COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET AND PROGRAM - - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:25 a.m. - - - - BILL 050001 - an ordinance to adopt a Capital Budget for the six fiscal years, 2006 through 2011 inclusive. BILL 050002 - an ordinance to adopt a fiscal 2006 Capital Budget. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN TASCO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN - - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X WITNESS MAXINE GRIFFITH, City Planning DIANE REED, Budget Director 22 GARY JASTRZAB, City Planning 26 RICK TUSTIN, Capital Program 27 VIC RICHARD, Recreation 40 PAUL DEEGAN, PIDC 95 FRANCIS JONES, SEPTA 109 JOHN DONAGHY, Managing Director 117 JOAN SCHLOTTERBECK, Pub. Property 124 JOHN DOONER, SEPTA 166 WILLIAM FLEMING, Free Library 168 CHARLES TRAINER, Streets 177 CALVIN DAVENGER, Aviation 212 MARK GALE, Aviation 230 3 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding our Capital Program and Capital Budget. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the titles of Bill Nos. 050001 and 050002.
Bill No. 050001, an ordinance to adopt a Capital Budget for the six fiscal years, 2006 through 2011 inclusive. Bill No. 050002, an ordinance to adopt a fiscal 2006 Capital Budget.
Thank you. At this time I would like to acknowledge 10 members of Parliament from Tanzia. If they would stand. Welcome. (Applause.)
I would also like to announce that we will be recessing at 12 noon today because it's my understanding that many Members and Members of the Administration would like to go to the Chamber of Commerce luncheon. We will come 4 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET back and resume hearings at 2 o'clock. With that being said, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call our first witness.
I believe everyone has copies of the testimony. Good morning. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President Verna and honored Members of City Council. I am Maxine Griffith, Executive Director of the City Planning Commission and Secretary for Strategic Planning. I am pleased to be here this morning to present for your review and consideration the City Planning Commission's recommended FY 2006 to FY 2011 Capital Program and FY 2006 Capital Budget. A primary Home Rule Charter mandated responsibility of the City Planning Commission to prepare and submit to the Mayor a 5 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET recommended Capital Program and Budget. As you know, this recommended Capital Program and Budget is the Administration's proposed Six Year Plan for investing in the City's public buildings, community facilities and physical infrastructure. The investment plan recommended in this Capital Program supports numerous municipal government priorities. Among these are growing the City's economy, modernizing our physical infrastructure; making improvements to the City's neighborhoods and the quality of life of its citizens; improving conditions related to public health and safety; increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations; and supporting the preservation and renovation of our civic assets, like City Hall and the Philadelphia Museum of Art and other cultural monuments. This year we are recommending an especially lean and efficient spending plan that makes the most effective use of the City's severely constrained resources. This 6 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET is an austere, but comprehensive Capital Program that strategically allocates our limited resources so as to preserve the City's ability to deliver essential public services. City tax-supported funding in the budget year is recommended at a level slightly less than that program for last year. General Obligation Bond funding is reduced in the out years of the Capital Program as the City approaches its Constitutional debt limit. This recommended level of spending is only minimally sufficient to maintain municipal facilities. The City's capital bond limit, set by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, will continue to impact our ability to fully fund needed facility and infrastructure improvements over the life of this Capital Program. As a result, we are again recommended funding for only the most critical renovations of City facilities. 2 billion over a six-year period to renew the City's extensive 7 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET infrastructure and public facilities. The City Planning Commission has recommended funding projects in the areas of economic development, infrastructure, government efficiency, health and safety, civic assets and community facilities. Implementing these projects will continue our efforts to make Philadelphia a great place to live, work and visit, even in this time of decreasing resources. 3 million. 1 million will be provided by new General Obligation Bonds issued by the City of Philadelphia to be repaid from the City's general tax revenues. 6 million will come from other City revenues. 4 million of a total budget year funds. 7 million in the budget year. 5 million of FY 2006 funding will be provided by private sources. My testimony will focus on FY 2006, the budget year of the Capital Program, since it is budget year funding that will become actual appropriations. The projects and priorities for the subsequent five years of the Capital Program represents planned spending based on our best estimates of future needs of our City. The funds in the recommended FY 2006 Capital Budget are divided into six broad use categories. 7 million budgeted for projects that support growth of the City's economy. Infrastructure is the next largest allocation, with $252 million budgeted for the fiscal infrastructural improvements. million. 7 million allocated for health and safety improvements. million budgeted for civic asset projects. million targeted to community facilities.
When only new City tax-supported dollars for FY 2006 are considered, the shares of recommended funding amongst these use categories changed somewhat. This is because projects in some use categories, namely economic development and neighborhood infrastructure, leverage large amounts of federal and state funding, thereby raising their overall funding totals. Other categories, such as government efficiency and community facilities, do not have such federal and state matching funds, and these projects are funded from City dollars alone. So when only new City GO funding is considered, infrastructure projects account for the largest share of the recommended spending, with 37 percent of FY 2006, total 10 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET $22 million. This is followed by government efficiency projects at percent. Civic 4 assets and community facilities projects at 16 5 percent. Health and safety and economic 6 development projects at 3 percent. 7 I will now provide some detail about 8 the recommended projects in each one of these 9 categories. 10 Capital investment and economic 11 development category aims to retain and 12 attract business, provide jobs for residents 13 and support neighborhood-based job creation 14 employment centers, such as neighborhood 15 industrial districts. Projects at the City's 16 airports, as well as those that support major, 17 new commercial industrial port-related and 18 hospitality industry development fall into 19 this category. 7 million is 21 recommended for economic development projects. 22 An ambitious improvement program continues at 23 Philadelphia International Airport to ensure 24 that this facility meets world class 25 standards. More than $112 million of 11 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET self-sustaining funds matched by nearly $139 million federal and private funds are recommended for airport improvements in FY 2006. Funds will be used for airport expansion, increasing air field capacity, improving runways and modernizing and expanding terminal buildings. An additional $775,000 of self-sustaining funding is recommended for air field and facility improvements at the Northeast Philadelphia airport. Continued funding to support development in both the City's older industrial areas and newer industrial parks is also recommended in FY 2006. In City-managed industrial parks, existing revolving funds are recommended for land acquisition and associated improvements. 3 million is recommended for Navy Yard infrastructure improvements, using a combination of City, state and federal funding. Infrastructure projects focus on improvements to transit stations and other SEPTA facilities, street reconstruction and 12 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET resurfacing, street signage and traffic control improvements. The replacement of water and sewer mains is also included as infrastructure projects, as they are essential services to neighborhoods and their residents. A total of $252 million is recommended for infrastructure projects in FY 2006. Continued improvement to neighborhood commercial centers are recommended, with $1 million in City tax-supported funds for sight improvements, curb sidewalks, street trees, lighting and public parking. These improvements, as part as of a program of comprehensive neighborhood and commercial district plans, are intended to attract and leverage other investments in retail and residential projects. 1 million is recommended for neighborhood street reconstruction and resurfacing, bridge reconstruction, traffic control and street lighting improvements and school and pedestrian crossing signs. City funds for 13 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET these projects will be matched by nearly $30 million in state and federal funds. 6 million in self-sustaining funds recommended for these projects.
3 million in other government funds is recommended for transit infrastructure improvements, including Market Street Elevated reconstruction, ADA accessibility compliance and the new Frankford Transportation Center. Government efficiency projects promote government operating efficiencies and provide for a more effective service delivery. Projects include communication system improvements, database and computer-related initiatives and energy conservation programs. Also included are facility assessment studies, improvements to departments' headquarters buildings and the modernization of operational 14 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET buildings. 2 million is recommended for government efficiency projects. Recommended projects include $9 million for improvements in the communication and dispatch system used by Police and Fire Departments. 5 million is recommended to continue the development of an integrated database to coordinate the efforts of several City departments in providing social services to families and children. Another $2 million is for critical renovation and improvements at City-owned sites. Budget year funding of $1 million is recommended for the Mayor's Office of Information Services for the Business and Information Continuity Recovery Project to avert disruptions to the City's computer operations. Funding is also recommended to update the City's digital and area photography and topographic information systems for City-wide mapping purposes. 2 million is recommended for building and facility improvements, as well as substantial investment in improving the City's communication system. The Municipal Energy Office continues its efforts to make the City's use of energy more efficient through the Green Lights and Energy Star Programs. In FY 2006, $500,000 is recommended for lighting and mechanical system upgrades at facilities throughout the City. More than $23 million in self-sustaining funds is recommended for the Water Department for engineering, administration and acquisition of needed vehicles. Health and safety projects promote overall improvements in public health safety and welfare. Examples include projects related to the City's water plans, asbestos abatement and life safety improvements in public buildings, environmental remediation and structural improvements at City shelters 16 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET and prison facilities. ADA accessibility modifications are also included in this category. 7 million is recommended for health and safety programs in FY 2006. Projects include $500,000 in new tax supported funds for mechanical and interior renovations in City shelters and Riverview Home, the City's residential facility for indigent elderly. Additionally, $500,000 is recommended for prison system improvements related to security, mechanical and electrical systems. The FY 2006 budget recommends $42 million in self-sustaining funds for improvements to water and waste water treatment facilities. Additionally, for City-wide environmental remediation, $200,000 is recommended for the Commerce Department and for equipment and renovations to the Philadelphia Nursing Home. 9 million in City operating funds are recommended for the Health Department. 17 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Fleet Management, $800,000 in state and City funds are recommended for fuel tank replacement and associated remediation. Civic asset projects contribute to the livability of the City as a whole, as well as to the City's reputation as a destination for tourists and visitors. Examples are the Art Museum, Penns Landing, Fairmount Park and zoo projects. The rehabilitation of City Hall and the Central Library are also considered civic asset projects. 3 million is recommended for these projects in FY 2006. Funding totaling $5 million for City Hall in FY 2006 is recommended to allow continued roof repairs and exterior restoration, as well as improvements to interior heating and cooling systems.
An additional $20 million is programmed for this project through FY 2011. At the Philadelphia Museum of Art, $465,000 is recommended for interior and exterior improvements. $400,000 is recommended for infrastructure improvements at 18 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET the zoo. 1 million of City funding is recommended for improvements to historic structures, utilities, drainage, landscaping, foot ways, stables and parking areas. For the Commerce Department, $750,000 is recommended for improvements along the Delaware River at Penns Landing and for the title Schuylkill Riverfront. $500,000 in state matching funds are recommended for the Schuylkill River Park project as well. Continued improvements will be made to Suburban Station and concourses, including ADA accessibility compliance. More than $15 million is recommended for this project, of which $364,000 is the City's match to federal funding. Community facilities projects include the renewal of facilities serving residential communities that are consistent with the City's neighborhood revitalization objectives. These include branch libraries, neighborhood parks and recreation facilities, police and fire stations, neighborhood health 19 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET centers and other projects that serve Philadelphia neighborhoods. 4 million is recommended for community facilities projects in FY 2006. In the Recreation Department, nearly $5 million in City funds are recommended for the renovation of playgrounds, basketball and tennis courts, lighting and needed repairs for recreation facilities' roofs, heating and safety systems and other code compliance issues. Through a $1 million Commonwealth of Pennsylvania grant matched by City funds, additional neighborhood playgrounds and recreation centers are recommended for renovation. The Fairmount Park Commission will continue to renovate and restore grounds and athletic facilities, many of which serve City neighborhoods. Budget year funding totaling $550,000 is recommended for improvements at Hunting Park, Tacony Park and other sites, as well as for park and street trees throughout the City. The Free Library continues its 20 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET program of branch library rehabilitation using a combination of public and private funding. In FY 2006, City funding totaling $600,000 is recommended for boiler and HVAC systems, as well as exterior and interior renovations at several branches. The Health Department will continue to upgrade its neighborhood health facilities with recommended funding of $500,000 in FY 2006. HVAC and other building improvements will be made at multiple health centers and other facilities. The Fire Department will continue major investments to improve working conditions for its personnel and to ensure the continued operational effectiveness of its stations. 3 million recommended for heating ventilation and air conditioning, as well as electrical systems. Funding is also recommended for interior and exterior improvements at police stations. In conclusion, let me say that this 21 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET recommended Capital Program and Budget strategically allocates our very limited resources to ensure the City's ability to deliver needed public services. It also provides for the kind of investment in Philadelphia's physical infrastructure that is critical to our City's economic health and growth. The prudent stewardship of Philadelphia's built and natural environments demand that we continue to invest in their improvements and that we continue to seek the resources that will enable us to do so. With that, I end my testimony. Of course, we'll take any questions you might have. If I may, let me introduce my partner, Diane Reed, the Budget Director, who will also be available, and Gary Jastrzab, who also coordinates the Capital Program and budget for the City Planning Commission.
Thank you very much. I note that there are a number of Councilmembers that want to be recognized. 22 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET For the first go around, each Councilmember will be given five minutes. I'd like to start out by asking a question or two. Ms. Griffith, City Council amended the FY '05 Capital Budget by increasing the amount of funding for the Recreation Department for improvements to existing facilities by $7 million. Can you tell us the status of these funds?
I will also ask the Budget Director to respond as well. She may have later information. But it's my understanding that the status of the $7 million is being evaluated in light of Recreation Department needs. I don't know if, Diane, whether you had anything to add.
Diane Reed, Budget Director. 23 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET No. That covers my understanding as well.
Does that mean it will be spent if the need is there? What does that mean, you're evaluating? We passed this in July.
I think that there probably will need to be further conversations with Council regarding this matter.
Perhaps City Planning could tell us how much is being recommended for Recreation in FY '06 for each of the 10 districts. How much is being allocated for each Councilmatic district for Recreation?
There are $31.7 million all together, of which $19.1 million is designated in unspent and $12.6 million is undesignated.
I think I'm asking about '06. What amount is 24 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET earmarked for each Councilmatic district for the Recreation Department?
There is $4 million all together. So that would be $400,000 per district. Correct?
How much is it? How much? I want the record to be very clear.
The historic trend? I find it very difficult to hear you. I think you have to pull the microphone closer. I believe the trend has been $1.2 million. 25 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
There was an additional allocation that Council passed, I understand, from in last year's budget. However, $400,000 per district is what I understand. This was received information on my part -- since I'm new -- as the appropriate amount.
If I can interject. I think perhaps the trend that Diane speaks of is simply the decreasing amount of capital funds overall and trying to bring this traditional funding in line with the decrease in capital funding total for the City. As you know, Madam Council President, based on our analysis we probably have about half the capital funding we need for a City of this size. So across the board we have looked at decreases in traditional amounts of funding provided for a whole variety of projects, including those projects brought to us by the agencies. It was determined looking at that decreased amount, that, frankly, in fairness, we would hope that the Council would feel comfortable with a decreased amount of funding 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET in the traditional ITEF funds. But you're absolutely right. This is less money than is traditionally provided per Councilperson.
Yes. I believe the trend was $1.2 million per district.
I would say that was the historic and traditional amount. Then as of last year we were asked to take another look at that again in proportion to this decrease in capital funding that started several years ago, but has only been reflected in our recommended ITEF amounts as of last year.
Ms. Griffith, when did the Planning Commission approve the Capital Budget and Capital Program?
Gary Jastrzab. The City Planning Commission approved the recommended capital at our January Commission meeting. I believe it was the 15th of January. I'm not absolutely certain of that date, but it was our January 27 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET meeting.
Thank you. I believe that it was in the FY '04 Capital Budget that funding was secured in the amount of $377,000 in the Capital Project Office for a facility assessment study. Can you tell us the status of that study, please?
I would ask a representative of CPO to come to the microphone.
I believe that was specifically for the Recreation Department.
Good morning, Council President and Members of the City Council. My name is Rick Tustin.
I am the Director of the City's Capital Program Office. To answer your question, the Capital Program Office hired two design consultants to 28 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET go out. We have started that assessment of all of the City recreation facilities. We are initially focussing on the class A and the class B facilities. There's a little over a hundred of those facilities. I actually have a sample of the draft report that we've received as a typical for what we'll get for each one of those facilities. We should have all those completed by May, at which point in time we can break down the reports by Council district. We will have a summary report, which we'll roll all of those up in a spreadsheet. The recommendations that are in that report will be broken down by priority. In other words, a number six priority would be -- as an example, the number six priority could be that the roof is failing and you need to replace that within the next 12 months. A number one priority at the low end of the scale would be something like, everything is fine with this. You should get another 10 years of useful life out of this item. Maybe 29 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET that's walkways or maybe it's a gym. But for each facility we'll have a prioritized list of improvements that should be made and that will all be rolled up into one summary sheet. Again, we can break that down by Council district. We think it's going to be invaluable going forward in working with the City Planning Commission and putting recommendations together for spending for the Recreation Budget Office, as well as working with Members of City Council and the funding that they get through the Capital Budget.
So you're indicating that in May the study will be completed. Will there be enough money in the budget to address many of the issues that the study will say are in dire need of repair?
Well, until I have the information from the reports, I won't know exactly what that number should be.
Well, again, I don't know what that number will be. 30 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET In the one sample report that I received -- I actually have it here -- it was for, I believe, Waterview Recreation Center. It was surprisingly good, as far as the condition of the facility. There were one or two recommendations being made of things we should look into improving, but overall it was in relatively good shape.
Is that a relatively new recreation center that they found to be in such wonderful condition?
It's Water Tower, not Waterview. I apologize. Again, I have a sample report here that basically goes into some level of detail. It covers things like the roof, exterior walls, heating systems, interior finishes, exterior building lighting, courts, field lighting, outdoor field and courts, pools, electrical power distribution, 31 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET telecommunications, plumbing, air conditioning. All of those things were looked at as part of the review. That's just a sample. I could go on and on.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a point of information.
Thank you, Madam President. I apologize. I've been waiting, but I just can't wait any longer. The evaluation you're speaking about, Mr. Tustin, does this have any relevance to the $7 million that the Council President raised earlier? Is that part of why the $7 million has not yet been spent?
If I can finish my answer. We moved to do the assessment based on the funding that was made available a year ago to do specifically this. That's why we 32 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET did it. That was well before the issue over the $7 million even came up. What we're doing here, as far as I'm concerned, has no 5 relationship to it.
Well, obviously in prioritizing need and in looking at the funding for that need, these evaluations would be very helpful. I think the question you're asking is, is there a specific release tie based on this evaluation. And given the timing of both the budget and the evaluation, I think perhaps the evaluations will be able to inform the conversation around the analysis.
But the $7 million, I think either you or someone testified, was back in July when we did the budget?
Here we are eight months later, something like that, and there's been no discussion. I think someone said that you're intending to meet with Council to discuss 33 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET these things. At least, no one has contacted me. I don't know about the other Councilmembers. If we weren't having these hearings today, when would we expect to hear from someone about what the status of the $7 million is and how it may affect or impact our districts?
I take your question, Councilman, and I understand your concern. All I can say is, at this point, the evaluation process is ongoing, not just by the Planning Commission, it's a broader evaluation. I can try to get you additional information.
I just thought that it would be helpful to everyone if during this evaluation process, that the individual district Councilpeople were part of that evaluation. I understand physical needs of buildings, and that's your role, and I appreciate that, but there are other issues involving communities where, we as district Councilpeople, are being requested all the 34 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET time about doing tot lots, redoing tot lots. I would think it would be in all of our interests to involve us and engage us from the beginning, at the onset, rather than come to us with something and then we may have to start looking to move that money around from one center to a different center based on its needs.
Councilman, I concur. As a matter of fact, I think where this process may be moving is more collaboration and more consultation, more involvement of Council to direct funds jointly towards a prioritized list if we can agree on priorities. You asked earlier, Madam President, whether there would be enough funds to cover everything that came up. I think Mr. Tustin responded appropriately. We are committed to any health and safety concerns that come out of this evaluation process. That would be the first priority, as it has been across the board in our recreation facilities.
I'll end with 35 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET this. I apologize. Does the Administration intend to spend this money?
It's my understanding, especially given the lack of resources, that this funding will be spent. The analysis has to do with exactly how those expenditures will be made, in what consultation framework and how the expenditures will be prioritized.
I don't want to sound like a broken record. But I think it would have been very helpful to meet with us early on. I got calls from various folks in the Department of Recreation about, would I be willing to look at possibly selling any of the rec centers in my district and converting pools into water parks. I've done all of that because I thought it was something I was supposed to be doing and I wanted to engage myself. Here it is that we're getting our Capital Budget slashed by $700,000 annually and there's been no communication with us on the $7 million that's sitting out there, which 36 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET my math says that $700,000 would restore the districts to the $1.2 million. 4
My dad was a 7 numbers writer so I had to think with 8 mathematics. He's deceased. 9 And your dad used to lock him up 10 occasionally.
He did. He did, actually, on two occasions. Back in the middle '50s. I mean, those numbers, it's like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. It's the shell game. I don't mean that to be disrespectful. I just don't get it at this late stage in the game that we have not at least come to some agreement or discussion, at the very least, about where this money is and where it may come from and whether or not we're going to get it in the first place.
Councilman, the only thing I can say is that the game is not over 37 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET yet. I will certainly take your concerns and --
You're welcome. Would it be possible for us to know before we conclude the Capital Budget process about where we're going regarding the $7 million?
I think that is a possibility, Madam Council President, and I will certainly convey your concerns. If I can get back to you with that answer I certainly will.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. In your testimony on , you say 38 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET that the Recreation Department, $5 million is recommended for the $4 million. Does that $5 million include the $4 million set aside for district Councilpeople or is this an additional $5 million?
Let me take a look at the testimony. I just want to check the wording. It's my belief that that's the same $5 million that we've been talking about, but let me check the wording to make sure. It is the same $5 million.
Okay. How do you determine what you use dollars that are not allocated to the Councilperson for other needs at a recreation facility? Is there a collaboration every time you're going to do a baseball field or a basketball field or a roof? Did you come to the district Councilperson and say, we need the money for the roof or do you have a certain amount of 39 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET money allocated for the roof?
I'm going to ask Commissioner Richard to come to the mike. But it's my understanding that in the past, there has been extensive collaboration and consultation with Councilmembers as the Recreation Department moves forward to expend funds. In some cases, frankly, the expenditure of funds is at the request of the Councilperson. The Councilperson may point out a deficiency of which the agency was not aware. And just to go back to that analysis, that's one of the things that we're looking at. We're all moving towards the same objective with less money. And we're struggling with a way through consultation and collaboration to target these monies in a way that is consistent with the Administration's goals and the Councilperson's goals. Back to those non-discretionary funds. They are put in broad categories, and then as the need arises, if it's not an emergency or something isn't falling in the 40 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET middle of the night, it's my understanding that Councilmembers and their staffs are consulted. He's not hiding. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Good morning.
Did you hear my question? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Do you mind repeating it, please?
I'm trying to sort out what do we determine, as district Councilmembers, when we spend our money on the direct sites we determine and what monies you use to provide service and repair that's not part of the district money? Is it the CPO office that makes the determination of when someone needs to contact a district Councilperson about a facility? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: For the record, Vic Richard, Department of Recreation Commissioner. Good morning, everyone. First thing I'd like to put on record is that we need more money. Number one, we don't have enough, which we all know 41 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET that. Yes, there is a collaboration. There's a lot of innovative things that we've been doing in the last four years. I'll give a couple of examples, if I'm allowed to. Some of the first things we have to look at is the age of the facility and the architecture and the type of materials that it was built with. A lot of the facilities may be 80 years old. I want to say we have approximately about four or five of them that I can name off the top of my head that we're evaluating right now to make sound business decisions, instead of investing low to mid seven figures in them to totally demolish them and rebuild them at today's standards, which we could get another 30, 40 years of life instead of continuing the piece meal. That's one example. Another example that we've been looking at is when our big HVAC systems go out, it's the habit of the Capital Programs Division to use those monies to buy the new heating system or air condition system and using our in-house City employees to actually 42 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET do the install. So what we're doing is we're accelerating the process. We're using the tax dollars properly, but also we're saving anywhere from $40, $60, $70,000 on the installation fee. So those are some of the things that we've been doing in the last few years to make a difference.
But my question is -- for instance, a rec center needs an air conditioning system. Do you make the decision to spend the dollars for the air conditioning system? Does the Capital Programs Office make that decision or do you make that decision with the district Councilperson? We have so many dollars assigned to the district Councilpeople. Then you have discretionary funds. I'm just trying to figure out how the decision is made on what funds to spend and whether it's discretionary or whether you go to the district Councilperson. Who makes that decision? Do you make it or does it come out of the Capital Programs Office? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I have a lot 43 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET of input in it. The communications with the district Councilmember is critical, mainly because I don't have the money within my budget. So it's either in the City Council budget or the discretionary emergency funds or in the Capital Budget. So it's more of a reactionary piece, especially if a heating system goes out in the middle of the winter or right before winter. Yes, we're all in the middle of it. Normally myself or either one of my deputies may pick up the phone and call that individual Councilmember and say, look, I'm sorry. You may get some calls. The center is going to be down for X amount of days. The heating system went out. We're approximately on a seven-day delivery cycle. In a two-day cycle I have it reinstalled. And I use that as one example. But I have to work and communicate with everyone above, and even more so if we're going to disrupt services in that community.
Point of 44 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET information from Councilman Rizzo.
Did I hear you say that you don't have money budgeted for emergencies? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: No, I didn't say that. I said that I don't have it in my immediate budget. The emergency funding is in the Capital Project's budget for those things. It's just a matter of us saying, hey, we have an emergency, and then the process immediately begins.
So you have normal replacement of HVAC equipment, as an example, as part of your management expect a life expectancy, that money is budgeted through Capital Programs. But if you have a significant system go down, a pool break or something like that, you're beholden to Capital Programs?
If I can interject. We are all part of one Administration. So it's not as if the Commissioner has to go hat in hand or petition or write a letter. It's just a matter of where the funds are placed. 45 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Because emergency funds could be used for a wide range of things and because you can't predict what the emergency is going to be, I believe the decision was to put it centrally. But in responding to the Councilwoman's question, I think the answer is that at this point for very logical and rational reasons, Recreation always consults, or if it's an emergency, at least informs the Councilperson.
My question wasn't about the communication with the Councilperson. I'll come back when it's my turn. This is just a point of information. Because I want to use another example of an elevator that's been broken for two months that Public Property had to come to Capital Programs to get it fixed. But my point being is you would think that a Commissioner would have some money budgeted to take on a emergency repair without the bureaucracy of going to Capital Programs. That's why things don't get done around here.
Well, just to play 46 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET devil's advocate --
You don't have to play devil's advocate. I'll just tell you some real stories.
But what I'm saying is, if for whatever reason there are not a lot of emergencies in Recreation, but there are in Public Property, then the bureaucracy would have to Public Property trying to get a transfer ordinance. Because these are things that you can't foresee, there's going to be some difficulty, there's going to be some need to probably transfer funds, and we do come periodically --
I'll pursue that when it's my turn. Again, there's a lot of examples. If I were a commissioner it would be very difficult, I think, to operate the way we operate. I'll come back at you with that one. Thanks, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman 47 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Ms. Griffith and everyone else at the table. In your testimony you talk about some broad categories of investment. Just about every one of those categories, economic development, neighborhood infrastructure, civic assets, community facilities, all involve in some way or another parking. What type of coordination interface teaming has the City Planning Office or the City itself done with the Parking Authority? In light of what you discussed in your budget testimony, dwindling resources that are available, you would think that the Parking Authority, with its revenue stream, with its ability to borrow money and to be involved in economic development projects that deal with parking, and looking at some of the stuff that's coming down the road relative to the Barns and the Art Museum, what type of cooperation or coordination is there? 48 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
If I can answer the question a little differently with my City Planning hat on. As you may know, we are presently in the midst of a fairly comprehensive parking study.
Not to interrupt you, but that's exactly one of my concerns. Why would we have a Parking Authority with money and then go out and hire a parking planning group to study what the Parking Authority probably would be willing to pay for, if we asked?
Well, with all due respect, what we're looking for is an objective view across the board, not only with regard to that which is in the Parking 49 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Authority's purview, but also issues of accessibility, of pedestrian and vehicular circulation -
Objectivity I don't think is at issue if the Parking Authority would be willing to pay for the study. You can hire the same objective consultant to give you what you need. If you're going to do a parking study, wouldn't you naturally look at the Parking Authority? It's got the word parking in it. They have money to do these things, and we're spending money with dwindling resources and not coordinating with them for whatever reason. You can continue with your answer, but I'd like you to get to the other planning with the bigger projects.
Well, two things. One, in this case it wasn't City money. We were lucky to get a grant from DVRPC, so we frankly did not have to spend City money. Also in terms of the Parking Authority and coordination with them, I believe that the Commerce Director on a 50 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET regular basis does reach out and coordinate. Our findings will be shared in that manner and using that vehicle if we come to some conclusions.
One of the integral components of all these projects is where do people put their cars when they come to visit these facilities or these events.
Well, the consultants have been asked and are reaching out to the Parking Authority to get their input. There's no bright line or barrier in communication.
Has your office coordinated at all with the Parking Authority on any of these projects that you're asking us to fund?
Sit down at a table with them when you're going through your planning and say, how can you play a role in helping us defray some of these costs and also coordinate the overall parking strategy of the City into our civic infrastructure? 51 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
We certainly have been coordinating with regard to coming out with a parking strategy. As I mentioned, in part of the scope of services that we dictated for the consultants, input, coordination with the Parking Authority is a major component and also simply understanding what their approach was.
If I had an authority with that type of money and that type of ability to borrow in addition to what we're borrowing, to me, I'd be at the table with them on every deal. It would make sense for us to be able to save some of the money to put into rec centers and health centers and street infrastructure if we could get them to bear some of the burden of this responsibility.
One other question on parking. Are we planning on selling the garage under the Love Park? Do you know of any plan to sell that garage? 52 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
That building is one of several that has been identified for sale. We had planned to sell it in this fiscal year. We are waiting to receive an appraisal for the value of the building.
What's the process for the sale? How would it go forward?
The process of the sale would be for PIDC to handle bids for the property.
Going back again to the Parking Authority, would it make sense to give the Parking Authority right of first refusal?
Would it make sense to give the Parking Authority right of first refusal when it comes to the purchase of garages or parking spaces? I say this for this reason: 53 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET One of the problems that the City has in attracting visitors and other types of events is the parking structure of the parking fees that you have to pay to come into the City. If you come into the City for an hour or two, you wind up spending an exorbitant amount of money to park in our private lots. One of the ways other cities -- and the way this City really should have been doing -- is to use public parking through the Parking Authority as a way to regulate the cost of parking in the City. To sell a City-owned lot to a private owner does nothing to help regulate those prices, but simply continues to monopolize the ability for private operators to charge what they want. If I have a Parking Authority facility next to two privately-owned facilities, the Parking Authority, through its government function, is able to regulate the cost of that parking by charging a rate that they need to compete with. By turning over parking facilities to private entities -- which are legitimate businesses in the City 54 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET and they're great people -- it does nothing to help regulate the cost of coming to the City to visit. What would be wrong with giving the Parking Authority right of first refusal on the sale of any City-owned parking facility?
Well, our principle is not with respect to parking garages only, but all buildings that we have for sale. Our principle is to get the market value for that property, and we at this time would not give the Parking Authority right of first refusal --
We've already received an offer from them, which was not, we think, likely to be fair market value. That's why we're getting an appraisal and waiting to see all of the bids we will receive.
But do you agree 55 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET or not? Planning is part of this whole function here, that parking rates in the City are a deterrent to people visiting here, and the reason why parking rates are as high as they are is there's really no government competition for them. Is that part of the study too?
We actually believe in study and analysis. Yes, Councilman. We expect that study to be completed --
Well, those things are not really linked. I think as the Budget Director said, the approach to the sale of the City assets is to maximize --
I understand that level. But it's also important to maximize the City's attractiveness in an environment and in an economy that deals specifically with tourism, hospitality and events where people come in and drive. If we're doing all this investing, but it's $25 56 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET to park your car, you're not going to get a lot of people coming here. Don't we have to take that into account when we're doing asset sales?
That's why we are doing the study. I should mention, just for the record, that we hope with the good Offices of the Commerce Director that that study will be augmented so that we can take into account the parking needs of the Barns and the expanded library and the other Parkway institutions and do something that's really comprehensive and will stand to guide us for 15 to 20 years.
But just imagine what an asset it would be to have a government authority cooperating with the design and building of a parking facility for an attractive facility like the Barns, to be able to use their equity or their value to keep the price of the taxpayer low, or as low as possible, as opposed to maybe you having to do a TIF for a private developer that's going to come in and ask to build a garage. 57 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Councilman, your time is up. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco for a point of information.
Before we leave that thought, I think the point -- and I agree with Councilman Kenney -- and what I hear you saying, Ms. Reed, is that you're thinking about you've got to sell the garage. I think if the study comes back and answers the question that it's better to have the public to public parking and then you've sold the other garage, it makes sense to wait until the study is done before you move to sell anything so that you can see what you're really actually doing. I don't think that point should be lost. You have a study in progress to figure out what's the best way to deal with this. I just think that would be unwise move.
It just so happens -- 58 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET and I'm not going to pretend that this was done for the reasons that you've just stated -- but given the timetable of the sale and the need to get an appraisal and given the timetable of the study, it is likely that the study will be completed and that the finance side of the house will have that information to inform them. I don't think there's any promise that that will be the guide. We're still a City dealing with very scarce resources and maximizing what we get for these City assets is going to be very important. But they will have the results of the study to inform the decision they make.
Wouldn't the sale of that garage have to come before City Council?
For the record. Point of information, Mr. Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam 59 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET President. It's hard for me to believe that we would even consider selling something without an appraisal first. That's kind of like only government would do that.
Well, I heard you say somebody decided we better get an appraisal. If I misunderstood, I apologize. I think we got it backwards around here. We have a garage. We tie up hundreds and hundreds of parking spots around Center City for City vehicles. Why don't part of the study get the City cars, which are fewer and fewer, off the street, put meters and get revenue? Why aren't we using the garage the way it was designed, to park City vehicles in it? It's mind boggling to me that we tie all of this parking in Center City and we have a garage that I think we have 50 spaces and could get all of those cars off the street. It's a City garage. It should be used to park 60 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET City vehicles. That's something that I hope is included in the study. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Councilwoman Blackwell is next. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I have many questions, but I would really like to ask about SEPTA. I don't know who would respond in that regard. As you know, I represent the majority of the Market Street El Redevelopment Project that goes from 46th Street to Milbourne. So I represent 46th to 60th, and my colleague, Councilman Nutter, has the upper end, especially 62nd and Milbourne. I really wanted to ask, they have here that $4.5 million is allocated for SEPTA, with $147 million in other government funds. I wonder if somebody can break that down and tell me how that affects the Market Street El Redevelopment Project. 61 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Gary Jastrzap not only coordinates our Capital Program, but in his spare time he also coordinates our transportation and transit, along with the Office of Strategic Planning, so I'm going to give him the first pass and then see whether there might be others who can also respond.
Overall for transit purposes, just considering Fiscal Year 2006, the recommended amount of City funds is $4,943,000.
In the budget year, Fiscal Year 2006, is recommended for $167,502,000. Of that total, $4,943,000 is the City contribution. The remainder is leveraged from the federal government, which is the largest proportion, $123.7 million. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, $38.2 million, and other government contributions totaling about $600,000. The Market Street El Reconstruction Project has been and continues to be 62 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET recommended for funding in this budget year. And the first three years of the program, Fiscal Year 2006 being the budget year, 2007, 2008 and 2009. So there is City money that is being contributed to that very expensive program.
We see here that it's $4.5 million. We want to know how that's intended to be used. Do you have that detail?
Well, that $4.9 million is actually divided up among several different transit-related projects, only one of which is the Market Street Elevated Reconstruction Program. There are other projects such as Broad Street Subway signals, system modification, various other infrastructure-related projects which also receive City contributions. Those specific amounts are detailed in the recommended Capital Program publication.
Can you tell me how much is allocated for the Market Street El Redevelopment Project? 63 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Overall including the budget year and the Capital Program, the City contribution is $10.2 million. Federal government provides $250.3 million. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, $52.l million, and other government, $167,000. So those are the component parts of that particular project. I don't have the sum of those amounts in front of me. But it's on the order of $310 million.
And that, I think you understand, Councilwoman, is for the Five-Year Plan. It's not for this year. Do you want to break that down?
Sure. The recommended amount for the budget year, Fiscal 2006, the total is approximately $90 million roughly, of which $2.9 million is the City contribution, $72 million is the federal contribution, $15 million for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and $100,000 from other governments.
So you're saying the Market Street El project for '06 64 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET should get $2.9 million from the City?
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. I have a point of information on Councilwoman Blackwell's question. I'll just role it into my questioning. I find your plan for investment in transportation infrastructure curious because it does not address -- or maybe it does address -- the fact that our lease with SEPTA is up at the end of this year. Does your planning in terms of that infrastructure investment assume that lease under the current conditions? Or what does it assume?
Why does it do that? 65 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
It's really, I would say, a construct because one has to make some assumption to move forward. It does not mean that the door is closed on conversations or that City government is not in dialog around how we should proceed. Planning is not the lead in that, however.
The question is, are we actually having conversations about the lease expiring? And whether Planning is taking the lead or not, is Planning involved at all in that?
What is your assumption what will happen? For instance, depending on how you read the lease agreement, in the end, if we were to sever in some way, could sever in some way, we actually may not own the Market Street El West. In fact, the way the lease reads, we own the Frankford side, but not the Market Street side. So why would we be investing in infrastructure on the Market Street side if what we own is the Frankford side? 66 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET I hear what you're saying. You don't assume that anything is going to change the lease. But I don't understand how a lease that was done in the '60s and will expire this year, which has continued, and that planning in terms of infrastructure that we actually own and could benefit from ownership of is just being seen as business as usual, for lack of a better way of putting it.
Are you looking for a status on where the City is in terms of its thinking in regard to the lease?
I'm wondering whether the City is doing anything with regard to the lease. We're talking about selling assets, but we're not talking about handling assets that we already have. There's a bill in the state legislature that deals with marketing rights, but the truth of the matter is that's money that should be possibly coming to the City if we take control of our own infrastructure at the end of the year, as opposed to money that will just go into SEPTA. 67 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
The Law Department is taking the lead along with Finance, but it's primarily Law taking the lead in vetting through the issues around the lease. The issues are as you described them. What I'll try to do before the close of this hearing, if you would like, is get a representative from Law. I don't want to misspeak here.
What I'd actually like through the Chair is a written update of where the negotiations of the lease are.
Thank you. A second question. I want to get this in quickly. You have $1 million budgeted for neighborhood commercial centers. Because that's very close to my heart, I've noticed since the year 2000 you've always had $1 million budgeted for neighborhood commercial centers. Through the Six-Year Plan, up until 2011, you still have $1 million budgeted for neighborhood commercial centers. In your testimony you say these 68 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET improvements, as part of a program of comprehensive neighborhood and commercial district plans, are intended to track the leverage of other investments in retail and residential projects. Does that suggest that there has not been an expanded development of neighborhood commercial centers and there will not be an expanded development of neighborhood commercial centers?
Indeed, if you look at the percentage of the overall budget that that $1 million represents, you'll see that although the number has remained the same, the percentage of the overall budget has really increased. We have fought, actually, to keep that $1 million even though -- and I'm really not being facetious -- even though other programs have been decreased along with the decrease in the overall Capital Budget.
That is exactly what I'm saying. I'm sure you had to fight for it because people wanted to put other money into other economic development portions of neighborhood infrastructure portions. What 69 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET I'm saying is if we have a flat $1 million from the year 2000 to 2011, it suggests that there is no expanded development with the neighborhood development commercial corridors. I hear the Mayor talk about his economic development blueprint. Even your Six-Year Plan for capital improvement suggests that there's no focus on neighborhood commercial corridors. There's not intended development of neighborhood commercial corridors and there's no need to plan for it beyond what has been done in the past, which is almost nothing.
In reality, Councilman, the Capital Budget totally is about half of what we need. So it's not simply neighborhood commercial centers that we want more money for. I don't think there's any project in this plan that doesn't deserve, based on equity, additional funds. As I said, the $1 million, although the figure has remained constant, that is actually a larger percentage of the budget than it was the first time you raised this 70 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET issue.
Ms. Griffith, with all due respect -- and I'll leave it alone after this. I can make a couple points related to that. One, I'm starting with talking about the planning aspect. In fact, it is a flat number. The fact that it's always been a flat number means that there is no additional planning to expand development of neighborhood commercial corridors. The other issue I could raise, is also whether that money is actually being spent, which for the most part, I don't believe we've ever spent a million dollars on a consistent basis over those years. So whether you put it in there or not as a flat million dollars, you come nowhere close to spending it, even as a flat million dollars.
One of our recommendations this year, which is a recommendation that's not reflected in the book, is that we more closely audit how the funds are spent. 71 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET As you know, what we do are these comprehensive community plans, and there is a community-based economical development component. At this point, you're absolutely correct. There's no hard and fast codified linkage between the planning and implementation. What the Mayor's Chief of Staff has asked us to do is to look more closely at how we can link planning with budgeting and with implementation, and also in the end how we can audit that process to ensure that the funds have been spent in a way that's consistent with the plan. I can't tell you whether you are correct in assuming that that is not always happened because we don't at this point have that kind of audit mechanism. But that's something that the Administration has been interested in, has asked us to look at crafting. There's been several meetings recently that included the Managing Director's Office and the Office of the Chief of Staff to try to arrive at that.
But you would 72 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET agree that I'm probably right that not even a million dollars per year is being spent, no 4 more is being budgeted and there is no 5 comprehensive plan in terms of infrastructure investment in terms of neighborhood commercial corridors?
I would respectfully disagree with you to say that there's no 10 comprehensive plan. I would say that the Planning Commission in our role as the --
If there is a plan, just please give it to Council through the Chair.
There is at this point no process, either as staff of the Planning Commission or as the administrators of the Capital Program and Budget for us to get the information to be able to answer the first point adequately.
I don't understand the last point you made then. 73 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
No. You had made the point about do I know that the million dollars is spent in a way that's consistent with neighborhood economic development. And I said there's no process by which we would know at this point.
That has not been part because in this government, as in most government planning and implementation -- except for Boston where they are combined -- are separate.
Let me ask a simple question. Is this so-called plan that you're going to forward through the Chair just a list of community-based economic development projects?
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. 74 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. Real briefly, I want to talk about process. There's a process and then ultimately there's a recommendation by the Planning Commission on Capital Projects. I want to talk about projects in neighborhoods in particular. When there's a need to change in mid-stream as it relates to funding or commitments to projects, how does that happen? Who is responsible? Is the Managing Director involved in the process? Is the Budget Director? Is the Recreation Commissioner? Is it the CPO office? Is it the Planning Commission.
Let me make sure I understand the question. Are you talking a formal transfer, ordinances that would come before City Council or are you talking about --
I'm talking about decisions. Let me give you an example. There's a swimming pool in a newer 75 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET part of my district that I inherited. My good friend and colleague is actually very familiar with it, Hancock Swimming Pool, that was recommended for restoration at one point. They actually put a little tractor out there during the summer to give the people the impression that it was going to be fixed up. All summer people were saying, okay. They're going to fix it. The tractor is out there. But the tractor was never cut on. It just sat there all summer. It was kind of a fake out, and it worked because everybody just kind of backed off. And then the tractor disappeared and the next thing I know it's on the list of facilities to be closed or pools to be closed. How was that decision made?
That kind of decision would be made by Recreation, I would assume, in consultation with CPO and MDO. I could get them up here. When there is a pool of funds to be used for a variety of issues --
Can you hold on for one second? We're on a time limit. If 76 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET you don't know the answer and they're here, can you ask them to come up and respond to that, please?
Hancock Pool, to my understanding, is still to be completed under our Capital Projects Program. And I'm not sure if it will be back up and operating. Right now I know for a fact we have not made plans to open it, but it is not on the list to be permanently closed.
I received a memo about two weeks ago to say that it was not going to be restored. I conveyed that to Councilman Ramos. I should disregard that memo?
You'll just see the crane there again this year.
Put that same tractor out there. I'm just confused because, with all due respect, in the past there was a 77 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET decision --
Point of information. This playground is a hundred feet from my front door. I had people all summer long knocking on my door saying, is the pool going to get fixed. I said, no. I said, it is, but it's going to take a little bit. Some people gave up on it. But never no renovation was done on it. Now, we hear that it's up on the list of pools that will be shut down, and we're very concerned. Councilman Clarke has addressed it. I know that the Commissioner is aware of this. But it was strange that nothing was done during the whole summer on the pool. I had to answer and say that something was going to go on that never went on. Then it was just removed and nothing was done. So we'll probably get an answer about that soon.
There's a question about process, I think, still on the table.
Years ago there was a decision made to basically consolidate 78 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET all capital programs into the CPO Office and to some degree take the Recreation out of the loop, which I thought was a bad idea, but I wasn't elected at the time. So it created an environment where nobody ultimately kind of like took the responsibility. I'm kind of seeing some of that here where the Recreation Commissioner said that it's scheduled to be done. I get a memo from CPO -- and sometimes I have to look at the fine print to see where it actually comes from. Because you get these little faxes and it gives you a status report. It puts us in a position of not being able to adequately monitor our facilities, because you got all these different fingers in the pie. I had a meeting yesterday with folks who have some level of responsibility. I'm being told that the MDO's office and the Budget Director made the decision that they weren't going to do a playground, play area, in my Council district, and I was willing to use the Council dollars that were allocated to the Council district. I'm saying, well, how can they make that decision not to spend money 79 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET that was allocated to the district Councilperson?
Well, I think your question is related to the question that Councilman Rizzo asked sometime ago about process and about what is the best process, given the fact that we do have a bureaucracy to get from point A to point B, and these are questions that we are also asking in-house. The analysis that I mentioned earlier is not just a dollars analysis. It's also a process analysis. And there were inefficiencies --
It means that we're all sitting down talking about this and trying to figure out how to make work.
Who are you sitting down with, particularly as it relates to the Council allocation? Because you tell I got $1.2 million. As a Councilperson I'm in the community and I decide, along with the community, we want to have some play equipment 80 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET there. How does that the decision get made not to do that and I'm not even in the conversation?
Well, it's my understanding that senior staff in the Mayor's Office is holding a series of meetings to try to come to an analysis and recommendation with regard to that. And I am sure that there's consultation with --
So this is the Mayor and the Chief of Staff make the decision now?
Well, you know that this government is very consultative and that we tend to make decisions in consultation, in collaboration, and that's the way things normally proceed. This is not the first time I think you have raised this issue. This issue has been raised by other Councilpeople. It's my understanding before my time there were 81 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET different efficiencies when these funds were placed in agencies. Each agency had its own separate design and construction team sometimes. So we had clusters assigned to each agency. That is what I'm told.
Ms. Griffith, with all due respect, this is a very confusing response. I don't know if it's intentional, but this is a cut and dry question. I'm trying to go find out, at the end of the day, who is responsible? Now it's suggested that maybe I need to talk to the Mayor. Madam President, it seems like my time is kind of different.
Thank you. Are you telling me now that I just need to deal with the Mayor and the Chief of Staff? I don't know who to deal with. I used to deal with this man here quite well. Then there was another layer put on top of that.
If you're talking about process, if you're talking about how the 82 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET process is set up, I think speaking to the Chief of Staff would be useful. If you're simply trying to find information about a given center, it would seem that the first stop would be the Recreation Commissioner.
Yes, but if I talk to the Recreation Commissioner and we have an agreement, then it goes through these various levels of bureaucracy and then it comes here. Now you're saying the Mayor makes the decision.
No. That's about process. They're two separate tracks. I think you're using an example of what you're concerned about to also illuminate this process problem.
It's not the only one. I'm just trying to understand why do we keep confusing an issue. Sometimes you fix something that's not broke. Ultimately, I'm asking the question about why did we decide to move Recreation out of the process where more often than not Council's $1.2 or whatever it was gets spent 83 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET in Recreation projects? Every now and then you have to throw a little on the library, but more often than not we're dealing with recreation. We take them out of the loop and now we've got this process that's convoluted as best.
Well, the decision to do that predates my tenure. But as I said, it's my understanding that it was because in the past you had these clusters of design and construction and administrative folks attached to each agency. It was duplicative and it was confusing and it cost a lot of money. I mean, a hammer is a hammer. A construction contract is a construction contract. Why don't we gather all of these disparate folks, put them in one agency and maximize efficiencies. That was the thrust. What you're saying is that that is a problem.
Hold it. Is the Recreation Commissioner in that agency? Who are you gathering to put in that agency?
No. CPO. We're talking about the people that used to be 84 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET associated with the individual agencies.
So as an example someone who used to work for Recreation and is now at CPO?
So you have these people who are no longer in the different departments in the CPO?
Right. And the hope was that that would yield an efficient, clear, coordinated approach to design and construct and ease the burden of this moving of money around. Because if the funds were in one agency, then that agency could allocate for emergencies or for special projects as well. It seems that based on your comments and the comments of others, that has yielded another set of concerns, and we need to look at those.
So you're saying that you're not sure that we realized those efficiencies?
I'm not sure that we have and I'm not sure if we haven't. I do 85 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET respect, however, the concerns of Council. And I don't think you raise those concerns lightly.
We gave you more time because Councilman Ramos had a point of information. And I did say that we were going to recess at 12' clock. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
I have a question on behalf of Councilwoman Miller, who is home with the flu and watching this on television. But through my trusted cell phone, she was able to reach me to ask me to ask a question. Before I ask her question, I want to ask on this issue. If we could understand the effort to try to have one department put out the bids, to do the planning, why do we find that the department who is responsible for the project is not -- nobody's talking to them? If Commissioner Hancock is going 86 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET forward and the CPO is telling the Councilmember it's not, they're not talking to each another. They're not talking to us and you all are not talking to each other. That's very clear there's a lack of communication of what's going on. And so we get mixed messages. I get calls all the time from people in the field about what's going on in their departments, whether it's the park or the rec center, and then I can't seem to get an answer about who's making the decision. So there's a lack of communication somewhere and it's very frustrating.
We hear you. And it's on us to figure out a better way to do this.
I want to ask for Councilwoman Donna Miller, who is home with the flu, and again who reached me through my trusted cell phone, which I'm not supposed to use -- Northwest Regional Library, she said it was closed in September and she wants to know what is happening because the opening was 87 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET supposed to be in March and she wants a status report.
Rick is a representative and he's coming forward. He's in consultation. You wanted more communication.
Councilwoman, Rick Tustin, again, with the Capital Programs Office. Our office has been working with the library, on three branch libraries, that being one of them. The other one, I believe, was Kensington and Olney. That particular library you're speaking of is scheduled to be opened in April.
It was three projects, libraries we were doing simultaneously having to do with the heating and air conditioning systems. So we had to stagger the shut-down of each one to minimize any one branch from 88 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET being out for too long. As I said, right now our projected date of having that ready to be open again is in April.
I have one final question before we leave. We were talking about neighborhood commercial corridors. As you know, we have done a study of the commercial corridors in the 9th District, being creative and using some of our dollars to do that. But we also find that there's no money to implement any of the recommendations in the study. In an effort to help us do some things on our own and leverage other dollars we might get, we have asked your department to do an urban renewal designation of some areas in my district. I want to know if there are budget constraints in your office to prevent that from happening, because the request has been in for a long time. It also impedes our ability to move forward on economic development where we might not need the City.
Let me get back to you on that, Councilwoman. There shouldn't be 89 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET any staff constraints in general. There may be in terms of time frame. But let me check with Ms. Mason-Ailey and find out where the specific project is.
Thank you very much. I see it is now noon. Council 10 will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. Thank 11 you. 12 (Brief recess.)
Committee of the Whole is now back in session. Ms. Griffith, do you mind taking the witness stand again? Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm not sure who should answer this question. I had an off-the-record conversation with Capital Programs. From what I understand from the firehouses, and since you mentioned earlier in your testimony about 90 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET the importance of safety and health issues, I was led to believe that this program of putting -- and I think everyone knows what I'm talking about. When the fire apparatus starts, the emissions of combustion are sometimes contained in the firehouse, and there was a little bit of controversy on this system versus that system. I was led to believe, until I talked to a fire officer recently, that the program for installing these exhaust systems apparently -- either I'm misinformed that this was something that was supposed to be on a faster track, especially if we recognize that it's a safety and health issue. Why is it taking so long and where are we with the program? Because from what I understood, this was supposed to be completed on the fast track. From what I understand, there are still numerous firehouses throughout the City of Philadelphia that don't have these exhaust systems to remove the product of combustion after the equipment starts. 91 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Let me see if we can get an answer for you. Either CPO or a representative of the Fire Department.
I think Mr. Tustin is here. Again, I'm asking him to repeat this because more so, we work with the record here and what we say over the rail is always nice, but it isn't what we really need. We need the stenographer to hear what the program is.
Richard Tustin, Director of Capital Program Office. Councilman, last year when we sat here we only had four completed. We were just starting the process. We did say that we were going to do as many stations as we could. And the budget had always been staggered over several fiscal years. I'm happy to report right now that by the end of June we will have 34 stations complete, which is 30 more than we had last year, and it's more than half of all the fire stations. There's a total of 64 fire stations. So we have them under construction right now, 20 of them. 92 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET We have just selected a designer to do the next group of fire stations, and we're doing them in groups of or at a time so 5 that we can keep the project moving. 6 As far as the budget goes, we've 7 always looked at this as spread over several 8 fiscal years. We've been matching, if not 9 beating, our design and construction schedule 10 to that funding schedule. 11
I understand it's 12 a good strategy, but you're talking safety and 13 health issues here. It doesn't seem 14 appropriate to me to scatter this over many 15 fiscal years if this is tagged safety and 16 health. In my opinion, someone should say, 17 okay, we really need to get these done 18 promptly. 19 It's difficult for me to take a call 20 from a firefighter and tell him, the safety and health issue is not in this budget cycle. You have to wait until next year. Do what you have to do to deal with this until that budget cycle. You should have a column, safety and 93 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET health, and I don't think that's something that should be something delayed. Are the firehouses that are planned, by the Administration at least, the ladders and the engine companies, even though they could possibly be reduced to just medic units, are they also being equipped?
We had planned to do all 64. I would also like to say that when we were originally told about this project and the need for this project, it was through the labor standards who had negotiated this issue with the fire fighters union. I believe that negotiation led to the staggered completion of these fire stations over several fiscal years, and that's why I believe the budget was set up that way and that's why we're managing the project that way.
Mr. Tustin, even though that was negotiated, when something is deemed a health and safety, I think all of that should go out of window. If you find that we bought 200 guns that are defective, you're going to tell them, 94 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET we'll change out a dozen at a time? You're going to change them all out. I think that this is something that should be on the fast track and get it done if it's just a matter of moving some money around that you're eventually going to spend anyway. Take my suggestion. Get it done. If we have fire fighters that are sickened because their work environment isn't a satisfactory place, I mean, I just can't see playing with this like that.
I think we would recommend that the Managing Director take a hard look at this and see whether this needs to be re-evaluated in terms of the time frame.
Would you ask this current Managing Director? Maybe he'll be more sympathetic than the new one. We really got to get this thing moving.
Well, I think both managing directors will be sympathetic, but certainly we will talk to Mr. Goldsmith.
Again, I would really appreciate somebody getting back to me 95 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET through the Chair. That's another problem we have around here. We spend all this time in this room and sometimes I think it goes up the chimney through that ventilation system.
You're welcome. I would like someone to explain Line 22, which indicates that PIDC land bank acquisitions and improvements will be $12 million in 2006. What land will we be acquiring? What businesses are being targeted for retention and/or attraction to new businesses?
Good afternoon. Paul Deegan from PIDC. This is not new City tax dollars. We are targeting a number of sites around the City, but we don't actually have agreements of sale yet. It's kind of just in case money. 96 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Well, it's $12 million of authorization. We don't actually have $12 million in fund.
Do we know what businesses are being targeted for retention? Are we trying to attract new businesses? If so, can you share that with us?
Yes. The money is to buy new sites and create new sites for development. We have a list of sites around the City. We're negotiating with some of the owners, but we haven't closed any deals yet or have any agreements of sale.
While you're up there, Mr. Deegan, would you explain Line 27, PIDC land bank improvements, engineering and administration, $6 million in 2006. Will you explain the type of projects that will be funded from this line number, and what the breakdown is between improvements, engineering and administration? 97 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
This line is similar to the other line. They're kind of companion lines. They come out of the same fund. What we do, we ask for an authorization to explore properties throughout the City to do the professional engineering and environmental studies that are needed to prepare the land for development. When we spend the money on the studies and we acquire the land, we put in new infrastructure improvements such as water, sewer and streets. When the land is sold, we reimburse the fund. So it's actually a revolving fund. It doesn't require any new City money. We've been doing this since 1957.
How much are the administration costs that are charged in this line item?
Well, we need real estate appraisals. We don't pay our salaries out of this, but we use it for professional service studies such as appraisals, environmental studies, design studies, real estate title searches. 98 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET I think a good example is the West Parkside Industrial Park, which we acquired about years ago. It was owned by Conrail. 5 Using the revolving fund we negotiated an 6 acquisition with Conrail. We removed all the 7 rail. We did environmental studies, 8 environmental clean up. We put in new 9 streets, 49th Street, 50th Street, Jefferson 10 Street and now we're marketing the land for sale. As we sell pieces off we reimburse this fund. It's basically a revolving fund. I think there's around $6 to $7 million actually in the fund right now, but we ask for as much authorization as we can in the event that we have a good year of selling land, which we hope to, and then we'll have more money in the fund and we'll have the authorization to spend it.
While you're up there, Line 26, Navy Yard improvements, $4,285,000. How are these funds going to be used?
As part of the development of the Navy Yard, one of the most, 99 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET I guess, critical needs is to upgrade the electrical system and also the sea wall. The electrical system, I think it was installed by the Navy in 1909 and it's in very bad repair. So to attract new companies such as Urban Outfitters down to the Navy Yard we had to upgrade the electrical system. And also to keep the Navy there, because the Navy has 3,000 workers. They're heavily engaged in power research of electrical systems for new ships. So we've asked for City money and we're asking for state money through the Business in Our Sights Program. We're also asking for federal money to upgrade the electrical system and the sea wall. Broad Street is actually on piles, and that's part of the sea wall repair that Broad Street and the Navy Yard has to be shored (ph) up.
Have you had any indication as to how much the federal and state governments will be contributing toward this?
Yes. We were applying 100 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET for $15 million for the electrical system upgrade from the federal government. And we've talked to Congressman Brady, Senator Specter. We're applying for, I think, $10 million in Business in Our Sights funding from the Commonwealth. We expect that application to be considered by the Commonwealth Financing Authority either in March or April. So we're hopeful that with the combination of City, state and federal money we'll be able to take care of the electrical system and also the sea wall.
Wonderful. Thank you very much. I have a couple other questions. Do I have time? I understand I still have a minute. The Free Library's Capital Budget also includes $350,000 to assess the cause of the leaks at the Falls of Schuylkill Branch, repair the steps at McPherson and Logan Branches and assess the windows at the Paschalville Branch. What does assess the cause of leaks mean? Are we addressing the 101 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET problem or are we just finding out what's causing the leaks? Would you also be able to correct the problems with the $350,000? I just don't understand. What does assess the windows of Paschalville mean and will you be replacing the windows? I mean, have somebody study that the windows are in disrepair and have to be replaced?
We just had a quick consultation. I would like to ask the representative from the library to join us. Is there a representative from the library? There was someone here earlier. (No response.)
Madam Council President, your questions are so specific. I would feel more comfortable if there was a rep from the library here. If you will allow us to try to get someone here before the end of our time and respond to the question.
That would be fine. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco. 102 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Thank you. On of your testimony, you talk about the improvements at the Philadelphia International Airport. How much of City dollars are spent on the expansion? Or are most of those dollars federal dollars or from someplace else? You cite $112 million will be self-sustaining funds. Would you explain that? And then you say the match is $139 million in federal funds.
Most of the funds are self-sustaining or federal monies. We are lucky that with regard to the airport there's usually very little City money that goes into it. Let me see. Gary, do you have more specifics?
No. That's correct. The airport can issue revenue bonds and through money obtained through, I guess, the rental of gates to airlines and various other sources of revenue to the airport, those bonds are paid off. There really is no new City tax-supported funds, GO funds, recommended for the budget year. It's all 103 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET self-sustaining bond funds, federal funds and state and private funds.
I'd like Mr. Tustin to come forward. I have a couple of questions for him. On of Mr. Tustin's testimony, you stated that the Capital Program Office has initiated approximately 32 professional services contracts and 125 public works contracts. Of these contracts, how many are minority vendors and what is your process for reaching out to the broader community so that they will know what contracts you are initiating?
Hi. I'm Rick Tustin again, the Capital Program Office's Director. The contracts that we have direct control over are professional service contracts. We work with Minority and Business Enterprise Council each year to try to develop a goal for minority and women, disabled 104 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET participation on all of our design contracts. I don't have that information you're asking for specifically on the design professional service contracts, although I can get that for you. Last year we averaged, I think, 27 to 33 percent on our participation on professional service contracts. The second thing you asked me had to do with the construction contracts. Construction contracts are handled through the Procurement process. We put into our specifications and our design documents percentage requirements based on information provided from MBEC to our office. So every project that gets bid through the Procurement process has percentages required for those contractors. When the bids come in from those contractors they get reviewed thoroughly by both Procurement and MBEC to make sure the contractors have met those ranges within their individual contracts. We don't get involved in their review process of that in the public works side. As I said, we focus more on the 105 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET professional service side.
On the professional services contracts, what is your outreach to other communities so that they know that you are putting out a bid for professional services contracts? Do you have a limited number of people that you contract or do you have a broader pool of people and what is the role of MBEC in that process?
That is a very good question. We work directly with MBEC on that process. MBEC has a directory of firms that are certified; minority, women and disabled. We draw from their certified directory of firms to participate in these projects. Again, every time we get ready to go out with an RFP for professional services we contact MBEC. We tell them what the project is. We tell them what firms we think we would like to invite to that because they have some level of expertise in the type of work we want to do. MBEC usually responds to us, and after they review the firms that we want to 106 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET submit it to or solicit, on many, many occasions they ask us to add additional firms from their directory, which we do, and then we send it out through our normal RFP process. We work hand and hand with MBEC during that professional service contract to develop professional service contracts.
If I can add something, which some of us heard today, which is that next week the Mayor will be issuing an executive order which will require every agency to have a senior member of their staff dedicated to outreach and to ensuring that minority and women-owned firms have a fair share of City contracts, and there are percentages attached. I would assume that CPO would be one of those agencies. In addition to the good work they're doing in league with MBEC, they would have on staff someone dedicated to this kind of outreach. I apologize. We were privy to a luncheon speech, which I don't think Rick had an opportunity to hear, but that is something 107 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET that will be coming down the pike.
In other words, at this point they are quite appropriately relying on the entity in City government that is supposed to be doing this outreach and certification. In addition to that, the Mayor is asking that each agency have someone on staff that could be trained. I think the thrust is that, for instance, in our agency, we have contracts that are very specific. We have to, in a way, educate MBEC to the range of those contracts, to the kinds of professionals that are needed, et cetera. We will have someone on staff who will know that intrinsically and be able to outreach on behalf of the kinds of contracts that we have. I'm assuming, since the Mayor said every agency, that CPO will also have that person dedicated for that purpose.
That's correct. In fact, the person from our office that oversees 108 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET that and works directly with MBEC is the Deputy Director. She works directly under me. She's the second highest level person in the office.
Councilwoman Blackwell, your light is on. Did you want to be recognized?
I'd really like to know our level of involvement. In other words, there's a company, PKF, who is working on the project, who was fired from Cobbs Creek because, according to SEPTA itself, they're the worst company they ever saw and they -- just all kind of irresponsible acts. When we had our hearing months ago, they were 717 days behind and were fired. So I wondered if, since we do partake in SEPTA's budget, what are the plans? There's nobody working there for months, and this same company that's horrendous that worked in Cobbs 109 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Creek and was fired is working on the rest of it from 46th to, like, 62nd. I would like to know where the City is, since we fund them as well, and how involved they are in this contract and where we go from here?
May I ask the representative from SEPTA to take the microphone, please?
Good afternoon. I'm Francis Jones, government affairs at SEPTA. Unfortunately this response will be very brief. Because we are in litigation with PKF at this point, we're unable to provide any additional information.
But PKF still works for you. This City, what they tell me, Madam President, is that we do go by the lowest responsible bidder, so they have the same company. They gave them two contracts, one from 46th, to what, 62nd? 46th to 60th?
One contract is to 62nd Street, that's correct. 110 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
46th to 62nd Street. So it's really Councilman Nutter. And then 62nd and Milbourne. Now, they said they're the worst company they've ever seen. They said it in a public meeting in front of state and local officials. They fired them. They were already 717 days behind. So how can they still work for you but you not have anything to say about -- how can they be so great on one end and so bad on the other end? Not you, Francis, obviously. It's not directed toward Francis Jones. But how can SEPTA say that? How can they be so great on one end and so bad on the other when it's the same strip?
Unfortunately, there are two different contracts, Councilwoman. But the contract for the Cobbs Creek package, as I said earlier, is in litigation and we are working with the bonding company. So at this point, that's about the gist of the information we're able to provide at this time. As we move forward and as soon 111 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET information is available, of course, you know we'll be in contact with you.
Let me say, Madam President, we continue to still work on every aspect thereof. We're working with the Public Property Commissioner. We're working with lots. We're working with parking. We're working with traffic. All those things that contracts provide for, we're still working on. Let me say that I would hope -- and I say this to the Planning Director, the Budget Director, Finance Director and Administration, that just as we did last year and put the City's part into Council's budget, we are certainly requesting that that be replicated this year so at least we can have some say about what happens in our communities. Because it's just horrendous and continues to be unconscionable the way the store owners and the communities are victimized by these contracts.
Thank you. 112 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Again, it's not directed at you, Ms. Jones. We realize you have a job. But it's so unbelievable. There's some issue that you scream so much on, you almost get tired of screaming about it. I've been involved in a lot of rough projects over my years, but by far this is absolutely the worst project I've ever been involved in. I have a community where we have the MOVE houses. We have the Tom Lasore (ph) One Project. I've had sinking homes on Cedar Street and Florence Avenue. This is absolutely the worst project I've ever had the displeasure of working on. I guess I will let that part go for SEPTA. Certainly we ask that the Administration respond in terms of them putting the budget as they did last year with the City Council's budget. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman 113 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. I would like to follow-up with Councilwoman Tasco's questions regarding designated persons within departments who are responsible for MBE/WBE activity. Where is the ultimate accountability? There's a link between the departments for that particular responsibility, but ultimately who's responsible for holding those individuals accountable?
This will come as a result of the Mayor's executive order. I would assume that the Mayor is holding the agencies responsible.
But if I may, if I'm misguided in that, I will get back to you. But that's my assumption.
This is due to be effective when? 114 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
I believe the Mayor said he was going to be signing that executive order next week.
Okay. PIDC representative, could they please come back to the table, please? Good afternoon.
It just so happens during your testimony I was actually reading information here from a community organization affiliated with the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Representative O'Neill's district. What is the status or role or responsibility of PIDC in that potential project in the Councilman's district?
Councilwoman, we're really not involved in the project at all. I think it's an issue between Fox Chase and the Fairmount Park Commission over land.
Between the Fox Chase 115 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Cancer Center and the Fairmount Park Commission.
Okay. Thank you for the clarification. All right. Thank you. No further questions, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President. At this time I would like to submit for the record proposed amendments to Bill 16 Nos. 050001 and 05002. Copies of these amendments I have for the Sergeant At Arms to distribute to all Members. These amendments would increase the appropriation for improvements to existing recreation facilities by $7 million. Under the Home Rule Charter, Council must first seek the recommendations of the City Planning Commission before amending the Capital Program. I am submitting these proposed 116 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET amendments at this time so that we may request the Planning Commission's recommendations in a timely matter. I'm not requesting any action at this time. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. The proposed amendments certainly will be placed into the record. I believe this will trigger the 30-day clock that we need. I will also write a letter to the Mayor asking for recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
I think we're on the second go around. On Line 49-2, assess Fairmount Park facilities for code compliance and other safety deficiencies and make remedial repairs as warranted at the tune of $225,000 in 2006. Why is this in the Managing Director's budget and not the Capital Program Office?
It was requested by 117 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET the MDO to be placed there.
Well, who in the MDO's office will be responsible for this project?
Is there a representative from the MDO's office to answer that question, who specifically will be responsible?
Jim Donaghy, Deputy Managing Director. I work in the Managing Director's Office as the Capital Program Office liaison and will be taking responsibility for management of the project, working through the Capital Program Office and the Fairmount Park Commission.
And how did we arrive at the amount of $225,000?
The original request had come from the Fairmount Park Commission, and the Managing Director had asked that that money be placed in the Managing Director's 118 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET budget. So that's where the amount of $250,000 came from.
Thank you. How many fire stations does the City have?
I think it would be very interesting if we got a list of the 64 fire stations, if you could tell us the age of each station. The 2006 capital for the Fire Department totals $1,450,000 for interior and exterior renovations. Does the Planning Commission really feel that this is an adequate amount?
Well, we base our decisions on an analysis by the Fire Department.
I would like if we could get a copy of the analysis. Also, when was the last time a facility assessment study was done of the fire facilities?
I believe that was by 119 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET CPO. Sorry. Mr. Tustin is telling me the assessment is done on an as-needed basis based on ongoing meetings with the fire departments as opposed to a snapshot report that would give you an assessment of the state of all fire departments.
When was the last time an assessment was made and where?
He is telling me that there has not been an assessment of the kind that you're speaking of. At least through your tenure?
Perhaps we could ask Mr. Tustin to look at his records and see whether there's been an assessment prior to his taking this on.
Thank you. Rick Tustin, Capital Program Office. I'll be more than happy to do that. I believe there may have been an assessment done in the early '90s. At the time I worked for the Department of Public Property in the 120 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Facility Planning Division. This is just from recollection. I will confirm anything that I tell you, if I'm correct or not. But I believe it may have been done from an engineering firm, Braker, Hoff (ph). Let me confirm that. What we do, Council President, is on a yearly basis we sit down with the liaison from the Fire Department, Chuck McGrady (ph) and his staff, who are not only responsible for overseeing all the stations, but working with Public Property, they do maintenance. So they're very, very familiar with the conditions of each fire station and what their needs are. We then take those needs and we develop our Capital Budget request that we submit to City Planning. We stagger the work over multiple years so that we're not overtaxing the budget in any one year, and we try to do it in a logical sequence so that all the fire stations receive adequate treatment. And the Fire Department, I believe, has been very happy with our procedure.
Mr. 121 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Tustin, that was a very long response, but I just have one more question, as long as you're up there. Can you tell us how long it takes to complete a recreation project, from the time the district Councilperson approves the project?
I would have to check with my recreation team director. What I can tell you is I don't think there's any single time that represents all projects. Quite frankly, the reason is in the short period of time that the recreation team has come under CPO, I've been able to see how they work with the Council people and their community representatives, and a lot of times projects grow and change through the design process, and that can take quite a long time. Then once the project is finalized and the design is ready to go, after bids are awarded, the actual construction can take anywhere from a year to two years, depending on how complicated it is. I would be happy to get back to you with examples.
I don't 122 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET know about the other district Councilmembers, but I can only speak for myself. I have seen where we have had money in the budget for maybe new windows in a recreation facility, and that appears in the budget for maybe three years. And I think that a member of my staff, when I questioned why this was, I am told that she was informed that we almost stock pile the requests so that perhaps when you go out for the bid it would be cheaper. But doesn't the cost of that increase yearly, so if we wait four years, it's going to be much more expensive than it was four years prior?
I'm familiar with the discussion on that issue. My recollection is a recreation team has been doing this for years and they feel it's a really smart way of doing things. Most recreation centers are extremely small in size. So if we needed to put a new roof on one, by the time the project was designed and put out for bid and constructed, it would be extremely expensive on a per square foot basis. 123 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET On the other hand, if we can take two or three rec centers and put them together under one bid package, the net result is a much cheaper price per square foot to do the job. Now, naturally if a roof is in that bad of a condition where it needs to be replaced immediately, we would act on that right away. But what we try to do is, working through recreation maintenance, sort of nurse those roofs along that aren't in that bad a condition but need to be replaced, so that we can package, as you say, several projects together. It's a much more efficient way of doing it and ends up costing the taxpayer less per square foot to do it that way. It does extend the length of the project though. It does.
It certainly does. I mean, waiting four or five years is causing more damage to the facility than it would have to. You talked about a new roof being needed. Do we have our own roofers, and how 124 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET many do we have? Do we have our own electricians, and how many do we have? Would it be more cost efficient for the City to have the plumbers, the electricians? Didn't we have them at one time and wouldn't it be much more cost efficient to do it that way?
I apologize. What Mr. Tustin is telling me is that Public Property and perhaps the Recreation Department could respond better to that inquiry. I don't know whether there's someone from Public Property.
Good afternoon. Joan Schlotterbeck, Public Property Commissioner. Yes, we do have roofers. I'm going to say we have three and one supervisor.
Yes, ma'am. What we do is we're usually the front people before Capital. In other words, 125 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET we're out doing as much as we can with every roof in the whole City with our staff --
Pretty much, yes. We do not have the abilities nor the funding to put new roofs on.
To your memory, didn't we have roofers, electricians, plumbers on the City payroll at one time? Does anybody recall that?
Well, they've always been in my department. Do you mean for capital projects?
How many did we have, say, eight years ago? I'm sure we didn't always have three roofers.
I'm 126 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET talking about all of the City facilities.
I think that your memory is correct, but that it was the Recreation Department and perhaps some other departments that themselves had and still have, I think, a skeleton crew, but used to have a more substantive crew of folks to do this kind of thing before the consolidation that I talked about earlier. It probably predates Commissioner Richards.
Has anybody looked into whether or not it would be more cost efficient to have our own employees do it than putting it out on bid? Has anybody looked into that?
Well, the question you ask is very much related to the questions from Councilman Rizzo and Councilman Clarke. Looking at the relationship between individual agencies contracting for work as opposed to going to a centralized CPO, which was done, as I understand it, in the last Administration to become more efficient. And because these concerns have been expressed to 127 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET the Administration, certainly over the last year, I am told that we are going to take a look at that to see whether, at least in terms of communication, we can make things better. I can't speak unilaterally to it, however, because it's an operational issue and something I would suspect that the Managing Director would take on.
There are also trades persons in the library staff -- Diane Reed, Budget Director -- and there is, as one of the initiatives for management improvement, a plan to go forward with consolidation of the trades people so that we could have a single work order system and deploy people centrally. That's kind of underway in its very preliminary stages.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
I don't want my time charged to this. Point of information.
Point of 128 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET information.
I know you have to put these contracts out for bid. But would it be possible to do a bid for, say, two or three years so that the contractors would be on call to come in and do the repair work when you need it, as opposed to holding it? Because while you're holding the bid, the roof is leaking on the gym floor and the gym floor is buckling, and then we've got to put money in the gym floor and the roof.
You can't patch. You've got to fix it. You should have a life history of the facilities, an inventory or record of when the last roof was put on, when you think it may be put. You have to have some analysis of all of that and maybe when you let the contract -- the contract is not just for these five roofs. It's a three-year contract. And in three years we'll have so many roofs or we'll have so much work to be done in that period and you can lock in 129 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET the rate.
I think NTI does some of their demolition work that way. I don't know whether the Capital Program Office has ever considered doing this or whether it has a history of doing it in that fashion.
Again, Rick Tustin, Capital Program Office. We have, at least for the last five years, those kind of contracts you're referring to. We call them as on call or requirements contracts that we refer to them. We have one for general construction, one for mechanical, one for electrical and I believe we have one for landscape. We also have those type of contracts for environmental abatement, asbestos and that kind of stuff as well. We bid them on a periodic basis. Procurement has been working with us, and they would like us to bid on a yearly basis so that we can get again that ongoing competition. They're usually bid because we don't have a definitive project that we're hiring 130 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET them to do. What we do is we bid it on what's called a time and material basis. So it's the lowest percentage mark-up for their labor costs and their material costs and it's on actual cost and the number of hours they work on a job. So we've been doing that. Normally what happens, Councilwoman, is the operating departments will go out first to fix a problem, a roof patch, a leak or something else. If they feel the project is too large for their staff to handle and they only have two or three roofers and can't do it, then we would ask our requirements contractor or our on-call contractor to go out and to make those kinds of repairs. We don't want to do it to do a brand-new roof because it's usually too large. But that's what we use them for and we find it's very pretty useful. Then we build back towards either that department's operating budget or a Capital Budget line.
But you can't do the roof projects, the larger roofing projects, you can't do it that way instead of 131 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET holding them for five or six years?
Well, we probably could. But because we are doing the project on a time and material basis it's going to cost more to do it. If a contractor bids on a known item like a roof and they can take off how many square feet it is and the type of roofing you're going to need and everything else, you can usually get a better price. If you bid it as a single project, as opposed to what we're doing, which is, again, on-call, go in and go out and try to take care of these problems, but not necessarily do a big job because then it's more economical to actually bid it as a single project with a known scope.
Mr. Tustin, you're helping me make a point that I made earlier. You're expanding my point.
I know you are. You have 65 firehouses -- is that 132 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET what the number is?
We have 63. I know you're trying to have fewer, but we're fighting that.
Wouldn't it have been a savings to the City of Philadelphia if you would have put the contract out for the exhaust systems? One deal had to be more to our advantage to put it out to do them all at once, even if it took six months and you paid as you went. Isn't their fire power in doing the deal in one --
There's a trade off, and I'll explain what that is. You're right. Economy of scale, you're probably going to get a better price as a lump sum. The problem is each fire station requires a 133 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET separate design. We don't have one fire station, a cookie cutter, for everything. We need to hire a design firm to look at each one and design the system that best suits the configuration of that fire station. By doing it in packages of or 15, what we can do is 8 get an architect or an engineer out there, do 9 a quick design within a matter of a couple 10 months, get that out for bid and get that work started. If we waited until we had design work done for 64 fire stations, we probably would have gotten a better price, but we probably would not have 34 fire stations anywhere close to done by now because of the amount of time it would have taken to design all 64 fire stations. So in a way by breaking it up in smaller pieces we can actually expedite fire stations being done sooner.
But there would have been a way to have one architectural firm. There are ways to do things work in progress. That concept that I suggested could have been utilized and still accomplished the 134 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET goal.
It's similar to what they call fast tracking a project, where what you do is you bid packages of it and bid those packages separately. If you're doing a large project like a prison, you may do the foundation package and the site package and bid them separately. But if you really stop to think of it, isn't that what we're really doing? We're taking 64 and we're bidding smaller packages and designing smaller packages as we go.
I'm pleased to hear that that is something that you do. That's why these hearings are so educational and we come and listen because we learn. It's good to know that you're doing those things.
On the Capital Program, on of the Capital Program, "$53 million is allocated over the life of the plan to reconstruct or resurface 135 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET neighborhood streets and Fairmount Park roads and drives. To pay for these funds, the City intends to issue new taxpayer supported general obligation bonds." Of the $53 million, how much will be spent to reconstruct or resurface neighborhoods streets?
Councilwoman, I'm not the right person to answer that question. That's a Streets Department project and they do their own Capital Budget.
I know the Streets Department was eager to testify at the hearings. We also have a representative from the library whenever the Council President returns.
I'm told that two representatives from Streets have been called to an emergency meeting with regard to snow. I've asked that one of them rejoin the hearing. In general, if I may, I want to make 136 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET sure that there's at least one representative of every agency that remains here for the rest of the afternoon. Thank you.
I still have some time. What plans are there for, in your planning, to address the issue of driveways?
I know that, but City Planning doesn't have anything to do with that?
Well, basically that there's not enough money to do everything that needs to be done. The Streets Department has tried to upgrade in terms of productivity. They have a number of innovative new processes, and where possible they've gotten the funding, they've purchased equipment that is more productive. 137 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET They also have developed a ranking system so that there's a fair and equitable dispersion of this kind of project based on need. But to be honest with you, you would probably be better served by someone from Streets.
Yes. Thank you. I think I'm done. Mr. Tustin, since we don't have any new construction going on, probably since we don't have any money in the budget, but if we should be fortunate enough to get some dollars to construct a facility or an add-on, what standards do you use in looking at what the expansion should include? Such as, would you say that we're going to expand the rec center, and in that expansion we need to have air conditioning, heating or wiring for technology? Is that part of the make-up?
Well, all of those things you just mentioned, Councilwoman, are actually code issues. They're required by code. In other words, if you're designing 138 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET an expansion to a rec center for a meeting room, there is so many square feet per person that that room has to be designed for. So if you think the meeting room will accommodate 150 people, there is a code that says you need to provide so many square feet per person, and that's how big you make the room. There's also a code that tells us how to heat and air condition that room.
Is air conditioning an option or is it a requirement now?
I don't believe it's a requirement, but I would want to investigate that a little further. I know that one of the issues that have come up in our department working with the recreation project group is air conditioning of gymnasiums. Because of the type of activity in that room, it's a place of assembly and there's a sport going on, what happens is body heat goes up because of all the activity and you're required to have so many of what's called air changes per hour. 139 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET That's how many times the air in that room 3 totally gets evacuated and replaced. It's a code requirement. One of the issues with air conditioning in a gymnasium is that if you're taking all that air in that room and exchanging it so many times per hour, you're losing that cooling right outside because of the number of times you have to exchange it. So when you air condition a gymnasium, the size of the units have to be very, very large and the capacity has to be very, very large in order to accommodate the use of that room. When it's not being used for a sporting event, it's very hard to scale down the running of that equipment to accommodate a different activity. And I'm told through my rec team that what happens is you have high equipment failures because you're asking that same piece of equipment to run in different ways at different times. So there is a lot of issues that are addressed in it. But your original question -- and I'm sorry for making it a long answer -- has 140 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET to do mostly with code requirements that drive our decisions on how big to make a room and how to air condition it and how to ventilate it and how to heat it.
What do the architects say? What is the position of the architects that are designing the building? Some of that stuff you talked about I heard 30 years ago. We haven't had any changes in the way we air condition or the needs that we have for the facilities. I just can't imagine that you can't air condition a gym. You can't compare it to the Spectrum. The same code would be required there, but that's air conditioned.
If I may, I just want to make sure that the same consultation and collaboration that you've asked for between CPO and Recreation happen here today. I think that the Commissioner might have some thought on this, which are additive.
What we find is that the Commissioner may have his thoughts about something, but the capital people in the 141 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Capital Programs Office who are making the decisions on what should go in a rec center is not listening or communicating with the Commissioner. That's my assessment. The Commissioner hasn't said that. We've met the struggle back and forth on some issues that we believe would be the right thing to do. The thinking in the Capital Programs Office about certain issues, it's hard to kind of break through when it's always been done that way and let's just continue to do that way. We had to struggle with Dorothy Magnum (ph) in making sure that the standards were high, that the equipment we get is the best. I don't know what the philosophy is around what people think about these rec centers. We want rec centers where I don't have to spend $2 million this year and two years later spend $2 million on the same issue or the system if we look at building it with quality assurance to begin with. I want the thinking to be that we want first class, first quality equipment and 142 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET that they are things that we should have. If I have to continue to struggle with that, I mean, there's something missing somewhere.
I want to make sure you get not only the correct information, but the breadth of information, and I think your question would be best served by sort of a collaborative answer. I don't know that there's not communication. We need to solve that issue if that is a problem, but at least for the next couple of hours, I'm orchestrating the responses, and I do want to make sure that you get the response that your question deserves. Then if there's a conflict, it is up to the Administration to clarify that.
Could I get the Commissioner to respond about the air conditioning?
For the record, again, Vic Richard, Recreation Commissioner. Thank you for having me up. Relative to the air condition or 143 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET heating system or any type of high volume usage, it should be done on the front. It should be done in the design phase. I know in the past a lot of things were dictated by the dollars, which it shouldn't be done that way. It's more fiscal savvy and smart to do the entire thing while you have the shell open, instead of having to come back and retro fit. To go further in detail with your question relative to a gymnasium, when you design the air condition or the heating unit you design based on -- just like Rick was saying -- the volume capacity of that room, but you do it and you build and design it in zones. So you may create that air conditioned separate zone system and tonnage for that one particular gymnasium area and have maybe the dance studio and the arts and crafts room done on a different system, and then maybe you may have an auditorium or a different part. So you build it, design it in the front while the shell is open, and then you 144 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET build it in zones so when the gymnasium is down, the entire system is down, but you still have operational capacities to either chill or heat the rest of the facility.
Now, that process, that requires additional money than if you, I guess, do it the traditional way?
It may take a little bit more money. But in the long run you're saving money in maintenance and also in usage of the system as well. Say you're not using the gymnasium and you got one system, that means you're running the system for the entire building, where the gym may be the biggest part of the facility. So the most cost effective and business savvy way to do it is what I presented to you today. Not only that, if the system goes out, you don't lose capacity of the entire facility. You only lose capacity of that one particular part of the building and you can still deliver services while you're getting that part of the building back up and operating. 145 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Did we do zone heating and air conditioning at Dorothy Magnum?
Do we have zoning there? I'm sorry. I don't have that detail in front of me, but I can find that out.
Let me just add that greater initial, up front costs, which are saved through life cycle savings, is a discussion we have with just about every project. Is it better to spend more up front and reap those benefits over the years, or given scarce resources, do we have to unfortunately, just to get a project up and running, start the project, perhaps not with the maximum efficiency and then perhaps try to retro fit? In my personal opinion -- and I did study architecture -- it's not necessarily a right or wrong. You do have to factor in cost. But hopefully each time we do a project in consultation with the Councilmember, we make the right decision for that project and for the amount of money we have at the time. 146 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
We have Simons (ph) where no air conditioning was included in the expansion and now we're putting in air conditioning. It didn't make sense. This was sometime ago. That thinking and having struggled with the Dorothy Manuel project, we have tried to make sure that we learn from other projects that were built so that we would not have to go back and spend money because there are other rec centers that need resources, and we didn't want to continue to have to retro fit anything. I just want the thinking generally to be one that we should try to do it right the first time, so we won't have to go back. In the end you're going to pay it now or you're going to pay it later. Later is going to cost more money.
Well, we had the money to do my project and we got money from the state. So money was not an issue. 147 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Councilwoman, if I could add just for one second, the team that works in our office on recreation projects are the same group of to people that work 6 when they worked under Vic's office. We have 7 not moved the people off that team. So it's 8 Eric Iffrig and his team continue for that 9 continuity between our office and recreation, 10 and we do discuss all of our projects with 11 Recreation on a regular basis. 12
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. Real briefly to follow-up on an earlier question with respect to process and as it relates to CPO, MDO, all the alphabets associated with the process, should I assume that there will be some evaluation as to whether or not the process in place is working as efficiently as it was 148 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET intended to be when we reorganized that?
I would make that recommendation to the Managing Director because both Recreation and CPO report to the Managing Director. The idea was that sort of coordinating authority would ensure that there was communication and consistency.
And I know you can't speak for the Managing Director, but you do you think there could be some time line as it relates to a response?
I think the best way to proceed would be to try to get that time line from the Managing Director if he's comfortable and respond to the Council President when we respond to the other queries from today.
I asked this question, I guess, for the last three or four Capital Budgets and I'm going to ask it again. 149 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET In a speech a few years ago, the Mayor talked about consolidation of Capital Projects with the School District, given that the School District had this massive multi-billion dollar proposal to rebuild schools. We had our traditional Five-Year Capital Budget plan. There was some thought that it made sense, because the rec facilities and the schools are in the same neighborhoods and is a better way of doing business, where we would consolidate the process, and therefore consolidate the capital improvements or a new construction of facilities so possibly a school could accommodate the needs of the neighborhood as it relates to recreation and educational opportunities. Every year I ask that question and every year I get told that we're working on the process. But I've never seen an example of it working in any structural way. So I'll ask the question again. Where are we with that process and has it in fact been implemented? Give me examples of where it's been implemented. 150 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
I was involved in some early meetings under the new regime when Paul Vallas came into the City where that was discussed. I know the education secretary has been interested in that kind of coordination. We have a Charter mandated responsibility to review both the School District's Capital Plan and siting decisions. To be honest with you, especially over the last year, it has been difficult even getting that information from them. I do know that the School Board has asked --
Excuse me. You say you have a Charter mandated requirement to review the School District's Capital Project?
Yes. We don't have veto power, but we are charged with reviewing their Capital Plan and also reviewing their siting plan.
So are they required to do anything? I know they don't necessarily --
That's probably a legal rather than a policy question. 151 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Certainly, over the almost five years I've been here, they have been very cooperative in providing us with that information, even though sometimes there might be some disagreement about the specifics of the plan. There has been some difficulty, however, in this past year moving forward with that plan. Now, on an ad hock basis, as we do community plans, especially if the School District has already made a decision either to upgrade a school or to build a school, on a staff level there's been fairly good communication and cooperation about meshing the community plans that we've done with their plans. But in terms of some across-the-board omnibus joint capital strategy, I will just ask if there's anyone else at the table that has additional information?
As far I know, it 152 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET never materialized. I will check with the Secretary of Education to make sure that my understanding is the last understanding. And we are obviously still very interested in that kind of collaboration.
Okay. As relates to cooperation between the School District and the City, beyond the physical capital improvements, do we have any other inter-governmental type of cooperation with the School District?
Let me cut to the chase. I'll tell you why I'm asking this question. In a school actually in my neighborhood, Blaine School, there was an attempt to construct some play equipment on School District land, which in my estimation, 153 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET I assumed it to be owned by the citizens of the City of Philadelphia, but I'm being told it's not Public Property, which I don't understand. Somebody actually told me it belonged to the Republicans. They may control the board, but they don't own the School District. The citizens own the school. I'm just telling you, this is the kind of stuff I get. The question came up about being able to spend capital dollars, quote/unquote, City capital dollars on property that's owned by the School District. We had a community meeting. We went through the process. Council President, they made a mistake on the clock. We went through the entire process. We had a meeting. We had representatives from Recreation and the School District at the site and we believed we were going to proceed. I mean, people were even selecting the colors of the play equipment. Then I get this note that we can't do it because it's not owned by the City of Philadelphia. Then we go through the 154 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET legal process. It's required to get some sort of lease and the whole nine yards. I'm thinking that the legal hurdle has been resolved. I'm now being told that the budgetary issue, although I requested that the money be taken out of my Capital Budget from the Council district, the decision has been made, again by one of the alphabet organizations -- and they actually referenced your name as the Budget Director -- that we cannot proceed on that expenditure.
Diane Reed, Budget Director. I have just been reading about this issue the last couple of days. It does seem that for our Capital Budget, as advised by the Law Department, that we either need to own the property or have a long-term lease on the property. I would think that the School District might be an appropriate place to inquire about an investment in play equipment. Did you talk to them about that?
They were 155 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET interested in entertaining that request, but they had a long capital process that would have put money in the budget in out years maybe. We have money, the Council district, and we're fully prepared to spend that money at that site. So we got beyond that hurdle. The question I'm asking is not who should spend the money, the School District or the City, the question that I'm asking is if we had a spirit of cooperation, why we can't enter into some sort of an agreement or have a process? I think generally we should have some sort of understanding between an inter-agency agreement that we wouldn't have to, on a case by case basis, have to revisit this every time somebody wants to do something on publicly owned land. Because I still consider the School District land publicly owned land.
It's public owned land, but it's not City of Philadelphia. I would say this is a case of the scarce resources and the impulse to do that is -- 156 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
How could it be a case of scarce resources if I have money in my Council budget to do it? Explain that to me.
Well, because every single year we have tens of millions of dollars less to spend on capital projects.
Listen to me. I had money in prior years in my Council budget. I'm told the money is there. So I'm interested, along with the community, in spending some of that money on a site. I don't understand what you mean by scarce resources.
I think we are constrained by the Law Department's advice that if we do not own the property --
I wish Mr. Copeland (ph) was here. We actually got an opinion that told us how to do that. We were fully prepared to do that, to enter into a long-term lease agreement with the School District. The School District was more than willing to participate in the process. I'm 157 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET now being told that I can't, the Councilman of the 5th District, allocate money to do the play equipment on the School District land that the School District is interested in entering into a lease.
I'm the one that informed the Councilman of that after consultation with the Budget Office and the Managing Director's Office. What I was told, Councilman, again -- and I came right back and sent you an e-mail -- was that the City's policy has been that we can only spend capital money on either property we own or property that we have a long term lease with. That's what I was told is the requirements behind using capital money.
In that same memo you sent to me, there was language from Larry Copeland that said it can be done this way.
I understand that, 158 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Councilman.
And I'm saying that the School District has agreed to do that. Then you tell me that the MDO and the Budget Director said that they don't want to spend the money on the site.
I do understand that and I do understand that Mr. Copeland sent out an opinion that it could be used legally. What I was told is, the policy of the City of Philadelphia, the Administration, is not to spend money on anything that we don't own or do not have a long-term lease in. That's a policy decision. I don't make policy. I just implement it.
Am I talking to myself? I've already said that the School District is willing to do that.
Councilman, it seems that you are saying the same thing, because Mr. Tustin is saying that we can't spend money if we don't have a long-term lease. You're saying that the School District is willing to enter into a long-term lease with the City. 159 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET So it seems that at this point, rather than debate this in a Council hearing, what needs to happen is a small working group needs to work it through if you are in agreement on the lease issue.
We already had that. That's why I'm asking these questions today because I can't the appropriate response. The way it came to me, even if we got the authorization of the School District to enter into a long-term lease agreement, the Budget Director and the Managing Director decided that they couldn't spend that money on that site. I'm saying, I don't understand it. If it's the Councilperson's district Council budget, the Councilperson and the community want to spend the money on the site, how can the Managing Director and the Budget Director make the decision that -- and the money is allocated -- how can they make the decision that it's not going happen? Based on what?
I suspect there might be some miscommunication, and I'm being honest 160 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET about that. I think there might be some miscommunication. It was my understanding that there was no possibility of a long term lease.
From where? The School District was at the meeting in the neighborhood. And Dana, who's high up in the School District, he committed to doing the lease.
If that's the case I think we would be happy to convene a meeting during this time frame. We can sit in a room 18 and find out what's policy, what's law and for everyone to hear each other speak, because I think that perhaps in doing this via memo there's been some miscommunication. I don't necessarily hear something that's an impossibility. And indeed at the end of day --
Who is going to 161 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET be in the meeting?
I am going to recommend that a representative of the MDO's Office be at a meeting. I'm sure the Budget Director would be happy to be there or to have a representative. CPO. We'll be there. And I would invite you or someone from your office who's knowledgeable about the issue.
To talk about a general policy? Because I don't want to just deal with this particular issue. That's the kind of stuff, you know, you guys tell me no. 14 I go down to the second floor, work out some arrangement. I get mine done. This is not about me. This is about a policy where we're supposed to have some spirit of cooperation between agencies. I still say the School District is owned by the City of Philadelphia. You can say whatever you want. You get those tax bills, so I say it's owned by the City of Philadelphia. You can't have some general policy that authorizes us to enter into these 162 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET agreements on a consistent basis, particularly given the fact that three, four years ago, the Mayor said that he wanted to have a consolidation of capital programs to support communities. Now, we've got these alphabet organizations telling people that you can't do it and it's inconsistent with what the Mayor says.
It would certainly be my recommendation, Councilman. Though the City Planning Commission is a peer agency, it would be my recommendation that we talk about the policy as well as the specific because I would like to also understand the policy.
All right. I guess the bell rang. I'll come back on another issue.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to ask a couple questions about SEPTA and the Market Street Elevated 163 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Project.
I really do have other questions, but I thought I would just ask a few on this project. We have businesses that have 9 already shut down. As we've said before, when 10 the project starts they close an area. That 11 may be a month. It may be a couple months. 12 Then they go to the next area. That reopens. 13 And it happens over and over and over and 14 over. We've already had 14 businesses to shut down. Do you know if there are any plans for relief for the businesses, those who are struggling now and those who have shut down and what the future may bring?
Francis Jones, government affairs at SEPTA. As we previously stated, Councilwoman, our dollars that we receive from the federal government and from the other funding agencies are not able to be used to fund or to provide relief to businesses 164 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET directly. What we are able to do, which is what we've been doing and we've coordinated with your office and all the offices of the affected elected officials, is to provide technical assistance to the businesses through a consultant contract that we have working on a day to day basis with the businesses. But as far as direct dollars to the businesses for lost revenues, we're unable to do that.
I am told that before this project is over that they have to use industrial-type equipment to dig up the street that could even affect the homes on either side. Is that true? And if it be true, are there plans for those homes that will be affected and that could be damaged due to the use of industrial equipment in this project?
Councilwoman, I'm not familiar with our using industrial equipment. I do know that there's very intense work that has to be done and equipment will be commensurate with the work we have to do in 165 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET taking down the stations and the guide way. I will find out what the process is, how the process works and get that information to you.
Finally, on this subject, the initial date was '06 that the project will be finished. Now it is '08. Is there any work going on picking a new contractor for part of the project that was stopped months ago? And do we have a revised date for completion of this project or do we know if there is a date?
The contract with PKF, which was the contract on the Cobbs Creek package, as I stated earlier, is in litigation, and so we're working through that process. As soon as we have some resolution 18 in working through the surety company in resolving that issue we'll make sure that you're aware of where we are and what we're doing. As far as the completion date for the project, it's our understanding that at this point 2008 is the date of substantial completion for the project. 166 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Madam President, I note that it was 2008. I don't know when we had our last hearings, three months ago maybe.
We had hearings and that was the date that this same company that's still working on the project was fired from that end of it. There's nobody working there. We don't know when they will be. We don't know when litigation will finish. We don't know when an RFP or whatever can happen. So it's kind of difficult to expect that a project will have the same completion date when there's nobody even working on it. I put all these things on the record for my colleagues so that when we again, as we did last year, introduce this legislation, you will understand the depth of the problem that we're going through in West Philadelphia due to this project. Thank you. MR. DOONER (ph): Councilwoman Blackwell, John Dooner from the Capital Budget 167 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET coordinating for SEPTA. There is work underway right now to do an interim project in that area to address the utility relocation, some duct bank work, drainage and ordering the steel for 63rd Street. We're going to do that as a separate contract that SEPTA is going to release just to get some of these items moving. As we work it out with the security company and get a replacement contract for PKF, we'll have some of the early stages in motion so that the that the project can kind of get up and running on a faster pace. This project on that end was going to end earlier than any other contracts that are in place for the construction on the east end. Therefore, that's why even with this delay we still think that we can fit within the time line and be completed by the end of Calendar Year 2008.
I'd have to check on that. I was just talking to the project 168 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET manager earlier today. We can get back to you on a better time line on the interim initiatives.
Thank you. Madam President, we also note that this is an area where everybody knows, Chestnut, Market, Arch, everywhere in the City. We have times where it's closed, so seniors have got to go from Walnut Street all the way over to Arch or Race. There are puddles in the street. There's dirt. It's blocked off. Everything that could happen, happened. We certainly thank you for that information. Thank you, Ms. Jones. I heard the bell ring. We'll defer to my next colleague. Thank you.
Council President, I just want to point out that we do have a representative here from the library now.
That's fine. Would he approach the witness table, 169 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET please? Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna. My name is Bill 6 Fleming. I'm the Administrative Services Director for the Free Library.
Welcome, Mr. Fleming. The Capital Budget for the library includes $350,000 to assess the cause of the leaks at the Falls of Schuylkill Branch, repairs to the steps at McPherson and Logan Branches and assess the windows at Paschalville Branch. What does assess the cause of leaks mean?
In this case and in the case of some other similar branches in our system, what we're referring to is these are old buildings, Carnegie-type buildings that were built before 1930, and they all have similar-type problems in that we get moisture. It forms up above the window line. It's the way the buildings take water away from the roof. We've had problems with this for years. 170 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET We've had some success in recent years at our Lehigh Branch and Richmond Branch, which are similar buildings. What we've done is had someone assess the condition of the existing structure, actually do some design work, design meaning come up with a plan to fix the problem, and it also would include the cost of rectifying the problem, the construction cost.
That was my question. Will the $350,000 that's been referred to address the issues not only to assess the problem, but to correct it?
We believe it will. We don't see this as being much different than what we saw at Richmond in the last two years. So we're hoping that the cost will come in at approximately the same level. Our experience is that Richmond cost us approximately $250,000. Lehigh, I think, was a little more. It depends on the condition of the structure. But we believe that's sufficient money with maybe a little pad to get us through. 171 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Will that be enough for all four libraries that were mentioned?
Well, the steps from McPherson are just a totally different problem. It's deteriorating steps. There's a large number of steps there. That's going to be a big problem. That's not a waterproofing problem to the building, that's just the steps.
It would just be concrete. We'd replace what's there with concrete. Paschalville is another one of those Carnegie buildings, unique windows, special-type construction that you can't replace. In fact, they cost a lot of money to replace, based on our experience at Chestnut Hill and Haddington. We want to see what we can do, whether we can put some kind of storm window on top of that or whether we have to replace the windows. That's something that 172 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET has to be decided.
The financial wizard to my right is telling me $350,000 will never be able to cover the correction for the four facilities that are mentioned.
Well, the one facility I didn't mention was the steps at Logan. We've already done that job with prior money that should not be mentioned there. So the $350,000 actually covers the three projects. Before I step into trouble here, we do have some money we're using from '05 to start the process.
Councilman Ramos, I know you're waiting. Could I just ask one more question with the library as long as he's here? The Capital Budget for the library totals $800,000. $250,000 of this is for branch boilers and air conditioning systems. Can you tell us how many boilers and air conditioning systems you will replace?
With that money it 173 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET would probably replace one. One system.
We have a number of branches which are in order that we try to tackle. At Falls of Schuylkill, for instance, we had an emergency repair we had to do with operating funds. So that would fall off the board. So whatever the next one is. I don't have it off the top of my head, but that would go next. We're currently repairing three systems at Greater Olney, Coleman and Kensington.
I would have to get back to you with which one we plan to do next.
Please. While you're there, I would like you to explain how you're able to reduce the $600,000 amount for the branch libraries in the out 174 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET years of the Capital Program?
Well, what we plan to do is certainly within the constraints of the budget that is basically laid out for us by the Administration. A lot of things we're trying to do, depending on the critical nature of the project -- naturally we can't replace and maintain as many things as we would like to with the money -- but we're just prioritizing what's out there and taking care of it as it happens.
If I can add to that. It's my understanding that there was a fairly comprehensive upgrade and maintenance program for the branch libraries over the last few years that's just ending. So we hope with life-cycle spans as they are, that we would not have to go back for some period of time to do substantive repairs, except for emergencies.
That's what we had been led to believe, that all of the branch libraries had been rehabbed. Yet 175 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET we keep coming back with necessary repairs to be made.
Well, we did rehab all of the branches. When you get into mechanical systems, if a mechanical system still has seven or eight years of useful life, you're not going to go in there and make that replacement until you have to. In the case of the branch renovations, I believe the first one we did was in 1994. So we're starting to see problems creep up with those earlier branches that we had done in the renovation process.
It doesn't seem that long ago that we started to rehab them.
Time goes by when you're having fun, huh? Councilman Ramos.
Thank you, Madam President. Ms. Griffith, is there someone here 176 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET from the Streets Department? I know you mentioned earlier that they had left. Are they back?
Yes. We actually got a note. Apparently, unless someone came in recently, they are still in this emergency meeting. They did respond in writing to the Council President's earlier question, but I don't believe there's anyone here now. If there is, could they identify themselves? (No response.)
We were just caucusing. Apparently Ms. Robinson is able to answer the question that the Council President asked, but is not fully knowledgeable about the full range of projects. So you may hit upon a project that she's familiar with, but we would have to excuse her if that's not the case.
I understand. If it cannot be answered now, we'll get an answer later. In the Five-Year Plan under Street 177 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Department Projects, it states that the Street Department already has inspected and replaced signs at 682 intersections through anticipated funding of $2 million. Flashing signals will be installed at 130 schools over the next five years. Particularly at our last hearing and also going into this year, we all have been so concerned about our schools and students' safety in our City. I wanted to know, was there an assessment made of where you would put these lights, or is it by request only?
I'm going to defer that question to Charlie Trainer, our Chief Traffic Engineer.
Councilman, Charles Trainer, the Chief Traffic Engineer for the Streets Department. Councilman, the first step of the process for the installation of the school flashing signals is an application from the school. We're really concentrating right now on the public schools. I believe we have 42 or 43 applications on hand. We have a 178 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET contract that we just received the bids on, so the paperwork is flowing, which should do those 42 schools. We've already asked the School District to provide us with additional school applications. Any other applications that we get in we'll move with them.
My first question is, have you ever thought of doing an assessment of where these flashing lights might be needed outside of schools? Right now it seems as though the way that you get a flashing light is if a school calls or if there's petitions in that neighborhood. They go to the district Councilpeople or someone else and then you get put on a list. I'm wondering why don't we, especially since in the last few years we've been so concerned about student safety in our City -- has anyone thought of doing an assessment to see where we actually need these flashing lights and see how much it would cost us and just get those flashing lights out in those areas?
Each school has a 179 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET school speed limit sign on the perimeter streets.
My question is, has there been an assessment or any thinking along the lines of doing an assessment of all the schools in the City of Philadelphia to see where flashing lights might be needed?
We've been responding based on requests. Councilman, there are over 600 school properties in the City of Philadelphia.
Okay. That includes charter schools, parochial, private, all the schools?
Ms. Griffith, has the Planning Commission ever thought of doing an assessment of where these flashing lights 180 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET might be needed by just taking a look at all these 600 schools and see who needs them?
Honestly, Councilman, no, we haven't. We would normally defer to Streets for that kind of assessment.
A couple other questions I have. Charlie, it says that it's $2 million over five years. It seems as though that you'll be able to do about schools a 12 year, and that the cost is somewhere over 13 $15,000. This is not my area of knowledge. 14 But $15,000 is what we pay, $15,000 plus is 15 what we pay for flashing lights? 16
Per school. Between 17 $15 to $25,000 depending on the type of pole 18 and the number of flashers that we need to put 19 in for the school. A one-way street that's 26 20 feet wide only requires one pole post mounted. 21 If it's a two-way street, we now need two. If 22 it's got two lanes in each direction, then we 23 now need an overhead signal. 24
These are open 25 bid contracts? 181 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
These are electrical contractors that have been approved for signal work with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and approved by us.
If you are going to split up $2 million over the five years that means that you will only do this year, 12 or will you do more? If so, does that mean 13 that in the third, fourth or fifth year you 14 might not have money to provide flashing 15 lights in other schools? 16
We have $1 million 17 that we just went out with on a bid. That's a 18 loan from the School District. We expect to 19 do 42 schools on that contract. The contract 20 is expected to start around April, actually on 21 the street, with completion date by the end of 22 the Calendar year. 23
But if you're 24 stretching $2 million over five years, the way 25 it's divided up, it will turn out to be about 182 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET 26 schools only. Is that what you will only do in the first fiscal year coming up?
I think we may even be a little bit lower. In the fiscal year coming up -- well, the $1 million is also going to be going in the next fiscal year.
It's actually a loan that we just received from the School District. We have, I think it's $200,000 budgeted for FY '06, which would give us to 14 20 schools. 15
We have 42 applications on hand right now, which are scheduled to be done with that million dollars.
This is only for the public schools? When do the Catholic 183 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET parochial schools come into play? They have the second biggest school system in the City. When do they get in the mix?
The application system we have, they're in the mix. If we have an application for a parochial school, if we have an application for a charter school or a private school, if they sign the agreement and provide us with the insurance documentation as we get closer to the installation date, they are in the mix. They join the mix along with the public schools.
So of the 40-some applications that you have, they have come from public, parochial, private, charter schools?
Thank you so much. I want to get just a couple questions. May I proceed, Madam President?
Ms. Griffith, last year when you testified under recommended 184 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET FY 2005-2010 Capital Program, I think the fifth paragraph, you stated -- it was over the discussion of infrastructure and public facilities. Councilman Clarke made reference to this issue earlier this afternoon. You stated, "Over the coming months we will work closely with the Managing Director's Office, our other sister agencies, the School District, community-based organizations and, of course, Members of City Council to consider a range of strategies." Was that ever done?
My memory isn't as good as yours, Councilman. A range of strategies for what in specific?
You stated that months after your April 5th testimony, that you were going to work closely with the Managing Director, with sister agencies, the School District, community-based organizations and, of course, Members of City Council to consider a range of strategies on the infrastructure in public facilities' downsizing. Do you remember that? 185 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Were you able to convene that group that you stated last year?
No. Two of the staff members of the School District who had -- I wouldn't say promised -- but indicated they would be interested in meeting are now no 12 longer there. The director of facilities planning -- I believe that's the title -- has left and another staff person and her office has also left, and we've had some difficulty in reconnecting. There is a consultant that's been brought on board at the request of School Board members. They've met with us and we've conveyed our concerns to them, that we would be very interested in reconnecting and reopening a dialog across the board. As I said earlier in response to Councilman Clarke's question, on an ad hock basis, given a specific project we often can 186 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET communicate. But in terms of overall strategy and some kind of agency to agency agreement, we have not been particularly successful.
Because it was not just the School District, although the School District was a big part of it. But we were talking last year about facilities and physical deterioration and that we needed to upgrade and do things a little different because of the times. We no longer have a two million plus population when some of the structures went up. We have a 1.5 or less population at this time. Then what I wanted to do is go back to something I said last year, and that is that when the Philadelphia City Planning Commission comes into being early '50 -- I think you probably remember this statement. It's probably verbatim the way I said it last year. That Dilworth and those thinkers of that era and leaders looked at the idea of a Planning Commission as the engine of creativity. That's the way they envisioned it. 187 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Their idea was that the Planning Commission would be thinking ahead of all of us Philadelphians, and that they would group, like you suggested last year, that you would group with the Managing Director, sister agencies, Members of City Council to take a look at this issue of infrastructure of this City. It didn't happen. I understand that we all get very tied up with our work. But this is something that the founders, that the people that had the vision of a Planning Commission were thinking of. That this body would have the foresight to think ahead of us in what the City would look like. It doesn't mean that it would come to be, but that there would be some sort of plan, that there would be some thinkers together that would say, this might be what the City should look like years from now. We get rid of these old structures. Our population is smaller. We deal with the School District. Although I have a better understanding of your testimony this year than 188 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET I did last year -- that's not your fault. I guess I was going through my rookie experience last year. But I don't see anything about things that we have been hearing in this City about Naval Yard development. And it's going to be housing and it's going to be business and it's going to be entertainment. Very little on River City, on NTI. What's your thinking on slot parlors? Should it go here? Should it go there? What after the Comcast skyscraper. Should we have another skyscraper that's 70 stories high? Antiquated zoning laws in this City. When are we going to tackle antiquated zoning laws and regulations in the City? The way the Planning Commission was set out by the thinkers of this Commission was for it to do precisely this, look ahead of us. Put everything in a big plan. Although I'm encouraged by some of the things that you presented today and you did last year, I don't see this visionary charge that the Planning -- do you have a new chairman of the board now? 189 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Last year you didn't have one or the person was leaving. He had different ideas and contradictory ideas to what should be done in a lot of areas when it comes to the Planning Commission.
Councilman, I hope you will be here when I give my operating testimony. Because indeed all of the elements that you have laid out you will find in that testimony that focuses on what the Planning Commission is going to do. Today I am really a representative of this unfortunately diminished Capital Program Budget, which relates mostly to maintaining our facilities and trying to keep leaky roofs from leaking. We do have a number of new initiatives working with MDO and Fairmount Park on a comprehensive open space plan, doing a three-dimensional view of Center City so that we can test out things like skyscrapers and how they're going to impact on the City, et cetera. 190 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET I think I signed off on, I think, the final draft of that operating budget testimony. It should be conveyed to Councilmembers soon, and I very much look forward to this dialog at that time. I do remember you were one of the Councilmembers who seemed really enthusiastic about some of the initiatives that the Planning Commission had put forth. And I do want to let you know where we are with those initiatives. I apologize for misunderstanding your initial question. Although we have not been as successful with the School District, there are two what's called cluster meetings with the Managing Director and other members of the Mayor's Cabinet that have been grappling with this issue of how do we do more with less and how do we right size infrastructure. It's not so much reflected in the Capital Budget because that really speaks to, as I said, just maintenance and operation. We would be happy to, perhaps along with the Managing Director's Office, to sit 191 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET down with you and in more detail talk about the kind of right sizing for 1.4 million.
So when you come before us the next time on operating budget, you will have another written testimony that would outline some of things you just articulated?
Okay. What you presented was a very good idea. I think that you should try to get convened this group to talk about, you know, long range strategies on how to handle deteriorating facilities. You stated here Members of City Council. So I'm willing to be of any help that I can in getting that group together. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. On of the Budget, Item 49-1, under the Managing Director's budget, 192 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET "City-wide facilities make critical renovations and other improvements at City-owned sites on an as-needed basis." Tell me about that. What sites are included in that $2 million? Who makes the decision on how the money is spent and what sites get improvements?
That's essentially the MDO's emergency fund. I don't know whether there's a representative that would like to speak to that in more detail. I see a representative. MR DONAGHY: The money that's in that line item is used for emergency repairs to facilities when they pop up. It's not designated for any particular buildings at the beginning of the year. Traditionally, historically we have used, at least this much this year, in trying to make those emergency repairs to facilities. It is City wide. It's not just restricted to any one department.
Could you give me an example? 193 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Yes, I can. An example is the room we're sitting in today. Some of the money that went towards the renovation of the damage, the flood damage here in this building, came from that line item. Those are the type of emergencies that we have. Things that are completely unexpected and that we're not anticipating in advance. As I said, we generally have used that type. I can give you a list of projects for your review that we have used this money for in the past.
Is this a traditional pot of money that has been in the Managing Director's Office and for how long?
I'd like to talk about the airport. Where is the Planning Commission? 194 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
Ms. Griffith has stepped out of the room just for a moment. She'll be right back.
Okay. Madam President, the Planning Commission is out of the room for a moment. Skip me and come back.
Thank you, Councilman Rizzo and Madam President. Actually, I may need her also. Actually, a couple of quick questions. Ms. Schlotterbeck, is she here? And actually CPO and/or Rec. Two questions; one with respect to Public Property and one with respect to CPO issues. Actually, Recreation also. A few years back there was a proposal to look at City Hall, particularly first floor reuse for some sort of retail commercial activity that would help raise some revenue. Is there a copy of that document?
Joan 195 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Schlotterbeck, Public Property Commissioner. If I'm familiar with the report that you're referring to, I think it was done by the Controller's Office.
I think I might somewhere in my files. I have to look.
I introduced a resolution recently to have public hearings. And as soon as the budget stuff is done we wanted to talk about City Hall in general, the use of it and particularly some potential reuses of some of the space on the first floor. If you can get that document to the Council President --
Can you get that to the Chair, a copy of that in preparation, rather than us having a hearing and then asking for that?
The other thing, as it relates to facilities, particularly 196 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET recreation facilities, years back there was a determination that there would be -- I think it was $1.5 at one point per Council district?
I'm assuming that was based on the geographical area of the Council districts and the number of people that we subsequently represented, which was like 150,000 or 160, whatever it was at that time. Recently -- and this has nothing to do with you guys -- we had a re-districting in this Council, and as a result of the re-districting, there was somewhat of a redistribution of recreation facilities in various Council districts. I can speak of mine in particular where I picked up a number of facilities. Most of them, if not all, were relatively old and conditions were, as suspected, somewhat suspect. I'm not asking you to come up with a formula to figure out how to redistribute the Council's $1.2 million. Now you're talking about $400,000 to Councilpeople. I think 197 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET that's something that I probably would only get one or two votes for here in Council since I picked up the majority of the new facilities. In your City-wide analysis of facilities that needs to be done -- because there's two pools; there's the Council allocation and there's the City-wide allocation. Can you look at a strategy that -- frankly, this is a somewhat self-serving question -- could give me some assistance? Because I will not be able to, based on your recommendations, even if we were able to get the $1.2, accommodate all of the facilities that I have in the 5th Councilmanic District with that money. I think you actually said as it relates to swimming pools I have like --
As part of the assessment report that we started this past year, which we'll have in May, it will be all of the A and B facilities. That assessment report, even though it's going to be recommendations per facility, it will be 198 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET rolled up into one spreadsheet. So we'll be able to look at all of the hundred facilities at one glance and look at, what are the hot issues or the major issues that need addressing through capital funds across the board, not by district, but all the facilities. So it really wouldn't relate to a Council district, per se. It would relate to all hundred. So we will be looking at that to see which is the best place to place the capital funds. So I guess what I'm saying is, part of our review of that will be looking at it from a facility base and not necessarily a Council district base.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you. We all read here how busy our airport is. I'm wondering what the Planning 199 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Commission is doing to deal with the growth and the activity at Philadelphia International Airport. Just as an example. We all know there's a new aircraft called the Air Bus that is going to be built. From what I understand, our airport cannot at this time accommodate that. Even though it is a few years out, planning is also a few years out. I understand Fed Ex is going to be operating that aircraft here in Philadelphia. We've got issues where there's no place for that airplane even to park. That's just an example of keeping our eye on the ball to make sure that we don't wind up not being able to accommodate an aircraft that may become popular. That's just one example. What do we do? Do we have a team that continues to monitor what we do at the airport? I know that we designed a runway down there that the Kavaerna crane is in the way. I talked to a pilot. He just can't believe it -- a commercial pilot -- that they 200 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET got to the point where it's really the captain's discretion whether they depart on that runway or not. So obviously there was some planning issues that didn't work there, probably way before you. My point is, if this is going to be an airport that's growing as rapidly as it is, do we have a dedicated team of people that focus on the airport?
I understand your question. Planning for the airport is so highly technical that we really look to the leadership of the airport team in that regard. There is a working group, and we do have a member, Tom Chapman, who is the head of our Development and Planning Division and is part of that working group, specifically looking on a case by case basis issues related to pedestrian and vehicular circulation and those more traditional planning issues. But for, again, the highly technical aspect of how do you develop an airport that can best receive the aircraft for the next century -- I'd like to think I'm a fairly bright person -- that is 201 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET outside of my area of expertise.
But I think you have to make sure that the team at the airport isn't asleep at the switch, that they're doing what you think they're doing. How do you monitor the fact that you're satisfied as the planning leader that the people that you depend on to do that outside with this technical ability, that they're really doing that? I can tell you they are.
There is a master plan in process, as you know, and that's the team that I was speaking to when I mentioned that Tom Chapman is a member of that team. In addition, every year in the run-up to this process, the capital process, we get a very extensive presentation, and Director Isdell usually has a three-part presentation, a multi-media presentation. They're very thorough and very cooperative in answering questions that we might have and responding to queries not only from me, but from the transportation members of my staff who are more technically knowledgeable. We're 202 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET very comfortable.
My concern is that the way we do business at the airport is changing by the second. The culture at the airport is changing. The increased number of low fare airlines has changed that place entirely. I spoke to a person from US Air that indicated that the way we handle baggage there -- baggage US Air -- the system that they use is really antiquated. So is that in that group's purview to make sure that that airport is being upgraded technically as it grows? Because I think the release this week was it's the busiest it has ever been.
I know baggage handling was one of the issues that was a part of the presentation. Also just general circulation through the airport. What they're looking to do, I think, is to get folks from their car to the curb and through the process in a way that's very commodious, because folks in the northeast really often have a choice of airports. Again, we were very comfortable 203 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET with their presentation of options. It was clear enough for someone who wasn't highly technically trained, but I think complex enough that all of the various aspects of airport planning were covered. I'm also sure that Isdell and his team would be happy to present --
When they come, I'm sure that someone from Commerce here knows that that is going to be a very interesting issue because that airport can make us or break us. What you just said, so many people e-mail me and talk to me that they're going to Allentown, they're going to Baltimore, they're even going to Atlantic City to avoid the hassles that they experience here. Like you mentioned, to try to alleviate some of that takes planning. You don't change an airport in six, eight months. It's not like firehouse ventilation systems.
I should also point out, Councilman, that the airport folks are part of the Commerce Director's economic 204 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET development team as well. Not only do they present to us with regard to some of the physical planning aspects, but in terms of the economic development focus. Director Naidoff meets regularly with their folks to make sure that they're on track in that regard as well.
Terrific. Thank you. But you are very technical. I think you would understand that stuff. Thank you, Madam President.
Ms. Griffith, about how long has it been since the concept of right sizing developed?
Well, actually when I was at HUD we were doing right sizing. So as a concept it's been around certainly for the last couple of years. We've been looking at right sizing in this Administration. About a year ago, as you will remember, the Mayor formed a number of 205 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET committees called the 21st Century Committees, and one of them -- and it was one that I served on -- was the right sizing Committee. So certainly from about a year ago we have had that in our sights.
What is encompassed in the thoughts about right sizing? What are you right sizing?
Well, conceptually the thought is that at its peak in the 1950s the City of Philadelphia had about 2.1, 2.2 million folks. Now, depending who you believe, we're about at 1.4 million. So not consistently, but in many instances we have an infrastructure of various kinds, facilities, et cetera, that is getting older. It was built for 2.2 million. So the thought in concept was to build or to maintain facilities that would accommodate as opposed to spreading limited funds over a very wide infrastructure, including areas where folks move. Many of these facilities, heard from the question and answer today especially of Rick Tustin, require great maintenance and a 206 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET lot of money to maintain them. So that's it in concept. You may have some specific questions.
Well, does right sizing encompass the concern of the changing nature of citizenry or does it relate merely to the physical facilities?
This may not be a direct response to your question. We do look at demographics. For instance, the Recreation Department is looking at, as you know, spray fields because in many instances we have areas of the City where there are many, many young children. That is the kind of facility that parents would like their children to play in. So we do try to mesh demographic analysis with the manifestation of sort of physical structure. I'm not sure whether that's responsive to your question.
Well, it begins to move in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned. Tell me, does right sizing have any 207 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET application to the problem of what tax structure there ought to be? For example, do we start on a basis of, say, population, or how would you apply the theory of right sizing? Because you're trying, I think, through right sizing to develop a way of life by matching needs with facilities. Now, I'm asking whether in effect you ever start on the other end. Do you start with the needs and then move to facilities? For example, is there any such thing as right sizing a tax structure for a City with a heavy population of senior citizens, say, supported solely by social security checks? Would the result of right sizing be different in such a community than in another community where maybe more people are wealthy and therefore have different needs?
I don't know whether the Budget Director would want to address that.
That's a theoretical question that I think bears some thought. I haven't thought about it in exactly that way. 208 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET I was thinking of responding to what you asked about with respect to the fact that the City provides services to populations that have special needs in all parts of the age spectrum, but not with respect to taxes per se. However, I would say historically, the City has very low property taxes, relatively speaking, which is a benefit to senior citizens, and wage taxes, which we all know, have been relatively high, which tends to fall on those who have a greater ability to pay.
Well, your answer began to engage my question because it developed out of the other hearing we had which related to taxes. I believe Philadelphia is a City with an unusually high population in terms of percentages of people who are homeowners, as against renters. I think Philadelphia has one of the highest ratings percentages of homeowners and of widows and widowers living on fixed incomes than any other city. There 209 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET it seems to me that maybe right sizing also has application to this concept of taxes, because I could think of nothing more awful that could occur to a City than to suddenly lose its row house population because senior citizens are driven out of their minds by demands on taxes that are far too high for them. Is there such a concept applicable? Have people thought of it? Have they worked in it. Because it's one thing to deal with physical facilities. It's another thing to deal with other aspects of life, beginning with the needs of people.
Councilman, we'll try to think about that a little bit and get back to you. But thank you for the thoughtful question.
Maybe I missed that. Would you repeat that again? I've been waiting for somebody to answer what I thought was a question you were raising to somebody on the panel.
What I had said was that 210 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET that is going to require some thinking about, so if you give us a little time we'll think about that and get back to you. Thank you for the question.
There are a number of different ways one could look at right sizing. It seems to me that the concept makes a lot of sense, but not in a selective way, but in a way applicable to all needs of the citizens, as well as the needs of these kind of services that the City ought to provide. Thank you. It's a reasonable request. I will abide. How much time do you think and where would we begin to get approaches from your office? Or from the City?
I would actually have to think a little bit about even the time frame, but I will get back to you first on the time frame and then on some of the content.
I think that your question is so creative and kind of breaks out of the box so much because, of course, we come 211 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET to the capital hearing thinking that we're going to talk about physical facilities. It's a perfectly appropriate question, but it's one, to be honest, that I don't think we came prepared to respond to because it's so sort of unique in its perspective and it is going to take some time. It also bridges capital, really, and operating.
Could we look to the beginning at least of an approach at the beginning of the appropriations, not the capital, but the operating budget?
You're welcome, sir. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. 212 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Good afternoon, Secretary Griffith. If this has already been addressed, you'll just let me know and I'll move on to another area. On Pages and 16, you have the 6 terminal expansion and modernization program, 7 as well as the air field capacity enhancement 8 program. I think there are also some 9 references to the runway 17-357 extension 10 project. Can you tell me what's the status of 11 these projects and have they been approved by 12 the FAA? 13
That question has not 14 been asked before, although we did get some 15 questions on the airport. I'm looking around to see whether there's a representative from the airport that can respond. Yes, there is.
Good afternoon, Council President and Councilmembers. My name is Calvin Davenger. I'm the Deputy Director of Aviation for Planning and Environmental Stewardship. Councilman Nutter, could you rephrase or redirect your question, please?
Sure. On Pages 213 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET and of the Capital Program book, reference is made to the Airport Capacity Enhancement Program and a Runway 17-35. What I want to know is the status of those items and have these improvements been approved by the FAA?
Yes. Let me start 9 with the fact that our Director, Charles 10 Isdell, who would normally be present today, 11 he's not able to be here. He's at a passenger 12 terminal expo in Cologne, Germany. He's 13 promoting airport internationally. He's 14 certainly an international figure and we're 15 grateful that we have an opportunity to 16 represent him here today. With regard --
I'm sorry. I may have missed this at the beginning. Could you just tell me your name?
I'm the Deputy for Planning and Environmental Stewardship at the airport. 214 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
With respect to the Runway 17-35 Expansion Project, that project started or it had its start as part of our master plan. The master plan split this particular project off as a short-term project, which at this point is about to conclude its environmental impact statement for that particular project. We're in the process where we have a final environmental impact statement which will be released on March 3rd. It will be in the Federal Register on March 11th. There will be a 30 day comment period on that document. Then following that, the FAA, we believe, will reach a decision or a record of decision with respect to their approval of that project and what alternatives or what portion of the project we would then be able to move forward, hopefully in a construction mode because they have shown in an earlier draft document that they do favor one of the build alternatives. 215 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
They do favor a build alternative with respect to 17-35. The alternative that they favor will extend the north portion of that runway 640 feet and the southern portion some 400 feet, for a total of 1,040 feet extension. So right now that looks like it's on the approval path with respect to the FAA and it will conclude, we believe, in April or thereafter with a record of decision.
All right. So if I'm understanding is, the short answer is, the projects have not been approved by the FAA. You're moving through an approval process and you believe that they will be approved?
Well, they've been approved for funding. We have grants to do the EIS portions on both of these projects. The EIS work is 80 percent funded by the FAA.
Are there any other entities that need to give approval to these projects?
Once they pass from 216 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET this environmental phase, they go into a design and construction phase.
I understand that. I'm just asking, are there any other entities or agencies or governments that need to give any approval to these projects?
No, none that I know of. With respect to the Capacity Enhancement Project, which was the major air field expansion program which 17-35 was spun off of, that also is in the environmental impact statement stage. They both pretty much started with the same notice of intent about a year and a half ago, and that project now is ramping up to a point where we'll be interacting a bit more with some of the regulatory agencies involved with reviewing some of the environmental documents that will be produced as a result of the work of the FAA and their environmental consultant.
One last question in this area. What is the expected outcome as a result of all of this work being 217 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET done? Will there been some improvement in performance out at the airport as a result of any of this?
With respect to the 17-35 project, yes, we do expect improved performance. Part of the purpose and need on that project was to move some of the smaller, narrow body and regional jet aircraft off of the primary runways and put them on these secondary runways, and in particular 17-35, since approximately 75 percent of our, I'll say our destinations, which are 800 miles to a thousand miles, can be reached by narrow bodied jets and regional jets. That will take an awful large amount of aircraft off of the primary runways, which will reduce the delays at our airport. The staging life, so to speak, is 800 to a thousand miles.
The aircraft 17-35 are regional jets and narrow body aircraft which have, in terms of what we call staging 218 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET length, a range of 800 to a thousand miles. About 75 percent of the destinations at our airport can be serviced within that distance.
So it's your position that this project and all of this work will improve performance out at the airport?
Okay. I'm sure we'll have some more discussion about that. Madam Chair, I'm just trying to figure out where I'm at. The length of the answer seemed to -- which was comprehensive in nature -- just seemed to eat of all of my time.
While you're trying to figure out where you are, I think I'll call upon Councilman DiCicco.
I'm sure he has more questions, but if he has a specific follow-up to the line of questioning I will yield my time and then come back to me.
Councilman, I appreciate that. I'm reluctant to continue to 219 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET pursue that area as it seems to capture a significant amount of time in getting the Q and A going back and forth. So I was going to move to another area. I would respectfully yield back to you and come back for another round in a different area.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco, and we're just starting on your five minutes.
Thank you, Madam President. Ms. Griffith, I know you may have answered this earlier. I was in my office. I didn't catch the answer to Councilman Ramos' question about the role of the Planning Commission. I don't know if that was his exact question. One or two sentences, give me the parameters of what you believe the role of the Planning Commission is in relationship to development within the City and its neighborhoods.
I can give you one sentence. The Charter says that our charge is the orderly development of the City. So 220 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET everything we do sort of springs from that omnibus charge. If there are no additional questions at this moment for the airport -- but Councilman Rizzo may have questions later.
In that process, in that role that the Planning Commission plays, I've known from the past presentations by the Planning Commission --
Excuse me, Councilman. I would ask that the representatives from the airport not leave because I believe one of the other Councilmembers has questions. I have not taken away from your time.
There have been presentations that the Planning Commission has put out for these purposes of budget hearings, and it shows you different neighborhoods, rec centers that either have been built or were coming on line, libraries, et cetera. In my opinion that was being presented to us to talk about neighborhood development and what role the Planning Commission plays in the concept 221 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET of improving conditions in neighborhoods to make Philadelphia a better and more attractive place. Is that somewhat what your role is?
There's a little bit of overlap to Councilman Ramos's questions. In a way, the hat I wear for Capital Budget purposes -- I don't want to carry this metaphor to far -- but is a very narrow hat. So the presentation I make today is a representation on behalf of the Administration of how and where we recommend that the City spend its money on its own facilities. It is only one relatively small but very important component of what the Planning Commission does overall. When I come back for my operating testimony, I will have a more thorough -- we don't do a slide show.
I understand that. I was not criticizing that. I was just trying to frame the questions that I'm going to be asking in that small role that you play in discussions with the Administration in terms of how they're going to spend their 222 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET capital dollars on the needs assessments based on neighborhoods. It's all part about quality of life issues, improving neighborhood conditions and making neighborhoods more attractive for people who live there and hopefully encourage people to come in and move into the neighborhoods and making Philadelphia a better place. To what extent is that involvement in terms of recommending, suggesting to the Administration things like quality of life and public service facilities and their relationship to neighborhoods? For example, libraries in many of the neighborhoods are experiencing a reduction in hours of operation. Rec centers, similar types of cut backs. Fire stations, 15 fire stations are being -- realigned is the word that's being used. 11 in my district are losing ladders and/or engines. In some neighborhoods there will not be any fire fighting apparatus. Does the Planning Commission play any role? Do you not recommend to the 223 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Administration in the scheme of things when you're trying to improve conditions in neighborhoods, quality of life and those amenities and services basically that are important for the safety of the community, that maybe these things shouldn't be done and that closing a fire station -- although that's a play on words. The Administration says they're not closing the fire station. They're taking all the fire equipment out and putting a paramedic truck, therefore the fire station facility is open but the fire equipment is gone. I don't want to get into that debate. I've had too many of those already. But that is a quality of life issue. When you have the significant increase of population in certain neighborhoods in the City, in particular in my district, I'll speak about Old City. The river front communities are bursting at the seams with residential development, and you start pulling out libraries, reducing hours of operation, reducing the capital dollars that 224 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET we're putting into rec centers. Removing public safety equipment. That has to have a negative ring to it for people who are, in my opinion, who may be looking to move into the City and in particular neighborhoods knowing now that they may not have those amendments available to them and their families. Do you not play a role in that? Is it falling on deaf ears? I know you have to be careful about certain things. In the scheme of things, the Planning Commission should be, in my opinion, waving the banner and saying these are the things that we should be looking at to do last, not first.
If can respond, I'd like to respond in a couple of ways. The answer to your question about do we have recommendations is yes. We do that in a couple of ways. Right now we're involved in about 42 neighborhood or community plans, either doing that as an agency in concert with community organizations and Council and the effected Councilmembers or sometimes jointly 225 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET with community-based organizations, with funding through foundations, et cetera. When we do a community plan we are comprehensive, and we look at community facilities and service facilities along with everything else. We do make recommendations. That's one approach. You may not have been here when I talked conceptually about the fact that a big recommendation of the Planning Commission was, given the fact that the City has gone from a population of 2.2 to about 1.4 million folks, that we actually do have a facilities infrastructure that is probably more extensive than is required for the population. So not to speak in specifics because we turn that --
But you're spreading that across 110 square miles of Philadelphia?
Absolutely. It is still up to Council folks in concert with the affected agencies and MDO's office then to parse through -- and we will be happy to have input -- on a case by case basis given need, 226 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET given population, given population trending, which one of those facilities is appropriate to close, to modify, where it's okay to restrict hours. The third part of that equation, however, is the fact that we simply don't have the money even to do everything we would like to do. So although we would be recommending right sizing even if we had, you know, millions of dollars overage, in reality we also have the pressure of a Capital Budget that is about half of what we need. So all of those things play and it's not a linear decision. Often it's a dialog and you try to come up with the best decision for a given project at a given time.
Thank you for your answer. I do understand right sizing and I understand the fact that we have limited resources, but I just cannot in my wildest imagination understand how some of these decisions are being made in areas where we are seeing significant residential growth, in an 227 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET area where you don't have it. Not because it's my district. It just happens to be in the 1st Councilmatic district is where the bulk of this development is taking place, that we are going to be doing a lot more with a hell of a lot less. Excuse my using the word hell, but it's just driving me crazy that those neighborhoods are getting less of public service in the broad sense than we had five years ago and we've seen conservatively a 13 percent increase in the residential 14 population. 15
Councilman, if we can 16 be of assistance in providing demographic 17 analysis or mapping or any tools for you to 18 engage in a discussion, we'd be happy to do 19 that. 20 Because the 1st Councilmatic district is doing so well, frankly, that's not one of the areas where we're doing these comprehensive neighborhood plans simply because planning has been done and things are going great. 228 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
I understand the planning. I just don't understand the reduction in public facilities and services in those areas that we're seeing and we will continue to see. Even the most pessimistic people in real estate say this bubble is not going to burst for at least more years. 9 To eliminate, close down fire stations, it 10 just doesn't make any sense. Thank you. Thank you for your answer.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Madam President. I don't want to be difficult today, but something happened a bit ago that troubles me a bit. We spend a lot of time in this Chamber. We have representatives of all the various departments. I don't know how many people we have from the airport sitting back there, but I would like to know. We ask a question. We're struggling to get an answer 229 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET because the Planning Commission people aren't able to deal with it. Why didn't the airport come forward when I asked questions? How many people do we have here from the airport that could have answered the questions that I asked? Could you all come forward, please?
It's their fault for not coming up to that table when a Member of Council asks a question. Did you know they were here? You told me you didn't.
No. I'd like all of them to come up so we can see how many there are.
How many are here from the airport? Please approach the witness table.
This is a joke. They're trouping for each other but they're hiding in the corner. 230 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Could someone come up here and answer the questions, please, that I asked? I would like to know why you didn't come up to the table when I asked the questions.
The record will indicate that there were five people from the airport.
Good afternoon, Madam President and Members of Council. My name is Mark Gale. I'm the Deputy Director for Aviation for Operations and Facilities. I would first like to formally apologize to the Councilman. I do sincerely apologize, Councilman, for not coming forward and answering your question appropriately. I will make sure that I don't do that again and pay you the respect that you're due. If there's anything I can answer for you, I'd be happy to.
Sure. You heard the questions and I think you should answer them.
The one question that I 231 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET do recall, Councilman, had to do with respect to a new airbus aircraft. And while certainly there's no guarantee, Councilman, I would like to try to assure you and instill faith and confidence that we're not asleep at the switch, that we have been monitoring the progress on the development of new aircraft, such as the Airbus 38, which the FAA deems as a new, large aircraft. I've been personally following the situation for several years, going back to pre-2001 when the government accounting office issued a survey asking how airports would handle air crafts of that size and what it would cost in order to update their facility in terms of bigger and wider runways, taxiways, facilities such as terminals and what not. At that time, we did answer the survey and we came up with very rough numbers that indicated somewhere in the magnitude of about $5 to $10 million worth of facility improvements would be required in order to handle that aircraft. Once it's in service, 232 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET which is expected to be sometime late next year, early 2007, that will be the largest commercial service aircraft flying around both in the United States and abroad on both the passenger side as well as the cargo side. One of the things that we're working to do with the FAA is to see whether or not Philadelphia will be able to handle that aircraft without making all those modifications that were necessary. There are portions of our facility that meet the specifications. Our runway is wide enough, but some of our taxiways are not. Our terminal facility really isn't equipped to handle an aircraft that has 800 people flying aboard it. You can imagine the size of the hold rooms that are required for that. On the flip side there are, as you indicated, carriers like Fed Ex and United Parcel Service that wouldn't require those terminal modifications. And we might be able to do something to land them on our runways and get them to the cargo entrance so that they can be properly handled. We continue to 233 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET work with the FAA and we monitor what's going on in the industry. You probably have read recently some airports like Atlanta have already made the decision that they're not going to do the facility modifications in order to accept that aircraft. They just don't think that it's financial beneficial for them to do so. We have not at this point received any indication from either the United Parcel Service of Fed Ex that that aircraft would be destined for Philadelphia, at least not at this stage of the game. When we get into the issue that my colleague spoke about on the master planning process, with Philadelphia being on the verge of potentially changing its existing runway configuration in order to accommodate future growth in response to the demand on this airport, that would be a perfect time to be able to set our airfield up to be able to accommodate Airbus 380 aircraft. There is a version of the next 747 that's expected to be just as big that's out there on the horizon. 234 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Again, I would like to assure you that I'm not asleep at the switch.
I never said you were. As a matter of fact, I said the opposite to the Planning Commission, that I knew that you weren't. Again, if you were closer you would have heard that I was trying to throw a compliment you way, that you weren't asleep. The buzzer went off. Again, when it's your turn to come here, be ready because we want to hear about the long-term planning. Atlanta said they don't want this aircraft, but I can see reading in the paper five years from now saying, this thing is all over the country except Philadelphia. We got enough problems with the national publicity we got with the US Air problems with the baggage and that's why we would like to know, is the airport able to -- I understand that you're looking at upgrading the way we handle baggage. The old system is antiquated. This airport can make us or break 235 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET us. Right now the publicity has been so negative that people are not -- even though it's great that you're getting all these low fare people in and out of here, the ones that fly the first class seats in the business community in many cases are going other place. You know that as well as I do that that's happening. We don't need that. We don't need the airport and some of the carriers there to take us down with them. Hopefully, that won't happen. When you come back we would like to hear more about this apparent -- your own planning operation there that doesn't have really a whole lot of interaction -- or maybe some -- with the Planning Commission. We would like to really hear what you're talking about in the next decade when it pertains to Philadelphia International Airport.
Thank you. 236 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Griffith, you are the Director of the City Planning Commission, right?
And do I also understand that you are the Secretary of the Office of Strategic Planning; is that correct?
There is an Office of Strategic Planning. That is the office that Joyce Wilkerson ran before she became Chief of Staff.
So, I mean, the way this is set up you have in essence two staffs? 237 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
We view them as an integrated staff. The primary difference is that the secretary position is a cabinet level position, so I get to interact as a peer with the other cabinet officials. Other than that and the additional folks, things run pretty much the same. We have been downsized somewhat so we probably have only the same amount of staff that we would have had under the old Planning Commission set up, if that makes any sense.
Well, prior to absorbing the Office of Strategic Planning we had a certain number of staff. With the addition of the lines under the Office of Strategic Planning we got additional staff. But with other lines being frozen and with layoffs we're probably back to out original number.
When you made mention of the secretary position being a cabinet position, that's a Cabinet position 238 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET because the Mayor made it a Cabinet position?
Yes. It is not a Charter mandated Cabinet position. As you know, in this government there are a number of positions, including the Secretary of Education and others, that Mayor has asked to come to Cabinet meetings and to take part in Cabinet level discussions.
What is the responsibility and the jurisdiction, I guess, of the Office of Strategic Planning? What is it? What does it do?
The primary charge is coordination of planning activities government wide. A number of agencies have planning functions or planning staffs. We try to ensure that planning is consistent vis-a-vis Administration policy. In addition, we have one other major function in that the Office of Strategic Planning absorbed the old Mayor's Office of Transportation. So along with the transportation planners at the Planning Commission, they form a transportation cluster 239 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET that recommends transportation and transit policy.
You said earlier that you coordinate planning, I guess among the various governmental departments or agencies; is that part of this?
Yes. Although that is very much through dialog and consensus as opposed to a hierarchical process.
Dialog and consensus is people sit around and they dialog and reach consensus as opposed to hierarchical, which is, I tell you what to do and you just do it?
Now, when you're involved in this dialog and consensus mode, how does all of that work as it relates to City Council?
How does that work with regard to any specific thing or just --
Are we a part of the dialog and consensus or is that done exterior to us? 240 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET
You are a part of the dialog and consensus, both formally in this kind of process, but also informally with regard to individual projects and plans.
Now, when SEPTA met with members of the Office of Strategic Planning with regard to the Route 35 bus, can you tell me when did we have the dialog and consensus building as a part of this collaborative process?
I'm turning to Gary Jastrzab. As I mentioned earlier, not only does he coordinate the Capital Program for us, but he also is a senior manager in the transportation and transit division.
With regard to the Route 35 tariff that SEPTA was evaluating, we did make a staff comment regarding that particular --
We'll get to that. I'm still on the dialog and consensus 241 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET part. The Secretary has laid out that Council is always a part of that process. When you met with the representative from SEPTA there was no discussion with me.
We did not actually meet with representatives of SEPTA. We were presented with their tariff document and we did a staff evaluation of that document and responded as the Planning Commission staff.
I should probably make that bifurcation clear. This was really not a policy discussion, the kind of discussion around New River City, for instance, where we're trying to generate policy. The Planning Commission also responds really as technicians to a wide range of requests, including around transportation, environmental issues where, frankly, a lot of agencies may be asked to respond directly to a proposal or to an agency with a proposal. That was in that mode.
I understand that. But I want to stay with the dialog and 242 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET consensus theme. So when the general manager of SEPTA, Faye Moore, writes to me the other day in a letter and says -- quoting from the letter -- "In addition, on January 5th, SEPTA staff met with members of the Office of Strategic Planning for the City of Philadelphia to discuss the project details." Is the general manager correct or incorrect?
I don't believe that there was a meeting with SEPTA staff. There may have been discussions with SEPTA staff over the telephone to get additional information, but I don't recall on that date having a meeting with SEPTA staff.
Okay. Let me ask this question. Have you ever had a meeting with SEPTA staff about the Route 35?
As a run-up to the Capital Budget process, we've regularly on a yearly basis have a meeting and presentation by SEPTA where we go over all the projects 243 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET where they're looking for City contribution or City match.
But again with regard to Mr. Jastrzab's statement that you subsequently made -- you referred to it, I believe, as a staff comment about this tariff, in the Office of Strategic Planning.
That was actually the Planning Commission, not the Office of Strategic Planning. Planning Commission staff made the comment.
Well, the next sentence says, "SEPTA did not get any feedback from the City's Office of Strategic Planning until a letter was sent well after the public hearing on January 19th, 2005 expressing concerns over elements of the project." Have you ever written a letter?
I write a lot of letters. If you would give me time to review my files I'll be happy to see whether a letter was written at that time and give you a copy of it.
Well, I guess 244 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET what I'm really trying to understand here is if the Office of Strategic Planning is the coordinator around planning issues, and you've absorbed transportation and you've had these discussions or meetings or dialog or consensus building or phone conversations or whatever the case may be, there's been no discussion with myself and my office. I don't know what you've done with regard to citizens, but you've obviously offered some opinion about this matter, but we've had no dialog or any consensus around whatever that may be. So I'm still trying to understand with all this coordinating activity going on why there was no discussion with me.
Well, again, you may not agree with this approach, but let me be clear. On an ongoing basis, perhaps a couple of hundred times a year, we're asked to comment technically on a range of matters. In that case, it is the Planning Commission in a linear manner responding or answering a query. That is not the kind of consensus dialog where 245 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET we're talking about policy issues. There's this issue where not only did we not necessarily meet with the Councilperson, but we do not necessarily coordinate with other agencies. They're asking the Planning Commission's staff technical opinion and they are probably also seeking input from other agencies and entities. But if you would like us to at least inform you or copy you on our responses when they relate to your district we will be happy to do that.
I would appreciate it. But I guess what I would really appreciate is if this is truly a collaborative process with dialog and consensus, and if you are asked for an opinion about something that's going on in the district, whether it's the Planning Commission or the Office of Strategic Planning -- and maybe it's possible SEPTA didn't know who they were talking to -- but they clearly are referencing the Office of Strategic Planning. They're clear in the letter on that. I don't 246 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET expect that every query that comes over to you, that I'm going to get a call about it. I'll assume you'll exercise discretion. This has been an ongoing issue and an ongoing problem. It is not just a routine kind of request. So, yes, I would like there to be some discussion about these kinds of issues before an opinion is offered, because you might either benefit from some additional information or it might be helpful if, at least to the public, in some fashion -- or to other governmental agencies -- there was at a minimum the appearance that we actually had some idea what we're doing and that we are dialoging and reaching consensus on a position.
I think that's a fair request. I don't know whether we'll always reach consensus. We don't actually always reach consensus with our sister agencies. But I think it's a fair request and we would have no problem on a routine basis when we get such a query to reach out to your office. 247 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET I should say our Community Planning Division is not here today, but I would not want to exclude the possibility that the Community Planning folks did reach out and coordinate. But if that's the case, there's no protocol that dictates that, so we'd be happy to institute such a protocol.
I'd appreciate any coordination and protocol development that could come out of this process. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Councilman. Are there any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Committee will stand in recess until 248 02/23/05 - FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET Wednesday, March 2nd at 10:00 a.m. Thank you all very much.
Thank you, Madam President. - - - - (Council recessed at 5:30 p.m.) 249 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, February 23, 2005, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FY '06 CAPITAL BUDGET _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR