They'll undoubtedly find something, we'll fix it up, we'll turn it around pretty quickly, send it back to them for backcheck. In truth, they backcheck it pretty quickly.
Wait, wait, wait. You're saying it comes back to us and then it has to go back to PENNDOT.
If they find anything 00123 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole with it in the first review, which is likely --
-- they'll mark it up in red, send a fax to us. We can turn that around in a few days, send it back to them for what they call backcheck, to make sure we've made the changes. If that's the case, then they would authorize us to advertise the project. We would then duplicate the bid specs, and advertise it for bids.
You anticipate the... Assuming everything works out correctly and properly, you would anticipate that the bid solicitations will go out approximately when?
On a project like this, we would have to have at least a month of advertising time, to allow the contractors -- There's a lot of work items here. It's almost a $10 million project. There's a lot of different 00124 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole tasks. And they would need at least a month to do that. So that we would be getting bids back... I'm reading here. Now it says bid opening, late August.
What's the entire scope of the project? Is that just for the streetscape portion?
And then the streetscape would happen in those designated corridors?
The streetscape would 00125 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole be those designated nodes, plus several lengths in there, such as Dauphin to Susquehanna.
Okay. The design for those particular nodes is complete?
All right. Okay. Miss Griffin, did you have something to add to that?
No. I just wanted to let you know where we were on the overall study. As you know, Joe Leonardo, the previous Director of Community Planning, completed a draft of an Avenue of the Arts North study before he left almost a year ago. We were in the process of reviewing that, and then sent it over to the Avenue of the Arts Board for their review. Subsequent to that, Avenue of the Arts determined that they wanted to go out and have a series of public forums, which I believe have been completed. But I would have to check. We obviously did not want to complete the study without that input. But now that it is either complete or near completion, we 00126 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole would anticipate producing another draft within the next six weeks or so for review by the Board and yourself and others, and to have a final report shortly thereafter. There's another issue which is because Joe's plan was completed almost a year ago, actually both the real estate market and some development activity has happened in the interim. So we need to go back, revamp, update, and also incorporate the results of the Avenue of the Arts public participation process, but we are near completion of that study.
As a part of the streetscape project, is there any interaction with S.E.P.T.A. on any reconstruction or refurbishment or any of their subway stops, particularly in those particular nodes that we have targeted for streetscape improvement?
Nothing with the subway stops themselves. Obviously, the sidewalks and the approach to the stairways and all will be redone.
Is there any decision with S.E.P.T.A. about that? 00127 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
As far as I know, there hasn't been a great deal of discussion, not in a formal sense. But I should -- Maybe I can announce it in this forum. The Managing Director in our office have determined that there should be a transit and transportation working group that would be jointly convened and would involve all of the City agencies that have purview over especially transit issues, to better track and again, formalize our relationship with a wide range of folks, including -- including S.E.P.T.A. So there are always communications back and forth, and cooperation from time to time. But that tends not to be of a highly formal nature. And you know, I think both the Managing Director and myself feel that that's something where we could do a little better.
Is S.E.P.T.A. involved at any level in the planning stages? I mean...
In a way we're talking two separate tracks, no pun intended. The streetscape work where we were involved early on, in conceptualizing the node idea, et cetera, is moving forward. That's a project and implementation. And the Planning Commission really has no direct input or continued -- We don't continue to track that on a project basis. That is a Streets Department project. And Mr. Sernick would have to respond as to whether there's any interaction with S.E.P.T.A. I thought I understood that there was not interaction with S.E.P.T.A. In terms of the overall planning, again, there always calls back and forth. But those tend not to be tracked formally with report reviews, et cetera, and I think that would be a useful way to proceed. 00129 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
Let me tell you why I'm concerned, is that we embark on this $9, $10 million streetscape project, and we will have esthetically some very nice intersections with -- And I'm assuming that we're going to touch up the subway, the upper part of the subway stations. In some of them they have the iron gates around them. I'm assuming that's part of the project.
