1008 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA CAPITAL PROGRAM & BUDGET HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, February 22, 1999 9:30 a.m. - - - Bill No. 990023 - An ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA A. CLARK COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO CHARLES MCPHERSON, Chief Financial Officer - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 1009 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 I N D E X Commissioner Lawrence M. Moy. . . . . . . . . 1011 Streets Department Joseph Doyle, Street Lighting Engineer. . . . 1027 Clarena Tollson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029 Deputy Streets Commissioner for Sanitation Kevin Koch, Chief Highway Engineer. . . . . . 1051 Streets Department Charles Trainor, Acting Chief . . . . . . . . 1077 Traffic Engineer, Streets Department Andres Perez, Commissioner. . . . . . . . . . 1094 Department of Public Property Deputy Commissioner Joseph James. . . . . . . 1108 Department of Public Property Joan Schlotterbeck, Building Services . . . . 1202 Director, Public Property Riley P. Harrison, Manager, Fleet Department 1205 Robert Fox, Director. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1213 Administrative Services, Fleet Management Commissioner Kumar Kishinchand. . . . . . . . 1219 Water Department Philadelphia Mike Nadol, Deputy, Water Commissioner. . . . 1225 1010 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 (Index, cont'd.) Denise Garrett, Bureau Chief. . . . . . . . . 1228 Water Revenue Bureau Richard Roy Deputy Commissioner . . . . . . . 1268 Operations, Water Department Commissioner Frances Egan, L&I. . . . . . . . 1287 Bob Solvibile, Deputy Commissioner, L&I . . . 1310 Edward McLaughlin, Deputy Commissioner, L&I 1313 David Perri, Deputy Commissioner, L&I . . . . 1356 Richard Felgus, L&I Review Board. . . . . . . 1359 Barton Kligerman, Chairman. . . . . . . . . . 1361 Board of Building Standards Bob D'Agostino, Appeal Boards Administrator 1363 John Kromer, Director . . . . . . . . . . . . 1368 Office of Housing and Community Development Barbara Kaplan, Executive Director. . . . . . 1378 City Planning Commission 1011 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 990023. The first department to testify this morning will be the Streets Department. (Commissioner Lawrence Moy comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes.
We do have copies of your testimony, all the Councilmembers have copies of the testimony. If you will abbreviate your testimony, we will make certain that the stenographer has your entire written testimony for her notes of testimony. COMMISSIONER MOY: Thank you, Madame President.
Thank you. COMMISSIONER MOY: Good morning. My name is Lawrence Moy. I'm the Commissioner of Streets. And I'm pleased to be here this morning 1012 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 to present our abbreviated testimony on behalf of the Department's 1999 proposed Operating Budget. We request a General Fund appropriation of $115,960,124 and an All-Funds Appropriation of $144,771,124. This proposed budget reflects a net General Fund increase of about $1.5 million from Fiscal Year '99's estimated obligations. I would like to briefly highlight some of the goals achieved in areas of refuse collection, recycling, and streets maintenance. Through continuing managerial enhancements started in 1992, we have achieved significant improvements in the Sanitation Division, including increasing on-time collection from 63.7 percent in FY '94 to a projected 95 percent in FY '99 and FY 2000. Recycling expansion. In the area of recycling expansion, we are continuing to expand it in the city. For example, in FY '97, approximately 44,000 tons of household refuse were recycled and diverted from the waste stream, and the current projections for FY '99 and FY 2000 is approximately 48,000. Additionally, recycling's been put in place in many government buildings, 1013 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 including the Municipal Services Building, the Criminal Justice Center, City Hall, branch libraries, and in a number of health centers. In the area of streets maintenance, we are employing innovative technologies such as Hot-In-Place. As a result of this plan, in FY '99, we were able to resurface 157 miles of streets, an increase of 46 percent over FY '97. We have piloted the (HIP) process in FY '99 and are applying our learnings from this effort to plan the FY 2000 program. We have supplied members of Council with a full report addressing key learnings, and we believe that, with Council's support, we can affect a high-quality HIP program in FY 2000 which will continue to yield substantial savings in costs for citizens while maintaining the quality of neighborhood street refacing. Street Lighting. We are in Year 7 of an 11-year program to replace our obsolete street fixtures. The Department has replaced over 53,000 street lights between 1991 and '98, and we expect to replace an additional 10,000 lights by the end of FY '99. We expect to replace all of the city's 1014 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 100,000 street-light system by 2002. This program is enabling us to see reductions in terms of repair and maintenance that you can see reflected in our productivity measures. Approximately 100 lights remain to be installed in our program to modernize an estimated 18,000 alley lights throughout Philadelphia. The final installations are expected to be complete this summer. Traffic engineering. I'm happy to report that our LED traffic light replacement program is on schedule. By the end of FY '99, we project that 28,000 red LEDs will be installed. Combined with the replacement of over 60,000 more efficient yellow and green incandescent lights, we project savings of $670,000 in FY '99 in direct power costs, and $887,000 in FY 2000 and annually year thereafter. These savings have been programmed into our budget request. In closing and in conclusion, the employees of the Department of Streets will continue to work diligently in the delivery of services to our citizens and neighbors and to improve the quality of life in our city and to 1015 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 continue working closely with Council to shape effective programs. Therefore, we request your favorable consideration of this budget request. And I'm available to answer your questions at this time, and I have our staff here from each of our divisions available also.
Thank you, Commissioner. You state in your written testimony that you will be reducing overtime in the Sanitation Division by over $1 million. How do you plan on accomplishing this reduction without impacting services? COMMISSIONER MOY: Actually, this has been an effective savings in the past year, and I guess we've been able, through the waste disposal contracts that we negotiated within city transfer stations -- you may recall that in prior years, we had to go outside the city. Since they are inside the city, we've been able to be more effective in the way we deploy our resources. So we believe we can count on those savings.
On Pages 32 through 86 of your budget detail, it shows a 1016 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 $100,000 program to address workplace violence. How will you be developing this program, and will it be used citywide? I know we had that terrible tragedy, but do you find that there's violence within the workplace. COMMISSIONER MOY: We find that there's considerable stress in the workplace, and this is a difficult area for --
Well, stress is one thing; violence is something totally different. COMMISSIONER MOY: And we have violence also. I think it might not be evident to everyone that there are things in which situations occur on the street, with much of our workforce, where they feel threatened, and they are threatened on a daily basis. There are other things that occur within its workplace itself that we're trying to address. We have -- following the tragedy, we had met with some experts in some of these areas to get a sense of the scale of these problems, and I think that while we intend to address it on 1017 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 behalf of the Department, it's pretty clear to us that this is a problem that exists beyond not just our department. I think it is something --
Well how will you be developing this program? COMMISSIONER MOY: There's probably a series of things that we're going to develop; we're just starting to get involved with the different consultants to address improving our relationships in terms of labor management, in terms of trying to bring, I guess, a softer, gentler work place really. It's something which we want to get into, an awareness of productivity, but at the same time, continuing to bring respect into the workplace. So we will have workshops, we're going to have different that will people come in and work on different groups within the Department.
Thank you. I see Mr. Doyle sitting in the audience there who I think is absolutely excellent, and I know that my office torments him about additional street lighting, and all we ever hear is that there's no money in the budget for additional 1018 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 street lighting. Do we have money in this budget for additional street lighting? COMMISSIONER MOY: No, we do not, Council President Verna.
Why not, may I ask? COMMISSIONER MOY: Well, as part of the five-year plan, we have that kind of that fixed number of -- in terms our inventory of lights that are available. And as you know, we have a problem in terms of not just the Capital Budget, which would been the place to put in additional lighting, but --
I know that. COMMISSIONER MOY: But then we have a problem from the Operating standpoint in terms of a $15 million annual power bill. And so we do not have provision for any substantial additional lighting in either of our budgets, and it's not in the five-year plan. That's not to say that we couldn't talk with you about specific locations and try to work something out. But we have no large-scale 1019 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 supplemental street lighting program.
So are you telling me I shouldn't be fighting for monies for additional street lighting? That I should just simply sit down and talk to you and maybe we could work something out? Because, I will tell you, in some of the directs in my district, street lighting is very, very needed. And you talk about the expense of the electrical bills -- well, if it's not the electrical bills, we're going to be spending that money for additional police to be patrolling certain areas because of the vandalism and robberies that occur because there are not ample street lights. COMMISSIONER MOY: We'd be happy to sit down with you, you know, looking at limited locations --
Well, I just don't want to talk about it; I want something done about it. COMMISSIONER MOY: All right. We'll be glad to sit with you.
Commissioner, 1020 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 what are the improvements to the Hot-In-Place process that you plan to make in FY 2000? COMMISSIONER MOY: Okay, I believe that we had furnished a booklet to the Council there late last week which sort of outlined in detail the program and what our findings were. But for those folks who may not have had the time to look at it, what we did is, we ran a pilot last year for Hot-In-Place recycling in both --
Would you say that pilot was successful? COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes, in our view, it was. What we did was, we tried the Hot-In-Place recycling, which I believe you're generally familiar with, and found that where we could apply this technology, where we shouldn't apply it, we found that -- and we actually pushed the contractor to experiment in some situations that they didn't necessarily recommend, but we wanted to see what the limits were of the equipment. And we found that we are going to -- if 1021 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 we pursue this, we're going to try to do it on straight streets to eliminate the problems of some of those radii where you leave an unfinished wedge. We are going to address the problems of the manholes that -- in some places, there are manholes that are below grade. And we have some places where there was some coarse aggregate, which was actually the rough-looking surface. That was done on cool nights and it was also poor material that they used on the street itself to start with. We would avoid -- by coring, we would avoid using those kinds -- using this process on those kinds of streets. So they are some of the learnings that we got. We believe we can address the major problems that people may have seen. We think the benefits are extraordinary in terms of what the taxpayer gets by this program.
Commissioner, in looking at some of the photographs, it almost looks frightening to me. Did we have the Health Department do an environmental study? 1022 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes, we did, Councilwoman and, as a matter of fact --
Do you have a copy of that report? COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes.
I'd like to see it. COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes. In the back of the -- I'm not sure whether you got this packet, but it was delivered this to your office, I believe, last week. And in the back of the packet, there is a number --
Do you have extra copies of it? COMMISSIONER MOY: If you haven't gotten it, we'll see that get another a copy. But in the back of this, there is a --
Does everybody have a copy of it? Yeah, okay, I don't have it. COMMISSIONER MOY: There is a memorandum from John Domzalski from the Health 1023 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Department and then an accompanying memorandum from Morris Fine in the Health about the process. We have had contact with the vendor that we had last year, and I believe they are able to address some of the concerns that are raised by the Health Department.
What were the concerns of the Health Department, and how will they be addressed? COMMISSIONER MOY: They were concerned about the emissions that came as a result of this process -- I don't know whether you remember seeing it. There was a great deal of smoke which was steam, but there are -- there still are emissions. They are going to put on some type of scrubber to address the emissions. They are confident they can bring --
We're back to trash-to-steam, huh? We need scrubbers. COMMISSIONER MOY: That's right, that's right. I think it's similar to that process.
Oh, wonderful, that makes me feel even better about it. (Laughter.) 1024 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 COMMISSIONER MOY: In terms of the scrubber technology, I'm sorry. And we're confident that we can address that concern of the Health Department.
Aren't the scrubbers rather expensive? And who would pay for it, the contractor? COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes. The contractor has his own equipment.
Commissioner, how much did you say that the City has saved in last year's pilot program with Hot-In-Place? COMMISSIONER MOY: We saved $829,280. The unit cost savings we project in this coming year is in the ballpark of about percent if you 17 did a unit-cost savings. 18
Now, we lease 19 this equipment, is that how that's done? 20 COMMISSIONER MOY: No. We pay a 21 contractor for a product, which is essentially 22 come into town with their equipment and recycle 23 our streets. 24
Now, do they 25 take in their own employees? Or we also have 1025 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Street employees that work with them? COMMISSIONER MOY: There's a mix of employees there. There have certain folks that they bring with them -- this is sort of a high-tech -- part of the machine is a high- technology type of machine with computer equipment, and they have their people come in and handle that portion of it. They bring in -- for the conventional paving machine, they use the operators from the local here in town. And for the back of the machine, for the labor component, we have the City forces that handle more or less the conventional paving part of the equipment. So it's a three-part component of labor.
And how many employees do we have that work on this? COMMISSIONER MOY: We have seven City employees working on it.
All right, I don't want to dominate this. We'll have a go-around. The next Councilperson to be recognized 1026 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 is Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madame Chair. Good morning, Commissioner. We had a small discussion about this in the Capital Budget round. Are all of the alley lights that were scheduled to be installed -- I guess now we're back six, seven years or so, have they all been installed? Not replacement one-for-one, but in all the streets and driveways where there were old alley lights, have new ones been replaced? And are there any alleys left that need that done? COMMISSIONER MOY: All of our streets have been -- we've had the alley lights in all areas except for Center City. And there are about 100 street lights remaining in Center City. We expect that they'll be done this summer.
And what is the status of the maintenance contract to change the bulbs when they go out? I know there are longer light bulbs. And are we anticipating having the Streets Department, once the contractor's warranty is done -- or maintenance contract is done, 1027 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 continue on? COMMISSIONER MOY: I've got Mr. Doyle here, and he can address your questions, Councilman. (Joseph Doyle comes forward.)
Good morning. Identify yourself for the record, please.
I'm sorry. Joseph Doyle, Street Lighting Engineer. The question related to the alley lighting maintenance is best answered with, for the short term, we have our maintenance contractor doing an individual repair when a complaint comes in. We receive it, we turn it over to him, he responds within hours. 18 If he is not able to make the repair, 19 which is limited in a way similar to the 20 street-lighting type of repairs -- the lamp burned 21 out or something basic -- he can repair that. He 22 will do that immediately. Otherwise it's turned 23 back to City forces and we make the repair if the 24 fixture's been vandalized or something defective like that. 1028 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 In the longer term, when the new contract takes place in about a year, we will have a little bit more direct response from the maintenance contractor where the caller will call they directly and they will go out and make that service. So that in the short time, we have maintenance handled on a one-for-one basis; but in the longer term, they will all handled directed by the maintenance contractor.
All right, thank you. We had a special briefing that was set up by Councilman DiCicco, the Chairman of the Streets and Service Committee, the other day, and there was a question about recycling versus street cleaning and what available resources there were to do both or some in that regard. One of the things that came up, and I'd like an answer for the record now, is that the condition of the streets after trash collection sometimes is not as nice as we'd like it to be. And one of the things that I've recognized and have asked this question in the past is why there 1029 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 are no shovels or brooms on the rear of trash trucks as there were for as long as I can remember growing up my whole life in the city. Even when a trash bag breaks or a box splits, some -- many of our employees conscientiously try to get that stuff up in the truck. They're just --- they are scooping it up with hands. What is the difficulty in requiring brooms and shovels back on the trucks again? COMMISSIONER MOY: We have our Deputy Commissioner Clarena Tollson who can address that. (Clarena Tollson comes forward.)
My name is Clarena Tollson, the Deputy Streets Commissioner for Sanitation. The challenge with maintaining brooms on the truck has been keeping them there, to be quite honest. The trucks are not equipped such that there's a place to hide a broom or to put it out of way, and so they're exposed. The only ones that we've been able to maintain on the trucks are the broken brooms that we get on the route, to be quite honest. Those that we supply just don't last. 1030 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Okay. Maybe there's someone else there with some institutional memory of how we maintained them on the trucks, I guess, for four of the last ten years. I mean, they were also there. I can't believe that that kind of simple thing cannot be accomplished through management so that a broom and a shovel is available to a conscientious employee who has a spill and wants to pick it up. In the meantime, what we have is the reputation of the Streets Department is besmirched in the minds of neighbors who see a street dirtier sometimes than it was before the trash was picked up, and then complain, and in their own mindset, think that the Streets Department employees are not competent or not caring. And I don't think that's the case; I 1031 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 just don't think they have the tools to work with to keep the street clean as they go through to pick up the trash. And to me, that's a management issue of how we keep them on the truck or how we replace them. I think in the long run, it's better for our city and our streets and the attitude of our citizens if, in fact, they can do that and actually see them do that. So I mean, I would urge you just to -- I mean, the answer that you gave me I don't think is really adequate. You know, we can have trouble keeping them on there while --
You know, we have trouble doing a lot of things, so I mean, we should try to figure out a way to try to get it done.
I don't say it's an impossibility; it's just one of the challenges that we face, one of the challenges that we face, and we will go back and look at ways to maybe work with Fleet to see if we can rig something to the trucks to lock things in.
Okay. I just want 1032 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 to reiterate: it's an attitudinal issue when it comes to citizens. And I think Sanitation people unfairly get a reputation of being, you know, not hard workers or not caring. I don't think that's the case at all, but I do think that -- I get calls from people all the time on trash day that say, you know, These guys threw the bags around, things opened up, they're spilled all over, the street's a mess, we got to go out and clean it up. And I've seen myself Sanitation workers who are trying to, you know, with their hands, scoop up trash and put it in the truck, and I think that for a simple piece of equipment like a broom and a shovel, it doesn't seem to be a very complicated issue.
Okay. COMMISSIONER MOY: We'll try and work on that. Try to work on that, Councilman.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madame 1033 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Chair. Actually, that issue was not on my list but I'm glad the Councilman raised it. Miss Tollson, when you say that you have trouble keeping equipment on the truck, are you talking about a physical location for it because the trucks are not built to have this kind of extra equipment stored on the truck? Or are you talking about sending the trucks out with a shovel and a broom, and somewhere in the course of the day, the shovel and broom don't come back with the truck? Which is the problem?
The location where the broom and shovel would go are in a box underneath the compactor itself.
And it's exposed during the course of a day. We actually tried it for a little while; we issued brooms every day, and we were replacing them quite often.
People take them home? Do they fall off the truck? 1034 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Yes. There's a lot of theft on the street. There's a lot of theft on the street.
Right. And so at the end of the day, they come back and what do they say, "I lost my broom"?
We tried to monitor it to see if the same people were losing the brooms all the time. There were certain routes where it was somewhat prevalent, that we just couldn't keep brooms on the trucks. And the only ones we were able to keep was when we issued a broken broom or a broom that was found on the route. That was never taken; people wouldn't take those.
It's like people don't steal the beat-up trash cans; they just take 1035 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 the new ones.
Actually, I wasn't talking about your folks; I'm talking about when citizens leave them out on the streets.
Oh, okay, all right. The old beat-up trash cans always seem to stay in front of your house; it's just the new ones that get lost. All right, you said you're going to check into that.
All right. I would like to return, though, to an issue that was raised by Councilwoman Verna, which is the street lighting budget -- or lack thereof. Commissioner, was your testimony that when a request is made, the Councilmember or the citizen calls, they have a street-lighting request, they need more light on X-Y-Z Street, your testimony is that you really don't have any 1036 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 dollars specifically set aside to increase street lighting. You may have some dollars, I guess, to deal with replacement or maintenance of ongoing sites, but you really don't have any extra money to deal with -- let's say there are six poles on a block, three of them have lights on them, but citizens have complained that there's kind of a dead spot or a very dark spot. And the solution would be putting a light on one of those three empty poles. You're saying you don't have money for that? COMMISSIONER MOY: In our program, we have essentially addressed -- that's essentially correct. We have addressed in the group replacement program, as you know, trying to get better lighting on those other three poles, which gives you better distribution, but we don't have specific funding to fill the three gaps that you've described.
Well, oftentimes, people are not even looking to fill the three. I mean, they might be looking for one, you know, maybe two. 1037 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 I mean, is it the history of the Department that you just never had money set aside to try to deal with kind of, quote/unquote, extra lighting requests?
That's not the history. COMMISSIONER MOY: Yeah, that's pretty much my impression. I don't think we've ever had any real --
No, it's not, Commissioner. I remember us having street lighting appropriations in the budget.
Good morning, Councilman. Joe Doyle, City Street Lighting engineer. Correct. In of the past, historically, there were line items in the Capital Budget for additional street lighting. In the early '90s and particularly in '90, '91, because of the financial crisis, that money was dropped out.
And shortly thereafter, we instituted a replacement program where we did bring capital funds back into our budget. They 1038 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 were focused directly on the replacement program taking the obsolete lighting that we had in service out.
Well, let's talk about pre-'90s. I mean, was the Department in a particular -- for lack of better terms -- were you in, you know, a light-up mode or project? Was there an additional lighting project going on citywide where you were actively out trying to put more lights in different places? Or was it just a response to complains?
Well, I wasn't here in the early '80s as a street lighting engineer, but my knowledge of it is that it was basically a complaint-oriented system, that there was money put into the budget that those locations were requested, either through private individuals or through Council, were investigated, and that they were installed based on a complaint-only basis. There was not comprehensive plan, but that's how it was handled.
I understand. Last question while the beeper is beeping. What is your recollection of what the 1039 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 size of that line item was? I mean, was it small, was it medium, was it massive? I mean, do you have any numbers or recollection off the top of your head?
Councilwoman, it depends on the street light itself. If you're installing a new street light on an existing PECO utility pole, the cost is in the range of about $250 installation cost. Maintenance has to be added to that. The cost of a street light that requires its own pole and a new utility services is in the range of at least 1,000 to $2,000, depending on the location and some of the. 1040 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Construction details. So there's a wide disparity of the cost, depending on the cost of exactly what it's mounted on and where the utility service is coming from.
All right. It's interesting that you mentioned PECO. You know, this PECO Energy calculator really comes in hand from time to time. So if it's $100,000, at 250 a light, that gets you 400 lights a year. That's just on a pole that --
Right. Well, pretty much all the poles out there are pretty much PECO poles, aren't they? Or does Bell Atlantic have poles out there?
Of the wood utility poles, the vast majority of them are PECO, yes. 1041 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
But there's many of areas of the city that do not have aerial services in terms of PECO's definition of where existing poles exist. There are many neighborhoods that -- for example, Eastwick -- that have underground services that were built in the last or 10 years, and a new standard was applied where all of 11 the utilities are underground. And so, for 12 example, if a resident in Eastwick requests an 13 additional light, it's a different situation than 14 one where there's a utility pole in, say, South 15 Philadelphia. 16
Hmm, okay. I mean, 17 would you at least explore -- I mean, you're going 18 to continue, I guess, to get hit with this. Would 19 you continue to explore the prospect of the return 20 of that kind of line item? Especially, if you're talking about like $100,000? Those were capital dollars?
I'd have to check on that to verify that over the years. I'm --
I don't want to promise that was the number and then be incorrect.
And if the cost is what you say it is, I mean, how much more could we be paying for the power?
Well, over a five-year period, each new street light would cost about $1,000, even if it's mounted on a utility pole. The average maintenance and energy cost is about $150 per light per year. And so working the numbers out for a $250 installation and 150 for 1043 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 the five years, it's about $1,000 per light over the five-year period.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madame Chair. Commissioner, I want to try to stick to addressing resurfacing. The list for the different highway districts that we have, I have most of my district in the 6th and a little bit in the 5th. Is there a breakdown on how much of that resurfacing is City crews only and how much is private crews only and how much is the mixture of crews with the hybrid with the HIP resurfacing? Do we have that breakdown? COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes. I believe we gave you a general idea of the listing in response to a question on the capital. We can identify from within that -- the districts, and we can also identify I think for you further the breakdowns 1044 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 that we had expected for HIP and contract.
The reason I mention it is there's maybe six or seven cul-de-sacs that are mentioned on the 6th Highway District. And a few years ago, I was out with some people from your department, looking at a fairly bad City job, but it was done right before the 4th of July and it was on a pretty tough cul-de-sac with an island in the middle. And I thought we had agreement that that stuff should go out private, that streets that aren't straight shots that have very difficult manual work to get done should be done privately. So I just want to check on that. I don't have to go through that today, but that was my understanding. Secondly, with the HIP, you've shown some Xeroxed color photos that are a little on the dark side, but I'll agree they don't look bad in your I'm sure best-case scenario. I don't know if you're familiar with what I'd have to kindly call "the worse-case scenario," but I have a competing set of photos -- and you have it with you -- that are pretty ugly and scary and border on just unbelievable. I won't even go through each one -- 1045 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 just one gets worse than the other, as far as I'm concerned. So I just have a few questions about HIP, maybe to follow up on what the Council President was asking. In your costs -- and I can see why this would be cheaper. If this costs as much as what we get done normally, I'd be really upset. But in terms of putting your costs together, I'm told that there are -- these are, I'm sure, Center City locations where there's traffic problems, as opposed to some areas where there might not be serious traffic problems. But I'm told that HIP was working 7 to 7, whereas private contractors get told they can't start till about 9:30 and they've got to be off by 3. Secondly, I've been told that there are seven City inspectors added to the crews directing traffic, and that there are seven police officers also. Do we have the cost differentials factored in for 7 to 7 versus 9: 30 to 3 for seven City inspectors added to a job just to direct traffic, where the private concerns have to hire 1046 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 people to do that? And are we charging ourselves for the police time the way we charge the private contractors? COMMISSIONER MOY: We actually work, I believe, to 9 in terms of the downtown. And we 7 have -- the unit costs are folded into the 8 contractor's bid. I don't think the police -- the 9 inspector costs are added in, but I don't think the police costs are generally added in to that.
Okay. I think the police costs are fairly substantial. But it's also a substantial cost differential if I got to get the street at 3:30 and you're comparing your costs to mine and you can go till 9. COMMISSIONER MOY: Yeah. Just a piece on the HIP. If we were to do that again in Center City, our preference and the contractor's preference would be to do it in the evening, as we do conventional resurfacing. We would do that again in the evenings in the summer. This particular summer, it was late in the fall in this case, and we did not want to do it because it was cool weather at night.
Streets that are 1047 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 up in the worse-case scenario book that you have in front of you, with pretty good photographs and some measurements and things that are fairly telling, there's a lot of maintenance follow-up that's going to have to be done on these streets. I mean, we can't overlook the future costs of what you're going to have do to these streets that you wouldn't have to do if they were done in a normal fashion and done very well in a normal fashion. Has that been factored into your costs? Because, clearly, that's not acceptable, and somebody's going to have to go back from the Department or from outside and do it over, and that's not acceptable. I can go through each one. Has that been factored in to the cost? COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes. I think what you have to do is put this in context as far as we're concerned.
I'm trying to. COMMISSIONER MOY: No, no. What we're saying is --
I say your best-case streets. COMMISSIONER MOY: Well, what we're 1048 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 saying is that there are basically ten locations in here that are problem locations. The contractor's required to repair those at his costs, quite number of these bad situations that you'll see in this book. So the City is not paying for them. And in the certain case of coarse aggregate, he's going to do that over, and I think he understands that. So that should not be additional maintenance costs to the City. So we have addressed the ten what is -- the locations, as a matter of fact, are a very small percentage of the number of streets that we did throughout the city and is probably less than 1 percent or something like that of the work. I think the manholes is less than 5 percent.
Isn't there a problem with this machinery and equipment doing intersections? COMMISSIONER MOY: The problem -- if you're referring to the radii and what we would call the "pies" that are at the intersections, it occurs when we have HIP done on both streets. And because it's such a large train, it proceeds down and doesn't make the turn at the intersections 1049 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 very well. A couple things on that. One, in terms of our subsequent work, we are trying to reduce that -- the number of those situations where we have intersecting. We're trying to use the HIP on the one long street, we're kind of focussing on that in terms of future program. And if -- however, if we had to do the radii, we do have a method to do it, and I think there's a photograph of some that we've done in retrofitting, so to speak. And it does come out reasonably attractive and comes out at about 11 cents a square yard additional cost. So it's not a significant cost.
Not at the present time, but they've come in to look at the process, and they are quite interested, as is the federal government. The federal government has used it out in the West, some of their people have been very sympathetic to introducing it in the area.
Now, the Hot-In-Place, how do you capture all of the 1050 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 particles, or whatever you call the environmental pollution that comes out of this process? I mean, I've seen some photos where we can't even see the trucks or the equipment because there's so much smoke and whatever coming off the street. It seems to me you could put equipment on a truck, put scrubbers on but I don't know how you capture all of that? Is there some way of getting all that in where people won't see it until it's way up in the air somewhere? COMMISSIONER MOY: I'm not sure that people won't see it. As I understand it, and we probably need a Health Department --
I mean see it off the ground-level, meaning it won't be in the scrubber. COMMISSIONER MOY: Right, right.
They'll be seeing it because it missed the scrubber; that's what I meant by that. COMMISSIONER MOY: But I think we need a Health Department expert probably to have this conversation with you, but what we hear is that a good deal of what you see is steam, which is a 1051 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 function of the amount of moisture in the asphalt itself. And we've had rainy days or rain preceding our process, and you will develop more, quote, smoke, which is actually more steam, and it is not, as we understand it, a deleterious effect. So we're able to address that with the new machinery that they're coming in with.
How did the windows get blown out of the store on 18th, 19th, 20th Street, somewhere? It's one of the stores around Chestnut or Walnut.
Good morning, Councilman. My name's Kevin Koch. I'm the Chief Highway Engineer. My understanding is that with all the safety features that are built into their equipment, a pressure-release valve on a propane feed from the system actually froze, pressure built up, and it released -- as it's designed to release. It happened in front of a deli window, and the window had to be replaced. That's my understanding.
It blew out a window is what I heard. 1052 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
No, that was the first time it's ever happened to them in the history of this equipment.
But I mean it's a normal part -- if it's a pressure-relief valve and it released, that's part of the -- of.
Yes, yes. The safety devices are designed to release that pressure.
This is off of Hot-In-Place, this is milling. Milling contracts go out to the private sector. Oftentimes the private sector is not the paving party; it's us or Hot-In-Place. I've had up to ten weeks' wait for that. It used two weeks at the most. You'd be able to tell people, Don't worry, it's a good sign of getting your street repaved. Ten weeks is just cruel to people, and it's been happening more and more. And I understand that the -- that the private sector 1053 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 isn't doing the streets faster than we ask them to. We're paving them slower than we planned to, and that's a management problem. And could you address it? 'Cause it's totally unsatisfactory. COMMISSIONER MOY: Councilman, we agree with you that ten weeks is far too long in terms of the interval between milling and resurfacing. As an aside, first of all, HIP does not have milling, and that's -- one of the features of HIP is that you have no delay, you have no period for risk in terms of manhole covers or other things between milling and resurfacing. But coming back to the control and the management piece of City forces following milling, we had two years ago or a year and a half ago, I know we had experienced some problems -- particularly over the winter, where some streets had been milled and they were left too long in a milled condition as we got into cold weather. I believe we have addressed that. We included in -- our goal is a three- to five-week window, which, we believe, is a more optimal period to get in there to make the 1054 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 adjustments to the boxes, cut the adjustments on intersecting streets, and get in to resurface. So, yeah, we're going to continue to address that and pull down the time down as much as we can to --
Well, I would hope you could shoot for two weeks rather than three to five weeks. I think with three to five, you're giving yourself too much room there. COMMISSIONER MOY: Well, we will continually try to pull it down. And if we can get it in two weeks, we will.
And, finally, I'm so unimpressed with HIP and I may -- you know, I have an open mind and I've seen the good jobs, although the pictures aren't quite as clear. I'm going to ask you, and in fact I'm going to insist on it. I'd rather not see paving in my district until I see that this kind of stuff isn't just not percent or percent or whatever, but that it's nonexistent. I can't afford one job like this -- to see it afterwards and have to face citizens who expect so much more than this. And we have private contractors that 1055 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 compete with our crews. These are not stupid people. There's a company that has to come down from Canada with all of this equipment. Our people know about the equipment, the people that we normally contract with. And they like making money. And if you can make money bringing the equipment down from Canada, putting people on that aren't you're own employees that you don't supervise every day, I believe that if it were a long-term solution, our people would already be in there because there's a profit motive, and there's nothing like that to drive 'em. And so I would ask that until I see something that resembles more this and what I normally see as a street resurfacing, I don't want HIP in my district. And if that means not having streets resurfaced that would ordinarily resurfaced, I'll take that responsibility with the people on that block, and I'll go door to door and explain to every one of them why. Because I don't think you experiment and say this is a terrific program when this is the result of it. And I don't care how you try to move the numbers around or move they're coming 1056 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 back into repair. I see it so far substandard to what I think an average person expects let alone somebody who's in the business, that it's not acceptable. COMMISSIONER MOY: Just let me respond this way. When you said "long-term," that's exactly what we think we're trying to do here. Bringing new technology in, we believe that we've got a couple things driving us. The asphalt costs have been going up in an uncontrolled manner, as far as we're concerned, which is making it harder for us to continue our level of commitment of resurfacing. So we took and we looked at the technology. This happens to be one of them. There are other techniques that use less asphalt, go into life-extenders, which allows us to do more. We can address the backlog, and this has helped us address the backlog. I understand your concerns, and I really would like to meet with you a little bit more to talk about some of the concerns that you have.
