, line 37. If you can just get us a listing of the 00168 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole neighborhood commercial center site improvements, I'd be interested to know what they have been over the last five years, by location and dollar amount.
I notice there's no money in '04 and '05, and it doesn't start up until '06. Can you tell us why? This is specific to Fairmount Park.
Now that I've been briefed on the side, the items above that, West Park, disabled rowing, and the other facilities: Kelly Drive, they're the specific facilities we're looking at and we can identify at this point in time. That's why we identify those by name and amount. When we get into the out years which 00169 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole is an '06 year, we put it under a more general category of facility improvement City wide, knowing that as we get to the next year, we will then be able to hone in and identify those specific facilities at that point in time.
Do you know why the disabled rowing facility is in '05 and not '04?
Okay. As you're aware, Mr. Tustin, we've had a very good and close working relationship on that particular site, with regard to expanded...
...parking activity. I know all of this is time and weather...
...sensitive. But again, similar to an earlier discussion that we had, to the extent that we can, you know, actively coordinate all of our efforts when we're at a facility, and then there would be peripheral 00170 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole areas, I think it helps to make things go along a little smoother.
I agree, Councilman. Let me look into that, but I believe that project is moving ahead, as you know.
Good. All right. The River Drive Recreation Path Lighting, . Having no personal running, roller-blading, or other active physical involvement with the River Drive, but mostly as a motorist, I think Councilman Rizzo has raised from time to time but I've certainly noticed, the regular lighting of the path, have we ever figured out what the problem is, specifically on Kelly Drive, with the street lighting? And secondly, from time to time it seems that the recreation path lighting is also out, which creates somewhat of a dangerous situation for both motorists and runners or pedestrians. What's the story?
Councilman, this is Joe Sernick again for the Streets Department. You 00171 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole mentioned that Kelly Drive street lighting. For years we had a problem with that. It was a circuit problem, a service problem. But that street lighting has all been redone within -- The contract is actually still open. And it's working.
Okay. Good. So we did finally figure out what the problem was?
We actually -- I mean, the truth is that it was a service problem for P.E.C.O. We actually went in and took over the service line, built our own line, which was a way to solve it.
Why don't you stay at the table, Joe? You have the other half from Fairmount Park. I don't know if you know about this. Again, with regard to lighting, it's my understanding we have a contract with someone to basically service the light bulbs on boat house row; is that correct?
I'm not familiar with this issue. Maybe someone else from the Park ought to be up here. 00172 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
Okay. That was a good pun. Mr. Tustin, if we could just get some information on what that contract is. I mean, obviously, this is a signature piece for the City. But if the lights don't work --
Councilman, we don't have a contract for those lights. The lights have been handled by staff, by our maintenance staff. So, we've been putting in the new light bulbs ourselves.
Okay. I thought I was under the impression -- maybe this was a couple years ago -- that there was someone actually under contract to work on that. Maybe I'm --
Not that I'm aware of. 00173 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
Okay. Is there a regular survey done? Or I guess viewing from the West River Drive side, to see what's going on with the lights?
We attempt to address the lights on a six-month interval, and at that time we usually replace about half of the bulbs.
Okay. Is there something special about the six-month? I mean, we only check every six months; is that what you're saying?
Just it seems to be about the appropriate time to get up and replace a good number of them at a time.
Okay. Is this a staff issue or a funding issue? Or I guess where I'm leading is, we possibly need to check them on a more regular basis, if we want to maintain that particular look. I mean, by the six-month period, I think you're right: There are almost as many 00174 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole out as there are on, which kind of detracts from the whole look over there.
I know that there are a few extra lights out now because one of the houses is working on the other side.
Okay. Mr. Tustin, George Institute. Can you give me an update on completion on that expansion?
Councilman, I believe the design for that is complete and we are now getting ready to put it out for bid. I can get back to you with specific dates as to advertisement and bid opening.
I would greatly appreciate it. There's been this discussion about the Central Library and their expansion, with a bit of a... at a minimum interesting, if not innovative proposal for how to fund that. Are you familiar with that proposal? How are we funding the expansion out of the Central Branch? 00175 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole
It's my understanding that the proposal is to do it via sale leaseback, which actually isn't that innovative. It's used quite a bit with public facilities. But perhaps the Budget Director.
Okay. Couple last questions. , new Youth Study Center. Does anyone have an update on... The new Youth Study Center will be old by the time we actually build it.
We are getting extremely close to finalizing a site. I know I've said that before. And we've actually been in negotiations with several property owners. And I can only say at this point that we are extremely close and hopefully will be able to announce a 00176 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole site within the next couple months.
There's a total of $48 million in the Capital Budget for that.
Right now there's a total of $48 million in that Budget. I don't quite understand your question, Councilman.
Okay. I was looking -- I mean, the line I saw seemed to have 18.
The remainder of the funds are in the carry forward. The amendment stuck in the computer.
-- get out? Well, I can't wait to see it. If you show it to me.
Right. I understand. Could we get those -- Is Moise here? Did we get those computers fixed? Okay. Just a couple last questions. Lancaster Avenue on , we have funding in an out year, I think '05 as opposed to '04. Is that also a carry forward?
I'm going to ask Joe Sernick to come back to the microphone, who is -- Joe is intimately involved with this project.
Councilman, no, it's not. This is the -- This is the streetscape improvement that's been proposed for Lancaster Avenue, given the constraint of the program. This is where it fell in, '05.
Mr. Sernick, what does that mean, the restraint of the program?
There was a limited amount of money to program this year. And we've 00178 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole prioritized our projects, and this one did not make it into the Budget Year.
So you're saying this was a Streets Department decision?
I think individual departments prioritized their decisions, and then when the whole program is mushed together -- I mean, there's only so much money and this is where they fall. I think everyone would like to have it in '04. We certainly would, and I'm sure the Planning Commission would, too. But given where it was in the list of priorities, it came out in '05.
I don't know -- I don't think it's a situation where the Operating Departments decide what year it goes in.
We submit sort of a 00179 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole wish list, probably more than ever can get accomplished. And the decision-makers, which includes us because we're prioritizing the project.
Who decided to put this in '05? I think we've been talking about this almost from the day you arrived in Philadelphia.
I think we started talking about this about two years ago.
Okay. Almost from the moment you arrived here with us.
Wasn't that a song? I'm sorry. It was "The Way We Were." 00180 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole Right. Yeah.
Me, too. I have it on cassette. It's my -- If I'm remembering correctly, this has always been in '05. This appeared in '05, last Budget Year, as well. So the plan... And you have --
And I seem to remember a couple years ago when this started, there was actually money -- This is another one of the carry forward concepts -- there was actually already money allocated for this, and some design work had already started.
Okay. If I can just have Streets get me more detailed information 00181 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole on , the Henry Avenue Bridge over Gorgas Lane and the 59th Street Bridge over Amtrack. The 59th Street Bridge is, again, at least from a motorist's standpoint, is a complete mess. And I think it was resurfaced some number of years ago, but its integrity has to some extent been compromised. If I could get more detailed information about both Henry Avenue over Gorgas and 59th Street over the Amtrack Railway, I'd greatly appreciate it. While we're talking about bridges, let me commend the Streets Department and Capital Program and the Planning Commission for the great job that was done on the Fountain Street Bridge, which is complete. Loved that color. And it's a nice fire engine red, you know, kind of bridge color. Mr. Sernick probably wanted the strawberries and cream which he couldn't -- which he couldn't get on the Strawberry Mansion Bridge Reconstruction Project, but I'm glad we settled on the red. Great job by the departments. And I want to say thank you for that. Did you want to 00182 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole say something, Mr. Sernick?
Do you want to address the Henry Avenue and 59th Street Bridge now or do you want us to send you something?
Just send me something. I'd appreciate it. All right. When you're given the opportunity not to respond, take it. Okay? (Laughter.)
Okay. Secretary Griffith will work with you on next year's Budget process. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I'm done.
Thank you. I just have two very quick questions. Can I have the status of the South Street Bridge? When is that supposed to start? When are we supposed to start construction on that?
Madam President, I believe that's in '06, the final design -- The preliminary design is done. The final design is just beginning. The final design, as you know, is when you actually have the concept down. You 00183 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole start grinding out the numbers. We've had a number of issues with the University of Pennsylvania with regard to how to maintain access to some of their buildings, and -- but we're just about through that now, so we're talking about construction in fiscal year '06. This is about a $60 million project.
No, I don't believe so. I believe it's -- at least for the closure part of it is like months. 14
Really? 15 ... Okay. Let me ask just one more 16 question, if I may. 17 The school pedestrian crossing signs 18 and signals, I see that we have $300,000 earmarked for FY '04. Can you tell us how many flashing signals we would get in each Councilmanic District?
Councilwoman, we would get 16 to 18 schools per year with that $300,000. And they would be divided equally among the Council Districts. So, you're talking about in 00184 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole the neighborhood of two per District, maybe a little less.
About $22,000. It depends, obviously, on the size of the streets surrounding the schools and how many streets surround the schools, but it's about $22,000 per school, average.
Well, I bet we're getting more than just that, Charley. We're also getting school speed limit signs.
Okay. Well, if there were 22, why are we only getting, would you say 16?
Okay. I guess there's no one here to ask any more 00185 03/17/03 - Committee of the Whole questions, so at this time we will stand in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning. Thank you all very much.
You're welcome. (Hearing adjourned to Tuesday, March 18, 2003, 9:30 a.m.) 00186 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the City Council Hearing taken on March 17, 2003, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)