00001 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March 17, 2003 10:00 a.m. - - - Bill Number 030002, an ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009, Inclusive. Bill Number 030003, an ordinance to adopt the Fiscal Year 2004 Capital Budget. Bill Number 030005, an ordinance amending ordinance approved May 15, 2002 (Bill Number 020028), relating to Fiscal 2003 Capital Budget, by increasing and adding projects and amounts to certain departments. Bill Number 030006, an ordinance amending an ordinance approved May 15, 2002 Bill Number 020029), relating to the Capital Program for the six fiscal years 2003 through 2008, by increasing and adding projects and amounts in certain departments. Bill Number 030096, an ordinance authorizing the creation of a loan or loans to provide funds for and toward various capital municipal purposes; authorizing the Mayor, City Controller and City Solicitor or a majority of them to sell bonds at public or private negotiated sale. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO 00002 PRESENT (CONTINUED): COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK. J. DiCICCO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED-MILLER - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 00003
Good morning, everyone. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. I have asked Mr. McPherson to please read the bill numbers and the title of the bills. MR. McPHERSON: Bill Number 030002, an ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009, inclusive. Bill Number 030003, an ordinance to adopt the Fiscal Year 2004 Capital Budget. Bill Number 030005, an ordinance 13 amending ordinance approved May 15, 2002 (Bill 14 Number 020028), relating to Fiscal 2003 Capital Budget, by increasing and adding projects and amounts to certain departments. Bill Number 030006, an ordinance 18 amending an ordinance approved May 15, 2002 Bill 19 Number 020029), relating to the Capital Program for the six fiscal years 2003 through 2008, by increasing and adding projects and amounts in certain departments. Bill Number 030096, an ordinance 24 authorizing the creation of a loan or loans to provide funds for and toward various capital 00004 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole municipal purposes; authorizing the Mayor, City Controller and City Solicitor or a majority of them to sell bonds at public or private negotiated sale.
Thank you. Mr. Dubow, are you testifying first or is it City Planning? Good morning.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Maxine Griffith, Executive Director, City Planning Commission and Secretary for Strategic Planning. Council President Verna and Members of the City Council, good morning. " My name is Maxine Griffith, and I am Executive Director of the City Planning Commission and Secretary for Strategic Planning. One of the Home Rule Charter mandated responsibilities of the City Planning 00005 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole Commission is to prepare and submit to the Mayor a recommended Capital Budgeting Program. As you know, the Capital Budgeting Program establishes a six-year plan for investing in the City's public buildings, community facilities, and physical infrastructure. While much of the Capital Program focuses on improvements to the City's neighborhoods and the quality of the life of its citizens, the plan supports numerous other municipal government priorities. Among these are the development of the City's economy, improving conditions related to public health and safety, and promoting the City's fiscal stability, by increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations. This morning I am pleased to present for your consideration the recommended FY 2004 to 2009 Capital Program and the FY 2004 Capital Budget. We are recommending a lean and efficient spending plan that makes effective use of increasingly constrained resources. This is an 00006 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole austere but comprehensive Capital Program that will continue our efforts to make Philadelphia a great place to live, work and visit, even in its time of decreased resources. 8 billion over a six-year period, to provide new facilities where necessary, to renovate the City's existing stock of public and community facilities, and to modernize its physical infrastructure. However, as the Mayor stated in his Budget Address, Philadelphia has a public infrastructure designed for many more people than now reside in our City. Some of our facilities are physically deteriorated and underutilized. Over the next year, working closely with our sister agencies, the School District, community-based organizations, and of course the City Council, we will strive to determine what venues may be combined and which services could be incorporated into other facilities, such as new or revamped school buildings. Our objective will be enhanced 00007 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole facilities, right-sized for our City. The total cost for the 107 projects recommended for FY 2004, the first year of this program, is almost $619 million. Of this total, $81 million, or 7 percent, is funded by new, City-issued general 8 obligation funds. An additional $22 million, or 9 four percent, will come from operating revenue and 10 tax-supported loan funds that were authorized 11 previously. 12 New City self-sustaining loans 13 issued as Philadelphia Airport and Water Department revenue bonds, account for $247 million, or 40 percent of the total budget year funds. Funding from other levels of Government, including Federal, Commonwealth and regional sources, totals $241 million, or 39 percent, in the budget year. Over $165 million of this other government funding is budgeted for transit-related projects. Finally, $11 million, or two percent, of FY 2004 funding will be provided by private sources. 00008 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole The availability of tax-supported GO funding for capital projects is severely constrained in this recommended 2004-2009 Capital Program. This is due to City debt limits established by the Pennsylvania Constitution, as well as by the City's ability to service the debt on borrowed funds. As a result, the competition for limited resources among the many projects proposed by City departments presented difficult funding decisions. While City tax-supported funding in budget year is about the same as that program last year for FY 2004, GO funding in the out years of this program is reduced, as the City approaches its Constitutional debt limit.
