2990 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BUDGET HEARINGS - CONTINUED - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, March 22, 2000 10:00 a.m. - - - BILL 000003- Adopting Capital Program, 2001-2006. BILL 000004 - Adopting FY 2001 Capital Budget. BILL 000005 - Adopting FY 2001 Operating Budget. BILL 000006 - Amending Wage and Net Profits Tax. BILL 000007, 8, 9 - Re School Tax Authorization. BILL 000010 - Amending Business Privilege Taxes. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2991 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 I N D E X Page Fairmount Park Commission William Mifflin, Executive Director . . . . . 2994 Department of Public Property Andreas Perez, Commissioner . . . . . . . . . 3065 Vince Costello, Communications Division . . . 3067 Personnel Department Linda Seyda, Director . . . . . . . . . . . . 3083 Streets Department Lawrence Moy, Commissioner. . . . . . . . . . 3087 Joseph Doyle, Lighting Engineer . . . . . . . 3088 Charles Trainor, Chief Traffic Engineer . . . 3115 Clarena Tolson, Deputy Commissioner . . . . . 3119 Managing Director's Office Joseph Martz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3154 Robert Solvibile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3157 Office of Housing and Community Development John Kromer, Executive Director . . . . . . . 3178 Budget Office Rob Dubow, Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3202 Mayor's Office Stephanie Franklin-Suber. . . . . . . . . . . 3206 Chief of Staff 2992 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the titles of the bills before us.
Bill No. 000003, an ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six fiscal years 2001 to 2006, inclusive. Bill No. 000004, an ordinance adopting a Fiscal Year 2001 Capital Budget. Bill No. 000005, an ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2001. Bill No. 000006, an ordinance amending Chapter of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Wage and Net Profits Tax," by decreasing the rates of the tax. Bill No. 000007, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-1800 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "School tax Authorization," by amending Section 22 19-1801 to further authorize the Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia to impose a tax on real estate within the City of Philadelphia. 2993 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Bill No. 000008, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-1800 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "School Tax Authorization," by amending Section 5 19-1806 to further authorize the Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia to impose a tax on the use or occupancy of real estate within the School District of Philadelphia. Bill No. 000009, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-1800 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "School Tax Authorization," by amending Section 12 19-1804 to further authorize the Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia to impose a tax on net income from real property and tangible and intangible personal property of residents of the School District. Bill No. 000010, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-2600 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Business Privilege Tax," by decreasing the rates of tax based upon gross receipts.
Thank you. There were several departments that we had requested be called back, one being the Fairmount Park. Is there anyone here from Fairmount Park? Why don't you approach the table, 2994 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 please. (Fairmount Park witness come forward.)
I believe that Councilman Rizzo had several questions he wanted to ask. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Mr. Mifflin, the reason I asked you to come back to Council is to address a couple of issues. The first one specifically is the situation with our street trees throughout the City of Philadelphia. I know I've had many conversations with you basically telling me that you're doing the best you can with the money that you have available. What I'd like you to do is take a 2995 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 couple of minutes and review and tell the Council the severity of the problem, the situation that exists, and what you really need to do it right. And do we have a dangerous situation out there? Could you take a few minutes and review the situation, because of all the calls that I get in my office, it seems as though trees are starting to knock out potholes, and I would like you to talk a little bit about the tree situation throughout the City.
Sure. Thank you, Councilman. My name is William Mifflin, the Executive Director of Fairmount Park Commission. I apologize if this is somewhat redundant, but --
But I think most know that we estimate there to be approximately 250,000 street trees in the City of Philadelphia, and that is our best estimate. We have a quarter of those trees inventoried and know a great deal of 2996 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 information about that percentage of the total population. As you know, the Fairmount Park Commission has the responsibility for the street trees in the City of Philadelphia, although PECO Energy Company also has responsibility for clearance in the City of Philadelphia. That accounts for approximately one-third of those trees. So some of our trees are maintained -- at least a partial amount of those trees that are maintained by PECO Energy come within ten feet of a PECO Energy line. We do provide a systemic and full, if you will, delivery of services for our street tree population that runs the gamut from removing dead and dangerous trees, pruning street trees, planting new trees and, on occasion, spraying trees for intersect or disease infestations. We accomplish this work both from our operating budget and our capital budget. And most years or every year, there is some funding available for that type of work. We perform that work contractually as well as through the utilization of some Fairmount Park staff mostly on an 2997 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 emergency basis for street tree maintenance. In FY '98, we received from the City administration, supported of City Council, $1 million, which has been repeated in the last three years, where we're able to accomplish street tree trimming and some removals through that $1 million allocation. And we -- as my testimony's indicated, we've trimmed approximately 6800 tress, or will trim approximately 6800 trees in FY 2000. And with those funds, we will remove approximately 1272 trees. As I have testified previously, when we go into a block, we like to do it block by block, as opposed to sort of running around the City and doing one tree here, one tree there. We like to do it in more of a systemic manner throughout the City. We remove a tree if it's determined dead or dangerous and if it qualifies for removal in that same block in which we are pruning other trees. In addition to that, in FY 2000 we spent $300,000 for tree removal and tree planting from our capital budget. And to make it easy, we use the number of $1,000 for each unit. And as you know, with capital funds, you are required to 2998 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 plant a tree for every tree that you remove. And our costs are about $1,000 to remove one tree and plant one tree. So doing easy math, that's about 300 trees for the City that will be removed and replaced this fiscal year.
Are you prioritizing based on need the removal process? Can you document the trees that have been slated for removal? And do we have dangerous situations out there? Because I know there are trees that have fallen and killed people. Do you have a list of trees that, in your opinion, should be removed immediately but you don't have the available funds to do that?
We have a -- we do, Councilman, prioritize our work. In the last few years, we have worked extensively with our employee training, and we have at this time ten certified arborists employed by the Fairmount Park Commission to determine the extent of necessary work for our street tree population. So I feel that we have the expertise to professionally and 2999 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 adequately identify the extent of damage or the necessary work and the prioritization of that work for street trees regarding the condition of a tree. If a tree is classified to be dangerous it goes to the top of the list. Obviously, we have a responsibility to respond to that in an effective and reasonable manner. If something is determined to be imminently dangerous, that often can be removed by our own workforce. As I indicated, we do respond to emergency situations. I don't believe that we have a catastrophic situation at this time that we're facing in street trees. We do -- as I say, every day we're out on the street and we're making inspections. When something is identified -- we get a lot of requests as well for inspections, and I'm confident that the proper action is taken in a reasonable amount of time.
In reference to liability, if a street tree falls in front of a residential home and injures someone or a fatality results or property damage, do you know how much in the area of lawsuits the City has paid out in 3000 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 dealing with fatalities and also injury and property damage?
I can't give you a specific number, Councilman. I've just very recently in the last 48 hours opened a dialogue with the Law Department and the manager's office to see if there was some number that we felt comfortable in providing. It's a -- it's broken down, and my understanding of the experience that you've just related, where trees have fallen, there are also incidents where people have tripped over a tree root or tripped over a sidewalk that has allegedly been lifted by a tree root. So there are, you know, like anything else, a number of categories in which the City could be liable, like they could in much of the other services that we provide.
Now that the City has assumed responsibility of removing street trees, what responsibility -- like you just described, the root that raises the sidewalk creates a tripping hazard. What responsibility does the property owner have?
The property owner is 3001 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 responsible to maintain the safety of the sidewalk, the footway. It's the homeowner's responsibility to ensure that there's a smooth or safe sidewalk.
So the property owner still has some liability if the tree falls and creates property damage, falls on a parked car? What's the Fairmount Park Commission's or the City's responsibilities for that occurrence?
My office does not handle the claims. I suspect you'd have to confer with the Law Department or Risk Management.
Can you please get back to the Chair with the answer to that?
In other words, what's the mix and the insurance damage?
Well, we're first on the scene when there's an emergency situation.
Now, the monies that you have, you haven't asked for any additional money in this budget --
-- in capital or 3002 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 operating. Is there a reason? Was it that you feel didn't the need for it? Why didn't you ask for it?
I'm confident that the program that we're providing presently under our existing levels provides for a safe environment with our street trees.
The last issue I'd like to address is the park ranger program. I know you've addressed this and, again, I don't want you to repeat it, but I've gotten a few letters from people interested in the stabilization of the park ranger program. Can you tell me greatest number there are in the park at one time?
150 park rangers. 3003 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 And the reason it's down is due to funding?
By design because funding has been gradually reduced and is facing a termination by the original funder in the next 6 months. The level of 150, I'd like to point out, 7 though, it was attained in the early years of the 8 program, where the funder provided for the 9 educating component of two years of college-level 10 work at a local university as part of the donation 11 or grant to the Fairmount Park Commission. So the 12 number's a little misleading because at any given 13 time, at least half those individuals are enrolled 14 in a full course load at the university, so they 15 were not all available to us at once in park the 16 park setting. 17
Did I hear you say 18 you will not have money for the 24?
Well, we won't have the funding from the original donor -- that will in fact be the case. However, there is a separate board beyond the Fairmount Park Commission Fairmount Park Ranger Corps, and their job is to raise funds to sustain the program hopefully. At the present time, the Park Commission is receiving 3004 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 $500,000 annually on the operating budget, and the board has matched that amount, and that's an amount that's sufficient at the present time to continue the complement of the existing program.
I don't think I need to speak for you, but I know this is a program that is very important to you.
Yes, and we want to see it continue. I think they're a very valuable service.
And in months, 13 you're confident that you'll have the funding in 14 place to continue with the 24 rangers that we 15 have? 16
Thank you very much Councilman. 3005 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 The Chair recognizes Cohen.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand there's some kind of a federal program to accelerate the development of bike trails throughout the park. Is there new federal funding? 'Cause I'm getting all kinds of calls from folks from Overbrook Farms who are upset about the proposal to run bike paths through the area, that they feel very uncomfortable about it. I think there's going to be a meeting in the community soon -- or maybe it was yesterday or maybe tomorrow, maybe today, I don't know. I just that know they're very upset 'cause they say they've read something in the paper that says, without any consultation with the community, a program has been decided on. What's it all about? We all favor bike programs, but --
I'm also troubled about the bike programs and I'm a strong supporter of them, but I've seen what they've done to traffic in areas where the bike lanes are unused on a two-way street. You know, two-lane highway 3006 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 suddenly becomes a single-lane highway and is backed up for a couple of blocks and there's no 4 traffic at all -- no bikes, no nothing -- on the painted lines. I'm worried what are we doing. You know, bike trails -- we love the health benefits and we think it's good and we like people to get out on their bikes, but only a tiny percentage of people do in fact do it, but when we do it, we don't like to see it create problems with the community and create traffic jams. You know, on Pennsylvania Avenue right downtown here, you often have blocks of long traffic at 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock in the evening, yet the bike lane is totally cleared, and cars are now forced into a single lane driving west from 20th Street 21st Street, 22nd Street in the downtown area. So I'm wondering about this particular bike trail. Why bring it into an area that the community seems to be very unhappy about?
I hope we're not bringing it into an area where they're unhappy about it or don't support it. We take very seriously our work at the community level, and if there are some particular concerns from the Overbrook Park 3007 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 community, we will absolutely address those concerns. I am not personally -- I say "personally" -- aware of specific concerns of residents in this part of the community. I suspect strongly that they are aware of our project that we refer to as the Cobbs Creek Recreation half. This does enjoy federal funding and it's been in the planning stages for two or three years, and there have been a series of community meetings led by our consultant and attended by senior park staff. That's not to suggest that we've satisfied every concern or every question, but there is a path that will just in general go from City Line Avenue down into the Eastwick community, touching in parts of Cobbs Creek. Our recreation paths are paths in the park itself. We generally do not go on the streets as opposed to the bicycle lanes that perhaps you were referring to just a moment or so ago. There are occasions when we will use existing sidewalks, and I'm thinking this morning of Cobbs Creek Parkway as an example which has an existing sidewalk that will be used in part, and 3008 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 that part of the path as the path itself, whether or not that's where there are some concerns, again, I'm not personally aware of it. If there is a meeting scheduled tonight or whenever, I assure you we'll be there. I think we'll have the right answers to the concerns, but I'm unable to address them specifically as I'm not aware of them this morning.
Well, there's talk. From what I've been told on the phone, it's aimed at bringing people from outside the City -- the park at 63rd and Market -- and then travel into the City.
We've heard those concerns not just for this area but in other areas of the City where we have a path, but we've found that not to be the case. People are concerned that the paths will be used as access routes in the commission of a crime, or people are concerned that the paths are not lit well enough and could lead to antisocial behavior of some type, drinking or other forms of antisocial behavior perhaps by youth. And, primarily, we've not found that to be the case. 3009 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Most of the communities embrace the idea and help the Park Commission actually police them. We employ -- we have equipment to keep the paths clean of debris. We place them near lighting, present or existing lighting. On a safety perspective, a lot of people like to be down near the water sometimes. And, again, this has been a three-year planning process. They get significant input from the community on location of the paths.
Well, I hope this doesn't result in a further exodus from the City,, and I'm concerned about a whole host of the issues that you have referred to in general.
Apparently, the discussions at the preparatory stage have not involved very many members of the communities 'cause the community seemed totally unaware until this announcement of the meeting, so I'm just hoping that you will be very considerate and not take any actions that are going to destabilize what has been a stable community. But stable communities with problems, they don't need an 3010 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 acceleration of the problems; they need an acceleration of the solution to the problems.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski.
When it comes to the pruning of trees, the replacement of trees, who makes that determination?
I realize that, but who makes the determination of what trees? I mean, we have a list in our office with maybe 200, 300 trees that have to be pruned.
And we have a list of maybe about 70 trees to be planted and so on.
Now, how do you make the determination of who is getting those trees and. . .
Well, we would certainly take the request of any Councilperson on trimming; that does become a priority for us. And that's an easy one because, as you well know, Councilwoman, it's only been in the last few years that we've been able to do some routine trimming so that almost every community in the City would benefit from pruning. So we realize how important trimming and pruning is to constituent services. So as long as it fits within the schedule that we 3012 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 have established across the City, we will satisfy, I would hope, within a relatively short period of time any requests from a Councilperson on trimming. As you well know, with the 6800 trees that we do have across the City, we have systematically, and I think correctly, placed that service across all ten Councilmatic Districts.
Now, let me just ask you one question. We have a park within the district. Now we have a list sent over of X-amount of trees in our district that need to be pruned or replaced or what have you. Now rather than just the residential areas, we're also getting credit for trees in the park.
But we need the work done in the residential areas 'cause I'm getting lists sent over that maybe 20 trees have been planted in the park or what have you.
Pruning or whatever services Fairmount Park does. 3013 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Oh, as soon as you said "plantings," I think I have a different answer to that.
We would be very happy to work with you on planting requests coming from your office, because often, given the location of our layout, if you will, narrow streets and row homes, we're not always able to go back in and put a new tree in the same location where we removed a tree.
I can understand that, Mr. Mifflin, but what I'm trying to say is if you're planting X-amount of trees in the park, the whole district gets credited for that many trees.
Councilwoman, what you're asking is that they plant in the residential areas?
Exactly. But they're giving me credit for having X-amount of trees in Pennypack Park, Fairmount Park, whatever, 3014 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Floral Park.
I can't speak to the specifics. There are times that we cannot plant in the same location. But what we should do is go to your office and ask --
Each Councilperson would like -- they would like to have a say as to exactly where they need those trees too.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you very much. Madam President, one of my colleagues here in the chambers asked me to raise an age-old issue. Mr. Mifflin, a lot of times, even as hard as it is to get some trees removed and even dead trees, there's a real issue that more and more 3015 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 trees are falling and leaning on the next-door property. Some may be dead but some may not be dead. So that if you were to do an inspection of it, it may be a live tree, or the tree itself may be in okay condition, or sometimes it's not. But it's a real issue when trees lean or fall on other properties as to what we do. It creates a problem for neighbors, and I know it happens in the rear, but we have it in the front as well. What can we do about that?
Well, I can't imagine, with all due respect, that a tree leaning against a house is a street tree and alive and blown over in a storm or something. We wouldn't respond to that. But I differentiate that from a tree that's in someone's backyard or alleyway or side yard or on a vacant property that's still owned by an individual. It is true that Fairmount Park has jurisdiction of street trees only and would not respond to that issue, of trees in resident's front or side or back yards. However, we take the appropriate action and refer it to the Department of Licenses and Inspections or some other 3016 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 appropriate agency like the Housing Authority, or whatever, that we realize has some expertise on abilities or authority in those areas. We certainly don't ignore it. If the tree is leaning, it doesn't necessarily in and of itself mean that the tree is dangerous. And obviously that's a somewhat subjective decision that is made. But we do, as I've testified to, respond to the imminently dangerous and do a list day-to-day for tree removal, and it's often difficult to explain to the homeowner that the tree may be just growing in that direction for years and is reaching for some light, or there's some other reason for it that's a reasonable and logical reason. It just doesn't necessitate the removal of a tree. So. . .
It's a real problem, and at some point, I don't know how we're going to resolve the current that we find in all of this and I focus on neighborhoods and our changing world.
I think the Park Commission could do a better job in educating homeowners and take that opportunity in Council 3017 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 offices or take that opportunity each time we have it at community meetings to display what the rules and responsibilities are. I think with a better educated public, people understand that it's not necessarily a dangerous condition or something that can be dealt with by the Park Commission. Typically, it's a plumbing problem and, as an example, they will blame trees for causing plumb problems. So educational issues, I think, can go a long way.
Well, you have a plumbing issue because of big city trees for many years.
I'd be the first one to say I believe that's true. You know, these old big trees have ripped sidewalks and pipes, and I think that's just a problem that all of us realize is a real one and that we have to come up with an answer. We haven't budgeted for real solutions, and I think part of it is that Fairmount Park or the City doesn't do that is because a number of years ago, you removed all of them. In more recent years, you've cut 'em down 3018 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 and don't even deal with what's underneath that ground. I believe we are not sure what we'll find. It's a big issue but I think it's one that we as a city have not yet faced. I hope that in the near future, if we want to improve our neighborhoods, we have to deal with all of these issue surrounding street trees. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I got a letter dealing with an issued raised by various Councilmembers. It's dated March 15th and talks about some of the issues that have already been discussed, but I wanted to try to get a better understanding of some of these responses. On the first page of the letter to the Council President in response to questions raised by Councilwoman Miller and Councilwoman Tasco, there is a list that talks about capital budget funds and constituent services laid out by Council district, how you do it. 3019 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Now, are you telling us here that there were 348 plantings and 318 removals during FY 2000?
As of what date? 'Cause we're in FY 2000 right now; is that correct?
Yeah. The plantings have been completed as of this date, and for the removals, a total of 318 is in the process.
The plantings completed as of this date is 348, and 318 removals will be completed by June 3rd. We're in the process. I don't know the exact number today of how many of those have actually been removed, but these were scheduled by Fairmount Park Commission and were given to our contractual service.
So 318 trees will only be removed in the whole fiscal year?
And are those 3020 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 street trees and park trees? Are they only street trees or are they only park trees?
And what's the level of need for removals? How many trees need to be removed?
Industry standards as well as our own list put the number somewhere around 3,000 on average.
I thought I read somewhere that it was closer to 5,000.
Did it read in your testimony that it was closer to 5,000?.
So there are 5,000 on what might be considered a backlog list?
And at the rate of -- let's say if you're lucky, you get 320. That's on the capital side; how many on the operating side? 3021 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
If we keep going on at that pace with the current 5,000 backlog, it will take years to remove all of those trees. 9 And how many are added to the list every year? 10 'Cause trees grow, trees die, trees get sick. How many are added to the list every year?
You have to assume that there's going to be a certain percentage, and that percentage is usually down under 5 percent.
Yeah, yeah. That's just an industry standard given what the approximate age of the population is. 3022 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Let me make sure I understand. We remove 600 trees, or 600 trees a 4 year. 5
We remove 5 or 600 a year. With a backlog of 5,000, it will take us 10 years just to work on the backlog based on the present pace. And every year, twice as many trees as we take down are added to the list; is that correct?
Okay. So doesn't that -- that gets you, without ever touching the new ones, in 10 years, that gets you another 12,000, at the end of 10 years.
Yes, following that. . . 3023 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
I mean, there would be virtually no end in sight, based on the present system, to even get close to addressing this particular problem.
Well, I think that there are a couple of dynamics that do help here. One is that there is a certain level of individual homeowners and businesses that will remove and replace trees themselves.
Now, hold on for one second. The Philadelphia Code presently says that the Fairmount Park Commission is responsible for street trees; is that correct?
Okay. And even though that had always been the case, there were some regulations that were in conflict with the Philadelphia Code, and then I thought we cleared all of that up somewhere in maybe around 1997, and actually provided a million dollars to start a street tree program. And so it is crystal clear now that the Fairmount Park Commission is responsible for street trees; is that correct? 3024 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
So notwithstanding whatever the individual homeowners do, when they get one of these letters, the new letter that apparently goes out, that tells them that we are responsible, we, the government, are responsible for the trees, but if you would like to wait two to three years before we get to you, you can go ahead and hire one of the contractors that we have a list for. That's what we tell people; is that right?
Well, I guess under those circumstances, there would be a few people who might take care of it themselves, lest they wait for the tree to come crashing through their living room.
Again, we do have certified technicians on the streets. If there is an imminently dangerous tree or a dangerous tree, it is given priority.
I understand that. But, Mr. Mifflin, your testimony -- I mean, this is not -- I mean, you didn't plant all these trees 3025 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 out here, you just have the wondrous responsibility of having to take care of them. If you have a backlog of 5,000 and if you're only removing 5 to 600 a year, if 1200 are added to the inventory every year that you never get a chance to touch, you can't deal with this particular problem, based on your present resources, correct?
Given the numbers that you've just suggested, we are -- we are not keeping up. We are --
And so what is the game plan going forward? Or what -- I mean, if we don't solve this problem, which we may not, in the course of FY '01, we've at least taken some baby steps toward getting there. But, as with you or any other agency or department that comes to the table, my question is, give us a plan and a program that gets us a little closer to even some level of break-even so that we don't have a 5,000 tree backlog and we are close to dealing with the realities of life, which say that we will plant some, we will lose some. And if we can even stay even with that, 3026 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 what would it take financially to do that? I mean I don't know -- I mean, I know I'm not the only person that case about this.
There was a whole lot of activity, I think, before I even got into the room about this particular issue. Now, what are the needs and what have you done, or what have you possibly been denied by any budget office, cross administrations or anything -- and this is not about this administration or the other administration. I mean, I know-- I mean, Mayor Rendell had a tree planted in his honor and he tried to do some things but, you know, he certainly could have done a little better as well. I mean, what do you need to address this particular problem? It's a danger to the citizens of this city, it's a liability to the City of Philadelphia, and it's not good for the inventory the of the trees that we have anyway.
So what do you need? 3027 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Well, I think you're right in stating that we have taken some steps, and you referred to them as "baby steps." As a result of work of the City Council and the Administration in '97 and '98, a million dollars has been placed in the Fairmount Park's Operating Budget. We are trimming trees now for the first time in or years on a scheduled basis, and 10 that's prolonging the life of those trees, as was 11 testified at that time. So it is a start. 12 We're working closely with PECO Energy 13 Company, with SEPTA, with other organizations, and 14 even with nonprofit organizations who will help -- 15 the first two I mentioned will do trimming, others do planting. So it's been a -- just something that we've reached out for support, looking at grants from other levels of government, in an attempt to bring as much resources to the table as we can.
At the end of the day, PECO will do what PECO has to do to protect their wires -- they are not in the tree business. 3028 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 I don't know what SEPTA has to do with trees other than running their buses under them and breaking the branches off, so I don't know that they have a big interest in trees. You are the steward of an 8900-acre park system, the largest urban park system in the United States of America, and we are estimated to have 250,000 trees in an inventory. If the Park Commission does not have the necessary funds to take care of that inventory of trees, we need to know what the financial needs are of the park system. I don't really want to talk about what PECO does, I don't really want to talk about what SEPTA does or the Rec. Department or anybody else. You cannot do it with a million dollars. We knew that going in. We're three to four years now into the process. It is not getting better; it is getting worse. I would like to see in a documented form, forwarded to the President, for the members to take a look at, three levels of a street tree program that get us farther along from a minimal to a mid-level to some form of, you know, you can 3029 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 call it "a Cadillac program" if you'd like.
I think some members of City Council would like to be helpful, but they can't do it in a vacuum and they need to do it in conjunction with Fairmount Park. And if you would provide that information -- and I don't think the Budget Office can be too upset if I make a request for financial information for a program because there's, quite honestly, not a lot that they can do about it. I'd like to know. Do you have any estimates off the top of your head of what would get us in a better position?
I don't feel comfortable giving you estimates off the top of my head this morning.
Okay. I had complained in the past about the type of letter that went out to constituents, and I get impression that there is now a new letter, which is attached to the material. The letter talks about spring, pruning, trimming, removal, and stump removal. It doesn't particularly or 3030 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 specifically talk about whether or not the tree is in fact dead or dangerous. So I'd like to know if that can be noted on the form. And, secondly, what is the real purpose of saying, "For non-emergency service, a two- or three-year response time is possible. We will respond immediately to imminently dangerous trees." What kind of a message are we sending to the citizens when we tell them that?
Well, I think we're being forthright to the homeowner with our resources, number one, so that people don't have any expectation that we'll respond, you know, within one month or something like that. And, again, the prioritization is based on our determination of the condition of the tree. And, number two, it's a written response to a number of individuals who wanted some information as to what they can inform their constituents about the approximate waiting time for the services.
But we also can't guarantee people, quite honestly, based on the testimony earlier, even about the dangerous or 3031 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 imminently dangerous tree; is that correct? If we're only taking out to 600 and we have a 4 backlog of 5,000 -- 5
Well, I want to break down the backlog of 5,000. That backlog of 5,000, I guess I'd refer to it, using your term, as sort of the "Cadillac," if you will, of tree removal. That would be in a perfect situation, where trees would be removed, you know, for lifted sidewalks or other trees or other problems that -- where today, that condition of the tree doesn't rise to a dangerous or certainly not an imminently dangerous level.
Unless it cracked the lateral coming out of your house. I mean, it will kind of shift your perspective if it's causing you plumbing problems.
So, I mean, there are all kinds of situations out there. I mean, again, I'd like to get to a point where we knew 3032 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 what our true funding needs are --
-- given the experience we now have. At the time we put the million dollars in, we had no particular experience, other than maybe the years 8 previous. It is now time to move this program 9 forward to some level of maturity that allows us 10 to legitimately tell citizens that we have a 11 street tree program, that we're able to take care 12 of some level of trees out there that is 13 responsive and respectful to their concerns. I 14 don't think we're there at this moment. 15
Now, lastly, I asked a question at the budget hearings, and you responded in a letter to the Council President. This had to do with comporting the Fairmount Park regulations to the bill passed by Council, which was effective July 1, 1997. And the response here is that "The Park Commission is now working with the Law Department to amend the Park's regulations to effect the changes to Section 15-203 made by Bill 960826-A." 3033 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Am I to understand that it has taken three years for the Park Commission to conform its regulations to a bill passed by City Council?
No, no, sir. We conformed immediately and have been following the policies and procedures established in this ordinance.
Has the Commission voted by resolution to change the regulations of the Park Commission be in compliance with the bill?
What has been taking this amount of time is that we are rewriting all of our regulations. The Board has accepted the ordinance, and we are in the process of reviewing and renewing all of our Park policies.
It's really a question of just kind of printing the policy book.
I understand that. If I called -- if citizen called the Park right now, would the regulations that were sent out to them, or if they stopped in the office and got a copy of the regulations, would they be the old 3034 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 regulations or would they be the regulations that are in compliance with the bill passed by Council three years ago?
Well, we would show them the old regulations, which does not include this ordinance, and our existing revision as it's being written.
That would be about three years to the date, okay. When do you think you can have an updated and improved draft proposal for Councilmembers to take a look at with regard to street tree maintenance and removal?
Operating and capital? 3035 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
And you will lay out what the needs are and how many trees are to be taken care of as a result of that.
What the needs will be and how many trees will be taken care of --
I mean, presently, I think you trim 9200 trees. Can you tell us how many you're going to trim, how many you're going to spray, how many you're going to remove, how many you're going to plant, and all of that will be a part of this program?
And show us what the funding levels are associated with it?
Great, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 3036 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Thank you, Councilman. And you also requested the need, if you know what we're doing, and then an estimate for what the need is.
Yeah, exactly. So if we have where we are now and where we need to go, then it makes it easier. And can you do that in two days, Director?
Okay, thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Mifflin, I wrote a letter to you on the 9th of March in reference to a situation in the northwest where 44 trees were going to be removed, and the funding was going to come from a private source, and that funding was withdrawn for one reason or another. From what I understand, the 44 trees were termed "hazardous." 3037 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Now that the funding's not available, the private funding, these 44 trees that were termed "hazardous," what's the plan that you have? Again, you haven't responded or called in reference to this letter, but I'm concerned about these 44 hazardous trees. When's the Fairmount Park Commission going to remove them since they're hazardous?
These trees were -- are not imminently dangerous, and they will not be removed immediately. They will be placed on the list of removals by the Fairmount Park Commission, and my guess is that they will be removed over the next two to three years.
Can you imagine receiving that letter? It's agreed that a tree is a dangerous situation or you wouldn't be removing it -- or it's possibly dangerous. And then you get a letter and you open the envelope and it says, Yep, you have a dangerous tree in front of your home but we're not going to get to it for three years. How do you think the constituent feels when they walk out of their door or people up and down the street and they look at this tree 3038 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 that the Fairmount Park Commission said, Yeah, it really needs to be removed and we'd like to do it yesterday, but it's not going to happen for three years. Do we monitor that tree over the next three years and go back to see if it's in -- I know I wouldn't feel very good knowing that my park commission sent me a letter that said, Yeah, we need to take your tree out but we're not going to get to it for three years.
I'd rather -- honestly, I think you ought to be candid with them, but to me, to tell somebody it's going to take three years to take a tree out that's dangerous, to me, it's unnecessarily stressful to them, or whatever the word is that I'm looking for here.
Mm-hmm. I think, as you, I assume, well know, and I've worked closely with your office in this matter, we've certainly had dialogue on this particular issue. This was a fairly unique situation where a resident wished to -- I'll use the term 3039 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 "adopt and improve" a three-block area, which did include as many as 43 trees for potential removal and replacement. It was determined by the Fairmount Park Commission, as well as other independent experts, that it would be beneficial and in the best interests of the street if we removed all of those trees and planted new ones, as opposed to going in on a piecemeal basis. It's not often that we have this opportunity. I personally looked at these trees and, obviously not every one of them needs to be removed tomorrow or the next month. And that's why I feel comfortable that over a two- to three-year period of time, we'll remove these trees at no danger, if you will, to homeowners. But these trees are mature, they're not growing any longer, there was an opportunity to plant. Many of the trees do have structural defects, and they've had these structural defects for probably eight or ten years, would be my guess, and this was an opportunity to make an improvement. So there's a meeting scheduled, as I'm sure you know, on April 10th in the community. We 3040 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 plan to be there and we plan to explain what our process will be in addressing these trees and other trees in this community. I've had subsequent conversations with the community recently, and I'm told we'll be receiving support from the community association on our plans in concert in working with them and in helping to beautify this Chestnut Hill community. Most people realize that it is a phased-in -- or it's something that cannot be accomplished in one fell swoop. And we were only doing that because of this donation.
Again, not to beat this to death, but earlier when I asked you the question, are you satisfied, you haven't come and asked for additional operating or capital funds, you said that you were able to do what you're doing with the funding that you have. A private source wants to remove 44 trees, everybody was hot to go get them, that contractor was there and ready to do the deal, but now, all of a sudden, the private funding evaporates and now it's not a serious problem anymore. 3041 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 You used the word "hazardous." Well, if they're not hazardous, then could you please come up with new word? Because all you do is create complications for us when your people refer to tree as "hazardous," and then all of a sudden, the funding isn't there and it's not hazardous anymore. So if you want, call it "a diseased tree" or a tree to be replace based on -- it's the wrong species, but when you refer to a tree as being "hazardous," the average resident takes you for what you're saying. "Hazardous" to me isn't good.
Mm-hmm. Yeah, what we're doing is, we are assessing each tree of those 40 trees, placing them in priority order, and they will be removed, as is dictated, by priority. But I do take your comment seriously.
Thank you very much. Do you want to follow up, Councilman 3042 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Nutter? And then Councilwoman Miller and then Councilman Cohen.
Madam Chair, this is not a follow-up, it would be a full turn. So I think Councilwoman Miller is before me.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilman Nutter. Commissioner, I think Councilman Nutter may have asked this question, but I missed the answer. If the roots of the tree begin to uplift the sidewalk, whose responsibility is that to replace the sidewalk?
Okay. I would suggest -- you said earlier that you probably need to educate the residents --
-- of Philadelphia. Well, I think you need to educate City Council, too. And I would request -- at 3043 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 least for myself and I'm sure there are other Councilpeople that are interested -- that we have some type of session where you can explain to me and to us what a dangerous tree is, what an imminently dangerous tree is, what a hazardous tree is. We need to know this. I have no idea. For me, this whole issue of street tree removal and maintenance is extremely frustrating. And I agree with Councilman Nutter on most of the points that he made. And certainly if there's a 5,000 tree backlog of some sort -- then I think I read in the paper that for the Republican National Convention, Fairmount Park will be removing trees in parks, those trees that have fallen due to the hurricane? Is that -- did I read that correct?
I don't believe that -- I mean, I didn't see this comment or quote. We're not -- there's not a connection between the RNC and removing trees in the park.
So if that's going to happen, that's not your project.
But that's 3044 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 because they're dead; it has nothing to do with the convention.
Okay. Well, I'm pleased to hear that because we have lots of people that will be here and living here year-round that have issues with these trees outside of their homes.
But I am going to request that we have some type of a special session with pictures or film or whatever that will help us understand.
Because certainly in my district, you know, we also have the trees that are on an island, and I know that they're a lower priority than the trees that are actually on someone's sidewalk, and I need to get more information.
All right, thank 3045 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 you.
I think all these questions indicate that Council is ready to seriously deal with Fairmount Park and trees in neighborhoods in a real way, unlike -- well, we've had battles over the years in trying to come up with funds, but I think that if you provide them with what it really takes to have an ongoing program, we know now that we just fight to survive, to stay ahead of the curve, but if we knew realistically what it really takes to have a nice-looking city, neighborhood trees that looks nice, then it becomes us and the Administration as to how we make it happen. I think that's what's at the core of all of these questions. Thank you. Councilman Cohen?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to give you a sense of relaxation, I'm calling upon your horticultural expertise. Recently I've had numerous complaints about something that looks like a tree but really, I'm told, is not a tree. That's these weeds that seem 3046 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 to grow up and it seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon. They grow up, become as large as a small tree, they grow frequently on open lots. They -- the communities feel endangered by them because they don't know what goes on in the back, and nobody seems to take responsibility for them 'cause they're not a tree but they're a weed. L&I doesn't seem to have much of an answer as to what to do except to deplore their existence, as do other agencies. Tell me, is it a plant? Is it your responsibility?
We decide if it doesn't belong anywhere else, we always put the blame on the Fairmount Park Commission and put the responsibility there. Because it grows, it's got life, and it even looks nice on occasions, but it's a real danger and an eyesore and a threat, and people want to know how do they get them cleared up, because they convert empty, vacant lots into dangerous spots.
Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Well, 3047 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 without a specific address or specific knowledge of your reference, I --
I suspect you're referring to weed trees, or often they're referred to as "volunteer trees" that are generally fast-growing, soft wood, weak wood, like ailanthus, perhaps a sumac or something along those lines, that will grow out of a crack of a building or a sidewalk or a railroad, siding or --
You know, this is what I'm envisioning that you're referring to.
Well, the first thing we do is identify the owner of the property. What may be a problem vegetation to some people may be, in fact, designed landscape of the owner. If in fact they're causing a harm to property or potentially to individuals, then it will be referred to the appropriate department. And if it's on Park property, obviously, that's ours. If 3048 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 it's on private property we, do our best to notify the homeowner. If it's on public property, it's sometimes --
On Godfrey Avenue, from 20th Street west to 21st Street, there used to exist a big factory.
It ceased operating many years ago and then it was demolished about five or six years ago, and it's a big vacant block-square lot. People have to walk along there, and last summer was the first time it became real clear, became a menace to the community because, suddenly, these things sprouted up from nowhere -- at least nothing had been planted there before, and it clearly wasn't planted.
And there were several alleged attacks that took place.
Because nobody could see. They grew so high it was like a wall.
Well, I know that all of the departments take very seriously their responsibilities when it relates to the health and safety of our citizens. If it is something that -- it's not uncommon actually for the Park Commission to assist another agency. It might be -- if it's abandoned warehouses, PIDC or some agency like that might be involved in something. And we have provided our expertise to PIDC or an agency in removal of that material. Particularly if it's blocking a sidewalk and pedestrians are then forced into the roadway or something, we'll often --
It's in the area where the factory existed on the land, you know, that was made vacant after they demolished the building.
Well, I've noted this 3050 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 location and would be happy to provide an inspection and get back to you specifically.
All right, thank you. We'd like to find out, but in talking with other Councilmembers, I find they have similar spots.
And we're concerned about them and also had found great difficulty in having any agency accept responsibility for it. But if you would report back, that would be very helpful.
I want to talk about -- in your budget, have you included money for the improvement of (inaudible, off mike). 3051 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
This is a Capital Budget item. It is in our budget, Councilwoman. I honestly don't know this morning the status of that. I know that the estimated amount of work exceeded our budget and that we were seeking additional funds, either looking within our budget or phasing in the work. And I -- my staff, who is not here this morning, working with the CPO office, actually is more intelligent about the details of that status of that project than I am this morning. I would be happy to -- I know your interest in this and would be happy to get back to you with the details on that. It is in our budget, though.
The other thing is -- I won't repeat any of the questions, but you know how I am interested in trees.
And there are a lot of them in my district and so I support the comments made by my colleagues around the trees. 3052 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Brown and then Councilman Nutter will be next.
I simply want to underscore Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller's request to provide us on paper, if you can, what constitutes various different types of trees in a particular stage. And add to that, if you will, trees in alleyways, who's responsibility for the -- I see you shaking your head, saying no. And that would be helpful to know so that as we get calls from constituents, we can inform them on what the facts are. And if the fact is a tree in an alleyway is your responsibility, that would be helpful, so include that kind of information as well.
Sure. We'll -- I think the dialogue with Councilwoman Miller was suggesting that we have some sort of an 3053 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 educational session where we could provide as much information as possible, and I would be delighted to host that --
-- quite frankly and take questions at that particular time, but we would provide sort of an outline of what are the existing responsibilities and our resources. And then, as I say, if we miss something, we'd be happy to respond to that.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Nutter, we're ready for you.
Mr. Mifflin, I have just a couple last questions. I understand that the issue of the bike 3054 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 path out in West Philadelphia, the Overbrook section, may have been raised earlier. I had had the pleasure of a short conversation with the recently-promoted and esteemed Cathy Paster, as well as Stephanie Craighead from your staff about this. Can you give us any update. And if you did already on the record, don't go back through it. But has there been a resolution or an agreement recently in that particular matter? This is a proposed bike path that supposedly will be able to go all the way from City Avenue out to the Airport, as I understand it?
That's correct. My answer was fairly general in nature to Councilman Cohen who, apparently, is also aware of some of the community issues. And what I said was that I wasn't personally aware of what those specific issues are. I'm familiar with the project, we certainly support the project. It's been years in planning. If we've missed some individuals or some community groups in our planning process, we'll certainly go back and --
Well, some of the 3055 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 issues, as I best understand it, involve the prospect of taking down upwards of 25-some-odd mature trees in the Morris Park area. And there are continued concerns about the existence of such a wide and accessible bike path, given the mountain bike and ATV vehicle situation out in Morris Park already, and aren't we in fact just providing an even more enticing, and at some level potentially dangerous, new path for some people? And also, I think there's a proximity to homes as it relates to this particular path and increased parking activity that would come from people trying to use this facility if they choose to make that trek because they're going to park somewhere, get on their bikes, make the run, and come back. And I don't think the neighborhood was necessarily prepared about that -- prepared for those kinds of eventualities. Lastly, you made mention of any groups that maybe had not been contacted about some of the particulars of this project. And, unfortunately, I have to inform you that one of those entities is myself. Apparently no one from the Park thought it important enough to have any 3056 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 serious level of conversation about this, and most of the information I've received actually comes from my constituents out in the community as opposed to from within the government. And as you can imagine, that's a problem.
Mm-hmm. Well, let me first apologize if your office has not been informed of this project. And it's not a defence, but my only comment would be that it's been so long in the planning stages that perhaps it was assumed that early on, your office was. I can't comment beyond that. But we'll certainly ensure that you're brought into the loop, and we'll give you a briefing at any time at your convenience so that you're fully knowledgeable of the project. Secondly, just -- and again, I am speaking from experience, but they're general comments, that increased activity of ATVs or mountain biking, I don't see as a direct correlation to a paved recreation path. Most of those activities are off-road or off-path activities that are inappropriate -- and illegal in the case of ATVs -- and should be dealt with independently of any capital project. 3057 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
But, Mr. Mifflin, let me -- at the same time, I mean, you couldn't deny the interest by an ATV rider, notwithstanding their off-road capabilities and for whatever it is that those vehicles were created. You can't deny that it would be intriguing to some young person, or not so young person, who likes to ride ATVs through the park, through people's yards, and out on the City streets, that right in front of them, they would have a 12-foot-wide paved path that could take you from Morris Park and City Avenue out to the Airport. I mean, wouldn't it just be intriguing?
Well, I -- I -- I understand your comments. Yes, I could see where it could potentially be intriguing to an ATV or to get into more of the interior of the park, using the path as an access. I guess my thought was that, you know, the use of ATVs are banned in the park, and we ought to be able to enforce that ban.
I think we do a credible job with the Philadelphia Police Department. ATV use in the park, admittedly, is not something that 3058 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 we have presently a total control over. There seems to be more and more use of it, not just in Morris but in pocketed areas like Tacony Park, Hunting Park. Regrettably, it seems to be on the increase. I've actually been working with the State on this matter, legislatively looking at ways in which we can help that situation. So I'm confident in the future that we will have, you know, a solution. But your point is well taken, that there are constituents who are not pleased with either the location of the path or have some concerns that this path will lead to other types of inappropriate behavior.
All right. I mean, the funding source of this is ISTEA. That program 3059 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 has only been around for a few years, so I mean, maybe conceptually it's been around for a while but, I mean, somebody had to do something to go and get --
It's probably been six years since this was -- the idea first came, and I confess to not being familiar this morning with who was initially --
Well, maybe as we anticipate a briefing or a meeting you can do the research.
Okay. I read in the paper the other day that the Park Commission is going to make sure that the lights on Boathouse Row are bright and shiny and ready for the Republican National Convention. You know, I only wish that we had gotten one of these conventions about 20 years ago. There is so much stuff that just has to be done in anticipation of one of the conventions, that I just really wish that they had gotten here a while ago. The City would be such a much better place to live in. In the story, it indicated that under 3060 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 contract, the lights are checked or replaced twice a year. Now, was that accurate?
We do this in-house, so your first statement -- if I understood what you said about a contract, we don't employ an electrical contract or anyone outside of our own workforce to --
And was the statement in the paper that it's a twice-a-year process --
I think what the paper indicated was accurate in that approximately twice a year -- in the spring and in the fall -- we'll do pretty much a wholesale replacement of the 8 to 9,000 bulbs. And that seems to be --
Both the Park Commission 3061 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 and to some extent the residents of the houses, to the best of their ability, will make some minor improvements -- replacements of bulbs.
Do you get calls from time to time either from citizens or from officials about the lights on Boathouse Row and their various stages of brightness?
And do they conflict or are they in synch with the twice-a-year replacement schedule?
Do you get all of the calls around about the time you're going to do your replacement, or do you calls in the in- between times?
I can't categorically state that they do conform, if you will, to those twice-a-year times. We've just found, quite frankly, Councilman, that, you know, the life of the bulbs in this environment, which is a fairly exposed environment, the system now is 11 or 12 years in age, some of the channeling and the 3062 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 fixtures themselves have deteriorated. Many -- fortunately, to an extent, the houses, for the past ten years, have put on additions, have made improvement, and removing the lights and replacing the lights hasn't always been as effective as we would like. We've just met with the -- with Peco's subsidiary, Exelon, I believe. We are considering -- or we asked them, rather, to submit a proposal to us on a re-lamping, using more sophisticated, state-of-the-art, longer-life, lower-wattage, but as voluminous bulbs that are to be on the market within the next six to nine months, I'm told, we're hoping this will be a test site for us. In design, we believe that we can make some modifications to the existing fixtures so as not to require a total installation, which was, by the way, done with private funding. And I believe the article indicated that we were going to re-lamp the houses for the NCAA Women's Final Four and not the RNC. The plan, of course, was to have it ready for the summer, but we're doing it sooner.
Very good, very 3063 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 good. Last two questions. I received a letter from a French group concerned about the Park Ranger Corps, and I understand that you may have made some comments about the rangers. How many rangers are there?
Okay. And do you 9 expect to have 24 in the FY '01 budget? 10
Okay. The Ranger 12 Program is stable and funding is in place? 13
Well, it is for '01, 14 Councilman. Beyond that, there's some fund- 15 raising that needs to be done and accomplished by 16 the Ranger Board. 17
What's the City's 18 support for the Ranger Program? 19
Okay. Lastly, are 22 you familiar with a memo wherein I asked for some 23 information regarding what's commonly referred to, 24 I guess, as "JFK Plaza" and some anticipated restoration work over at JFK Plaza as a result of 3064 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 damage?
I actually just saw that memo in the last four hours, so I am vaguely familiar with it, yes.
Very good. It's my understanding that the Park's estimate on the damage to JFK Plaza as a result of skateboarding is approximately $1 million. Is that your understanding from the memo?
You know, I did see it and I had some questions regarding those numbers. I'm not disputing that there's been some damage to the plaza. I just don't know how those numbers were established, quite frankly.
Okay. If you could check on that and on any other park facilities like the Art Museum or other facilities within the jurisdiction of the Fairmount Park, if you could begin providing estimates on the level of damage and restoration and replacement and the work that may be needed, I would greatly appreciate it.
I would be happy to do that. Is that in relationship to the skateboarding? 3065 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Are there any other questions for the Fairmount Park Commission? (No further questions.)
The next department is Public Property. (Public Property witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Good morning.
Councilman Cohen, do you have questions for the Commissioner of Public Property?
I would like to recognize you. 3066 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Good morning. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Good morning, Councilman.
Since the last hearing, a number of us in City Council have been talking a great deal about public access, and the Public Access Coalition has been very active in pursuing the cause. And we went over your testimony and I have one question first that I wanted to as that wasn't clear to me. In your testimony -- not in your testimony, in your reply to some of the questions that you submitted on March 13th, I think it's on , the next to the last page of your answers, if you have it. In talking about what would be needed to develop a public access station, you say, "It should be noted that the projected operating costs for Philadelphia public access programming would exceed the $500,000 maximum amount that City Council could direct the franchisees to contribute, pursuant to the current franchise agreements." Now, I'm not closer on what that means. Is there a $500,000 payment that the franchisees 3067 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 would have to make once the City started a public access system? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Councilman -- and for the record, my name is an Andreas Perez, Commissioner of the Department of Public Property, and with me today is Mr. Vince Costello, Director of the Communications Division. I'll ask Vince to respond to that.
Councilman, going back a number of years, in the City's original request for proposals for cable TV franchises, the City mandated that any applicant will commit anywhere from 75 to $125,000 per year to fund the Public Access Corporation. That is going back to 1982 and, again, through the process of 1984 --
Wait, we can't hear you, Mr. Costello. Is the mike working?
Once again, going back to the City's original request for proposals in 1982 and then again in 1984, the City mandated 3068 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 that any TV franchise applicant would be required to pay anywhere from 75 to $125,000 per franchise area per year to fund public access. Now, there's a few dates that I think are very important for us to remember and to wonder whatever materialized with that payment. Council selected the franchisees in October and November of 1984. The Federal Cable Act, the Cable Act of 1984, was passed in November of 1984. What that act did actually is, it did a number of things: it deregulated the industry, but what it also did is, it capped all payments to the municipality or to any other groups associated with the cable TV process to 5 percent of gross revenues. Now, the point that I'm trying to make is that prior to that act, the City had anticipated that up to $500,000 per year would be contributed to the Public Access Corporation, and 5 percent of gross revenues would go into the General Fund of the City. As November of 1984, that $500,000 went away. After that and until this time, all monies contributed to the Public Access Corporation or to any other entity 3069 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 associated with cable TV would come from the franchise fees of the City. You will recall --
Would you repeat that again, the last sentence? You said since that date, what happens?
Since that date, if the City would decide to go forward with public access --
Yeah. The City would bear the financial responsibility for public access. There would not be a separate pot of money, as envisioned back when the original RFPs were written. Since the last period and as we committed to you, we have been recreating and updating a lot of the work that we had done back in the early to mid-1980s -- looking at staffing plans, job descriptions, projected salaries, maintenance costs, floor plans for an access facility, site plans, and all of the things that go into actually running that type of operation. 3070 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 In preparation for a meeting with the public access advocates, we would like to have all of that information in place so at least we'll have a discussion point and a starting point for a discussion. But I did want to try as best I could to clear up the financial issues.
Mm-hmm. Well, that's not been in accordance with any previous statements that have been made about that fee that the cable companies were supposed to be paying the City for public access. I would want to, you know, examine that study and study it.
But in any event, it's always been clear that there would have to be some cost to the City.
And we are very anxious to try to work with your department to set up a model for, say, a single -- what you would call it, "a studio" where we could have a pilot program because of various concerns expressed, and it would seem to make sense to start something on 3071 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 a very simple basis. Would your department be the department that we would work with? We'd like to be assured of cooperation with your people. Your people seem to have the experience and they've had the history of it. I was going over material. In -- 9 this bill that created a public access facility 10 for the City of Philadelphia was actually passed 11 in December of 1983, in the last few weeks of 12 Mayor Bill Green's administration. Mayor Green 13 signed the bill. It was a very inclusive bill, it 14 contained a very detailed set of bylaws. It 15 provided for the execution of a simple articles of 16 incorporation, which were placed on the desk of 17 incoming Mayor Goode. In his first week in 18 office, I believe, it was on his desk. The bill 19 was signed, I believe, about December 27, 1983, as Bill Green was waving good-bye to the people of Philadelphia from the Mayor's Office on the second floor. Now, that's a long time for the people of Philadelphia to wait for something that had been established by ordinance and, therefore, we'd 3072 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 like to get moving, develop a practical approach to it, put in safeguards to deal with concerns that people may have, and rather than going into great detail, a series of questions and answers here, I would like to say, would you be willing to meet with representatives of Council and maybe their staffs to work with them in trying to develop a model or helping them to develop a model? I like what you said, that you're trying to develop it, and we would like to encourage, that to see what it would cost to get started on a simple basis, and then we could have something to present to the whole Council and to the Mayor. We would hope to do it in a very cooperative way. Would that be all right with you, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I would certainly have no objection to that. What Mr. Costello made reference is actually reexamining all of the assumptions of the old model and trying to figure out how that would work today if we were to implement this. I don't know how far along we are 3073 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 in our analysis, but that analysis would be incomplete without a dialogue with the advocacy groups and yourselves.
Well, I would like to have some representatives of the advocacy groups working -- 'cause they have experience and they have ties with groups in other cities and can get information for us but, I would like to do it on a really cooperative basis with everybody to see if we could to put some meaning into it. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Certainly.
We have many important issues coming up in the next few years in the City, and it would be great to have a model public access where issues could be discussed, you know, from all points of view. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
All right. Well, thank you, thank you very much. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you.
Thank you. Councilman DiCicco, I know you have an 3074 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 appointment, so I'd like to recognize you.
Thank you. I have just one question for the Commissioner. You and I have had a couple of conversations over the last year or so concerning the ventilation island ducts, or whatever you call them, on South Broad Street. I've not yet been able to determine from you whether or not they're going to be reconstructed. And, you know, we're doing a streetscape improvement, which began about a week ago, on South Broad Street. And the condition of those islands is deteriorating to a point where they're actually very dangerous can. Could tell me for the record what, if anything, we're going to be doing about it? And one of the reasons we're doing the streetscape improvements now, as opposed to a year from now, is because the Republican National Convention is coming, and Broad Street's going to be the main thoroughfare. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: My understanding is that in those locations where the vents are installed, they're installed expressly for the ventilation of the subway system. And by 3075 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 consequence, SEPTA's responsible for maintenance and/or replacement. The part of the answer that I don't have for you is what SEPTA's planning to do, if anything.
Yeah. Well, I thought our conversation was that we determined that they were the responsibility of Public Property. I mean, I got bounced from SEPTA to you, and then I thought that you had indicated to me that it was -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And that's the perennial problem with that kind of question. It happens with the vents, it happens with some of the transit stations. Because we were original the owner pre-SEPTA. We were the original owner of the land that the easements that were granted, but the Department itself hasn't directly done that kind of work for many, many, many years.
So, again, if I understand you correctly, they're in the center of Broad Street. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
These are the 3076 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 median strips down the center. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes, correct.
That's the principal reason why SEPTA gets capital funds through Public Property.
So I need to go back to SEPTA again, okay. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes, I believe so.
Thank you. Are there any other questions of the Commissioner? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner you responded to a question that I had asked about in a letter to the Council President on March 13, 2000. This is regarding who is responsible for cleaning what in the Center City concourse system. Commissioner, did you happen to -- as I best understand this map, the area where you come out from under the concourse, either from having taken the el or at 3077 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 least the trolly that takes you up in the area of Dilworth Plaza and those steps there and then there's the kind of the overhang -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Beyond the Post Office?
And you can avoid getting wet if you -- yeah, that whole area there. The map seems to indicate that -- is that our responsibility? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I believe that's true.
And were you over that way today in anticipation of today's hearings? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No. I had gone over shortly after, you know, your last inquiry to lock at its condition.
Well, as of today, unless it's been perfectly placed by someone else, it appears that the same trash that was there on Monday is still there today. And can you tell me why there is always that -- what would be the right phrase? Maybe an acidic, putrid smell that emanates from that section of the concourse area. 3078 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Why does this always smell like that? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The area takes on a dank odor anytime --
Dank. Is that -- that's D-A-N-K, is that correct? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Mm-hmm, D-A-N-K.
That's dank. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Whenever it rains, it --
It's got a danky smell to it. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yeah, following a rain. We do have a custodial program, and it does cover portions of that area, I believe all of that area. It's been fairly easy to take care of once SEPTA closed down or began closing down their system, with the exception of that particular intersection where we go west from Dilworth Plaza toward the ticket office and the Post Office and 3079 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 turn left or head south toward the el entranceways and eventually come above ground at the close pin stairwell. There is no physical enclosure there and so whatever happens at night, we have to clean up in the morning. There really shouldn't be a condition where something's been left unattended. Those lapses do occur from time to time. We have, you know, ways to correct it, including financial penalties to the vendor. We also have managers whose responsibility is to go looking for those problems and follow up on them immediately.
Is there supervisor personnel checking on what the workforce is doing? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
Okay. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes, City supervisory personnel, not just contract personnel.
So your response is that the underground concourse is cleaned overnight, from 10 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., six days a week, Sunday through Friday. 3080 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Those are the portions that we are responsible for, yes.
So essentially you clean every night. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
Except from Saturday into Sunday? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
Okay, all right. I will be doing my best to avoid the dank area that you made reference to. Thank you for your response, and if they could stay on top of that, I'd greatly appreciate that. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We'll do that.
Commissioner, what role does your department play in the planning for the Republican Convention? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: In the planning, we have no role. We did have funds for providing some of the telecommunications support. And, again, Mr. Costello is more familiar with what our 3081 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 commitments have been to date. But in the planning aspects, we really don't have a role.
Did you have a role with respect to the planning of parades? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No. 7
And the routing of them? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No. We may be asked in the special events context to provide, you know, services that we would normally provide -- sound systems and power and things like that.
But nothing in the routing of parades? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I don't think so.
'Cause I was puzzled by what I was reading about groups having difficulty getting permits and I don't understand it. It sounded like we were already feeling as if we were under CDBG or something. But your department has nothing to do with it? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No. There's one thing that probably should be clarified. Because of Secret Service involvement, the site itself is considered a Secret Service control zone, and 3082 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 issues about permits all come out of that federal jurisdiction, not the City.
And does that apply to parades routes? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I don't think so, but I'm not familiar with their details because a lot of details really haven't been available in earnest until there was actually a candidate from the larger field.
I thought Secret Service only comes in after the nomination is made and the person becomes an official candidate for president, but I don't think they have anything to do with the grant of the permits or with the location of where protesters, or whoever wants to protest for whatever purpose, have to stand. I don't think Secret Service is -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The only time I get dragged in as an authority into permit issues is when somebody wants to use the City Hall apron or courtyard or the immediate area, and it's rare for us to have a reason not to allow -- there is no formal --
And you've been very 3083 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 cooperative in that area, and I want to thank you for that 'cause I understand that groups that have dealt with your office have been very pleased by the cooperative spirit. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes, thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for the Commissioner? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you.
Linda Seyda, Department of Personnel. (Linda Seyda comes forward.)
I think you were to appear at the request of Councilman Cohen, who, I believe would like to ask some questions or have some clarification of your previous testimony. So at this time, the Chair recognizes 3084 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. Miss Seyda and I have had several conversations over the last week or ten days with respect to the information that we were seeking in a follow-up. She has agreed to be fully cooperative in furnishing the information, and rather than taking the time to ask the questions and get it here lengthy, I would say that there's no need at this point to question Miss Seyda. My office will be working with her office to obtain the necessary information, and I'm sure it will be cooperative. So I have no questions at this time for Miss Seyda.
Well, I'm sorry you were kept waiting so long, I'm sorry about that.
That's quite all right. I was asked to be here for other reasons. And I just would like to add that the Councilman and I have had some discussions and we will be working with him. 3085 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco. Miss Seyda?
While you're here, I'd like to ask a question about an issue that has been raised recently relative to the diversity of staff for the City as well as the Health Department. And I want to know what plans does the Personnel Department have to address this issue relative to staff members who can communicate with business -- merchants who have language issues. I know that we -- I asked Mayor Rendell in the Rendell Administration to hire a Korean businessman to work with the Korean businesses in the City because of the language issue and understanding how to do business with the City and the zoning laws, but what plans have you and your department thought about implementing to address the issue of diversity?
Well, actually your question is very timely. I've just this morning had a conversation with Councilman Ortiz, and we have agreed that we would sit down with him and 3086 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 other interested members of Council to have further discussions in terms of how we will proceed in terms of addressing issues regarding the need for City employees who are bilingual in a number of different languages in order to better serve the community. So, yes, we are actively looking at these issues. We are currently activity working with the Department of Human Services in looking at issues there in terms for their need for bilingual employees and ours discussions with Councilman Ortiz will expand those activities.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
No, I -- I think Miss Seyda, I think, answered the question with Councilwoman Tasco. So I think we can. . .
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, 3087 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 the next department will be OHCD. (OHCD representative not present at this time.)
All right, in that event, we will then take the Streets Department. (Streets Department witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. COMMISSIONER MOY: Good morning, Council President Verna.
Mr. Moy, you know I've had a real interest in this whole street lighting issue. And a couple of weeks ago, I went on a drug March in the Olney area and I noticed that the lighting is very dark. And I believe I had asked when you were here earlier to give me a list of the streets in the 9th District that have been -- the lighting has been improved, because that area around Grange and 13th, as well as many other areas, is very, very dark over there, with a lot of drug activity going on over there. And 3088 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 doesn't seem to me that they have been improved at all.
Councilwoman, my name is Joseph Doyle. I'm the City Street Lighting Engineer. The question about the lighting at 13th Street and Grange, frankly, we've improved the lighting in all of the residential streets in --
Excuse me, Mr. Doyle. The stenographer can't hear you. Would you pull the microphone a little closer?
Okay. Councilwoman Tasco was asking me about a list of the locations in the 9th District that has had improved lighting. Quite frankly, we have improved the lighting on all of the residential streets in both the 9th Councilmatic District and citywide, we're almost completed our neighborhood improvement program for replacing the existing fixtures with new equipment. So, quite frankly, we have replaced those lights in that area and I'll be glad to give 3089 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 you the approximate dates when we did the entire area. But we have made some improvements throughout the northwest section of the City over the last approximately months. 7
Well, let me ask 8 you -- well, it's not very bright there so it must 9 have been pretty pitch-black prior to that 'cause 10 it's very dark. 11
Well, what we were doing in 12 our replacement program was taking down one fixture and replacing it with another; we were not adding additional street lights. It was an infrastructure replacement program, not an additional lighting program.
Well, what about the lighting, the brightness of the bulb?
Well, that can be addressed by looking at the spacing of the existing lights and see what we need to do to possibly add additional lighting to improve that light level. Very often, the dark spots in the street cannot be corrected by simply increasing the lighting at the adjacent street lights if they 3090 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 are far spaced apart. And over time, the lighting on the streets in various parts of the City has been added in one block and maybe not added in another, and that's the reason there appears to be a disparity sometimes between blocks and actually light to light.
Well, what is the City's plan to increase the brightness in the community? We want it to look like downtown. In some areas, people don't want bright lights, but in other areas, they do want brighter lights.
We are trying to address the problem by adding additional lights, not by making brighter lights. The reason for that is, by adding additional lights in the gaps that may exist between the existing lights, you will effectively improve the lighting, you will get those dark spots remedied, and there will be better lighting there, and there will be more of a uniformity on the block. If there are widely spaced lights, for example, if there's widely spaced lights that are simply higher wattage, the dark spots still exist. And what it looks like then is actually more of a 3091 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 contrast and, quite frankly, it looks darker. Lighting is very much a perception, a contrast of lightness and darkness. What we are trying to do is make the lighting system more uniform by filling in the gaps, by adding light fixtures on existing PECO utility poles, which would then provide a more uniform and a better lighting system than you would be seeing now.
So how are you going to evaluate where you increase the lights?
We have a new technology improvement, the geographic information system, GIS, where we have actually computerized all of the locations of the existing street lights. It was compiled about two years ago as a result of a fly-over from the City. What that give us is plans that actually show the precise location of each of the street lights, and we could go in and look at particular blocks or neighborhoods or entire areas and then pinpoint from that plan the locations that the spacing of the lights appear to be more than what we would like to see. And as a result, since we have all of the existing PECO 3092 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 utility poles plotted on that, we can pretty quickly determine which poles would be the best candidates for new lights and, therefore, we would have that design.
So can you tell me where you're going to add additional lights in the 9th District?
We have discussed this, and my understanding of it is that the neighborhood stabilization program will provide funding for that type of -- for light installation and would be considered as part of that. I can't speak for the program, but lighting would be -- I think it would be a candidate.
Mr. Doyle, what program is that? COMMISSIONER MOY: Pardon me?
That neighborhood stabilization program, is that something new? COMMISSIONER MOY: I think Mr. Doyle was talking about -- he's using neighborhood stabilization program for the Administration's proposal that they're going to submit 3093 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 subsequently. I think, Joyce Wilkerson, the Deputy Mayor is --
Are you talking about the blight program? COMMISSIONER MOY: The blight program, and it's a different name for it, right.
Does the blight program have something to do with lights?
Is that what we understand, that monies will be in the blight program for additional street lighting? COMMISSIONER MOY: That's a proposal that we would like to recommend the lighting be a part, a component of that program, yes.
Do you think you'll start in the northwest this time? COMMISSIONER MOY: We would have to work that out, yes.
Thank you, Madam 3094 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Chair. Commissioner, I had planned to ask questions in the same area. We had a discussion when you were here for budget time about the lighting situation on our streets. I learned a new term, the foot candle reading, but -- and we'll get into that. I didn't completely understand what you just said about the lighting situation and then a reference made to the blight elimination program. Could you go back through that. That went right past me. COMMISSIONER MOY: What we are proposing to do is to assess the needs for filling the -- what we would call filling the gaps. I think it's a different term that Mr. Doyle talked about, where we find that there are gaps in the lighting. And we would submit a proposal to the Administration that is a part of the blight removal program or the neighborhood stabilization program, whatever you call it, that they consider this as a part of that program.
Well, what does the one have to do with the other? 3095 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 COMMISSIONER MOY: It would -- we believe that we can address the concerns, if we understand the Council's concerns correctly on lighting, to try and get more uniform lighting in the residential parts of the City.
Right. COMMISSIONER MOY: And we believe that it -- in early conversations with the Administration, that this could be an appropriate way to fund that kind of a project.
Commissioner, based on everything we've heard and virtually nothing that we know as a fact, I mean, the blight elimination program which, you know, as outlined by then-candidate John Street and now as the Mayor, you know, conceptually sounds like a good idea. It's $250 million and, you know, I mean, this is getting to be a little bit like a Christmas tree and everybody's got something on a branch. I mean, every solution to virtually every problem now is going to be handled by the blight elimination program. And I mean, I just -- I don't know -- I mean, we've been talking at the level of lighting 3096 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 on streets in the City way before this was even a concept. And whether we have one or not -- and I'm assuming that we will and that it will come at some point in time, but that has nothing to do with the general darkness faced by many residents in blighted areas, non-blighted areas, or anything else. I mean, it's a part of the City's responsibility. And to the extent that, you know, lighting now becomes some major component of blight elimination, doesn't that take away from what the fundamental purpose of the program is, as I best understand it, which is dealing with hazardous conditions, buildings possible acquisition, disposition, assembling sites abandoned cars. I mean, I don't get it. I'm missing something here. This is the Streets Department and you're in charge of the lights in the City. Blight program or no blight program, as I think it was Mr. Doyle indicated the last time we were here, the foot candle reading in the neighborhoods is 1/4 to 1/2. In our major commercial corridors, it's 4 to 5. I mean, that's, you know, some incredible percent different between those two. 3097 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 And I thought what we were talking about was the prospect of trying to increase the level of light out in the streets. I'd like to know what it would take to do that, both financially and logistically and not necessarily either wait or burden the blight elimination proposal with one more thing that is a normal, regular City service. COMMISSIONER MOY: Our thinking had been -- and we can certainly go the way you're suggesting, but our thinking had been the address the concerns of uniformity of lighting, which is missing at the present time, and that was the -- with these gaps. Now, if we're talking about a different thing, level of lighting and brightness there, it's another way that we could cost that out also as another measure. And I think that's what you're speaking about, a certain multiplier of --
Yeah, I don't -- I didn't necessarily know that the two were in conflict. I mean, you can call it "gaps," you can call it "dark spots," I mean, you can call it whatever you want to call it. It seems to me that 3098 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 the level of complaints that we get, and as detailed by Councilwoman Tasco, is that many of our City streets are dark. And however you guys come up with a solution to that particular problem, whether it's, you only have three lights on the street now, the overhanging cobras and you want to two more and have five, or if you think that you can get some, you know, incredible bulb that allows you to just have the three poles and brighten it from that, or if you want to add lighting to the other side of the street, most of our City streets only have lighting on one side of the street. So the overhanging cobra has to light up that sidewalk, the roadway, and the other sidewalk. Isn't that what happens in most residential neighborhoods? COMMISSIONER MOY: I think there's a question of expectation, and I think the original design -- and Mr. Doyle can speak more to this, and that is that the original design in terms of your street lighting was meant to focus primarily on the street and was not expected to go into the sidewalks. 3099 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Today, we have a different -- we are looking at things differently, but that was the original design parameter for, you know, quote, the street lighting. And that's -- therefore, when you talk about lighting on one side of the street, the poles being on one side of the street, it was originally not to meant to cast all the way over on wide streets. We try to get 'em on both sides of the street, but on a narrow street, I don't think they were expecting that they were going to cover into -- necessarily into the footway on the opposite side.
Well, either through the wonders of technology or just life as we know it in the 21st century, I mean, isn't it a good thing to have light essentially from sidewalk to sidewalk? Doesn't it make the area either appear safer or make it in fact safer? Isn't a little more light a good thing, generally? COMMISSIONER MOY: I have no quarrel with that. It's a question of design, the original design and expectations of what the lighting system was designed for, and if today we're saying that let's look at it again and 3100 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 expand the design parameters to cover the sidewalks in addition to the street, now you have to change your whole design and your costs. And I think that's what it seems you're asking.
Well, if the decision was made to have the foot candle power on South Broad Street or Walnut Street or some of the Center City areas and commercial corridors to be at four to five, who made that decision and why was that decision made and what is that decision based on? COMMISSIONER MOY: Well, the commercial corridors traditionally have a higher level of lighting. In the case of the downtown, as you are aware, in addition to the street lighting, there are -- much of the downtown now has supplemental pedestrian lighting where the CCD installed that, and that's when -- and Joe can speak to the technical piece of this I think that's where get higher reading now in terms of your commercial corridors. And the guidelines and standards that are usually suggested allow for considerable upgrades through a commercial corridor, understandably. 3101 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
And what do you believe should be, under present-day circumstances, an appropriate lighting level or standard or range in our residential areas? COMMISSIONER MOY: I can let Joe Doyle talk to the specific technical pieces, but generally we have an ASHTO guidelines there that indicate for residential streets there, that you're talking in the neighborhood of 0.4. Is that right?
And what -- and do they make any distinction between urban, suburban, rural?
Councilman, the ash to is, as the Commissioner referred to, is --
ASHTO is the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It is very much of a standards-establishing group funded by the various departments of transportation throughout the United States, and they actually either develop standards or adopt other 3102 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 standards. In this particular case ASHTO has adopted the IES, the Illuminating Engineering Society standards for lighting. And specifically, they do categorize the various type of roadway use and they subcategorize the land use, if you will, be it residential or commercial or industrial and so forth. And so that it is developed around a selection process that does approximate our urban lighting conditions. And so that their numbers are used as guidelines throughout the United States by all the various lighting agencies to I illuminate the roadway area.
Well, maybe we should ask some of the ASHTO people if they'd like to hang out -- maybe they' like to check the lighting level at 19th and Dauphin or 56th and Master or up on Champlost Street or some of these other streets and see if they feel comfortable at 0.4 versus some other level of lighting. I mean, are we restricted by any ordinance or statute from raising the lighting level, the foot candle power in the City? 3103 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
No. The ASHTO criteria are simply guidelines that are established to provide an approximation of what lighting levels could or should be. They do take into consideration the cost of energy, the number of lights and the relative costing of a lighting system.
Has the Streets Department ever given any thought to raising the foot candle power of lighting in our residential areas throughout the City?
We have always considered that possibility, but because, as we discussed earlier, we can meet ASHTO criteria by having a fully implemented lighting system -- for example filling in the gaps -- if there are, for example, four PECO light poles on a street and only three of them have street lights on them, for example, if we add a fourth light, that would bring it up to ASHTO's criteria with the existing lighting equipment that we use.
To add that fourth 3104 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 light?
Well, there was some discussion in the current fiscal year about funding to do a selected additional lighting program and, as you mentioned, on the neighborhood stabilization program, that that might provide a funding source for a more comprehensive citywide program.
The cost of adding the additional lighting that we feel that would be needed in a neighborhoods to bring the lighting up to ASHTO standards, arguable as they may be --
Well, stop right there. Are you saying that we're below ASHTO standards right now?
This is -- that's why when 3105 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 I was asked what the lighting level is, it varies from block to block. Some blocks have more lights, some have less. To make that a completely uniform system, we estimate that there would be a need to add approximately 10,000 street lights throughout the City on existing PECO wood poles to provide a relatively uniform level of lighting on all the residential blocks.
Mm-hmm. Is that in the response that we got back? Was that in the original testimony, or where does that figure come from?
In the last two weeks, I've developed that estimate on what would be needed. As a result of your inquiries at the last hearing, we started to internally discuss this matter and develop these numbers.
All right. So it had not been shared before. I didn't miss a document or something.
And 10,000 new light, how much would they cost? 3106 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Okay, $5 million -- 4 for which you presently have no funding. 5
And it was that that then led you to think that you might be able to get some from blight fund elimination.
Okay. These kinds of light, would they be out of capital?
If I might add, Councilman, to clarify that, there's about a $5 million capital-funded program to install the additional lighting, and there is approximately a 1 to $1.5 million additional operating cost to maintain and energize those lights. So the capital costs would be approximately $5 million, Operating Budget would be about $1.5 million.
Okay. And did you give any consideration or thought to possibly just getting, or seeking to get, an additional $5 million on the capital side?
We have not pursued that at this time. 3107 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Had there previously ever been a request for capital dollars for additional lighting in Philadelphia?
We had -- I think you had asked that question a year ago at the Council hearings, and we provided an estimate of what we had historically, but we really didn't think through the entire program to where we can say now, with relative accuracy, of what the scope of the problem is. We always knew that there were blocks that had -- some blocks had more lighting than other blocks, but we really didn't have a good method for estimating that until the GIS system came on board and we were able to look at it a little bit more closely. Again, this is just a very basic estimate on what those needs are, and we've done that within the past two weeks.
Okay. Will you get this information in a more detailed fashion. And do you plan to refine this into a proposal that Council might be able to take a look at as well?
Councilman, we'll provide whatever information you're asking for. The neighborhood stabilization program is, of course, not one that we're developing, so we would have to coordinate.
And is it going to change dramatically, is it going to stay within the same range that we're talking? Are we about talking about going from 1/4 to 1/2 up to 1? Are we talking about going from 6/8ths to 7/8ths?
Right now, Councilman, we're looking at going from 1/4 to 1/2 in every block in the City. We would meet the ASHTO criteria in each of the blocks in the City.
Many blocks right now meet that level, and we would not be adding additional lighting. It would be only a fill-in program for those blocks that do not currently meet the ASHTO 3109 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 criteria of the -- of approximate 1/2.
Okay. Well, my last question, I guess, is, notwithstanding the ASHTO guidelines, do you believe that there is any need to increase the lighting level beyond the ASHTO guidelines? And can you tell me, in my district, a half a dozen streets that presently meet the guidelines? 'cause I'd like to see the guidelines in action.
We can look at that on a very selected basis of approximately half a dozen blocks, at your request.
Okay. And the first question? Do you believe the lighting level needs to be increased beyond the present ASHTO guidelines?
I feel that the ASHTO criteria were established for good reason, and I feel that would be an adequate light level on the streets of Philadelphia. The half-foot candle is adequate.
The one-half foot candle, 3110 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 if provided uniformly on the block, on a residential street in Philadelphia, would be adequate for the use in that block, in that neighborhood.
From a lighting standpoint for pedestrians, for vehicles, for people who would live in the neighborhood.
There's a cost associated -- a significant cost associated with increasing the light level.
I didn't ask you about cost. This is a public policy, a public safety discussion; it's not a cost discussion. You and I had the dialogue a couple weeks ago. Would you rather walk down a street that's 1/4 to 1/4, or would rather walk down a street that's 4 to 5? And I think your answer was that you'd rather be on the 4 to 5 Street. Is that correct?
Okay. So let's talk about the policy now. I don't want to talk 3111 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 about the money for the time being. It's a safety issue, it's a perception of safety issue out on our streets.
The 4 to 5, as we've stated, is in a central business district, in downtown Philadelphia.
On Walnut Street and South Broad Street. That's where it is now, and that was installed to satisfy the various commercial and other cultural activities in Philadelphia for that reason.
I understand that, and I don't think that most residential areas want their street lit up like Walnut Street.
But somewhere between a 1/4 and 1/2, and 4 to 5 is a level that would give the average residential citizen comfort level and a sight distance level and would probably discourage some activities that going on out in our residential streets, that is reasonable and rational. And what I'm asking you is, what is that level? 3112 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Thank you, Councilman. I believe the Sergeant-At-Arms wants to adjust the mike for a second, and then we will go to Councilwoman Miller.
If you would allow me one last question, I will promise not to come back on the Streets Department.
Thank you. Just on the Streets Department. Commissioner, in your response to the Council President, you talked about the Department's compliance with Section 5-500 d. of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, which places 3113 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 responsibility for certain pedestrians and vehicular safety issues in the Streets Department. I believe the pertinent section 5 "Traffic Engineering," which talks about preparing engineering studies and surveys in regard to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, prepare analysis of traffic accidents for determining their cause and means of their prevention, and institute and conduct an educational and public information program for the purpose of promoting the safety and unimpeded movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. And your response pointed me to Attachment 8, which talked about Street Smarts and Operation Crosswalk and a Peril for Pedestrians TV program. Now, is that the Department's response with regard to the requirement of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter? COMMISSIONER MOY: I think that's in part some of the things that the Department does and -- you know, there's Operation Crosswalk and there's Back to School signs that are erected. There's a series of things in the Bicycle Coalition Network there, the network that we have 3114 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 out on the Web page. It gives a lot of instructions on safety. The Health Department also gets a grant to address the education of traffic safety in the schools. So there is a number of activities that the City is doing in this area, and they're not all defined in Attachment 8.
Well, is it my understanding that there is no funding for the Operation Crosswalk program? COMMISSIONER MOY: No. There was a -- I think the funding had run out on a grant there. We continue to -- the basic part of the program continues to paint the continental crosswalks for the Center City and many of the crosswalks throughout the City.
Well, let me ask this question. I mean, for the average Philadelphian, what would they get or what would they receive that a person might consider coming out of conducting an educational and public information program for the purpose of promoting the safety and unimpeded movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic? I mean, what happens on a 3115 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 daily basis in Philadelphia that qualifies for that?
Councilman Nutter, Charles Trainor, the Chief Traffic Engineer. The Street Smarts program, which is funded through a grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Highway Safety Program, through the Health Department, is -- they do seat belt safety, pedestrian safety, and bike safety. They visit approximately 300 schools per year. In March, or this month, they're scheduled to visit 35 schools and do 50 presentations. They do community programs, library programs. They visit senior citizen centers. They also conduct bike rodeos. They work with the Safe Kids Coalition and the Academy of Pediatrics and the Police Department.
This is under contract through Philadelphia Health Management Corporation from a grant from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?
I understand. 3116 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 COMMISSIONER MOY: I believe that's annual, this one.
Right. I guess what I'm trying to understand is what does the Department do on own, or of itself, or out of its own resources to have this educational and public information program for pedestrian and vehicular safety? COMMISSIONER MOY: We don't have dedicated resources to a specific program there, Councilman, if that's what you're asking. But we do is to have input into some of these programs that the Mayor's Office had, and Operation Crosswalk and some of the Health Department's programs. To see that they're coordinated, we work with AAA but, it's not a full-time effort where -- if you're asking, are we publishing handouts and things like that, no. 20
Any kind of booklets or guides. I mean, I got the impression -- I mean, that's a real live program and activity and it's something that's constantly being promoted by the Department, as opposed to kind of a circuitous thing where PennDOT's giving 3117 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 money to give to somebody, who's giving money to somebody else to go out and do some things. I mean, that kind of doesn't have anything to do with the Streets Department too much. COMMISSIONER MOY: Right. Well, I think what we recognized was that the grant was covering this area a few years ago when Operation Crosswalk was active, that's what we reviewed, the Health Department's program and activities there.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Commissioner Moy. COMMISSIONER MOY: Good afternoon.
I have some questions about the pilot mechanical cleaning program, and pretty much it's around signage. You know, I know you're aware that we've gotten lots of calls regarding the additional signs that are being put up, and part of the area I travel 3118 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 through pretty much every morning, and I know that on the streets where the signs are put on the telegraph pole, that doesn't seem to be a problem. But the problem -- and I don't know whether the other Councilpeople that have this pilot program in their district are having the same problem. But the problem seems to be with all these new additional metal poles and signs. I need to know how flexible the Department will be with towing, particularly for people that have a handicap space, people that are sick or shut, if people are going on vacations. I mean, we really need to get a sense of how this new mechanical cleaning is going to impact people's daily living. And we hate the program, by the way. No, we don't really don't hate the program but we're getting lots and lots of calls pretty much on these signs. And are you getting them too, Joan?
Yes. So we're glad to have our streets cleaned. In fact, we 3119 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 finally got one call thanking us. They said they've never had a mechanical broom come through their street. And we know it's going to be a good program and it's going to be citywide. We want to help it be successful, but we also have it take into consideration our constituents' needs and their issues. And we know they also put a sign on your lawn, Commissioner Moy, because you live within the boundaries. COMMISSIONER MOY: Right, right.
Good afternoon. My name is Clarena Tolson, Deputy Streets Commissioner. Councilpeople, I'm happy to talk about the pilot cleaning program. This is one that we've kind of begun together as a partnership and we are being aggressive about trying to move forward with cleaning the City. And we're taking a lot of risk -- risk in that we are asking citizens to do something that they have never had to do before, which is to move cars to support cleaning in their communities. We're learning through this 3120 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 process. We're in the midst of a pilot program that will go through December of this year. And we're going to evaluate lots of different parameters about the program, like, how well are we cleaning the streets, are cars moving, what do citizens feel about the program? Before we engaged in the start of this program, we did a citizen survey to ask people if they would be willing to move their cars to support street-cleaning on a weekly basis. And in every single Councilmatic district, in excess of 95 percent of the people said they would be willing to move their cars to support the program. I think what we're seeing now are some of the growth pains of actually implementing the program, and I think that some of them we had not anticipated, and we're going to need to pay careful attention to how citizens are responding. One big issue that a number of Councilpeople have had -- and we have in our office as well 'cause we do get calls -- is in regard to sign installation. I think that people want a cleaning program but don't necessarily understand all that goes with it. 3121 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Like you have to have a sign to tell people when not to park, because folks don't know to do it automatically. In some communities and some cities where people have done mechanical cleaning for years, it's a routine thing -- you know to get up in the middle of the night and move a car, and some programs are a lot more intrusive than the one that we have in Philadelphia, I think. With regard to the pole installation and the sign installation, we're going to need to pay careful attention to that, and maybe have to be more flexible in the future as we talk about if this program is successful, with how many signs we place in blocks in various communities, because maybe the number that we're placing is inappropriate, maybe we can do with less. But I think that we're going to have to, unfortunately, kind of have to experience doing it the way that we think it should be designed based upon how other cities do it. And if Philadelphia requires a different need, then do something different. 3122 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 I think that we have certainly challenged ourselves too in some of the areas where we are. We have some areas of the City where the parking is very, very dense. We didn't take the easy way across the City. We are really challenging ourselves with how we move in with the cleaning program.
Okay. I just want to comment here on the density issue. You know, in many blocks, the parking is very dense 'cause families have more than one car. And I don't even know how you could really take this into consideration. However, you know, if I have a little parking space or a little space that I normally think is mine, even though I know it's not, in front of my home and you put a pole up, then when I open my door, I can't open my door because the pole is there now, so it is causing people some inconvenience. And I don't know -- I don't even know how that issue could even be addressed 'cause you'd have no idea of knowing where a car is going to be parked pretty much and if the door -- if it's not a lot of space, you can't even move up or 3123 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 back. But some of the issues are legitimate. The blocks that I go through that have the signs on the telegraph pole, they look great, but those other blocks, I saw one of these little dumb poles leaning and I said, well, they probably could have done that one a little better. But it may be growing pains, and people do have to get used to this. But I did want to raise the issue. I think other Councilpeople should know about it. And I'm going to submit some of my time to Councilwoman Krajewski, because she also has some comments about this.
(Not fully audible - off-mike.) This has been a problem with me. My problem is --
I'll never get 3124 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 used to this.
My problem is the parking hours. I've had it -- I'm not talking about today. I have no parking from this hour to that hour. Now, the Streets Department will come along and they will clean, they'll clean it. I had one woman -- I just checked it out again today -- who called. They cleaned her street, say, at 7 in the morning, so she thought it would be fine now to bring her car back and park in front of her house. Well, she got a warning, she got a warning from the Parking Authority, I believe that she couldn't park there, but they had already cleaned her street. Now, you know, where is she supposed to park? It just doesn't make sense to me. They have the hours where you cannot park at this time, and they already cleaned the street before 8 o'clock in the morning, and the people who come back and park their car, then they get a warning that they're not supposed to park the car till after 8 o'clock. 3125 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Councilwoman, that's a problem that we will definitely resolve. We're working with the Parking Authority -- I should say, the Parking Authority's working with us on this program, they're supporting us. By design, what they're supposed to do is work in front of our vehicle. Once we've cleared, go through a street, we're not interested in ticketing cars. I mean, the ticketing portion is just to get street cleared so we can have --
But the people do not realized this, Clarena. They tell me that they cannot park their car till after 8 o'clock in the morning.
Well, what you describe is a problem -- if the Parking Authority gave a warning after we've already gone through, we need to just go through a reminder with them that we want them work to work in front of us. Once we've gone through and cleaned the street or attempted to go through the street, we don't want them to work behind us, we want them to stay in front of us. In our areas, we meet in the morning 3126 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 before we start and we allow the Parking Authority to get ahead of us for a few blocks, and then we work behind them. They stay in front of us. Once we've gone through, there shouldn't be a warning or a ticket given to any cars.
Then I've also had it when they remove their cars but the Streets Department didn't come down to clean the street. I don't know if you have that or not, Councilwoman.
I would love to hear about all of those issues and those circumstances, because if there's a problem that we need to address operationally, we will need to do that. I have talked with our fleet group about some of our maintenance concerns that we have with some vehicles, particularly our smaller vehicles that use in some communities. But I would like to know about all of those instances, when they happen, because we can certainly check them out and see what's going on. We are closely monitoring each of our cleaning areas. We're counting cars, we're 3127 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 looking at compliance issues and all those type of things to try to determine, are we successful or are we not?
And I also have a problem with the amount of signs. They have so many signs on one street. I believe it's Mr. Trainor? Sorry, Charlie. The signs, I mean, they're all over. They look -- I've had a lot of complaints about the signs.
Councilwoman, I agree that there's a lot of signs that have gone up. We've put a heck of a lot of signs up in the last nine months. Basically when we go into a block, and a typical block being 500 feet, you're talking to signs usually. In some cases, you may get more, depending on what obstacles wind up being there. If there's a lot of trees, we may even put more signs because the sign is blocked. The signs -- four signs basically is one sign at the beginning of the block one sign at the end of the block and two at the quarter points. Three signs is at the halfway point. We 3128 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 do try when we put 'em in, we do try to avoid people's windows and entrances to their houses. Unfortunately, we can't address the issue of the car door 'cause we do not have specifically spaces marked out on the street, but we do try to avoid the people's windows and entrances. At times, though, we cannot do that. Up in my area, we have driveways between the houses, so we're not going to put a sign in front of a driveway; therefore, we're going to be in front of somebody's steps. And I know my neighbors are going to be knocking on my door in a couple days. That's really the only answer I can give you.
I personally think it's a great program. I'm not complaining about the program, 'cause as you said, Clarena, I know it's a pilot program. And I want to see it work, I want to see it be successful, but we do have quite a few complaints as far as the signs. Thank you, Councilwoman.
You're welcome. 3129 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
I don't have any more comments, but I think we'll probably need to meet again about the mechanical cleaning. I know that you did a door-to-door distribution in my area to inform citizens, and we also had communities meeting to let people know, but at the time, that was prior to everything starting. We may need to have another meeting -- maybe with just those blocks complaining, to come out so they can get their questions answered, and they can share more about what their concerns are. We've had a tremendous amount of calls, and pretty much it's been more around signage. And some blocks have said other things, but pretty much, it's been around signage and the new poles. So I'll probably give you a call and maybe we can figure something out, okay?
Thank you, Councilwoman. We'd be happy to meet with any Councilperson and their staff to talk about maybe how to respond to some of the calls, and maybe we can handle some of the calls for you -- we would be glad to do that. 3130 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Additionally, we would be glad to go out to any community meeting at any time, any day of the week, to discuss these issues and any others.
Thank you. And I know, Miss Tolson, you did attend a meeting in my district one night last week, and I never thought I would hear constituents say they did not want their streets cleaned. They're just so frustrated in the fact that they have no place to park their cars. And I have to agree there are signs that are posted that street cleaning is on Tuesday, and perhaps it is not done for several weeks, so people assume that they can park their cars, and the street cleaning's not going to be done on a Tuesday, and consequently, they end up with ticket upon picket ticket upon ticket. I think there has got to be a review of this entire program, I know, in my district because I get more complaints than I get thank-you's. So I think that's something we're going to have to sit down and talk about. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo. 3131 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to go back momentarily to the street lighting issue. We discussed the additional foot power and the addition of street lights, and I think I've mentioned this before. I'm concerned with the inventory of street lights that we already have. And as I travel throughout the City, I don't think I've ever seen more street lights out at night. Henry Avenue is a perfect example. From Walnut Lane to Andorra, I would say two-thirds of the circuit is off and there are intermittent interruptions of street lights. Again, this is in all neighborhoods of the City, and I'm thinking that the next time I go back, they'll be a repaired and working. But then I go back a month later and the street lights are still out. And I know a little bit about the process that you use, that you have a subcontractor or PECO Energy, a subsidiary company of PECO Energy that maintains the street light system for the City. And I believe as part of 3132 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 that contract and responsibility, they're supposed to patrol and identify the street lights that are out. What I'd like you to do, because I'm interested that they're doing what they're supposed to do and if there's some follow-up. And, again, I can identify -- and I won't do it here -- a dozen different locations where street lights have been out for well in excess of a month. I'd like you to provide the Chair the audit that that subcontractor provides for January, February. And when March is completed, I'd like to know how many street lights that we have out at any one time. I'd like -- again, I'd like to see the entire report and I'd like to see once a street light is identified as being a problem, whether it needs to be repaired by the City or a there's a loose connection or whatever, how long it takes to get that street light back. Because again, Joe, I've never seen so many street lights out throughout the City as I have recently. And, again, I understand the problems on Henry Avenue, and Peco Energy tells me 3133 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 that they're going to do some major construction there to get that back, but Henry Avenue is obviously a street that cannot be -- especially last night in that rain storm, if there were accidents there, the lack of street lighting contributed to that. So I would like you to provide January, February, and when March is available, the audit that that subcontractor does for the City and how we review that data and respond to it.
Councilman, just so you're kind of aware, we have a three-party maintenance system on the street lighting. We have a maintenance contractor, PECO Exelon, which is responsible for basically accepting all complaint calls, investigating the location, and making those repairs that they can. The lamp principally is what they are able to repair. The City forces also play a role in this, that we have our own repair forces that are responsible for taking individual lights that are out. Similar to any individual light, where PECO Exelon cannot make the repair, it's referred back to the City. 3134 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 But the larger outages are normally a PECO -- which I will call a "PECO utility problem," Henry Avenue being a perfect example. There are several hundred outstanding repair orders with PECO Energy to make circuit problems, some of which may be as small as one light. Others are several, or maybe many, as on Henry Avenue. And I'll be glad to provide that information to you, but I think we must temper our criticism of them with the understanding that it's been a very difficult January, February -- first with the snow, with all the salt that was spread on the road, with the thaw and the melting and now the rain. Springtime is normally the worst time for the electrical distribution system. Water is the enemy of street lighting. And so I will be glad to provide that information, but I would expect that by the end of April and as we get into May that that problem -- you'll see a significant improvement in the larger -- in the number of lights that are out, so you would see it really getting better.
Henry Avenue is not 3135 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 -- and for the people that live in the northwest, Henry Avenue is not just a problem with development. It's been a problem since it's been installed, it's been something that I've pretty much grown up with, this problem on Henry Avenue. But my point being -- you just mentioned salt and the environmental problems. I'm not talking about the underground circumstances. I'll give you an example. I personally reported Shawmont and Ridge. The street light at that intersection is out now for over six weeks, and it is still out. It's a major intersection. And I can give you a list of 15 more locations that street lights are out 16 throughout the City and have not been repaired. 17 Just check that one and get back to me. 18
We have been experiencing our own backlog. Because of the bad weather, we weren't able to make repairs and we did accumulate a backlog, but we will look at this and --
How many street lights do you have out do you think right today, 3136 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 both underground and aerial circuits?
Total, yes. One percent of the system is out of service, and that's a high number. Normally, we're in the 5 to 600 range.
There is a continuing problem. I know 1,000 does sound like a large number of lights, and in a sense it is, but it represents 1 percent of the system, and it's a moving 1 percent. It's not the same 1 percent that's out.
But I've got a feeling that the problem that we have is -- you mentioned 1,000 street lights out in the City of Philadelphia. We're talking about adding. I would just love you to deal with what we have and get those working, and I'm concerned about the length of time. I think when you check the one at Shawmont and the Ridge, you're going to find out that it's been out and you're not going to be 3137 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 happy about the length of time that it's been out. So I think you really need to focus on doing whatever you need to do or revisiting the way you repair these lights. If PECO Energy or Exelon can make this repair and you're referring it back to the City workforce -- and I understand the politics and how you have to do things, but I'd like to see it the most efficient way, the repair completed so the street light can be back. If you have 1,000 street lights, even 1 percent, to someone that lives in that neighborhood, that's a lot of street lights, in my opinion. You just mentioned that's twice the norm.
Right. Of course, it's 1,000 spread out through the entire City.
One of the things that we have done to try to minimize that problem is, as we were discussing earlier, we have replaced the lighting system. Over 60,000 street light lights have been replaced over the past eight years on an ongoing preventive maintenance program to put new equipment up and to keep them from failing. I 3138 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 mean, we have been taking significant strides in trying to preempt the problem of lights out, as you would -- we have removed equipment that was over 30 years before it failed and put up a new light. There may -- I can't explain the location at Ridge and Shawmont, but we do -- we're very, very sensitive to the time that lights are out, we appreciate the problem, and we'll be glad to give you that information.
Yeah, 'cause I think I understand the process, but when they're out for this long a period of time, we need to do something about it. And you know the one that really interests me -- and, again, Kelly Drive is a very, very dangerous roadway, even during the day. Without street lighting at night, and part of that circuit's off also, I really feel bad. You know, part of that circuit's out, Joe. I really feel bad on a night like last night that anyone might be coming up that roadway without illumination.
We have worked with PECO, actually. You're saying that part of that circuit 3139 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 is out, but we have been making a very concerted effort with PECO over the past month. And I know the Commissioner rides Kelly Drive himself and mentions to me the problems up there. But we -- we are -- we have tried to instill in PECO a timetable for them to make repairs as quickly as possible with the resources that they have to get those lights back up.
Doesn't the contract with Exelon, isn't it very specific on what they're to do and the timetable that they're to do it? And then when you go back to the PECO utility, it seems like it's very open-ended. The problem with the underground circuit on Kelly Drive -- and I'm sure Bill Mifflin's not pleased. And, again, I don't want to beat that to death 'cause I've been talking to you about it for three years, but you have temporary wires tied off the trees to make the street lights work. That's better than they be out, but to have wires tied off to aluminum -- just north of Hunting Park Avenue, to give you an example, you've got a street light -- Larry's shaking his head, he knows what I'm talking about. 3140 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 COMMISSIONER MOY: Right, right.
Commissioner Moy, there's a piece of triplex tied up with a hand line, and a car must have hit that pole and it's leaning over. And I'm telling you, and I've reported it three times, and I can tell you that that aluminum street light stand's going to come over into the roadway, and it's because of the fact that that wire that's been tied off to it temporarily to make those street lights work has contributed to that. It must have got bumped and then the extra weight has pulled it over, and it is really a dangerous situation. So I'm hoping -- and you assured me -- and, again, I'm glad the Republican Convention is coming to Philadelphia because everything that I've asked for now is getting done because the Republicans are coming. So I would hope that that project is on track. And I don't know understand how it's tied in with the Republican Convention, but if it is, that's fine, 'cause that's got to be taken care of.
Yes. That project is in design and should be going out very soon to 3141 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 construction, so you'll see a significant -- by this time next year when we come back for testimony, I would hope you'll be very, very happy with the Kelly Drive lighting system.
I mean, I hate to -- the two of you have had to tolerate me on bringing this up to you every time I see you, but just driving that roadway and realizing what other people older than me and their vision may be not be as good as mine, what they must be dealing with on a bad night, especially with the way that roadway was. So, again, I'm using this as an opportunity to request that something be done quickly before we have people unnecessarily injured -- or worse, killed. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. The recycling coordinator, what's the status on that?
Excuse me. 3142 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Mr. Doyle, before you leave, I just want to say, know you received a lot of questions today, and I want to say that I know that you have worked with my office for many, many years. And I want to publicly thank you for the respect that you always show. And even if you can't get something done, you say it with a smile, and I want you to know publicly how much we appreciate all that you do. Thank you very much.
Now that you've had the soft touch comes the contrast. What's with the recycling coordinator? COMMISSIONER MOY: Well, I think as the Managing Director had reported previously, a request had been made of the Administration to advertise for a search -- have a search team, rather, advertise for a recycling coordinator. So it is not in our hands; it's in the Administration's hands there. We can double-check and try and let you know that.
Is it in the 3143 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Managing Director's hands? COMMISSIONER MOY: No, no. 4
It's in the Chief of Staff's hands? COMMISSIONER MOY: I believe so.
And you don't know whether the advertisement has gone out? COMMISSIONER MOY: I don't know the status of it, Councilman, right.
It has gone out. COMMISSIONER MOY: No, I don't know for sure the exact status of that.
Mm-hmm. But the likely resting place of the request is probably in the Chief of Staff's office? COMMISSIONER MOY: I only know what -- you know, the Managing Director reported that he had made a request that they initiate the search effort, and I believe they were responding to that, and there's a series, as you know, a series of search efforts that are taking place.
I'm thinking of that memorial stone that refers to "lie in peace," but we hope it won't be that and will go on. 3144 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Now, if a school -- Prince Hall School, particularly, at 18th and Godfrey, is very concerned about the fact that the school was built by closing a portion of 18th Street. And many of the children have to cross Godfrey. And they say they've made requests over periods of time for those white lines, crosswalk signs so, that the youngsters can get across Godfrey, which is very wide. And they say they have not had success in getting them painted. Does the Streets Department do the painting? COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes, they do. And we will check, and I'll give you a report on the status of that, you know, why we don't have --
Well, it would seem to be a pretty simple thing. COMMISSIONER MOY: It would sound like that, yes. It's 18th and Godfrey, the Prince Hall School?
Yes, Prince Hall School, at 18th and Godfrey, yes. Because they're talking about doing it themselves, in desperation. And I don't know how good of 3145 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 painters they may be, it's an elementary school. COMMISSIONER MOY: It depends what grade they are.
They might make it a class project and -- COMMISSIONER MOY: Right. We'll look into that and give you a report.
All right, we'd appreciate it very much. Now, in one of your replies with respect to the pilot weekly recycling program, you make a reference to the marginal increase being 400 percent or 500 percent, but you don't explain how that is. And I wonder, have you found some explanation? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. It's on -- it's in your reply on the. . . and it indicates you were going to check out. . . On , down toward the bottom of your reply of, I think it's March 15th, you state, "The initial results from the first three months of the recycling pilot program show a percent 25 increase in recycling tonnage in the designated 3146 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 pilot area. This increase in tonnage, however, has not come without a cost. The marginal cost per ton of the additional tonnage (which is the cost of each additional ton collected as a result of the pilot program) was extremely high, reaching as high as between $400 and $700 per ton. These marginal costs were well above the $90 to $100 per ton average during same time period before the pilot program began. In light of these costs, I believe that a more detailed analysis of this program must be completed." Well, I would agree. I'd be very concerned about such an increase and can't figure out why. I could -- you know, as a layman, I could say, Well, if it was a double increase, well I guess you're doing it twice, maybe it's twice as costly as doing it once. I don't know that that would be a correct answer, but I could understand that one. But I can't understand this kind of an increase and I think there must be some mistake in the reporting.
Councilman, this is a point of clarification. The marginal cost per ton difference means looking at the additional tonnage 3147 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 that we received and the additional cost it took to get that additional tonnage. So just that piece of it. So, for example, if it took us an additional $15,000, and this is in one of the tables in your package. If it took us an additional $15,000 to get an additional tons, 9 our marginal cost per ton 25 ton, the cost to get 10 those additional 25 tons, was $600. 11 If you look at our previous costs in 12 the system to get what we were originally getting, 13 which 121 tons at a cost of $11, our cost per ton 14 was under $100 per ton, $98 per ton. 15 And to get an additional $25, it costs 16 us an additional $15,000. Those additional tons 17 cost us $600 per ton more. 18
Commissioner, with 19 due respect, all you're doing is giving me how the 20 figures are computed, but I say the figures must 21 be wrong. 22 How could it cost that much more? 23 You're very pleased by the results, as I think you 24 ought to be 'cause it's an increase by 25 percent. But I think somehow in the figures, 3148 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 there's something very wrong, and I would like to suggest you go back to the basic figures, because it -- it would make no sense whatever to have those kind of results. COMMISSIONER MOY: And we will.
In this world today, we go automatically by, say, what computers tell us or machines tell us, but I think we've got to look at them and see that they make no sense whatever, and somebody's made a mistake somewhere along the line 'cause that cannot be the cost. And if it is, we'd like to know why. Can you actually produce the dollar costs that were involved in it? COMMISSIONER MOY: Right, we will do that.
I mean, why were the cost that high? Because, obviously, you were pleased with the results, and we all ought to be pleased, but they should certainly not cost that kind of dollars.
Just if I could give you some indication, Councilman, a significant part of this is, as we got the additional tonnage, our 3149 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 demand on truck capacity grew past the number of trucks that we had working in the area, and we had to increase the number of trucks working. However, the tonnage that we got in return may not necessarily have been enough to get us down to our previous cost per ton. We still need more tonnage. In Center City, where we have an average of percent 10 increase in tonnage, we still could use more 11 tonnage. Getting more tonnage will bring our 12 costs down. We have had it as high as $700 a ton 13 for the incremental tonnage and as low as close to 14 $90 per ton. 15
Well, it's based upon the 18 tonnage that comes in because we've had as little 19 as 11 tons more come in in a month's period 20 versus, say, 35 tons or 37 tons in a month's periods. The output or what citizens set out for collection, the tonnage that we get fluctuates that much, which causes a change in the fluctuation in our marginal cost per ton.
Well, then maybe 3150 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 you've got to -- I think you've got to go back the beginning. Maybe you're putting out too many trucks on the second collection, you know, on the weekly collection. Maybe you could cut down on the number of trucks. I don't know what it is, but it flat out doesn't make any sense to have an increase of that magnitude on a second by increasing it to twice -- you know, by doing it weekly rather than every two weeks. So I'd like to urge you to go back to the very basics and try to figure out what it is that causes that great disparity.
Because it seems like a good result that you're achieving, the 19 percent increase, and that would be a great 20 increase if we could do that throughout the City, 21 show a 26 percent increase. You're arguing here 22 in your statements -- and I'm not ready to deal 23 with it. You indicate a much higher recycling 24 rate for the City, you're saying that the City's 25 recycling rate is about 36 percent. That's not 3151 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 the kind of testimony I think we got at the basic hearing. In answer to our questions at the beginning, you listed the recycling rate in the City as 36 percent, that is the fourth highest among major cities? 7 COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes. 8
And it kind of -- 9 I'm stunned by it, but I'm not ready to dispute 10 it. I'd like to accept it, if I could, but I'm just very concerned that it may not be accurate. In response to Councilman Nutter's, is that 35 to 36 the amount, including the commercial rate?
But the curbside recycling is only -- is less than 7 percent?
Well, does the -- that pilot program deals with curbside, doesn't it, only curbside?
How does that affect -- the percent increase is an increase over 25 which figure? Is it an increase over the 6.64 3152 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 curbside figure?
Yes. The percent 4 increase in the pilot, or the 26 percent in one 5 area and, I think, 20 percent in another is in the 6 pilot areas. However, overall, the City's 7 recycling rate has remained the same because there 8 has been a decrease in recycling in other parts of 9 the City. 10
I don't want to take 11 the time at the hearing to go into further detail 12 on that, but could we arrange a meeting and 13 discuss that? 14 COMMISSIONER MOY: Sure. 15
And I think there's 20 one last question I wanted to. . . 21 On the status of the paving effort on 22 Ogontz Avenue, between Chew and Cheltenham, the 23 answer I got may mean that the question was not 24 clear. The Department's plans for paving Ogontz 25 Avenue near the intersection of Chew and 3153 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Cheltenham -- well, there is no such intersection. COMMISSIONER MOY: That's why I don't think that was your question.
Includes signal improvements and resurfacing in the 2001 construction season. Now, does that mean that Ogontz Avenue is going to be resurfaced from Cheltenham Avenue down to -- south to Chew? That's the area that needs resurfacing. COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes, I think that's what we're saying.
It says it's going to be resurfaced in the next fiscal year, in the year 2001. COMMISSIONER MOY: In 2001, yes, that's correct.
Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Madam President. I have no further questions.
Thank you. Are there any further questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, 3154 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 is the Managing Director still here?
Fine, please approach the witness table. (Managing Director comes forward.)
Thank you. Do any of Councilmembers have any questions of the Managing Director? I think it's Mr. Nutter who asked that you be invited back.
Thank you, gentlemen. Sorry to keep you waiting. Mr. Martz and Mr. Solvibile, we had discussion back at budget time about the issue of fences. And, Mr. Martz, my recollection of when you were here for the Managing Director's budget presentation, was that you were going to try to work on how we address the fencing issue in the City between now and the time of the much- discussed blight elimination program, which L&I, in their testimony, indicated that their budget for fencing has been zeroed out in future years. With the assumption that those dollars are going to be in the blight elimination program, and our conversation has been, what happens in the 3155 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 in-between time? We have buildings that come down, I assume, every day in the City, and vacancies are created and the stucco happens, and then people are left with the vacant lot next to them. And there has been one particularly pressing situation, and I would just really like to have a brief opportunity to kind of give you an up-close and personal experience that one of my constituents, Mrs. Parker, in West Philadelphia, is having now. L&I took a building down sometime last year in the 400 block of North Sixth Street. And back at that time, I asked for fences for 423 and 417 North 60th Street. I received an e-mail, dated December 6, 1999, from Franny Hughs, in the Managing Director's Office, which says, "I do not believe there is any additional funding in my fencing budget at this time. If there is, the 423 address is available for fencing but, unfortunately, the owner for 417 also lives in West Philadelphia and so it's not eligible. I will check with our financial administrator and let you know." Now, this really has nothing to do with 3156 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Miss Hughes. She is responding to the request and expressing on behalf of the Budget Office what the situation is. Then I received a letter from Miss Parker, who I've been talking to about this now for about six months or so, dated December 30, 1999. She talks about, "If we're going to stamp out urban blight, we must fence in the vacant lots, lest they become another form of urban blight. And we, the residents in the block, are very concerned about these vacant lots. The houses on either side of the lots cast a dark shady area from the street light, which has become an area for teenage gatherings, drinking, and other drug activity. I've been approached by persons wishing to use the lot for fixing cars, which could lead to having a junk yard of abandoned cars, not to mention illegally dumped trash and garbage right next door to us." I contacted her and said that I'm trying to get a fence, and she writes to me again on March 6, 2000. "With the break in the weather and even warmer weather approaching, I'm very concerned that the gathering of young people and 3157 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 the increase of dumping will be on the rise. We continue to pick up bottles and trash daily so that the lot will not become an eyesore. My latest experience was to ask a neighbor for assistance to remove a large piece of discarded furniture that had been left there during the night. Please let me know if and when fences will be available, as it is a real chore for me to continue to keep the lot clean." Now, she's just one of many people out there that are having that kind of experience. Now, what am I supposed to tell her and what is the game plan from now to whenever there is the, quote, new program?
Councilman, the Department, along with the Managing Director's Office, put up close to $2 million of fencing. In the area, the Sunrise area that we toured recently, most of the fences that were put up are no longer there. In other locations when we go by them, there's weeds higher than the fence. A program is not the solution -- fencing is not the solution. The solution is an agency -- say, the Horticultural Society -- that 3158 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 would work with communities on how to deal with these lots. A fence really creates a problem; it does not solve a problem. It gets stolen from the lot, then no one cares for the lot to clean it. It's just really not an answer to our problem, Councilman.
I might add -- I think I said this in my testimony last time. Along Frankford Avenue, the community there got together along with business and started a New Kensington CDC, and they planted trees without fencing.
And the people seemed -- the short-dumpers and the community at large leave the lots alone. They look nice, their appearance is a plus for the community. So it's something that needs to be developed with the community, and then they can decide the best form -- whether it be a fence or greening or tree planting -- that would solve the problem for that community.
I understand that and I've toured the New Kensington area. I 3159 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 understand why they did some of the things that they did. And, quite honestly, the impact of that tour has certainly affected, if not shaped, some of my views on this particular problem. At the same time, I am still left to say to you that there are different solutions in different neighborhoods. Some solutions are more appropriate in some places and some are not particularly appropriate in some places. Now, I have heard the discussion about the weeds, I've heard about fences stolen. We had a discussion, I believe, Mr. Solvibile, when L&I was in and we talked about how many of the lots you clean and seal, how many did you have to go back on in subsequent years. I believe the number may have been upwards of 30 percent. My experience in the 4th District -- I can only talk about my own experience -- is that any fence that the City has ever put up, to the best of my knowledge and information, has never been stolen. There have been a couple locations where there has been a request -- specifically the 5600 block of Lebanon Avenue, which, I know, Mr. Solvibile, you're very familiar with. 3160 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
We've had occasion to request either L&I or the Managing Director's Office to give some attention to those locations where we had six homes taken down, which is a somewhat unusual situation and which is why both through previous legislation, I've also talked about the need for vegetation management plans that are environmentally sound. But while we are coming up with the ultimate solution, we still have a situation where a person is living -- one of the locations now actually has a fence because the owner of the property put one up, but you had a dangerous building which L&I felt compelled to knock down. The neighbor's grateful for that, Miss Parker's very happy about that, but what she is not happy about is the people who now have direct access to her back yard because there is now not a building there. I don't have much concern that in the 400 block of North Sixth Street, the fencing is going to be stolen. Again, I have no experience with stolen fences. 3161 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 But we have left a dangerous condition still. Even though there is no building there, there was a dangerous condition when the building was there. We're glad it was taken down, the stucco work is down, that's wonderful. Now an immediate danger is the immediate access to someone's property, which did not exist before. We can solve that. This is a rowhouse neighborhood. I believe we're talking about 11 feet, 16 feet, max, across the front, and I'm not 12 sure whether one is needed behind. 13 And that's the level of fencing in many 14 of the neighborhoods that I represent, at least that we're talking about. And in some of those communities, people do take care of the weeds and all that kind of stuff. I understand that those things continue to happen, but we can't leave people in a more dangerous circumstance and condition by solving it with one problem and then leaving them with another problem.
My understanding is that a program is coming and that the community is going to decide how best to solve the problems in those communities. They're going to be involved in the 3162 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 process. If they decide that fencing is the appropriate way to deal with the vacant lots, then --
I think, based on the half a dozen conversations and two letters at least in this situation, the lady would like to have a fence. That's the best solution to her problem.
I think, Councilman, I would have to look at it. And I will do that as of tomorrow morning or this afternoon. It might just be the side rear of her yard on the side that needs the fencing. The whole lot doesn't necessarily need to be fenced in to protect her back yard, the building, etc. A lot of times in a lot of cases, the building is acting as the fence to the rear yard, in the rear of the properties. So when the building comes down, the wall that acted as a fence is gone, and yard's no longer protected. That being the case, I could then order our people to put up a fence to protect her property along the rear of her property line.
And where would the 3163 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 money come from?
At this point, for this year, there's no more resources available for fencing.
I've been here for ten weeks, so that's -- I don't have any funding for fences.
Well, lastly, I guess, there's kind of a philosophy expressed that fencing was not necessarily the solution. But based on everything that I've read, and even, I think, in personal conversations with the Mayor, I've always been left with the impression that one of the primary elements of the blight elimination program was demolition. I'm assuming there would be some level of acquisition, and the Mayor's always talked about fencing. Now, is the fencing that he's talking about different than the fencing that I'm talking about? I don't think we need to debate about whether it's a cyclone fence versus -- I mean, 3164 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 fencing is fencing, right?
The blight program is not funded at this point and we're still using last year's funding level for demolition. Any fence would come out of the demolition budget, which, I believe, right now is 1.5 million left for the fiscal year to handle any demolition in the City of Philadelphia.
So there's no 12 fencing money and the blight program is not yet fully funded or even developed. So for our discussion here today, with the array of great power at the table and behind the rail, what would you like me to tell Mrs. Parker?
Right now, there's no 18 funding but the plan is to treat neighborhoods, as the director said, as a whole and put in what the neighborhoods want to bring it down the lots on their blocks.
That's correct. It's being developed. 3165 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
So I'll just tell her to wait and kind of just hold on and hang out and wait and see what happens?
We will look at the situation in her back yard and maybe put something there to protect her in the rear.
And the front of the lot that faces on 60th Street will still be open?
The only fencing would be available through the Managing Director's Office or the Department of L&I?
As a matter of fact, I'm sure it's not. I actually administratively am putting fencing requests down to L&I administratively.
I would have to talk to Frankie Hughes, who has a better handle on it, but at the present time, I can guess only.
Mr. Managing Director, you're saying fencing is going back to 3166 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 L&I, even though L&I has no budget to deal with it at this point?
At this point, neither do I, but I still don't believe as an operating department that we should be in the business of fencing, Councilman.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
First, let me commend the Managing Director very personally for going far beyond the call of duty. On a Saturday afternoon very recently, I received a complaint from a number of distraught neighbors about a vendor that was operating and spreading smoke all over the area at the corner of Belfield and Ogontz Avenue. And I think it was a little after 4 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon when I called the Managing Director's Office. I 3167 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 had no idea where he was, but got through to the City Hall switchboards and asked them to have him call at once 'cause I was heading out. And he came, he came with his staff and had apparently alerted others and other departments. He knew better than I what might be involved in such a situation, and we got the matter under control and made the neighbors very happy. The situation isn't all clear but the important thing was that a response was made immediately, and I think it made all the people feel good about the government of the City of Philadelphia to, on a Saturday afternoon, late in the afternoon, to get that kind of a response from City officials. So I wanted to commend you. That's the easy part. Now comes the tough part.
An article appears in today's Daily News in the business section, no 23 less, and anybody who knows me would know it's going to provoke a response from me. "Is the City using a double standard? 3168 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 When is it okay for one group to tie up traffic in Center City streets and not okay for another?" "When the Republicans are coming" is the answer. Or maybe when one is the Mummers, or any kind of ambassadors of fun and fluff for the City. But for others a bit more on the serious side, who are trying to exercise their first amendment rights, it's different. The City continues to deny Unity 2000 a permit to give the Republicans a real Philly welcome on Sunday, July 30th. The GOP convention officially runs from the 31st through August 4th, and it goes on and on. Sir, you're the Managing Director, and I don't know where you and the Chief of Staff began or who's officially number two, but I know, under the Home Rule Charter, you're the boss of all the operating departments in the City of Philadelphia, and they must be among the departments that have something to do with deciding on permits. And I'm concerned, because as I mentioned before one commissioner, it's like the City is acting under siege when all you need is a common-sense approach. People obviously have the 3169 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 right to demonstrate, they ought to be able to say what they feel they want to say. And the more you make a fuss and make it difficult for folks to express themselves, the more they feel they're going to have to express themselves. Because you create a problem when there is not a problem. Is this in the hands of the City departments or is it somebody outside?
It's important for me, because of the resources that are going to be required, before I approve any permit from the City of Philadelphia, it's important for me to try to get a sense of what the requirements are for everything else that has to happen in the City of Philadelphia. Every permit that I look at during that period of time has to fit in the magnitude of everything else that we have to do. Nothing has been denied at this point and nothing has been approved at this point. I just need to get a 3170 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 better sense of all the things the City of Philadelphia is being asked to do before we approve or deny anything. It's as simple as that.
Because I gather groups are developing a sense -- I haven't talked with any of them and know no particulars, but it seems as if they're beginning to express doubts as to whether the City is going to have the approach that Lieutenant Fencl, you know, made us famous for. He knew how to handle things in a way that accommodated everybody.
We first need to have a sense of all of the activities, requirements, and manpower of the resources in the City of Philadelphia before those permits are approved. Nothing has changed here. We're going to be putting on a huge event and we have a lot of other people asking for things. And until I have a sense for everything being asked, I won't approve or deny anything. It's just as simple as that.
Well, I'm not sure. I think groups have to be assured that they're going to have an absolute right to exercise their first amendment rights. 3171 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Our lawyers and other lawyers have been talking about that for sometime. However, the permit process is a process that is in development, it's being developed.
It's not but they're in constant consultation with me on these things. Before I can grant anything, I have to have a sense of what all is being asked at that time. We have a lot of responsibilities, including the safety of the people who live here as well, and we just have to have a sense of all of the things that are being asked. That's all.
What I'm suggesting is that it's possible at the same time to give assurances to people that the City is going to have a sensible approach after it works out a process and they're going to seek to secure 3172 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 everybody's first-amendment rights. I think what is being developed is the sense that the City may be trying to place obstacles.
I'm just suggesting that it would go a long way if assurances could be given, but that's not the case.
That's all I'm suggesting at this point. Because I think we want to avoid what took place in Seattle, and there's no need for that kind of problem occurring. If people are assured that they're going to have the right to demonstrate -- they'll do the same, I'm sure, at the Democratic Convention when they hold it on the West Coast -- maybe even more so. It's just very important that people -- I think Philadelphia has a very special responsibility since this is the place where freedom was born.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. 3173 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question. I know it's always difficult when you ask about the average of something, but for the average property, a 24- or 16-foot-wide property, is that about the width of many properties in the City, Mr. Solvibile?
$1.64 a square foot, so 14 6 foot times 16 -- help me here. 15
Hold on, I have one of these PECO Energy dual solar calculators what. Were those numbers again?
That can't be. There's a mistake somewhere. The average cost for fence installation runs about $1,836. And that's counting removal of debris and putting up the concrete that's required to put the post in.
Okay. So if you did 500 fence jobs like that, the 1836 times $500 is $817,000.
A million bucks. That would give you, if you spread it across the board, 50 fence jobs in the district.
Correct. And in a lot of cases, the average should hold, as averages do, but if the lots are heavily laden with debris, that obviously bring up costs.
And you might not need 50 in each direct. 3175 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Now, do you know what the FY 2000 estimate is on the City surplus?
The current year's surplus is anticipated to be $150 million?
And there is no way that we can figure out how to have a million dollars available to get us probably between where we are now and when the big new program comes to us? Either in the current fiscal year with the transfer ordinance or the spending of the resources that you have, can you figure out what your needs are and do a transfer ordinance before the end of the fiscal year?
Any money that we would receive -- the money we did receive for this fiscal year, I would rather see it go to demolition in that. There's a critical need out there to get buildings demolished. That's the busiest unit in the department, as far as inspecting buildings. 3176 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
$250 million. Right now we have approximately. . . 6500 properties in a backlog with an average cost of $8,000 a property.
That's not counting all the vacant -- our vacant properties survey shows that we have approximately 21,000 buildings -- 22,600 buildings that are vacant in the City.
We're pretty comfortable with that figure. We've re-audited it and think it's a good figure.
Well, have you ever had enough money in your budget to knock down every building that you wanted in that fiscal year?
There's always 3177 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 something left over, there are always more buildings to knock down, right?
There are always more buildings to knock down, and every week we receive more complaints about imminently dangerous buildings.
So, I mean, for a whole host of reasons, the department's general view is any money you get, you'd always rather spends it on demolition in a perfect world than on anything else, recognizing that for all these demolitions, the end result of that is a vacant lot?
For demolitions, yes. And also, when we receive any extra money, we put it into the stucco program.
And if you receive money for a particular use, you would always use it the way it was designated, right?
For certain purposes, we obviously go with the wishes of the funding source. The biggest problem is the safety issue. I realize that fencing is something someone could consider a public safety issue, but because there 3178 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 are many more involved with vacant buildings, it's our preference to remove them.
Well, as I said before, and I think you generally agree, there are different strategies and techniques and needs in different parts of the City.
Thank you. Any further questions from Members of Council? (No further questions.)
The next department to be called is OHCD. (John Kromer comes forward.)
Good 3179 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 afternoon.
Welcome, Mr. Kromer. I believe Councilman Nutter asked that you be called back and I would like to recognize Councilman Nutter at this time.
Thank you Madam Chair. Good afternoon Mr. Kromer. Mr. Kromer, I received a copy of your response to questions that were raised at a previous hearing, and the issue was administrative costs of other cities regarding CDBG funds. Your response is provided as Exhibit C, and you also attached the eligibility criteria for the use of CDBG funds relative to a question Councilwoman Tasco asked. First, I appreciate you being so responsive in compiling this chart. Can you tell me what the source is of the information on the top 15 cities?
Yes. First, my name is John Kromer, Director of the Housing and Community Development. One of my staff members called the 3180 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 people in the other cities' departments which prepare each of those cities annual community block grant consolidated plans and obtained the information from the staff who prepared the plan in each city.
Okay. So let me make sure I understand the chart. In New York City, which receives a CDBG entitlement of apparently $258 million, is the total of the boxes to the right of that column, Housing, Economic Development, Public Facility/Improvements, Planning, and Administration and Public Services, do those five boxes make the total for the box under the CDBG entitlement?
And then this last box on the far right-hand side is a heading that says "General Funds." Is that the general funds that are used for housing or dedicated to housing by that particular city?
That box represents funding from each city's general fund that is used for housing and community development activities, 3181 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 encompassing both housing, economic development, and other programs in the case of New York City.
The total of those three boxes should be the general fund box number? Is that how it works?
So New York City gets a CDBG entitlement of $258 million and then spends out of its own general funds $269 million for housing activities?
And for the City of Philadelphia, we get $79 million in CDBG funds and we spend 4 million out of our General Fund; is that correct?
They do a lot of housing. The economy is different, and I have studied --
Are their budget deficits attributed to their housing program or --
In part. Mayor Koch, for example, during the 1980s, spent over $2 billion 3182 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 to develop the South Bronx, so there are examples of that. I think more important is an issue that I really haven't studied thoroughly, and that's the economy of New York City, where there's a substantial housing demand, the housing market values are much higher than in Philadelphia, and an investment of city funds produces some economic development benefit that we couldn't achieve here. As I said, I haven't studied the situation but I think it's more --
What do you mean by that? You said that their investment in housing, they get some return that is not achievable here. What do you mean by that?
Well, there's an ability to charge higher prices and higher rents for market rate development and, I think, to leverage more mortgage financing and attract more buyers than there is in Philadelphia, where there is no 22 housing shortage, as there is in New York City.
It may not necessarily be a pure physical building housing shortage if you're talking about the match-up 3183 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 between our population and the number of buildings around, but there apparently is a shortage possibly of a type of housing that some people might want in Philadelphia; is that correct?
Very much so. There's a shortage of affordable housing and the key problem is there's an affordability gap, absolutely.
All right. Did it strike you as -- I mean, did you know that New York spent such a large amount of general fund dollars on housing as compared to what we spend?
Yes, and it seems to be a tradition that some cities and some states, whether under Democratic or Republican administrations, simply fund housing and others don't.
Mm-hmm. You made reference to the financial condition of New York. Do you know what their finance or fiscal health is presently?
No, I don't, but I know that during the years in which we've had surpluses, New York has struggled with deficits.
Okay. And has 3184 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 there been any further discussion about the City increasing its General Fund share of support of housing and decreasing the amount of CDBG funds that are expended to cover administrative and programmatic costs?
If there were, you would be the person aware of it, I'm sure, right? I mean, you're the director of the agency, right?
Probably, but the chart shows, I believe, that for the cities that were 13 reviewed, the basic planning and administration is 14 funded from the Community Development Block 15 Grant. Now, New York City funds a substantial amount of the administration from -- or substantially less administration in terms of percentage than the other cities.
But I expect that that is made up by, in part, the home funds that are spent on administration, and also that a substantial piece of the general funding is spent on admin. as well.
Well, their home 3185 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 fund administration numbers percentage-wise are about the same as everyone else's.
They're on the high end, but you're right, they're relatively the same.
No one seems to spend more than about percent. So what do you 8 attribute the higher percentage of CDBG funds that 9 are also used for housing as compared to 10 Philadelphia?
My conclusion -- and this may be mistaken, but it's my conclusion, based on the information that we're reviewing, is that a substantial portion of the administration is funded through the General Fund commitment, which is slightly larger than the Community Development Block Grant.
Mm-hmm. Also, there seems to be some fairly decent disparities between what we spend percentage-wise on economic development and public facilities and improvements as compared to their use of those funds, which, I assume, if they're not spending it on that, it ends up on the housing side.
Is any of this information at least presently, and I know you said you were still reviewing, but do you get the feeling from looking at what other cities are doing that there is any particular need to rethink what we're doing in Philadelphia and how we expend out funds as compared to not only the practice but possibly the results from other cities?
Yes, I do. I think there's a need to rethink both the Community Development Block Grant funding and also to look more carefully than we have at the issue of support for moderate- and middle-income housing. The Economic Stimulus funding that was made available during the past five years for that purpose was relatively small and relatively restricted, and I think we could learn from New York and other cities about what has been done. I know Chicago has made several efforts to devote funding to middle-income housing, and I think this is a good time to study those efforts and determine whether any of them would work for Philadelphia.
When you say that 3187 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 people have dedicated money to middle-income housing, how do they do that? I mean, what do they do?
Well, the most direct way that I'm aware of is in cases such as the New York City case, where a substantial amount of the general funds were simply used to construct market-rate housing without income limitations or with more flexible income limitations than those which apply to the federal funds so that moderate- and middle-income people could purchase those homes that are being subsidized with the city funds.
Okay, interesting. Okay, I'm sure that we will continue some of this discussion between now and CDBG time. But thank you for compiling the information, it's been illuminating. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Kromer. 3188 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Mr. Kromer, I have received the document from your office from Kevin Brooks yesterday. It talked about the participation of residents versus nonresidents on various projects throughout the City. And frankly speaking, I was somewhat amazed at the percentage of nonresidents. A couple of them -- one of them was actually in my district. We had one that's 61 percent, others that are 59 percent, and others that are 57 percent of nonresidents. A couple years ago when the Mayor did the Section 3 new hires program administrative order, were the numbers comparable to this, or is this an improvement on those numbers?
The numbers have improved since the time when that executive order was issued, but they haven't improved across the board and they haven't improved enough. I don't know of anyone who is satisfied.
Are you saying that we've had -- prior to that executive order, we actually had higher numbers than 59 percent nonresidents? 3189 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
You're acknowledging that those numbers are not acceptable.
What else are we going to do as it relates to that? 'Cause this is, frankly speaking, amazing to me.
This is a big issue and it cuts across some other discussions that we've had in Council -- most recently, the discussion last year of the prevailing wage ordinance and the participation of the building trades. A key issue that we've got to grapple with is the need to get more neighborhood residents employed on these jobs so that we have a percentage of participation that we can be proud of. At the same time, we have to deal with the fact that because of the history of the greater Philadelphia economy over the last 10 to 20 years, most of the members of the building trades happen -- or a substantial portion of the membership of the building trades happen to be nonresidents of 3190 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Philadelphia neighborhoods. Clearly, some significant strides have been made by the building trades -- the carpenters, the union, and others -- in developing training programs apprenticeships for neighborhood residents, and that situation has improved, but I believe there's still a substantial disparity between the level of work that is out there that's being funded through the City of Philadelphia's programs and the availability of members of the building trades who happen to be neighborhood residents. So I think we've got to come to grips with that situation. It's a bigger issue than the issue of the community development program. There's a lot of respect for what the building trades have done for Philadelphia, so I think we've got to get to the table with the building trades as well as with the representatives of the neighborhood interests. And I think there are only a few alternatives available to us. One is to accept that the change will be gradual, there will be a few apprenticeship opportunities periodically, and 3191 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 we'll move neighborhood residents into those. We won't be happy with the numbers, but we'll think in terms of the long view and, you know, expect that the numbers will improve over a longer period of time. I don't think most people would be happy with that solution. I think another potential solution is to have some discussion about mixed project workforce teams and project labor agreements in which the developer, the builder, and the unions all agree that in order to advance the goal of neighborhood resident participation, we agree to a mix of labor force in which some trades will be union-represented and will have certain expectations about the level of neighborhood participation there, and others will not, and those that will not will be there because they will be builders and contractors that will be able to -- subcontractors, I'm sorry, that will be able to demonstrate a substantially higher level of resident participation. And that mix will give us numbers that we can be proud of.
So the reality is that the majority of the skilled trades people are 3192 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 nonresidents?
And I haven't reviewed the data but I think there's a combination of things. One is that a substantial number of the union members happen to be nonresidents, and the other is that there's a great demand on the building trades. It's a region-wide demand, and the result is that we don't have the level of neighborhood participation that we'd like to see.
So when the Mayor did the Section 3 executive order, he talked about new hires, am I correct, for a job?
The executive order related to three areas. One was employment, the second was contracting, and the third was purchasing of supplies and materials. And the executive order simply said that the Mayor expects that every developer that receives funding from the Community Development Block Grant program is expected to work together with City agencies' 3193 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 staff and with the community to try to achieve a goal of returning half -- at least half -- of the economic value of the venture to the community in terms of locally purchased-- local hiring, local subcontracting, and local purchasing. And "the community" means first looking to the immediate neighborhood to try to find opportunities to achieve that result. And then to the extent that that result can't be achieved in the immediate zip code where the development site is located, looking at the adjacent zip codes and then going further out, but with the bottom line being to look to the City and the City's neighborhoods before looking outside the City.
So it was local preference as it relates to the City, not necessarily a zip code.
But starting -- the highest priority being the location of the development site, yes.
When you do your RFPs -- it's the Redevelopment Authority that does the RFP process?
Is there any thought given to putting some local preference in the actual RFP? Meaning that if a developer or a contractor is told that there -- I'm assuming that you rank those by points?
And if a contractor does "A-B-C" as it relates to local preference in the county of Philadelphia, that they will receive additional points in that ranking system? Have you ever given any thought to that?
No. And what I've been told -- and, again, I haven't researched this exhaustively, I'm not a member of the Bar, but I've been told that some specific forms of local preferences wouldn't stand up to a challenge. Now, I'm not clear that that would mean that there's no way that in the context of an RFP, we couldn't give some recognition of that. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
What was your understanding of that whole issue? Is it more related to MBE/WBE, or is it related to local 3195 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 preference? 'Cause I had heard it was more relating to the racial aspect of --
I had heard both -- that it could be -- a local preference could be a problem as well. What I'd like to do is just consult with the Law Department and get back to you because I know the issue has been looked at, and if we haven't looked at the RFP dimension of this, we definitely should do that.
Just a couple more, then I'll move ahead, Council President. My understanding is that in a couple of municipalities -- one in Detroit and one in Savannah, Georgia -- there was a local preference ordinance passed. Have you all looked at that?
I haven't but I know that's been looked at by members of the Law Department, so let me consult with them and get back to you because I know Detroit's has been. Savannah I'm not sure.
But I will check on that and then respond to the Council President.
You know, it's 3196 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 clear that we have to do better and I'm a little amazed at these numbers, and we've obviously not doing a good enough job on it, and I think we need to look at some very creative ways. Can you get that information back to me in the same timeframe as you get Councilman Nutter's information so we can be prepared for the CDBG areas on that?
And I think more -- I think the real issue -- I'm not saying that we know all of the answers to this problem, but I think there has to be some dialogue involving the building trades and the question of project labor forces and mixed labor forces, or some other solution that gives us immediate results that are much better than what you see there.
Okay. So you think that -- I mean, I know there was discussions prior to prevailing wage relating to minority participation, women's and disadvantaged participation, but I've never heard any serious discussion about the local preference issue and 3197 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 any concerns raised by the building trades on the local preference issue, and that's why I'm wondering, have we given much thought to that as opposed to going the other way?
The issue of Philadelphia resident employment has come up and I think we should tackle them all, and this is a good time to do that.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say to my colleague, Councilman, I appreciate the questions and the line that you had taken. I think you and I are probably looking into the same direction and in the same area on this particular issue. I've also had discussions with the Law Department and they have laid out a series of issues and problems, 3198 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 although I think there might be some opportunities to work on a couple of things. The one issue I did want to mention, Mr. Kromer was talking about the executive order. I know the Councilman will remember that the executive order that was a part of your earlier discussion is now actually in the Philadelphia Code. Council codified the executive order last year and it is now a law here in the City. And it is at the same 50 percent rate. I would suggest maybe to my colleague one of the more immediate things do that we can do -- I still think we need to deal with the opportunities-for-local-residents issue, but we may now, because it's law, I want to look at the percentage that's in what used to be, I think, Executive Order 295, and see if we might initially want to raise the 50 percent rate to some higher rate while we're still dealing with the opportunity for local residents to participate in some of this work. I mean, I know, Mr. Kromer, you must know this, that it could really kind of burn a person up a little bit when they see all this activity going on in their neighborhood and folks 3199 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 arrive at the site by a vehicle often with a registration that is not Pennsylvania and then leave and go wherever they go. I mean, you know, people have a right to work, it's nice that you're working and all of that, but I didn't think that we had solved the unemployment problem in Philadelphia. And when you read the reports that the Councilman makes reference to, we had a big blowup about this last year. I think it involved Loews Hotel. Is Loews the same as PSFS?
Okay. And there was one other. And they showed, you know, rates of 55 percent of the people were Philadelphia residents. Naturally, the flip of that is, 45 percent were not, many of whom were from the four surrounding suburbs, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, New York State, and Florida. Now, I know that there's a lot of work out there, but it seems to me that until the folks on whose back the funds that we get are generated -- I mean, CDBG funds are generated to the City based on our population and specifically based on the low- and moderate-income population. We put 3200 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 our money into the projects, the people who the money came here for don't participate in the projects and the people who do participate in the projects are obviously not low- and moderate- income and, as matter of fact, are doing well enough to move out of town. I mean, that has got to be on the list of definitions of "crazy," where we have a system that money comes to us that's supposedly for poor people, generating jobs for who are not, and the end result of which is, they make enough money to leave town. I mean, it seems to me that we lose, at some level, all the way around. Now, I know we get wage tax and some various other benefits but, I mean, that cannot have been the intent --
So I will join in a discussion with my colleague about getting some resolution to this particular issue, 'cause it is not going in the right direction.
Thank you. 3201 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Councilman Clarke, do you have any further questions? Your light's still on.
I want to say for the record that Councilman Nutter, I understand, sponsored that bill to codify the Section 3 regs, and he is to be congratulated on that. Thank you.
Fine. Any further questions of Mr. Kromer? (No further questions.)
Council will be in recess for 15 minutes. (Council stands in recess.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
Will Councilmembers kindly report to the chamber. - - -
Will all 3202 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Councilmembers kindly report to the chamber. - - -
We heard from all of the witnesses before we recessed. Do any Councilmembers have any other questions or comments? (No response.)
There being none, this will conclude the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. The first bill to be considered will be Bill No. 000003. Ms. Suber, it's my understanding that you are going to be proposing an amendment? (Stephanie Franklin-Suber and Rob Dubow come forward.)
Actually, we have amendments for Bills 3 and 4, and I have testimony that goes along with it. I think it's been 3203 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 distributed to Council before, but there have been slight revisions, so we have new copies to hand out.
My name's Rob Dubow and I'm the Budget Director for the City of Philadelphia. With me today are Stephanie Franklin-Suber, the City's Chief of Staff, and Cathy Paster, Deputy Budget Director. I appear before you today to offer testimony on Bill No.'s 3 and 4, which propose to establish the City's FY '2001-2006 Capital Program and FY 2001 Capital Budget. These measures were introduced on February 3, 2000. Today we propose to amend these measures to add additional appropriations necessary to carry forward all unobligated funding from FY 2000 appropriations and to include additional appropriations from sources unanticipated at the time these bills were introduced. In this proposed amendment, all unobligated capital appropriations have been carried forward from Fiscal Year 2000, with very 3204 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 few exceptions. These few exceptions fall into mainly two categories: unspent PICA or GO appropriations, for which projects have been completed under budget; and federal, state, or private appropriations for which the anticipated grants have not materialized. In those few cases where general obligation funds have not been carried forward, the projects have been completed within budget, leaving a very small balance. There are a large number of projects in the Capital Budget that have been included at the direct request of City Council members. I can assure the members of Council that all remaining funding for these projects has been included in the carry-forward in the amendment proposed today. This recommendation does not include the lapsing of any unencumbered funding for projects of this nature, whether or not those projects have been completed. Other than the addition of the carry- forward appropriations, there are further proposed modifications to Bills 3 and 4, as introduced February 3rd. Those modifications have been recommend in the Fairmount Park and Recreation 3205 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 budget and program. An additional $75,000 State appropriation has been included in Fairmount Park, Line 47, for the restoration of the Livezey House. This is necessary to appropriate funding from a State grant that has been received from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. No 8 additional general obligation funds are required to match this grant because previously appropriated general obligation funds will satisfy the match requirement. Additionally, a $400,000 State appropriation has been recommended in Fairmount Park, Line 49. This appropriation will finance a grant received from the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for footway restoration and site improvements in the area around the Fairmount Waterworks, Art Museum, Schuylkill River Park, and Kelly Drive. In Line 101 of the Recreation Department, we are proposing a title change from "Veterans Stadium" to "Veterans Stadium Renovations," in accordance with Bill No. 82 of the Year 2000. That concludes my testimony and I'd be 3206 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 happy to answer any specific questions from Council. Thank you.
Mr. Dubow, I understand from this statement, the amendment, that if the deadlines in Bill 82 are not met, the Mayor will spend the capital funds appropriated for the Veterans Stadium repairs only after submitting a specific list of those repairs to Council and obtaining Council's approval for such repairs? Is that correct?
President Verna, for the record, my name is Stephanie Franklin-Suber. And on behalf of Mayor Street, the answer to your question is yes.
Thank you. Does anybody have any questions? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Unless Councilwoman Blackwell is asking a question, I assume that you recognize, therefore -- are we about to take a vote on the amendments to Bills 3 -- 3207 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
-- and 4? And does that include the tail-end of the testimony that Mr. Dubow just gave with regard to Line 101 of the Recreation Department?
Has there been any discussion about that particular item?
I think I just asked a question and it was responded to. Were you out of the room?
I think I was but I think I was distracted off to the side. If it was, then. . .
Miss Suber, apparently, there needs to be just some slight explanation as to what this amendment will do in accordance to Bill No. 82.
So that the 3208 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 record is very clear.
Yes, I'd be happy to respond. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that there is no confusion with regard to the Mayor's authorization under the Capital Budget authorization and Bill 82 by clarifying that in the event that Council approves the Capital Budget and Program, in the event that Council authorizes -- adopts the loan authorization and there are no 12 amendments to the Capital Budget by Council, that the Mayor will spend the capital funds appropriated for the Vets Stadium improvements, in accordance with Bill 82 -- which means that the Mayor, before expending the capital dollars, will submit the specific list of repairs by resolution 18 to City Council, as set forth in Bill 82.
And that means that it's only under those circumstances that the repairs or the expenditure is made? And are there any other funding sources that can be accessed which don't require this particular process to be followed?
Well, Bill 82 3209 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 provides that if -- and I believe we've covered this in a prior testimony, but if we have to implement the contingency plan, the Mayor has said in a written letter to Council President Verna, that we will explore other possible sources of funding to make the Vets Stadium repairs and use capital funds only as a last resort. In the event that we cannot find an alternative source of funding and we are going to use capital funds, then by virtue of Bill 82 and this amendment that has been proposed by the administration, it is clear that a list of repairs and the process set forth in Bill 82 is the process that we will follow before the repairs are made to Vets Stadium under the contingency plan.
So -- and by offering this -- by the Administration offering this particular amendment, you're saying that the Mayor and the Administration are, in essence, binding themselves to that particular process? Because, I thought in another discussion or in another forum, it was made somewhat clear that with Bill 82 by itself, Council was not able to impose that precondition or restriction; is that 3210 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 correct?
I'm not sure I understand your question, I'm sorry. Bill 82 sets forth the process.
And what the Mayor, or what the Administration, is trying to clarify with this amendment to the Capital Budget is, we will follow the process in Bill 82.
The Mayor made a commitment to City Council that if we implement this contingency plan before we make the repairs, we will submit the list of repairs to City Council for approval by resolution. And to the extent that there is any possibility based on the authorization under the Capital Budget loan authorization by City Council, that somehow the Administration could take the position that we don't have to follow Bill 82, we are closing that possibility by virtue of this amendment, because the Mayor made that commitment to City Council.
That's what the 3211 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 amendment is.
So the amendment is trying to respond to -- there had been a question or some confusion or lack of clarity between the Council and the Administration about what Bill 82 was doing. And, I mean, I think it's since apparently been determined that without this type of amendment, the Mayor would have been able, once the Capital Budget was passed and once the loan authorization question was passed, either from a theoretical standpoint or a technical standpoint, the Mayor would have been able, or the Administration. I don't think the Mayor's going to personally be out spending the money, but the Administration would be able to use capital dollars that were authorized by the budget and by the question, without having provided such a list or without Council's approval. That was the issue that was of concern, I guess, last week and that's the purpose for this particular amendment, to clear that up?
Yes. To clear up the relationship between Bill 82 -- and, again, as you pointed out, the authorization that the 3212 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Administration would have by virtue of the Capital Budget and the loan authorization. I mean, to the extent that City Council was concerned that under the Charter, the checks and balances, in terms of Council's ability to amend the Capital Budget and Council's ability to deny the loan authorization or modify or impose whatever conditions, were not of sufficient comfort, and there was a question about the relationship to Bill 82. The Administration, the Mayor, made a commitment to submit this list of repairs to Council by resolution, and we are offering this amendment to alleviate any concerns or any possibility that we would do otherwise.
Councilman Nutter, do you have any further questions?
Not on -- not on that particular issue, Madam Chair. I did need some -- I don't know whether this is the moment, but I know we're talking about our Capital Budget. There had been an issue some time ago, and I got somewhat of a second- or 3213 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 third-hand response with regard to the Robin Hood Dell East. There had been extensive discussion at Capital Budget time with Recreation and, I know, Mr. Dubow. And since the questions were asked on the record, I'd like to make sure the record is clear about the Administration's position with regard to requested or needed capital repairs at Robin Hood Dell East and the prospect of having some funding put in the out-years, not in the Capital Budget for '01, but in '02 to deal with what is apparently a great need at that facility.
At this point, there's the $550,000 carryover in 2001. As you know, we received a consultant's report that said there was a need for, I guess, approximately $4.5 million in repairs at the Dell. We are looking at that report. There are some questions about the actual extent of repairs that are needed. For example, the $550,000 would go toward that 4.5 million. There are some things that are recommended in the report that we think might be done more cheaply. When we're done reviewing that 3214 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 report, we'll have a better sense of what appropriate levels of funding might be.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. I am awaiting -- I was under the impression that the discussion between Councilman Nutter and the Chief of Staff dealt with some amendment. Was I wrong?
That's the entire amendment? 3215 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
No. We have -- Mr. Dubow has amendments, copies of the amendments. If it could be circulated please. (Copy of amendments not submitted to stenographer for inclusion notes of testimony.) In
Well, what is the wording of the amendment? Is the amendment contained here? Am I missing something?
Yes. That's the whole wording of the amendment. It changes title from "Veterans Stadium" to "Veterans Stadium Renovations," in accordance with Bill 82 of the year 2000.
Because I have a question about the discussion but I don't know whether it's going to deal with the amendment or not. I hear the discussion and I hear that the Mayor is going to -- he agrees to a process to send us a list of proposed improvements to Veterans Stadium that we can approve by resolution 25 -- and I'll listen intently and wait for the 3216 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 decisive words -- and that he will act accordance therewith with the action of Council, but I don't hear it. I wait for words that indicate that somehow, after he sends us this document, known as "a resolution," submitting the proposed improvements, that we're going to act on it, and somehow, our actions may influence his actions, and I don't get that either. So what does the Mayor agree to other than sending us -- say, he sends us this resolution and we disagreed with the resolution, what happens then?
Then those repairs wouldn't be made if because Council didn't approve the resolution.
The repairs would not be made if Council didn't approve the resolution.
The repairs would not be made. And that means, then, that if there are changes in the resolution, that the Mayor would abide by the changes? If there were some improvements that we approved and some that we thought were not justified, does your answer also 3217 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 apply to that? As a lawyer, it would seem to me that it does, but I want to make sure. I don't want to commit the Mayor to anything the Mayor's not prepared to be committed to, but I also want to know what I'm voting on.
Councilman, I would think -- if you could just take a second. If we are being asked to vote on something which would indicate that only the improvements that we -- Council and the Administration -- have agreed on will be the improvements done, if we made a change, I would think that it wouldn't be any different. The Administration would still have to agree, thereby a situation again occurring where both Council and the Administration agreed. I don't think it's a complicated decision, but I don't think it's going to be just we change and they eat it and we wouldn't want to eat it if we didn't like it. So you still need an agreement. I don't see how it changes if we send 3218 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 something back different than the way it came here. There still has to be an agreement, the same way it had to be agreed on when it came up here from downstairs.
Well, you know, is that the official answer of the Administration? Do you accept that? I don't know in what regard Councilman O'Neill was --
It's just logic. I mean I don't know how you're going to have -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Well, I'd like an answer. The Administration has witnesses here, Councilman O'Neill. I would just like them to answer 'cause they speak for the Administration.
What is the question, Councilman Cohen? Councilman Cohen, just state your question, please, so it can be answered.
In the event that 3219 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Council acts on a resolution by way of amending it and, say, for example -- it's only an example -- that it approves part and disapproves part. Does the Administration agree that it will be committed to the action taken by the Council? What Councilman O'Neill said is always, you know, a possibility of a follow-up statement, we always have to get ultimate agreement. But I want to know, what's the meaning of sending the resolution to us, Mr. Dubow? And I offer him my condolences, 'cause I think he's leaving a very exciting position where action occurs every day.
Councilman, isn't that something that City Council asked for, the approval for any repairs to be made?
Yeah. And I don't understand why there's any delay in saying, Yes, we agree to be found --
I'm asking the 3220 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 question, do they understand that to be an agreement? And I don't understand --
-- I think Councilman Cohen would like to have your understanding of that. He doesn't know why you're hesitating to answer, so please respond.
The only reason I was hesitating, Councilman Cohen, was because you were talking and I didn't want to talk over you. Now that you've, I think, phrased the question and none of the other members of Council have made statements, I'd be happy to answer your question. The sole purpose of the amendment was to implement the procedure that City Council put into effect in Bill 82. And as we testified, in connection with Bill 82, the teams, both the Phillies and the Eagles, will propose a list of repairs that we have agreed on -- the Administration, the Phillies, the Eagles. Because when we gave the preliminary list, Council 3221 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 requested more specificity. So the process we're going to have will be to get the -- all of the analyses and the A and E work, and so we will come in. And at Council's discretion, we would submit the resolution with the specific repairs that are being proposed and the budget and the nature of the repairs. And if Council needs additional information or wants to conduct a public hearing to ask any questions about what is being proposed and why, we would be available to respond to any of those issues or concerns. We -- Council has the right to approve the list by resolution. And I guess there is some question as to whether or not if you approve only part of the list and disapprove the other part of list, whether that constitutes an approval or a disapproval on the part of Council. But there certainly will be an opportunity to explain and talk about the nature of the repairs, which is what he thought would make City Council more comfortable with the expenditure of the capital funds. So the Administration would not proceed 3222 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 with repairs until they were approved by City Council.
Well, that's -- the last sentence is what I'm looking for. The rest -- you say that the City Administration will not proceed with the repairs unless Council has approved them.
Okay. I -- I -- I think I understand that, that Council has to approve the repairs before they undertaken.
And, therefore, I interpret -- now, this is just my interpretation -- that if Council does not approve certain repairs, they will not be done until such time as Council does approve them.
And I think that was the point that Councilman O'Neill was making.
What's that? 3223 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
I just wanted to make sure that we're all agreed that there had to be joint agreement on the repairs before they were made, and I take it that's what the Chief of Staff is saying.
Okay, all right, very good. That clears my mind as of now. I can only live in the hope that the same agreement will apply in the fall as it does in the spring, when the leaves begin to turn brown.
Thank you, Madam President. I want to go back a minute to Councilmember Nutter's line of questioning as to 3224 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 the genesis and reason for the amendment in the first place. And I think the Chief of Staff -- and I'm paraphrasing her -- indicated some confusion as to Council's level of comfort with the protections provided, or purported to be provided, by Bill 82, as amended. There was really, in my opinion, no 9 confusion and I think it was confirmed by a draft opinion from Kenneth Trujillo relative to our request which I made to Council President and Council President made to her staff, who drafted extremely competent and clear questions to ask the City Solicitor, and I want to read, for the record, the reason why the amendment exists in the first place. "As I read it," Mr. Trujillo writes, "Bill No. 82, as amended, does not purport to restrict the Mayor's ability to expend available capital dollars in any appropriate way he sees fit and is authorized by the Charter. Indeed, any attempt by Council to so restrict the Mayor's spending decisions would likely constitute an improper intrusion into an exclusive administrative prerogative. 3225 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 "Bill 82 does authorize the Mayor, subject to further Council approval, to enter into agreements with the tenants of Veterans Stadium, committing the City to make certain specified repairs and improvements, but nothing in Bill 82 requires, or could require, the Mayor to enter into such agreements, and nothing in Bill 82 prohibits, or could prohibit, the Mayor from expending available capital dollars to make additional repairs or improvements to Veterans Stadium beyond those authorized by Bill 82, or even beyond those committed to by the City in leases or any amendments thereto. "Thus, it is my conclusion that the passage of the Capital Budget and Capital Program will legally authorize the Mayor to expend $40 million for repairs and improvements to Veterans Stadium either under the terms of the existing leases with the Phillies or Eagles or under the City's own initiative, without regard to the terms of said leases, and that the terms of Bill 82, as amended, do not and cannot restrict this authority. "The Mayor, through the Public 3226 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Property Commission, is the authorized by the Home Rule Charter to make such repairs to City-owned facilities as he deems fit and appropriate, assuming available funds appropriated and authorized by Council. And nothing in Bill 82, as amended, purports to or could restrict his ability to so spend City capital dollars. "Council's role in the Mayor's discretionary use of City funds is in shaping and enacting the budget. If the budget authorizes the expenditure, Council's formal legal role in the process is at an end. And certainly nothing in Bill 82, as amended, suggests to the contrary." I cannot see a clearer, more uncomplicated, unconfusing position on the City Solicitor's part that, in fact, if we had not taken the measures to amend the Capital Budget to discuss and reference Bill 82, that the possibility exists, and would exist, for the Mayor to spend the money in any way he saw fit. And that's -- there's no confusion as far as City Solicitor's concern and there's no confusion as far as this Council's concerned that the actions that we're hoping to take on the Capital Budget 3227 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 will, in fact, keep that from happening.
Councilman Kenney, I don't disagree with the City Solicitor's interpretation of Bill 82. I think that, unfortunately, you did not paraphrase my comment correctly, because what I was referring to -- I agree with your analysis of Bill 82. What I said, or what I thought I said, and if I didn't say it clearly and there was a misunderstanding, I would like to say it clearly for the record. What I said was that to the extent that City Council was not comfortable with the checks and balances that exist in the Charter -- not Bill 15 82 -- with regard to City Council's ability, even with the authorization, even with the approval of the Capital Budget, the fact that under the Charter, City Council has the ability and the right to amend the budget subsequently, and also the fact that even with the approval of the budget, City Council has another check and balance in the process to approve the loan authorization. So the issue became looking at it in the entire context. And from a timing standpoint, based on the commitments that had been made by the 3228 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Administration to City Council of an open process, the objective of trying to have a conceptual agreement with the teams by the end of June, the fact that we would anticipate submitting a full and complete legislative package to City Council at the beginning of September, the fact that at that point in time, we would have a clear sense as to whether or not the contingency plan would need to be implemented, because we would know whether or not we were proceeding in the discussions of new stadiums, and the fact that at that point, City Council would have the ability to amend the budget or to modify, restrict, preclude the loan authorization, from the Administration's perspective, we believed that City Council had other checks and balances in addition to Bill 82. But to the extent that -- what I was trying to say was that Council was not comfortable with the checks and balances and the power that it has under the Charter, we propose this amendment, because we do agree that there is a possibility, assuming, assuming, that City Council does not, based on the information it has, amend the budget and does not -- and authorizes, you know, adopts 3229 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 the loan authorization, there is that possibility. So to address that possibility, we have offered this amendment. We do not disagree with that analysis at all.
So, I mean, I'm sure you could understand that upon reading Mr. Trujillo's position on this particular legislation, that an additional level of comfort might be required or at least be suggested and --
So my point, I guess, getting back to Councilmember Nutter's line of questioning, is the amendment to Bill No. 3, referencing Bill 82, had has much to do with -- or had just about everything to do with the fact that Mr. Trujillo's position on the unimportance of Bill 82 potentially could have been in the event that we didn't reference Bill 82 in the Capital Budget. That's all -- you know, it's just to clear up the confusion that seemed to have been in the beginning of the testimony. 3230 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
As I said -- what I said earlier was that to the extent that Council was not comfortable with the checks and balances that exist in the Charter, we were prepared to offer up the amendment to deal with the possibility.
Well, I became more uncomfortable after I read Mr. Trujillo's opinion. So, I mean, based on the City Solicitor's position, or at least draft opinion on this thing, I think that we are doing the right thing by moving forward and amending Bill 3.
And we recognize that. And because the Mayor was committed, which was why we agreed to Bill 82 in the first place, and his intent always was to come back to City Council, we have no problem agreeing to and offering up the amendment so that there's no doubt that the Administration will submit the list to Council for its approval by resolution.
I just wanted to make sure that the record was clear. Thank you.
Thank you. 3231 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. Last night, a hypothetical constituent made a hypothetical telephone call to me. (Laughter.)
And said, "What happens if we spend that $80 million on the Vet that the Mayor talking about wanting to spend and you all agree with it? What happens then? Does that mean that we forget all about stadiums until the end of 2010?" And I said, "That's a good question, I don't know. Tomorrow, I'll ask the Chief of Staff."
The answer is yes. Because if we get to a point where we have made $80 million worth of repairs to Vets Stadium, that means that we have not gone forward with new 3232 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 stadium development, that we have made an investment in Vets Stadium, and that one or both of the teams are going to be playing at Vets Stadium until the end of their lease term, which is 2011.
So that means that we can put the stadium question to bed. One way or the other, by the end of this year, we either will have voted for a new stadium or we will have authorized sufficient repairs and made such a heavy investment in the stadium that we can for the next decade -- I'll be in Council still.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions.) 3233 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Hearing none, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the amendment proposed by the Administration for Bill No. 3 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 3, as amended, be approved, with a request for suspension of the rules so as to allow for first reading on City Council's next calender. (Duly seconded.)
It has been 3234 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 3 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Madam President, I move that the amendment proposed by the Administration for Bill No. 4 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment, as proposed by the Administration, be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is 3235 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 carried. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 4, as amended, be approved, and a request be made for a suspension of the rules so as to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 4 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at or next Council session. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell regarding Bill No. 5.
Madam 3236 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 President, I move that the amendment proposed --
I move that Bill No. 5 be approved, that Bill No. 5 be approved, with a request for a suspension of the rules so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 5 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council meeting. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman regarding Bill No. 6.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 6 be reported out 3237 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 of committee with a favorable recommendation and also that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 6 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell regarding Bill No. 7.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 7 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. 3238 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 7 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell regarding Bill No. 8.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 8 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 8 be reported out of committee with a favorable 3239 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 recommendation and also recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell regarding Bill No. 9.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 9 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 9 be voted out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will signify by saying 3240 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell regarding Bill No. 10.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 10 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 10 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session meeting. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. This concludes the public meeting of 3241 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 the Committee of the Whole. (Adjourned at 3:23 p.m.) - - - 3242 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, March 22, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO.'S 000003, 000004, 000005, 000006, 000007, 000008, 000009, 000010 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter