COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:30 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILL 060001 - An ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six Fiscal Years 2007-2012 inclusive. BILL 060002 - An ordinance to adopt a Fiscal 2007 Capital Budget. - - - 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 2
Good morning, everyone. I regret the delay. This is the Committee of the Whole public hearings, and I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read Bill Nos. 060001 and 060002. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 9 060001, an ordinance to adopt the Capital Program for the six Fiscal Years 2007-2012 inclusive. Bill No. 060002, an ordinance 13 to adopt a Fiscal 2007 Capital Budget.
Thank you. Mr. Chapman, I believe you're our first witness. Good morning.
Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. Good morning, Council President Verna and 3 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 members of City Council. I am Thomas Chapman, Acting 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 2007 to 2012 Capital Program and 2007 Capital Budget, as recommended by the City Planning Commission at its meeting of January 24, 2006. One of the Home Rule Charter-mandated responsibilities of the City Planning Commission is to prepare and submit to the Mayor a 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. This plan continues to support municipal government priorities: Modernizing our physical infrastructure; making improvements to the City's 4 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 neighborhoods and improving the quality of life of its citizens; growing the City's economy; increasing the efficiency of governmental operations; improving conditions related to public health and safety; and supporting the preservation and renovation of our civic assets like City Hall, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Penn's Landing and our cultural monuments. This year, the City Planning Commission, having worked closely with the Managing Director's Office, the Capital Program Office, the Budget Office and the City departments, again recommends an austere but comprehensive Capital Program. This Recommended Program and Budget allocates our severely constrained Capital funding in a way that makes the most effective use of these resources in preserving the City's ability to deliver essential public services. It also leverages federal, state and private resources wherever 5 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 possible. The recommended level of spending is minimally sufficient to maintain our municipal facilities. Our General Obligation borrowing limit, set by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, combined with the City's capacity to service the debt on such borrowings, 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 recommending funding for only the most critical renovations at City facilities. 5 billion over a six-year period for projects that renew the City's extensive infrastructure and public facilities. Implementing these projects over the next several years will continue our efforts to keep Philadelphia a great American city. The rest of my testimony will 6 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 focus on 2007, the budget year of the Capital Program, since it is budget-year funding that becomes 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, given our Capital funding constraints. 6 million. New General Obligation Bonds issued by the City of Philadelphia will provide 52 million, or 10 percent, of this total. These borrowed funds are repaid from the City's general tax revenues. 6 million, or 9 percent, will come from tax-supported loan funds that were authorized previously. 9 million, or 31 percent, of total 7 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 funds. Funding from other levels of government, including federal, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and regional resources, totals $232 million, or 45 percent. Finally, $26 million, or 5 percent, of 2007 funding will be provided by private sources. 9 million, or 54 percent, of the 2007 total for the City's transportation and utility systems. 8 million, or 22 percent. 6 million, or 2 percent. Now I would like to highlight some of the key Capital projects recommended in 2007 for each of these major use categories.
Neighborhood Infrastructure projects focus on improvements to the City's overall physical infrastructure. Examples of Neighborhood Infrastructure projects include street reconstruction or resurfacing, street lighting, signage and traffic control improvements, the reconstruction of water and sewer mains and improvements to transit facilities. 9 million is recommended for Neighborhood Infrastructure projects in 2007. 7 million is recommended for neighborhood street reconstruction and resurfacing, the 9 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 reconstruction of the South Street Bridge, design services for the rehabilitation of the bridge carrying Woodland Avenue over the SEPTA tracks at 49th Street, traffic control and street lighting improvements, traffic calming measures, and school and pedestrian crossing signs. 2 million of state and federal funds. The Water Department will continue to make strategic improvements in the expansion and reconstruction of water and sewer lines serving the City's neighborhoods, with $54 million of self-sustaining funds recommended for these projects. 5 million in federal, state and other government funding is recommended for transit improvements, including continued West Market Street Elevated reconstruction, ADA accessibility compliance, completion 10 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 of the new Frankford Transportation Center and various station improvements at Wayne Junction, Allen Lane, Olney and Pattison. The next category, Economic Development, is comprised of projects that support the growth and development of the City's economy. These projects serve to retain and attract businesses, provide jobs for residents, and support neighborhood-based job creation employment centers, such as at neighborhood industrial districts. Projects at the City's airports, as well as those that support commercial, industrial, port-related and hospitality industry development, fall into this category. 8 million is recommended for Economic Development projects. An ambitious improvement program will continue at Philadelphia International Airport to ensure that this facility meets world-class standards. 2 million of federal and private funds, are recommended for airport improvements in 2007. Funds will be used for airport expansion, increasing airfield capacity, improving runways, and modernizing and expanding terminal buildings. An additional $275,000 of self-sustaining funding, matched by $975,000 in state and federal funds, is recommended for airfield lighting and perimeter sidewalks and landscaping improvements at Northeast Philadelphia Airport. Continued funding to support development in the City's industrial parks is also recommended in 2007. In City-managed PIDC industrial parks, existing resolving funds are recommended for an additional land acquisition and associated improvements. 5 million of City, state and federal funding is recommended for infrastructure improvements and the 12 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 phased development of the City's Sound Stage Facility. The third category, Government Efficiency projects, promotes government operating efficiencies and provides for more effective service delivery. Projects in this category include communication system improvements, database and computer-related initiatives, and energy conservation programs. The Government Efficiency category also includes facility assessment studies, most improvements to municipal government office buildings, and the modernization of service buildings used by the City's operating departments. A total of $53 million is recommended for Government Efficiency projects in 2007. Recommended projects in this category include $4 million for improvements to computer and communication systems used by the Police and Fire Departments. For the Managing 13 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Director's Office, $2 million is recommended for critical renovations and improvements at City-owned sites.
Budget year funding of $1 million is recommended for the Mayor's Office of Information Services to continue the development of an integrated database to coordinate the efforts of several City departments in providing social services to families and children. The Municipal Energy Office continues its efforts to increase the City's energy efficiency. In 2007, $500,000 is recommended for lighting and mechanical systems upgrades at facilities throughout the City. 2 million is recommended. For the Department of Public Property, $13 million is recommended for continued investment in 14 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 the City's 800 megahertz communications system and the wireless 911 system. Nearly $24 million in self-sustaining revenue bond funds is recommended for the Water Department for engineering, administration and vehicle acquisition. The fourth category, Health and Safety projects, promotes overall improvements in public health, safety and welfare. Examples include improvements at the City's water and waste treatment plants, asbestos abatement, fire alarm and fire suppression systems in public buildings, environmental remediation, improvements at City shelters and security improvements at our prison facilities. ADA accessibility modifications are also considered Health and Safety projects. 2 million is recommended for Health and Safety projects in 2007. Projects in this category include $425,000 in new tax-supported 15 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 funds for mechanical and interior renovations at the Stenton Shelter, a family-care facility. For the City's prison system, $500,000 is recommended for security and utility systems improvements. And for Fleet Management, $800,000 in City and state funds is recommended for fuel tank replacement and associated environmental remediation. The 2007 budget recommends $42 million in self-sustaining funds for improvements to water and wastewater treatment facilities. 9 million in City Operating funds is recommended for the Health Department. The fifth category, Civic Assets 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 of projects in this category 16 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 include most Art Museum, Penn's Landing, Fairmount Park and Zoo projects. The continued rehabilitation of City Hall also falls into this category. A total of $15 million is recommended for Civic Assets projects in 2007. Funding totalling $4 million for City Hall in 2007 is recommended to allow continued roof repairs and exterior restoration, as well as improvements to interior systems. An additional $16 million is programmed for this project through its completion in 2011. At the Philadelphia Museum of Art, $585,000 is recommended for plumbing, heating and fire alarm improvements. 7 million of City funding is recommended for improvements to historic structures, utilities, drainage, landscaping, roadways and footways, and athletic and play areas. 8 million is recommended for 17 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 waterfront area improvements at Penn's Landing and for the Schuylkill Banks riverfront. State matching funds totalling $500,000 are recommended for the Tidal Schuylkill projects as well. Improvements to Suburban Station and its connecting concourses will be completed, including ADA accessibility compliance. More than $5 million is recommended for this project, of which $117,000 is City funding. And, finally, the sixth category, Community Facilities projects, includes the renewal of facilities serving residential communities such as branch libraries, neighborhood parks and recreation facilities, police and fire stations, neighborhood health centers and other projects that serve neighborhoods, promote their improvement and are consistent with the City's neighborhood revitalization objectives. 6 million is recommended for Community Facility projects in 2007.
1 million in City funds is recommended for the renovation of playgrounds, basketball and tennis courts, lighting and needed repairs to recreation facility buildings. 7 million Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources grant will support these efforts as well. The Fairmount Park Commission is recommended to receive $300,000 for new park and street trees and to remove dead and dangerous trees throughout the City. The Free Library continues its program of mechanical systems upgrades at branch libraries. In 2007, City funding totalling $750,000 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 $250,000 for 2007. HVAC and 19 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 other building improvements will be made at public 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. 1 million recommended for roof replacements, ventilation systems and interior renovations. Also recommended is $360,000 in 2007 for HVAC and mechanical improvements, roof replacement and other interior and exterior improvements at neighborhood police stations. In closing, let me again say that the City Planning Commission has worked closely and collaboratively with the Managing Director's Office, the Capital Program Office, the Budget Office and the City departments to solve a 20 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 difficult challenge, effectively allocating limited Capital funds to ensure the City's ability to deliver needed public services. The Recommended Capital Program and Budget makes strategic investments in Philadelphia's infrastructure, investment that is critical to our City's economy and quality of life and that leverages resources to the greatest extent possible. Our role as stewards of Philadelphia's public facilities and natural and built environments demands that we continue to invest in their improvement and that we continue to seek the resources that will enable us to do so. Thank you, President Verna and members of Council for your attention this morning. I'm now happy to address any questions that you might have.
Again, I'd like to set the rules for the public hearing. Councilmembers on the first go-around will each be given five minutes, and I would like to start with the first five minutes. Mr. Chapman, you state that our General Obligation borrowing limit set by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, combined with the City's capacity to service the debt on such borrowing, 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 recommending funding for only the most critical renovations at City facilities. I ask, in your opinion, putting our debt issue and our ability to pay aside, what should be the size of the Capital Budget and Program?
I'll answer that. I'm Gary Jastrzab, the Director of 22 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Strategic Planning and Policy at the City Planning Commission. In 2000, we did an analysis based on life-cycle replacements of City infrastructure and facilities and roughly estimated that the City should be spending approximately $185 million per year to maintain and improve our existing infrastructure.
Well, how did you determine the size of the proposed 2007 Capital Budget of $52 million?
That amount was based on -- well, actually, over the six-year period, the Budget and Program combined, the fiscal guidance that we received from the Finance Director and Budget Office was $300 million for that six-year period. So we were actually looking at a target of about $50 million of new City General Obligation debt per year for these projects.
How 23 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 did Finance arrive at the 300 million? Is somebody from Finance here? Would you like them to come up to respond?
Is someone here from Finance? Please identify yourself for the record.
I'm Dianne Reed, Budget Director, and I have with me the Capital Budget Deputy, Tina Ginnetti.
I'm sorry. You're going to have to identify yourself for the record.
I'm sorry. Tina Ginnetti, Deputy Budget Director for Capital. The debt limit is set by two things. One is the constitutional debt limit, which is 13.5 percent of the ten-year moving average of real estate 24 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 tax assessments, minus outstanding debt. But another factor that constrains our ability to borrow is the debt as a percentage of revenue. And at this point, it's the debt as a percentage of revenue that is establishing the budget limits.
I don't think we got a response as to how the 300 million was arrived.
Well, it's a combination of those factors. The constitutional debt limit restricts the amount that we can borrow, and also our ability to service the debt restricts the amount that we can borrow. So it's a combination of those two factors.
Those are constraining factors. However, there is more detail that we could provide. There is a calculation that is made in order to 25 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 appropriately scale each year's spending limit based on necessary year-end balance that has to be certified by the controller.
Can we have something in writing before the end of the day, please?
Thank you very much. Mr. Chapman, does the City Planning Commission have a copy of the recreation facility assessment study?
I believe we have a copy of that study that was conducted by the Capital Program Office. The Capital Program Office could probably provide much more detail about that particular study.
Well, my time is up, but whoever is familiar with that study, I would like them to give us a summary of its findings. Not right now, Mr. Tustin. I 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 will obey the rules that I set forth, and I expect everybody else to do the same. Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Jastrzab, you had indicated that actually the Capital Budget should be $185 million.
But that's a relatively conservative, thoughtful estimate of 185 million.
What does, in your opinion, the fact that we're only being asked for $52 million do on a rolling basis to our ability to maintain our existing facilities in an appropriate manner?
It makes it difficult. We're not spending the amount of money for a city of this size with the number of facilities that we have to 27 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 allow us to both maintain and improve existing facilities.
I assume that that also means somewhere down the road it becomes more expensive also, because the deferred maintenance on various facilities create more serious problems going forward, which require more expensive repairs and/or replacement. Is that a fair --
And I need the Finance Department one more time, someone from the Finance Department or Budget. And maybe if Planning understands or Capital Office understands the answer to this question or knows the answer, they can jump in. Of the additional non-City facility Capital dollars we're being asked to appropriate or give authorization to appropriate, what impact does that have on the continuing 28 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 constraint on our ability to take care of existing facilities? For example, the other river cities, other types of borrowings, what does that do, and if it didn't exist, what would we be able to provide for our existing facilities?
Dianne Reed, Budget Director. Those other borrowings are outside the context of the General Fund and they are not -- they don't affect the constitutional limit-related spending cap that we have for the Capital Program.
The only thing that it does affect is the debt-to-revenue ratio, which is kind of a market effect, which has to do with how much it will cost us to borrow money or how rating agencies might rate the City's fiscal health overall.
Well, the River City money is the Water Fund, but 29 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 the $150 million in cultural and corridor dollars would be in that category, correct?
Well, it's proposed that the borrowing would go through an external agency. There would be an increase in the City's debt service, but that's kind of just an operating effect at this point. It doesn't really affect the Capital Program. We could not increase the size of the Capital Program based on that because of the other constraints on the Capital Program.
Isn't the debt service on those other non-City facility Capital appropriations, doesn't that affect our ability to pay our debt service? Doesn't the debt service --
It's a bottom-line General Fund kind of an issue, but it is not a Capital Budget issue. 30 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
But if you don't have enough money to pay the interest, then you can't borrow as much as you need. Is that a simplistic way of saying something that's accurate?
If we did not do the borrowing, we would not have more money available for the Capital Program as the constraints have been configured.
How does the Capital Budget get done? Do you guys do your analysis and assessment and then come up with a number that you think is a reasonable number, then go to the budget and finance people and they say, Well, this is what you have available and scale it back, or do they come to you first and say, This is what we have available, fit it in to what the number is?
It's the latter. I mean, we're basically given a target based on the calculations done by the Finance Director and Budget Office and asked to work within those constraints. 31 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
But does not that mean you're working within the reality of the need? Because, as we said, $52 million is a lot short of 185, and if we're deferring maintenance long term, it's going to cost the taxpayer more money in the end.
That's one reason why we, in this Recommended Capital Budget and Program, we're recommending the most critical renovations to City facilities.
So, Ms. Reed, what are the factors that determine the number that you go to the Planning Commission with that say, Here's what you have to work with, fit it in?
I would say the biggest factor really is the size of the assessments. If the City goes to full valuation, for the end of the ten-year period, every year we would add -- we would begin to reflect that expected growth, and that would be a good thing 32 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 for describing how much money we ought to be able to spend, but in the end, it's going to be restrained by that debt-to-revenue ratio.
But it's impacted by the current debt that we're paying off now, stuff that we borrowed on in the past?
So past borrowings have impacted where we are today in our constraint?
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Over the 33 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 last couple of years, we've been talking about a process that creates a team of City employees that can essentially do Capital improvement work to some degree, and the Administration indicated a willingness to look at that. I haven't gotten any official response. I don't know if you're actively working on that. As it relates to this process of Capital improvements and borrowing, if such a team were set up, there were City employees, they would essentially take the place of contractors as it relates to performance of the work. In terms of the purchase of materials, could that be done without utilizing a traditional Capital improvement process whereas we had to bid through the normal Capital improvement process or could we just simply do it through procurement and purchase materials through a procurement process separate and aside from the normal Capital improvement process?
34 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Mr. Tustin, please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Council President, members of City Council. My name is Rick Tustin. I'm the Director of the Capital Program Office. Councilman Nutter, the Administration has been looking -- I'm sorry. I apologize. I apologize. Councilman Clarke.
We're on the same side of the room, so that's understandable. It's okay.
No. I know you all pretty well. It's just a slip of the tongue.
You might want to take a break just to let some of the redness draw out of his face.
Thank you. Council President Verna, does this go against his five-minute time? Let me try to answer your 35 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 question. The Administration has been looking at that, putting together a Capital recreation construction team. They've had conversations with the Controller's Office, who has to certify projects as being Capital eligible. And in concept, they're very much in tune with that concept of going forward with that. To answer your specific question concerning the purchase of materials, at this point in time, the proposal would be that we sit down with the Recreation Commissioner and develop a series of requirements contracts for purchase of material for the types of material that recreation crew would need, put those into effect so that at a time a project would come up, you'd only have to write a purchase order against an existing requirements contract to purchase that material. And that could be a very quick process. So, for instance, if they needed cement or 36 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 drywall or metal studs or whatever on a regular basis, individual requirements contracts could be set up for those purchases or groups of those purchases and be in effect so that they could just simply go place an order, get an invoice for that order, write a purchase order against that contract, and the material could be delivered.
All right. And if we were able to set up such a process using City employees, using this particular purchase order type of strategy, none of that would go towards our debt limit; am I correct?
Well, the money would still come out of the Capital Budget, so all of the purchase of material would be Capital eligible because it's to do a specific Capital project, just like a contractor would buy material and that would be paid for out of the Capital funds.
Why would 37 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 it have to be paid for out of the Capital Fund?
Why couldn't it be paid for out of the traditional General Fund dollars?
Normally -- it could be paid for out of Operating funds. A Capital project can be funded from either Capital or Operating dollars.
An Operating project like a maintenance job doesn't have the reverse. In other words, that cannot be paid for out of Capital funds. But the simple answer to your question is, it could be paid for out of Operating or Capital funds.
I asked this question because we have a constitutional issue with respect to our debt capacity. So we obviously have to think outside of the box, because we can no longer continue to deal with a $52 38 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 million Capital improvement program, particularly the elected officials in this room who have to stand for reelection. That's simply not going to get it out in the community. If there is a way that we can, given the potential of having the surplus in the next couple of years, if there's a way that we can do Capital projects and not impact our debt capacity, utilizing Operating funds for purchase of materials, utilizing City employees for actual doing the contracting work, don't you think that's something that we need to look at in a serious way?
Because we've been talking about this for a couple of years, and you've indicated that you're looking at formulating a 39 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 team.
I think we should look at purchasing the materials out of General Fund dollars so we don't deal with the constitutional debt limit issue, but we're still able to get Capital improvements in our municipal facilities.
How long do you think it would take you or the Administration to come back with a mock-up of a strategy that would be able to do that?
I would have to confer with the Budget Office. Those kind of decisions, either Budget or Finance would make those decisions as to whether we would use Operating dollars to pay for work that is basically Capital in nature. That won't be our decision. So I can get back to you as 40 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 soon as I confer with them and see if they have an answer to your question.
Okay. Thank you. Can you forward that through the Chair?
And we would hopefully have that information within a couple days, because we would like to see this go into effect --
-- on July 1, or tomorrow really would be fine with me.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you very much. Let's go back to the limits on our ability to borrow. If we wanted to 41 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 get creative and support our facilities that really need refurbishing with Capital dollars, could we not use the proposed borrowing that we're going to do for the Art Museum, which is part of the City anyway, some of the other facilities, to borrow that money to help with the City facilities? If we're going to stretch our dollars, are we going to limit our ability to repair rec centers and police stations and fire stations? We don't have enough money for that, but we're going to borrow $150,000 over here --
150 million. I'm sorry. Would it be possible to use that outside borrowing to help us with our City facilities?
That was the concept for the outside borrowing, to help us to catch up with facilities where there had been deferred maintenance or where there are badly needed repairs. 42 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
So you're saying a part of the $150 million that we're going to borrow through an outside entity, some of that money is going to be used for City facilities like the rec centers?
The Art Museum is one example of that, yes. I think also the Zoo. Some infrastructure improvements at the Zoo had been proposed for some of that money as well.
The rec centers, I don't know that the list has been finalized for the separate borrowing, but there is funding in the existing Capital -- or the Recommended Capital for rec centers.
I'm not talking about Recommended Capital. I'm talking about the $150 million that we're going to be asked to vote on to borrow 43 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 $150 million through an outside entity for the Art Museum, the Zoo and maybe some other facilities. Could we not borrow also on the outside to support the City facilities that are stretched because we don't have the money through the regular borrowing to maintain? If we have a limit of $50 million each year, or whatever, because we have a constitutional limit on how much we can borrow and all of that, why have we not used this process of borrowing additional money through another entity so that we could take care of our City facilities? Not the Art Museum, not the Zoo, but the recreation facilities, the libraries, the fire stations, the police stations and whatever else we need.
Councilwoman, this is Dianne Reed, Budget Director. It has been the decision of the Administration to recommend that rehabilitation of existing City 44 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 properties be addressed through the Capital Budget. The proposed 150 million borrowing is really an economic stimulus concept to help stimulate neighborhood business corridors and also to help the major and all contributing arts and culture institutions throughout the City, which have been suffering because they cannot get funding through corporations or through foundations for bricks and mortar kinds of projects. The Zoo has had problems with the sewage system failing and materials running down the walkways, and the Art Museum has to bring in the major art works for the shows through the same bay that the garbage goes in and out of, and we don't have space in our Capital Budget for those kinds of projects. So in order, especially in the case of the Art Museum, for them to get the accreditation that they need to bring the big shows in that have produced the kinds of room 25 nights that we have at the hotels and the 45 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 rest of the business and tourist attraction benefits that have resulted, a stimulus borrowing has been proposed to keep the momentum that has been going continuing and give us a leap forward.
My understanding is that this money is going to be used to fund projects where there is little or no 10 likelihood of foundation support to leverage funding, like Ms. Reed mentioned, sewers at the Zoo or the loading dock at the Art Museum. You can't get people excited about supporting those kind of projects, because it's not the kind of a project where you can say that this loading dock was supported by the such-and-such foundation or sponsored by the such-and-such foundation.
Thank you, Madam Chair. 46 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 So, Mr. Chapman, you're saying you don't think you can get like Waste Management or somebody excited about a new loading dock at the Art Museum? I mean, it's kind of like that's the business they're in. I love the world of irony. I seem to recall that the past two budgets there were proposals in the budget to cut funding to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Do you have any recollection of that on the operating side?
Personally, Councilman, no, but maybe Ms. Reed can answer that question.
Dianne Reed, Budget Director. The funding for the Art Museum was restored last year for this year's budget and it is constant at $2 million. There's also money in the arts and culture Class 200 funding of the Commerce 47 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Department and there is economic stimulus funding.
I understand that, Ms. Reed. I read the budget. I know what's in there now. That wasn't my question. My question was, didn't the Administration for the past two years pass two budgets consistently proposing cutting funding on the operating side for the Art Museum? Isn't that true?
We had a seriously constrained budget last year at the time that we proposed the Operating Budget for '06. I mean, we only had a million and a half dollar fund balance at that time and --
Well, if it was so constrained, how did you restore the funding? What happened?
What happened was 48 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 that --
What happened was, we ended up with a much better outcome for '05 than expected. As we were describing yesterday --
You didn't know that until the fiscal year had already closed. You didn't find out how good a year you were having, and you only restored it because the Council fought you on it. You didn't find out how great a year you were having until September of last year; isn't that right?
No. We found out toward the end of the final budget process, but, yes, Council advocacy was critical to the restoration, absolutely.
So now we are in a situation where we have an outside borrowing of $150 million, all for good and worthy goals, but for the regular citizens in the City, we have a 49 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 $52 million budget, which has been declining over the past couple years. Now, let me ask this question: With regard to the debt ceiling, what has been the impact of increased real estate values throughout the City over the past couple of years and any growth opportunities with regard to borrowing on the Capital Budget side?
Well, because that is a 13-and-a-half-year moving average of assessed value, it takes a long time for any improvement in any particular recent year to be reflected in what the overall capacity is. It's going to be like a marginal change. If we go to full valuation, we should have a huge leap, which will make that marginal change a little bit bigger, but all the lagging years have a huge impact.
Well, change has been going on for more than a year or so, correct?
Yes, in terms of the 50 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 market. I don't know that that's been captured by the official market value assessment that the City abides by.
So let's go back to where Councilwoman Tasco is or was. $150 million in outside borrowing for good and worthy causes. $52 million for the rest of the citizens in the City. I mean, why don't we just incorporate a larger Capital Budget as a part of this larger borrowing? I mean, ultimately it's all the same money, right?
It has to do with the strategic goal that you pick for what will be included in the borrowing.
Well, why don't you tell us what the strategic goal is, where we have a declining Capital Budget and we're going to find ourselves right back where we were in the late '80s into the '90s with a tremendous amount of deferred maintenance on City-owned facilities. Isn't that where we're going, if we continue to spend less and 51 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 less for the other facilities that we own? I'm not juxtaposing one against the other, but we have borrowed less and less for regular City facilities over the last few years, which is where we were in the '80s going into the '90s.
Which will make it more expensive for us to fix our own facilities later down the line.
With respect to any specific facilities and their condition, when actual projects are prioritized, the ones that have the most critical health and safety or service-related impact are put at the front of the list so that in fact, practically speaking, everything is not sort of deteriorating at the same rate. The Capital Program Office is a careful steward of those projects.
I understand that, but they can only "carefully steward" what they have 52 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 available to them. If the testimony earlier was we have $185 million in need, we're only spending 52, you know that there are a lot of places possibly not on the verge of falling down but certainly in need of attention, and the more you neglect them, the more expensive it is over time.
Yes. We also do have carry-forward money available that hasn't been spent from the past which can be used.
It's over 200 million. It's about 208 million of carry-forward at this point.
It is associated with projects. They're all in the purpose category that's appropriated for Capital, and sometimes adjustments have to be made among them based on 53 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 criticality of projects. Probably Mr. Tustin could speak more specifically --
I'd love to see a listing of the $200 million in carry-forward and what it's been designated for and why would it be unspent.
Are they obligated dollars that have not been spent?
Doesn't it make you nervous when everyone turns around?
The decision from the Capital Budget folks is that they are not obligated per se. They have been allocated to projects. They're unspent funds that are associated with projects, but are not obligated in an earmarked sense.
Ms. Reed, do we have the cash? 54 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
Yes. We have borrowed this money. This money has been borrowed previously.
I think we're all getting very confused. I would assume that with that money that we have, we shouldn't have to borrow any more.
Well, we redefine the Capital Program every year and there 55 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 are projects that are added and updated so that the amount of money that we have sitting there is not going to cover all the projects hypothetically that would need to be done. We need to continue to borrow in order to make sure there's enough money as the list moves forward to bring the new projects online.
Ms. Reed, could you or one of your colleagues provide us with a list of the -- I cannot repeat exactly what you said, authorized but unobligated or --
-- we have it, but we're not giving it to you? I mean, whatever the proper characterization is. If you could show us in totality the $200 million that you've identified, what it's attached to but not earmarked for. And I think we have just a couple outstanding -- at least one outstanding year of a disputed $7 million, as well as an unvoted on 56 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 question for the '06 budget. So, I mean, there are a number of holes in this situation.
Councilman, if I could, this is Gary Jastrzab. Each year for the Capital, Council approves appropriations in the budget year. Those monies are usually presented to the voters as a loan authorization allowing the City to borrow new GO funds for those projects. The last time that authorization occurred was for fiscal year 2005. There was no loan authorization for last year's Capital Budget. And with the money that's -- with the amounts that have been appropriated by Council for individual projects, often times those funds are not spent all in the budget year and they are automatically carried forward as part of an amendment process, which you will be seeing later in this overall budget process when we carry forward unspent funds in other Capital projects. We will 57 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 carry them forward or propose to carry them forward into fiscal year 2007, so that should an authorization be granted by Council and the voters, those projects can continue uninterrupted.
Councilman Nutter, I'm going to be accused of favoritism.
I gave up my time, so I'm going to ask you to give up yours, and we're going to have another go-around.
Thank you. I would like to get back, if I may, to the recreation facility assessment study. How much did that 58 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 study cost us, Mr. Tustin?
Richard Tustin, Capital Program Office. The cost of the assessment study was approximately $260,000.
And what did we learn from that study, if you could be brief?
We evaluated all the A and the B recreation centers City-wide, roughly 110 in total. We looked at all the major components of each facility, both building, play area, ball fields, pools, et cetera. We evaluated them on a priority system, a rating of one through six, six being the highest priority, which would be items that should be done immediately. It could be considered life and safety issues. Five are critical items that should be done as soon as possible. Four would be items that should be done within the next year. Three, again, would be items that are fine right now that will 59 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 last another three years or so, and then two and one, one being you're probably fine for the next ten years without doing anything to that particular item. We then assembled that information and put it into a matrix to determine how much money would be needed to take care of the item priority six level and five level, which were the two highest priority levels, and we had that in a format that has, I know, been shared with you, Council President. As you know, there are four volumes. Each volume is about four or five inches thick at least, maybe bigger. They also include color photographs of each facility as well. That is, in essence, what the facility assessment is.
So how was the study used to determine the amount of funds allocated to the Recreation Department in 2007 and throughout the Capital Program? 60 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
Well, as you know, a majority of the money for the Recreation Department actually goes to the City Council individuals, the ten districts. That is a fixed number that I understand has been traditionally given per year. In addition to that, there is a certain amount of money that is put into life safety. Another category is for pools, I believe, and major infrastructure. There is not enough money in any of those City lines to complete all of those items in the highest priority levels, but with the hopes of working with Council and their ITEF funds, it's possible we can work on those projects and get those things completed.
Well, with 500,000 that each district has been told that they could spend, we're not going to get much done. Can anybody tell me what recent 61 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 repairs have been made to the South Street Bridge? Is the Streets Commissioner here or somebody that would be able to talk about what we're doing? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Good morning.
Good morning. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Clarena Tolson, Commissioner of the Streets Department.
Commissioner, again I will ask. Can you tell me what recent repairs have been made to the South Street Bridge? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. Most recently, we have done a number of repairs to South Street Bridge, all considered fairly minor. However, we do have specific concerns about the bridge and its final construction. Most recently, our work included repairs to the seam. There is a steel plate over the seam of this bridge, 62 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 which used to be a drawbridge. The metal plate shifted several weeks ago and it had to be put back in place. Because of the nature of the drawbridge, its construction, the amount of vibration on the bridge, the plate will, from time to time, shift. We at this point are inspecting the bridge fairly regularly. I would say that we had someone who was doing some overview, review of the bridge plate and other pertinences probably weekly just to make sure that everything is fine. After our recent snowstorm, the plate did shift with the plowing activity and things like that and we've again had to move and put it back into place.
Well, I know I have photographs and I guess they're more than probably a year old, and they do indicate the very dangerous conditions of the bridge. Can you tell me what the time line is for the replacement of the South 63 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Street Bridge? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. We expect to move to complete our design work through our contractor, Gannett Fleming, and move to construction by April of 2007.
What factors, if any, will impact that time line? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: There are a number of factors that impact our ability to begin. First, the bridge is a very complex one, actually being five sections, some of it over top of Penn property, over top of railroads, the expressway and the river. It provides access to, one, University of Pennsylvania property, and there's no 20 other access other than by the bridge. Impacting our ability to come to closure on this is first completing the design process and all the reviews and --
When 64 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 is the design process to be completed? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The design process should be completed by this fall.
What is the amount that has been agreed to for the replacement of the bridge? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: It's about $38 million.
Is there any way at all of expediting this? Because, as I said, I think you're going to have to be called upon very, very frequently to do repairs, because it's a very dangerous situation. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Councilwoman, we share the concern. Our bridge engineers and our maintenance fellows are also concerned about making some replacements. Though the bridge is structurally sound, the metal structure is quite sound, there's concrete that was encasing some of that structure, and that is the portion that we have some problems 65 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 with. So what we are doing now is knocking off some of that concrete so that it doesn't have the opportunity of falling. Additionally, we may be placing some netting under some portions of the bridge where there's a sufficient clearance for the traffic below. We are also encouraging the state to help us move through the process with the state and the feds for the review so that we can accelerate as much as possible. However, University of Pennsylvania does have to build a replacement bridge for Hollenback in the meanwhile. So there's kind of a schedule that's in place, and it's difficult to change all those schedules. Additionally, Amtrak has to remove the catenary wires that are over the line that is presently in place. So there are a number of complex factors.
So 66 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 it's not as simple as one would think. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: And I wish that I could make it happen immediately. If it were the spirit of willpower, we'd have it done next month.
I'm sure. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: However, there's some challenges to us in our ability to make it happen that quickly.
Fine. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner Tolson, who owns the bridge? Does the City own it? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That's a City bridge.
Has there ever been any research or investigation as to any naming rights value of the bridge? 67 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Not that I'm aware of.
It's not named after anyone, so it wouldn't be like removing a name? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I don't know who Mr. South is, no. 9
No. I was just wondering whether or not it would make any sense to try to investigate some corporate naming right to maybe establish an ongoing maintenance fund with that money so that we could kind of have an endowment for the maintenance of the bridge. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We can investigate that.
Thank you. Let me move to the Capital Budget Office for a moment. Mr. Tustin, is your personnel, the staff in your office, was it funded out of the 2006 budget, your personnel costs, or was it funded out of the Capital Budget? 68 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
A portion of our personnel is funded out of Capital, not the total office.
It's paid for by the Capital Budget at least up until now?
And I know you're not the financial person for the City, but for the Budget Office or the Finance Department, does it make any sense to pay $6 million worth of salaries and pay for them over 30 years? If 69 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 anybody can enlighten me, I'd be interested in knowing, especially considering our constitutional debt limit at $6 million that should be paid for out of Operating, my mind, and we're paying for it out of Capital, reducing our debt limit $6 million more -- or increasing it $6 million more and paying the cost of it over 30 years. It doesn't seem to make much fiscal sense.
I understand your question, Councilman. I don't have an answer directly to that question.
The only thing I can say is that the costs associated with the work that the staff does is Capital eligible. If our staff wasn't doing it and we hired a program manager on the outside for a project, it would be part of the Capital cost of that project.
I mean, I don't mind creative financing when it 70 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 comes to finding resources for employees, but to me, paying for that service over 30 years seems to be a bit ridiculous.
Again, I understand your question. I can -- and the other thing is, the Operating Budget has not been as healthy as even the Capital Budget in past years, in past years.
Well, we're doing well now, according to everybody. Surplus galore. Another issue for the Budget Office. What's wrong with pay as you go? Considering the surplus we have or projected to have and considering the constraints we have based on our GO borrowing limit, why don't we do what anybody who is trying to be fiscally responsible, just pay what we can afford to pay for as opposed to going in to long-term debt and really not even going into long-term debt that deals with all our needs? Why don't we just appropriate 71 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 some General Fund dollars over into the Capital Budget -- we've done it before, we do it now -- and not go into this additional debt?
Dianne Reed, Budget Director. The recent PICA study on debt does talk about the alternative of pay as you go as a way to relieve the Capital Budget.
Not to interrupt you. At least until we get full valuation. I mean, we get full valuation, we see where that goes and we get a little bump in our borrowing capacity, why don't we pay as we go until then?
This was taken a look at. As we look at the prospect for the next five years, we have a fund balance of four and a half million dollars in fiscal eight, when a lot of the costs really come to roost. That's quite a hurdle for us in a negative way. 72 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 To do anything appreciable at this time would mean we would have to cut some area of the budget to do Capital instead. So we're in a bind.
I understand, and, again, I think some of the borrowing that's being -- if you weigh the request for some of the additional borrowing that's non-facility centered, we don't seem to be in that much of a bind, but we're in a bind when it comes to rec centers and libraries and other City-owned facilities. We're in a bind there, but we're not in a bind when it comes to borrowing $150 million for other worthwhile projects that don't seem to be our core mission as far as it relates to our own facilities that we own now. I mean, it's like yesterday, as Councilwoman Tasco said, our speculations are wrong, the Administration's speculations are right. You're in a bind fiscally when it comes to City-owned 73 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 facilities, but we're not in as much of a bind when it comes to things the Administration wants to do that's new. So I seem to be getting somewhat mixed messages and it's, again, as Council President Verna said, very confusing. But you've given me my answer. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Mr. Tustin and Mr. Chapman, et cetera.
I want to ask this question. I don't know whether anyone else asked it. In your testimony, Mr. Tustin, you say that you're not going to do the bundling of Capital projects such as 74 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 roofs, which I totally agree with, but I was wondering, will you still bundle the basketball courts, the play equipment? Because we really thought that worked well, particularly in expediting getting some of that done.
Again, Rick Tustin, Capital Program Office. As has been brought to our attention in the past, bundling of projects has slowed down the process of getting things completed, especially when the projects span two or three different Council districts, making sure that everyone has the same priorities on moving projects forward. So what we've done is, we try to stay within each Council district and only do the projects there. So if there were two or three basketball facilities within the same district, we would bundle them. That way, we're working with the same Councilperson and the same community and there's the same level of priority. 75 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 But we do not work across Council districts anymore.
Well, that's really good. I mean, we really think that the bundling really worked well for like such as basketball courts, because a basketball court is a basketball court. And you know that I was also one that complained about the bundling of the roofing jobs. So then it will continue with the play equipment, basketball courts, those kinds of things?
I was also wondering if you or Mr. Chapman had any idea or any information on the design of the SEPTA Wayne Junction project. We understand it's 11 million, and we did call SEPTA, I guess, about a month ago, 76 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 and we still haven't gotten and received any information.
Councilwoman, I was going to ask if anyone from SEPTA is in the room, if maybe they could come up and address that question for you. Councilwoman, could you possibly repeat your question for Ms. Jones here, please.
I just wanted, I guess, a general update on what's happening with the Wayne Junction project. We understand it's an $11 million project, and we want to know where you are, whether you're in the design stage or whatever.
Good morning. Frances Jones, Assistant General Manager of Government Affairs at SEPTA. At this point, we are working internally to begin really the design phase of the project, and we've gotten questions and inquiries from different sectors of the community, and our 77 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 commitment is that we would work along with the community and with your office as soon as there was information to be presented.
And I ask you that only because we're also getting questions. Ms. Jones, can you tell me, are we just beginning the design stage or is it going to be several more months, so we can kind of answer questions.
Internally we are working to put together the design phase. The RFP, or the request for participants, has not gone out on the street as of yet. There is going to be a need to demolish the canopy, and we are going to do that with our in-house forces. So as soon as we have any direction on that, your office will be notified.
That's really good, because many people, which is really a good thing, are interested in the old Stenton Avenue corridor there for 78 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 manufacturing, and they're all asking me they've heard that there's going to be some upgrading to the Wayne Junction Station, and it will just really help us in our development efforts.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you very much. Let me just ask a quick question about the Airport. The Capital dollars in the budget for the Airport dollars, all of the 38.2, are they City funds? I guess the question should be how much of this comes out of the City budget, how much of it comes --
Actually, for aviation, both Philadelphia International 79 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 and Northeast Philadelphia Airport, there are no City GO funds involved. It's all self-sustaining funding, federal or state leveraged funds that are leveraged from the federal and state government or from other sources.
Well, if that is true, just explain then to me, is that $32.8 million coming out of the total budget of $517 million?
Yes. It's part of the total. I mean, all of those Airport funds are part of the 517.
Thank you. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Tustin. Let me get to the Capital Programs Office. One of the frustrations I've had through the years is that the time we decide we're going to do a project and the time it takes to complete the project. My experience in dealing 80 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 with Finley Rec Center was about a ten-year process. When the project was first developed, it was the cost associated with, say, maybe $500,000, and by the time we got around to bidding it out the next year, the cost was $600,000. So I had to come back -- well, I didn't; the Councilmember before me had to come back. And through that process, each year we had to increase the amount of money so we could get the project done, and so it took us ten years to do an addition. What have you all thought about what you can do to sort of stop this treadmill and not be able to complete a project in the amount of time? Plus, the cost goes up and all of those things create a problem for us. And so you might put a project on the -- I mean, Dorothy Emanuel took eight years.
Rick Tustin, Capital Program Office. Councilwoman, the answer to 81 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 your question is yes. This year we have looked at not just the initial phase of a project but the full duration of a project and the amount of time that it takes. We've identified the projects we do into four basic phases, and we've looked at a number of steps that we can take to shorten each one of those phases. We've sat down with the Law Department, the Procurement Department, the Managing Director's Office and Budget Department to try to identify where the delays are. A lot of the time the delay isn't caused because of a requirement. It's more or less a procedure. So what we've done is, we've shortened many of the procedures. We've identified I believe it's close to -- let me just get this quickly. I think we've identified over 13 items that we can do to shorten the overall process, and we provided a report to the Managing Director and the Mayor's Office this past year and, again, out of the concern of Council from last year's 82 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 testimony of the time it takes to get things done, and we do believe there are many steps that we can take to shorten the overall process. A project, even an addition to a building, should never take ten years. It should be much, much less, and we believe we found ways of doing that. In general, that's the answer. I'm more than happy to send you specifics on what those steps are and what we plan to do to revise them to shorten the process.
You might want to offer that to the President Chair. Let me ask you another question. We just did the Dorothy Emanuel Rec Center. We meet with you to talk about our projects, and what I just want to share with you is my idea for you to change how you report those dollars.
When we 83 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 met, we talked about the money that's in my Capital Budget for my district, and so I walked away with the idea that I had a certain amount of dollars, but I backtracked and I said, Are all the bills paid for the Dorothy Emanuel, are there equipment, there's things that we haven't bought that we should buy. None of that was taken out of the dollars when we met, so I left thinking I had one amount and when I asked all those questions, then the amount was much less. I would suggest that you look at how you report to us the funds that we have available. You should not put encumbered funds. If I have encumbered funds, they should not be in the balance. It should be the project, the cost, the encumbrance and then the balance. But the balances are rolled over in the overall balance. So I think there's $10,000 for tennis courts. The money hasn't been spent, but I still have $10,000. That should say that the 84 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 $10,000 is encumbered. There's a line missing. And I talked to Nicole about that. She gave me the report for me. Also, in the project, all of the dollars should be accounted for prior to saying that you have this money available, because it's not available if the money is encumbered for cost overruns or furniture, equipment that hasn't been ordered. We have $500,000 sitting in this pot, and they'll say, I need $200,000 for some other rec center, and I say, Well, I got $500,000, I'll give it to you, and then you come back and say, Well, you gave this money away and you should have kept it because you didn't finish Dorothy Emanuel. So that is very frustrating. I think we ought to have a clear delineation of how the dollars -- what is appropriated, what is encumbered, what is outstanding, what has to be -- whatever, so at the end of the day if I have a dollar, I know I have a dollar. 85 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
And that there's nothing on that project that's going to claim that dollar.
That's an excellent idea, Councilwoman. One of the things we do in the very beginning of a project is put together a total project budget, and we try to include in that budget everything, including purchase of furniture if it's a new facility, any telecommunications costs. Anything that's related to that project we try to estimate in the very beginning of the project. I know in the past years we have come to the Council individuals and asked for funding as we go, so that we're not asking you to tie up a large chunk of money that may not get spent until the end of the job. But I understand your issue, and it's an accounting change that we should make so that you have the big 86 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 picture of what the total cost will be for every aspect of the project even though you may only want to allocate it in pieces.
But I just want to specifically speak to Dorothy Emanuel, because when you and your staff came to me to go over my budget, I was told I had this amount of money. When we went back and backtracked to see had all of the items that are associated with that project been purchased, had all the vendors been paid, when you went back, when your staff went back to look at all of that, none of that had been done, so I ended up with less money than you told me I had when we met. So it had nothing to do with -- it was just that process for that project, which the money had been appropriated, we knew how much it was going to be, we knew how much we were going to order for furniture and equipment, and we knew also the cost 87 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 overruns that was done by the Project Manager, and I'm not sure that the communication between the people in your office is such that we might be able to get that information. And then you also got to talk to the Rec Department. So if everybody is talking to each other, then I'm clear on what I'm doing, but if there's lack of communication between the entities, that creates a problem for us.
I understand. One of the recommendations that we've made to shorten the process, as we talked about a little earlier, was in the very initial stages of the process. If you know, this past year when we've met with you to review your projects for the year, it hasn't just been with the Capital Program Office. This year the Recreation Department has sat at the table along with us.
They don't keep the records. You keep the records. Your office keeps the records.
Correct. I'm trying to address the issue of communications. So that we're all in the same room at the same time discussing projects, because many times the Capital projects will lead into a programming issue or an operational issue or a maintenance issue. With us being in the same room, we can discuss it at the same time to make sure communications is better between the Council, CPO, Recreation and Budget, who also comes to those meetings as well. But I do understand your specific issue about this, and we will --
That's a very important piece. 89 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
Councilwoman, you're going to have to come to some conclusion with your questioning. You'll wait for the next go-around --
Thank you, Madam President. I have two additional questions around South Street Bridge. Could we please ask the Streets Commissioner to come forward again. Thank you. I've received a number of letters, so I want to try to put some dots on questions already raised by President Verna. You started to answer the question with regards to the beginning and the end of this, would you call it, a reconstruction or renovation, or what? What's the proper term? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: South 90 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Street will be a full reconstruction.
Full reconstruction. And you indicated that the construction will start April '07. Is that what I heard? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. That's our present plans, April '07.
And the end date is when, anticipated end date? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: September 2008.
Will the reconstructed bridge be less maintenance intensive? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: It will certainly be a new bridge. This bridge is very, very old in and of itself. So I think the fact that it has weathered the storm for nearly a hundred years is important. It's now at the point, though, that the concrete is a problem and it needs to be replaced. The new bridge will offer, I think, the same level of integrity for 91 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 many years to come as well.
A broader question. What's the SOP, standard operating procedure, that comes with review of bridges and their status within the Department? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. This bridge is being designed by a private contractor. We provide oversight to that design process. Throughout the design process, there are reviews and approvals that are had by the state and also the federal government. I mentioned earlier that this is a $38 million project, of which $28 million is coming from the federal government. So they have some stake in this, as well as the state with some $5 million into the project. Those reviews take careful examination of all of the design and engineering elements of the plan to make sure that it is structurally sound, that it could probably carry ten times 92 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 whatever the needs are, that it can stand the wind, it can stand elements and things like that. So it's a very detailed process. And the nature of the bridge, given that it is over railroad lines, an expressway and a river and also dry land, make it very, very complex. So we're meeting the needs of a number of communities, a number of stakeholders. And we have, in addition to government stakeholders, we also have Amtrak, a non-governmental agency, that we have to contend with and their requirements for working with them, which are fairly intense.
What are the procedures within the Department with regards to the inspection of bridges City-wide? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We have a team of bridge inspectors whose task is to do formal inspections. I believe it's every other year for all bridges in the 93 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 City, and many bridges they do more frequently than that once a year. For South Street Bridge, we're not doing a formal technical full inspection, because that would require going underneath the bridge, sounding and doing things like that. Instead, we're doing the visual inspections, which is what the bridge needs at this point, to make sure that things are not out of place. And I mention things like concrete being loose. I mean, something as simple as a capping on the edge of the bridge. And that concrete may be no 16 thicker than a half an inch and it was applied to the steel structure, and it just loosens over time with age, with salt, with the environment, water and things like that. And those things just loosen and become -- they're able to fly or to fall. So that's what we have to scrape and remove away from the bridge. Additionally, we do some, what they call, sounding of the bridge, and in 94 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 a simplified term, that is basically tapping on the bridge to see if there's loose pieces on it, and when they find loose pieces, they knock them off, and everything that is sound and tight can remain in place. And that has happened not so long ago, and we're scheduling another sounding of that bridge with PennDot right now, so that we will be doing probably a fairly major sounding in the next couple of weeks and knocking off of concrete, even some that may be now tight just so that we don't have a problem in the future.
Okay. Well, thank you for your testimony. I should be able to answer those letters now.
-- recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a point 95 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 of information.
Commissioner, you may have indicated, but I didn't hear you. Is traffic going to have to be totally stopped, interrupted, on South Street Bridge? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Of course. For the reconstruction? Absolutely. As part of the reconstruction, we will have to have significant detours, and, in fact, we're doing plans for that detour now, and they have to be approved as well. And obviously this is a complex situation, because we have some important facilities that are nearby to the bridge and have access. We have had regular meetings with the neighboring stakeholders, the university, the hospitals, things like that, to make sure that we have a plan and process that will meet their needs. So when the bridge comes down, it will require a major detour of traffic and pedestrians. 96 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
Commissioner, I would bet the professional engineers in your organization have to admit that the South Street entrance to the Expressway is probably so out of specification, if you ever tried to get on the Expressway heading westbound, it is like you get white knuckles merging onto that or even trying to if you come to a complete stop. Would you consider talking to PennDOT to see -- if you're going to have that bridge out for a year? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
That maybe some improvements to the whole interchange at South Street. Even getting on going east from South Street is equally as dangerous, and I don't think it probably meets a criteria of any access to any limited access highway. It is really bad, and I think you know that. So is this an opportunity for us, if we're going to take this bridge 97 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 out, shut it down, that it might be wise to look at that entire interchange to see if maybe they could save money since the bridge is going to be out, traffic is going to be limited there? Because, again, it is, in my opinion, a very bad situation in South Street. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We certainly have that considered.
Would you agree with that? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. I think you're talking about the left-hand entrance, which is fairly --
When you're trying to get on the Expressway coming from South Street --
Councilman, your five minutes are up. That was supposed to be a point of information.
The 98 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
It's Councilman Nutter, then Councilman DiCicco, then Councilman Ramos. Councilman Rizzo had a point of information.
Oh, he snuck in. That happens sometimes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be quick. There was some discussion earlier about this facilities assessment. This is, what, a City-wide assessment of all the facilities in the City or was this just recreation?
Councilman, Rick Tustin, Capital Program Office. The previous discussion I think just related to the recreation facilities.
Copies of that 99 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 have been sent over to Council President's office.
Those were the ones that were identified to us as the ones that have the most programs for the citizens. The C and the D facilities have fewer programs related to the buildings individually. I think the D facilities, if I'm not mistaken, most of them don't even have buildings associated with it. It does have playground-type equipment, but our initial focus was only on the A and B facilities, because they carried the most programs.
Are you saying there are no D facilities that have buildings? 100 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
I'd have to check on that, Councilman Nutter. I don't know each facility and what they have, but I can check on that.
I understand. Is the Anderson Center, isn't that a D? Is that a C now? Has it been upgraded? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Good morning. Vic Richard, Recreation Commissioner. John Anderson Center?
Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: It would be a B or a C. I believe it's a B.
A B, the Anderson Center? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: John Anderson?
Right. It's a building. There's no outdoor activity. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Because 101 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 of the basement and the way it's set up, it may be classified as a B. I'd have to look in my directory.
Okay. Because, I mean, the size of the center also affects -- COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir, the size and the amenities of the interior as well.
Staff and all of those issues, right? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir.
You're going to check on that? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir.
And so what was the total cost of bringing our facilities up to -- is there a standard that we've established?
I'm sorry, Councilman. I was trying to get clarity on a prior question. I missed your 102 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 question.
That's all right. Is there a certain standard that we're looking to bring the facilities up to, and if that is the case, what's the cost of bringing all of those facilities up to that particular standard?
The purpose of the assessment report was to, yes, to bring all of the facilities up to a certain standard level. As I said previously, the assessment report actually extended beyond that. It actually projected useful life of the elements of the rec centers going forward into the next ten years. So out of the six priorities, only the priority six and five were things that should be done right away because they were below the standard. Item four, priority four, were things that were thought to be items that we should look at within the next year. In 103 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 other words, they're not priority today, but within the next year, you should look at and consider doing some work on that as well. So that's how we looked at the facilities, priorities six through five. If we were to go forward with doing all of the repair work or renovation work to the facilities at the six level and the five level, the cost for that would be estimated at approximately four and a half million dollars. That's for all the A and the B facilities City-wide.
We've had discussions just within the past week on 104 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 how those projects could be funded, and I understand --
No, they're not. My understanding is that the Administration is considering that for the FY05 $7 million that the Mayor held back from spending on the ITEF.
So let me understand this. This will be good. You're holding back on dollars that have traditionally come to the Council. This is like a heavyweight fight. The bell cannot save you. So you have this money that was supposed to come to the Council. The Administration, as is their authority, made a decision to hold back those dollars. Now you have a report that indicates based on your assessment levels -- six being, I guess, the worst?
So you're 105 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 going to try to accomplish the work that would get six and five?
And, in essence, take the money that would normally come to the Councilmembers and redirect it to take care of these items because that's what you decided to do.
That was the discussion that was being held concerning the use of that funding.
Because the reason, as I recall, the money was held back was that we couldn't afford it. That was the dispute. The dispute was, You can't have a million and a half, you can only have five, we're going to hold back the seven because we can't afford it. Now the discussion seems to be, It's not about affordability, it's about who is going to direct what we're getting done. Is that where we are?
I guess the best way to answer that question is, the FY05 106 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 budget, which was passed and which have bonds associated with it, did include the additional $7 million in it, so that is technically --
And if that $7 million had gone to the individual Councilpeople within their ITEF, it would be used for recreation facilities. So, in essence --
Some for recreation, some for Fairmount Park, some for whatever it might be used for. It's not like we get to write a blank check or people get to go away on it. It's all for facilities, but within a certain discretion of how things get done.
It's mostly for -- because of the purpose category, it would only be for recreation and Fairmount 107 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Park-type facilities. So, again --
I don't understand that. When the million and a half comes, if it's related to a City agency or department that has a need, whether it's Recreation, Fairmount Park, the Water Department, Public Property or anybody else, those dollars are available for that.
That's not exactly correct. The money that's put in to the budget for ITEF comes under a certain purpose category, which is approved by Council, and that purpose category specifically directs the money for Recreation and Fairmount Park projects for that portion of the money that's listed under "recreation." As you know, in the past, a portion of your funding would come -- 4 million, say, would come under Recreation and a million would come under the MDO budget. So that million under the MDO could be used for other type of 108 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 facilities, but that million can only be used for recreation, Fairmount Park-type facilities. It could not be used for a Water project or a Streets project or anything else.
I understand, but it's all been under a general category, and then through the Budget Office and through CPO, you then figure out which pot you're going to draw from to pay for which projects?
But as long as I'm clear, we're now not in a situation where there's a dispute about whether or not we can have the money, as was the case before. Now you're deciding that those dollars are available, we'll spend it, but we're going to spend it on these particular items. Is that the decision that's been made?
What I said previously, I believe, in testimony was, it was being considered by the 109 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Administration as to how that money could be used. This was one item that we've suggested the money could go towards.
Your time was up sometime ago, but I know that that was a question that just about every Councilmember was extremely interested in and I did not want to actually cut in on Mr. Tustin during his explanation.
Thank you. At this point, the Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon. On your testimony, Mr. Chapman -- and this may be a question for Mr. Tustin or someone from the Commerce Department, 110 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 actually. Top of the page. For the Commerce Department, more than $1.8 million is recommended for waterfront area improvements at Penn's Landing and for the Schuylkill Banks riverfront. Two questions. What portion of the 1.8 million will be dedicated to Penn's Landing and what will it be used for?
Councilman DiCicco, this is Gary Jastrzab. I'll attempt to answer your question, just one moment. Of the 1.8 million for Penn's Landing and waterfront improvements, just talking about the budget year, $750,000 is being recommended for site improvements at Penn's Landing, basically upgrading existing paving, lighting, landscaping, public restrooms, as well as utility systems. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Would you happen to know if any of the site work would be on a pier or close to a pier 111 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 that may be developed? Mr. DePaul, as an example, is looking to lease the pier just north of Dock Side to do another high-rise condominium development. There's a possibility that the incinerator site, which is a part of the Penn's Landing portfolio, may become a casino. Are any of the improvements that come under the $750,000 dedicated to either of those piers?
My understanding, as the project was requested by the Commerce Department, is that these site improvements would be used primarily for the main public areas of Penn's Landing which have fallen into some degree of disrepair. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I can appreciate that. My only concern is with the advent of casino gaming and the possibility of the incinerator site being chosen, that as I go through these community meetings and discuss the 112 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 community reinvestment dollars, if you will, from the developer or the operators, I think a lot of this money may be used or come from them as opposed to using some of our money, and unless it's for emergency purposes, I would like to engage in those kinds of conversations with developers and the casino operators and put this money into some other project. It's just a thought, and maybe as these meetings I have with the operators of casinos continues, we can further talk about that. The other question I have, it may be for either Mr. Tustin and/or Public Property. In the facilities report, were any of the police stations made part of that or was that a separate request from the Recreation Department?
This was a separate request and it would only cover recreation facilities. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So we 113 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 didn't do any study on police or fire stations?
We do have in our plan to go into and do, both police and fire stations, a full assessment, just like we've completed for Recreation. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The reason I ask this question -- I may have already asked this of the Administration. I'm not certain if I did or not. The Sixth Police District at 11th and Winters, it's a building that has entirely outlived its usefulness. There are lots of other problems related to it, primarily parking for the police vehicles and the police officers parking their personal cars. The area is improving. The corridor along Vine Street and that general vicinity has become a very desirable neighborhood for development. What I would request -- and if I have to do it a different way, you can let me know -- is that an appraisal be done of that facility, that site where the Sixth 114 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Police District is, because I think the value of that land may be such that it might behoove us to sell it rather than put money into that building that is probably 40, 50 years old. It's kind of like putting good money into something bad. And I think we should be a little bit more proactive about that. It would certainly lend to the ongoing development of residential development with high-rise development that's going on, and it may save us some money in the long run. Rather than putting a quarter million dollars, half a million dollars in improvements, we should take that money from the sale of proceeds and move it into maybe look to relocate the Sixth District to another location, quite possibly a location on a site that we already own, the City, one of our departments, Redevelopment Authority, Public Property already owns. I would ask that an appraisal be done just to get a sense if that makes 115 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 more sense as opposed to repairing it.
I think it's an excellent idea and I will pass that on to the Department of Public Property, who will contract for the appraisal. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. I have no further questions, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ramos.
Thank you, Madam President. Under the Five-Year Financial Plan in the Capital Budget section under Capital Projects, Line and 24, you 19 refer to City-wide environmental 20 remediation and environmental assessment 21 remediation. Can you explain what kind of City-wide environmental and assessment remediation is going on right now?
Both of those line items are counted in our budget so that 116 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 we can address environmental issues as they come up. Often times we'll start a Capital project in a facility and uncover either asbestos, lead paint or some other environmental hazard, at which point in time we have to stop construction and we have to send in a separate contractor who is certified to abate that problem. So that funding is put in the budget each year so that we can continue doing Capital projects and not be delayed when we do uncover environmental hazards.
Can you talk to me about the different categories? You mention asbestos. I know for many, many years the City of Philadelphia has put in a lot of public dollars to rid ourselves of asbestos. Is that still going on or is it more other type of remediation?
I just want to know, what are you remediating? Is it asbestos and what else? 117 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
Most of it is asbestos. A portion of it is lead as well. Even though we've done this ongoing for many years now, it's amazing how many of the buildings, since they are as old as they are, contain lead or asbestos in some form or fashion, either in covering of pipe insulation or in plaster, which it was at one time used in the plaster mix back in the, I guess, '40s. And a lot of our facilities are old enough where every time we go in and we disturb that, we have to go back and then we have to abate it. I would say probably the majority is asbestos related. The other thing that we get involved in is fuel tanks, underground fuel tanks, for both heating as well as we work with the Fleet Department on gasoline and tanks that are underground. Those tanks have to be tested on a regular basis, and many times when we take those tanks out, if we do have a 118 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 tank that has leaked, we have to go in and we have to abate all the soil that has been exposed to that contamination. It has to be removed. It has to be taken out. Fresh soil has to be put back in. So tanks are definitely a large ticket item each year as well.
Mold? We usually deal with mold -- we haven't had a lot of that. Unfortunately, when you have a facility that's water-damaged in particular, this room that we're in in particular, when we had the flood several years ago and we had to come in and we had to restore this room, we found a lot of mold problems at that time as well and we had to address them as well. We use the same contractors that would go in and abate that as well.
In doing your assessment and studies -- we passed mold legislation here last year -- are 119 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 you looking at -- mold is probably where asbestos was at -- and I'm not comparing the two or saying that they're identical, but this discussion of mold throughout the country and in this City is where asbestos was at many, many years ago where there were studies that say, Well, we tested and the air currents from this asbestos-making company did not give anybody any cancer, no lung cancer. Yet, as the discussion went on, we found out it was a very dangerous thing. Are you looking into this area of mold whether you should be doing some studies before, if in fact it becomes a much more bigger and serious issue?
What normally happens is, when we uncover a mold as part of a project, usually the first thing we do is, we call the Department of Risk Management, and they're able to come in and through their contracts as well they're able to take samples, test it, determine what type of mold it is, how 120 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 dangerous the situation is, actually advise us on how that mold should be remediated, areas that have to be tented so that we keep people away from the mold until we have an opportunity to remove it and take it out. So we work hand in hand with the Risk Management Department to abate that and to remove that as it's uncovered.
I was in the remediation field for a lot of years, and it's very expensive to remediate, and I see that for FY2007 you have $300,000. You get yourself a big mold problem, you might need to spend it all there. I find the number low. I mean, how did you get to $300,000? If you have a nice-sized asbestos problem anywhere, it's going to eat up your $300,000 very quickly.
What we've done is, we've used a number similar to that over the past couple of years and we've been able to track the use of that money 121 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 over the year. So we use that as history historically in defining what we think we'll need for the prior year. We sometimes have carry-forward money left in those budget lines as well, so it's not -- just because we may be asking for $300,000 this particular fiscal year, we may have some additional carry-forward from prior years. It's pretty hard to predict in advance where you're going to uncover a major problem like mold, but --
If you live in the City of Philadelphia, that's a very good start.
Because many of our facilities are -- our neighborhoods are built over streams, and it's not very hard to determine if you do a study of where you might have this problem pop up, and probably soon. I know my time is up.
Thank 122 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 you. Mr. Chapman, I have just two very brief questions I would like to ask before we have our second go-around. Last year at this time, I guess we were being told that the provider for the Philadelphia Nursing Home was considering not managing the nursing home any further. What is the status? We had spoken to the Health Commissioner not too long ago and were told that we would be brought up to date as to what was happening. As far as I know right now, we're going to be losing the Acting Health Commissioner, so I don't know that we'll ever be brought up to date. Can you tell me what the status is? Are we doing one-year contracts? What's going on?
Madam President, I'm going to ask that the Health Commissioner come to the microphone, please.
My 123 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 time is running. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. COMMISSIONER GODLEY: Dr. Joanne Godley, Acting Health Commissioner.
Yes. And I'm sorry to hear you're leaving us Friday. I wish you luck. COMMISSIONER GODLEY: Thank you.
I think you heard my question and statement. COMMISSIONER GODLEY: Could you repeat it, please?
Certainly. Last year at this time we were being told that the provider for the Philadelphia Nursing Home was considering not filing for another contract, and then at the last minute, I believe Episcopal then signed for a year's contract. Are we doing yearly contracts 124 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 now with the Philadelphia Nursing Home? What is the status? We were supposed to get a report, and to the best of my knowledge, we haven't heard one syllable regarding what was going on there. COMMISSIONER GODLEY: Currently, the services at the nursing home are being provided by an entity called Fairmount Long-Term Care.
I'm sorry. What is it called? COMMISSIONER GODLEY: Fairmount Long-Term Care.
And when did they get the contract? COMMISSIONER GODLEY: This was mid year last year.
I assume it was a yearly contract? COMMISSIONER GODLEY: It is a year's contract, for which the City is at risk; that is, the --
We are at risk for what? 125 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 COMMISSIONER GODLEY: A number of the providers within the Episcopal system reconfigured into a corporation and contracted with the City to continue providing services under the auspices of FTLC, or Fairmount Long-Term Care. The contract is for a year's contract, so it will be ending June of this year, at which point we will reassess and likely contract for another year. The reason for the year's contract is because last year at this time, we thought that we would have a buyer for the nursing home, and that fell through.
My question is, can we sell the nursing home since it's not our property? COMMISSIONER GODLEY: We thought that we could sell the nursing home. We had at least one buyer who was fairly interested. That was the purpose for doing a year's contract with FTLC. The buyer fell through. We do not have a 126 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 buyer at present.
But my question is, how do we sell something that we don't own? Isn't that building owned by the state? COMMISSIONER GODLEY: The state is interested in our selling the nursing home as well and they have been working with us to try to, one, secure a buyer and, two, they're actually on board with the concept of the sale and would not stand in the way of a sale going through.
Well, with the sale not going through, what is the likelihood that you're going to be able to have this F -- what is it? COMMISSIONER GODLEY: FTLC.
-- (continued) FTLC sign another contract for a year? COMMISSIONER GODLEY: The terms are quite favorable for FTLC. As I said, the City is at financial risk. We have oversight in terms of the financial 127 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 management of the nursing home, and if FTLC is managing correctly, it will benefit them financially.
I just don't know what the City's risk is. COMMISSIONER GODLEY: There is a management fee that we are holding for the year. If FTLC manages well, then they will get that management fee. If they do not manage well, then they will lose the management fee and then the financial loss becomes that of the City.
It really disturbs me that this was an issue last year and we were told that Council would be informed as to what was going on, and we still have not been briefed on this. We don't know what is happening. COMMISSIONER GODLEY: I am more than happy to write up a summary of what is currently existing. The problem was, was last year there was a fair amount of flux. As I said, we thought we had a sale. At the very last moment, that sale 128 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 fell through. I'm happy to write up the details of what exists now.
I think I and every other Councilmember would certainly appreciate that. COMMISSIONER GODLEY: Okay.
Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER GODLEY: You're welcome.
I have just another very brief question. Street lights. How much is appropriated for street lights?
Gary Jastrzab. 1,250,000, of which 250,000 is City GO funding. The rest is federal dollars.
What assurance do we have that we're going to get federal dollars? We don't. So my next question to you is, how many street lights can we erect for $250,000?
Madam President, 129 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 I'd ask the Streets Commissioner to join us here at the table.
Watch my clock. Ms. Tolson, I don't know if you heard the question. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: No, I did not, ma'am.
I believe there's $250,000 of City monies for street lights? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
And I believe there's -- Mr. Chapman, I don't know if I could find my place in the book.
We have no assurance that we're going to get that money. My question is, how many street lights can we have erected for $250,000? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We will probably be able to do approximately 100 to 125.
I see our expert, Joe Doyle, is sitting back there. Mr. Doyle, would we be able to do 150 street lights with $250,000? Not that I'm questioning the Streets Commissioner, but I know you certainly have been around a long time dealing with this issue.
I'm Joseph Doyle, City Street Lighting Engineer. Mrs. Verna, the proposal that was in the Capital Budget was for the modernization of the existing street light system on federal aid urban streets. 131 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
The project that was proposed for the Capital Budget was for the modernization of the street light system on the federal aid system, hence the need for the matching federal funds. If we do not have available federal funds, the remaining $250,000 would be able to modernize 100 to 125 street lights.
So, in essence, are you telling me that we have no monies appropriated for new street lighting --
-- other than those that would be in the federal -- 132 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
-- in the Capital Program for the installation of new street lighting. That's correct.
We have not had an installation of new street lighting in the Capital Budget for ten years or more.
We have not had any line item in the Capital Program for the installation of new street lighting for at least the past ten years. All of the money in there is for the upgrade of existing lighting.
I want to get it clear in my own mind. With the $250,000, if we don't get the federal dollars, can we use the $250,000 to install new street lighting where needed or replace a street light?
If that money -- yes, it could be used for -- the $250,000 133 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 of City funds could be used for that type of work. That, however, would change the number of lights installed. The number that I estimated at the 100 to 125 was based on the original concept of modernization, not installation.
I would double that cost to install an additional street light. So you would be down to 50 or 60 because of the higher cost of installing the underground foundation and the electrical service to it. The modernization simply uses the existing location and changes the equipment. A new installation requires more work.
Let me ask, with all of the building that's going on now for new residential areas, whose responsibility is it to install street lights?
We require the developer who constructs the street to include the lighting as part of the cost of construction, because it's my understanding the Streets Department policy is that new streets constructed for residential, the developer pays the cost of that construction. So we include lighting as part of that construction cost.
Mr. Doyle, how aggressive a program do you have? What's the relationship with Risk Management? I see a lot of our utility poles, they're attached to PECO poles, struck by a vehicle or I see the 135 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 decorative lights on Kelly Drive that are hit by motor vehicles. How do we recover the costs of that damage? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We have a fairly aggressive program working with our own internal transportation administration, as well as Risk Management, to recover the cost for accidents, automobile crashes and the like, from the insurance companies, whether it be for traffic poles or street poles.
So if a traffic signal is knocked down, there is a process where the police report and your -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
We really do recover? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: We certainly ask that of the Risk Management Department, because we feel that there is some recourse. Now, certainly if someone crashes and flees a location, we can't 136 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 follow up with that, but we do look at the reports and we take the data and ask that we recover the cost. We compile the costs and we submit that for recovery.
You're welcome. Again, I hate to get back to this, but I am. You tell me that with new development, the developer is responsible for the construction of the streets, the sidewalk and street lighting. How does that change with what we're being asked to do for River City? Isn't it the same thing? Aren't we being asked to provide something more to some developers than we are others and it depends on what section of the City you're talking about? Is that what we're talking about?
I 137 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 think you do. I think you do. I think I may be putting you in a bind by answering. I asked about the street lighting, and I think your response to me was that the developer in new residential areas does the streets, the sidewalk and the lighting. However, we're being asked to approve $150,000, I believe it is -- 125 million -- excuse me. It's a big difference -- for River City. What is the difference? We're going to be developing some areas, I assume, where developers will be treated a little differently than developers in another area. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Madam President, my understanding of the River City money, it's going to be used essentially for water-related infrastructure.
Well, what difference does it matter whether it's water infrastructure or whether it's something three blocks away from the 138 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 location that you're referring to? I mean, it's residential. If it's residential, it's residential no matter where it's located, whether it be on the water or three blocks away from the water.
The development that is in the planning stages, for the most part right now, is in areas of the City where there is no residential development right now. For example --
The development that's under consideration to be benefited by this new River City money is located in areas of the City where there is essentially no residential development right now. For example, the Tacony Warehouse site, the Northern Shipping site, the site just directly north of the Tacony Bridge, the Dodge Steel site, as well as the Philly Coke site, they're all located in areas of the City where there 139 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 is no current residential development and where there hasn't been any residential development. So it's to support that kind of development, new development, development in new areas of the City, development of new residential communities.
I don't know the areas that you're talking about. I really don't. I'm not familiar with them, but my gut feeling tells me that it just isn't fair that some developers are being asked to do precisely what we went through earlier and others, because there is no 17 residential area around them, are then going to be the benefactor of having the streets done, the curbs and sidewalks, the lighting. Do you think that's fair?
Madam President, my understanding is, we're not going to be using that funding for streets, curbing and lighting.
Well, 140 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 what is it going to be used for? See, again I say, this has been an issue since last year, and we have been promised briefings. I have yet to hear of a briefing that was held on this, unless some people know and others don't. But I don't know how we vote in the blind on something as important as this. And unless we get a briefing and we are fully informed on a lot of these issues, I don't see how Councilpeople in good conscience can vote. It makes me very frustrated. It really does. I'm not going to continue on this. Councilman Kenney, if you're as frustrated as I am, you can ask a question.
My life is frustrated, so what are you going to do? You just get used to it after a while; that's all. After six years, you get used to it. Two more is not long to go.
Well, 141 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 I think I've been around a little more than six years, and I don't remember --
No; six years of frustration. There's two more to go and you're done. Ms. Reed testified earlier in a question from Council President Verna relative to the cash flow of the Capital Fund, and I believe the number she had indicated was about 208 million, if I remember her response. Could you come back? So it's your position that there's $208 million in cash in the Capital Fund?
When you say "cash," I tend to think of cash flow that's in 142 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 our combined cash flow.
Why then would on January 24th the Administration send up Resolution 060018 requesting authorization to do a negotiated private sale on GO bonds, with a potential total of about $450 million? Also, in the Office of Director of Finance, cash flow projections we see from 2005 actual through 2006 estimate, Capital improvement dollars from July 31st at 61.6 million, steadily declining down to a low of 11.7 million in February, the end of February this year, and then a bump on March 31st of $203.7 million? Now, it would indicate to me both this projection and this requested action indicates a lack of cash. If you need to privately negotiate these bonds in a sale as opposed to bid them, which is another way of doing it, and if we're down to 11.7 million in cash flow in the Capital Fund and all the sudden March 31st it goes to 203 million projected, 143 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 that would indicate to me some type of going to the market to borrow more money. Now, if you're sitting on 208 million, why do you need to potentially sell $450 million worth of debt and why does it seem that you're going to be going to the market again at the end of March for another 203?
I forgot to identify myself before. Dianne Reed, Budget Director. The carry-forward money is partially cash and partially authorization. I should have made that correction. We would have to get back to you on the specifics, and I think it may be appropriate to ask your question about that transaction of the Finance Director when he comes tomorrow to talk about the loan authorization, because I am not involved with that.
We could get you something in writing, but I can't 144 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 comment.
I appreciate that. And the other issue is, when does the Administration anticipate the City will borrow the balance of the Free Library renovation funds, which total $20 million? And is that a separate GO borrowing? Is that going through an agency? Is that done through Water Revenue funds? Where is that coming from?
It was a separate offering, I think. Wasn't it last June? Yes. We think that happened last June, but we'll have to get back to you on that.
I appreciate the answer to those two. Madam President, is there anyone else that's in line to ask questions? Because I had one area that may go --
Yes. 145 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Councilman Clarke --
No. I'll wait and come back, because I want to start a whole new subject.
Are you sure? I need the Recreation Commissioner. I want to just preface this by saying that one of the things that I notice within the Recreation Department that's different from the suburbs, and which is increasingly aggravating to me, is the condition of our grass playing fields. You and I have had discussions about this. We talked with Tom Fox about it on a number of occasions. And I recognize that because of the amount of use that those facilities get 12 months a year, there's never any downtime -- it's either baseball, then it's football, then it's soccer -- we wind up with our grass facilities being predominantly dust 146 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 balls. And because of the way in which we play our athletics now, we have a lot of suburban people come in to Philadelphia and a lot of our Philadelphia teams through the rec leagues and through private athletic associations that go into the suburbs, and it is an amazing disparity among the condition of the fields. As part of the recreation assessment, has it been incorporated into how we seed, weed, irrigate and maintain our fields so that we don't have to have our children ducking with their eyes closed after every football play to keep the dust from out of their eyes? And the other thing I need you to address is, we've been able to privately find funds to get, with cooperation of the Department, very good cooperation with the maintenance people, tremendous -- I mean, again, as I've said before, this Department, Recreation Department, they have a mission and they 147 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 understand what it is, and they're willing to do anything they can to get it done. So when we provide private dollars to seed or to fertilize or to irrigate and I drive by a rec facility in the middle of the summer during an amazing drought and I have a private contractor mowing the dust of the field we just seeded in the spring, where I had to get out of the car and wave the guy down and say, Stop mowing the dust, because there's nothing left to mow. But that's my job. That's the contract. I have to -- Stop. Give it a couple months to grow. I need to know how we get our grass field facilities, despite its overuse and despite our underfunding, to a point where we can have people come in and play and have our kids be proud of where they do their athletics. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Vic Richard, Recreation Commissioner. 148 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 I think that's a great question. I appreciate you bringing it up. Last year is the first year that we implemented the grass-cutting turf management operation, along with Fairmount Park. We've never been in a position as a City agency to put the fields to the level that you'd like to be. One of the things that I've been proposing very quietly is, we needed to look at the high-volume use. A lot of municipal facilities around the country are creating a more controlled athletic field based on its intended use. And what I mean by "controlled" is that it's locked. It's strictly scheduled out, where you have the capacity to control the traffic based on what's the intended use. Some of the other things that I'm looking at and proposing is that some facilities across the City do become that 149 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 way and not constantly used for the high-level competition league play and also for everyday practice. Another consideration that I've been proposing as well is to look at what's going on in the rest of the country, and they're going to artificial turf. So we haven't --
The School District has also gone to that. The field up at Northeast is a phenomenal facility and its turf is just tremendously conditioned. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Correct. And it's a controlled environment. So I don't believe the City from the time that I've been here has actually dedicated and laid the City out that way, and that is something that I think with the input of the communities, along with the staff knowledge that I have, the athletic associations across and also along with the input of the Planning Commission, that we could 150 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 accomplish as a City to designate certain individual fields across the City for the high level of play and then leave the other fields. We will maintain them as best we can, but they would be used strictly for the every day, not high-end league play.
Was any of these fields part of the facility assessment or was it just buildings? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I'm not sure.
Rick Tustin, Capital Program Office. Yes. The facility assessment looked at all the playing fields, as well as the buildings, the play areas, tennis courts, basketball courts. It was all included in the facility assessment. They also provided us a rating on the quality of the fields itself and they gave us an estimate on what it would cost to bring it up to, again, a standard level of acceptability. 151 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 What it didn't do is, it didn't come back with recommendations on what fields may be modified to artificial turf as opposed to the way it is right now. That would be more of a departmental operating decision, not really an assessment.
I'd be interested in keeping me at least and other members that are interested up to date on what's going on. It's just one of those kind of burrs in your saddle that you see every time you attend an athletic event, that you got to go take a bath because of the dust that's just blowing all over the place. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: And I appreciate you saying and presenting the question, because I have been quietly talking about it but now publicly we have been, more in the last 12 months, especially because of the contract. In a city of this size, there should be designated high-end little 152 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 league facilities for each particular sport. And I believe with the leadership of the individual Councilpeople, also with the leadership of the community people, but the Planning Commission as well, the City can -- we can get to that point. This area or this particular field is for little league football. This field is strictly designated for this age group in either baseball, softball or whatever. I believe we can get to that point. It's going to take a little bit of work, but we need it. The City hadn't been laid out that way.
And I want to thank you and your people at the Department. They're so cooperative and so helpful, and they work on a shoestring. And a lot of the money that we put in other places, if we put it in the Recreation Department, we would solve a lot of issues, after-school programs, all kinds of issues that we spend 153 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 extraneous money on. If the Recreation Department were funded operationally and Capital-wise the way it should be, a lot of our other policing problems and crime issues would go away. Because sometimes I feel like we overlap on top of the Recreation Department four other layers of services that the Recreation people know how to provide, have provided for years and have actually a personal mission to provide, because they don't make a lot of money and they do a lot of work. I just want to just finalize with a comment relative to the people that have testified here. I want to thank you. I know you're all good, decent public servants who care nothing more than taking care of the people of this City. I've worked with everybody for -- Council President Verna and others have worked with you people for years and years, and I know sometimes it gets difficult, because you're trying to 154 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 explain a policy that you didn't make or you didn't decide. So some stuff that comes off the second floor that you have to come up here and defend, I appreciate the efforts in which you do it, and I hope sometimes our questions aren't offensive, but we know how hard you work and appreciate your efforts. Thanks. Thank you.
And I think we would all echo that, Commissioner. Thank you. Are you finished?
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Real quickly, I'm actually going to need to ask the Streets Commissioner a question. And, Mr. Tustin, actually, I was going to ask a similar question that Councilman DiCicco asked about a Police 155 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Department, police facility in my district. The police facility at 17th and Montgomery that houses both the 22nd and the 23rd Police Districts, I'm not sure how old it is, but I must admit publicly that in my very, very early youth, I actually had occasion to kind of pass through there real briefly. It was a mistake. So I know that it has some mileage on it. And I've talked to the captains in that particular locale and they actually quietly say that there's some concerns about the condition of the facility, but they're not going to obviously ask whomever they should ask to get a new facility. Can you look at that facility? Because I don't know what the use of a public facility is, but that thing has to be getting up there in years, and the condition is really dismal. Also, in that particular location, because of the need for student housing, the land in that area is 156 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 extremely valuable. I had actually talked to some of the neighbors and some of the community leaders up there, and there was actually some thought that we could possibly move that station and build a new facility on Cecil B. Moore Avenue, where we own public land. It would better accommodate the police, because their current condition, their cars are all over the place. There's not adequate parking. They're pulling out of the police station in a residential area, and if we put it on Cecil B. Moore Avenue, it's a commercial corridor. There's more land to build a reasonable facility. I believe that that land would quickly be purchased by a developer who would do some student housing, because that's what's going on in that particular area. So can you do a similar assessment on that for me, please?
The other 157 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 question with respect to the Streets Department and their bridge analysis, again talking about my Council District. And the Streets Commissioner, my good friend, who last year took my trash day. We got over it, so I'm not going to beat you up. I must say I was extremely tempted to bring the issue up yesterday when Chief of Staff Wilkerson mentioned it yesterday. I almost jumped out of my chair, but I've calmed down. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I appreciate your control.
Plus, we talked earlier today, so... Commissioner, with respect to the analyses that are done on bridges throughout the City, and understanding some bridges are actually state owned -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
-- and maybe some even are owned by railways and some are City owned, is the Streets Department Bridge Division responsible 158 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 for coordinating the analysis? And the reason I ask that, in my district, we recently completed a bridge on 29th Street, did a very good job, between Sedgley and Glenwood, new bridge, grass. It looks real good, but just south of that on Montgomery Avenue, there are places where you can actually see the train tracks below if you look carefully, because the bridge is deteriorating extremely quickly, and I'm a little concerned that that may not be on the radar screen and who would be responsible for determining the condition and subsequent -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. We have a team of inspectors that are inspecting bridges like Montgomery Avenue, and it is on our radar screen. I don't have the timeline here, but I will get information for you with regard to what's going to happen with that bridge.
Because, I mean, they did the one on Oxford Street 159 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 and the one on 29th Street, but this little bridge is sitting in the middle and it has to be like from not the last century but the century prior to that, given some of the workmanship on that bridge. So if you can kind up give me -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. I'll get you the information.
As soon as possible. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Actually, I have it here in front of me. I'm sorry. Construction starts the end of '07.
I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The construction starts the end of '07.
That would be great if that can start in like April of '07. Maybe we can have an announcement in April of '07. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Okay. 160 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002
That would be great. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not sure where this question should be directed, but since you're involved with Capital programs. In the facilities assessment, your office conducted that, right?
I go to police stations, but for a different reason than Councilman Clarke went. I stop by occasionally. But the cleanliness -- and I know that there's a security issue. Could you explain the process? I pulled into one police station, and I won't name names because I 161 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 don't want to embarrass the captain at that district, but the fuel pump, the trash can was just overflowing, there were soda bottles thrown all around. Because they're a police station, I think that the thought is that it doesn't get many visitors. But I'd be embarrassed. If I had a visiting police officer from someplace else and took them on a tour of some of our facilities, I'd be terribly embarrassed. The trash was all over the place. The place looked like a pigpen.
Councilman, if I could just stop you for one minute. I'm going to have to see if either the Police or Public Property are here to address that question, because the Capital Program Office doesn't really get involved in the day-to-day maintenance, cleaning, trash removal.
But when you do an assessment, isn't there provisions for trash and receptacles and things like 162 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 that?
The assessment that we look at or we do more or less addresses the physical condition of the structure itself, not trash receptacles and things like that. We have in the past, when we've done newer facilities, included areas for compactors and things like that to address those operating issues, but on the older facilities, when we do an assessment, we focus on the physical condition of the building itself or the site itself, not necessarily on that issue. But I think somebody from Police is here.
Fine, but let me get to the next point. I went to one police district not too long ago where one of the restrooms was down for almost three months and they had to use the ladies' room for both the men and the women's, and the captain said to me he's basically given up on trying to get any service. 163 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 I mean, are police stations perceived as being places that only the bad people go?
Not in my mind, Councilman. I believe they're as important as any other municipal building that we have. Concerning whether a restroom is down and out of service, it's a maintenance issue that has to be addressed, and, again, our department doesn't address maintenance issues, but we probably do have the appropriate people here to answer those questions.
So I guess the question I ask is, at a City facility -- forget a police station for a minute. Firehouses, that's a whole different world. But the police stations, boy, I'll tell you. So whoever you suggest to come up and could answer that question and do we have a program would be greatly appreciated.
Because I was under the impression the police are responsible, the Public Property is not. I don't know who is on first. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GAITTENS: Deputy Commissioner Jack Gaittens, Police Department. Yes, sir. With regard to your first question, as far as the trash collection goes, Monday through Friday on daywork we have civilian custodians that work in each of the police facilities, and they are responsible to make sure that the place is cleaned up and trash is emptied. On the weekends, we utilize the personnel that work in the CCTV in the turnkey position, and they do some limited clean-ups there. With regards to the facilities as far as, say, a bathroom being out of service, we use our teletype and we request a repair order through Public Property. Generally speaking, we get very good cooperation with Public 165 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Property. However, they only have a certain amount of people, and it goes in a list. As to where you come in on that list, it varies.
Well, the point being is, you go to a police district and the officers are conscientious. They check the oil in their patrol vehicle. They use a piece of paper towel. Well, they look around and there's nothing, so it gets thrown behind the gas pump. You know. You've been to these places. I'm not blowing smoke. You know I'm telling that's how it is. And, first of all, a trash receptacle, in my opinion, shouldn't be at a fueling location. It should be off to the side someplace where it's not going to be part of or start a fire at a fuel facility. In my opinion, and it's no 24 disrespect, the police stations really are terrible places to visit, I'm sure 166 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 for a lot of people. But just if you brought a visitor from another jurisdiction, either they'd feel at home or they would be outraged from what they see. So I don't know about the trash outside the place, but maybe you were talking about what's inside. But what about outside? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GAITTENS: That even goes for the outside, to a limited extent. I mean, we're not going to have police officers pushing brooms on a lot. No, that's not going to happen, but as far as emptying the trash, bagging it up and keeping it where it is picked up by the Streets Department, sometimes the district commander has to remind people of their responsibilities to keep their own place cleaned.
Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Joan Schlotterbeck, Public Property 167 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 Commissioner. I just thought I'd come up and support Jack. We work very well together. Any new facility, we've privatized it. So in those instances, Councilman, you don't find that kind of condition. We do our very best to work to maintain the police facilities, both the cleanliness and also the operational maintenance of it. It's just a very difficult thing, because often times we're dealing with buildings that are old. They're 24/7. They haven't been provided the continuous level of care, upgrades, system repairs. So it's not a very easy thing for us to settle.
It just seems -- and I want to end it. It just seems as though there isn't a system. There doesn't appear that there's like -- you got to wait until the trash can is overflowing and all the garbage is all over the parking lot before somebody gets 168 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 the hint to empty it. It doesn't seem as though when it's half full, a daily operation -- you know what I'm going to do? I have a digital camera. I'm going to throw it in the back of my car and I'm going to start sending you some pictures, and you tell me if you think the system works. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: You could either do that or you could radio me. Either way.
That's fine. I'll send you the pictures. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: But, Councilman, I'd also like to know which police facility had a bathroom down for that long. That is my responsibility, and I'm totally unaware of that condition.
The entire building had to use one facility. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: What district?
I won't say 169 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 it publicly. I'll tell you privately. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you.
You're welcome. One of my colleagues had to leave. However, he asked if I could ask a question, and I guess it would be the Streets Commissioner. My colleague wanted to know how many street lights do we have in the City. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: There are 100,000 street lights in the City of Philadelphia.
I think that will answer his question. Thank you. Well, this will conclude today's public hearing. I want to thank you all for your patience. The Committee of the Whole will stand in recess until Monday, February 170 2/15/06 - WHOLE - BILLS 060001 AND 060002 27th at 10:00 a.m., at which time we will have tax hearings. Thank you. (Council of the Whole adjourned at 1:20 p.m.) - - - 171 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 February 15, 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.)