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.