COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE CAPITAL BUDGET AND PROGRAM - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, February 7, 2001 9:25 a.m. - - - BILL NO. 010001 - An ordinance to adopt the Capital Program for the six fiscal years, 2002 through 2007 inclusive. Bill No. 010002 - An ordinance to adopt the fiscal 2002 Capital Budget PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings I N D E X Maxine Griffith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Executive Director, Philadelphia City Planning Commission Robert Dubow, Acting Budget Director. . . . . . 12 Solasade Olanipekun, City Treasurer . . . . . . 14 Richard Tustin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Acting Director, Capital Program Office Ernie Leonardo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Director of Strategic Planning and Policy John Kromer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Director of the Office of Housing and Community Development Joe Martz, Managing Director . . . . . . . . . . 75 Joseph Syrnick, Streets Department . . . . . . . 87 William Johnson, Streets Commissioner. . . . . . 76 Charlie Trainor, Chief Traffic Engineer. . . . . 91 Elliot Shelkrot, Director of the Free Library. . 97 James Cuorato. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 City Representative and Director of Commerce Charles Isdell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Acting Director, Philadelphia International Airport Lauren Bornfriend, Friends of Philadelphia Parks 169 William Mifflin, Fairmount Park Commission . . . 175 3 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings I N D E X (Continued) Commissioner Vic Richard, Recreation Department 204 Eric Iffrig, Recreation Department . . . . . . . 222 James Nolan, Nolan Properties. . . . . . . . . . 233 Mike Cooley, M. Cooley Properties. . . . . . . . 241 Wilkin Jones, Friends of Free Library. . . . . . 252 Al Martin and Ed Burnett, Robin Hood Dell East . 259 4 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
Good morning, everyone. This is the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill Nos. 010001 and 010002. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the titles of the bills.
Bill No. 010001, an ordinance to adopt the Capital Program for the six Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007 inclusive. Bill No. 010002, an ordinance to adopt the fiscal 2002 Capital Budget.
Our first witness this morning is Maxine Griffith. Good morning. Kindly identify yourself at record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Maxine Griffith, and I am the Executive Director of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. It's a pleasure to be here. Before I start my testimony, I'd like to note that although I have been in informal briefings with you, Madam President, with other members of the Council, I believe this is the first time I have formally come before the Body.
We certainly 5 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings welcome you.
It's a pleasure to be here. With the thought that a picture is worth a thousand words, we have a brief slide show to both give a sense of where we have been with the Capital Budget and where we are going. New City self-sustaining loans paid with airport and water fees are the largest source of funding at 30 percent. New City tax supported -- 90 million is limited by State and is highly competitive. Substantial Federal and State dollars leverage almost all of these, which are for transportation projects. When we look at the allocations of funds, you can see that neighborhood improvements are the largest allocation at 276 million. Next comes Economic Development and then what we're calling quality of life improvements of facilities which serve all of the City's residents. Under Neighbor Revitalization which goes also to support and will support the Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative Objectives, 6 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings we have Richard Allen Public Housing. The Capital Program provided for news streets, utilities and streetscapes. Raymond Rosen Public Housing, 152 new units. This is at 22nd and Diamond. Southwark Public Housing at 4th and Washington in South Philadelphia, 940 new and rehabilitated units. Also, we're very, very proud of the Changing Lifes Campaign which focuses on the rehabilitation and expansion of our neighborhood library system. This is the Independence Branch Library, 7th and Market. million private was matched with 15 25 million City dollars, and we've now renovated 45 16 of 49 branch libraries. And we've completed one new 17 branch which is now open. Again, the Independence 18 Branch Library. 19 The Haddington Branch Library. The 20 interior renovations are complete. And in this 21 budget year we will complete the exterior 22 renovations. Again, the Haddington Branch Library, 23 you can note the very wonderful fret work on the 24 facade. 25 The George Institute Branch at 52nd 7 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings Street in West Philadelphia. It's a small branch, but we're expanding onto an adjacent site. Again, the George Institute Branch. The Walnut West Branch designed for restoration is in this budget year, and construction will be '03. Again, the Walnut -- And the next should be the Widner Branch. This small library was extraordinarily deteriorated. Replacement is planned. There is money for site acquisition and design in this budget year and construction in '03. We're very proud of our support for children. This is a tot lot in Roxborough in the Northwest. Another tot lot in the near Northeast. Soccer and baseball fields being used jointly. Transit service is an important part of neighborhood revitalization. It's also important in terms of getting folks to jobs in the neighborhoods. This is the Overbrook Station, City Line Avenue in West Philadelphia. Wayne Junction Station platform improvements have started. Again, Wayne Junction track and bridge work is completed. And the station 8 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings house still needs work, and we'll be moving forward with that. Strawberry Mansion Bridge. The bridge was redone in Phase I, and that work is complete. And painting of metal lattice work in Phase II funded in budget year -- I should mention that I attended and spoke at a State conference on planning, and this bridge was highlighted as sort of cutting-edge work in restoration. Oxford Street Bridge in North Philadelphia. The bridge work has been completed. Gowan Street Bridge. Again, the work is underway. That's in Mt. Airy. Germantown Avenue Bridge. The bridge work will finally get started. Design will start in this fiscal year, and we would expect construction to start in the next. Economic development is a very important part of neighborhood revitalization. This is Main Street in Manayunk, commercial strip improvement in association with the merchants on that strip. It's a site for the 24th/25th Police District, Whitaker Avenue.
Obviously, security is key to 9 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings neighborhood revitalization, and police stations are part of the basic community infrastructure. It's funded at million, and site preparation is 5 underway for this project. 6 This is the Cobbs Creek Environmental 7 Center. This neighborhood community center provides 8 environmental programs. We expect if it is not open 9 -- in June -- I'm just been told it will open in 10 June. Very pleased. This is the one of the jewels in Philadelphia's crown, the Art Museum. 17 million is in hand to begin a major renovation project and a modest Capital Program funding required to leverage private efforts. And as you know, there's a major capital company under way by the museum. This is the Blue Bell Tavern in the Southwest, an example of storage preservation work. Many of the Fairmount Park historic properties require renovation. This is the primate house in the Zoo. This ambitious improvement program includes new and renovated exhibits in basic infrastructure renovations. This City generally pays for the latter, and the primate house actually was the 10 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings exception to this. This is, again, the Zoo, African Planes. Kelly Drive judges' stand. And here we have the Library. Some money has been provided for a boiler and other HVAC and energy conservation work. There's a Task Force that's been put in place to study the needs of the Central Library and how to best meet those needs by expansion or some other means. The Fire Administration Building. This is sort of an example of the shoemaker's children in the sense that the work here was for fire safety systems to be improved for the Fire Administration Building. The Curran Fromhold Prison. New security improvements and fencing, cell lock system replacement, police forensics lab -- let me point out that the category that we're looking at now is Government Efficiency, those things that make Government work better and sort of leaner. This is the Fleet Management Facility at 63rd and Lindbergh Avenue in the Southwest. It's a new combined fleet management and sanitation facility which will greatly improve operational 11 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings efficiency. I haven't been there yet, but I understand the Penn's Landing Hyatt is gorgeous. So the Capital Program obviously supports the City's tourism initiatives. Although, we did not directly fund the hotel, but the general improvements in the Penn's Landing area or part of the Capital Program. Penn's Landing water taxi service, new docks, a million of which comes from the Federal Government. Otten's Flavors in Eastwick Industrial Park. Industrial development and City-owned PIDC managed and marketed industrial parks like Eastwick are a key part of the program. Next we go to our Airport, the new international terminal. Obviously, basic economic infrastructure. You can't be a great city without a great airport. Again, a new regional terminal. I should point out for those of you who didn't see the article that the Wall Street Journal cited our airport as the third best in the country. Unfortunately, the airport for my former city in New York was the worst. 12 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings National Constitutional Center Independence Mall. Funds were provided for streetscape improvements and mall improvements. This is the Kimmel Center for Performing Arts. I think this is an old photograph. Things have progressed even more since then. And, finally, we have Chestnut Street in Center City. This is to show sort of emblematic of our support for Downtown retail development. I think what we have tried to do here is to provide for -- appropriately for the stewardship of the City's critical infrastructure. I've been quoted as saying that this was a tremendously difficult task this year. It was. But not only because of limited resources.
Frankly, it's also because in our view, the Agencies, with the help of the Capital Program Office, did an excellent job in putting forward their programs and projects. And so, often, it was a matter of choosing between very fine programs and focusing on, again, those critical needs. We're trying to build on the foundation of previous commitments but to do that in a prudent 13 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings way. With that, Madam President, I think we will open it up for questions.
Thank you. Miss Griffith, you state that the borrowing limit set by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has impacted the City's capacity to fully fund large-scale renovations and enhancements of important structures. Explain what you mean by that statement, please.
Well, I'm lucky that on my right I have the Director of the Budget Office who may also want to read some of his testimony into the record.
Maybe it would make sense. I have some testimony on how we got to our level of funding, and it addresses the debt limit. Would it make sense for me to read that now?
Yes. As you know, our ability to issue debt is limited by the 14 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings Constitution. Under the Constitution, we're allowed to have debt equal to thirteen and a half percent of the ten-year average of the assessed value of the real estate in the City. And at the end of Fiscal Year 2000, the City's remaining debt capacity stood at $342 million. After the passage of the current fiscal year's loan authorization of 162 million, the debt incurring capacity is at about $180 million. The only way our debt incurring capacity can increase is if we retire existing debt or if the assessed value of the property in the City increases. In putting together the '02 to '07 program, we distributed our remaining capacity to meet the minimum needs of our capital infrastructure while not using up all our capacity in one or two years. Factoring in projected increases in assessed value in debt retirements, we determined we could fund about 90 million annually from FY02 through FY05, a little under 46 million in FY06 and approximately 37 million in FY07. Clearly, by the time we get to '06 and 15 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings '07, those levels aren't sufficient to meet even the minimum needs of our infrastructure. As a result, we're looking at ways to try to expand out debt incurring capacity or fund capital projects through other financing sources.
What is the Administration's position with regard to what is an acceptable level of debt that the City can carry, and what percentage of the General Fund Budget should be allocated for debt service?
Solasade Olanipekun, the City Treasurer. Currently, the City's payout on its general obligation debt is about 45.4 percent over ten years. What I don't have in hand and I can provide to you is where that falls in terms of comparable cities, whether we're of the average or below the average in terms of how quickly cities their retire their debt. I can provide that 16 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings information to you at a later date. I don't have that information available.
What percentage of the City's budget currently goes toward payments on the City's debt, both direct and indirect; for example to pay to the RDA, to PICA?
We can get that information to you in terms of the paydown of the debt versus the overall budget.
How does the administration propose to move forward with large-scale renovations such as City Hall, the Art Museum, the Central Library and the Zoo?
In each one of those cases, I think there's a somewhat different answer. With the Library, as I mentioned during programmatic standpoint. I would ask if the Budget Director might have a response in terms of additional funds or financing that I wouldn't be aware of.
When we mentioned the Task Force for the City Hall 17 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings renovations, who is on that Task Force?
Well, I may not have the complete list in memory, and I will get that to you, but we are on the Task Force, the City Planning Commission; the Managing Director's Office is on the Task Force, the Director of Finance is on the Task Force as well as, I believe, a Representative of the Council and several public advocacy organizations including the Foundation for Architecture and I believe the Alliance for Historic Preservation. But that's from memory. I may be incorrect. And I would prefer to get you a correct list.
Yes. And I really don't know of anyone on City Council being on that, to be honest with you.
Do we know what the cost estimate is to renovate City Hall?
I believe it was something around 345 million for total restoration. That's dollars.
Why is the 18 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings Administration eliminating City funding for City Hall in FY06? The Capital Program only includes $20 million -- and I believe that's $5 million each year -- to support the repairs of City Hall. I guess at this point in time, you do not know how that money will be spent. And if my memory serves me correctly, I believe that a couple of years ago, it was said to simply repair the roof would cost over a hundred million dollars?
I'd like to ask the Capital Program Office, Richard Tustin, to respond.
And with that being said, I just don't know where $5 billion a year gets us.
My name is Richard Tustin. I'm the Acting Director for the Capital Program Office. As you may know, we're already in the process of doing our first phase of renovation work to City Hall which includes the exterior of the 19 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings building: the exterior walls, windows, roof and metal pressing work at the top of the roof. We already have under contract about $17.2 million worth of work which will take us -- the northeast corner of the interior courtyard. It will take us along the east side of City Hall from the east cordal up around the Northeast corner. And almost all of the north face of City Hall will be able to be done under that original $17.2 million. We still have approximately $4 million of unallocated money that we intend on using to amend the present contract that will take us through the balance of the north face of City Hall and also the full north face of the courtyard, on the inside, and the tower. We look at this as a multiyear project. And I'm still talking about the exterior project. And the $5 million a year that has been allocated will provide us enough funds per year to continue that progress around the exterior of City Hall.
So that $5 million would just address the exterior?
Yes. At this point, yes. You are very correct when you mention 20 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings that a year ago or so the initial estimate was about $130 million to just do the full exterior of the building. We now have approximately eight or nine months of construction behind us, and we're getting a little better feel for what the actual cost is going to be for the exterior work. So we do believe that over the next five to six years, we will be able to complete the exterior of the building. And, again, it still doesn't address the interior elements of the building. Those interior elements of the building are going to be looked at through this Task Force. And other private funding sources are going to be looked into to help provide the funding required to do that work. But what we're working on right now is, as the City Planning Director said, is stabilizing the building and making sure the exterior is secure and waterproof.
Yes, it is. And that's 21 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings part of the work that we're doing right now.
Yes, we are. That's part of the encapsulation of the building. It includes the roof as well. So that is the work that we're doing right now. And we plan to continue for the next several years until we complete all of City Hall with funding through the Capital Budget each year. One of the things City Planning says to us each year -- and it's a wise statement -- is, Don't request any more money than you can absolutely use that one year. So by taking $5 million pieces, if you will, each year, we're certain that we can use that each year, and we'll be able to continue the progress around the building.
But you don't have money in the years of the plan.
At this point, you're correct. I believe it only takes us through the 22 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings year --
2005. Good morning. My name is Ernie Leonardo, Director of Strategic Planning and Policy with the City Planning Commission. To answer your question, Council President, the last two years of the Capital Program, as the Budget Director pointed out, are very limited. We dropped from $90 million, the total of tax supported funds, to 46 million in '06 and $37 million in '07. We're just beginning to explore ways to augment that limit because at that limit, you really can't do much for anything, much less for City Hall. So we cut City Hall. We hope perhaps by that time an alternative financing mechanism would will be in place both for City Hall and for all the other kinds of projects that would be severely limited if we had go with them.
Thank you. Miss Griffith, your testimony states that the City will be spending $276 million in support of neighborhood transformation objectives. What are the objectives and the 23 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings respective dollar amounts?
Well, as you know, the Neighborhood Transformation Program has not been fully delineated. We hope to come to you, I believe, in a few weeks and brief you and other Members of the Council. In addition, the Director of that program has had a private tragedy and could not be with us today. So I can't speak to the specifics of the program. I can speak to the objectives, and that's why we fairly carefully use the word "objectives." And it is, to say the obvious and to some degree, to eliminate blighted conditions which would include either tearing down or encapsulation or rehabilitation of the City's immanently dangerous and dangerous properties and the maintenance of the resultant property in a way that would not be detrimental to those communities, and to do this pursuant to plans that would be community-driven plans but would also be held to some Citywide standards. As to the allocation of funds, I do know a goodly percentage of the monies would go to the L 24 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings & I work, which would be the demolitions, the speedy demolition of the immanently dangerous properties. I would try to get to you in a timely manner whatever other details we have on that, but I don't believe there's anyone from that program here today.
We would appreciate that. A point of information. Councilman Nutter?
I didn't completely get the question. Did I understand the response having to do with capital dollars for all of this demolition activity? Was there something in the question that I either missed or didn't understand?
Let me try to be a little more responsive. I may not have answered the question in as a responsive manner as possible. Obviously, anything we do for neighborhood enhancement, we believe, is supportive of neighborhood transformation objectives, the broad objectives of neighborhood transformation. And that is why that figure is connected to neighborhood 25 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings transformation. Again, objectives, not the program in particular. I don't know whether that was as responsive as --
I think I was just trying to understand whether -- I thought you said something specifically about L & I, and L & I dollars and demolition, and I was trying to understand whether there were capital dollars in this budget for L & I to do demolition related to the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative.
No, sir. I was responding to actually a broader question, which probably wasn't even asked, which had to do with the Neighborhood Transformation Program as a whole. The 276 that's cited in my testimony are specifically projects that support the objectives of neighborhood transformation. They are not neighborhood transformation projects, per se.
Also, Miss Griffith, you state that in support of Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, the Office of Housing and Community Development will provide $500,000 in site 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings improvements such as new curbs, sidewalks and other infrastructure to support neighborhoods, I guess, that are in blight. Will this be paid out of City-supported debt?
Yes. But I believe that Mr. Kromer is here. I see him waving. I would ask him to come to the mike and speak in a little depth about this neighborhood stabilization program.
I was of the opinion that City dollars were prohibited for this use by the Comptroller's memo that we received a few years back.
Good morning. I'm John Kromer, the Director of the Office of Housing and Community Development. First of all, the intent of proposing this activity in the Capital Program was to address an issue which we discussed in this room over the years, and that is the need for installing curbs and sidewalks on blocks that are in reasonably good condition but just need some improvements to bring a measure of stabilization and further improvement to reinforce the relatively good status of those 27 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings blocks. At the same time, as part of the discussion of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, there has been some consideration of programs that would improve the exterior facades on residential blocks that, again, don't need total rebuilding but perhaps might need some new windows and doors, some cornice repair, some roof repair or replacement. And I'm familiar with the City Comptroller issue and also with the Law Department commentary on this matter. But I believe that there may be an opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Comptroller and the Law Department that a block improvement program of this kind which treats a substantial number of the houses on the block would constitute the kind of improvement project to which the Comptroller --
-- as referred. I've brought it up with his staff, but we have yet to complete a full review of the matter.
Well, Mr. 28 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings Kromer, how many blocks do you think could be addressed with $500,000?
The budget would be for a full curb and sidewalk reconstruction, and I believe there are those in this room who could identify how many blocks --
I'm working on that, Madam Chair. I thought the 500,000 was specifically for me. Councilman, I was advocating for you. It just didn't work out. There's always next year, okay? I'm going to be advocating for you again.
I think this will be further conversation for another day because I know I've had constituents constantly calling me about curbs and sidewalks, and I keep telling them 29 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings the City doesn't do curbs and sidewalks. It's the property owners' responsibility. And in my view $500,000 is certainly not going to be enough so address ten District Councils. I just can't imagine how far we get with 500,000. And I'm sure that every District Councilperson here must have quite a list of requests for that type of work.
Just one comment -- and I realize there isn't enough time today to discuss the whole program -- but where this approach has been used, in the Model Blocks Program operated by Neighborhood Housing Services and in a more recent program called Blockscape that the Pew Charitable Trust has founded. One important element that triggers the process is block organizing, getting people on the block together to agree on the improvement plan and also to contribute some share of the funding for the improvements.
Mr. Kromer, you're going to have to go into great length about this issue on a later date when you come up with your budget because I think we're all very much 30 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings interested in that.
Miss Griffith, in your testimony you indicate that $1.5 million will be available for improvements to neighborhood commercial centers in FY02. What centers will be improved?
I do not have a list in front of me. I was hoping that someone from Commerce might be here.
Also, Miss Griffith, you state that the emphasis of the program is the rehabilitation of existing fire stations with $1.3 million in new funds in 2002 for heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, roof 31 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings replacements and interior and exterior renovations. The funding in this category drops off to $700,000 in FY06 and $500,000 in FY07. Is this sufficient to meet the Fire Department's needs?
At this point in time, we're trying to predict those stations that will require those kinds of repairs and maintenance and renovation work in the immediate future. We also plan this year -- and I'll refer to it in my testimony on an Operating Budget -- to do a survey with each one of the departments that we represent to look at their long-term needs and try to project that out. Quite frankly, we're not quite sure if the year 2006 is adequate ourselves to cover their needs, but we will be able to identify that. We will be working with them to identify that this year and next year so that when that year does come, we will be asking for the appropriate money to keep those facilities up and functioning properly.
If I can just add to 32 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings that, Madam President, I think to be honest, we have to say that when you look at '06 and '07 across the board for the reasons that Mr. Leonardo stated earlier, we're looking at, frankly, just not enough money. And I think you can say that straight across the board. In some cases where we completed projects or completed campaigns or initiatives, we can say with certainty that no additional funds will be needed. But I think the global answer for '06 and '07 is that we really have to work with Members of Council, with the Budget Office and others to develop additional sources of revenue or to work with the State to calculate our debt-incurring capacity a little differently. There's just not going to be enough money in those years, those out years.
Mr. Tustin, the funding for the Capital Program Office is reduced from $5.9 million in FY05 and 3.5 million in FY06 and to 3 million in FY07. How do you propose to achieve these reductions, and what happens to your staff?
That is an excellent 33 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings question, Council President. As the City Planning Director has said, the Capital Budget will taper off. Most of my staff are Civil Servant employees, so they will continue to function whether it be in this Capital Projects or other roles. We also realize that due to the fact that the number of capital projects will also taper off dramatically in the out years of the program, that we have to review our staffing as well. Our work force is an older work force within our department, and as people retire, especially as part of their drop program and leave for other reasons, we have to very carefully look at the need of our office to replace those people looking at the out years of the program. So this is going to be an ongoing effort for our office over the next several years to see how we can reduce staff if need be to still adequately cover all the capital projects that we work on and also look at other ways of moving the staff to maybe the Operating Budget if need be.
Thank you. I have several other questions; however, at this time, 34 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings I will recognize Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Dubow, to shed some additional light on the Capital Fund reconciliation process with PICA, tell us for the record what is in that process and where it is.
Yes. There are a number of projects originally funded by PICA that either came in under budget or for a variety of reasons were never done. As a result of that, there was money from the original PICA issues that we asked PICA to reprogram for other projects. There's about $29 million, and we've asked those funds to be used for -- $9 million for the Worcester School conversion, $3.2 million for improvements to the Art Museum, 7 million for the House of Corrections, three and half million for renovations to Family Court, 4.1 million for renovations to the Central Library and City Hall and 2.1 million for the Manayunk Canal. As it stands now, we've had Council produce a letter that says that these projects are 35 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings eligible for PICA funding. PICA is having its own attorney review that letter to see whether he agrees. And if he does, then they're going to take our request to the Board for consideration.
