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