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.