The way the PICA Act is interpreted by our attorney is, so long as we owned a facility in '92 and there's an emergency condition now, the project is eligible for funding. There are other people who interpret it to mean that there had to have be an emergency in '92. So for some of these projects, obviously, the emergency didn't exist in '92.
Are these projects presently in the Capital Budget, or have they ever been in the Capital Budget in some previous year?
Yes. The Capital Budget assumes that these projects all be funded out of the PICA proceeds.
What happens if for some reason we have an adverse decision from PICA?
We either have to not do these projects or use other funds, which would 36 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings likely mean that we would have to reprogram out of other dollars of other projects that have funding.
What is your anticipation of the timetable? Thinking about this more positively, what is your anticipation of the timetable at which these dollars would be available for all of these projects?
The most optimistic scenario is that PICA would approve these reprogrammings at its February Board meeting. And then I think the money would be available soon after that. March maybe.
And do you have any assessment at this point of the likelihood of all this working out?
But I think I'm more optimistic because our Council has said that the projects are eligible. I wouldn't want to speak for the PICA Board as to what they're going to do, though.
Thank you. 37 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings Miss Griffith, on of the Capital Program book --
Mr. Dubow, what happens if PICA doesn't approve them?
They would use it to refund PICA debt. That's the other option.
We would either not do them or have to find other funding for them, which would mean replacing other projects that have funding.
I know. I didn't say that clearly. We would either not be able to do these projects or have to use funding that is now designated for other projects to do these projects. And that would mean that the projects that are currently funded, you wouldn't be able to do those. 38 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
So we would just play it juggling -- I'm sorry, Councilman.
That's more than fine, Madam Chair. That actually reminds me, did PICA issue any debt --
PICA had issued debt in '92 and '93, I think, for new projects. There may have been a '94 issue for new projects too, but I'm not sure. I can get back to you on that.
So the debt was issued eight or nine years ago. Have we been paying debt service on these borrowed dollars since that time?
So let me make sure I understand the situation. PICA borrowed money on our behalf because we had no access to the capital markets.
For which we are eternally grateful. We've paying debt service on the borrowed dollars for eight or nine years. 39 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
For which we have no 4 access to do things for projects that are needed throughout the City. Is that the situation that we're in?
I'm sorry. Say that again. I want to make sure I understand exactly how you're phrasing it.
We've been paying debt service on it since that time, correct?
We've not been able to use the dollars in the intervening years, correct?
So now we find something to use them for, they borrowed the money for us, we're paying the debt service on it, but we can't use the money?
Technically, they're paying the debt service out of the PICA portion of the wage 40 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings tax. But it's revenue that would have otherwise come to us and isn't. So I mean, yes.
They're paying the debt service out of the PICA portion of the tax that the citizens of this City and people who work in this City pay?
You're making a technical point, but you're right. It's our wages. We could have used it for the original projects during those eight years. And for a variety of reasons, projects coming in under budget, we didn't. But we couldn't have used it for other things, which I think is what you're asking.
What were those bonds? Do we have a list of those bonds that were 41 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings not (inaudible)?
We can provide that. We have a complete reconciliation of those projects, and we can provide that to you.
I think one of the things that I'm trying to get across, Mr. Dubow, is that at the end of the day, the money is already borrowed. We should be able to essentially use it for what our changing needs are in the course of that time. And if we never use it, it's already been borrowed, and the taxpayers will continue to pay debt service on dollars for which they have no 17 access. That makes no sense. And the PICA Board, with all due respect to them, shouldn't care one way or the other what we use the dollars for as long as we're using them for statutorily-allowed and eligible projects.
Thank you. Miss Griffith, on of the Capital Budget book, it reads, The City will continue to 42 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings assess neighborhood infrastructure to ensure that the Capital Program will most effectly support efforts of the NTI; the NTI being Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. Can you give us your sense of the definition of "neighborhood infrastructure"? What does that mean?
Well, certainly, Councilman, it was delineated in part by the slides that were shown earlier that talked about community-based economic development, community-based facilities such as libraries and recreation facilities, et cetera. I don't think until we bring the full program before you, I would want to limit the definition.
Well, I have to assume that the definition of "neighborhood infrastructure" is not limited or necessarily even changed by whether or not we have the NTI program fully laid out or not. We've had neighborhood infrastructure before NTI was a kernel of an idea. So I'm just, as the Planning Director, just trying get a better understanding in this more 43 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings public forum of your thoughts and definitions of commonly used terms.
Well, it would be facilities and infrastructure that were neighborhood specific that didn't serve the needs of the general population such as our major institutions like the Art Museum or the Central Free Library.
That these would not be facilities that would serve the general Citywide population but would serve a neighborhood population.
A more localized population. I don't know how good a definition that is, but that would be my general working definition.
How does the City perform its assessment of our neighborhood infrastructure?
Well, in many ways, and I'm going to ask both Director Tustin and Leonardo 44 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings to respond, but I believe Ernie outlined for you on Monday one of the newer ways that we intend to undertake this analysis, and that is by delineating neighborhood standards and then judging neighborhoods, in part, by those standards. It seems to us that neighborhood needs are a confluence of two strings of ideas. One are those unique neighborhood-specific elements that will differ from community to community. It would have to do with demographics and history and the unique makeup of that community. But there are other things simply because we're human and we're Philadelphians and we're Americans that we expect: to be able to take our kids to a local library, to play in a park, et cetera. So we see to some extent the formula for making judgments about capital planning with regard to transformation of neighborhoods relating to those two elements and trying to quantify to the extent possible these neighborhood standards.
Let me add to that, Councilman Nutter, it's really a three-pronged approach to assessing neighborhood infrastructure, 45 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings the condition and need for continued maintenance. Our Director, Maxine Griffith, has explained one prong, which is a set of standards against which we can measure each neighborhood. And you may be aware, I believe, of the study we did a number of years ago, recreational facilities in the City -- I have a copy here that I can leave with you -- that looked in detail at all City neighborhoods and tried to assess which ones were underserved or overserved based on the standard that we defined. And I did send over to the Council President's office yesterday copies of the 15 standards I had mentioned on Monday. 16 So we do make that assessment. 17 A second way of getting at this question 18 is, we do a life cycle analysis for each type of 19 infrastructure in this City. For instance, a sewer 20 may last 200 years. A street resurfacing may only last seven years. Most buildings would last only 40 years. Then we try to say how much would be needed if you were to maintain that facility in good condition over its life so that we have a general total of what is needed to support the number of 46 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings facilities we have currently. The third prong is that each individual department will assess the condition of each of their facilities. And we've had, I think, a great improvement over the last seven or eight years where the departments have been able to hire engineering firms to go out and really look at each individual building and assess its condition.
I don't think it's complete at this point, but I think much progress has been made. And I would turn that over to Mr. Tustin.
I'm trying to understand how we do what we do: how to do you get in the book; what the standards are; are there a uniform set of standards that we compare each facility on that basis, and then that information is then utilized in terms of making the critical decisions and the tough decisions that have to be made as to who is in the book and who is not in the book and when you get in the book, do you stay in the book, or do you just drop out because that was 47 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings interesting last year, but it's not interesting this year, and we've moved on to something that's more exciting or sexier. So I'm trying to understand the process.
Let me try to answer that in terms of City facilities and the departments that the Capital Program Office services. We don't service aviation, streets, water or recreation facilities, but we do service most of the other City Departments. Our office is broken down into teams. We have four teams right now, and each team handles three or four different Operating Departments. We meet with those Operating Departments on a regular basis, both their capital staff that we deal with and also their maintenance staff that maintain their facilities. And we try to identify each one of their buildings and the kinds of problems they have. And we try to project out, especially on things like roofs and heating systems, the actual condition of the system today and how much longer we can expect that roof to hold up before it needs to be replaced. When we do that with each department, we 48 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings sit down and put together a list of projects that we want to submit for Capital Budget call that year. We also prioritize those projects based on, Can this roof last three years, or is it going to go next year, and it becomes a higher priority of those projects we ask for. We then put together a full prioritized list of projects, and we submit them to the City Planning Commission for Capital Budget call. We then have hearings with the City Planning Commission where they question us, quite frankly, on the urgency of each one of those projects. Let me give you an example. There may be a project that could be considered a multiyear project. In other words, in order to design it and bid it and award it and construct it, it may fall over two years or even three years. In that particular case, we'll then only request the money for doing the design the first year because that's the money we need right away to start the project.
Well, let me ask 49 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings this question. Where do we fit in, in this process? Do we just get the end result of it, and after people have made their assessments and after they've looked at everything and after they've made all of the various decisions that need to be made, you just kind of ship it over to us and say, We'd like you to do this? Is that where we are in this process? I appreciate the information you're sharing with me and all of us this morning. I've just not had the wonder of that experience.
If I could put in my understanding, that each agency has consulted with Councilmembers in deriving their recommended list of projects. So at the front end, we would hope and expect that the projects that are coming forward from the agencies and being bedded by the Capital Program Office have some input by a concerned engaged Councilperson. And so that's the front-end consultation. And then, of course, there's this process which is a deliberative process with come give and take where there may be some possibility 50 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings for amendments. I would also add that this year, because of the limited resources and the way our job was both difficult and easier, we did not have a lot of discretion. If the roof was leaking, we tried to patch the roof. And if there was a bucket under the trickle of water, we could see the roof needed to be patched. There was not a lot of funds to do the kind of exciting, discretionary or sexy projects that you were speaking to. We really look to, as I said earlier, the basic stewardship of our infrastructure, making sure things didn't fall apart and making sure we made some modest progress on projects that we had already engaged in.
Well, Madam Director, I would always suggest, though, in a time of even limited or more limited funding opportunities, the need for closer collaboration and decision-making becomes that much more critical, at least from my perspective. And I don't know whether it's any easier. It's probably, at least for some of us, a little tougher. 51 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings I will say, though, and we'll go through it in the course of today and however long this process lasts, there are items in the budget for which there's been virtually no consultation. There are items not in the budget that I care greatly about and never had an opportunity or forum to try to make a case for them. And there were other decisions made in other places to which I was not a party. So I don't know who decided what, and I don't know how they decided it, but it certainly does not reflect many of the concerns that either I have as the representative for the district or even my constituents. In addition, it astounds me at times, the condition of some of our facilities. And to hear about this process that goes on for some extended period of time, I don't know whether the people who are making the decisions about what gets done or what doesn't get done -- and I know we have a lot of facilities, but it raises the question as to whether or not the people making the decisions have ever experienced some of these facilities and some of the conditions at the facilities, all which 52 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings may not be capital-driven. But when you go to try to use some of these facilities in some critical situations, you're not necessarily going to engage in a long debate about whether this is a capital item or maintenance item. We have some facilities that if I had an animal, I wouldn't take it to use some of these places because they are a disgrace. And the fact that we ask the general public to try to use them or our own public employees to work in some of these conditions is quite honestly somewhat disgraceful. And I don't know who goes to these places on a regular basis to see what they look like, but some of our facilities are literally a disgrace. And so in an environment with even more limited dollars, it seems to me that the nature of this process needs to be more closely driven by the people who ultimately have to respond to constituents and their issues and their concerns about what is going on at our neighborhood infrastructure and what is in the budget and what's not in the budget and who made some of those 53 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings decisions because I was not a full participant in that process. So I don't take it that anything is in is automatically in and the things that got excluded are necessarily going to be out. And that's the perspective that I'm taking on this particular budget. And we'll just have to go through, in some painful ways, some of those items and some of those discussions because I am not satisfied that there has been a full process here. If someone believes that a periodic or the day-to-day discussions that we have about facilities qualifies as some kind of full budgetary process, they are sadly mistaken. We talk to these people on a fairly regular basis about a lot of different things. And I guess I'll be more mindful in the future that an inadvertent conversation or a by-the-way conversation now qualifies as full discussion about what is going to be in the Capital Budget six to eight months later. I will be much more careful about how I have these discussions and who I have the discussion with and make sure that maybe we note 54 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings for the record that this is an official City Capital Budget discussion that may affect what's in next year or what is not in next year. So, Madam Chair, I have a number of questions. You have been most gracious with my time. And I'll be glad to come back. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you very much. This question may have been asked. I've been distracted. When we reach our debt ceiling, how long will we have to wait to fund projects if there is no 16 new money available? And aren't these bonds 30-year bonds, and will we have to turn to paid as we are considering with the Blight Program?
Under our current projections, we essentially get to the point where we can't really fund a full capital program in FY06 where we get to about $46 million in available general fund capacity. We're looking at a number of ways to try 55 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings to avoid getting to that point. One as you mentioned is trying to look for other authorities to fund some of our needs. The other is to see whether we can get an amendment to the State Constitution to change the way our capacity is calculated.
It's equal to thirteen and a half percent of the ten-year average of the assessed value of real estate in the City.
Have we ever been in this predicament before where we've reached our limit in terms of capital funding?
Not that I know of. We got to the point in very the early '90s where we couldn't access the markets because our credit rating wasn't investment grade. It didn't have anything to do with the capacity.
How much money exists throughout the Capital Budget that has not been allocated and can be recaptured for more current programs?
I'm sorry. We're trying to determine exactly what -- there are several 56 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings answers depending on if -- do you want to restate the question?
How much money exists throughout the Capital Budget, how much has been appropriated but has not been spent and is not likely to be spent and can be recaptured?
I think I can answer that question. At least I'll try. Each year we get a certain amount of money appropriated for each one of the projects. As we do that project, we may come under budget because we're starting with estimates on what it's going to cost to actually do this construction. If we find out that we are under budget on a project, then the money that is left over after that project can now be reapplied to other or projects or is part of the carry forward money. When we put together -- for the departments we service, when we work with them to look at new projects each year, one of the things our Deputy Director on the budget side does is to look at all that money that has been left over unused on other projects, and we factor that into our request. 57 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings So if we're looking for $150,000 to do a heating system replacement and we can identify $50,000 left over from a prior project that was not spent, we'll only ask for the hundred thousand dollars trying to reuse that 50 that was left over from the prior year.
Yes. The prior project has to be 100 percent completed. And this is money that is left over, and we now try to apply it towards another project. And that way it keeps our request down to City Planning for capital money. And we go through that process each year before we do our Capital Budget request to see what we have left from projects that have already been completed.
Just for the record, we have some State funding for Dorothy Emanual Recreation Center, $1.5 million. Now that that money is forthcoming, can we begin the bid design, undertake the design bid? I just want it on the record.
Okay. We should get 58 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings together and discuss that in more depth with you, and we'll try to work with you in putting that --
If that money has been appropriated by the State and you have it in the Capital Budget, that it's okay, we can file the application with the State, and we can begin the process to design the project?
So all the money that we've been holding for that project, we can now begin to you use?
Okay. Just for the record. Thank you. In previous years, the allocation to District Councilpersons could be designated for special projects at each of the rec centers. Why is the department now counting on those funds for roofing and more permanent repairs? It used to be that you kept -- through improvements to existing facilities, you would do the roofs and you would do major repair on these buildings. Now I'm told that if there's a roof, I 59 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings have to take it out of the appropriations when we may have the money for something else.
My understanding, Councilwoman, is that the money we have put in the Recreation Department for the last seven or right years included all kinds of improvements including roofs, boilers, structural work, site improvements. But an initial list was prepared by the Recreation Department showing or reflecting the condition of the facility and an understanding by the design staff of Recreation of what was needed there. And then that list was eventually vetted through each individual Councilperson and that no work would begin unless it was approved by you using your allocations, which were determined ahead of time. But the case was always that the range of kinds of projects that you funded with your allocation included whatever was needed at an individual site.
Yes. Prior to that, there was no specific allocation for Council. There were individual projects. The list totaled anywhere 60 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings in Recreation from fifty to a hundred projects each year. Many were small in nature. And there was no 4 formal process in moving forward on those projects with Council. There was an informal process, certainly. But now with the last Administration, we began this more formal process that calls for sign-off from you with a list of the projects that you support.
So you have no 12 money set aside for improvements to existing facilities other than the money that's allocated to each Council District?
With two exceptions. We exempted swimming pools and ice rinks because they're large scale in nature, and the timing is critical to get them renovated. So we didn't want to use up all of your allocation in one year for one swimming pool. So those we do fund separate from the Council allocation.
Well, prior to, I believe, the Rendell Administration, we were not held accountable for the roof and major general 61 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings repairs to the facilities. That was used if we wanted to add on to a building or something like that.
But there was no specific allocation to Council. If a Councilperson wanted to expand the building or build a new gym, that was put into the mix of projects to be reviewed. But you weren't held accountable because you didn't have a pot of funds against which you would be accounted.
Yes, we were. Ever since I've been here, I've gotten an allocation for my District every year. That's how we were able to finish some of the projects that had been started or were on the table. But I was not required to use the appropriation for a roof or any major repair to a recreation facility.
Councilwoman, let us review the history and get back to you on that. As a new Administration member and a new Philadelphian myself, I'd like to understand better the history. And I don't believe there's been a change in policy, certainly, from last year. But let us take a look at that and get back to you, if we may. 62 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
Okay. Thank you very much. Who provides oversight for the minority participation construction component in capital projects? Is it the Procurement Department? And for those departments, particularly Recreation, when they can hire under the special services project, who oversees the minority participation for that inclusion?
That's a several part answer. For the projects the Capital Program Office manages, we basically have two types of contracts -- professional service contracts and the actual construction contracts for Public Works contracts. Every year we sit down with the Minority Business and Enterprise Council and review the upcoming professional service contracts we anticipate putting out. And the number and types of those contracts are a result of the Capital Budget that gets approved each year. We discuss with them the nature and type of work that each project includes, and with them, 63 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings they help us determine the appropriate level of minority participation for any professional service contracts. So, for instance, our office will try to put out -- we do our professional service contracts through what we call PSR process, which is a request for professional services where we'll go out and solicit four to six architectural firms for a project. And they will submit to us a proposal which identifies the project, the type of services they will perform and the fee to do the work. Now, when we meet with NDEC and we identify what we feel is the right level of participation, we will take a percentage of the projects that we would normally put out, design projects, and we solicit only minority and women firms to do those projects so that we're guaranteed that level of participation if not higher. So we make every effort to make sure that we meet at least that as a minimum level of participation on our professional service contracts. On some of the larger projects, it's not an all or nothing for a minority or woman to be awarded the project. There are percentages of the 64 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings project that we require percentage participation. So we may start out with the a 4 percent participation goal for a professional 5 services contract and actually end up with a 25 or 6 27 percent. But we will never be below that amount. 7 On the Public Works contracts, that is 8 really set by Procurement. It's not really set by 9 our office. 10
Last year we were given a 13 million dollars in the Capital Budget to do the 14 remediation of the Logan site. That project is all 15 but done with the exception of the seeding of the 16 actual topsoil. 17 The soil that was contaminated -- and it 18 was basically lead, which was the biggest problem -- 19 has been all removed and taken to a landfill that 20 accepts that type of soil. We then have come back and replaced that foot of soil with new soil. And we've also put in topsoil on top of that. Now, that's all been done to date. The only thing left to do is seeding, and you have to wait until the Spring or at least a month or so down 65 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings the road before we start the seeding process. So after that is complete, the seeding project will be essentially completed.
Grass. I believe it's all grass seeding in that triangle where ther are no 9 longer any homes that we all seeded with grass, I believe.
What kind of grass are you going to put there? Is this something that's going to grow into weeds?
I don't have that level of detail, but I can definitely get back to you with that answer. And I hopefully will be able to get back to you with the answer of how it gets maintained.
I think it's important, though, that we look at the type of grass or whatever greenery is used there to cut down on maintenance.
Absolutely. And I'm sure that has been thought through. And I need to talk to the project manager who is handling that to get 66 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings that level of detail. But I will get back to you with that answer.
Thank you, Madam President. First. I want to correct, to my recollection, some statements that were made with respect to allocations to rec centers. One in particular made mention of the fact that there were certain things that were done to rec centers that had to come out of District Council" allocation. It's my understanding in certain instances that it's not necessarily the case. When we have Citywide lighting contracts, it does not come out of that Council District. And other things like we have a roofing-wide contract, it doesn't come out of that 1.2 million.
You also made a statement with respect to replacements for swimming 67 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings pools, that that did not come out of the Councilperson's District allocation, Mander Swimming Pool in particular, 33rd and Diamond. I recall that year that the entire $900,000 that we spent for that swimming pool came out of the Councilmatic Direct. We were not able to fund any other centers.
I believe that's what triggered the policy that changed so that since then we are not exempting --
Miss Griffith, I'll be talking to you about that later. There's a couple other issues. One in particular is as a former staff person for a Councilperson, a big part of my responsibility was dealing with neighborhood issues. And this whole issue about infrastructure improvement continued to be a problem. And to give you an example, on a particular block in my District, back when you were able to do curbs and sidewalk -- I think it was the 68 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings 2700 block of Morrison Street -- we went out and spent approximately $50,000 to do new curbs and sidewalks. Six months later, the Water Department came out to do a new sewer line and tore out all of the brand-new curbs and sidewalks, and we had to spend an additional $50,000 on top of what was spent just for the sidewalks. We also had to do street resurfacing. And I raised that question at that time about this lack of coordination. I was told that a better job would be done. Here we're are years later on the 2900 block of Sedgley Avenue. We recently had another sewer line reconstruction, having just had the street paved a year and a half ago. And I guess I want to know who is really paying attention to this because I continue to see this through my District. I'm assuming that it happens in other areas, that we continue to waist money.
I'm going to let Dick speak to that, but let me add one point. The Mayor has just initiated, really, 69 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings sort of a groundbreaking construct; that is, working groups of agencies that deal with like matters so that they will work together and coordinate. So, for instance, there is a City Services working group and a City Operations working group, I believe both chaired by the managing director. And two of the issues are, one, to make sure that policy matters that are interagency matters get vetted and parsed through in a coordinated way so that operational issues get vetted and parsed through in a coordinated way.
It was my understanding that we already had that in place. Are we going to change the people, or are we going to change the structure?
Yes. It is now at the Mayoral level, and people are paying attention.
I have this ever increasing issue having represented an area that has 70 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings probably some of the older recreation centers in the City Philadelphia; one in particular is 26th and Master. I'm being told that the Philadelphia Athletics used to actually play baseball there. Those of you that know about baseball and have been around for a while will understand how long ago that might have been. In some of these centers, we continue to put upwards of 200, $300,000 in a particular fiscal year, essentially, just to maintain the facility, fix the major systems, keep the heater running. And my question is -- and I actually got killed at a community meeting because I had the nerve to make this statement. At some point, do we look at what point we have to make a decision to stop putting money into these older recreation centers and come up with a strategy to replace the facility and maybe a more efficient facility or smaller facility? What's the tip point? I've actually talked to the Recreation Commissioner about this at great length, and he agrees with me in some respects. I think that we 71 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings got to come up with -- it doesn't make sense to keep putting money in some of these facilities.
Let me speak to that conceptually, and, again, Dick may want to speak to it more specifically. I agree. And at the Planning Commission we are thinking through the same issues. Part of what we're thinking about, also, is the flexible use of facilities. So that if we are able to develop funds, to find funds to replace that facility, that facility could meet a number of needs and, therefore be more effectively and efficiently used. But I think you're right. We have to bite the bullet in a way. I've also had conversations with Commissioner Richards, and I know of his concern to make sure the facilities that we have are really usable and are not just sort of squares on a map.
Well, since the folks at this table are the ones that coordinate the Capital Program in league with the Commissioner of the 72 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings agency in question, you are now talking to the people who will be making the determination over the next year. And this is an issue that's already been joined. And we'd be happy to work with you and other Councilmembers that are concerned and, obviously, with the Recreation Commissioner.
My last question relates to State capital initiatives, funding for centers, parks. How does that happen? Is it based on the State-elected officials' ability to get funding to match the City allocation of funding? Is there some sort of equitable way that this money comes to the City, or is it based on how great your state senator is or your state representative is?
I understand your question. Let me ask if there's anyone else at the table who might know more about this than I do. And if not, we would have to get back to you. Obviously, there are agencies and entities that are very creative and very successful at getting state funds, but you're really asking a broader question -- what's the process; what's the procedure; what's the protocol. And I think we 73 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings would have to get back you. I don't have the answer.
Does the City initiate the process, or does the State initiate the process? Does the senator get from his constituents, We need this recreation center fixed? And then does he go to the State and gets in touch with the Councilperson, and they figure out a way to --
Or is it an ad hoc process where it sometimes happens one and sometimes happens another way. And that's something that I would be very interested in finding out too. And we will to get back to you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We're dealing currently in Council with a very complicated issue at the Public Property Committee, dealing with cable television and the desire for the cable television companies outside of 74 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings Philadelphia to come in and compete with our incumbent carriers. As a result of that process, we have been exposed to the fact that there is a build-out plan. It's proposed to start in Northeast Philadelphia and move it's way down Northeast Philadelphia in a crescent shape through the top tier, northern tier of the City, and up into the far northwest. What kind of coordination or involvement does the Planning Commission or any of its staff have relative to the needs of that build-out? For example, if you go through any of our city streets in Center City and many neighborhoods, you will see, similar to what Councilmember Clarke talked about, was kind of a patchwork quilt of various street openings, whether it's City agencies, Streets Department, Gas Works, Water Department or whether it's telephone companies, cable TV companies, who does the overall coordination of who's opening what, where, when and when they're covering it? And can we, similar to what, I think, Councilmember Clarke was leading to, can there be 75 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings some coordination when RCN gets approval to move forward and their plan is submitted, will Public Property, Streets, Water and Gas perhaps coordinate some way that they know when a street is being opened by a particular entity, that they can then coordinate that effort to do whatever work needs to be done in that particular area? And I know it's a massive planning issue.
And, frankly, Councilman, it's not one that the City Planning Commission has been directly involved in. I would suspect that either the Streets Department and/or the Managing Director's Office would be the coordinating entity. I don't know whether there's someone else you might want to --
To add to the question, the issue of deregulation in gas, deregulation in electric, obviously the phone service has been deregulated for a while. There's so many different companies. And I assume that all of them or most of them hopefully are requesting street opening permits. So maybe that's a way, a database, which will enable us 76 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings to kind of track where most of the work is being done in a given time.
We have the Managing Director and the Streets Commissioner here.
I'm Joe Martz, the Managing Director of the City of Philadelphia. And, Councilman, I expect that within a month to be sending over some legislation with regard to a new ordnance regulating rights of way in the City of Philadelphia so we can start getting our hands around this because it is an enormous problem, and we recognize that. I equate it to, basically, the next generation of infrastructure build-out in America. And it's happening in big cities. And people want to come in here, and they're asking for ordinances, and we give them those ordinances because we want to promote business. But at the same time, they're tearing up our roadways. They're making it extremely difficult for us to manage what is actually in our streets. So we expect to be across the street, and I expect it will be a very lively discussion in the next moth about what's the right thing to do 77 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings with regard to managing our rights of way.
My name is William Johnson, Streets Commissioner. I might add that in the interim, the Streets Department does coordinate the opening and issue permits for opening of streets. And we have the right of way unit. We're trying to manage that process to minimize the number of times that a street is opened and the amount of road construction that might be taking place in the City at any time.
Do you expect that that unit would have interface with any companies like RCN or any other competitors that may come in due to the telecommunications act which is promoting and intended to promote competition amongst cable, high-speed Internet and telephone service?
Again, if I may, Councilman, it does. The problem seems to be that people come in and ask us for ordinances and the right to open up the street and put some duct work in at a specific location. What we'll find out during the actual build-out is they'll go down the street and they'll have to move it out. 78 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings So we think it's important for us to get our hands around the whole problem because in the end, I would say especially in the Center City area, we just don't have a sense of where everything is supposed to be.
Okay. Thank you. Miss Griffith, I don't know if you were in the room on Monday when the hearing on fiscal stability and intergovernmental cooperation was being held, but I questioned the Administration Representatives at the time and mentioned a comment that I read that you had made in the Philadelphia Inquirer and, again, yesterday read in a copy of Sunday's Washington Post about the view that the Planning Commission would like to find a way to have the City shrink gracefully. I'd like to give you an opportunity to explain what that means and perhaps give us some idea of what your vision is relative to that effort.
Thank you for the opportunity. The reporter that wrote that original piece is a very fine reporter, and I'm grateful anytime City Planning is on the front page of the 79 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings Inquirer. However, that was not a quote from me. And even though my picture was prominently displayed with a quote floating over it, if you -- as I'm sure you read the article, shrinkage is not a word that I use. What I did say -- and the first part of the sentence was in there, not the second -- was we have to accommodate the folks who are here. We have to do a good job in terms of capital and other planning for the folks that are here as we build for the future and as we set a base for future development. And we can't be so focused on future development that we neglect the needs of the populations that are here. Someone else used shrinkage, and God bless them. Certainly, I don't think any of us want to see a smaller city. On the other hand, the Sun Belt is a reality; suburbs are a realty. And the post-industrial change in East Coast cities is not just a Philadelphia problem; it's a problem, really, up and down the coast and in the Midwest as well. 80 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
I think other cities probably have responded differently than we have in places like Boston and Chicago. And I always mention New York, but New York is sort of an anomaly due to its synergy and energy and continued desire for people to come there and do business. But I think cities like Boston and Chicago are similar in scope; one being smaller, one being larger than Philadelphia but certainly have that post-industrial problem and seem to have responded differently than Philadelphia has over the past years. 15
And we're beginning to. I'm sure you heard about an initiative, that the Planning Commission has started to look at the North Delaware Riverfront for instance, and to see how we can sensitively, without doing damage to the industrial base that's there, look at other opportunities for development. And we're doing that in other places as well. The gentleman to my left not only helps out with Capital Budget, but he and his staff developed -- and we hope to bring to the Commission, 81 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings soon, a plan -- the working title is "Livable Cities" -- where we will at look at ways to retain the folks who have options, who could move to New Jersey but we don't want them to move to New Jersey, and on and on and on. So balancing the need to, again, create a vibrant robust City for the folks who stayed -- and that is my quote. We also want to prepare for those who will come. And a lot of people, as you know, are first- or second-generation suburbanites have seen the error in their ways and are coming back. And we want them to come back to Philadelphia. There's also --
We're getting those four-bedroom empty nesters whose kids are out of college, but that cohort of 35 to 50, three, four children in school, we're not doing too well. I don't think they're coming back at all. We're not doing too well holding onto them.
Well, I think you pointed out an important element. The school system is 82 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings always something that's cited but also general economic development and economic health. And I know the Commerce Director and others have done an amazing job in trying to attract high-tech firms and firms of the future. So there's no one answer. There's no 8 magic bullet. But there's a synergy, I think, amongst and between elements. And, again, it's not just a numbers game. Someone pointed out the other day that Cincinnati, I believe, is a city that has lost population but has gained in economic health vibrancy. So we also have to focus on generating that kind of energy and synergy while we still plan for folks to come back.
Let me make just one suggestion relative to my experience with the group of people that are my peers that I grew up with and got married about the same time, started raising families about the same time. Sadly, out of a dozen of them, nine or so no longer live in the City. And some of them, moved for various reasons, reasons we can't change. 83 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings But some of them also told me that they never wanted to really go, but their wives gave them such a hard time over lack of space and kind of amenities in the home -- a family room, garage, deck, closets -- and they wanted new construction. And they could only really afford that 120,000 to $170,000 house. To find a single home with wonderful amenities in places like East Falls and other places in Philadelphia are going to pay over two and into the threes, which is terrific. I'm glad we still have those kind of neighbors in the City. But part of our problem is there's very little choice for that family in a row house in Mayfair, South Philadelphia, West Philadelphia who wants to move up. They don't really always want to move out. But when they look around at what's available to them from a housing stock choice -- amenities, new construction -- we just don't have it. We've spent about $80 million or so in the last three years in this City building housing for low become, moderate income people, which I think is a wonderful thing. People really need that 84 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings kind of opportunity to be housed in our city, and there's a desperate need for that kind of housing. However, in many ways, I think we've ignored, not intentionally, but we've ignored the needs of that working-class family of all ethnic backgrounds and races who find the need to want to move up and can't because we don't invest the kind money and effort into providing that kind of housing opportunity for them. So they wind up in Washington Township and Montgomery County and Delaware County in working-class neighborhoods that are often very much integrated. I know my peers who weren't used to living in integrated neighborhoods find themselves very happily living in suburban communities that are integrated, and the real integration is they're living around people of their same income. And they had their epiphany, which is wonderful, but I would like to give them the opportunity to have that epiphany here in the City. So in your planning procedure, it would really be hopeful that you would be looking towards that market rate housing opportunity whether it's on 85 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings the Waterfront in parts of Northeast Philadelphia or whether it's in other areas of the City, it's something that we really don't have, and it's one of the elements, I think, of population retention that we really need to go after.
And just one final comment. I am not a District Councilperson, so I don't have the same emotion as it comes to the Capital Budget. I look at some of the bigger items, what we're doing on large-scale items. But one area of suggestion I would give after being around here nine years or so is that there really needs to be more coordination with the District Council people. They really do know their districts. They know their needs. And we've gone through this since 1992, 1993 and the last Administration and now till today. They really don't feel like they're really part of this loop. And what they wind up getting is what you guys send to us. And I'd hate to see a situation where we would be in an effort to try to start changing in a major way the Capital Program. 86 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings But without their District Council input, we're going to really start -- and I think it's here already -- creating some feelings that we need to assert ourselves in ways that maybe the Administration doesn't want us to. So that's just one word of advice. I'm more of a neutral observer in this because I don't have a district to be directly concerned about personally. But I think those ten District Council people in here really need the opportunity, early on, to be part of this process so that when this document comes, it's not a surprise to them.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam, President. Good morning. My first question is, the City's ability to issue new debt is restricted by legal debt capacity. My Council District has so many capital 87 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings needs, particularly with regard to many of the antiquated recreation centers and schools. I'm sure some of the other Council Districts have the same problems. Is this Administration working on a long-term solution to these capital reinvestment problems? As a Councilperson, I feel like we're kind of cutting and pasting or robbing Peter to pay Paul. And each year, you figure what you can do and what you can't do. So I'd just like to know if this Administration is working on a long-term solution to this capital reinvestment problem.
Yes. We share your concern about our limited debt incurring capacity, and we are looking at ways to expand that capacity. I guess the first way is to look at trying to see whether we can change the way the limit is calculated, looking at the State Constitution, to see whether that can be amended. And another thing we are looking at is whether there are projects that can be appropriately funded through other entities like authorities, for 88 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings example.
Thank you. We can continue that discussion at another time too. The Broad and Erie Subway intramobile improvements has been in the design stage for about five years now. It's a combination of Federal and City money. When will begin to see this much needed project in construction?
I wonder whether someone from SEPTA is here that could respond to that question.
Good morning. My name is Joseph Syrnick. I'm from the Streets Department. Councilwoman, as you know, we're managing that project. And you're quite right. This has been a long time in the making. I think you'll see Phase I of this go to construction this year. This has been a very complicated project. There's a lot of interface there with SEPTA and with the community at large. Some of the issues up there when we first started this project, we were planning to do a 89 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings certain kind of work with an interface with the trolley. And some of those decisions, because of the way the trolley has changed operation, has caused us to change our attack. But we want to get it right. And this when done will be a tremendous improvement for both the pedestrians and the transit users as well as the general motor traffic. So I think you'll see something this year. And you're right. It's been a long time.
While you're still there, Joe, when are you going to start on Ogontz Avenue, the resurfacing?
That's a question I need someone from Highways to help me with. And I don't think there's anyone here. So can we get back to you on that?
Sure, sure, okay. An infrastructure rail line funding increment, City and State dollars. Can environmental remediation activities include cleaning up the tons of trash illegally dumped along rail lines and from bridge overpasses, particularly in the Broad and Luzerne and Old York Road street area? 90 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
If I understand your question correctly, Councilwoman, that's really an Operating Budget question as an operational question. I don't know whether there is someone here who might be able to respond. Commissioner Johnson.
Can environmental remediation activities include cleaning up the tons of trash illegally dumped along rail lines and from bridge overpasses? And that money, I assume, is City and State money.
I can speak to the fact that we do work with the railroad to try to get them to take care of their properties. Those are not City properties. Those are properties, rights of way, that are owned by the railroads. And we have been trying to work with the railroads to get them to clean up their properties in our communities.
But sometimes, for example, Old York Road, in the 38, 3700 block, goes over one of those SEPTA overpasses. But the City is basically who we call to come out and clean Old York 91 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings Road, which is probably one of the worst dumping areas in the City. So we were just wondering if there's some other ways that we can get some other dollars to keep that a little bit cleaner rather than keep pulling on your budget all the time, the Streets Department budget. So that's why I asked that question. Also, I didn't see in the Capital Budget -- and maybe it's there. Are there any dollars for fencing? Are there any monies anywhere for fencing?
There's no money for fencing? So what are we going to do about fencing all of these lots? And maybe that's a part of the Blight Elimination Plan. But we get lots of calls in our office from constituents once we clean a lot while the City still owns. I know if the lot is given to a block association or a neighbor or whatnot, it's their responsibility to put the fence up. But when I read some of this -- and it 92 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings talks about the aggressive plan to clean vacant lots -- I was wondering what you were going to do, if you were going to put up a fence. And if so, is there money?
Yes, Councilwoman. There's no money in the Capital Budget, but you are correct in that the Neighborhood Transformation Program anticipates that part of its charge will be the fencing and maintenance of vacant lots and the cosmetic improvement of those lots. And I think when we come to brief you on that program, you will see that that is included.
Okay. Just a couple more questions. I see there is money allocated for school speed limit signs, and the question is: Is there now going to be a systematic approach for signage at all elementary schools including charter schools coming out of this line item, or will the process continue to be complaint-driven?
I think that would be a question that could be responded to by Streets if the appropriate staff is here.
Councilwoman, Charlie 93 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings Trainor, Chief Traffic Engineer. The school flasher program will continue in the methodology that we have in place now where we receive applications from schools and we wind up setting up our list of schools in each Council District prior to our letting the contract out. And those are the schools that will be done under that particular contract.
Mr. Trainor, how many are you going to be able to do per Council District this year? Is that going to change? Does this dollar amount change anything?
With the $500,000 -- we have an estimated cost of about $15,000 per school. So we're in the vicinity of the low 30s total Citywide that we can do. The number that we do per district is based on the number of applications that we have within each district. If we're able to do 33 schools total and we have at least three applications from each Council District, we can do three schools per district.
So that's really no change then; am I not correct? 94 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
I have no more questions at this time, Madam President.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Dubow, the cap that's on our borrowing in the State Constitution that puts a ceiling, is that uniform throughout the state.
I think it's for first-class cities. I think it's just for us.
Is it better or worse that we would be if we were lumped together with everyone else? Do you know that answer?
And it may be something that when it started out, it was considered a benefit.
Right, historically. Because things change over time. 95 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
-- lobbying approach. The other question I have is -- and I can't seem so find it. I know it's in here. There is a reference in the testimony to using PICA funds, reprogramming existing PICA borrowings that have been sitting still for a while. And that's been talked about for quite a long time because there was an enormous spike in capital spending after the PICA law passed. And it has slowly gone down as PICA funds shrunk. And now our capacity borrowing capacity is shrinking. They were all big projects that were referred to, that the larger institutions within the City were getting these reprogrammed PICA funds. Is there any thought being given to rec centers for instance, as a place -- because this is where we used a lot of these PICA funds initially with limitations to safety and maintenance and not new construction. And it seems like those limitations while they're still there, the 96 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings questions, for instance, that the Councilwoman Miller and Councilman Clarke mentioned, a lot of those issues in existing facilities, the older facilities even more so -- maintenance, repair, safety -- apply even today. Is there any thought to not just doing it for big institutions but for neighborhood facilities, reprogramming PICA funds?
The list of projects we put together actually consumes the whole amount of reprogramming funds available.
Yes, for reprogramming. And PICA's ability to issue debt for new projects expired in '94.
There are also interest earnings on projects, and we have not talked to PICA yet about how that money will be used. And one of the things we can talk to them about is whether it would be appropriate to use it for recreation facilities. 97 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
Councilman Cohen, do you still want to be recognized?
As a former Eighth District Councilmember, I support all of the recommendations made by Councilwoman Miller. But I'm sure the needs everywhere are very great. But in the Eighth District particularly, in the 17th Ward, there had been a battle for 30 years to get a library. The library is bursting at its seams. And I was hoping that in the Capital Program there would be a plan made to acquire property right adjoining to it that seems currently to be available as a result of neighborhood action against an undesirable tenant or occupant of the land. And I'm wondering whether that has been raised with the Planning Division or the Public Property Division. It's been raised with the library, but I know expansion of the library would involve capital 98 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings funding, and it would have to go, probably, through the Public Property Department and the Planning Commission.
Since the head of the Free Library is here with us, if I could ask him to come and speak to that issue.
Good morning. I'm Elliot Shelkrot, the present Director of the Free Library. I have had discussions with the group of people, many of whom are represented here just before me regarding the question that you raised on the acquiring of land near the Ogontz branch. The Ogontz branch is a well-used branch of our system. It is not more heavily used than any other branches of comparable size. And I did point out there was land available that could be used if, in a future, time we wanted to expand. But it is my understanding that it is not the Administration's policy to purchase land just in case there is an expansion plan down the road.
Well, I would like to point to a very recent experience in connection with 99 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings the stadium. The Acme warehouse had been offered to the City of Philadelphia when it became available, and the City turned it down. And I believe the statistics will show that the City invested many, many, additional millions a short time later to acquire it. There was a shortsigntedness for which the City is paying very heavily in its current efforts to acquire that stadium. It seems to be clear that this is a neighborhood that had long been deprived of library facilities and the then current view that majority people didn't kind of use libraries. The community waged a long battle taking 33 years from the time they mean began the fight. And even I am not going to have 33 more years to wage that battle. It's clear that the usage is heavy and is increasing. And I think there has to be some long distance planning because if you wait to acquire the land at just the moment when you're going to be using it and don't have any foresight to look into the future, then I think you just run into impossible expensive areas. I think a study will show that the 100 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings community deserves the expanded facilities the expansion library would give. It would in part repay for the many years this area was deprived of the library when it ought to have had it. And it would be a great thing for that area of West Oak Lane and East Germantown that it covers. So I would like to hear back from the Public Property Department what it's plans are in land acquisition because I believe the land at this point would be much more available at a much more economical price than it might be at a later time. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
I'll only ask one question on this segment. I know we've been doing a lot of talking about PGW and all that entails. On the Citywide environmental remediation section on , does that include the PGW under grant sites as well?
That's totally 101 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings separate under PGW?
They're trying to give us everything else. I guess it's just as well we don't have that. Thank you. I can wait on mine.
We were told that we were reaching our debt limit capacity. Will you explain that for the record, please, and give us what was meant by that statement and what is our current ability to borrow?
The State Constitution limits the amount of our outstanding debt to thirteen and a half percent of the ten-year average of the assessed value of real estate in the City. At the end of Fiscal Year 2000, we were within $342 million of that cap. Since then the voters approved an addition $160 million which counts against that cap. So we have about $180 million in capacity left. 102 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings That capacity can only go up if we retire debt or if assessed values go up. So our ability to use City money for capital projects is constrained by that limit.
And what are our projections of increasing that capacity by retiring debt?
Over the life of the Capital Program, looking at the debt retirements and increases in assessed value, we project that we can fund about $90 million a year through '05 and then dropping off to about 46 million in '06 and 37 million in '07. And that's probably about the range that it would stay and inceasing slightly in years after that.
We were also told at that briefing that our current percentage of our Operating Budget in terms of debt service payment is at either 17, 18 or even close to 20 percent of our current budget. Is that true?
And how does that impact delivery of services? 103 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
I think it's actually about percent. And it impacts service by consuming a 4 portion of our Operating Budget, and it makes us 5 particularly sensitive to downturns in the economy, 6 for example. 7 So if revenue goes down, then that 8 obligation level is fixed, so it might become even a 9 higher percentage of our revenues. 10
So if it is anywhere 11 between 15 and 20 percent, how does that compare 12 with our ability to deliver services? Is that a 13 reasonable -- a percentage of our budget that is 14 perhaps a bit too high? 15
In a perfect world, it would probably be lower, but one of the problems we face as an older East Coast City is a need to keep up an aging and infrastructure, and as a result, our debt is probably higher than, let's say, newer cities in the Southwest.
In your statement on , you state that the City's stimulus program provides the framework for capital expenditures and economic development. The goals of the program are to retain attract business and so on. And you go 104 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings on. And to meet these goals, a proposed 2002 Capital Budget channels $127 million into a variety of infrastracture projects. What are they, and what does this paragraph really mean in terms of the economic stimulus monies now being used for this?