But I just want 1057 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 you to know that I'm unequivocal at this point. I mean, I may equivocate, actually support the program later, but right now, I don't want this in my district. What I'd be doing is saying, We're going to spend another certain amount of money, and we're just going to call it "pilot money," "Pilot II," whatever you want, but we're going to have to go back and do these streets over again, and let's see what these streets look like a second time. Because to me, I'd want these streets redone if they were in my district. I wouldn't just want somebody out there patching them up if this was a resurfacing job -- particularly where there's still holes where there's 1-1/4 inches of material. And I don't want to get into -- as long as we have an understanding, and I understand what you're trying to accomplish; I just disagree with some of the things that happened.
And I just don't 1058 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 want to be paying for it knowing what I know now.
Commissioner, would you say that the majority of the streets that were done under this year's pilot program were in Center City? COMMISSIONER MOY: Madame Chairman, no. I think the bulk of the work was done in the lower Northeast and in the Oak Lane area. I think there was about five-sevenths of the program was done up there. It was about 180,000 square yards done in Center City.
Thank you, Madame Chair. Good morning, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MOY: Good morning.
I just want to follow up on the issue that was raised by Councilman Kenney as it relates to follow-up cleaning when the -- on trash collection day. How does the process work? Crews are sent out to pick up trash in a particular area of a highway district or whatever. What happens? Is 1059 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 there anyone who follows up after the trash is picked up to see if the route, the area had been completed, the trash has been picked up properly, and if there's any debris left behind? COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes, Councilman, we do have supervisory staff that follows through, but let me ask Deputy Commissioner Tollson to address it.
There are labor crew chiefs who presently follow the trash routes to determine whether or not the trash has been collected. Unfortunately, as we progress, we've gotten into vehicles now. They used to walk the routes. Before where they walked, they covered a much smaller area, but they could see the street as they were walking through to determine the trash collections. Now they drive their entire area. The downside of that, obviously, is that they do not see individual sidewalks as clearly as when they were walking.
Is there a way that the brooms, the shovels that we were speaking 1060 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 about earlier could be left to the responsibility of the supervisor in his or her performing the inspection of the area to find out those areas where trash may have fallen off the truck or the bag broke, to do some follow-up? Maybe not for the supervisor to do the actual picking up but to get someone from the other crew or one of the crews that are going to be in the general vicinity where the trash was left on the street to pick up, and let it be their responsible as opposed to the crew members on the individual trash trucks.
Actually, we did just that when we were challenged with maintaining the brooms on the trucks. We then got brooms and shovels for all the supervisors so that they could carry them in their vehicles. Some cleaned the material up themselves when they noticed it, of if they get a complaint when they're out there. And some will also call the crew back to have the crews clean to try to encourage them as to be as clean as possible the first time through. Through both of those methods, I think there still is a challenge with regard to 1061 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 identifying the exact locations. Because as I said, the supervisors are driving through versus walking a block. And if there's parked cars, they don't see around that. In all cases, citizens can call into our department, and when we get those calls, the supervisor will go out, identify the material, the debris that's left on the street, and then have it cleaned, or clean it themselves.
An experience I had a month or two ago in my neighborhood where we had some bulk trash, there was some refrigerators and hot-water heaters that were out. And we called from my office 'cause I actually called it into my office one day, the day before the regular trash pickup, to notify Sanitation that we had bulk trash out. Well, it wasn't picked up that week, and actually, I don't think it was even picked up the following week. And questioned why, and I was told that the supervisor from that area was either out on vacation or out sick. Would that necessitate a problem like that? Isn't there someone, an assistant 1062 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 supervisor or someone who would do a follow-up to the bulk trash in the event that the supervisor is not in?
Right. The person there had difficulty answering your question because the supervisor wasn't there; however, that has nothing to do with the service. The challenge with regard to bulk collection and service that we've had for the last three to four months is that the metals market has declined greatly. Previously, the City had the luxury of scavengers who would pick up probably half, if not more, of the bulk material in the street -- the heaters, the refrigerators, and the stoves. Since probably November or October, that has all been dried up. So now those materials are left to the City to collect with limited additional -- with no additional resources to service that, which has caused extreme delays on our bulk collections; where before, I think we had improved our services to the point where we were getting our bulk materials within the week, within the five business days. 1063 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 We're now experiencing much longer delays in picking up those same materials.
And my other question concerning bulk trash is: Wouldn't it be more efficient if we picked up bulk trash on the same day that regular track was picked up? And one of the reasons is that people still don't understand that if you have a refrigerator and you want it to get picked up by the Sanitation Department, you need to call a day prior to the regular pickup day. Again, I think it kind of becomes very unuser-friendly. It's kind of like the recycling -- what day do I put it out? Has there been any thought or discussion given to the possibility of picking up bulk trash on the same day?
We've looked at the issues of scheduling our bulk collections. Quite frankly, the challenge here is that in a district, there may only be one bulk truck to service an area that has 30 trash trucks. And as you can see, trying to cover that entire area, both driving it and servicing it with the pickups, it's not possible, which is the reason why it has been 1064 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 taken us up to five business days to service our calls or requests for bulk collection. Now, with the onslaught of bulk, it is much worse. But we had even entertained the notion of maybe scheduling bulk collection days such that people knew in advance that these were the days that we collect bulk in your area, and they didn't put it out any other day other than that. However, as we kind of tossed that idea to various people, the notion of citizens having a choice about when to put it out seems to be the preferred angle to take it on-demand versus on schedule.
It doesn't make it right, but people, for some reason, over the last decade or so have had this problem of keeping trash in their yard up until trash day, no less keeping some bulk trash around for an extra week.
So, you know, unfortunately, we're left with the burden -- we, the City, are left with the burden of removing this stuff, so I'm trying to figure out ways that might make it a little bit more user-friend. 1065 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
And, again, I just thought if we could do everything on the same day, people don't have to remember what day it is, other than, It's trash day, put everything out.
Right. In times past, and not so long ago, it used to be that refrigerators and tires and water heaters went in the trash truck.
No, I understand the separation issue, I understand that.
But since that separation, though, we've not had additional vehicles to put out additional bulk trucks. There's more materials, and that's a problem.
I just want to jump back to the lighting issue. I may have missed some of this. There was some discussion, I think, last year that citywide, we were looking to replace many of the light fixtures, if not all of the light fixtures. And I think Councilman Nutter may have raised a question -- or Council President Verna raised a question about getting new lights 1066 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 -- additional lighting in. And you talked about the cost involved. The new light fixtures and/or the new luminaries that we're talking about replacing are more energy-efficient. That to me says that it would bring the cost of electrification down. Could not that savings on the cost of the electric bill compensate for additional lighting where needed?
Joseph Doyle, Street Lighting Engineer. Councilman, while there are energy savings in the kilowatt-hour range, there are not big energy savings in the dollar range. The reason is that our structure -- our rate structure with PECO is highly skewed toward a service point location and not an energy usage. For example, your home energy bill has a relatively low monthly flat service charge, plus your energy. Ours -- to use that comparison -- is a very high monthly charge and a relatively low energy charge and has become even lower with some deregulation and competition in that area. So that, honestly, the energy savings 1067 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 are not a significant portion that we could then roll into another program and make use of.
And the first part of my question, where are we with the replacement of existing fixtures with the newer fixtures? And was I correct that it was a suicide project?
Yes. Citywide, it's on the order of about 60 to 70 percent completed. And geographically, we were proceeding from basically Southwest to Northeast, Northwest. So the remaining areas of the city are the far Northeast and a portion of the Northwest. The rest of the city is in the neighborhoods has been completed.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madame Chair. My question is to Mr. Doyle, the Street Lighting Engineer. I just want to follow up on something he just said before I get to my questions. 1068 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 If we're not recognizing any savings as a result of this project to install energy- efficient luminaries, what motivated you to do this?
Councilman, the equipment is -- some of it is 30 years and has old long past reached its useful life. If we did not replace it in a group, we'd have to be doing it on a one-for-one, and individual repair constituents would have lights out maybe for weeks at a time. And we actually experienced that in the early '90s when I first came to street lighting, and I felt that that was not a program that was at all customer-friendly or residentially appreciated.
Maybe I didn't make my question clear. You transitioned from a particular light to an energy-more-efficient light. Why wouldn't we go to PECO Energy and try to renegotiate that deal down, based on the fact that we're consuming less energy? I don't understand why we would move in a direction of being energy-efficient when we're not receiving any benefits from going that direction. 1069 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Well, Councilman, I can't address the issue about our rate structure with PECO; that's been controlled by the PUC. And, frankly, the City's been through that route before. But the fact that we're using more energy-efficient, I think, is not the goal of the program per se; it's one of the benefits of it. The goal of the program was to replace obsolete fixtures before they failed so that we would not have large outages for --
But that part of that process, if we're using a significant -- if we're using less energy, why should we be paying for energy that we're not using? I can't imagine in this process that we didn't go to PECO or ask the PUC to adjust the rate. If we're using X-number of kilowatt hours prior to this change, and we're still paying the same amount, something's wrong there if you have a more energy-efficient fixture.
I'm sorry, Councilman, maybe I wasn't clear on that. When I was saying the rate, the cents per kilowatt hour is 1070 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 relatively low. Our kilowatt usage has dropped and our bill has dropped. But because we pay a relatively low kilowatt hour rate, even though we've dropped significantly in our number of kill-watt hours, the net savings are not as dramatic as what they would be.
I got the impression that you went to an energy-efficient product and didn't realize any savings by doing that.
The City's street-lighting electric bill is less today than it was at some other time because of the program to go to energy-efficient fixtures.
Thank you. Commissioner Moy, going back to the schedule of time that it takes to get a street milled and paved, you indicated that this new process would make that interval less time. COMMISSIONER MOY: Within hours. Actually, there's no interval. The process, 1071 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Councilman, is Hot-In-Place so that you really have no milling that precedes it.
Okay. Now, I can't understand why a well-managed program can't schedule milling using the old process and schedule repaving, why it takes ten weeks, why we can't do a better job. And I think we had this conversation last year, after numerous calls from people not being able to park their cars because they're not sure when the repaving crews are going to show up week after week after week. That can't be managed better, to make that happen one week and start to pave the street the following week? What is the scheduling or management problem that you have doing this more efficiently? COMMISSIONER MOY: Well, as I said to Councilman O'Neill, first of all, ten weeks is not acceptable, and I don't think we had many ten-week intervals last year; we've been working on that process. The question of whether you bring it down from three to five or whether you bring it down to one is a function of cost. And it's 1072 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 clustering and what the economics are of trying to address your resurfacing immediately following your milling. There's a -- on the milling and on box setting and on street adjustments, the contractor has to get in and do this in an efficient way. And in the same way, the resurfacing is done with crews that are focused in areas in clusters. We are going to try to do what Councilman O'Neill suggested and bring it down to less than the three weeks. I agree that it's a goal that we want to meet.
My last question is: What is the problem when we put a curb cut in to make an intersection handicapped-accessible? That after it rains, there's standing water at the bottom of that cut for days and days and days, where people having a conversation walk down the curb and they walk into two inches of water that's been standing there for sometimes a week. Why can't our engineers and the people installing these wheelchair ramps, these curb cuts do a better job of grading them so that we eliminate -- I mean, when you walk through Center 1073 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 City, it's just incredible the number of puddles that are there, and you don't expect a puddle 'cause it hadn't rained in three days for people just to have to walk through these conditions. What's the problem with putting one of these wheelchair curb cuts in and eliminate that problem? COMMISSIONER MOY: I think it's a question of having some fine grading that you've got to be very careful with when you get into flat locations, particularly around the radius of your streets. If we've got specific locations, we should be trying to trying to eliminate those puddles, though.
Well, I've reported areas around the Convention Center that were brought to my attention by some visitors, and nothing was ever done about those locations 'cause I -- I'll give you them again. COMMISSIONER MOY: Be glad to look at them.
But it's a shame to have to go back -- COMMISSIONER MOY: I agree. 1074 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
-- and spend money and fix them. Why can't they be installed properly the first time? COMMISSIONER MOY: I agree that we need to look at that process.
That is a major complaint that I also receive, and I know Mr. McPherson was saying that even in his area, it's a real problem. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madame Chair. I just want to follow up on the curb-cut issue. I've seen some curb cuts where there's a sewage, whatever, underneath it, and I know the contractor knows it -- you can just look at it and see they closed the whole thing up. So the water won't go down into the sewage system; it just stays there, it just stays there. And I guess I agree with Councilman 1075 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Rizzo that to me, that's the type of problem that could be eliminated. I don't know who the contractors are that's doing it, but they just don't care, they just close the things up in my district. And one happens to be on my block. We've been calling on that one for quite some time too. Ever since it happened, we call. COMMISSIONER MOY: If you'll let me have that again, I'll --
Okay, I'll give it to you later. I was wondering if the sweep officers are enforcing the piece of legislation that Councilman DiCicco introduced requiring businesses to have trash cans out in front of their stores, particularly in the commercial corridors.
We're reviewing our regulations right now so that we can make solid locations where the baskets have to go outside of the restaurants and establishments.
Okay. Because, you know, it gets real messy, and I'll give you an example? At Broad and Erie, with all those 1076 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 various bus stops and all those places, Dunkin' Donuts, this restaurant, that restaurant. And as a result, one of the sidewalks in particular is a real problem. And I know I've been working with you on that, but we also need to probably put more trash cans out there 'cause someone took the trash can, and I know that's not your problem. But the other thing they said is that one of the trash cans was placed on a pole that when a bus turned the corner, it was knocking it down. So SEPTA or a business person removed that. But I just wanted to know if that's something that you continuously look at rather than wait for a complaint. Is there a backlog on pole and street-sign replacement or placement? You know, the pole that holds the stop sign, the pole that holds the actual street sign? And the reason I ask is 'cause it seems like it takes a long time to get a actual street sign replaced. COMMISSIONER MOY: Let me have Charles Trainor, who's our Acting Chief Traffic Engineer address our sign program for you. (Charles Trainor comes forward.) 1077 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Councilwoman, yes, there is a backlog of street-name signs. We are placing them where we can on existing poles. They do go faster than a new-pole installation. We're placing approximately 100 intersections a week now.
Okay. So we need to call you with intersections and just give you a total list. 'Cause I notice when I'm traveling the city and traveling my district to go to certain events and meetings, if the street sign's not there, really, you just don't know where you are. I mean, you know, it's in my own neighborhood or a neighborhood that I'm very familiar with. So it is rather important, I believe, that people need to have adequate street signage.
Either way, Councilwoman, if you want to call our office or send us a list, we'll address 'em.
Okay. And I just wanted to talk a little bit about tires and the bulk-trash issue. I think years ago, the bulk-trash truck 1078 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 did routinely come around on your trash collection day; that was years and years ago. I could understand if it's more cost-efficient now that people call and what not. What about tires? Is that the same system? And does it take five to six days to get tires picked up? And people kind of think that you can put one tire out with your trash, and it will get picked up, but I found that not to be true. So even if it's one tire, people need to call the Department or what?
Yes. The way our regulations are written right now, households are allowed to set out up to two tires, and it says on trash day. However --
In the last -- I can't remember how many years ago that it was, the State law changed to say that we could not take tires with the trash, so they are left behind. So, you know, even if people put them out on trash day, we can't take them with the trash truck. 1079 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 So for tires as well as metal products and appliances, we're required to take those separately on the bulk truck. And we don't use the bulk truck for tires; we take a compactor, and we're using one separate compactor and putting that on the street just to get tires.
Would it be easy if the driver of the truck could write down the fact that he saw tires on X, Y, and Z block while he was waiting for the other two people to put the trash in the truck?
Well, they're not just waiting when they're driving the truck, so I would not want to depend on that system for them to identify and write down the activity of, you know, what's left on the street. We do have our supervisors identifying it, but I think the one that is most effective is when the citizen just calls in and says, I have a refrigerator that needs to be picked up, or I have tires in my house, or there's tires on the corner, or whatever it may be. Unfortunately, there are a lot of vendors and garages that don't do the right thing 1080 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 with tires, and they're placing them out as well. That causes an additional burden with our system because we get those tires in addition to what's in the household.
All right thank you, Madame Chair. And I will follow up with the information on street signs.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madame Chair. The recurring theme in this entire set of questioning has been paying attention to details that create refuse on the streets, which creates in the minds of people who live here a terrible attitude about their neighborhood and about maybe even the future of the city. It is a dirt, dirty city, and we are a wasteful society. So not the Street Department's fault in toto that we have a dirty city; it is people's attitudes about the way dispose of their trash, the way they haphazardly throw things into the street, the way that they change a tire and 1081 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 leave it on the fire hydrant, the way that they have basically looked at the city as a trash dump. And I've seen people in suits and ties throw their trash at the bus stop, little kids with their parents throw their trash in the street, people dump trash onto the highway, everywhere. And the issue for me is, we should be as fastidious and as angry about what those goes on in that regard as we do in drug-dealing on the corner and anything else that's a problem in the city. Why are we not expanding our enforcement division and writing tickets for all of this stuff? For example, we had this discussion the other day at the briefing, but it wasn't on the record at that time and I want it on the record now. People who own multifamily dwellings, who rent them out and actually run businesses -- when you have three, four, five apartments in a building, it is a business. Those people, many of them, put their trash out the hour after the trash truck leaves for its collection day, and that 1082 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 trash accumulates, people from the neighborhood then think it's the place to dump more trash. Then scavengers come through rodents, animals -- I mean, it is an absolute unbelievable, depressing eyesore. Why are we not out there with Street enforcement people writing up ticket every single minute to get people's -- 'cause you can't -- education stuff is great, and we send out these little brochures and we have people knocking on doors, and we do -- the only thing people really understand is when you hammer them with something like a ticket or tow their car. I mean, we had people running around without auto insurance. Finally, after years, we started taking their cars, 'cause no one thought we were serious. I honestly believe that if we don't put the brooms back on the trucks and have management force our employees or encourage our employees to clean up after themselves, if we don't write tickets to multifamily dwellings that are throwing their trash out every day, if we don't come down on tire companies and all the other people who are people trashing the city, the attitude of people 1083 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 will never change, that this street, this city could be a clean, decent place to live. And I would encourage you, and if you want to comment, please. We had this discussion with Deputy Commissioner Tollson about the ability for us to collect these fines that we write up. I talked with Judge Cermelli over at BAA, and he says he wouldn't have any problem collecting these; he as collect them as we collect any citation that is written. I think we've got to get serious on coming down hard on these people who think that the city's streets and its neighborhoods are trash dumps. And that's, I think, with the exception of the Hot-In-Place discussion, everything else has centered around dirty streets and dirty people and how we change their behavior, enforce a change in their behavior to get a handle on the streets and the condition of our neighborhoods.
I think you're absolutely right. Two things there. One, we have the pilot programs that we propose that will be a partnership with citizens to have the city doing 1084 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 something as well as the citizens doing something with regard to making our neighborhoods cleaner. And with that goes an education and enforcement program, lots of education to help people to understand what we're going to be doing differently. I think that once you also address the regulations issue, which are outdated, that will also address the point that you made with regard to the large establishments, the large buildings that have multiple units and that are really past what we had envisioned as our residential household collection program that we want to do. Our regulations were written back in the time where people were using -- were getting back to the time where people using ashes out of their houses from their furnaces. And the number of units that were allowed to collect it were the number of units that could be serviced by an old coal-burning heater. That's changed, and now is a time for us to change how we do our business, and we are addressing it right now.
One of those areas that are particularly frustrating for me is after 1085 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 we closed down the transfer stations and we went to a privatized trash disposal waste -- trash transfer stations, the habit of good-minded people taking their bulk trash, their tires, their construction debris, the cleaning-out of their cellar, anything anyone they do on a Friday or Saturday or weekend, there is really either no 9 place to take it or not a publicized place that people know to take this stuff somewhere. And again, the problem is that even the conscientious person who has their station wagon or sport utility vehicle stuffed with refuse to take somewhere goes to Seventh and Pattison in South Philadelphia, for example, and finds that they can't leave it there and winds up potentially dumping it on the street where our people go back out and pick it up like idiots and take it to the place where -- why can't we have well-publicized available places for people to take their household trash that they want to clean out of their house on the weekend and take it to a reasonable place where they can dispose of it. I mean, every other community that I know of and down the Jersey shore or in the 1086 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 suburbs have these places for people to go. They know where to go, they may even have to pay a small fee to get rid of it. But having bulk trash out on the street really is our fault because we don't give people anyplace to take it.
We'll do a better job of publicizing the citizen drop-off locations. There's also private transfer stations that will have a fee by the pound to accept some debris. But we'll do a better job of publicizing ours and the privates.
The problem with ours, though, is the only thing that you can there is basically trash bags. I mean, what do you do with the big stuff? When you have a major cleaning up in your house or renovations work that you've done, you have plaster, debris, pieces of Sheetrock that you put in boxes, you set out on the curb, it rains, the boxes begin to disintegrate, it winds up all over the street again. Why can't I as an individual -- not me because I could never do any work like that in house anyway, I'm not skilled at that, I'd have to to get somebody do it. 1087 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 But why can't a person who wants to improve their property have a place to take that debris the day after or two days after they're done working? Why can't they take that to our drop-off points.
Quite frankly, I think that we'd probably be inviting more business than we would normally get if we were collecting even at curbside. We have lots of small private contractors who we now have to turn away from our facilities who try to access them all the time. They do small jobs and they want to bring in their materials.
How much revenue are we getting if these small private contractors were going to a transfer station and paying by the pound? I mean, isn't it in our best interest in the long run to allow them to dump it someplace secure, where we can control it, as opposed to having to pick it up on Swanson Street or on State Road? 'Cause that's where it winds up. If we turn 'em away, they take it somewhere and they do it illegally, and I'm not absolving them from any culpability in what 1088 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 they're doing, but we leave them no choice, in many ways. It's not a large construction company. They don't have, you know, institutional disposal. It's a guy trying to make a living, and I can't stop him from making a living 'case we issued him a permit to do the work. Why can't we allow them, in our own interests, to take the trash somewhere reasonable, as opposed to turning them away and creating potential short dumpers?
For those that are willing to pay a small fee, there are the private facilities that will take the materials at a small fee. Those that are not willing to pay are those that are going to wind up short-dumping.
At a much higher cost than taking the cost for free, I would suspect, because we have to put a work crew out there to pick it up with some mechanical operation.
And then go dump it ourselves anyway. So in the issue of principle, we're turning these guys away on principle 'cause they don't want to pay, but somewhere down the road, we pick it up anyway at a higher cost. I mean, to me, it doesn't really make a lot of since.
I think there's a balance to be defined in their with regard to the enforcement, maybe we need police enforcement at the short dumping to discourage those.
Again, I've tried to do that with the police, I've even tried to upgrade and have been successful in upgrading the radio priority for short dumping in progress as a vandalism in progress to get the police to maybe catch one of these guys doing it. But I have found that the abandoned vehicle officers, the Sanitation officers, I mean, they're taking care of junk cars. It's just trying to shift the burden from one department to another. And my point is, if we want to be 1090 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 principled in making this guy pay and he's not going to pay and we can't enforce it, we wind up picking it up anyway. And I think it's both cost-inefficient and really a problem for our city streets to prohibit people from taking stuff to reasonable locations that we control.
I think your suggestion is that we go back and try figure this out, and I think that we'll have to go back and do that.
Commissioner, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'd like to go back Hot-In-Place for a minute. From the memorandum that's attached to your testimony, it certainly would appear to me that we would not be in compliance with the State regulations or City Air Management Code until the year calendar 2000. Is that true? COMMISSIONER MOY: I'm not sure I understand your question, Council President.
Do you have a 1091 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 copy of the memorandum from the Air Management Services? COMMISSIONER MOY: Oh, yes.
It would appear to me from that memorandum that we would not be in compliance with either the State requirement or the City Air Management Code until the calendar year 2000. Under your RFP. Well, I'd like to talk to you about this some -- COMMISSIONER MOY: Yeah, we might need to -- this is a Health Department memorandum, and we would have to get together with you to talk about that with --
Well, it would appear that we're not coming into compliance until the year 2000. How much repaving are we going to be doing between now and January? COMMISSIONER MOY: Pardon me? What was that?
I said that it would appear that we will not be in compliance until calendar year 2000. Now, how much of this process are we going to be using between now and 1092 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 January? COMMISSIONER MOY: We had 750,000 --
And aren't we in violation of or own card? COMMISSIONER MOY: I don't think we are, and we'll be glad to --
No, according to my interpretation of this memorandum, we certainly are. COMMISSIONER MOY: We will be glad to meet with Health and yourself to. . .
Commissioner, we have other people that are waiting to testify. Let me ask you just one very brief question. I have a number of requests pending for resurfacings, which your department identifies as FAM routes. Why does it take forever for us to get resurfacing done? Lindbergh Boulevard, I believe we've been waiting since 1994. I know federal funds are involved, but couldn't we be expediting requests much more rapidly and efficiently than we are? COMMISSIONER MOY: This is one of the things that troubles us greatly. We do have a 1093 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 funding source there with federal aid, and a significant amount of our program are federal-aid street, where we get 80/20 sharing. And we try to accelerate through the State. There's a couple things. One is getting the -- accessing the -- making sure funds are there and then accessing those funds and then meeting the standards of approval through the State and the federal government. And it is an exasperating process for us in terms of our not having control. It does take us quite a long time to get to it but, you know, we'll look at those specific streets that you've mentioned and --
Thank you. I'd appreciate you notifying me. COMMISSIONER MOY: I will.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments by members of the committee? (No further questions at this time.)
Thank you all very much. The next department to testify is the 1094 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Department of Public Property. (Public Property panel members come forward.)
Good morning, Commissioner. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Good morning, Council President. My name is Andres Perez, Commissioner of the Department of Public Property. Council President Verna and members of City Council, I am Andres Perez, Commissioner of the Department of Public Property, and it's my pleasure to appear before you today in support of Public Property's budget request for Fiscal Year 2000. With me today are Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner for Communications; John Herzins, Deputy Commissioner for Administration; Joan Schlotterbeck, Building Services Administrator; and business; and George Hee, Fiscal Officer. In my testimony, I'd like to briefly outline the role of the Department of Public Property and detail some of our accomplishments during FY '99 and discuss our plans for FY 2000. 1095 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 8 million approximately from our FY '99 estimated obligations of $198,623,182. 3 million approximately, an increase of $232,865 from prior-year obligations resulting from contractual pay raises. And in Class 200, we're requesting $143,539,623, a decrease of $433,942 from prior-year obligations resulting from the combination of increases in telecommunications costs and the SEPTA subsidy offset by decreases in utilities and space-rental expenses. In Class 400, we're requesting $1,125,000, an increase of $1 million from FY '99 obligations resulting from the City's equipment commitments for the Republican National Convention. We are requesting $16 million in Class 800, which is an increase of $1 million from FY '99 obligations resulting from full funding of water and sewer charges. 1096 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 The General Fund request includes $60,985,837 for City support of SEPTA; $16,019,000 for space rental; $28,970,000 for utility charges; $13,380,000 for telecommunications services; and $50,577,69 for core departmental operations. In the Water Fund, we are requesting $3,019,572 in Class 200, which is an increase of $5,000 from the prior year. 5 million, which is unchanged from FY '99. 9 million, which is an increase of approximately $1 million from FY '99 obligations. The Department continues the implementation of the Administration's Center City Real Estate Plan, recognizing that the City's financial and operational interests were not effectively served by the continuation of the scattered-site short-term lease practices which had been the norm in Public Property. The Administration developed the Center City Real Estate Plan in 1994 with three primary objectives: consolidate scattered downtown office space; negotiate the most competitive real estate 1097 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 terms that are available in the Center City market; and provide the municipal workforce and the citizens seeking their service with modern, functional, and cost-effective office space. In early FY '99, the Department achieved the major objective of the Center City Real Estate Plan with the renovation and occupancy of the former Bell of Pennsylvania headquarters at One Benjamin Franklin Parkway as an additional Center City municipal office building. The move into One Parkway consolidated 11 City agencies, including virtually all Law Department operations and most centralized Department of Human Services functions. The building accommodates 2300 employees who had previously been located in seven different buildings throughout the City. While the move to One Parkway significantly reduced the number of City employees in leased Center City office buildings, the consolidation was not intended to fully meet the City's space requirements. As a result, the Department still required office space for approximately 500 employees who worked in 11 agencies. And beginning in September of '98, the 1098 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No.
990023 Department relocated majority of these employees to newly-leased space at 990 Spring Garden Street as well as space at 100 South Broad, also known as the Land Title Building. The Department also recognized that several agencies' housed and leased space had operational requirements that would not be well-served through the consolidation but that significant savings could be achieved through lease negotiations. " The Department has renegotiated several of these leases, resulting in considerable savings. 3 million in savings over the life of the Center City Real Estate Plan. A rejuvenation of the City's Capital Program has enabled the Department's building services staff to return to its primary mission of 1099 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 providing maintenance services, thereby reducing the age of the maintenance work order backlog and improving response time to routine maintenance requests. The introduction of a computerized building maintenance system also enabled the Department to increase employee accountability and to track all work until completed. In addition to tracking the number of work orders, the Department will begin, in Fiscal Year 2000, to track the hours it takes to complete work orders, which will assist the Department in managing the overall time applied to work orders. The computerized building maintenance system has increased our ability to plan and perform regular preventive maintenance on building systems, thereby reducing the risk of system failure and extending the useful life of the systems. In addition to establishing maintenance schedules, the CBMS is being used to prioritize and track work orders, catalog equipment warranties, manage spare parts inventories, and monitor costs. The system is now being used to manage contracted services at the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility, the Criminal Justice 1100 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Center, the Municipal Services Building in the One Parkway Building, as well as new buildings such as the Police Forensic Lab and the proposed Women's Correctional Facility as they are constructed or renovated. In FY '99, the Department assumed full maintenance responsibility for all 33 police facilities previously handled by the Police Department. Prior to Fiscal '99, police maintenance regularly requested assistance from Public Property with work that exceeded its capabilities. With the absorption of Police facilities, the Department has assumed an additional employees into our Building Services 17 Division, and the consolidation of maintenance 18 responsibility is improving the maintenance of 19 Police facilities and better utilizing manpower 20 and material resources. 5 million, to house the Internal Affairs Bureau of the Police Department. The Department expects to complete 1101 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 building renovations and relocate personnel by the fall of 1999. The new facility will provide the Bureau with more space and will support its technical needs. In addition, the Department is working with the Police Department to design a larger and more suitable Police Forensic Science Laboratory by September of 1999. A total of approximately 210 employees will be relocated as a result of these two moves. During FY '99, the Department of Public Property responded to several significant new interdepartmental initiatives, such as Operation Sunrise and the establishment of a Police Aviation Unit. The Department's involvement included leasing appropriated space for these operations as well as relocating personnel after renovations were completed on a fairly dramatically tight time schedule. Since Fiscal Year '93, the Department has successfully contracted out operations, maintenance and support services at the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility, the Criminal Justice Center, the Municipal Services Building, and the One Parkway Building. And this 1102 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No.
