Committee Hearing, April 13, 2010

Well, can you estimate it and send it to my office? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay.

And I will have that information distributed. I'm sorry. I don't mean to dominate the time. We do have a number of Councilmembers that would like to be recognized, the first being Councilman Goode.

Thank you, 90 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) Madam President. Good morning. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Good morning.

First, let me congratulate you on your track record in regard to business diversity, not only in what you've accomplished but in the aggressive goal-setting that you have done for next year as well. And in that regard, I just have one question. I'm usually reluctant to talk about specific contractual relationships, but this one does not actually involve public money, per se, so I'll just ask the question. Under the previous administration, there was a relationship with a commercial real-estate services company that was wholly-owned and operated by minority professionals, and it's my understanding that that relationship was commission-based, so it was not actually a paid contractual 91 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) relationship. Is there some reason why that relationship was severed? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: No. The contract was actually, I believe, months, and we extended it 8 for another 6 at the time. 9 We haven't used that type of a 10 relationship since. Every time I 11 reevaluate the best way to deal with real 12 estate, I come up with a new way, and it's mostly so that I can keep as much of the revenue in the General Fund as possible.

And so you can do it internally; the relationship is not necessary? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Right, if we could, but we haven't gone back in that type of a relationship. It was key advisers, yes. We -- and it was a good relationship. And it was about 18 months, right, John? (Addressing Mr. Herzins.) 92 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) And --

Yes.

And so, if you were in need of those services, that would be an organization you would definitely use? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Well, they would be -- absolutely. I'm sure they would respond to the RFP, or whatever we would put out, absolutely.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

The Chair now recognizes Councilman Jones.

Thank you, Madam President, again. I love this. This is -- we're getting around. I echo Councilman Goode's praise of your department by way of what you've been able to accomplish with major reductions during a budget crisis. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Thank you. 93 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET)

But I also want to know if -- and I raise this question with Recreation and Fairmount Park, and I'll raise it with you, and it's really directed at higher-ups in the Administration to kind of give me an answer. Have we done a quantitative analysis of what it costs to contract out a job, whether it's a rec center, a rehab, or police a department upgrade versus something that could be done with a GC internally controlled that, from time to time, took on these projects? Have we done an analysis cost comparison as to whether it is cheaper to do it internally or whether it is better to continue on the contracting-out, bidding-out process? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: No, we haven't, but we're happy to take a look at that.

All right. I love your politeness on that, and 94 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) that's -- you guys, when you testify, but I really -- I guess I'm saying it to you but I'm actually charging the Administration and the Budget Office to kind of take a look at this because it's a recurring theme that seems to go unaddressed, that there probably is a stimulus package within our own ability to delivery if we can take smaller jobs, where we can demonstrate that we can do them better here, hire folk internally from neighborhoods, and really save it from going to contractors over in Jersey, quite frankly. And I want us to take a look at it in a combined effort of Public Property and Recreation, because you guys now do their work and they do your work. It's kind of confusing to us, but somebody needs to be looking at that. Matter of fact, Mr. Agostini, maybe you can come up and address that issue for me. (Mr. Agostini comes forward.) 95 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET)

I mean, Councilwoman Sanchez came up with an excellent idea -- I try to give credit where credit is due. She talked about the internal use of stages and pavilions in some festival areas that might be a more cost-effective way to have designated areas, and maybe she'll touch on that a little bit. I thought it was a great idea that I will gladly plagiarize if she doesn't take credit for it. But I guess the question is -- and I'll repeat it for you. And I've related this question to a number of departments. There has not been a quantitative analysis, a cost comparison, of whether or not in certain small jobs -- whether, say, rec center rehab or this or that or police station upgrade -- where we could take a GC approach internally and, even from a contractor's perspective, pick up people on a case-by-case level, even if they're temporary workers, to rehab publicly- 96 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) owned facilities. And that in so doing, create our own stimulus package. It would be much more local, much more targeted towards neighborhoods and residents of Philadelphia than our current contracting-out process that seems to stimulate more of Camden County in New Jersey than Philadelphia County, here at home.

