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