The answer is, take it up with us, meaning Public Property, which would require some involvement by representatives of the --
Okay, then. We'll do an additional follow-up on that item as well. You mention on that Public Property is working on Suburban Station with a master plan or in the construction of a master plan with both the MDO's office and SEPTA. You may or may not be aware that there was concern expressed last year with regards to SEPTA and its subcontractor, V Tech, and since Public Property -- this is one of the areas that you're responsible for, we just want to make it clear to 1294 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET the record that we do not want SEPTA or the building owners to in any way interfere with the rights of those workers there to unionize. Do you follow me?
No, I don't. However, my department's role with SEPTA in this is as the owner of some of the properties. SEPTA's plan includes a substantial amount of private property, not just the Public Property pieces, which tend to be common areas, by the way. We tend to have the common areas. And there's also SEPTA's involvement in capital programs, which have their own union, and which involves the city's share of the funding for those projects. Now, we do try to collaborate on maintenance issues that are not capital where it makes sense to do that.
Okay, then. My response to that is that we'll do a follow-up with SEPTA to see that they honor their role in making sure that the subcontractor, V Tech -- because we still get irregular calls in our office that that particular subcontractor is not honoring its role with regards to the workers being 1295 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET able to join the union. You're soon to put out an RFP for the use of public property, including city-owned radio towers for wireless facilities? Could you provide to the Chair a copy of that RFP so that we may have an opportunity to look at it? And what properties are being considered for this wireless communication use?
Councilwoman, we can certainly provide you a copy of the RFP. We originally put the RFP out in '96. We included about 600 individual pieces of property. Just about anything that was public property was on that list, so that the service providers could select from that, and we would probably have a similar list attached to the RFP for them to select from or identify an interest in.
Okay. I thank you for that. That concludes my questioning for Public Property. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Councilman Rizzo is ready, and then, 1296 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET Councilman Cohen, you'll be after him.
I would like to go back to the 9-1-1, the monies. You indicated that 60 percent and now it's 70 percent -- we're still working at the 60 percent level -- that that is the pay salaries and other associated costs for operating that system. When that 60 percent was factored in, did the police and fire department and I assume municipal radio is getting a piece of that action. Not at all?
Well, you would think municipal radio would, because it supports the fire and police department. So you would hope that they would be in the loop there. Were the budgets in the fire department, police department reduced as a result of that funding?
60 percent of the monies, could you tell me how much money 60 percent 1297 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET is?
And 60 percent of 9 that went to the fire department and the police 10 department, but we didn't reduce any budget at all 11 in either of those departments? 12
No. I'll let Mr. Costello give a fuller answer, but basically when the law was passed, it allowed us to reimburse ourselves for up to 60 percent. You have to keep in mind that the surcharge never neutralized the total cost of 9-1-1 support services, and the eligibility requirements, they weren't blanket requirements. It wasn't any police officer or any fire fighter. It's the personnel that are most closely involved in public safety and fire rescue. The real cost of the most direct charges is probably in excess of million, and it's just 24 incorporated into the departmental's budget, 25 departmental budgeting. 1298 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET
So the funding for the 9-1-1 dispatchers and call-takers and computers and all that are now being supported --
-- by the 9-1-1, but none of the money that once was budgeted for that department -- that's not your department. You have enough headaches without worrying about the budget, I assume, of the police and fire department, but it's hard for me to believe that none of that money, there was never an adjustment to the budget. We'll talk more about that. I believe they'll be here in the next week or so to talk about that, talk about their budget. I'd like to know, you have at least rented space at the Public Ledger Building?
I understand that there's many dozen employees of the mental health and mental retardation department that work in that facility that rented space, that that site has been condemned and they were without office space. Commissioner, could you tell us about that and what we plan to do about recovering the impact that 1299 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET that's having?
-- South 7th Street. Let me ask Mrs. Schlotterbeck, who has been working on the triage of this problem since last Friday, to bring us up to date to the extent that she can. And let me preference that by saying that we did become aware of the need to vacate that one floor, not the entire rental package, but the one floor -- and I don't recall which floor it is -- due to structurally unsound ceiling, meaning plaster was falling, chunks of plaster was coming from the original roof and breaking through the false ceiling and, therefore, posing a hazard to a number of workers, which I believe is about 130 workers.
