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 I think that once you also address the regulations issue, which are outdated, that will also address the point that you made with regard to the large establishments, the large buildings that have multiple units and that are really past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?