990023 competitive contacting initiative has resulted in significant savings as well as marked improvements in the delivery of services. Examples of savings including a $500,000 reduction in annual maintenance costs at Curran-Fromhold and a $477,000 reduction in annual costs for custodial services in City Hall and its adjacent subway concourses. A significant example of an improvement in service delivery is that the private maintenance of CFCF has resulted in zero overnight cell outage during the more than three years of the prison's operation. A cell outage is having a cell unavailable for use overnight as a result of vandalism or mechanical system problems. The Department anticipates that it will continue to generate annual savings of $1 million as a result of the new contract for operation services and maintenance at the triplex. This new contract has led to an increase in custodial and security staffing as well as an improvement in preventive maintenance practices. In addition to directly providing services at lower costs, competitive contracting has assisted Department 1103 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 managers in reducing costs for services still provided by in-house staff. Since 1992, the City's implemented a series of improvements to its telecommunications infrastructure by taking advantage of new technology in order to improve service, reduce costs, and improve the Department's ability to utilize new technology. These initiatives include creating the City's area-wide network (known as "City Net"), converting over 6,000 rotary-dial phones to touchtone service, and consolidating over 100 local telephone exchanges into three uniform exchanges. Installing a citywide voice mail system and providing many departments with interactive applications for automated attendant systems, integrated voice response systems, and for checking tax balances and payments. The Communications Division successfully provided communications systems for 11 departments located in the One Parkway Building and voice mail for the 2300 workers contained therein. From the end of Fiscal '99 through Fiscal Year 2001, City Net will be further 1104 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 enhanced to manage all forms of electronic commerce and departmental internets and will be expanded to services the infrastructure for both the School District and the Philadelphia Housing Authority. Additionally, we assisted the Police Department with the expansion of the mobile data terminals from an experiment in a few vehicles in several sectors to all SEPTA patrol cars. That included leasing a separate radio network just to support the MDT terminal activity. The roll-out of MDTs will be expanded in future years to include other tactical units, bringing the total of MDTs to approximately 800,000. Substantial renovations were initiated by the Police Department and the Department's Communications Division to improve the 911 center at Police headquarters, including several million dollars' worth of equipment upgrade as well as related operations procedures. We continue to maintain the existing 911 call-answering and dispatch infrastructure for the Police and Fire departments and administer the 911 surcharge program. 1105 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 We're involved in negotiations for an 800 megahertz multi-agency radio system. I've reported on that for many years. I would summarize our current situation by --
How many years have we been talk about that, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I've been commissioner since '90, and it was on my list of things to do since then.
We were estimating a little earlier that it has to be at least ten years. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It was on somebody else's agenda before mine, I'm sure, a couple years before that.
Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: But we are negotiating, we are in the final throes of coming to an agreement with the vendor. We assume we'll be successful in that. We're only a few million dollars apart, and we're hoping to be in a position to bring that action to Council shortly. It wouldn't, obviously, be appropriate for me to discuss any other details regarding that at this 1106 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 time. We completed, with Council's support and involvement, the reissuing of -- the renewal of franchise agreements for Comcast and -- for both Comcast areas and Greater Media, and we are continuing to work on the Wade renewal. These renewals are all in advance of the end of the 15-year termination date, so we're all but done with the franchise renewals. As always, we've continued to support special-events activities as they've grown throughout the years, and we are making some provisions in our current budget to accommodate what we expect to be some added demand as well as a number of never-before-occurring millennium- oriented special events, which will, no doubt, place another burden on our time and resources as we approach the millennium. The details are articulated in the testimony submitted earlier. Historically, I haven't commented in detail on transit operations and planning. As Council knows, the Department's a conduit for the City's subsidy to SEPTA, and the details regarding all the issues associated with that are addressed 1107 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 at separate hearings directly involving SEPTA. We include it in our submission because it's part of our budget. And with your indulgence, I won't comment further on that.
Thank you. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And that would conclude my summary testimony. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner. In your testimony, you indicate, in Class 400, you are requesting an increase of $1 million from FY '99 obligations resulting from the City's equipment commitments for the Republican National Convention. Would you please elaborate on that statement? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: My understanding is that there are hardware commitments associated with communications requirements -- radio, telephone, wireless, and hard-wired commitments that were a part of the City's presentation to the committee; and, therefore, an obligation to fulfill between now -- actually prior to the convention date. So in order to fulfill those commitments, we have to procure that hardware and 1108 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 equipment in the forthcoming fiscal year. I was not a part of the presentation group -- and I'm not sure that we have anybody here who was. And we can elaborate in writing for your interest at a later date.
There is also $1 million for telecommunications costs, so it appears as though it's $2 million that we're talking about, really. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Let me ask Deputy Commissioner Joe James to elaborate. (Deputy Commissioner Joseph James comes forward.)
My name is Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner President my name is. I believe in the Republican National Convention, there's a million dollars specifically in the budget for computers. That's just for the work stations and the servers and all of the devices, the internal devices for the candidates and, I assume, the attendees to use at the convention. 1109 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 There's a million dollars that the Commissioner spoke to in the telecommunications is for the telephone devices and the wireless devices and all of the communications devices. So there's $1 million -- one for computers and $1 million for the communications end of it.
Are we purchasing the computers? And what do you anticipate doing with them after the convention?
Well, I don't believe the details have been reached that far, but I believe it's a combination of leased and purchase equipment, assuming that whatever's purchased will probably be reused within the City government in some way.
Commissioner, you mention in you your testimony that the increase in Class 800 of $1 million is for full funding of water and sewer charges. Why has the cost of water and sewer charges increased so dramatically since we have not had a rate increase? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We actually don't understand, as a department, the numbers that are 1110 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 given to us on an annual basis. Those numbers come from the combination of the Finance Office and the Water Department. I'm not in a good position to explain why those numbers increase.
Mr. Kaplan name, can you answer the question, please. (Dean Kaplan comes forward.)
Dean Kaplan, Budget Director. Yes, as Council is aware, there are a variety of charges between the Water Fund and the General Fund each year, which are calculated at the end of each year. Over the last year, we've discovered that the traditional charge for telecommunications and radio services provided to the Water Department was significantly higher than it should have been. And we've actually gone back and begun auditing the proper charge for water and sewer services and the basis for those charges. The adjustment this year is a result of where we that number will come out going into the future.
Mr. Kaplan, you have totally lost me. I certainly don't know 1111 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 that that is an answer to the question we're asking. Do you mind?
Give us a very brief answer as to why, since we have not increased the water rates, why are we spending over a million dollars more.
It's not related to the water rates; that's not the part of the charge that Public Property --
Well, it says there's an increase in Class 800 of $1 million and that's in the testimony, for full funding of water and sewer charges. Now, what does that mean?
It is a charge that the General Fund assesses to the Water Fund for its telecommunications and other services. Perhaps we could supply you more detail in writing if it would be more helpful.
I think so because we're both on two different tracks.
Please. 1112 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Commissioner, you've indicated further in your testimony that you plan to award the contract for the 800-megahertz system to begin the implementation of the system by the end of FY '99. Can you tell us, when do you anticipate submitting the necessary ordinances to City Council? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I don't believe I'm in the position to give you a clear answer. While I did make a reference to expecting go that we would be submitting those documents to you shortly, that's in the context of negotiations continuing to go forward and coming to a conclusion in the near future. The overall objective is to have the ordinance authorized, or the contract authorized by ordinance before the balance -- before the summer recess. And so we would work backwards from the calendar -- we would be working backwards from the calendar at some point in the near future. We -- we're -- I can't tell you how soon we're going to wrap it up. We've made good progress over several sessions. 1113 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Commissioner, it is your hope that the ordinance will be before the Council before the summer recess. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes, with sufficient time to deal with it.
To be considered and voted upon? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: To be passed, to be passed.
Well, I think you better start working on that rather quickly because I don't know that we're going to be able doing that.
We have not received the ordinance still under negotiation.
But we will receive the ordinary at public hearings and hopefully pass it before the summer recess. 1114 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
I believe Councilman Rizzo wants to piggyback on that one issue.
I'd appreciate that. Commissioner Perez, in reference to the 800-system, you've had this on the drawing board since 1991? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I've inherited it; it was already on the drawing board for several years.
I would hope this doesn't turn out to be another Schuykill Expressway.
Is this going to -- are we buying technology that is already antiquated? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I'm sorry, 1115 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Councilman.
Are we considering purchasing technology that's already antiquated? Have we, in this eight, nine years, upgraded our specifications or looked at new technology on the horizon before we spend all of this money on technology, from what I understand, is 1980 vintage? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Let me ask Deputy Commissioner James to respond.
Councilman, the technology that we've been in discussions with the potential vendor, as best as we can understand from both our consultants, and that has been reviewed several times, and recently, when we had the pause in between our negotiations to verify that the technology we're looking at is the most current technology available as such that we are making sure that we are trying to negotiate provisions in it to ensure that this product that we're buying in both the platform and the hardware, that the city will have access to it for the next ten years, if not longer. So that we are buying into a technology that, like any technology, when 1116 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 you're dealing with something that's computerized that's constantly changing, but there is a technology out there that we feel very comfortable with, that the technology will take the City into the future and is not an outdated technology.
My final question. You indicated that we are renting a radio frequency to operate the data terminals in the police cars. Could you tell me how much money we're spending to represent this frequency, and what is our commitment?
If I can answer the question, Councilman, we're not necessarily, as Commissioner spoke, renting a frequency; what we are currently doing to run the mobile data terminals is to procure service from a cellular provider, Bell Atlantic Mobile, for a product that's called "Cellular Digital Packet Data Services," which is a commercially-available service. We are paying approximately $45 per unit for that service, and that includes the service and the hardware.
When you say $45 a unit, is that a day, week, month? 1117 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Is there -- every time you run the terminal, does that run up the charges or air time? What's the real number?
The $45 is a fixed, fixed flat rate, unlimited air time usage per month for the use of the service and the maintenance of the equipment.
And with 800 megahertz, we plan to back out of that arrangement and use the technology that we'll own?
Well, the negotiations -- we're in the negotiations to determine what's economically viable for the City for either building a data infrastructure on an 800 system or continually to either renegotiate lower fees on the service that we're getting from the provider today. But we -- it's a matter of economics that we need to determine what's in the long run -- in some cases, it seems on the surface to be cheaper to own the data infrastructure; at the same time, we need to make sure that we can afford to own the data infrastructure. 1118 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
I constantly hear that we don't like depending on a vendor for this type of service; this is inconsistent with what I've been told throughout the years. I would hope that if we're going to spend in excess of what we hear rumored, over $100 million, that we would be able to support our own data terminals.
I think, as you'll find out as we get to coming before Council and proposing exactly what going we are to do on the 800 megahertz, that we will probably explain to you and rationalize whatever the decision, whatever that decision, either to build it off of the 800 system or to continue the rent the service that we're using now.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madame Chair. Commissioner, one, there's no way that I'm going to believe to be able to go through all that I want in the first five minutes, but I at 1119 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 least want to lay out -- you guys like to talk about platforms so I'd like to lay out the platform in the area that I'd like to have my questions today. One is the issue of cable television in general, and the second is more specifically public access. With regard to cable television, what I would first like to know is, when did Public Property start discussions for franchise renewal with Comcast Cable Vision? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It's approximately months, and I can certainly provide you a 15 specific date, because there was a formal notice 16 required, and we have that information in our 17 records. 18
Okay. And we concluded discussions and negotiations and renewed that agreement -- was that last spring? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
I think that got 1120 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 done in the middle of some other hearing. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Right. It was a part of the end-of-the-year rush.
All right. A rush put on by them and by you guys, primarily. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
Okay. I think that was done during the sidewalk behavior hearings? Is that possible? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Possibly, yeah.
And when did you initiate -- or when were discussions initiated between the City and Greater Media? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: That's about a year ago, or six months after the Comcast notice was received.
And that was concluded this past December, wasn't it? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: December.
Okay. Okay, and at what point did either of them raise the issue of a possible sale or purchase between the one and the other? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Until I received a 1121 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 courtesy call from Comcast -- I believe yesterday morning -- the only discussion that I'm aware of was the fact that Greater Media had attempted to get itself "bought," for a lack of a better word, for some time. I don't recall that Comcast was ever a suitor in that situation. So it was quite a surprise. Given the contact and communication that went on through the franchise renewal process that both of them ended up reaching the agreement that they allegedly have reached, this department has not received formal notice of anything. And I want to stress that all I have is a message.
That is kind of amazing, isn't it? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
You said someone called you yesterday, someone called you on a Sunday to talk about cable television? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No, I'm sorry, Friday.
Friday, okay. Well, if someone called you Friday as a courtesy, wasn't the story in the newspaper one day earlier 1122 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 last week? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I think it was Friday's paper where I saw it.
Okay. So it sounds like they didn't even get to you by the time The Inquirer got it out there. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No. 9
Okay. So you're the Commissioner of Public Property, and Comcast, which owns two franchise areas, decides to call you the day of a newspaper story to tell you that they've reached agreement with another franchisee, who we just renewed their franchise in December, that they're going to buy them? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Right.
Is that the chain of events? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Approximately, yes.
Okay. And have you received any courtesy call from Greater Media? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No. I'm speaking for myself. Let me just ask Joe James to respond as well because he's closer to it that I am and in 1123 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 much more frequent contact with them.
Joe's not a shy guy; I don't see him jumping up to that microphone.
No, I'm sorry, Councilman. I did receive a voice-mail message from the general manager Greater Media, wanting to talk about the article that was in the paper, but I have not --
Okay. So Comcast calls the Commissioner Friday, Greater Media calls the Deputy Commissioner on Friday, and there's a story in The Inquirer on Friday letting the rest of the world know that Comcast is buying Greater Media. And we just renewed Greater Media in December, and they never said anything to anybody in the government; this is your testimony? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: That is correct.
They never told us 1124 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 that they were somehow possibly in discussions with another franchise owner to buy their franchise while they're trying to get a new 15-year contract from us. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: (Nods head.)
I need more than a head nod. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I'm testifying for the Department.
Right. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I have no idea who else they may have talked to, but they did not formally or informally indicate that to us.
What are the notice requirements, according to the contract terms, with regard to either assigning the franchise agreement notification to the City about a possible purchase or sale in the City of Philadelphia of another franchise?
The franchisee is obligated to provide the City written notice.
It doesn't really say in the franchise when they have to give us -- they 1125 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 have to give us notice prior to consummation of the transaction.
And in the discussion so far from the Comcast folks, it's been an announcement, but the deal has not been closed so they are in the throes of now providing us the official written notification explaining to us what exactly is the transaction. And once we receive that notification, we have 120 days to respond.
Well, I know my time is expiring but, fortunately, the Chair is absent from the room, so I will continue to take advantage of the vacant seat. Well, I mean, do you feel that there is some inappropriate activity here that we're in franchise renewal discussions with an entity, and they are out apparently shopping themselves around at the same time, unless somewhere between franchise renewal in December and last Friday, they cut a deal with Comcast? I mean, guess theoretically, that's possible, but more than likely, not likely? Does 1126 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 that strike you as being --
Sure. Theoretically, it would seem like the transaction would have taken longer than them just cutting a deal on Friday. While it's not that uncommon in the telecommunications world for these transactions to see occur constantly between some of the strangest entities that normally would not seem like ones to be in a deal, but it is not that uncommon. I think it's very similar to what we --
I understand that, and I'm not complaining about what happens between Comcast Greater Media; that is their private business. But the one entity was recently in our chambers, asking for a speedy renewal of a 15-year franchise agreement almost two years before -- or a year and a half before the expiration of that agreement and begged this Council to get that business done as quickly as possible. Two months later, they are in the throes of selling the place. Now, it strikes me, at a minimum, somewhat deceptive to come to this place, 1127 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 negotiate a deal, ask us to rush it, and two months later, you sell the place. At a minimum, it clearly was not mentioned on the record here in this body.
It was clearly in our discussion that that issue never came up and we had no knowledge of it.
Well, doesn't that strike you as strange? Are you offended by that? Is that an unusual practice that someone might be in negotiations with you for a 15-year contract, and two months ago later, they sell the place?
Without making a personal opinion about it, but I would say that there is some question about the integrity of the transaction if they had prior knowledge of it and kept that as a secret, knowing that we were in the throes of trying to negotiate something for them.
Do you think that if people were in these contract negotiations, they have any obligation to tell the City of Philadelphia that while you are contemplating a franchise renewal, we are contemplating selling our business? 1128 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
I think it would be fair if you're bargaining in good faith that if that's something that they have under discussion, that they should make that known. We seem to have uncovered many other issues in their franchise renewal. That should have been something that should have been put on the table.
I mean, you didn't negotiate the franchise with them over a series of hours or days, right?
It sounds like it was over a period of time of 12 months.
Thank you. I have a question on a different subject. Thank you. We have been -- in fact, I did this before, when David L. Cohen was the Mayor's Chief 1129 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 of Staff. We have a problem with rest rooms in this building. After that inquiry, the signs were put up and they opened up bathrooms again. Well, we've reverted back to a problem with public bathrooms. I'm told there are none on the fifth floor; I don't know how true that is because some offices have them. I know that on this floor, the northeast corner rest room that was made for Council has now become the only public rest room 12 open. So all the juries have the combination, everybody uses it. If you get a jury of women 14 lined up in the hallway, we can't use the rest 15 room because, naturally, they're all together, and they only move in synch in a jury group all together. So we're out of a public rest room. And there's one next to Room 438 that's locked. I'm told that some are locked on different floors, and obviously, though -- and that's been locked about two years. We need a rest room. We at Council needs a rest room, and the public needs rest rooms, and we need some solution to the issue other than inquiring again about it for about two 1130 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 months as to why Room 438 is locked so that that public rest room for women is not being used and then ours further down the hallway at the northeast corner is used by everybody by the third floor. Councilwoman Miller, I see her more than I do on her floor. So their rest room is locked and we're stuck. We need -- the various floors are supposed to have public rest rooms for men and women, and then Councilwomen had and Councilmen had also their own separate rest room for their use. But we've deteriorated again into not having rest rooms available. Would you check into that and get back to the Chair? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I certainly will. That will include the Capital Program Office people working on the City Hall project.
Because as I've said, they've been locked for about two years. So I assume there must be some plan. When I saw Greg Rost last week, he said it was some Council decision and that we had the right to do that. But the President doesn't know why they're 1131 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 locked either. And certainly, she's in agreement that we got to have rest rooms. I remember many, many years ago, before they split her office, Councilwomen had the one stall in her office. Once they made it a part of 404, that is their office, so we were okay. The men were angry 'cause the one we now use was a men's rest room. So after that was given to the women, they started with one at the other end of the hall from them. And I don't know whether -- I think that's open for men, but we just don't have one for women that we can use on this floor. And like I said, we don't mind sharing with the public 'cause the public doesn't have one either, but they need their rest room at 438. And if it needs to be repaired or there's something wrong in one of the stalls and men are there repairing it, we used to be able to go down to 438 with the public to use it. Now that's locked for whatever reason, only God knows. The impression I get is that there was some complaint -- maybe there was somebody in there who shouldn't have been mor something like that. That's the impression I get, and then they 1132 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 just locked it so nobody gets to use it. And that's just not a solution -- obviously, that's not a solution to the problem. So, therefore, 438 is locked. It's a big, beautiful new heavy door on it with a new shiny lock. You know, I found that out about when some men were fixing this when I went down there and found out that was locked and also when jurors were like lined up. I tried it, you know, a few times to see if the door had been opened since you can't interfere with the jury and, you know, you're kind of out of luck -- there's no rest room. Councilwoman Miller wanted to follow up?
I'd like to follow up to that. On the third floor, the rest room was closed for renovations -- and probably the fourth floor too 'cause it has the same nice door with the handle, door handled. And they shut it down, I guess, two years ago and, it's still closed. The finish date, I believe, was October '97, but we knew that that really wouldn't happen, but we 1133 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 didn't think we'd be without one for this long. So I truly support what Councilwoman Blackwell has raised around the need for women's rest rooms.
And then you can't enough soap and tissues and all of the things that happen when one room is servicing like three floors. You know, so you can't keep what you need in there to even make it functional. So it's really, you know, kind of -- I mean, I know some people think it's kind of funny that we even have this discussion, but I've been writing letters for a couple months and, you know, it's kind of one of the issues that we shouldn't have to go this public about. So we would appreciate your understands. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you. We'll follow up.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller. 1134 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Thank you, Madame Chair. I'd like to know, Commissioner Perez, does your department routinely monitor the large vacant buildings that the City owns, such as Town Hall, and its maintenance needs or cleanup needs on the external parts of those types of buildings? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: There are certain buildings among the thousands that have been acquired by the City that we're either knowledgeable about or sensitive to responding properly when problems are brought to our attention. I don't think we've got a routine maintenance check on Town Hall because we -- we ended up, as you know, boarding it up to keep people out and prevent problems from occurring nearly two years ago. So, personally, I can't recall a Town Hall complaint for some time now except for, I think, the exterior overgrowth.
That's specifically what I'm talking about. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yeah, along one 1135 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 side. And if there's a problem in that regard, our maintenance people, you know, will respond, will take care of it in order to keep the building stable. There are other buildings that we're more knowledgeable about because of other reasons, such as the structurally-defective facade at 800 North Broad, the old Traffic Court building. By agreement with L&I, we have to check it once a week, I believe. Once a week, we have to at least do a drive-by to make sure that there is nothing apparently developing into a problem there. Most of the large buildings don't stay in the inventory very long. They end up becoming housing projects and other kinds of economic development cites.
Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And Town Hall is an exception.
I understand that. So then, actually, if the exterior -- the weeds, trash, etc. need to be cleaned, then we need to call you each time to tell you that. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes. 1136 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
You don't routinely just monitor it. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Not routinely. But one development that has occurred since the last time you and I have talked about Town Hall is that we've also taken up maintenance responsibilities for the police district right behind it.
Right. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: So it makes sense to clue our maintenance operation in that any response to the 14th Police District should include a survey and a checkup, if you will, as well as responding to any particular problem that may be reported to us on Town Hall.
One other question about Town Hall. You know the driveway between Town Hall and the Farmers Market? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes. I think it's a very narrow street there.
Right. So that's owned by the City? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: My recollection is that's a street that, when you're standing and 1137 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 looking at it, you almost can't tell the difference between where the private property line is on the parking side versus the street. I'm aware of that only because we had to do some environmental emergency cleanup, and there were conduits under that bed and some manholes under that bed that were affected by that. We had to remove an underground fuel tank. And other than that, to anybody walking by, it's almost indistinguishable, and it looks like it's all -- like one big property.
Right, absolutely. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: With interconnected back yards.
We wanted to know who owned it because it's in desperate need of being repaved. So if it's a street bed, then that's a Streets Department issue? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We'll get with the Streets Department and figure out, you know, what needs to be done there.
Okay. Now, I heard you mention that you've taken over routine 1138 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 maintenance of police districts. How often do they get trash pickup? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The part that we don't have is custodial.
Okay. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It's the physical maintenance of the facilities. They've retained their custodial operations for themselves within their own operation.
Okay, because, certainly you know better than I do, we go -- Council cars go to police districts to get gas. And some of the districts that you go to -- and mainly for me, the 14th -- is in desperate need of being cleaned on a more regular basis. Sometimes there's trash bags and all kinds of things out 18 there in that back. 19 And that's my only question for now. 20 I'll come back for my second round. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Yes, thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Well, Commissioner 1139 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 or Mr. James, in addition to your comments here on the record, I think what I'd like with regard to the Greater Media situation is whatever level of detailed explanation you can provide to us in writing, laying out the chain of events, or non-events as they may be, that happened in this particular case. Who from the Law Department is involved in this particular transaction? Who handles franchise issues on behalf of the Department of Public Property and the Telecommunications Department out of our Law Department?
Currently, we work with two attorneys in the City Solicitor's Office -- Robert Sutton and Michael Athay.
Athay, okay. If you could take a message back, and I'll certainly contact the Solicitor; I'd like them to take a look at how this took place specifically with regard to the issue of notification or lack thereof to the City while we're in the middle of franchise renewal 1140 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 negotiations, and Greater Media's fairly obvious other discussions regarding the sale. It seems to me, lastly, that the value of the franchise increases in a post-renewal environment than in a pre-renewal environment, and that Greater Media's much more valuable itself as an entity once their franchise agreement is renewed for years and then a subsequent sale 10 than it would have been last year had they sold 11 and with a renewal still pending. 12
Thank you. 15 All right. Now let's talk about public access. You've provided to the Chair a letter dated February 17th in response to questions that were raised on Tuesday, February 9th regarding the establishment of public access in Philadelphia. I'd like to talk about some of the particulars of that letter. Do you have a copy?
Great. Can you clarify for the record, what happened specifically 1141 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 in the '82, '83, '84 time period? It is not well-detailed in this letter. It's my understanding that there was a bill passed by Council to establish the Public Access Corporation and that there were terms either in that ordinance 7 or subsequent documents that had to do with an agreement needing to be reached between, I believe at the time, the Mayor and the Council President. And that since that did not happen, the Public Access Corporation was not established. Do you have any information about that? Or is that a myth or is it a fact or what?
Councilman, there was a Bill 1963 that was approved back in December of 1983 to establish the Public Access Corporation. And subsequent to that, there was articles of incorporation that were actually needed to be filed with the State to --
I'm sorry. And there was -- the bylaws of the nonprofit were created. The paperwork was prepared. But I do not know firsthand what 1142 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 happened what happened as far as it not actually going forward beyond that. I don't have any firsthand knowledge of discussions between the Council President or the Mayor that would have not led to the actual creation of public access.
Does anyone have any institutional knowledge of that within the Department? Is that maybe in Vince Costello's mind somewhere? Or in -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Vince is the most likely --
Vince is the -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: He's the most likely historian in this context, and unfortunately, he was out of town.
I think he's out till Wednesday or something. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yeah.
Okay. Do you know whether the articles of incorporation were ever filed?
I don't believe they were ever filed. I believe there was -- based upon the information and our review of this, there were 1143 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 changes in the law that affected the bylaws, and they had to be refiled. The original draft would not be able to be submitted so there were would be new articles that had to be prepared and just sent off to the Commonwealth.
Okay. Now let's talk about the money. Your letter indicates that there is supposed to be capital funds sufficient to provide two neighborhood access facilities in each franchise area for a total of eight throughout the city, and one co-funded centrally-located access facility. Initial capital contributions required of the cable operators are $125,000 for each neighborhood access facility and $50,000 for a mobile production van ($300,000 total for each franchise area) for an aggregate of $1.2 million for all neighborhood facilities and $600,000 aggregate for the co-funded centrally-located access facility. Where are those dollars? 1144 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
The dollars are a part of the franchise agreement. They are not actually fixed dollars, they're not in fund anywhere, they're not sitting in a bank account. They are dollar commitments that are identified in the appendix in the franchise agreement. And if, in fact, the City want to establish public access, the City would then make a request to the cable franchisees to provide the funding or provide the facilities that are identified in there.
So you're saying that the dollars were never turned over?
There was no request for the dollars ever to be turned over. The dollars are identified and they would be spent money upon the City's request.
Should such a request be made for $1.2 million for the neighborhood facilities and $600,000 for the co-funded centrally-located access facility, this goes back to 1983, 1984?
No. The dollars, as I understand, are just line item -- they're just funded amounts to be funded. There is no 7 interest; there's just those dollar amounts that are --
It's $1.2 million back in 1983, it's $1.2 million in 1999.
Okay. And what would have to happen for the dollars to be requested?
I believe -- and I would have to verify it with the Law Department, but the original Bill 1963 would have to be withdrawn, and a new bill made to create public access in the city, and the articles of incorporation need to be filed with Harrisburg, and the access corporation needs to be appointed and put in place. At that 1146 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 point in time, then the request would be made to the cable operators to provide the funding or provide the facilities.
Who appoints the members to the Public Access Corporation?
All right. Our earlier discussion was about capital dollars. Let's talk about operating dollars now. Your letter goes on further to say that the cable operators are to provide operating funds for the public access channels at an annual rate to be directed by Council. That means that that's a rate in the bill, the original bill that was set by Council?
In the bill that -- whatever bill that gets introduced actually establishes a corporation, and you would have to identify what amount of dollars you want provided by the cable operators.
But that was the amount that was established back at the time, or was it-- 1147 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Back at the time, there was a range established between 75 to $125,000.
Okay. And that's an aggregate of $300,000 to $500,000, as determined by us. But you later go on to say that whatever's going to be established, because of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, whatever dollars go into this directly come out of the franchise fees?
No. The way the act is written is, they get to deduct that from the revenue that they submit to the City.
So then all that really is the subscribers are the ratepayers are paying the bill since the franchise fees are listed as a line item on your bill in the first 1148 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 place, I mean, it's not money that the cable companies are putting up; all they do is collect the franchise fee and pass it on to us.
And that is most common throughout the nation, though, were cities that have public access, they either set aside a small fixed coin amount -- anywhere from cents to 50 9 cents just for public access; or they split the 10 franchise fee to 5 percentage -- 3 percent and 2 11 percent, or some percentage of it, to fund it. 12
The franchise agreements 15 call for five public access channels. 16
Today, those access 19 channels have been loaned back to the cable 20 operators, and the cable operators must carry 21 programming -- retransmission of broadcast 22 transmissions. 23
That means that they really 1149 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 are not -- on the channels that they have for public access, they are non-revenue-producing channels; they are not pay-per-view channels and they're not --
You would have Channel TV 69 from Allentown, TV 51 from Reading, C-Span, the Eternal Word Television Network.
What do they show? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Religious programming, I believe.
Yeah. MSNBC, you know, they're local programming, you know, or retransmissions of programming.
Okay. And you're saying that these are not broadcasts that are revenue-generating. 1150 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
As the cable operators have identified them, these are non-revenue-producing channels.
And the agreement is if public access is established, what do we need, 30 days or 60 days' notice to get the channels back?
Okay. How many cable subscribers do we have in Philadelphia?
Our report -- I'm just looking at the reports that were submitted by the cable operators just recently, and it's 170,000 in Comcast's two areas, 78,000 in Greater Media, and 60,000 in Wade.
Okay. Do we have a 1151 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 way of verifying how many cable customers there are?
Independent of the numbers they provided, not to my knowledge.
Okay. And we have approximately a half a million households in Philadelphia; is that correct?
So cable is about -- what is that about 60 percent? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Approximately.
Okay. Lastly, in your document, which, again, was received by all of us, you indicate that your cursory review is of five cities across the country -- from Boston, Chicago, New York (you refer to as Manhattan), Pittsburgh, and Sacramento have public access, and their operating costs range anywhere from $300,000 to $2.1 million. Again, your testimony is that all of that money comes from franchise fees in those cities? 1152 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
The money that we've identified, to the best of our knowledge, that's where it comes from.
Okay. And for Philadelphia, you're estimating somewhere in the range of $500,000 to $1 million will be required to run Public Access Corporation?
And, again, your testimony is that by way of the Cable Act of '84, if a Public Access Corporation established both by ordinance and then the filing of articles of corporation, we would then be able to start accessing dollars to operate the Public Access Corporation, but those dollars would come directly out of franchise fees.
Right, we would be able to access the capital dollars to build the facilities, which -- 1153 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Which are separate from the operating dollars, and I believe it's half a million dollars.
And did you leave the capital costs at the same dollar amount in the recent franchise renewals? Those were coming up on the end of 15-year franchise renewal agreements?
Well, I mean, the value of $1.2 million 15 years ago is certainly less today, 15 years later, isn't it?
I would agree. I think in our discussions on the renewals and in the negotiations that there was -- a sense of it was that there was not a strong sense that public access had already been done in Philadelphia, and it would be done in the short term, at least in our understanding of it. We felt the best thing we could do as far as provisions that we were negotiating, we 1154 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 went after the ones that we put our interest. And, at best, we wanted to protect the public access provision to at least have it in the renewal so that if, in fact, Council got to that point, at the provisions would exist.
Well, when you say you wanted to protect it, that would give me the impression that you thought it was in danger. Was it in danger?
