Well, it depends how far you have to go. Okay? I mean, the more land application you do, the further out you have to go, because there's limited sites. So if you're doing a small amount of land application, it's more cost effective than landfilling. But, for example, for me to do land application in Virginia is just as costly as landfilling, because I've got to drive it. I've got a $40 haul to get to Virginia.
Because the costs stay more with us than the landfill. We internalize more of the costs than giving it to the landfill.
Doesn't it cost you the same thing whether you internalize it or not? Explain that. 203 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
Okay. Say it's our trucks, it's our transportation and whatnot. So even though the cost is greater, the profit to us is greater -- I mean, the cost is the same. We make more profit going to land app than we do paying a landfill tip fee, because we ourselves are doing the land app.
Well, not for the City, because you're contracting out with a private contractor. So, in other words, I'm saying to you if you did a bid for --
No, but if we contracted out with a private contractor, whether it was you or anyone else, they would still have the same better choice of doing the land app rather than the landfill.
So why are 204 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. we sitting here saying we're going to do 100 percent? Because it sounds a lot worse to me doing 100 percent landfill.
I don't think they're saying 100 percent landfilling. They're saying they're going to keep --
They're going to keep doing land app with the piece that's land applied now. With the piece that was composted, they're going to landfill it. So they would have a similar split.
That's all we're talking about is the composting part, aren't we?
No, but the part that we've been talking about, are you doing landfill, land app or mining?
No. It's with everything. 205 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
But it's only the compost that will change in those three years, and that's all we're limiting our question to here.
Well, actually, the way the contract is structured, we come in and take over all of that business, land application, mine reclamation and landfilling.
Right. But the only thing that's going to change for the City if you don't come in is going to be the compost part.
I'm not sure we're getting anywhere, but thank you. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: It's 100 percent of the compost part.
Synagro has more -- in order to do this Class B land application, you have to have each site permitted. Unlike Class A, where you're having compost or pellets, you can sell 206 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. it in the grocery store if you want to.
Mine mix is mixing compost with cake sludge to make a product that really does a good job reclaiming the mines. So part of what we're --
Part of what we're going to do is take -- you guys are going to have a lot of compost left on site. We're going to take that to the mine sites with us and apply both the compost and the cake sludge on the mines, because the mines need the organic matter.
So there is a K mix to this, K mix in the mix if you guys come in?
Okay. So there's a fifth thing or a fourth thing? 207 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
Well, that's part of reclamation. That's part of mine reclamation.
Well, we don't have any standard -- we don't have to allocate it in any way, but our plan would be between 40,000 and 50,000 tons.
-- mine 22 mix? And that will stop at what point? 23 Once the compost is all used up that's 24 out there? 25
Right, which we 208 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. were going to do that -- again, our plan is three years. In three years we'll have the new facility.
How much compost are you going to inherit? Because there's not going to be any composting after you get there, right?
And so that will only be for the first year you'll get rid of that?
No. We're going to take that 55,000 tons and split it over three years as we go to the mine sites, and the reason why is, there just isn't enough available permitted mine sites that will take it to do more than that.
To take 209 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. the mine mix?
Exactly. And that's kind of the point of why you can't just shut down mine mix and suddenly say, Oh, I'm going to take it all to reclamation. You need a permit for every site, and you have to go through public hearing. And believe it or not, it's not always the most popular thing to go up to Hazleton and say, We're bringing you a bunch of biosolids from Philadelphia. And so getting permits isn't easy. We have more permits than any other company in the country.
And I see President Verna isn't here, but I did want to address Mr. Beverly's comments. We took Kenny Green, the Reverend and Joe, three members of the 210 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Eastwick PAC, to one of our plants in July. They all have our cards and our information. We begged them to follow up. We are happy to go out. At the community meeting we gave Greg our card. We don't have any contact information from them. We gave them our information and said, Please call us. We are happy to meet with them. We want to meet with them. We want to be part of the community we're in. I did see Mr. Beverly. I gave him my card, my 800 number. I'm happy to go out there Monday or Tuesday. I'm having surgery tomorrow, so I can't do it, but I'd be happy to go out, and I want to.
Thank you. Mr. Beverly is there. He just heard you, and you two can connect at the side of the Chambers. Questions? (No response.)
Questions? 211 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. (No response.)
Just to make sure the record is clear, Plan B, the Water Department's Plan B, is not what the union presented. It is what management just presented a few minutes ago. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Right. We analyzed that and we responded.
Which is 100 percent landfilling come February. And that internal document, or whatever it was that the union presented as Plan B, is not being considered at all? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: It was considered. It was analyzed, and we had conversations and we did send a response. We gave a response to the union on that Plan B.
But, see, one of the problems we have is that from 212 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. a strategic standpoint, the Water Department is much better off having Plan B versus what's in front of us be landfilling. If the Water Department -- COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: We don't necessarily agree with that.
-- is serious about landfilling -- well, the testimony that was presented is a lot closer to -- while there's fewer jobs, and they admitted that, so there's been discussions about how many jobs did we give up if we do what isn't Plan B, whatever that plan was that -- call it Plan U at this point. They have apparently been in some pretty serious discussions when they have numbers that Sherman Harris talked about that they know their numbers will drop to if you do that, but we don't have that in front of us now. They presented this. You said, We've disregarded it. It sounded, I'm going to tell you, Commissioner, what they presented as Plan B, at least 213 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. sitting here, sounded a lot better than 100 percent landfilling. Could you explain why it's not? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes, we will explain it, but we will also provide you with the response that we gave to the union, the written response. But Dennis Blair, head of Planning and Engineering, can speak to that right now.
First of all, that Plan B that we're talking about here didn't rely on just the technology that Mr. Coia described here. It actually had a number of technologies. The first one that it relied on was called Eco Technology. That was a technology that was tried for the last five years at our site down at BRC. That technology has failed, and Eco Tech has gone bankrupt. So, number one, the number one technology in that plan, the company is now bankrupt. The second one is reclamation of dredge material, what Mr. Coia talked 214 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. about. There is tremendous opposition to that in Schuylkill County. There's an organization called the Army for a Clean Environment. They have a website. It's www.armyforcleanenvironment.org. You can go there. They are extremely opposed to bringing dredge spoils to Schuylkill County, and, in fact, they are extremely disturbed by the idea that it might contain Philadelphia biosolids. Two communities, Tamakwa and East Brunswick Township, have passed ordinances to stop that from happening. The company that we're talking about there is Applied Reclamation Technologies. This company is very small. They have no experience doing what they're telling you they can do. There's no history of doing this.
I don't know exactly where they're based from. They're based in Bucks County. 215 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. They certainly don't have the financial capability to carry out a project. They could never meet the kind of criteria that we have for the financial stability of the company. I believe that company and Mr. Coia has been charged in Schuylkill County with passing bad checks. 48 and $915. So I think that is not the kind of company that the City of Philadelphia wants to rely on to be able to dispose of 200,000 tons of biosolids. The third technology that was in that Plan B, Landfill Bioreactors, there are these types of facilities in Atlanta. People from Suffolk County out in Long Island take some of their material down there for disposal, but the cost is very high. The cost that they pay are in the upper $80 per ton to get it down there. That's just to get it down there. These are just the disposal 216 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. end of the process. Same way with taking stuff up to Schuylkill County to dispose of it. There's still a tremendous cost to process that material here in Philadelphia, and to be able to mix it with dredge spoils, you got to get it to Class A, and the technology that they're proposing to get it to Class A would be lime stabilization. We completely dismissed the idea of lime stabilization. Our consultant, CDM, dismissed it. It's not appropriate for an urban area. There's a facility shut down in England because of lime dust which accumulates all over everything in the community. This material is caustic. It adds 30 to 40 percent to the weight of the biosolid. You're adding lime to that biosolids, because you're using that lime to raise the pH to kill the organisms in that biosolid to make it a Class A product, but you're adding 30 to 40 percent to the weight. So you now got even more 217 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. material that you've got to remove from the sites, more trucks to remove it and more trucks to bring the lime in to use in the process. It's just not a viable technology for that community. I don't know anything about the numbers that are thrown out here today. The letter that I saw on this was a couple of pages long, gave absolutely no 11 details. It's impossible to know whether any of the numbers that are being talked about have any validity whatsoever. So that Plan B was fully reviewed by the Water Department when it was being proposed back in 2005, and it was vetted and dismissed, and the Department moved on to the plan that we used in our financial analysis, which is a plan that we believe can be eliminated. It's dominated by landfilling, but landfilling is the only technology if you're not going to do something like what we're proposing with Synagro and you want to stay at Class B, it's the only 218 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. technology where you aren't putting it on the land and you aren't risking that potential. I mean, there are many organizations out there that are opposed to the land application of biosolids. This stuff has pathogens in it. There are lawsuits flying over people that claim that their children have died because they've come into contact with that. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I just wanted to say that ultimately the biggest challenge that we've had for many years is the ultimate disposition of the biosolids, and the proposal from the vendor here, our proposal, takes that out of our -- that takes it out of our hands. It's a product that has value in the industry, the pelletization, and we don't have to worry about it anymore. We are interested in water treatment, wastewater treatment, storm water management. Those are our core missions. I go back to a time before we 219 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. had to land dispose biosolids. We used to dump it in the ocean. As bad as that sounds, that was a reasonable thing back in the '70s, '60s and '70s, and it was very inexpensive.
Well, we couldn't do that anymore because the EPA came down on all ocean dumping and it was eliminated, and we have done our best to handle the solids, the enormous amount of solids, 200,000 tons each year. And the difficulty, when push comes to shove, is getting rid of it in a way that we can depend on and that we know what the cost will be to us, and that's what we have with this proposal.
Thank you very much. Are there further questions? (No response.)
Thank you. I understand the union wants to respond to this issue. Please come forward.
Yes. Thank you. Not to belabor the hearings, but we want to state one thing. The Plan B in its current stage was presented and developed by the Water Department as a contingency to the Synagro plan. At the time they made Plan B, they realized they weren't sure that Synagro would go through with the deal that they wanted to go through. In our discussions with the Commissioner, he clearly stated that this was just a contingency plan that they have not fully developed. We understand there's some questions. There's some assumptions we agree with Dennis on, but there's a footprint that we believe will take us to the same place that the Synagro track will take. That's the bottom line. Mike has a few things on the chart that -- he's the technical expert, but basically the union agrees that with Plan B we can arrive at the same place 221 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. that they're purporting Synagro will take us. We believe it's a more efficient plan and it's developed by their engineers that they like to brag are smarter than us union members. It's developed by them and it was developed to help in case there was no major contractor to come in. So basically they laid out a plan on their own. We didn't solicit it or anything. They made it up. They laid it out, and it basically helps them get to the three issues they have, the aesthetics, the cost and the odors. And that's all we agree with. We're just saying that that Plan B in its current stage in progress of further development will arrive at those things just as efficiently, if not cheaper. Mike.
First, you'll notice that Dennis mentioned the plan is based on Eco Tech. That is not true. It 222 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. states clearly in here that there's no 3 Eco Tech Class A product at all in Fiscal '07, and nothing forward. We're quite aware that Eco Tech is out of business. We look at this as a conservative plan to do the current land application programs, the farmland applications, the Maryland applications, landfill and strip mine reclamation. We've been doing it for 30 years and we look at it as a continue to go.
Thank you very much. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Before we adjourn, I wanted to introduce a side letter agreement between AFSCME District Council 33 and the City and the proposed amendments to Bill No. 060108.
Proposed agreement. It's not an agreement. It's a proposal we'll look into. Thank you. 223 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. Any further discussion on it for this day? (No response.)
To make it clear, since we testified last, we have drafted language that comports with everything that we represented to City Council earlier that we're prepared to share with DC 33. This is obviously not the appropriate venue to do that, and we'll do it through their elected representatives. 224 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. We are asking for your favorable consideration on this bill and to move on it expeditiously. As you've heard, this is a project of significant benefit to the ratepayers. You've heard a lot of going back and forth on Alternative B. It's something, as you've heard, is not unfamiliar. It's something that there have been several written responses about, which we're prepared to provide copies of to members of Council, but it's been fully considered, and we hope for a consideration of this bill and action at your earlier convenience. We do hope to be able to move forward on this bill before the holiday break, given the impact to the ratepayers here and the detriment to the ratepayers that would occur from any delays at this point. And we're, again, very committed to making sure that the 60 persons that are impacted by this are not demoted or laid off in any way, and we're willing to do that by contract. And we think that this 225 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. is of great benefit, great enhancement not only to the community surrounding the BRC plant but financially to the ratepayers for years to come. If there's any room -- we will be reaching out again on any transition issues with the representatives from DC 33, and we're confident that if there's any consideration that they're willing to give to this project, that we could get something done. Otherwise, we hope that the ratepayers prevail here over the 60 positions that are really the issue. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Managing Director. We are confirming a time and date for a continuation on this issue. Sir?
Yes. Please come forward. 226 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
Yes. My name is Thurman Spence. I don't work in biosolids. I work in inlets, but --
I work for Water. That means jobs lost. I've been sitting here listening and listening and listening. It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out somebody is trying to bamboozle somebody. Okay? Like he said, the ploy or whatever you want to call it. If there's so strong of a firm plan, then why are they trying to do it so expeditiously? No. You take your time, you review the opposite. You didn't give the union the right from the jump street, which we are the union, we make the Water Department. And as fellow Water Department people, we should have had a little say-so, because, 227 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. yes, you're taking 60 jobs, you're putting it there, but you also lost 60 jobs. In other words, you held us back. You're working us to death. Like in inlets, we're like nine to ten drivers down. Nobody is getting hired. We're working double and harder to keep up the quota, and they expect you to do it. You can't do that and keep on surviving. Something is going to give. Your people are going to give out on you or your equipment is going to give out on you, because you're using the same equipment instead of spreading it out with the right amount of people. You're working the equipment like horses. You're working the human beings like horses. It's not fair, when I can get five more drivers or I can get 60 jobs, plus another 200 people back and still get the job done and maybe even produce more because there's no rush, there's no sweat on nobody. Everybody is working at a safe level. And it's a common factor, 228 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. when you're stressed out, safety goes down the toilet, and that's what's happening. Accidents occurring and occurring and occurring because people are tired. As you know, the Water Department helps with snow removal, too. If you take those jobs from there, that's 60 less people that can go work on the snow keeping the City moving and alive. That's what they got to look at. They got to take this in perspective. You cut your workforce back, you cut your production back. And that's all I have to say.
Thank you very much, Mr. Spence. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Thank you very much. We will now begin discussion on Bill No. 060005. This is the River City legislation. For the benefit of our two new 229 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Councilmembers, Savage and Greenlee, we held hearings on this issue before. There were problems with regard to the Equal Opportunity Plan, and that is why we are resuming discussions. Certainly if either of you would like a review or if you have questions that you would like to discuss now, this is commonly called the River City legislation, and the bills are in your packet. And certainly we have our City Solicitor, Romy Diaz, here, and we invite anyone else who is here to testify. We see Eva Gladstein, Director of Neighborhood Transformation. Will it be the two of you?
And we see Vince Jannetti, Acting Director of Finance. Mr. Jannetti, thank you. Mr. Brunwasser, Commissioner, I guess you must want to wear another hat today. And Mr. Hanna. Is Kevin Hanna 230 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. in the room? I haven't seen him today. (No response.)
Thank you very much. We will recognize you and hope that you have worked out these issues with regard to the Equal Opportunity Plan.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Romulo L. , City Solicitor. I apologize for my voice. I'm recovering from a Thanksgiving cold. Thank you for the opportunity to come back and talk about the Economic Opportunity Plan. We believe that it will be responsive to the concerns that have been expressed to the Administration with regard to this particular bill. Let me just quickly provide the context. To facilitate the goals of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative Economic Opportunity Plan of 2002, the City remains committed to provide meaningful and substantial opportunities for minority-owned, women-owned and 231 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. disabled-owned business enterprises. It is expected that all program participants at all levels of the effort will make the same commitment, and it is through the Economic Opportunity Plan that we will also provide for meaningful employment opportunity for minority persons and women in connection with the implementation of the program. Participants will include consultants, construction management, prime contractors, subcontractors and vendors of supplies, equipment and material. We have provided to the Committee an Economic Opportunity Plan for you to review. There is a revised that makes a minor but meaningful change in connection with the expansion of those who are authorized to be included in the count of minority and women and disabled-owned business enterprises at the time the bid submission occurs. Let me quickly give you an 232 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. overview of what the Economic Opportunity Plan, or EOP, includes. It provides for good-faith efforts by all plan participants regarding contracting and employment. It establishes monitoring and compliance procedures. It provides for the establishment of a program oversight committee, with Council involvement. Failure to comply will result in accountability and could lead to corrective or punitive action being taken against plan participants after notice and opportunity to be heard. The good-faith efforts with regard to contracting actions is referenced on of the Economic Opportunity Plan before you. It presumes the following levels of commitment in connection with meeting good-faith efforts: A 35 percent goal with respect to minority business enterprises, 12 percent with regard to women business enterprises and two percent with regard to disabled business enterprises. And 233 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. there are substantial subcontractor and subconsultant goals which are referenced on of the EOP before you. With regard to employment, there are very, very aggressive targets included in the plan. These are the same as those included in the Cultural and Commercial Corridors Bond deal previously before Council. And with regard to the employment goals, it is presumed that participants in the plan are compliant with good-faith efforts if they meet goals of 43 percent minority employment and women and -- I'm sorry; 43 percent with regard to minority employment and seven percent with regard to women. In addition, contractors must also make good-faith efforts to maximize employment for apprentices and pre-apprentices, with the first year goal of percent for minorities and ten 23 percent for females. 24 In connection with the 25 employment goals in terms of the 234 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. categories and the breakout, those occur and are reflected on on the EOP before you. I'd like to lastly mention that with regard to the procedures that are reflected in the EOP for Bill 060005 that we have, I believe, worked hard not only to provide for aggressive goals, because the Administration shares the interest of Council in having that level of substantial meaning after participation, but in addition, we've come up with process improvements to the MBEC process with regard to certification, in coordination with the Finance Department, the MBEC office as well as the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative.
MBEC is going to begin to utilize, through reciprocity agreements with regional jurisdictions that also have similar programs, will start utilizing a streamlined application process before MBEC for those contractors wishing to do business as part of this particular 235 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. program effort, and we will be considering those to be certifiable under the MBEC process. There will be a streamlined application. There will be an expeditious review of those reciprocity applications. There is a requirement we think only in fairness to Philadelphia craftspersons and others wishing to do business in regional jurisdictions, we believe it only fair to expect that those that receive this streamlined opportunity through reciprocity to be certified by MBEC should also expect to have similar opportunities for Philadelphia workers in those reciprocal jurisdictions. And the MBEC Director and I have spoken, and she has committed to reaching out to the regional jurisdictions and has already begun that effort to make sure that they understand that part of the reciprocity expectations on their part will be to provide opportunities in their jurisdictions for Philadelphia workers. 236 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. But in connection with this expeditious process, in order to cast the net widely, we will allow contractors who are primes under this program to get the benefit of counting the subcontractors and subconsultants as MBEC certified if they are certifiable and an application has been filed with MBEC and within ten days of the bid opening that the certification by MBEC is completed, and the MBEC Director has committed to assuring that in those situations where certifiable subcontractors and subconsultants are included, that that streamlined application review process will be completed within that ten days. We believe that we have hopefully complied with the concerns expressed previously on this program by Committee and Councilmembers. We are prepared to respond to any questions you have before you, but we see this as a shared goal to see that we have substantial and meaningful participation 237 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. by minority and women and disabled business enterprise owners through this program that would be authorized by Bill 5 060005. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. Does anybody else want to testify or shall we entertain questions? Are you prepared for us to just entertain questions?
First, let me say thank you for responding to the issues that were raised most notably by Councilman Goode and echoed by other members of this Committee. Two questions. When you say 238 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. streamline, you had moved to streamline the application process, what does that mean, and effective when?
I'm going to ask the MBEC Director to join us, but the MBEC Director has already begun developing a shorter application just for those reciprocal jurisdictions that I mentioned earlier, so that we do not delay the possibility that some who might be certified by MBEC under this process might get counted. If they have a reciprocal jurisdiction certification, have made application to MBEC at the time that the sealed bid is opened, we will count them so long as within ten days MBEC certifies. I'll ask Carolyn Nichols to address how the streamlining application process would work.
Yes. Good evening, Councilwoman. For the record, Carolyn Nichols, Minority Business Enterprise Council Director. 239 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. What we've been able to do -- and, actually, we've had the process in place for a while, actually since 2005. If we're going to grant reciprocal recognition, all the applicant needs to do is fill out three sections of the application and submit the certificate showing that they are certified with a governmental entity, and that's all that they need. So no tax returns, none of the other documents that would be required for the full process would be required, because the applicant has already undergone that process in the other jurisdiction.
And you stated that what you just described has been in place since 2005?
Yes. Actually, the whole idea of reciprocity came out of the City Controller's 2004 audit of MBEC and recommended that MBEC look at reciprocal recognition to address the backlog and be able to move applications 240 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. through, and it's been extremely helpful. It's been in place at MBEC actually since 2005, and we've been able to actually cut our backlog almost in half with reciprocal list certifications.
City Solicitor also stated that what you just described, or the reciprocity of applications, will be within ten days. Is that accurate, City Solicitor?
That the MBEC certification would be completed within ten days after the bid opening. If for any reason -- and we've talked, Carolyn and I, about some potential issues. If, for example, a certification in a reciprocal jurisdiction has lapsed, if it turns out that the work to be done under the program is different from that certified by the reciprocal jurisdiction, there might be some issue related to their eligibility for this particular kind of work under this particular 241 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. program for this particular entity. But putting aside those kinds of potential problems, we would anticipate that MBEC would certify it solely on the basis that Carolyn Nichols just mentioned, that they have been certified in a reciprocal jurisdiction and they have gone through whatever eligibility reviews would have been appropriate for this kind of qualification.
So for it to work, the application would have had to have been pending, even though it's a very streamlined application. What we don't want is people to run in and then want the thing completed within ten days. I think the EOP addresses that the application has already been submitted and it would be completed, the review process completed, ten days after the bid opening.
Is that an improvement from the past? What's been 242 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. the trigger factor where there's that kind of improvement now? Is it more staff? What is it?
Well, we wanted to respond particularly to particular Councilpeople's concerns that because of the size of the directory and the limitations, that we wanted to open up and maximize opportunities so that a bidder could look at certifiable firms that have not completed the process yet but they are minority, women or disabled-owned persons, and then if they have certificates in another jurisdiction or with another governmental entity within Pennsylvania, then we can offer the streamlined process. The other thing that we agreed to do as well and what we've been doing is, we expedite the applications of vendors that are on City work. Typically bid language says that you have to be certified at the time of bid opening. So what we did in this particular case in 243 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. response to the concerns was to expand beyond the bid opening and giving the certifiable firms another ten days to complete their certification. So that is different. That's new. We've never done that before.
Just very quickly. Where in the EOP does it say that the application has to have been submitted?
It does not say that. I described that, and obviously it would be helpful if the certification application has been filed by then. But the EOP does require that the MBEC certification be given by the tenth calendar day after the bid opening. So, yes, you are correct, Councilman. 244 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
I was following -- I'm sorry. I was following City Solicitor's testimony.
I just want to make sure for clarity of record that it does not say that because it's not meant to say that.
That is correct. And if I could just follow up on the earlier answer, Councilwoman Reynolds Brown, the ten days we thought was an appropriate balance between the desire expressed to us by Councilman Goode and others to give more opportunity for casting the net more widely and balancing that against a certain amount of risk which we think is manageable that in fact we need to know before we give credit for the minority, women and disabled business enterprise participation, we need to have finality about that. We also have 245 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. deadlines with regard to the procurement process and in certain instances we have deadlines relative to the expiration of bid prices. So taking all of that into consideration and talking to the Finance Department, Procurement and MBEC in particular and the Program Office, we thought this was an appropriate balanced approach and we're happy to have done it.
My final question speaks to always us working to help government work smarter, number one, and, number two, having systems that are in the same line of business talking to each other, specifically the School District of Philadelphia and PHA, whom I know having spoken with your counterparts in those systems, there still appears to be a gap in terms of communication in sharing information and minimizing the hoops that MBEs and WBEs have to jump when you're all looking for the same information. 246 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
I totally agree with you, Councilwoman, and the MBEC Director and I have been talking about this. In fact, I sort of hinted at this to her since yesterday, but I think we're going to have a road show soon and visit nearby certifying jurisdictions. But from her initial analysis yesterday as we were trying to develop the EOP before you, we believe that just on a regional basis, given the certified entities that these other jurisdictions and other groups that you alluded to have in their databases, that we can probably increase the number of business enterprises who would be eligible to compete at the time of the bid opening by a factor of 20. So when we looked at it from that perspective, it seemed that the issue that was raised to our attention by Councilman Goode and others was one that was worthy of serious review, subject to the fact that what's good for the goose has got to be good for the gander. If we're going to be giving 247 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. credit to other certifying jurisdictions, we want to have that same kind of credit being given to Philadelphia businesses, and for that purpose, Carolyn and I and others, I'm sure, are going to be going on the road soon in the region to make sure that we let our reciprocal jurisdictions know what the expectations are. We've gotten preliminary positive responses from the State of Delaware, among others. We now want to nail that down with regard to the other jurisdictions as well.
-- that we do the certification for the School District. We also set participation ranges in their contract. So we work very, very closely with the School District, PHA and PIDC 248 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. and PHDC, all of the quasi governmental agencies.
I don't doubt that. The concern remains, as City Solicitor just aptly articulated, we need to do what we can to make sure that businesses do not have to jump through 16,000 hoops when you have three or four agencies right here in Philadelphia looking for the same information. It's simply not right. It doesn't speak well to government functioning in a smart manner.
Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments with regard to 060005? Councilman Goode.
Just one quick question. How many reciprocal certifications has MBEC done to date? 249 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
Thank you very much. Well, we're now to Bill No. 8 060504. I don't know, Water Commissioner, why you just don't stay for this since you've been in all the rest. Thank you very much. Ms. Califano, please identify yourself for the record and make your testimony. This we have heard. So this is the only one it looks like we may have to spend a little time on, but it should be short since it is regarding removing a portion of a property in the 41st Ward. So we expect you'll make it short for us.
Good evening, Councilwoman Blackwell. My name is Catherine Califano. I'm here on behalf 250 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. of the Office of Housing and Community Development to testify in support of Bill 4 060504. This bill removes 13 acres of the former Tacony warehouse site from the Keystone Opportunity Zone program. Originally this site was seen as an industrial commercial site. As part of the new River City initiative and as more sites have -- more sites for reuse have looked for residential, the current developer, Transactionable Properties and Kaplan Companies, propose to construct over 400 market-rate residential units on this site, and in working in concert with them, we jointly ask that this site be removed from the Keystone Opportunity Zone program.
Thank you very much. Is there any discussion on this bill? (No response.)
I just ask that 251 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. if the rules could be suspended to permit the first reading at the next regularly scheduled meeting of Council. That's it. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. We need one moment for discussion on one date. We're done. Hold on. Thank you. (Pause.)
Thank you very much. That will conclude our hearing, and we will enter into our stated meeting. Bill Nos. 060108 and 109, the biosolid discussions, those two bills will be continued until December 12th at 9:00 a.m. We will now entertain a motion with regard to Bill No. 060504. Wilson, would you give me a motion to report this out of Committee and also a suspension of the rules.
Thank you, 252 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Madam Chair. I move that Bill 060504 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 11 060504 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and, furthermore, that the rules be suspended in order to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and so Bill 060504 is reported out. The Chair will now entertain a motion with regard to an amendment, that 253 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. an amendment be adopted to Bill No. 3 060766. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the amendment that has been circulated to the members of this Committee on behalf of the sponsor, Councilman Clarke, to Bill No. 10 060766 be approved. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment to 060766 be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and so the amendment is adopted. The Chair now recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, 254 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 060766 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 10 060766 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and, furthermore, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and so the bill is reported out. (Pause.)
Tough 255 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. day, ladies and gentlemen. Now, let me see. We're in the middle of our meeting passing out these bills. We will now entertain a motion, Mr. Goode, with regard to the River City bill, Bill No. 7 060005, that the Equal Opportunity Plan be adopted.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the Economic Opportunity Plan with the new be approved as an amendment to Bill No. 13 060005. (Duly seconded.)
Thank you. It has been moved and seconded that the Equal Opportunity Plan as just described be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and so the amendment is 256 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. adopted. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Goode with a motion with regard to this bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 060005 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 16 060005 be reported out of Committee as amended and, furthermore, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
Opposed? (No response.) 257 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
The ayes have it. We have one further announcement. I will correct my earlier statement. The biosolid bills, Bill No. 7 060108 and 109, will be continued until December 5th at 11:00 a.m. That concludes our meeting for today. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. (Committee on Finance adjourned at 6:00 p.m.) - - - 258 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on November 30, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)