Well, I see that we're lucky enough to have our Commerce Director here, and I'm wondering whether Jim would like to come to the mike and speak to our economic development focus as it relates to stiumlus dollars.
And what does this paragraph -- it says a lot. It has a lot of words in it but very few specifics that we can relate to.
It's a very general statement that basically says we use stimulus dollars to stimulate the economy, but that is the reason why --
We'd like to see some specifics put to that. 105 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
That is the reason I asked the Commerce Director to come to the microphone.
Good morning. My name is James Cuorato. I'm City Representative and Director of Commerce. Councilman, If I understand your question --
The Economic Stimulus Program has been a very helpful economic development tool for us specifically in areas where the programs, the traditional programs, that we have to help businesses that are administered through our delegate agencies don't quite apply. And that is often the case in neighborhood based projects where certain criteria for lending or grant programs need to be met and aren't met. However, we still believe that a project is worth while, can help to revitalize a neighborhood and is worth the investment.
Jim, the paragraph, you have it in front of you. 106 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
That's a very general statement. We all know what the Economic Stimulus Program is supposed to be. It says $127 million, FY2002 Capital Budget channels $127 million. I want to know what this $127 million going to be channelled to.
Let me give you a more specific answer. In the breakout of the various divisions within the Department of Commerce, I'll give you, in two minutes, an answer. For commercial development, which is to say improvement of our neighborhood centers, we have $1.8 million in the budget year. For the kinds of projects that we label economic --
1.8 million -- no. 1.6 million for neighborhood commercial centers.
You're breaking down the $127 million? 107 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
Yes. For those kinds of projects that we label economic development which includes PIDC industrial parks and contributions to local neighborhood industrial areas like Port Richmond, that category totals $15 million in the budget year. There's about a million plus --
Could you break down that $127 million for us, submit it to us in writing to the Chair.
I would like to see the answer to this last line, to meet these goals, Capital Budget channels into a variety of infrastructure projects that support hospitality and tourism, defense conversion and commercial and industrial development. That's a very generalized type of statement, and I want that generalized statement to come down to the specifics and break down $127 million.
We'd be happy to do that. I think the next level in terms of detail can be found in the blue book, Investing in Philadelphia, the recommended Capital Program starting on . 108 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings But we will actually take it down to an even finer level of delineation for you and get that to you in the format that you request.
Commissioner, how would you define or state the infrastructure needs right now of the City, and how would you begin to prioritize those infrastructure needs and put a number of cost to that.
I can also submit to you an outline that we did on the life cycle cost of the City's infrastructure, and we will get that over today.
I want to follow up on one part of Councilman Ortiz's question. The figure that you gave, $1.6 million, for neighborhood commercial seems very, very small because I know we're working on Broad and Godfrey on the supermarket. That would probably utilize that entire amount. And, yet, I know there must be other neighborhood projects also that are being developed. 109 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
Briefly, to answer that, yes, it's less than what we put in the few years. There's a backlog currently of about $7 million. And one thing we do do to get down to that very limited $90 million is to very carefully screen the capacity of departments to implement to move forward on projects. So because there is somewhat of a backlog, it takes time to negotiate these projects with the business associations and the neighborhood residents. We limited funding in the budget year somewhat compared to past years.
Thank you. In today's Daily News, there's an article about the airport forfeiting a two and half million dollar deposit on a land purchase involving the airport in Tinicum Township. I wonder if there's anyone here who can shed some light on the story because we're bound to get questions from our constituents.
He's working his way to 110 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings the microphone now.
Could you give us a picture of what the circumstance is?
The story refers to the loss of a deposit that was put down in an effort that actually began in late 1998 to acquire an adjoining piece of property to the airport that used to be the word headquarters of the Scot Paper Corporation. ). I believe they're a real estate investment company. And it's now known as International Plaza. It's about a 50-acre parcel. The Airport had an interest in trying to obtain it when we became aware that it was available for sale in late 1998. My recollection at that time was that we initially -- at the time Dennis Bowie was our Director of Aviation. We were interested in a purchase place, or we were looking at a purchase price of approximately $100 million. And we also 111 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings were aware that under a previous agreement with the Township of Tinicum, the Airport could not make such a purchase without the specific approval of the Tinicum Township Commissioners. Mr. Bowie departed at the end of calendar 1998. There was a three-month period when I was actually Acting Director of Aviation prior to the arrival of Fred Testa in April of 1999. We continued discussions with Coal Brand during that period. And a transaction was carried out whereby the Airport did acquire a small piece of that parcel in order to build the international terminal which is now under construction. That acquisition was tied together with the whole financing and development lease package that was approved here at City Council in the middle of 1998. But in the discussions that led up to that small acquisition, that's where the discussion began of the Airport buying the entire property. A deposit was put down in early 1998 of a million and a half dollars. That was a refundable deposit. An Agreement of Sale was entered into 112 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings which -- let's see. I have some notes to put this into the proper chronology. The million and a half was for an Agreement of Sale that would have expired in June of 1999. When Mr. Testa became Director, he continued the negotiations to acquire the property, and, in fact, in July of 1999 asked for an extension of the Agreement of Sale into October of 1999 and at the time was asked to place another million dollar deposit, to add a million dollars to the existing million and a half. So at that time, we had a two and a half million dollar deposit, an Agreement of Sale and negotiations going on both with the owner of the property and also with the Township of Tinicum. And the sale would have been contingent on getting the approval not only of the Tinicum Township Commissioners, but, of course, of our Philadelphia City Council. In October when that extension was expiring, Mr. Testa made a decision to get an extension into the month of November to continue negotiations which required two million of the two 113 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings and a half million becoming non-refundable. In November another extension was granted to the Agreement of Sale. Negotiations continued with the Tinicum Commissioners and with the property owner. And in December of 1999 another $450,000 of that remaining deposit became non-refundable in exchange for another extension of the purchase agreement. Ultimately, in February of the year 2000, just about one year ago, the Tinicum Township Commissioners rejected the City's offer which involved approximately $10 million in payments in lieu of taxes to make up for the real estate taxes they would be losing by losing the private property owner there. Shortly after that, Mr. Testa was terminated. I became Acting Director again in March of last year. We resumed negotiations with the Tinicum Commissioners in April. We met with them in April, May and June of last year. Our initial meeting revealed the fact that we were about $30 million apart. They were 114 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings looking for approximately $40 million in payments in lieu of taxes. Our last offer under Mr. Testa in February was about million.
6 In our subsequent meetings, we got a 7 little bit closer but really didn't make tremendous 8 progress and ultimately were notified in June of 9 last year that the property owner would grant no 10 further extensions of the agreement. And because we were unable to get the Tinicum approval, and, subsequently, we would have had to come to our own City Council, essentially the Agreement of Sale expired. We have not been able to purchase the property. We still have a strong interest in acquiring the property but not -- we can't do it without the Tinicum Township approval. So the two and a half million dollars was lost as a result of not being able to consummate that acquisition. And it is regrettable. But I think that looking back, I really don't necessarily find fault with the decisions that were made during that period by the former Director. And I think that he was making those decisions based 115 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings on his confidence that he would be able to ultimately consummate this acquisition and unfortunately was not able to do so.
In your judgment, is the criticism by the former Director, Mr. Testa, this current criticism that the current City Administration, in effect, dropped the ball, do you think that's valid, or do you think that that's just part of what happens when there are differences of opinion with respect to, say, the Mayor and someone who gets terminated from service?
I agree with you that the comment in the paper that I read this morning is not valid, by Mr. Testa.
You think it was a good business investment to try to consummate the transaction and as of now hasn't been able to. And to keep it alive during that period of time, it was necessary to make an investment and to retain the possibility of ownership? I don't know who else would buy that land now. 116 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings Tinicum Township has always had commissioners that are tough to deal with, whether it's on business matters or labor matters.
We've gone to great lengths to try and re-establish a more cooperative relationship with them, and that effort began with those meetings in April of last year where we tried to get back to the table to see how far apart we were. But, unfortunately, we were not given enough time by the current property owner to complete those discussions.
And the money involved, that was not general fund money, was it?
No, it was not. And, in fact, that's a very good point. The money is really provided through airline rates and charges. And we had the full approval of the airlines through a majority interest vote to proceed with that. Not only with the acquisition but certainly with the payment of the deposits in question.
And has there been any criticism by the airline companies concerning the (inaudible) and/or the renewed efforts by the City to still try to acquire the property. 117 2/7/01 Capital Budget Hearings
No. The airlines would still support our further efforts to obtain the property. And we feel that if we can ultimately buy the property and probably negotiate a more reasonable purchase price and a reasonable agreement with Tinicum, that that money will not really have been lost.
Thank you very much. This committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Thank you very much. - - - 118 (Stenographic recording of proceedings taken over by Josephine Cardillo, Certified Reporter at 2:15 p.m.)
Good afternoon. This is the continued public hearing on Bill No.'s 010001 and 010002. May I ask Mr. Dubow and Mr. Tustin and Maxine Griffith to please approach the witness table. (Witnesses come forward.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Dubow, I'd like to go back to the discussion we were having early this morning with regard to the PICA dollars and the reconciliation process. You had walked us through, to some extent, your view of where things are as it relates to PICA. I'd like to get a better understanding. In the worst-case scenario, if for some reason this preprogramming process is not approved, you had made mention early earlier that the City was faced with two choices: either to 119 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS not move forward on the individual projects or look to get dollars from other sources to have these projects go forward. I'd like to get a better understanding of that part of the process. And if you would, please, walk us through what steps would need to be taken under that situation or circumstance, the desire of the Council or the individual members was to move forward on any one or all of these projects, how would that happen?
If PICA did not reprogram funding for these projects and we decided we wanted to go ahead with them, there would be two options. One would be to see whether there were other non-General Fund avenues -- for example, going through authorities to fund the projects. And the other would be to move funding from other General Fund projects into these projects.
Well, give me a little more details on both of those options, please.
What about dollars from other entities. 120 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
For example, the way we're handling repairs at the Vet, going through PAID, we could decide if we wanted or thought we could do any of these through another authority.
So are you saying that new legislation would have to be introduced, the public hearing process?
And then the second option would require amending the Capital Budget to shift funding from existing funded projects to these projects.
(Indiscernible) while we're in the Capital Budget process, would we not know that we had been turned down until after the Capital Budget had been approved, which 121 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS would then require another bill to introduced amending the, at that point in time, just-recently-approved Capital Budget? Give me a little more detail, please.
Okay. If PICA came to the determination at its February 20th board meeting, then we could come back to you during this process. If they did not, if they didn't get back to us until either March or April or whatever meeting they got to, then we'd have to come back after the process was over with an ordinance 13 seeking to amend the budget.
So now we're taking about sometime in the spring, and you would be trying to get something done, I assume, before the summer legislative recess?
And you would amend the Capital Budget in such a way as to keep it at the $90 million, or would you have already made a decision as to which projects which were already in the Capital Budget are not going forward?
I think our attempt would be to keep it at the $90 million, so we would have 122 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS to look to see what other projects would be replaced.
And how long do you have to try to make that decision. The $90 million does have to go on the ballot in November, I assume, right?
By May, we'd have to know the categories; for example, you know, government buildings. Not the exact projects.
So does that have to go back to the Planning Commission?
So what's the latest date by which you have to have some information from PICA in order to make this happen if the decision is negative --
Let me take a step back, I'm sorry. If we were going to fund this through some other means other than City data, if we were going to through authorities, another authority, 123 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS that would give us some more time 'cause we wouldn't need to get it on the ballot. So, for example, in the scenario we talked about, just to take an authority, if we went through PAID, we wouldn't have to go back -- we wouldn't have to get anything on the ballot.
To get it on the ballot, then we need to know something from PICA probably at their March meeting, I would think.
Okay. If you decide to go an outside-authority route, do I also assume that you then have to come back and amend the City's Operating Budget to account for additional debt-service requirements that you had not anticipated?
That's correct. Unless other things change in our debt-service category between now and then. One of the things that we had looked at is what would happen, you know, with other debt that we anticipate issuing next year and if that timing is changed.
I think what I'd 124 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS like to do at this point is ask if you would forward to the Chair a detailed memo with a variety of scenarios going forward from today, laying out: if you go the X route, this is what needs to happen; if the X route is closed, we're going to go to Y and certain things need to happen by that date, what the ramifications of that decision is, we may have to come back and amend the City Operating Budget. I assume you also might have to make some amendments to the Five-Year Plan to account that.
I would think also if we did go through an authority route that the debt might be structured so that the debt-service payments would be minimal in '02. So I'm not sure we'd wind up having to amend the budget. I understand what you're looking for and I think we can do that.
Okay, thank you. Let me go back to some of the process questions I was asking earlier. I think we had a fair amount of discussion about standards and assessments of facilities, but what I'd like to now get a little better understanding of is, what 125 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS is the role of the Planning Commission after the budget has been put together, the budget's been approved at least at the Planning Commission level and then I guess it goes over to the printer and you make it into the nice books. What's the implementation role and any other planning role of the Commission once dollars are approved for a particular project? At least approved as it relates to their being recommended in the Capital Budget.
It's my understanding, Councilman, that we do not have any direct line authority over operational agencies, so to the extent that funds are appropriated for a specific budget, there's really no role.
What's the Commission's role prior to the budget being put together and the development of any neighborhood plans or neighborhood infrastructure plans as it relates to requests either from Councilmembers or neighborhood-based groups and organizations? What's the Planning Commission's role in relationship with either the general public or the more organized community-based organization public 126 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS in their efforts to transform their neighborhoods, whether we're talking pre-NTI or in a post-NTI world?
Your question acknowledges, Councilman, that there's some changes occurring in that process, so let me speak to the process now and anticipate to the extent that I can with a program that hasn't yet been codified what I believe the process is going to be. As you know, we have a division at the Planning Commission, the Community Planning Division, that takes an active role in developing community plans, working with community-based organizations and residents, working with Council and their staff to develop these plans. What has not existed up to this point is a direct connector or a connection between that plan and the implementation or operation agencies. So one of the concerns that has been expressed to me personally as I've gone out into the community is that what happened to the plan we did in X year? You know. Some of it has moved for forward, some items have not moved forward. What is your role, 127 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Planning Commission, in assuring that this happens? I believe, you know, that we've been involved in at least one project that's been promulgated over my tenure, but we've tried to make that connection and it's been difficult. One of the things that's beginning to happen, as a part of the planning around neighborhood transformation, is that the Planning Commission and the operating agencies are meeting in a task force. We actually chair something called the "NTI Planning Task Force." At this point, we are talking through the planning for the planning, if that isn't too confusing. But it's my understanding that the projection of this will be that the plans that are promulgated by this team will be directly connected to capital programs of the operating agencies, and there will be some framework to ensure that that happens, or at least to ensure that an operating agency will have to refer back to the plan and give reasons why the plan can't be promulgated, if there's a funding concern or other technical concern. I am -- if I sound tentative, I am 128 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS unsure myself what this connector is going to be, whether we're going to -- whether the NTI leadership is going to suggest some sort of regulatory connection or simply an operating connection, some sort of gentleperson's agreement between the planning agency and the operating agency. But there is, I think, a clear recognition that there needs to be some connection between the planning focus and the expenditure of funds with regard to that plan.
Well, let me comment on that. You are absolutely correct that we have worked together on a project that started prior to your tenure. And to your credit and to the office, it continued in the aftermath of the release of a plan for Lancaster Avenue, a very important commercial and vehicular corridor that runs through a number of neighborhoods in West Philadelphia, the planning process, the result of which is, I think, great drawings and verbiage around what should be done and what can be done and shows a vision for the neighborhood. I would mention to you off to the side, notwithstanding my great support for our efforts 129 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS to revitalize Lancaster Avenue, its presence, I guess, in the book I would best characterize, I guess, as a pleasant surprise; did not know that there was actually going to be put money aside for it, notwithstanding my advocacy for it, because no 7 one ever discussed money for this particular project. On the other hand, we did meet not too long ago to talk about another constituent group who sought advice and technical planning support from the Planning Commission from the East Falls community. Unfortunately, it was not a meeting that I could stay until the end, and I deeply regret that. I need to share with you, though, that one, I could not be more disappointed in the outcome of that particular meeting as it relates to my constituents and what their request was. I am well aware that there is a small, probably-needs-to-be-expanded unit that works in the Planning Commission on this kind of work. I received from my constituents last night their minutes of the meeting that took place in my office, the summary of which is basically, 130 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS City Planning will not help us with planning or streetscape. They will create no documents for us. They suggest that we use AIA Design Collaborative. Miss Griffith will organize a meeting with us with the implementing departments of Streets and Commerce, but they have already handed in their five-year budgets. We can count on nothing. I think that under this circumstance, even the opportunity to work with the -- I think it's the Urban Design?
Yes, which could probably use a couple-hundred percent increase, and we can have that discussion during Operating Budget time. I don't want to be in a position where NTI somehow now becomes the repository of all things that will ever happen in the government. I think it's been made fairly clear that at the moment, NTI does not exist. And I can't be in a position where I put my life in the district on hole, waiting for something to happen, which will 131 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS be the Nirvana and the perfection to which we all look to live our lives. There were things going on in the City and I think some good planning before NTI was a thought or an idea, and so while we are working on that, what I need to know is that the rest of the government is going to continue to function and operate and that people have a reasonable expectation that they might be actually able to get a little something out of it while they're waiting for this larger program that will hopefully revitalize the entire city. Now, you know, East Falls is a very nice neighborhood, they have a lot of things going on, a lot of opportunities for people to do things. And we have, quite honestly, I think, put a fair amount of water on a small spark of excitement in that neighborhood because they turned to their government and asked for some plans, some drawings, some ideas, a little bit of vision, and they were told, We don't really do that anymore, or we can't do that, but we can recommend some other people that maybe you should talk to. 132 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Now, I don't necessarily know that that's the direction that we want to head in -- NTI or not. And so I'm very concerned about that.
If I can respond, and I think the gist of the meeting was reported back correctly. It's not so much NTI but the lack of staff that prevented us from being responsive. At this point, although the Council has been kind enough to bless the authorization of additional staff folks, we only have five community planners for all of Philadelphia, and that's for all of the ongoing planning efforts out of the agency. We did have six planners; one of those planners got married and moved to New Jersey, so we now have five. And those folks are doing the pre-planning for NTI, as you correctly say, but are also involved in all of the ongoing projects that, again, as you correctly say, we have to maintain to continue government, we can't freeze it. So it is really a lack of staff. We hope that by July, we will be able to bring on the larger percentage of the new staff that have been allocated, and we will at least 133 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS have one staff person for each planning analysis section. We'll have one community planner for each one of those areas and we can be more helpful. Let me say, however, that our offer, which still stands, to connect your constituents with these groups was not a spurious or off-the-cuff offer. There are three organizations, understanding our dearth of staff and wanting to be directly helpful, have said, We have professional, certified architects, landscape architects, and planners who stand ready to help, tell us what you need them to do. So this wasn't an excuse or trying to push a group off to the side; this is saying, Right now, we have five people for all of Philadelphia, however, there's maybe about a hundred folks waiting to help you. If we can put you together with them, if they can -- and in terms of the specific needs that this group laid out, it seemed that these folks could be directly helpful. Let us do that and let us play the best role, which is a coordinating role.
I'd appreciate any 134 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS level of assistance and would be glad to take that up. If you have a name or a phone number of someone that I or the group can be in touch with, I mean, we are ready to work with whomever we can work with. If they're in the government, fine; if they're not in the government, that's okay too. But it really is hard to sell a vision with no documents and no pictures, and it would, I guess I would say secondarily -- I mean, I would hope that other neighborhoods throughout the City would be able to take advantage of the time and the talents, even if it is the five people, and as I said earlier, I'm more than willing to engage in an Operating Budget discussion about increases for the department. I think the Mayor articulated, prior to your tenure, an interest in upgrading personnel at the Planning Commission. And now that, you know, many of the people are freed up from having probably spent six to nine months working on a very important project that will have a dramatic impact in the lives of many Philadelphians, which is the stadium project that I know took up tons of time last year, that all Philadelphians are now grateful that they will 135 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS have the opportunity in a few years, maybe, to go to new sports facilities, the rest of us can continue to work in our neighborhoods and in our communities on the things that the real people who pay the bills care about. And so I look forward to that opportunity where we might be able to work with both government employees and private-sector people. We can, subsequent to this hearing, if you could get me name, address, telephone number, the appropriate personnel, I'd be glad to call them myself.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon. I have concerns, as I raised similar concern last year, about the lack of Capital Budget appropriation for neighborhood commercial centers. Now, I understand the 136 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS historic problem with the fact that money has not been spent and there is a backlog, but essentially, there has been a backlog for the last five to eight years, and never has this issue been dealt with. Can you, for the record, explain to me what you see as the root of the problem in terms of the backlog of those improvements.
Since we are talking about a problem that has an historical context, let me ask Ernie Leonardo to put us in the picture in terms of -- especially what they've gotten us to this point.
Some of the kinds of problems in negotiating and putting together a viable design and bid product for a commercial strip revitalization program include, first of all, working with the business association to gather their support to maintain -- I'm taking general.
I'm a former 137 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS employee of the Commerce Department and Philadelphia Development Corporation.
I'm asking, where is the problem? Is the problem in Commerce, is it at PIDC, is it at the Redevelopment Authority? Where's the backlog created -- as far as you're concerned?
I think that's a difficult question in terms of the money resides in Commerce, as you know. I think you'd almost have to look at each commercial strip that's currently in the tubes and get an answer for each project, and we'd be certainly willing to provide that information to you.
Or at least to be the coordinator between the Councilman and the department, which is perhaps more appropriate.
Let me ask you a different question, then. What did the Commerce Department request in terms of the Capital Budget for this year?
I think it was twice what we provided, at least. 138 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
My understanding is it's probably about six times as much, that the request with was actually for 8.4 million and they were given 1.5 for the neighborhood commercial corridors. We have probably hundred of neighborhood commercial corridors citywide; we have 38 that are under PIDC's program, some which received improvements over the years, some which don't need them. But it's just apparent to me that this lack of investment by the public sector is a contributing factor to the lack of investment by business owners and by the private sector beyond that. And it seems to be a conscious decision not to solve this problem of the backlog. And from my own standpoint, the problem I have is that there are -- there is a capital improvement plan for community development, and there is a capital improvement plan for economic development. Somewhere in between, with the issue of community economic development, there is not the support system or the momentum behind those projects as there are with community development and economic development. 139 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS And so where community and economic development, authority actually rests within the Commerce Department if they request essentially $8.4 million and the City is already heavily invested in community development and larger economic development. If we do not make this type of public investment and infrastructure in these commercial corridors, don't you think it's actually keeping us from leveraging the type of private investment we would otherwise get?
Well, I agree with the importance of the program. I guess our concern was in the capacity to implement. I think we're also in agreement there and --
That's a problem that dates back five to ten years as to how do we resolve the backlog problem and how we particularly -- Let me ask this question: What will change under the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative to make that a different situation? If under this new plan, we have money going toward neighborhood transformation objectives and money going toward economic development, which in the 140 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS end, accounts for $400 million, where in between the community development work and the large economic development projects do we see a concentration and some focus on actual community economic development, and in commercial corridors in particular?
If I can respond, Councilman, I think you may have actually hit upon a concern that we may very well agree with. I think that what might need to happen is a working session with Commerce, with the Commission to think through this kind of mid-group of projects, that are neither the big sort of sexy, economic- development, front-page-of-the-Inquirer projects, nor the more community-based projects that you correctly identified as sort of the NTI kind of project, and they'll obviously get a focus. And I would be willing to -- I don't know how much we can impact this budget, but I certainly think in terms of moving these projects through and putting some focus and focussed attention, and we are going to be getting some additional staff, as I mentioned to the Councilperson, perhaps even identifying a staff 141 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS person inside of the Commission to liase with the Commerce Department and just sort of be the advocate for these projects and to unhook them. And I think Ernie is absolutely right. Probably if you look at each project, each one would have a slightly different problem or wrinkle, and perhaps it's the energy, it's the advocacy that's needed.
My actual concern is actually long-term that -- I know Commerce always submits a plan for maybe 30 or $40 million over a Five-Year Capital Budget to say we should be investing in these commercial corridors, and it always gets whittled down to 5 or 6 million over a five-year -- because of the same backlog problems that have not been resolved. But thank you for actually taking a new look at this so it does not get lost in between basically affordable housing projects and large economic development projects.
No, I think you've identified a real concern and it's a concern that tracks, I think, an earlier expressed concern about housing as well, that we're focussing on 142 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS either end and perhaps some energy needs to be given to that sort of midway point, sort of the average citizen's point of view. And we'd be happy to work with you on that.
Thank you. Councilman Nutter, did you want to be recognized again?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to talk about a couple department-specific issues. This is a Commerce-related issue, but it also involves the Streets Department. Can I have Commerce and Streets, Madam Chair?
Mr. Cuorato, let me start with you. I've been engaged in discussions for sometime with a member of your staff regarding an economic development project or 143 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS a proposed project in the Manayunk section of my district that, at least as proposed and laid out by some engaging young entrepreneurs, represents an opportunity for upwards of 500 new jobs in a factory warehouse-type building that could be reconverted into somewhat of a high-tech office park over in the Manayunk section of the City. This is, given the luncheon that we just -- many of us just left, it seems that it would be right up the Mayor's alley in terms of new economy and revitalizing neighborhoods. One of the unique issues involved in this is access to the site, and one of the access points --'cause this building has limited access -- is over one of our many City bridges. Are you familiar with this particular project?
Okay. And for many of us, we've begun to refer to this as the "Fountain Street Bridge Project," and the issue seems to revolve around the replacement or reconstruction of this particular bridge. Now, when I looked in the 2000-2005 Capital Program, there's a line item on 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS listing the Fountain Street Over Manayunk Canal Bridge, $288,000 scheduled for FY '01. But when I look in this year's book, the project is not listed. A decision was made affirmatively not to put it in the book or to fund it for a variety of reasons. Now, Commissioner Johnson, are you aware of this particular issue, and do you know why the Fountain Street Bridge was listed in the Capital Program a couple years ago, and do you know what the condition of this particular bridge is in the City? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Councilman, I will defer to Joseph Sirnik (ph.).
Councilman, this bridge is a bridge that goes over the canal. As you say, it serves only one property on the land side of the Manayunk Canal. It's been in --
It has a weight restriction; I think it's 13 tons. It's a truss bridge, it's been there for a long time. It's a 145 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS one-lane bridge. It needs to be replaced at some point in time. We've requested it in previous capital budgets. The problem is, it's such a localized kind of access, it's almost like a private driveway into this building that it is a bridge that would have to be, at least in its present condition, present functional condition, have to be replaced with City money.
Okay. How long have you been trying to get it rehabilitated?
Well, we've probably made requests probably over last 6 or 7 or 8 years perhaps.
Well, I think it's a bridge that has very limited use, it has almost negligible traffic today. 146 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS It's -- my point in saying it had to be replaced with City money means that it's not eligible for federal money, where we get most of our bridges and, therefore, get very highly leveraged use of our money. The cost of replacing it would be somewhere between 400,000 and 600,000, depending on whether or not you have to maintain the utilities into that structure. And it's kind of been hard, I think, to carve out a place in the Capital Program to put that kind of large City expenditure for a bridge that has such localized usage and which is functional today. I said it had a weight restriction, but it can be used today, it's open, and it can work, so --
You wouldn't necessarily recommend, though, regular, active, significantly-increased use of the bridge in its current condition? And isn't it true that not only have you recommended dollars for this particular bridge, but in anticipation of work being done on this bridge, haven't you already just started design work on this?
We have this designed; I 147 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS would say about an 80 percent complete design. That's to replace it functionally, the way it is, with a one-lane bridge.
And the width of the bridge or the one-lane structure versus a two-lane structure, does that have an impact on whether it's eligible for federal matching dollars? Isn't that the issue?
If it were to be designed as a two-lane bridge, there's a possibility that it could be eligible for what's called an "off-system program," off the federal highway aid system, but still eligible for money. Now, of course, putting a two-lane bridge in there would greatly increase the complexity of the project.
When did you start the design work? Was that after you realized that there was money actually targeted for this in the 2000 Capital Program?
It was probably before -- 148 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS it was probably in some programs before that, Councilman. At some point in time, yes, we put in for a request for this money and we started to design the bridge.
Well, it was never budgeted; it was always included in an out-year of the program so --
And then it just completely disappeared. It's not in this year's program.
And it wasn't in last year's program. It was there own once and then it disappeared, right?
Okay. So the current situation is, we have a bridge with a weight limit on it, we have a building that people want to rehabilitate and actually have a lot of people using in an environment where we are competing on a day-to-day basis for the shirts on 149 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS our back from an economic standpoint, we've got 80 percent of the design work done, and now we have no money. Did you put in for dollars for this for this year?
It wasn't programmed. Now, how many bridges are we working on this year?
Okay. This is one of those situations where a decision was made, there was, to the best of my recollection and knowledge, no discussion other than some e-mails late in the process, explaining why this was not going forward. What ultimately happens in this situation and what should we tell the people who would like to do something at this building and have upwards of 500 employees at a site where there's virtually no activity going on today? 150 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Should we tell them to just find another site?
You're looking at me, so I guess you're asking me the question. There's a couple different options. Number one, if the building, the proposed building with the 500 workers develops, there could be other problems besides this bridge. We're bringing large volumes of traffic over Venice Island on the Leverington Avenue Bridge up Flat Rock Road, which is not a high-speed highway by any means, and then back over onto what I'll call "The Mainland", over a either one- or two-lane bridge. There are possibly other ways to access this property coming off of Umbria Street and Parker Avenue, but to do that, you have to buy another parcel of land, which I think the developers have been talking to the owner about acquiring, and I'm sure there's some issues there. But it would be better to serve --
One of which would be an exorbitant price but, you know, other than that, I'm sure they're having great conversations.
Well, it would be better 151 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS to actually bring 500 people in and out every day in two entrances. In fact, the parking, I believe, for the development is out in back of the existing building, up closer to Parker Avenue. So that would be, from a traffic standpoint, a good way to approach it and it would probably mean you could live with the one-lane bridge coming over the canal.
If the weight limit continues to go down or if in the unfortunate event that the bridge is shut down, what's the access to this particular building and what's our response to that?
There would be no 16 vehicular access to it; there would be pedestrian access only. And I'm not sure what our response to that would be.
Okay. We would, in essence, have a building which has no vehicular access to it, a person's trying operate a business, and we have failed in our responsibility to try to have a safe bridge for people to cross with vehicular access. Isn't that the conclusion of that story? 152 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
We'd have a bridge that you couldn't drive a vehicle across, yes.
Okay. Mr. Cuorato, is this a project that the Commerce Department seeks to support?
And what's the status of it on the Commerce Department's sides?
We've had discussions with the developer. We understand that they are trying to attract the tenant which you mentioned. We're trying to keep those discussions alive and hopeful that there's a way that this can worked out, because, as you said, this is the type of business that we're trying to attract to the City.
Mr. Syrnick, I'm sorry, tell me again, what's the project cost again? Did you say it was 4 to $600,000?
That's right, depending on how the utilities have to be maintained.
Okay. Now, I would like to, I guess, get a better understanding from the Planning Commission as to what the decision-making process was related to this 153 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS particular process, given the needs of the City, a proposal laid out by the developer that, you know, even if the assumptions are slightly overly optimistic, but they wouldn't be the first people who ever came in here with slightly overly optimistic financial assumptions, but I think the project supposedly throws off about $1. 6 million in taxes, new taxes to the City when it gets up and going. But for, let's say, a half a million dollars, we can't seem to get out of a chicken-and-egg situation about what we're going to do with one bridge. And it would seem to me that if the bridge does collapse and we don't have vehicular to it, some folks might want to start engaging in a discussion that the City has in essence taken their building because they now virtually have no use to it, and I don't know what we would end up paying in a condemnation proceeding because of our failure to respond to a known situation. We didn't just learn about this last week. So how did the decision get made not to do something in this situation for what could be 154 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS an exciting and vital economic development project in the City?
Councilman, I don't think the agency position is any different from yours or from Director Cuorato's, to the extent that I understand it. We are --
Well, with all due respect, other than the fact that there's no 10 project in the book --
In terms of the support for such a project and in terms of the understanding that if such a project were developed, one would have to have access to it. What we were advised by staff is that the potential entrepreneur, the developer, was some ways away from actually moving towards the development of that site. And given -- if I say "scarce dollars," that's an understatement. Given our tremendously reduced resource this year and given the criteria which we laid out earlier, can you expend these funds and will these funds be 155 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS of use this fiscal year? It was determined, at least in our recommendation, and obviously this isn't a unilateral process, it's a part of the confluence of inputs, but our recommendation was that it would be possible to determine at some future date whether or not the development was actually going to move forward, because if it didn't, we would be in the situation, frankly, of expending $500,000 for a bridge to an empty building, and that wouldn't be prudent. So our advice and recommendation was not to move forward with the bridge, nor was it unsupportive of the end use of the property, but simply that in terms of timing, it did not seem as if the developer was ready to move forward with this development at this time. And I think you correctly said chicken-and-egg process, and. I don't know whether you consider us the chicken or the egg, but it was other recommendation that we await further developments on the development side, again, given tremendously scarce resources and a large list of bridges and other improvements to 156 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS make.
And all I can say to you is, on the developer's side, it's hard to sell a project if you can't demonstrate to people an ability to get their people in and out over a safe bridge. It kind of, you know, starts to impact the conversation about whether you want to locate your business there. If you lay out a plan -- and it doesn't take a rocket scientist -- if a person goes over to the location and they say, Well, what about that bridge, how am I going to get my people here? And their response back is, Well, you know, the City is thinking about it, and as soon as I get you signed up, they might actually do something with that bridge. Who's going to sign a lease under those kind of circumstances? No one. And we have gone out on much farther limbs under different environments and different situations, depending on the project, where people didn't have to sit around playing this kind of game and had nowhere near developed their plan as far along as this, and this particular one at least has design 80 percent done. It actually 157 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS could go somewhere if some -- even if it wasn't in the '01 budget in front of us, put some dollars in the plan for next year. You can at least show somebody this book and say, Well, you know, they really are thinking about it. I'm in the '03 line for a couple hundred thousand dollars.
And there may be an opportunity, and I'm not the deal-maker here, so I don't want to overspeak, but there may be an opportunity to develop some sort of fairly complex commitment, where, if the developer did move forward, there would be good faith on our part that we would complete the bridge. But you asked why we didn't recommend it initially, and I have to be honest with you, it was because if the development did not move forward, we would basically be spending a half a million dollars to get no one to no place.
I guess I'll have a couple of responses, and then I'm sure maybe some other people would like to ask a few questions. First, I'd like to have as uncomplicated an understanding and agreement as soon as possible, the most uncomplicated, which is 158 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS if the agency would like to support an amendment to this budget in front of us and put the dollars up front so we can actually move this process, get away from chicken-and-egg, and any other game-playing and say, This is what we plan to do. Secondly, the building is there, it's not going anywhere. And whether this developer does something today, tomorrow, next week, or next month, we have a great opportunity to do something here, and I have the greatest confidence that our Commerce Department will figure out a way to get a development going at that site. But it will not happen without a new bridge facility at that location. That is the one guarantee of this process. And so as we continue to examine this particular budget, and whether it's the discussion that we had earlier with Mr. Dubow about reprogram funds over at PICA, other dollars that are in here, because I feel fairly confident, and I don't know this book, I'm sure, as well as you do, although I have read it a couple hundred times, I am fairly confident that every project in this book in the '01 budget is not ready to go today. 159 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS I feel fairly confident in making that statement. It never happens.
Let me respond to your first question. When you referred to an agency recommendation, I assume you meant the Planning Commission. As you know, the recommended Capital Program document is a document that gets voted on by the members of the Planning Commission, so I don't have the wherewithal to suggest or concur with an amendment; this is actually a document of a standing body. So I can't do that. Obviously, again, as you outlined, this whole process is about a dialogue, and we have one input into the dialogue, and that input can sometimes be colored by events, and the Commerce Director and others also have inputs. And, you know, I look forward to continuing the conversation, given the limited time that we have. In terms of each program being able to move forward, to the best we're all human but to the best of our ability, and we've been very well advised by the Capital Program Office in this respect and have had some vigorous conversations with agencies, we have not recommended any project 160 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS that could not move forward at least for the phase as delineated in this fiscal year that could not move forward in the year, and we have challenged that quite vigorously. Again, we're only human.
Upon review, it may be that there's some give-and-take that could happen but to the best of our ability, that's been our --
I appreciate that. I would only propose that this is a project that could have qualified, even under those criteria, with a little additional support and guidance and some push. Secondly, I recognize that we're only human. We were at this position last year and there was all of this controversy about the size of the Capital Budget, what projects were in, what projects were out. And you may or may not recall, and it could have taken place literally before you got here, 'cause I just don't remember. We amended the Capital Budget last year because $27 million in projects were dropped out of the process, with no input from anybody, to my 161 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS recollection, in this room. And my recollection, I believe, is that $17 million worth of those projects were put back in, because people decided that they wanted certain things to be in. We're obviously in a different fiscal situation this year as compared to last year, but I'll go back to our earlier decision. In a tighter environment, that requires additional scrutiny and additional input by people who have other responsibilities or other needs in this process. This is a very important potential development in this city. It's also a public-safety issue. So I'm not going to drop it. We can have more discussion, whether here or in some other locale, but I expect to get a resolution to this particular issue in this budget process.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions from 162 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
I'd like to follow up on Councilman Nutter's comments to the Streets Department. I understand that single-lane bridge, two-lane bridge, two points of egress. If we're going to build a new bridge, I would hope that we decide on what's best for the project rather than just to satisfy the fact that we need to get in and out of this facility. Is there some -- Joe Syrnick, is there -- the plan would include a long-term construction project rather than just something to replace an existing single-lane bridge, correct?
Well, I think we need to look at this with the developers and with the Planning Commission. I mean, I think the developers -- and they're in the room here today. I think the developers are talking about putting in a one-lane bridge to service the building the way it is now, which has a very limited kind of use. They're going to bring some sort of temporary operation in that building. I have 163 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS heard some talk about them needing a two-lane bridge, if and when the network building, you know, is completely developed. I'm not sure if we're talking today about building a one-lane bridge to last for a couple of years and then coming back later and building a two-lane bridge, which clearly doesn't make any sense. The two-lane bridge is much, more difficult because you're talking about a complete -- you're not taking a truss off and putting it on the same abutments; you're building completely new abutments, you're building a completely new ramp up from Flat Rock Road, you're acquiring right-of-way, which may not be easy to get from whatever company used to be a container corporation. It's -- you're probably talking about a $3 million project at that point, although possibly one that would be eligible for some off-system federal aid.
I understand. I 164 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS just wanted to make sure that I understood that we weren't just going to throw a one-lane bridge in just to make everybody happy and then three years from now, blow it up and build a new one. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Councilman Nutter, your light is on. Pardon me? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask you a real brief question with respects to -- I don't know if we still have these available ISTEA grants from the federal government. In the past, we've been in a position to leverage certain capital improvements on streetscapes, curbs and sidewalks and other projects in the City of Philadelphia. Where are we at with that? Is that still a federal mandate with the new Congress, the old Congress?
Okay. ISTEA, Councilman, was the Intermodal Service Transportation 165 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Efficiency Act, abbreviated "ISTEA." That act has ended, and there's a new act called "T-21," which is, you know, the successor act, very much the same type of deal. Most of all of the federal transportation dollars that you see in the Capital Program are either ISTEA -- old ISTEA or a new T-21 grants. The State of Pennsylvania gets a fairly large amount of federal money. We are eligible under certain rules to apply for those grants; we apply for quite a few. We are successful sometimes and not successful other times. But all of the federal money that you see in our program, which is a significant amount, is some kind of federal transportation need.
So it comes from the feds to the State, and we then apply with the State through PennDOT.
That's right. There's a process to go through the Regional Planning Commission, which is DVRPC, and get it approved from a regional basis, and then there's a matching component, which is where you come to the Capital 166 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Program and get your match fund. It has to be capital-eligible, it has to be transportation- related.
What's the process in determining the criteria for funding for a project from an ISTEA or a T-IS, or whatever this new thing is you call it.
Essentially, anything that is transportation-related is eligible, is a very competitive process. Regionally, you have to go in and, you know, deal with the Pennsylvania, you know, Southeast Pennsylvania region. There's a limited amount of money coming in to this region, and you have to make your case, and you're competing not only with PennDOT, which does its own projects, but you're competing with the other four Pennsylvania counties. And you've just cut -- the truth of the matter is, the pie gets cut up into -- everybody has to get a part of that pie. So at some point, you sort of focus in on an amount that's coming to Philadelphia and then you sort of have to set your own internal priorities.
So is there a set amount that comes to the municipality of 167 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Philadelphia, and then we have to determine --
The answer to that is no, but the truth of the matter is, you're not going to get into a situation where any one county gets it all. I mean, they -- it's sort of -- in the end, it sort of breaks down in sort of a proportional way, and you just have to go in and compete within that amount.
But the likelihood is that we will probably get something. I mean, has there ever been a year where Philadelphia hasn't gotten anything?
I mean, we get about $16.5 million a year, but I mean -- and it's in the program there. I mean, we -- I think our federal aid highway line item this year was $12 million, all of which got approved.
So my question is in terms of our priorities, in terms of Philadelphia and the grant proposal that we submit, what is that process? Does it come from the Department of Streets, does it come from the Planning Commission? I mean, how does that work?
It comes from all those 168 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS agencies, and we all work together. Both the Planning Commission, the Streets Department, and the Office of Transportation all have a position over at -- a seat at DVRPC.
I would add, however, that it's my understanding that the Managing Director's Office does coordinate all grant processes to State and federal agencies so that there is a coordination at that level as well to make sure it's in line with the mayoral and administration policies, to make sure that we're not at odds with each other, et cetera.
Okay. Moving ahead, I'm speaking along with Councilman Nutter with respects to Council involvement. There are a couple of commercial corridors that I have an interest in enhancing, streetscape, new lighting, whatever the eligible activity is. What would be the process as it related to me getting in that loop? Do I simply send a letter? Who do I send it to, the Managing Director, do I send it the Streets Department, do I send it to the Planning Commission? How do I do that? 169 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
There are a number of agencies that are involved, but from your description, I would say that Commerce would be the first stop. You have to obviously go through an agency to get considered for the Capital Program, and Commerce, I believe, would be the appropriate agency.
Okay, and then let them take the lead, okay. One other question. As it relates to amending the Capital Budget, and some of you have been around, do you recall Council ever amending a Capital Budget? I'll just ask that question. I don't recall.
Yes. In recent years, the effort has been to try to work with Council and once you have the recommended -- you know, at the end of this month, we will come back to you with modifications reflecting the carry-forward projects so that we have one big bill that is finally adopted. And at that point, both sides can entertain changes.
Well, have we ever 170 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS done that? That's what my question is.
Yes. Almost every year, there is one or two or three small changes.
Never in your history. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you. We will now have public testimony. Our first witness is Lauren Bornfriend. (Witness comes forward.)
And Miss Bornfriend is from the Friends of Philadelphia Parks. 171 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, and thank you for your patience. We appreciate your waiting.
You're welcome. Good afternoon, Council President Verna and honorable members of Council and guests. I am Lauren Bornfriend, the Executive Director of Friends of Philadelphia Parks. I am here today to talk about the Capital Budgets of the Fairmount Park Commission and the Department of Recreation. Friends of Philadelphia Parks is excited by the vision of this administration for redeveloping our city and for revitalizing and uplifting our neighborhoods. It is clear to us that pivotal players in this vision are the 8900 acres of Fairmount Park comprising 10 percent of Philadelphia's land mass, including 61 neighborhood parks and the 70 neighborhood parks and squares under the jurisdiction of the Department of Recreation. The capital needs of these parks are not being met. Friends of Philadelphia Parks refutes the notion that Philadelphia cannot afford 172 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS to invest more, and believes the opposite to be true. Academic studies and financial analysis show that investment in urban parks pays dividends in increased economic vitality and enhanced quality of life. The resources in our parks are too vast to talk about all of them here today. To name a few, there are open spaces, squares, plazas, watershed parks and trails, athletic fields, playgrounds, historic properties, and so much more. They are venues for after-school, tutorial, and job-training programs for creative expression, physical fitness, and scientific and historic study. People go to parks to be with nature, to be in the quiet, to breathe and see the sky. They go for commerce, ritual, and celebration. Our parks serve many, including the Philadelphia school system, community little leagues, neighborhood associations, families, and tourists visiting the City. As this administration focuses on enabling Philadelphia citizens to become fit, to eliminate blight, to reduce crime and attract businesses, as you focus on the education, health, spirit, and future of 173 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS our children, as you work to give them hope, to help them become balanced, strong, and fulfilled human beings, please hear us. We are the citizens across Philadelphia's many lines who understand the role of our extraordinary park system this process. We are 30,000 volunteers who work every day to revitalize and maintain our parks. We ask you, our elected leadership, to listen. We ask you to work with us to find a way to significantly increase our city's investment in the capital needs of our parks. We ask you to restore, protect, and sustain these precious gifts, to not take them for granted, and to not throw them away. Don't deprive us, the children, the adults, and our neighborhoods, of what is rightfully ours: stable, healthy, abundant, and beautiful park systems. It is so obvious to us how they give back. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone to question Miss Bornfriend or make comments? 174 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
I've always been confused why the Recreation Department is responsible for some of these little community parks and squares and why they don't come under the Fairmount Park Commission. Do you have any feeling about that?