Most of my testimony focuses on FY 2004, the budget year of the Capital Program, since budget-year funding will become actual appropriations. Projects and priorities for the subsequent five years of the Capital Program represents planned spending, based on our best estimates of future needs. 00009 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole Uses of funds. The uses of funds in FY 2004 Capital Program are divided into five broad categories. The largest portion of these funds are allocated for neighborhood development, with $257 million or 41 percent of the FY 2004 total, budgeted for renovations to neighborhood facilities and physical infrastructure improvements. Economic development is the next largest allocation, with $190 million, or 31 percent, budgeted for projects that support the growth of the City's economy. This is followed by $87 million, 14 percent, allocated for health and safety projects; $54 million, or nine percent, budgeted for fiscal stability projects; and $30 million, or five percent, targeted to projects that contributed to quality of life or specific infrastructure, improvements for all citizens. Neighborhood development projects directly support community revitalization programs through the renewal of community facilities including libraries, park and recreation facilities, police and fire stations, and site 00010 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole improvements in support of neighborhood commercial revitalization programs. Improvements to transit stations and other SEPTA facilities, street reconstruction and resurfacing, street signage and traffic control improvements, and the replacement of water and sewer mains are also included in this category. A total of $257 million is recommended for neighborhood development projects for FY 2004. The City will continue to assess neighborhood infrastructure to ensure that the Capital Budgeting Program will most effectively support the goals of NTI, the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. In the Recreation Department, funds are recommended for the renovation of playgrounds, basketball and tennis courts, lighting, and needed repairs to recreation facility roofs, heating and safety systems, and other code compliance issues. Swimming pools will continue to be upgraded, to improve health and safety conditions, as well as to minimize water losses due to outdated circulation systems. Through a state grant, matched by $1 00011 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole million of City funds, additional neighborhood playgrounds and recreation centers will be renovated. 1 million in new City tax-supported funds are recommended for these recreation projects in FY 2004. Funding totaling $875,000 is recommended for the Fairmount Park Commission, to continue its program to renovate its athletic and play areas, as well as to improve access to these areas, many of which serve City neighborhoods. Funding is also provided for planting 2,700 new park and street trees and the removal of dead and dangerous trees throughout the City. The Free Library is completing its program of branch library rehabilitation, using a combination of public and private funding. 7 million will replace the Widener Branch in North Philadelphia and complete the renovations begun last year at the Walnut West Branch in University City. An additional $750,000 will enable the Free Library to make needed mechanical, 00012 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole structural and safety improvements at the Central Library and various branches. In addition to but separate from these recommended capital funds, a $30 million Free Library expansion fund will be established. This fund will be used to match much-needed private sector contributions to support the expansion of the country's first, and may I say, finest Free Library. This library expansion is now being developed.
Improvements in neighborhood commercial centers will continue, with $1 million in City tax-supported funds for site improvements, curbs, sidewalks, street trees, signs, lighting and public parking. These improvements, as part of a program of comprehensive neighborhood and commercial district plans, are intended to attract and leverage other investments in retail and residential projects. In the Streets Department, City tax-supported funding approaching $17 million is recommended for neighborhood street reconstruction and resurfacing, bridge reconstruction, traffic 00013 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole control, and street lighting improvements, and the school and pedestrian crossing signs. 5 million in state and federal funds. 5 million in new City funds, matched by over $165 million in contributed federal, state and regional funds are recommended for transit infrastructure investments that support overall neighborhood development. Among these are the completion of the reconstruction of the Frankford Elevated Line and the Frankford Terminal Transportation Center, continuing reconstruction of the Market Street Elevated Line, improving station accessibility through the installation of elevators and escalators, renovation of the South Broad and Suburban Station concourses, the acquisition of paratransit vehicles and regional rail cars, and a variety of other track signal maintenance facility infrastructure and environmental improvements. The Water Department will continue to make strategic investments in the replacement of water and sewer lines serving the City's neighborhoods, with almost $50 million in 00014 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole self-sustaining funds recommended for these projects. The Health Department will continue to upgrade its neighborhood health facilities, with recommended funding of $790,000 for FY 2004. HVAC and other building improvements will be made at health centers in West Philadelphia and Germantown, and at the Air Management Laboratory. Other facilities will receive new equipment and furnishings to provide better service and more effectively compete with private sector providers in attracting and maintaining insured customers. The Fire Department will continue major investments to improve working conditions for its personnel and to ensure the continued operational effectiveness of its stations. 45 million budgeted for heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, roof replacements, and other needed interior and exterior renovations. 00015 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole Capital investment in the economic development category aims to retain and attract businesses, provide jobs for residents, spur economic activity in the City's neighborhoods, and support other development initiatives. A total of $190 million is recommended for economic development projects in FY 2004. An ambitious improvement program continues at Philadelphia International Airport, in order to maintain this facility at world class standards. Over $140 million of self-sustaining funds, matched by $40 million of federal funds, are recommended for airport improvements in FY 2004. Extensive building modifications needed to accommodate federally-mandated security equipment are estimated to cost $100 million. Improvements will also be made to increase air field capacity, renovate maintenance and service buildings, and upgrade ground transportation facilities, roadways and signage. In the passenger terminals, all existing monitors will be replaced by large, flat-screen displays. And other mechanical and 00016 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole cosmetic improvements will continue to ensure passenger comfort and convenience. 6 million of self-sustaining funding is recommended for air field and facility improvements at Northeast Philadelphia Airport.
The future development of Penns Landing was recently the subject of public discussion at a series of open forums organized by the Commerce Department, the Penns Landing Corporation and those of us at City Planning. Public outreach continues at sessions jointly sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Inquirer. These forums and hearings serve to inform a request for proposals process for development of this important Delaware Riverfront site. To support future development at Penns Landing, $1 million is recommended for critical infrastructure repairs and other needed improvements. Combined City and state funds, totaling $1 million, is also recommended for improvements to the Schuylkill River Greenway and Trail. 00017 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole Continued funding to support development in both the City's older industrial areas and newer industrial parks is also recommended for FY 2004. In the City's Enterprise Empowerment Zones and Neighborhood Industrial Districts, $400,000 is recommended for site preparation and infrastructure improvements. In the City-managed industrial parks, resources from existing revolving funds are budgeted for continuing environmental testing and remediation, land acquisition and roadway and utility line improvements. In support of Pennsylvania Convention Center expansion... Excuse me. In support of Pennsylvania Convention Center expansion, $2 million of previously authorized funds are recommended in FY 2004 for site assembly and clearance. In the health and safety category, the recommended 2004-2009 Capital Program provides funds for improvements to the City's water treatment and waste water treatment plant renovations -- Excuse me -- renovations to the Health Administration Building, asbestos 00018 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole abatement, and life safety improvements at City facilities, and City matching funds for public transit projects that affect riders' safety and accessibility. A total of $87 million is recommended for health and safety projects in FY 2004. Recommended projects in this category include $500,000 in new tax-supported funds for mechanical interior improvements at the City's Gateway Station, Stenton and Woodstock Shelters in FY 2004. At the Zoo, $300,000 is recommended for alarm systems and fire safety improvements. A. A. improvements on an as-needed basis. In FY 2004, $100,000 is recommended for such modifications. The City's fiscal stability is 00019 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole improved by investing in projects that enable government operations and services to be provided more efficiently. A total of $54 million is recommended for fiscal stability projects in FY 2004. Recommended projects in this category include improvements in the communication and dispatch systems used by the Police and Fire Departments. The Managing Directors Office will continue the development of an integrated data base to coordinate the efforts of the Health Department, the Department of Human Services, and the Office of Emergency Shelter and Services, in providing social services to families and children. Other fiscal stability projects recommended in FY 2004 promote greater effectiveness in delivering government services by consolidating functions and investing in new technology. Advances in digital technology, for example, have had a substantial impact on communications and information management. In the 00020 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole budget year recommendations are made for several such communication and technology improvement projects. The Municipal Energy Office, MEO, has spearheaded efforts to make the City's use of energy more efficient. The Green Lights Program focuses on installing energy efficient lighting fixtures. In FY 2004, $250,000 is recommended for lighting upgrades at facilities throughout the City.
A similar amount is recommended for the Energy Star Program to replace HVAC and other mechanical systems at City facilities and with more efficient units. The Capital Program is committed to these and similar projects because they generate substantial operating budget paybacks, in the form of reduced energy costs. Finally, civic infrastructure projects make an important contribution to the livability of Philadelphia as a whole, as well as to the City's reputation as a designation for tourists and visitors. A total of $30 million is recommended for improvements to cultural 00021 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole facilities that are used and enjoyed by all citizens. The restoration of City Hall is a civic infrastructure project that will be familiar to every Councilperson. This work has been admirably managed by our Capital Program Office, and we are recommending funding of $5 million in FY 2004, to allow for continued roof and exterior treatments, as well as improvements to interior heating and cooling systems. An additional $21 million is programmed for this project before its anticipated completion in FY 2009. 2 million is recommended for renovation work at the recently acquired Pearlman Building. An additional $1 million is recommended to continue improvements to the Art Museum's security system. 7 million of City funding is recommended for improvement to historic structures, utilities, drainage and landscaping, footways, stables, and parking areas. City funds will be matched by state and federal funding for these improvement projects. 3 million is 00022 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole recommended for projects that include improvements to the carnivore -- lion -- house exhibit, roof replacements at several buildings, infrastructure improvements, and general safety and security upgrades. City funds will be matched by almost $10 million raised by private sources for these projects. In conclusion, let me say that although the recommended Capital Budgeting program strategically allocates very limited resources to ensure the City's capacity to deliver needed public services effectively, it also provides for the kind of investment in Philadelphia's future that is key to our City's economic health and growth. We must continue our prudent stewardship of Philadelphia's physical infrastructure and to seek to enhance the resources available to do so. Madam President, before I conclude, I would like to turn it over to Gary Gastrap, my Director of Strategic Planning and Policy, to give you an update on some technical issues related to the ordinance, if I may. 00023 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
My name is Gary Gastrap. I'm Director of the Strategic Planning and Policy Division at the City Planning Commission. And I would just like to offer a proposed amendment to Bill 030003, the Capital Budget Bill, to correct a technical error, by removing several off-budget items. These are items... funds provided by the federal and state governments that do not flow through the City but were inadvertently included in the original Budget Bill. So, by removing these off-budget items, it does not affect the substantive content of the bill. Just makes a technical correction.
Thank you. I'd also like to take a moment to thank Gary and his fantastic staff, many of whom are arrayed behind me, for the work that they've done in the Capital Budget. And now I'd like to turn it over to our erstwhile Director of Budget, Rob Dubow.
Good morning, President 00024 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole Verna.
And Members of City Council. My name is Rob Dubow, and I am the Budget Director for the City of Philadelphia. I appear before you today to offer testimony on the recommended FY 2004-2009 Capital Program, which plans for a $3.8 billion investment in the City's public infrastructure. While Maxine's testimony focused on the projects that will be funded in the program and in the FY '04 Capital Budget, I'm going to focus on how we determine the level of City-supported funding that we included in each year of the program. As you know, our ability to issue debt is limited by the State Constitution. We're allowed to have debt equal to 13 and a half percent of the ten-year average of the assessed value of real estate in the City. As of February 1, 2003, the City's remaining debt capacity stood at roughly $141 million. Under the Constitution, the only way our 00025 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole debt and current capacity can increase is if we retire existing debt or if the assessed value of property in the City increases. In constructing the FY '04 to FY '09 program, we distributed our remaining capacity to meet the minimum needs of our capital infrastructure, while not using up all of our capacity in one or two years. Factoring in projected increases in assessed value and debt retirements, we determined that we could fund roughly $80 million in '04, $70 million in Fiscal Year '05, $60 million in Fiscal Year '06, and slightly less than $50 million a year for the rest of the program. Clearly, the FY '07 to FY '09 levels are not sufficient to meet even the minimum needs of our infrastructure. As a result, the City will continue reviewing ways of paying for some capital projects out of the Operating Fund, paying on debt if operating funds are available, or issue debt through other authorities. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have related to the Budget and Program. We also have testimony under 00026 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole amendment. Should we give that now, the '03 Capital Amendment?