Well, for the record, Steve Agostini, Budget Director for the City. I think it's important that we need to break the funding sources 'cause the funding sources matter here. The Capital Funds cannot be used for rehabilitation or maintenance; they will not meet the test of our existing policy, nor will they meet the tests of the Controller's Office in terms of spending for an appropriate capital asset. So once you remove those 97 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) dollars from that mix, then we're back to the operating side, and I think, given the last 18, months and very difficult 5 financial pressures, it's been difficult 6 for us to provide the appropriate 7 resources. 8 Were we to have the resources 9 to do, I think that what you have 10 suggested, what your colleague has 11 suggested, would probably make some sense 12 for us to look at and to actually cost 13 out in the manner you've described to see 14 if there are instances where it's more 15 cost-effective to do it. 16

And, 17 specifically, we do about a million 18 dollars per district for upgrade of 19 recreation centers. 20

But those funds, 21 the (indiscernible)-related funds, are 22 capital funds that are new and must meet 23 the capital test. 24

So when you say "capital test," that means -- 98 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET)

There needs to be a useful life associated with it. It needs to be -- it can't be, for example, replacing certain items that would be considered maintenance -- or even major maintenance in many instances. And we'd be happy to give you that, that determination.

When we erect a fence, when we put up a scoreboard, those are capital dollars that we expend to do that, correct?

In those instances, yes.

Yes. We could have simply put those scoreboards up, bought the materials ourselves, and that -- I don't understand the prohibition from us doing that. That is not maintenance, that is not maintenance. It's a capital improvement that meets the test of a life span of five years, which I'm familiar with. We could have just as easily 99 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) done that internally, and I don't understand what the prohibition would have been to do that.

I think if you're saying, could we do it internally with staff, I think we've got some staff constraints. If you're -- if I understand what you're asking, could we have done that, where we looked at hiring people or brought them on, on contracts --

On a contract basis.

I think that's something we probably should look at. We've -- you know, my knowledge in this area is not as comprehensive, but I know that there have been instances when we have had -- and I've had this conversation with Councilmember Quiñones-Sanchez. There have been instances when we've had, you know, some non-performance by some contractors that have turned into 100 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) big problems for us. But, yes, I think we should have looking at that, and we probably need to go back and do the cost analysis, as you've suggested, to be sure that we can move these projects more quickly and do them effectively and have the outcome that you've just described.

So --

Councilman, Jones, I'm sorry. Your time is up.

Just a closing a comment. So I have a commitment from you --

Yes.

-- that we're going to look at it.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 101 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) Kenney.

Thank you Madam President. I have this recurring theme through these budget hearings that I had brought up with the Administration when they first testified. And we talked to RDA and to -- not OHCD yet, but RDA. And I'm curious as to whether or not you're aware and the Department of Public Property how much excess public property that's not in use do we own? That's not an active rec center, an active police station, an active firehouse, that it's either vacant land or a dilapidated structure that we have in our portfolio outside of RDA and OHCD.

We do. For the record, John Herzins, Deputy Commissioner for Real Estate. Councilman, we have approximately 6900 properties that would fall into that category.

And what 102 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) are we doing with them?

Well, we are currently working with DOT. First of all, hopefully this week, they will be --

I'm sorry. Madam President, I don't think his microphone is on. I'm sorry. (Microphone is adjusted.)

That's better. Thank you.

We have been working with the Division of Technology to first put these inventory -- what we call surplus inventory on the public website. So that will be a help for the public as well as other agencies to see what is in our inventory. And there will be some search capacities on that. You will be able to search by Council District and zip code.

I raised this issue with the Administration, when they testified, and I'll raise it again with you guys. 103 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) Is there some reason, over a short period of time, we cannot be putting this property on the table at no 5 cost for development in the event that the plan of development that the developer comes forward with meets the community's agreement and the District Councilperson's agreement? We would not tax-abate that particular project because we're giving them land. We need to start -- we need to jump-start this economy. And one of the few things we have -- we don't have a good tax structure, we don't have, you know, a good utility-rate structure; we have all kinds of problems. But we have land. And giving it away to an appropriate development project will get people working on a jobsite, will get tax ratables in line immediately 'cause we won't tax-abate. That would be the deal: You come to the table with a plan of development, we give you the land; it's 104 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) not tax-abated. You start pay real-estate taxes immediately. Why don't we use our assets to get our economy moving again and get people back to work?

I'd like to comment on that, Councilman Kenney. The majority of the property in our inventory are infill lots and infill vacant homes. The larger parcels are mostly in the Redevelopment Authority's inventory.

How did they get them; were they yours?

I couldn't say.

I mean, there is a delineation on ownership between Public Property and RDA, correct? They're two separate --

They're two separate --

-- owners --

Yes. 105 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET)

-- so to speak. Even with the infill lots, if I gave you the property and said to a developer, some guys from Onion Flats up in Northern Liberties or some of the more sustainable, new type of developers, and said, Here, here's a bunch of empty lots, they're yours. Build houses on them, market them, and you have to start paying taxes on 'em right away. Why would we let them sit fallow? I guess we're as much to blame as anybody 'cause I've been here 16 years, and haven't done anything with 'em 17 since, since then. 18 So, I mean, why don't we start 19 fresh and take a new approach and try to give this property away to legitimate developers who can get the job done?

Well, we are trying something fresh right now. We have a pilot program. We are going to try to market -- we are marketing a 106 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) number of lots. And the initial response in the last two weeks has been great. So we're hoping to at least generate revenue for the General Fund and sell these lots, get them developed, get them on the ratables, and reduce our liability.

What is the issue vis-a-vis selling it as opposed -- I mean, why do we need to sell it? I've had the same conversation with Terry Gillen relative to the property RDA owns. We are not in a seller's market right now, and we don't have anything -- there's no nails and hammers being banged in this city at all. And, again, I'll say it again: The only asset we have to bring to the table to do a deal is property. And I'm not saying we should do it for a hundred years or ten years; how about for the next two, till the economy gets back to rolling again?

Councilman, on 107 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) eight of those lots, we are going to settlement this month for over $800,000, so there is value to a lot of these lots.

To some of these lots. There are some of them in areas that have no value, correct?

I agree.

Okay. I would really like to see -- if you can send me a -- is it all on the website now?

It should be this week.

All right. Could you send me a link through the e-mail, if you can? One other question relative to in-house capital projects, and I've had this conversation with the Rec Department, and I've been beating them up a little bit on the length of time it takes to build a rec center. And I've learned, through my conversations with them, that their 108 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) staffing is down; obviously, they have less people doing more work. And they also told me something I didn't realize until now: That there's 135 or 138 steps that a development -- that a city capital project needs to go through before it gets approval, and that's why we wind up at some point in time spending seven year building a rec center from conception to finish? Can you explain to me, if you know, whether I'm accurate on these steps, approval steps? Certain approvals that are required -- DEPT COMM. KNAPPIC: Councilman Kenney, you're correct. This is Gary Knappic.

How many steps? DEPT COMM. KNAPPIC: I have the exact number if you can give me a few seconds.

Well, say it's 135. For argument's sake, let's say 109 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) it's 135. DEPT COMM. KNAPPIC: Yeah, it's between 138, depending on what takes place, and 178.

I'm going to ask you the same thing I asked the Recreation Department and the Capital Office: Tell me what steps you want to get rid so we can get rid of them. I mean, it kind of makes no 12 sense whatsoever to have District Council people every year talking about capital projects in their district that don't get done. I talked to Councilman DiCicco; he said it's about seven years it took to build Columbus Rec Center, from inception to turning the key. That's insane. And if there's something internally, regulatory, that we are doing to hamper your progress, tell us what it is, and we'll get rid of it. If it's bypassing a couple different agencies that sit on these projects and take time to approve them, tell us what they are, 110 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) and we'll get rid of it. DEPT COMM. KNAPPIC: Certainly we're working on that and we'd certainly welcome that discussion for sure.

Could we do it -- like expedite it. DEPT COMM. KNAPPIC: Sure.

I really would like to do it expedited. I've asked the Recreation Department for the same thing. There's no reason why we should take this long to do this stuff. And if the regs are what's hampering you, we can change the regs. Okay, thank you, Madam President. DEPT COMM. KNAPPIC: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: We are working on that.

Do you mind repeating how many surplus properties we have?

Slightly under 111 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) 7,000.

Okay. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez.

Thank you, Madam President. I'll continue the line of questioning that Councilman Kenney had on some of the issues because I think this is an important piece of the discussion about how the Administration is going to articulate a disposition process that is long-term versus short-term. And right now, the goal of the agencies, both RDA and Public Property, is to make short-term money, so they have a goal that they're meeting; is that not right? What is the Public Property goal for money raised to the General Fund this year? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: The...

We expect to 112 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) raise $5 million.

So that's an important piece of this, because if we want the Administration to work with District Council folks around disposition, around project base, then it is only fair that then their commissioners not be -- having to be upheld to a goal that we might agree at this particular time, given the market, is unattainable. What is the goal? What was last year's goal?

We sold $7 million.

And what was the goal?

About 7 million.

Was it 7? I thought it was 9.

9?

It was 9. Okay. What is the Department 113 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) of Public Property's understanding of the philosophy for property disposition, as charged by the Administration? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: We're actually working with the committee to develop that.

So I think that the conversation is very timely, because I do think that -- again, I think the department needs to have the charge and the support of the Administration around disposition so that when we do have projects at the district level, that they can dispose of them, without the added pressure of needing to make some money, although in those properties where there is some value, obviously, we want to capitalize that, although I will caution, in the discussions with the vacant property and what we end up doing with vacant property, sometimes short-term gains will not lead to long-term neighborhood stabilization. 114 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) So I'm a little concerned about that. The commissioner have talked, conversations I've had with RDA and others. I wanted to talk in that regard a little bit to how Public Property does its disposition process. What is your current process now? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: For ...?

For properties. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Well, basically, we're now proud to say we finally have a list that's going to be made public.

Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: So that's a big step forward for us.

Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: And we're going to work in conjunction with the Mayor's Office and their policy, whatever that will be citywide. I'm part 115 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) of a committee that's working on this.

Right. But as it relates to the properties, once you go live on the web, what is going to be the process if someone's interested in purchasing a property?

Councilwoman, right now, we're prohibited by the Charter from selling directly other than a bidding or auction process. So when the inventory is made live, if someone is interested in a property, we have two options rights now: Either to transfer the property to PAID and have them sell it for us; or we can do a bidding-auction scenario, which we have just started a pilot program for online.

And how is that bidding process going to work?

There's a time period for the bids.

Is that going to be individual parcels, or are we 116 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) going to be bundling?

Well, I think we're going to look to other agencies for development issues on bundling. But as far as single infill lots, single vacant rowhomes, where there's more than one person interested or it could bring value, some money to the General Fund, we would definitely do the bidding on that.

The value of the bidding or the start process, how is at a going to be determined?

We're not going to get appraisals on it; it would go to the highest bidder.

So it's going to go to the highest bidder?

That's what we have to do according to the Charter.

Are we not a little bit concerned about potential speculation as it relates to 117 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) that?

Well, there's always that problem. But with this pilot program, we are going to track the 50 properties we eventually do with this. I mean, the pros are, you have money for General Fund, you have ratables, and you have reduction of liability. Sure, there may be someone maybe buying it to sell it later, but if they're going to pay a high value for the property, I would hopefully that the speculation would be lowered.

Is the sale going to be contingent? Are we going to do like redevelopment agreements that RDA has? If they don't do it in a few years, we can pull 'em back?

Not on this pilot program.

Not on this pilot project?

We are trying to 118 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) see how it works, trying to use the business model.

Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: If I had a lot and I wanted to sell it, I would get the price for it; I wouldn't have to worry. If it's not developed in two years, I'm going to take my lot back. We want to see if that would work. But we have to follow it through the years to see if they were developed.

Okay. I'm a little bit concerned because I do have parts of my district where there is a lot of vacant land that may have high value, but it's where I need to ensure affordability.

Mm-hmm. (Timer bell rings.)

So you may get a short-term gain, I may get a long-term problem with displacement. How are you going to articulate 119 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) that back with District Council folks and the Administration?

Are you talking about larger parcels?

Even the infill ones, because in some cases, Public Property may have five parcels, RDA may have two, PHA may have two, and I have two that are delinquent; there's a whole project there in terms of infill projects. So how are we making those decisions?

We have been working with the Council District representatives on which ones they would want us to do with this marketing program.

Okay. So you're going to give us what you believe -- you're going to give us an opportunity to go over and say, These make sense, these don't make sense?

Correct. 120 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET)

Okay. Are any of those parcels going to be community garden agreements or someone that thinks they have ownership into it?

That have current urban garden agreements?

Mm-hmm.

I don't believe so. We would look to the Council District for that advice.

Okay.

Councilwoman, your time is up.

Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have several questions too regarding your surplus property sale. When you raised the 7 million, was it 121 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) just on properties, or was it other -- do you sell equipment?

No. That was all surplus property.

Okay. And how long do you envision any of this taking from the listing of the properties to the auction or the transfer? You said you could transfer some of the properties to PAID and then have PAID...

Up until now, that is how we have sold property.

Right.

Any interested party, we've worked with the Council representative, we've transferred the property to PAID, and did the sale. But this is the first time we're trying it a different way.

Okay.

So I couldn't give you a length of time of how long this will take to complete the transaction, but it probably should be 122 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) shorter.

It should be shorter, okay. Shorter than what, a year, two years?

Yes.

Okay. What about some of these lots that have been vacant for, like, or 30 years and 10 it appears that no one wants them? What 11 are you going to end up doing with those? 12 I guess what worries me is that 13 you're going to do appraisal and then put 14 in fair market value on a particular lot 15 that no one has had an interest in for 30 16 years. 17 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: 18 No, that's more of something that the 19 Administration is working on as a 20 long-term policy. That's a totally different issue.

Okay. So the goal is to sell the lots to raise revenue. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: 123 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) It's a pilot we have right now, yes, for a limited number.

All right, because I just wonder what's going to happen if the lots don't sell. Neighborhoods will still remain the same, we'll have blighted lots throughout the neighborhood. Someone called me Saturday about a lot that he's been cleaning for, like, years and was going to clean it 13 again Saturday during the big cleanup, 14 and it just remains a lot. And he put 15 sweat equity into it, he has cleaned the 16 lot, he has put a fence there. 17 So do people, or will people, 18 get credit for any of their sweat equity 19 if they want to purchase a particular lot 20 that they've been cleaning? 21 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: 22 Again, those are things that we're 23 dealing with right now as a committee for 24 a policy because we have come across that 25 already. 124 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET)

I know. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: So it's not an unknown to us, yes. We are working on it.

Okay. I'd be interested too in seeing what the results are of your meetings, your plans, what policies you're developing around disposing of this surplus property. And I'm sure other people are, so if you could just forward information to Council President Verna, 'cause we would like to keep up with that. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay. At this point, we're simply doing meetings. I mean, the policy would have to be vetted through Council, I would assume.

Well, the further along you get, just let us know every now and then. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay.

Okay? 125 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Not a problem.

I also have a question about the facilities and particularly the firehouse at Germantown and Carpenter Lane. A couple of budgets ago, I raised the issue of that firehouse needing repairs; and, now, it's in need of desperate repairs to the flooring. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Right.

Are you familiar, or is anyone familiar, with those needs there? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes.

At some point, there needs to be an answer as to when -- DEPT COMM. KNAPPIC: Councilwoman, yes, I believe you brought that up at the capital.

I did, 126 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) right. DEPT COMM. KNAPPIC: Since that time, Finance has -- we've taken some CR funding. And we're in the process right now of obtaining bids to replace the apron out front. Actually we have a contractor onboard. I believe they're going to start, within the next week, doing the apron out front. I had looked at that fire station a while ago, and the floor itself is structurally sound; it's the topping on the floor that is bad.

Right. DEPT COMM. KNAPPIC: So the contractor we're bringing in right now is going to redo the aprons out front. He's also going to demolish the floor, and we're going to have another contractor come in and do another floor topping there.

So that should be good, so that that should probably be completed? 127 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) DEPT COMM. KNAPPIC: Within the next two months because you have to cure that floor too before anyone can come back in.

Well, that's really good; I'm really happy to hear that. And I had one other question. I know someone -- I think when I came into the chamber, someone was asking the question around the construction trades unit that you're planning. Will that unit be similar to what Recreation has? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. I mean, I'm assuming Recreation uses -- this is not -- these are City employees that are existing?

These are City employees. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. The idea is to take jobs that otherwise, in the past, unfortunately have sometimes been incorporated into a 128 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) larger job. (Timer bell rings.) COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: And, you know, borrowed money was used to complete them. We're going to try to take those little, small pieces of operations that we can do with the existing staff away from the capital project.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

Before I recognize Councilman Green, we were talking about bidding the surplus properties when they have come to City Council for approval --

Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes.

-- would it expedite things if, legally, we were able to put into the ordinance or resolution the minimum bidding amount? 129 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET)

You mean to set a price, a minimum price for each?

Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: That's worth looking at.

We can look at that, yes.

Would you? As I said, it seems like we wait forever and ever for anything to be -- from the time we start it to completion, and I just thought that if we could possibly do that, it's worth looking into. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I heard that Councilman Jones desired my presence, so I decided to come over and join you. (Laughter.) 130 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET)

Yes, he did.

I would just like to go last, so whenever everybody else is finished, I'll ask my questions.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Council President. Good afternoon. A couple of quick questions and, actually, to some degree, in preparation of a future hearing. How many facilities in total does the City of Philadelphia have in the its inventory, starting from City Hall down? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I don't know. Can we get back to you on that? I don't know if I have that off the top of my head. Do you John? You do? 131 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET)

In the thousands, would you say? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: No, more than a thousand.

In addition to which, I need to know the method of providing energy to all of those buildings. Are all of them -- do they all use electricity or -- COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: So you're asking of those buildings that are occupied, what type of utility?

Buildings that are occupied. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay.

Or if they're unoccupied, the possibility that they may be occupied at some point in time. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay.

I'm simply trying to determine the energy use of all 132 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) of those buildings. Do they all use energy, energy provided through PECO? Or if there is any other buildings that have energy use that are alternative sources of energy. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay. Right. At this point, when we use Trigen and PECO, PGW, and --

So multiple uses? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Right.

Okay. So if you can just get a list of, first of all, the total number of buildings and the energy use associated with those building. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay.

And the providers of the energy and the distributor of that energy. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay. 133 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET)

Do we know, say, for instance, right now, PECO is the distributor for pretty much all of the City, both residential, commercial, institutional. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Right.

Do we have in terms of the City of Philadelphia have a sense of who was the actual supplier of that energy to the distributor and subsequently the distributor -- COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I don't know the answer, but I certainly could call Ed McBride. I mean, I don't know. I don't know that they have that level of detail, but I can ask.

Well, they will. The question is, do we? If we don't, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I don't think we do.

Okay. Well, the most important aspect, I really 134 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) need to get the entire inventory of all of the City-owned buildings, particularly those that are currently in use but those that are not in use. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay.

Energy source, type of energy, provider of the energy, distributor of the energy. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay.

Is that something you can get to me relatively quickly? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I think so. I don't think that's an impossible request.

Okay. And what I also need in preparation for another hearing is properties that have on-street parking along the perimeter of those publicly-owned facilities. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Oh. So now... 135 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET)

I think you know where I'm going. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: That's a little bit more challenging but it's not impossible.

I mean, as best you can. I mean, you know -- COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay.

-- if there's a rec center. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Right.

You know. I know we own some buildings where -- that may be in Center City, where there's clearly maybe not on-street parking, or it might be metered parking, but buildings that have the street frontage, I guess, basically. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: So you're just talking about street parking; you're not talking about parking lots.

No. 136 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) On-street parking. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: On-street, okay.

That have street frontage around the perimeter of the building.

Councilman, there are around 700 facilities.

I'm sorry, sir.

There are around 700 facilities.

Total?

Yes.

That's of all types. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: They're occupied, though.

That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay. Is that what -- you're only looking for occupied --

No, I'm not 137 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) on the -- my preference is that they're actually occupied. Okay. So if you can get that as soon as possible through the Chair to us. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Sure.

Thank you, Madam Chair. (Councilwoman Tasco assumes chairmanship of committee at this time.)

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez.

Thank you. I wanted to talk a little bit our leases in the City. Do we have a protocol about what we're willing to pay per square footage in our leases for our departments, or is this done based on the market and where we're moving? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yeah, we negotiate it directly.

You negotiate? 138 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes.

And the reason I ask that is because I know that there were some discussions -- or there have been some discussions around our Curtis Center lease, which -- for one floor. How much square footage is that, in there?

I'll find out.

And that's our BRT offices and the Human Relations Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: And human relations, yes.

It's 78,695.

And then our Spring Garden, 990 Spring Garden, how many square feet is that?

86,646.

And the reason I point those out is 'cause the leases are almost the same amount for -- oh, it's 86,000. I thought you said 186 139 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) --

86.

Oh, okay. So they are comparable, okay. I wanted to make sure that was the case as it relates to that. In terms of our programming, DHS, in their budget, talked about potentially moving some of their offices to the community. Is there any thought process about moving some of Center City offices into neighborhoods, potentially into some of our buildings? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. The desire is, as leases come to term, we want to fill the City-owned building first, to eliminate rented space. And also, DHS is definitely interested, and the Mayor is interested, in having some more community centers for services out there rather than bringing everyone downtown.

Right. 140 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) So what's the plan for that? I mean, there's discussion? Are we going to see any of that movement in the next year?

Councilwoman, we have to usually wait until the lease term. We have a whole lease schedule of what comes up. I think the next big lease comes up in '12.

Well, that's why I ask, 'cause if we're going to move to potentially some of our vacant buildings, there needs to be some capital improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Right.

So I want to make sure that we're not backed against the wall, where we're not making the capital investment over the next year to be able to move into some of the facilities. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: We have been talking to Ann Marie Ambrose, and we are aware of her desire to have 141 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) less central and more out in the community.

Well, I also wanted us to look at some of these other places. You know, I know we spent at the ARA Tower -- that's the Health Department and Behavioral Health. We spent $2.5 million, where we -- all of those services are services to people; there's no need for those folks to be downtown. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: They're pretty much administrative offices.

Mm, they're not. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Behavioral Health may not be.

Okay. Yeah, and the Health Department. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yeah.

It's monthly administrative stuff? Okay. 142 4.13.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (FY '11 BUDGET) In terms of the properties that we have in our inventory, the 6900 of those properties, how many of those are we paying for either water or electrical services to?

(Looking through notes.)

I think it would be an important part of what Councilman Clarke was talking about, his piece. And I just want the make sure that we add that kind of to that discussion. Are there any vacant properties that we are currently paying service to?