I know it's a question that's been asked for a long time, and I -- it's something that's discussed a lot and not something that our board has begun to reach a consensus on, so I can't really --
Well, if you do address that issue and come up with a recommendation, because I personally have asked that question a couple times myself, and I'm not sure whether it would be more efficient, less efficient. So, again, when Bill Mifflin and the Recreation Commissioner come before this panel, that's going to be obviously a question that I'm going to ask. Because, again, it confuses me why 175 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS we have that particular arrangement. Thank you.
Thank you,. Councilman Nutter, did you want to be recognized?
Madam Chair, my questions were related to Fairmount Park. I have no questions of the witness, but if we're talking about Fairmount Park, then I did have a couple capital-related questions, but I don't want to interfere with the witness testimony.
Thank you very much. Mr. Mifflin, please the witness table. (Witness comes forward.)
Madam Chair, Councilman Nutter is going to allow me to ask that question of Mr. Mifflin. 176 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
Fine, please do so. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Mr. Mifflin, Councilman Nutter is going to yield just momentarily. Did you hear the question?
Yes, I did, Councilman Rizzo. I'm William Mifflin, the Executive Director of the Fairmount Park Commission.
A few years ago, I asked that question of the Recreation Commissioner and I believe of you, what would be most efficient, based on the question that I just asked?
Yeah, I have personally spent a great deal of time with past recreation commissioners, not so much I've had the opportunity with Commissioner Richards to discuss this issue. To answer your question somewhat backwards first, there's not a lot of efficiencies or economies of scale as we have found on a transfer, if you will, of all of what is referred to as parks into the Fairmount Park Commission and 177 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS in a transfer of the recreation facilities into the Department of Recreation. We both have similar staff components, so to speak. However, we have collaborated on a number of issues, such as training, where we are providing support in training for the Recreation folks in grounds maintenance and other turf and arboricultural issues, with equipment exchanges. So I guess the point I'd like to make is that we're both members of the Recreation Coordination Board, and the point I'd like to make is that we are working cooperatively in a partnership in providing parks and recreation services to the City. To address your confusion point about, you know, is Carol Park Fairmount Park or the Department of Recreation? And that's a real confusing one because there's actually -- we both have one. It's just evolved through the years of being assigned to the different park systems. I think there could be some slight transfer, some of the larger park areas like perhaps Wissinoming or some of the other large park systems that are in the Department of 178 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Recreation to be transferred over to the Fairmount Park Commission with the requisite resources if in fact that is a big issue of confusion as to who is responsible, but quite frankly, again, on the surface, there's not a lot of benefit to it.
I can deal with the confusion, because when I call you you'll say, "It's not mine," that's kind of -- I'm just talking about the fact that we have a group here that does what you do, you do what they do. It's hard for me to believe that it can be an efficient operation having two groups doing similar work. It may be, but somebody would have to prove that to me.
Well, I think really the issue as I've looked at it is that we have 9,000 acres of park land and they have approximately 1200 acres of park land, and we have more support in the landscape issues and they have more support in the program issue. And we work cooperatively together. So we're both -- I think there's good efficiency, sir.
Okay. Thank you, Councilman Nutter. I 179 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS appreciate that.
Thank you, Councilman. Mr. Mifflin, that line of questioning wasn't necessarily on my round for this time, but we have had occasion to get into this issue a number of years ago, when Commissioner DeBerardinis was in the Recreation Department. And, I mean, I would say it is at least my observation that both Fairmount Park and the Recreation Department provide some services in a way that some of your activities are superior in some regards to the Recreation Department, and the Recreation Department provides some services that are somewhat superior to Fairmount Park. We did have an occasion to transfer one property in the 4th District a number of years ago because it was very difficult for the Recreation Department, quite frankly, to deal with a neighborhood park that had no recreation equipment short of a concrete turtle over at McMichael Park, there was no recreational activity at the park. The Recreation Department is really not in the grass and trees business; you are. The property 180 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS was transferred after the community complained bitterly for years about lack of service from Recreation, and McMichael Park is now, by agreement, with the Fairmount Park system, and the neighbors have been very happy. On the other hand, there are some recreation sites under the jurisdiction of the Fairmount Park Commission where, quite frankly, we get a number of complaints about program activity, which, quite honestly, we should have some decision about whether the Recreation Department should take over in some of those situations. I mean, these are, you know, tough and, at times, complicated decisions, but I think we should have that discussion. And to the extent that Recreation and Fairmount Park can work together, figure out where the various employees are going to go, and do the dollars, follow them, and that people are essentially held harmless in terms of a transfer of not only programs and services and facilities between and amongst the department, maybe somewhat a little lessening of the territorial nature or the historical relationship that either agency has had with a 181 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS particular facility, and do what's in the best interest of the community, I think that both yourself and Commissioner Richard should welcome that discussion, because at the end of the day, if we deliver a better service and/or product to the citizens of this city, then they ultimately are the beneficiaries of it and, you know, we can go somewhere and do something else and not have our feelings hurt.
Yeah, Councilman, I agree with you a hundred percent, and I'd be happy to continue the dialogue, which hasn't been occurring recently but which has occurred in the past quite and, quite frankly, there may be some things that we could look at a little bit differently today.
On of the Capital Program book, it says, "The Fairmount Park Commission will continue to renovate and restore its grounds and athletic facilities that serve the City's neighborhoods." How many athletic facilities and fields 182 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS and historic properties is Fairmount Park responsible for?
We have approximately 100 athletic fields. We have approximately 400 structures, and approximately 80 of those hold some type of historic designation.
And I think your earlier testimony was the park is now at approximately 9,000 acres?
Okay. How do you determine and what's your assessment process for the evaluation of these buildings and facilities and fields as it relates to the Capital Budget process?
Well, as you may know, obviously, we work in concert with the Capital Program Office, of course the City Planning Commission, and the Managing Director's Office as well. We have an inventory system, which actually has just been brought on line through GIS. So we now do know more about our structures than we ever did. And we perform surveys or inventories of these properties on an annual basis. 183 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
So your testimony is that each property is assessed at least once annually for its capital needs?
We attempt to hit all of our -- on an annual basis all of our major buildings and certainly all of those buildings that are occupied.
Okay. So we're taking about field lighting, roofs, bathrooms, HVAC. Out in the open park areas, you're talking about the reforestation and trail upgrades and improvements. All of that in the course of the year is done for all of the Fairmount Park facilities?
Well, I was speaking of the buildings initially. We do not inspect all of our 9,000 acres on an annual basis. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question.
No, I understand that. I would not necessarily expect somebody to be out on every acre. What was your estimated need for this year in capital dollars?
One second, please. 184 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS (Mr. Mifflin confers with colleague off the record).
And is that $8 million going to take care of all of the needs of the 100 -- what was that, 100 fields, 400 structures? What's the universe of dollars necessary to upgrade or put into decent condition all of the Fairmount Park facilities?
That's a difficult number for me to give you this afternoon, Councilman. We have -- I do have the benefit of staff -- years of staff review and association with our properties. We had a study, as you may know, back in the late '80s of our historic -- of a selected number of historic properties in Fairmount Park. And it was, as my recollection will serve me correctly, in excess of $20 million at that time to restore historically and appropriately those buildings that were a part of the study, which was approximately 20 properties.
Now, you make this assessment of, for instance, your athletic and play area in the facilities, and you try to make a determination every year of what your needs are going to be. And do you only do that for the current fiscal year or do you look at what your needs may be over an extended three- or four- or five-year period of time?
We really look at our athletic fields in two manners. One is renovation, which is a capital expenditure, and the other is maintenance. So we try to put on a schedule of the athletic fields on a rotating basis for renovation. And the maintenance has become one of our main focus areas of our Operating Budget. And we're finding that we can prolong the life of the fields much longer in the type of maintenance that we're providing. So it really falls down on both the capital side and the operating side. And an example of a renovation would include new back stops, all new infields, fences.
Et cetera. So we go 186 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS through and we do lay that out over the six-year -- five- or six-year period of the Capital Budget.
I was concerned when I read through the document that in the category of "Athletic and Play Area Improvements" -- this is line item 55, on . There is no 9 money listed in that category until FY '05. Now, assuming that the absurd is not true, it is not possible that you don't estimate that we would need any money in this category for four years. Why is there no money listed in that item until FY '05?
I think it's a question of working within our means and the capital dollars that we have available for us at any particular capital year and setting priorities.
I heard what you said, but I have no understanding what have that means.
I said I heard what you said, but I do not know what that means.
Well, I mean I think -- 187 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS it's not realistic to assume that we would be able to renovate or even need to renovate every field every year or two years. It is more realistic to think that the life of a field through renovation could last as long as years. 7
But they're all in 8 varying stages of their life cycle. 9
Now, you told me 14 earlier you have a hundred fields. 15
None of them will need any work for the next four years?
No. One, I would hope perhaps sooner than FY '05, I'll be able to find some renovation dollars in this line item. And number two, we do have specific line items for facilities in individual line items. As an example, on the Tabor Rams facility, at Whittaker Louden, on , item number 4.
The 150,000 in '03 includes fencing and athletic field renovations and improvements.
Well, then what about on , item number -- line item number 51, number 1, "Facility Improvements." These are improvements to items such as parking, lighting, play field and paths will be made to various park facilities. There's no money listed in that item until FY '06.
It's a question of what -- the amount of money that's available, as I understand it, for FY '02 for the Fairmount Park Commission for this function.
Well, what about FY '03? Again, I am simply trying to understand what the process and procedure is and how you go about evaluating the facility and how the discussion takes place when you're going to get a budget, and we have two critical items here in an agency that has a lot of facilities that get a lot 189 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS of use, and notwithstanding the individual items, and I'm glad, whether it's the Tabor Rams or anybody else that are listed individually, we have citywide line items here that have no money in them for four or five years from now.
And things do happen outside of the context of this book, because as perfect as it might be, stuff happens.
Where will you get the dollars from to do what needs to get done in the outgoing years?
Even though it's not shown in the program, we will be requesting additional dollars for this line item and the development of the '03 Capital Budget.
Okay. Let's talk about a couple specific facilities. Let's talk about Belmont Mansion, let's talk about Dustine Lake, let's talk about Papa Playground and those facilities and what's going on with them and when the last time anybody used those facilities and saw some of the conditions over there. 190 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
As you may know, in the FY '01 budget, we did receive a million dollars for improvement to the Belmont Mansion. It's my understanding in conversations with the Capital Program Office that that work -- we're near selection or approval of a design consultant. That work will initiate this spring. That's about a six-month design process. That work could begin this calendar year and take us through the remaining part of the '02 fiscal year. As we develop -- our plan at this point is as we develop the '03 budget, we would be in a better position to identify the additional dollars to what we believe will be the complete restoration of the interior of Belmont Mansion. The amount of funding available today will complete the exterior.
What do you expect the rest of the dollars are which are needed to complete this project? How long have we been working on Belmont Mansion? 191 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
Yeah. I mean, I could give you a specific start date, but I would --
Okay. What's the estimate on the dollars needed to finish the project?
Yeah, until we finish the design, our estimate is that we will need approximately another half a million dollars in '03 to complete the project. That could be a conservative estimate.
And was a request made of City Planning or CPO for additional dollars or even an identification of a ballpark figure that might be needed in out-years?
I think we've had -- I think the way we've left it, Councilman, is that we've asked for further discussions with the Capital Budget Office to hone in on that specific 192 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS dollar amount. I mean, they are aware that the money that we have in hand now most likely will not complete this project. And I think we enjoy their support in wishing to complete this project and in joining with us to identify the necessary funds.
Well, tell me what the comfort level is to the ladies over at the American Women's Heritage Society in terms of the confidence level we have in getting a final completion to this project if we don't have all of our dollars identified.
I mean, isn't this a situation that we've been in on a number of occasions. As we get a few dollars here and then we get a few dollars there and then we don't have enough money in hand to do all of things that we want tot to do and so, therefore, we rachet the project down to meet the dollars that we have, as opposed to coming to the conclusion and biting the bullet on, This is the entire scope of the project, these are all of the dollars that are 193 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS needed, get them identified, encumbered, and squared away for that particular project, and give a comfort level to folks who -- there's been a tremendous amount of back-and-forth, there's enough stuff on all sides of this one that can smear everybody. The question is, when are we going to get it finished, when will it be over? There are, you know, there are much more complicated projects that the City puts dollars in that never run into this level of stop-and-start, maybe could have, should have, would have, we're thinking about doing something else, we're talking to those folks over there, we're trying to identify this over there. And these are the projects that, again, the citizens of this city participate in, use at a very high level, but don't seem to get the attention that they need and the commitment that they need that give people a comfort level that someone is really in charge of this project and really cares about this project and that they're not wondering from week to week and month to month and year to year, is it really going to happen 194 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS this time? It is tiring.
Well, I've been dealing with it as long as you have, Councilman.
And we certainly wish this project would be completed, and I feel, again, very confident that we will complete this project. To answer your question directly, it will be completed in two years. Meanwhile, the folks who are occupying the facility should have a comfort level, and I speak with them frequently, that they have unfettered right to that property. They can use it in a manner consistent with the almost $2 million worth of improvements that we have -- that the City of Philadelphia has put into this property. And we look forward to executing a long-term lease with them so that we can ensure that this project will be -- this property will be used in a manner that you and I and they have discussed over all these years. So, I mean, I think we're getting close to the end on this construction project. Twenty months from now, we can all put this to bed. 195 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
Mr. Tustin, do you have something you'd like to share?
Yes, Councilman. I thought maybe I could shed a little light on the project as well. When the Fairmount Park group came to work with the Capital Program Office, we sat down to try to get the history because the project had been ongoing prior to them joining us. And I'm sure, as you know, the building dates back to the late 1600s. It's gone through probably a half a dozen changes in the course of those last 300 years. As the director already said, there had been a substantial amount of money invested in what they call "the cottage buildings" and to renovate over the years so that the vendor could come back and use those buildings as well. There was a lot of indecision as to how the main building should be handled, whether it should remain a three-story structure, which is not how it was originally built; it was built as a two-story structure. And one of the iterations of the changes to the building, they added a third tore story, and this is well over a hundred years 196 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS ago. And as you may know, that story actually -- the weight of that third story was creating major problems with the structure below.
It was imperative that we have a structural assessment done of the building before we do anything.
Which we have done and is completed now. And from that point on, we then had to look at what's the best way to put this back into proper condition.
Do you say "at this point" as in at this point but at another point, it might be someone else? Or is CPO taking full responsibility for this project, and are you the person that I should talk to on a regular basis, and are you in concurrence with the statements made by Mr. Mifflin, and are you providing an assurance today that the project is going to be 197 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS done within some reasonable time frame that's about a year and a half to two years away? Is that your testimony here today?
My testimony here today is that the Capital Program Office is in charge of the project, I am the person that you can call for any issues concerning that, and I will be glad to respond to any questions you may have. We are just about ready to start the design process, as Mr. Mifflin has already said. We're going to do a full design of the building, not just the exterior. When we put the project out for bid, it will be put out as a base bid with add alternates so that we will know if in fact we need more other than the million dollars that we have right now. Exactly how much more money we will need and so that next year at this time, if we need more money, we'll be able to come back to request it in the Capital Budget for additional funds. At this point in time, quite frankly, I'm not in total agreement that we need a half a million dollars more to complete the project. I don't think we're far enough long with the design 198 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS to really know that, but I do know that the design, once it gets completed within the next six to eight months, and once we go out for bid, we will have real hard numbers on what we're going to need to complete the facility. We will start the project in construction, we will spend the million dollars that we have right now to do that work and follow the next fiscal year. If we get additional monies for that project, if we need additional monies and we get additional monies, we will do, through a change order process, the additional work needed to complete the project. So we're not going to go through another design process, another bidding process. It will all be behind us.
Okay. I will be in such with you about that shortly and I would appreciate it if you would keep me up to date on a regular basis about the project. I don't want any more surprises about this, and I am tired of going back and forth with the departments and agencies about this particular project. I have had it.
I'll be happy to keep you 199 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS informed.
Mr. Mifflin, subsequent to this hearing, if you could provide some additional information with regard to what's going on with improvements at Memorial Hall. The project listed on is the Black Road Parking Lot, and what I'd like to talk you to you about are two last items, which are the design work that you have listed on for the 100 Steps Project. I have a constituent who has sent me a letter which I committed to him with the Chair's approval to have his full testimony entered into the record. He could not be here this afternoon. What is going on with the 100 Steps Project and what's 25,000 going to do for that project? I assume that it costs more than $25,000 to repair these historic steps.
That's correct. This $25,000 is for design. Construction dollars will follow, and we'll develop that specific request for the '03 budget. 200 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Meanwhile, having received, I believe, the same correspondence you have, I've asked Park staff to perform any emergency repair work appropriate or necessary until the Capital Budget work can be brought on line.
Thank you. With regard to the $300,000 for the 2600 street trees, is the pending zip code rule still in effect and what's the location of the 2600 trees and do you have an analysis by Council district of where these trees are?
The answer to all three of that was yes. Zip code still is in place. Yes, we have all locations, and it is broken down by Councilmatic District.
Okay. If you could ready forward that to the Chair, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam 201 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Chair. Before I start questioning of the Fairmount Park, could somebody explain to me what the zip code rule is?
You have to live in one of the Philadelphia zip codes to be a Philadelphia City Council, that's the zip code rule. (Laughter.)
Do you want that answer? Okay. The City Controller has determined that the removal of a street tree, a dead and dangerous tree, in and of itself does not constitute a capital expenditure. It must be married with the planting of a tree. And oftentimes, it's not physically possible to put the tree right back in the same location from where the tree was removed. And oftentimes it's not even possible to put it on the same block face. So in agreement with the City Solicitor's Office and the City Controller's Office, it's been agreed that if we remove a tree in a certain zip code, we have to replace it in the same zip code.
Okay. I'd ask if 202 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS it's possible for someone from the Recreation Department who deals with capital issues to be present at the table with Commissioner Mifflin on questions I have relative to athletic fields.
Is someone coming forward? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Yes. (Witnesses come forward.)
Gentlemen, excuse me. Commissioner, the Fairmount Park Commission testified that they have a hundred athletic fields. Is that accurate, Mr. Mifflin?
Could you tell me how many athletic -- when I say "athletic fields," I mean grass fields that either baseball, football, or soccer are played that are part of the Recreation Department's responsibility.
My name is Eric Iffrig (ph.), with the Recreation Department. I believe the number is around 450.
Could the Recreation Department explain the process that they implement or use to monitor the condition of 203 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS fields and to deal with their either renovation or ongoing maintenance seasonally. Here's my concern. A number of athletic associations within the City use the Recreation Department and Fairmount Park Commission fields, and considering -- for the course of their program, along with Recreation Department programs themselves. Considering the amount of use that an individual field gets, the condition of that field for the course of the year can vary, from extremely attractive to terrible. One of the frustrations that I have in dealing with some of the athletic groups throughout the City is that, again, partly due to the amount of use a particular field gets for varying activities, our field conditions comparative to the suburbs can be sometimes quite embarrassing. We have athletic groups that go out into the suburbs to play, whether it's Wade football, Pop Water football, baseball or soccer, and experience pretty plush fields that they play on and don't have a problem with bald spots and injuries as a result of the kinds of things that happen when our kids use the field. 204 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS And the reverse is true, that when some of these suburban league teams come into Philadelphia, it can from time to time be embarrassing as to the comments that they make as a result of, Boy, the poor kids in the City really have it bad there, they've got 'em playing on cinders, so to speak, as opposed to playing on an adequate athletic field. ), the back stops, the fencing. We do battle vandalism probably more than some suburban communities do, and we probably get a lot more use from even an adult softball leagues, kid football leagues, youth soccer program. The question I have of both agencies is, what do we do to coordinate both continuing watchfulness of the fields, what condition they're in, its ongoing maintenance, and then determination as to what needs to be replaced, when it needs to be replaced? And is there coordination between Recreation, Fairmount Park, and even the School District? I don't know if 205 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS they're here 'cause I don't think it's their time yet, but the School District has a number of athletic fields that are used by various segments of City-sponsored, school-sponsored, and private athletic association-sponsored events. Is there a kind of clearinghouse for information, a clearinghouse for the ordering of dirt and seed and the white -- they don't use lime anymore, but whatever it is they -- the paint that they paint the fields in and athletic facilities. Is there any kind of coordination at all? And how do we proceed with trying to keep these fields in the best condition possibly? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Hi, good evening. My name is Vic Richard and I'm the Recreation Commissioner for the record. And thank you for your questions Councilman Kenney. I too would like to agree with some of the statements that you made relative to the comparison between the suburbs and the urban challenges. The first thing I would like to put on the table, the challenges in an urban environment in which we live in are ten times as greater. One of the most disheartening factors 206 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS is, and you mentioned capital projects, and also listening to Councilman Nutter, is you may be midway or halfway through a capital improvement or either regular maintenance, and prior to the project being completed, it's totally demolished and vandalized. So those are one of the things that I would like to address as far as the degree of difficulty of the job of maintaining. I don't need to sit here or tell you or anyone else in this room or in this city, quite naturally, the dollar amount that it takes to maintain the level that we would like to have. On the other part, relative to the degree of the difficulty to the job, can we do the job? Yes.
Are we capable of doing the job? Yes. But to a certain degree -- based, once again, on the amount of manpower and also the money that it takes in order to buy the equipment, the materials, and the things that you need. Let's go to another aspect of this as well, what I like to deem as the City versus the country, or the urban versus the suburb. It is very difficult for the police to police all of the 207 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS parks that this city has. I just need to put it out on the table. I would never expect the police to keep all of the vandals out of the parks; it's virtually impossible. I couldn't expect the police to keep the three-wheelers, the motor cross bikes, the four-wheelers, also the fighting of the dogs, and all of the things that occur in a park. We can only police to it a certain extent. In my office right now, I personally took down from Bellfield Recreation Center a child swing that had been cut in half intentionally that was metal-reinforced and covered with rubber, and I intentionally brought it down to have a meeting with my maintenance crew as a preventive measure. Not only was it sawed in half intentionally, but it was totally bitten and eaten by dogs, where they the take pit bulls and the rottweilers and use them to swing the dogs around in the air. So you, know, how do we stop it, can we stop it? To a certain extent, yes, we can. Would we like every field to look that way? Sure we would, but there's a price tag to it. You get what you pay. Let me go a step further. Right now, 208 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS the Department is in the process of having printed out all new rules-and-regulations signs that will be posted at every facility. And I'd like to compliment Councilman Nutter for helping us to work on that initiative so that we will give the police more leverage for when they go to the facility. " I don't have a problem standing up here saying that we wouldn't want dogs on the park. Now, on the other hand, I do need to be sensitive, as a pet lover myself, yeah. Now, where do you take the dog? So yes, we need to develop more dog tracks. But we don't want the kids playing soccer or little league football or baseball and/or the adults falling in waste from animals. So what do we do? We lock up every person that brings a dog to the park, or if the dog is on the park and the dog's on leash. At the same time, when do we close down the parks? So yes, all of these proactive initiatives are in place. I hope I answered some of your questions. What did I forget? )
Well, what I'm looking for more is the issue of coordination, you know, amongst those agencies -- and I wish the School District were here because I know there's a significant number of athletic facilities, grass facilities -- on how we, number one, coordinate in order to save money by knowing what each various agency is doing. And, number two, what our program is or process is for determining when a field needs to be aerated, when a field needs to be seeded, when the Dimatex needs to be replaced, when a pitcher's mound needs to be replaced, when we need to do the back stop. When is the -- what is the Recreation Department's monthly, quarterly, semiannual process of field evaluation? And the other part of that question is, because of the changing neighborhoods in our city, some neighborhoods are a lot less populated or populated at all, compared to what it was, say, in 1950 or '60. Are those fields still a part of the system? And do we need to do something else with those fields as opposed to trying to maintain them as ballfields or football fields. I mean, do we 210 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS reevaluate our recreational park system from a fields -- an athletic field perspective along with our Fairmount Park system to determine whether or not they're even servicing people anymore, those particular fields? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: In the eight months that I've been here, this is an initiative we need to take. Are where we need to be as of yet, I can tell, definitely not. We have to bring to the table -- and that's going to be a part of the mission of the blight initiative, along with the Planning Commission for the dual utilization between the school system the Rec system and also Fairmount Park as well. For me to sit here and tell you specific sites that we need to either reevaluate or change from football, baseball, or basketball. What I can sit here and tell you from my own aspect from the Rec Department, we are doing it quarterly, mostly during the spring and the summer months. Quite naturally, we're not in a winter mode. And our biggest response has been in the particular neighborhoods with the high-volume 211 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS uses the soccer, whether it's for the little children or an adult league. The same with the baseball facility and/or softball for adults and children as well. Can we do a better job? Yes, we must do a better job. What will it take to make the tough political decisions?
Councilman, I'd like to comment on a couple of the points. Of the hundred athletic fields that we have in Fairmount Park, I'm actually kind of proud of our fields. We've invested a lot in training in our employees, we've sent them annually to turf maintenance schools and athletic field improvement schools. They're all certified applicators, pretty high-skilled. Working with Fleet Management, we've brought more aerators. And through the years, we've established partnerships with the athletic associations, the big athletics associations across the City. And quite frankly, without their support, the fields wouldn't even look as good as they do. And if we have an area where a field has been not used as much, not permitted as much, 212 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS and the fields are permitted, so we have an idea of who's using them. And as Commissioner Richman said, some of our problems is enforcement of rules and regulations. If we can go right back after that field is finished and find debris or find misuse, we'll yank the permit. You know, so we're trying to be very conscientious of those who take out permits to use Fairmount Park fields. And I'll also mention that neither the School District or the Fairmount Park Commission or PDR charge for the permits for field use. I don't know a suburb around that does not charge. I mean, you get a field permit with a fee. And not that a fee is the panacea to solve all of the issues. Quite frankly, I'm on the other side of the fence on that because with the support of the athletic associations, the last thing I want to do now is start charging them for, you know, all of the volunteer effort that they do in keeping the fields in good condition. There is cooperation and coordination. There is -- again, I mentioned the Recreation Coordination Committee, which is made up of School District, the Department of Recreation, and 213 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Fairmount Park, and we talk about field use, we ensure that things are not falling through the cracks. It does come down to resources. I mean, I think, as you've pointed out, we're doing the very best we can. We've got state-of-the-art equipment, we've got trained personnel. We're working with the community, and I think we're doing a good job.
Now, the new equipment and such, are they able to be shared between Recreation and Fairmount Park?
Well, you know, admittedly, the equipment that I have, we pretty much occupy most of the time. But, you know, I mean, I recall instances, even just last year, where we were putting in a field on an old Water Department property over at 29th and Cambria. You know, it wasn't our property. We sent the equipment over, we did the job. There's a field, the Amanda Rec Center, 33rd and Diamond. It's PDR 214 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS but it's in the Fairmount Park, so I maintain the field. So, you know, there are certainly instances where equipment gets shared.
Is there similar cooperation with the School District at all or --
It's a little different with the School District. You know, I'm thinking of Lincoln High School and Frankford High and Roxborough, all of the community high schools that have their field use. It's their field first, and if there's some time left over, we get access to it. Not to denigrate the School District, but quite frankly, I think there's issues that are on my plate about gymnasium use and facility use after school, and I think we could talk more intelligently about them than field use, quite frankly.
I guess my suggestion is whether or not it happens now, you can tell me it does or doesn't. Is there continual meetings or regular meetings with staff, maintenance staff, capital staff from at least -- not the three agencies, including the School 215 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS District, but at least the Department of Rec and the Fairmount Park Commission? I mean, what you have are a number of skilled, dedicated people who can share ideas as to maybe what needs to be done or something that was read in a trade journal that talks about a different style of grass seed or something that kind of -- most of the people I know that are involved in this kind of activity are very interested in what it is they do and they take great pride in how their facilities look. But I'm wondering if there's really any kind of interface and discussion that goes on between all of these people who are basically doing the same thing for two different agencies.
Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: We have a great working relationship. There's nothing that I couldn't ask Fairmount Park for, or vice versa. That's been proved. Whether it's equipment -- except for money probably, we'll probably fight over money with each other, but yes. Also, the interaction with the maintenance facility as well, along with the great volunteer effort from the Friends groups and 216 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS advisory councils and a lot of great leadership and also financial backing with the Horticultural Society here as well. So we have a very outstanding working relationship.
Commissioner Richard, I sensed in your testimony when you first came an extreme level of frustration with the issue of vandalism and the like. And could you explain to me what your experience was in New Orleans as far as -- I'm sure there were vandalism problems, but to what extent were they and how were they dealt with? It seemed from the tenor of your response that you were -- you felt like you weren't in Kansas anymore. (Laughter.)
It seemed it was very shocking for you to see the level of vandalism you know. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: No, it's not shocking. I'm originally from New Orleans, but I've worked in about 10 or 11 other different cities across the United States in my previous year, prior to coming to government.
I'm sorry, you came 217 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS from New Orleans to this job? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Right. But what I'd like to share with the body here is that the challenges are universal. The challenges in urban populations, big cities are identical. The levels of the problems are different, based on the amount of acreage, the number of properties, and also the population, but identical. Some of the educational challenges are similar as well, if I may add that. The issues with the police. And if I may, since you asked, if I got to make a decision of working on a ballfield versus maintaining or saving the structural integrity of a facility that I can use 12 months out of the year versus a park or a open field that we may only use five or six months, based on the intended use, I'm going to use the building, I'm going to use the money there, and that's the process we take in the capital portion. And if I may continue, I'd like to see some of the ways that we do business here and some of the capital projects, the structure and the process changed. I know for a fact that we could 218 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS save money. We can also probably do two jobs with the money it takes for one and also possibly complete the job in half the amount of time. And I'm not just saying this off-the-cuff; I've done it.
What would you attribute the additional cost and time compared to other experience you've had throughout this particular -- throughout the country? What here do you see that is different from what you've seen in other places that would allow you to believe that you could make such great improvement? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: The process needs to be streamlined tremendously on the capital projects. I understand that all of the District Councilpeople need to be involved, but I also believe that it needs to be done at one time. Instead of the projects being done or reevaluated on a yearly basis or whatever, it needs to be a minimum three-year outlay put out, minimum, and it needs to be stuck and adhered to with a maximum of five. And if it goes to five, within that third year period, year 4 and 5 needs to be reevaluated immediately. 219 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS In that process also as well, you need to evaluate conditions beyond control or pots of money for unforeseen circumstances, such as fires or the snow storms that might collapse trees or roofs or the plumbing issues that (indiscernible). Pots of citywide lighting money. I heard earlier today one of the Councilpeople brought issues up regarding fencing around vacant lots. Those things could be a part of the capital. Also, you put more money on the preventive side and the cost for the City will tremendously go down because you're doing routine maintenance instead of the Band-Aid trying to catch up. I've had these conversations also with a lot of other Councilmembers as well one-on-one and communicating. You can't keep putting what I call a crumb a crack or a cookie on a project. If the project today costs a million dollars and you only put a quarter of a million there and it takes you a year, each year to put a quarter for four years, the inflation index, the labor costs, and the costs of goods, and now what you had as the initial job spec is probably doubled because of 220 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS the deterioration of the preexisting. So it can be done. When we start -- I'd also like to see us also be able to do a lot of the work within the departments. I would much rather pay our City employees some of the money. We have some phenomenal skilled trade union employees within City government that can do a job just as good and even sometimes better than contractors. And those jobs that can be done, we need to put the money there, hire the people or even contract out our own people inside, buy the materials with that money, and the big stuff, you contract out.
I've seen the results of some of our contractors' work. It's not stellar. It's -- COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Well, I'm not saying all contractors.
No, no, I'm saying it. I'm saying there's a number of contractors that I've seen completed work that I went through the facility before you got here and asked basically, Would someone sign off on this work if it were their own home and they were paying the 221 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS bill themselves? I mean, I saw some horrible things that were approved and allowed to go. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir.
What are the constraints on your ability internally, at least within your own department, to kind of coordinate and do some of this work in-house? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Well, funding, which will ultimately -- two things. The funding will dictate the skill level of employees I need and also the material I need. Other than that, we can get the job done.
But, I mean, is there any statutory constraints or regulatory constraints that keep you from doing something like this now? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I'm not -- right now, I don't believe that we have the authority to use capital money to buy material in-house and let my people do it. Now, you know, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not proficient with all the laws. Maybe, Eric, you may be able to address the other portion of that, but I know we can produce. 222 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
In addition to having, you know, a good, interested, and competent Recreation Commissioner, it's always nice to get somebody from out of town from time to time 'cause you get a different perspective and a different view of how things can be done. Sometimes we're a little too parochial here as far as how we look at things, and if we have people like yourself and others who have come in from other places and have had other experience, certainly we'd like to know what we need to do to kind of untie your hands so as to allow you to move forward with what you think is the right thing to do. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: The flexibility to create in the department a construction crew, to keep a lot of that money within the City. And like I said, we can buy twice the material and do two jobs with the cost of one and in half the amount of time.
Mr. Iffrig, could you tell us why Commissioner Richard can't do that? 'Cause I'm sure there's some reason, and it's not your making, that reason, but I'm sure 223 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS there's some --
I'm not sure that I can say that he can't. As he suggested, it's basically a control problem. The standing problem would be making sure that the funds for both labor and materials were actually applied to the capital project. Now, for a contractor, he does it with his accounting on his projects in the City. If the staff is not separated, you'd have to have time accounting and verification of the time and the labor that was applied to the capital projects as opposed to what was applied for the Operating Budget, and you'd also have to have that kind of confirmation on the installation of materials. We have done some of that. We haven't tried it on labor, but we have done some of that on materials before, where we purchased materials and had them installed either by our staff or by volunteer groups. We do have to verify the material that's installed, and the volunteer groups, we even have contracts with them that specify what it is and what it is that they're doing. 224 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS This year's Capital Budget, we're hoping, will give us an opportunity to start this process, at least as far as procurement of materials, because in the infrastructure request that we did make, and it is in the budget request this year, we're hoping to do several things -- particularly roofs, safety servicing, particularly back-flow preventers to protect our water services, which is a requirement. And we know we that can do these things for substantially less than contracting them out, and we think even this minor appropriation will give us the opportunity to certainly try this approach.
Before I yield to Councilmember Clarke who has a question in this regard, it seems that --
The one question I want to ask as a result of your response was that other than the accounting issues and the 225 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS delegation of work and determining what hours are put into capital and what personnel hours are put into other non-capital issues, I mean they all seem to be supervisory and accounting issues. Is there any specific statutory prohibition in the Commissioner, the head of the Projects Department Division, going out and trying to deal with some of these roof replacements, for example or -- I guess the question is, which of the trades do you have the most capable people involved in? Is it roofing, is it masonry, is it plumbing that you could try from a pilot perspective to approach that and see whether or not there is such (indiscernible). COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Well, we know that there would be. And particularly again, on the infrastructure line, we mentioned specifically the installation of back-flow preventers. Our plumbing unit is highly competent, has done a lot of quality repairs, and is certified on back-flow preventer installation, which is a requirement that. We know that we can buy the products at lower than contractors charge us, as they normally come in on change orders and we don't have to pay 226 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS the prevailing trade rate. We do pay the agreed-contract union City rate for our plumbers, and we know that we can do this work, and we have on occasion done it, minor occasion. This would codify it -- or we would attempt to codify it within this process. If there is not -- roofing could be done, many of the trades could be done. The one I suggest is the one that I know would be a (indiscernible) process --
And are we moving forward to attempt to get that done in-house as a rule?
If we are funded for the purchase of the materials, this would be a significant program is what we're shooting for.
And is that funding available in this particular proposal?
So what you need from a funding standpoint to purchase materials to do this stuff, this particular chore in-house is within this budget? 227 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
Councilman, I know Councilman Kenney yielded, but let me just make a statement, please. We have had witnesses sitting here since 1:30 this afternoon and we can certainly call back people from the Administration at a later date or after our witnesses testify. So it's your call. So at this time I recognize Councilman Clarke.
I just wanted to add very briefly with respects to Councilman Kenney's questioning that the Commissioner and Mr. Iffrig and I had actually had that discussion two, three weeks ago with respects to the in-house workforce, and we had actually had asked them to look at the Philadelphia Housing Authority in terms of a framework. We do have this problem as it relates to civil service, which is not a burden as it relates to the Housing Authority's ability. But they had a similar problem, and 228 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS what they did is they looked at their workforce and they determined that they had substantial skilled individuals within the in-house workforce. And as a result of that, they are now out there rehabilitating houses, as opposed to contracting those services out. And they've got to a point where they're actually doing three or four different projects throughout the City of Philadelphia. They also use that same workforce, internal workforce to rehabilitate more than 400 units of scattered-site housing. So I'd ask that that framework be put in place in terms of how we organizationally do the framework, then we have to get around this whole legal issue with respects to the civil service requirements, as opposed to prevailing wages. But that is a good idea and I just wanted to say, Councilman Kenney, I'm glad you brought that up today. Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you. To the Councilmembers who have been waiting, would you have objection if we heard from 229 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS the community that has been waiting, or do you want to be heard now? Because we could always call back the Administration at a later date.
Madam Chair, I think I can get this done in five minutes.
Mr. Mifflin and Commissioner Richard, would you just hang in there with me a minute. In reference to , Bill Mifflin, that addresses the (indiscernible) House, and this is a proof of a park building that has been used effectively for, I believe, almost a hundred years by the Canoe Club, and I know that you're aware you of all of the controversy associated with that building, the problems with the building being condemned. I'd like to know, you have $120,000 in there to repair that building that was condemned. I'd like to know, is that 120 enough to do what you need to do there?
The $120,000 is not enough money to completely restore the building. It is enough money to address the code violations and to stop the water penetration into the 230 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS building.
The 120,000 and the repairs you just described to address the code violations will allow the building to be reoccupied by its tenant?
Commissioner Richard, earlier this afternoon we discussed the fact that many of the community parks, as I call them, are under your jurisdiction, and my colleague Councilman Nutter pointed out that you and the Fairmount Park Commission really need to get together to see who would be best equipped to deal with the maintenance of those facilities. I'm led to believe that you're a program organization and Fairmount Park Commission is really more into the maintenance and care of these facilities, so I would hope that you would pursue, with the Fairmount Park Commission, trying to decide if some of those facilities would be more appropriate -- I'm not suggesting all -- that maybe some of them would be more appropriate to be under their jurisdiction than yours. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Not a problem. 231 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Our goal to better serve the population, so we're open.
Okay. The other question I have of both Bill Mifflin and the Recreation Commissioner, I'd like to know how you're doing with energy management. I'd like to point out that a few years ago, I mentioned that many of the lights at recreation facilities and Fairmount Park facilities are left on from sunset to sunrise, and the answer was that the technology wasn't there and security lighting was required to protect the facility. There was no way to give the facilities minimum light for security purposes, so the only alternative was to leave them all on. That's a hard sell to tell the people in the community that you're spinning that electric meter unnecessarily to light up a ballfield that that is totally covered with a foot of snow. So I'm hoping that there's been some effort to try to address that issue.
I know in all of our Fairmount Park capital projects, we are using photo cells and other timers that, often in 232 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS concert with the community, is setting the established time when the lights will go off.
Also, last quick question, and this should take two minutes, and if we need to talk about this after, Bill Mifflin, we can do that. Could you describe the -- could you tell us about the money that the Fairmount Park Commission has that's from donations. I understand there might be 8, 9, $10 million sitting there. Is any of that money used for capital programs? What do you do, and where is this money that's given by friends of this and if someone dies and it's given to the Fairmount Park Commission, could you tell us how much money you have there and how it's managed?
The commissioners of Fairmount Park are responsible for more than 30 trust funds collectively. Your numbers are about right -- or maybe they're a little high. With each of the funds, there are very specific discrete expenditures that are permitted. Most of them are for capital. The expenditures, there are -- some are for buildings, 233 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS some are for gardens, some are for particular geographic areas in the park, and the park staff usually performs the work or we, in some instances, will contract out if we do not have the skills to perform that work. They run the gamut from putting on a new roof to repairing doorways and windows to performing landscape improvements, and as an example, the Glen Eddie Rock Garden.
So you have now in trust funds about $8 million, 9 million?
Is the Capital Programs Office aware of this fund of this fund, of this money? How do you decide what you take out of the fund? Is it just putting out fires, emergencies?
Each fund doesn't have, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars on an annual basis available for improvements, but those that do, we will work in concert with. It's not unlikely to see a capital line item that will have private money in it, City money, and other -- maybe even State money. So the decision is made 234 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS as to best leverage the limited dollars.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mifflin. Seven minutes, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Our next witness is Michael Cooley. (Witness comes forward.)
Hello. Thank you so much for your patience. I appreciate you staying and testifying.
We'd like to thank you, Council President Verna, and all of City Council for allowing us the opportunity to speak.
You're going to have to introduce yourself for the record.
My name is James Nolan, of Nolan Properties. And this is my partner, Mike Cooley, of M. Cooley Properties. Together, we are 235 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS general partners in an entity called "Fountain Street Partners," which is the new owner of 116 Fountain Street in Manayunk. Again, we'd like to thank you for letting us have the opportunity to speak. We'd also like to thank Councilman Nutter for all of his support over the past year, we are sincerely grateful. To give you a little background, I -- can we the use of the easel for some boards?
I'd just like to give you a little background. Again, my name is Jim Nolan. I'm a fifth-generation developer in the City of Philadelphia. As far back as 1920s, my great- great-grandfather was a major contractor on the Philadelphia Broad Street Subway. In the 1930s, my great-grandfather built over 2,000 homes in the Erlin section of Philadelphia. ), was the largest architectural firm in the City of Philadelphia and designed and developed several buildings for Temple University and Drexel 236 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS University, as well as the Pennsylvania State office building down on Spring Garden Street. Most recently, my father built over a hundred homes in the Chapel Hill area of Roxborough. Today, I am here today to talk to you about a project that we intend to make our next project in Philadelphia, and that is 116 Fountain Street. If the building looks at all familiar to you, the bottom poster, it is a project that is located on the banks of the Manayunk Canal, just off of Venice Island. We come to you today with the full support of the neighborhood, all of the community groups of the neighborhood, the Commerce Department, and Councilman Nutter's office. Our intent is to take what we feel is perhaps the last truly significant piece of property that defines the Manayunk cityscape and create something very positive for the community. Our intention is to take this blighted property -- as you can see -- you can't really see the bottom picture there, but basically, this is, for all intents and purposes, an abandoned property that sits along the canal in Manayunk. 237 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Our intention is to take this property and completely restore it and renovate it to a clean, safe, and productive facility. We intend to spend about $4 million to just get that done. We already have bank financing, everything is in place. At the end of that restoration, what we'll have is a property positioned for future development. There may be an interim use for the property -- probably bulk storage. We have several different uses that are ready, willing, and able to take the space in its interim condition. But, more importantly, the property will be put in a position where it is able to be used eventually in its highest and best use, which, we feel, after many, many months of studying, is probably an office development -- not just because the community wants it, but because it's ideally suited for it. It sits right off the R-6, the SEPTA rail line. There's actually a stop adjacent to the property. It sits in the middle of one of the most thriving and vibrant communities in the City. The workforce and labor force in that area 238 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS is incredibly dynamic, which is the most hottest resource that all of the firms are looking for now. One problem exists with this development -- I'm sorry, I'll back up. And at that point, as Councilman Nutter already stated, the project is about 100,000 square feet. It could house up to 500 employees. We've done studies, using the average high-tech salaries, and Councilman Nutter already quoted the number. This property could generate in excess, well in excess, of $1 million a year in business tax. There's one problem, and that is, we're losing our access to the site. There's one bridge that accesses the site, which is tucked very neatly in the crotch of the rail line and the canal, and it is surrounded by a hill, it's a 50-foot elevation of a hill. There's one way in, and that's a sidewalk. Without the bridge, this property might as well not exist. We have -- we've talked with City Council, or with several departments in the City government, and have looked for help. And for the most part, we've gotten a lot of support, but we 239 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS really haven't gotten the help that we need.