Okay. I appear before you to offer testimony on Bills 020028 and 020029, which propose to amend Bill 020028, the City's FY 2003 Capital Budget; and Bill 020029, the City's 2003-2008 Capital Program. I'm sorry. Those are Bills 030005 and 030006, which makes the amendments. We propose to amend these measures to add additional appropriations necessary to provide funding from unspent FY 2002 Operating Budget appropriations, as well as add additional state and private appropriations for existing projects. In this proposed amendment, two new budget lines would be created to fund projects that were budgeted in FY 2002 but were delayed in being initiated for various reasons. The first new Budget line item is $7,890,000 for security improvements to municipal buildings, including City Hall, the Municipal 00027 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole Services Building, and the One Parkway Building. The second new line item is $901,000 for renovations at the new Police Special Victims Unit, which is relocating to Episcopal Hospital. Both of these new line items are funded through the FY 2002 Operating Budget year-end transfer ordinance, approved by City Council on December 12, 2002. The amendment also includes additional appropriations for six existing Fiscal Year 2003 projects to provide for spending authorization for unanticipated state grants and private funding. These include state and private funding for the Walnut West Branch Library renovations, two state grants for the Police Forensic Laboratory, a state grant for the Prisons Modular Three Building renovations, and another state grant for the lighting replacement on the George C. Platt Memorial Bridge. And that concludes my testimony, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
And we 00028 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole will get a copy of the amendments.
Miss Griffith, regarding the Free Library, does your plan take into consideration the potential sale, leaseback transaction addressed in the five-year plan?
I have mentioned that in my testimony because I know it's been something that's been discussed here at Council. It is not part of the Capital Program and budget per se. The Director of Finance and the Budget Directors, my understanding, are now contemplating such a program and developing it. Obviously there's a connection, there's a relationship between the two programs, but it is not part of the Capital Budget.
Also, do you plan to spend the $2 million in FY '04 for the Convention Center's expansion, site assembly, and clearance before expansion is authorized?
Hope springs eternal, Madam Council President. 00029 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole Obviously, we had to be prudent in developing the Budget, and anticipate the possibility in the hope we would be able to move forward. Again, obviously, we would not move forward imprudently, given the lack of resources. But funds have been allocated if the stars align themselves and we are able to move forward with expansion.
And the Budget indicates that there is a master plan. Could we see that master plan, please?
Can you tell us what City Planning's involvement is with the NTI? Let's just get it on the record.
Yes, Madam President. We are involved in NTI in a number of levels. The major one is in compiling and developing a series of community based plans for, at least in year one, the 29 NTI planning areas. We also take part in our ministerial responsibilities, in action such as taking back ninety-fours establishment of urban renewal areas, 00030 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole et cetera. But our primary responsibility is the development of, for this year, the 29 NTI plans for the areas that have been designated jointly between the Administration and City Council.
On the very last paragraph of your testimony on you indicate funding totaling $875,000 is recommended for the Fairmount Park Commission, to continue its program to renovate its athletic and play areas. Funding is also provided for planting 2700 new park trees and street trees, and the removal of dead and dangerous trees throughout the City. How much of the $875,000 will be allocated for the removal of dead trees and the planting of street trees?
Let me see whether we have that breakdown for you. We don't have a breakdown here with us. We can provide that for you and Members of the Council. 00031 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
I would appreciate that. I see that there are a number of Council Members that have questions. I don't want to dominate this. I do have a number of questions myself. I think for the first go-around each Council Person will be given five minutes. At this time the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
You mentioned in your testimony -- My first question is regarding the rec facilities. You mentioned in your testimony and the Mayor discussed this in his Budget Address, and the Commission of Recreation talked about it during our earlier Budget hearings, this notion of right-sizing rec centers. And there are a number of my colleagues, District Councilpersons who have a concern in finding us -- not finding us at a place where we are right-sizing centers that are scheduled to be closed or investing in centers that are scheduled to be closed. 00032 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole So what kind of benchmarks or flags do you have in the process that sort of protect my colleagues who had those kind of concerns? And I ask this question as Chair of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Affairs.
Yes, ma'am. Let me answer briefly. And then I know that the Commissioner of Recreation is here, and he may want to speak to this as well. Right now, since we do not have a plan in place, and any plan would be done in concert with the Council, we have informal conversations with Council Members around investments and individual centers. Obviously, a center located in an area with a sharp decline in population where there might be two centers very near each other, that would be a red flag, in terms of -- in terms of investing large dollars in renovation. However, absent a plan, which the Council could review, we are loathe to do anything but advise and communicate. I don't know whether the Recreation Commissioner has anything to add, but we -- 00033 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
I know the Mayor has directed us prior to conversations on next year's Capital Budget, which usually start in the fall around November, to have a plan which could be reviewed jointly. So that is our internal timetable, unless I get --
Sure. Well, I would only ask that I be kept abreast as a Member of that Committee.
FDR tennis courts. A constituent from Madam President's District has an interest in knowing what's the status of the FDR tennis courts, the prognosis for sprucing them up. What can I tell this individual at this juncture?
Good morning, Council President, Members of City Council. My name is Rick Tustin. I'm the Director of the City's Capital Program Office. To respond to your question, we expect construction to start this spring. And it will -- it will continue through until next spring. And as far as -- We can give you also more information as to the level of the upgrades that we will be doing. Be more than happy to sit down with you and actually show you a copy of the plan and go through it step by step.
I would do that under the leadership of President Verna, since this is her Councilmanic District. And as I said, I'm curious to know, a, because it's another rec item; and, b, because it's a constituent who loves the arts.
And so, I was being an advocate for him as well. So please keep us both informed. 00035 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
My final item is around Belmont Mansion. And I'm confident the District Councilperson for Belmont Mansion has a number of questions as well. But I clearly remember last year, during Budget hearings, there was a lot of discussion on what will and what will not happen with the third floor at the Belmont Mansion. So I'm curious to know what's up, number one. And then number two, I'm sure if you have been following Budget hearings, there is... a strong interest is an understatement, but a clear interest that we as Members of this Legislative Body expect to see in every single City construction project, folks who look like us on the project. And it's my understanding that currently there are 50 contractors at Belmont Mansion. Not one is a minority. And of course I'd be curious to know, as a woman, are there any women on this construction team as well. 00036 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole So, please speak to me about the process by which that contract was let for the Belmont Mansion.
I'd be happy to. As you well know, over the past year we have been going through finalizing the design stage of that project. We've had several meetings with the City's Historic Commission, as well as the City's Art Commission, and presented what we believe is the best possible solution to restoring that historic structure. That project, by the way, at this point in time has already been bid, and we are waiting to award that project. We have not awarded that project yet. We would like to award it this spring. In regards to your second question concerning minority and women participation on projects, when we get ready to put out a public works contract, we send our information as in regards to the dollar value of the contract and the different trades that are involved in the contract over to Procurement Department and to 00037 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole MBEC. MBEC sits down, reviews that information, and then comes back to us and tells us what level of participation we should include in the project. This isn't something we put in. It's what we're told from the Minority and Business Enterprise Council. So that project then gets publicly advertised through the Procurement Department, and it goes into the newspaper, usually twice over a three-week period of time. And it's open to everyone within the City. And when contractors come in to pick up those drawings and specs and attend the prebid meeting, they also know what they're required to meet, as far as minority and women participation. We have no way of screening contractors prior to the prebid meeting. They also have to submit, around that same time, a prequalification questionnaire. That prequalification questionnaire really is directed towards the type of projects they as a contractor have done in the past, whether they can handle this size of project, as 00038 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole well as this type of project, being a historic restoration, as well as their financial capability to do, you know, to handle the project.
Because you're providing a lot of information. At those prebid meetings, are City Department Heads permitted to attend those meetings to get a look at the big picture of who's in attendance?
Absolutely. Usually somebody from the Minority and Business Enterprise Council attends those meetings. Somebody from a Labor-management Department attends those meetings. Usually somebody from the Operating or the department that we're doing that project for, in this case Fairmount Park attends that meeting, as well as our office attends those meetings. We also have with us the architect who provided the drawings for the meeting -- for the project is there as well.
What 00039 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole flexibility do Department Heads have, with regards to stepping up and speaking up and saying that this audience does not reflect the City?
Usually the person from the Minority and Business Enterprise Council has an opportunity at that prebid meeting to step up and to again emphasize the importance of minority and women participation on these projects. They provide any explanation that's required, in order so the contractors will know how to solicit for minority and women participation, as well as an explanation of the forms that are required to be filled out as part of the bid package.
That's all done at the pre-proposal meeting -- or prebid meeting.
Councilwoman, I'm sorry. Your time is up. If you want to conclude this line of questioning... Otherwise, we'll have to wait until round two.
Okay. I'll just conclude this with two follow-up closing questions. You mentioned that -- This particular 00040 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole contract has already been let. Okay. And so the next step is what, the actual start of the --
So what does that mean, that you have a short list and you're waiting to make a decision on the short list?
That have actually bid the job. And that recommendation of award is a form that comes from Procurement over to our office, asking if we will make that recommendation.
I should also state that the awards are based on low bid. 00041 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
Public Works contracts are always based on lowest qualified bidder, responsive responsible bidder. So, as long as -- and I should also say that before we even get the recommendation of award?
It's also been screened by Minority and Business Enterprise, to make sure the contractors have met the responsibility of minority and women participation within their bid.
I thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Councilwoman Brown. Mr. Tustin, while you're at the table, you're requesting a $1.2 million increase in your Class 100 Operating Budget. And you have a slight decrease in personnel in your Capital Budget. Are any of these employees in the DROP Program?
The employees that -- The dollar figure that's reflected in the 00042 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole Operating Budget is -- are -- none of those employees are reflected in the DROP Program. This is an employee that has already left. And in addition to the leaving of one employee, which we did not replace, we've also done a reclassification, if you will, of other employees within the department. As you may not or may know or may not know, our office is made up from employees that are funded both from the Operating and the Capital Budget. Depending on the work that they're performing, we have to put them into either one of those two Budget lines, Capital or Operating. So I guess the short answer to your question, although I've taken a long time so far, is that that drop or that increase is not a result or decrease is not a result of the DROP program.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I didn't think I'd get called on that soon. Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Miss Griffith. 00043 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole Earlier in your testimony you briefly touched on the subject of the Penns Landing site. I'm familiar with the Inquirer, public forums. The Administration, I believe, had two or three public forums as well. Where are we in that process? It's my understanding that several developers, seven or nine -- I'm not sure of the exact number -- have participated in the RFQ process. What does that mean to us? I mean, other than the fact that -- The typical thing, I think, is that when a developer responds to an RFQ they just basically say that they couldn't qualify because they have the financial resources and the expertise to develop a project similar to the size and scope of the Penns Landing project which is really the heart of my question. I know what the size and scope of the Simon project was. I was involved in that for six years. Do we have any sense as to what it is that we really want to develop there?
Let me respond to your question, to the extent that we have been 00044 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole involved. And then I will also ask representatives from the Commerce Department, who are really the lead agency, to see whether they want to add anything. You are absolutely correct, Councilman. There were, I believe, nine respondents to the RFQ. Seven of those were deemed by the Review Committee to be appropriate to move on to the next phase. That will be an RFP phase. You're also correct that the Administration coordinated three public hearings, as well as, you know, as a couple of meetings with stakeholders. And in addition we've been cooperative and very interested in the series that U. Penn has mounted. Because of that, it's been determined that we would wait until the completion of that public participation phase so that we can glean anything that could be helpful from the public comment and from the extensive charette that the University of Pennsylvania mounted, to see whether any of that information can be included as part of the criteria for the RFP. 00045 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole Our RFQ was perhaps a little more detailed than is usual with RFQs. And we got a little more detail back, in terms of what folks were thinking of. However, it is really the RFP responsive to the RFP where we will know the extent of what is being proposed. I should also note that most of the developers attended most, if not all, of the public participation rounds that we had and that U. Penn has had. And that we would expect not only to include, as I mentioned before, that which is appropriate to include, in terms of criteria in the RFP. But we suspect the developers themselves are to some extent shaping their responses in response to public concern, although the market has to be a primary concern as well. Let me ask if there's someone from Commerce that would like to speak to this. Okay. I covered it? Okay. And we'd be happy to brief you in more detail if you wish. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, the 00046 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole University of Penn, I understand, they did some sort of a charette. And my concern is, when we speak about the RFP, generally the RFP will come from developer or developers who have a basic concept in mind. And maybe they take some of the information that they gathered at these public forums and maybe they don't. My experience with the Penns Landing site is, when Rendell was the Mayor, he selected a developer. And the developer basically came with a concept, notwithstanding the need to develop it. And I think most of is us, including myself, if we were guilty of anything, we were guilty of the hype that finally, at last, after 30-some-odd years we were going to develop the Penns Landing site. But it was a very long and time-consuming project, a process that I developed along with the -- between the developer and the communities, that took the better part of five years, trying to hone the project to fit not only the site but also some of the concerns of the community. And although I would like to have 00047 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole seen something built, I think in hindsight maybe it is better that we did not build that, given the post 9/11 issues and the fact that people aren't traveling, and a lot of people don't want to basically go into these huge retail boxes the way they did prior to 9/11. I think, again, I'd love to have it under my watch, as the Councilperson, and do the ribbon-cutting and all that stuff. But we really need to do a more thorough job of including the public process. The City has not done a charette on its own to date.
No. We trust the University of Pennsylvania. And my staff and I know Jim Caratto has personally taken part and was there. Last week I just spoke to him about the conclusions, the three ideas that came out of that charette. It is, you know, from our view and in the Planning Department, that we take not only the results and the input from the public participation process and include those in criteria that the developers have to respond to. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right. 00048 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
In other words, they can't just do everything. But also, I would like to pat my staff on the back a little bit. We also have folks who went to the best schools in the country, and urban designers and planners. And to the extent that we are part of the team and have some sway over the language that will be included in the final -- final RFP, we, too, want to make sure that there is language that protects this important asset, and that where you have a development that is highest and best use and we get the tax revenue and we get the visitors, and et cetera, but we also preserve what's wonderful about the site. And I think we concur in that regard. The Mayor has also suggested -- and this hasn't been discussed by the Committee. But the Mayor's also suggested that when the responses come in from the developers, that we actually have a public process to review the actual proposals, perhaps something at the Convention Center and on the net, where the public and elected officials could see what we hope to be seven proposals and 00049 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole seven very different proposals. But we also look forward to continuing to work with you, Councilman, as we shape this. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And that could be a good thing. But again, on my experience, there are two levels of public participation. You have the more global public participation. And then you have the obvious more immediate public participation, and that's the people who live closest to the site, the Society Hill Civic, Society Hill Towers, Queen Village, Olde City. The process that I put together back in 1996 or '97 included about 15 community groups. And they had more immediate needs and issues as well. And I can tell you, from that process, that they were... Although they were sensitive to what their concerns and needs were, they understood the importance of a development at that site and what that meant to the entire City. So they were not being selfish, if you will. And I want to make sure that that continues, going forward. And of the four or five developers 00050 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole that I've met with of the nine developers who responded to the RFQ, although they're very exciting and ambitious projects, from my information and in my meeting with communities and going through some of these processes, that they are more on the scale of assignment, in terms of the density, and less what the public and less what the public would like to see. So, although I respect the University of Pennsylvania and the Inquirer's participation, although they have not actually had any dealings directly with developers. One of the developers came to me with an amazing, an amazing development. It almost looks like they're building a whole new City. We're talking about six million square feet. And the Simon project was only 600,000 square feet. And although it's very exciting, if you want to look into the future it probably would be something that we might want to consider. But I think if the public saw that, they would be outraged. and I'm not putting a damper on that, but I just want to make sure that we don't rush 00051 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole this. Thirty years is a long time, I know. And some people say, "Well, don't you think it's about time?" Yes, it is. But I think it's the time that we do it the right way, so... And I think that the community groups have been contacting me over the last several days, and they wanted to get together on Thursday to do some public announcement about what the communities adjacent to the site would like to see the City do in response to their concerns. And I do appreciate your department's participation, because we had a long five, six years with the assignment folks, and they were excellent. And we worked very well together.
Well, let's continue that partnership. I know we had one meeting with the affected neighbors. I think that perhaps under your leadership we could continue that process. We're also very open to hear in a more formal way what the communities contiguous to the site -- I 00052 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole mean, obviously, issues of traffic and noise, et cetera, would impact on those folks in a very different way than it would -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Absolutely.
-- in people further from the site. So... And I also agree that there is no interest in rushing to judgment. We have, again, taken the time so far to listen to public comment, to let the U. Penn process play out. So we'd be happy to work with you as we continue. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you, Miss Griffith. And thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Councilwoman Tasco. (No response.)
The Chair at this time, then, recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Griffith, I wanted to just ask a couple questions about your testimony, and then 00053 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole I wanted to talk about some projects. On the first page of your testimony, you talk about with regard to a variety of City and other government facilities. The sentence says: Our objective will be enhanced facilities, quote, unquote, right-sized for our City. This is the concept of shrinking the City down to the present population and how the facilities best serve the population that we have. Is that the concept here?
Not quite. We have a couple of problems. We have a lot of facilities that are deteriorating in areas with very, very low population. In some cases we have... I'm thinking of recreation facilities... two almost contiguous facilities, with a population that is much smaller than was originally.
Well, if you would take a look at a map that was generated to support Neighborhood Transformation, and where you look at areas of depopulation -- and we can get that map to you; I don't want to speak out of turn -- and 00054 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole look at the demographic information that's been generated by the Recreation Department, that indicates areas where we have a lack of population to support the infrastructure. So, if I may, the plan is not to cut back on services, but to try to use the infrastructure jointly. We're working with the School District, for instance, begin to think through ways of augmenting the new and renovated school buildings that are on the drawing boards, to provide recreation facilities, et cetera.
What are the top three areas of the City that have experienced this depopulation?
Well, the two areas that are, again, if you look at a map, are areas -- are neighborhoods in North and West Philadelphia. Again, especially considering how neighborhoods are titled very differently, depending on who's talking about them, I'm hesitant to name communities, but would be happy to get a map to you, generated by our strategic 00055 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole planning folks, that can show, based on Census data, where those are.
Well, since I represent a significant part of West Philadelphia and a smaller part of North Philadelphia -- and you mentioned both of those neighborhoods -- I would be interested to know if any of the areas that you're talking about are within the boundaries of the Fourth District. So where in West Philadelphia are we talking about and where in North Philadelphia are we talking about?
Okay. What plan has the Planning Commission put together to enhance the population of the City or plan for any growth? Or are we anticipating any growth in the near future?
We are anticipating growth in the near future. We've been part of the team that put together the recent 21st Century announcement that Secretary Hannah put together and announced recently, talking about the seven primary 00056 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole development projects that are moving forward. We've also, in our community planning, in each plan have a component that speaks to community growth, that speaks to where growth can occur. And our Development and Community Planning Divisions have been working very closely so that the community plans are informed by an understanding of markets and development potential. We also obviously are part of the Commerce Department Economic Development Team and take part in those conversations. We look at zoning initiatives and zoning overlays, to ensure that they don't restrict growth, and so on, and so on. So it's not one project. It is a point of view that really informs and infuses all of the work that we do.
These plans that you've made reference to, are they available for our review?
Yes, those that are completed. We are just now completing existing 00057 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole condition studies on the 29 areas. We probably are close to a draft plan on five or six of those 29 areas. And we'd be happy to sit down with you and your staff and go over all the plans or focus on the plans in your District.
Okay. Thank you. I want to go back to the Belmont Mansion discussion. And then I want to talk about a couple other facilities. Mr. Tustin, I believe the Capital Budget indicates $250,000 for Belmont. Is that enough funding to complete the project? And when are we going to get a definitive decision with regard to -- This is 35, line item number two, under Section 40. When are we going to get a definitive decision on this third floor issue? I'd like to stop talking about it, get the project moved, and get the Mansion open.
Would you pull 00058 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole the microphone a little closer to you.
Councilman, when we put the project out for bid, we bid it in such a way that would allow us options. By that I mean we put it out as a base bid, with a series of add alternates to it so that we would know what our costs were and make sure we had enough money to cover at least the base bid of the project. We did that for all four of the primes, the general construction, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical. We believe that -- At least I'm pretty certain we believe that with the funding, if it gets approved in the '04 Budget, we should have enough to complete the project, the building itself. Like any project, depending on where the parameters of the project are, it can always grow. And by that what I mean is, the money we have available and the money that we're getting in '04 we think will accomplish the task of restoring the building per se. 00059 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole We have not extended that out into the parking areas, into the walk areas, adjacent to -- adjacent to the building itself. That is not included in the funding at this point in time. I would like to say --
Well, we're not quite certain whether we do, because we've just completed a project, I guess last year, called Belmont Groves, which was a substantial amount of parking, that is sort of interconnected to this facility. And through a walkway it can add that additional parking and additional amenities that we may need. So for us to run in and say, well, let's ask for more money to do parking next, we didn't really want to do that. We wanted to really be prudent. We wanted to look at what we have available right now, you know, before we just jump in and ask for additional money.
Well, I can appreciate that. And I know you to be a prudent person. 00060 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole What I'd like to see is a complete plan for the Belmont Mansion area, not only for the building but the surrounding areas, know what the entirety of that project is, and stop at this point, because it's been going on for so long; a bit of a piecemeal approach, when we know that we have more work to do, we know that it will only enhance the investments that we've made, and be able to lay out a plan to the organization, the American Women's Heritage Society, and their leader, Miss Thornton Johnson, and put all of this to rest, to some extent. I mean...
It's not that big of a building. It's not that big of an area. I understand it has a tremendous amount of historical significance. The projects are very complicated. But I mean, it's year after year after year. And I'd just like someone to tell me what the total package is, lay out all of the components of it, and I'd like to put an end to this conversation about the third floor. It has 00061 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole gone on for years and years. I don't have any problem with having a third floor. And you know, I know that people who are much better trained than I and have much more experience and certainly, you know, depth of fight about, you know, is it the late 1800's? Is it the early 1800's? I mean which is, you know, just wonderful historical and academic exercise. On the other hand, it's a complete waste of my time to continue having this discussion about which period are we trying to replicate. The building's old. Make it safe. Leave the third floor in place. Make sure that that's safe. Figure out what we're doing with the rest of the building. And let's move on. I mean, we do have a bunch of other buildings out there and a whole big City to run. And I don't know why we continue to torture ourselves with this. Just make a decision and get it over with.
We would love to make a decision and get this project over with, Councilman. As you and I discussed just last week in your office, this is a project that has taken a 00062 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole lot of our time and is a high priority for us as well. We think we're very close to a final decision on this so that we can get it into construction and actually move forward with the project. But I am in total agreement with you. We would like to get this project moving on, finish the project, restore it, so that we can move on to the other facilities within the City that need that same level of attention.
Okay. Miss Griffith, , line three. We're anticipating spending $6.9 million for staff out of capital dollars? Is that the way I'm reading that?
I'm trying to find the -- I have a slightly different version, because I have one that has the slides in it so...
This is your book? 00063 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
Yes. I can answer that question, Councilman. I don't know whether it would be appropriate at this time if you would allow me to read my testimony for Operating and Budget for the Capital Program Office for this fiscal year. I think it may answer some of your questions, and it will only take two or three minutes to do.
Well, I would love to be as accommodating as possible, and you know that I'm just a completely agreeable person. The only problem is, that time gets charged to me. And so, unless I'm going to get some extra time, I don't really want to listen to the testimony, because I'm going to get knocked off of the... I'm going to get knocked out of the box.
Councilman, we'll give you another few minutes, but they tell me you're already on extra time. But thank you.
Well, Madam Chair, I was hoping you wouldn't notice. (Laughter)
Let me try to answer your question specifically, then. The Budget request this year is for $6.9 million for 83 positions. As I said previously, two-thirds of the Capital Program Office are funded through the Capital Budget, not the Operating Budget. This $6.9 million is actually a reduction of $159,000 over last year's plan, due to a reduction in staff as well. And I would also like to say that we're -- I'm trying to jump through my testimony so that I can answer your question directly. Even though the Capital tax-supported debt financing over the next six years shows a reduction of 13 00065 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole percent in total, our plan over the next six years shows actually a percent reduction in staffing 4 and funding over the next four years. And we also 5 plan on continuing with that reduction in staffing 6 and funding as well. 7 So, we're trying to match our staff 8 needs against what the Capital Budget will be, 9 going forward so that we can continue to do the 10 jobs hopefully as well as we've been doing them in 11 the past, but still not overburden the Capital 12 Budget with staff costs.
Well, I can appreciate that. I guess when I read through Mr. Dubow's testimony when he talked about the FY '07-'09 levels are not sufficient to meet even the minimum needs of our infrastructure. As a result, the City is reviewing ways to pay for some Capital projects out of the Operating Fund, pay down debt if operating funds are available, or issue debt through other authorities, I'm wondering now more than ever why we're paying salaries out of an increasingly shrinking Capital Budget. The second is, is the term of this 00066 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole debt. And the question that will be on the ballot, is this year or 30 year? 4
Mr. Kemp, please 11 identify yourself for the record? 12
Mr. Kemp, can 15 you tell me if this is a 30-year bond issue? 16
Yeah. If that's the real number, I'm very excited to hear that. 00067 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole But I don't think so.
No. We asked you for loan authorizations each year. And the loan authorization for this year is about $83 million.
I'm sorry. I misunderstood the question. The loan authorization is $82 million... Give you the exact number. $82,975,000.
The $250 million I was talking about is the total GO issuance we are expecting to issue sometime in the summer.
But if we were having a $250 million Capital Budget offering, we can go home right now.
Because I'd be getting all the projects I wanted. Tell me this: What's the total cost of the $6.9 million in salaries over 30 years? 00068 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
You're asking me the total cost of the $6.9 million. Yeah; I would have to run an analysis to get you that exact information.
Give me a ballpark figure. How about if I let you away from the table for a second; you get your handy-dandy calculator back there, and you come back to the table and give me a number?
Right. What I was going to say is, you know, I can kind of... future value based on debt issuance of probably about 4.75 percent, which is the current issuance rate, if we issued debt today.
Again, I would have to run that. 00069 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
Thank you. Ms. Griffith, let me ask you one last question. Then the Chair is going to boot me off of the thing here.
What happened to the Wynnefield Recreation Center Project? And why isn't that in the Budget book?
It's my understanding that it's still in there, that all of the Recreation Department Projects are in one large consolidated line item.
Councilman, I think you're on , line item 81, improvements to existing recreation facilities.
There's a large 00070 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole appropriation there that many of those kind of projects are funded out of.
Now, Mr. Gastrap, you're not possibly confusing that with the approximate million dollars or so allocation to District Council Members? That's not what that item is, is it?
I think it would be a good idea if we brought Recreation to the mike, who could speak to this with some more authority.
Okay. I'm just... I guess what I'm trying to understand is a bit of the process from moving from year to year. In the 2002 to 2007 Capital Program on , under item number 95, Capital Program Administration Design and Engineering, Number 3 is the Wynnefield Recreation Center. A new recreation center will be designed in the budget year. $70,000 allocated. What I'm trying to understand from the City Planning Commission side is, who is responsible for keeping track of these items and where they go from year to year. How did it drop 00071 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole out of the book, is what I'm trying to understand.
It's my understanding it's from the carry forward, but do you want to speak to that?
My name is Eric Ifrig. I'm a Project Director with the Capital Program Office. The Wynnefield Recreation Center project is still in the carry forward amendment of funds for the design funding. As you know, there's a problem with site control, which hasn't been resolved yet.
I understand that. My question is, where is it in the book? That's all I want to know. It was in the 2002 to 2007. It's not in the 2004. From my perspective, if it's not in the book, it doesn't exist. I'd like to know what happened to it.
Right. It would be in the carry forward amendment. And as was mentioned at the top of our testimony, for technical reasons, those technical reasons being the 00072 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole crashing of computers and a very, very old software program, that is not before you today.
The intention is to carry forward projects from earlier years and amend the final Capital -- the final adopted Capital Budget and Program. So that all of those previous projects that have not yet been completed will be reflected in the 2004 Budget Year, so spending can continue on those projects. As Maxine mentioned, there was -- we had some technical difficulties, and that information is not yet before you but will be shortly.
Each year when we give you the book, it doesn't include carry forwards of 00073 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole the appropriations. And then we come back later and amend the ordinance to include those carry forwards. When we do that amendment, it includes things like the project we're discussing. We would have had that today. There were some computer glitches. And as soon as we have that...
As soon as we have that, 11 we will bring it here, there will be an amendment, 12 and you'll see the project in full. 13
Councilman, at least 14 we didn't say that the cat ate it. 15
-- somebody stole my homework when I was on my to school. I mean, what are we talking about here? So when will we see this document? When are the computers up and running? Who's got the software contract?
We're hoping by the 00074 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole end of this week we'll have that carry forward completed.
Mr. Dubow, let me just mention to you that in regard to this particular project there will be a need also to amend in, I think, some grant revenue funds related to this particular project because of a donation by an outside source, two outside sources, actually: State entities and a non governmental source. And so, we need to create a mechanism to allow us to receive those funds.
Okay. So we'll follow up with your office to get the amounts and the timing on that.
Yes. This new document, and when the computers are back up and running, will show all of the various projects and you're saying will be put forward as an amendment to the Capital Program?
And our apologies for 00075 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole not having it.