Well, it was certainly something that the cable operators would like to have removed and not have that obligation on the books. And, again, our sense was to at least maintain it and keep it intact and not effect a change in the dollar amount but at least maintain it, which was something that they preferred not to have at all.
Well, again, it's negotiated -- you negotiate it, and in the original franchise is a provision that's something that public access, we could have certainly negotiated something much less than five public 1155 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 access channels and certainly a commitment on the number of channels, the number of dollars, and the number of locations to something much smaller, a minimum commitment -- which we did not do.
Or we could have negotiated something much larger since this is a negotiation, right?
But there are Councilmembers that have been waiting and, you know, you have far exceeded the five minutes.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo. 1156 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Thank you, Madame Chair. Commissioner Perez, during the Capital Budget, we got a pretty good feel for the condition of City Hall, the building. Could you give -- could you just give an overview of the condition of this building? And could you restate the dollar amount that it will take to fix the roof and appearance of this building and the structural integrity of this building, how much money we have and how much money it will take? Also, there are some safety hazards in this building, fire hazards, you know, panic bars on the exterior doors. They're dead-bolted so that people would be trapped in this building in the event of emergency. Could you comment on some of those issues, please. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I'm at a disadvantage in that I don't have the capital documents and the CPO people here to help me handle the relevant details. But my recollection is that in the Fiscal Year 2000 budget, there's -- there's a 1157 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 request for funds in the -- I believe it's in the range of $70 million to be added to the existing funds already appropriated by Council for City Hall renovation of approximately $35 million. As you probably are aware, the Department of Public Property's approach to the renovation of City Hall was considerably more elaborate than the current approach, and it was done on the basis that the entire building would be fully renovated in all aspects except for historic -- extensive historic preservation. Our intent was to upgrade all systems, replace and upgrade all systems, and do floor, wall, and ceilings renovations where needed, minimizing the expense as much as possible. The roof, of course, was one of the primary elements in that more long-range planning. That plan, however, required about 15 years and roughly $45 million per year -- I'm sorry -- yeah, roughly $45 million of spending in order to do it. The other critical aspect of getting that approach accomplished was agreement by all parties in the building to vacate quadrants for 1158 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 several years at a time so that all of you who are residing in this quadrant of the building at some point would leave, go to another part of the building, and we would redo it from top to bottom, all systems. That was the approach. That was going to take too long and not address of the most urgent needs of the main building systems. In the interim, while it was being retooled, the approach to the renovation of the building being retooled, it became apparent to us on the maintenance operations side that the roof was deteriorating at a greater rate than had been forecast in that longer-range plan, that we had to get CPO planners refocused on attacking the problems in the roof. The court has suffered, and I think some Council people have suffered from unrepairable leaks that were the result of decaying and degrading of the roof deck, the associated cast iron, which is all intricately interconnected. It's not a house roof; you can't peel it off and put it back on and then caulk the edges, you know, to make everything nice and tight. That approach is intended to preserve 1159 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 really the building, and all of its other key elements are to be addressed more gradually over time. Now, regarding the issue of public safety, however, from the very beginning, millions were spent on those public safety issues identified by the combination of L&I and Fire Department -- the Fire Marshal in advance of the general rehab. And it was done for, obviously, the sprinklerization of the building, fire doors were installed, smoke-rated doors were installed and tied into the City's -- the building's alarm and detection systems. My understanding is that those required public safety issues have been completed. They were done on a timetable that was approved by the Board of -- is it the Board of Safety Review? I forget the exact title. But we were granted a number of variances.
The variances were principally time-related because of the size of the building and the extent of effort in doing it. To the best of my knowledge, with the concept of Fire and L&I, we've done what's appropriate under the circumstances in advance of 1160 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 a general renovation.
Commissioner, with the -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Now, if I may, some of the those installations are now three and four years old, and there are maintenance problems that we will run into from abuse or from just normal wear and tear, where we on our end -- not the capital side, on our end, have to respond and replace and restore certain items in the building.
Well, I'd appreciate you looking at the first-floor doors in this building. After hours, there's only one way out of this building. All the doors are dead-bolted shut. If in the event of a fire in this building or smoke, people would be unable to exit this building 'cause they're locked at night other than the northeast corner. And if this building became full of smoke, full of smoke, to try to find your way to an exit a block away I think would be very, very difficult. There are some people that have keys to those doors, but not all staff in this building, as you know, and this has been something 1161 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 that I've had an interest in for a couple years. I don't believe there's another building in Philadelphia, a commercial building, that would be given a variance where a condition like that exists. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We'll certainly look into it, Councilman.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madame Chair. I have two quick questions. On in the Operating Budget book, there's an item, Free Library of Philadelphia site to be determined, $1,028,000. Is that the money that's being allocated for the East Philadelphia branch or what? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Sorry to say, I don't know which branch. I know that I've been parenthetically involved. It is? Yes, it is. 1162 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
It is? Okay, I just wanted to make sure for the record that the money was there -- not that I doubted that, but I just wanted to double-check that. Going back to the questions that were being raised by Councilman Nutter earlier concerning Greater Media and Comcast, is there anything in the -- any legal description presently? And if not, can we look into the possibility of having some language included when we do enter into long-term negotiations with a cable company or other entities, which I just can't think of at the moment, where we may have an escape clause saying that if a long-term extension to your contract granted, you can't get out of that contract for a certain length of time. I think that may have gone a long way in helping us with this matter concerning Comcast and Greater I was directly involved with Greater Media. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Certainly.
'Cause I was directly involved with Greater Media in some of the discussions that were going on prior to the public hearing and some of the various local 1163 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 unions that interacted with Greater Media, and I was given assurances by everyone, the labor people of Greater Media, that they all came to some resolution as to some of the issues. As the District Councilperson where Greater Media is located, I instructed the people on the Public Utilities Committee that it was a go, and the next thing I knew -- and, again, I'm not faulting anyone here, but maybe we need to look at something going forward -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Well, I'll certainly bring that to the attention of Law Department.
-- to prevent that because it just has -- the appearance to this whole transaction leaves a lot to be desired. And I kind of feel rather foolish that I'm telling my colleagues that everything's okay -- well, at least I thought it was okay for Greater Media -- and then less than two months later, the deal is sold from under us. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Well, in the context of not getting the advanced notification or discussion that we've all been talking about, 1164 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 certainly, we can bring that issue to the Law Department. This isn't over. I mean, Council gets its shot at this because we'll have to bring it to you for final approval anyway under the current agreement terms.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madame President. Commissioner, did the Greater Media indicate, or was there any indication at all that it would have any difficulty in meeting its infrastructure upgrade obligations that it committed to under the new agreements?
Councilwoman, currently, Greater Media is in the throes of their upgrade, and their plans are to have the upgrade completed by March of next year. As far as the issue of them not fulfilling that part of it, it doesn't 1165 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 appear to be a concern, and it will certainly be something that we're going to have to monitor closing to make sure that the progress doesn't stop. But as the Commissioner said, at any part of this process, for them to consummate this transaction with Comcast, they're going to have to come before Council to get Council's approval.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you, Madame Chair. Commissioner, in terms of the Comcast-Greater Media merger, what is -- what has to happen for this to come about? What are the following steps that need to be taken? And what is the City's role going to be in the approval or disapproval or furtherance of this merger?
If I can answer the question, Councilman, our understanding of the process was that it was very similar to what we 1166 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 started to experience earlier when Time Warner and Wade talked about a possible sale or transaction is, the first aspect of it is, they have to provide us the written notification identifying the transaction so that we clearly understand whether or not it's a merger, an acquisition, a joint venture, or what is the realm of the controlling interests in the transaction. There is also a form that has to be completed. It's an FCC Form 394, where they have to provide us the specific information regarding the structure of the new entity, the transaction, the parties, if there's any funding, how all of that's going to be accomplished, as well as their ability to meet the obligations in the franchise. And I assume we would be concerned about whoever -- if it's going to be Comcast, their ability to meet the obligations of the renewal as well. We go through process where we have approximately 120 days to do our due diligence, at which point in time, we reach a conclusion that we then bring before Council to either approve or disapprove the transaction. And assuming that we would come before Council for a ordinance to 1167 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 approve it, Council will have conducted its own due diligence and have Council hearings on the fact and have the principals come in and --
Is there any timeline along those lines? As the Chairperson asked before on another issue, are we just going to get a huge document to be able to approve very quickly without any sort of deliberate thinking on the issue?
The only timeline that I'm aware of is the 120 days from the day we actually receive written notification to make a ruling to either approve or disapprove. Within that time frame, we need to conduct our due diligence, and I assume we would need to have enough time to prepare Council and provide Council with some sort of briefing prior to having the bill introduced.
I would hope that any part of the agreement that we have -- as Councilperson Nutter was asking you, and I don't want to be repetitive, but I would hope that the Public Access Corporation and the establishment of a public access TV sort of system within the city be a part of any new contract in terms of the 1168 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 merger or acquisition of these franchises.
There is a transfer provision in the Greater Media franchise. And under the Comcast acquisition, at this point in time, they will be obligated, under the old agreement, to the renewal agreement. So in the old agreement, that franchise provision for public access is still there as well as, as I said before, it is preserved in the new agreement as well. And it would be significant for us to make sure that Comcast, as part of their acquisition, is going to fulfill all of the terms in both the existing agreement and the renewal.
And I know this last question is sort of rhetorical at this point because the barn door has been opened and the wolf has entered into everything else, but we had a public-policy position when we approved cable back in '84, '85 that we wanted to promote competitiveness and so on, and that's why we divided it into four different areas. Obviously, that has flown the coop and that is no longer the public-policy position of the City at this point. But that's just a rhetorical statement 1169 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 that I wanted to make because it seems that we're going towards a monopoly system within the city, and I don't know whether that's good or bad at this point.
Well, if I can just speak to your question, the issue of competitiveness as far as cable is concerned, that the franchise agreements as they are structured now are nonexclusive, which means there is an ability that if someone was so inclined to get a franchise in the same area that an incumbent already exists, it's very similar to the, as you say, a backwards slant if you're watching the telephone industry deregulate. But at the same time, you see in many cases, they are becoming larger parties anyway and end up buying back into this monopoly fashion. But as the Telecommunication Act from the federal side mandated as well is that the marketplace should really drive competition, not regulation. So that their competitors are other cable operators who are willing to offer that same type of service. There's also the direct-satellite competition, which is having a large effect on the 1170 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 cable operators. And I would, at some point in time, assume that the telephone companies will get back into that business as well.
I just want you to -- 'cause I asked Councilman Nutter, but I want you to reiterate for the record once again, there was a commitment with the original contractors of cable in terms of a contribution that they were supposed to make to the public access and the maintenance of Public Access TV Corporation. That's still a part of the overall, and that money is still there, also though we haven't used it.
Yes, that money is still identified and dedicated for public access.
The money that's in the appendix -- all of the franchise agreements have an appendix that deals with public access funding, and it spells out specifically the amount of capital dollars that each cable operator must commit to fund cable-operating public-access studios and equipment. And there's also a provision in those same agreements for them -- 1171 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 based upon what Council decides, for them to commit a certain amount of funding for the operating fund costs of public access, with the understanding that they can deduct the money that they give us for operating costs from the revenues that they turn in to the city for their franchise fee. And in some cases, as recently, they've been -- you know, it's either a percentage of the 5 percent or it's a specific dollar amount that they put on each subscriber's bill.
So all that we have to do is -- I think that Councilman Nutter established and you detailed the process. Because of changes in federal law, we have to redraft a bill and then restructure -- pass an incorporation bill in Council and new bylaws.
And then the Mayor would have to appoint, with the consent of Council, the board of directors of that corporation.
Thank you, Madame 1172 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Chair.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Coming back to the last question of Councilman Ortiz's, then we're back at the same stage we were before we had ever passed any legislation? I mean, do we have to start all over again to -- I thought we had passed the legislation which authorized, we thought -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: With the passage of time and the change in the pertinent FCC regs and telecommunications law, the advice of Council is that the corporation has to be reauthorized and presumably is to recognize whatever obstacles, problems, issues, or restrictions may have come out of the those laws that have been passed and regs that have been passed in the interim. But the assumption is that once there's a policy decision to move forward, we've already preserved our option through the franchise renewals to do public access, and we preserved the financial commitments that have been there. The only real difference is it methodology by which 1173 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 the corporation gets create and enabled is what changes, and technically speaking, that brings you back to the drawing boards only in that one regard.
Well, I'm not sure I understood that, but is there a City Solicitor's opinion that states that we have to start all over again on forming the articles of incorporation?
Councilman, we do have an opinion from the City Solicitor on what is the process and what needs now to be put in place to move forward, and that includes a drafting of a new ordinance and a drafting of a new set of articles of incorporation to establish the nonprofit.
Do you have a copy of the City Solicitor's opinion in your department?
I would like very much if that was sent to the Council President so that we can study it and see it instead of having a long discussion here. 1174 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 But now onto finances. As a result of inactivity of the City since this act was first passed, can you tell us how much money we have lost in potential fees from the various cable companies since, I think it was 1983, when we first passed the legislation? Have we lost any money irreparably, or are the contractual obligations entered that were into by the cable companies that we gave their franchises all still there so that the City -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The specific financial obligations are still there. And I believe Councilman Nutter, who's not in the room 15 right now, was at least suggesting that the passage of time cost us the value of cost-of-living increases or other such things that change the value of a dollar the from the '80s to the '90s. The counter point to that would be that equipment in 1999 is different than it was ten years ago, and it isn't necessarily as expensive nor as huge as it used to be. And the mechanics of installing and implementing and maintaining are probably more simplified by technological progress 1175 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 than it was then. So we're left in that quandary of, you know, what would the $88 have bought then versus that same number, which doesn't carry the same value in 1999? What does it buy now?
Apart from that inflationary aspect -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Right.
-- just talking numbers of dollars, are we in a position to recapture any that we have not gotten to date? Because I understood that -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The agreements were not structured to provide us funds; the agreements enabled the franchise operators to spend the capital funds in order to establish the studio locations. That's the one side. The other side is the maintenance and support and continued operation. That presumably was going to come from either the franchise fee deduct or from Public Property's appropriations for staffing and operating expenses.
Well, just so I understand, can we deal with the capital funding? Did you say that capital funding did not involve 1176 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 any money; it involved the requirement on the cable companies to create from their own funds the necessary structures that a public access -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Up to the limits specified.
What's that? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Up to the limits that were specified in the appendix.
Do we know what the limits were? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
The initial capital contributions required for the cable operators are $125,000 for each of the neighborhood access facilities, and $50,000 for a mobile production van for a $300,000 total for each franchise area for an aggregate of 1.2 million. In addition, there's $150,000 obligation co-fund from each of the franchisees to fund a central studio for a total of $600,000.
And would those dollar numbers change at all in the new agreement?
No. The dollars are -- the 1177 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 same dollars that were in the original agreements are in the renewals.
And the new contract did not take into account the inflationary aspect?
No, it not take into account -- I think we answered that before. We preserved them as they were in the original agreements in the new agreements. Again, their consideration on how you actually do public access, whether you need to have five television stations in a city of this size. In some cities where they only have one or two, do you need to have nine studios, or is it more appropriate to have a smaller number that still accomplishes the same goal of public access. And like anything, if you're talking about a product that is untested in a marketplace, you don't want to spend all of the dollars up front without at least building up the momentum to see whether or not you have the demand and the capacity to provide hours of programming that 24 people see value in, and then you make the appropriate expenditures. 1178 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 So the dollars are there and they're preserved, but there is some management aspects of how you actually do it, and there is even some aspects on how some of the people who feel strongly about it help co-fund to help defray some of the operating costs as well.
Well, what's the City's attitude toward it? What's Public Property's attitude toward it? It seems to me there was a clear public mandate back in 1983 that we move ahead with this. And since then, the City has been sitting on its hands. Now, what's the City's position? The City's against public access? If so, let's state it and we'd like to hear why. Why has there been no access in the last 15 or 16 years to promote what we in City Council believe was an adopted policy? It was a bill passed by City Council, signed by the Mayor? Why hasn't there been action? Do we have a new kind of veto, in which it's veto by inaction? (Laughter.)
I mean, don't 1179 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 understand. We pass bills and nothing happens. Does anybody hear? And if not, Madame President, I would like to have the Mayor here to find out what is the City's policy on public access? We passed an action -- you were here, I was here, you were here. You know, it's a long time, and nothing has happened. Was it a separate private deal arranged for the purpose of creating more profits for cable TV? Were they fearful of competition? I mean, if so, maybe they even had a legitimate reason to be fearful or maybe they didn't, but at least we ought to be discussing it. We ought to find out what the policy is. I don't want to embarrass anybody here; has there ever been a discussion, to your knowledge, as to why we have not moved ahead with public access? Commissioner, you're a fine man, but just tell us. I don't want to waste the time of the Council or your time. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I can't escape the fact that I've been commissioner for seven or 1180 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 eight years now and I've had to continually try to appropriately respond to that question over and over again in its many variations. Historically, historically, the cost of supporting it was not something that could be accommodated in my budget. Obviously, when I first came to the Department in the near-bankruptcy years, where every penny counted, the request for -- in the internal process before coming to Council, requests for funding never held up against the higher priorities of public safety agencies and other aspects of Public Property operation. At the same time, you know, as commissioner, am I going to ask for this continuously when I can't fund year after year in those earlier years all of the priorities that we thought were pertinent for the Department and for the agencies that we support? You know, it's a new era. We have financial stability. The discussion in that context has been that we're still very tight. My department has reduced its operating expenses by the millions of dollars year to year -- not 1181 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 increased operating expenses. I can only answer for it in the context of my department and be, you know, be perfectly honest that I'm not going to ask the Dean Kaplans of the world for something that doesn't appear to have broader support as an expense that ought to be incorporated in my department.
You're indicating -- and I don't mean this to be critical, but I'm just trying to find out where the situation is because there is a strong demand and I think the demand did not express itself publicly because it had confidence in the City Administration that it would move forward we do that. And we do that. You know, we expect that when Council passes a bill, the administration proceeds to act on the bill, and I think the community relied on that. And nothing has happened. And it just seems to me that what you're telling us is that there hasn't been a sufficiently expressed public support for cable TV so that you would feel that you would want to incorporate it into your budget, so you have not 1182 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 incorporated it in your budget. Is that about right? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: That's essentially correct. I mean, we've recognized the fact that there has been interest out there, obviously, or maybe that aspect would not have been preserved in the renewals. So we do feel that it's still a public policy expectation and that there is some public expectation at some point in the future that, you know, that there will be public access activity. And so, in our negotiations with the Law Department as our partner in that, in the renewal process, we've at least preserved the City's option. We've preserved the original intent of Council to provide public access.
But when we started, your hair wasn't even beginning to turn gray. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No, it wasn't.
And now, it's on its way. Maybe you're lucky you still have it. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER PEREZ: You know, I'm losing my Conway Twitty look. 1183 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Let me ask you, has the Mayor's Office ever said, How come you don't have any money in here for public access? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I think --
Because I don't really think it's Public Property's major responsibility; I think it's the top people's major responsibility, because it's a top-policy question. Whether or not there's enough money in Public Property largely depends upon how the Mayor makes his decisions on the budget. If the Mayor thought public access was important -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I think the other significant development -- notwithstanding everything else that's been said -- is the PICA management and control of City income and expenses. And in our submission to Council President Verna, we made it very clear that if we spend a million dollars here in a way that hadn't been previously programmed into our five-year plan, it's got to come from somewhere else, whether it's a deduct on the franchise fee and, therefore, a deduction in revenue or a change in 1184 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 my only internal budget operations or some other department's operations.
So then you're saying Council basically made a mistake -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: So the balancing -- the five-year balancing act which has now layered over us for many years --
But, Commissioner, you're saying what we basically did was to make a mistake in City Council when we decided to accept the good faith of the city mayors, that they would move ahead? So you said that if the funding isn't used for public access, it will go into, I guess, the General Fund? Is that where the money's going in. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Their final commitment, the commitments are still there.
So you're telling us it's the City that has to pay for the cost of public access? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No. I believe --
We thought it was the cable companies that were paying. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The subscribers 1185 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 end up paying.
What's that? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The subscribers end up paying.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano for a point of information.
Sure, we know the subscribers pay, Commissioner -- and they've been paying all along, but where is the money that was put away? I mean, did you just tell Councilman Cohen that -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Money has not been put away.
Well, since '83. Now, in '83, I wasn't here; I was in high school or something, but what happens is --
No, it wasn't grade school; it was high school. But we put this money away and they enter a contract. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. That money comes down to 1186 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Public Property -- to the City, and Public Property gets it? Was the money ever put away? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No. 5
No. Apparently, the City just confiscated the money. The City decided instead of having public access, the City wanted to hold on to the money itself.
But is it sitting in a room somewhere, this money? Or has it never existed 'cause it was never taken? 'Cause they took my cable money every month when I paid the bill. So from now on, I can deduct 5 percent off that was supposed to be for --
Councilman Mariano, they tell us the franchise fee was paid, which means that payment was made by the cable companies. Then it was up to the City, and the City decided they'll put it in their General Fund 1187 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 pocket rather than make it available for public access. They conned us, that's all. We were conned in City Council. We thought we passed a bill to, you know, to provide for public access, and people in the Mayor's Office have been smiling all the time.
Councilman, they conned us again when we just renewed the --
They just conned us again apparently too because they liked the language so much, they just kept the same language.
I can't believe they could con my esteemed colleagues.
I can't believe that they could con my esteemed colleagues year after year? They just conned us again?
So, no, seriously, the money was never collected? Or it was collected? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It was -- the 1188 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 franchise fee, the percent allowed and capped by the federal government, is collected, I think, quarterly per franchise area, and it's deposited in the General Fund. The other costs that some of you are labeling "fee," were spending agreements, spending agreements to capital support, provide capital support and, I think, limited -- limited normal daily operation support of public access.
So in the plain world of the people that we happen to -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: But if the expense occurs --
There's no money for access. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: -- it's deducted from the 5 percent.
There's capital money to be spent to build the studios and provide the equipment.
Right, but there's no operating money. 1189 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
There's operating money that gets deducted out of the franchise. If Council says we want you to take half a million dollars out of the franchise fee for public access for them to do the operating costs, then that will come out of the franchise fee.
But if I hear Commissioner Perez right, the reason -- now, I may have heard this wrong 'cause I have a cold this morning, but did I hear that the reason we didn't do this was because someone decided no matter what contracts we entered into, no matter what bills that Council's been passing since 1983, they really don't mean diddly here, right? Is that it? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No, I don't --
Because somebody downstairs decided that we don't have public access? In layman's terms. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I've tried to respond in layman's terms as best as I can. I don't think my responses are making anybody here feel any better or understand the history or the problem any better. But the fact is that now in 1190 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 1999, as a consequence of various things that have happened since Council passed the earlier ordinance, this Department and the City doesn't have the corporation enabled to implement and activate the public access programming activity. If and when it occurs, when it occurs, the franchise-holders have the ability to take the funds before we ever get it and appropriate it for the support of the corporation and take it out of the 5 percent. So we will receive less than 5 percent. That's what I'm trying to say. When it's activated and it passes the capital start-up and it's ready to roll, the daily operating expenses are going to come -- or can come as a deduct from the fee. One way or the other either. They either give the City less than 5 percent, and the difference will be the cost of the studio operations; or they'll tack on a surcharge to the subscribers -- a quarter, 50 cents -- to cover the costs.
Of course. Why do we have such difficulty with a system or a mechanism that we set up ourselves, and other cities seem to be able to pull this off? I mean, 1191 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 I've been in other cities north of here that have some real decent community access. I just don't understand it. I just think -- I mean, these aren't facetious questions. Obviously, we're not blaming you 'cause you come here as the commissioner and you obviously answer to someone, and I think Councilman Cohen just wanted to know what the stance is for this. I mean, are we for this or aren't we? You wouldn't seem to think that Council, as a whole, because they kept asking us since '83. But, you know, we could talk about operating budgets, capital budgets. Is this thing going to happen or not? You know, I don't mind people telling me things that I don't like as long as they tell me the truth. And I'm not saying that you're telling anything but the truth here, Commissioner, but I think that sometimes, the way this whole scenario is set up, we get tired of hearing the same answers all the time from the same departments that are practically just another way of not telling the truth. You know, and I don't think you sit down and you're going to 1192 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 deceive us. You have things you have to say because you work for people that want you to say certain things. Thank you, Madame President.
If my colleagues agree, I think that we have been discussing this for some time now. I think before we actually put the budget to bed, so to speak, we ought to have a briefing with the Commissioner of Public Property so that we can actually address this very one issue that everybody seems to have concern about. Would you all agree?
Madame President, may I add one thing? I think we've got to have the Mayor present because I don't think a commissioner has the power, under the present administration, to make any decisions on it. I think the only that could have the power would be the Mayor or the Chief of Staff. I have yet to hear Councilman Nutter's idea that Councilman Nutter --
We'll be more than happy to extend an invitation to the Mayor 1193 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 and the Chief of Staff.
Thank you. Councilman, I don't have any problem with your suggestion. I think, though, what might be helpful, beyond the letter that the Commissioner wrote to the Council President laying out -- in response to questions that were raised by Councilman Ortiz and I back on February 9th, I think what also might be helpful prior to that meeting, whether you invite the Mayor or don't invite the Mayor, is if the Department could provide to us in a step-by-step fashion what needs to take place, which I actually thought was the original question back in early February. But if you could give us a detailed explanation on a step-by-step basis of what needs to happen to have full implementation, from the ordinance creating the Public Access Corporation to new bylaws. As a part of that memo, give us the old ordinance that was passed and the only bylaws, and tell us what the problems are as created by changes in federal law that caused those bylaws not to be implemented, what the costs 1194 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 are associated -- you've mentioned that in the memo. But what I'd also like to know as a part of that is a year-by-year accounting for the 5 percent franchise fee. If you tell me that it's $8 million today, it certainly was not $8 million 15 years ago 'cause they were just getting started then. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Right.
And you're only now up to 60 percent penetration. But you should be able to tell us on a year-by-year basis what the franchise fees to the City of Philadelphia have been because what I really want to know is the total amount of franchise fees that have been collected by the City over the past 15 years, none of which obviously have been devoted to public access, all of which have been going into the General Fund, and I'd like to see on a year-by-year basis what we have missed over the past 15 years. So I think we need another document that lays out what the process is. And then, you know, Councilman, in you want to pursue the Mayor, 1195 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Chief of Staff or, you know, anybody else, that's certainly fine with me but I think we have to have as much information as possible.
Madame President, I would agree with Councilman Nutter. I think before we have a briefing or meeting with the Mayor, I do think we do have to have all the facts at our command. We don't want to spend time trying to get the facts at that point.
Commissioner, when do you think you can provide that information? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It will probably take a couple of weeks. Obviously, some of it's, you know, readily available, but we'd have to do some research on the other aspects of the question and put it together and respond to you by way of the Administration.
Well, I think that that may be too late. I don't know when we 1196 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 have our first reading does anybody know? March 10th? I think it's March 10th or 11th that we have our first reading. We report them out when? When do we report the bills?
We don't have to act on the budget until, actually, the end of May so there would be ample time to --
If we could get this information before March the 9th, I don't see any reason to hold the budget back if we get this information. Would you be able to provide this information to us before March the 9th? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes, we would. We just conferred with Mr. Kaplan, and we will do that.
Very well. Thank you. Any other statements? Councilwoman Tasco?
I'm sorry. You don't have your mike on, do you? 1197 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
I wasn't clear on the setup of the access channel. What triggers the setup of the access channel? Council has to do that? If the money is there, what did you say? I didn't hear you. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Well, very generally, and I don't think we have Law Department representatives here with us, but Council is action to be followed by Mayor's action because the Mayor will appoint in concert with Council the members of the cooperation. Anything that happens from that point forward will be based, I'm assuming, on whatever detailed operations plan is adopted for how the corporation will function and how soon the target dates are set for a studio or other studios to be set in place. But the key thresholds are Council action and Administration action. Reauthorizing the corporation and then "staffing" it, for lack of a better word, with members appointed by 1198 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Council and the Mayor's Office.
Councilwoman, you just brought something to my memory. We were told last year that we would be getting a new microphone system in Council. (Laughter.)
What is the status of that request? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We voided a bid. Got as far as bidding for the new system. I believe there was only one interested party in submitting the bid. We didn't think that that was a good bid, nor did it cover the scope of service we wanted. It was rebid. And the rebid will occur in order for the new system to be installed during the recess.
You're not saying which summer. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER PEREZ: This summer, this summer, I'm sorry. 1199 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
It's the same bid with the 800 megahertz radio system, I bet. I have a question in reference to the way we do business, day-to-day business, buying services and things that are bidded. Commissioner James, Deputy Commissioner James indicated that we spent -- we contracted with Bell Atlantic to do this computer technology. Was that a bid?
The original pilot for the mobile data terminals was done with Bell Atlantic Mobile. After we kind of did a proof-in-concept test of it and we found that the technology did meet our requirements, we then did do a bid between the two providers who were provided at that time, and that was Comcast Metrophone and Bell Atlantic Mobile, and Bell Atlantic Mobile won on the bid.
Could you just take a minute and explain what services you bid and 1200 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 what you don't bid. I understand in especially the communications industry, within Public Property, there's a premises amount of money spent that is never bidded. Could you describe for me an example of something that you don't bid?
Well, a lot of the traditional telecommunication services prior to the Telecommunications Act have only been provided by one incumbent local exchange provider, Bell Atlantic. So a large amount of the services that are provided by the city are purchased from Bell Atlantic Telephone Company off of their regulatory tariffs. That service traditionally has not been bid because there has not been competitors in the market who could provide similar services of the same value.
Well, that is something that we're assessing. I think, as you can see, we're trying to structure ourselves to be prepared for more competitors into the market who are willing and able to provide similar services of the same complexity, and bid those services out.
Other than telephone 1201 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 and other services provided by Bell Atlantic, day-to-day operations of the Department of Public Property more so in the communications and with repair and all the things that keep our Police and Fire, are they pretty much competitive bids?
No. There are competitive bid. There are long-distance services that are competitive bid, our equipment that we provide, the phone systems are all competitive bid. Paging is competitive bid, wireless services is competitive bid. Just about the whole gamut, other than the traditional Bell Atlantic services that we've been providing are competitively bid.
Commissioner, I have one very brief question. In reading your testimony, I see that we're proposing a Women's 1202 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Correctional Facility be constructed. Can you tell me where that will be located? And when do you expect construction to begin and end? And where do we presently house the women? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The women are presently housed in a facility. I think it's referred to as a Module I, II, or III -- I'm sorry I don't remember which one -- at the prison complex on State Road. The proposal is to carve out a portion of the existing complex out there, which will require demolition of some small buildings to clear it and construct -- is it 400 beds? -- a 400-bed facility for women inmates only.
And when will that construction begin and end? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Let me ask Joan Schlotterbeck, our Building Services Director, to try to respond to that. (Joan Schlotterbeck comes forward.)
Councilwoman, I'm Joan Schlotterbeck, Department of Public Property. 1203 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 We're anticipating that the female facility will be completed by the last quarter of Fiscal 2000.
Is the District Councilperson aware of this? And do we have approval from -- are there area residents in that -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: To the best of my knowledge, I'll say yes, for a number of reasons. Obviously it's not a Department Operating item; it's a Capital Program Office Capital Project request, so it's in all of the projects that have been provided to each of you in general, and is pending Council's action for appropriation and approval. It is tied to the consent decree, which has been influencing everything that happens out there for the past 10-plus years. Unfortunately, the prisons are in a better position to respond to that, and CPO is in a better situation to respond to that than I am.
Okay. I 1204 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 don't think there are any further questions, but if you would send us the information requested, we would certainly invite you to a briefing. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Thank you.
Thank you very much. At the request of the stenographer, we'll take a ten-minute recess. Thank you. (Short break taken.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
We're now back in session. The next department to testify is the Office of Fleet Management. (Fleet Management panel members come forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. We have a copy of your testimony, which will be given to the stenographer to be transcribed in full. If you would abbreviate your testimony, it would really be appreciated. 1205 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
President Verna and distinguished members of City Council, my name is Riley P. Harrison, Fleet Manager for the City of Philadelphia. With me today is Robert Fox, my Director of Administration Services; and Nadine Glover, my Budget Officer. And we thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in support of our FY 2000 Operating Budget request for the Office of Fleet Management. 5 million less than its FY 1999 budget because vehicle acquisition funding has been reduced to a more normal level. This budget also reflects an increase of nearly $500,000 in Class 100 for negotiated wage increases. 4 million. 4 million dollar. 1206 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 OFM continues to develop and implement the effective Fleet Management policies and practices that govern the acquisition, assignment, utilization, and maintenance and relinquishment of all City vehicles. S. Conference of Mayors. This aware recognized the City's work with the 3M Corporation, which manufactures the materials used to create the graphics used on City vehicles. This effective partnership led to the development by 3M at no coast to the City of standards of application of graphics on over 180 different classes and models of vehicle. The City's fleet is very diverse in terms of its size, complexity, and function. It has an asset value exceeding $220 million, and that is including the Water and Aviation Fund. This represents a significant investment of public funds in the delivery of City services. OFM's ongoing preventative maintenance 1207 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 program is essential and is key to the reliability and cost effectiveness for the operation of the City's fleet. The effective Fleet Management is informed by accurate operational and cost data, and since FY 1995, OFM relied on an innovative information management system titled "FACTS" (Fleet Accounting Computer Tracking System). " This information from FUMES is allowing OFM to measure vehicle usage and predict costs of repairs and maintenance. And during the remainder of FY 1999, we will analyze fleet utilization data and will be able to develop recommendations regarding the optimal size and configuration of the fleet. Annually, increasing continuing education and supporting the high-school internship program annually since 1994, all OFM employees have received the equivalent of one week of training that is tailored to their level of expertise and career development. In FY 1998, 232 employees attended 526 courses. In addition, we 1208 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 conduct in-house seminars three times a year, covering our basic missions in preventive maintenance, right-to-know safety standards, personnel policies and procedures, and customers relations. We also support and continue to develop in our diagnostic skills for our technical employees the ability to obtain their master's certification in automotive or truck technology. And I'm happy to report that percent of our 12 technical professional workforce is now certified 13 as master either auto or truck technicians. 14 That's quite an accomplishment in our industry 15 with the changing in technology. 16 Before City vehicles are acquired, we 17 develop design specifications with the client 18 departments, including the most current 19 technological advancements to ensure optimal 20 operational performance, extending their life 21 cycles, and maintaining cost efficiency. For 22 example, we have recently purchased equipment for 23 the airport of a highly-sophisticated airport 24 rescue and fire-fighting truck that is designed to 25 subdue fires that occur within the fuselage of an 1209 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 airplane.
We've also recently taken delivery for the Department of Recreation an innovative mobile performance stage which has a self-contained power-generation unit, sound system, theatrical lighting system, and this mobile stage has reduced the time-consuming and labor-intensive manual preparation of this stage, which travels from district to district, and community to community. Since OFM's conception, the creation of a central repair facility has been acknowledged as advantageous because it would facilitate expansion of our delivery capacity and would provide the space needed for large-scale in-house vehicle rehabilitations. Although there is a commitment to go forward with such a facility, OFM is completing a study to determine its operational impacts on the General Fund. In conclusion, Fleet Management will continue to provide quality service and a fiscally prudent manner. Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you, and I will be 1210 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 happy to answer questions you may have.
Thank you very much, Mr. Harrison. Could you tell us why you are projecting scheduled repairs to decrease and unscheduled repairs to increase in FY 2000? I believe that's on of your testimony.
One thing we've recognized in FY 1999, we have a vehicle replacement budget for the General Fund of $21 million, and our request for FY 2000 is $18 million. With those funds, we'll be able to inject newer equipment in the fleet. And from previous testimonies, the majority of that funding goes to Public Health and Safety equipment, approximately 80 percent. But as the fleet continues to age, there is a necessity to do more repairs to that equipment. We've intensified our preventive maintenance efforts. And, again, as the fleet ages, more focus is placed on replacement of parts prior to failure, and we are projecting that unscheduled repairs, as a result of some of that aging, will increase modestly in FY 2000. 1211 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
You stated that your budget contains $18 million for vehicle purchase in FY 2000.
Would you provide with us a listing by department and by type of vehicle that will be required in FY 2000. Will these be additions to the City's fleet or replacements?
The majority are replacement vehicles. And, again, 80 percent of that normally is allocated to Public Health and Safety.
Yes, 80 percent of that funding is generally allocated or used by the Public Health and Safety Departments. And it's used for replacement vehicles within those departments.
I can't give you an 1212 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 exact number, but it would be approximately 300 vehicles across the board.
Why are you projecting increases of approximately 27 percent in diesel fuel and gasoline in FY 2000?
The fuel industry is a very volatile industry right now. The cost of gasoline today, the cost of a cup of coffee that we spend today is more expensive than what we pay for one gallon of unleaded diesel fuel. That's very good for us today. But looking at FY 2000, we have to project that the cost will go up. I'm not in the industry to know what's going to happen with the OPEC countries or the supply of oil. So realistically, we have to project more than what the low is today, which is 34 cents a gallon for unleaded gasoline. So we are projecting for a more realistic cost of fuel. And 18 months prior to today the fuel cost to the City, less its taxes an everything was almost doubled. So we're projecting FY 2000 to bring it back into a more realistic projection on the cost of a gallon of diesel fuel and a gallon of 1213 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 unleaded gasoline.
Excuse me a minute, please. What did we spend this year for diesel fuel and gasoline?
I believe that I have the page before me. Yes, please, for the record, would you please respond. (Robert Fox comes forward.)
My name is Robert Fox, with Fleet Management. For FY '98, we did $1.5 million for diesel fuel and $2.9 million for unleaded.
Thank you. Mr. Harrison, you are reducing your overtime budget in FY 2000 by approximately 35 percent. How do you plan on achieving these reductions without impacting your service levels?
Two ways, Madame Chair. One is that we are projecting hiring ten persons for FY 2000 from our FY 1999 head count. And we also implemented citywide through the labor agreements that we have what we call "shift changes." We identified 3 major facilities within 1214 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 the 18 facilities that we're operating where we announce to the District Council that we want shift changes to give better coverage to our client departments. In other words, shift from a Monday-to-Friday schedule to go Tuesday through Saturday and Monday through Friday. We're allowed that once per year as long as we give proper notice. So with that shift changes that we've already implemented at our Public Health and Safety facility Front Street and Hunting Park, the continued shift changes that went into effect January 1st of this year at three other major facilities, we think we can manage down our overtime expenditures and better support our client departments.
If they are hiring ten additional people, are you filling vacancies, or will these strictly be ten additional people added from this year's budget?
It would be 10 positions 1215 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 -- there would be positions in the 3 administrative area and 7 positions in the professional technical area.
Is it reflected in the budget in the way you're describing? If you look at -27? Are you getting less people than you were budgeted for this year?
Robert Fox, Fleet Management. Our increment run as of 11/98 was 466 and --
Right. But we didn't fill anywhere near 488. Right now, we're at 464.
So you're still funding less people than you did this year. I don't know how you get the 10 additional. I don't see that.
Madame President, I may have spoken on additional. There are ten replacement persons.
They're existing vacancies -- 1216 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
-- that you want to fill, but I don't see that reflected in the budget. This year, you were budgeted for 488 positions. For Year 2000, you're budgeted for 476 positions.
Madame Chair, this fiscal year, we didn't fund too 488, and we used more of those funds for overtime. Next year because of the shift changes, we do not believe we'll have to use as much of that point, and with adding an additional 10 people from the increment run of today, we'll be able to reduce the overtime.
Well, my interpretation of -27 does not indicate to me that you are getting 12 additional people, whether they be new or they're simply filling vacancies, would you agree?
But listen to me, would you look at the page with me, 45-27. In FY '99, you were budgeted for 488 positions, correct? 1217 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
For the Year 2000, you are budgeted for 476 positions. Yet, you tell me you are filling vacant positions. 7 I don't see that. Why wouldn't that figure be 486 8 positions budgeted for that year 2000? Can 9 somebody explain that to me, please? 10
Yes. If you take the increment run that appears there at 466 and we fill those vacancies of 10 positions, that would bring it up to the 476, which is still under our budgeted positions.
It's your department. And if you're satisfied, so be it. I was just trying to help you. Are there any questions or comments from anyone? The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.
I'm sorry, Madame Chair, I just came in. And these questions may have been asked, so if they were, please forgive me and tell me they have been. 1218 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Motorcycles for highway patrol, did you ask anything about that?
We purchased two motorcycles in FY 1999. They were full-size motorcycles with side cars. We're developing specifications for our next fiscal year purchase, and we're working with the Police Department through, you know, their sources to try and inject a few motorcycles to replace some of our 1985 and '86 vintage bicycles, if you will, or motorcycles.
They may be worth more as (unintelligible) as than the ones you can buy at this point, yeah.
At this point, they may be close to antique, but they're well-maintained and you know. . .
Is there a game plan next five, ten years to replace all of them?
That is correct, yes, there is, Councilman. 1219 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Does anyone else have any questions or comments? (No further questions at this time.)
Thank you very much. I would suggest you look at the budget again.
The next department to be heard will be the Water Department. (Water Department panel members come forward.)
Good afternoon, Commissioner. Thank you for your patience. And, of course, I want to thank you for all of the help that you give my office year-round. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Thank you, Madame Chair.
Your office really is always very, very responsive, and I want you to know how much we appreciate it. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Thank you 1220 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 very much for --
Thank you. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: -- letting us know. And good afternoon, President Verna and members of City Council. My name is Kumar Kishinchand, and I'm the Water Commissioner for the City of Philadelphia. And thank you for the opportunity to come and testify on the Fiscal Year 2000 Operating Budget for the Water Department. We are seeking your approval for an Operating Budget of $199.7 million. In addition to that, we are requesting $222.7 million for payment to other agencies such as Water Revenue Bureau, Law, etc. as well as payments to the debt service for the capital borrowing that we've done. So the total budget is $422.4 million. I've provided you with a detailed testimony, so I'll try to keep my testimony very brief and to the key points that the Council is generally interested in.
Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: And the 1221 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 first point is, our drinking water is extremely safe. It's probably one of the highest quality in the nation. And all of our three plants have been recognized by the US EPA for their participation in the Partnership for Safe Water, which has established goals that are five times more stringent than the federal regulations required. And we've met those goals and we've done better by 30 percent on those. And in fact last year, all three of our water pollution control plants received gold awards for compliance with all the regulations for every sitting hour of every single day of 1998. All this has been done at a cost without any rate increases for the past two years. As you may recall for the last three years, I've come before you and said we will not have a rate increase until the year 2000.
And I see we're not going to have a rate increase in FY 2000. I'm not going to ask you about 2001; we'll be satisfied just with knowing that we're not going to get one in FY 2000.
(Inaudible, off 1222 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 mike.)
Do you really want to know? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Perhaps I should --
Commissioner you, can you answer the question that Councilman Kenney just asked? Be very soft and kind, please. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Okay. We're, at this point, projecting a rate increase in 2001, but we want to keep that as low as possible. As you know, in the past, we projected in our five-year plan rate increases which we worked very hard to minimize and make it disappear. I'm not suggesting that in 2001, we'll be successful in eliminating all of it, but we'll work very hard to bring it down from the projections that we show in our five-year plan at this point. But in the year 2000, Fiscal Year 2000, we are not requesting any rate increase, and this is something that I do not believe there are too many agencies or utilities in this region that can say they are not increasing their rates. 1223 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 If you look at the rates that are being charged in the surrounding counties, and surrounding neighborhoods and neighboring towns, they're paying almost twice as much for just water. Our rates are the lowest in this region, and many of those townships, etc., do not have storm-water rates incorporated into them. And some of the agencies have in excess of $50 a month for their water and waste-water services, whereas ours is less than $40. So our rates are low, and I think we've accomplished this because of the very hard work that our employees in the Department have done and the partnerships and the team work that has been built up between both labor and management to keep our costs down and continue to keep our costs down. And perhaps I think, having made those points, perhaps it might be best that I get prepared to answer your questions to cover some more detail that you might want to have on this. Thank you.
Thank you,. Councilman Kenney. 1224 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Thank you, Madame Chair. This relates in some ways to the potential of the proposed increase for 2001, however minimal you might like to strive to make it. What's the total outstanding money that's owed to the Water Department, both commercial -- first commercial and then residential arrearages that are owed to the Water Department for service? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Our total receivables are approximately in the $170 million range, and we have Denise Garrett here, who's the head of the Water Revenue Bureau. Perhaps she can give you -- or my Deputy Water Commissioner, one of the two probably has a number that's more accurate than the one I gave you.
And additionally as it relates to that question, how much of that money would you deem uncollectible that we're just never going to get? How much do we lop off of that that we'd have to either write off at some point in time? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: I wouldn't 1225 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 be --
So it's $170 million outstanding? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Yes, 170-plus, it's 176 approximately, but I -- (Mike Nadol comes forward.)
My name's Mike Nadol. I'm Deputy Water Commissioner. To give you a little better quantified sense of what our receivables look like, as of December 31, -- I'm sorry, with our February data, our outstanding total receivable, which includes bills that have just been issued and aren't even yet delinquent, is approximately 195 million. If you subtract those current bills that are within their first 30 days of issuance, that number comes down closer to the level the Commissioner indicated. There are about 29 million in current receivables outstanding. So that brings you down to approximately $165 million, $170 million. Of that, however, nearly 100 million is two years delinquent or longer. Under City accounting policies, we carry our receivables out 1226 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 years, and much of that long-delinquent receivable, unfortunately, is likely to be very, very difficult to collect upon. So if you subtract the current delinquent receivables and those receivables that are more than two years in age, you're left with something on the order of to 60 to $70 million. And of that, a significant portion is over one year old and is also going to be difficult to collect in full.
Of that one -- 13 let's see, of the 170 total, even though 14 $100 million is more than two years or older, how 15 much of that is commercial accounts and how much of that are residential accounts?
Okay. Out of -- well, to do the math most simply, much of it is -- the majority is certainly residential.
It's more than 80 percent. And we do have a detailed breakdown, which we'd be happy to submit in writing to Council, if that would help. 1227 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Of course, please. And of the $100 million two years or older, are all of those inactive accounts?
The balance of that receivable, those customers are still receiving water service today?
Correct. Some may be under payment agreements whereby they're gradually paying down that delinquency, but yes.
Yeah, I don't count active current payment agreements in the delinquent receivable category. I think that the people come in, make an agreement, abide by the agreement, they should be segregated out of this chronic delinquent group. But of the chronic delinquent group, you said about $47 million out of $100 million are inactive.
So the balance of that money is still -- those customers are still receiving water service. But in that group are 1228 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 also people who have active and current delinquent-account payment programs.
But there's also a percentage of that group that have nothing but are still receiving water service.
I'm sure there may be some. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Mm-hmm, yeah. More than very likely, they are.
We need to find -- I'd like to find that out. As all of the things I've asked for, if you could just kind of get them through the Chair to us in writing so that we have a clearer picture of what our delinquencies actually are.
Is there any values in the $100 million two years or older vis-a-vis the value that was in the outstanding liens, property tax liens that we recently sold? Is there any similar value in those delinquent accounts? (Denise Garrett comes forward.)
Good afternoon. My 1229 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Denise Garrett, Bureau Chief of the Water Revenue Bureau. The way our accounts receivable is captured, each one of these categories may represent a property. A property may have a receivable that spans current to years, and 8 that property may have value. 9 To give you an example, the Department 10 of -- 11
Yes. That delinquency 14 may have value. To give you an example, apartment 15 buildings, which we recently began the Utilities Services Tenants Rights Act Program, and we found a lot of large, occupied viable buildings that the owners are receiving income from, and we subsequently were able to generate close to $60 million worth of revenue from all categories of our accounts receivable. So, yes, I would answer there is value in some of those properties.
Could those delinquencies be sold or the liens for those 1230 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 delinquencies be sold at a reduced rate for us to capture dollars now and to allow servicing companies and collection agencies to go after those delinquent accounts?
Well, we are using servicing agencies and collection agencies, though we have not sold the lien. And we have a subordinate lien position with the City. We do not have a first lien position, so we would have to consider all of the financial impact of factoring out those receivables before we could make that decision.
I would appreciate, in addition to what I've requested, to see whether or not there's a profile of this entire universe of accounts and whether or not there's value in our attempt, as we did with the tax lien sale, to try to capture money up front and sell off the value of those delinquencies.
We did do a profiling of our delinquent accounts against the real estate tax lien accounts to see if there was a match between the two of them, and we did find the -- I won't say "significant," but there were quite a 1231 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 few matches. Recently, we began a sheriff's sale program, and we again discovered that there were correlations between the tax lien and the water lien in close to 50 percent of the cases that we prepared for the sale. So we have to consider and look at this very closely because it may, on the surface, appear to have value from the sale, but because of other competing receivable mandates, it may not necessarily have it.
All right. You had testified during the course of the Capital Budget hearing that there were approximately 120,000 delinquent accounts?
In Philadelphia for water? And approximately to percent of them 19 were identified as truly needy individuals who 20 were involved in some type of low-income program, 21 some wraparound service or some program provided 22 by the Water Department for people who are 23 indigent and in need of help for -- 24
Approximately 20,000; I 25 didn't say it was 20 percent. 1232 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
So the other 100,000 either have come in to make arrangements or are intentionally delinquent or are inactive accounts?
Well, we have -- the categories that would come under that would be those that are in payment agreement, which are also reflected in these receivable balances. Those that have not come, those that have no 14 intentions of coming in, vacant properties -- no, vacant properties aren't listed here. But those that are vacant that we are not aware of may be listed here, meaning the newly-vacant properties.
Is there some reason why there would be a moratorium in the winter for water service? I can understand the gas because part of it. I mean, when we have a moratorium on gas shutoffs for the winter were months, to me, it makes kind of rational sense. Is there some rational sense for the winter months precluding 1233 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 shutoffs for water?
Personally, I see no 8 reason for a winter moratorium for shutoff. I do think that there needs to be a safety net in place for those customers who have difficulty paying and who have other situations, such as elderly and handicapped or long-term medical illnesses. That's a 12-month issue; that's not a winter issue. Apart from that, I really don't see that present that there's a need for a moratorium for the winter for water. I mean, our season usually -- the Commissioner can respond to this -- we have heat warnings that trigger us to stop shutoffs in the summertime. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: There are very few properties that are essentially heated by steam. I think for steam-heated properties, you need some water, but at the same time, I think what we need to do is develop a process whereby we 1234 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 can identify the folks who are in need and cannot afford to pay, that there heat is not cut out. But for most of the properties, you do not have steam heat. It's --
Does the moratorium also apply to commercial accounts? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: No, it does not, just residential accounts.
Just residential accounts. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Just residential accounts.
And all of that information, I'd appreciate it if you could provide it to the Chair so that it can be disseminated to us, but I will say that unless and until we get a clearer picture of this entire delinquent-account situation, we shouldn't be considering rate increases for the year 2001. I mean, you want to and I know you want to minimize the hurt that comes in 2001 with the rate increase, but you can minimize it directly by getting your arms around this group as best you can. Because, again, working-class people are 1235 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 really tired and have a difficulty in carrying this burden for the rest of the city. I mean, when you have people who are paying their bills, working to and three jobs, paying their taxes, raising their kids, it really is unfair for them to carry the burden of people who refuse to pay or commercial accounts that know the system well enough that can maneuver around it without paying. And with $170 or so million in potentially-delinquent accounts, I think it's unconscionable to ask people to pay more money when we haven't been able to collect what it is we need to collect that's delinquent. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, if you look at our budget, we're going to be adding a few more people in our shut-off crews. I think that is one of the strongest tools we have to force people to come in and at least make payments agreement or pay up.
See, from my perspective, if you can come in and make a payment agreement, I think you've met us halfway and you're making an effort. If you're ducking us or 1236 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 you're making a payment agreement and as soon as the moratorium comes, you fall delinquent on that payment, I think that, you know, maybe one or two shots at the apple is fine, but after that. . . Is there any public utility commission restrictions on our ability to shut off? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: No. 9
There aren't? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: We are not under the Public Utility Commission's jurisdiction.
Okay. And just finally and I know I've gone over my time a little bit, on a positive side, I think our Water Department is one of those unheralded jewels in City government. I think that it is a model for water departments throughout the country. You're right about our drinking water quality. It gets a lot of criticism and jokes but it's probably the cleanest and safest water in the country. And I think that, you know, we ought to promote and thank you guys for the work you do because the Water Department is one of the top-notch departments in the city and certainly in 1237 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 the country. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Thank you very much. I really appreciate that on behalf of the whole Department.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madame Chair. I'd like to add to why there's a winter moratorium for water customers. Thousands of homes in the City of Philadelphia are heated with hot-water systems that require makeup water during the heating season or there could be boiler failure, so the reason for the winter moratorium is to provide water service to the boilers; they don't necessarily are heated with steam but anyone that has a radiator in their home needs water to heat the home. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Right. They generally tend to be closed systems so water or the little makeup water you need is a very small quantity if you have leaks in the radiators, etc.
You still need an 1238 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 active water service to safely operate a hot-water heating system in a residential application. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: In some instances, possibly. In my home, no, I don't. I fill up my heating system once, and for the next three years, I don't need to. I agree with you, but sometimes, it does need it.
I have a radiator system in my house also and I haven't put any water in that system in a number of years. And I'll bleed the radiators to get a little air out of it to stop the banging sometimes, but I haven't put any water in the system. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Right. It just needs a very small amount.
Councilwoman Clark has a point of order. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Clark.
Thank you, Madame Chair. I don't like to speak in favor of coddling people who refuse to pay their water, but I'm at a loss to think of any utility that is more 1239 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 universal to maintaining an acceptable quality of life than water. Now, I speak not of heat. How do you flush your toilet? If you don't have water you can't occupy a space. So when the water goes, the next step for that family is homelessness. So we want to be very careful that on the one hand, we don't appear to be frugal, on the other hand, increasing a social problem by forcing people onto the pavement. I don't think that anybody who can pay should be exempted from paying. That's what your job is, to determine the difference from those who cannot versus those who will not. Those who will not, I think you should do everything that the law permits you to do. But I want you to get very careful before you start using the tax register for that. If person cannot pay his or her water, and there are legitimate reasons, which you must have some process in place for checking on, do not be stampeded into forcing those people onto the sidewalk. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: We agree 1240 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 with you completely. In fact, Denise Garrett's staff has a process by which they reach out to the delinquent customers to find out, in fact, whether they can or cannot pay, whether they can make a payment agreement and how much they can pay. She goes to a very extensive and exhaustive process to make sure that there is a safety net for those people. Now, perhaps Denise can add to this and explain it a little bit further.
One other comment, please, before you speak, Denise. I have great respect for Denise and the work that she does. And I know that she is he humane in her approach to this job. But I do think we have to distinguish between $167 million in collectibles and dollars that you can bank. Some of those dollars are not dollars. You can put as many zeros behind them as you want to. If they are delinquent water bills on abandoned properties where you have not been able to locate an owner, you can carry them on your balance sheet till you get tired, and pretty soon, you're going to have to write them off. That's just good accounting practice. It's also a 1241 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 good way to run a city.
Thank you, Councilwoman. And I'd like to respond to your first comment as well as your second. In your first comment, I agree that we cannot, as a water operating utility, discount the fact that it's our responsibility to maintain water services, not to discontinue them. Also, I would say that for those people that I think the winter moratorium was carved out to protect, those people need 12 months of support, not 4, and we are proposing a means to ensure that they get that continuous 12 months. We've also identified other people in our base where we need to be much more sensitive. And we've developed computerized programs to support this, and those are the elderly who have diminished capacity, that rely on third parties to support them, as well as people with long-term illness, some of which have just come up in the last 10 years. So we are speaking to people in hospices and so forth that are trying to manage and support our customers' utility services, so we know that it is not just a winter issue; it is 1242 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 definitely a 12-month issue. We did segregate accounts receivables, looking at the second issue. We identified our bankruptcies, our vacant properties, as well as the receivables that we've set aside for low-income customers. And we've separated them out of the base. What we have in the base presently are those that we have not identified, who have not come forward, whom we need to come forward. And we also have in the base tenant-occupied properties, and these are landlords who are not paying water bills. We have a great deal of residential homeowners who have allowed delinquencies to accumulate because they may be marginal, they may have some financial difficulties, but we need to hear from them.
And I don't disagree, and I think you should hear their stories. People who can pay should pay. You have to distinguish the difference between those who cannot and those who will not. For those who cannot, the City should not be responsible for pushing them out on the sidewalk. 1243 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
There is no "ism" that rises to the level of justifying the City forcing people into homelessness. Now, if your system is not fine enough to determine the difference, then you protect them all.
Absolutely. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: In fact, Denise has a number of programs that help the low-income customers, and she has -- the program really has --
We have the Utilities Emergency Services Fund, of which I sit on the board and participate in that process to ensure that our customers are -- have other services available to them. And some of these programs are in jeopardy. I just wanted bring that to your attention as well. We have our own Water Revenue Assistant Program, which is a long-term agreement program. And in addition to that, we have a Water Fund grant credit which we give customers, low-income customers up to $200 a year towards their bill. If those customers have exhausted everything 1244 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 that's out there in terms of utility assistance, we will still bring them into the program. We really will not deny anyone water service who wants water service, but if you do not --
I appreciate that, and won't burden the record any further. I think my point's been made. Thank you for the grant.
Thank you. Councilman Kenney, he just wants to piggyback.
I'm piggybacking on what Councilmember Clark has said. I am in total agreement with her position and I think we need to reach out and protect all of those people who are deserving of protection, and do what we can do from being put out of their homes. I do think that once, however, that cohort of people are identified that have not come in, that have refused to pay, that have had a history of breaking agreements, that have a history of ignoring requests for payment, that once we get to that cohort group, we have to shut them off. Or no one, no one will take us 1245 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 seriously. I mean, people starting getting shocked where you could see the look on their face when we towed their car for not having auto insurance. They never thought that day was coming, so more and more people didn't have it. And I go back to my PECO argument. When we've looked at properties that have been problem properties, nuisance properties, we have large amounts of money due and owing on real estate taxes, on water bills, on gas bills, and zero on PECO and zero on cable television. So there are people making life choices beyond the issue of indigency and other issues. They're making life choices not to pay us 'cause they know we're probably not coming after them. And one of things I might suggest is to take a look at maybe our cable TV lists to see who's making a choice of HBO versus water and maybe shut them off first as an example.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you. I would hope that before we would shut 1246 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 people off, and maybe I have an opportunity to ask L&I, when a property receives a certificate of occupancy, there are certain criteria that's needed to get a certificate of occupancy. Once some of those services are taken away, can a certificate of occupancy be revoked? But my question is, before we start shutting people off, shutting water service off, I hope we would have established a process where, if Mr. Smith lives at this particular location and owes water, I understand that the system does not protect Mr. Smith from owing $1,000 at this location, then moving two blocks away and establishing service when he already owes $2,000 from location A. Until you establish a process that prevents a person that owes the Water Company money from opening up a second account, running up the tab there, opening up a third account. What do you do to protect the Water Department Revenue from what I've just described? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Well, our billing system -- in fact, our rate structure is based on property billings not on individuals. In 1247 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 fact, property is the one that's responsible, and this is one of the areas, as you point out, a person can have delinquency in one home and not in other home and move back over there. I'm not sure what we can do in that case other than deal with the property that is delinquent and do shut that off and take --
You would hope that -- and there are people that that's a system that they'll keep moving to maintain electricity, water service, but I'm -- are you familiar -- or should I ask L&I, does water service in a property -- is water service required for a certificate of occupancy, electric service? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: I don't know for sure, but I would think that it would be required, yes.
Well, once you shut water off, that properly basically is not fit for habitation; is that correct? So L&I could, from what I'm seeing from head-shaking back --
Do you notify them you're shutting the water off? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Do we notify 1248 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 L&I? I don't believe there is a --
(Off mike, inaudible.). COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: There is not a process to notify them, but we can look at that, mm-hmm.
My point, Commissioner, is that we need to identify -- we have $100 million of revenue that's two years old on the street, and I would bet that those -- that that customer base is someplace else using your water. You need to maybe look at this differently -- not by the house, maybe by the house and a responsible party. But, boy, if you have a system that allows people to move from point A to point B, from point B to point C, and continue buying your water and not paying for what they used in the past, that would solve the problem there. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: I will consult with the Law Department and seek counsel from them and see what kind of options we have for something that you just painted for us. 1249 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
I'd appreciate you getting back to the Chair with that after you get that research, so I'm aware of your findings. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: I'll check and see as soon as I can get it, mm-hmm.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.
Thank you, Madame Chair. Along the lines of Councilman Rizzo's question, so we don't notify L&I that you shut a water off at a particular address? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: No. 19
After you shut off water, is there a process? Is there a 30, 60 days where they can get it turned back on again if they -- what happens? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: No, they have to come in and pay their bills before the water would be turned on or get into a payment 1250 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 development.
And what if none of that happens, Commissioner? I mean, it's obvious people may still be living in these addresses, and they're living without water, so they're either doing an illegal hookup or they're getting water someplace else. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: We don't enter the homes. However, the Water Revenue Bureau does have a reinspect program because there are some properties that we find are turned back on, whether they're done by the homeowner or whatever means that they utilize to turn those back on. And the Water Revenue Bureau does have a reinspect team to confront that but we do not enter anybody's home see if there's anybody living in there or whether they moved out after the water is shut off.
Now, if you suspect that someone that you've had turned off for a quite a while is living somewhere -- and you said you don't notify L&I, maybe we can change that. You know, I'm thinking of people that have to live somewhere because they can't help where 1251 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 they're living, you know, they're living without water so they're either hooking it up illegally or -- and I know you just turn it off at the street if it gets to that. That's were you go out and you do that. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Mm-hmm.
But there's no 9 follow-up process ever, say six months later. You know, your water's been turned off six months, Mr. Mariano, we don't hear from you. Is there anything? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Mm-hmm. Well, let me sort of step back and tell you some of the things that we are doing that might help resolve some of those problems. As you know, we are installing the automatic meter-reading programs. So that particular program will require -- in fact, it is mandated to take readings once every month at every single property. And by doing that, we will be able to tell whether the water's been turned on or not. By that, we will be able to identify some of the properties that may be illegally 1252 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 turned back on. Those that are not turned on, I'm not sure exactly what we would do to --
The ones you turn off, you know, if you know anything about plumbing, you can hook the water back up. You could just do away with that automatic meter-reader. I mean, if there's a will, there's a way. I have one in my house and I think it's just -- you have that after the service and the line. You know, so I mean, I'm not really concerned about you getting cheated. You're going to get cheated, I understand that. You have no 15 way of going into people's houses. My main concern is that people are living in houses where -- and I don't want to throw anybody out on the street or anything like that, but they need some kind of assistance and we don't follow up. I think there's a way without much more cost 'cause I think Miss Garrett and your department does a great job like Councilman Kenney said, but is there some people that we're just losing? Like once you turn them off, you keep sending them bills? You never hear from them 1253 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 again. And for whatever reason, I mean, maybe they just don't have the wherewithal 'cause if they contact Miss Garrett, I'm sure -- and she's done it through my office many, many times. She sets up payments that makes it easy. I'm just concerned about someone -- I'm sure you've had 'em, Denise, somebody who, you just never hear from 'em again.
Well, we do have people who we never hear from again, but we have what we call an annual reinspection where we go back to the property once a year to see if we have service back on.
And we find a high percentage of those have restored themselves. So at that time, we try to get them back into the billing status. That's our first goal 'cause we don't want to shut them down.
We'd rather they just pay the water bill. And a good percentage of them respond to that because they're already caught. 1254 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
What I'm getting at is I'm more concerned about the human service part of it. I mean, the revenue part's great. But if you come back in a year and you think, God, these people really haven't had their water on or they had it illegally, and I know there's possibly five kids living in that house, do you like report it to anyone, you know?
We call the customers before we shut them off. We send them notices before we shut them off. We go out and inspect them after we shut them off maybe a week or two weeks after that, and we do periodic programs where we try to reach out to the customers. And then we do the annual reinspection. We're really trying to keep water service. I mean, there's a lot of talk about shutoff -- that's not our objective. We're trying to keep water service and get paid because that's what runs our system, the dollars that those customers pay. For our large apartment buildings, when we shut those off, if the landlord refuses to respond, we bring them back on within 24 hours. 1255 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 And we do notify L&I on those cases. And in some instances, I know we did a pilot program -- I'm I not sure if we're continuing to run it. It's establishment serving food, we notify L&I when we bring those down. And from time to time, we'll do a bar project where we'll go out with L&I, the Law Department, and a few departments working together to try to get those agencies to pay, those businesses to pay. So we do quite a few things -- some standard, and others we do more ad hoc.
And the last thing I want to say, and this is very anecdotal, but it's what Councilman Kenney spoke about. My first year as a Councilman here in '96, there was a big apartment complex with over 200 residents in there, and the electric power went down, and they didn't have a backup generator through some fault of own. So when we got out there, the State representative myself and the State senator, the first question they wanted to know is, When can I get my cable put back on? They weren't interested about electric, water, or anything else, so the 1256 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Councilman's right, there has to be some life choices here. I mean, watching Jerry Springer may be important to them but it may be more important to their children that there's water and electricity so their refrigerators are cool and they're, you know, receiving their proper nourishment. Thank you.
How would you know they have cable? How you would you know that a person that doesn't have water has cable?
If you're asking me that question, Councilwoman, they asked us, so you know, it was their concern. I don't know how we would know because the cable is a private agency.
And obviously, they don't have the right to discuss my affairs with you.
So I think you may be speculating that people have electric and cable, but I don't know how you would know.
Well, I think in that case, they told us that was their priority -- when's my cable getting put back on? -- as opposed to the electric for the refrigerator. You know, there's all different kinds of stories, but that was just one where that one just amazed me.
But you wouldn't ascribe that to all the people that have their water cut off.
You know, Commissioner, we're talking about shutoffs. Last year when we had Section 8 hearings -- and I truly believe that Section 8 was initiated to help 1258 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 the needy and not the greedy. I checked our computer and found that in one given area in my district, an individual had 29 Section 8 properties. Of the 29 Section 8 properties, 28 of them were delinquent in taxes, they did not renew any license, rental license, and they owed $83,772 in water bills. Now, this gentleman apparently came from Bala Cynwyd. So last winter, when we were considering the Section 8 hearings, I'm sure that this gentleman must have been basking in the sun in Florida somewhere, nearly collecting 29 checks on a monthly basis. I think that's a sheer disgrace. And when I looked at our computer to check, it was amazing. And he had quite a scam going. If he bought the property in, say, 1989, of course, he made certain that all of the utilities were paid, and that everything was as it should be. He never paid a dime thereafter for taxes, for water -- I don't know about the electrical. And as I said, in many of the instances, he didn't have a license, a rental license. 1259 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 How does an individual get away with -- to me, this is sheer corruption, in my view. How does an individual get away with something like this? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: I'll have Denise Garrett respond because I'm not familiar with Section 8 revenue collection.
I know I wrote to your department, I wrote to the Mayor, I wrote to the Law Department, and I know that liens have been placed against these properties now. But I don't know we can allow something like that to exist year after year after year. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, somebody was sleeping at the wheel. And I -- as I said, I'm sure this gentleman never drove by the vicinity to see what condition these houses were in. They could have been falling apart as far as he knew. He could have cared less because he was on the gravy train, Hon, and he was going all the way. I think it's disgraceful, I really do.
(Inaudible, off mike.) 1260 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
What I'd like to ask is, is there a procedure in place that when a person applies for a water account, for a building they take from some City program, do we look at whether that person presently has an account? Not just his residential account, but any other business accounts, and does his present performance in any way guide our thinking as to his future?
At present, Councilwoman, we have several programs in place but they don't address that particular issue because we don't have the legal authority to stop a customer from getting a water account.
Okay. When it comes to your attention, what do you do? Do you send out a signal to anybody that here is probably a scofflaw and we ought to do something now rather than permit this person to take us down further. We need to lay in place right at this point a procedure. Don't just pretend you don't know it, because once you know it, you can never again not 1261 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 know it.
Councilwoman, we actually drafted some modifications to our regulation, which we have not submitted which would, one, stop a person from purchasing a property and having a delinquency at an additional property. We've worked with the Controller's Office to stop vendors from securing our vending services unless they were current on all City taxes and water. And we've met with HUD to discuss the Section 8 issue. But, clearly, we're not going to get any support from them, so the Water Department and the Water Revenue Bureau have met to devise a means to identify these accounts so that we can approach them as a group. Now, from the Water Revenue's perspective we have targeted what we call "group landlords." These are people who own multiple properties in the City, who have delinquent on multiple properties. Some of our hurdles are that they use various names. In fact, I can recall one gentleman who had 14 aliases.
I know, but these are liens that run with the land. So what do is 1262 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 lien the property.
We have liened the properties; all the properties are liened, we lien twice a year. But we have to work in conjunction with the Law Department because our authority only goes to a certain point.
I think this is an area that needs study. Madame President, I would suggest that here's where we ought to get tough -- not on individual homeowners who are clinging to a small unheated house perhaps, but for people who are working us -- and this is just outright working us. We ought to do something about that, and we ought to start with a process that notifies everybody. We could be the bump in the road to that smooth getting of Section 8. If you owe us money, you can't get past this point, no matter what name you do business under. Now, we all know how to pierce corporate veils. We know how these interlocking boards and these names that flow in and flow out. By whatever name you are known, this property can't move forward until somebody comes and pays 1263 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 us. And when people are trying to do a land transaction, time is of the essence to them. It is amazing how much more of their attention you have when they're trying to tack that property down than when they have the service and you're talking about taking it back. So, you know, they're thinking about how many dollars they're going to make on it. They're going to make not one cent until they pay every dollar of delinquent taxes and water bills that are already due. I think that's what we need to do, Madame Chair, and would suggest that the Law Department and the Water Department and City Council and any other City agency get together on a policy to which we would all agree and adhere. And I thank you and yield back.
Thank you. Excuse me, can I just recognize Councilwoman Miller for a minute because she has another commitment. Councilwoman?
Thank you, Madame Chair. 1264 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Good afternoon. I want to raise the issue of the contractors that are hired to perform the work out in the neighborhoods, maybe -- whatever they're doing, relaying pipes and what not. And I talked to you this summer about one contractor in particular that just seems to just go through the neighborhood, wasn't sensitive at all to tearing up and destroying people's properties. With his crane, he pulled down awnings, he broke steps. And when people tried the get information from him regarding his name, they had to really call the Philadelphia Police Department to get them to come out to get the information that they needed to file a complaint with this particular contractor. And your department handled all of the complaints very well. But I guess where I'm going, maybe that type of contractor does not need to be a contractor on these projects because he's causing a whole lot of havoc in these neighborhoods, leaving big holes in people's property without adequately providing proper barriers that become a safety issue for the 1265 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 children that are playing on that block, leaving piles of dirt to the extent that in order for a woman to get out of her house and get into the sidewalk, she had to climb over her neighbor's banister. And it was just a horror story all summer with this particular contractor. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: I'd like to get the name of that contractor. We can contact your office, but generally, we have at every construction site an inspector who's there all the time, and he's available to the public and, of course, if you can call my office, or they can call our offices and we'll take care of it.
We did call your office. And I went out there too and I met the inspector, and the contractor was not there on that day, or maybe the owner of the company. I mean, people had problems trying to get their awning replaced, and they eventually got it replaced, but it just seems to me that he took a crane down the block and didn't care what he destroyed. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: The contractor is responsible for restoring the 1266 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 neighborhood as he found it before he started work, and we would then enforce that. And if we have not done so, I'll contact your office and see if there's any remaining work that he needs to do over there.
And I know you take before- and after-pictures, so pictures those pictures support what the neighbors complaints were. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Right, we do take pictures before the contractor starts, yeah, mm-hmm.
I have a question too regarding the flood control. Your unit cleans out the sewage system, sewage drains right there on the corner? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: The inlets, yes.
Right. Well, what's when we have repeated flooding at the same sight? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: We generally go out and check those inlets to see if, in fact, there is a structural problem with it or not if 1267 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 it's repeated very soon. Many of these inlets are blocked because there's trash in them, etc., and we clean them out, but if it happens on a repeated basis, then it's sort of an indication that perhaps the underground infrastructure is in some way defective. Sometimes the pipe that connects the inlet into the sewer might be cracked and mud washes into it and blocks it up. In that case, we have to dig up the street, open it up, and see what the issue is, and correct it at that point.
Well, how many years does it take to assess whether it needs additional work 'cause I know there's one corner in my neighborhood that flooded for about five years. It doesn't flood now. We kept calling about it and, you know, you did come out and do whatever it is that you did. So that stopped that flood, but it was years and years and year that it continued to happen. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: I see. My Deputy Commissioner, Richard Roy, is with me. Perhaps he can answer that question. I don't know 1268 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 which location that is. (Richard Roy comes forward.)
My name is Richard Roy, Deputy Commissioner for Operations. We have in the past six months been focused on the inlets that won't take water. We have just about knocked that backlog down to zero, and we have a program in place so that we will continue to keep that backlog at zero. Basically, it was a responsibility divided between two units -- one cleans the inlet, one fixes the pipe. And there was a lack of communication between those units, and we fixed that program, we think, to take care that now.
So we need to call the office whenever it's not working, whenever it's still flooding there.
Right. If we have an inlet with repeated flooding complaints, then we'll go put it in the (unintelligible) water pile and get it looking at the pipe between the inlet and the sewer.
Okay. I have one other question. 1269 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 There is a block in reply district. It's the unit hundred block of East Walnut Lane, and there appears to be these little leaks that keep popping up at different locations within that block. I think the block captain told me it's maybe little small leaks. And I did talk to 8 Arthur, and I know that your department is 9 investigating. But the neighbors are saying that 10 they're being told that they have to pay for the 11 repairs, even though I haven't been able to get from them what specific repair they are being billed for. Now, they seem to think 'cause the XH bus runs on that route, they seem to think that the bus is maybe doing something in the street that causes these little leaks to come up in front of people's homes. And because I don't really know what's wrong, I can't expect, you know, an adequate answer. However, it's a problem that's been going on for about five or six years now. The Water Department will come out and, you know, do whatever repair and then, maybe three or four months later, they're right back out doing the 1270 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 same thing over and over again. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: I'll look at it personally.
It's the unit hundred block of East Walnut Lane. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Right. Well, generally, the water service line, it's the homeowner's responsibility if it's leaking, then they would have to pay. But if the water main itself is broken, then, of course, it's the responsibility of the City to repair that, and we would do that.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madame Chair. I'd just like to just go back for one moment to this issue of Section 8 and the landlord 1271 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 that Council President Verna described. Is there anything that you're aware of that would preclude us from making arrangements with PHA, both the Water Department, the Water Revenue and Gas Works to attach in some way the rent payments being sent to the landlords when an individual gets into a certain level of arrearage to immediately subtract those dollars, have them sent to the Water Department and Gas Works, and then send him out the balance of what the rent subsidy is?
Well, yes, Councilman. We did meet with -- well, I personally meet, but I sent a representative and provided information. We met with HUD, and that is not possible.
PHA has been very supportive of us, and they, in fact, remit through something called "a group billing program" for their properties, so we don't have the problem with PHA, it's with the HUD homes.
How long ago was the HUD meeting? 1272 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Did they give you in writing the reasons why? They just didn't want to do it or --
They stated that there was a legal contract -- and I don't want to be quoted verbatim, but there's a contractual restriction to their seizing the rents and sending them to us.
And that was prior to Mr. Greene's arrival here, or was it while he was here and --
'Cause I'd like to revisit it with Mr. Greene. And how long has he been here, Carl?
It's HUD, it's not Philadelphia Housing. 1273 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
No, I understand, but how long -- but we've had similar situations since Mr. Greene has come here where HUD originally had said no way, no, never, and have had some success in maneuvering around them a little bit, even within their existing rules and regulations. Some of the changes that Mr. Greene put forward and were passed by the PHA Board, HUD originally had said, That's never going to happen -- and it happens. So maybe -- I mean, we ought to have it revisited again through Mr. Greene's efforts and see whether or not we can get some movement on this, 'cause for me, the whole thing --
Because we had their money in hand, and that's a powerful tool to get them to comply. And they're in this Section 8 business -- a lot of these guys who have multiple properties -- purely, as Council President said, purely for the money. It's not altruism; it's pure greed and profit. So holding their money and segregating 1274 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 some of that money into accounts where they're delinquent to me makes clear sense, and maybe we ought to revisit this with Mr. Greene and see if he can't get this in the right direction.
Commissioner, I guess it was probably Saturday morning, probably around midnight or shortly thereafter, I kept hearing a motor running, and I was rather curious, so I looked out my front window and, lo and behold, it was a Water Department truck. They were cleaning the sewers. Is this an emergency or is this a new schedule that we have, that we have people going out in the middle of the night to clean inlets? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Generally not at midnight, but I'll --
It was midnight or shortly thereafter, and they did both of both sides of the street, which I thought very strange. Mr. Roy, do you have any knowledge of 1275 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 that?
We do have night crews. They generally work on the Boulevard, 26th Street, on the way to the airport and in Center City, where they don't generally interfere with the residents. If you give me the address, I'll --
This was South Broad Street. I'm not complaining about it; I was just curious. I didn't know whether we had night crews that were working or whether it was an emergency, but I thought -- pardon me?.
Right. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: We generally keep them away from residential areas, of course, you know, but. . .
It didn't bother me; I was just rather curious to know whether it was an emergency or whether this was something that we're doing now as a normal course. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: No, it's not a normal course. We usually quit about 10 o'clock, I think it is? 1276 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Again, in nonresidential areas and in areas such as the Boulevard, where it's not interfering with people but it reduces traffic time, so we do go through most of the night on that shift. They come in at o'clock. 7
Good. Thank 8 you. 9 The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. 10
Thank you, Madame 11 Chair. I'm sure as a result of the investigation, we'll find that these were some incredibly industrious hard-working City employees, and they'll be in here in a month getting a citation for cleaning inlets in the middle of the night. (Laughter.)
Commissioner, as a follow-up to Councilwoman Miller's query to you, and I can only say this because I've been well trained by the Water Department, I shared with her that given -- I think she said 11 situations, possibly all on the same side of the street, they also sound like one of our infamous failures of 1277 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 laterals going on down the black. I mentioned to her my experience with that, and she may be following up with you on that particular issue as well. I don't know whether any robots or any of those pieces of equipment have been used to deal with her situation or not, but we've been through that one a couple times as well. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: We will look into this particular one, mm-hmm.
Okay. I primarily wanted to, one, extend some level of appreciation and praise to the Department. You and primarily Dick Roy have worked with me over the years. We've had some exciting situations from time to time. And I think the tail-end of last year, a rash of water main breaks. I wanted to first commend you and the Department and the men and women who are out on the scene for their immediate response to those situations, trying to contain the water, get the valves shut down, some of which, you know, take 150-some-plus turns to get turned off, but also the coordination with Risk Management, which at 1278 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 times, has almost been out on the scene as quickly as the Water Department personnel, knowing that with hundreds of thousands of gallons of water flowing out there, that there's going to be some immediate impact on residential communities. And so I think that level of coordination, which has evolved over the past few years, has given me a greater comfort level when we have these unfortunate incidents, whether, you know, it's just age, or the most recent one, a contractor accident slicing through a water main, whatever the case may be, we've got an excellent response, and I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Thank you very much for your comments, I appreciate that.
Thank you. And your people out on the scene give good information, they're clear about what's going on. If they say something's going to happen at a certain time, it usually happens almost right on the hour. And I really do appreciate it. We've had some pretty bad ones out there. I did want to ask from a coordination standpoint, and I was actually talking with a 1279 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 constituent about this particular issue today, when we have that kind of activity -- whether it's an emergency or we're just out as a part of our renewal infrastructure program -- what is the level of coordination with other utilities, whether it's the gas company or at times maybe PECO or anybody else that has anything in the ground? If we're opening up the street, whether because of emergency or just a regular contract, what level of coordination takes place that might allow someone else to upgrade their infrastructure if entire street is open? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: There is very, very close coordination. In fact, even at the preliminary design stage, when they're going to be replacing either a water main or a sewer or both, we contact those utilities -- PECO, PGW and others -- to see whether they have any plans -- and the Streets Department also, of course.
Right. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: We contact them to see what kind of plans they have, and we coordinate that to see at what point in their 1280 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 capital program they are going to be replacing, and then go over the most optimum time that all of us can get in there. But in a lot of cases, we have to go in very quickly if the main has broken for two or three times or a short period of time, we expedite that program and get PGW involved immediately, and they've always cooperated with us, as has PECO and Bell Telephone and the Streets Department.
So sometimes, even if they weren't planning so much to be in there the next couple months, as we are, because of either some emergency or it's just our time to be in that street, sometimes they will change their schedules? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: That is correct.
So that everybody's in the street at the time and just try to kind of get it over with? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: That is correct, yes. They modify their schedules to accommodate us.
All right. You have 1281 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 in the past -- the most recent being the -- and I don't want to talk about this but by way of example -- the cross-lateral situation in different parts of the City, you have come upon these problems, have given us a briefing, the maps, detailed the level and extent of the problem. And in some cases, either on your own or after we pounded you on the ground and forced you to change things, you've come up with solutions to those problems. I've run into this situation now a few times, and I'd like to get I think a little better handle on what is the scope of this particular issue. It's the private street matter and whether it's a private street in conjunction then with private water service, private sewer. I don't know, do people actually -- do they also have private mains or do they just have private water service? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: They do have private mains also in some instances on private streets.
If you are able, and I don't know how you do the research on this, 1282 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 but I'd like to get a better sense of what is the size of the private street issue throughout the City of Philadelphia. And I don't know if you're able to give a listing or a map, but do you have a sense of what that is presently? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Generally, they are not on the City Plan at all, so it's very difficult. We do have maps and whatnot, which identify streets. And occasionally, you know, we would have to go out and look at the street and then compare it with the City Plan that exists. And if it's not on the Plan, then it's assumed it's private, and we work with the Streets Department to identify those. We do not have a comprehensive list of those private streets. I think we have a good handle on that, but we would not, you know, we would not be able to ascertain that a hundred percent of these are the only ones that are there. I was just told by Susan Lior, who is our Deputy Water Commission for Information, Science and Technology that with our geographic information system, we're going to be entering all of that information -- primarily, of course, on 1283 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 the City Plan, but we will also incorporate within our database the private streets and mark them. Again, as I said, they may have very well not be (unintelligible) so it may take some time to identify all of those streets that are in existence.
Well, whatever you can do in that regard, I would greatly appreciate it, even if it is preliminary or sketchy information. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Right, okay.
You and I and other members of your department have worked on the issue of septic tanks and, I mean, whether we have an official policy or not, you know that my policy is, wherever we find that particular issue going on, if there's a way to get rid of them and get people on the municipal water system, for instance, let's try to bring as many of people as possible, you know, we may have missed them for the 20th century, but let's try to at least bring them into the 21st. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Right.
I'm increasingly 1284 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 concerned about the private street/private sewer/ private system situation. In most cases, there is no way in the world that the people living on the street, on their own are, in a position to get the street up to City code for the Streets Department to be able to take it. They're not in a position to change the plumbing or the infrastructure to get it up to what your standards are. And when they fail, it's a problem. You are probably ware that I'm dealing with one of those -- actually, a couple of them right now. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Right.
One that you and I have directly talked about and one you're getting ready to hear about if you haven't already. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Okay.
So it's just going to continue to happen, and I'd like to get a better sense of what the enormity of the task is, knowing that we're not going to solve it overnight, but I'd like to try to come up with a game plan to work on it. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Okay, we'll work on it, but I'd like to assure you that, going 1285 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 forward, we worked with the Planning Commission to have an agreement that there should not be any more private sewers and private water mains anyplace else in the City, whereas years down the road, people forget about it and they don't understand why a water main that's going on a street, whether private or otherwise, is their responsibility.
Sure. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: So from now on, we will not allow that to occur.
Okay. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
I don't really have a question; I just want to, for the record, since this discussion was a major part of the record, maybe a year or two years ago, I think I understand there's some resolution to Penfield Street. Does anybody know about Penfield Street? COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: That's a 1286 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 specific -- we'll look into that and see where you are on that issue and get back to you.
Okay. But I thought I had gotten some word from your staff and the Streets Department that there was going to be some major work done over there. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: I'll check into that.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions at this time.)
Thank you very much. And, again, Commissioner, thank you and your staff for doing such a fabulous job. We really appreciate it. COMMISSIONER KISHINCHAND: Thank you, President Verna. Thanks very much .
Thank you. The next department to testify is the Department of Licenses and Inspections. (Department of Licenses and Inspections 1287 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 panel members come forward.)
Good afternoon. I'm sorry you were waiting; we are running a little behind schedule. Thank you for your patience. Commissioner, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Thank you, Council President Verna. And good afternoon. My name is Frances Egan -- that's Frances with an E -- and I am the Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I have accompanying with me a smattering of my senior staff to assist me. Council President Verna, could I make my remarks now, or do you --
Yes, would you please. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Thank you.
We do have copies of your testimony, so if you would like to abbreviate, we will make certain that the stenographer has a copy of your completed testimony, which will be made a part of the 1288 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 record. COMMISSIONER EGAN: I would like just to take a few minutes to highlight some of the Department activities. Overall, the budget for L&I is just a slight increase over last year, for a total of $31,556,518, and that increase is for negotiated salary increases. Our staffing of 458 will remain the same. I also want to note that the number of permits and revenues continue to rise over projected goals, and that this is mainly due to building construction projects in the City of Philadelphia, mostly for renovations and rehabs. I think that everyone here would agree, including members of City Council and their staffs, that the most important functions performed by L&I are those that involve life safety. And to highlight a couple of those, mainly for your interest is, we have a program called R2, which I talked about, I think, in last year's testimony. R2 is a code name for multifamily dwelling. And this is run by our Housing 1289 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Division, which is headed up by our chief there, Al Davis. There was an unfortunate fire about two years at 42nd and Lancaster, which resulted in some deaths. And due to that, the manager and supervisors and employees of that division began to think about what they could do more proactively to prevent such another tragedy from occurring, and we initiated this program. And all it is, is we go out census tract by census tract throughout the City, we identify from our systems apartment complexes in those census tracts, and we proactively inspect those apartment buildings. So we're identifying problems that need to be corrected prior to perhaps a tragedy occurring. In addition to that, the Housing Division, under the leadership of Al Davis, developed what we call a "Troubled Property Unit" within the Housing Division. That's kind of a funny name-- I'd like to us kind of come up with a better name that. But referrals from the R2 inspections, if they're particularly troubled properties, which means they're of a more serious degree with code violations and problems, they're 1290 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 referred to this unit. And in this unit, the ownership of that property is researched, and it's determined whether or not other properties are owned by that same person. And then if that's determined, then those properties are inspected. And we have a great example of a success there where just a couple of weeks ago, on the 4100 block of Girard, we discovered a very dangerous, unsafe apartment building. And that building was referred to the Troubled Properties Unit. It was discovered that more properties were owned by that particular owner. We went out and inspected those, and several properties owned by this particular owner were closed, and the people living in those extremely dangerous conditions were removed from those properties -- again, possibly preventing the worst tragedy, that of loss of life of. This unit also inspects for the new Fire Code and in compliance with that code in terms of fire alarm systems. And there was a fire at 107 East Gorgus Lane at the beginning of 1998, where it was a 48-unit building. And while the 1291 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 building was destroyed, it was due to the fire alarm system that was, you know, required by the Fire Code that had been inspected by the R2 inspection programs and found to be, you know, in good working order. And it was that fire alarm that got all the residents out safely in that case. So we feel a very strong tie to the reduction in fires and fire deaths due to some of the work being done by our Housing Division and by our Commercial and Industrial Fire Division.
With demolitions, you should know, Council President Verna and all the Councilmembers, that we spent a record-high 14 million in FY '99. We'll be demolishing 1539 properties. 3 million, which accounts for the demolition of 9,754 buildings. In our Clean-and-Seal Unit, headed by our chief, Jim Grundy, and all of his fine staff and laborers, who I think, by the way, the laborers of the Clean-and-Seal Unit probably have the toughest job in Philadelphia. But they 1292 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 continue to be major contributors to the success of the Partners Program and Operation Sunrise. On encapsulation, this is money we receive -- funding we receive from the Office of Housing, for which we're very grateful. And with that money, we can identify properties in, say, neighborhoods on the brink, where, if you have a block where only one house on that block is starting to go down the tubes, and it's really basically a fairly stable neighborhood, rather than just use the normal clean-and-seal procedure, which would just be put up the plywood in open areas, we would do a more concrete-type sealing. We would make it watertight, we would put a new roof if necessary, we would put in knew drainage systems, and we would prevent that property from having any further deterioration and with the hope that that neighborhood being a stable neighborhood, it would be a neighborhood in a better position of eventually rehabbing that property and, therefore, preventing the neighborhood itself further sliding down the road of deterioration. Now, we've only done 34 so far, but I 1293 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 wanted to mention it to Council and highlight it because we're looking for those type of candidates; we're looking for properties that fit that description of one property on a block, say, that you see could bring the rest of the block down if it's not in some way corrected immediately. I also just want to mention our parking garage survey. I go back and forth between wanting to bring this up and not wanting to bring this up because it brings back a bad memory for us, and that was the incident at Broad and Pine, where the sign fell and caused the death of one of our beloved judges of the City. But after that horrible incident, in addition to taking the Rappaport estate to court and finally getting them to comply with all the code violations of their properties, we have a District Operations Manager, Mike Mainor, who took it upon himself to get all of his inspectors in the district offices to, again, proactively go out and inspect all of the parking garages in Center City. And as a result of that survey that was done by our building inspectors, we actually did 1294 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 close two parking garages that were in imminently dangerous conditions until the necessary repairs were made. And there were other garages 5 identified in need of repair, and they are now at, 6 you know, at some point in making those repairs. 7 So it's those type of life safety 8 functions that we're most proud of and that we 9 work at all the time to improve in our operations. 10 One of our goals for the next budget 11 year is to look for and to implement more 12 programmed inspections which I rather would call 13 proactive inspections. We do a lot of them -- it 14 is the R2, it was the parking survey, we do the 15 clubs, we do like, you know, high-volume type 16 places, and we're looking to do more of them as 17 this next year unfolds. 18 The other area I'd like to highlight as 19 real important as a goal for this department is 20 under the leadership of Deputy Commissioner Oliver 21 Thornton, who now heads up our information 22 technology needs for the Department. We've just done so much -- we're getting there but we're not really where we want to be yet. But it all started with a needs 1295 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 assessment done with the help of Drexel University.
We've made considerable effort in the area of upgrading our in-house databases, and we put a considerable effort into making an application for a loan from the Productivity Bank, and it's all of these things, which we believe, over what we hope to be a short amount of time and not a longer period of time, to dramatically improve the way we deliver service to the citizens of Philadelphia and to effect the really kind of fundamental change that makes a difference for the long term in our department. With that, Council President Verna, I'd be happy to answer any questions. And I would just like to mention you at this time, to save you time at the end of the questions, we could briefly go through the board testimony, which would just take like a minute or two rather than us leave and come back, but that certainly is up to you. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
Good afternoon, Commissioner Egan. 1296 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 First, let me express my -- let me commiserate with you in the sense of anguish that you must feel having to sit at that witness table with those five guys around you. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER EGAN: I appreciate your sympathy.
I'll have to talk to the Mayor about a salary increase or something for you. I just can't imagine what it must be like to have to sit there with those five. (Laughter.)
You started your testimony, and I was out of my chair for a second, but I heard you make reference to, I thought, a fire and something to do with Lancaster Avenue, but I missed the location. What was that location? COMMISSIONER EGAN: The second one, you mean? 41st and Girard. (L&I Department member corrects Commissioner Egan.) COMMISSIONER EGAN: Oh, 42nd and Lancaster was the first one I mentioned. 1297 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
42nd and Lancaster, okay. 42nd and Lancaster, and then 41st and Girard, okay. I heard the "Lancaster," but wasn't clear on the street address. The first is -- actually, most of the folks up there I do know and I tease all the time. They're good people, and I seem to know their nurse by heart. Maybe I missed this. Could you get us an updated directory for L&I? I don't know if one was sent over or maybe I misplaced mine, but since your move, has something come over? COMMISSIONER EGAN: You know, I'm not sure. I thought that it had, but I'll make sure that you get the updated copy of all our numbers.
Okay, I appreciate that. I wouldn't want any of my friends to think that I was not calling them because I didn't care about them anymore. On the clean-and-seal testimony, you talked about cleaning and sealing buildings and then the vacant lots that were cleaned. In budget testimony, I believe, at the tail-end of last week, the Managing Director was here and there was 1298 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 discussion about vacant lots, fencing, Jersey barriers, and all of that, and there was a fair amount of discussion about the fence program. Can you give us any update on what goes on post-demolition? And from L&I's perspective, are fencing contracts usually a part of the demolition contract, or is that more of a hit-or-miss situation at this point? COMMISSIONER EGAN: No, they are not usually a part of the demolition project. There's some unusual demolitions, maybe like a larger commercial site where we might fence, and even that's not done all the time. So not as a practice, no. 16
Okay. 'Cause I think the testimony was last week was that possibly in the past, prior to your tenure, it may have been included as a part of the demolition. And some of the discussion was that from a timing and coordination standpoint, it might make some sense if that was included. I don't know whether these demolition contractors have their own fence people, or if it was a part of the contract, they would know that that would have to have that in 1299 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 place, you know, when the site was demolished and the ground was leveled, and the next couple of days, you know, a fence would go up. Do you have any perspective on that? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, I think we can appreciate it. You know, while we are -- we're always looking for ways to prevent dumping onto the lots that are cleared through a demolition and, you know, there's some new ideas being floated around now which we have to study further. But I think you can understand that to add that -- because it has been done in the past.
Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Fencing as part of the demolition contract costs, but it does increase the cost of the demolition -- which means we would take fewer dangerous buildings down. So we would just have to look at that and weigh whether or not that's the policy we would want to have. In other words, is it more important to get down the dangerous building or take less dangerous buildings down because we want provide fencing. That has been proven to be a failure in the past 1300 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 in terms of staying there, staying power. Fences don't last long.
What happens to the fences? Do people steal the fences, do they run into them? I mean, what happens to the fences? COMMISSIONER EGAN: They get stolen.
Okay. Well, one, I would not want to take any money away from demolition, so I would only want to engage in this discussion if we could figure out what the additional expense would be. And then as a part of this process, add on to what your baseline for demolition already is. But I don't want to make it a zero sum of, Well, you were doing, you know, 2000 demolitions, but now if we're going to have fences, we're only doing 500. I mean, we want you to keep doing what you're doing, figure out what the add-on is, and if it's, you know, relatively reasonable number, we would have to provide the additional funding. Could you take a look at that and try 1301 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 to figure out what -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: Sure, we can work up some numbers for you and get back to you.
Okay, great. On encapsulation on , I'm glad to see that that has now become somewhat of an official part of L&I. If I could ask, we had a, you know, a small contingent of the government out. This was not a one-vacant-house situation in the 100 block of North 62nd Street a couple of summers ago -- there were probably two or three houses on that block. This started as a firebomb situation as a result of a homicide in the premises. There were four people killed on the street in a ten-day period of time. It was a little drug dispute between neighbors. But if I could ask as maybe a first, and I think you said 37 of these have been done in the past? COMMISSIONER EGAN: 34.
34? Sorry. If I could ask that the 100 block of North 63rd Street be taken as a kind of a first stab at something in the 4th District, I'd appreciate it. 1302 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 COMMISSIONER EGAN: Councilman, that property does meet the kind of criteria we're looking at. In other words, it is a fairly stable neighborhood where there would be a chance for a rehab by a CDC or even a private owner.
More than likely by a private owner; I don't think there are any CDCs that cover that area. I think that there are probably three properties that would need treatment. There is a PHA property on the block that's next to one of the properties that needs treatment, and I've had discussions with PHA Director Greene about that particular property. Their initial response was that they didn't want to fix up their property until someone did something to the property next door. My response was, That's kind of a nonsensical response. And they're taking a look at their property. I can't sit around and wait for somebody to do something to somebody else's property while a government agency owns one of the properties, and they're not doing anything but theirs. But I think there are at three on that 1303 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 street. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Okay.
On your Seller Certification Improvement section, I think in the past, the discussion about the seller certification has been that people have to get a seller certification, but it did not -- I won't even say "necessarily" -- it actually did not mean that there had been an inspection; it meant that there were no violations against the property; is that correct? COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's correct. They're required by State law to obtain the certification.
Is that still the case? Is that still the notion of that particular program? You get a certification but it still does not mean that there's actually been an inspection? It just means, in the alternative, that there -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: It will tell you whether or not, you know, you have any outstanding violations.
Outstanding 1304 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 violations, okay. Is there a way to reverse the premise of the program that it actually means that there's been an inspection done? Not to compare jurisdictions, and theirs is much smaller than ours, but kind of across the street from us on the other side of City Avenue, if you go to sell a home in Lower Merion, their notion of a seller certificate is that the inspector actually comes out, does an inspection; and if you don't correct what needs to be corrected, you can't sell your house. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Right.
You can't get a seller certification. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, certainly, that's a concept that's been articulated by other Councilmembers and yourself and other people in the community. But I think when you look at the numbers of certifications, what then we would have to weigh is if you're issuing over 20,000 certs a year, that would be an additional 20-some-thousand inspections that would have to be done by our department. And whether or not we could provide 1305 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 that kind of service and still meet the other needs and demands --
Right. It's obviously difficult to compare Philadelphia to an adjoining township. There are probably fewer houses and a smaller number of transactions and the like. But away from this. Aren't there certain situations where we rely, for instances, on the certification of individuals or entities that are in a particular certification business? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Sometimes, yeah, like, a fire alarm certification.
Fire extinguishers or a fire-alarm service. I mean, we're not -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: Some electrical certifications.
But they have to come in with a certification from a company that's in that particular business. Is that a route that might potentially be viable? COMMISSIONER EGAN: It's something that could be looked at.
All right, okay. 1306 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 I'm getting the beeper.
Councilman, could you hold any further questions so that we can have the first go-around?
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
On that same note with the seller certification, are you certifying to the seller -- you say that you're certifying that there are no liens against the property. COMMISSIONER EGAN: No. 15
What did you say? COMMISSIONER EGAN: No code violations.
Code violations, okay, all right. And is that clear on the certification that's given to the seller, to be used at the time of settlement? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes.
Okay. So they understand that's specifically for that purpose, no code violation. How long has that policy been 1307 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 in practice? Has the Department always done this? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Since the late '50's.
Okay. So I'm just going to ask you one little tricky question. If that was the case, then I wonder why so many certifications were given for the Logan sinking home area 'cause clearly, they could have been seeing some code violations with the deterioration -- they should have been able to see code violations at that time. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, keep in mind that there is no inspection involved in the issuance of the seller certification. So in other words, for there to be violations to appear on a certification requested, an inspection would have had to have been done at some other point in time prior to that, which then --
So you issue a seller certificate, that there are no code violations without an inspection? COMMISSIONER EGAN: No, that's not exactly it. In other words, if an inspection had 1308 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 been done at that property prior to the request for the seller certificate, for some other reason unrelated to the sale of the house. In other words, if you own a property -- say, you own an apartment building and someone complains to L&I about that building, so we go out and do and inspection, we respond to the complaint. And if violations are written, then they're in the system. And if you go to sell that property and have not corrected those violations, then that would appear at that time on the seller certification, but the inspection is not done as a result of the sale of the property.
So you're saying your certification says that you have not been notified of any code violations. COMMISSIONER EGAN: We're letting the seller know that code violations exist on that property.
No, you can't say that. None has been reported because you can't say for sure whether there are code violations because you haven't inspected the property. What 1309 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 you're saying to the seller is that you haven't been notified of any code violations, there are none reported. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Oh, right, right. No, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. Yeah, that's right. There could be violations. You're saying that if you get a --
There could be violations on a house and you issued to the seller that there are no code violations. That buyer goes to buy the house and the house has all kinds of code violations once they try to do something, or something happens and they have to go out and be inspected. So it's confusing. COMMISSIONER EGAN: That is possible, the scenario you just gave.
You see, that is very confusing because -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: Which is why, you know, we encourage people to, on their own, have the house inspected by --
Well, are you all clear in the message that you're sending? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Absolutely. 1310 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
What is it? What is the message? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, I don't have one in front of me, but it state on the certification itself that -- Bob, do you want to answer that? (Robert Solvibile comes forward.)
Bob Solvibile, Deputy Commissioner, Licenses and Inspections. It states on the certification that this does not necessarily mean an inspection was made, just that L&I does not have any violations against the property.
So let the buyer beware. I have a couple questions here, Councilwoman. I'd like to ask those because I do have to go to a 5:30 meeting.
I have what? 1311 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Why do we get timed over here? They don't get timed over there.
They were not timed. I have a lot of questions. Let me ask you this one. What is the procedure for cease operations and the time period? We have stop and go where, a cease-and-desist has been ordered, and there is no enforcement. How do we get enforcement, and who is notified to tell them to cease and desist? COMMISSIONER EGAN: What is the type of property?
Operating illegally. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, cease orders issued by the Department of L&I can be enforced by our department, obviously, but also by the Police 1312 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Department, and copies of those cease orders are given to the police districts after we issue them.
Okay. So what happens when nobody enforces them? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, in other words, if it's not being enforced -- first of all, we should be called, if like the neighbors see that it's in operation again. In other words, I'm leg you know that the police district can be called to enforce that cease.
Well, tell us they don't know anything about it. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, we've been working to better educate the Police Department and their supervisory staff about their ability to enforce ceases, and we've made some progress there through the help of Commissioner Timoney. So we're getting closer to more police captains and supervisors throughout the district being aware of that.
So if we call your department, and I call you about this business in my department -- in my district and ask you to check it out, do you send of member of your 1313 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 staff? And what is your follow-up with the Police Department? COMMISSIONER EGAN: I'll let Deputy Commissioner Ed McLaughlin answer that one. (Deputy Commissioner Edward McLaughlin comes forward.)
Councilwoman, it's L&I's responsibility to post the cease. A violation of the cease is a criminal violation, so it has to be the police who respond to that location and who arrest whoever violates the cease. If we cease a building, that means nobody can go inside that building. And if they do, the police can arrest them. All that L&I can do, responding to that location, is call the police.
So it's the Police Department's responsibility to enforce the cease.
And if a police officer would tell that you they don't know anything about it, you might respond to them to refer to Directive 38.
All right. 1314 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Another question. I'm want to thank you for your encapsulation program. It did say a house on my one street that was a very nice street, and this specifically has worked very hard to do that.
Councilwoman, your time has ended. But you can come in on the second round.
Thank you, Madame Chair. Commissioner Egan, recently, I've been involved in a couple constituent requests from high-rise buildings in Center City. And could you just take a moment and explain the interaction between the Fire Department and your department? Because I have gotten faxes of letters from Fire Commissioner Hairston in reference to violations. I wonder if you'll explain the coordination, the overlap if any, of what the Fire Department's responsibilities are in code enforcements and how you work together and the 1315 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 purpose of both. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yeah, we do have a great cooperative working relationship. And the Fire Department does do a lot of inspections of buildings throughout the City of Philadelphia and make referrals to L&I for the writing of the violations that may or may not exist there. So we write the violations.
Is the fact that the Fire Department conducts these investigations just a helping hand, or they have expertise that your people don't have? That's the reason they're doing the inspections and not L&I. COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's their way of familiarizing themselves with the buildings, and they are educated in the Fire Codes so they would then make referrals to us. But our department is the legal department for issuing the violation again the property owner.
So the Fire Department just does referrals, has no enforcement authority? They can't cite fines, that's strictly something that comes to L&I, and you take over from there? 1316 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's correct. Now, they do play a role in -- they the Board of Fire Safety, the Review Board. They can play a role in issuing variances to the code, you know, for violations that were issued against a property owner.
And you're satisfied with that relationship as it exists today? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Oh, sure.
That they do that and refer things to you? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes.
I've noticed that a lot of the tenant groups have to complain about what they perceive to be unsafe conditions, like exit signs that aren't lighted during power failures, smoke detectors that don't detect smoke if there's a power interruption. Who controls that inspection process? Does the Fire Department just go out -- explain to me how a high-rise apartment complex in Center City, Philadelphia, generates an inspection, whether the Fire Department has to initiate that, L&I initiates it. 1317 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, it could be initiated both ways. In other words, we could get a referral from the Fire Department or we could receive a complaint, you know, through the -- just a phone complaint from a tenant, which would generate an inspection by an L&I employee.
No complaint, let's say that there's no complaint and I live in a high-rise. When should I expect a visit from L&I? The reason I'm bringing this up -- two different high-rises, the tenants feel that they would not be inspected unless they got together and sent petitions in and complained. I'd like to know what the ongoing process is to make sure that these high-rises are safe. COMMISSIONER EGAN: These are high-rises in Center City?
Right. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Okay. Bob, you want to answer that?
All residential high-rises are inspected on about a 13-month basis rotated around automatically without complaints, 1318 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 handled by the Housing Division. That's residential. There's, I believe, roughly 300 of them. The Department recently within the last several years promoted several people to a Housing Inspector III level, and they do strictly residential buildings in the City.
So every months, 10 it's safe for me to say to an occupant of a 11 high-rise residential building that a 12 representative of Licenses and Inspections will do 13 an annual inspection to do what?
Fire safety, make sure that there's a certification on the fire alarm system, that the fire alarm is certified by an outside agency, and to walk the hallways and make sure that the fire exist signs are lit and various other life-safety issues.
How about what I just described during a power interruption? The complaint -- I went to tenants' meeting on Friday evening, and they complained that their building would be unprotected in the event of a power interruption. 1319 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Aren't I in the middle of -- can I just finish my statement? In the midst of a power interruption that there would be no smoke detection, no exit signs to guide them to exit the building.
There's some code issues regarding -- I think I know the building you're referring to. It's a two-phase electrical system that the water -- an unfortunate leak leaked down on it and it was an unusual occurrence. And the code experts have since are dealing with it -- Kevin Daly, who works for Deputy Commissioner Perri, and Al Davis, the Chief of Housing, along with the Fire Marshal to see the permanent resolve of that.
Could I get some information, please, about that please because I have to return next month to that building. 1320 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
You're welcome. Next on the list is Mrs. Blackwell, who seems to be off the floor. Therefore, the next person will be Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen?
Thank you, Madame Chair. First, I wanted to congratulate your department upon --
I'm waiting for that new system. This little mike makes all that noise. I wanted to congratulate the Department upon its policy on these blocks where there's a single house that threatens the stability of the block when the rest of the block is fine. I think that program originated a number of years ago in Baltimore -- at least I heard it in connection with it, where you put on a new roof, you try to save the property. And in doing so, I think you not only save the block, you also maybe get a lot 1321 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 of additional tax money ultimately from preserving the house and strengthening the neighborhood. What is the process used? Who do we notify, say, that such a house exists? What department of L&I, what portion of L&I? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, I think you should contact Deputy Commissioner Solvibile for those requests.
All right, 'cause we have a couple on North 16th on both the and the 5600 block and the 5700 block. Each has a single property boarded up. I think one is at 5604 and 5708 on North 16th Street. Now, does that apply even though the homes are privately owned? They've been boarded up by the City.
And what do you do then? Do you seek to get the owner to do it, or do you go ahead and do it and put a lien on his property?
We write a violation against a property. If the owner doesn't comply 1322 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 with the violation, we do it and lien the property. The idea is to preserve it until John Kromer's OHCD can rehabilitate the property, give them time so that we can preserve the property so it doesn't further deteriorate.
And how much time does the homeowner get to take action?
We can write from an immediate-compliance to ten-day notice, Councilman, no longer than ten days, depending on the circumstances, whether we issue an immediate- compliance date or a ten-day compliance date.
All right. Secondly, how about relatively small apartment houses? They're really not small. I'm thinking of one at 16th and Grange. I think, Commissioner, you saw it and Deputy Commissioner Solvibile on that trip about a year ago that we took around the area. It's on the corner, it's a five-story home -- five-story-high -- I don't know how many apartments. It has 40 to 50 apartments. It's been empty now for five or six years. There have been some proposals. Everybody's deathly afraid that one of these days, 1323 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 it's going to get into such bad shape that it's going to have to come down. Is there any program the City has? COMMISSIONER EGAN: No. This funding is meant to be for residential properties.
There's no similar program on apartment houses? COMMISSIONER EGAN: No. 10
Could I suggest that that building be examined again? Because I think there ought to be a way of saving that property. COMMISSIONER EGAN: We'll take a look at it.
All right. Next, does the demolition contract that the City enters into include the removal of steps? Increasingly, there are steps -- I think we showed you some on tour but there are more where you see nothing but a pair of steps, and they're going uphill so you assume it's going in the right direction, up, rather than down to the devil, but -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: Councilman, just like, you know, we showed you our frustration in that demolition not having been completed 1324 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 properly. You know we continue to -- we just need to be notified of those type of inadequate unsatisfactory jobs, and we'll get the contractors to go out and do it the right way.
But also, Councilman, on some occasions, the steps are necessary as a means of retention if it's up high, and they form -- the removal may cause the rest of the earth surrounding it to --
But it would be much better if some other method could be used so it's not steps to nowhere or a reminder to the neighborhood that there once stood a house there. It would be nice if the lawn or, you know, some supportive device could be used. It would be part of preserving the stability of the neighborhood, you know, not to have it look so garish. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yeah, let us know those locations.
Where there once was a house but there is no longer. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Give us those locations and we'll take a look.
All right. And does 1325 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 the same thing apply -- does the demolition contract include leaving the property clean? On the 3100 block of Westmont Street, for example, a house was recently demolished. I think it's something like 3141. It's the only house on the block. It's near 32nd street. It was demolished but the place is full of rubble, the ground is full of rubble. We don't know whether it was the rubble that in the house or the rubble caused by the demolition. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Oh, certainly, you're supposed to have a clean lot left after a demolition.
All right. Well, that one isn't. COMMISSIONER EGAN: We'll check into that.
All right, if that could be looked at. And the last question to Commissioner Solvibile is, on Coulter Street, on 131, has there been a cease-and-desist ordered? That's on 131 Coulter.
There's a stop-work 1326 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 order, Councilman, for work exceeding the permit in one case; and in another case, I believe there was not a permit for the plumbing work being done in the kitchen.
We just issued a stop-work order; we did not put a cease-operations on the property.
Just to ask that, is that the kind of order that the police can enforce?
Okay, thank you, Madame Chair. I'll wait for the next round.
Thank you. Just to follow up on one of the comments that Mr. Cohen raised, when a contract is left for a property to be demolished, is the only way that you know it's done effectively is the absence of criticism and complaint? Do you not have a system where, prior to paying for the demolition, somebody inspects it? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Oh, absolutely. We inspect the site at several times during the 1327 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 demolition, and then we don't pay the contractor until there's a clean site there.
Including, in the case where he speaks of, the debris. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Mm-hmm.
And steps? So we might reasonably guess that the property where the steps are still standing, that that contractor has not yet been paid? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, it depends on whether or not the steps were needed for some kind of, you know, retention; in other words, if it was an upgraded property.
So the demolition of the steps wasn't a part of the contract. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, it depends. We'd have to look at that specific demolition contract.
But, Fran, unless leaving the steps was a part of the contract, you wouldn't pay until the steps were removed. COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's right.
Okay. And removing the debris is generally a part of the 1328 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 contract as well as a condition to leaving a clean, clear lot? COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's always a part of the contract.
In reference to the inspection process, I regularly get calls about the plastering of the party wall from the demolished house. There's apparently -- frequently, there's complaints that that work is not done well. Is that a part of the inspection to assure that the property that adjoins that demolished property, that the cement work or the stucco work is -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: It's under separate contract, but yes, we do inspect the stucco of the adjoining walls.
It's interesting and it might be something you want to mention. I've notice that many of the people that I'm getting 1329 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 calls from, after the house is demolished, their utility bills go up because that property that was once there acted as a insulating factor. And I think people need to realize that that's a possibility in the winter time.
Unfortunately, there are so many people that don't have a "snugglee," that their utility rates go up, so I assume that they're aware that that's a potential. Is any communication done with the next-door neighbor about that?. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes. Our building inspectors in the Contractual Services Division talk to the neighbors that would be affected by that. And you should also know under Deputy Commissioner David Perri, who is a professional 1330 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 engineer now -- not now, but he has been -- in the Department, he's looking at ways to better insulate those walls that are left due to a demolition. So, you know, we're working on that.
You're thinking of everything. COMMISSIONER EGAN: We're trying.
Mrs. Blackwell, now that you're back, you are now being recognized.
Thank you. I was over there in the corner on the telephone.
At any rate, thank you, Commissioner and Bob and all of you for what you do. One short question. Can some organized groups as soon as they, say, see their building demolished, get boards from to you try to stop a building from being totally vandalized before 1331 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 they're really on a list to be sealed? Can they get some boards from you to try to board up? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yeah. We do have a community clean-and-seal program run in the Clean-and-Seal Unit, and they would just need to, you know, contact or have them contact Jim Grundy.
Thank you. Mr. Kenney, you're next. Do you wish to be recognized, or are you through?
Through before I started. I'll try to speak quickly. Relative to Councilmember Rizzo's comment on stucco, I understand that a lot of the problem is the time of the year the house is demolished, that, for example, on a day like today, stucco work could not be done because of the cold and the propensity for it to crack and then fall off unless it's done in decent weather so, especially in the wintertime, there's a long delay, which may also cause some of the utility 1332 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 increase that's experienced. But that's just a comment from my experience. The Four Seasons Spa, which should be called the "Four Seasons House of Prostitution," up on Roosevelt Boulevard in the Northeast had opened a number of months ago and had been shut down by the Police Department due to prostitution activities, had been allowed to reopen again, but the Licenses and Inspections Review Board went back in and shut them down again. The problem is that they were in Bucks County for a number of years, and Bucks County shut them down and threw them out. Is there not some way we could employ a process with businesses like this, or with businesses in general, that when they've been packed up and thrown out of some other county or state, that we don't allow them to open up in Philadelphia? I mean, the only reason they moved to Philadelphia and in the location on the far Northeast is because it was close to their client base in Bucks County where they were thrown out of. How do we, through computerization or 1333 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 other methods, correspond with other counties on their nuisance properties and nuisance business so that we can maybe stop all of this work in advance? I mean, the problem, as I understand it, is once they're open, it's difficult to cease and keep them closed. If we refuse to allow them to open based on their past practice and the fact that they've been closed in the past, is there some way we can employ some -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: Like running a check or something like that on previous businesses owned?
Or especially if businesses have the propensity to be nuisances. I mean, bars, spas, nightclubs, you know, those kinds of places that we're in there all the time dealing with this problem or problems of community complaint, just at least make some contact with the surrounding five counties at least in Pennsylvania and say, Has this corporation been in operation for? Or something that gives us some advance notice that we have a problem child on the way. 1334 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yeah, we can take a look at contacting at least the surrounding counties. In other words, even if asked the question on the application for licenses, you know, they're not going to be honest with us, in all likelihood.
But if we put the question on the license application and they lie, that may be a quicker way to pull their ticket. COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's a good point.
Because it would be falsifying the application to begin with. COMMISSIONER EGAN: So we'll look into it.
Thank you. Secondly, tow trucks. We've been licensing tow trucks for a while now and there were a number of issues that were brought up in the legislation about the type of trucks, the size of trucks. I notice trucks from time to time that look like they've basically been a pickup truck with a boom put on the back with a yellow license sticker, which I thought was not able to be done. 1335 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 That's first. Second, does each tow truck get licensed separately? Or does a company get licensed for all their tow trucks? I mean, is there an omnibus license that's given for -- and let me just finish the question, and then you can answer it. Is there an omnibus license ever issued for a fleet of two trucks? Or does each individual tow truck need to be inspected and licensed appropriately? And can those and do those companies, for example, move the licenses around from truck to truck when they have five, six, seven, ten tow trucks? And, third, we had a reciprocity amendment that was put onto the tow truck licensing tow truck bill, that in counties around Philadelphia where Philadelphia towers were not permitted to operate by virtue of a rotation system or a closed system, that those county tow trucks would not be issued licenses to operate in Philadelphia. Now, I know I see Delaware County, Montgomery County, and Bucks County towing 1336 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 operations in Philadelphia, with yellow license stickers that I know operate closed rotation tow systems in their respective counties. And how do we give our tow truck guys a fair shot?
Your first question is -- the answer to that question is that we license each tow truck, and we do that because the ordinance requires us to inspect the truck to make sure it has proper equipment on it. The second question regarding the smaller trucks with the tow rigs on them is that we actually try to find those because they're out there making contracts the same as the bigger trucks, and being licensed brings with it the protection that the ordinance invokes.
Well, I've seen those trucks with yellow City stickers.
That's what I'm saying -- we'll chase 'em down and try to get 'em licensed because --
No, I thought they weren't permitted to be licensed because of the size of the truck. I thought were minimum weight requirements and that formerly pickup trucks that 1337 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 have booms installed, which was not in the original equipment, were not permitted. If you could check that out, I would appreciate that.
And also, if I can get a list of all the licensed tows trucks currently in the City of Philadelphia for 1999 and their locations and get an idea of whether or not we're following reciprocity. Okay?
Thank you, Madame Chair. Commissioner Egan and Commissioner McLaughlin, just to pick up on the first issue mentioned by Councilman Kenney, if the Councilman would allow for an amendment to his request. I got the impression that the Department was potentially nervous about trying to check the past business practices of everyone who wants to come 1338 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 to Philadelphia, but for the specific instances that the Councilman mentioned, it sounded like we might be able to look at a more narrow group of people who generally fall under the regulated-use category. I mean, if the Councilman knows what groups he's going after, but if he's talking about the Four Seasons place or if we're talking about, you know, the wondrous pawn shop places, check-cashing places, and people who are engaged in all the go-go activity, often, unfortunately, these folks have either come from other places or from not so wondrous backgrounds. And it would seem to me that working with the Law Department, we might able to craft some additional language to the regulated-use section that allows us to ask the kind of questions that the Councilman mentioned -- whether you had a previous business location outside of Philadelphia, what happened at that location, criminal background check, and a couple of those other things -- we might save ourselves a lot of headache with that. So I would, hopefully with his agreement, amend the request to get some of that coordination and 1339 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 information. Commissioner, I wanted to go to on your testimony, the Vacant Property Survey that the Department has been working on. Could you elaborate on this project? And you indicate that in the spring of FY '99 and continuing into the first quarter of FY 2000 -- that sounds like July to September. Could you give us a little more information on what that project is doing, and talk about the level of sharing information with other City departments and agencies and what information you have presently. COMMISSIONER EGAN: What our goal is to capture on information systems, you know, that can live on past the snapshot that you would take if you just went out and did a survey and captured it on paper. It would be to do a citywide survey of all vacant property and be able to share that information with those departments that would find it most valuable -- the Fire Department, Planning Commission, you know, etc., etc., Economic Development Agency. So we would to initiate that some time 1340 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 this year and hope to but we want to do it unless we have the ability to capture it in, again, information technology in a way that can be shared not only, you know, across the department lines, but with other outside agencies.
And the goal of this project is to determine both the number of vacants and anything to do with condition? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Right.
Of said properties also? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Right. We would be righting violations, etc.
Okay. And then you would keep all of that in a database but other agencies and departments would have access to it and would be able to call that information up. COMMISSIONER EGAN: That's the idea.
Okay. , the Enhanced Enforcement section. In a couple areas of the district that I represent, there are some, as you can imagine, enforcement issues. And one of them revolves around conversions of what generally have been single-family properties into 1341 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 multifamily, whether in West Philadelphia I get some of that in particular places and also in the Manayunk and Wissahickon area, where people are, you know, maybe the bulk of the family is gone, the owner has moved out and is now renting what had been a single-family home to five or six oftentimes college students. I don't have anything against college students. They have to live somewhere. But in that particular situation, you now have six people in the house. So first and foremost, usually they're in violation of the no-more-than-three-unrelated-adults rule in the first place. Often, all of them have cars. And, I mean, they begin to change the fabric and nature of the community. Again, I understand college students have to live somewhere. But the owner has not even taken the time to go get the necessary permits or, you know, God forbid, actually go through the zoning process to make their place legal. If someone wants to go through that process, fine. That's why we have that. But I need some additional attention 1342 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 directed toward the multifamily conversions, which are essentially illegal. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Okay.
And I'm out of time. I'm not going to even try to get another question in. (Laughter.)
Thank you. Does your comment require a response of the briefest kind?
Only if the Commissioner has a response. COMMISSIONER EGAN: I mean, other than we will be happy to work with the Councilman on those types of situations -- have been and will continue to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Nutter. The last person on my list is Councilwoman Tasco.
Commissioner, you 1343 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 know, the Department of L&I is a department I really and truly support because I think you do -- your department really has a real great impact on the quality of life for people here in the City of Philadelphia. So my questions aren't meant to be adversarial but only because I want you to ask for more money for more staff 'cause part of the problems that I believe we're experiencing in getting some of the enforcement and clean-and-seals and some of those things that my office really cares a lot about is maybe because we just don't have enough people to do it. It's a big city and a lot of housing and a lot of problems. You do health, you do housing, you do everything. So my questions are for the record because we deal with this every day. And the calls we receive and the frustration level that we have, it's not that you don't do it; it's just that there's a time delay in getting some of the first visits on a violation notice out and then follow up. Is there a process for doing the 1344 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 initial first visit on a complaint? And what is the process for a follow-up visit, absent a call from my office? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, you know, hopefully, when a complaint comes in to our office, you know, we can get someone out there within like days of the complaint, depending on 9 the nature of the complaint. 10 Now, any report of a dangerous 11 building, you know, where the residents are in 12 fear of it collapsing, we do go out immediately. 13 But, you know, on your normal complaint, we would 14 hopefully get out there within two days. And if a 15 violation would be written, then, you know, a reinspection would be done in like 30 days.
Councilwoman, the inspector would make a decision at that point in time on the violation, whether he or she would want a reinspection immediately, 10 days, or 30 days being the long time frame. COMMISSIONER EGAN: In other words, depending on the type of violation. 1345 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
So are you saying that you can or you do revisit within 30 days if there's a reinspection to be done?
Well, we try to. Again, depending on how many of the immediate-type concerns are required of our inspectors' time would depend on if we get in, but we do reinspect every property -- every property where we've written a violation.
Now, once you issue a violation and it goes to court, what is the -- who is responsible for the enforcement? A number of people get violated. Our house on 79th Avenue took the guy to court. He was fined, and he still isn't paying the fine. Is that the court's responsibility? COMMISSIONER EGAN: At that stage of the game, it is. You know, once we take the owner to court, you know, the judge then becomes the enforcer, which is why in our Enhanced Enforcement section of my formal testimony, you know, we talk about trying to improve the type of enforcement action that even the courts, the judges will take against property owners. 1346 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 And if we need to take them back to court, we'll do that.
So if you fine a property owner -- for instance, our house on 79th Avenue -- and he doesn't pay the fine, but there's still trash in the house and it's being a problem to the neighbors, I mean, what happens? COMMISSIONER EGAN: What, Bob? We -- this is what can happen, Councilwoman, honestly. It can go into like this -- this like big barrel that kind of keeps turning, with all the violations in it. But if the community keeps us aware of that problem, we can either send it back to court and try to get the judge to get a little tougher on that property owner; or in the case of very serious conditions that have like become just unbearable for the neighbors, you know, we can abate those conditions.
Well, if the case is in court and the owner has been fined, whose responsibility is it to see that, one, that the person cleans up the house? Or, two, that the fine is paid? Where is the enforcement of the 1347 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 court's adjudication? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, after a fine's been issued and then the violation hasn't been complied, like it would have to start all over again. We would reinspect, violations would be issued again, it would go back to court again. And, hopefully, you know, what you're creating is at that point, you know, is recognition by the judge involved that this is more serious than they maybe took it the first time around, and that they need to be a little more aware that rubbish -- like, for example, you're talking trash in somebody's back yard. That doesn't sound very onerous to a judge.
Mm-hmm. COMMISSIONER EGAN: But if the judge understands -- like if they would just think about it or look at pictures of it, it really does create very deplorable conditions for the neighbors in that are.
Commissioner, I wonder if I could ask you to wrap up. We're running tremendously late. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Oh, sure. So 1348 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 really, it is getting back to the judge, Councilwoman.
Okay, thank you. That's the last Councilperson who seeks to be heard on that issue. Thank you very much.
Please stay, Commissioner, Councilman Nutter has two of the briefest questions.
Possibly the briefest ones I've ever asked. Deputy Commissioner McLaughlin, can you clearly state for the record, with regard to business-compliance inspections, does the Department inspect only during the week, 9 to 5, Monday through Friday? Or are there personnel who are out and available in the evening hours and the weekends?
Most of the inspectors 1349 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 work during regular work week.
We have a Saturday function that work 2 to 10, two inspectors. Sometimes we increase that to two teams of two. But we work around the clock responding to specific complaints, such as our regulated uses that require us to be out 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock in the morning.
Okay. The reason I ask the question is, from time to time, especially with vending matters, some people think that they can outscheme us in terms of when we have people out and about. And they figure the Department kind of goes to sleep on the weekends, and I just want to make sure that it's clear for the record that there are people who are out and available to handle those situations. Because we've had some folks try to avoid being in compliance, thinking that there are no L&I people available. Lastly, how does the Department deal with -- you get complaints from all over the place, you certainly get them from me. A property has maybe various violations -- roof problem, 1350 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 porch problem, windows out, or whatever. But ultimately, it may also be found that there's drug activity in the house. Whose call is that? Is that an initial L&I call, is that a police call? Is it a joint process? COMMISSIONER MCLAUGHLIN: That's a police call, first off.
So the moment there's -- I mean, the place may have other problems, but the moment there is an allegation about drug activity and the first place is to deal with the police, the second place is maybe L&I to deal with the rest of the violations once the drug issue has been dealt with?
Yes, that's correct. We have a very good working relationship with most of the narcotics units in each of the police divisions, so we do respond with them. They usually cue us to those kind of problems, and we work together.
All right. Off the record, I'd like to talk to you about a location out on 52nd Street. It's got some L&I violations, 1351 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 but there's alleged drug activity there as well. Thank you.
Does that mean you're through? Thank you very much. There are no 6 more lights on so -- (Councilwoman Krajewski enters chambers.)
Can I ask something? I came down just for one question.
Thank you. Good afternoon. My question is, I buy a house that has a fence around it. That fence has been up for 17 years -- Joe Brown put that fence on till I buy 18 it. Three years later, an L&I inspector comes 19 around and says, That's illegal, you never got 20 permits for that. Am I the one that's responsible for that? Do I have to go get the permit, go to court, when that fence or wall or whatever it may be was up before I bought that house? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yeah. 1352 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Unfortunately, in that case, Councilwoman, the property owner is always responsible for code violations against the property that they own.
You're saying that -- I heard from a friend of mine who lives in Councilwoman Blackwell's district, he's been living in this property for 43 years, and his wife lived in the property before him. They have a driveway, and apparently, now they're being told that the driveway is illegal, and now he has to go through this whole process. I think that is absolutely absurd.
It just doesn't seem like L&I has their priorities together.
I'm sure it's like 50 years or more that that driveway's been there on the side of their property, and L&I is now telling them that it's illegal. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, it would be illegal because it's illegal according to the zoning code that exists in Philadelphia. 1353 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Well, I think maybe we have to change some of the codes in L&I because it's outrageous. I would like to work together with someone from your staff regarding these changes. COMMISSIONER EGAN: We would be totally supportive and cooperative in an effort to revamp the zoning code and to remove some of those portions that do drive, you know, the property owners crazy.
It just seems they don't go, the inspectors, for some reason or another -- I see walls, retaining walls that look like they're about to fall down, I see garage doors that could fall down, and I don't see any inspectors. People like that never seem to get a violation. Anyone who's trying to improve their home, justly so -- I'm not talking about someone who's going to go out five feet or whatever, but 1354 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 they're the ones that seem to be penalized. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Well, just like the incident you cited, though, Councilwoman, that probably was the result of a complaint. And if somebody complains about the retaining wall that's falling down or the garage door that's falling apart, we'll go out and write a violation against them too, but it would have to be by complaint.
But the same people who get the violation, nothing seems to happen. They get violation after violation, postponement after postponement, and nothing happens. COMMISSIONER EGAN: It can be a frustrating process because people know how to work that court system, they know how to, you know, build in delays into the system.
We have buildings that are falling down, and they get postponement after postponement. But some little guy who lives on a little street, he gets a notice that he must come in here. He's frightened to death, calling our office, "I can't make it, what do I do?" 1355 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 I know it's not your fault; it's the court system in that case with the postponements. But I would like to work with your office and -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: Of course, we'd be happy to do that. Would love to, as a matter of fact.
Well, you can count on it because I will be on that now. Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Great.
Commissioner, let's go back over the scenario quickly of the Councilwoman's story there. At the time that house was sold to the new owner, wasn't there a survey done, wasn't there some -- I believe, to get title insurance or to complete a real estate transaction, at that point of the sale, the encroachment of that fence should have been detected. (Deputy Commissioner David Perri comes forward.)
My name is Dave Perri, 1356 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Deputy Commissioner for Construction Services. With the certification statement, as we've discussed earlier, that's merely a statement that there's no violations on record. There are no surveys done when real estate is transacted. Increasingly, title companies, insurance companies, and mortgage companies are asking to see permits on existing structure in single-family sales. And in those particular cases, it's the homeowner's obligation to show that there were permits secured for not only fences but maybe there's addictions, decks, and other structures on the property.
So, Commissioner, one of the things in our process should be educational, that when a person's buying a property, they should be reasonably confident that everything is on their property and legal before the transaction. Or isn't that realistic to expect that? I know there are some suburban jurisdictions that require a survey every time the property's sold.
Well, I think there's a lot 1357 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 of burden on homeowners selling real estate in the city. And anything beyond the bear minimum that you require could have a negative impact on the real estate market. In addition to having a negative effect, there's private home inspection agencies that are available if a homeowner wants to have their property checked for code compliance, but that's outside of the L&I system.
But that, again, should be something that's a recommendation because this person bought this property, believing that everything was appropriate, that the fence was where it should be, that the storage shed was where it should be, and that the driveway was where it should be. Now, five years later, after the person's lived there, they find out -- and they're probably surprised, they have no recourse at that time, that something that they bought in good faith is now a code violation. So maybe that's where we need to go with this.
Does City Planning have anything to do with this in writing 1358 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 the codes? COMMISSIONER EGAN: They are the housers of the zoning code.
Well, they're the ones we should be talking to too. COMMISSIONER EGAN: We enforce the zoning code, but they are what you would call, I guess, "the writers" or "the housers."
Well, then, I think I better get in touch with them as well because it's chaos out there, Commissioner, believe me. Thank you.
Any other questions or comments from members of the committees? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, I thank you. Thank you for your patience, thank you for all of the good work that you do. And I'm sorry you were kept waiting. COMMISSIONER EGAN: No problem, Council President.
Thanks. 1359 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 COMMISSIONER EGAN: And do you want to you go through the boards really quickly or not? It's up to you.
Yes, mm-hmm. Is it the Board of L&I Review? COMMISSIONER EGAN: The Board of L&I Review, the Building Board of Standards, and the Zoning Board.
That would be fine. (Richard Felgus come forward.)
Councilwoman Verna, I'm Richard Felgus. I'm here to testify for the L&I Review Board. The L&I Review Board Budget essentially is the same as last year, with the exceptions of a small additional amount of money that we were asking for salary increases. Total Board Budget would be $202,000. There are three full-time staff members of the Board and six Board members. The L&I Review Board is really an appeal board that hears appeals from any actions 1360 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 that L&I takes. We administer their budget and their operations, but they're a highly independent board. This year, the board will be proposing to hear 1,120 cases. We would expect that they would be doing approximately the same next year. Right now, the Board is rendering decisions within 60 days, except in the case of firearms; that take a little bit longer since there's been a deluge on firearms. I'd be glad to answer any questions.
Thanks. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Okay. The next board is our Board of Building Standards. With me today is Barton Kligerman, who is the Chairman of the Board. And we are requesting a total of $113,000 for the Board for our year 2000 Budget. This is an increase of $2800 for salary increases for the two full-time staff members. The Board also is 1361 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 composed of four members. In the current year, we would expect that the Board will be hearing approximately 180 cases and conducting 50 meetings. We would presume that that would be approximately the same for next year. Currently, the Board is rendering decisions within 30 days.
I don't know. Are there any questions for the Board of Building Standards? (No questions.)
Thank you. Our final board that we have attached to the Department is the Zoning Board of Adjustment. This, of course, is the most active of all the boards, it has the largest budget. Their budget this year is slightly over half a million dollars. This is an increase, again, of $10,000 over the current-year obligations to pay for salary increases for the staff. Currently, we 1362 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 have six full-time members or staff people, along with five Board members of this board. During 1999, we would expect the Board to be conducting 250 meetings. As I said, they are the most active of the City boards. They have a vital job that they perform.
Last year, we heard 1617 cases. And this year, we're projecting, remarkably enough, about the same number -- 1618 cases, one more than last year. We'll have to wait and see how that plays out. Right now, through December, they've heard 715 cases already, and they have rendered 961 decisions. That's because some of the cases carried over from the prior year.
The Board currently is rendering decisions within 30 days of when an appeal is presented to it. We had started an accelerated hearing process a few years ago. That's worked out extremely well. For those 1363 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 people who are involved in development and want to get moving quickly, we can offer them the hearing almost immediately after the posting time. There's a legal limit, you have to have a notice up, where we can give them a hearing almost as soon as that limit has been met. And that program has been very well-received. We had 286 cases where people had requested accelerated hearings before the Zoning Board. Right now, the Zoning Board is getting to be so effective in terms of hearing cases quickly, that the numbers of the accelerated hearings are actually dropping because we're able to provide good service.
How long does it take before one applies for a zoning hearing?
Bob D'Agostino, Appeal Boards Administrator. Right now, it's running about a month, 1364 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 depending on the time of the year. Sometimes in the winter, it may be three weeks; during the peak spring and summer, it may be six weeks for an ordinary hearing.
So why would anybody want to pay for an accelerated hearing?
Well, if you're a developer and you've had financial commitments and time is money and so forth, some of these people do want to do it.
How much sooner do they have a hearing if they pay for the accelerated hearing?.
What were the number of hearings you said the Zoning Board hears?
What were the number of hearings? 1365 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
I just heard the 600, and I thought they heard that in a day.
I think they do an outstanding job in the normal course of events. Sometimes there are cases that seem to provide special problems. But on the expedited hearings, one of the problems is that a community isn't given enough time to consider the matter, the expedited hearing works against the interest of the community. And some developers may seek an expedited hearing because they just want to shut up the people or act before it gets to be known. So I would like to ask, what happens if a community says, We're against an expedited hearing, we just learned about it, we need more time. You know, because community groups don't 1366 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 always meet, you know, or can't get together quickly. Sometimes they meet every two months, that sort of thing. Is there any way in which a community can protect itself from a developer who may be using the request for an expedited hearing merely to move before anybody in the community can really get organized?
What ordinarily happens, Councilman, is that someone from the Councilperson's district will come to the hearing and request that the Board continue the case so that they can have a community meeting with the applicant.
The Board will normally grant that, and the applicant normally agrees. In fact, we encourage applicants in our instruction sheet that they should contact community groups or the City Councilperson in their district. Some do, some don't.
Yes. Those that may have reason not to, you know, from their own point 1367 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 of view, often don't. Generally, the policy of the Board is to grant continuances only if the applicant asks for the continuance. And there general policy is to deny any requests by community groups for continuances. Every once in a while, the Board does grant the continuance, urging that the two parties get together, which is a very sound policy. But I think particularly in the cases of expedited appeals, I think the Board ought to give consideration even more strongly when a community group says, Hey, this is so quick, don't rush us, let us have the opportunity to consider, you know, learn all the facts. The community may agree or the community may ultimately not agree; it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth if there's too much of a rush.
Normally, applicants agree because they know it's in their best interest to meet with the community.
Thank you. I just wanted everybody to be fully aware that it's not always just financial problems, but sometimes it is that get a developer wanting to move ahead fast. 1368 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 But I think, on the whole, the Board does a great job. They probably, next to Traffic Court, maybe even ahead of the Traffic Court, have more citizens of Philadelphia get to know the City government because so many people actually appear before the Zoning Board.
I think that most people that are familiar with this process know to go to the community group when they come before the Zoning Board because it's in their best interest to do it.
I agree with you that it's in their best interests. Thank you.
The Office of Housing and Community Development. (John Kromer comes forward.)
Hello, stranger. You haven't been around to see us, to the best of my knowledge to find out what we want 1369 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 in our budget. When are we going to have OHCD hearings? What is your schedule?
I believe we've outlined a proposed schedule and submitted it to your office.
The first daft was submitted a month and a half or two months ago, but we can check on that. I believe you and I are also scheduled to meet to talk over the schedule and on other issues. But my understanding is that based on the informal discussion between our staffs, that the expectation is that the timing will be somewhat similar to previous years -- that is a late-May hearing at the earliest.
Well, I'm not the chairperson on that committee, but I think that you ought to start making your visits to the District Councilpeople.
My first meeting tomorrow 1370 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 morning is with Councilwoman Blackwell.
By the way, for the record, I'm John Kromer, Director of the Office of Housing and Community Development. As you know, a separate hearing of City Council's Finance Committee is scheduled to consider the Community Development Block Grant budget. However, for the purposes of this hearing, I want to summarize the testimony that has been submitted, and indicate that the proposed Operating Budget for OHCD is $143.4 million in the coming fiscal year. Of that amount, 79.5 million will be in the Grants Revenue Fund, then 59.8 million in the Community Development Fund, and 4.1 million in the General Fund. The Class 100 request of 4.2 million reflects an increase of $123,930 to cover wage increases budgeted, consistent with the City's collective bargaining agreements and full funding of requested positions. The Class 200 request is substantially lower than the current Fiscal Year amount in Class 200 based on a decrease in Section 108 borrowing 1371 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 for the Home Ownership Zone, which is already funded and a decrease in other Section 108 borrowing activity. This decrease is simply related to the fact that the City's reached its capacity to borrow through the Section 108 Program, and there's no more capacity to use. I'd be glad to respond to any questions or comments that Councilmembers may have at this time.
The first question is with respect to the Emergency Shelter Grants referred to in your statement in the amount of $2.4 million. Is that the kind of money, for example, that was involved in the Coulter Street, the current Coulter Street proposal?
No. We are not a funder of the Coulter Street residents, which is, I understand it, proposed to be funded through OESS. We have no funding for shelter housing.
No, OESS is City-funded. 1372 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Is that true in deliverance, or does the deliverance come through OHCD??
No, there's no CDGB funding in the deliverance venture either, none.
So if money is lost in that program, it's -- by "City money," do we mean City tax money?
I don't know. All I can say is that it was never part of the community development fund.
It was never a part of the community fund. Well, what is the funding for the Emergency Shelter Grants? When does your money come into play? You say you're requesting in the amount of 2.4 million, the authority's requested to provide funding for Emergency Shelter Grants. 1373 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
That reflects the amount that we expect to receive through the State program, the Emergency Shelter Grant Program. But it is a not for emergency for City-sponsored shelters; it is for transitional programs that we support that are operated groups, nonprofit groups such as Project Home and People's Emergency Center.
And how about -- what does the Section 108 loans cover? I know we've heard them at various proposals offered. I think Disneyland may be getting some of it? Maybe Jump Street?
I think that many of the TIFs got the 108, did they not, Mr. Kromer?
Yes, there have been some ventures that have been funded with both TIF and 108. The 108 funding that PIDC and the Commerce 1374 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Department administer primarily for downtown development but also for some neighborhood economic development ventures such as Jump Street is money that is loaned to the private developers and then paid back in full by the private developers, so there is no grant funding involved. It's simply a loan which is paid back by the developers.
Yes, it does revolve. When Section 108 funding is used for affordable housing development, such as the Home Ownership Zone Development and a lot of the tax credit rental development that we have done in nearly every Council district, the money is paid back through future years' Community Development Block Grant funding.
Mr. Kromer, how much did we have last year at this time in Section 108 loans? Do you know off the top of your head? I don't think it's in your testimony. 1375 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
I'm sorry, I don't have that that in the information here but can send you a summary of that. It was a substantial amount, when you combine the PIDC and CDBG, the housing-related 108.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Clark.
Mr. Kromer, let me express my appreciation for some of the creative housing that has been assisted through your office in North Philadelphia. Tell me, if you will, about the Come Home to Philadelphia Program, a middle-class program to attract home buyers to Philly. Specifically, are there any dollar restrictions? And how many homes do you expect this to result in being sold to Philadelphians?
The Come Home to Philadelphia Program, which was announced a few weeks ago, involves the use of $200,000 in Economic Stimulus Funds, funding that is apart from this budget, to support home ownership in Philadelphia. 1376 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 The funding will provide $1,000 settlement assistance grants to 200 home buyers. And unlike the Housing Counseling and Settlement Assistance Program that has been funded for seven years now as part of the Community Development Block Grant, this initiative does not have the Housing Counseling requirement and does not have a first-time home ownership requirement. We've had many inquiries from consumers from the real estate industry and from neighborhood organizations about the possibility of loosening up some of the restrictions that have governed our ongoing Pre-purchase Counseling and Settlement Assistance Program, including the requirement to complete a course of counseling and the requirement for a home inspection. And some in the real estate industry have said that those restrictions too onerous. I've disagreed with that and have insisted, particularly on the home inspections because we have so much older housing stock. But this Come Home to Philadelphia initiative was a way of trying to respond to that interest to try on a limited basis an unrestricted 1377 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 program which does have a limit on income, but is a very generous limit, and does not contain either counseling or a home inspection requirement. And I expect that we'll soon be able to assess the results of that program in terms of possibly strengthening the single-family sales housing market in Philadelphia. So to me, it's an interesting opportunity to test this approach.
Is 63,000 the minimum or the maximum income for a family of wage earners?
I believe it's the maximum. And, again, I can give you the breakdown of the income levels.
That strikes me as odd. Since the housing could cost as much as 1378 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 $240,000, to have a $63,000 maximum earning seems a little arbitrary to me.
I'll give you the figures on both family income and on house price.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Kromer? (No further questions.)
City Planning Commission is next. (Barbara Kaplan comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Councilwoman Verna. We are the survivors. I am Barbara Kaplan. ), who is our Administrative Services Director. I will try to do a very brief summary of our budget. 1379 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 We're pleased to be here to discuss our budget request with you. 1 million. 5, is from the General Fund, although we also are requesting about $240,000 for the Community Development Block Grant Program that funds a number of our staff. And we have approved -- we have received approval for several federal grants. Most of this money is for transportation planning. Our budget this year reflects an increase over last year's budget of just over $23,000, all of which will accommodate -- is necessary to accommodate the negotiated wage increases. We've had a busy year in terms of housing redevelopment activities. We worked very closely with the Office of Housing and the Redevelopment Authority to do blight certifications and redevelopment planning that has led to the redevelopment of quite a number of housing units, mostly in North and West Philadelphia, but also in other parts of City as well. 1380 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 In addition, we've also been spending considerable time working with the Philadelphia Housing Authority who has received the Hope 5 grant funding that has made it possible to convert 6 -- to demolish high-rise public housing and convert that to low-rise units, some of which will go back on those sites, and some of which will be replaced elsewhere in the community. In particular, we've been spending quite a bit of time on the planning of the redevelopment of the Martin Luther King Development and the Schuykill Falls Development, which are very large projects, and we will continue that work into the next year. We also have work in the Spring Garden neighborhood in North Philadelphia and Jefferson Square, which will be a middle-income homeowner project in South Philadelphia. And we've also been doing quite a bit work in the 52nd Street area. We look forward to that work increasing over the next year. We are working on preparations for the year 2000 census. There have been some changes in the law that enable us, we think, to have the 1381 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Census Bureau prepare a much more accurate address list for the census than has ever been possible. They were able use the Post Office list for the first time. That would seem like it would be something obvious. But under previous law, they were not able to do that. Now that they're able to do that, we think they start off with a much better census for doing the census. And in addition, they're able to share that address list with us, and we were able to compare that with addresses from City files. We were able to do that last fall. We did, in fact, find some 50,000 addresses that we wanted them to check for possible addition to the file. We'll have another opportunity to do that next year, as the census gets a little bit closer. So we are -- our preparations for the census are well underway. We're also working with the Mayor's Office, who is planning an outreach program because, as I'm sure everyone knows, we have a lot of people in this city who, for various reasons, are difficult to count. And we want to make sure that we count everyone. 1382 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 There were some questions that came up in the Capital Budget hearing about the geographic information system and the City's continued progress in that effort, and we have been involving more of the departments in the City in that effort. We kind of initiated that project in the early 1990s. It has now gathered considerable momentum. The Mayor's Office of Information Services is now kind of picking it up and extending that, with our assistance, to other departments -- particularly the Water Department, the Records Department, Streets Department, and Licenses and Inspections, among others.
The Police Department has been using it also for some time. As a result of some of the questions that were asked in the Capital Budget hearing, I would certainly offer, when the budget process is finished, a briefing for Councilmembers, not only for the work that the Planning Commission is doing, but for what the other departments are doing as well. And the other --
Excuse me, I didn't hear the subject of the last two sentences. 1383 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
And the other thing is, we would be most happy to work with Council's technical staff, as I'm sure would the Mayor's Office of Information Services, to begin to extend a capacity of the geographic information system to City Council's technical staff, because I'm sure Councilmembers would find it very useful. Right now, even though various departments are involved in this system, the Planning Commission is really the only agency that acts as a service bureau, however, to provide maps and mapping services to other City departments, to members of City Council, and to various nonprofits that have projects that require this type of assistance. So I think this is something that has been in the works, it has gathered momentum. It's now at the point where it's an integral part of 1384 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 the operations of a number of City departments. And we would be pleased to, first of all, include City Council in that system, but also to give you a briefing as to what is really going on. Of course, we continue the normal things we do in terms of neighborhood and development planning, environmental review, zoning and capital program preparation. I'd be pleased to answer any questions any member of Council might have.
Miss Kaplan, I have two questions. I don't know if I heard you correctly with respect to Jefferson Square. Did you say it was a North Philadelphia home ownership program?
No, this is in South Philadelphia in the vicinity of what was formerly Mt. Sinai Hospital.
Fifth and Reed. 1385 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Or before that, Einstein Hospital's Southern Division.
Well, there are plans for the hospital buildings. I think one is going to be a long-term rehabilitation center. The other is going to be senior-citizen housing. But the hospital, for many years, had been acquiring vacant properties and vacant lots in the area. They are going to give them to a nonprofit corporation. In addition, we probably will acquire other properties and be able to redevelop the whole area around there, which is, you know, has gotten quite shaky in that one spot. There are still homeowners in there, but there are a lot of vacant lots and a lot of vacant buildings.
Okay, thank you for that clarification. Briefly, I want to express my concern about the census and say that we really must do a 1386 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 much better job of counting Philadelphians this decade than we did in the past. And specifically, two classes are historically under-counted -- African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans. Please do be as creative as you can in helping us count not just the addresses, but the actual people who exist but float in an undocumented, unregulated way. They're not on the employment rolls, they're not on church rolls, they're not on voter registration rolls. It is all but impossible to prove that they exist except they do. And so we simply must find a way of documenting their existence. And to the degree that we don't, we deprive ourselves of dollars that go with those numbers for the City as well as for the School District. So it's going to be important for us to get a much better count than we have had in the past.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Well, I agree with 1387 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 both Councilwoman Clark and the Commission Director Barbara Kaplan on the census work. I think you're probably in the best position and your experience will be extremely valuable in attempting to make sure we get an honest count -- not an honest count, but a realistic count of what exists. I don't think anybody intentionally tries to not count people but there are people in society so -- living under such difficult circumstance, that they are frequently hard to find. Some people have reason for maybe wanting to be hard to find. But I think the Planning Commission is in the best position to get the work done, and I'm delighted. I didn't know you were involved in it, but I feel much better now that I know that you're involved.
I think what's encouraging to us is that there's more that we can do to help the Census Bureau this time in advance of the 1388 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 actual census being taken because we have much more opportunity to help them improve their address list. And even though it's quite true what Councilwoman Clark said, that, you know, okay, finding the house is one thing; finding the people is another. But since this is a mail survey, if you don't even get the questionnaire into the house or you have no record of the address, then there's no way the Census Bureau can follow up if somebody doesn't return it, 'cause they will follow up with an actual house visit if it does not come back by mail. But last time, we had all kind of reports of people not getting forms, and they would call our office and we would -- we could not do anything about it except to tell the Census Bureau. But it was apparently very difficult to get through to the Census Bureau the last time to get forms to people if they were missed the first time. So we want to make sure that that doesn't happen this time. At this time also, we're allowed to give out forms, which we weren't allowed to do the 1389 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 last time. So that should also help.
Excuse me, Barbara, is somebody going to go door to door with the forms and try to explain to people the importance of this?
Well, I think that would be the kind of outreach activity, you know, that we would try to plan for -- particularly in neighborhoods where there are a lot of recent arrivals, a lot of immigrants, a lot of people who don't speak English. The Census Bureau this time is going to print the forms in more languages, which they, last time, had plans, but it did not work out terribly well. We also -- and I -- you know, I -- I think we're going to -- the Mayor is committed to, before he leaves office, he won't be here for the next census, but to try to raise some money to supplement City resources so that we can, you know, really undertake an effective outreach program. But the first step right now that we're working on is to make sure that, you know, a form gets into every household. That's the first step. 1390 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023
Well, I don't know that there are people that will just accept this form and answer it.
But I will just tell you, I will share this with you, in a particular area in my district, there are large numbers of Asians who absolutely refuse to register. In fact, I have gotten Asian priest to talk to them, to tell them how important it was that they register and they vote. And I also talked about the census. They just feel that they don't want anybody to know their business.
Now, I don't know how we reach, you know, many people who may feel exactly the same way. But there has to be some way of communicating the importance of this census.
Well, we certainly are going to try. And the Census Bureau has local people who speak various languages, various Southeast Asian languages -- Cambodian, 1391 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Vietnamese, etc. But, certainly, I think we already know where a lot of these hard-to-count populations are located in the city, and we're really going to tart efforts, work with the Census Bureau to try to make sure we can get this information out and do as much education as we possibly can. I mean, part of this is to kind of convince people that it's in their own self-interest to participate, you know, that the amount of money that comes to the City for various programs that they participate in, if we don't know that they're there, we're not going to get the money to cover them in this program. We're talking about outreach at health centers, for example, where a lot of people do receive services. We might help people actually, you know, at a health center to fill out a form. For example, churches will be involved. I mean, we'll try every avenue to try to reach people. But it is important to make sure that the address gets in the database because if we don't have the address, then there's no way for anybody to follow up. So that's what we're 1392 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 focussing on now. And then we know we're going to have to do that kind of, you know, hand-holding and outreach later on because, clearly, there are a lot of people in the city that are difficult to count, and a lot of people who don't want to be counted.
For instance, how would you know whether a house is occupied or vacant? How would you know if it's an apartment building, if there's more than one family in that dwelling? I mean, how are you going to be able to do this? You're talking about sending out, you know, making certain that everybody receives a form by mail. Who will be doing this work?
The Census Bureau will be doing it. And based on what we know about the city from our experience and from City records, we're trying to direct them in the right places to put their effort, you know, where it is most 1393 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 needed and will do the most good. I think the benefit of the Census Bureau starting out with the Post Office mailing list helps a great deal 'cause you might have -- I mean, you might have three apartments that are, you know, illegally there and a row house that should have one unit on City records, but they're all getting mail. So that is a better way to find people than some of the ways that they have tried in past, where they've bought commercial mailing lists. I mean, they have they may have lost a lot of people that way. It was interesting that the address list that we got this time had more addresses on it even before we looked at it than where we wound up at the end of the last census. So we feel like we have a better base, and the more people that are in the system, the more addresses that are in the system, the better chance we have of having, you know, the Census Bureau follow up when they don't get something back. The Census Bureau does talk to neighbors. If they can't get the household, they will actually talk to neighbors, they'll try to 1394 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 get information any way they can. That's the last resort. They really want to get household to report their own information. And I think we have a tremendous challenge to do this. You know, the City has been losing population, so we want to make sure we get every last person we can because it's important for political redistricting also as well as the funding issue.
I think one of the finest achievements of the Planning Commission in its history has been a report that you issued some years ago on the impact on neighborhoods of institutional placements of all kinds. I don't know what you called it, but it was a study that showed --
Well, it might have 1395 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 had that innocuous title, but it revealed a lot about the city, it showed us the neighborhoods that were heavily impacted, those that were most heavily impacted, every neighborhood was probably impacted a little -- but some just a little and some much more heavily. And at the same time, in my judgment, it's been the most widely ignored publication probably that the Planning Commission ever put out. Because sometimes its interests run against various developers. I think it would be important to kind of update it and to get recommendations from the Planning Commission as to how it might be used. For example, it appears that if anything, the movement to continue to impact the same neighborhoods that are already heavily impacted, that movement has, if anything, accelerated. And the reason your reports don't get -- that particular report doesn't get wide circulation is a lot of people like to forget that it ever exists. You know, I think it's a very important picture of what the neighborhood is. And with respect to stability, we spend 1396 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 a lot of time in Council talking about how we stabilize neighborhoods. And I think if we paid more attention to that report, we'd do a better job because what's happening is that certain neighborhoods are getting increasingly destabilized. And even after we do a lot of hand-holding and get people to invest in homes, this process has continued and has accelerated. So I just hope you can do something to enrich that. One general question. It seems to me also ignored -- and I don't know of anything you've done on this, though you may have and I may be unfair to you, but I'd like to know if you haven't, haven't has anybody else done a study of what is a neighborhood? Meaning, what does a neighborhood need to be a neighborhood? A lot of us have different subjective ideas. I'm going to, among other things, be presenting proposed resolutions, maybe legislation to City Council calling upon the City to assume a burden on economic development, say, of supermarkets 'cause in my -- in every neighborhood because I find that people believe they're kind of 1397 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 less citizens if they have to leave their neighborhood to go somewhere else to a supermarket. Same thing is true -- maybe to a little lesser degree -- about a shoe repair shop, you know, or a dry cleaning establishment or a dress shop or a place where a family can celebrate somebody's promotion by buying a better suit for a child. Very few of those things exist in many areas of the city. Has there ever been a study done on that kind of thing by your commission or by any others?
We have not done a study like that, and I have never seen one. But I understand the issue that you're driving at, you know.
Well, we're working in my home neighborhood. Ever since a supermarket which had been there under different ownerships for more than 50 years at Broad and Godfrey and Stenton all coming together, but that has raised a lot of concern in the community about what's happening to the whole community if we lose the 1398 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 supermarket, what else are we going to lose? At one time, many years ago, they talked about movie theaters that way, and that passed, you know, the neighborhood movie houses, though that's beginning to come back in some areas. I would very much appreciate it if the Commission could consider doing some work in a area. What is a community and neighborhood for the purpose of seriously talking about neighborhood economic development. Because I think that's what's involved, you know, the neighborhood businesses, little entrepreneurships along the way that might very well employ some local youngsters. The thing could spiral, could develop, I think, greatly. But I think we have to have some guidelines, some boundaries. So I'll appreciate whatever attention you can --
I think it's a very difficult issue because, you know, a lot of the locational -- the decisions that are made about where certain types of businesses that provide these service are willing to locate, you know, 1399 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 they're beyond the city to influence in many cases. I mean, we try wherever we can, and we have particularly tried on supermarkets. But it's, you know, the supermarkets have a certain formula, and it doesn't always fit, you know, what's available in the City. I think this might may start to change. It's like everything else. Once you start to saturate the suburbs, if you're still interested in making money, you come back and you rediscover the city. I mean, I think that has happened with a lot of retail development in the last ten years. And I think the people are starting to consider locations for supermarkets that they might not have considered, you know, 10, 15 years ago, are starting to think that, you know, just because you have to have a supermarket of 65,000 square feet in the suburbs, it doesn't necessarily mean that you need that in the city, where you're going to have walk-in traffic and a greater population density within a certain area. So I think there's some rethinking of that. And, in fact, there are -- I think it's the Reading Terminal Market Trust, interestingly 1400 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 enough, that has started to look -- and we have been working with them to start to look at the whole issue of what it would take to attract more supermarkets throughout the city but particularly in the inner city where so many of them have left in the last years. 8
When you think of 9 the concept of the City's economic health, it 10 ought to go beyond stadiums, gambling, theaters, 11 hotels, that kind of thing. It seems to me that 12 supermarkets -- maybe even a whole series of 13 retail shoe shop. 14
We have assisted 15 supermarkets in the past and, you know, I think we 16 will probably continue to do that again to get 17 them to go into certain locations. And I think, 18 you know, that may be the outcome of this work 19 that's going on, to say, all right, if it takes A, 20 B, C, and D, you know, what can the City contribute to that effort? The other thing is, I think with this Keystone Opportunity Zone effort, and I understand there's going to be an announcement by the Governor this week, either Wednesday or Thursday 1401 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 -- I heard two dates, without one having been the absolute date. Hopefully, we will be selected for that program. And I think that the, you know, removal of taxes in these areas, I think should give us a leg up in trying to attract some of these kind of businesses because I totally agree. I mean, where you live is, you know, it's not just your house. And if you can't get a whole package of services that most people associate with the neighborhood, you know, you may feel disconnected and want to go elsewhere. So I think we certainly recognize that that's very important, and we continue to try to do whatever we can to try to attract a full complement of those local services.
I think on the question of jobs, with the huge layoffs that just keep continuing from the large companies, it makes clear that when people said small companies were really creating the jobs, I think it's truer and truer of the smaller companies. If we could develop a whole row of neighborhood shops, small entrepreneurships, that would, I think, supply an enormous number of jobs 'cause most entrepreneurs, 1402 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 if they have any success, are going to need one, two, three, maybe five or six workers, and maybe that's where the jobs are, in the neighborhoods. So by building the stores in the neighborhood, we can start employing the people from the neighborhood in that community. So I think from every point of view, the concept of what a neighborhood is and maybe the concept of a form of economic self-sufficiency -- obviously, it's not a complete one, but people ought to be able not to have to go out of their own neighborhood for the most basic necessities of life. That's the reason I just urge any attention to that because I think it could pay off heavily in favor of the city. Thank you, Madame Chair.
This concludes our hearing for today. We will stand in recess until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 23, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. 1403 2/22/99 - WHOLE COMM. - Bill No. 990023 Thank you. (Adjourned at 5:05 p.m.) - - - 1404 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Monday, February 22, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO. 990023 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter