Committee Hearing, February 13, 2002

$30 million was allocated in prior years, and the source of that funding was a State reimbursement fund. I forget the act. Act 71.

What is the total estimated cost for this project?

It's approximately $48 million.

The FY04 64 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 funding source is other government's agencies; how will this be funded? Is it possible that we might be able to recover the funds budgeted in prior years for this project?

It's anticipated that we would fund the project by issuing debt through an outside authority and that the debt service payments would then be eligible for reimbursement from the State under our usual funding stream. And so it is possible if that works out to be the case that we could recover the earlier year allocations.

Has a site been determined as yet?

No, Council President. A site has not yet been determined. We have been working closely with the Department of Human Services and an outside consultant to try to identify potential sites. I can't tell you right now primarily we've identified as many as 50 potential sites. We've looked citywide, not just within a certain area. Out of those 50 sites, of 23 them are City-owned sites, either through RDA or some other City agency. So we're looking at those first, naturally. We don't want buy a site if we 65 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 already have something that meets our need. The other sites would be privately owned sites that would have to be purchased. We've just started to get that raw data in and we are collecting that and putting it into a spreadsheet so that we can analyze it. We expect within the next two weeks to be having meetings with Administration to review our initial responses and the information that we have. So we do expect within the next couple weeks to be able to develop a short list of potential sites which then would be shared, I'm sure, with City Council.

Thank you. Office of Housing and Community Development, Pages 59 and 60. Why were these projects eliminated from the Capital Budget after FY03? And can you tell me what impact this will have on the NTI program?

The amount shown in FY03 will basically complete the funding requirements for site improvements at those housing redevelopment sites. That's why there's no additional funding shown in the out years.

So that we all 66 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 understand, new curbs, sidewalks, planting of trees, most of that will be done -- because heretofore we've been told that the Controller absolutely would never allow us to construct new sidewalks and curbs in a residential area. They did that many years ago. However, it has not been done in more recent years. So we're going to do that only where there will be rehabilitation under the NTI program?

Not necessarily under NTI, but certainly under the NTI umbrella.

Elaborate on that so that we're all very clear on just what that does.

Well, these projects are very large scale rehabilitation and redevelopment projects. In two of these cases they are public housing, conventional public housing sites that had been demolished and new housing is being built that fits the City's fabric, physical fabric much better than those conventional housing sites did. I believe that the City Controller permits these kind of site improvements to occur if they're part of a comprehensive plan.

So if under 67 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 NTI we have a street, for instance, that the properties have been demolished, a developer comes in, actually constructs some housing, will we be able to get new curbs, sidewalks, and trees in that block.

Most often these projects -- the history of these projects in the past has been that these redevelopment projects have leveraged Federal funds and they're not always done by private developers.

You're not answering.

If I could put that question in the same category as an earlier question with regard to NTI. In each one of these cases, there was a thorough review as well as a legal review and a review of the controllers guidelines to ensure that we were on safe ground. And I would want to be overly cautious in responding to your question and defer to Friday testimony and we will pass this question on to those testifying on Friday, maybe me, but those testifying on Friday and have a more complete answer for you.

The Chair 68 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 recognizes Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Director Griffith, we may just have a slight difference of opinion about all of this. This is a Capital Budget hearing. These are the Capital dollars the voters will approve on a ballot. With every respect to the Mayor, Chief of Staff, Pat Smith, yourself, and everyone else involved in NTI -- which I wrote down a new term today, we now have the NTI umbrella. Now is the NTI umbrella under the NTI framework or vice versa.

They're side by side, Councilman.

Side by side, okay. This will be an interesting organizational chart. This discussion about curbs, sidewalks, streetscape in general was going on long before NTI entered the lexicon. And there have been solicitor opinions about this. There's Capital Program guidelines and documents that have been viewed by some as sacrosanct provisions of the way the government operates. Now we're hearing today that, one, to some extent, not only are we prevented from 69 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 having a full discussion about these items even though they are Capital Budget items until, shear coincidence, there's a hearing on Friday on an amendatory NTI bill. But now everything is being talked about in a context as if it were legally binding that NTI will drive whether you can do these things are not. I mean, they're either eligible or they're not. And this has, as least for my time, been 10-year discussion about it. And I don't understand how NTI affects it one way other. You can either do curbs and sidewalks with Capital dollars or you can't. And whether you have Federal funds in or Aunt Sally's funds in, they have said you can't do. So I don't understand how NTI changes that. It's wonderful if we're going to be able to get it done, but it obscures all of the previous discussions about this particular issue and ends up being for some of us an enormous smoke screen about what's been going on the past 10 years.

Well, first, you have my apologies if it seemed I was deferring an important conversation that needs to happen here until Friday. We were responding to what we thought were projections about what might happen in the future. 70 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 It's our understanding that the Controller's Office has decreed that if curb and sidewalk restorations are part of a comprehensive large scale plan --

Well, stop right there. What does that mean? What's the definition of that?

Well, that's why I said we vetted these on a case-by-case basis. And perhaps I should of rather than deferring to Friday try to get someone who is more knowledgeable about the legal framework that these decisions were made under today.

Well, I happen to think that a streetscape project is a comprehensive plan for the revitalization of a particular neighborhood. But that answer has always not been good enough. Now we're hearing that you got some Capital funds, you may have some NTI funds, and now life is beautiful and let's, you know, kind of let's get it on.

I made a mistake in my life, Councilman, I did not become an attorney. My degree is in architecture and planning.

With every respect 71 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 to the attorneys, you did not make a mistake.

And I would defer to them on this question. And what we will try to do, because you are absolutely right about being responsive to your questions today, is get a more definitive answer for you before we leave day.

I appreciate that. The other part of the answer, and I understand that -- I mean, this is kind of like in school where we now want to do writing through the curriculum. So every discussion, every mention of anything that's going to go on further in the government, whether it's filling a pothole, replacing a street light or anything else, is all going to be done in the context of either the NTI framework or the NTI umbrella; I understand that. But some of these projects that are in here, specifically these capital items, directly related to public housing developments and Hope 6, again I would say to you these items were discussed before there were words called NTI. So the notion that an intermingling of conversation and dollars about -- I think your comment earlier was "these address NTI goals." These projects have nothing to do with NTI. 72 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 They're about developments where the City was supposed to match funding because we got Hope 4 grants. So some of this we're doing to ourselves 5 because the one had nothing to do with the other. 6

I would posit that we are both right, Councilman. You're absolutely right, these are ongoing projects. We would have made decisions about funding these with or without the NTI umbrella or framework. And I think we've been responsive to your questions with regard to these projects. We're on a little more shakier ground when we try to project how other projects may flow from this or how the Controller might interpret those. But I would also say that as I understand NTI, it is more than simply the programs or projects that flow from specific funds. It's really looking at planning in a comprehensive way, looking the community development in a comprehensive way. And his that's the way we refer to it. In that context, indeed these projects meet neighborhood transformation goals transforming neighborhoods. I know this is going to be semantically a little confusing as we move forward. I think it is a real distinction. 73 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029

I appreciate that. Madam Chair, you've been very kind. I do have in this area one last point to raise. The other thing about the capital dollars going into some of the Hope 6 developments, one of which is mine -- and we've had some discussion about this before and I think because of a variety of delays, these funds did not get used before. You don't need to be bored with that particular story. But it does raise another issue, again. With regard to curb and sidewalk and streetscape expenditures, it is insult added to injury that we propose to use capital dollars to fund developments that are for the most part funded by the federal government and we cannot use or have not used or been told we could not use by numerous solicitor opinions and Capital Program guidelines that people who live in non-PHA residential neighborhoods cannot have access to these same dollars. Now, that is hypocritical. And that is not fair to everyone else in the City of Philadelphia that somehow developments funded by the Feds who print the money and can fund anything that they want, somehow they're eligible for Capital 74 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 dollars, voted upon the citizens of this City regardless of where they live, but somehow they are eligible somewhere else. So we're either going to have one policy for everybody or we're going have no 6 policy for anybody. But it is not fair how this bifurcation is being made and making the determination as to what's eligible where and whether it's a comprehensive plan or you're just sitting in your house on your block in a stable neighborhood and you don't get anything out of what it is that we're trying to do down here. That is not appropriate.

I understand your point, Councilman. And we will try to get someone to be responsive to those specifics during this testimony period; if not, we will get someone to respond in writing to you.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Are you finished with your questioning, Councilman?

On that issue, yes.

Councilwoman 75 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 Tasco, I see that the Managing Director is now here. Do you still want to ask your question?

Sure. Good morning.

Good morning.

Could you explain to you the integrated case management system, the cost, and what will it do?

I am Estelle Richmond, Managing Director for the City. I apologize. I have a couple ther crises going on down stairs at this point. The integrated case management system is a product of the social services sector beginning to work together. We've been trying to conceptualize probably over the last year and a half how to be able to get one case management system that communicates to each other through a variety of departments. The primary departments are the Department of Human Services, Department of the Public Office, the Office Behavioral Health, the Office of Emergency Services and Shelter, plus a variety of other departments that may have families or children within those frameworks. It is an 76 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 attempt to be able to get a computer system to be able to talk to each other, to be able to communicate so that when you pull up a family's name, you can find out what other services or where else within the City they're touched and thereby coordinate the services they received in a way that we haven't been able to do in the past. We've also been able to look at and visit some other systems in this area, primarily one in New Jersey that looks of interest to us. At this point, we have been able to hire a project manager who can tell us a little bit more exactly what kinds of challenges we're going to have and pulling together such diverse departments that all separate confidentiality laws, that all have different mandates from the State to be able to use in the data in the ways that can be most productive for families in Philadelphia. The Capital Budget at this point represents probably our best educated guess at how an integrated system is going to work over the next five years in terms of both the hardware costs and the software costs and development.

So what's the track to have completion of this whole project? 77 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029

We would like to have this project -- we would like to get it started in the next fiscal year and, hopefully, have it completed within the next four to five years. But that will depend on what some of challenges are as governed by confidentiality, by the state contracts and how we get to work and what we can do within the State contracting procedures. For most of these departments, I'm sure your recognize, that the bulk of their funding doesn't come directly from the City. So we have to also work with those other funders to make sure they understand both the scope and the purpose of the contract.

Thank you. I have some other questions relative to programmatic information, but it's not relative to the Capital. I'll ask it later.

Thank you. The chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Managing Director Richmond, maybe you can answer this particular question. It's actually a computerization question as well. Councilwoman 78 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 Tasco was just talking about -- are you talking about this integrated case management, this is Line 67 on ?

Yes, that's what we were talking about.

We've had some discussions in the past about the Department of License and Inspection, specifically in terms of computerization. I don't see them listed in the table of contents. Are they not in the Capital Budget?

They're not, but to get to where I think you're question is going, our anticipation is that that system will be part of a larger system that the Mayor's Office Information Services is actually putting and that we'll be funded through the Productivity Bank.

What system are we talking about? Are we talking about an integrated data system for L & I?

It's more than that. It's really a citywide system. I'm going to ask someone from MOIS to give you the details on that.

Council President Verna, 79 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 Councilman Nutter, Councilman, I'm Dr. Bortnick, Karl Bortnick, the Director of Information Technology. And the Customer Information Work Management System, which is the name of the application, is this broader application to be funded through the Productivity Bank.

Is this just for L & I or is this for other agencies or departments?

Yes.

We've been talking about the computeriztion of L & I, I think, for at least five years.

This application addresses the citizen request management needs and the work order needs of Departments of L & I, Water, Streets, for example, and others.

If I may, Councilman. Part of the problem has been that each department has had different database, different terminology, often different designation for a given property. So we're looking to not only solve the issues around a given agency, but to integrate the information so that a citizen can actually get reliable comprehensive information on their property and the 80 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 same or complementary information from a number of sources.

I understand that part. I'm talking about the department's ability to keep track of what it does. I'm not talking about citizens trying to tap into the network and get their information, which is certainly interesting in and of itself. I'm talking about a department that apparently still functions with some level of cards and paper and other documents. What is their ability, given the critical nature of their operation presently as well into NTI world where they will be quite critical, whether it's in the framework, the umbrella or any other coverage, what is going on in that department with their computerization and the ability of that operation to upgrade its services to citizens? That's what I want to do.

The system would actually give them that capability. And there's a request for proposal that's actually out on the Internet for the development of a system, and we'll get you a copy of that so you can see exactly how it addresses that. 81 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029

I understand that. What I want to know is what's been going on -- I was left with the impression three budgets ago that that particular department put together a plan for its computerization. What I want to know is what happened to it, why wasn't it funded, and how did it end up getting collapsed into this larger now seemingly more complex operation?

Well, in the past, there was never a plan that the department submitted that Central Administration agreed with the appropriate plan. We've now gone through a process where --

Who is Central Administration?

That's the Mayor Office, Managing Director's Office, Finance Department.

Okay.

We've now gone through a process where the new CIO working with the departments has developed a comprehensive system that will meet L & I's needs and the needs of other departments.

What are the other departments that are part this? 82 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029

Water, Streets,.

Departments to be addressed include, Water, Streets, L & I, eventually Recreation Department, Work Order System and others that may want to use a common work management system, for example, Public Property.

When you say others that may want to, it's at their discretion? Do they just decide what they want to do?

No. It's not a discretionary item.

While I have you, Mr. Bortnick, can you tell me, can you tell me is the network up today?

Yes.

Can you tell me why it's down so often.

What aspect of it have you had problems with?

Getting into it.

What I can provide you is --

You get a message and says, "It ain't working today." A little better 83 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 language than that, but it's the same result. The network seems to be down at least a couple times a week. What is the issue? What is the problem?

What I would like to provide to you, and I can, are the reports that we go over on a weekly basis in the performance meetings so that you can see on a global basis, including for Council, what services are available and how often they are. If that would be fine, I would certainly like to share that with you.

I appreciate that. I just want to have an understanding of why does the network seem to be down on a fairly regular basis a couple times a week. That's my question.

As I said, I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with you and go over what particular areas. The network contains a variety of service, mainframe services, mail services, services to the Internet. Certainly, I'd be most interested in seeing what particular item has been a problem. There was, to my memory, a switch problem in this building.