So we have 130 city employees that can't occupy a floor in the Public Ledger Building?
That is the condition at the 1300 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET moment. The owner had promised repairs through the three-day weekend. Those repairs did not materialize. We made alternate arrangements for temporary accommodation of those employees, and at the moment, we're depending on our conference room 7 spaces in One Parkway and primarily Municipal Services Building. It looks like this is going to go on for more than a couple days, and we're working with the health department for a little longer term accommodation, pending the landlord coming through and making the space usable again.
Now, I would assume -- and I heard what Councilman Nutter said about assuming -- that when we do a lease, if we're not able to occupy a space, we're entitled to some recovery if it's not our fault?
It's not automatic. It usually ends up in litigation. And risk management, law department, L&I will all be part of the follow-up here.
Why wouldn't that be something that's in our deals, in our leases? Maybe you ought to consider putting it in there if it's not -- that could avoid litigation and spending city 1301 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET money to litigate. If it's in there in black and white, that if what occurred occurred, then they don't get their rent and they have to pay us -- obviously this is going to cost us a lot of money to relocate these people.
There are clauses that deal with the prospect of a catastrophic loss of the space. That's a little different than this temporary problem which is fixable. We've tried. I mean, I'll say that we've tried to get that kind of more open-ended get-back or offset. No corporate attorney ever accepts that on behalf of the owners, and in the end, we've negotiated what we could out of it, to the extent that there's recovery in worst case scenarios. Litigation, in instances where we have found the lease to be, in retrospect, unacceptable for whatever reasons, owners' behavior, management problems, we have resorted to renegotiation and/or litigation to solve our problem.
My last -- and I apologize if you already discussed this. I'll just read the notes of testimony. Every year I guess it 1302 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET wouldn't be a budget hearing if we didn't talk about the public access. Have you discussed that today?
You almost got through it without it, right? Could you just bring us up to speed, because obviously we have lots of folks that are interested and they're here referencing public access. Are we anywhere?
The answer is that my budget does not include any funding related to public access that would be departmental funding. And obviously in the face of budget targets which represent reductions from prior year spending levels and reductions in staffing, which is where our expense would most likely occur in supporting public access -- when I say "reduction," I mean attrition. We have vacancies that I'm not going to fill in 19 order to stay inside my Class 100 allocation. 20
So it's fair to say if you've not anticipated any money in the budget, you're basing any possibility on reductions in budget that public access isn't on the radar screen, right?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks, Commissioner. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Councilman Rizzo, were you finished?
I may or may not be repetitive with respect to the question about the workers and custodial services who are not city employees. I think at least those in City Hall I understand are employed by a company called Colins or something of that sort. I don't know if it's one L or two L's.
I thought that might be an unusual spelling. 1304 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET We understand that the salaries they receive are lower than the salaries provided for in the union agreements that have been arrived at with private landlords in the city. Is that an accurate statement or am I wrong on that?
I'm really not in a position to say that that's an accurate statement, but what I understand the situation to be is that Colins was once again the successful bidder, as we recently had put the contract out for rebid. The wage rates, which were prevailing wage rates that were part of the bid, were accepted by Colins when they accepted the contract award. And apparently there is some difference between Colins and the representatives of the workers regarding an increase that occurred or was supposed to occur sometime after the award of our contract. Our contract does incorporate programmed wage increases.
It does. The amount of that increase apparently is the basis of the dispute, if you want to call it that, between the two parties. It does affect us to the extent that people believe we're the ones who are causing this problem, but 1305 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET this was a public bid advertised. Everyone knew what the playing field was before they ever put their bid in, and it was based on whatever the service workers union prevailing wage rates were at the time.
Is there any term in the contract between Colins and the city which requires Colins to pay the prevailing wage rate?
Councilman, the city stated, Department of Public Property stated, in the bid exactly what the wage would be each year with an appropriate increase. So the bid went out and it was awarded and won by Colins again. So what I'm saying is that Colins has to pay what's stated in the bid.
The bid specification, our bid specification. They're obligated to pay that. If they pay less than that, of course, we have labor 1306 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET standards office for intervention purposes. If they have an agreement with a union that requires more than that, legally it's their problem, because if we, for obvious -- obvious implication is, anybody can low-bid us, they can low-bid us and work something else out later to make it better for the work force, and that would just result in litigation after litigation after litigation by every vendor who thought they could do the job on a million-square-foot building. So our position is, we put it out there. It was advertised. Everybody knew what the rate was. We expect the vendor to live up to the bid. Notwithstanding that set of circumstances, the managing director and the labor standards director are trying to help work out this problem, to the extent that the city can participate. And I'm not privy to what those discussions are.
Councilman Cohen, can I ask a follow-up question?
Not yet, Councilwoman Brown, until I understand this question, and then I will yield to you.
You all ought to be lawyers, because I'm really not sure what you're saying. I think I heard every word you said, yet good lawyers -- and I think I'm one -- sometimes can effectively answer a question in such a way that nobody knows what the answer is. There was a time a few months ago when on Market Street there was a big mass meeting of service employees, international union people, and I was enthralled by the language of Councilman Ortiz exhorting everyone to stand firm and they would get a fair contract in Philadelphia. Remember that day?
I followed him, but following Councilman Ortiz is very tough. He was in top form. And then within a day or two -- miraculously I say it's because of his speech -- the contract was signed and the union was happy. That set some kind of a rate. Now, did our contract with Colins require that the company pay that rate?
I think the answer is no, 1308 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET and we can ask the law department for a definitive opinion. What appears to have happened is that the private sector owners reached an agreement, and that agreement was reached after our contract was bid and awarded. And there is a difference, in some respects, there's a difference between the city's wage on this contract versus private owners right around us.
I'm sorry. There's also a jurisdictional dividing line. There's a service workers group east of broad and a service workers group west of Broad, and you have owners on either side that add a little twist to this.
Whether east or west, our contract stands the way it is. And I think it's different than what has recently been negotiated with the larger group of private owners.
Is there anything 1309 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET that stops the City of Philadelphia from saying, When we negotiate, when we put out our bid, the prices were say $10 an hour. We understand now that it's $12 an hour. Therefore, we estimate there's so many hours involved. In fairness to working people, we are going to pay an additional amount to cover that differential. Is there anything that stops the city from saying that?
I think we're looking at whatever the legally acceptable options are, short of rebidding. Rebidding is a disruptive process and it doesn't really help very much.
Well, it wouldn't have to be rebidding. Couldn't there be an evaluation of how much it would cost to raise that prevailing wage to the current prevailing wage? Apparently the contract may have been based on the last contract's prevailing wage.
I would appreciate getting it. We would like to get it resolved, including, I think -- I don't think we ought to be in what I would regard as shameful positions of 1310 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET paying less than private industry pays for the same kind of services. And if in the settlement of the major contract the prevailing wage was raised, I think the city ought to show that it is acting in good faith with labor. You can't blame that on the Colins company, because they were putting their bid in on what we were putting out what we said were the rates that were equivalent or applicable at the time of the bid, but I think we do have a responsibility. I would like, sir, if you could follow up with your information.
We would like to see the matter resolved so that we're not embarrassed when we go out to meet with labor roots and are told that Philadelphia is kind of at the bottom of the barrel on wage rates for custodial workers. Councilwoman Brown, I would yield to you on the matter of Colins.
On this matter particularly. Thank you. 1311 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET On this very specific matter, what provisions does your department have in place when you engage in a contract with the vendor and they don't honor it? Are there any kind of penalties that are in the provisions of the contracts?
Our maintenance contracts, including custodial, have performance penalties. Now, I'll make that a distinction from whatever the existing package is of labor standards type enforcement regarding underpayment or inappropriate payment by class. If there's a provision and if there's a specification that requires this table to be waxed once a week and we learn that it isn't waxed once a week, there's a corresponding penalty, financial penalty. We deduct from the next invoice rather than make it some kind of extended arbitration. Whatever we've assessed as a penalty comes off the top of the next invoice that lands on our desk for payment. That's the basic approach. Of course, the more serious something is, it may require letters and it may require phone calls and threatening an aggressive kind of language, but by and large, people forget things from time to time and we catch 1312 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET up with them as long as we learn of the mis-step where our managers catch it or reports from Council staffers and other tenants in the building letting us know that they don't think something is quite right.
What about penalties as outlined by Councilman Cohen; what type of provisions do you have where there's that kind of breach with regards to payment for salaries?
Well, wearing my former hat as deputy managing director and having included in my portfolio the labor standards unit, the penalties that were enforced were based on largely federal law. The bottom line is, if John Doe was supposed to get paid 7.52 an hour and was routinely paid 7.50 an hour, he or she must get the difference with interest. That was our approach. Now, you do have a different labor standards office. It would be a more appropriate discussion with the current deputy overseeing that. Additional penalties had to do with 1313 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET protracted and repeated offenses. So if we had a vendor who made a habit of shorting his people, of misreporting payroll records, there were federally-based penalties that could be imposed, short of litigation, and in severe cases, we would do that, or we would try to do that. And no one ever really took us to the full court on this, because in the end they paid with interest or they didn't see another city contract.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Cohen.
Commissioner, I live in a portion of Northwest Philadelphia. I'm the democratic leader of the seventh board, which is totally serviced by the 35th police district, and I think will remain so even after the change on March 1st. The major problem exists among my constituents who hound me to death quite properly that calling the 35th district and reaching somebody is a very iffy, usually impossible situation. In meeting with the police captain, lieutenant and the inspector that oversees four divisions, I learned 1314 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET that several years ago a replacement started in the telephone system that wires are still hanging in the basement of the police district, Broad and Champlost, that have never been fully connected, that the job has never been replaced, that from time to time somebody shows up, does work for a day or two and then disappears, and the job is still unfinished, and constituents in my own ward, as well as in the Council area, are not being serviced. And I'm told that maybe something is going to be happening soon. Do you have any information on that? I know the complaint because I gave it directly to someone in the -- I believe in the police department, who were going to be in touch with the Public Property department. Did I speak to you, sir?
You are correct. The 35th is one of the four districts to be completed in the next three months. Actually, the work that has been in place up there has just been patching together a very, very old phone system. Your 1315 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET characterizations of wires dangling I'm sure is absolutely correct. The last time I was up there, probably over a year ago, the situation was pretty bad. I mean, we spent a lot of time working in there just trying to patch together an old system. Money has been allocated this year to replace the entire phone system and put a --
To replace the entire phone system, including all the wiring, which is really our major problem in that building and many of the old buildings throughout the city.
And you say that's all going to be done within the next three months?
So if I tell people, Just wait for three months, you're going to be able to reach the police station, I'll be telling them the truth, right?
That's better than the answer we had when we never knew when. And we appreciate whatever you can do, if possible, to speed it up. On that question, I'll yield to Councilman Rizzo on that question.
Thank you. I just want to clarify something. Most of the police districts have two phone numbers that are associated with the district that's public. If a person looks in their manual, they call the 35th, it would be 3350. Enhancing that phone system won't make that problem go away, because if you only have two numbers that are public to the municipal switch board and the public, there's still only two telephone lines that give the constituents in the northwest access to the district. So unless you're going to add more lines that give two people, three people, four people the ability to call the district simultaneously, but based on the configuration of the district telephone numbers, two people can get through. The captain may have a line. The operations people may have a line, but two numbers 1317 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET are available for in-bound calls to most police districts, most detective divisions. So a new telephone system is going to look pretty and it's going to possibly give consolidation of numbers on one instrument, but the public calling a district still have two numbers in many cases to do business.
Councilman, you are correct. I think there's actually two answers to that question. First of all, the existing equipment and the wiring in that building is way past its useful life. We recognize that, but we recognize that in a number of buildings still in the city inventory. So, I mean, there's only so much money and so much time in a given year to replace them. If we have replaced them -- as I said to Councilman Cohen, we plan on replacing four police districts within the next three months. It's all very doable. In regards to the number of lines in any given police district, the city operates around the 9-1-1 system. So, in a sense, there's a desire to route the majority of calls through 9-1-1. So there's an "in" record and an "out" record and an 1318 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET overall police record of the service of the public. Not to say that the calls to the district are discouraged, because some have to come through, but by and large, there's always been an emphasis to try and push those calls to 9-1-1.
But, Mr. Costello, if people want to do day-to-day business, if they want to speak to their police captain, the community only knows one phone number or possibly two if they're not hunted numbers to communicate with the captain. If they're having an event and they want to get a barricade, that call really doesn't go to 9-1-1. If they want to speak with the captain or the administrative lieutenant, they need to call the district. And if there's only two numbers, because the operations people are using those same phones to call police radio, they're using those same two lines to call other operating departments to do business and 99 -- if you ever did a busy study on those numbers, I think you'd find that they're busy 99 percent of the day. It's almost impossible unless you know the inside numbers, which I do, to call the various police districts. So I know how frustrating it must be for the average citizen to 1319 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET want to speak to congratulate the captain about one of the fine jobs that one of their police officers did and they just give up because they can't get through.
But that's no 9 disrespect to you, because if they don't have the personnel to answer the phones, five lines will become inefficient in itself. They'll just ring or be put on hold forever. So it's a matter of the needs, and really the police department should be the one, in my opinion, to decide the needs for telephone lines in their district.
I was going to say that, Councilman. It really is up to the police department to determine if the number of lines in there is far below that needed to run an effective operation.
But then I've been told that the police department asks for additional lines and they're told -- and I doubt very much the communication division is saying you don't need it. It's apparently the police department that says we 1320 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET don't need another line. So that's why for 20, 30 years we still have the same number of telephone lines as we did 30 years ago in each of the police districts, at least the ones that are advertised to the public.
On that issue of the telephone. What will happen as a result of the replacement? Will the constituents be able to reach the 35th district better than they do now or will they have no impact?
It's kind of like a question similar to Councilman Rizzo's, in the sense that what we are replacing is an aged phone system which constantly needs repair. So the few phones that they do have up there are constantly broken. 1321 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET So we're running around in a situation where replacement parts for the equipment that's up there are harder to come by. We're kind of patching together an old beat-up system. Whether or not constituents are able to get through any better is a function of how many people can answer the phone and how many lines are available to ring in there.
The new equipment will presumably allow greater hunt capabilities across whatever lines are functioning?
Well, has that been decided yet, how many new lines will be available?
I mean, they're operating, they told me, meeting with the captain and the inspector, that there will be no problems, and that's what they expect is going to happen, that they'll be ready-access, that the number of lines will be increased and the access will be greater than when the current system is used and working. Because if all we're going to is get the old 1322 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET system -- get the level of efficiency in the old system when it's working, it's not going to do the job at all. The problem isn't just when the phones aren't working. The problem also exists when the phones are working, you can't get through.
Councilman, I am familiar with the plans to upgrade the system, but I will research this and get back to you.
Would you do that so that we can find out whether we're wasting our time asking questions and anticipating the coming of a new day? Because I think we've got to be able to get access to the 35th district. But taking one step, I think they're separating the district up in Mount Airy and Chestnut Hill. They're going to have a different district, so the pressure on 35th district is going to be reduced by a very heavy number of calls, but we got to make sure that the 35th district as it remains can handle what is has to. If you check that and let me know, I'd be very appreciative.
Now, on the final series of matters, on public access. I'm not going 1323 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET to talk about educational access or government access. I see a lot of channels on the air. At times I turn the knob or push the button of the remote control and I see members of Council listed, but I don't see anything that adds to real public access, and so I'd like to ask you some questions at least for the record, because I think we're all going to be facing a new push. First on money, isn't it a fact -- tell me if's not true -- that the money the city now receives includes a sum of money that was supposed to be devoted to public access?
What the city receives and has received since, let's say, 1986, I believe, the first year in which some of the cable operators were operating, is a five percent franchise fee, five percent of gross revenues. Prior to 1984, it was anticipated that cable operators in the city would be contributing monies over and above the franchise fees due and payable to the city to the public access corporation. That requirement was, in a sense, 1324 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET outlawed by the 1984 cable communications act, which, in effect, stated that if cities, counties, municipalities, whatever, felt that public access, certain educational access monies were good bona fide ideas, that money needed to come from the five percent franchise fee payable to the government entity. That essentially was where public access stopped in Philadelphia and that essentially is where we are today.
All right. I think there may be some question. That was not the way it was explained to us at the time your ordinance was passed. We understood that the five percent -- and that's what the cable companies tell us, that they are paying a five percent fee, that they have met their commitment, except for capital investment that they stand ready to make whenever the city says we're ready to go with public access. They say that their price includes that five percent for public access. You're saying the city says they're not getting any money for public access for the operating expense.
There's no dedicated 1325 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET funding for public access. I guess that's the best answer, Councilman.
They're paying five percent to the city. If the city would choose to use some of that five percent franchise fee to fund public access or whatever else, the city is free to do so, but there's nothing over and above the five percent and never has been.
We'll let others take that further, if they wish to. I think there's a lot of disagreement about that. At that time, when the bill was passed, weren't there channels referred to in the original agreement with respect to what would be available for public access?
In the city's original specification, I believe there was to be five public access channels, five educational channels, two government channels and a local origination channel.
With respect to the public access channels, were they specifically numbered? Were they identified as to which would be public access? 1326 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET
I don't recall that level of specificity, Councilman. I do recall the gross number being allocated for public access.
Could you check and see whether there was understanding as to which channels were specifically designed or whether it was all combined sort of in wholesale form or grouped together?
Because I would like to know whether those channels would still be available at the current time if we awoke public access.
I can tell you that there's very few, if any, open channel spaces. Regardless, the cable companies are still obligated to provide channel space for public access if the city goes forward and creates a public access entity.
Well, tell me in that background, what has been the position of Comcast with respect to the availability and public access? If you're saying that they are utilizing those channels, presumably earning money, it would seem to 1327 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET me very likely that they may be a force in opposition to making available these channels for public access, from which they would get no income. Has that been your experience with them?
I really don't know the answer. I still feel our position is if we need the channels, if public access is created, Comcast and Urban Cable Works in Area 2 will have to provide a channel or channels.
Because they tell us in every meeting we had with Comcast on the subject, they tell us that they stand ready to meet public access needs as soon as the city makes clear it intends to do so. From your experience, is that an accurate assessment?
In your opinion, would it be necessary right now -- as we understand it, there were articles of incorporation all prepared by the law department, presumably with the concurrence of the Public Property department and the managing director's office.
We've passed the 1328 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET legislation.
And Council passed the ad providing for it setting forth actually the articles of corporation and the bylaws. To activate it, in your judgment, is all that's necessary to get the two parties, the mayor and the president of City Council, to sign it?
But City Council, the president signing it alone does no good. It's got to be both; is that accurate?
Councilman, I really have to go back to the law department, but it's my recollection that certainly the City Council president, the mayor, the Public Property commission had an active role in pushing that legislation into effect.
They all worked together at the time. Councilman Ortiz, do you want me to 1329 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET yield to you?
Councilman Ortiz, you are next, and I know you have been waiting now for more than ten minutes.
If and when we ever get it, we should name it the John Anderson public access channel or corporation, since he was the main individual in this Council that really structured the whole cable franchise deal and he didn't have an opportunity to see it through. I believe that if John had lived, we would have public access as other cities have it today across the city. And, in fact, Boston and the City Council of Boston are ready to pursue and enlarge the current public access franchise that they have. If I remember correctly, every cable channel that has come before us over the years has stated their commitment to public access. Each of those channels is incredibly profitable, and obviously they don't want to give it up. And I think Council passed the legislation that gave the authority to the Council President and the mayor to move ahead and structure it, and I don't see why we 1330 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET need to go through the whole process, except maybe to appropriate the money.
Well, except that you have to file articles of incorporation at the state levels and they have to be signed off to them to get legislation on the mayor and City Council President. And our understanding is that the delay has been at the mayor's office. And from the days when Mayor Goode was mayor, the papers would lie on the mayor's desk then and they would come to City Council and the president said it's on the mayor's desk. No 13 comment?
Have you as a department ever made a survey of the utilities and public access? Why are we --
Councilman, your microphone is not on. Now it is.
Has your department ever made a study of the usefulness of it? For example, if it were available, very selfishly, to City Council members, it would be a useful tool for us to have debates outside of City Council chambers 1331 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET on issues. Neighborhood associations could discuss their issues. Senior citizens could have discussion groups on senior citizen problems. None of that exists in Philadelphia. The only way I ever see anything like that is on C-span when they give us a version of what takes place in another city where there are discussion groups. If a neighborhood group wanted to explain how great Mount Airy is or Overbrook Farms or West Philadelphia or any part of the city, there's nowhere they can go. Public access would give the opportunity without cost to these groups, and the cable companies would be obligated to help in the preparation of the TV's performances on cable TV. Isn't that right? Wouldn't the cable companies be obligated to help people who don't know about the technology to learn enough to be able to perform? Isn't that part of the concept of helping communities make their voices heard more effectively?
I don't doubt that if the public access corporation was created, that the cable companies would lend some help. The actual concept of public access, as I recall and I think as 1332 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET Councilman Ortiz recalls, was that the corporation would be created. It would be in the sense an oversight board. An executive director or director would be hired. Staff would be hired, and actually that staff would work with members of the particular community in which the public access studio is situated to actually train them, help them edit whatever productions were made and generally work along with the people who were trying to make a production.
Has there ever been an analysis of what the cost might be to the city?
We've done that periodically over the years, because the question comes up generally when we testify on our operating budget. I think the best barometer is really to look at other cities and see what they do and what the yearly cost is. I mean, we had at one time used a range of anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million. I don't know that they are really bad numbers. I think they're probably on the mark for a city of our size, if not conservative.
I take it in the 1333 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET current agreement with Comcast, there is no precise provision for additional services by Comcast to a public access channel?
But that doesn't bar the city and Comcast from coming together on an agreement, because I think it very likely that Comcast, being the good corporate citizen it is, would want to participate in the development of public access if the city showed a willingness. Have you ever discussed that with Comcast?
At this point, I'm going to conclude the questions on that. I just think that's a very useful area to engage in. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. 1334 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you. They don't have discussions because the issue is not on the table, but it would be a good -- like I said, it would be a good memorial for John Anderson for us to create the public access corporation and establish those facilities. Every other city that I know of, either major and minor, Reading has a public access channel. I don't see why Philadelphia is in the backwaters of this movement. Actually, we're years behind. 13 Commissioner, V Tech is up for a 14 contract in terms of the MDO and SEPTA. We don't 15 have a prevailing wage for janitorial workers in the 16 city, and we should, because we passed that for the 17 building trades, I believe, in terms of the service 18 industry. We should be able to take care of that in 19 this term. But V Tech is up for a contract, and 20 V Tech really has been a corporation in terms of its union relations that has been very antagonistic to the workers and the workers' rights to be able to organize and to live by the letter and the spirit of the contracts that they get. I think they're up for a contract and they're probably going to get it from 1335 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET the MDO and SEPTA; is that true?
Could you please look at that and see if you can get back to us? Because V Tech is one of the corporate entities that is bidding for those contracts and the type of corporate citizen that I don't think should be welcome, if they underbid, as they usually do. Also, the janitorial services of City Hall -- I don't know if you've been asked this question, but I know that either they're not in negotiations -- are there contract negotiations going on right now with that janitorial staff?
The contract has been rebid with a wage scale. It was advertised and bid with a wage scale associated with it. I don't recall what that scale is at the moment, but it is based on the 1336 2/20/01 OPERATING BUDGET SEU prevailing rates at the time the package was prepared.
Yes. There are programmed increases. There are programmed increases. It's a three-year contract, renewable every year until the next time that it's bid. Apparently the private sector owners in an independent fashion reached some agreement which provides a wage rate that is different than ours, meaning the city's contract with Colins and the sign-off by the SEU --
-- SEIU organization. So something has happened after the fact out there in the market that apparently they want us to equalize, and we can't do that, at least I haven't been informed that we can do that yet.
You can't do that in the current time because you already bid the contract out?
So you can't do that because legally what prevents you from doing that? You already bid the contract with Colins?
Right. They were put in for level playing field purposes. That's what they were put in for.
So you would have to wait until Colins runs out, its contract, in order to be able to --
Yeah. Or the hypothetical other option is to not renew and to rebid with a different wage rate. That would mean that we intentionally increase our cost and, of course, modifies the five-year plan figures and our budget FY02 and 03.