Well, I asked is it 50 percent, 80 percent, 100 percent?
Councilmember, I don't think that's something that lends itself to that. It's our expectation they're going to spend all of the money to take care of it, that they are going to spend the money as we have appropriated, whether it's for trees, whether it's for street paving. The one place where that might be a trickier thing is, spending $25 million in one year on IT-related issues is going to be interesting, but the need is there and I think Allan can get it done.
Thank you, Madam Chair. 117 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 In continuation with what I think is a pattern of questioning, under your system and if indeed we go after a GM, PM, CM, whatever we're calling it, couldn't that be housed under Public Property and then provide the analysis to see how we can move these projects faster? I mean, isn't that an expenditure worth making? I look at projects -- and I notice in the case of River Road, Pump House Station was supposed to be, for example, torn down. It took so long they reappropriated money. Now we have -- the bid lapsed. Now we have to redo the bid. And the people there are a part of a major environmental project, Schuylkill River Trail. It is smack dab in the way of it, a blighted municipally owned property. We have to do something to really move these projects along. It can do nothing but help our coffers by way of City revenues provided by wage taxes. I 118 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 don't understand. It's a win-win scenario. The community gets projects, the City gets a workforce, the City of Philadelphia gets tax revenues. Why isn't that a priority?
Councilmember, I would suggest, from the Administration side, an action was taken about a year to months ago in an attempt to improve 11 both the budgeting and the management of 12 capital projects. The budgeting was 13 moved under my office in the effort to be 14 much more careful and much more on top of 15 what was happening with the finances. 16 To your point, one of the first 17 things that we had an extended 18 conversation in which Alan Greenberger and Alan Urek in Planning was involved in, we understood at that time, when that moved over to me, that there was a significant backlog of projects, and we have spent probably the last six to nine months querying each and every one of the departments about that and getting a 119 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 schedule by which those dollars will be spent. Now, on the budgeting side, I can do what I can do on the budgeting side.
So on the execution side, where are the top three things we're going to do different next year?
I think we have to have that conversation, but clearly, one of the things we have to do is, we've got to get the money out the door and we've got to get these projects completed. That's clearly the message that I'm taking away from the discussion we're having right here.
All right. Here's some questions. Why is there no 21 money for commercial corridor enhancements, capital projects this year? We have over 130 commercial corridors in the City of Philadelphia and we're not going to do anything on any of them? 120 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116
I believe they had a significant carry-forward funding for --
I don't know off the top of my head. I don't know if Commerce could comment on the commercial corridors.
I mean, the small businessperson is being looked to to do the heavy lifting on whatever tax we decide to do, whether it's the beverage tax, whether it's a trash tax, but we're not going to see some of that money back on commercial corridors? That doesn't make sense to me. And there's only 70,000 for retaining walls, is that right, for the entire City?
I think again to Chris's point, when we were looking at this, we had conversations and questions with each of the departments, asking them to identify how they were going to spend what was, in some cases, millions of 121 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 dollars in carry-forward funds that had been scheduled to be spent, and in some cases, we made a recommendation that rather than allocate new dollars, they needed to spend the existing dollars that were there, and I think in the commercial corridors, that was an example of that.
We're going to be here a while. I need an answer on how much carry-forward money that is. Enjoy it, because we're going to be here a minute. I need to know how much that is and where they are intended to go.
I need a list of where there is a project on hand for --
In terms of 122 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 prior funding?
Councilman, if I may just add just a little fact to answer one of your questions. The Commercial and Cultural Corridor Bond money from several years ago is still being executed. Probably 80 to 85 percent of it is done. About 15 million of it is in commercial corridors that is still being done and apparently is about to be -- is either bid and about to start construction now that the weather has turned --
Fifteen 123 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 million.
In commercial -- well, the whole program for commercial corridors was 59 million, much of that done.
Well, of the entire cultural, which was to various cultural organizations and commercial corridors, about low 80 percentile was spent by December 31st previous year.
So there's still more to go, most of it in the commercial corridor part.
Out of the 130 commercial corridors, how many of those corridors were impacted?
I'll find out for you. I mean, I'm picturing the list. It's in the dozens. 124 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116
So is it safe to say that we could have spent three times that much and still not hit all of the corridors? Yes.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Victor Richards, I'm going to go back to Victor Richards. I would hope that somebody -- this is my last 125 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 question -- would have figured out who Victor Richards was. And I actually found out -- and I shouldn't be saying this, but Victor Richards actually apparently got a playground built on a School District parcel and I'm finding out that we actually didn't have authorization, but we're cleaning it up. But that's the level of passion that was put in the job. Now, I got a little history with this building and this government, both as an elected official and non-elected official, and I've seen this whole Capital Programs issue change over the years. It started out where the commissioners kind of had direct control. Things got done relatively quickly, but then a prior Administration they created this Capital Programs Office to kind of keep a handle on everything, and now it's actually evolved, where now the Public Property Commissioner is in charge of Capital, and at the end of the day, I 126 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 think that structurally the whole process is broken, and we actually added to that, from my perspective, when we passed a bill -- it was called the contracts laws and provisions, that I think the point of passing those bills was to have a better handle on creating more transparency and make sure that people can't buy their way into getting work, the whole nine yards. It was well intended, but at the end of the day, it added additional burdens to our ability to move the procurement process and get contracts let and built. What I'm asking -- and we ask these kind of questions every year. As Councilmembers were just talking among ourselves, we said we do this for the last 15 years and it's the same questions every year, because nothing ever changes. I'm hoping -- and those Snickers bars can actually give you a little emphasis -- that this year we look at this in a serious way. There are certain structural 127 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 challenges within the procurement process, as you referenced earlier, Mr. Greenberger, but they can be changed. Some of the contracts provisions that we put in place around six years ago, they can be changed. We have the process of requirements contracts, my understanding, where we basically -- we could have pre-approved contractors on a list that will circumvent this long, lengthy process, contracts in. We do the same thing every year. Why do we have to go out every year and solicit bids and go through that long process when it's the same work every year? I mean, we're here every year. We have a set number of rec centers, a set number of pools, a set number of other municipal buildings that we're going to have to continually work. I would think that there is a set number of contractors who can probably do that work, and we got to make sure that we have minority and female participation in 128 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 that set. Why can't we simply go out and have a pre-approved list of contractors that do this work and structurally change the nature of our procurement process -- because I've seen us do it on smaller jobs -- and be in a position to just cut this process in half? I mean, from my perspective, it doesn't seem like rocket science, and if some laws need to be changed to allow us to do this, laws within the structure of creating transparency, then simply tell us and I'm sure we'll do this. Because I agree with everything that was said. Our ability to get our own local stimulus program in place, because we do have money, our ability to get this money spent in a timely way, having somebody in charge that will be as aggressive as a Victor Richards, why can't we do that? Just explain to me.
I think we need to look into trying to do exactly what 129 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 you just described.
But, I mean, we got to look into it for real. We have to not only look into it, we got to do something, because we'll be right back here next year with the same questions and the same response, I hear your point. I mean, I don't want to call this guy's name, but Frank Fabey, he's like the mid-level guys. Frank Fabey is a guy -- and I'm getting him in trouble, because I know they're going to say, Well -- that you need something done and he says, Well, Councilman, we'll figure out a way, and he was like in that Victor Richards mode. And we figure out a way within the bounds of the law to get stuff done, you know. And I don't even ask how it gets done, but it gets done. We got to take that attitude. I mean, it's like --
Councilman, PICA has initiated a review of the City's 130 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 capital projects process, and we're cooperating with them. We had our first meeting to review all of our internal policies, procedures, external factors that all can affect the length of a capital project, and they're going to come out at some point hopefully this week with a set of recommendations.
This is my problem: Why do we need PICA to do that for us? And we're meeting with PICA Wednesday, by the way, with one of our committees, if you need us to talk to them about it. I mean, if we have people in the department that know how to get stuff done, we need to talk to our people. There's a way we can do it. We sat here three, four years ago and the Council President was talking about using the existing workforce to fix our facilities, using capital money to purchase materials. We have plumbers, roofers. We have all these people on staff. And 131 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 we did it for a minute, and I got a center done over at Cecil B. Moore, and these guys went in there and did a great job, half the cost, half the time, and then we don't do it anymore. We need to structurally change the way we do our capital projects, and we really need to go beyond just simply saying, I hear you, we'll look into this. And I'm not blaming you guys. I know you guys are relatively new to the system, but it's just like the frustration is coming out, because it's like every year. I've been in Council for ten years. It's the same questions, and those members who have been here longer than me, I know they're more frustrated than I. It's like, come on, guys. My time is up, Madam President. That's what I get for editorializing. I didn't really get to ask a question. My fault. Okay, Madam President. I'll come back.
The 132 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 Chair recognizes Councilman -- are you finished?
Point of information, Council President. Can we get an update on the Robin Hood Dell and if it expects to -- where is the construction and if it's going to open this year.
Councilwoman, the current schedule that's been reworked after the pretty bad snowstorms we had, which had construction kind of slowed down a bit, is I think on May 17th is when the project will be completed. We're trying to incorporate some additional work into the project as well relative to the roofs and some interior work.
So that's great, then. So the construction will be 133 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 completed May 17th?
I was a Project 134 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 Director.
Councilman Clarke, you were finished? Your time was up.
If you're going to give me more time -- no; I was finished.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So does moving a project from operating to capital typically make it more inefficient?
I believe it does, because there's certain spending -- or certain types of work that are strictly associated with capital based on 135 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 the borrowing and what takes place. Operating dollars can be moved over to the capital side to pretty much do any type of work that's necessary.
That was kind of a trick question, because last year's Operating Budget had $300,000 to, quote -- and I'm quoting the Operating Budget from last year -- "plant 3,300 trees throughout the City." This year the Capital Budget is proposing 2.5 million to plant 6,000 trees. So it's 3,300 trees at 300K versus 6,000 trees at two and a half million, which is less than twice as many trees at eight times the cost. Is there an explanation for that?
I can give you at least a beginning of it. As you heard Commissioner DiBerardinis say, they haven't figured out yet exactly how many park trees, how many street trees are 136 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 being planted, but I can tell you from actually having been involved in specifying and designing this kind of stuff, the cost of tree planting varies tremendously with whether you're doing it in a street, meaning in a concrete pavement, and whether you're grouping trees like we do, for instance, here in Center City versus in a park or in my little grass strip outside my house. The price variation can be three and four times as much.
And it has to just do with the technical realities of what the trees are sitting in, the kind of trenching, the engineered soil versus dig a hole, put a tree in.
You don't have to answer that question. You can 137 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 get me the information.
And also give me the breakdown of the different costs and how we're going to get to 6,000 this year. And I can ask, I guess, a follow-up question when Parks comes before us.
With respect to Streets, last year's Capital Program budget had $118 million for street resurfacing. I think when the Mayor gave his budget address, he basically said we were going to go from 10 million in spending to 17 million next year and pave more streets, but if you look at over the six years of the Capital Budget, we've actually decreased spending by $20 million for street repaving, and I'm just curious as to what the thinking is there and then how many streets we actually repaved last year and, as a practical 138 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 matter, how many we can actually repave this year. And I don't need an answer for that right now either. If you could just provide it to the President.
Because that will come up during the Streets Department hearing. And the only other question I have -- and Dr. Schwarz does not have to answer this now -- is, we're spending 6.9 million, the Capital Budget includes first phase of building an electronic health records system in the Health Department. There was information provided to us last year about how much that would save in operations and I just wanted to know for departmental hearings, for you to be prepared to talk about whether this investment will have a return. And the final thing is for the IT department or for Revenue or Finance in departmental hearings, we're talking 139 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 about investing $25 million in IT. I fully understand that people don't want to be held accountable to what the savings are going to be from that investment. However, no private company would make $103 million of investment without knowing what the return on that investment is going to be. I fully support this funding, but I think we need to be prepared to say what the return on that investment is going to be or it's hard to justify it.
I don't think it's a question about being accountable. It's not that we don't want to be accountable. I think all of us anticipate we will be held accountable and work to that end, so that's not issue. The issue --
Well, there has to be a target by which you measure. 140 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116
If I may, the issue is that we are trying to be prudent. We anticipate that there will be savings. The return-on-investment analysis has proven to be a difficult one. It is not an easy thing to do, and having done this for a state government for many years, I'll tell you that the return investment analysis for the kind of basic system improvements we are talking about is illusive at best. But we will try to generate savings. I think it would be proper for this body to hold us accountable to that.
Well, we have to have an estimate of those savings to have something to hold the Administration accountable to. And we'll discuss that again during Revenue and Finance hearings and IT hearings. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. This Committee will stand in 141 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 recess until 1:45. Thank you. (Luncheon recess.)
The Committee of the Whole is now back in session. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
your testimony you give some discussion to the Philadelphia International Airport wherein you state that more than one billion of the federal, state, private and City new and carried-forward self-sustaining funds are recommended to enable the Airport to do its necessary renovation, modernization and expansion. And then on the detail, 6, 7 and 8 and 9 of the detail, you go into what that means. It's stated in the testimony or 142 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 at least in the detail what the breakdown is, but for the record, tell us what portion of that one billion are City dollars.
Yeah, the new City borrow. You can see that on of the report. There's a breakdown by each agency, and you'll see under Aviation, new City tax-supported dollars, zero. All funding sources, 1, I guess it's, billion 072,960. Do you see it? Second line down on .
Okay. Tell me what are the federal regulations or requirements or rules for inclusion?
I know that the Aviation -- the Airport does very 143 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 well on that, but I don't know their rules off the top of my head, but I'll be happy to get them for you.
And you say you know that the Airport does very well on that.
Yeah. I'll get you detail on that, because I don't have that right at my fingertips.
Okay. And I would want the detail breakdown both for the Airport and for the marketplace.
And further broken down by retail, food establishment, novelties, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I'll ask them for that. So the "marketplace," meaning all the retail and then broken down by 144 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 the different types of retail? Let me see what I can find for you.
And during the break, I was reviewing mail wherein I saw a letter from Mr. Agostini. (Witness approached witness table.)
Wherein you actually gave us a heads-up asking us to be prepared, if there is backup information, we want to give you 48 hours, your office, 48 hours notice so you can have your department heads ready for --
And he has committed to me that he'll make sure that we get 48 hours notice of testimony.
To review the testimony, that's correct. 145 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 It was a gesture on our part. We know that there are questions you're going to have. We'd like to come prepared. If we have some sense of what those questions are, we'd like to be able to answer those questions. That, of course, shouldn't preclude anybody from asking us questions about things that come up so that we come back with answers for you. But I just thought it was an opportunity to see if there are particular things that members had where they wanted to see some information from us.
Sure. We appreciate that. That is a first. So know now that across the board for every single City department that comes before us -- as a former manager, there's something called standard operating procedures. I want to hear from every single department head in the testimony broken down what the inclusion goals are, what happened last year and what is the 146 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 status this year, both procurement, contracts and staffing.
Councilmember, we actually had a meeting yesterday where we met. There were probably 40 of us, where we have asked for that to be prepared in advance so that we can provide that as part of the testimony.
Terrific. Thank you very, very much, starting with the Airport.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank 147 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 you, Madam Chair. This question is regarding the stimulus package. How much did the Capital Program Office receive from the stimulus package in Fiscal Year 2009? On March 31st, 2009, you received an opportunity for recovery funding, which the City was an eligible applicant. Would you please forward to the Chair a new list for 2011 and also a detailed list with what was available to the City in 2009 and 2010 and what the City actually received? And would you also add a column as to what the funds were used for and whether the funds were actually used?
I would be happy to provide that to the Chair. I can give you a bit of an overview right now. For FY10, what we have set aside for capital projects is roughly $10 million in paving in the Streets Department and about 35 or 36 million in Aviation. I believe that's the number 148 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 for a variety of projects. There is also about $200,000 in the Water Department from Pennvest for purposes of borrowing for large capital needs. But we can bring you back the exact list. Most of the funds were awarded in FY10. They have two- to three-year lifespans, if you will, to them. We have not -- we are not aware of awards to date for FY11 in the Capital, but, again, I can prepare that and bring that back through the Chair.
Okay. This question is regarding inclusion, diversity inclusion. What percentage of 2009 and 2010 contracts were awarded to minority and women-owned businesses, and would you please forward to the Chair a list of all projects and the breakdown by dollar amount of the contracts and how much was awarded to minority, women or disabled firms, and how many no-bid contracts were awarded in 2006 through 2010, and would you please forward that 149 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 list to the Chair also of the breakdown?
And I have a question. It's not really capital related, but when you talk about investing in our youth, I was kind of worried yesterday when I read the article 10 that the program Don't Fall Down in the Hood, which is the prevention part of their program, was not funded, and when DHS comes up, I'd like to hear more about what are they doing to fund youth crime prevention programs such as Don't Fall Down in the Hood. They were here probably about two years ago as a part of a hearing that I sponsored to take a look at youth violence here in the City, and Don't Fall Down in the Hood is an excellent program, and the prevention part is what we're looking for, I thought, but they're not funded. So I'd like to get more information on that.
We'll relay 150 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 that request to Deputy Mayor Gillison. I think he can speak to that.
Thank you. I think you thought you might have heard the last of this Capital Program discussion, but I just would like to know, Councilman Clarke explained how it was and we created the Capital Programs Office, now we're back to the way we're doing it now. Do you know if the commissioners of the various departments have ever prioritized their needs?
When we meet with them in this round of meetings that started late September, early October, we meet with every single department. This is the City Planning Commission office through Alan Urek, and Chris Donato is 151 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 part of those meetings. We meet with every single agency, talk about the ground rules for submitting their requests, and they prioritize and then subsequently present to us their priority list of projects.
So then this conversation that went on for longer than it should have, I think, about the roofs on police and other City facilities, then why don't we just listen to the people that run these organizations and do it in the order that they in fact believe would serve their interests? Isn't that a simple thing?
That is what this plan reflects, but I have to say we understand that their sense of priority projects may not be the same as an individual Councilmember or the public at large who may not see some projects 152 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 getting done.
But you know how long I've been hearing about this floor at Engine at Carpenter? You know 6 how many years I've been hearing about 7 the floor? 8
Every day I think when I go by there that I'm not going to see a fire engine in the -- I think it's going to be in the basement.
Hasn't the Fire Department spoken up and said, We need this done?
But my point 153 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 is, why don't you give some responsibility back to the people that run these organizations and listen to them? That doesn't mean rubber stamp everything they say, but at least is the firehouse at Carpenter and Germantown a dangerous situation?
We haven't -- to be totally honest with you, we feel that it needs a structural evaluation. Not all floors are spandrel type floors.
After ten years, we don't know whether that's a problem or not, after ten years of talking about it?
We've gone down and investigated it and we've taken a look in our office, structural engineers, to see whether the distress was at a point where we felt there could be failure, and we didn't believe so, but we certainly felt that it was progressing and that it should be taken care of. And, yes, you're absolutely right, it's 154 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 something that should be done. Unfortunately, we've taken funding --
Well, believe me, if by next year you come back and tell us it's done, you'll be a very popular guy in this Chamber.
Right. That was my point. Again, even though we're going back and talking about this, could you start listening to the people that run the various departments? If they aren't part of the process, that is really disturbing to me.
We communicate with them every day, and there are numerous needs and numerous situations that arise during the course of just normal operations which -- I mean, we try to sit down every year and develop a long laundry list of projects and prioritize those projects, along with the dollar 155 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 values associated with them, and it's simply a matter of directing the money to the most needs, and other needs come up during the course of the year that --
Well, a leaky roof shouldn't need any consultation. It should be taken care of in a city like Philadelphia. We shouldn't have the exposure. I mean, I talked to a detective in one of the police divisions that told me he had to get a trash bag at the end of the day, put it over his desk so his reports and work, if it rained -- every day a trash bag over his desk so it wouldn't get damaged during the course of the night. That's a sad situation.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones. 156 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116
Thank you, Madam President. I left off with my questioning on retaining walls, which there was an appropriation for $70,000, I believe, for the entire City, which to me would only do a half of a retaining wall, and I wanted to get some explanation as to why such a low priority on retaining walls considering the infrastructure problems I see at least in my district.
While you research that, someone from the Youth Study Center can come up and tell me if we are on pace to complete the new facility so that they might vacate the temporary facility in a timely fashion.
Could you just help me out a second? The reference to retaining wall, where are you seeing that? I don't have an answer, but I want to get you one. 157 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116
, I'm looking at -- there was a mention of retaining wall under -- you mean under "infrastructure" there?
In Fairmount Park. Okay. Let me get you a better answer, because I actually don't know exactly what that's -- it's pertaining to a lot of things, it looks like.
We've been researching a lot of things. Also, we received a lot of money for stimulus projects such as 17.5 million in FY11 for street paving. When we get money from the stimulus, does that add on to the Capital Budget in a separate way or do we combine them somehow and just take projects off of the plate because we found a substitute by way of sources of money, or is that -- because if we have two separate pots, 158 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 then we should have twice as many and twice as much capacity to do other capital projects, which worries me because we're having a heck of a time getting the ones out of the gate that we already have appropriations for.
I'm sorry. When Stephanie was just telling me something about the retaining walls, I think I missed the critical part of the sentence. I apologize.
No. Let's start with retaining walls and I'll come back to my critical point, because I only get five minutes.
I just didn't hear what the subject was in that question.
The subject is, as we receive capital project money from the stimulus and it comes into our coffers; for example, the 17.5 million for street repaving, does that mean that that money that we may have done projects 159 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 with, is that a new source, new found money that can be freed up to do other projects coming down the pike? And Part B of that is, if so, how do we ramp up internally to get that money on the street, which begs the question -- the answer to the question I asked earlier.
If I'm understanding you right, Councilman, I think one of the things we're always looking for is what are the other sources of money that are coming in so that we then, based on the capacity to sort of put that back out, let's say the street repaving money, can be then diverted to other things to maximize the impact of the Capital Budget.
I guess in general street paving was the example. Is the rule that when we receive dollars from the stimulus money, does that add on to our capacity to do additional projects in the future?
And the reason is that the stimulus funding, as I understand it, is for particular streets that have to be eligible, and I believe there are types of streets that are federal highway or particular trunk roads that lead into the federal highway, but Streets can answer that more precisely. So that allows us to do certain paving projects for certain types of streets. There is, however, a very significant backlog for Streets generally in terms of meeting our paving needs, which the and a half million that we 17 put into the Capital Budget is an attempt to address. So the yes is, yes, it augments what we have. It means we have more to spend. No, in that you can't take the stimulus dollars and use them for some of the other street-paving projects citywide.
So at the 161 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 end of the day, if we have -- let's do it in round figures -- $25 million and we received an additional $10 million, then conceivably at the end of the day, we might have an extra $15 million to do some other projects. Yes? Just general round-figure math.
Again, because they're not a one-to-one replacement, if we receive today -- for example, if we were to get an award for another $20 million in paving, they will be for specific types of streets. To the extent that we had already planned to pave those streets with General Fund dollars or borrowing, yes, it would indeed do what you've just described.
All right. I'm going to leave it very general like that, because that's a good answer. So then we could reconsider our position on driveways and alleys to do some creative things for our infrastructure needs there? In my 162 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 district, there are alleyways that are so much in disrepair that wildlife has literally taken over, because the weeds that used to be weeds are now trees, creating a habitat for them to breed, and they are the dominant species in those alleys. So potentially, if we ironed out the private property issues and the like, we could use those extra dollars to accommodate needs like safe passage for first responders through clear alleyways and safe response to things like fire, police and other emergency paramedics and things like that?
Assuming you freed up dollars, could it be used for other purposes? Theoretically, yes. What it gets used for then becomes a policy call for this body and the Mayor to discuss.
This is the best news I've heard all day. Thank you. Madam President. 163 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116
Councilwoman Brown, did you want to be recognized?
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Let me stipulate on that look-see of the big picture of inclusion that with the Department of Human Services, that includes the non-profits, and in CBH, that includes the non-profits that the City is doing business with. They're not exempt from this review process?
That's correct. And since you brought it up, and one of the things we need to come to grips with is exactly how much of this is being spent on non-profits and how to, which we're working on, how to classify non-profits so that we can also then make 164 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 that sort of a formal part of our progress on OEO issues, because right now non-profits don't have -- there's no 5 defined -- there's no way to define their ownership exactly. Other cities have the same problem. We're looking at what they do to sort of help define that, because we want that part of the picture.
Yes. Okay. Thank you. With regards to the Naval Shipyard, annually my office hosts a tour of the Naval Shipyard for small business owners, and to Peter Longstreth's credit, they have, I believe, engaged in some non-traditional approaches to getting the word out about the opportunities down there at the Naval Shipyard. If you would, speak to the proposed infrastructure improvements around the Naval Shipyard and the numbers again on inclusion with that major development that's happening down there.
I'm going to 165 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 have to ask -- I don't think there's somebody here from PIDC. Oh, they are. Good. I want a more detailed description than I'm capable of giving you.
Good afternoon. And, again, let me state for the record my appreciation for the leadership there and what they do to make sure that the word gets out this way and this way with regards to opportunity there. So speak to, if you would, the developments around the infrastructure improvements and what the agency is doing to ensure inclusion.
Okay. Well, as you may or may not know, we've had a 166 3/16/10 - WHOLE - BILLS 100115 & 100116 number of things going on down there, probably about $100 million worth of work over the past year, some of them water utility, a lot of streetscape improvement. And what we have in the budget for this year coming up is a sea wall rehabilitation.