Mr. Bortnick, I 84 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 assume I'm not the only person -- I mean, I don't believe in many conspiracies. I mean, I think there was another person on the grassy knoll, but that's about the extent of it. I don't think I'm the only person that's having a problem on the network or that somebody's doing something to my computer specifically. Usually, I hear it from the rest of the folks, at least in my office, the network is down. Now, I don't know what that means other than the fact that I can't access CC mail, I can't get on the Internet, and I don't know why. It's a very simple question. I don't need a global perspective. I want you to tell me why does the network go down. Is there a software problem? Is there a hardware problem? Did we not pay a bill? What is the story?

The particular problem that occurred and that may have reoccurred is with a switch in this building, which is an older switch that will be in the process of being replaced together with our partnership with Public Property. So on the occasion where there was problems on the Councilperson's floor, as I most recently remember in the last week, for example, it's from this particular switching item which is beyond its life 85 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 at this point. My offer still stands on information about networking and City services.

I appreciate that. I look forward that. I don't know whether this is a Capital-related item; if it's not, you'll tell me that it's not and I'll deal with it next week. With regard to some of our printers that are connected to the network, sometimes you cannot print the first time you go to print. You literally have to turn the printer off and turn it back on. Now, is that a software issue or is that a hardware problem?

That can be a hardware problem with that printer. And if the printer restarts after you turn it off and on and is re-recognized by the network, then that's a good solution.

No, it's not.

For that particular device at that time. How often does this occur?

Every day. 86 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029

Then that's not a good solution.

Exactly. The start of the day turn it on, the first time you go to print, you instantly get an error message. You have to turn the box off, turn it back on, and then it will print for the rest of the day. I don't think it's supposed to work like that, right?

I would certainly look to the Kimmel Group who is supporting you for some additional information and we'll get back to you on what that device's problems is.

I appreciate that. I understand it's a system-wide problem, some kind of interface issue. Councilman Rizzo, Madam President, wants to ask a question.

Councilman Rizzo.

Thank you. I'll ask the question a little differently. And I, again, appreciate all the services that my office has received from MOIS. Maybe this is the way to ask the question. If this 87 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 were a corporation and you were trying to rate the technology that we have with other organizations like PECO down the street or Blue Cross-Blue Shield or US Air, how would you rate your technology in this government compared to the private sector?

Technology stratifies according to a lot of different components.

The ones that Councilman Nutter talked about.

The ones that Councilman Nutter is concerned about, for example, a desktop unit, a printer, many of those units are aging and are in need of refresh on a citywide basis. And for this purpose, together with the Administration, Budget Department and others, we've under taken a total cost of ownership study which we'll be completing in March. To get an idea of how to approach the more systematic refresh throughout our departments of these types of components, the peripheral components that are closes to the end-user who sees them every day, for example, printers and PC's, and I know you're very sensitive to that in terms of technology as are the departments. So that's one of the initiatives that 88 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 we have undertaken this year, which I think is very important.

So I'm interpreting that we're in bad shape.

Excuse me? I didn't hear the last part.

Well, I asked the question, how would you base our condition here. And based on your answer, it leaves a lot to be desired.

Well, let me say about the peripherals so it's very clear, we are not untypical of governments in relation to those types of components nor untypical to the private sector. And we're evolving towards this total cost of ownership model of refresh as are many companies and also some major governments.

From what I'm understanding, either we're fortunate or unfortunate. Council, I'm sure the Mayor's Office, you know, we get all the bell and whistles. We get -- I learned a new word. We refresh our computers every few years, but what I think Councilman Nutter is saying, which I hear because I know a lot of the 89 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 folks that work at L & I. They still use index cards to keep track of the work that they do there. The Police Department, from what I understand, they can't even get furniture in some of the police districts, let alone technology. So we probably don't see it as clearly as the people that work for this government down the line a bit. What's condition of the average technology in the Recreation Department where, you know, they get what you give them?

Councilman, I think there are some very significant numbers. If you've looked over the last period of 10 years that this Council has funded technology, technology has grown from perhaps -- and I can get the exact number for '92 -- like 6300 people to workstations available to over 13,500 people. So we've doubled, more than doubled in this last 10-year period. If you consider workstations that are used, for example, in public safety areas where more than one person uses a workstation on a 24-hour day shift. You're talking about over 15,000 City employees using technology. There has been a tremendous and rapid growth of technology at the level of the workstation. At the 90 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 same time, the networking in the City has grown from an older networking strategy which was mainly mainframe oriented to a peer-to-peer type of networking that's available throughout the buildings of the government. That does not mean that there are applications for everyone. And I think you saw in the Managing Director's presentation the opening of horizon for integrated case management in the conversation with Councilman Nutter, the perspective on citizen request management and work order systems for municipal services, organizations. And similar opportunities are taking place within public safety which are to the credit of the City and to this Council for their support.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Nutter.

Mr. Bortnick, when will this system be up and running with regard to the departments and agencies? What's the name of this?

The Citizen Information Work Management System. The Citizen Information Work Management System has a time line that begins 91 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 with the review of proposals in March time frame and extends out for a number of years, starting with the Licenses and Inspection Department, as you've so noted their need, for at least the next two or more years.

What do you mean by extended out? What does that mean?

What I'd like to do for you, because we do have a time line, I will give you the schedule.

Okay. What I really want to know is when will it be fully operational and implemented? When will the equipment and devices show up in their offices? That's what I'm primarily concerned about.

Right. And what I would like to do for you is to give you the detailed time line which we've developed, and it shows which agencies at what time.

Okay, great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. Dubow let me go back to one response that you made to an earlier question. I think the question had to do the City's overall debt level. 92 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 And there was some discussion about average percentage debt level of a variety of cities across the country or some industry standard or something like that. Did I understand you to say that were excluding from that the pension obligation bond debt?

I gave two different percents. One was with the unfunded pension, and that was I think a little under percent; and one 11 with the unfunded liability, and that was around 15. But I said I don't --

The first one you mean without?

Yes. But I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I said I wanted to also go back to the office and make sure those are right and send a follow-up.

Why would you do a calculation without? What would be the purpose of that?

Well, when we talked to our the financial advisors and asked them how rating agencies looked at it, they said they typically do the calculation without the unfunded liability. 93 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029

Why? It's a liability.

Well, there are a number of liabilities that we don't include in our long-term debt calculation.

Like what?

Well, like we have some indemnities payments that we have to make over a number of years. We don't include all of those.

You must put them some year, though, right.

Yes, but we don't include them in our debt calculation is what I'm saying. We include them in our cost, but they're not in our debt calculation.

What is the pension bond debt obligation?

I'd have to get you the exact number. The pension bond you mean? Oh, I thought you had a different question. I thought you were asking about the unfunded liability. The pension bonds we count in the calculation.

You don't count the 94 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 unfunded liability.

The unfunded liability. The pension bonds we count.

Unfunded liability on the pension fund or in the reverse the funded part, are we still at 76 percent?

Yes, about 76.

And we'll talk more about that, I'm sure, during Operating Budget because of some of issues that have been raised around that. Let me go to Fairmount Park. Mr. Tustin, on , Line Item 43, No. 1, this is the Belmont Mansion.

Yes, Councilman.

Mr. Tustin, it was, I believe at these think budget hearings last year that you made a commitment to have a regular update process on this particular project, given some of complexities involved. One, you have certainly more than kept your word about that, and I do appreciate it and all of your efforts to keep this project moving along. The $965,000, is that all that is needed 95 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 to complete the Belmont Mansion project or are you anticipating, kind of, putting those dollars forward and seeing what happens later?

We anticipate with this additional funding that we should be able to complete the full building restoration, including the exterior and the interior building improvements to the building. Part of that will extend out on the site around the building immediately adjacent to the building, but that number doesn't include improvements that maybe anticipated in future years.

Like what?

Well, let's say for instance, if a decision is made that we want to reconstruct the parking lot or try to do a different type of parking lot or add additional work to the area not adjacent to the building but on the site in general.

Is that an item under discussion presently?

Not to my knowledge. One of the things that's under discussion right now is the areas adjacent to the building, the porch area and front -- 96 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029

Is that the area that's behind the big fence now?

Yes, the porch area, the steps, the sidewalk area, and how that will be treated.

Do you know -- this is off to the side and then we'll come right back to Belmont Mansion. Relatively near Belmont Mansion but not on the property there is a large cyclone fence that seems to surround the area where the old playhouse in the park was. Do you know why that fence is there and what's going?

No, I don't, Councilman. But I could find out.

Okay. So your testimony is that $960,000 you believe that you'll be able to complete the exterior and interior work as we know it today?

Yes. If you remember last year, there was a question as to why we didn't ask for an additional 500,000 last year. And my answer at the time was because we weren't quite sure that that would be enough to do the whole project. We are much closer 97 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 to believing that this number will, in fact, do the whole project.

All right. So rather than asking for the $500,000 last year, we're now asking for the 960,000 this year because we think that this is closer to the real number.

Correct.

When do you expect the job to be completed?

That project will go out for bid on July 1st, on or around July 1st. And we expect to have it completed by the end of Fiscal '03 which would be the end of June. So we're looking at about a 12-month construction schedule. It's, as you know, a very complicated building. We're removing a third floor and we're doing major work to the building to restore the original plaster work of the ceilings. It's probably one of the oldest buildings within the City.

So you're expecting it to be completed summer of '03.

That's what we anticipate.

Let's move to the next item, still on the same page, but Item No. 2. 98 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 These roof and exterior improvements for a variety of these buildings. I don't have my list handy, but how many of these buildings are captured within the historic mansion trust?

I don't have that information, Councilman, as far as the trust is concerned.

We do have representatives from Fairmont Park. Is there a representative Fairmont Park here? I know Mr. Mifflin and Ms. Craighead was here earlier.

Stephanie Craighead, Fairmont Park Commission. There are about 40 properties that are on the trust list. I think about half of these are on the trust list.

Thank you, Ms. Craighead. Now, you know that I'm a big supporter of the trust and we did the necessary legislation here many years ago to get the trust up and running. My concern here today is -- and I do know many of these buildings. I don't have any issue with roof and exterior improvements to any of these buildings. I am, though, trying to understand in the context of 99 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 the purpose of creating the trust in the first place and what its mission is, at least as I recall it, was to put these properties in a special category because the City basically was not able to maintain them or take care of them and that other funds would be raised to provide for services and maintenance at these particular facilities and also to relieve some of the budgetary pressure on the City. Now we see them showing up in the Capital Budget. Why is that?

The purpose of the trust was to help us identify long-term users for the properties. And the trust issued a number of RFP's to try to get people interested. And they have been able to find users for some of the properties, but have not been able to find users for all the them. So until they officially, what we call, draw down, officially take the properties over for a user, they're still within the park's jurisdiction to make improvements and continue to maintain.

How many of the properties on the list are occupied and have tenants with leases?

Of the properties on the list on the Capital Budget, right? 100 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029

Yes.

All of these properties have some use, but not all of them have long-term users. In some cases there are park staff in these buildings. Other cases, like for example Mount Pleasant, that's a building that we are working with the Philadelphia Museum of Art on. It's one of the tour houses. They actually don't have a long-term arrangement with the trust. They continue to be a property that the Park Commission and PMA work with. The other Livery Road House has park staff and I think some School District staff in it.

Why don't we do this. For all of these types of properties, excluding either passive park facilities or recreation-type facilities, would you provide us with a list of all the properties, their present use, list any tenants that have leases, and the current status of the particular property. The reason I'm asking that question is, as you well know and other park staff, I've had a concern over the past couple years and it has been growing about the maintenance and upkeep of our park-owned or park-related facilities. I'm also 101 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 concerned as to any performance standards that we have relative to how often these facilities are checked what's their level of compliance with a variety of codes, L & I inspections, fire inspections, and the like. If we have users in the facility, are they required to perform any either operating-type maintenance or other improvements? Do they give us a year-by-year assessment of how the property is holding up? And do we inspect all of our properties on a yearly basis?

If we have users in a property, they are required to do routine maintenance. We attempt to do annual inspections. I can get you more information about our success at that.

Okay. And I know we'll have further discussion about this at Operating time. Let me move to the reviewing stand.

Councilman Nutter, I do have a follow-up question with regards to Belmont Mansion, if I may.

Sure. 102 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.

Thank you, Madam President. You mentioned that the 960,000 is to include all of the remaining renovations for Belmont Mansion. Does that include the third floor?

It does. Actually, what it does include is the removal of the third floor. There have been extensive reports on whether the third floor should stay historically, was it appropriately to the house and how it's being restored at this time or whether it should be removed. It was presented to the City Historic Planning Commission with the recommendation that the third floor in order to put it into a certain historical context that third floor be removed. And they concurred and they approved that. We are moving ahead under that assumption, that the third floor will be removed and the building will be restored to a certain point in time that reflects a two-story building and the surrounding area around the building at that time.

Procedurally, once 103 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 the Historic Commission makes that judgment, what happens with the Board at Belmont? How is that -- I mean, it's relayed to Board and they essentially have to accept the bottom line, correct?

Are you talking about the Women's Heritage Group that occupied the facility?

Yes .

They were presented for all of those hearings as well. And they also presented their point of view. All of that was considered by the Historic Commission in their decision.

Very well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Nutter.

We have two other --

I'll return.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. I wanted to ask a question about a project that was funded both by the State and by the City a few years ago. It was the 104 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 Avenue of the Arts North. It was done in conjunction with the Avenue of the Arts South streetscape and there was some Capital money put in from the State that allowed us an opportunity to do some specialized treatment on the north, some curb and sidewalk, some specialized lighting. At the time when we entered into the discussion with task force, it was told to us that we weren't in a position to get the type of lights on the south because of the cost and because of the length of the corridor on the north side. And we understood that budget wouldn't allow us to do that. But we were told at that time that there would be specialized lighting, the brown rounds, as they call them. And we were receptive to the degree that that's pretty much all we were able to do it. Weren't happy about it, but we understand the budget constraints. But as we move ahead, it's my understanding that ground rounds are the traditional street lighting, the traditional replacement for all street lighting. So in actuality, there's no 23 specialized treatment of the Avenue of the Arts north. We're just simply getting the type of lights that the rest of the City is getting. And when I 105 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 looked at it, essential it gives me the impression that we used a State allocation of funding to supplement our normal street lighting process, and that concerns me. Can you kind of tell me where we are with that and why we made the determination to do that?

I'd like to bring Streets to the table.

Good morning, Madam President, Members of the Council. My name is William Johnson. I'm Streets Commissioner, City of Philadelphia. In response to the question Avenue of the Arts project, the brown round street lighting is the replacement lighting that the Streets Department -- is the type of pole that the Streets Department is replacing throughout the City where there is the old aluminium pole or a new light pole does go up. So that would be consistent with the type of lighting that we're putting in other parts of the City.

But the allocation of the money from the State, we were led to believe, 106 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 was to allow us to have specialized lighting similar to or as close as possible to lighting on the Avenue of the Arts South. If we're simply replacing the lights on the Avenue of the Arts North with the normal brown round lights, it seems like we're using State allocation that were intended to give us specialized lighting to supplement our traditional street lighting replacement program. I don't believe that was the intent of representative Evans who was in the forefront at that time of getting an allocation to simply supplement our traditional replacement program. During the course of those discussions, we, meaning the community group and the task force that was put in place to review and to monitor that project were led to believe that this was some special treatment similar to the special treatment on the Avenue of Arts South. And now it doesn't appear to be the case. I guess the question I'm asking you, can we revisit or have an opportunity to rethink -- because I understand a contract is sometime maybe in the future is going to be let -- rethink the type of treatment that was received on the Avenue of the 107 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 Arts North. I had spoken to you the other day about some lights. Actually, to you and Mr. Syrnick and Mr. Doyle about some lights that I've noticed on Kelly Drive that had these double mask that provided some pedestrian lighting and some lighting for the street way. Can we entertain that? I just don't think it's right for us to get money from the State with the understanding that the Avenue of the Arts North was going to receive similar treatment as the Avenue of the Arts South and then we simply use that money to supplement our traditional street lighting. I don't think that's right.

I know that the project at this point, we have resubmitted the grant application for funding for that project at the request of the State. I don't know if that's come back to us yet, but I believe at this point it would be a matter of us looking at lighting similar to the type of lighting that went in on the south end of the Avenue of the Arts and any cost differential the lighting that had been previously planned to go into that project and the upgraded lighting that you're referring to, and then finding some funding source 108 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 to either leverage additional State dollars to pay for those upgraded lights or finding some other funding source to just cover that differential. And if Joe Syrnick, if you have anything else you'd like to add?

My name is Joseph Syrnick. Councilman, when we looked at the Avenue of the Arts North, that project which included City, State, and Federal money, as you know, was a total streetscape improvement. Lighting was only one portion of that. There was some desire at the beginning to have lights similar to what were constructed Avenue of the Arts South. The problem with the northern section was that in terms of length, it was much, much longer than the section that was done in the south. And in order to -- we would never have been able to afford the South Broad Street light up north. In addition, there was some desire on the part of the community to do a lot of banner work up on the north section in association with many of the festivities that went on up there. The arrangement that we worked out was to design and install the brown round fixture which is the fixture that we are now using and going to be using to replace our 109 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 aluminium lights. However, we would never have been able to replace those lights on North Broad Street now without including it as part of that project. We also, as part of the project, when we got some additional State highway money, we were able to greatly increase the length of that project to include from City Hall up to Somerset street which was approximately two and a half times the original length of the project. And one of the reasons we were able to do that is that we were using some Federal highway money and also a light fixture which was, in our view, very attractive, the newer fixture that we're using, but still manageable from a cost standpoint. If we were to go and now substitute a fixture that was much more expensive and in most cases much less efficient, we would certainly be affecting the length of that project.

I agree that -- and we came to the conclusion, I think, we all concurred that having the type of treatment on the south was just cost prohibitive, which is why we accepted the recommendation that we receive the brown rounds. My question is, at the time of us agreeing to accept the brown rounds, we were led to believe that the 110 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 brown rounds were an upgrade above and beyond the normal treatment of street lighting. Now I'm finding out that's not the case. It's simply the traditional replacement for all street lighting across the City. My question is, if we were led to believe -- and I do believe if you break down the budget, the street lighting is the major portion of the North Broad streetscape, it's not a minor portion of it. It's substantially major. If the Avenue of the Arts North is supposed to be special and receive special treatment, why wouldn't we have lights that would designate that as something special as opposed to just simply brown rounds similar to what we have across the City of Philadelphia?

