Linda Howard, Deputy Budget Director. 77 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 The next general obligation borrowing is expected in 2006. We did a major borrowing in 2004.
We don't -- Councilman, we don't know the debt service on money until we borrow it.
My question is, when will you borrow it? You mentioned two possible dates. You mentioned a date in 4 and a date in 6.
The borrowing is based on a cash flow analysis, not on a budget number.
And that means what? What kind of an answer is that when I asked when do you intend to borrow it? 78 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786
It's based on an analysis of the revenues coming in and the expenditures and the debt service payments.
We do. We expect the next borrowing to take place in about two years.
Is it going on the ballot now to authorize it two years from now?
The ballot question is to authorize the spending, sir, not the borrowing. It authorizes you to borrow the money --
So we're not going to borrow for two years, if at all, because things can change in two years, and you're asking for authorization to spend the money that won't be even borrowed for two years? What kind of planning is that?
This is subject to the conditions of the marketplace, Councilman. 79 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786
It doesn't make any sense to me, Councilman Nutter. I yield. Nobody knows anything.
Well, let me ask this question: What amount of capital dollars do we have available presently?
We've carried forward approximately $180 million in general obligation.
We've carried forward approximately $180 million in carry-forward funds of general obligation.
And how much of the 180 is designated for specific projects?
That is non-project specific and it's reserved for the City 80 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Controller certification, some of which would be the ITEF money.
Okay. So what is the difference to the City other than the obvious subtraction but from a debt service perspective between a $67 million Capital Budget and a $74 million Capital Budget?
And is the 67 presently anticipated to come out of the 180?
That would be new authorization. The $12 million that City Council has been receiving since Fiscal Year '99 was about 9.4 percent of the money that was authorized to be spent. At this point, with the authorization so much lower, about half of that, at 67, the Council amount has stayed 81 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 flat at 12. If it was proportional, which it probably should be, it should be a lower amount more in the range of 5. And that does make a difference to the bond rating agencies. They are concerned about the level of debt in relation to revenue overall, and we are already on watch with all of them. We have to be conservative about our debt obligations. And this is why there is some true rationality behind a decrease in that number. In addition to, of all the money that has been allocated to Council so far, there is a carry-forward of about $41 million, and 10 million of that Council has not yet designated for projects. So we have a decent backlog and there are still projects that need to be named. And as we keep rolling, if we were to keep rolling a high number forward, that decreases the amount of money that's available for other kinds of projects. So it's just kind of a perspective on this numbers.
Ms. Reed, first, let me say thank you. I'm glad that you have arrived here and I am incredibly pleased that 82 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 someone actually gave an explanation as to why, purely from a fiscal perspective or a percentage of funds perspective, the bond rating agencies and their concerns perspective because I don't believe in all of the Capital Budget hearings earlier this year that explanation was offered. Now, my memory could be a little faded; there have been a few hearings since that time. But that kind of perspective had not been laid out, so I do greatly appreciate it. It is a new view. Having said that, I do want to at least put on the record so that we're clear with each other in speaking from the same perspective, whenever you state that money has been given to City Council, that Council has not allocated certain funds, that there are unspent or unspecified projects that City Council has, I want to be very clear that it's not like the Budget Office or the Planning Commission or the Capital Program people are giving City Council a gift or a grant or some fund from which we can just buy whatever we want and spend money in a, some might say, 83 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 willy-nilly fashion. It's not our money; it's the citizens' money, and it goes to support infrastructure or buildings or facilities that are owned by the City of Philadelphia and by the citizens and it is for these purposes that these dollars are spent. So they're not coming to us and we get to do whatever we want with them or buy in some frivolous kind of fashion. I have a book --
Point of order. I'm asking whether Councilman Nutter will yield for a question.
Councilman, I was just getting up a head of steam here.
This is the first time I've ever heard that money's been ever made available to Council for any projects. Why is that? And who is it made available to? I have to dispute that, Councilman Nutter. I've never before known that money's been made available to Council. I never before until a couple weeks ago learned that there's a secret group of 10 Councilmembers who have access to millions and millions of 84 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 City dollars without it passing through the body of City Council and that this group, in my judgment, illegally makes decisions about use of the money and the City is fully complicit in that. So I have difficulty with your conclusion that this money is wisely spent or well spent. I had no idea it was being spent. I never knew it was available to City Council. I never remember being at a meeting at which it was decided there's 10 million available, what do we think ought to be spent with it, here are a list of projects Council's been interested in. If there's been such meetings, I've certainly never been invited to them, never known they existed. I think there's been a second group operating illegally in City Council. And I've got to find out what that's all about. I never knew there was money available to City Council for projects.
Will the Councilman yield back on my yield to him so that I can be somewhat responsive?
I yield back. 85 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786
Councilman, all I can tell you is that prior to my arrival in City Council, as desperately as I've sought to get here in the mid-'80s, I have at least partially been aware that -- it may have had a different name. I think the name changed in '92 to the ITEF category, Improvements to Existing Facilities. It may have had another category prior to my arrival, not that I had anything to do with changing the name. But I was certainly aware in the mid-'80s when I was seeking office that Councilmembers had access -- at least District Councilmembers because that's what I was focused on, that's the office I was running on -- had access to capital dollars either through the Capital Budget process or through the Redevelopment Authority. What I meant by my earlier comments if I wasn't clear is that there is, I believe, somewhere a line in the Capital Budget when it's submitted every year for either now improvements to existing facilities. I believe it has a number attached to it. In 86 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 most instances for those years, now speaking for myself, there is no particular anticipated project or projects for which those dollars are specifically allocated, but the reality is this is what happens: When the Recreation Department or the Fairmount Park Commission or the Water Department or any other of the various departments in the government have projects that they want to get done which may also be listed in the Capital Budget specifically as items, when those projects go out to bid, often the bids come back over the amount that they are authorized for. And you are then faced with one of two choices: You can either rebid it, which will add about to months to getting that project done in the hope that the bids will come back lower; most of the time they don't. Or you can add 20, 30, whatever the amount that was over and make sure that your project gets done and on time. Because with every respect to Recreation Commission or Fairmount Park or Rick Tustin, whatever that time is for it to get done, more 87 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 than likely it is a little behind what anyone would like it to be done. So these dollars -- and I'm prepared to go through some of them. When we needed new play equipment and safety matting out at Granahan Playground last year in the 34th Ward, through those dollars I was able to access money for that project, which was way over the Recreation Department's capacity. So what you have here is a system that was set up sometime ago and prior to my inglorious arrival at this incredible institution where you either get your project done now because you have some funding available -- and all the departments know that the dollars are available. There is a general belief that the departments sometimes may, unfortunately, have to short the amount of money available for projects because they know that the mid-management people are going to come right back to us and say, "I'd love to do your project, but I don't have enough money for it." And that's kind of the way it works.
It seems to me, 88 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Councilman Nutter, there will be no difficulty informing all the Members of City Council and gaining their support. But I see no 5 justification whatever for having a kitty of cash available for District Councilmembers.
I understand that and I think that is a slightly different debate.
The votes that take place, sometimes a District Councilmember's vote is a block.
I don't know that this particular issue is involved in that. You asked me a question. What I can tell you is on of the Capital Budget and Program that we passed earlier this year, there is a Line 67 that has 4 million for improvements to existing recreation facilities. That money has -- historically, that number, I believe, has been $12 million and has been split up. Sometimes it's been 10, sometimes 11, sometimes 12 in the better years, which Ms. Reed has made reference to. 89 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 The debate about --
It's never been split up by Councilmanic action. I've never participated --
The debate about who gets to decide which facilities or District Councilmembers versus At-Large Members, I would only suggest to you in an effort to get through some of my questions and then get to where I need to go is it's a legitimate discussion and debate. I cannot account for what information you may have or not have, but when I walked in here, that is the system that was in place 12, 13 years ago. And I've known about it at least going back to 1984, 1985 time period. Again, as I said to Ms. Reed, these dollars are only used for the benefit of the citizens. It's not like --
Well, I doubt that, because if that were true, then there would be no reason to hide it.
Councilman, it's listed as an item in the Capital Budget. You 90 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 can't get much more open than that. I'm not reluctant to having a conversation about it. And the only reason, the only reason -- because you know me, I love a good discussion and debate. The only reason I'd like to short circuit that part of the discussion is because I have four questions that I need to ask and I have a speaking engagement to go to. But it's been in the budget every year. We vote on it. We go through this budget, I think, pretty much in a line item kind of fashion. So I would have to slightly dispute any notion of something being a secret. It's right there in the book. And it's been --
Where does it say in the book that the vote on this will be determined just by District Councilmembers? I don't see in that line item that it expresses that opinion.
That's not mentioned in that line, you are absolutely right about that. Why don't we do this? I really need to ask my questions and then I really need to 91 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 go. So I do not want to be disrespectful and I don't want to short change this conversation because it's an important issue. I don't know how it got started. That is the system and that's what I understood when I got here. I didn't create it by myself. So can I -- I need to do this. So since it isn't particularly clear what the debt service is on the 67 and a half million dollars -- because I need to ask the question -- then do you know what the debt service would be the 74 and a half million dollars, which is essentially the $7 million difference that we're discussing here?
No. The answer would be the same. We are looking into that now as we speak.
So I guess what I'm slightly perplexed at, if we don't know what the cost is, then why is it automatically 92 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 assumed that we can't afford it? How do you make the one statement and not know the answer to the question?
I think that the issue has to do with an appropriate level of spending, given how much we have to spend altogether.
I hear what you're saying about that. And I guess -- and I didn't hear all of Councilman O'Neill's discussion with the Planning Commission Director, but this is probably one of those situations where if there had been a little more discussion early on about this then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion today. But since that kind of discussion never took place and it was just "this is what the number is, take it or leave it" without any of the benefit of the three or four items which, I mean very seriously, are important pieces of information that you laid out. I'm not going to sit here and say that because of that argument I now agree with you, but they are important pieces of information that could 93 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 have been helpful in the decision-making process back in January or February or March when the budget came in as opposed to in June or now October. So that's kind of that. Director Griffin, I've got just a couple questions for you and then put everybody out of their misery. What was the submission to the Mayor on the ITEF line?
As you know, the submission to the Mayor is a formal one from the Planning Commission and the submission to the Mayor was as it was presented to Council.
So it went into the Mayor at 4 million; is that what you're saying?
Sir, if I might add, it's really 5 million all together. One million is 94 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 in the Managing Director's Office for projects as they arrive.
But I'm speaking from memory, but I will double-check that. But that's my recollection.
If you went through this with Councilman O'Neill, then, please, don't go back through it. But how did you decide that 4 million was the number?
Then don't go back through it. Does the Planning Commission or do you as the Director -- how many Recreation, Fairmount Park facilities have you been to.
How many do we 95 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 have between those two departments?
Actually, I was specifically speaking about recreation facilities, not about parks.
Commissioner, how many facilities do you have? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: We have 87 pools, 153 rec centers, we have another 72 passive parks, Fort Mifflin, 3 museums, Camp William Penn --
Why don't we say 300 plus? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir.
And out of that exhaustive review of just the recreation facilities -- and I think I understand Fairmount Park has approximately 400-some-odd facilities. One year they had 300 and then the next year they actually found another hundred. So between the two departments, 700 96 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 facilities, you've been to -- let's throw in a few for Fairmount Park. I'll give you the same dozen. What's that like, 3 percent? And you guys made a decision that $4 million was enough?
Well, now that I understand the premise of your question, as you know, I have a huge staff of 50 folks. And the Capital Budget is coordinated by our planning and policy division along with our community planning division. In no case, not only with the Recreation Department but in any of the activities, do I count on personally visiting or reviewing every situation. So I would say if you're talking about the staff that works on the Capital Budget, certainly I would think that within the four-year period of my tenure, the majority of the facilities have been seen and reviewed by my staff; and not only that, but we rely a great deal on Director Tustin's staff and on the Recreation staff's input and review. So certainly, where there are conflicts, where I am told that there is special Council concern or a 97 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 difference of opinion between Council and staff members of the Recreation Department or where there's an unusual situation or a troubling situation, and since I come up and testify before Council on Capital, I'm especially attuned to situations where I've been inquired before. So it is not simply the or or facilities that I get to see 10 personally; it is, as with any agency, the 11 accruing of all the input of all of my staff. 12
Now, who from 13 your office talks to Councilmembers about 14 their either interest or needs or concerns 15 with regard to the Capital Budget? 16
Primarily the 17 community planning staff. Since the NTI 18 process has sort of taken precedence over the 19 community planning process, that is done 20 primarily in the context of outreach for the NTI plans. And we now have a situation where --
NTI doesn't have anything to do with rec centers, libraries, Fairmount Park facilities or anything else, as 98 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 far as I know.
I apologize, Councilman, that is not the case. When we do our planning, it is comprehensive. So we do rec centers, bus routes, cobblestones in streets --
I understand that. As far as I'm concerned, at least from my perspective, it has nothing to do with any of the money that we put into any of these facilities. I don't remember anybody having a NTI conversation with me when we needed to put new rec equipment at Granahan or fix the steps in Manayunk or do a ball field somewhere else. It has nothing to do with NTI whatsoever.
Let me make sure I understand your question because I might have jumped ahead. Are you talking about the discretionary --
I asked who from your staff goes to each and every Councilmember and talks to them about the Capital Budget in their respective areas.
There is no formal codified process of that kind of outreach. For that kind of outreach, we rely on the Recreation Department and Capital Program Office. There is, however -- and I'll take the phrase NTI out of it -- as part of our community planning process, intensive discussion with Councilmembers about what facilities in toto they want in their district. And that information is funneled to our Capital Program staff which is why sometimes there are disagreements, frankly, between Capital Program Office and my staff. And those are often the cases where I personally go out and see the facility.
I'm going to leave this and go to my last thing because nowhere in any of that, even when there's a dispute between Capital Program or your staff people, there still does not appear to be anyplace in that discussion or that dispute or that debate for us in this body.
Maybe I should have 100 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 used the phrase gentle disagreement.
It's like a wake, everyone wants to talk about the person who's over in the thing while they're there. The only problem is we're not dead.
You're absolutely right. I think I should restate it. I did respond to Councilman O'Neill's similar inquiry. And you're absolutely right. We get opinion that is forwarded to us from folks who have spoken to you, but in the process there is no provision for us to sit down with the data with perhaps an ABC list or some other prioritization and discuss those directly with you, you're correct.
So in '03, this is now again about the dollars that have been spent, when we put the money in Granahan or at the Mann Music Center or at the Memorial Hall Dome or Germany Hill or Fountain Street, spending thousands of capital dollars for those types of projects, which of those would fit your definition of superfluous projects?
I don't know the 101 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 projects well enough to speak off the cuff.
Which projects from last year's Capital Budget, because you know last year's Capital Budget -- which of those would meet the superfluous projects definition?
I'm perhaps not understanding your question and where the phrase superfluous comes from.
of your testimony says, "With few exceptions, the projects included in the 2005 Capital Budget address important economic and neighborhood development, health and safety and critical physical infrastructure needs. There are no 19 superfluous projects and few additional capital dollars to go around." That's from your testimony. Did you write that?
Don't answer 102 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 that question then.
I asked you not to answer the question yet. Who wrote the testimony?
I don't remember which staff member drafted the testimony, but I certainly reviewed it, modified it, changed it and stand by it.
Very good. So tell me what superfluous projects we have in last year's budget.
That's not the way I read that sentence. And I'm sorry if it's unclear. I don't read the sentence to say that there were superfluous projects last session. I just don't.
The purpose of the phrase is to simply to say -- perhaps not as well said as it should be -- that there is no 25 additional funds to go to projects that are 103 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 not core, absolutely necessary projects.
Who gets to decide what are core, absolutely necessary projects?
Well, I think that's the core of this discussion, this debate.
I'm asking the question. Who gets to decide that, from your perspective?
From our perspective, when it comes to what we suggest is a $4 million distribution of discretionary funds to Councilmembers, it would be Councilmembers who would decide which projects were core. And where it comes to the primary capital dollars, it would be the Recreation Department, the Capital Program Office in concert with Councilmembers.
Okay. In this year's budget, there was a major project cut out. Can you get back to me -- part of the Philadelphia Zoo, not the big part but a small part, is in my district. The bulk of the zoo, obviously, is in 104 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Councilwoman Blackwell's district. Could you get back to me with an explanation as to why the zoo was taken completely out of the '05 budget?
Thank you. Are there any other questions from Members of the Committee? Councilman DiCicco.
I don't know if it's appropriate at this time, but I just want to bring up an issue that has been discussed and I brought up many times. Is there any movement on Camp William Penn? Have we explored the options that we talked about, selling all of it, some of it? Any further discussion since last spring, I think? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes. There was an appraisal done by Public Property. I don't have that information. We are putting together a request for interest on outside 105 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 operations of the camp, as was asked by the body as well as the Managing Director Office as well. And we're 's still moving forward.
Could you share that information with the Chair, whatever information you have relating to the appraisal? Has there been a consensus, an agreement, an understanding, between the Department of rec, Department of Public Property, Managing Director's Office that this is something they even want to pursue? I mean, I don't want to spin my wheels and waste everybody else's time when we have these meetings to talk about this issue if it's something that they're really not even considering. I mean, is it something that you're seriously looking at the possibility of either selling it entirely or a portion of it? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Not the entire property. The possibility of selling a portion of it and maybe having an outside developer to look at commercial development as far as a corporate style retreat that would 106 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 bring revenues back it maybe self-sustaining of the pre existing camp, yes, sir. But not total sale of the property.
So presently, that camp is now in the -- I don't want to use the word winterization, but it's closed for the season and we still have two employees that are full-time employees working and maintaining that property? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir. Roofing work was just completed. An overlay was just completed. I was there the weekend before last. Mess hall, rec hall was stripped down, total floors re-varnished and sealed. The boys' side camp is almost totally winterized, lines blown, pressure washing and sanitizing with Lysol and high pressure. We're working on the girls' side.
I really appreciate the answer and you know, Commissioner, you and I work very well together, both professionally and socially we're pretty good friends. But I'm hearing all these improvements that are taking place 107 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 in on a facility that gets used six weeks a year, and we have some problems in our facilities that are used year round. And I think that's the rub is. This is not personal, obviously, as you know. This is where the rub comes in with me and some of the other members about this camp site that is a hundred miles or 80 miles away from Philadelphia, and we have facilities in our districts that we're waiting weeks, months, in some cases years to get these improvements and necessary repairs to. So I'll just end with that. I'll go on, I'm sure, a long dissertation about my concern for why we even keep that place. But I appreciate your honesty. And hopefully you can get some information to the Chair. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I'll forward it.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.) 108 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786
Do we have anyone else who would like to testify? (No response.)
Seeing no 6 one. Would you get us the recommendation from the Planning Commission today, please?
Thank you. This concludes the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. - - - - 109 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - - - - Public meeting conducted by the Committee of the Whole, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 040785, 040786. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN 110 10/19/04 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
We will go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell regarding Bill No. 040785.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 040785 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and also recommendation for suspension of the Rules so as to permit first consideration at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 040785 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. 111 10/19/04 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING Again, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell regarding Bill No. 4 040786.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 040786 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 040786 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. 112 10/19/04 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING This concludes the public meeting of the Committee of the Whole. Thank you very much. (Council adjourned at 1:25 p.m.) 113 C E R T I F I C A T I O N. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, October 19, 2004, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR