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 --