Councilman, I understand your question. And what we will do is we'll go back and look at what the cost difference would be, an upgraded light fixture as opposed to what has been planned for the project to date and get back to you with some information. If we can find a way to upgrade the lighting, we will. It may be that we can't do it for the entire length of that project as 111 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 defined because, as Joe mentioned, we combined the project with a signalization project and greatly extended the length, but we can certainly look at what can be done to extend or to upgrade the light fixtures, if anything, for a length of the North Broad Street section.

And using various options. I mean, I'm not locked into what we have on the south, understanding the cost associated with that. But I'd like to see -- I mean, this was clearly designated along with the south. There was clearly an understanding, at least from the State legislatures who fought to get this allocation, that this would be some specialized treatment. And that's now not the case. Can you give me a time line on that, approximate?

Approximately two weeks.

Okay, thank you. Madam Chair, I have one more question of another matter, but I'd like to yield to Councilwoman Tasco who would like to ask a question of the Streets Commissioner.

I just want to ask you, what is the status of the Ogontz Avenue which 112 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 spans two council districts, the 8th and 9th? People have been promised, I guess, almost five years about resurfacing that road, I do believe the money is available.

Councilwoman, most of had predicted that that would have been the first question asked to us. Actually, it was the second question, so I guess that's good. This is a project that's been, as you suggest, that's been in the works for a long, long time. I wish I could stand here today and tell you that it was going to be bid tomorrow. We got the design plans from our consultant about three weeks ago. They think they were done. We looked at them. They're not done. They're in a state that needs a lot more work. We had a long two-day session with them last week. We've asked them to have the plans in to us done correctly, done to our satisfaction by March 1. They said they would do that. The office is split as to whether or not we will have it by then. But we will certainly have it shortly after that. We will do everything possible to get this thing out for bids as quickly as we can. This is a project long overdue, and I believe we've had this 113 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 very similar discussion last year. The road needs work. I don't know what else to tell you.

What's the problem?

I think we've used a design consultant that perhaps in hindsight was not up to the task.

Did you change them?

We did not change them. We basically believe that we've paid for this work and we're going to get them to do it to our satisfaction. There was some discussion about just pulling it off them and fixing it up in-house, but the consensus was that that would be letting them off the hook and that's not what we should be doing. It was just last week, it was a two-day meeting with them. It was a very tense session between them and us. And when we get it back in on March 1st or shortly thereafter, we'll move it as quickly as we can. It needs to be done.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Can you tell me what the status is of 114 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 the replacement of South Street Bridge?

The South Street bridge project is still under design. I believe that we anticipate doing the construction in the Year '05 or '06 in our budget. So it's still under design. We have not entered the final phase of design and we're still in process of design and meetings with the community to address any community concerns.

With the monies that are in the budget, can you tell us how many school crossing lights, blinking lights, we would be able to obtain citywide? I think each district Councilperson would like to know how we can make a request.

I believe that the budgets cover to 30 school crossing lights. 18

Is it 25 or 19 30? 20

It depends on the cost of 21 construction, but it's in the range of 25 to 30. 22

Thank you. 23 Councilman Clarke, thank you for 24 yielding. 25

No problem. 115 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 Anytime. I just have a question to follow-up on an issue that before us last year. Last year in our hearings there was some discussion about the Center City Y. It was a project that initially involved some potential use for transitional housing for the entire facility. We ended up only coming up with financing and a development initiative that included, I guess, 50 percent of the building. We subsequently came up with an alternative use that we thought made some sense along with the community organization in the area. And there was an attempt and a commitment to work with the Frair (ph) Charter School to place them in that building and there was a number of discussions in the community among the board, and I believe I had gotten a commitment from the City to allocate funding in this fiscal year that we' currently are in. There was some questions in terms of the usage and the type of revenue that can be utilized. Apparently, the original allocation was money from OHCD because it was intended to be a transitional housing. But with the change in use, we looked for another revenue stream and I thought that we had that commitment. And the 116 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 money has disappeared, and I'm trying to find out where the money is.

I believe there is money in the '02 Operating Budget. I will let Mr. Dubow speak to that. In terms of the Capital monies -- let me use another sports analogy -- we kind of dropped the ball I think on our side in terms of the conversation. We had two issues, one was a fairly minor tactical issue in that the property is not now in City hands and that would have to be dealt with. The other was a policy issue with regard to Capital funds which had to do with access to the facility, would there be enough public access to recommend scares public dollars. We believed that both of those issues could be cured in conversation and had thought that conversations were taking place between your office and our team. Apparently, that did not happen. We apologize for that. If those two issues can be resolved, we have no problem revisiting that. And I would ask Rob to speak to the Operating funds.

We did commit Operating money to that project. We haven't heard back in terms of a request for the money, but it's there 117 2/13/02 - WHOLE - BILLS 020028, 020029 when it's needed.