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.