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.)