Are those people in your office or are they back in their -- does the Rec Department representative work in the Rec Department?
No. We work right in the same office on the same floor with the Capital -- there's a Project Director for Recreation and there's a Project Director for Parks.
How long have you been there? 65 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116
So I just want to go back to the repair of the roof. Were you aware of that initiative to bundle the roofs?
No; we do it. We've done it with the Police and the Fire roofs. We've actually done it. So I think the PICA funding that's there now is going to bundle some roofs.
So then you're going to let me know today how many roofs are requests for roof repair, right? And then I'll come back to my questions.
I believe my Project Director had indicated to me that 66 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 there were no monies in the capital project -- in the Capital Office, we replace roofs. If it comes to a repair, that's done by the Facilities Maintenance, which is part of the Department of Recreation.
Either way, I think there's a couple questions we need to ask. One is, you're asking is there a request to replace the roof of the -- is it the Finley Recreation Center?
So we'll find out about that. And the distinction that Mr. Knappick is making is that a roof replacement is handled through the Capital Office and is in this, and those are the things that are in this budget. A roof repair like you and I might have on one of our roofs is handled out of -- are you saying this, Gary -- out of 67 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 Operations?
Which comes directly from the Rec Department itself. We'll ask both of them and try to get to the bottom of this.
But at what point do you make the decision that you can no longer repair the roof and it needs a replacement?
That's usually when the roof has exceeded its life cycle. Normally roofs are years. 15 Well-maintained roofs you can keep up to 16 25 depending on the type of roof, but 17 they remain under some form of limited 18 warranty usually during that period of 19 time. In some cases it's just storm 20 damage, force majeure type damages.
I think Finley is 20 years and it needs a replacement. But still get back to me.
We'll find out for you. 68 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a point of information.
I just want to make sure I understood. When the point was made about bundling these projects to get the best price out there, I believe I heard that when we do that, that they come back with one big number. I just can't imagine anybody bidding on a group of projects not breaking it out for 14th District, 35th District. It just doesn't seem reasonable to think they just come back with, We'll fix all the roofs for 10 million bucks, and you don't 69 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 know which is what where. So I think when you send a bid out like that, you ask that it be broken out. I can't imagine that that's not the case. I just can't.
We do get a breakout in the schedule of values. The actual bid itself is a lump-sum bid, though. So when we apply the funding to it, we have to determine how much --
But it's itemized. Hundred thousand for this roof, 25,000 for that one. So I don't know what the big budgeting problem would be in figuring out how to apply money for repair or replacement.
Thank you, 70 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 Madam President. Good morning. (Good morning.)
Real quick one. Schuylkill River Park -- well, actually, Schuylkill riverfront capital improvements, is that Schuylkill River Park in your --
Okay. One of my favorite subjects: Cameras. Mr. Gillison, you can stay.
Video surveillance programs in the first round, we opted to go the Operating Budget route in terms of paying for cameras, which I never understood, but we did do that. Tell me about what the strategy is, if 71 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 there is one, to expand and complete our network and if any relationship has to do with the purchase of the Earthlink assets. Can you kind of talk me through that, or were you trying to save it for a press conference? DEPUTY
Because I was hoping you were -- all right. Well, leave that on the table. DEPUTY
But I can tell you -- can I answer your question, Councilman, in the terms of division that we have? We have, yes, used operating funds. When we came in, that was the decision that was made. So we tried to do as much as we can within whatever the limited funds that were put forward. There was a schedule for a larger commitment that we could not actually afford, as you know. I think it was like $12 million a year was going to 72 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 be in perpetuity was part of that, and that was just not sustainable. The idea that we have is as follows: We have pretty much put up the cameras that we are able to do with -- and actually maintain them with in-house. We're just shy of the 200 cameras. We thought we'd get 250. We're about at 200 at this point. We have a data issue on backhaul, because we want to keep the images up to 30 days in order to make sure that we can store them. We are dealing with that issue today. We have gone the grant route. The City has gone from a Tier 2 city for homeland security purposes. We're now a Tier 1 city. That's going to be able to give us a little bit more money from the federal government. We have applied for and received grants to be able to -- on critical infrastructure, thanks to Congressman Fattah. He was able to put money for cameras around critical infrastructure needs around the City. 73 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 That we are already planning for, and we're hoping to have up an additional 600 cameras that we will be paid for out of the grant that we have received and what we anticipate will be continuing needs. The second tier, something that you just were referencing in reference to the wireless --
If you don't want to talk about it today, you can save it for the press conference. DEPUTY
We will be able to use that in a very inventive way. I'll just leave it at that. That will enable us to do a lot of things that we cannot do right now. And the third one is is that we are looking at using collaborative relationships with businesses so that we will establish a platform. This is the Chicago model. They actually go to the businesses and they say, If you use digital cameras with this open network and give the city the permission to 74 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 actually view, then the cameras that are in the various places will then just be when we need them, we can just flip a switch and, guess what, they multiply the numbers of cameras that the police have access to by the thousands.
We have started that conversation, both with the Center City District and other districts around the areas and with our business partners, to tell them exactly what we're doing and why, and, yes, our wireless issues will be part of that matter.
Getting back to the first part of my question. Is there any money in this Capital Budget that will go towards either the infrastructure, the fiberoptics associated with the hardwired cameras, or any of the activities that allow us to expand? And the reason I'm asking that, one of the reasons, because given our challenge with our Operating Budget, the 75 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 thought that we continue to spend that money was just not prudent, from my perspective, and the fact that we're actually -- I don't necessary agree with this -- spending capital dollars for planting of trees, and that's basically to supplant our operating inability to do that, I would think that we would take the similar approach on our cameras in our video surveillance program. If we're going to spend money that traditionally was operating, I think we should do it through capital. DEPUTY
I hear your concern, and I will get the direct answer. I don't have that as I sit here right now, but I can get that information to you, and I'll have that today, Councilman.
All right. Can you -- because I'm hearing more than I actually knew, as I'm sure most of us are, in terms of having alternative sources of financing. I'm glad we're 76 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 finally raised to the level where we can get some homeland security dollars. Can you arrange for a briefing -- DEPUTY
-- with the Council President's Office for members of Council, because it sounds like there's a lot going on that we're not -- I was actually just looking at some old news clippings of a 2006 editorial. It was about the camera program. We were getting ready to take a vote. And so I'm glad to see that we're finally evolving to the level that was referenced in that editorial. DEPUTY
Thank you. Thank you. But, yes, I will. I'll arrange it through the Council President's Office.
During the last Administration, we had a Commissioner, Victor Richards, who a lot 77 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 of Councilmembers had a great working relationship with. And this is not for you, Mr. Gillison. He had -- and I don't know exactly how he did it. He had the ability to accelerate the installation of capital projects. We didn't really -- I know I didn't ask him. He just got it done, and it was a process that was different than the traditional lengthy procurement, notification, installation project, because it seems like from the time that a Councilmember says that this is what I'd like to see this money go towards, particularly the funding that's in our categories, it seems to be upwards of a year in some cases to actually have the equipment installed. He was able to do something -- and I don't know exactly how he did it. He got it done a lot quicker. I don't know if he had a vendor of choice already lined up.
I don't know. I mean, you do -- I know you have those kind of programs under emergency 78 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 conditions. I don't know about the things that are not quite emergencies, but let me find out. His name was? Say it again. His name was Victor Richards?
I know, but it's not part of my institutional memory, so I just want to write it down.
I'm saying you have some people here that were here during that time. You do have some leftovers, right?
Yeah. He was, I think, the Recreation Commissioner, I'm being told. Does that sound right?
Yeah. And he did some things and I don't know how he did them.
But all we know, it was three, four months and boom. 79 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 My assumption is that it was within some guidelines.
I'll come back and ask you the question again, so give you time to figure it out.
I want to find out about that, because obviously I don't know.
You're welcome. Is Councilwoman Blackwell in the room? (No response.)
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Greenberger, I want to tell you a little story that happened recently, actually over a period of years. It's about the largest public 80 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 works project in the history of the Commonwealth, which is right across the street down the way here. And for a long period of time --
The Convention Center expansion. And due to lack of coordination, lack of focus, miscommunication, politics also, there were long periods of time of delays in design and pencils up, pencils down. We're going to go, we're not going to go. All things were involved with it. Finally, they decided that they actually wanted to get the thing built and they hired a guy by the name of Joe Resta, who left the Department of General Services and went under the employ of the Convention Center Authority. And from that point onward, with some glitches here and there, from that point onward, that project got momentum, it became focused, it became coordinated, and it's 81 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 getting done on time based on the new schedule, not on time where we wanted it to be, but on time and around budget. How many capital offices do we have in the departments throughout the City? How many individual departments have a capital office? I mean, doesn't Recreation have a capital office?
Several of them do. I don't know the number off the top of my head, but I'm sure you're right.
And then we have a Capital Budget Office on top of that?
Who is the project manager? Who is the overall 82 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 project manager of every capital project in the City of Philadelphia? Do we need one? I think we do, obviously. I've been here long enough -- and this is not your fault, but I've been here long enough to have these discussions or hear these discussions with every City Planning director we've ever had and every commissioner of every department we've ever had. Whether we need to go outside or whether we need to hire a person and bring them inside, do we need a Joe Resta or someone like him or her to kick these projects in the rear when they need to be kicked, to move things around when it makes sense and to actually accomplish things other than a ten-year wait for a floor in a firehouse?
All fair points. What's he doing after the Convention Center?
I think he may retire. He probably wouldn't want to 83 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 come here.
But there are other folks. Don't get me wrong, I think everybody in City government works hard. They work hard within the constraints they have on regulations, on how you bid things. Because when the gentleman at the table told Councilwoman Miller that it was in design, I like shuddered, because "in design" means possibly another year and a half to two possibly. Now, I sensed that since you wrote it down because she wants to get it done, "in design" may be faster this time on this project because it's now focused. Despite the fact of everyone's hard work and everyone's desire to get the job done, there's not one person in charge of saying, Do this now, don't do that now, do this next week. Why can't we find someone to put an RFP out for a 84 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 company, a Keating, somebody who can -- and I'm not suggesting that you hire them, but an RFP for a company to project manage this entire Capital Budget once and for all, coordinate our folks who want to do the job -- I think Eric Iffrig is probably tired of hearing from me and everybody else in this Council -- to give them some coordination and some direction so this stuff -- the money we appropriate actually gets spent. Councilman Green's point is accurate. We're in a situation right now where no one is working. We have construction tradespeople out of work. We have all kinds of folks out of work. These projects should be stimulating our own local economy and our regional economy, but we have no 20 coordination, and we need a PM and maybe CMs underneath the PMs, but something. I mean, we got to go at a different approach, because this, after 18 years here in my case, does not work.
And you're 85 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 talking about -- I think those are fair points. And you're talking about, as you know from my professional background, this is something I had to deal with all the time.
And what happens in your professional background when this don't work? You lose money.
You're really talking about serious capacity problems, both from the standpoint of the money and the standpoint of the management. I don't have an answer obviously --
Well, as Mr. Knappick said in response to Councilman Greenlee's question, there's a 86 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 lot more to do. There's a lot more to do here, and obviously the more we can figure out to do, the more it's going to test the system's capacity to get it done. These things still have to be put out of the system, which is to your point about how is that happening.
We don't have the capacity to do it, let alone the money.
No. We have the money because we appropriated the money last --
But projects have been in the pipeline -- I hate that word "pipeline." It drove me nuts under NTI -- under a pipeline for years. So the money is there. I mean, is the money gone? Once we've appropriated it and five years go by, is 87 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 the money gone?
So the money is appropriated. The allocation is there. The authority is there. Why don't we just streamline this process? What's holding stuff from streamlining the process? If Joe Resta was in charge of our Capital Office today, what would stop him from moving things forward?
There could be a number of things, but that's a pretty lengthy discussion that I'd love to get into in detail with you, because I know that you know something about this topic, as do I. Let's have a conversation about that.
Would you consider maybe a search or an RFP or something --
Reinventing 88 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 government. Again, that's an old term now, but going forward, this is critical not only to the economy but all these communities and what they look like and how people feel about them and the frustration politically here.
As you know, at least certainly the thing that I've been discovering the last year and a half and really through my professional life doing public-sector projects throughout the country, is that public sector has its own limitations about -- mostly about accountability and process. This isn't by way of an excuse. This is simply understanding that public and private move differently. We need to figure out systems like what you're describing.
But, remember, my initial story is a public project. It's not a private project.
So let's get to the bottom of why that worked. I mean, it's probably more than just the 89 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 one guy.
Well, certainly the force of that personality and his experience made a difference.
Absolutely. And a kind of willingness of everybody to say, Okay, we're going to pay attention to this guy and make this happen.
Thank you, Madam President. I have to go right in line with my colleagues and the concern about in a recession, how in the world, when we have capital dollars under our control, can we, in good conscience, be looking to the federal government to stimulate an economy that we have the ability to 90 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 stimulate, when we talk about backlogs like that? Now, that's my statement, and I'm going to say this, that when I first came to Council, Councilman Rizzo said that when it comes to capital projects, you need to be patient, and he gave me this, which is a pipeline, and he said that you need to get in line, and all of the other Councilpeople signed it. I'm going to get the rest of them to do that. I am not that patient. When I go through my neighborhood and I see young men standing on the corner, talking about, Councilman, when is the stimulus going to stimulate us, and when are we going to actually have some jobs? And I looked at the statistic that says we have a $2.4 billion capital project program with 73 projects in them and we did 76 projects last year. How much of that was held over from the previous year and how much is held over for this year? And on top of that, have we done a quantitative analysis that says when we bid out these 91 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 projects, is it cheaper to bid them out or should we take some smaller projects, serve as a GM, PM, CM, as my colleague suggested, and actually do the job where we can hire young people from the neighborhoods ourselves for a temporary time for the project to stimulate that local economy? Have we done an analysis to say do we come out cheaper retrofitting a recreation center ourselves versus feeding the contractors that are, in my opinion, sometimes the usual suspects that are from Jersey, not from Philadelphia, because I know by the dump truck tags that often pull up there. Can we control some of the jobs so that we can stimulate and target where those jobs are created? Have we done the analysis?
I'm not aware of such an analysis. I'm impressed that you had that pipeline, by the way. That was great. There are a lot of legal and 92 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 technical issues that I know you're aware of as well that make doing things like that difficult, not impossible to do an analysis of and not impossible to think through, but tough to do. They have to do with the City's requirements for bonding, for insurance, all the things that are problems for particularly for small contractors.
The good news about being around a while is that you've been around a while. And Bob Warner will tell you I came from a procurement and MBE background. You can emphatically choose not to bid something but to do it internally. It doesn't take analysis paralysis to do that. And if you have not done the study to see if the taxpayers benefit from the lower price, then it is a shame that we haven't looked at that, and it is not acceptable that we don't. In your testimony last year -- well, not you. In the testimony from 93 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 your counterpart last year, you said that you were going to work with in fact the Public Property to see if we couldn't expedite some of these contracts, and I want to gauge in this year how much progress we've made.
Good point? I'm not trying to make points. I'm trying to get clarity. Somebody can answer me.
I understand. I don't have an answer for you on how to right that system and increase our capacity to push through work, which is what you're asking about.
Well, let me say this to you. During the break, I'm going to go get some Snickers bars, because if you don't have an answer for that, with all of this brainpower in the back, y'all going to be here a while, because that is unacceptable when I go back to my district. We haven't done the 94 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 analysis. We haven't thought that out. Think it out, and we need some answers, because we're appropriating money here in this Council. That money should at some point stimulate a local economy by way of taxes, by way of jobs, by way of quality of life of the people who live in this City. And it's not good enough just to say we just haven't thought about.
Well, but I mean, a lot of work is getting pushed out the door. I mean, what we're talking about is how to get more work pushed out the door. It's not like nothing is getting pushed out. People are working at capacity to get work out the door.
I don't know. I'll get an answer for you on that, 95 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 though. I'd be happy to.
We have 300 bridges in the City of Philadelphia that have been deemed unsafe. If we just worked with the federal government to appropriate money, we could stimulate our own economy. We have 3,000 miles of water infrastructure under our feet as we speak that is over 100 years old in some places. We don't need the federal government to stimulate a darn thing. We could stimulate it right here, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist or an engineer to help hold a pipe that digs a ditch. We can do these things. They are within our power to do. Someone, some bright ones, smarter than us here in this Council, should be figuring that out. The Obama Administration is talking about a jobs bill right now. They're drafting it up. It may be too little too late to stop what's going on in our neighborhoods, but if we use that as a source of capital and then with 96 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 these capital projects, there are all kinds of creative apprenticeship programs that we can do. This analysis paralysis is not good enough.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a point of information.
Thank you. Mr. Greenberger, one of my co-workers pointed out to me that there are projects in the Capital Budget carried forward since 1998. Bridge repair, which my colleague just mentioned. This delay, what do you think the increased costs associated with a delay in today's economy costs the City of Philadelphia in delay?
I don't know a number, but I certainly know from my own experience that even though the construction markets go up and down -- we 97 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 happen to be in a trough at the moment of good prices -- the overall message is that prices do increase. So getting projects done faster is obviously better in general.
But point well made. We really need to get somebody to start kicking this stuff in the butt and get it moving, coordinating. Maybe the commissioners of the departments need to get back in the act. I don't think anybody knows other than the operating departments what their needs are and the priorities. Maybe that's where you ought to start, without reinventing the wheel. 98 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Councilman, I would just like to say, year after year at budget time, it's the same questions, the same complaints that we receive, and we're always told, Oh, we're going to make improvements. But apparently the improvements never take place.
Madam President, you've been trying to get roofs fixed in recreation centers since I think I've been here, and we hear the same thing, as you just mentioned, each and every year.
I think Councilman Clarke mentioned Victor 99 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 Richards. He didn't wait. He just did it.
He just did it, and that's the action it's going to have to take. Because we've been here for a long time and it's the same questions, frustrations we've all experienced year after year, but at least in the Recreation Department a lot got done, because he just went out and raised money, did things in the Rec Department that had never been done before. You just have to do it, because if you wait for the process and wait to follow the rules, it will never get done.
Before I recognize Councilman Green, we talk about the roofs at the recreation centers that have to be repaired or 100 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 whatever, and we wait for the Recreation Department or the Capital Budget to bundle. How many roofs do we have to bundle at one time and isn't that being penny wise and dollar foolish? Because if you wait long enough, there's more damage that's caused from a leaking roof than it's worth to bundle. How many roofs do we have to bundle in order for them to go out for an RFP? I don't think you would know. Somebody from Capital, you're still here. Can you come up to the table, explain to us how this process works, please. (Witness approached witness table.)
Gary Knappick from the Department of Public Property. Basically if there's an emergency situation on a roof, we can take care of it with a requirements contract. We're currently looking into -- it can be taken care of almost under -- we hire contractors and go out 101 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 there, take a look at it, give us an estimate. If we agree with the estimate, it becomes a time and material contract. We're currently looking at another method to move projects along that could be a little bit larger projects that -- it's called job order contracting.
Job order contracting, and it basically involves contractors bidding on unit prices. We would have general contractors, mechanical, electrical and so forth that we could deploy very quickly on jobs that didn't require any kind of significant design. Relative to the roofs, if there is a budget, an actual budget for roofs, then -- and that budget isn't redirected for some reason due to an emergency nature, we would put those roofs out as one project for a department. And as you said, there's no reason not to cross 102 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 marry departments, other than it's a little bit easier accounting.
I think there has to be a better way. I just am reflecting upon one of my recreation centers where we had a faulty roof. As a result, the gym floor was totally destroyed. I think the walls had been painted. They were soaking wet and had to be repainted again. As I said, we sometimes are penny wise and dollar foolish. There's got to be a better system. And I'm wondering with all of the rain that we had over the past weekend how much damage was caused as a result of the faulty roofs that we're talking about.
In some cases, the thing we like to do initially is to make sure that we don't spend funds foolishly in replacement of a roof that could be repaired, and that involves a little bit of our communicating and working with our facilities maintenance 103 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 departments as well.
Yes. Just two comments very quick. Can we get a report to the Council President of the 76 new projects that were budgeted in 2010, can you detail how many were actually started, and of those started, how many were completed, if any, and is scheduled for more than a year? And please detail when those will be complete. And I just want to make comments in support of what the folks are saying about the economy and the fact that we in Philadelphia can help stimulate. We have an RFP out for a small recreation job for 2.5 million and there were 27 contractors that bid on that job. So that's just an example. There was an overwhelming number of folk 104 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 to bid on that small job. But it's just an example of what's happening here with this economy. People need work, and certainly with the Capital Project Office, that is one place where we could help boost the economy here and get Philadelphians back to working. But we do need to have a report. Maybe we need to always be updated on what's happening in the capital project area.
Madam President, on the FY10, I would remind Council that we are still waiting for the authorization for the borrowing associated with FY10, which I believe is planned to be before the voters in the first week of May.
All 105 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 right. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Agostini, while you're up there, if you could take a look at of the Five Year Capital Budget and maybe explain to me, there's about $350 million of sort of non-Airport, Water Department stuff, funds, at the top of , the CT, CR, CN, CA and A funds, whatever that is. So for FY2011, you've got 220 million carried-forward loans. How much of that is the FY10 that has not been approved yet?
Sixty-three million. So that's roughly 180 million of carry-forward from previous years. Is that money in the bank? Do we have $183 million of cash in the bank? Is it in separate segregated accounts?
Councilmember, 106 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 there is -- all of it has been appropriated. Much of it requires match funds. It is probably something worthy of a spreadsheet for Council to give you the breakout, and we probably should do that by department as well so that you have a sense of where it is.
But, I mean, my question is, $183 million has been borrowed and received by the City through previous authorizations. Is that cash in the bank in a dedicated reserve account or -- (Witness approached witness table.)
Chris Donato from the Budget Office. There is about half of FY08 and all of FY09 that we have not actually gone out to borrow yet.
So we're not even borrowing the money that we authorized. And why is that?
We generally 107 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 borrow every two years for the Capital Budget, depending on the level, the funding level.
So we've got 102 million in new non-carry-forward projects, right, for FY10 -- or FY11, sorry, that is in the budget. When are we planning to borrow that money for what we're authorizing for this year?
But we haven't borrowed for FY08 and FY09 funds. I mean --
That doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, what's the point of having us appropriate something that there's no intention to borrow for, and if there's no intention of borrow, obviously there's no intention to spend.
Once we have the authorization, we can move forward with 108 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 spending before we borrow.
So there are instances for many projects where once we have the authorization, to the extent that we have dollars we can make available to get those projects started, we do that, with the expectation then when the borrowing is complete, we will begin to repay those sources that sort of lent money for those projects to get started, for the very reasons that you've been discussing here, which is we need to get projects started.
Right, but we have had very tight cash constraints the last two years. Not making these capital borrowings explains perfectly well why nothing has gotten done, even these critical life-safety projects and everything else that were raised in the PICA report and that we've discussed for three years. Right? I mean, there wasn't cash in the bank, so we couldn't borrow from some other fund and then 109 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 repay it back later, so we just did nothing, instead of going out and doing these --
I'm not sure I agree with that, Councilmember. Just on the cash flow, there was sufficient cash flow from other sources, principally capital, funds, dollars, cash that we had that allowed us to manage our cash flow situation in the fall of 2009 in a manner that would have been impossible without that. We would have been in much worse shape had it not been for that.
I'm not sure what that means. Does that mean that you borrowed from capital accounts for operating?
Well, what we did is, there were times when we had sufficient cash flow available to us in a consolidated cash position that allowed us to manage our finances much more effectively had it just been a General Fund. If we had just been relying on the 110 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 General Fund, we would have had very significant problems back in the fall.
But doesn't that mean if you're borrowing from the capital funds for operating, intending to pay that back later, which of course you have to do --
-- doesn't that explain why no capital projects are getting done?
I don't believe that was the case at all. In fact, we made sure and -- Chris and I went through and actually at one point had a very detailed list back in August and September of '09, a very detailed list of what projects we might have to hold up if we got into a situation where even the 111 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 consolidated cash position was compromised because of what was going on with the state budget. Thankfully, that did not come to pass where we had to basically say stop everything. But with respect to the question that you had, I'll let Chris get back to the question in terms of the staging of the borrowings and the staging of the spending.
Well, it looks to me like there's a correlation between the lack of borrowings for '08 and '09 and the fact that many of the things that we appropriated for '08 and '09 have not been completed and are still in design.
We did obtain the authorization, which at that point allows us to obligate the funds and should keep projects moving. So if projects haven't moved -- 112 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116
But our cash position was so low that -- I mean, I think we said only about half of the 180 million was there. That's $90 million. You weren't telling people to go ahead and let capital projects, because you didn't know, as Mr. Agostini just testified, whether or not you would need the money. You had lists of stuff you might stop or other things, but if you borrowed all that money and you had it in the bank, you could have let many more projects.
Councilman, I think it's actually the reverse. The projects, for lack of a better word, mature to the state that they're ready to move forward, and once you bundle all the things that are ready to move forward, you borrow the money in a big bond issue to pay for it. So it's not that the projects didn't move forward from lack of borrowed money. It's that the projects were not ready to move forward and, 113 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 hence, the money wasn't borrowed to pay for them.
But, Mr. Greenberger, we know the projects were ready to move forward because I have a list from Public Property --
-- of projects that were ready to move forward that you say we had the money for, some of which were supposed to be completed by March of 2010 that have not begun. So, you know, what you're saying, it fundamentally doesn't -- what you're saying and what is actually happening seem to be two separate realities.
Councilmember, I don't agree with that, and maybe it's because I don't understand the points that you're making. I believe, as the three of us have tried to say, there have been instances when, particularly in the cash flow situation that we found 114 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 ourselves last year, where we had identified areas where we might have to slow up spending or stop spending. It never got to that point. At the most, there were payments made for work that had been completed already where we started to slow the payments, as we had done with many, many vendors on the capital side. In terms of the availability of funds, which I think is what you're asking, we felt there was sufficient availability of funds, and the borrowings to fund portions of the '8, '9 and '10 Capital Budgets, that was something that was supposed to have happened in November of '09 and it didn't for a number of reasons that I believe has been discussed here in Council prior.
Well, for '10 we understand. For '8 and '9 I'm not sure I understand, but, okay. So let me turn the question on its head. In 2011, we're supposed to spend $102,581,000. 115 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 How much of that will we spend in 2011?
That's a very fair question, and in constructing the Capital Budget for '11, what we said to every one of the departments, most notably Division of Technology, Streets, Fairmount Park and Parks and Recreation, is that they had to have schedules so that even if we could not borrow those funds in May of '10, May coming, and we had to borrow in November of '10, that they would be in process so that the money would be spent as quickly as possible. It's our expectation certainly on the Budget side and I think just generally in the Administration that the dollars being set aside in the '11 budget need to be spent as quickly but as carefully as possible in order to have the impact.
No. My answer 116 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 is that everyone has been in --