So let me understand. We're going to spend $10 million on Broad Street North. We're going to put up new lights, new streetscape, artwork on various corridors -- And I think each one of those particular nodes has a subway station. There's no 17 plan in place to treat the subway station, both on the street side or below where the stations are.
That is part of our planning and will be part of the plan that's hopefully submitted to you in draft later in the spring. I don't believe it was part of the streetscape improvement that Streets has moved forward on. Correct me if I'm wrong. 00130 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
Good afternoon. My name is Frances Jones. I am the Assistant General Manager of Government Affairs at S.E.P.T.A. Let me just give you an example of what we've been doing around the Avenue of the Arts North. Specifically at Broad and Girard, which for us is a major hub because it is intermodal there, we sat down with Karen Louis, from the Avenue of the Arts, to talk about how we could coordinate activities specifically there, because we were doing the Girard Avenue Light Rail Project. As a result of that meeting, we decided that had there was going to be some joint advertising, that whatever information that was -- that would go out through the Avenue of the Arts would have our logo on it, that we would be kept abreast of what their plans were for the Avenue of the Arts, to ensure that there was the appropriate and proper coordination of activities. What we didn't want to see happen was that we would continue with the Girard Avenue Light Rail Project and then there would be some 00131 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole other activity that would go on that was coordinated through the City or by the City which would -- which would... where there isn't a proper coordination, then the streets may be torn up or something to that effect. So it was always our goal to make sure that there was -- there was the proper coordination going on. We looked at the Avenue of the Arts, and determined that where we could coordinate activities, where we could do some improvements around our stations, that we would be amenable to doing that. As far as total reconstruction of stations along the Avenue of the Arts, it is not a part of the budget. However, there were areas likes Broad and Susquehanna, where we had done some work in the past, where if we need to do some painting or things of that nature, some cosmetic kinds of things, we could do it. The structural kinds of things and infrastructure kind of things had gone on in previous budget years. So it was -- It's coordination just to ensure that we're all at the table, that we're talking, and we're kept abreast 00132 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole of exactly what's going on.
So beyond advertisement, what physical improvements -- And I understand that you may not be able to make the commitment at this point. But what physical improvements do you anticipate that at a minimum can be a part of the discussion in those stations, particularly in those designated nodes? Girard Avenue, and Cecil B. Moore has been done some time ago. Fairmount Avenue, Susquehanna. Lehigh, and at a minimum on the upper side. You know, because I don't -- I don't think it makes sense for us to have brand new lights, and planters, and sidewalks with artwork, and then you have a S.E.P.T.A. subway stop where the paint is peeling off of the railings. I mean, are we...
We have a project, a federally-funded Livable Communities Project that we are in the process -- I think we are in the bid process, at the North Philadelphia Transportation Center. That's where there's going to be 00133 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole complete reconstruction of that stop at North Philadelphia, North Philadelphia Station, as well as some site improvements from Girard Avenue to Glenwood Avenue, as well as we're going to open the tunnel that goes across Broad Street.
Excuse me. When you said site improvements from Girard...
There will be site improvements going on there. And there will be an incorporation of art in the station under the Livable Communities Project. So that's one where we knew that the Avenue of the Arts was occurring, and it was a long-term project that we had in place for some time, but we knew that that needed to be coordinated also. And so, we have been kept abreast and interacting with the Avenue of the Arts, again, through Karen Louis's office, to -- you know, so that we're aware of the time frame and the schedule. 00134 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole Again, we will coordinate activities as it relates to public transit, around what the City's doing, through the Streets Department and through the Planning Commission.
I also forgot that on Girard Avenue, from Westmoreland Depot to our Callowhill District, there will be art intermittently at major hubs along Girard Avenue. We've started that process already at the Philadelphia Zoo, at our -- on the island. There at 34th and Girard there, we've put in art on the island there, which is very decorative and very creative. And we enlisted the support and the input of the community, as well as local elected officials in West Philadelphia. We put the art in before we started the process, so we've kept as many people abreast along Girard Avenue with that project as we possibly can.
Can I ask you to... Would it be difficult for someone from S.E.P.T.A. to do an analysis on the subway stops 00135 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole along the Avenue of the Arts North Broad and particularly those locations that we've designated as the special nodes, to determine what physical improvements could be made, both short term and long term, so maybe as we move ahead we can talk about budgeting some dollars for some of those stations. I'd hate for us to spend $10 million above the street level and not touch internally some of those subway stations along that particular Avenue of the Arts North. The Cecil B. Moore location is, you know, kind of what I like to see all of those stations look like. If you can at a minimum just get us a sense of what the reality of the cost would be, short and long term?
Five working days -- Today's Monday. Friday? Is Friday good enough? 00136 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
Actually, I thought you were going to give me like a month.
See, now, nothing detailed. I'd just like to... You know, as we're in the Budget process, we'd like to have that discussion about what we're going to do. Because that is a very important corridor to a lot of us. And if we are going to do it, I think we should do it right, not -- You know, take advantage of an opportunity and get some reasonable treatment below ground, as people wait for the station. And also on that public art issue, I'd like if at all possible for you to contact or keep in contact with some of the community organizations, because there were some specific discussions about the type of treatment in the subway stations, that it would somehow give a sense of what's above ground as people wait for the subway or ride by. 00137 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole If there could be, say, for instance, reference to a particular historical site in North Philadelphia or a particular type of development or a major commercial corridor, we'd like to, you know, stopping short of advertising for it, at least reference it below ground.
As we did with the Zoo stop, we did a call for art there. And it is our intention to do a call for art along the rest of the line before we implement the art. And that will entail community involvement, local people, as well as trying to identify artists, local artists that are in the area, that might have a vested interest in participating, because they have history there, they're just interested in the beautification of the neighborhood. So we will absolutely go through the call for art process.
I just wanted to add, Councilman, that we have applied to the Federal Government for -- hopefully; our fingers crossed -- for funds to support transit improvements along Broad. And we do have some 00138 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole out-year funding. I don't know whether Gary's found it. Why don't you...
There is money in the out years of the Capital Program for the rehabilitation of the Girard and Spring Garden Street Stations. However, that's scheduled in 2008, 2009.
I may not be here. That's good to know. One other quick question on a Capital Improvement issue. And I don't know if this relates to S.E.P.T.A. On the 6th Street, there was at one point trolley line, as there was in a number of locations, particularly from, I guess, Huntingdon Street, Cumberland Street south on 6th Street. We have repaved it, and the trolley tracks are starting to come up. And there's substantial disrepair. I'd like to get a sense of realistically any type of improvement or maybe -- I don't know what -- we take the tracks up or what exactly we do in that case. 00139 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole But it's starting -- It's really creating a problem for vehicles and now pedestrians. And one of the reasons that it's important is that we fortunately began a very aggressive housing redevelopment plan along that 6th Street corridor. We've built approximately 200 units of housing along that corridor in the last couple of years, and we look to continue that development. And I'd really like to see us deal with that street. And I don't know what, you know, what strategy to take. It's similar to some degree Ogontz Avenue but on a much smaller scale.
Councilman, I'm not familiar with the conditions out there, but we'll take a look at it and see if we can come up with an improvement strategy.
Okay. Thank you. One last question, Madam Chair, and I'll turn over the helm. Eastern State Penitentiary. I would assume that we would -- I know in the categorization of Capital projects we have these 00140 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole programs that are traditionally viewed as City-wide type of Capital facilities, City-owned, municipally-owned facilities, and then we have the neighborhood facilities. And traditionally, the Council's $1.2 billion budget is accessed to fix up rec centers and small play areas and small facilities in the District. But it's been my understanding on these City-wide, municipally-owned facilities, that we traditionally look to a different pool of Capital funding, that comes out of the City-wide planning process. But for the last few years, you know, I've had to dip into the Councilmanic -- which I'm, you know, happy to do -- dip into the Councilmanic allocation of dollars, to do some restoration at Eastern State Penitentiary. And my understanding is that it's kind of a City-wide facility. And I was wondering what the thought process, and me continuing to get phone calls to access my financing out of the 5th District.
I was just making 00141 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole sure the Budget Director didn't know something that I didn't know.
Let me down again. I think it's just a matter, Councilman, of limited resources and this facility just not making it into the Budget. What we try to do first is deal with critical health and safety issues. If something is falling down, for instance, if something is deteriorated to the point where there would be a safety issue... Now he remembers something.
There is -- Actually, Mr. Tustin just pointed out to me, there is money in the plan for Eastern State, but the agreement we reached with them was that it was only matching funds, and that they had to raise their own money, and that when they raised their money, we would match it with the City-wide money. And I think what's happened, when they don't raise the money, they come to you.
No. No, that's not the way it happened. 00142 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole They raised the money. They came to me. And they asked for me to allocate money out of the Fifth Councilmanic District Budget, which I've done.
Councilman, Mr. Dubow is correct. There is money in the Capital Budget that's been set aside for the Eastern State Penitentiary. Most of that work is within the walls of Eastern State Penitentiary, to repair some of the roofs, the rotundas, and some of the other areas. The deal that was arranged was that they would come up with a percentage of money and the City would match that. I don't think -- I don't think it's an equal match, either. It's a two to three one match, City paying more, I believe. But they have to come up with their funding first for us to match it. None of the work that they've approached us about has anything to do with the exterior, the sidewalks area.
So they haven't approached you about the sidewalks. They come 00143 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole directly to me. Is that what's going on?
That was one of the issues that you and I had talked about before.
Yes, you could redirect them to us. When we'll look at the line item where the money is situated in the Capital Budget, hopefully it will be available for that other purpose, again, if it conforms to the agreement that was already set up on the match.
Okay. All right. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Madam Chair. ACTING
You're welcome. Councilman Nutter. He went in the back. Councilman Rizzo.
Mr. Sernick, I have a question for you. Could you explain a situation that I believe you suggested needed to 00144 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole be in the Capital Budget that has to do with signage? I'm not sure to what degree where maintenance is and where actual Capital money is involved, but I'll give you the description. When Henry Avenue was cut through, I guess in the early '50s, up in Roxborough, from Andorra down to Walnut Lane, that had lots of nice signs, overhead signs, that are now, if you -- I think you're familiar with the one sign that I'm talking about. When you come south on Henry, there's a large overhead sign that indicates Northbound Henry Avenue, I think a way to make a safe U-turn. I mean, I don't even know what the language is. It's so faded you can't see the sign. And it was suggested that that sign be removed. I would hate that we'd get in a mode where we just start taking things away, rather than repair them or replace them, unless it's absolutely -- and I would agree with you if it's not necessary. But I can't imagine the sign being ever put there if it wasn't needed. 00145 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole So, would you explain to me where Operating money and Capital money in the area of signage, street signs and directional signs and informational signs, how that all comes into play and how we can possibly get signs like that replaced rather than removed? If, in fact, they're needed. And I'll be the first to agree with you, if you can explain to me why we don't need it.
Okay. Councilman, the specific sign you're talking about is at a GORE area where a motorist has a choice of either bearing to the right, which is the main drag down Henry Avenue, or bearing to the left which is sort of a loop around back to Cathedral Road. This is a major overhead sign. It's been there since probably, as you're right, since probably the late '50s when the road was opened. In order for that sign to be replaced, in my view that was a Capital Improvement. It would have to be -- It probably needs a sign structure and the sign panel board would have to be replaced, and we'd have to take a look at the foundation and make sure that was in 00146 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole good shape. My guess is, it would probably be in good shape. It's something that in my view is beyond routine maintenance. It's a replacement of a major sign structure. After I got your call, I was familiar with the sign, but I did go take a look at it. It's very faded. It's been faded for a long, long time. I personally do not believe that sign is, in fact, needed. I think most people that travel that road, travel it every day. They know where they're going. I would guess that less than one percent of the traffic going along there makes the loop road back to Cathedral Road. It's just -- You'd only be doing that if you made a mistake and were going in the wrong direction and you wanted to make a U-turn. The other thing about that sign is, it's located right at the GORE area. It perhaps is a bigger problem in terms of somebody running into it.
And they haven't done 00147 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole it. It could happen. It could happen at any time. I don't believe, given our Capital Budget, and given the constraints that we have on it, that's, in my view at least, a very high priority. And I think actually removing -- We have talked about removing it before. We didn't do it. But I would think that would be the better solution. And it's not a situation where we can't take care of this thing so let's get rid of it. It's something that I genuinely do not believe makes a lot of sense.
Okay. It sends a terrible -- You know, it's the gateway to the City. Even though you believe that not many people -- most people know where they're going, signages are, in most cases -- We wouldn't need signs if everybody knew where they were going. I think the signs are there for people that don't know where they're going. And I would appreciate you making a decision. Isn't there a technology today where we could get a -- Isn't there a decal of something that -- in the sign business where you could just get a bucket 00148 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole truck to go up there and like they do a billboard and just reface the sign? I mean, we've got to start thinking maybe creatively to look at a way of getting that sign redone. I would like to work with you on that, and I'm sure -- There's no PENNDOT assistance available here? This is strictly our deal? It's a City sign?
Well, this whole issue is a long-standing disagreement that we've had with PENNDOT. I mean, Henry Avenue clearly is a State highway. They've always said the directional signing is the City's responsibility. This is definitely the case if we're not talking about major overhead signs. This is a major overhead sign. We've always made the argument to PENNDOT, without success, that this ought to be their responsibility. Having said all that, I think this particular sign is one that we could do without.
All right. Well, I'll... But you need to make a decision. In other words, if the sign should come down, please just don't remove the -- don't remove just the 00149 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole sign itself and leave the post up because that --
Well... Oh, I wouldn't bet if I didn't ask this question, but... He's very good, Marina.
Well, Councilman, I'm pretty sure we're not going to do that now.
But could you investigate some alternatives to possibly... Maybe we can get the Mural Arts Program to go repaint it for you; I don't know. But could you just start thinking about -- I'd like to see the sign not be removed. But my bigger question is, how many issues like this exist? How many sign issues throughout the entire City are in the Capital Budget rather than in the Operating Budget? Is there a lot of these signs out there?
No, there's not too many. There's a couple around town that we'd like to see replaced. 00150 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
Would you add that to my list of things that we need to talk about?
So we can deal with that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. ACTING
You are welcome. She's going to get Mr. Nutter because he didn't get a chance to say anything. So as soon as we are done our questioning... Is there anyone else here who wants to testify today?
Yes. We have testimony on the loan authorization that we'd like to give today. ACTING
All right. Come forward. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr. Kemp.
Please identify yourself and begin your testimony.
Good morning, Madam Chair? 00151 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole ACTING
And Members of City Council. My name is Corey Kemp. I am the Treasurer of the City of Philadelphia. With me are various officials from the Department of Finance and Capital Budget Office. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill Number 030096, introduced on February 13, 2003. The purpose of this Bill is to obtain approval from City Council to place a question on the May 20, 2003 Primary Election Ballot. The question being placed on the ballot is requesting an increase in indebtedness from the electorate, in an amount not to exceed $82,975,000 to fund the City's Fiscal Year 2004 Capital Budget. State law permits the City to increase its borrowing authority by placing a question before the electorate during the election. The City currently lacks sufficient legal authorization to finance its Capital Projects for Fiscal Year 2004. 00152 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole The loan authorization, if approved, would finance Capital Projects classified for the following purposes and in the following aggregate amounts: Transit, $5,617,000; Street and Sanitation, $16,903,000; municipal buildings -- and there is a typo in my written testimony. It should state $35,678,000. Parks, recreation and museums, $21,712,000. And economic and community development, $3,065,000. City's Council's approval of this proposed Bill will permit the City to place the loan authorization question on the Tuesday, May 20, 2003, primary Election Day Ballot. Enactment of this Bill and the subsequent approval of the May 20, 2003 Primary Election Ballot question by the electorate of the City of Philadelphia will permit the City to implement its Fiscal Year 2004 Capital Budget in a timely manner. Without approval of the additional authorization to the City, there could be disruption of the Capital Program and related City's services. 00153 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole In order to provide appropriate time to advertise and print the ballot question, to ensure that it is placed on the May 20, 2003, Election Day Ballot, the Bill should be enacted by April 3, 2003. Finally, I have attached as part of my testimony the proposed ballot question requesting an increase in indebtedness from the electorate of the City of Philadelphia. This concludes my written testimony. I am happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. At this time the chair recognizes Councilman Nutter, if he's available.
Mr. Kemp, you were up before the break, and I think you were going to reach out to the University of Pennsylvania out at the Engineering School, with the -- I think that was the site of the first -- Did they own the first computer? Is it the ENIAC. Did you do some calculations for me?
Were you able to come up with that? 00154 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
I have two numbers for you. If this is a fixed-rated bond issue, had an average coupon of 4.608 percent, the total cost would be $12,929,000 which includes $6,029,000 of interest. If we do it at a variable rate deal, which is contemplated in the plan, the total cost would be $10,282,907 which includes $3,382,907 worth of interest.
Obviously, the net effect would be reduced by any interest earned on proceeds not expended.
Let me make sure I'm understanding this. We're going to pay the salaries of the employees, which I don't have any issue about. This is not a salary issue. This is about a use of funds issue. We're going to pay $6.9 million in salaries in one year. And then the taxpayers are going to continue to pay that 00155 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole tab for the next 30 years. Total cost, either $10.2 million or $12.9 million. Is that what you're telling me?
Okay. And this has been a relatively regular and standard practice?
Yeah; he was just knocking himself out to get up to the table here.
We do it because the people whose salary are paid spend all their time on Capital Projects. So we assign that cost to those projects.
Well, I understand that. And I mean, I know that's the first round of the response to this. But from a 00156 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole financial standpoint, I mean we'll have people who have possibly worked an entire life with the Government, and then assuming that many of the public servants have been here for some time, I mean, they will retire, go on pension; and the taxpayers are still literally paying for their salary from some year that's gone by many, many years ago. What's the benefit to the City by doing that? Obviously, you don't take it out of the current operating revenues. But I mean, capitalizing salaries, especially at a time of a decreasing Capital Program and Capital Budget, I'm not necessarily sure is the best utilization of the funds. Again, I'm not raising the question about what people are being paid. That's not the issue.
It's a cost to the project, the same way the original, you know, architect's design, which is done well before the project is done, is a cost to the project. So it's something that we amortize over the life of the project. 00157 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
What's that got to do with the source of funding? I mean --
Because the source of funding is the funding that's used for that project. So if it's a --
Well, some of these projects have multi year -- They take multiple years to get done. I mean, why don't we do this: Can you tell me over the past ten years what this type of expenditure has cost, on a year-to-year basis, and then give me a 30-year schedule on the total cost?
I imagine it's probably -- You took the numbers that Mr. Kemp gave you and multiplied it by ten.
So we could be talking over a hundred million dollars.
Are all 83 -- There are 83 people on the CPO staff, on Capital? 00158 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole All are being paid out of the $6.9 million? Somebody's got to say that for the record.
Are there any other employees whose salaries are covered by Capital dollars?
At one point in time, Councilman, when Recreation A & E Group came under the Department of Recreation, they also had a separate line item within the Capital Budget for their administrative costs. Last year when we consolidated them in with the Capital Program Office, naturally their costs rolled in with it. And we were actually able to... We're actually able to reduce the net total, through reducing the hiring that was planned when they were in Recreation.
I guess my last point on this, Mr. Dubow -- And this is kind of a yes or no question. I mean, isn't it, from a cost standpoint, more cost efficient and some savings to the taxpayers to pay these public employees 00159 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole from the Operating side, as opposed to the Capital side, where you have 30 years of expenditures for salaries from... 30 years prior? I mean, there must be a savings here.
I guess... I mean, realize here, it depends on what you do with the money that you freed up by borrowing. I mean, if you're -- In theory, if you're investing that money over time, the real cost is the difference between what you're investing and what you're paying, because you're not putting out the 6.9 in salaries from your Operating Fund in the first year.
Well... Well, I'm just talking about the $6.9 million you're asking me, the $6.9 million on salaries.
Instead of paying it out in salaries -- 00160 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
So you have additional cash each year, because you still have a part of that 6.9 and you're earning interest on that cash. So that cost is offset by an earnings, too. So there's some netting that goes along with that.
All right. Why don't we do this: Why don't you produce for us some schedules showing the past ten years of capitalization of salaries, show us what the totals would have been over that ten-year period if we took it from the Operating side, and then show us what the schedules are for 30 years for each of those ten and what the total amount would be by capitalizing.
Okay. Great. Thanks. Secretary Griffith, on , line item number six, can you tell us a little bit more about the Recreation Facilities Assessment Study?
Could you excuse me one second. (Pause) I'm sorry, Councilman, it took me so long.
This is prior year funding, I think, carry forward funding. But the purpose and the intent of that money is to go through and do a review of the existing Recreation facilities on code related issues, in particular Fire Code issues and egress issues.
There was a report done by L & I several years ago, which we've been taking some time to correct those issues, and now we're going to go through and make sure that we've satisfied all those concerns. 00162 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
The work will be done through our office, the Capital Program Office. And we'll probably hire, through a professional service contract, a firm that has expertise in code issues, fire suppression, fire detection and code issues.
When do you think the study will start and when will it end?
We're actually in a position now to do an RFP for those design services, so we could probably start that study this spring. And we don't expect the study, the actual study itself, to take any more than four months, three to four months. There are a lot of rec centers to look at.
Well, I know that. This topic or this issue was also discussed last year as a part of the larger discussion involving Fairmount Park. That study is a strategic plan and, then there was a Phase II for a facilities assessment. 00163 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole Here we seem to have a facilities assessment. I don't know if we're doing a strategic plan for recreation. There's been some discussion generally about that. Why wouldn't we seek to do all of them? And... I mean, I know that in previous testimony, either for the Park or some other day, there was discussion about seeking facilities assessment study money either privately or I think Mr. Dubow, in a moment of generosity, stepped up and said that if we don't fund it outside the government, that we would fund it internally. We seem to have two different things going on for the two different agencies, both of which need the same thing, but we're doing them differently.
Well, if I may, let me speak to the Recreation Department study. I think it relates to the way it was generated. Again, as I understand the situation, this code compliance study was generated and predated the decision to do an overall comprehensive review of recreation centers.
And there's a concern about upholding this health and safety related study up unnecessarily. On the other hand --
I'm saying -- I guess I'm looking more toward expansion. But if you think expansion is going to potentially hold this up, then that's a totally different topic. But I mean, all of them need the same thing, and -- but we have two different things going on with the two different departments.
Let me kind of quickly go through a few things, some of which you can --
No. Actually, I've heard enough from you for today. No; I'm only kidding.
Speaking for the Body, we have all heard enough from you for the day.
Oh, please continue. Please go on with your testimony. You may identify yourself for the record. (Laughter.)
No, no, no, no. 20 UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Never too late.
I'm actually told, in between our last conversation now, that Gasby 34, which is this new accounting standard, requires 00166 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole that Capital salaries be charged to Capital Projects and amortized over the life of the projects. But we'll look into that and confirm that and put that in writing with our other response.
Okay. Someone mentioned to me -- I think they were doing some of that with Enron and Global Crossing. (Laughter.)
Utilizing some of those tactics and strategies. So you might want to check on that. But you know, I'm making no judgment at the moment. I believe the Council President raised this particular issue, and for a variety of reasons I'm certainly intrigued by it. Convention Center expansion, 27, line 32. I think you indicated that there was a master plan which you will get to us. Is that what you said?
Well, there is a plan which includes recent blight recertification that we did.
You've actually had some... There actually have been some Planning Commission actions related to --
-- expansion and have nothing to do with the current little political sideshow going on.
I'm not familiar with it. But, yes. I mean, whether we would characterize it as a master plan...