COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE3 Room 400, City Hall5 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, March 23, 20116 2:00 p.m. PRESENT:8 COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL9 COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR.10 COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR.11 COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY12 COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN MARIA D. QUINONES-SANCHEZ13 COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO, JR.14 COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO 15 BILL 110135 - An Ordinance to adopt a Capital16 Budget for the six Fiscal Years 2012-2017 inclusive.17 BILL 110136 - An Ordinance to adopt a Fiscal18 2012 Capital Budget. 19 BILL 110137 - An Ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2012.20 BILL 110138 - An Ordinance amending Chapter21 19-1500 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Wage and Net Profits Tax," by revising22 certain tax rates... 23 - - -24 25 2 1
We're2 finally getting started.3 This is a continued public4 hearing of the Committee of the Whole.5 I would ask Mr. McPherson to6 please read the bills before us.7 MR. McPHERSON: Bill No.8 110135, an Ordinance to adopt a Capital9 Program for the six Fiscal Years 201210 through 2017 inclusive.11 Bill No. 110136, an Ordinance12 to adopt a Fiscal 2012 Capital Budget.13 Bill No. 110137, an Ordinance14 adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal15 Year 2012.16 And Bill No. 110138, an17 Ordinance amending Chapter 19-1500 of The18 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Wage and Net19 Profits Tax," by revising certain tax20 rates and making technical changes, all21 under certain terms and conditions.22 And today we will only be23 taking testimony on Bills 110135 and24 110136.25 3 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
Thank2 you.3 Do we have someone here from4 the Administration to testify?5 (Witnesses approached witness6 table.)7
Good8 afternoon. I'm sorry that you were kept9 waiting. However, we have other10 business.11 Would you please identify12 yourself for the record and proceed with13 your testimony.14
Yes. Good15 afternoon, Council President Verna and16 members of City Council. My name is Gary17 Jastrzab. I am the Executive Director of18 the City Planning Commission. I am here19 today to present --20 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:21 Excuse me, Gary. Would you lower your22 microphone and pull it closer to you.23
Thank25 4 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 you.2
10 The Philadelphia Home Rule11 Charter directs the City Planning12 Commission to prepare and submit to the13 Mayor a Recommended Capital Program and14 Budget. As you know, the Recommended15 Capital Program is a proposed six-year16 plan for investing in the City's physical17 and technology infrastructure, community18 facilities and public buildings. 1 Finance Department's Office of Budget and2 Program Evaluation, the Department of3 Public Property, Managing Director's4 Office and City operating departments to5 prepare the Recommended Capital Program6 and Budget. 13 As in years past, the14 availability of City tax-supported,15 general obligation bond funding for16 capital projects depends upon two17 factors: the debt limit imposed upon the18 City by the Pennsylvania Constitution and19 the City's financial capacity to service20 debt on borrowed funds. 1 program for critically needed public2 improvements. "5 Throughout the process of6 developing the Recommended Budget and7 Program, we follow several important8 principles. 5 Projects that help Philadelphia6 become one of the safest cities in7 America increase safety from crime,8 emergencies and accidents at home,9 school, in the neighborhood and at work10 and play. S. Army18 facilities for Police use. 1 improvements, roof replacements and2 mechanical/electrical/plumbing3 improvements at 27 fire stations. 1 improvements and renovations. 1 and other infrastructure improvements2 help to enable access to work and other3 destinations for Philadelphia's4 population. 15 I'm happy to address any questions that16 you may have. 22
Thank23 you very much.24 The proposed Capital Program25 16 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 contains $100 million in new general2 obligation bonds and $240.1 million in3 carry-forward City tax-supported loan4 funds. Can someone explain what years5 the carry-forward funds are from?6
I can do that.7 Rebecca Rhynhart, Budget Director. Good8 afternoon.9
So the 24012 million -- the biggest piece of that is13 from the last two years, for Fiscal '1114 and Fiscal '10. About 130 million of the15 240 million is from the last two years.16 You probably recall the Fiscal '1017 authorization didn't become available18 until actually last spring because of the19 delay in passing that authorization,20 actually having it go to the voters. And21 then the Fiscal '11 loan authorization22 just became available after the November23 election. So that was about 130 million24 of this. And then I can go through how25 17 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 much is from each year if you want me to2 do that now or I can provide that to you.3
How4 long would it take you to give it to us5 now?6
So Fiscal '11 is10 91.9 million. Fiscal '10 is 41.911 million. 2009 is 31.7. 2008 is 20.1.12 2007 is 11.3. 2006 is 14.5. And then it13 gets smaller. I can keep going. 2005 is14 8.0. 2004 is 6.3. And then every other15 year is around million -- million or16 less.17
Maybe18 you could tell us why it takes so long to19 spend capital monies.20
Sure. I think21 that capital projects -- they're not one22 year in nature. So capital projects23 are --24
We're25 18 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 going back to, I think you said, '07.2 That money is carrying forward from '07.3
Right. There's4 probably --5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:6 There's a problem.7
Maybe I'll ask8 Gary Knappick, if he's available, to9 join.10 I think from some of the prior11 years, there might be specific delays on12 that. I would like to say before Gary13 joins us that the length of time to14 complete a capital project is something15 that we share your concern in speeding16 that up and we are working towards how to17 speed that up. So that is something that18 we are working towards. But perhaps Gary19 can shed some light.20 (Witness approached witness21 table.)22 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:23 Good afternoon, Council President. Gary24 Knappick, Deputy Commissioner of Public25 19 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Property.2
Good3 afternoon.4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:5 The process of public works bidding,6 there are four sub-phases in moving7 forward with a public works project.8 Each one of them has sub-phases. There's9 about 15 of them, and they can span due10 to licensing requirements and purchasing11 requirements anywhere between -- the12 minimum duration of about 59 weeks to13 about 249 weeks.14 We're looking at a system right15 now that we're going to put in place,16 which is a public works requirement17 system. It's called Job Order18 Contracting. Last Tuesday we received a19 proposal for consulting services on it.20 That would reduce that requirement or21 those requirements to between 20 weeks22 and 156 weeks on the bigger projects,23 between a third and half the time.24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:25 20 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Councilman Rizzo for a point of2 information.3
Thank you,4 Madam President.5 I think we've asked this6 question before, Madam President, and I'm7 following up on you.8 I have information that a9 number of bridge reconstruction10 improvements has been carried forward11 dating back from Fiscal Year '99. That's12 well beyond what you just stated.13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:14 I couldn't speak to that --15
I don't know18 that specific information, but we are19 thinking -- do you want to see if they20 have the information.21
Sure. We do22 have, I believe, representatives from the23 Streets Department who could answer24 specific questions about that, but bridge25 21 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 projects are particularly difficult and2 very time consuming because they involve3 the cooperation of other entities, mainly4 the railroads, Amtrak in particular,5 which results in many delays. They have6 to make accommodations for their7 electrical lines that go under the8 bridges.9
We're17 talking about carry forward and we're18 talking about Fiscal Year '99. So I19 would like somebody to comment on why20 that carry forward, which the President21 pointed out and I believe is22 unacceptable.23
I mean,24 sometimes it's --25 22 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
Why don't we ask2 the department to come up to explain it.3 (Witness approached witness4 table.)5 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:6 Good afternoon. My name is Steven7 Buckley. I'm Deputy Commissioner for8 Transportation at the Streets Department.9 Councilman, I do hear your10 concern. I guess the original11 carry-forward dollars that are included12 in the Capital Budget is a snapshot in13 time that I believe is taken in October14 and November. Since then, the Streets15 Department has spent down all of its16 dollars prior to FY2007. So those17 dollars don't exist anymore. They've18 been encumbered this year.19
That's good20 to hear, especially when it's a bridge.21 Thank you.22 Thank you, Madam President.23 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:24 You're welcome.25 23 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Doesn't the delay in spending2 capital funds actually increase the cost3 of the various projects?4
-- of the cost?8 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:9 Gary Knappick again, Council President.10 In some cases, that does happen11 due to escalation. Depends on the times.12 Recently the trend has been to lower the13 cost because of the job market.14 Currently I think we're seeing a trend15 where a lot of the materials are going up16 in price because of the situation in17 China and their buying.18
Well,19 I think we keep talking about this, but I20 think there's a time when we've got to do21 something about it.22 What steps are the23 Administration taking for spending this24 money in a more timely fashion?25 24 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:2 One of the initiatives that we just put3 in place, as I alluded to a few minutes4 ago, is Job Order Contracting. What that5 is is a requirements-based contracting6 system that's tailored to specific type7 of projects, so that we can move the8 projects without the administrative9 delays we normally have. What happens10 is, it's put out for a bid. It's a very11 voluminous bid document with12 specifications, and it's basically unit13 priced for the type of projects we14 typically do. So that we can move the15 projects that we have now in small to16 medium range, I'm going to say between17 the 50,000 and 700,000 range, very18 quickly. It will reduce the timeframes19 by about a third.20 It's already bid. It's bid on21 the basis of a factor in the public works22 bidding process.23
We're also24 looking at the internal steps taken in25 25 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 the capital works process to see if2 anything can be shortened or done in a3 more efficient manner. We're also4 working with Law on that, so -- to see5 what's actually required by Law and what6 might be a way to shorten that process.7 So we're doing both of these8 things at the same time, because we share9 your concern about the speed of our10 spend. We're spending about between 511 and 6 million a month, but it could be12 more. So we're working on that.13
Can14 someone give us the specific police15 stations that will be renovated with16 these capital dollars, and when do you17 expect these projects to be completed?18
Police stations,19 was that your question? I'm sorry. The20 specific police stations?21
The22 specific police stations that will be23 renovated.24
I can identify25 26 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 the specific stations by district. This2 is for the budget year, and we're3 recommending funding for roof4 replacements for the 3rd and 4th Police5 District, the 7th Police District, the6 16th Police District, the 35th Police7 District, the 39th, the 18th and the8 26th.9 For mechanical, electrical and10 plumbing renovations, there again, the11 35th District will be treated, the 17th,12 the 39th and the Police Academy facility.13 Various site work will be done14 at the Police Administration building.15 There are two major projects16 that involve new or substantially17 reconstructed facilities. One of those18 is a new SWAT/bomb/K9 facility along19 State Road at the Police Academy. We20 also are going to be receiving from the21 federal government two former U.S. Army22 Reserve facilities, one on Wissahickon23 Avenue, the other on Woodhaven Avenue,24 that will be converted to police25 27 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 operational facilities. And those are2 the police stations that are recommended3 for treatment in the budget year.4
There I might7 like to have some help from Gary.8 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:9 I'd like to give you an exact answer on10 that. We probably won't have Job Order11 Contracting in place until, I'm going to12 say, the beginning of next year, the end13 of this calendar year, at which point14 we'll be able to start implementing that.15 A lot of those projects are roof-related16 projects. We should be able to spend17 down that money within a year after that.18
The21 Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a22 point of information.23
Thank you,24 Madam Chair.25 28 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 I'm holding a document from the2 2009 budget requests that City Council3 made where we specifically asked when the4 money was going to be spent. If you5 recall in 2007, PICA produced a report6 that showed critical life-safety, health,7 other issues that should be addressed.8 They called them, I think, Class A items.9 This is a response from Public Property10 about when the projects would be let and11 undertaken. The police12 mechanical/electrical/plumbing13 improvements that you just mentioned, we14 were told in May of '09 that the first15 construction bid package is scheduled for16 January 2010, with the last from March17 2010, and the completion of all18 construction work will be July 2011. Now19 you're telling us that it's not even20 going to be let until next year.21 Roof replacement, Fire/Police,22 which you just mentioned, we were told23 that the bid packages would be done by24 August 2009, and construction and25 29 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 completion of all work would be done by2 June 2010. And these are issues raised3 by PICA that are extremely critical4 repairs that should have been done. We5 raised this during the budget in 2008.6 In 2009 we asked for specifics about when7 it would happen. You assured us it would8 happen. And now I guess you're9 reassuring us that it will happen on the10 dates that you're saying now.11 I mean, it's really -- when you12 tell us things that -- you're asking us13 to appropriate money for Capital Budget14 for things that you tell us are going to15 get done. You assure us that you agree16 they're priorities and then you don't do17 them.18
Well, in terms19 of the roof repairs and the police -- I20 mean, the items we have in the '1221 Recommended Budget are not ones that were22 in budget from years ago, so they're23 different.24
So is this25 30 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 work all done?2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:3 No. I can give you --4
We can look at5 it and check it.6 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:7 It's not complete all of it, Councilman8 Green. I can give you a little summary9 of that right now, if you'd like.10
I don't want11 to take time doing it now, but, I mean,12 if you could just -- really what I'd like13 for the Capital Budget is where there are14 things like this, a similar statement of15 when it will be done by, when the bid16 packages will be let so that there's17 something that we can hold you18 accountable to next year when you come19 and ask for more money. I mean, it20 raises the bigger issue of why we're21 increasing the City's borrowing capacity22 to borrow money for things that we know23 we won't do for three, four or five years24 from now.25 31 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Let's not have unrealistic2 things in the Capital Budget. Let's3 borrow less money from Wall Street.4 Let's improve our credit rating and worry5 about it next year or the year after when6 we're actually going to spend it as7 opposed to just going ahead and borrowing8 a hundred million more dollars that we're9 not going to spend for five years.10
To clarify what11 we actually do, we go -- we're coming to12 you now for approval on what's listed in13 the Recommended Capital Budget. We won't14 start any work on those until those are15 approved by you.16 There's four main steps.17 There's pre-design, design, bid and18 construction. The bulk of the cost of19 that project might not be for a year or20 two years down the road, because these21 capital projects, even if done at the22 faster possible, take more than one year.23 We don't issue -- we don't go to the24 market and issue the bonds until we need25 32 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 the cash. So we're not issuing the bonds2 right now. You're giving us the approval3 to -- if you give us hopefully this4 approval, we will start these projects,5 but we won't go to the market on this6 right away until we need the cash.7
But why8 should we approve new capital spending9 when there's seven, eight years of10 backlog? Why don't we just say focus on11 what you haven't done and come back next12 year? Why wouldn't that make sense? And13 then everybody could be focused on what14 we haven't done.15
In20 addition to that, what happens, I found,21 in the past in trying to early on when I22 came on Council to expand rec centers, we23 would put the amount in the budget we24 needed, but by the time we got to the25 33 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 point, the price had gone up, and each2 year we had to keep going back.3 So are you putting enough money4 in the Capital Program so that when you5 get to the project, you have enough6 money? Because you may -- the cost now7 is calculated based on what the cost is8 today, but five years from now, the cost9 is higher, and then you have to sort of10 analyze or figure out if you have enough11 money to pay for the project. Is that12 taken into consideration, increase in13 cost?14 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:15 We try to do that. We attempt to do it,16 but the actual estimating process isn't17 an exact science. We kind of look at a18 project and, based on our experience, we19 kind of give it our best guesstimate on20 what it's going to cost. The estimate is21 done on the basis of experience. And22 when we enter a project like a new23 building, we begin with a programming24 phase, and that programming phase usually25 34 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 starts out with a wish list from the user2 agency and then we narrow that into a3 needs list, at which point it somehow has4 to marry with the budget, and in some5 cases it does, in some cases it doesn't.6
Well, it7 took ten years to expand Finley Rec8 Center, because each year Councilman9 White put money into the budget. They10 would put the bid out, and by the time11 the bid came back, it was overbid. The12 next year he had to put additional money13 in the budget. So that cycle kept going,14 until we figured out how to prevent that15 by just appropriating all the money to16 one project to get it done.17
I think Gary18 might have said this, but there is a19 cushion built in. That's obviously what20 we don't want to happen, so that is21 something that you look at, we look at.22 Right?23 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:24 Yeah. Depending on the level we give it25 35 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 and how much pencil we put to paper and2 how many things we investigate in3 developing an estimate really -- just4 example as being the SWAT/bomb facility,5 which is out for design. We started6 with -- that involves the PICA funding, 57 million of the PICA funding. The8 original programming on that was done for9 a 17,000-square-foot facility. When we10 finally started putting pencil to paper11 and trying to site it out at the Police12 Academy, we found that the K9 building13 had to be ripped down, and that was one14 of the ones that was cited in the PICA15 report. So we ended up integrating that,16 moving site fixtures around and the17 project expanded quite a bit into a --18 what I originally estimated at 7 and a19 half million went up to 12, and we're in20 the process of backing that down into 1021 and a half right now.22
Thank you,23 Madam President.24 Thank you, Councilman.25 36 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
If I can say2 something on Councilman Green's point of3 why do we have to pass a Capital Budget4 at all. I mean, if we were to not have a5 Capital Budget this year, we wouldn't be6 able to start on paving the streets that7 are in the Capital Budget this year or8 fixing the roof repairs at the police and9 fire and rec stations and doing a variety10 of things that are really essential to11 the City's upkeep of the basic12 infrastructure.13 So there's various stages, as I14 mentioned, of the Capital -- of the spend15 process. So we would be halting the16 beginning stage of that for these17 projects. So we would be delaying the18 continuation of the capital spend.19
I don't20 agree with the premise that we can't do21 planning and we can't do all the work22 that has to be done prior to the23 borrowing. Obviously I would never24 suggest not borrowing to pave streets,25 37 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 but a lot of the stuff in here is clearly2 years away. Why increase our debt limit3 now when we know our rating has been4 lowered by Wall Street when we know we5 don't have to now? We could do the6 planning phases. We can do the other7 stuff that has to be done in the8 background without approval, and when9 you're ready to go to the project next10 year, we'll add that to the limit.11 That's all I'm suggesting.12
Well, I think13 that what we're asking for now is your14 approval to start on the -- to start to15 spend on these projects. You wouldn't16 want --17
You have the22 money. You have 241 -- what you're23 saying then is, you don't have the cash24 in the bank; that is, the $241 million of25 38 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 carry forward, because we've spent it on2 other things, because if --3
There's $2418 million that we haven't spent that we've9 already appropriated and approved that's10 part of capital plans.11
When we approve16 the Capital Budget, that isn't cash in17 the bank. We then have to go out to18 market. There is a timing mismatch,19 because we wait -- it's about a20 two-year -- up to a two-year lag between21 when we go out to market. We don't want22 to enter into any type of contract for23 work on these projects without Council's24 approval. That's why we're here, to get25 39 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 your approval, but it could be in -- it2 is two years from now when we actually go3 to market and borrow the money. We're4 not going to go to market and borrow the5 money after the Capital Budget is passed.6
Okay. So7 what are you going to borrow the money8 for this year and actually get done this9 year?10
What are you13 going to borrow for this year? And of14 the 241 that's carryover, how much have15 we borrowed?16
This year we are17 about to borrow for the '09 and '1018 authorizations.19
So of the20 241 that is backlogged, how much have we21 borrowed?22
Well, we haven't23 borrowed -- let me just think about24 this -- the '09, '10 or '11. So we25 40 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 haven't borrowed about 150 million of it.2
Right. And5 that's about to get borrowed within the6 next month, the '09 and '10.7
So within17 two years from now, we will have spent18 down the entire amount we're borrowing19 now?20
Within three21 years we will definitely spend that down,22 yes.23
Then why24 borrow it?25 41 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
Yeah. If we3 don't need to spend it this year, why4 borrow it this year? Why not borrow it5 in the year before we need to spend it so6 that we don't increase our debt limit?7 Why borrow '09 and '10 now? Why not8 borrow what we are actually going to9 spend next year from '09 and '10 rather10 than increasing our debt by $150 million?11
I think -- that12 is actually what we do. What we do is,13 we look at our cash levels in the capital14 fund, and when it gets to a low point, we15 borrow to replenish that fund.16
Yeah. Okay.17 But you're telling me that some of it18 will not be spent even two years from19 now. So why borrow it now?20 How much of the 150 you're21 going to borrow will be spent by the end22 of Fiscal 2012?23
I can't answer24 that right off the top of my head. We25 42 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 could get that to you, but it's a2 significant amount.3
Well, I4 think we should know that before we5 authorize this, how much you're going to6 spend of what you borrow in Fiscal 2012,7 how much in Fiscal 2013, so that we can8 actually borrow less, have less debt9 service, which is more money available10 for the General Fund. This whole11 strategy doesn't seem to make sense to12 me.13
Perhaps I'm not14 being clear. So maybe it would make more15 sense to talk to you -- to meet about it.16 But, I mean, we definitely watch the cash17 and only borrow when we need the cash.18 So I'd be happy to provide you what our19 capital fund looks like and when our20 borrowing plan is to explain that, but I21 think that your concern is addressed in22 what we do already. It just might need23 some --24
Well, I'm25 43 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 not sure. How much have you borrowed2 that you haven't spent?3
Well, how much4 have we borrowed that we haven't spent?5 We're getting down now -- we watch it on6 a monthly basis, so I don't know the7 exact number right now, but it's getting8 to be on the lower side. So I can't give9 an exact number, but it is getting lower.10 That's why we plan another borrowing.11
Okay. So12 based on the testimony you just gave,13 we're going to borrow the 150 this14 year --15
Wait. This is16 for 100 million. This Capital Budget is17 100 million.18
Right, but19 the Fiscal '09 and '10 we're going to20 borrow this year?21
We'll spend it25 44 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 over the next few years.2
There's a5 certain economy of scale of issuing -- we6 normally issue every two years. So you7 could argue about issuing every year8 versus every two years and the cost of9 the bond counsel and other fees.10
This might11 be a perfect opportunity to do a small12 issuance with a non-underwritten13 offering, basically auctioning the note14 for our Capital Plan to see how that15 works rather than issuing a big16 underwritten offering just to --17
No. I'm20 forgetting the term for when there's sort21 of an auction for the offering rather22 than a firm underwritten offering.23
You mean a24 competitive bid?25 45 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
Competitive2 bid. Thank you. I mean, it seems to me3 like this is an opportunity to test4 competitive bidding in the market for the5 City of Philadelphia to borrow a smaller6 amount for just what we're going to spend7 next year. I don't know why we want to8 pay debt service for a year when we're9 not going to spend the money.10
We are looking at11 doing that for our Tran this year, and12 we're in consult with our underwriters13 and financial advisors to see whether14 that makes sense and whether they think15 that we're ready to do that in the16 market. But we agree with you that if we17 can get to doing competitive bidding,18 that makes sense.19
And why are20 we borrowing money we know we're not21 going to spend next year?22
We are not. I23 think what Rebecca was trying to say is,24 we borrow based on our cash needs. So we25 46 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 monitor our cash. When the cash looks2 like it's going to run out, that's when3 we borrow, and not before. What you4 would approve in the Capital Budget is5 not directly related to what we would6 borrow this year. It's an authorization7 to start spending.8
I understand9 that. So we were talking about what's10 going --11
Let me just try to12 finish.13 And so we don't borrow based on14 this authorization. We borrow based on15 our pace of spending and what we think16 we'll spend over the period for which17 we're borrowing.18
And that was19 my exact question, which is -- I was told20 we were borrowing '09 and '10 this year.21 The appropriation that we gave in '09 and22 '10 for the borrowing ability we gave for23 '09 and '10 this year. My question is,24 will we spend all of that this year, and,25 47 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 if not, why borrow all of that?2
There is -- if3 you issue smaller amounts every year,4 there is the added cost -- the added5 issuance costs of issuing. So there's6 costs of -- there's costs for bond7 counsel and underwriters and various8 other costs that make it efficient, and9 it is common practice to issue what you10 can spend over a two- or even a11 three-year period. That is pretty12 common, because of the cost of actually13 bringing a deal to --14
I'm really15 not trying to be difficult, but I don't16 know of a business that would borrow17 money three years before it's going to18 spend it and pay interest on it for three19 years before it was going to spend it.20 And so what I'm suggesting is maybe going21 to competitive bids for smaller amounts,22 which costs a lot less money than firm23 underwritten offerings, would be the way24 for us to go to determine whether or not25 48 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 we can save on interest expense and other2 things. So, yeah, I'm happy to take this3 conversation offline.4
I have many6 more questions and I'm going to have to7 miss them, so I'll try to address my8 specific department capital items when9 the departments come up, because10 unfortunately I have another appointment11 today.12 So thank you very much for your13 testimony.14
I16 have several more questions, but I think17 it would be very unfair to my colleagues.18 So at this point, I'd like to recognize19 Councilman Goode.20
Thank you,21 Madam President.22 Good afternoon. Mr. Jastrzab,23 in the last page of your testimony -- I'm24 paraphrasing -- you say, I hope that this25 49 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 sampling demonstrates how the Fiscal Year2 2012-2017 Recommended Capital Program3 seeks to make strategic, targeted4 investments in Philadelphia5 infrastructure using our limited6 resources for the greatest public7 benefit.8 What do you mean by "greatest9 public benefit"?10
To serve -- to11 allow the City operating departments to12 serve the public, to perform their13 Charter-mandated responsibilities, as14 well as their other operational15 responsibilities; for example, the16 Recreation Department where we're17 repairing or replacing a roof on a18 recreation center because it's beyond its19 useful life. This Capital Budget and20 Program represents a recommendation to21 replace that roof so that that recreation22 center can continue operation, serving23 residents of the City.24
Are there25 50 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 business and workforce diversity goals2 set for capital projects?3
I think they7 would be different for Public Property8 and then the various other departments9 that run their own capital, so --10
I understand11 that, but my question is, we will spend12 about $9 billion. You're asking us to13 approve several different bills that are14 separate from the Operating Budget.15 There's the Capital Budget. There's the16 Capital Plan. The Capital Plan is for $917 billion. Should there or should there18 not be diversity goals set for that $919 billion?20
There should be.21 There should be, and there is. So we22 should just walk through it for you.23
I would24 actually prefer before we take any voting25 51 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 on the Five Year Capital Plan that you2 submit diversity goals to say how the $93 billion is going to be spent, what4 opportunities are going to exist. And I5 would like you to submit that to the6 Chair. And if we don't receive it, I,7 for one, will be voting no.8
We will9 definitely give that to you. We have it,10 and I think even -- we do have them if11 you want.12 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:13 Councilman, we attempt to meet the14 Mayor's goals and we've been successful15 in exceeding those goals in our16 contracting, both in the public works --17
So you're18 telling me it's 2.25 billion?19 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:20 Pardon me?21
Are you22 telling me there's 2.25 billion?23 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:24 I don't quite understand the question on25 52 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 the 2.25 billion.2
That's 253 percent.4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:5 Oh, I can answer to what was spent last6 year --7
If it's not8 2.25 billion, then give me a figure in9 the billions.10
If you want it11 broken down for the whole five year, we12 could get it for you. Gary was going to13 speak about Public Property, how they did14 last year, if you were interested.15
I'm not16 interested in that. I'm interested in17 how much of the $9 billion is going to18 disadvantaged businesses.19
We'll get that20 to you, then.21 COUNCILMAN GOODE:22 Mr. Jastrzab, what is the Planning23 Commission's diversity goal for this24 fiscal year?25 53 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
Our goal is,2 considering our Operating Budget, 253 percent.4
Yes. For Fiscal7 Year '11, the year we're in now, our8 goal -- our achievement has been 319 percent.10
We have23 contracts in place in our Operating24 Budget that --25 54 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
Yes, we are.4 Yes, we are. And we have in past years5 as well.6
We're meeting it9 through the contracts that we issue, most10 often for planning studies, by having --11
I'm asking12 you specifically what you've done to13 date. Is that that hard?14
No. I'm trying,15 Councilman, I'm trying to answer your16 question.17
We received23 several grants. We've been very24 aggressive in going after grants, and the25 55 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 kind of grants that we receive, we are2 able to contract out with planning,3 architectural firms and other firms that4 help us with planning studies.5
What is the6 total amount that's been contracted and7 what's the total amount that's going to8 disadvantaged businesses?9
Then you12 don't know. And so you shouldn't say13 that you're meeting your goal.14
Well, I know15 that based on the preparation we've done16 for our Operating Budget, our achievement17 of those goals for the year we're in now18 based on --19
I have those20 numbers right here. It says zero21 percent. So I'll move on.22
If it's25 56 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 wrong, we'll deal with it later.2
What is a4 typical capital project and what skill5 set is required for business and6 workforce participation?7
That's probably8 something that Gary should answer.9 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:10 I would say a typical capital project11 involves professional services first.12 We've been able to bring in -- our13 numbers are -- I can give you a decent14 number.15
A typical16 capital project is professional services?17 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:18 No. It begins with professional services19 and then it moves out into the workforce.20
I said21 what's a typical capital project. Let's22 take curbs and sidewalks, for example.23 Under this plan, the Five Year Plan, how24 much will we spend on curbs and25 57 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 sidewalks?2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:3 I don't know that, Councilman.4
Can you5 forward that information to the Chair?6 Also I'd like a formal response in terms7 of what skill set is required in terms of8 business and workforce participation to9 do curbs and sidewalks. I want to know10 what type of businesses you need, what11 type of workforce skill sets you need12 before we can actually have a talk about13 whether there should be more diversity in14 terms of that simplest of work, curbs and15 sidewalks. That's why I asked what a16 typical capital project is.17 Let me ask this question, which18 I'm sure you do know. Are we contracting19 curbs and sidewalk work out to20 non-Philadelphia firms?21 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:22 From our side in the Public Property23 side, the only curbs and sidewalk work24 really that comes into play is when we're25 58 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 doing rec centers and possibly some of2 Fairmount Park. So that might be3 something that --4
Are we5 contracting that work out to6 non-Philadelphia firms?7 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:8 The public works bidding procedures are9 such that there is a local business10 preference and it goes to the lowest11 competitive bid.12
Okay. Are13 we contracting that work out to14 non-Philadelphia firms?15 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:16 There are some firms that are17 non-Philadelphia. I don't have specifics18 on that, but I'm sure there are.19
Why are we20 contracting that work out to21 non-Philadelphia firms? It's curbs and22 sidewalk work.23
I think what24 Gary is saying is that we give a25 59 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 preference for local business, but we do2 have it open for all to get the lowest3 cost. So we give a preference to local4 bidders, but --5
I thoroughly6 understand that, but we've made the point7 in other hearings that that may be8 financially shrewd but economically9 stupid.10
Yes.16 The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown17 for a point of information.18
We're at19 the early first lap of budget hearings20 and we're not going to be accepting the21 practice where Procurement is called to22 answer questions of department heads,23 because it goes to the prevailing,24 consistent, pervasive question we've25 60 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 asked every year, at what point does2 leadership in the departments make it3 plain and make it clear that the City's4 priority, bias -- and I will say bias --5 should be towards Philadelphia firms,6 particularly in instances where we're7 talking about a non-skilled opportunity.8
I think,9 Councilwoman, we do give a local10 Philadelphia preference.11
You've said12 that. I think it's stupid to contract13 out work that can be done by Philadelphia14 businesses and workers. It continues to15 put us at an economic disadvantage. Even16 if you're weighing some fiscal concerns,17 I'm not sure that the economic advantages18 toward trying to keep the dollars within19 Philadelphia with Philadelphia businesses20 and workers doesn't outweigh whatever21 concerns you have.22 If the problem is the rules and23 the laws on the books, that's what we're24 here for, but as we're here talking about25 61 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 a $9 billion Capital Plan, the next2 question I'll ask before I ask my last3 question is simply, even if you're4 contracting out to non-Philadelphia5 firms, do you require them to use6 Philadelphia workers?7 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:8 No. That's not a requirement of a9 contract.10
Why wouldn't11 we require them to use Philadelphia12 workers?13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:14 It's just not a requirement that's in the15 laws that we work under. I don't know16 that for any other reason than that.17
Whatever we18 need to work out, we need to work out.19 We can't assume that certain things20 aren't legal and can't be handled through21 amending current rules and procedures we22 have, even if it takes Charter changes.23 Some things we may be preempted by;24 others we are not.25 62 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 The last question I'm going to2 ask for the record, which I want a3 written response to through the Chair for4 this Council, is how much of the $95 billion plan will go to Philadelphia6 businesses and workers as well. That's a7 fair question if you're asking me to8 approve a $9 billion plan.9 Thank you, Madam Chair.10
Thank11 you.12 The Chair recognizes Councilman13 Jones.14
Thank you,15 Madam President.16 I'm going to start this part of17 the hearing with what I started18 yesterday, which is Resolution No.19 100848, which requires an analysis of how20 we bid out versus doing work internally21 by way of procurement opportunities22 inclusive of capital projects. It is23 important because of what my colleagues24 have said, because there are benefits to25 63 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 the City of Philadelphia. And I know we2 have to navigate the legalities of it and3 how we actually implement it, but there4 is a cost effectiveness to this.5 Now, each year -- and I've6 learned something. I usually get upset7 when people say point of information that8 isn't really a point of information but9 it's questions, but Bill highlighted a10 lot of, Bill Green, Councilman Green,11 highlighted a lot of the concerns that we12 all share, that we had a $2 billion13 stimulus package that we received from14 the federal government that was on the15 record yesterday, and it was contracts16 that we put out. Over this plan, we're17 looking at a $9 billion capital project18 over six years. Isn't that your19 testimony?20
Yes. That's22 more stimulus than could be stimulated by23 the federal government that we control24 locally. It does not make sense that we25 64 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 don't hasten to that.2 Now, from what I've heard and3 my procurement background is, the problem4 is not you. The problem is the traffic5 cop controlling the departments and6 moving those projects forward to go to7 bid to be moved on, and we have to fix8 that. We have to fix that so that people9 that are sitting in union halls, people10 that are sitting in barber shops actually11 get job opportunities over capital12 dollars, that we don't have to wait for13 Congress, we don't care who is the14 President, we won't care who the Governor15 is, that we control.16 So what you hear from my17 colleagues is a consistent clarion cry.18 I don't care what district you're from.19 You want people from your district to20 work, and we have that within our21 control. And so it's not going to be22 good enough -- we're in the beginning,23 which is a good thing, so you can go back24 in the huddle, figure out how you can25 65 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 respond to some of the concerns of this2 body.3 We really need to take a look4 at how we're doing this, whether it's5 beefing up the Procurement Commissioners6 so that they can do some of that kind of7 prodding of cattle or projects that we8 need along, because we're borrowing9 money, maybe -- and I heard that we're10 not asking for cash too quickly, so it's11 not interest, I get that part, but there12 are people sitting waiting for these13 projects to help improve their lives but14 also contract opportunities.15 Now, the way this information16 is presented, I see categories, Streets,17 Police, Parks and Rec, Public Property,18 but as a District Councilperson, what19 street, what parking situation so that I20 can have a better sense and explain it to21 the 155,000 people I represent? Is there22 relief coming for the pothole that they23 have to navigate every day?24 So the way you present this25 66 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 information to me is important as well.2 So in the 4th District, you mentioned the3 39th Police District. So now I know that4 they're going to seek some relief. But5 in the dialogue and exchange that we will6 have, I know that the 19th District has a7 dangerous situation with a gas pump that8 has gone unaddressed since I've been9 elected. And so I'd like to know at what10 point in the continuum of construction11 they're going to actually get a pump.12 So when you present this13 information for a District Councilperson,14 it would be helpful in the 7th, in the15 9th District to know when these things16 are going to occur.17
So, I mean19 just at the beginning of this, these20 things present a problem for us to even21 begin to consider whether this is a good22 Capital Budget or a bad one for the 4th23 District. So I need the information24 massaged in a different way.25 67 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
Councilman, we4 can -- when we prepare the Capital5 Program and Budget, we're doing it with6 an eye towards crafting an ordinance that7 we can transmit to you for introduction8 in this body. But we can also take the9 data that we've generated about those10 projects and sort them by Council11 district, and I'd be happy to provide to12 the Chair a list of all projects by13 Council district. We will do that for14 you.15
In addition,16 I'm going to reference Resolution No.17 100848. Every department that we go --18 that I go through, that I question, you19 hear the questions about employment, you20 hear the questions about female and21 minority participation, but also I want22 to know that my department heads are23 analyzing whether or not it's better to24 bid out this project or to do -- or find25 68 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 a way to work with Public Property or2 Recreation or to do it internally.3 Because if we're looking for quarters in4 the couch to try to keep fire stations5 open, we're going to also charge you with6 that kind of scrutiny, analysis to7 provide us good information about good8 decisions that we're making with our9 appropriations.10 So it's the beginning of the11 process. We have time now, whether12 through the Operating Budget or the13 Capital Budget, to kind of get that14 information massaged in a way that it15 becomes useful information to the people16 in this room.17 Thank you, Madam Chair.18
The19 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.20
Thank21 you, Madam President.22 I have a question for23 Mr. Dubow.24
Is25 69 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Mr. Dubow in the room?2 I believe he's out of the room3 making a phone call.4
Thank10 you.11 The Chair recognizes12 Councilwoman Tasco.13
I'm okay.18 Oh, no. Let me ask a question.19 Each year we get an20 appropriation by district for our rec21 centers, improvement to existing22 facilities, and in costing out the repair23 of a rec center, we often get calls to24 request money that we have in our pocket,25 70 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 in our pool budget for projects or2 services we want to provide to the rec3 center, but the Rec Department wants to4 use it for something else, for a roof or5 whatever.6 Can the District Councilperson7 give this amount of money for fixing the8 ball fields or for whatever repair they9 need at the rec center? Do you all, in10 looking at what the needs are in these11 rec centers, take the appropriated amount12 by districts and put it in -- also13 calculate it in what the department is14 looking for to say, Well, we have $515 million, she has 1 million, we need 6, so16 there's the 6 million? Do you count our17 allocation?18
As you are21 calculating the cost of improvement to22 existing facilities. How is that money23 accounted for?24
That might be a25 71 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Parks and Rec question. If you're asking2 if we account for your money before you3 agree to use your money?4
When we --5 I got a request from the Recreation6 Department, but all the rec centers in my7 district, somebody needs a floor,8 somebody needs a pool, somebody needs9 this, and this is how much it's going to10 cost, because it may come up to $800,000.11 Well, in assessing the needs of the rec12 centers, was there a decision that, Well,13 we'll put so much here for these rec14 centers, but we'll count on the District15 Councilperson spending her money on these16 projects, too?17
I wasn't aware18 of anything like that, but maybe you can19 go ahead.20
No. I think21 that's the answer to the question. We22 look at making a recommendation based on23 the departmental's analysis of its needs,24 and we listen to the department to25 72 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 provide us with -- we ask the departments2 to provide us with information about how3 they can spend this money. There's no4 assumption in our recommendation5 necessarily that a portion of the6 improvement to existing facilities7 funding that you receive as a8 Councilwoman necessarily is earmarked to9 any specific project. We know it's10 there.11
Well, if12 you know that a recreation center needs13 some improvements in the rec center and14 you determine that the cost is $800,000,15 well the $800,000 should come out of the16 Rec budget. You shouldn't call me for17 half of it. And that's what's happening.18
Or you'll20 call and say, The roof is leaking at Rec21 Center B and you should fix the roof. We22 can't fix the roof. We don't have the23 money to fix the roof. And we've had24 this discussion before you got here about25 73 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 at one time all of the roofs were done at2 one time instead of doing roof by roof by3 roof, and a lot of the work was done by4 staff. So what happens, we will get a5 list of needs for these rec centers and6 then we're expected to pay for it, and7 when you are borrowing money based on8 information that's given to you by the9 department for each facility, are they10 giving you the amount of the calculation,11 the right amount of calculation you need?12
I think what the13 Recreation Department attempts to do in14 providing you with that list is to, in a15 sense, leverage their departmental funds16 for particular projects by trying to also17 use some of the funds that are allocated18 for the ITEF, improvement to existing19 facilities, to make the department's20 money go farther.21
Part of the22 heart of the problem is that on the GO23 side, not looking at Airport or Water,24 but on the General Fund-supported side25 74 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 for capital borrowing, there's a lot more2 need than we actually can borrow for,3 because we have such high debt levels4 already. So we actually do have a5 greater need for rec centers than we6 actually have the money for, and we're7 constrained from borrowing a larger8 amount because of the cost and because of9 our high debt level. So that's why we10 don't just put it into -- we don't say11 all these -- this is the whole list of12 rec centers and we can borrow money for13 all of them. We unfortunately can't.14
I'd18 like to piggyback on Councilwoman Tasco's19 question. On of your testimony,20 you mention that $12.4 million in new21 City funds is proposed to fund22 improvements to parks and recreation23 centers. Does this amount include City24 Council's recreation funding or is it in25 75 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 addition to?2
I'd9 like to check that out, if you don't10 mind. In the interim, I would ask -- the11 Commissioner is coming up.12 (Witness approached witness13 table.)14 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:15 Commissioner, if you have an16 explanation --17
I'd like to18 correct -- there was a mistake there. So19 I apologize for that. Mike will come up20 to give you information. Apologies.21
That was on the24 record.25 76 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
Good2 afternoon, Commissioner.3 COMMISSIONER DiBERARDINIS: Hi.4 I'm Michael DiBerardinis, Deputy Mayor5 and Commissioner of Parks and Recreation.6 To try to answer your question,7 Councilwoman, of the 12.5 million in the8 Recreation Department, I think9 approximately 8 million of that is10 allocated by district to City Council.11 So then the remaining funds are for the12 use of the department in its operating13 and managing its Capital Budget.14
Sorry about17 that.18 Mr. Dubow, would you come up to19 the witness table.20 The Chair recognizes21 Councilwoman Blackwell.22
Thank23 you very much.24 Mr. Dubow, I would like to pass25 77 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 you a copy of House Bill No. 84. Are you2 familiar with this bill?3
Is this -- no;4 House Bill 84. I don't think I've seen5 this before.6
All7 right. This bill, if passed and signed8 into law, would require that Philadelphia9 would come under state law, requiring10 City employees holding the position of11 assessors to be certified within three12 years of the effective date of the13 legislation. That is what this calls14 for.15 As we have expressed in the16 past, we are concerned for the employees17 who hold these positions well and could18 be impacted by legislation that would19 require them to get some 75-course20 certification that would have to take21 this process. We are asking you to look22 into this to see if this bill does become23 law, if it's possible that those already24 working could be exempted and if the City25 78 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 would pay for the training that this bill2 would call for for new employees who3 would be coming in to make them state4 certified as assessors.5
Thank11 you.12 Thank you, Madam Chair.13 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:14 You're welcome.15 The Chair recognizes Councilman16 Rizzo.17
Thank20 you.21 The Chair recognizes22 Councilwoman Miller.23
Thank24 you. Thank you, Madam Chair.25 79 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 I have a couple questions,2 particularly about some of the funding3 that's from previous years. In the4 Capital Program book on , we have5 improvements to existing rec facilities,6 and on Line 44-P, it says Lonnie Young7 Recreation Center, Fiscal Year '99,8 500,000. Well, Lonnie Young was9 completed. It's been completed for many10 years. So we have $500,000 left there.11 Can I move that to another project? I12 actually did not know that we had13 $500,000 left from the Lonnie Young14 project. Can that be moved?15
Why don't we16 look into that and talk to you about it.17 We'll get back to you.18
That's19 great.20 Also on when we're21 talking about what you're going to do22 to -- wait a minute. Not 93. I can do23 that one later.24 When I was reading this and25 80 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 looked under Records, I was pretty2 shocked that Records is going to get3 funding to do bulletproof partitions. Is4 there a need? Is there a dangerous need5 there for bulletproof partitions in the6 Records Department?7
There have been10 some incidents in the Department of11 Records with people throwing things and12 threatening employees and things of that13 nature. So the request came in from the14 Department to try to address that15 situation.16
I'm sorry17 to hear that. But anyway, also under18 Streets Department Facilities, in the19 Highway Districts, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th20 in the district yards, there's going to21 be some new brine storage tanks, and I22 was wondering why the 4th highway is left23 out. That serves a large portion of the24 8th Council District.25 81 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
This is4 on , Streets Department Support5 Facilities on Line 14.6
Well, it9 says that there's going to be -- that10 you're going to furnish and install brine11 maker equipment and brine storage tanks12 in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th highway13 district yards, and my question is, what14 about the 4th District?15 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:16 Steve Buckley, Deputy Commissioner of17 Streets Department.18 Currently, there is not enough19 physical space in the 4th yard to fit a20 brine tank storage facility. That's the21 issue.22
That's23 why we're not doing the 4th?24 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:25 82 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Yeah. We currently have a facility at2 Domino and Umbria at the sanitation yard,3 which we use for the 4th.4
So that5 takes care of the 4th?6 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:7 Yes, ma'am.8
And on9 under Cultural Corridors Capital10 and Infrastructure Projects, from year11 '08 -- it's the Cultural Corridors12 Capital and Infrastructure Projects.13 This is funding there that was left under14 the Street Administration and I had a15 particular group that was promised some16 of this funding and has still not17 received it. In fact, I've been trying18 to find out whether the money was still19 there, and if it was there, why this20 group has not received their allocation21 for a couple years now.22
I'm glad24 to see that there's money here, and I25 83 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 don't know who you want me to talk to to2 find out what happened to that group's3 allocation.4
The Commerce5 Department administers those funds.6 Duane Bumb from the Commerce Department7 is coming up.8 (Witness approached witness9 table.)10
Duane Bumb, Deputy11 Director of Commerce.12 Councilwoman, there is a line13 item --14
Cultural Corridors17 funding, which was a bond issue that was18 administered by PIDC. Most of those19 funds have been -- almost all those funds20 have been allocated. Actually, I would21 like to talk with you after --22
Well,23 this particular group, the funds were24 allocated to them, but they've never25 84 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 received it. So we can talk later.2
Because5 I've actually e-mailed Frishkoff on6 several occasions to find out why this7 group has not received the funding.8
I know11 he's no longer there, but he was there12 when I e-mailed him.13
We'll be happy to14 follow up with you to find out how we can15 fix that situation.16
Okay.17 And one other question too, Council18 President.19 We used to meet, Capital,20 Recreation and the Councilmembers, used21 to meet to go over the capital needs of22 the district. We don't do that anymore.23 Is there a reason?24
No. I think25 85 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 we'd be happy to meet if you'd like to.2 I know I'm new to this process, but I3 think that would be a good thing.4
We used5 to meet. I mean, right now I can't even6 remember how much money I have, because7 we haven't met in a while. I have staff8 that knows how much money we have, but I9 just don't know.10 Okay. I think that that's a11 good idea. I mean, we need to know12 what's going on in the district and you13 guys need to hear from us and we talk14 about priorities. And I have met with15 Mike DiBerardinis. I've met with him, I16 think, probably twice, but as a group we17 used to meet and go over everything.18 Mike, you know I remember19 meeting with you. I see you over there20 shaking your head. But anyway...21
All24 right. Thank you.25 86 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Thank you, Madam President.2
The5 Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a6 point of verification, period.7
Yes.8 I was interested to hear the9 point the Council Lady Miller made about10 half a million dollars left in a project.11 Can you explain how that happens? How12 can something like that, a project that's13 been completed for such a long time, and14 how frequently does something like that15 occur, and do you know it or did you just16 learn about it here at this Council17 session?18
That specific19 line item, I'm not familiar with every20 line item, but that is something --21
A half a22 million here, a half a million there, it23 adds up to some significant money.24
Right. Tony25 87 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Colletta, Deputy Budget Director, will2 talk a little bit about that.3 (Witness approached witness4 table.)5
Councilman, that6 money is a state appropriation, not GO7 funds. It's money that was budgeted for8 a grant. I don't believe that grant ever9 materialized. We do request each year10 when we're reviewing the carry forward11 should we knock out any of these lines.12 This line has never been requested to be13 knocked out. But it's not GO funds.14
It's a grant16 placeholder in case the grant were to17 come in.18
But this19 project apparently has been done a few20 years back. At this point we're still21 carrying it? Don't we know whether we22 got it or didn't get it?23
We request each24 year of the carry-forward lines should25 88 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 any of these be knocked out.2
It seems like3 this one perhaps should. So we will4 address this one.5
Unless there's a6 reason why they're keeping it, because it7 couldn't be used for anything but that,8 because the budget line itself is stated9 as Lonnie Young.10
Well, that11 got my attention, that you've got some12 money sitting there, you should know13 about it.14
What you're17 telling me, it's not identified as actual18 dollars at this point?19
That's fair21 enough. Thank you.22 Thank you, Madam, for that.23
Well, if24 it's not actually dollars, you shouldn't25 89 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 put that there. If it's not actual2 dollars, then it should be noted, because3 when we did that project, we did have $14 million from the state, and it came from5 Representative John Myers, to my recall.6 It was one of the first times we actually7 used that funding for a rec center, and8 there had been some money put into the9 equation previously by Representative10 David Richardson that never actually was11 released. It was a million dollars also.12 So I really don't know -- I13 would love to know where this 500,00014 came from. If it's not real, we need to15 know that, too, but if it's real, then we16 want to spend it.17 Mike is coming. I know that18 Governor Ridge was Governor and he also19 put money in, so I'm not really sure --20 it was a $4.2 million project.21 COMMISSIONER DiBERARDINIS: I22 think I can answer the question. I'm23 Mike DiBerardinis again.24 That was -- there was -- in the25 90 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Capital Budget, that was put as a $1.52 million grant. Only 1 million of the3 grant money arrived. So the 500,000, it4 shouldn't be there. It just should be5 taken off the books. But that was6 carried over. But the grant money never7 came, so it was -- the state funds were8 400,000 from my old department, DCNR -- I9 was a Rec Commissioner at the time -- and10 then a million dollars of RCAP. So it11 was 1.4 million total. But the 500 never12 materialized.13
Okay.14 All right. Well, you need to take that15 line item out then, because I thought I16 was $500,000 richer and I'm not.17 COMMISSIONER DiBERARDINIS:18 Sorry about that.19
The Chair24 recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez.25 91 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
Thank2 you.3 Good afternoon. When we do4 debt service on these bonds, how long do5 we carry these debts? Are they 30 years?6
Thirty years or7 less, depending on the useful life of the8 project. Sometimes it's about 23, 259 years.10
I know11 there's been an ongoing debate about how12 much of this work we can be doing13 in-house and how much of this work we14 should be bidding off, and we'll have a15 discussion about the Capital Office when16 they before us, but I think this is --17 I'm very concerned from a business model18 perspective of us spending money on a19 30-year or 15-year debt to fix a roof.20 And I think it's come time for us from a21 business model perspective is, we need to22 figure out how we fully staff some of23 these departments to take care of some of24 these minor -- that we've been able to25 92 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 classify as capital, because we haven't2 had cash flow. Everybody is, Fine, let's3 move it over to the capital line. But4 I'm very concerned about the way we're5 doing the operational, particularly rec6 centers.7 We will never have enough money8 to fix rec centers, but if some of this9 personnel was internal, I think we could10 take care of a leaky roof, you know, of a11 leaky toilet and all those other things.12 I don't want to go into public13 hearings about that, but I am going to14 ask the Finance Director -- he knows15 we've been having this conversation for16 years around some of this capital stuff.17 If we can begin -- the Managing18 Director's Office maybe to get involved.19 If we can begin to have a discussion so20 we can do a fair analysis, because I want21 to look at the list in the 7th22 Councilmanic District. I want to know23 how much of this stuff could be done24 internal, when we talk about AVC systems,25 93 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 when we talk about basic stuff that we're2 debting out for 30 years. That just3 doesn't make a business model sense,4 other than right now we don't have5 internal cash flow and we want to pass6 this buck so that my grandson pays this7 bill.8 I think it's appropriate for us9 to have that discussion, because I think10 it's going to resolve some of the ongoing11 frustration Councilmembers have about12 getting stuff fixed up in our public13 facilities.14
Okay. Sure. I15 mean, I think that -- I think there's a16 few different issues that you've raised.17 The issue of paying for certain projects18 on the capital side, the general practice19 is that you don't bond for longer than20 the useful life of the asset, similar to21 you don't take out a car loan longer than22 the useful life of the car. So that's23 the general rule, and we follow that24 rule. So we are following through with25 94 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 generally accepted practice.2 If we were to move the cost of3 fixing roofs and other items to the4 operating side, it would obviously be a5 hit to our Operating Budget. I mean, we6 could talk about that. And then it seems7 like the other issue for you is to do the8 work in-house versus contracting it out,9 and that is a discussion we can have.10
I hate11 to differ with you. We are doing capital12 stuff that should be done internally.13 We've had this discussion for years.14 Every Administration has done it15 different. Rendell set up the Capital16 Office. Then when we were under Street,17 a lot of that work came internally. I18 don't want to get into the back and forth19 of all that stuff. I can guarantee you20 that we are funding capital works that if21 we had the manpower internally, we can22 take care of. We seriously need to look23 at that when, again, we're passing this24 buck on a longer period. All I'm saying25 95 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 is for the Administration -- and I'm2 requesting that we begin that discussion3 as opposed to it being public hearings4 about what are we doing. It's a hard5 discussion to have when, going back to6 Donna's point, we're not being consulted7 about what's getting done in our8 districts. So it's a really hard9 conversation to have.10 Obviously those of us who are11 involved in rec facilities, we know12 what's going on with rec, but we also13 have concerns with our police14 departments, with our libraries. The15 other day I was at the Wyoming Library.16 It happened to be pouring, and it was17 pouring right into my library. If I18 hadn't been there that day, I wouldn't19 have known. And there's no way to plan20 for that stuff if there isn't a21 discussion about what is priority and22 what is not.23
I'd be happy to24 talk to you.25 96 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
Because2 I'm very, very concerned. And we'll have3 the Capital Office discussion later, but4 I'm very concerned from a business model5 perspective how we're doing this.6
Thank8 you.9 Thank you, Madam President --10 Madam Chair.11
Thank you.12 The Chair recognizes13 Councilwoman Brown.14
Thank you,15 Madam President.16 Councilwoman Sanchez has more17 than adequately captured some of the18 frustration I experience as an at-large19 member. I don't have the opportunity, if20 you will, or duty to pay attention as a21 District Councilmember, but what she's22 expressed is exactly where a number of us23 are, even though we are not district.24
That's2 number one.3 Number two, as a follow-up to4 Councilman Goode's request, I would ask5 that you break down those numbers by6 district and you indicate what percentage7 of those dollars are going to8 Philadelphia-based companies and what9 percentage of those dollars are going to10 other. And I've had a sidebar here with11 Councilman Jones. Philosophically where12 I disagree is, ultimately I really do13 think leadership has the ultimate duty to14 ensure that the Mayor's vision is15 articulated and that it reaches deep16 across, deep down into departments. So I17 put that on the record, because18 Councilman Jones and I are just at a19 different place when it comes to20 ultimately who do we hold responsible and21 accountable to honoring and fulfilling22 his vision when it comes to access to23 contracting opportunities for men and24 women across the board.25 98 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Enough said. That's beating a2 dead horse, but after ten years, we're3 still beating it. Thank you.4 Thank you, Madam Chair.5
Thank you,9 Madam Chair.10 What I'd like to do is ask11 about a coordinated effort. The Mayor12 made a statement when he ran and he was13 talking about it in context with the14 libraries and rec centers and kind of15 coming up with a capital plan that made16 sense in multi-dimensional buildings that17 could service a number of activities.18 When the library thing went its way, that19 concept, I want to know, is it still20 alive, in particular interest with what21 the School Board is doing to consolidate22 its capital buildings by way of school23 buildings, downsizing? Are we working24 with them to try to look at multiple25 99 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 buildings and uses in publicly owned2 facilities? Are we doing that? Is there3 a committee, commission, task force?4
Councilman, as I5 think you know, the City Planning6 Commission is engaged now in essentially7 a five-year comprehensive planning8 process. We've recently released as a9 draft a citywide comprehensive plan,10 Philadelphia 2035. The second phase of11 that planning effort, we're going to be12 drilling down into 18 planning districts13 in the City and we're going to be looking14 at capital facilities and their condition15 and their spacing, their location, how16 they serve the various populations that17 they may serve, and one of our intentions18 in doing that analysis is to look for19 opportunities for the joint use of20 facilities.21
We have been24 participating with the School Board with25 100 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 their master plan. I don't think at this2 point that either the School District or3 our staff have come to any conclusions4 about that. That process is still going5 on, but we're very supportive of the idea6 of the joint use of facilities.7
Well, it8 seems to me that we should start that9 planning process. I'm not on that side10 of the ledge. I'm a -- what am I?11 Legislator, right. It's getting late. I12 haven't eaten, so I'm not sure what I am13 at this point.14 But what I am going to say is15 that you should begin that process. I16 know they are rightsizing, downsizing,17 whatever size you want to call it, their18 physical plant, and one of the things19 that this Administration said that20 probably was right was if you have a21 library next door to a recreation center,22 right across the street from a health23 center, is there an opportunity next to a24 school to combine those facilities to25 101 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 have multiple uses and less overhead.2 And I think if they're doing that and3 you're doing that in two different silos,4 it might be a good time to create a task5 force to look at that.6 I have a facility in the 4th7 District, Beeber Annex. It's an old8 middle school. It's been sitting there9 ten years. I want to do a recreation10 center. The School Board said to me it's11 going to cost you 300 grand to have that12 facility. And they're 400 million in13 debt, projected. Well, can't we do some14 trade-offs to bring that down?15 It seems as though we're both16 in cash-strapped situations, that we can17 put our heads together and figure out18 where the best place to put public19 dollars in a physical outlet for20 different programs, and it's now that we21 should start the planning process, not22 when each silo gets done and said, Well,23 I tore that down, too late.24
No. We are25 102 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 trying to break down those silos, and2 we've been meeting with staff of the3 School District to discuss these issues.4 If schools need to be closed or5 transitioned to other kinds of uses, we'd6 be very interested in looking at those7 opportunities on the City side for8 multiple facilities. We think that in9 some cases if those sites are properly10 located, those buildings could form the11 basis of a new neighborhood center.12
You will13 hear this question again in the operating14 part of the budget. I'm just saying to15 you, here's an opportunity to get ahead16 of some of this now so that you don't17 hear us get frustrated again.18 And in the case of Detroit,19 Madam President, they are doing some20 drastic things that -- I don't want to be21 Detroit, let me say that for the record,22 but they have eliminated half of their23 public schools just because of the size24 of the city. They have torn down acres25 103 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 after acres of abandoned housing to2 convert it to farmland, but it took a3 master plan to do that, and as the city4 interest decided collectively this is5 what we want to do, we want to narrow our6 borders, increase and create density, I7 don't agree with that plan. I don't like8 it, but at least they thought about it.9 And I'm saying to you, we're in a better10 position than Detroit, but we should take11 this opportunity to plan our way to a12 better future.13 Thank you, Madam President.14
Absolutely.15 Just as a note, the Census Bureau16 released 2010 census population figures17 for Detroit a day or two ago. While we18 grew half a percent, 8,500 people net19 increase between 2000 and 2010, Detroit20 unfortunately lost 25 percent of its21 population. So we don't face exactly the22 same situation as Detroit, but many of23 the issues are similar.24
Thank you,25 104 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Madam President.2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:3 You're welcome.4 You mention in your testimony5 that capital dollars are designed to6 allow City government to be more7 efficient and effective. Can you tell us8 the dollar amount that is being requested9 for this purpose? It's , Item 5.10
The bottom of11 where you talk about efficiency,12 what we spoke about efficiency, that's13 what you're speaking of, right? I think14 that includes the money for DOT.15
That includes18 the funding for DOT, the Department of19 Technology, the 10 million that we spoke20 about in the testimony as part of the21 $120 million capital commitment to DOT22 over the six-year program, as well as a23 few other projects as well.24
It includes part25 105 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 of that -- I mean, what we did is, we2 prepared the Recommended Capital book.3 We categorized different projects in4 different ways, and I don't happen to5 have the total for that category, for6 that government efficiency and7 effectiveness category, in front of me,8 but we can certainly provide that to you9 very quickly.10
What11 are the proposed projects that will be12 funded?13
Some of the14 projects in that category that will be15 funded?16
Well, we're19 recommending $10 million for the Division20 of Technology as part of the commitment21 that the Administration has given to the22 Division of Technology to stabilize the23 City's network infrastructure and also to24 develop applications, budget-related25 106 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 software, personnel software, things of2 that nature that will help departments3 run more efficiently.4
Just if I could5 add something to that on DOT's capital6 budget and the 10 million request, we had7 spoken about this a little bit at the8 Five Year Plan hearing, but we will9 communicate when -- right now we're in10 the process of prioritizing the spend of11 that $120 million over the Capital12 Program, and we will be able to provide13 you more information when we get that14 priority.15
In19 Fiscal 2011, the Department of Technology20 received $25 million in capital dollars.21 Can someone tell us how these funds were22 used and the benefit that the City23 received?24
They were25 107 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 actually -- not much of that has been2 spent to date because of, one, the '113 authorization was just approved by voters4 in November. So it just became5 available. And also DOT is going through6 the prioritization, since that is a large7 capital program, prioritization of8 projects within that spend, and we are9 going through that process right now. So10 Tommy Jones could probably speak more11 about DOT's Capital Program, but12 basically we are going through the13 process of prioritizing that spend. I14 mean, as you know, there are some15 significant infrastructure -- some16 technology infrastructure needs at the17 City, but it is a matter of allocating18 those dollars and figuring out the19 priorities.20
The23 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.24 (Councilwoman not speaking into25 108 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 microphone.)2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:3 Councilwoman, you're going to have to4 talk into your microphone, please.5
For the6 Broadband program in collaboration with7 the community organizations, they got an8 additional 25?9
Twenty-five10 million for the broadband?11 (Witness approached witness12 table.)13
Hi. This is Tommy14 Jones, Interim Chief Technology Officer15 for the Division of Technology.16 The question that you just17 asked, the broadband stimulus was 6.218 million. That was in addition to the $2519 million capital program for the City.20
Thank23 you.24 The Chair recognizes Councilman25 109 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Jones.2
Thank you.3 I'd like to segue a little bit4 and talk about transportation and5 commercial corridors. So I'm probably --6
The City15 has been described as the city that16 depends economically on eds and meds, and17 I want to go to eds for a minute,18 education. We've been working with the19 Department of Human Services for a while20 now trying to plug in Temple's Department21 of Social Work and Temple's School of Fox22 Business to look at their processes,23 their responsibilities just to have24 some -- to have folks that are on the25 110 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 cutting edge of the new information2 that's available, cutting edge of3 research, not that they're going to come4 in and change and revolutionize the whole5 department, because the department is so6 huge, it has so many problems. It's just7 an extra group of folks that have their8 eyes on things that haven't been there9 for 25 or 30 years and that may come up10 and say, You know what, why are we doing11 it this way, let's look at it that way.12 And they get back credit -- and we're13 working out the details now. They get14 that credit for being on the site a15 couple days a week every day. Whatever16 is arranged, they'll get educational17 credit.18 We're not talking about19 freshmen just getting out of high school.20 We're talking about people that are21 either in their senior year or in22 graduate school.23 To me, it seems insane for us24 not to plug in in almost every department25 111 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 in the City, Technology, Finance,2 Transportation. I mean, we have a wealth3 of university talent filled with folks.4 And I've been at Penn for ten years.5 Every single student that comes through6 that class that I have is smarter than7 me, and every single one of them I've8 learned something from, because they've9 come from California, Florida and the10 region and Poland and Africa and11 everywhere, and they're really smart12 folks. Why are we not trying to create13 that relationship --14
-- with16 Drexel, Penn? I mean, to me -- and,17 look, they may come and do this and never18 come up with a new idea, but maybe they19 come up with the biggest new idea that20 puts us either on the map or straightens21 out a problem that we've had and we can't22 address for such a long time.23
I couldn't agree24 more, and we have been doing a couple25 112 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 things in that front. We've been looking2 and bringing in interns from the graduate3 school. We have two right now, and I4 think we have a request out for about5 eight more. We've been trying to work6 with the --7
I don't know that14 answer. I'd have to get back to you.15 We also have been working with16 the school -- we've reached out to the17 schools to not only do that, but to do18 something somewhere else, where we look19 for City problems that we could assign as20 a project, because the outreach sources21 are so strapped, they need projects to22 do.23 So, Councilman Kenney, we agree24 completely and we're actually working on25 113 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 such an endeavor.2
I'm not3 talking about just make work and things4 of that nature. I'm talking about folks5 who can get access to every part of the6 department that they're assigned to and7 really kind of tear things -- not tear8 things up, but tear things apart and get9 to the core of what some of these10 problems are. Because I know -- I mean,11 I respect people who work in government12 and have been there for 20, 25 years, but13 we all look at things the same way14 sometimes and we just don't change our15 angle of view, and these young folks,16 some of them are brilliant, and I can't17 think of a department in the City that18 would not benefit from having that19 formalized arrangement. I don't know20 what you call them, the Philadelphia21 Mayor Scholars, or whatever. You can22 come up with some interesting name that23 creates a buzz for the City, for example,24 so when universities are recruiting here,25 114 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 they say, You know what, if you want2 hands-on government experience, we have a3 formalized place for you to be and you're4 going to get credit for it on top of it.5 On the back end of it, once they6 graduate, they say, Well, maybe I have an7 opportunity here to work, and my8 experience here, I like the City, maybe9 I'll stay. So that brain drain doesn't10 stop, but maybe it's plugged up a little11 bit. I just don't see -- maybe DOT is12 doing it more, but I don't see it13 standardized throughout the government.14
I cannot speak for15 the whole government. I will take that16 suggestion back to the Managing Director17 about all of the things, but DOT18 absolutely agrees and have been working19 towards that for the last six months. In20 fact, we have a seven-person group that21 reached out to the alumni association,22 the graduate school to try to do just23 exactly what you're saying. We've also24 reached out just through the intern25 115 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 program, because we do have people in the2 universities who, like you say, look at3 it differently. We know that the way4 they approach things -- I mean, they walk5 in the door, they want to hook up their6 iPads and their iPhones and, you know,7 You could do this.8 So we agree, and we are9 approaching it from that perspective, and10 we will take it back to the Managing11 Director about a larger perspective.12
It's a good13 idea, and I think that we do utilize14 interns throughout the government, but15 it's a good idea to increase that.16
I mean,17 you're in a position, Rebecca, that you18 could get that to a level of higher19 administrative consideration.20
But I think22 the formalization of it and the Mayor23 promoting it and having a ceremony once24 or twice a year with them and what25 116 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 they've accomplished and let them lay out2 the things that they found out and are3 recommending I think really gives a real4 panache to that work. So I would urge5 you to do it.6
Thank10 you.11 The Chair recognizes Councilman12 Jones.13
Thank you,14 Madam President.15 I'm going to try to consolidate16 all of my questions so that, therefore,17 we can probably get out of here before18 dawn.19
My interests22 are as follows: One, transportation,23 which includes the bridges; number two,24 the Airport project, which I think is25 117 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 very exciting; and then what work2 capital-wise we're doing or projected to3 do on commercial corridors, shopping4 corridors.5 So the Airport I see is here,6 if they could come up, as well as SEPTA,7 to talk about this, and Public Property,8 I would imagine, on the bridges, just to9 give me a sense of it. Department of10 Transportation? Okay. Are they here?11 And please as you approach the12 mike, don't do it with dread. Sometimes13 it's a good thing. We're good people.14 (Witnesses approached witness15 table.)16
Thank you17 all and good afternoon. I want to start18 with the bridges. There was a report19 released some years ago that talked about20 the 300 bridges, and I see Councilwoman21 Blackwell here, who shares this22 frustration that I share. But there was23 a report that was pretty damning that24 talked about the condition of some of25 118 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 these bridges being dangerous, if not2 very dangerous, and that report was3 released some years back, and I took it4 upon myself as a freshman to particularly5 look at the bridge at 52nd and Jefferson.6 And the reason why I asked SEPTA to come7 up, because they stepped up and helped do8 some of the maintenance when it was9 really not their responsibilities totally10 to do, and I wanted to understand where11 under capital projects how we're12 interfacing with the owners of the13 bridges, which is Amtrak, and what's14 going on with that constant concern about15 maintenance.16 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:17 Councilman --18
Say your19 name for the record.20 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:21 I'm sorry. Steve Buckley, Deputy22 Commissioner for Streets Department.23 I actually reached out to your24 office probably two or three times over25 119 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 the past year, had not received any2 response, just checking on the status3 of --4
So you5 didn't know?6 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:7 I'm sorry?8
Of the 52nd9 Street bridge?10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:11 Correct.12
It's moving,13 but I want to know about bridges in14 general, the 300 or so that are in15 Philadelphia that are in the state of16 disrepair.17 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:18 We currently have about -- of our roughly19 200 large bridges, about 60 of them are20 considered structurally deficient. That21 does not mean --22
Say that23 again.24 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:25 120 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Sixty of them are structurally deficient.2 That does not mean they're unsafe. Let's3 just be clear about that. If a bridge is4 unsafe, the Streets Department closes it,5 and we have done that in the past with6 several bridges.7 The capital programming is --8 we have limited funds in the capital9 programming, as was mentioned. So every10 year there is an allocation. At this11 pace, the Streets Department is handling12 about one bridge per year, which right13 now is not enough to cut into the14 backlog.15
Wait a16 minute. So if we continue at this great17 pace, we may in 200 years get to all of18 our bridges?19 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:20 At this pace.21
Do we own22 all of those bridges?23 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:24 Those are 200 City-owned bridges,25 121 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 correct.2
Okay. We3 have to do a better job of that at that4 pace. And you called them deficient,5 some of them?6 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:7 Some of them, correct.8
In 200 years9 I think they will be a little more than10 deficient. But I'm not talking about11 that. I'm talking about the Amtrak-owned12 bridges that crisscross the City of13 Philadelphia and the report they released14 that talked about the condition of their15 bridges that they are responsible for.16 Is there a working relationship with them17 to talk about when those repairs will18 happen?19 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:20 There is a relationship with Amtrak.21 They, again, fall under the federal22 government's jurisdiction. The City does23 not have a large amount of leverage.24 They've been fairly helpful in terms of25 122 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 trying to initiate a dialogue, but,2 again, they're in much of the same state3 as the City of Philadelphia here. They4 do not have a large capital program5 that's able to address a lot of their6 bridges.7 Now, their bridges -- they8 would not be running trains on their9 bridges if they were unsafe.10
I have on my11 desk a spike from the 52nd Street bridge12 that fell from the bridge to the13 pedestrian walkway pavement that would14 argue the point of safety, and the people15 that have to walk under that bridge every16 day would argue that point. I'm asking17 you that if indeed you admit that some of18 those bridges that we own are bad and the19 ones that they admit to are even worse,20 what is the --21 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: I22 did not make that statement.23
You don't24 have to. I read the report. It actually25 123 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 was chronicled, I think, in the Inquirer2 about that.3 My point is, is it the City's4 responsibility to safeguard the public on5 all thoroughfares, bridges, trestles in6 our city or is it something we're going7 to have to go to court about?8 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:9 As we mentioned to your office, we're10 more than willing to work with you on11 these. Again, we've reached out on12 several occasions, have not heard back on13 this, and --14
You're15 hearing back from me now. My scheduler16 is right there. She's going to walk over17 after you testify and we're going to18 schedule that. But let me say this:19 There won't be another -- there will not20 be another budget cycle where this goes21 unaddressed, because not only safety,22 let's talk about aesthetics. It is23 horrible. I mean, some of those -- they24 are just generally -- I mean, the one at25 124 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 52nd Street, we put $80 million into a2 shopping center right near there. We're3 just getting -- and thank you, SEPTA, for4 stepping up to the plate. We have no5 green plan. Talk about rainwater runoff,6 it's going to -- we took down the weeds7 and the trees, but it's going to rain8 right onto the inlets and drain actual9 soil in there.10 We need to have a coordinated11 maintenance effort, is my point. And I12 know we don't have a lot of leverage, but13 you'd be surprised how much leverage we14 can have in court. And I'm saying to15 you, I don't want to take that step. You16 say that you've reached out to me on the17 record here. I have my scheduler here.18 You're going to go back there, we're19 going to have a meeting about it. But I20 guarantee you this: You need to reach21 out to me harder, because we're not going22 to let this keep going on before we have23 a major disaster and say we could have24 intervened, we could have done more.25 125 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 So I'm just saying -- this is2 not directed at you. It is really at3 Amtrak, and I'm really frustrated with4 it. And I don't think it's SEPTA's5 responsibility to paint their bridges,6 nor yours to paint their bridges, but7 somebody has to stand up to the bully --8 and I call them a bully sometimes,9 because they are not responsive -- and10 take them on. And I swear to you, from11 this one Council seat, I will do that,12 because people in my district have to13 walk under that every day. It's not well14 lit. There are crime scenes, and they15 are dangerous. And you may call it --16 what was the term you used?17 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:18 Structurally deficient.19
Structurally20 deficient. One person's structurally21 deficient is a crime scene in another22 sense. So we need to work on that.23 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:24 Yes, sir.25 126 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
All right?2 Second point I have -- and the3 only reason I wanted you up there, SEPTA,4 is to thank you for the work that you've5 done on some of that. But can someone6 address what capital projects are7 happening in commercial corridors around8 the City?9 I was talking about your10 bridge, Councilwoman, on 41st Street.11 How long has it been closed?12
One is17 supposed to open in 2012 and the other18 one --19 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:20 Will begin construction in 2012.21
Will22 begin construction in 2012. And you are23 going to redo Market Street?24 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:25 127 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 We just got the NTP today. So, yes.2
When3 will we start?4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:5 Probably in the next month or so.6
Good afternoon.9 Duane Bumb, Deputy Director of Commerce10 Department.11
All right. So in18 the upcoming budget year, there's a line19 item for $1 million citywide for20 commercial corridors, which is sort of21 historically what we put in for22 corridors. That is not adequate to meet23 the needs of all the streetscape and24 other improvements that we need along25 128 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 commercial corridors. We have over the2 last three years focused on investing the3 Cultural and Commercial Corridors Bond4 Program proceeds, of which I'm going to5 say about $40 million was reserved for6 commercial corridors, and most of that7 funding has -- again, I think I mentioned8 that when I was speaking with9 Councilwoman Miller earlier. Most of10 that funding has all been reserved and11 most of it has now been expended. There12 are some projects which are still in13 construction in the current calendar14 year, but all funding will be15 completed -- all projects will be16 completed this year for that program.17
Help me --18 there's a million dollars being requested19 for?20
There's a million21 dollars in the budget cycle coming in,22 and we have --23
We have24 approximately 300 commercial corridors in25 129 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 the City of Philadelphia, give or take a2 corridor or two.3
That's probably a4 fair number, that's right. And if you5 think about if we are looking to sort of6 upgrade curbs and sidewalks and sometimes7 even lighting, that can be $200,000 per8 city block to make improvements. And9 so --10
On any one corridor,13 that's correct. In fact, Lancaster14 Avenue is in fact a corridor that in fact15 is still in construction with some16 significant resources in the current17 calendar year where we are still doing18 work on that corridor.19
And based on20 those -- we went out for those bonds in21 what year?22
How much was24 that?25 130 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
I can give you a6 detailed report on that. I mean, 997 percent of the money is reserved, and I8 would say probably over 90 percent is9 actually expended. Most of it is10 completed now.11
Is this12 Administration considering going back for13 some dollars for commercial corridors?14 Is that in the long-term, short-term15 planning?16
In terms of18 another bond deal for commercial19 corridors, I mean, I think at this point20 our debt levels are very high. We're21 getting -- the rating agencies in Wall22 Street continually say that that's one of23 the reasons why our bond rating is second24 lowest of the top 20 cities, only to25 131 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Detroit is the only one lower than us,2 and our high debt levels are one of the3 main reasons for that. So we don't have4 another bond deal for commercial5 corridors planned at this time.6
Okay. So we7 should not look for much by way of8 commercial corridor improvement in this9 budget at this point?10
That's right, it's14 the million dollars per year over the15 Five Year Plan.16
How are we17 working with transit-oriented18 development? How are we coming along19 with that plan by way --20
I'm sorry. What21 plan?22 COUNCILMAN JONES:23 Transit-oriented development.24
Transit, I think25 132 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Steve Buckley could speak to that.2
Councilman,3 that's one of the issues that we're4 attempting to address as part of the5 district plans in the Comprehensive Plan.6 We're going to be taking a closer look at7 nodes, transit nodes, in the City and8 making recommendations, should Council9 approve a new Zoning Code, remapping --10 doing zoning map adjustments in these11 districts that would promote the idea of12 transit-oriented development around major13 transit stations.14 So I guess I could say that15 it's in the planning currently. We're16 looking at that closely. We're very17 supportive of the idea of18 transit-oriented development and getting19 people out of their cars and onto20 transit.21
I just want22 to put a plug in for the 3rd District,23 because Councilwoman Blackwell suffered24 through the construction period, which25 133 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 lasted about six years.2
Ten years.5 And that we put a major beautiful6 transportation piece there, and it takes7 seven minutes from, what, 63rd Street to8 get to 30th Street? And I can't think of9 a better location than having suffered10 through all of that, ten years of11 construction. That would be something12 that we would think would be a good13 investment.14
We have done15 some planning around the 46th Street stop16 on the Market-Frankford Line, and we'll17 be doing other planning as we move18 forward with our district plans.19
I was20 lobbying more for 63rd Street, which is21 in the neighborhood. I understand 46th22 Street is near University City and it's23 up and coming, which is in your district,24 which I love too, but 63rd Street is25 134 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 closer to my district.2
Take a look5 at that, too.6 Thank you, Madam President.7
Councilman, I'm8 Frances Jones, Assistant General Manager9 at SEPTA. I just want to say that we10 have been working with the community out11 in the 52nd Street area and for years12 there had been a request for some changes13 with the 52nd Street loop. I'm here14 today to say that we've got monies and15 the notice to proceed for the new 52nd16 Street -- the new Parkside loop. The17 notice to proceed will be issued, and we18 expect to do a groundbreaking or19 something to that nature in April, which20 will be an eight-month project. So prior21 to the onset of the holiday season, the22 new loop should be in place, which will23 absolutely positively be an asset to the24 area around the shopping center at 52nd25 135 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Street where you talk about the bridge.2
We3 appreciate your work in that regard. A4 lot of the community is going to benefit5 from the new amount of shoppers that go6 there. That loop-around is going to mean7 a whole lot to the businesses in there,8 and we're appreciative.9
In addition,10 starting in June, intermittent 52's will11 now go into the shopping center, which12 will allow the complaints that we heard13 from the seniors and those that were not14 able to have cars to get to the shopping15 center will now be able to get to the16 shopping center to shop and be able to17 get a bus out of the shopping center with18 ease.19 We understand that with the20 increase with gas, that we are now hoping21 that people will begin to use public22 transit as a transportation of choice,23 and so we're looking at ways and methods24 in which we can increase transportation25 136 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 based upon the needs of the ridership and2 particularly around commercial corridors.3 When we completed the project4 out in West Philadelphia from 46th Street5 to 63rd Street in the City, we were real6 clear that the improvements that we made7 would increase and improve the community8 tremendously and thereby increase and9 improve the commercial corridors. And so10 that was all a part of the plan as we11 developed and worked along with both12 Councilpeople in the district. So we now13 see the fruits of our labor, because14 people are now shopping in the districts15 and are taking public transportation to16 get there. So we hope that that17 continues.18
Thank you,21 Madam President.22 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:23 You're welcome.24 The Chair recognizes25 137 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Councilwoman Blackwell.2
Thank3 you.4 And, Frances, let me add too as5 a member of Sharon Baptist Church, we6 called you too supporting my colleague7 and my church for all the people who8 asked that transportation go in the malls9 like next door to my church, and we hope10 that as you do intermittent schedules,11 that you have schedules that are written12 so that people will know when they stop.13 You said they're intermittent. I don't14 know what you mean time-wise. Would you15 print schedules so that we can have them16 so that we can let the seniors know and17 others --18
--20 even on Sunday mornings about that as21 well?22
And we24 also had some meetings around 46th and25 138 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Market about those barriers that you all2 are going to remove and allow us to turn3 left, right? You and Streets Department.4 Thank you. And because it really looks5 like it's always under construction when6 you have Jersey barriers in the middle of7 the street. So those are real concerns.8
Those10 are real concerns for us.11 And I have another question. I12 won't bring up islands. I'll let that13 go. I promised I would.14 Let me ask someone about ITF15 funds. I'm wondering if we can use ITF16 funds for Mural Arts projects. Would you17 approve that? Can somebody deal with18 that issue?19
Well,22 we usually use them for recreation. I23 want to do a Mural Arts project.24
I'm actually not25 139 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 sure offhand of what the qualifications2 of it are, but we can talk to you about3 that.4
I mean, I'm not7 sure that it would work, but we could8 talk to you. I don't know offhand what9 the --10
Tony Colletta,11 Deputy Budget Director.12 Councilwoman, Mural Arts stuff13 probably would not fall under capital14 eligibility because it's really not15 enhancing --16
Well,17 I will tell you what it is. It's not18 technically the Mural Arts Department. I19 have a museum in my area, the Joseph20 Tiberino Museum that's in Powelton21 Village. We have met with them. We've22 talked with them. We talked with Public23 Property. We've talked with everybody,24 and they have -- we have a design. We25 140 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 tried to have them use the portal across2 from Macy's coming into City Hall and do3 wall murals that would not be permanent4 on the building so that other people5 could do them. It would really make it6 great, but the City doesn't want to do7 that. For whatever reason, the City says8 no, they don't want to have beautiful9 artwork as you enter these dead areas of10 City Hall. Okay. So we're forced to11 accept it.12 So the same museum from my area13 came up with an idea and we talked to the14 Public Property Commissioner about it,15 and I have samples of drawings, if16 anybody would like to have them, of some17 art designs on the side of Municipal18 Services Building, which certainly is not19 the 3rd District. I am willing to20 finance it, since it becomes such a big21 thing, out of my ITF dollars if the City22 says okay.23
I really don't24 think the Controller's Office would agree25 141 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 to the capital eligibility of it, because2 it's paint. Capital improvement, if a3 wall fell down and they were putting it4 up and doing something with it. But if5 you're just --6 (Witness approached witness7 table.)8
Thank9 you, Commissioner. Commissioner, would10 you add something to this, please. I11 don't understand why. I really didn't --12 it was bad enough that we gave up what we13 really wanted, was the dead ways entering14 City Hall, to brighten them up. The15 Commissioner told me that we couldn't do16 that. So we're happy to do the other.17 Commissioner, thank you for18 coming forward.19 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:20 You're welcome. Joan Schlotterbeck,21 Public Property Commissioner.22 Councilwoman, I'm glad we23 finally identified a location, and24 certainly it's acceptable. You cannot25 142 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 use capital funds for it, though. If it2 was part of a construction project and it3 was a Percent for Arts, which is where4 we're moving with Mural Arts, that would5 be one issue, but in this particular6 instance, it would not be eligible for7 capital.8
All9 right. Maybe somebody can tell me what10 it's eligible for. We're just trying to11 do a little art project.12
Maybe15 you all can take it out of one of your16 departments. I mean, how do we fund it?17 I don't -- somebody has got to know18 somehow how we can fund a little art19 project from a museum in Powelton20 Village, the Tiberino Museum. How do we21 then fund it?22
We would need --23 I mean, I don't know what the cost is,24 but it would need to be put into the25 143 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Operating Budget and something else would2 need to be taken out of the Operating3 Budget. It would have to be an Operating4 Budget discussion.5
I6 don't understand why in 2011 one can't7 have an idea that doesn't already exist8 and be shot down. I really --9
I'm12 talked out. I want solutions. That's13 why I'm bringing it here, because we've14 had private meetings. I've taken up15 plenty of the Commissioner's time. I've16 taken up the Mayor's Office time. And17 all I'm saying is, so finally, since18 nobody seemed to find a way to fund it, I19 said I'll take some of my money out of my20 district to fund a Center City project,21 and I can't even do that. So I'm asking22 you then what you suggest we do.23 "No" is always easy. That's24 the easiest thing in the world, but how25 144 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 do we do it, is my question.2 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:3 Actually, Councilwoman, I do have your4 proposal on my desk and if my memory5 serves me right, it's about $70,000. I6 mean, I'm not in a position to offer7 those funds out of my department. I'm8 tapped out, frankly. So I really don't9 know the answer. It would have to be10 operating money, though.11
We would need to12 talk about it, Council, about -- if you13 wanted to put $70,000 in for that14 purpose, we would just have to figure out15 what would need to be -- how we can work16 that in.17
I haven't22 heard anybody make the suggestion. It23 could become part of the Mural Arts24 Program. It's basically the same thing,25 145 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 but it's not physically painted on the2 wall. Why couldn't that be considered?3
Yeah. I mean, I7 think that -- I'm not sure. We could8 talk about it. I mean, I think I need to9 know -- I don't have the background on10 this project, but I'm happy to talk to11 Joan offline and get back to you.12
Right. It seems15 like we just need the $70,000 in the16 Operating Budget.17
We had18 a meeting. We had Mural Arts in the19 room. We had the -- what do you call the20 Philadelphia -- the tourist people in the21 room, Gary Steuer. We've had everybody22 in the room, the Mayor's Office, to try23 to talk about it. Mural Arts is happy to24 take it under its umbrella, except for25 146 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 the funding. So I defer back to you -- I2 defer back to all of you about finding3 the funding.4
I know that you5 said you're talked out about it because6 you've --7
I8 mean, I'm always happy to talk, but the9 Commissioner knows, we've had this10 discussion. When we talked about doing11 it on the walls in the subway and about12 how it would attract tourism, bring the13 City money, even on the MSB wall, it14 would bring the City money, it would be a15 tourist attraction, but, you know, it's16 the same thing Councilman Goode said, you17 old folks said this, we're penny-wise and18 pound cheap. These are projects that19 would help the City earn money, but20 because -- I feel that we're always taken21 aback because the City didn't think of22 it, it's not on their agenda. Well, how23 are ideas formed if somebody doesn't24 think of them? And here we have artists25 147 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 who have been around the world and who2 have all this experience and we say,3 Well, there's no way to do it. You can't4 even give the money out of your own5 funds. It doesn't make sense to me. I6 just don't understand why we can't find a7 way to do a little $70,000 project. I8 don't understand it. I don't understand9 it. I don't understand it.10
Why don't we --11 I know you -- why don't we talk about it12 and get you a response. I know that --13
Thank17 you, President Verna.18 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:19 You're welcome.20 I know I'm going to ask a very21 foolish, foolish question, but I'm going22 to ask anyway. What is the proposed23 funding for 2012 for alley lights?24
For streetlights25 148 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 or alley lights?2
I don't know5 that offhand.6 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:7 Steve Buckley, Streets Department.8 There is no budget for alley --9 capital budget for alley lights in 2012,10 that we have not added alley lights in a11 long time.12
It's13 been several years now --14 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:15 Yes.16
--17 that we have no allocations at all for18 alley lights.19 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:20 Not for capital.21
Can22 you tell me why? Is there a need? Do23 you have a pending list of a need for24 alley lights in some areas?25 149 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:2 We have requests for them, but we have3 not allocated funding for alley lights4 in, I believe, several years now.5
So6 even if you feel that it's absolutely7 necessary for the safety of the area8 residents, you cannot do anything about9 it because you do not have the proper10 funding.11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: I12 didn't say that it was necessary for the13 safety of residents, but --14
I15 said it's for the safety of residents,16 and in many instances it is. Now, in a17 case like that, what do you do when the18 request is placed?19 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:20 We have a queue of requests at this21 point.22
Did23 you request any funding from the24 Administration?25 150 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:2 At this point, we requested -- our3 funding was primarily for street4 lighting.5
So6 you did not ask for funding for alley7 lights?8 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:9 We have not had an alley light program in10 several years.11 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:12 There's a difference between having a13 program and having a need for -- there14 are areas that are quite old in the area,15 and what they did was, they removed an16 alley light from the center of the block17 of the alley and moved it to the corner.18 Now there's all darkness throughout the19 back of the yards.20 Why can't we have some funding21 allocated for alley lights? And I do22 think -- and I don't care whether you23 agree with me or not -- it is a public24 safety issue.25 151 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY: I2 mean, alley lights are located on a back3 side of private properties, and even our4 current alley lights that are there are5 on private property. I mean, the6 residents always have the option of7 lighting their backyards, and, I mean,8 that is something that occurs.9
So10 then we should do away with all alley11 lights and tell people, Oh, you install12 your own light in the back of your13 property?14 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUCKLEY:15 In most cases, it's in the back side of a16 private property.17
I'm18 not going to ask any more questions. I19 think it's a disgrace that we have gone20 this direction.21 The Chair recognizes Councilman22 Jones.23
Thank you,24 Madam President.25 152 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 Airport, I'd like to just2 finish up with that, on a good note.3 It's my misunderstanding that we have a4 $6.4 billion project before us that is5 going to create jobs, it's going to6 create airfields, some terminals, things7 like that. Can you talk about that?8 That's our own stimulus package right9 there. Can you describe it for us,10 please.11
Sure. Good12 afternoon, Councilman. Mark Gale, Chief13 Executive Officer for Philadelphia14 International Airport.15 I think we've been heard about16 in the news frequently on the Airport's17 expansion program, something that's been18 planned for a decade now and underwent a19 very thorough and extensive federal20 environmental review process that lasted21 over seven years.22 Philadelphia, unfortunately,23 carried notoriety of being a very24 congested and delayed airport now for the25 153 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 last two decades. The plans that we've2 put forth with the FAA, the $6.4 billion3 program that you've referenced, not only4 addresses inefficiencies of our airfield5 that causes a lot of those delays and6 congestions, but will help set7 Philadelphia International Airport up in8 the future to handle the traffic demand9 that's forecasted to come at us over the10 next 20 and beyond years in a much more11 efficient manner. Days like today where12 as soon as the skies turn gray and we get13 a little bit of rain, our efficiency14 drops drastically because of the way the15 Airport has been configured since the16 beginning of its inception back in the17 early 1920s.18 What's lost sometimes in that19 cost figure does not go entirely to the20 airfield. Only about half of it goes to21 the airfield. The other half of it goes22 to building new terminal facilities and23 redeveloping some existing terminal24 facilities to today's modern standards,25 154 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 the things that our passengers have long2 asked for, people mover systems, wider3 and more modern, efficient terminal4 facilities, consolidated ground5 transportation facilities that connect6 well with rail and move people in and out7 of the Airport efficiently on the roadway8 system. All of those projects combined,9 in addition to redeveloping the Airport's10 cargo center, what we call Cargo City, so11 that we can begin to attract and retain12 long term the ability for cargo carriers13 to come to Philadelphia and ship their14 goods directly out of our airport as15 opposed to trucking them to the likes of16 Kennedy or Newark or Dulles and put us in17 the game so that the businesses that are18 located in this region have a very viable19 and efficient transportation system to20 get those in and out. And all of that,21 Councilman, right now is projected to be22 about a 12- to 13-year construction23 period, which will generate approximately24 100,000 jobs over that timeframe, about25 155 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 44,000-plus construction jobs and another2 52,000 indirect jobs that are tied to3 those activities, and it also will4 produce approximately 3,000 permanent new5 job at the Airport in the long run and6 truly set up not only the City but the7 region to move forward in the 21st8 century.9
So could you10 describe -- we're talking about an11 airfield. We're talking about two12 terminals?13
We're talking about14 several new terminals. The redevelopment15 of a new commuter terminal facility over16 on Island Avenue. For those that have17 been around for a while, remember what we18 called the old Overseas Terminal. That19 was our international terminal for 2020 years and was woefully inadequate. We21 call for a new regional commuter facility22 to be placed on the east side of the23 airfield and connected with the main24 terminal building by an automated people25 156 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 mover system.2
Think Disney World5 and monorail-type mover. If you've been6 to Dallas-Fort Worth, Detroit, Orlando,7 many, many other major airports across8 the country, that is the choice, the9 method, to move people around the10 facility efficiently.11 But we also call for new12 terminal facilities to be built in what13 we refer to as our terminal core, where14 all the terminals are currently located15 right now. Some of our terminals go back16 and date back into the late 1950s, early17 1960s. They are 50, 60 years old and18 they really are getting tired, and our19 passengers, I think, long term deserve20 better than what they currently have in21 many respects.22
So with all23 of this prosperity -- I mean, this24 probably represents the largest part of25 157 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 our Capital Budget, I'm estimating, and2 so I'm happy about it. I want everyone3 to know. Are we under -- and let me take4 a page from my colleague Blondell5 Reynolds Brown and Wilson Goode. Are you6 under the federal guidelines for7 inclusion by way of disadvantaged8 businesses and does that include minority9 and female businesses?10
For any project that11 has federal dollars that are inserted12 into it, yes, we fall underneath the13 federal guidelines as far as the DBE14 program is concerned. For projects where15 there are no federal funds, let's say16 it's entirely bond funded or other17 Airport cash or revenue sources, then we18 work with the Office of Economic19 Opportunity to set the appropriate goals20 and ranges depending upon the capacity21 that's at hand for the particular type of22 work that we're going out for.23
That's good24 news. And when will the process start,25 158 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 the 13-year period or 12-year period?2
Well, we just3 received the final record of decision4 from the FAA. They signed it on December5 30th of 2010 and they published it on6 January 4th. Right now we have an7 agreement with our airlines, an agreement8 in principle. There was some concern9 obviously with the economic recession10 about moving forward with an extensive11 program, but we believe that it's12 absolutely necessary and vital for the13 region. And we've worked with our14 airlines to come to an agreement for an15 extension of our existing agreement with16 them for a period of two years. Their17 agreement now expires June 30th of this18 year, and we're going to be looking to19 extend that for two years. In return for20 that, they're going to pre-approve for21 the Airport $250 million worth of capital22 expenditures to get started on the23 program, to do things like land and24 property acquisition, early design work25 159 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 and put the administrative legs2 underneath the program so that we can3 actually get going in construction, hard4 shovel to dirt construction, in5 approximately two years after that.6
So the first7 jobs created from this we can anticipate8 when?9
The first jobs --10 certainly I believe by the end of this11 year, Councilman. Our first task at12 hand, which we will be in front of City13 Council for in the short term, will be to14 do two things. One will be to gain15 approval from the Council on that16 two-year use and lease agreement17 extension. Because it's greater than one18 year, we'll be coming in front of you to19 ask permission to extend it by two years,20 to which the airlines have agreed and21 they're paying a lot of the bills down at22 the Airport. And we'll be in front of23 you also at the same time to ask24 permission for the contract, the ability25 160 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 to enter into a capital contract with a2 program management team that will help3 guide this process over the next 134 years, so that we're not changing, as I5 refer to it, changing the horse every6 couple of years.7 We need consistency in order8 for this program to be run effectively9 over a decade long. So we'll be looking10 for your approval on those two things.11 And then in the fall, we'll be coming in12 front of you to sell bonds, and those13 bond funds will be used to actually begin14 the process and start letting contracts15 for design services and work with us on a16 variety of administrative tasks. And,17 again, the actual hard construction where18 you'll actually see public works19 contracts will probably hit in the20 calendar year 2013 timeframe.21
Were these22 dollars competitively obtained from23 federal sources? Were we in competition24 with other cities?25 161 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
We're always in2 competition with other major airports for3 federal dollars. This program, our plan4 of finance calls for it to be Airport5 revenue bond funded. About two-thirds of6 it is Airport revenue bond funded. The7 remaining one-third is covered by other8 revenue sources that we bring to the9 table; for example, passenger facility10 charges, what we refer to as PFCs.11 There's a $4.50 charge that's in your12 ticket when you buy it.13
No. We actually16 have been in discussions with the federal17 government, with the FAA, for several18 years now. We're going to be looking for19 a magnitude of about a half a billion20 dollars from the federal government to21 help us with these construction efforts.22
Matching only in the25 162 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1 sense that we're typically -- when we get2 an airport improvement grant as a large3 airport, if the FAA has the money4 available to them to give to the Airport,5 it's usually a 75/25 match, 75 percent6 federal and we match the 25 percent. In7 this case here, because the project is so8 long term, we're looking to enter into a9 different type of program with the10 federal government, what they call a11 letter of intent, meaning they've taken a12 look at our program, the cost-benefit13 analysis, how much it's costing and would14 enter into a letter of intent with the15 Airport that says we want to try to16 commit to you on an annual basis for the17 next 12 to 13 years X millions of18 dollars, and we envision that will be19 about $30 to $40 million per year that20 we'll take for mostly airfield21 construction work.22
Final23 question. How does this affect our bond24 rating?25 163 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
The Airport has its2 own bond ratings, which I think are quite3 good, relatively speaking. We have A's4 across the board. We're A with Fitch, A25 with Moody's and A-plus with Standard &6 Poor's. Certainly when an airport7 undertakes a major project like this, we8 have to be very careful as we move9 through it so that our costs don't become10 too onerous on those that operate the11 airport. That's why we're in discussions12 with our airlines. But we believe that13 we can do this project efficiently, and14 it will yield great, great returns for15 this region.16
How do you17 compare to other airports by way of bond18 rating?19
I think you'll see a20 lot of airports that have better bond21 ratings, let's say, than the municipality22 that owns the airport. You'll see a lot23 of airports that have A ratings across24 the board.25 164 3/23/11 - WHOLE - BILL 100135, ETC.1
Thank you,7 Councilman.8 Any other questions of these9 witnesses?10 (No response.)11
This was12 the quickest tenure at this table that13 I've ever seen.14 We will be recessing until15 Monday, March 28th, 10:00 a.m.16 (Committee of the Whole17 adjourned at 4:30 p.m.)18 - - -19 20 21 22 23 24 25 165 1 CERTIFICATE2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the3 proceedings, evidence and objections are4 contained fully and accurately in the5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on March 23, 2011, and that7 this is a true and correct transcript of same.8 --------------------13 MICHELE L. MURPHY14 RPR-Notary Public15 (The foregoing certification of this19 transcript does not apply to any reproduction20 of the same by any means, unless under the21 direct control and/or supervision of the22 certifying reporter.)23