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?