COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BUDGET - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, March 4, 2008 10:20 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILL 080154 - An ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six Fiscal Years 2009-2014 inclusive BILL 080155 - An ordinance to adopt a Fiscal 2009 Capital Budget - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. This is a continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole and today we will be considering Bill Nos. 080154 and 080155. Do we have someone from the Administration that's going to testify? (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of City Council. My name is Gary Jastrzab. I am the Acting Executive Director of the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to present for your review and consideration the Fiscal Year 2009 through 2014 Capital Program and the Fiscal Year 2009 Capital Budget, as recommended by the City Planning Commission at its meeting of February 8, 3 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. 2008. The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter stipulates that the City Planning Commission prepare and submit to the Mayor a Recommended Capital Program and Budget. As you know, the Recommended Capital Program is a proposed six-year plan for investing in the City's physical infrastructure, community facilities and public buildings. Each year, the City Planning Commission staff works closely with the Capital Program Office, the Office of Budget and Program Evaluation, the Managing Director's Office and City operating departments to prepare a Recommended Capital Program and Budget. This year, our work was informed by a facilities assessment prepared in collaboration with the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, PICA, for Police, Fire, Health, Prisons and the interior of City Hall. As in years past, the 4 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. availability of new, tax-supported general obligation bond funding for capital projects is constrained due to the City debt limit established by the Pennsylvania Constitution, as well as the City's capacity to service the debt on these borrowed funds. Nevertheless, we are committed to investing in the City's infrastructure to the greatest extent possible and are in fact recommending more City funds for Fiscal Year 2009 than we have since Fiscal Year 2002. billion in funds, from a variety of sources, to advance these efforts by addressing critically needed public improvements. billion. This includes 80 new projects for Fiscal 2009, as well as many ongoing projects that we are recommending be 5 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. carried forward from previous years. It is important to note that this year's carry-forward process is different from that of the recent past. Previously, the Recommended Capital Program and Budget included only new appropriations. All unobligated funding from prior-year appropriations was then carried forward via a separate amendment later in the spring. The Recommended 2009 to 2014 Capital Program and Budget incorporates both new funds as well as funds carried forward from Fiscal Year 2008. All unobligated funds as of December 31, 2007, including general obligation bond, PICA, grant, private, other government and revenue bond capital appropriations, are carried forward from prior years with few exceptions. These exceptions fall into three categories. One, unspent appropriations of less than a thousand dollars for projects that have been completed; second, Water Department 6 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. payroll costs; and, finally, federal, state and private grants which did not materialize. Also not carried forward are revolving funds, which rely on new appropriations only and do not carry forward as a matter of policy. Portions of other funding sources such as 9-1-1 operating revenue and Health Department operating revenue do not carry forward if the revenue to support appropriations is insufficient. 8 million will be provided by new general obligation bonds issued by the City of Philadelphia. On the pie chart shown on the screen, that amount is shown at 12 o'clock, and we will proceed clockwise. Twenty-nine point seven million dollars comes from previously authorized capital funds, money already authorized in prior years, but available for 7 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. reprogramming. The majority of this funding, which is designated as CA in the funding schedule, is available due to prior-year projects being completed under budgeted amounts. 3 million of funding is available from PICA.
As you can see on the bar chart projected on the screen, the three sources I just mentioned comprise the largest level of City support for the Capital Budget since Fiscal Year 2002 and more than double the amount of City support in Fiscal 2008. 3 million, and those are designated as CT funds in the project schedule. 3 billion of total budget-year funds. Funding from the federal government, the 8 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. 1 million in the budget year. 9 million. Finally, $121 million of Fiscal 2009 funding will be provided by private sources, and an appropriation of $26 million from revolving funds is recommended for the PIDC land bank. Projects included in the Recommended Capital Program advance our efforts to ensure public safety, promote jobs and economic development, support healthy and sustainable neighborhoods, improve customer services, and enable high-performing government. In all instances, we are recommending the use of limited Capital funding in ways that help the City address critical life-safety 9 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. needs, provide the facilities needed to support the delivery of essential public services, and leverage federal, state and private resources wherever possible. I would like to focus on a few specifics of the Recommended Capital Budget. Projects that ensure public safety benefit all Philadelphians. 5 million for improvements to the Police Tactical Facility and Warehouse; and $5 million for improvements to Police facilities. Additionally, $2 million of operating revenues will support computer and communication systems improvements; and $400,000 of new general obligation bond funding will support facility renovations. 10 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. The Fiscal 2008 budget recommends $5 million of PICA funding and an additional 800,000 of new GO funding for renovations and improvements to Fire Department facilities. In addition, $2 million of operating revenue will support computer and communication system improvements. The Philadelphia Prison System census has continued to rise from an average of 8,796 in Fiscal Year 2007 to around 9,100 in early 2008. 1 million for facility and communication systems improvements in Fiscal 2009. 5 million of PICA funding will support the design and construction of a dedicated 224-bed certified juvenile facility on the Prison System campus. 4 million of Act 71 funds from the Department of Human Services' new Youth Study Center to 11 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the Prison System certified juvenile facility. 4 million due to construction escalation and an increase in the contingency for the project to deal with unforeseen conditions. 4 million of Act 71 funds being recommended for reprogramming, along with funds carried forward from prior years, will fully fund the certified juvenile facility. 5 million of bonds, which allowed us under Act 148, the Child Welfare Act, to obtain 50 percent reimbursement from the state for lease payments for this facility. Projects that promote jobs and economic development serve to retain and attract businesses, provide jobs for 12 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. residents, and support improvements at the City's airports, as well as commercial, industrial, port-related and hospitality industry development. 2 million for Schuylkill and Delaware riverfront improvements; $600,000 for the Philadelphia Museum of Art; and $500,000 for the Philadelphia Zoo. Projects that support healthy and sustainable neighborhoods include street reconstruction and resurfacing, improvements to transportation facilities and replacements of water and sewer mains. 6 million is designated for street resurfacing, almost three times the amount budgeted last year. Other City-supported neighborhood infrastructure investments include nearly 13 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
7 million for the SEPTA Market Elevated reconstruction project and $2 million for GreenPlan Philadelphia initiatives, the City's blueprint for sustainable open space. Projects that improve customer services include those to renovate and renew facilities that primarily serve City residents, such as recreation facilities, libraries, neighborhood parks, health centers and City Hall. million is recommended for Recreation Department facilities. million of new GO funding is recommended for improvements to branch libraries, and $9 million of PICA funding will be sought to support upgrades to the Central Library. 4 14 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. million of GO funding for exterior and life-safety improvements. Projects that enable high-performing government include initiatives to enhance energy efficiency and ensure continuity of service. Funding of $1 million is recommended for energy-efficiency projects in Fiscal 2009, and funding of $250,000 is allocated for design of the third phase of the City's emergency generator project to ensure uninterrupted power in the event of an emergency. I hope that these examples of capital projects demonstrate the variety of projects recommended for funding in the budget year and how the Recommended 2009 to 2014 Capital Program seeks to make strategic, targeted investments in Philadelphia's infrastructure and uses our limited resources for the greatest public benefit. I would like to note that the Administration is proposing three 15 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. amendments to the Recommended Program and Budget. An amendment is being introduced today to restore $850,000 of carry-forward, or CT appropriation authority, for the Commerce Department's Food Distribution Center improvements FY02. This project will become Line 25H in the amendment, which was incorrectly coded as CA funding under the Commerce Navy Yard Infrastructure Improvements project. A second amendment is being introduced today to change the general provisions of the Fiscal 2009 Capital Budget to reflect provisions that were passed by Council as part of last year's Capital Budget. I'd ask the Committee to approve these amendments. And then, finally we'll be introducing a third amendment later in the budget process to change the funding source of four projects, which are currently designated in the CT category, the carried-forward category, totalling 16 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. 1 million. The amendment will change the funding source of those four projects to CA to accurately reflect those funding sources. Thank you for your attention, and I would be happy to address any questions that you may have. Please note that the leadership of City departments is present, in addition to representatives from the Capital Program Office and the Office of Budget and Program Evaluation to assist in answering your questions. Thank you.
Thank you. I think we ought to hear from Mr. Tustin and then we can ask both of you at the same time questions that many of us, I'm sure, have. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. 17 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
Good morning. Good morning, Council President Verna and members of City Council. My name is Richard Tustin. I am the. Acting Director for the City's Capital Program Office. The mission of the Capital Program Office is to support the City's infrastructure investment through successful management of the Capital Budget and to oversee the design and construction of new and renovated City facilities. The Capital Program includes projects that promotes the Mayor's initiatives, ensuring public safety, promoting economic development, positively impacting the City's neighborhoods, promoting constituent services, and promoting high-performance government. Our proposed FY09 Operating Budget includes $2,533,997 in Class 100 funds to support 39 positions. This is a 58 percent increase due to 15 18 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. capital-funded positions that are now being transferred over to the Operating Budget. Three hundred twenty-three thousand four hundred fifty-five dollars in Class 200 funds for architectural and engineering services. Space planning services to support the City's leasing and real estate consolidation efforts, staff training and computer software are also funded from this class. Five hundred and seventy-two thousand dollars in Class 800 for payments to support CPO requirements contracts for the repair and maintenance of City buildings and infrastructures, and, lastly, $89,184 for materials, supplies and equipment upgrades. Our Capital Budget request includes $4,540,000 in funds to support 43 positions. This reflects a reduction of $881,000, or 16 percent, due to the 15 positions which, as I previously said, are being transferred over to the 19 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. Operating Budget. S. Environmental Protection Agency and City regulations during demolition and reconstruction work. This reflects a 50 percent increase in what we've asked for in previous years. Four hundred thousand dollars for ongoing general environmental remediation projects required by the state for underground tanks. This also represents actually a 100 percent increase from the FY08, and the reason for that is that every four years, we're required by state law to go through an inspection of the underground tanks. And so it's a four-year cycle that that number usually jumps that year. Through careful attention to life-safety and quality-of-life issues such as heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, electrical systems, 20 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. roofs and exterior enclosures for the City's Police and Fire stations, as well as other municipal buildings, CPO works to promote the Administration's public safety goals. Additionally, CPO is also working to meet the Administration's objectives for education and sustainable communities through such planned projects as the green roof for the Central Library, scheduled to be completed this summer. This will also serve to enhance sustainability and be an attractive educational community resource. More green projects are being explored for development in FY09. CPO continues to actively bring about LEEDs, which stands for Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design, certifiable projects such as the Police Forensics Lab. And if you could go to the second slide, Trevor, we'll go back to that slide, which is the Police Forensic Lab, which would be the second -- the 21 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. next one. Sorry. This project was completed several years ago. Unfortunately, I guess with the lighting, it's not very clear, but the Police Forensic Lab, the Widener Branch Library, Walnut West Library and the future Youth Study Center, all of these projects have been designed to be LEED certifiable, which means we reuse -- we use recyclables materials. We make use of natural day lighting. We coordinate the energy use with natural day lighting, and we try to do everything possible to reduce energy consumption.
In an effort to promote jobs and economic development, CPO is committed to providing meaningful contract opportunities for minority, women and disabled businesses and to promote a diverse on-site workforce in the public works contracts. Moreover, CPO aggressively seeks to include significant minority, women and disabled 22 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. business participation in all of our professional service contracts and public works contracts. The following participation ranges have been met in FY07 and through the first half of 2008. 9 million, went to minority and women-owned firms. 1 million have gone to minority or women-owned firms. In public works, which is the work that gets contracted out to contractors, in FY07, 53 of those contracts, totally 13 percent of the total public works dollar values that year, went to minority or women-owned firms. And FY08, again, we're only halfway through the year, but 34 contracts, or over $17 million, have gone 23 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. to minority and women-owned firms. CPO monitors this effort by tracking all payments by consultants and contractors to their MBEC subconsultants and subcontractors. Each submitted invoice has a section that identifies how much of each payment is being paid to MBEC firms, and the CPO monitors these payments against the stated goals. One thing that we're somewhat proud of is the fact that not only do we put the goals in, but every time a contractor submits an invoice, we've modified the invoice so that we know how much of that invoice is actually being paid to those vendors. So it's not a guess. We know for sure those vendors are getting paid the money they're supposed to get paid. Currently, we track our performance in completing our mission by comparing the time and cost it takes to complete projects to the projected cost and schedule identified each year in the 24 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. Capital Budget and Program. We also ask our client departments to rate their satisfaction with CPO's coordination and management during the design and construction process, the performance of the design consultants and contractors and the overall quality of the end product. Finally, client departments are asked about their general level of satisfaction with the services that CPO provides. Moving forward, CPO will continue to provide its client departments with the highest level of customer service. This will be realized through more frequent reporting and communications regarding project status, the expeditious processing of contracts and invoices, and investing in training and continuing education of our professional staff. With that in mind, CPO also realizes that City Council has had some concerns regarding certain projects that 25 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. are being completed -- not being completed in a timely manner. In the coming months, we will be identifying additional key performance indicators and customer service parameters in consultation with the new Administration that will help in expediting all capital projects. I'd like to take a minute and explain what this slide is. This is something new. We are working very hard to try to find ways of not only tracking our performance, but increasing our level of getting projects done faster and cheaper. All basic projects are broken down into four categories. They're shown on this slide in the arrows as administrative, design, bid award and construction. During the administration process -- sometimes we call that pre-design -- that's where we meet with Council. We meet with the departments. We meet with community groups trying to 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. find out exactly the scope of work that wants to be done. We also try to obtain all funding approvals at that point and any grants that may be available for those projects. And, lastly, if need be, we issue our request for proposal for design services.
As you will see at the top, department by client agencies, we don't have a time frame on that because sometimes, quite frankly, we don't know how long it will take to go through the process of getting community group approval as well as funding approval and other issues as well. But once that is identified, we move into the next phase of the work, which is design. This is really where the change comes in from how we've done business in the past. The CPO is making a commitment at this point in time that at the point where we started design, we will analyze that project, and based on the dollar value of that project, the complication of the project, 27 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the resources we have at hand, we will be sending to our client departments and City Council a written schedule for that project that will show you exactly what we anticipate the design and time frame to be. And it will vary depending on the size of the project. We believe that projects under $500,000, we should be able to complete a design in two to four months. Again, based on those issues shown. Projects that are a half a million to a million and a half dollars we realize will take longer, and projects over a million and a half dollars, again, we estimate that our time frame for design can vary from eight to 12 months depending on, again, how complicated the project is, what type of facility it is and so on. From that, we'll move to the bid award process, which is normally a three- to four-month process. That process involves many City departments, 28 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. including Procurement, MBEC, Finance, the Controller's Office, Law and the contractor himself. That is a three- to four-month process that we don't control, but we can try to expedite, where possible, and we will continue to do that. The last phase after the bid award process is the construction process, and, again, that also is affected by certain factors, including how many contractors we have to deal with on the project. It can be anywhere from one small contractor to four or six contractors depending on the size of the job. Contractor's performance, whether we have a high-performance contractor or contractors that don't perform very well and we need to nudge them along quite often to try to keep things rolling. Weather conditions, regulatory approvals. Sometimes we deal -- the larger projects deal with PennDOT or other state agencies, and when we deal with state 29 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. agencies when we get into construction, they also have to approve the process and the invoices as we go from one phase of construction to the next. 5; and 14 to 24 months for 13 the large projects, over a million and a 14 half and up. We're making this commitment to try to do this to try to keep people informed. We're going to provide updates on a monthly basis on our progress and our performance, and we hope this will help going forward in our ability to do a better job for the City, City Council and our operating departments. Going back to my testimony, we hold ourselves in the highest ethic standards in order for the actions of CPO 30 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. to be open and transparent as possible. CPO values integrity in all of our transactions, interactions and professional relationships and will continue to uphold its high standards. I would like to thank City Council for your support over the past several years and request your continued support and approval for this year's budget request. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I know it's been referred to quite a bit in testimony about the CA and CT funding. Can someone explain for the record the difference between the two? (Witness approached witness table.)
Good 31 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. morning.
Both the CA funds and the CT funds are general obligation funds. The CT funds are appropriated in the budget year and if not obligated are carried forward to the next fiscal year's budget. The CA previously authorized loan funds are primarily generated from projects being completed under budget. Upon completion of a project, any encumbered funding that remains in a purchase order is liquidated and returned to the loan balance under the specific purpose category for which it was borrowed and becomes CA. In some cases, when budget lines are very specific and projects are completed under budget, the remaining balance is returned to the loan balance and becomes CA funding. Also, when the carry-forward is calculated, any budget line with a balance of less than $1,000 is lapsed. 32 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. Lastly, bond issuance costs are estimated at the time of the loan authorization. If the issuance costs are less than anticipated, any excess is distributed across purpose categories using a weighted average approach.
Thank you. If I understand correctly, the difference is that a CA fund are those remaining from completed projects; is that correct?
And the proposed 2009 Capital Budget contains $36,783,000 of CA-funded projects. I believe that our office had asked for a detailed breakdown as to what projects generated these surpluses. Do you happen to have a copy of the breakdown? And if you don't, when do you think we can receive it? 33 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. (Witness approached witness table.)
We are still in the process of putting that request together. What I'm learning is that the process of going back over some years requires a manual review of the actual projects, the expenditures and what is left. We will complete that. If we can't get that to you by tomorrow, we will give you an update of where we are by tomorrow so that you have a progress report at a minimum from us.
Thank you very much. Can you tell us what limitations, if any, are there on how these CA funds can be spent?
Hi. Tina Ginnetti again. 34 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. The CA funds have to be reappropriated to the purpose categories for which they were originally borrowed. For instance, if a completed project was in the economic and community development purpose category, when those funds are reappropriated, it would have to go back to the same purpose category.
Well, let me ask, if City Council wanted to alter the use of these funds, all we would need to do is to amend the proposed budget at a later time and pass an ordinance changing the purpose of the use of the funds; is that not so?
The purpose categories could be amended, but I believe it would require an amendment to the original loan authorization ordinance. But, yes, the answer to your question is yes, they could be reappropriated for another purpose.
Okay. Can you tell us, how do you determine the 35 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. allocation of these funds?
Well, we consider the original purposes for which they were borrowed, and the same way that we determined how the rest of the funding in the Capital Budget would be appropriated, departments --
For instance, in the Fairmount Park division, there was a significant balance that was left over in the recreation, parks and museum purpose category, so we appropriated much of that funding to the Fairmount Park to use for their projects.
Has the Planning Commission done an assessment of the City's facilities and infrastructure, and, if so, what are the 36 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. present and future requirements?
We have not done a comprehensive assessment of all City facilities, but a couple of years ago the Capital Program Office did an assessment of Recreation Department facilities and most recently PICA funded an assessment of Police, Fire, Libraries, Prison System and the interior of City Hall and assessed the needs of those departments, facilities in those departments, and came up with a total amount required to bring those facilities up to a common-level standard, meeting code requirements.
Thank you. Mr. Tustin, I believe you testified on the LEEDs project. In your experience, does the LEED-certified project cost a lot more money?
Richard Tustin. Yes, Council President, it does cost more money. Not necessarily for how the building is constructed, but right 37 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. now there are requirements for commissioning of buildings in order to meet the LEED's requirements. What we've done in the past when I had showed the slides for the Forensic Lab and the Widener Branch Library, the reason I said they were LEEDs certifiable was because we designed them to meet the LEED certification process, but we didn't actually go through and get the certificate basically saying it is LEEDs certified, because that is the -- that's usually what costs the additional money. So we wanted to design it to that level, but not necessarily have to go through the additional cost of getting the official certificate saying it's LEED certifiable. One thing I am happy to say is that just within the past two weeks, a member of my staff has gone for the courses, taken the exam, and now she is an accredited LEEDs professional. So she will have the capability in-house, and 38 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. we'll be able to use her for other departments as well that do capital projects if they want reviews for LEED-certifiable projects.
Thank you very much. I see that there are a number of Councilmembers that would like to be recognized, so I am not going to dominate the questioning. At this time -- and, again, I would remind my colleagues that the first go-around will be five minutes. The Chair at this time recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, everyone. (Good morning.)
First, just a question, Mr. Jastrzab, in your testimony, you mention the $5 million for improvements to Police facilities. Would that mostly be all the districts 39 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. themselves? Is that what we're talking about here?
Yes. That's what's intended, that neighborhood facilities for the Police Department would be treated, as well as other Police facilities as well.
Because I know obviously we got a lot of complaints about the condition of a lot of those, both for the police officers themselves and the public. Is it broken down at all, like how much is going to be spent yet on each district? Are we at that point yet?
No, it's not broken down that specifically. There are facilities that are identified. I don't have that information with me, but we can certainly provide that to you.
If you could, that would be great. Thank you. Also, when you mention in supporting healthy and sustainable 40 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. neighborhoods, you mention both resurfacing and water and sewer. As far as resurfacing, is that done mostly along a schedule of how long it's been that the street was done previously? Is it done more on complaints? Is it a combination? I don't know if you guys know.
The Streets Department has a system by which they assign points to the condition of various streets and will try to treat streets based on severity of need, but they also will try to get economies of scale in their resurfacing. So if there's a street nearby that may not be quite as critical but they can accomplish the resurfacing, they will attempt to do that.
Because I know we get and probably the District Councilpeople get more complaints about it than we do, is that they've done certain streets, but why don't they do mine, that kind of thing. So that's why 41 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. we were just trying to figure out the schedule. And the same thing on the water and sewer, and I know that often times, particularly sewer work, is more extensive and more costly, but is that kind of the same thing, to the best of your knowledge?
Yes. The Water Department also has a schedule for those kind of improvements.
All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, Mr. Tustin, as a professional who dealt with minority participation under the MBEC guidelines of 17-500, I applaud what you presented 42 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. today. It is an example that many departments who contract out both capital projects and also professional services might take a look at and replicate. It is outstanding. But I won't use all of my five minutes lauding you. I have some substantive questions here. Under the Environmental Remediation on , we have a carry-over of $544,000, and I heard the Madam President mention that some of these things could be reprogrammed. Would projects such as the Centennial Lake out in the park, which is one of the first man-made lakes in the nation, done over a hundred years ago, which now sits in disrepair, could that project be a type of project that these funds could be used for?
Councilman, normally the funds for what we'll call environmental remediation projects, we usually handle only two types of projects. One is asbestos/lead paint 43 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. type of removal that is associated with a building project. So if we go into City Hall to renovate a space and we uncover asbestos, either in the form of piping, floor tile, ceiling tile, or lead paint, we have a contractor ready to go in under a requirements contract and abate that work so that the normal contractor or the regular contractor can go back and complete the renovation project. So that's usually what falls under the asbestos abatement. Under the other, what we call -- the other environmental remediation pertains more to fuel tanks, both gasoline and oil, for heating tanks. Those are what we usually focus on. We're required by the state to inspect them on a regular basis and improve those. Sometimes it involves the soil around the tank. If we get a leaking tank, not only do we have to remove the tank, but we also have to remove all the soil that has been contaminated by that 44 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. leak and then take care of that as well.
And I appreciate what tradition has called for in those use of funds, but maybe you heard the Mayor said it's a new day, and so, therefore, can they be used is the question.
Councilman, I'm not sure, but I'll look into it and I'll get back to you as quickly as possible.
Would you? Okay. Another thing, can I get a copy of your chart there --
-- that was not included? My other question is on 44, Item 24, under Land Bank and Acquisition and Improvements. Can you explain to me what particular projects we are land banking, what are we doing with that? If not, I don't want that to go 45 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. against my time. Are you looking for answers?
I think we can get that information for you. (Witness approached witness table.)
Paul Deegan, PIDC. We don't have any specific projects lined up for this year. We're looking at some properties to acquire and improve.
Well, we might have some in the 4th Councilmanic District you might want to take a look at since we do have that available. In particular, we're looking at areas in the Hunting Park area and Parkside area and other areas that substantial development is going on. We're supposed to take a tour up there, I would imagine.
We're looking forward to it. That's exactly the kind of thing we would use the land bank for, is to look for new property to acquire 46 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. and do demolition, remediation and then market for new industrial or commercial development. So that's exactly the kind of thing we did. And we did West Parkside Industrial Park with land bank money.
Okay. On , Line Item 33A through 33F, there's a total of, I think it's, 5.3 million carried forward under Parks Improvement. Could that be used for the Centennial Lake?
Those projects are for general parkland site improvements. It's possible that that Centennial Lake would certainly qualify as that.
Then I have no further questions. Thank you. 47 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. (Bell rung.)
He answered. He said yes. It was brief, but to the point.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you very much. The assessment study done by PICA, do we have copies of that? Is that available to the Council?
I believe that you do or you should. We can certainly provide that study to you.
They only 48 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. did the Police facilities. They did not do Recreation Department's -- they didn't do recreation centers?
Correct. What they did was Fire, Police, Prison, Health and City Hall. They did not do any recreation facilities, but we do right now have a contract out to complete the assessment of all the C and D recreation facilities citywide. If you remember, several years ago we only focused on the A and B facilities, because that's all the funding we had available. We are now in the process of starting an assessment of the balance of the recreation facilities. That would be the C facilities and the D facilities.
Of the $36 million of the pre-finance carry-forward, the funds remaining from completed projects, is any of that money from the $150 million that was borrowed for the -- 49 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
No. That was a separate bond issue. The CA funds that are shown here, the $36.8 million are from previously borrowed general obligation bonds.
Well, in your testimony, you talk about the Art Museum and the Zoo.
It's new money in addition to the money that those institutions received from the $150 million bond issue.
So the $150 million bond issue would not be in this Capital Budget at any point?
Excuse me, Councilwoman. 50 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. With the $36 million, that could be for projects that were completed maybe ten, years ago. Am I wrong in 5 thinking that? 6
Does that 9 money sit in the bank and earn interest? 10
Madam President, Councilmember, I understand you have some very precise and I think very good questions with respect to the CA and how this is being handled. What I would offer to you is that I need to be a 51 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. little bit more on top of this, and what I would like to do -- and I apologize for not being as on top of it as I should be in order to answer your question. What I would like to offer to you and the rest of the members is that I take some time to go through this and sit with your staff to explain this to you better than we are doing now, because I believe the questions you're asking are right on point and we need to have more precise, sharp answers for this and we're not right now.
That's understandable, because you really didn't have too much time to prepare the budget, and so we're really very patient.
Thank 52 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. you.
The $5 million that you have for the Police facilities, is this the same dollars that were put in the budget last year by the last Administration?
Let me just ask you real quickly, in the Health Department you have $1.2 million. How much do you see this buying in terms of the ten centers that we have? Is that something that the Department requested or is that something that the Capital Funds Office decided should be put in the budget?
That was requested by the departments. When we sit down with them each year and we go through their needs for that upcoming year, they 53 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. put together a list of budget requests, which we then package and send over to City Planning for their consideration.
Is there someone here from the Health Department who could explain the $1.2 million and how they plan to spend it? (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. Donald Schwarz. I am the Deputy Mayor for Health and Opportunity and the Health Commissioner. It would be helpful to me if you could repeat the question just so I'm sure I understand.
In the testimony from the Capital Programs Office -- I mean City Planning, they talk about $1.5 million for the health centers, for the Health Department. I got to see where it is now. I wanted to 54 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. have some sense of how you plan to spend that money.
Yes. The majority of the funding will go to renovations for the health centers. Capital expenditures have been delayed over time for needed repairs. We have, over the course of the last year, created plans for those repairs, and this is investment to make those repairs. In addition, there are repairs required for PACA, for the animal care facility. The bulk of the repairs will be in the health centers. A small portion of it will go to PACA. (Bell rung.)
Is $1.2 million a current cost? Do you think you need more money for that?
These are the most critical repairs. So they were prioritized. We are in the process of going through a more comprehensive review of all of the health centers to look at 55 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. what it's going to require for those facilities and other Health Department facilities to upgrade them completely, but this was the most immediate set of needs. Roofing. The largest part of the expense actually is related to the HVAC system, so air conditioning and ventilation -- heating, air conditioning and ventilation.
I did how? We added time. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you for being here today. I have some general questions and then some specific 56 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. questions about the departments I probably won't get to in this first round. I guess in Fiscal Year 2000 the City Planning Commission recommended $185 million a year be spent on the City's core infrastructure. I think when the Mayor appointed Rob Dubow on the northeast corner of City Hall, he probably spent about half the time talking about the need for the City to invest in its infrastructure, and I'm wondering, that $185 million that you recommended a year, how does that compare -- what was that for? Was that to get the City up to code, which is what PICA did, or was that a broader goal than that?
It was a broader goal. Based on the number of facilities that we have within the City and our existing physical infrastructure, that was our estimate of the amount of money that the City should be spending on its 57 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. capital plant each year.
Do you know what the consequences of not spending that money on a yearly basis for maintenance is? In other words, deferring maintenance over a long period of time, how much does that cost in the long run as compared to spending the money on an annual basis?
If you took a present value, would it make more sense to spend the money on a yearly basis or does deferring maintenance actually in the long run increase cash flow or decrease cash flow? I guess that's my question.
Madam President, Councilmember, I think it really depends on what we're talking about in terms of those investments. I think your premise is a good one in that if we are not keeping up, the sort of potential for maintenance costs downstream could be 58 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. larger than what you're saving. I think we'd have to go and look at that carefully and sort of do the trade-offs as to do you make the investment sort of in a present-value sense, do you defer the maintenance, what are the costs associated with that if you have to repair it five or ten years later. But I think it's a good question. We just haven't done the sort of cash flows to look at that.
Well, is there a budget for a needs assessment in each department every single year? Is there personnel or someone tasked to doing a needs assessment and updating it every single year?
I guess the short answer is no as far as money budgeted for a needs assessment. Most of the departments have facility staff on board, whether it be the Health Department or Recreation or the other operating departments as well. Public Property 59 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. plays a large role in doing ongoing maintenance for a lot of the City departments and agencies. Normally those departments and those staffs have a fairly good idea of the conditions of their buildings based on maintenance requests and work requests. So we don't do it on a yearly basis. We probably should do it --
Is there a database that exists that you could update on a rolling basis that contains every single property that we're responsible for upkeep on, maintenance on?
We do have a database. I'm not sure whether it includes every single property that the City is responsible for maintenance on, but we do have a database for most of the operating departments on all their facilities where we can look at the last time a roof was installed on a building or the last time -- 60 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't. Normally what happens, Councilman, is that work records, maintenance records, are kept, and if in fact we uncover an issue where we have a leak on a roof, we'll go up or we'll have the department go up and do a maintenance of that area. If in fact we find out it's larger than it should be or we think it's going to develop into a problem --
Okay. Let me ask you, is it fair to say that we have no idea what the total cost of deferred maintenance is in the City of Philadelphia?
Madam President, Councilmember, I think that what we are relying on is, sort of our base of information is the PICA assessment that gets updated on a regular basis as projects get completed. We are doing some assessments. We're currently doing 61 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. an assessment for some of the Fairmount Park facilities and some of the smaller recreation facilities. But to your point about sort of a comprehensive assessment that is updated on an annual basis that then provides the information by which we can make the investments, it probably is not, again, as sharp as it needs to be and we probably need to go back and look at that assessment process to see that it is sharp and updated so that the investments are done in a manner that provides us the biggest return. (Bell rung.)
Thank you. I'll leave it there and just quote Councilman Jones. If it isn't measured, it isn't managed. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, 62 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. Madam President. Good morning. I have a couple of quick ones. I hope they weren't asked. One, I needed to get clarity on the eligibility for the PICA dollars. I know at one point there was discussion about them being only to be used for emergency purposes in prior years and now I'm hearing that it's possibly not the case. Could you give me a definitive qualifier for the use of PICA dollars on capital projects?
Hi. Tina Ginnetti. To be eligible for PICA funding, a project must constitute an emergency which must be remedied as the result of a court order or is required to repair or replace a facility both owned by the City and placed into service prior 63 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. to June 5, 1991. And there's another criteria that has to -- the other criteria is that the project must be necessary to achieve savings and balance budgets under an approved financial plan. That option also requires approval by the Governor and certification by either the Auditor General or the State Treasurer.
Okay. So now the question about the interest earnings from the PICA dollars, are there any qualifications or eligibility standards related to that money?
My understanding based on previous conversations with PICA is that the same criteria applied to both the interest earnings and the reprogram funds, the funds that are available for reprogramming.
Can you provide through the Chair in writing from PICA, because I keep getting this conflicting information about use of 64 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. those dollars. I'd just like to know definitively, once and for all, can we use both the PICA dollars and the interest-bearing funds as it relates to the PICA dollars.
Thank you. I'm assuming that this issue about the Dell East came up, and if it didn't, I know it will soon come up. It did come up, Councilwoman?
It's going to. All right. Well, I won't ask the specifics about the Dell, but I wanted to ask a question about process. In at least one instance and possibly two in my councilmanic district, we were in a position where we needed to spend capital dollars on a project and we needed to do it in an expeditious way, and we were able to utilize the local 65 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. community organization that had a relationship with that facility. The Eastern Penitentiary was one that comes to mind. And fortunately, that particular non-profit entity had significant skill-sets as it -- I think one of the members was an architect, the other was a lawyer. So they brought a lot of technical knowledge to the table, but as a result of that process, we were able to, I hate to say, go around the traditional capital process, but we were able to use an alternative process that, in our estimation, both got a significantly reduced project, although the standards and the quality of the project was just as good, if not better, than we traditionally get, and we were able to do it in a much shorter time frame, and I believe that PICA -- was it PICA or PAID involved in that process?
Can you walk me through that process? 66 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
Sure. I'd be happy to. Richard Tustin, again. There are occasions where there are usually non-profit community groups that want to invest private dollars in a City facility. In many occasions they may not have enough funding to do it, so they've asked Councilmembers to supplement that out of their capital funds as well.
Not to cut you off. So it can only happen when there's a contribution of private funds?
In general, that's what we've been doing in the past when there is a match of funding with private contributions, but I've just talked to my Deputy and he feels that there may be some exceptions, but we would have to check on it on a case-by-case basis with the Law Department on that. But as you know, once we identify your funding or the capital 67 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. funding to match, we then work through a grant/subgrant agreement through PAID, which allows us to move the City capital funds through PAID to the non-profit organization, and then they then usually hire an architect or a designer and they can contract themselves for the work to be completed. Our office usually participates and reviews the design that they're doing and also send somebody out to do the inspection of the construction. (Bell rung.)
Are there certain standards -- I'm assuming that there are certain standards we apply to the review process. We just don't let a non-profit go out and solicit bids.
Because I'm trying to understand how we were able to get a cost that was significantly less than what we had projected in the time line with significantly less than -- 68 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
The non-profit usually comes to the City with a scope of work that they want to do. Most of the time they've had already an engineer or an architect working with them to identify the scope of the cost to do that. Many times they go directly to private contractors and get estimates for the work before they even get to us. So sometimes they work almost as a design-build on their own to develop a scope and cost estimates that are real from contractors, so that when they do come to the City, they have those type of numbers. Then, as I just said, we work through Council office, PAID in order to match their funding or contribute towards their funding in doing the work. We also then review the drawings done by their architects or engineers, and we also have somebody from our staff go out and inspect the work so that we make sure that we're getting a quality job.
All right. 69 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. I heard the bell. One last --
No. 8 Councilwoman Tasco couldn't do it. Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, gentlemen. (Good morning.)
Councilmembers Clarke and Jones joined with me in introducing a resolution to examine whether or not the Administration can find an alternative site for the Dell East. So that's for your FYI. Subsequent to that, Majority Leader Tasco alerted us that often times concerns have been raised about the pace by which your office operates, and you've provided us with this chart that I found instructive, and I'm asking, for 70 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. starters, that you provide each one of us with a -- provide to the Chair who will share with us this project schedule goal chart.
Now, with that said, have you yet had a chance to sit down with the Rec Department to begin discussions around the status of the Dell East and the renovations that Councilman Clarke articulated?
Yes. We have met with the Recreation Department and the Administration, as well as a member of the Dell family to review the type of work that we would like to do that they would like to see done, and we've actually put together a schedule for that type of work. And if you'd like, I can give you a briefing on that now or I can do it separately.
What I'd like us to do is to join with you, Councilmembers along with Majority Leader 71 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. Tasco and your staff, in a session where you do just that, walk us through all of the stages of this project schedule --
And then we'll do an assessment of where we are and decide whether -- that will inform us what further action we as Councilmembers may or may not take.
Oh, I'm sorry. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones for a point of information.
A friendly amendment to my colleague's request. I also want a Plan A and a Plan B. And I 72 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. don't even want to go to Plan C. And Plan A talks about how we keep that venue open for this season. Plan B talks about alternative sites. Plan C does not cancel the season at all. So we never want to go to Plan C. All right? Thank you.
Councilman Jones raised questions about what defines environmental remediation projects, and you mention asbestos, lead paint removal and fuel tanks. So going forward and in honor of this "a new day" effort, have you had a chance to think through what other types of environmental remediation projects since the Centennial Lake piece simply did not qualify?
I think when we put the budget request in, we were somewhat focused on the type of environmental remediation we have done in the past. It's not to say that other type environmental remediation cannot be done with those dollars. I'm sure they 73 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. can. And I think Gary just mentioned the fact that under the budget line for Site Land Improvement, that overall category would also qualify to do environmental remediation as long as it's on a park site.
Yeah. I think under this line it refers to what's called Parkland Site Improvements. So if it's parkland, whether it's remediation or improvements to a site, it should be covered under those lines.
Very well. Give us a couple of examples of this $2 million that we use for the GreenPlan Philadelphia initiative.
The GreenPlan Philadelphia initiative project will help to match funds where there are gaps in funding for a variety of other kinds of park projects.
It could be the improvement of neighborhood parks, the planting of additional street trees, other kind of provision of access, say, to our riverfronts. That money could be used -- it's anticipated to be used in a variety of ways that would help Philadelphia develop its green infrastructure and green resources.
Okay. So an inappropriate use of those dollars would be for -- would not be for an Earth Day initiative?
No. They would have to be used for bricks and mortar projects --
-- that qualify under other criteria for which capital funds could be used.
Okay. That answers that question. Speak to me about -- no. 25 That's to wait for Community College. 75 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. I had a question regarding SEPTA and the dollars being allocated for SEPTA. The $3.7 million for the SEPTA Market Elevated reconstruction project, how did you arrive at that figure and does your office in collaboration with SEPTA determine exactly how those dollars will be used or does the SEPTA make that decision independently?
SEPTA provides the City with a request for funds to accomplish the projects that they would like to do in any particular year. They also -- SEPTA also maintains its own capital program and budget, and the two -- both the City's Capital Program and Budget and SEPTA's Capital Program and Budget kind of mesh together through the process of SEPTA submitting those requests to us. (Bell rung.)
Because these are transportation projects, many of which are eligible for federal and state 76 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. grants, the City money that is requested actually leverages great amounts of funding from other governments to accomplish those projects.
I cannot ask a follow-up because the bell has rung. Thank you, Madam President.
May I clarify two of the Administration's comments that were in response to questions from Councilmember Clarke?
Certainly. 77 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
With respect to the interest earnings on PICA, there is discretion exercised by the PICA Board as to what can be done with those dollars. And with respect to the PAID projects, I do not believe there is a cap on those projects and the dollars associated with them. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. Can you make sure the clock is set now, not when he was --
Okay. Thank you. I just want to get some additional information regarding the City Hall renovations. In one place it says exterior renovations and the other it 78 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. says interior. What is the status? What exactly still needs to be done with City Hall? I know I see the scaffolds outside on the exterior. What further needs to be done? It seems like they've been here renovating City Hall for a lot of years. And how many contracts have been awarded and who has those contracts, and what are the minority numbers?
I can start to answer that question. I may not have all the detail you're looking for right now, but the City Hall -- (Witness approached witness table.)
The City Hall exterior project actually started several years ago when we started the demonstration area, which was on the east side of the building, northeast corner. Since then, we have completed the project. Actually, we're doing four phases of the work. Phase 1, and are almost complete, 3 being the south side 79 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. of the building and then coming up the southeast side of the exterior of the building. We still have the last phase of work to do, which will be to complete the south side of the courtyard, which has not yet been done, as well as the two light wells. There are two light wells on the south side of City Hall, which are openings that extend down all the way, I guess, to the second floor. So there are exterior spaces and walls, but they're surrounded by building. They're called light wells. So all of that work still has yet to be completed. And we're looking at somewhere around June of 2010 in order to complete the work. You're right, the work has been going on forever, and I guess the reason being is we've only had small amounts of money to use with each fiscal year. The total project cost is between $75 and $80 million, but we've only been getting small increments of money. So that's why we would tailor the work and the phasing 80 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. to match the funding so that we could continually have funding as we marched around the building. In regards to the interior work, the interior work was identified in the PICA report, and it includes completing the balance of the sprinklering throughout the building. We right now have all of the public hallways are sprinklered in the building. What we don't have is all the -- the suites. The office suites are not sprinklered. And this project will go to completing that so the building will be 100 percent under sprinkler. That's an important aspect of it. The other thing that we will be doing is, there are what we call chases that run up through the building that when the building was originally built -- and I won't get into this too deeply -- but when the building was originally built a hundred years ago, there wasn't heat in each one of the rooms. There was 81 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the heat that was provided in the basement through huge coils, and that heat would come up through the building through these chases that are in the wall that rise up, and then these vents you'll see on the wall are basically open area of vents where the heat used to rise up into the building. The problem is, that also is a mechanism by which smoke can enter rooms from other spaces. So part of this interior work will be to seal off those openings so that we don't have a method or way of smoke or fire to move from space to space. So that's the other aspect of the interior work as well.
Who has the contracts, Mr. Tustin? Would you know that? Would you know who has the contracts?
The Phase 3 contract for general construction is Keating right now, and he has -- there are also other smaller primes working on 82 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the job as well.
Well, if you don't have today, can you get to the Chair the number of minority firms and the minority workforce?
Absolutely. I can get the breakdown of all the firms working in the job, whether they're minority, whether they're women if they're not minority, as well as number of workers on the job and dollar value.
Great. Because I very seldom see minorities working on any of this -- $70 million of construction?
Thank you. I'll be back. 83 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm concerned about the Dell as well. So I don't know who will be included in a meeting, so if it's the Committee on Recreation, fine, but anyhow, I'd like to be included in discussion. We're getting a lot of calls about the Dell, and it's very important that this bring -- people are already asking me to even buy season tickets. You mean I won't have the Dell this summer? So it's very, very important that this area is not perceived as overlooked, and that we have a program for all of those. Obviously it is a support to the City as well. And so I agree with Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown that we really do need -- and Councilman Jones, whom I heard on the radio Sunday talking about the need for 84 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. us having at least an alternate site, and it's very discouraging when you hear about it almost by accident. That should not have happened. I mean, there are many things we repair while we're moving or at least we have repairs. I know it's the beginning of a new Administration, so certainly we want to be cooperative, but this is unbelievable.
Councilwoman Miller, did you have a point of information?
Yes. I also wanted to piggyback on Councilwoman Blackwell. I am also interested in what's going on at the Robin Hood Dell. I didn't ask the question because Councilwoman Brown raised the issue, but I want to be sure that I'm also included in any discussions as relates to the Dell. It's unfortunate how we found out about it. We should not have found out about it in this type of a setting. 85 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. We should have known about it in advance of this.
Mr. Tustin, I think Councilwoman Blackwell had a question.
My understanding, Councilwoman, is that the Administration is setting up a briefing for members of Council to talk about the Dell, and all of the issues raised by members of Council today will be addressed at that briefing.
Take 86 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the time off of Councilwoman Blackwell. Yes.
-- to the interest raised by my colleagues that the meeting has been set as of five minutes ago, tomorrow at 2 o'clock in the Caucus Room. So we will send out a formal e-mail to all members of the Committee. We will send an e-mail to all members of City Council, and anyone whose schedules permit are welcome to attend. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Tustin, in your testimony you refer to public service contracts for '07 and '08. What is the W/DBE breakdown for you mentioned 31 percent '07 and 33 '08?
In the -- I have a breakdown for the first half of '08 with me. I don't have a breakdown for '07, 87 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. but I do for the first half of '08. And for professional service contracts, out of the 33 percent, ten percent is African-American, three percent is Asian, percent is Hispanic and four percent 7 is women for professional service 8 contracts. 9
For FY08, which is 12 only the first half, we only have half a 13 year, out of the 33 percent of 14 participation, ten percent is 15 African-American, three percent is Asian, 16 18 percent is Hispanic and four percent 17 is women. 18
Apparently the average salary based on the first page of your statement and combining the operating and capital, your average salary comes to $86,268. How does this relate to other departments and what is the same breakdown there?
Are you talking 88 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. about staff salaries?
I think the staff salary for my staff is probably very comparable to the Streets Department staff, who have the same type of titles as we do, engineers, architects and construction administration type staff. So I would imagine that our staff and our salaries are comparable on a position-by-position basis.
Madam President, Councilmember, Steve Agostini, Budget Director. The numbers in capital also include their fringe benefit component. So it's not just the 86,000 for salary. It also includes a portion for fringe benefits. And if you would like, we can give you a comparison citywide compared to the CPO if you'd like me to prepare that for you.
Thank you. That will be fine. 89 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. I see that Councilman Goode has his light on and he has not been recognized, so I'm going to take him out of order so that we could start the second go-around with everybody who has already been recognized. Councilman Goode.
As we prepare for a hearing tomorrow dealing with annual participation goals and a hearing that deals with an ordinance that will require a departmental ranking system in terms of diversity, it's kind of fortunate and unfortunate that you were the first up to bat as we try to set the tone not only for that hearing but also for the rest of the budget hearings. 90 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. I appreciate what you said you've done in terms of ensuring that the dollars are supposed to go to disadvantaged businesses to actually get there and there's a sure record of it, but for the record, do you know the total amount of contract dollars under the Capital Program for the last fiscal year?
Just so I understand the question, you want to know the total dollars of capital dollars?
The numbers you use separate the public works portion from professional service contracts.
You don't blend the numbers. So I'm interested in the total number of dollars --
Okay. I understand. We broke the dollars out by two different types of contracts. One is 91 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. for professional services, which is to hire architects and engineers, and the other is for work that gets bid to contractors. So if we were to look at, let's say, the '07 dollars for both public works and professional services, it would be -- I can do the math for you if you'd like, but it's --
I'm actually not asking you to use these two categories. I'm actually asking at the beginning of the budget process and as we move forward in the hearing, as we look at what type of participation rates actually exist, I want to know the total amount of contract dollars given out by a department and the actual percentage. I mean, for instance, as we consider whether we should move to a departmental ranking system, do you know what percentage of contract dollars went to disadvantaged businesses overall and do you know where you rank versus the other departments? 92 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
No, I do not. Each department is required to track their own percentages for both public works contracts and professional service contracts. That information is forwarded to the Minority Business Enterprise Council, who I believe gathers that information from all the departments and may be better to answer your question.
Well, actually, we want to hold each department responsible for answering the question. That's the purpose of this. The first question I'll ask to you, then, is, do you know what the City's goal for minority participation is?
No. There's actually a number. There are annual participation goals that are set by the Administration per a change to the City 93 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. Charter and then a subsequent ordinance. There are annual participation goals set on an annual basis that are a matter of public information, and the question is whether that is trickling down in terms of what the Administration is trying to accomplish overall. So I am asking, do you know what that overall goal is for disadvantaged businesses, for minority businesses, for women businesses and so forth?
The goal that has been set for our department over the past several years, not just this past year but many years, has been to try to achieve at least a percent minority 22 participation for professional service 23 contracts. 24
I'm asking 25 you for an overall goal. I'm not asking 94 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. for you to separate it.
I do not know what it is for the City overall for all departments.
Well, you can break it down first and then I'll get back to the blended goal, but break it down in terms of the two categories, the goals set by the City for your department.
Again, the only thing I can tell you is that we've been using a percent goal for professional 15 service contracts, and the goal for 16 public works contracts has not been set 17 by our department at all. Those goals -- 18
Not to my 21 knowledge. I think it varies on a 22 project-by-project basis. 23
And needless 24 to say, the professional services 25 contract portion of it is the minimal 95 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. portion of the contract dollars.
The professional service contract value is usually ten percent of the total project cost. So it is the smaller value. (Bell rung.)
So you have a goal for the ten percent, but not a goal for the 90 percent of contract dollars?
Well, let me explain it. For the smaller value professional services, we have total control over that. When I say "we," the Capital Program Office.
Very quickly let me sneak this in. Your overall percentage rate is 16 percent, and you fall somewhere in the middle. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. All right. I think I'm next. On Pages 35 through 42, you 96 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. detail commercial development, neighborhood commercial centers site improvements. Can someone go through each component of Line and explain the 6 projects and their locations? I just 7 don't understand how this could have 8 gotten by us. I just don't understand 9 why some of these funds have not been 10 spent in a timely manner. 11 Would you believe that we're 12 carrying forward monies from as far back 13 as 1998? 14 I just need some explanation as 15 to how we could allow this to happen. 16
Council President, 17 my name is Duane Bumb, Deputy Commerce 18 Director. 19 I think there are sort of 20 several different answers to your 21 question. Probably the central one is that for some of the funding that you're referring to for some of these older categories is not City funding. Sometimes it is matching state or federal 97 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. funding.
It doesn't matter what funding it is. We had it in the budget and it hasn't been spent.
Right. There are some existing older City funds. I guess my layman interpretation of the non-City funding would be that is a holder for should we be successful in getting some state or federal grant funds which we do not have. But on the City funding side, which I think where we do have older City funding, there are several projects that are in the pipeline right now that will in fact draw down those funds, and sometimes -- I mean, we will get you the detail on what those projects are. I think that helps to explain the categories that we're holding here. But --
Well, if they were state funds, what's the 98 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. problem? Why are we --
Those are often times arbitrary places where we hold an account for should we be successful in getting some state funds, not that we have received the state funds.
Well, how about the state funds that we have that you referred to?
We do, for example, receive some state funds under the Hometown Streets Program, which would be assigned specifically on a quarter-by-quarter basis and we would have City funding attached to those same projects. One example of that, for example, would be Grays Ferry within your district, which would have a $1 million state grant, and that needs to be matched by City capital funding. And so there is funding within our overall program for that.
How far back does that go? 99 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
Those program funding -- the state funding under that program would go back up to two years where the funding sort of was awarded, but not under contract yet.
I don't know about anybody else, but I would definitely like to see detailed information on this. I think it's absurd that we've had money sitting in this, as I see it, since 1998.
Yes. We will get you the detailed information, and I would just remind you that although we're sort of carrying the full balances of those old line items carrying forward, that is not to say that some of those haven't been drawn down. A portion of those in fact have been drawn down, but we'll get you the detail which will demonstrate that.
They have been drawn down since when? Since before the budget was prepared? 100 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
If there is -- I believe that if there is a portion of a certain line item that is still open, that we carry the full amount in the Capital Budget so that --
A clear explanation as to why we have all of this money pending.
I would like to know who is responsible for the Fire Department's capital program. I would like someone to go through each line it funded by CT and explain why it is taking so long to complete these projects.
Councilwoman, the Capital Program Office worked with the Fire Department in completing their projects. They're one of our 15 different departments that we do work 101 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. with. If I'm looking through the FY09 budget request, I guess I'm starting on , the first $2 million in CR funding is designated for computer and communication system upgrades, which we do not manage. That's managed by the Department together with MOIS and -- I guess with MOIS. That also pertains to the second line, 36A, which is CR improvements, and as well as 36B and 36C. All three of those -- four of those lines pertain to communication and computer upgrades.
Well, why would it take so long to complete that?
I may have to ask somebody from the Fire Department to come up and answer that question. We don't manage computer projects, but let's see if I can get somebody to answer that question.
We're 102 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. going through to 2014. (Witness approached witness table.)
We're going to have the Fire Commissioner answer that question.
Good morning, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Good morning. Fire Commissioner Ayers. The upgrades that we have for computers and for our communication systems are managed through MOIS. And as far as the schedules for putting in the networks, the computers and things like that, we manage internally with the staffing that we have. We have been short staffed as far as making sure that the internal upgrades and things that we have to do as far as software is concerned, but the networking, the running of the lines, all of those things are not handled by the Fire Department. They are handled by MOIS. 103 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
Are you aware that that project will be taking so long to complete? Were you consulted about that at all? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Yes, we understand how long the project has taken. There are other issues that impinge upon the completion of the project as well.
So you're satisfied with it? COMMISSIONER AYERS: I am not satisfied with that.
Well, tell me what you would be satisfied with. COMMISSIONER AYERS: I would be satisfied with a communications system in place that would allow us to put the rest of the computer systems and software-based systems in place so that we can function properly. That's what I would be satisfied with.
All right. That's something we will 104 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. definitely take under consideration. Also, I see on Line 37A for Fire Department interior and exterior renovations, again, I can't understand just why it would take so long for the completion of that, Mr. Tustin. Thank you, Commissioner. We will be in touch with you, sir. (Witness approached witness table.)
Madam President, Gary Knappick, Capital Program Office. Basically the way I've approached the budget is to prioritize projects for every one of my client departments, and I'd have to address them individually to you to really answer that question appropriately. If you'd like, I can send you a list of all the projects.
I could also add 105 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. to that, Council President, that the 37A, that $5 million under "A" is the PICA funding that has been, I believe, requested as part of the additional interest earnings, and that's what that funding is. And we really can't spend that yet because it hasn't been fully finally approved by PICA. So even though we're showing it there, we really can't do anything with it yet until they approve that funding and the release of that funding.
The locations of the projects? Gary, who is my Project Director for Public Safety, works with the Fire Department in identifying what their needs are. He develops a spreadsheet, listing all the work that needs to be done, and then together with the Fire Department, he identifies the priority of the projects and how they should go forward. It's usually based on 106 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the overall condition and whether it's a life-safety issue or not a life-safety issue.
Madam President, just to clarify a little bit, just to give you some idea of the PICA assessment that was just recently performed by a PICA-hired consultant, they evaluated 65 facilities, approximately 580,000 square foot, and the total required capital and maintenance dollars to correct those facilities -- and they were just corrections -- that are needed over the next four years is $35 million. So what we're trying to do is find the best way to spend the money and the most highly needed corrections to those facilities.
There are $5 million in FY08. The $5 million is "A." Isn't that PICA money, and, if so, why hasn't that been spent?
That is PICA money. It was appropriated, but we -- I think Ms. Ginnetti might be able to 107 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. answer that better. We don't have the actual funding in place.
Why not? Has anybody asked for it? If you don't have it, why don't you have it?
Tina Ginnetti, Deputy Budget Director. We were waiting the results of the PICA assessment so that we could put that list of projects together in an informed manner, and we are just finalizing the list to submit to PICA.
Using the PICA funds, the $5 million in PICA funds that were appropriated in FY08. But the PICA assessment report was just completed. I believe we received it in November. So we've been going -- Gary Knappick has 108 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. been going through that painstakingly and putting together a list of projects to request from PICA that meet the PICA eligibility criteria.
I still don't understand what the delay is for '08.
Madam President, Gary Knappick. The reports at least with respect to the Prisons, the Fire and the Police identified well over 6,000 corrections in the facilities. Each one of them has to be looked at, classified, prioritized. So I've pretty much completed my analysis of the Police and the Fire and I have recommendations for spending that money, which we can get on immediately. I'm still working on the Prisons to classify those problem areas.
So when do you think you're going to be able to move forward on the '08 $5 million?
The Police and 109 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the Fire has been completed.
This is the Fire Department that I'm referring to.
Oh, okay. That has been completed. It's just a matter of getting with Budget and having everyone agree to what those -- and the Fire Department and having everyone approve of that and going to PICA for the money.
Okay. I have quite a few more questions, but I want to give my colleagues the recognition. We have two Councilmembers who have not had an opportunity to ask questions, so I will recognize them first. I know they've walked in a little later, but we will now recognize Councilwoman Sanchez.
Thank you, Madam President. For the Capital Office, one of 110 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the things that I'd like to get on the record is -- because I think it will clarify some of the issues regarding the length of time some of these contracted -- the limitations on our contract procedures. Mr. Tustin and I spoke about this, but I'd like for this to go on the record as we work with the new Administration in some of the reform issues. Our contracting procedures, our requirement for primes, our cap on our spending ability to do projects and specifically also the amount of money that we spend on our permitting process with our L&I office, I'd like for you to put that on the record for us, please.
Okay. Yes. The process by which we have to follow to do capital projects is somewhat driven by a state law called the Separations Act. Pennsylvania has that requirement, as well as New York has a similar called the Wicks Law. These laws, which are state 111 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. laws that sort of drive the way we do projects, require any dollar value that's, I believe, over $4,000 to be bid as a separate prime contract. I'll try to abbreviate this and try to make it as clear as possible. If we were an agency other than the City of Philadelphia or a government agency, we would be able to design a project as a single package whatever the dollar value is, from $500,000 to -- from $500 to $60 million and put it out as a single prime package. That would mean we'd only have -- we would probably reduce our design time by ten to 15 percent, without having to put multiple bid packages together. We'd definitely reduce the funding required to complete capital projects, because we would not be confined by doing multiple bids. And last, but certainly not least, we would reduce the time to complete projects significantly. Right now we have to deal with 112 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. many times a minimum of four contractors, primes, doing work at the same location, and any one prime if he doesn't perform affects the work in the time frame of the other three primes doing that work. So it's somewhat of a juggling act trying to get all four primes at a minimum to work together in harmony to complete projects in a timely fashion. And this is driven through the state law called the Separations Act. We would love to see modifications made to that state law, anywhere from changing the minimum limits to eliminating the law all together, quite frankly. There's only two states in the country that still have that law in effect, and that's Pennsylvania and New York. So I'd love to be able to discuss that in more detail, but I think going forward, as most of the other states in the country have recognized, we can get projects done cheaper, faster and 113 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. better if we did not have the confines of those laws. As far as the L&I and permitting issue, we're also required, as anyone is, to submit all drawings and specifications to L&I for permits, whether they be zoning, building permits. And now one of the biggest things that is slowing us down a little bit is called stormwater management, and you've probably heard this issue brought up by private developers as well as private entities trying to get work done. Stormwater management is a requirement by both Water and L&I that anything over, I believe it's, 5,000 square feet needs to produce a stormwater management plan. The reason for that plan is to be able to retain rainwater on a site so it doesn't all run down the drain and then back up our stormwater system in Philadelphia. It's a process that right now, since it's relatively new, takes substantial amount of time to get through 114 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. before we can even go out to bid on a contract. I do have plans to meet with the Water Department and L&I in the upcoming weeks and hopefully work out something that will be more advantageous to us on City projects being able to move them quicker through the process.
So I want to go on record that this is a formal request by City Council to get the Administration to begin to work with the state around this contracting issue, because I think that it is something pertinent to our expenses and it's something that is a priority. (Bell rung.)
Can I get to ask one more question? I used up my time.
115 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. Councilwoman Krajewski. She's not here. I'd like to call Dr. Schwarz up. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. Dr. Schwarz, I know you're new, you just got there, but have you or are you contemplating of doing a total assessment of what you really need in terms of capital improvements to your facilities?
We certainly are. There was an assessment done in September by PICA, and I've gone through that assessment. It prioritizes, which is part of where the capital expenditure request comes from, and in a number of cases, there are questions about the numbers that were developed. So we will review that. A number of projects will move to more formal assessment. That was a general assessment looking particularly 116 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. at what the cost of replacement was versus the cost of repair. For those areas that we could prioritize from their "for repair," this capital expenditure includes for Health Center 2 in particular an assessment.
Yes, ma'am. And the plan from there will be to undertake the renovations required on Health Center 2. In addition, the report highlighted the need for HVAC repairs in the health centers more generally, which is included in the $1.2 million capital request here. But to answer directly, yes, we will undertake a comprehensive review to 117 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. look at what repairs are required for all of the health centers.
Well, since I'm an advocate for the Health Department, I think you ought to try and get some of this $36 million that we just found. So just don't take the $1 million, the $1.7 million. You'll ask for more money.
The other thing is, what's happening with the health center at Broad and Lombard?
I presume your question is whether we will repair versus relocate?
Both are under consideration. I think that the repairs are substantial. The initial assessment by PICA there suggested that major renovations would be required, as you know, and so one of the questions that I 118 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. have is, can we relocate, where would we relocate, how do we think about Health Department facilities more generally. The Medical Examiner's Office is another area where ultimately we may want to think about some either movement or major repair.
In reference to that health center Councilwoman Tasco just mentioned, I understand that there is a non-profit looking at acquiring that space. Are you aware of that?
I'm not aware of that. I'd be happy to chat more about it, though.
There's no 24 one in this room that knows that that health center is being identified by a 119 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. non-profit? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Before my time is up, Mr. Tustin, in your testimony, you talked about the number of positions in your Operating Budget and you talked about the number of positions in the Capital Budget request. How many positions are in your department total?
Now, are your staff members assigned as project 120 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. directors to various capital improvement programs that are set forth?
Two-thirds of our staff are capital, work on capital projects, which is, as Gary was here, project director or project coordinators on different projects. The other third of the staff are budget-related staff that help manage the Capital Budget, and they cannot be -- so that's how we divide our staff, capital projects managers, if you will, and budget managers. So we're broken into two areas. On the -- we have 15 departments that we do projects for, Fire, Police, Prisons, Health, and so the staff that are dedicated towards project management are broken into five teams. I have a public safety team, and Gary was just up here. He has a staff of about seven people that work on all Fire, Police and Prison projects, for instance. I have a health and human service team, who is headed up by Jim Lowe, who works 121 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. on Health Department projects, DHS projects, homeless projects. I have a team that does recreation that all they do is recreation. You've met Eric Iffrig and that team. And I have a team that does Fairmount Park and they do all the projects in and around associated with the Fairmount Park. I have one last team, which is a central facilities team, that gets involved in any major renovation to office space, whether it be City Hall or any other office space that the City leases or rents. They're the ones that are doing the sprinklers of buildings and things like that.
Now, within those teams; for instance, on the recreation facilities, a project manager could have more than one site that he or she may be working on?
Speaking of he or she, how many of these project managers are female? 122 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
I don't have that number off the top of my head. We have quite a few females that work on our floor, and I can get back to you with the number and what that represents as far as percentage of my staff.
Are they all civil service? What proportion of your staff is civil service?
The project directors, which are the team leaders, are not civil servants. Other than that, on the project side, everyone else is a civil servant.
What's the diversity of your staff along racial and ethnic and male, female?
Again, I don't have those numbers with me, but I'd be more than happy to provide those numbers 123 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. to you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. The Capital Program section of the Five-Year Plan indicates that the Administration will continue to phase six-year initiative begun in FY08 to transfer the salaries of CPO employees from the Capital Fund to the General Fund. FY09 it's 934,000. Appendix 2, which details the obligation summaries by department, shows a 934,000 increase in Class 100 expenditures, bringing the total to 2,533, but the Class 100 expenditures remain at this level for the remainder of the Five-Year Plan. I guess what is the Administration's plan for moving all CPO 124 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. salaries to the General Fund?
Councilmember, we are looking at that on a regular basis. I think part of the desire to move those positions off of capital funds is that it's never really a great idea to borrow money to pay for your staff, which is, in essence, what we were doing. But we need to look at that so that we don't do it in a fashion where we can't absorb it back into the General Fund and then cripple our efforts. So we're going to keep looking at that on an ongoing basis.
I think in some circumstances it is. It depends on what they're actually doing. They have to be very specific to the projects in terms of design, in terms of the actual work being done on those projects, but in terms of a good financial practice, it probably isn't the best.
So you say 125 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. that you're continuing a six-year initiative to transfer people over, but you've only transferred people in year one, and the out years there is no 6 transfer of the 43 additional personnel to the General Fund. Do you intend to increase that over time?
Councilman, in FY08 a percentage of the staff was transferred from capital operating. '09, this will be the second transfer of staff. And, again, as Steve said, they're looking at the budget impact to both Operating and Capital. On the question about the legality, anyone who works on capital projects that gets funded from the Capital Budget needs to track every hour he spends on the job. It needs to be associated with a capital project, whether it's in the design of that capital project or through the construction of that capital project. So we have to track every hour those 126 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. employees spend on the projects to make them capital eligible.
Okay. But we're talking about the Capital Budget here, and in theory, transferring everybody to the General Fund would leave four and a half million dollars a year to spend on capital improvements versus over, say, the next five years adding $25 million to the City's debt for salaries. And so I just wonder if there's a commitment to continue this or not, because the budget indicates there's not.
Councilmember, I think the commitment is there. To point to the table you were pointing to earlier, I mean, we had to absorb almost a million dollars in making that change. So there's a million dollars that we don't have to put to other priorities on the operating side. So we're trying to do this balancing. I agree, it is not necessarily the best in spite of being able to dot 127 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the I's and cross the T's to be sure that you're conforming to bond documents, but, again, it's probably not the best to borrow for that, in part because you're borrowing for staff and in part, as you suggested, now that your capacity to do some spending on national capital projects is limited.
Okay. I'm going to go through a few departments, if I have time. On the Police Department, in an interview with KYW last month, Commissioner Ramsey commented, quote, "You would have to bleep me out if I gave you my true feelings about the condition of police facilities. In short, our facilities are in terrible shape. We have to do something to fix them up. You can't expect people to act in a professional way all the time when they are working in conditions like that." To what extent does the Capital Budget fix that problem? Are those 128 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. conditions going to be fixed in year one, year two? (Bell rung.)
Councilmember, as the Commissioner said and I think sort of detailed in the Crime Plan, there are some capital plan issues that we have that need to be addressed. Part of the Crime Plan looks to that. We are working internally on some changes that were part of the Crime Plan in terms of movement of some individuals, in terms of addressing some of the needs that were pointed out. From what I've heard, I can't -- I don't have any evidence to suggest the Commissioner is wrong. In fact, it seems he's right on point on these things, and we need to address them, and we're trying to do that. We don't have that all in the capital plan now and we're trying to find a variety of avenues in which we can do that.
Your colleagues are very strict. They'll hang me. Councilman Clarke is not here. I don't know where he went. Councilman Jones. He's not here. Councilwoman Sanchez.
Going back to my line of questioning earlier on designs, when we do our contracting on projects, particularly the prime projects, I guess my question is, what have we been doing that delays some of these construction projects two and three years out and what are your plans to mitigate that moving forward?
Richard Tustin again, Capital Program Office. 130 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. I'd sort of like to hopefully set the record straight that most of our projects are not delayed two and three years out. We do have on occasion projects that do run into some roadblocks. Unfortunately, one is in your Council district, Councilwoman. I referred to a little bit earlier the Separations Act. We had in that particular project, we had a situation where we have four prime contractors. We had what we believed was a general contractor that wasn't performing properly. He wasn't, in our belief, wasn't working well with his subcontractors, some of them who were minority firms, and we tried to bring that to his attention and he delayed the project substantially. And, again, through -- we've tried to cajole that contractor to continue to move forward, mostly because we didn't want the other three primes on the job to sort of have an impact or a delay based on the general 131 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. contractor not doing his work. We eventually put that contractor in default of the contract, at which point in time that contractor brought in his attorneys and we had the City's Law Department sit down and meet with him to try to come up with a resolution so that contractor could move ahead and continue with the work. We are substantially complete on that project as of now and we'll go into Phase 2, which is called litigation. Although we don't have it on a lot of projects, we have two or three projects a year that do end up in litigation between the City and contractors because of delays, either caused by the contractor, which costs the City money in design fees, as well as delay the community from using those facilities. So we are going after those contractors through litigation at the end of the job to try to recapture some of the lost time and money that was spent on 132 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. those projects. It is difficult on some projects when we have to take lowest responsible bidders, which is a requirement of the City. We have to put three or four contractors together working at one site. All of their work is interdependent upon their other contractors getting done. Because none of the contractors report to each other, they all have prime contracts with the City, they feel they don't have to work with each other sometimes on getting things done in a timely fashion. So a lot of our effort goes in to trying to get those contractors to work together, get those schedules to be completed in the same time and to get projects done in a timely fashion.
I will say this, and I want it on the record, the whole issue of how we deal with contractors that have been troublesome in past on public works projects and 133 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. continue to get rehired. So at some point, this Administration has to decide are we going to continue to use people who have a bad history with us. And the other thing that is an issue that I think we need to own as a City is when we delay our invoicing process and when we create instability in projects by moving folks from Capital Office, the project managers, which in this particular case I believe we're up to six project managers. So, again, as we reform ourselves, it is very important that we're cognizant that as we enter into litigation we're displacing residents, who by no fault of their own. And, as you know, my position on that is I'm going to get a CO and you guys could litigate until you're green, but moving forward, I think this is part of -- we need to do a better job in managing the projects and we need to do a better job in our payment cycle so that we don't enter into these technicalities with a 134 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. contractor. And, again, managing those primes -- I've only sat at the table once -- is ridiculous. (Bell rung.)
Council will stand in recess until 1:30. (Short recess.)
The Committee of the Whole is now back in session. I would like the Administration to please take the witness table. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
All right. I think I'll go first, Councilman Green, if that's okay with you.
Thank you. The Fiscal 2009 Capital Budget contains $60.9 million in CR funding. Can someone identify where these funds 135 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. are budgeted in the Operating Budget?
Madam President, Steve Agostini, Budget Director. I have a schedule that was provided by Mr. McPherson detailing the 60.9 million, and I have been --
Mr. McPherson, did you share that us? MR. McPHERSON: Yes.
And it is a very detailed schedule, so I'm spending some time going through that and identifying where that money is. Ten million of that is in the pay-as-you-go for Streets. So that part I can identify. There's approximately another 49 million. I think approximately eight million of that is in Health. And the balance is in either Public Property, Fire or Police. And I have started asking questions about that and I will come back to you with the detailing of where that is.
Very well. 136 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. I'm certain that Councilman Clarke, if he were here, would probably ask what the status of the renovations and expansion is of the Central Library, and can you tell us when do you anticipate that this project will be started.
Madam President, I don't know that exactly, but I'm going to look to the Library representative, who is here, to answer that. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna. My name is Bill 20 Fleming. I'm the Administrative Services Director for the Free Library. I believe your question dealt with timing of the expansion and renovation project for the Central Library. As it stands now, the project 137 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. is in the fundraising stage. We plan to break ground sometime in the fall of this calendar year if fundraising is successful.
I personally don't have a handle on the private money that we've raised. The last figures I remember are we're in about the hundred million dollar range, including government-supported funds.
To break ground, we'd like to have somewhere around two-thirds of the money needed.
I'd say somewhere around $120 million would be needed for us to consider breaking ground.
Well, what would the total cost of the 138 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. expansion be?
The last figures we've seen are anywhere between $150 to $175 million to complete the project, and that's also dependent on when we start construction. The later we go, the more it will cost us.
Wasn't there an issue about parking, and how has that been resolved, if it has?
The issue of parking was one that we looked into early on in the project. In the formative stages, Council asked us to look into parking issues. What we found in doing studies with the Parking Authority and our own studies were that the cost of parking on site would be prohibitive. They would have to be basically underground parking. There's a lot of water issues in that neighborhood, and it would have cost more than we can afford to put underground parking. 139 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. We have been in discussions with area businesspeople to see what projects would also provide parking. I believe there's some developments in the area that are providing garage parking. That's in the development stage now. I'm not sure what the Barnes has in mind for parking, but I know we've looked into it early in the project and we're going to probably rely on private development to take care of the parking.
Do you have any indication as to how many automobiles could be accommodated?
That information is available. I don't have that handy, but I can provide that to you. We'll forward that to your office.
I think we would all like to see something in writing, please. Thank you. On of the Capital Program, you're requesting 175 million for Philadelphia International Airport 140 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. for airport expansion. Can someone give us an overview of the expansion plans? (Witness approached witness table.)
My name is Mark Gale. I'm the Deputy Director of Aviation for Operations and Facilities for Philadelphia International Airport. I believe the question that you reference, in 175 million, there are a number of projects that are planned in the future, the next two to three years at Philadelphia International, one of which is an expansion of our Terminal F commuter facility. That project is going into design right now. It's anticipated that the total project cost will be in the approximately $115 million range when it goes out to bid in about approximately one year. 141 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. There are a number of other facility improvements that we're looking to do that include things like in-line baggage screening systems at our Terminal A East facility, and then longer range in-line baggage screening systems in the main portions where U.S. Airways operates in Terminals B and C to bring those in line and fully automated so that they're highly efficient.
With the expansion -- I'm just trying to think of the name of the county that's adjacent. Tinicum, that's it.
Would this be affecting Tinicum and do we have their approval to go forward?
The expansion or the renovations that need to be done at Terminal F lie solely within Philadelphia County. Some of the other projects that we have planned, like putting an in-line baggage screening system in Terminal A 142 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. East and some other modifications to that terminal, that does lie in Delaware County and we do need to go to them for permitting purposes.
On the design of your expanding Terminal F, is there any way you're going to make a connection with Terminal F with -- well, there is an expansion. The walkway, right? But the problem I have with the Terminal F where it is, people don't know how to get there to pick up the passengers. They're on the arrival side. Terminal F is on the departure side. Are you all going to try and 143 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. remedy that problem? I've been there when people are screaming and yelling, I'm here, I'm here, can't you see me, and they're over on the other side, on the arrival side, near Terminal E looking for F, but you have to go in through the departure side to get to Terminal F.
Councilwoman, you're absolutely correct, and, yes, the Terminal F redesign project actually takes the baggage claim that was originally designed for that terminal back in the late 1990s, early 2000 and that put the baggage claim on the departure side of the roadway back then, and that was, in large part, due to a request from U.S. Airways and the type of passenger that was using --
They only know how to fly planes. They don't know how to build airports.
We will be picking up that baggage claim and moving it across the roadway over to the arrival 144 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. side so it's consistent with all the other terminals. So it will make it much, much easier for arriving passengers to find their parties and meet up with them as they exit.
Now, is the Airport going to do the design work and construction or will U.S. Airways be involved?
For right now the City has issued -- we issued an RFP, went through a competitive process, and we've selected a designer and we're nearing the ends of negotiations with the design firm and architect firm to actually do the design. That will be under City control, and it is anticipated that the project would be let as a City-run public works project.
Okay. I just want to say the signage there is very, very important. I've been frustrated myself my first time there. Second, other times I've arrived at that 145 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. gate, it's been a nightmare for visitors coming into the City. So I'm glad you're straightening that out.
I appreciate your comments, Councilwoman, and we're working hard to correct not just the signage issues with Terminal F, but we will be looking at signage all across the board. Our Planning Deputy is not here with me today, but we have engaged the services of a professional consultant on the signage side and they're doing a top-to-bottom review of all signage, both inside and outside, and we hope to enact a lot of those changes in the very near future.
Do the designers engage focus groups to talk about what travelers see or think their needs might be at the Airport?
The designers take a lot of feedback from comment cards and surveys that we have had done by professional firms that come through and 146 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. rate how we're doing on a variety of things, everything from our amenities, our concessions, our restrooms, the general cleanliness of the facility, and they take a lot of that feedback, but I'll make it a point that as we get more into the signage design, that maybe we look into some type of focus group for our passengers.
Are the airlines responsible for their gates, the appearance of the gates that they operate from?
It's a dual arrangement. Most all airlines that operate, like U.S. Airways and United, Continental, all the major airlines that operate at the facility are responsible for the condition of their hold rooms. We do have some hold rooms within the facility, primarily in our international terminal facility, where they're considered common use, and in that respect, the Airport is responsible for 147 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the cleanliness of those facilities. But in the U.S. Airways hold rooms and Southwest and whatnot, they're responsible for the upkeep of the facility.
We've been speaking on a consistent basis with U.S. Airways and their new management team that's in Philadelphia right now on general appearance issues, customer service issues. Baggage delivery issues is high on their list right now to -- they know that it's a sore subject with a lot of our travelers that come through the facility. They have been expending millions of dollars to upgrade their hold rooms with new carpeting, new seating and new podiums, new computer infrastructure to be able to process people faster, new electronic self-service kiosks located throughout the facility. So they're on 148 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. board with that, as is Southwest. Southwest is expanding into some new gate areas right now in Terminal E and they're completely renovating those areas as well with new carpeting and seating, and they'll be operating out of those facilities probably within the next two months or so.
I just had a short question, Mark. How do you answer a person, they want to know when you come in on an international flight, Terminal A, why they have to walk almost -- it has to be a mile to Terminal B to get your luggage. Why is that?
So I understand your question, Councilman, when you come in on Terminal A East? 149 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
Because they're big aircraft, I understand they need to park them at the end gates at Terminal A.
Our international facility, new international facility, which opened up in 2003, it is a very, very large facility. It's 800,000 square feet, and it's a very nice facility, we believe. Unfortunately, when you do come in on one of the end gates, it does lend itself to a long walk. To compensate for that, there are a series of moving walkways and whatnot to be able to get passengers to the federal inspection area where you would claim your luggage, go 150 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. through Customs and Immigrations. On the U.S. Airways side, about 70 percent of their international travelers are transfer traffic, meaning they're connecting on to another destination, and they step outside the Customs hall, drop their bags right there and then proceed to walk on to their gates. We currently don't have a people mover system within the airport structure itself. That is something that is on the drawing boards for our longer-range master planning efforts. So right now we have to rely on moving walkways and good signage to be able to move people quickly through the facility.
But why do you have to go from one terminal, A -- again, I must have missed this -- to B? Some people do not have to go through Customs because they've come from a destination that already has cleared customs. 151 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
The walk, I mean, there were people, especially some very old people, that complained terribly about that hike. Even with the walkways, some of the moving walkways, there's a lot of that trek between A, especially when you're down at the very end of A. I forget what it is, A-17 or whatever. Getting over to B baggage terminal is really a hike. In many cases, I've seen when I've had that circumstance there isn't even any carts for some of the very old people to get over there. So why can't they simply use A baggage? Isn't there A baggage? Is there an A baggage terminal?
If you arrive into the country in A West internationally, you are required -- federal regulations require that you go through the Customs and Border Protection facilities. That is the only location that we're permitted to bring people into the country. There 152 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. are no other facilities that are capable of being used there. If you arrive from a pre-cleared destination, you are correct in stating that you could claim your luggage and baggage at another location at A East. U.S. Airways, if you've flown in domestically on them, sometimes they do arrive and make use of Terminal A East when their B and C concourses are full of aircraft, but they still claim their baggage in the B/C baggage claim, which is a walk, admittedly, for the passengers. That's something that we're trying to address with the new U.S. Airways senior management team in Philadelphia.
153 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. You're welcome. Does anyone else have any questions regarding the Airport? The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Recently, PATCO came in and did a briefing to City Council about their proposed expansion of their line to travel down Delaware Avenue, turn into the Navy Yard and end there. We raised a question, Council raised a question, as to the feasibility of that line continuing its expansion into the Airport, and I wanted to know if you had any comment on that and whether that would be advisable.
Councilman, I'm not familiar with the issue of bringing or extending that line directly down or any recent discussions. I will say that we have looked for a long time of trying to connect the Airport to other locations 154 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. within the City via either a subway line or other rail line to get down to where they could get easily with PATCO and Broad Street subway line. The R-1 has been recognized not just nationally but internationally as one of the most promising features that Philadelphia International Airport has in terms of providing direct connection down to the Center City area. It's been acclaimed as such for its intermobility there. I don't have the answer, but I'll be happy to take that answer back to our Planning Deputy and get you a response back so that we could be more informed.
It seems to me if they're expanding that far, it's a hop, skip and not quite a jump to you guys and it just makes sense to keep going to the Airport, allowing a different vantage point for transportation, and as Chair of Transportation, I'd like to see if some 155 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. dialogue can be developed between you guys to see if it is feasible. If it is not, fine, but if it is, we want to take a look at that. Number two, over the years, how have you planned on your greening of the airport and are we looking at alternate fuel sources by way of the actual physical structures there, and, if so, can you enlighten me?
Yes. I can enlighten you to the extent that I'm involved in it. Again, I apologize that my colleague, the Deputy for Planning and Environmental Stewardship, isn't here. He has a number of initiatives spearheading for the Airport that involve everything from recycling to LEEDs initiatives to working with all our tenants and our major airlines on use of vehicles, alternative-fuel vehicles, to transition out a lot of things that currently run on fossil fuel at the Airport, like ground power units that are 156 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. powering up generators and air conditioning machines and whatnot and transitioning them over to alternative fuel, electric power sources. And the Airport is also one of the largest purchasers of wind energy in this area, and we've been recognized for that as well. We can provide you with a whole list of our environmental initiatives that we have underway, everything from collection of rainwater to be used for irrigation and whatnot. So there are some things I think that are very positive going on at the Airport.
I'm familiar with the operating side of the budget hearings, but I'm glad to hear that so as we start to move forward, whether there's some piggyback purchasing of electrical power that the City can take advantage of, and I want to look to the Streets Department in particular to take a look at whether we can take advantage of some 157 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. of those synergies.
Is the Health Commissioner or a person in charge of it --
We're going to stay on the Airport? Thank you, Madam President.
Can someone explain Line Item 45A on ? The new Youth Study Center FY98 to fund improvements needed to keep the existing center in safe operating condition and qualified according to state and professional standards. Why would you be spending $11.3 million on our existing Youth Study Center? Can you tell us, are these funds for the temporary center? 158 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. (Witness approached witness table.)
Deputy Mayor Everett Gillison. The short answer to your question is yes. These are the funds that are being used for the temporary center. Part of the monies that are there include monies from other agencies, but the new Youth Study Center monies are in a separate funding in a line item.
Where were the other funds coming from from the --
The state has promised to put approximately $4.8 million into the temporary Youth Study Center in order to make that project go.
Well, how much City money is going for the improvement? 159 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
I believe that the remaining of it is seven -- (Witness approached witness table.)
Hi. Tina Ginnetti, Deputy Budget Director. Of the 11.351 million, which is Act 71 money left over from the CFCF refund, approximately 7.6 of that is being used to fund the renovations to the temporary Youth Study Center. Twenty-five thousand is being used to fund a parking study relative to the permanent Youth Study Center, and the balance remaining will be approximately 3.8 million.
We don't have any plans for use of that funding at this time. However, an amendment was introduced when we had the hearing for the permanent Youth Study Center, and if the bond funds are insufficient to cover 160 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the cost for provision of on-site parking, part of that may be needed to provide the on-site parking.
Well, how temporary would this be? Do we know when the new Youth Study Center will be completed?
Councilwoman, Rick Tustin again, Capital Program Office. The arrangement with the state is that the City will occupy the space for no longer than three years at a maximum. So from the date that we start occupying EPPI, we will only be there for a maximum of three years. We hope to be shorter than that, because now that the ordinances have been passed by Council for the permanent facility, we are in the process now of updating the drawings that had been completed several years ago to bring them up to code. There have been 161 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. some code changes over the last few years and we have to look at that. We also have to look at this water management issue I brought up earlier, because that wasn't in effect two years ago when we designed the building. But we anticipate having it out for bid this summer, at least the initial bid packages. So our hopes are even though we're allowed to be there for up to three years after we start to occupy EPPI, we should not be there for anything more than a little over two years.
Is it a one-year contract or is it a three-year contract?
Why wouldn't that come to City Council? 162 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
Commissioner, if I may, Everett Gillison, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety. Basically what I've been told is that the idea is that we're going to have it for three years. If it has to come to Council, then I'll look into that. I'll go back over to Law. But we've been trying to move this forward in order to accommodate various interests in order to get this project done. So if it has to be brought to Council, then I'll get back to you.
Well, any contract that's more than a year should come to City Council.
I understand. I've been told that. As you know, I'm getting caught up rather quickly.
Good. 163 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. Mr. Tustin, you did mention the fact that City Council had approved all of the ordinances necessary for the new Youth Study Center, and it will be funded through PMA. Why is Line 45A needed?
Again, this line item here is actually not meant for funding the new Youth Study Center at all. The new Youth Study Center will be funded through separate bonds that will be floated for that facility. So these are funds that were existing funds, carry-forward, that are being used to partially fund the temporary site and any FF&E required relating to that.
I'm sorry. I was distracted. I hate to ask you to repeat.
I'm sorry. The $11 million here was never in the budget for the new facility. The new facility is going to be separately funded through bonds for that facility. This was funding that was either carry-forward or 164 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. carry-over from prior projects either at the Youth Study Center or other funding sources. Some of that will be used, as Ms. Ginnetti just said, will be used towards the temporary facility, the EPPI facility, but that's only a portion of this. There will be a balance of it left over.
Can you just give us a very brief idea as to how the $11.3 million will be spent, on what type of improvements are we talking about?
Well, the building itself that we're looking at using as a temporary facility, even though it was designed as a fairly high secure type building, it was a -- EPPI was the Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute. It still doesn't meet the requirements for a youth detention facility. Most of all the doors have to be removed. We have to do electronic doors. We have to provide security 165 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. cameras throughout the facility. We have to redesign the inside in order to accommodate the number of kids that are housed together. It's usually a six-to-one ratio of children to counselors during the day and a 12-to-one ratio of children to counselors in the evening. So we've designed the housing units where the kids will stay into groupings of 12, and that is far different from the way the older building was laid out, which was more linear with just a lot of individual rooms. So we have to customize the rooms and the configuration to meet the needs of a youth facility. In addition to that, we're doing a lot of upgrades to security, electronic hardware and security. We'd be happy to, if need be, at a later date we can show you the drawings. We'd be happy to do that.
I think we would be very interested in 166 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. seeing them.
We'd be more than happy to come over and show you the full extent of the work.
Councilman Jones, do you have a question on this issue?
Yes. Short of the gambling casino at that site, that is probably the least most popular use. Having said that, this was approved by Zoning before I was sworn in as a Councilperson. To my understanding of the zoning approval, you have exactly three years to erect the building, occupy it and be out of it. Not three years and a day, not three years and ten hours, but three years. And we are hoping that that is a successful transaction. The other thing is that I have gone up to that site and saw what you guys are trying to do in a time frame that you're trying to do it, and we want 167 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. to make the best out of a bad situation. There is -- it's a worthwhile use. Our young people, our at-risk youth, have to have a place to stay, but it is not the kind of use that's conducive to the kind of development that we wish for that area. But I do appreciate this Administration's kind of cooperation in bringing me up there and taking a look at what you want to do. Yes, I want to make sure that we comply with the multi-year contracts, but I don't want that to be an impediment to your three-year window, not three years a day, not three years and ten hours. And we want to wish you well in your new facility and be able to bring that property back to what it is intended to do, which is a bit more on the economic development side. All right?
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 168 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. Green.
Thank you, Madam President. When you take a look at the PICA report, it basically -- or the infrastructure report, it had four priority classes, 1 through 4. Priority were repairs that needed to be performed immediately because it may pose life-safety or security risk, and Priority repairs were repairs that needed to be performed within one year. Specifically, if you look at the Prisons budget, it looked like Priority 1 and Priority 2 work under the PICA report were $44 million. The entire budget, after backing some things out, appears to be $31 million for Prisons. Can you tell us how much of that money is going to be spent addressing the Priority and Priority PICA items?
Councilman, we've taken the PICA report, we've looked at the categories, and we've -- as Gary 169 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. Knappick, my Project Director, said earlier, we're trying to make sure that we all agree with their priorities and how they've laid out their priorities. That being said, we've taken the funding available to the City and we're packaging the project so that we can get the highest priority projects done first, and then sometimes that means doing Priority and Priority simultaneously, because they may be at the same location, they may be an interrelated project. We can't always separate them as conveniently as a report does under 1, 2 and 3 and 4.
So that's what we're doing now. And Gary has put together a spreadsheet of how we intend on using the PICA funding that we're getting, as well as any other capital funding that we're getting to address those priorities first.
My specific 170 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. question is -- and if you don't have the information, if you can provide the information to the Chair -- how much of the 2009 dollars that are either Operating or Capital Budget expense items are being spent to deal with Priority and Priority items in the PICA report. If you don't have that information today, if you can provide it to the Chair.
I think -- Gary Knappick, Capital Program Office, Councilman. Right now I don't have an answer for you. I can answer -- I'd have a better answer for you on the Fire and Police, because I've done the evaluations on those two, but I will get back to you on that, and that's my priority right now, is to get into the Prisons budget.
Okay. Well, that brings me to Police. It appears that the total real spending over the next five years when you take out the new facilities and the 8.6 million in 171 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. computer expenditures is about $26 million. The recommended expenditure by PICA was about $47 million. So it's roughly 55 percent of the amount that PICA says needs to be done in the Police Department. With respect to Priority and work, that's $22 million that should be dealt with in year one. If you can give me a breakdown of your expenditures compared to the PICA report and -- I know you don't have it right now -- provide it to the Chair, I would like to see that.
I certainly will do that. As far as that report is concerned, if I just may give you a little of my insight, because I'm looking at it in detail. Many of the Priority 1 issues -- if I went into the Police, for example, many of those issues have already been addressed. Priority -- and the cost associated with those items, which are corrections. They're not projects. They're corrections. In some 172 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. cases, they're just a matter of a couple of people from Public Property correcting the situation. In other areas, those Priority 1 issues are indeed valid and are capital one issues, but not many. Many of what's been identified so far on Priority 1 have been resolved or are being resolved by the Department of Public Property. So what we're attempting to do is take all the issues. Priority 2 issues, as they're identified, are issues that they say you should correct in the next year. In some cases, the issues that I found in there identified Priority 2 are in fact life-safety issues. For example, there are a couple of disconnects that are in Police facilities that are being overheated due to the amount of draw on the energy. So what we're trying to do is assemble projects in a priority sense to spend the money to the best of the City's advantage what we have and then look at 173 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. everything else. It's a matter of prioritizing first.
Are you familiar with the index in the report? In other words, if a building had a cost for replacement index of, say, 0.94, the cost of repairs are 94 percent of the cost of having a new structure or a new facility. There are a couple -- the auto pound has a facility condition index of 0.82, warrants consideration for replacement or significant renovation. What are your plans for that?
Right now -- here again, let me just go back a little bit. I've had to escalate some costs --
I'm trying to get short answers, because I have five minutes.
So if you 174 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. don't have a specific answer to my question, just say you'll get back to me and provide the information to the Chair.
Okay. The next things I have questions about are the five firing ranges, the facility condition index scores of 1.12, 1.61, 1.65, 2.43 and 2.81, meaning that it would cost way more to make repairs than to have new facilities. Do you know specifically what you're doing with those, or is that something you can get back to us on?
We'd have to get back. The only thing I'm doing right now is not spending any capital money in those facilities.
Okay. Fire Department, it looks like you're at about 68 percent of the funding needed to spend the recommended $31 million to fix the situation there. I have two questions, 175 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. same ones. To what extent does the proposed budget include funding for the 21, 310, 307 in Priority and work recommended by the PICA report? And then what is your budget compared to their whole $47 million budget? And then with respect to the Health Department, same question, Priority 1 and 2 items, if you could get us that information.
With respect to the Administration's plan for three facilities, I'd like some information. In District 2, there's Marine Unit 2. Engine 55 is in District 7, Engine 33 in District 6. They had facility condition index scores of 0.97, 0.94 and 0.88, and I'd like to know what your plans are for those facilities. So you mentioned a state law that costs the City money because it requires us to contract in a specific 176 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. way.
Yes. Would you please -- point of information. (Laughter.)
Would you please explain what the Separations Act is for Council and also provide the Chair with the amount of money it costs the City of Philadelphia on an annual basis to have to comply with that Act versus what we could do if we did not have to comply with that Act.
The Separations Act I think was originally enacted back in the early 1900s and I believe the 177 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. intent of the Act was to make sure smaller contractors had the ability to bid as prime contractors on government work. The law I don't think was changed at all until the mid 1950s, when at that point the only thing that changed in the law was the dollar value of what the minimum amount would be. Essentially, what the law says is that if a government agency is going to bid a project using public works, public dollars, we are required to bid any contract that exceeds, I believe it's, $4,000, but I have to check the number, as a prime contract. So if I am doing an electrical job -- let me take another one. If I'm doing a mechanical job and I'm putting an air conditioning system in and I have to run some power to those units that costs more than $4,000, I as a mechanical contractor can't do the work or sub it out. The City has to hire, as a prime contract, an electrical contractor to come in and do that work. 178 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. So instead of the City processing and dealing with one contractor, one contract, one set of invoices and everything else, we're doing it twice for two. If we have a project that involves more than that dollar figure for plumbing, electrical, mechanical and general construction, I now have four contractors, prime, that I have to deal with. That's four set of contracts, four conformed contracts, four sets of monthly invoices, on and on and on, as opposed to dealing with one. If there's a problem with an electrical contractor on the job and his work interfaces with the mechanical or the plumbing or the general and for some reason he can't perform his work, it affects my other three prime contracts. They, in turn, if they're delayed, can come back to the City and place delay claims against the City for their contracts.
When you 179 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. provide us the information on the cost to the City on an annual basis in your estimate of the Separations Act, please also include the costs of the various -- the Procurement Department, the cost of the attorneys that have to review different prime contracts versus reviewing one master prime contract for the project, et cetera. Try to bring in all the costs, including staffing costs and everything else.
Okay. I have most of that, except for what you just asked for, which is the overall staffing costs to the City.
Mr. Tustin, is there any reason that you switched from being an electrician to an air conditioning contractor? 180 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
Thank you, Madam President. This is along somewhat the same lines, but more what Councilwoman Sanchez brought up this morning on the problem with contractors. I know she said she wanted to get in more deeply at another time, which makes sense, but just generally, do you experience -- I guess, Mr. Tustin, you'd be the best one to answer this -- problems with contract -- how big is the problem, I guess, with some -- because you hear sometimes that we're told, Well, this project isn't moving because the contractor hasn't done this, that or hasn't cooperated or whatnot. Would you classify that as a major, minor problem? 181 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
I would not classify it as a minor problem. We have a stable, I'll call it, of contractors that bid City work all the time that are very good contractors that we have very little problems with. We also then have contractors that bid City work more infrequently, and they're the ones that usually we have more of the issues with, and we have a fair share of that. Now, when we do have contractors like that, naturally when they're not performing on the project, we write letters to them. We do everything we have to do to document that lack of performance, and we use that information to either put the contractor in default, if it gets to that point, and this year we've done that twice on two different contractors, or when the project is finally completed, when the next project comes along and that same contractor wants to bid on that next project, we have what's called a pre-qualification 182 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. statement that they have to submit before we allow them to bid on the project. We'll review that statement, and if we have letters in the file that basically can document our problems, we'll deny them the ability to bid on that next project. We'll send that information over to the Procurement Department. The Procurement Department will notify them that they're not allowed to bid on a project, and most of the time they want to come back and appeal it, which, again, delays the bid award process because we have a three- to four-week delay now in bidding the project until the appeal is heard. So it does get appealed almost on a regular basis, and then we have to go over and explain why we don't want them to bid on the jobs.
Generally, now that you mention appeal, I was going to ask that question, are sometimes contractors barred, and you 183 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. answered that question. On the appeal, is the City's position usually upheld? Who is that appealed to? I'm sorry.
It's appealed to a three-person panel, and I believe -- I'm not quite sure. I know the Procurement Department is part of that panel and there are two other City departments involved in that panel. If we have very good documentation of the prior experiences and the problems we've had, we do get -- it does get upheld. The other thing that's interesting -- and this is probably more information than anybody wants to know and I don't want to take your five minutes away.
So I guess this is nobody's time, but -- I'm sorry. I forgot what I was going to say. 184 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
We've asked enough questions. I can see why you could get confused there. That's fine. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. If you could turn to in this Capital Program book, does any of the -- before I get to that, any of the CA money, does that include any projects that you might have on the book from Recreation facility projects that were completed and funds left over? Would those dollars be in that $35 million?
I'm going to ask my Deputy of Budget to explain that, 185 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. because he knows it better than I do.
Chris Donato, Deputy, CPO. All of the funding there is for Council-designated projects, the leftover money.
You mean this $35 million? No, I'm not talking about now. We'll come back to that. On this exhibit we had, I think that's what we've been talking about, the pre-finance loans of 35 million.
The overall schedule. Does that include leftover funds from projects in our district that we've been working on? Say if I finish a project and it came in under budget, would that be in there?
Yes. The exact 186 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. amount liquidated from your district goes back to your district.
Goes back into -- so this pre-finance loan, $35 million, has funds that have been designated to the District Councilmember for their projects, right?
So while we haven't spent it -- so it's not 35 million that you can use. You have to deduct all the money that are for projects?
Right. On that amount there's one million six forty-nine that is going to go back to Councilpeople that was liquidated from that designated funding.
So if you look at , the Recreation Department totals, you'll see that $1.6 million of CA funding. That money is earmarked for Councilmembers' projects.
So that will go 187 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. toward your ITEF balance. And it's not split evenly. It's a split -- the amount of money that was liquidated from your district from old purchase orders is going back to your ITEF line.
Now, is that in the money that we went over in my budget when you all met with me? Is that in there?
That was not in there because that list did not include FY09.
Now, explain to me on , 42,714,000, carry-over money. Is that carry-over money?
That's the carry-forward money, correct. Some of that is left over from ITEF money and others would be left over from Recreation 188 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. infrastructure, life safety or pool renovations, things of that nature.
So if we were looking for some money to do a pool, right, and we had $42 million --
Let me take a crack at this, because I get confused about this one all the time. What that means is, in your particular Council district, in your funding, you have ITEF money that you may not have designated for a particular use.
And that dollar value sits there. Every year the number, that dollar value, has to show in this book as carry-over to the next year. It's not more money. It's the money you have. Legally we have to do this to carry it forward one more year. So it's not more money at all.
And this is calculated as of the end of December. Whatever the balance was is what's 189 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. carrying forward.
So take out the Council money and say you had 20,000 of that, 12,000 of that.
If we took the Council money out, the balance of the money would be carry-forward money that was in the Recreation line. In the Recreation budget, they have their own lines for pools, life safety, infrastructure and grant-funded Recreation projects. Those are funding lines that they have. That's not your IT; it's their lines. So this is also their carry-forward as well. What they haven't used the year before needs to be shown in here in order to carry it over to the next year. It's not more money. 190 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
And the bulk of the money on that 42 is Council-designated money that's being carried forward, existing money in this budget being carried forward into next year. (Bell rung.)
Thank you. Where is the appropriation for 2009? What page is that on for the District Council?
, Line 61. That's part of it. There's seven million under Recreation and there's another two million under the Managing Director's Office, which provides a bit more flexibility into where you can use the money.
Good 191 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. afternoon. , Manayunk Canal restoration, Line Item 33P and 33Q. There was $318,000 being carried over from FY01 and $2.24 million being carried over from FY2000. I wanted to know what stage the Manayunk Canal restoration was in. While you do that, also we can find the Health Commissioner in reference to health centers not being in the 4th Councilmanic District.
I've asked Charlie Mottershead to come up, who is in charge of the Fairmount Park team, to explain that.
I'm Charles Mottershead. I'm Capital Program Office, Fairmount Park team. Good afternoon. The status of the Manayunk project at this current time is, we're in design on Phase 3. Phase 3 is the Locks project and the dredging project. This project has been a seven-year project and a lot of the -- because of the cost of 192 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the project and the time frame, we've had to separate them into separate phases. Two phases are complete. We're in the third. We may have a fourth. The third project is scheduled to possibly go out for bid in June of '09. It's still with PennDOT under review, and sometimes it takes a long time to get through PennDOT. Right now the Delaware Valley Planning Commission has assisted us with this. They've been hired by PennDOT to work with them to streamline the process. Since they've been involved now for two years, it has been going much better. But, like I said, we expect to be out for bids in June of '09.
The project will probably take approximately six months. So it would be done by the following year early in the year, January.
Okay. A lot 193 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. of people are depending on that to deal with the flooding issue that recurs in that section of town. There are memorable water marks up on bars to show where the water comes up and a loss of property and, thank God, no loss of life, but we'd really like to -- that's been a recurring issue in that part of town and I'm looking forward to that some day being complete.
Health Commissioner. Before I get my bell rung, I'd like to know why if someone gets ill, a poor person, a person unable to have some type of coverage, has to go to the 8th Councilmanic District or the 3rd Councilmanic District in order to receive adequate healthcare from one of our facilities.
As the Councilman is aware, we do not at the present time have a health center in Councilmanic 194 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. District No. 4.
Okay. That was good. Do you have any -- that was really good. I wasn't ready for that one. But are you ready for this one: When will we have a health center in the 4th Councilmanic District?
We are currently looking at individuals' access to care, particularly people who are uninsured and people who are from census tracts or small neighborhood areas with high rates of poverty and are looking at distance that people have to cover and looking at the numbers of people from every census tract in the City and where they go in terms of health centers in general. So there are federally funded health centers as well as City health centers, which should take care of the uninsured.
Commissioner, I would remind you that there is only one hospital in the 4th Councilmanic District. It is Roxborough 195 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. Hospital, with no health centers in the 4th Councilmanic District. And when we talk about access to healthcare, I mean, it's been a national issue. Charity begins at home, and I'd like you to really take into consideration that the 153,000 people in that district kind of rely on what we do as a municipality to aid them in this noble cause, and I'm not going to let that go. So I need your help. I understand capital projects and we can do multi-purpose facilities, combine rec centers. I wouldn't even mind if people get immunization shots out of libraries if we have to, but I want to know that people in my district get the same as what people in the 8th or the 3rd, who deserve it too -- the 4th needs love, too. (Bell rung.)
Understood. And as we've talked about, one of the things that I'm interested in doing is matching need to services. So there are a number 196 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. of ways in addition to building a full health center that we could meet the need within any neighborhood in Philadelphia, but particularly within the 4th District.
Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of quick questions, which may require long answers. First, over the last couple of budget seasons I've asked about a new police facility at 17th and Montgomery. It's the 22nd and the 23rd District. And I've been trying to get the Captains that have gone there to lobby for those facilities, a new facility, because that facility is extremely old. I actually can remember it as a child, not that I necessarily had to go there, but we won't talk about that. But it's an old facility. It's antiquated. Frankly speaking, I feel sorry every time we have a meeting there, 197 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. because the police have to use that facility, and I've been trying to get someone to do an analysis of that particular facility to determine, one, that it needs to be a new one and, two, we talked about possibly locating in an area that made more sense, because it's right in the heart of a row home community and the site is very cumbersome in terms of the police ability to maneuver or to park. And we actually were looking at developing Cecil B. Moore Avenue and wanted to put one on Cecil B. Moore Avenue where we have some publicly owned land. The second question relates to a process that started in the last Administration where there was access of water revenues from the Sinking Fund to create this program. The New River City Program was one of them where we used proceeds to essentially support infrastructure for new housing up in the Northeast and some other corridors. Are 198 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. you all familiar with that?
I'm familiar with it in a very general way. I think the Commerce Department was essentially running that program.
Is there anyone here from Commerce that can talk to me about that? (Witness approached witness table.)
Thank you, Duane. Duane, can you kind of give us a sense of where we are, how much revenues we anticipated having from that process and where we are, the status of it? Because I know there was a process that allowed access to that funding. Can you tell me the dollar amount that we anticipated having initially and how much has been used or what the status of that process is? And then I'd like to, after 199 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. you finish, get back to that Police Department question.
I can give you my sort of best recollection. City Council, I think, about a year ago authorized us to, as you sort of characterize it, shift funding that was currently in a reserve account to be released by a surety bond. We were authorized to release up to $125 million for that purpose. Last fall, the first piece of that funding was in fact shifted into a surety fund. I think the amount was approximately $68 million of the 125, and of that $68 million, $60 million was specifically for the significant infrastructure investment needing to be made at the Navy Yard. The balance of it was for specific neighborhood-based projects. I know that there is at least one in your district that we've talked about, and there's a little bit of money, $1.5 million, for utility relocation for the Convention Center expansion, but the 200 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. balance of it was for neighborhood-based projects. The balance of the funding that was authorized by City Council, those projects are not far enough advanced yet for us to seek funding release. The reason that we're waiting to -- one of the primary reasons for waiting to do that is because once the funding is released, we only have two years to fully draw the funding down. So for large projects, you really have to have done some design work before you release the funding.
Let me make sure I understand. The first phase, which is approximately sixty --
Of the $68 million, 201 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. we fully allocated the funding.
So the process associated with the balance, because, as you said earlier, there is a time line associated with when that money needs to be --
Well, there were a couple of major categories of funding. The one category was for large waterfront development projects and there were a couple that we had cited, for example, on the North Delaware. Those are projects that because the market was softening were not ready to proceed and, therefore, we were not ready to sort of invest in the utility infrastructure for those projects. There was a whole sort of -- there was, I think, approximately $25 million reserved for neighborhood-based projects. And, again, there were only a 202 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. couple of those projects that were ready to proceed, and to the extent that those projects come online, we will go back to the Water Department to seek a release of additional phases of funding as projects are ready to proceed. (Bell rung.)
I heard the bell. I'm going to take advantage of the Chair just for a second. Can we have a more inclusive process on the balance of the funds as it relates to Councilmembers, particularly District Councilmembers, because I know there are instances where we have projects that we're working on that the Administration may not know and vice-versa. So we really -- like particularly given the fact that there's a time line.
What I was characterizing as the neighborhood-based projects, which I think in the ordinance 25 we called Green City Strategy, they are 203 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. neighborhood-based projects. Those in fact are very much driven by input from Councilmembers to help us identify which are the projects that could benefit from the use of this funding.
I'm over my time? Well, can I have my police question answered since I already asked that one?
I think it would be helpful if you all, the Commerce Department, PIDC, give the Council President a report on the expenditure of those funds. The funds, I understand it, were supposed to be for water and sewer. I'd like to know what the dollars -- how much has been spent and the projects they spent the money on and what the balance is. 204 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
Madam Chair, I think he wanted to answer one of the questions.
You had asked about the 22nd and 23rd Police District. According to the PICA report, which has assessed all of the Police facilities, that facility, which was built in 1959, at today's value would cost about $8.5 million to replace it, and the dollar value of the improvements that the PICA 205 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. report says that facility needs is in the neighborhood of 3.2 million, which means 38 percent of the dollar value of the replacement. So normally, according to the PICA report, we wouldn't even consider replacing a facility unless it was over, I think it's like -- I think it's over --
-- 40 or 50 percent. So even the PICA report is telling us we shouldn't replace that facility. We should just fix it.
So if you take into account the possibility of the sale of the land, since it's two blocks from Temple and land up there is pretty valuable, then you probably can get like $2 million just for the site itself.
They didn't 206 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. consider that as part of the assessment of the conditions.
But just based on the raw data that we've gotten from them, they're saying at this point in time, it would make more sense for the City to fix it than it would be to replace it.
But they don't look at the location and the resale of the land and all that.
Understood. It's interesting to show you how the PICA report can get used to help us.
I understand. So I would like to -- thank you, Madam Chair.
You can come back. 207 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
I would just like to have a follow-up discussion with you on that site given that information you provided.
Thank you. Mr. Tustin, could you provide to the Chair the list that Capital Programs has in reference to code compliance. The reason I bring that up is that in City Hall, until just recently, we didn't even have panic bars on the exit doors to this building. They were dead bolting, the most probably serious violation that you could have in a building where people can't get out unless they have a key. Could you provide, please, to the Chair -- because if it took ten years for those doors after it became a subject 208 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. of conversation to be done, I'd like to see what that list of code compliance is, because to me it's hypocritical that we have L&I out citing the private sector for doing the exact same things that we don't do.
So I would love to see that list. And I know you have a list of what's out there where we don't have code compliance.
Where we have doors that are dead bolted in the event of an emergency that you can't get out of a building. I'm really curious to see the extent of our employees, the conditions that they're working in and the visitors to the building. A lot of people during that period of time worked here in City Hall and there was only one way out, the northeast corner. And if you happened to be working at one of the other areas in 209 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the building and it became full of smoke, you had to work your way all the way to the northeast corner to get out of this building, and I thought that was really a disgrace to have people work with that violation of the code.
We'll be more than happy to provide you a list of all the code violations still in existence at City Hall.
Okay. We'll start with City Hall, and from the PICA report, we should be able to follow it up with hopefully Police, Fire, Prisons and some of the facilities that we have full assessment reports done on now. So we can do that as a follow-up, but we can 210 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. start with City Hall.
In all fairness, City government is exempt from the same code that the building across the street has to comply with; am I correct?
No. We are not exempt from complying with any code that any private citizen has to live by. We have to live by the same codes.
So not having panic bars on a door for all those years was a violation of the code that was overlooked?
It was. That violation has been corrected. Only recently been corrected, but that violation has been corrected. A little story associated with that, in that because the building isn't fully sprinklered, we also had a concern with how we were locking the doors now. The reason we are going forward right now with the full sprinklering of the 211 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. building is so that that works hand in hand with how the exit doors work in this building now. If you go hit an exit door, it's on a delay, and the reason it's on a delay is because we've gotten exemption -- not exemption; a waiver to do that from the Fire Department only because we're now in the process of putting a full sprinkler system in. So we are in code compliance right now.
What's a door delay have to do with a sprinkler system?
Technically on an exterior door, it should have, as you say, panic hardware to get out. We have panic hardware, but if you hit the panic bar, it doesn't open automatically. I think there's a 15-second delay, and that delay is noted on the door. It allows people to understand there's a delay on that door. It's allowed because we're in the process of putting a full sprinkler 212 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. system into the building. They work hand in hand. We worked with the Fire Department for that exception because we were putting in a full sprinkler system.
I mean, it's okay you're saying that, but I don't get it that there's a delay in the door because we have a sprinkler system. You would think if you hit a panic bar and you want to get out of a building, my thought would be, just hearing you say that, that if I hit a panic bar and it didn't open, I'd probably turn around and try to find another way out. I don't know why even there's a connection there. But with no lights, I'm sure that that sticker is going to be very helpful to tell people wait 15 seconds.
Well, it's more than the sticker. I believe it's also an audible alarm on that as well and there is a communication box that ties in that door with the security on the northeast corner. 213 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
It's trying to keep the building fully code compliant and safe as well as secure. So it's trying to get the best of both worlds.
I only brought that as an analogy to that list of violations that may exist, that if you do have a priority list, that's where you should start, obviously with anything that -- and I think you addressed that earlier -- that involves the code, especially fire safety.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Getting back to lists, I also have some requests for lists and, that is, the total value of the land and buildings held by the City, the RDA, 214 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. PAID, et cetera. I would like to know the total value of the assets that are owned by the City and its different development agencies. I'd like that broken down by asset. I'd like to know which assets are used in the provision of City services, which assets are not. Those that are used in the provision of City services, I'd like to know the total cost of necessary infrastructure repairs, and I'd like to know -- I guess you're giving me the fair market value of it related to Councilman Clarke's question, and I'd like to know whether or not it's a necessary facility or not in the Administration's view or it can be consolidated in some way.
Point of information. If you're doing a facility assessment, it would be interesting to add on there what leases we currently have in spaces and how much of them are 215 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. being used.
Sure. If you could also add to that the buildings that we're leasing, the cost of continuing the lease, whether we can get out of it versus whether we can take the property at a value less than our lease payments, et cetera. Just that kind of general analysis for our real estate holdings.
I understand the question. There are a lot of different departments that are involved in gathering that information together. We'll contact them right away, try to get back to you as quickly as possible with a time frame by which they can get that information. But I do understand your question. It will be Board of Revision of Tax, Public Property. There are a lot of individual agencies that need to be contacted as to if they're being used for City services or not, leases as opposed to ownership. So it's a big order. 216 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. We'll get back to you with how quickly we can get this information together.
Okay. Bear with me one second. I guess while we have people from different development agencies here, I'd also like to know whether or not the assets that they have that they are going to sell, whether or not any of those dollars are going to come back into the City's budget; for example, specifically sales at the Navy Yard, RDA sales. I'll tell you what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to get a picture of our whole list of assets. I'm trying to look at the cost of our infrastructure repairs and see whether or not we can get rid of some things that are not productive in order to pay for fixing our infrastructure in the City of Philadelphia.
That's all I have, Madam Chair. Thank you. 217 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
You don't need more time? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question regarding the certified juvenile facility on the Prison campus. You're going to build a 224-bed facility. Is that going to house both male and females?
Do you have any idea of how many young people we have up at the Prisons that are certified adults?
Let me see if someone from the Prisons are here. Maybe they can answer that question. (Witness approached witness table.) 218 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. COMMISSIONER GIORLA: Good afternoon, Councilmembers. Lou Giorla, Acting Commissioner of Prisons. As of this morning, we have 122 male certified juveniles and two female certified juveniles.
So right now where do you house them? COMMISSIONER GIORLA: The female certified juveniles are housed at Riverside Correctional Facility, our main intake facility and housing for female inmates. The male juveniles are housed at the Philadelphia Industrial Correctional Center located also on the State Road campus.
Are they separately housed? Particularly the males, are they separate from the adults? COMMISSIONER GIORLA: The males are housed on two housing units that are in the same building as adults at PICC, but they're separated and escorted and their programming takes place separately 219 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. from adults.
And this new facility you said will house both male and females? COMMISSIONER GIORLA: Yes, ma'am.
That's it. I just wanted to know a little bit about that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER GIORLA: You're welcome.
I have a point of information on that. The Councilwoman asked about which juveniles are certified as adults. How many juveniles do we actually have? COMMISSIONER GIORLA: One hundred and twenty-four as of this morning, 122 male --
So those are the ones that are certified and not certified as juveniles? 220 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. COMMISSIONER GIORLA: We don't have non-certified juveniles at the Philadelphia Prisons.
And I just wanted to ask a question about the green roof. I think some of us are more knowledgeable than others regarding this new LEED. The green roof, I assume, costs more than just a regular roof, and is the life of the roof longer? I mean, does it cost more, but in the long run --
Yes. We don't know a whole lot about green roofs either because it's new technology for us, but we did have a meeting just last week with a firm from Maryland who came up and gave us a seminar. They've been doing it over years, started in Germany, quite 24 frankly, where they came from. And even 25 though there is additional costs to the 221 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. initial installation, because essentially what you're doing is you're putting a standard roof on and then on top of that you're going to be putting on several layers of insulation, soil and then actually different kind of growing medium, so the cost is initially slightly higher, but the benefit in the long run is that your original roofing membrane, what keeps the water out of coming into the building, is now being protected by this material from solar radiation, from just normal weather conditions, and we believe that the roofs will last -- could last two to three times longer than a traditional roof that's not protected in any way. Not to mention the fact of the environment and what it brings back to the City just in clean air and everything else.
Well, I think somewhere I read that Philadelphia wants to become a green city and bringing in more jobs for people. Would you know 222 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. the typical type of employment? I mean, is this going to really open up opportunities for people to get employed? It seems to me that everybody needs to be retrained, I guess.
Green roofs I guess do not require a lot of maintenance, quite frankly. There are different types of green roofs. There's a type of green roof that requires very little soil and it has just vegetation which covers the ground, and it really requires minimal maintenance to do that. There are other green roofs that you can apply more soil and then actually grow bushes and shrubs and other things, which would require watering, if you will, as well as maintaining a little bit more so than the ground cover type of roofs. It is a field that is being done more and more, and I would hope that we get more and more contractors interested in doing this type of work, because it is something that is much 223 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. needed by all cities and going to be done more and more frequently.
I think what's so interesting is that when we used to do the blight tours with L&I and lots of City departments, one of the hazards that was brought to my attention from some of the folk over at L&I was when we saw green growing out of porches and green growing out of roofs where people --
And then all the sudden now we want to do a green roof.
Well, the difference is what we're doing is a controlled green roof where we want green -- we're getting green where we want it. In that particular case, it was usually a seed that landed on a roof, got between a joint and started to grow into a tree or some other type of shrub. In that particular case, the green actually 224 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. deteriorated the roofing itself as well as the wall, the stone, the brick, whatever, and it actually caused damage. But what we're doing is totally different.
Thank you. I have a question of the Water Department. Is the Water Department here? (Witness approached witness table.) COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Good afternoon. I'm Bernard Brunwasser, Water Commissioner.
Good afternoon. Considering the discussions that my office had with the Water Department and the significant need to spend -- your need to spend dollars on Water Department infrastructure, what 225 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. funds are available in the Water Revenue Fund for the capital expenses for infrastructure expenses? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Within the Water capital account? I think we have an FY09 capital budget of approximately $142 million.
Would that be enough for you to take care of the infrastructure needs you have -- COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes.
-- in the City of Philadelphia? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes.
Would any of that money come from the Water Reserve Fund? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: No. 20
So it's all capital money from the Water Department, within the Water Department -- COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Correct. 226 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc.
-- capital program? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Correct. And our sources for that for the Capital Budget are revenue bonds that we've sold, the proceeds from those, and also self-generated capital that we deposit into our capital account from our operating fund at the end of each year.
You generate dollars out of your operating fund to put in your capital fund? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Correct.
So you have a surplus at the end of the year? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, that's so we don't have to borrow quite as much money as we otherwise would.
I understand that the state has a revolving fund program that can be used for City drinking water and wastewater-related expenses. This revolving fund has 227 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. billions of dollars of outstanding debt, yet the City of Philadelphia has received only a small amount of these funds, approximately $20 million. Has there been any discussion with the Governor regarding how the City can receive more of these funds for water-related expenses? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: You're speaking of Pennvest, which is the state revolving loan fund for Pennsylvania, and the problem that we've had with Pennvest over the years is that they are quite bureaucratic in the loans that they offer to a bureaucracy like the City of Philadelphia. Most of Pennvest's loans are relatively small, and although the interest rates are low, lower than market rates, the administrative costs of receiving a Pennvest loan for us kind of eats away at the advantage of borrowing from Pennvest. And so we have not seen any major reason to access those funds. They are -- primarily they 228 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. have -- historically they've primarily been set up to assist smaller water and sewer utilities or those that are in financial distress, and the smaller utilities don't have much access to the capital markets; whereas, our access is quite good. So the amount -- the size of the loans that we've been offered in the past have been very small and, frankly, with what you have to go through in order to acquire such a loan and the record-keeping after the fact, it really wasn't worth our while. They're not geared up for a big city like Philadelphia.
Do you suppose that the legislation geared the fund to smaller communities? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Pardon me?
I'm just asking you a rhetorical question. You may not have the answer. I said do you suppose that the Pennvest program was 229 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. specifically designed to support smaller cities -- COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes.
-- and municipalities? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes, it absolutely was. All of the initial legislation -- because we watched this when Pennvest was formed in the late 1980s, and basically their upper cap limit for loans was something along the order of $5 million. Well, $5 million for us even back then was no more than a month's worth of capital. And so it was felt that Philadelphia had received a large proportion of the capital dollars associated with the federal program to expand wastewater treatment back in the late '70s and all the way through the early '90s, and so the federal government began to divest itself of funding this major expansion of wastewater treatment throughout the country and turned over the remaining funds to the states and 230 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. would give them continuous funds each year as they appropriated money, but the states would also be encouraged to go out and borrow on their own in order to set up these state revolving loan funds. But the gist of the fund in Pennsylvania -- they're all different. Other states handle their funds differently, but in Pennsylvania, it was clear that the purpose of Pennvest was to help the smaller water and sewer utilities and to also help those in distress, in financial distress.
If I could just add to that, I know from my participation on the Board of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, which needs to approve all Pennvest loans, that most of the Pennvest assistance is to small private and small public water companies. I don't recall ever hearing before the DVRPC Board a Pennvest loan application for a major municipality. And the City of Philadelphia, even townships like 231 3/4/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080154, etc. Doylestown or Media in Bucks and Delaware Counties I don't believe have received those kind of Pennvest loans. They tend to be very small utilities.
All right. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? (No response.)
There being no further questions, this hearing is recessed until Tuesday, March the 11th, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. (Committee of the Whole adjourned at 3:20 p.m.) - - - 232 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on March 4, 2008, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)