact, we do some of the major main breaks or cave-ins. We have a contract that does the street restoration.
Thank you. I'll let Councilman Nutter as soon as he finishes up here -- he's checking on some information for us and we'll probably be finishing this thing up. Thanks, Deputy Commissioner, for that information because it really is a bad situation what's going on and it seems to be 126 Transportation & Public Utilities getting worse. Thank you, Councilman. I think the Hearing Examiner has his hand waving back there.
Commissioner, thank you very much, Deputy Commissioner, and counsel. Mr. Davis, you've served the Commissioner very well. He has escaped by virtually answering none of the questions we asked. And you've done a tremendous job on behalf of the law department of the City of Philadelphia. Thank you so much. No. You've done a fine job. Commissioner, I appreciate all the information, and Deputy Commissioner as well. Thank you. Mr. Marcial. Let the record reflect this is one of the rare occurrences a witness has 127 Transportation & Public Utilities actually asked to come back to the table. Please identify yourself and proceed.
My name is Henri Marcial and I am the Hearing Examiner in the water rates case. I just wanted to comment that what went unanswered here today was the fact that this whole process is set by regulation, City regulation, and that regulation has been followed. And it was my job to direct the following of that regulation, and all the parties participated and were very amicable in that process. Generally speaking, once the Hearing Examiner's brought onto the matter, there's generally a six-month time line that needs to be followed in order to render a decision or in order so that the Commissioner can render a decision, and we've actually gone beyond that and tried to be as flexible as possible. With regard to the information provided here by the public today, 128 Transportation & Public Utilities including Mr. Haver's statements, there has been nothing that has not already been placed on the record in my memory or discussed amongst the parties and addressed. Although some of the parties have requested specific comments regarding specific items, if you'll note, one of my first statements in my decision is that this is an extremely voluminous record and thereby only the points that were significant to an immediate determination as to the rate were addressed unless otherwise stated by the participants in the proceeding. And I do understand there may be some questions regarding notice and the parties have discussed that amongst themselves. A recommendation on my part toward Council would be simply to allow them to use alternative forms of notice. The process tends to get bogged down with the formality of the regulation in and of itself and people are a little afraid for good reason to step outside of that 129 Transportation & Public Utilities without some encouragement. And I don't mean encouragement in a negative sense. I mean encouragement in a positive sense.
One area, counselor, that you could probably elaborate for the record is you heard the Commissioner and his counsel discuss the process when it came to having enough time to appropriately advertise based on the dates that you came up with. Couldn't you have worked with them a little closer in establishing those dates when you were first brought aboard, couldn't you have established dates that would have given them enough time that they weren't up against it?
We established dates in two particular phases. We established the Phase dates. We had two scheduling conferences, first for Phase 1. On February 1, we had scheduling conference No. 2 for Phase 2. 130 Transportation & Public Utilities This was not a normal proceeding by any means due to the delay, approximately one-year delay in selecting a Hearing Examiner, selecting a Public Advocate, and moving the process along. So there were quite a few things here that technically did not proceed by the book. And we as the parties picked up with what we had and moved as best we could. With regard to allowing for notice, very fluid, and we were doing the best we could given the constraints to try and provide this in a six-month period of time. And we did discuss how much time could we float it out a little bit more. It was upon my request that a significant broadening of the publication was done, especially with regard to the Spanish language newspapers. It was upon my request that we had a hearing at the North Philadelphia neighborhood known as Norris Square or the Hunter School and that we have a translator available. I think everybody worked very well with 131 Transportation & Public Utilities regard to that and we were all quite flexible. However, there were not necessarily newspaper people and there were some difficulties in nailing down specifics for sites. And as was mentioned, even with the one site, the Hunter School actually has two addresses and the wrong address was printed. And we didn't catch that until the very end because the new school was built and the old school was the address listed, and they are approximately three blocks away from each other.
Well, I would hope -- I don't know the process, whether you'll do this again in the future, but I believe the consistency needs to be with the Water Department and the counsel to the Water Department to assure that appropriate notice. Basically, you're telling me that this one and we know that the examiner and the Public Advocate was delayed for many, many months because we asked this 132 Transportation & Public Utilities question months ago and we knew that there couldn't be a process -- and I believe even the president of City Council had some involvement in that process, but going forward I would appeal to the Water Department to step outside like you said of the norm to communicate more than the requirement and also to nail those dates down that does create a communication constraint.
And that's fine, but, again, in any future proceeding you're really going to have to see what kind of personalities line up at the table.
I think it's their job that whoever is the Hearing Examiner is basically asked to be cooperative and set these dates as early as possible in the process to give communication. Who knows? It may be you again but it may not be, but we have to rely I think on the Water Department to make sure who represents them has that on 133 Transportation & Public Utilities the agenda to get these dates established as early as possible. Thank you.
Thank you. I would also like to make one further recommendation. Community involvement basically revolves around community organizations and one of the failings here was the lack of community organizations to organize themselves. So I know there's an organizing department for the City and I would suggest that they be brought in for purposes such as this.
Seeing no 22 one else to testify, this hearing will be recessed to the call of the chair. Thank you. (Whereupon the hearing 134 Transportation & Public Utilities adjourned at 4:35 p.m.) - - - 135 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence, and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the hearing of taken on July 14, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ Kimberly A. Overwise Certified Realtime Reporter Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)