We have discussed the idea of replacing this bridge, which, everybody admits, is going to be functionally obsolescent in the next five years, with a two-lane bridge. And obviously, that's certainly the best-case scenario for everyone. It makes the project all that more viable, all that more attractive to high-image tenants, having a front door that goes both ways. After several months of discussions about the two-lane bridge, it became painfully obvious to us that the infinite complexity in having to get that all arranged -- the condemnation, the redesign, the federal highway funding, the list just goes on and on and on. That, coupled with the fact that that project would be almost three to five years out and then no guarantee, makes a two-lane bridge absolutely almost unsellable to any sort of tenant. I can't sell that, I can't sell it possibly in five years. I can't sign a lease, I can't get the construction, I can't go anywhere with that. I need something more immediate than that. We've talked about a single-lane 240 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS bridge. As we all know, it's been in the budget for several years, it's been swept under the carpet for whatever reason -- it doesn't fit equation that the folks go by. We can -- we -- there's never going to be a good time to add costs to the budget for a bridge, especially one that doesn't meet this equation. There will never be a good time. The budget wasn't good three, four years ago, and it probably won't be that good -- it's never good when you add a cost. As far as the property's concerned, there is a good time to do it, and that's when there's no one's there, when a property's being vacated and renovated. If we go ahead and try and redevelop this property in five years from now, when the bridge finally does reach its obsolescence and this property is fully up and running and we have to tell clients and tenants that they have no access to this property, the costs and the legal ramifications are incredible. It's absolutely infeasible. We're asking that you don't condemn us, don't take the property. We're asking that you allow us to go ahead and fulfill the mandate that 241 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS we've been charged with by the community -- that's to keep this property in a commercial capacity. I'd just like to real quickly answer a couple of questions -- or issues that were brought up by the folks before us. One was that there was a fear that they would build the bridge and no one would come. And, I'll tell you, that would be my greatest fear because I'm going to go and spend -- I don't do math that quickly, but I would say it's close to ten times as much as they are. As I said, we already have tenants in place for our interim use. There will be a business in there, whether it will be a high-tech business Day One, I don't know. But there will be a business in there, I can assure you, or I'll be abrupt and the next developer will have it and he'll bring a tenant in there that will have a business in there. And hopefully that won't happen. As far as timing, as I said before, it really makes a lot of sense being as that it's the only access to the property, that it's done when you don't need the access. If there's a tenant in there, they're going to want access to that property every single day, obviously. Now is a 242 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS great time to do it. The building is on L&I's list for condemnation. The business owner there knows it, that's a because of the part of the reason why he's leaving; the other part is that he's a manufacturing distributor and he can't operate with the inefficiencies of having to operate on five floors, so he's going to leave. When he sells the property, no one can do anything with it if it's going to be condemned. It's got to be redeveloped, which means that's the time to take advantage of replacement of the bridge at that time.
The last was the two-lane bridge, the questions concerning that, and, again, the timing and the uncertainty of it all in three to five years is just something that you can't do.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Cooley, what is in the building now?
The building is currently owned and occupied by a wiper manufacturer by the 243 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS name of A & B Wiper.
We have the building under agreement. We just went hard. We're set to settle in three weeks.
I'd be interested in knowing, from an L&I perspective and from a Fire Department perspective, God forbid, a building of this size winds up in a multi-alarm fire, God forbid, what the City's costs would be incurred in personnel fighting the fire, removing the rubble. I mean, there's got to be an amazing cost. And how many square feet is this building?
This building is currently approximately 165,000 square feet, and we've addressed some of the same concerns of yours, Councilman. And above and beyond all of them, we feel the biggest concern is the fact that if in fact the fire truck would be able to make it over that bridge. 244 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
Now, I think it's -- this is just my opinion and I know it's in Councilman Nutter's district and he's clearly been working on this a long time. The potential of sending multiple-ladder engine companies into that facility on fire is just, I think, an amazing chance we'd be taking with our Fire Department personnel, plus the cost incurred in fighting it. And the options next to it seems to me to be a no-brainer. When I look at the option next to it, it seems to be a no-brainer of what we should be doing. So as a matter of fact, I'm quite amazed that you're still interested in doing business in the City at all.
We believe in the project. But just to continue to address the fire concerns, what we would be doing is upgrading the fire suppression systems. And, in fact, you can't really tell by the pictures, but right now, I believe the fire truck ladder will go five stories. So if they pull -- and you really can't 245 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS tell from these pictures, but if you pull onto the property, you could probably service about a fifth of the building, but you couldn't get anything in front of the building; between the building and the canal, that's all building. In our plan, the front of the building comes down and creates a vast parking lot in front of the building so that a fire truck with a ladder could service, you know, 360 degrees around.
Well, I would just think that if you could ever see this through the completion, the issue of fire suppression would be taken care of in the renovation and design, but that's not the issue. My main concern is looking at that's building. I've seen many of them in the City in the past and I've seen many of them fully involved in multi-alarm fires, risking the lives of residents and firefighters to boot. I mean, this is an opportunity with a very reasonable amount of money to turn something from a potential danger and hazard into something that's productive and tax-ratable and everything else. So, again, I'm surprised you're still sitting here doing business with us. 246 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
Could you -- the economic benefits that would accrue to the City, could you detail them for me if this project gets done?
Basically, you're talking about 500 employees. We're talking about an average salary of a typical tenant that we're looking to put into this building is probably of the new-economy variety, someone that's looking for the youth and the computer savvy, shall we say, from Manayunk, somebody who's looking for young, educated labor. We're looking for a tenant that's high-image. We're looking for a type of tenant that's base salary or average salary, shall we say, is probably in the neighborhood -- and we use sources I can't quote right now, but in the 247 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS neighborhood, and well documented, probably in the 60 to $7,000 average salary range. Basically all we did is multiply the 500 times the 67 and took the wage tax out.
Do we have an estimate as to how much it would cost to fix the bridge?
Councilman, the earlier testimony was, the estimates are somewhere between and 400 and $600,000.
Because we have a paragraph here that talks about $127 million from the Economic Stimulus that are supposed to meet the goals that, in essence, support the type of activity that goes into this project. And if we have $127 million in terms of Capital Budget, 248 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS $500,000, it's "chump change," as they say in the Barrio, you know? It's not a lot of money. I don't understand why it's not in the budget.
Well, Councilman, we did have some discussion earlier about this, and I think that given that earlier discussion and the presentation, and I want to commends Mr. Nolan and Mr. Cooley for their presentation, I was left with the dialogue with the Planning Commission Director that we're going to continue some discussion about this and try to get a resolution 13 to it. But I want to assure my constituents that I will do everything possible and within the legislative process to make sure that funding is available for this bridge and to help this project along. There is no reason for us to be in the situation that we're in. And I'm, you know, I'm prepared to let the past be the past. The past would be considered this morning, and that we can move on this afternoon if. My colleagues see the merit in this, we may need to amend this Capital Budget to include dollars for this bridge.
What would be the timeline in terms of the beginning towards finish of the construction?
No, no, of the whole project. Let's say that that thing moves along, what would be the timeline in terms of construction and finish and then bringing in tenants into the complex?
We hope to settle, like I said, in March. We would probably get under construction as soon as possible thereafter, with the one exception that we would probably wait to see what was happening with the bridge because right now, the construction of the property is tricky because of the bridge. We're going to be pulling Dumpsters of rubble off the property. And so if we can't get the bridge done, that may extend the timeline, but even with the bridge replacement, it could probably take six to seven months.
How many jobs will be created once you finish? 250 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
Well, we'll take property to its interim use, to the point where we can probably continue to use it in some sort of a warehousing capacity, bulk storage, small storage.
But let's say the project is done, you fix the bridge, you do the thing, you fix it up, how many jobs are created in terms of the process at the end of this whole thing?
We'll begin marketing the property immediately and entertaining clients or tenants as soon as possible. And the first one that we can land, you know, we don't know when that will be but --
But the building at that point will be that much closer to being able to be occupied.
Well, what will be the projection? When is fully occupied?
I think that the 251 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS earlier discussion, and at least the proposal that I have, I mean, the simpler version of this is, it has the potential to house 500 employees. Given the quality of the renovation work that we're looking at in an office park-type setting, I think my recollection is 500 employees at fairly high salaries and in excess of a million dollars in taxes being thrown off of a project for an investment by the City in the neighborhood of a half a million dollars in one-time capital expenditures.
That's almost more tax ratables than the stadiums will produce.
Oh, Councilman, you don't really want to get into a stadium discussion. I -- you know, I'd just like 2 percent of what the stadiums are getting, I'd like to have for a bridge. I'd be willing to leave it at that.
Once we finish -- once we finish the project, the table will be set, so to speak. 252 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
The initial renovation, probably six months. If the bridge is in there, maybe seven, eight months. And at that point, the table set to start entertaining the opportunity, the possibility for a tenant to actually look at the property.
Do we have anyone else to testify? (No response.)
Our next witness is Wilkins Jones, Friends of the Free Library. (Witness comes forward.)
Good 253 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS afternoon, sir. Thank you for your patience. We appreciate your waiting.
Thank you, Madam President and members of Council. I am Wilkins Jones, the Executive Director of the Friends of the Free Library. I am here to testify on behalf of the Friends of the Free Library, its board, and members of the community served by the Library. Our advocacy of the Free Library system is driven by two overriding concerns: one, that libraries in every Philadelphia neighborhood, regardless of socioeconomic level receive the very best in liable service; and two, that we create a library system for the 21st century that keeps pace with the innovations and communications and information technology that are transforming the delivery of library services in our time. It is in this context that I offer the following testimony. On behalf of the Friends of the Widener and Walnut West Branch Libraries and their community, we are pleased to see that money for architectural and engineering service has been included in the budget for 2003. We would have 254 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS been even more pleased had construction money been included in this budget so that Friends and patrons of these libraries would be assured that a definitive commitment to rebuild and renovate has been made and that competing priorities in Fiscal Year 2003 could not derail these projects. I would like to briefly reaffirm the importance of renovating the Walnut West branch and constructing a new building for the Widener branch. The Walnut West Branch Library desperately needs its building renovated so that it can move out of its temporary cramped quarters back into its real home. The dedication and professionalism of its library staff are exemplary, but working under such severe limitations, the library cannot serve its constituency adequately. With seating for only eight persons in the main room, teachers cannot bring a class to the library with space for everyone to be seated, and there is almost no room 22 for library programming and only a fraction of the library's collection can even be shelved at its temporary quarters. The Widener Branch, located at 25th and 255 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Lehigh in North Philadelphia is an active library whose usefulness is limited only by its current building, which formerly housed a bank. The library is fully involved in the life of the community. The library serves young people that attend schools in the neighborhood. Students 8 from Ethel Allen and the Fitzsimons Middle School 9 are especially frequent users of the library. 10 Some high school students from Dobbins who would 11 otherwise use the library are hampered by the 12 availability of only three computers at the 13 branch. Recurrent flooding in the basement often 14 interferes with after-school and other special library programming, which affects all library users. Limited shelf space for books is also an issue. Also, a new Widener Library would actually provide more than upgraded library services. It would demonstrate the City's belief in the future of this North Philadelphia community and serve as an anchor in its revitalization. With respect to the Central Library, the Friends of the Free Library are disappointed that the Fiscal Year 2002 budget does not include 256 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS money for the Central Library renovation and expansion project. As you know, during the past several years, most of the Free Library system's network of 55 neighborhoods and regional libraries have been renovated and upgraded. We are proud of the results of this massive project and we are proud of the public-private partnership that enabled it to happen, but there is clearly unfinished business. Until the Central Library is renovated and expanded, we have not completed the job of building a library system that is worthy of our world-class city. We believe there is one consideration that has sometimes neglected in our discussion of an expanded and renovated Central Library.
It is easy to forget the Library is a system or network of libraries. The distinction among neighborhood libraries, regional libraries, and the Central Library is not just about geography, but also about the depth and breadth of resources available at each level of the system. Neighborhood libraries provide convenient access to a wide range of information needs for children and adults. They are after-school havens for middle 257 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS school students, the are literacy centers for those who are learning to read. And they are, of course, the traditional lending library, where moms and dads and grandparents can check a how-to book about carpentry or cooking or the latest book discussed on Oprah. But as valuable and as important as neighborhood and regional libraries are, they simply do not have the breadth and depth of resources of the Central Library. The staff at neighborhood libraries routinely refer persons to the Central Library who are seeking information and services that they cannot properly provide at the neighborhood level, and they are able to do that because we have a network of libraries of different levels, with each level making its own unique contribution to the system. Let me put it another way. If we fail to renovate and expand the Central Library, we would be like a health care system that upgraded all of its family practice centers in the neighborhoods but failed to put money into its acute-care hospital. Family practice offices are bright, cheerful, and renovated with the latest 258 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS technology, while the acute-care hospital is overcrowded, trying to provide 21st century health care in a 19th century building. Many ailments can be treated in the family practice office, but not all. One day, the doctor will have to make a referral to the hospital with the specialists and extensive resources. What will the patient find? A hospital with a CAT scan unit in the linen closet, its operating dimly and poorly lighted, its patients' rooms crammed with more people than can be reasonably accommodated. Our Free Library system needs a Central Library that's renovated and expanded. If we put off including money for architecture and engineering services in Fiscal Year 2002's budget, we will delay by at least a year in getting started on forging the last link in the chain that comprises our library system. The Central Library is last, but certainly not the least, of the libraries in our system, and now is the time to begin our unfinished business. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. 259 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS May I add that for Walnut West, which is the area I represent, it's been a long battle and we've had, as you know, many Friends of Walnut West who have fought long and hard --
-- to have the original library renovated. And certainly Mr. Shelkrot's here and he would certainly agree with this, that the initial money -- the design money always comes a year before you actually do it, so those plans have to be made specific, and then you fund it after that. So we do have a commitment from Elliot Shelkrot and the Free Library and certainly the Administration to get it done.
And we thank you for your attention to that matter. Any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
We have three people from Robin Hood Dell East. Al Martin, Edward Burnett, and Yvonne Downey, are you here? We certainly welcome you, all three, since you're from Dell East, and we're very happy to have you testify. All three come up. (Witnesses come forward.)
And I thank you for this opportunity to be amongst this august body.
And to speak in the City Council chambers. To the President and to all of the distinguished members of Council, to the Administration, officers, and special guests of the Council, we have been longtime members of the family of the Dell East, the official advocacy 261 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS board of the Dell East. And my purpose here today is to further acquaint you of the need to bring much-needed capital repairs to an institution within the urban community, the Robin Hood Dell East in East Fairmount Park. Our plight is not new. We have presented to this esteemed Council for the past three years, we have delivered a very refined and exhaustive analysis of existing conditions and long-term and an emergency plan to correct the problems at Dell East. This was a feasibility study of 1998. We are thankful for the assistance we have received by the honorable Councilmen of the 4th and 5th District, Councilman Nutter and Councilman Darrell Clarke. We hope to gain a consensus of the majority maintaining of the Council body to further support these efforts by maintaining and restoring the cultural landmark of the Robin Hood Dell East. We understand the City, through an outside independent consulting firm, has verified our study and concluded the repairs and improvements are essential. We, the family of the Dell East, implore you and ask you to continue to 262 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS assume the lead in providing the resources for a long-term capital restoration plan. Each year for the next five years will bring us closer to the goal of full restoration, providing we keep our eye on the prize. Dell East truly serves this great City of Philadelphia through its wholesome cultural programming by the Department of Recreation. The Dell East season ticket-holders are grateful for the affordable prices and high quality of presentations. The vast patrons of the Dell East would like to see this program flourish and be assured of its continuance as a quality venue for a quality city. Thank you for your individual commitments and we hope to see you at the Essence of Entertainment Series during the summer, or at one of the our classes or symposium at the Dell East Business Institute, now in its fourth semester, held in the fall and spring on the site of the Dell East. I just want to comment on that "keep your eye on the prize." We are a city of neighborhoods, and I'm pretty proud to be involved 263 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS with the Dell East because it was kind of being going down -- through whose fault, I don't know. So we decided to help move it along. And this is one of the institutions that the City of Philadelphia has that all of the neighborhoods gathered, there's not one district that doesn't pass through that gate at the Robin Hood Dell for cultural and entertainment. And my personal vision is to expand this thing and make the facility usable the whole year and to do whatever we can do. And I thank you, and Mr. Burnett may have something to tell you.
The stage floor and the speaker stacks are to be repaired this year as emergency work. That concludes what I have to say.
Your question is whether or not the stage floor and --
Speaker towers? 264 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
Yes. Are they going to be prepared this year as emergency work?
Is there anyone here who can respond to your question? We'll listen to the rest of your testimony and then we'll ask someone to respond.
Thank you very much. Mr. Iffrig, you'll reply for us? Thank you gentlemen.
Thank you very much. Would you identify yourself again for the record, Mr. Iffrig.
Yes. This project will be put out for the stage floor and the speaker towers.
This project is being put 265 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS out now. We have the documents and we're putting it out to bid now.
And you say it's going out -- it's being prepared or going out for bid? I didn't understand you.
It's in the process of being wrapped up to be initiated. That means sent up to the Procurement Department to have it (indiscernible) and signed.
So, gentlemen, it is in the works, it will happen. They're working on the project, and we can see an enhanced Dell East. We thank you both for coming and for bringing it to our attention.
Councilman Nutter? 266 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
Thank you, Councilman Clarke. Mr. Iffrig, with regard to the emergency project that you're talking about, you have all of the dollars that you need or anticipate for whatever this -- the ultimate bid is going to be on this project. What's the estimated cost of this work?
It should be under 200. I don't have the exact number, but the funding is in place.
You're welcome. 267 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
Madam Chair, I'd like to ask Miss Griffith and the Commissioner -- you had a meeting about maybe two, three months ago about this issue, and we actually ended up talking about a broader issue as it relates to the operation end. (Witnesses come forward.)
And potential capital improvement and additions to the Dell. Can you kind of give me an update as to where we are with that?
Certainly. In response to your concerns and others, the Mayor asked the Chief of Staff to pull an inter-agency group together to really focus on some of the longer-term issues here, understanding that the emergency issues will be dealt with in an emergency way. And one of the things that's happened is that we've reached out to a design team to develop a new approach, a different approach that would actually be a not only a longer-term approach but one that we think we can sustain and maintain over time. I believe we have those 268 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS drawings in. There's also, I believe, $500,000 in -- I'm making sure -- I'm looking to make sure I'm right. Right, $500,000 set aside for design once the conceptual work is done and --
It must be a pretty big project. Do we have a sense of -- I mean, where are we going with this?
Maybe I can help shed some light. We were asked to participate in the meeting that you mentioned earlier through one of our City Capital Program Office requirements contracts with the design firm, we had them go out and do an assessment of the facility basically to confirm the assessment that had been done earlier, to make sure the conditions were as we had thought they were. We --
That was the booklet that was submitted by the Friends of the Dell?
Yes, yes. The Capital Program Office funded that assessment and also the 269 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS conceptual drawings as to how the facility could be used, both from a point of view of just fixing it as it is right now and keeping it as it is, as well as looking at an option of reducing the seating capacity and maybe providing some sort of a cover so it could be used --
Well, that was one of the things I believe that came out of the meeting we talked about, which was about the possibility of reducing it from, I believe, 6,000 to 3,000 seats because it wasn't being fully utilized. And by doing that, we could increase the lawn area, so you'd still have the lawn area for outside seating, but also it would create more of an intimate type of a facility and also to --
I don't recall that being discussed in that meeting. I know I got there a little late. Was that at the earlier part 270 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS of the meeting?
Yeah. It was discussed at the meeting with both City Planning and ourselves, and other people as well.
Frankly, I don't remember it being discussed at the meeting. I do remember a range of options being discussed after the meeting, and that was one of the range of options and one of the options that I believe the designers were asked to explore. But I think you're correct, Councilman, I don't think that there was --
All right. Believe it or not, we meet after you leave. (Laughter.)
So we did have a conceptual plan done and looked at for various options as well as some estimated costs. And they are very budgetary numbers at this point in time based on the existing conditions and the various 271 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS options to renovate it. The other thing that we --
Let's focus on the seat reduction 'cause that's -- that's kind of an issue to me because I know when we do have good shows, we tend to sell out, or give out, whatever it may be, and we have people sitting around the perimeter of the Dell because they can't get access, and why we would think about reducing the number of seats, I don't understand that thinking. I mean --
The only thing I can tell you, Councilman, is that was one of the options we were asked to look into, and we did it only as an option. We're not saying one option is preferred over the other; we were just asked to look at it from different viewpoints.
No, we did not. And I can say that we've just recently received some budgetary-type numbers on what the cost would be to do it under different scenarios. I can send that information over to you. 272 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS And the third thing is, we've actually talked to the Recreation Department about what the impact would be from their operation point of view to operate the facility and what they projected their income would be based on the number of performances held per year, saying that in the situation where it's only used for a limited time, as it is right now 'cause it's an open-air facility as opposed to a covered facility that could be used for a longer period of time during the year, and I believe we may have just received those numbers back, but I'm not sure, and I can get that information to you as well.
In the document that was submitted by the Friends of the Dell, I think it spoke of additional work other than the more immediate issues as it related to the stage and the speakers. In this assessment plan, did it speak to those particular issues, the Phase 1, 2, 3, 4 capital needs of the facility?
All of those issues from the original report were considered and looked into, and they were all included in all of the options that we looked at. 273 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS
So when we get our report back, that will be incorporated?
Yes. And I'll be happy to bring a copy of that report over to you and sit down if you'd like me to.
Thank you very much. Are there any more questions for our witnesses? (No questions.)
Commissioner Richard, let me not that we have seen you pretty regularly out there in the community, and we do appreciate all that you are doing, and we've very, very excited about this new computer program at 274 2/7/01 - CAPITAL BUDGET HEARINGS Kingsessing Recreation Center, but we thank you for all you're doing for our city and our recreation centers. Are there any more questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else here today who would like to testify? Anyone else here today? (No response.)
All right. Then this hearing will be recessed until Tuesday, February 13th, at 9 a.m. Thank you all for your patience. (Adjourned at 5:15 p.m.) - - - 275 C E R T I F I C A T E WE HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, February 7, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by us, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO.'S 010001, 010002 ___________________________________, CARMEN J. BUCCA, Professional Reporter __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter