COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE3 Room 400, City Hall6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, April 12, 20117 10:20 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA10 COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE11 COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN12 COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR.13 COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY14 COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN MARIA D. QUINONES-SANCHEZ15 COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO, JR.16 COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILLS 110135, 110136, 110137 and 11013818 RESOLUTION 110161 - - -20 2
Good2 morning, everyone. This is a continued3 public hearing of the Committee of the4 Whole.5 The Chair recognizes6 Mr. McPherson.7 MR. McPHERSON: This is a8 continuation hearing on Resolution9 110161, the City's Five Year Plan; Bill10 No. 110135, the Capital Program for 201211 through 2017; Bill No. 110136, the12 Capital Budget for 2012; Bill No. 110137,13 the Operating Budget for Fiscal 2012; and14 Bill No. 110138 for the wage tax.15 Today we're taking testimony on16 Bill No. 110137, the Operating Budget for17 Fiscal 2012, and our first department is18 the Department of Public Property.19 (Witnesses approached witness20 table.)21
Good22 morning. 7 Council President Verna and8 members of City Council, I'm Joan9 Schlotterbeck, the Public Property10 Commissioner. It's a pleasure to appear11 before Council today in support of Public12 Property's budget request for FY12. 125 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 percent increase over FY11. 9 percent, from6 FY11. 7 percent. In Class 400, we16 are requesting approximately 98,000,17 reflecting no change from FY11. 823 approximately in Class 200. million, or25 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 almost 50 percent, from FY11 estimated2 obligations. This increase is due to an3 increase of rental cost and renovations4 for the Water Department's space at 11015 Market Street. 9 The Department of Public10 Property, DPP's, mission is to11 efficiently maintain the physical12 infrastructure that supports government13 operations, including City-owned14 buildings and leased space. 19 As part of the Department's20 efforts to improve the management of our21 public facilities, we continue to focus22 on increasing efficiencies in order to23 better serve the various facilities and24 user agencies. The Department currently25 6 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 has maintenance responsibilities for over2 150 facilities, including Police and Fire3 Department facilities. 12 The Department has partnered13 with the Mayor's Office of Utilities and14 Transportation on the Energy Savings15 Company, ESCO, and utilities management16 database projects. 20 DPP is continuing to identify21 new opportunities for lease savings as22 existing leases expire, as well as23 monitoring the use of City-owned space to24 ensure efficient allocation. As part of25 7 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 these planning efforts, we implemented2 new City space standards and a system for3 purging excess equipment and files. 13 The Department posted the14 inventory of City-owned property on the15 City's website, making it easier for the16 public and developers to search for17 City-owned property. In conjunction with18 that effort, the Department began a pilot19 marketing effort to sell individual20 vacant properties through a bidding21 process. 2 DPP was successful in its bid3 to acquire the two Federal Base4 Realignment and Closure, also known as5 BRAC, properties located on Wissahickon6 and Woodhaven Roads. The Department will7 take title during calendar year 2011 and8 will house a variety of Police Department9 functions, including the Police Training10 Academy. 15 The Department is also16 continuing its assessment of a building17 located at 4601 Market Street as a future18 site for a new police headquarters and19 morgue. 23 The City's Capital Projects24 Division provides architectural and25 9 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 engineering support and project2 management services for Police, Fire,3 Prisons, Recreation, Fairmount Park,4 Health, Library, Human Services, Fleet,5 Office of Supportive Housing, Art Museum,6 Zoo and Public Property departmental7 operating facilities. Collectively,8 these departments include in excess of9 1,000 facilities comprising over 1110 million square feet and over 10,000 acres11 of park and recreation land. Major12 projects completed in FY11 include the13 City Hall Sprinkler Installation Phase 2,14 the President's House, the Criminal15 Justice Center Chiller Plant Upgrades,16 the Fire Department Diesel Emissions17 Point Source Capture Installations, and18 the Robin Hood Dell, completed in late19 FY10. 4 Groundbreaking for the new Engine 385 facility is anticipated in FY11, and we6 anticipate groundbreaking for the new7 SWAT/Bomb/Police Tactical facility for8 the fall of FY12, which will also see the9 completion of the City Hall exterior10 restorations. 12 The Capital Division continues13 its efforts to reduce carry-forward14 funding backlogs and improve capital15 timelines. FY11 has seen improvements in16 restoring staffing levels and the17 implementation of a Job Order18 Contracting, JOC, program.
The Job Order19 Contracting program is a unit price20 structured, work order based requirements21 contracting system customized to specific22 project types. We anticipate that these23 contracts will result in accelerated24 implementation for small to medium25 11 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 projects, reducing project timelines by2 between 30 to 60 percent over normal3 public works contracting methods. 14 The Department of Public15 Property is committed to supporting the16 Administration's goal of 25 percent17 minority, woman and disabled-owned18 business participation in City19 contracting. Therefore, based on the20 Department's available contracting21 opportunities for FY11, the participation22 goal is 32 percent. 42 percent24 participation, which exceeds its goal of25 12 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 32 percent. 14. 4 I'm now closing my testimony5 and would like to take this opportunity6 to thank you for your continued support7 of Public Property. 12
Thank13 you, Commissioner.14 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:15 You're welcome.16
How17 many employees do you have in your18 department?19 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: We20 have 129.21
And22 I'm sure that includes the administrative23 positions?24 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:25 13 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Yes. That's the operating budget, yes.2
How3 many employees are in the Construction4 Trades Unit?5 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:6 About six at this point.7
And11 what type of projects are they capable of12 doing?13 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:14 They do mostly interior renovation work.15
Such16 as?17 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:18 I'm going to ask Deputy Commissioner Joe19 Palantino to join me and answer that20 question.21 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PALANTINO:22 Good morning, Council President.23
Good24 morning.25 14 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PALANTINO:2 How are you?3
Fine.4 Thank you.5 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PALANTINO:6 My name is Joe Palantino. I'm Deputy7 Commissioner for Facilities.8 The Construction Trades Unit9 typically do interior renovations or10 upgrades, tile -- replacement of11 ceilings, finishing out walls, painting12 walls, floor upgrades, most of your13 interior upgrades, but they're minor in14 nature, sort of cosmetic in nature.15
Can16 you tell us the work backlog in the17 Construction Trades Unit?18 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PALANTINO:19 Yes. Currently, we're working at the20 Police Administration building fitting21 out Room 24 -- 204. We're also working22 at the 7th District for security23 partitions and lobby renovations. And we24 have planned for the remainder of FY1125 15 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the interior renovation for the tow squad2 at Macalester Street, and we plan an3 exterior upgrade at Valor Hall for4 replacing the siding.5
We6 have 150 facilities and we have six7 employees -- I'll tell you, they may be8 magicians -- in the Construction Trades9 Unit. I don't know how anything ever10 gets done.11 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:12 Council President, what we try to do,13 we're working towards a bigger unit, but14 we're not there yet. I mean, we're15 waiting for this Job Order Contracting16 system. I think the two of them once17 they're fully implemented, we can maybe18 increase our number of people we can move19 out of General Maintenance into the20 Construction Unit, but we're not there21 yet. But this is even a big leap forward22 for us to have six people that can just23 be dedicated to doing these small24 projects, get them done quickly.25 16 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
You2 know, years ago I know we had -- and I3 don't know whether it was during your4 time -- we had plumbers, electricians,5 carpenters in Public Property.6 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: We7 still do.8
Well,9 if we do, do they do patch work or can10 they go out and replace a roof at a11 recreation center?12 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:13 The answer is they can, and I guess I14 shouldn't -- I'm not a tradesperson.15 They can, based on the extent of the16 damage. So if it's something that's17 really far gone and it's gutters and18 roofs and possibly damage as a result of19 water to the exterior, we normally go20 through a capital improvement.21 I forget. How many roofers do22 we have?23
I24 just think we could be saving so much25 17 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 money if in fact we did have this unit in2 Public Property rather than spending all3 of the money that we have to spend with4 contractors going out to do the work.5 And, you know, I'll never forget, we had6 a contractor do a roof in one of our7 recreation centers. He neglected to put8 the flashing. Consequently, we had more9 damage in that rec center, because it10 rained that very night. The gym floor11 had to be replaced. The walls had just12 been painted, so they had to be13 repainted.14 I just think that Public15 Property could do a much better job and a16 much cheaper job by doing it with City17 employees rather than putting it out18 under contract. I don't know whether you19 would agree or disagree, but I think if20 it worked before, it can certainly work21 again. Would you agree?22 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:23 Well, I think there's always room for24 improvement and, yes, I would agree.25 18 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Some projects would be cheaper if they2 could be done in-house, but not all.3
Well,4 I'll tell you, when we submit our capital5 budget and we get an estimated cost, I6 think it's just so outlandish the money7 that we have to spend, when I personally8 feel -- and I'm not a contractor, but I9 personally feel our own people could be10 doing the same job at a much cheaper11 cost. But that's only my opinion.12 Do you have the sufficient13 number of employees in the Construction14 Trades Unit to effectively take care of15 its backlog?16 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:17 There's always room for improvement. I18 think more would be better, but --19 basically the backlog is something that20 we create ourselves. We analyze whether21 the project -- what portion of a project22 that's been requested by a user agency or23 facility that shouldn't be put out to24 capital, and that's how we end up25 19 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 establishing the difference.2
You3 mention in your testimony that you're in4 the process of implementing a Job Order5 Contracting program. How many years has6 it taken for you to get this far? You've7 been working on this for quite a while.8 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:9 I'm going to ask Gary Knappick to join10 us. He's actually -- he's done all the11 work on this. I don't think it's been12 that long.13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:14 Good morning, Council President.15
Good16 morning.17 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:18 We've been working on the Job Order19 Contracting system for about a year, a20 little more than a year right now. The21 whole process is relatively new in the22 industry, and we worked with Law and23 Procurement to make sure that we're24 meeting all the requirements of the City25 20 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 and the governing laws in implementing2 that. We cleared that hurdle, developed3 an RFP, put the RFP out. We have the4 RFPs in, and we're in the process of5 evaluating. We hope to have our6 consultant on board by the end of7 April -- no; let me say the middle of8 May, at which point we could start the9 process.10
Can11 we be told what the current backlog of12 projects is in the Capital Budget13 Division?14 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:15 I could give you a rough number now. It16 will take me a few minutes to calculate17 it, but it will be more in terms of the18 dollars. I'd have to go back and look at19 the projects for the FY12 and FY11 spread20 out.21 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: We22 can submit it to you.23 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:24 We can get back to you on that.25 21 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Would2 you, please.3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:4 I certainly would, Madam President.5
Every6 year in the capital budget, the7 Administrations request to carry over8 tens of millions of dollars of prior year9 funds due to delays. How will the new10 Job Order Contracting program reduce the11 backlog, and shouldn't we save money on12 these projects if we are reducing the13 completion time?14 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:15 Yes. We're looking at a completion time16 differential of between -- over normal17 public works contracting of --18
I'm19 sorry. Over?20 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:21 Over normal public works contracting --22 that's the full-blown process of23 pre-design, design, bidding and award and24 construction -- of about one-third to25 22 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 two-thirds the time. The process2 basically eliminates by establishing unit3 prices for various types of construction.4 Job order contracting wouldn't apply to5 all construction, because there's about6 13 different categories and specialties7 in the various trades of construction.8 But the type of projects we normally do9 would be reduced by that amount.10 We took a look at the FY1111 projects, and we feel about 50 percent of12 those projects would fall within job13 order contracting. So to answer your14 question, yeah, by reducing the15 timeframes, we should be reducing some16 form of cost. We won't know that until17 we really get our hands around it, our18 arms around it and start working with the19 system.20
Well,21 we have projects, and I'm sure the22 District Councilmembers will agree with23 me, projects that are carried over year24 after year after year, and year after25 23 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 year after year, the price increases.2 Are you going to assure us that that's3 not going to happen?4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNAPPICK:5 I will assure you that we will be moving6 projects faster and that we will reduce7 the backlog by utilizing this system.8
What9 City departments will be moving from10 leased space to City-owned space in11 Fiscal 2012?12 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:13 There will be -- Council President, John14 Herzins, Deputy Commissioner, Real15 Estate. Good morning.16
Good17 morning.18 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:19 There are a number of police units that20 are currently in leased space that will21 be moving into the two BRAC facilities.22
The23 two?24 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:25 24 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 BRAC facilities at Wissahickon and2 Woodhaven Roads. There are a number of3 units -- would you like those units in4 detail?5
Yeah,6 please.7 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:8 We have currently in leased space at 9909 Spring Garden, we have the Gun Permitting10 Unit, the Civil Affairs Unit and the11 Audit Unit. We also have the Grants Unit12 and the Narcotics Units that are13 currently in leased space at the14 Frankford Arsenal that will be relocated15 into the Wissahickon BRAC site.16 We also have the 9-1-1 Training17 Backup Unit and the Advanced Training18 Unit at 990 Spring Garden relocating to19 the Woodhaven site.20 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:21 That's it? Okay. Can you tell us what22 are the savings associated with these23 moves?24 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:25 25 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 We can get you the dollar amounts for2 those. We plan to terminate the majority3 of those leases.4
Thank5 you.6 I have several other questions,7 but I see that my colleagues all want to8 be recognized.9 The Chair recognizes Councilman10 Goode.11
Thank you,12 Madam President.13 Good morning, Commissioner.14 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:15 Good morning.16
First let me17 congratulate you on your consistent track18 record of business diversity, but this19 year I won't be dealing with20 participation rates. I want to actually21 walk through the process related to the22 largest contract that you expect to award23 in Fiscal Year '12. So can you tell me24 what that contract will be?25 26 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:2 What's my largest contract? That will be3 the U.S. Facilities contract. It's4 approximately -- I think it's5 approximately $12 million.6
And that is7 a renewable contract?8 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:9 Yes, it is. Yes. It has three options.10 Two more options to go.11
So the firm12 has held the contract for -- this is the13 second year?14 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:15 Yes.16
Can you17 briefly describe the contract18 requirements?19 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:20 Basically it's what's considered in the21 high rise, it's a full-service contract.22 Everything goes through that contract.23 In other words, security, custodial,24 maintenance, pest control, anything25 27 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 that -- we do not pay for anything.2 Everything goes through the contract.3
And is that4 firm a certified disadvantaged business?5 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:6 Yes. It's a minority firm.7
And is the8 firm currently in compliance with the9 City's living wage and benefits standard?10 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:11 Yes, it is.12
Thank you.13 That's it.14 Thank you, Madam President.15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:16 You're welcome.17 The Chair recognizes18 Councilwoman Blackwell.19
Thank20 you, Madam President.21 Good morning.22 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:23 Good morning.24
I25 28 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 wanted to -- I have three issues. One, I2 still want to put in your mind that at3 some point the Mayor's Commission on4 African and Caribbean Immigrant Affairs5 would like a little space.6 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:7 Okay.8
Number9 two, I wanted to ask you if the City ever10 gives away old belongings, because the11 Liberians have come to us about trying to12 get a couple old trucks. Does the City13 dispose of it? Is there some way that14 can be worked out?15 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:16 Okay. When it comes to vehicles, I do17 believe Jim Muller is here waiting to18 testify after we're through. But I19 believe that's done by auction, and as20 far as City equipment, that's also a21 process through the Procurement22 Department.23
Okay.24 Number three, I really hope that before25 29 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 this budget is over -- and I thank you2 for your willingness to work with us. I3 want to bring up the Tiberino issue again4 for MSB, and we still put it out there5 that we'd like to get that resolved.6 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:7 And I am aware of that and we are working8 both with Jane and with the Office of9 Arts and Culture to see if that's doable.10 The location is fine with me.11
Okay.12 Thank you. And you said that initially,13 too.14 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:15 Yeah.16
Thank17 you.18 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:19 You're welcome.20
Good25 30 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 morning. Good morning, everyone.2 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:3 Good morning.4
Just a5 couple quick questions. Commissioner,6 I've been getting a lot of e-mails about7 certain City facilities, but before I get8 into the specifics, are your facilities,9 your buildings, City Hall, MSB, other10 City property, held to the same scrutiny11 as a private-sector building in the City?12 Do you have to -- are you inspected by13 L&I? Do you -- I know the schools are.14 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:15 Yes.16
But what17 about the buildings? Because, you know,18 for years and years and years, we had19 dead bolts on the doors down here where20 if, God forbid, there was an incident,21 you couldn't get out because there were22 no panic bars, and it took five or six23 years to get that corrected.24 I would like to know what25 31 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 scrutiny you have. Do you go through the2 same thing as --3 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:4 Yes, we do.5
-- XYZ6 building on Market Street?7 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:8 Yes, we do.9
Then how10 come some of the conditions exist in our11 buildings that don't exist in other12 buildings, like asbestos and other13 issues?14 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: If15 there's asbestos that's friable, we deal16 with it. We do not --17
Tell me18 about the condition of the Police19 Administration building presently. Why20 are we getting so many e-mails about21 health issues, et cetera, there and the22 fact that L&I apparently isn't involving23 themselves? Are you telling me that it's24 not friable and it's appropriate?25 32 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:2 No. I actually don't know what you're3 speaking about, but I can tell you that4 we have an engineer on staff in the5 Capital Projects Division that has --6 he's in charge of environmental problems.7 We don't -- City Hall, for instance, it's8 my golden rule that assume if you're9 going to do work, you have an10 environmental issue. So first you figure11 that out, whether it's tiles, whether12 it's asbestos, whatever the issue is,13 lead paint. And so we get that done.14 Same thing with the Police15 Administration.16 We don't go into spaces without17 knowing what we're dealing with. We have18 a good handle on that. We have a report19 on this whole building. So we know20 what's where and what condition it's in.21
Are there22 issues at the Police Administration23 building that --24 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:25 33 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Not to my knowledge. I'm happy to have2 Joe and I meet with Jack Gaittens if3 there's anything I'm not aware of. To4 the best of my knowledge, there's nothing5 going on down there.6
So let's say7 the Police Administration building, the8 same level of inspection is provided by9 the inspection agencies?10 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:11 Yes.12
They go13 there just like they would any other14 building?15 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:16 Yes. And we pull permits, we do go17 through zoning changes. We're held to18 the same standard, absolutely.19
Fire20 suppression, all those things?21 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:22 Yes.23
That's good24 to hear, because --25 34 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:2 Yes. We have contracts for that. Yes.3 Absolutely.4
Because the5 reason being that I bring that up is6 because when we had the dead bolts on the7 doors down here with no panic bars,8 people couldn't get out of this building9 unless they had a key. I was told that10 we're exempt, we don't really need to do11 that because we're a City building.12 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:13 Not true.14
So somebody18 who is --19 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:20 And right now if there's a fire emergency21 in the middle of the night, the doors22 open.23
But you know24 that wasn't the case for a lot of years?25 35 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I2 do know that.3
Okay.4 Thanks. And, again, you guys do a great5 job with minimum resources.6 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:7 Thank you.8
It's9 appreciated very much. Thanks.10 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:11 Thank you.12
Thanks,13 Madam Chair.14 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:15 You're welcome.16 The Chair recognizes17 Councilwoman Tasco.18
Thank you.19 Good morning.20 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:21 Good morning.22
I have a23 couple of questions. You know, we've24 been trying to move property on25 36 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Cheltenham Avenue for over two years and2 I still don't know what the status of3 that is. I also was contacted by someone4 who tried to move a building on 4th5 Street and it took us an awful long time6 to negotiate the final settlement on that7 property, and I don't know what the8 holdup is in terms of how you all move9 these properties, but my question is, is10 there -- what is going on in terms of11 property disposition? And I know that12 you all are trying to get appraisals.13 The one on Cheltenham Avenue,14 the appraisal changed. I don't know15 where that is, and the poor man is16 waiting to start a business and right now17 he's like in limbo.18 The other question, as a result19 of all of the delay, how much does it20 cost the City in taxes and possibly21 people getting jobs because we don't move22 fast enough to get these properties on23 the tax rolls?24 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:25 37 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Well, let me -- generally, as you know,2 the Administration is working very hard3 to come up with a citywide policy on4 acquisition and disposition of public5 property regardless --6
How long7 is that going to take?8 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:9 We're close. We're very close.10 As far as the Cheltenham Avenue11 and the 4th Street, I'm going to have12 John give you the update on those.13
Well, 4th14 Street was completed, but it was almost a15 year we were dealing with that. It16 wasn't my district, but a friend of mine17 called me and asked --18 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Do19 you know the address?20
It was 1421 something North 4th Street, something22 like that, 401. I don't remember the23 address. It wasn't my district, but he24 had the support of the District25 38 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Councilperson.2 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:3 Okay. Well, I think John can address4 that.5 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:6 Councilwoman, on the Cheltenham, that was7 a sale handled by the Office of Housing8 through the VPRC program, and I know they9 did get two appraisals that I think10 valued the property significantly higher11 I think than the first appraisal, and12 it's my understanding that the first13 appraisal was low due to the fact that14 they didn't have -- or the appraiser15 didn't have the correct legal footprint16 to use. So they did get two independent17 appraisals, and I think the value they18 determined was somewhere around $500,000.19
And we20 talked about that.21 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:22 Right.23
That space24 is not worth $500,000. That property has25 39 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 been vacant for 30 years, and every year2 I have to call the City to clean up the3 weeds, clean up the lot. The neighbors4 have -- and it's not going to go -- it's5 not -- I don't know how they could value6 it at $500,000. The poor man can't pay7 500,000, and it's going to stay vacant,8 and the City at the end of the day is9 going to continue to spend money to clean10 the lot, clean the weeds and we're going11 to constantly get calls from the12 neighbors about that lot.13 I just want to know how we're14 going to resolve that issue and find the15 middle ground so the poor man can buy the16 lot.17 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:18 Well, we'll have to get --19
You know,20 I've been talking about this for, again,21 almost two years, and I think the City22 ought to find some way to come to a23 common agreement with this possible24 buyer, because you're losing revenue.25 40 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 You're spending money to clean it up,2 call Tom Conway, go out and clip the3 grass, go out and clear up the trash. In4 the meantime, we're losing tax dollars,5 because nothing is being done.6 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:7 Councilwoman --8
And9 possibly someone working there who is10 also paying wage tax.11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:12 Councilwoman, we'll schedule a meeting13 with the Director of Housing and take a14 look at the appraisals again, and we'll15 get back to you.16
But that's17 what you told me before. I'm still18 waiting. The problem with it is, I get a19 response, but I get no action.20 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:21 Our last communication with them, they22 felt confident that the appraisals were a23 fair valuation. So we'll take a look at24 them and meet with her and get back to25 41 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 you again.2
Well, it3 may be in their mind a fair valuation,4 but I represent that district and I know5 that area and it's not going to go for6 that. It's not going to go for that7 amount. The value is not. The value of8 that land is not at $500,000. That guy9 can't pay it. Nobody is going to pay10 $500,000 for that lot, which presents a11 lot of problems even just trying to12 construct something on it. He's got the13 zoning approval and everything.14 So that is my concern, because15 I think the delay -- and people ought to16 look at that in terms of what it costs us17 in terms of revenue and possibly job loss18 because we don't have -- we're not moving19 fast enough.20 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:21 Okay.22
Thank you,23 Councilwoman. Brian Abernathy, Chief of24 Staff, the Managing Director.25 42 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 The policies that we're looking2 for the disposition of public property3 get to exactly your point. We want to4 sell properties more quickly and more5 fairly and more predictably than we6 currently do. It's taken more time than7 we wanted to to develop those policies,8 but we do think we're close. And on this9 case specifically, I'm happy to work with10 your office to try and move this project11 forward more quickly and get you12 resolution.13
Well, we14 need resolution to it, because the summer15 is coming and I'm going to get calls16 every day about that lot with whatever is17 going on over there. And the poor man18 wants to build something and invest in19 the City, because it's right across the20 street from Cheltenham. He could go to21 Cheltenham.22
We want24 him in Philadelphia.25 43 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Thank you4 very much.5 Thank you.6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:7 Councilwoman, are you finished?8
Thank11 you.12 The Chair recognizes Councilman13 Green.14
Thank you,15 Madam Chair.16 Good morning.17 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:18 Good morning.19
I apologize20 for missing your testimony, but I had the21 opportunity to read it. We were provided22 from the Budget Office budget reduction23 scenarios for each department that were24 prepared. You prepared a three percent25 44 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 budget reduction scenario, which included2 six items totalling $1.6 million in3 savings. I'd like to ask you about four4 of the items.5 What is the 441,000 reduction6 for electric service, the three SEPTA7 reductions, 99,000 for Market East8 maintenance agreement and 191,000 for9 elevator and escalator maintenance. What10 are these services?11 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:12 The Department of Public Property13 supports SEPTA. We pay for -- it's14 concourse related, general concourses15 that the City owns. The general rule of16 thumb, Councilman, is leading up to the17 PAID area is City owned and that these18 are -- these contracts have been probably19 25, maybe 30 years old at this point. So20 we're paying for electric service. We21 have a contribution towards the Market22 East maintenance agreement for23 maintenance in general, custodial care.24 We have elevator and escalators. The25 45 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 escalator at 15th Street across from City2 Hall, 8th and Market, 15th and Locust,3 those elevators and escalators are Public4 Property's responsibility. And then the5 Center City District, we've joined with6 SEPTA for the custodial maintenance over7 all concourses. That's what they are.8
I understand9 they're 30 years old, but if we could cut10 them -- if you're required to have the11 three percent cut, why wouldn't we cut12 them today?13 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:14 Actually, this cut represents the15 possible change in my budget when we16 change and update the relationship with17 SEPTA. We're in that process now.18
Well,19 because we give them $84 million a year20 for their operations and other stuff,21 which is far more than any other county.22 I think the highest surrounding county23 gives them $4 million. And I don't see24 why we just wouldn't say we're not paying25 46 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 for this.2 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:3 Actually, we're in the process of the4 lease-leaseback. We are in the process5 of updating that relationship. We're in6 negotiations right now. What I'm7 suggesting is that we will -- if we can8 get there, where we want to be, we're9 negotiating with them. It's not -- I10 don't necessarily want to go into detail11 here, but these contracts then would be12 terminated. I would not have to fund13 these any longer.14
If I could add15 to that. Rebecca Rhynhart, Budget16 Director.17 Because there are contractual18 obligations, we can't just cut the SEPTA19 payment. That's why we didn't take these20 cuts in the budget process. If we could21 get these savings, that's great. That's22 something that we're working towards, but23 there are contractual obligations that we24 can't just decide to cut the payment to25 47 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 SEPTA.2
We can3 actually with respect to the $84 million4 or portions of it cut that payment. So I5 mean we can --6
City Council9 has to appropriate that money. We can10 take it one side or the other.11
I think -- and12 we could get some more information to13 you, but my understanding is that that14 amount is set forth in various different15 legal obligations. I'm not sure if it's16 at the state level, but it's a contract17 that's outside of the Council --18
There are19 formulas that are agreements that have20 been put in place with prior21 Administrations. I don't think the exact22 dollar amount of our contribution is23 required by state law or any written24 agreement.25 48 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
We did a11 calculation in 2008 and we determined12 that we were paying more than the amount13 required by several million dollars as14 part of the 84. And so that still is15 available to us. I understand we want to16 negotiate it in the context, but in 200817 when we did the analysis, we determined18 that we are actually paying above what's19 legally required.20
Yeah. My21 understanding is that we can't -- that22 those are set forth, but we can talk23 to -- I can look into that again, but I24 have asked about that, and the responses25 49 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I have received is that is set.2
That is the3 response I initially received in 2008,4 and then we went and actually looked at5 all the various documentation and other6 agreements, and we're paying slightly7 more by a couple million than we're8 required to.9
Council President,10 Andrew Stober from the Mayor's Office of11 Transportation and Utilities.12 Councilman, if Council were to13 decrease that appropriation, in all14 likelihood SEPTA would provide a15 commensurate decrease in service to the16 City. So we'd just be paying for it one17 way or another. So there would be less18 bus service. They would have to cut bus19 or other transit service to compensate20 for the reduction in funds they receive21 from the City.22
I doubt that23 very much. I hear what you're saying.24 The question is, is the $84 million more25 50 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 than we are legally obligated to pay to2 SEPTA? Do you know the answer to that3 question?4
Thank you.7 I believe it is. So I'm glad to hear8 that this potential for -- this potential9 money for the SEPTA reductions, as it was10 called in the three percent reduction11 scenario, is being negotiated. When will12 that be resolved?13
I actually don't14 have a timeline for that.15 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:16 I'm working very closely with Rina17 Cutler's office and Joe Casey. I don't18 actually know.19
Will it be22 resolved before the end of this fiscal23 year?24
In all likelihood,25 51 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 it will not be resolved before the end of2 the fiscal year.3
One of the4 ways for us to deal with this is to bring5 it to a head by not appropriating the6 money, and then that will force7 negotiations. There's money requested8 for the Ethics Board, for other valuable9 things, and we've got to find it10 somewhere. This looks to be like fertile11 ground.12 I'd like to hear more about the13 149,000 potential reduction related to14 space rental at Eight Penn Center.15 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:16 You're asking me about all the old-timers17 that I've inherited. That's probably a18 40 -- however long the tower -- when they19 took the ice skating rink out and they20 built the Eight Penn Center towers.21 We're actually not paying that anymore.22 That is a sub-basement space, and the23 land is owned by SEPTA and the building24 is privately owned, and from the25 52 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 beginning of the lease until about, I2 think it was, maybe five years, six years3 back, it was a flat rate. I think it was4 $40,000, if my memory is right. There is5 a unique clause in the lease that says at6 any time in the relationship that this7 could be -- appraised value could be8 raised, some language like that. So this9 is before this Administration. The10 relationship was kind of strained and so11 they exercised that option and increased12 it to this high amount, but we are not13 paying it any longer.14
So why is it15 in the budget?16 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Is17 it in -- well, we're not paying it.18
It's19 under --20 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:21 We're not going to pay it.22
It's Page23 28, Section 22. There's not a line24 number, but it's about ten from the25 53 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 bottom.2 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:3 I've been working with Fran Kelly, Chief4 of Staff for Joe Casey, and we are not5 going to pay it. It is in the budget,6 but we are not paying the money.7
So we can8 transfer that $149,000 out of your9 department without it impacting anything10 that you have come and asked us for?11 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:12 Once I get the legal paper done, yes.13
Okay. Thank14 you.15 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:16 Provided that the Budget Director agrees.17 It's not my call, actually.18
Well, it's19 also our call. It's now -- the budget20 has now been given to City Council and,21 of course, we can make that change on our22 own.23 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:24 Understood.25 54 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
You noted2 that your department is planning in FY123 and FY13 to relocate several agencies4 from leased space into City-owned space5 as well as terminate some leases that are6 expiring. We heard the same testimony7 last year roughly and the year before8 also. But the detail shows that our9 Class 284 space rental is going up by10 about 2.8 million in FY12.11 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:12 That's correct.13
And then14 coming down by about 650, less than 2515 percent of this year's increase in FY13.16 Can you explain that?17 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:18 Sure.19 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:20 Councilman, the increase in the space21 rental is primarily due to two new big22 leases that the City is entering into,23 one for the Delaware Valley Intelligence24 Center down at 20th and Oregon as well as25 55 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the --2
I'm sorry.3 For the what?4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:5 Delaware Valley Intelligence Center.6
Delaware7 Valley Intelligence Center?8 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:9 Otherwise known as DVIC.10
Where were11 they prior to or --12 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:13 It was a regional task force made up of14 four suburban counties that are police15 department units. They hadn't been in16 any location. That is a brand new17 consolidation of all their efforts.18
And so is19 there a reason we went into that space20 rather than space that we have currently21 that we're looking to reduce? In other22 words, if you go to, say, the second23 floor above where the Ethics Board is24 above Del Frisco's, in that building,25 56 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 there's a lot of empty space up there2 that's not in productive use. If you go3 into MSB and walk around the floors,4 there's a lot of empty carrels and other5 spaces that's not in productive use.6 Why do we go outside of a7 building or space that we already control8 and spend money on that instead of9 locating people in existing space?10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:11 The task force was charged with finding a12 location away from the core downtown13 area. This would be an agency or a group14 of people, individuals and groups, that15 would be dealing with things like if16 there was a terrorist attack or some kind17 of emergency downtown. So from the18 beginning, we were looking at areas19 outside of the core downtown.20
How much21 space did they need?22 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:23 Forty thousand.24
Forty25 57 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 thousand square feet. And how much are2 we paying a square foot?3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:4 This including -- the base rent is $8 a5 square foot, plus the fit-out costs6 amortized.7
Plus the8 fit-out costs amortized, which brings it9 up to?10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:11 Per square feet, $46.12
Forty-six13 dollars a square foot? Center City14 office space is $27 a square foot with15 improvements. That's not market.16 That's -- I mean, you could go into the17 Budd complex down where Temple University18 put space in for far less than $46 a19 square foot.20 Who owns the building?21 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:22 Defense Realty.23 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:24 Defense Realty.25 58 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Councilman,4 again, Brian Abernathy, Chief of Staff to5 the Managing Director.6 The fit-out cost is significant7 in large part because of the specialty8 needs for this type of operation, and I9 think having that on the record is10 important. This isn't your normal office11 space. This is a Homeland Security12 facility.13
Well, if you14 could please provide the Chair with15 details of the fit-out cost, because I16 can't imagine it includes the cabling17 required or other things like that that18 are going to be done by the City for19 communications, et cetera. And it seems20 to me if it includes that, it shouldn't,21 because if it's Homeland Security, we can22 get federal funding or E911 or other23 money for that kind of stuff. Fit-out24 cost is furniture, it is walls, it is --25 59 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
We'll supply a2 full breakdown of that lease, including3 the federal funds that are paying for the4 majority of the project.5
Mr.8 Abernathy, before you go, point of9 information. How long is the lease?10
I believe it's11 ten years.12 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:13 Ten years.14
Did you15 bring it to Council?16 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:17 Yes.18
When was20 that?21 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:22 In December. I think it passed in23 December.24
Okay.25 60 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Thank you.2
Okay. We7 had exhaustive conversations about this8 and I'm hearing a whole different story.9 I have a pretty good memory, and I10 remember that there was -- this task11 force was supposed to be -- this expense12 was supposed to be shared by suburban13 counties.14 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:15 That's correct.16
You never17 even mentioned that.18 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:19 There's funding sources. We will supply20 that to the Chair.21
We'll supply22 the entire -- I don't have the details,23 Councilman. I'm happy to supply to the24 Chair the full details.25 61 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Well, one of2 the big questions was that since this is3 a shared facility, that the counties are4 pitching in, that we're picking up the5 entire electric utility cost for that6 facility also, correct?7 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:8 The answer to the question is yes. It9 doesn't mean that we're going to pay it.10 It doesn't mean that -- we're going to11 have a relationship that goes on, so the12 task force will always be part of the13 reimbursables. There's a relationship.14 It's not -- City is not paying 10015 percent of this.16
And I'm17 going to get the transcript, because I18 was under the impression that we were19 getting this building for -- I thought it20 was some type of a federal facility that21 we were getting with not fit-out -- maybe22 fit-out cost, but not rent. I'm hearing23 a whole lot of -- I'm hearing something24 entirely different than I understood when25 62 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 we had the hearing. I'm going to refresh2 my memory for sure, but explain the3 federal aspects of this, because, again,4 you didn't mention that today.5
Sure. And,6 Councilman, I'm not prepared to go into7 detail, but what I will do is provide the8 financials to you and also work with9 Everett Gillison to get a meeting with10 you and any other Councilmember that11 would like to discuss it in detail.12
I don't need13 to beat this thing to death other than14 the fact I'm hearing something a little15 different than I heard at the hearing,16 and I have, again, a pretty good17 recollection of things.18
Understood.19 And I just want to make sure the primary20 on our side is in the room and can answer21 the questions better than I can.22
Okay.23 Because we have it all as a matter of24 that transcript --25 63 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Councilman12 Green, do you want to continue, because13 we interrupted your line of questioning.14 Please proceed.15
Thank you.16 Okay. I'll be interested in17 seeing how we're spending 46 bucks a18 foot, and I'll ask the Budget Office to19 show us where in the budget the funding20 from the federal government and any21 cooperation or related funding from the22 state budget comes from. Just provide23 that detail when you provide the24 information about the lease and we'll25 64 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 take a look at it.2 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: We3 will. It's in there. No problem.4
Okay. I've5 raised concerns in past years about6 office space leases, including those at7 the Curtis Center and Aramark building,8 which seem to rise year over year. I9 know it's an issue that you care about10 also, and even though we're talking about11 consolidating, we're actually spending12 more money every year on leases, which13 is, I guess, the opposite of what we talk14 about in our testimony.15 But taking the Aramark building16 in FY12, our General Fund cost is going17 up around 14 percent, or $320,000, and18 our Water Fund cost is going up by almost19 50 percent, or $1.2 million. Can you20 tell us about these cost increases?21 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:22 Sure.23 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:24 Councilman, as far as the Water Fund25 65 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 increase, we received a request from the2 Water Department. They plan to renovate3 over a period of time their space on the4 floor, as well as they received some5 grant money to hire some additional6 people. So they may also need additional7 space rented in the building.8
And why do9 we choose to do renovations in that10 building versus consolidating them into11 some other City-owned facility elsewhere12 that exists? I mean, there is space in13 City-owned buildings if you consolidate14 departments off different floors, move15 things together. Testimony has been in16 previous years that a study was being17 done to look at available space at MSB18 and One Parkway and City Hall, in the19 triplex and other places, and I think20 that report should have been done well21 over a year ago based on -- because we22 talked about this in 2008 and 2009, and23 it doesn't seem to me that we're doing24 that kind of consolidation within those25 66 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 buildings that would free up space, which2 would allow us to not spend money outside3 of facilities that we control.4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:5 Actually, Councilman, we continue to6 consolidate space in those two buildings.7 Last year a big project we completed was8 consolidating the Commerce Department,9 the Office of Economic Opportunity and10 PCDC. PCDC used to be in leased space at11 the Packard building, and OEO was in MSB.12 We plan to backfill the space in MSB with13 other agencies from One Parkway.14 We are consolidating. We have15 a plan to try to, when leases come up to16 term, to see if there is a possibility in17 fact to consolidate into either MSB or --18
If that's19 our plan, why spend money in a building20 outfitting or expanding space rather than21 sort of making people fit into a space22 that they're in so that we can terminate23 that lease when the time comes?24 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:25 67 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 The footprint of the Water Department2 could not fit into either of the two3 buildings, the amount of vacant space4 there is.5
What are we6 paying in those buildings per square7 foot?8 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:9 In Aramark it is roughly between $13 and10 $14 a square foot, plus operating costs.11
So it's12 triple net?13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:14 Yes.15
Does that16 explain the increase in rent?17 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:18 Yes.19 COUNCILWOMAN TASCO:20 Councilman --21
And the 9.922 percent property tax increase?23 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERZINS:24 Right.25 68 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
You can4 come back. We're not timing you, but I5 think you met your time limit right now.6 The Chair recognizes Councilman7 Clarke.8
Thank you,9 Madam Chair.10 Good morning.11 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:12 Good morning.13
I got14 actually a couple of quick ones.15 In your testimony you talked16 about the energy cost savings working17 with the department -- well, actually,18 the Mayor's Office of Utilities and19 Transportation. Actually, I think this20 Thursday City Council will be approving21 the appointees to the Energy Authority,22 and one of the things that we will be23 asking the Energy Authority to look at is24 alternative energy sources and25 69 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 opportunities. Right now under state law2 we are restricted to as a municipality of3 only providing direct energy to and for a4 publicly owned facility or operation, but5 this Energy Authority we think will give6 us an opportunity to very aggressively7 look at other opportunities simply beyond8 certain cost saving measures provided by9 PECO or some of the other existing10 providers. One of the thoughts that we11 had was creating an opportunity given the12 fact that the Energy Authority affords us13 an opportunity to enter into contracts14 five years and beyond that may be more15 attractive to a provider. Say, for an16 example, if we looked at some of the17 larger municipally owned facilities such18 as MSB, Criminal Justice Center, those19 types of facilities, and we enter into a20 10, 15-year contract with a provider who21 was going to place solar panels on the22 roofs of those buildings, therefore23 providing direct energy where we can24 essentially eliminate any cost as it25 70 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 relates to PECO or any other provider,2 with the exception of a situation where3 there is some breakage, kind of converse4 what Temple does, because Temple and some5 other universities I understand have6 generators on site in the event that7 there's a break in power source, they can8 kick in. So we're looking at just the9 opposite.10 Are you all having those kind11 of conversations to the degree that I12 think we should be?13
Yeah. Andrew14 Stober from the Mayor's Office of15 Transportation and Utilities.16 Councilman, we absolutely are,17 and I think the Energy Authority and the18 City will be well positioned to work19 together. Already the Water Department20 has installed one -- what you're21 describing is called behind-the-meter22 facility -- at the Southeast Wastewater23 Control Treatment Plant using a24 combination of capital funds in that25 71 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 instance and stimulus funds, a solar2 facility that's going to provide power3 for the blowers at that facility.4 We currently -- there's an RFP5 that's been awarded for a cogeneration6 facility at the Northeast plant, and I7 think we're going to be well positioned8 to take advantage of those kinds of9 options.10
Will the11 terms of that contract be beyond the12 five-year limitation?13
I'm not sure if on17 that specific agreement we'll want to18 move more quickly and bring that to19 Council before the Authority has all of20 its bylaws or not, but certainly the21 Authority will be well positioned to take22 advantage of those kinds of23 opportunities.24
Because I25 72 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 know when I talked to Lance, I know it2 was something that they said that they3 may need to move relatively quickly --4
But this is8 exactly one of the benefits, important9 benefits, of an Authority.10
Right. And11 we're going to also looking at -- I know12 Council, we approved -- we adopted a13 resolution that approved actually Council14 to do an RFP for alternative energy15 opportunities, and we're looking at the16 hydro, where you place the devices or the17 machinery in the water, in the river, and18 actually the flow of the river actually19 generates electricity, those kinds of20 things.21
There are a wide22 range of alternative energy23 opportunities, and having this Authority24 in place will create an opportunity for25 73 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 us to look at all of them.2
Not to3 belabor the point, will we also be4 looking at -- I know there's a timeframe5 associated with us implementing this --6 some of the smaller facilities, like some7 of the rec centers, the big rec8 centers --9
Yeah. And you can13 look at them regardless of the size of14 the facility and see if the numbers make15 sense for -- so as you described, a power16 purchase agreement for solar or another17 kind of alternative energy.18
Okay.19 Thank you. I'm glad to see we're going20 down that path.21 On the sale of properties --22 and I know Councilwoman Tasco talked23 earlier about some of the challenges24 relating to appraisals. I'm a little25 74 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 more -- and I know that Mr. Abernathy is2 probably going to jump up here in a3 minute -- a little concerned about the4 inconsistency in criteria for5 disposition/acquisition of the6 properties, and I know that was one of7 the main things that we're going to be8 focusing on. But in the shorter term,9 Public Property has put on its website10 available properties, and we've been11 relatively successful, but we also have12 these glitches, like the Spooky Garden13 issue and some of the other issues as it14 relates to our sales where they're not,15 in my view, not being critical, but not16 necessarily the appropriate prohibitions17 or limitations on the reuse of the18 property. Such as, an example, when the19 Redevelopment Authority sells a property,20 they have these redevelopment agreements21 that gives you a timeframe to develop it22 and they give you a list of all the23 things you can and cannot do, and then24 they actually have a default provision25 75 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 that if you don't do it in that2 timeframe, they take it back.3 Conversely, Public Property4 basically says the highest price, you got5 the property, sign over the deed, thank6 you very much. And I kind of personally7 like something in the middle.8 Given the fact that we had a9 couple of problems, is there any thought10 to changing some of the provisions to put11 a little more teeth in the reuse? Right12 now that's limited to basically what the13 property is zoned, but in a lot of areas,14 if you got a C-2 zoning, it gives you15 wide latitudes in terms of what you can16 do. Can you talk to me about the need or17 the possibility of --18 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:19 Actually, all the agencies, every single20 one of us, have been at the table now21 probably six months going over the issues22 such as the one that Councilwoman Tasco23 and the things that you're bringing up.24 Everything is not going to be perfect, so25 76 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 we have to put in to the new policy some2 contingencies, some abilities to be a3 little flexible when things don't line4 up.5 As for us, what we're doing6 right now, again, our sales are single7 lots in the middle of rows and we are8 following them closely and they've all9 been developed. We haven't had any10 glitches yet. I don't know that we will,11 but there's always -- like I said,12 there's always that possibility.13 So, I mean, Brian is welcomed14 to come up here, but we're working very15 closely with everyone to try and --16 because we all know what some of the17 glitches have been all too well. I mean,18 sometimes it's our issue directly.19 Sometimes it's an appraisal from RDA20 or -- it goes the whole gamut, so we're21 all working really close to come up with22 one policy.23
Okay. You24 know, we all work together, but, I mean,25 77 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the timeline on the broader policy seems2 to go on forever. I'm not being3 critical, but at some point -- but in the4 short term, I'm more concerned about the5 public property, because we have a lot of6 property in our district and we're7 working with you and I would -- couldn't8 you possibly come up with some interim9 strategy in terms of reuse of the10 property?11 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I12 mean, we can talk about it.13
I'm just14 saying --15 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:16 Yeah. We can talk about it.17
Because I18 got a couple now that are coming down the19 pike and it's timeline, reuse, community20 notification, those kind of things.21 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK:22 Okay.23
I don't24 think we should have to wait until we25 78 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 finish the broader.2
I was going9 to keep talking until you came up here.10
We understand.11 Those issues that you just raised,12 timeline, community notice, use of the13 property, all of those things we are14 looking to make uniform across the15 agencies. And you're absolutely right,16 the timeline for the finish of this17 policy has been pushed out, and I'm not18 going to deny that. The complexities of19 the issue are significant, and personally20 I'd rather get it right than get it done21 fast. I'm trying to do both and balance22 both. But to get it right has taken more23 time than I think any of us expected, and24 certainly hopefully within the next few25 79 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 weeks, we'll be bringing that back to2 Council and having more in-depth3 conversation about some of the more4 specifics.5
Well, I6 hear what you're saying, you want to get7 it right as opposed to expediting the8 process, but the reality is is that we're9 still disposing properties and we're10 getting it wrong and we're, one, not11 selling properties because the policy is12 wrong, but, two, we're selling properties13 to people that haven't been adequately14 appraised that are under these various15 criteria.16 So I'm saying, I understand you17 want to be 100 percent correct, but18 meanwhile, people are --19
It would be22 one thing if you said a moratorium, we're23 not doing anything until we get it right.24
Well, we25 80 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 haven't set a moratorium. We are2 still --3
No. I'm4 just saying if you said that, We're going5 to impose a moratorium on sales until we6 get it right, but you're continuing to7 move with the disposition.8
We've9 maintained the policies that were in10 place as we're developing the current11 policies. And as we have consistency,12 we've tried to implement certain13 policies. For example, the VPRC backlog14 we've started to work on and tried to15 move those properties out as quickly as16 possible.17 But your point is taken, and I18 think we'll need to more fully explore19 it, especially if our timeline gets20 pushed back anymore. We need to resolve21 this, and the sooner, the better. We22 understand.23
Okay. I24 mean, I actually don't think -- again,25 81 4/12/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 it's not part of my direct2 responsibility, but I just don't see why3 we don't just say this is the policy and4 move on.5