I'm sorry. Thanks for coming back. With respect to the original question, Mr. Donovan, that I asked that I didn't really -- wasn't satisfied with the answer about why the RFQ was so limited, I'd like to ask you to look at 253 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 the information provided in the testimony by the union that talks about the Orange County Sanitation District and the fact that they got nine RFPs, and the one question that they posed -- the question that they posed to us which I'm now going to ask back to you is, how is it that Orange County was able to solicit nine bids, but the Philadelphia Water Department was only able to solicit one bid? What's the answer to that question?
Sir, I don't have the documents, but even if I did, I couldn't respond right away. The question that needs to be asked is, what were the requirements of Orange County. Did they in fact limit that technology to on site, in which case they may have higher standards, or did they in fact allow off site.
That's exactly, though, turning my question back around in a circle, because my question is why was our RFQ and RFP so limited. 254 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 You can't in answer to that question say, Well, maybe they got nine because their RFQ or RFP was not so limited. So my question is, why was it so limited? Why couldn't we have said any existing technology, tell us how you meet this criteria, and even though you're the expert and you know nobody else but Synagro will be able to do it -- DEPUTY
Synagro. Nobody but Synagro will be able to do it, but why not -- why was it limited? In other words, why not put a broad thing out there and learn something maybe or not? But if you're convinced it's going to end up being in this narrow field, that doesn't mean you have to limit the RFQ to that narrow field. And I still don't have an answer to the question of why that decision was taken versus a broad RFQ that allows the City to learn what everybody who thinks they have a solution to this problem thinks. That's 255 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 the question.
I've got the question and I'm going to let Pam Racey address the Orange County issue, because she knows it better than I do, but I was there when this department decided to require a Class A material for 100 percent of the production, and they took very seriously the issue of trucking whatever from the site, liquid, cake, didn't matter. They wanted to make sure that those truck traffic were absolutely minimized, and that's why they narrowed down the options. It was a clear choice on their part, but they took that charge very seriously.
Thank you. So it's your testimony that the Water Department are the people, not you, the expert. The Water Department are the people that put together the criteria -- (Applause.)
-- that put together the criteria that limited the 256 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 RFQ to specific technologies?
For on site. And don't forget, as I mentioned in my testimony earlier, we also allowed proposers to take the material to another site if they so choose. They decided not to do that for cost reasons probably.
But that's not the only other criteria -- that's the only other thing -- on site or off site is not the only other things that could have been requested in an RFQ. We could have gotten broad proposals from lots of people that could have taught us something and we chose not to, and I want to understand why we would choose not to, why the City of Philadelphia in an RFQ process doesn't cast the field wide, cast the net wide and then -- that's what RFQs are for. Then after the RFQ, then do a more limited RFP based on the findings of the RFQ. That is a proper procurement process. Limiting it up front doesn't teach us anything. And it's clear that 257 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 that came from the Water Department. (Applause.) DEPUTY
Councilman, if I may respond to pieces of that. I don't agree, although I will not cast dispersions on people's honesty or declare lies, but we do not agree that there is proven technology, and that is in fact the bottom line here, that there is proven technology in the setting that we have in Philadelphia, which is different. There is a lot of technology. In fact, there is incubating technology on these issues all over the place, and there is even some that has been used in much smaller plants in terms of volume, but the issue still came down to proven technology. So while we could have learned, using your issue, we could have learned what some of the new technology was, what some of the successes and in fact misses that have occurred in the field, that 258 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 information is available and it is -- I'm assuming the folks whose business this is go to conferences and learn it. But the Water Department did not believe -- and we may agree to disagree on this -- that it was a responsible thing to do to try to use technology that did not have a proven track record, that did not have a proven fact record in terms of construction of facility, operation of facility and that was willing to use their money.
Well, I don't see why this Administration feels the need to defend the process that happened in 2003, but I certainly accept what you have to say. (Applause.)
It's my view that the process was flawed because what you have is a 15-year contractual relationship with Synagro and the Water Department, a very cozy relationship. They end up -- the Water Department then 259 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 ends up writing an RFQ that limits other possible responses, and in my view, that's not the way business should be conducted in an open, transparent and accountable government. (Applause.) DEPUTY
I would just like to assure the Councilman that I have no dog in the fight of the proposal that was done five years ago. The fact that I'm standing here and that this Administration has decided to endorse it actually indicates we've done a little work in terms of is it -- was it a good RFP, is the technology viable, is it the best financial deal for the City. So when you say you don't know why I'm going to defend it, I'm going to defend it because I think it's the best deal.
Well, I made that statement earlier today in acknowledgment of that fact. So that brings us to biomass, Mr. Donovan, which was -- 260 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498
Councilman, if I could, we participated in the Orange County RFP. We manage two-thirds of the biosolids from Orange County. We were successfully selected there. The only thing they allowed to be built on their own site was heat drying and pelletization. You weren't allowed to propose anything else on their own site. The other options were for you to take it somewhere else and do something with it. That's the exact same thing Philadelphia did. Philadelphia said if you're going to do it on our site, you have to do heat drying or composting. If you're going somewhere else, you can do whatever you want. That's exactly what Orange County did, except they didn't allow composting on site.
So, once again, Philadelphia set the criteria, the Water Department. Yeah. Okay. Very good. 261 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 Now, what's wrong with the technology of biomass as a consideration that was mentioned as an alternative that's in use on Army bases and other places? Is that a viable technology that's an alternative?
I do not know whether or not that technology has been used in biosolids, and I am surprised to hear that it is, because it's my job at CDM to stay on top of these things. I will be shocked if we find out -- and we'll find out very soon -- whether or not that technology has the track record that would have qualified for thermal drying. I'll be absolutely stunned.
Okay. Well, I guess we'll all be stunned too after $500,000 if that is in fact a viable alternative in use in Army bases, et cetera. So, frankly, I ask you to provide the Chair with an answer to that question if you're not able to do so today. And those are my only questions. 262 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 Thank you.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm trying to follow the line of questioning, and I need to make sure what I heard was what I thought I heard. Are you saying the biomass or the biosolid?
Biomass, that there's no other municipality like Philadelphia in the country that is using biomass? Is that what I heard?
When it comes to biosolids, to make sure we are comparing apples with apples, are there any other municipalities like Philadelphia in the country using biosolids? DEPUTY
Biosolids 263 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 is not a technology.
Okay. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Councilwoman, do you mean the heat drying pelletization plan?
No. She means biomass. There is no municipal commercial operations of biomass, which converts sludge, biosolids, on a full scale into gas or oil, which is what I believe they're talking about, but I haven't seen anything. There's lots -- right now there's a huge amount of grants and innovative technology money being pumped into renewable energy projects, and this is one of the things that is being looked at. Biomass technology works in other areas like with soy beans or organic wood waste and things like that, but it hasn't been done or proven with biosolids. In fact, this is 264 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 something that I mentioned earlier as a company. Any time something innovative comes up, we take a look at it. We have a team of our own engineers that we send out and say, Hey, is this something we want to add into our stable, something we want to represent. And our policy is until something is commercial or proven, we're not going to take the risk on it. Somebody has to show us that it works, and there isn't such a facility that you can go to.
So let me do a rewind. Let's go back to the initial discussion talking about the technology currently in this debate today. Is there any other municipality in the nation using the very technology that is up for consideration today? That's what I need to know.
The answer is yes, and if you recall the conversation, the testimony this morning, there are something on the order of 75 265 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 municipalities in the U.S --
Let me further clarify that so that we're comparing apples with apples. That look like Philadelphia in terms of size and metropolis.
The ones I would compare size-wise to Philadelphia that have or are going to install drying facilities are Boston, New York, Baltimore, Tampa, Louisville and Chicago.
Of those, were there any discussions around what Councilman Goode referenced and all of us continue to be concerned about, workforce development, in any of those agreements in any of those other cities?
I can't speak to all the cities because they're not all our contracts, but I think I 266 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 misunderstood what the Councilman was asking, and I've asked the Administration about it. We'll be happy to submit an expanded EOP plan with the Administration tomorrow. Or are you talking about training?
Well, I'm going to get to training, because I think that that should be required in any kind of --
But if you're talking about EOP participation and work rules, we'll be happy to make sure that the plan we have given is expanded on to address what Councilman Goode asked for.
So in those cities that the consultant, forgive me, Mr. Donovan, just stipulated, has Synagro been a part of any of those agreements in any of the cities you just mentioned that look like Philadelphia?
New York was built by another company. Synagro bought it. I'm not clear if you're talking 267 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 about during construction or during operation.
Okay. Our recent plants using this technology and this process are in Honolulu, Sacramento and the Tampa area of Florida and --
So the answer to the question is, no, Synagro has not participated in the cities stipulated by Mr. Donovan, right?
So in New York and Baltimore, did Synagro participate in making sure that there was workforce development agreements?
I don't know what -- I'm sorry. I don't know what you mean by workforce development agreement. That's not a term that's familiar to me.
Are you talking about hiring and training of local 268 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 employees?
Yes. I mean, we do that at every facility. It's just not called that. I mean, typically every city has a different type of plan or a different requirement, and we work with them to comply with whatever their city charter is on local hiring and implementation and training programs, including down to the high school shadowing, apprenticeship, scholarship. At our standing facilities we get involved in all of that very early on.
That's new, important information. Thank you very much.
If you could please submit to the Chair your responses to the comments raised in the union's report or testimony and exhibits with respect to emissions, et cetera, basically the issues they raised. If you 269 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 could address them in writing to the Chair, I would appreciate that. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: We would -- DEPUTY
We have not seen that. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: We have not seen that document, I don't believe, unless it's --
We will give you a copy. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Okay.
Councilwoman Blackwell indicated that a number of considerations for and on all sides have been raised that have not been adequately answered. So know that I'm stuck on the one thing that I care about here. Councilman Goode already raised the issue around workforce development, et cetera. Training matters for me, particularly if we put this in the 270 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 context of green-collar jobs, which is really the next phase of employment opportunities for large cities. So I want to know and want in writing language that speaks to the availability of and access to and training for green-collar jobs, period. DEPUTY
Councilwoman, I'm just looking for clarification. I recognize what workforce development means as it relates to training and promoting internally once folks are trained. Is there a different definition that you're using for workforce development?
The Chair of our Committee just reminded me that we call it equal opportunity plans. So all of what that means for us in compliance with laws that have been passed will stipulate that when the City is participating in these kind of discussions, that that is a firm, written part of any type of document. 271 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 DEPUTY
Council introduced and passed an equal opportunity plan, and that plan is to be included in all of the contracts negotiated by the City. Do you have one, Ms. Deputy Commissioner? Do you know if there is or the Water Department when you were developing this deal -- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: I was looking for our lawyer, who is much more familiar with the contract. I know that it should comply with all of the requirements of City Council, but we can confirm that for you.
Right. So have you submitted an equal opportunity plan to the City Council, as is required on all contracts negotiated by this 272 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 Council?
There has not been a new EOP submitted with this proposed contract. The proposed contract was, as you know, negotiated sometime ago and included a very substantial commitment on the part of the Philadelphia Biosolids Services to both an equity participation and also to the services of minority and women-owned and disabled-owned businesses during the course of both the construction of the facility and thereafter in the operation of the facility.
Is the Law Department, all lawyers and members of the Law Department, familiar with the ordinance passed by City Council that all contracts of this nature have to have accompanying it an equal opportunity plan? There is a template that is a part of the business that we do that is the same information that Councilman Goode is asking for, is to be part of all 273 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 contracts that come before this City, the Council.
I was not aware that that applied to contracts that had been substantially negotiated in advance of the passage of that ordinance, but I will check with the Law Department to make sure that that is --
Madam Chair, to Director Cutler, former colleague Nutter, now Mayor Nutter, was a part of and strongly supported what Councilwoman Tasco has referenced. It starts at the top and it starts with leadership. So to the Water Commissioner, in discussions that you had with -- what is the standard operating procedure within your department when it comes to sitting down with anybody who wants to do business with the City of Philadelphia knowing that this new law is in place? Because it's clear and one of our fears has been if it doesn't filter down to the 274 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 staff, then we might as well take this law and put it on a shelf. It's an expectation here that when it comes to people of color and women and folks who are disabled, it's leadership's responsibility to make sure that those segments of our population are included. (Applause.) DEPUTY
Councilwoman, before I turn the microphone over to the Commissioner, I think there's -- I think the current standard and that current law was not in place at the point the contract was negotiated. What I've said to Councilman Green and I will also assure you that we will -- so there was no violation. The law did not exist. And with all due respect, the City attorney has basically said he will go back and check to see whether it can be grandfathered. I'm telling you, it will be grandfathered and that there will be an EOP plan submitted as part of this contract. 275 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498
That's consistent with what I just said to Councilwoman Tasco. Then we need to make matters like this retroactive. DEPUTY
That may be a legal question. I'm giving you a commitment that as part of this one, we will submit one.
The plan has to be provided before this is voted on, before the final passage. DEPUTY
Yes. And I don't know whether this suggestion would work or not, but is it possible that we just make it part of the ordinance that an approved EOP plan must be submitted with the contract? (Audience yelling "no.") DEPUTY
Let me just say this: If we should vote this out of Committee, we will not suspend the rules. So you will have to get it to us 276 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 before there's any vote taken on this matter. DEPUTY
Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? Yes. Mr. Gilliam and Mr. Keough. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Thank you, Ms. Tasco. My name is Mike Keough again. We're here to rebut the truck traffic issue. The gentleman from Southwest stated that trucks are driving all through the neighborhood. All 10,000 truck loads that come out of BRC leave the plant and get on 95 north or 95 south. Not a single biosolids truck 277 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 drives through the community of Southwest. And I just wanted to put that on record. That's a fact. Again, the gentleman from Southwest, the issue with odors, there is an air management report that states no 8 odor extends past the fence line at BRC. It goes to Southwest plant, Island Avenue and Bartram Avenue, 70th Street and Lindbergh. All those places are no 12 odors. They ran that study from March of '07 through October of '07. The issues with odors are at the fence line, with some mild odors coming across the Platt Bridge, and I will stress that the odors have been labeled as minimal to mild. Thank you.
One other item. If the Synagro plant goes off line, the question is how is that going to affect our treatment plants. Every day that they cannot process their sludge is a day 278 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 that our treatment plants are out of compliance, with huge fines. It must be noted that the perceived risk for disposal is -- there's still a portion of risk attributed to the City of Philadelphia.
And we have three wastewater treatment plants that our current biosolids facility actually treats. For instance, I think they gave you an exhibit earlier of the pellets that they will be producing. I don't think it's come up in this hearing today that if those pellets were to become wetted or got moist for some reason, that they could cause -- they could spontaneous combust. So there are myriad of reasons why if they went to this pelletizer -- and they always like to liken it to a dryer such as in your home where you dry your clothes. Well, you're talking about anywhere from a 30 to 60 foot structure. That's not a dryer that you would dry 279 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 your clothes with. And I also like to take issue with the fact that what Councilman O'Neill had asked earlier about what would be the savings once Synagro took over our site, and they estimated that $4.5 million. That is because the numbers that the Water Department submitted that it costs for us to be out there, us, our 60 employees, is at $28 million and that they will be paying 23.5, while we have it on good authority that it only costs anywhere from $17 to $19 million to run operations at BRC as it currently stands. So that 28 million that they gave in their package is totally false. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. If you do have evidence that demonstrates that the true cost of 280 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 operation of the plant is $17 to $19 million, will you please submit it to the Chair in writing so that we can have a chance to look at it before final passage?
Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Okay. We'll move from the public hearing and go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee to offer an amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the adoption of the amendment to Bill No. 080498, which was circulated to the Committee, dealing with any adverse employment consequences. The amendment reads as follows: "Section 25 4. The City shall not lay off, demote or 281 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 otherwise impose any adverse employment consequences on employees now assigned to the Biosolids Recycling Center as a result of the project authorized by this ordinance, absent just cause. Provided further that, upon completion of the project, City employees assigned to the BRC will be provided an opportunity to apply for a job at the new facility. If employed at the new facility, such employee may return to an equivalent position with the same job title and seniority within the Water Department up to one year later for no reason whatsoever."
It has been moved and seconded that we accept the amendment. All in favor of the amendment will say aye. (Aye.) 282 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498
There being none, the amendment is carried. Now the Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee to move the amended bill out of Committee. We are going to suspend the rules. However, this bill will not be voted on for final passage until all of the contingent information that has been requested by Councilman Goode, Councilwoman Brown and anybody else has been accepted as requested.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 19 080498, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has 283 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498 been moved and seconded that Bill 080498 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to have first reading of this bill at the next Council session. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
All right. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee to report out Bill 080495.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 20 080495 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) 284 6/3/08 - FINANCE - BILLS 080495 and 080498
It has been moved and seconded that Bill 080495 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Council rules be suspended so that this bill can have its first reading at the next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
There's one nay vote. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your patience. Thank you for your passion, and thank you. The Public Property bill, which is a companion to this bill, will be held in about ten minutes. (Committee on Finance adjourned at 2:55 p.m.) 285 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on June 3, 2008, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)