I think your statement was for effect. Don't tell us that there isn't the money there to make these repairs. There's money that's been reprogrammed. Let's get to it and find out why a dangerous condition -- you're probably spending thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, eventually to put netting up. It's not cheap to put steeple jacks on top of a building to install netting that might have a life of who knows how many months or years because it's in the elements. I don't know that. But would you tell us the facts on what is going on here, what you said 261 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. yesterday in the Finance Committee, which I'm not a member or I would have been there, and the actual condition of your existing budget, your 2005 budget, to do what needs to be done to make City Hall a safe place?
Good afternoon, Council. Rick Tustin, Capital Program Director. I did give testimony yesterday in support of the FY06 loan authorization that we will hope will be passed so that it can get on the May ballot and we will get some funding hopefully in July. My references to City Hall yesterday had to do with our exterior restoration project that we've been in the process of doing since the year 2000. The project consists of, in general, replacement of the roof because of roof leaks, rusting of the cast iron, which is around the top of the roof, which is some of the articles I've just shown you, as well as rotting windows and 262 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. disintegration of the stone, again, a piece that I've just shown you that has fallen off the building, and statues around the building, which we've lost sections and pieces of those as well. Over the years, there have been these type of pieces that have fallen from the building, luckily landed on the rooftop of City Hall or in the gutter system around City Hall. Recently, just a year or so ago, we had a condition happen on the south side of the building, which is where we're working right now, where we went up and retrieved actually, I think it's, this 50-pound cast iron ball, which is ornamental to the rooftop, and at that time, a decision was made to go through the rest of the roof and around the exterior of the building and to literally check all of the pieces to make sure that they were secure. We identified quite a few pieces that were not secure, some pieces that were being held on by gravity, quite frankly, and we 263 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. took the proactive means of either strapping them with stainless steel straps to hold them in place until we can get to do the final fix or netting those areas with a netting that's commonly used around construction sites. We feel at this point in time that we've identified all of the pieces and, in fact, those pieces are secure temporarily until we have an opportunity to get to those areas of work. Now, in regards to the City Hall exterior funding, in general, this project started in 2000 and will probably go through 2010. We've done a cash flow for ten years to show what the cost will be for the full duration of the project. We've budgeted that amount over each fiscal year so that we could stay, if you will, ahead of the curve on cash to the project. And, quite frankly, we've been a little ahead of schedule and actually a little bit more on budget than we anticipated, which is good. 264 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. When we came to this past July, we had hoped to get the 2006 capital funding, which I believe was $5 million, for the exterior of City Hall, and that money didn't develop because of the loan authorization not passed. What we were able to do is take whatever funding we still had in that capital line for City Hall and reprogram it, as you just suggested, in order to keep the project going, and that's why we're still going today. Eighteen months ago when we bid the southern portion of the project, we bid it at one time as opposed to three separate bids, because we figured we could get better pricing, which we did, and we knew that we could partially certify that contract and do a third of it at a time. In other words, fund a third of that south side at a time, still maintaining the good price because we bid it a year and a half ago. We're continuing that work 265 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. right now. We have just about exhausted all of the prior year funds, '05 and before, and if we do not get some additional funding by August, the project will stop. We were hoping that we would get this '06 funding July 1st, which would allow us to keep the project moving forward.
But you're not suggesting that this problem that you identified here, the show and tell, is a result of any funding issue; it is --
Let me finish my thought. You're talking about what normally happens in a construction project, where you begin something, you identify a problem and deal with the problem, and normally the project catches up to itself. That's what's occurring here, correct?
It was, but I would say that not having the FY06 funding does have a direct impact on 266 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. intensifying the fact that the temporary measures we've taken to hold everything in place won't last forever, and the longer we delay doing that work, the greater the chances are that some of our temporary measures could fail and we could have a piece fall. We feel that we were on schedule, and that had we had gotten the money on July 1st, we would have been further along than we are now in doing the exterior of the project, and, quite frankly, we would have gotten to these temporary Band-Aids holding things in place sooner and made permanent repairs. Without having an '06 budget, and hopefully we'll have one in July, if this doesn't happen and we go another fiscal year without a budget, I truly believe we have to go back and reevaluate every one of those temporary measures we've taken to secure these pieces to the building, because temporary measures mean temporary. And every year you delay it, 267 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. the chances are greater that it won't last.
But right now you can imagine that report in the media today has concerned a lot of people.
Well, I thought I was pretty clear yesterday in saying that the strapping and the netting was there in place to hold everything and this was a temporary measure that we had taken.
I'm not talking about your Finance Committee testimony. I'm talking about your media interview.
I did. I said the same thing. I said that the temporary measures that we took, we felt safe that it would keep everything secure until we caught up with the project, but that if we did not get '06 funding this July, it 268 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. would have a definite impact on what we did going forward.
This is obviously a very good -- if you're going to have a strategy to get people's attention, obviously that is a very good one, when you're talking about something, no question, could kill a lot of people if it weren't. And I compliment you for making sure that the netting and temporary fastening devices were installed, at least in areas where you believe there's a problem, but from my experience, there's probably other areas that you haven't identified that could fail at any moment.
Well, we did an extensive survey of the exterior of the building, the structural engineers, and we literally went over the whole exterior of the building, and I'm fairly confident that we've captured all of the major areas of concern.
Well, I feel 269 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. a lot better now knowing at least you've done this, but I don't feel comfortable that we have a situation like this that is the Band-Aid approach, but I guess it's better than not and having things come down onto the roof or to the gutters or to the, worse, the walkway of City Hall.
Right. I'd feel a whole lot better if we got that funding in July 1st of '06.
Well, I understand your strategy. It worked with me at least.
I also wanted to say that there were many other projects that I mentioned yesterday that were equally as concerning to us and that are life and safety issues that need to be addressed.
Well, one of the great things that you made a commitment that you would do, and I appreciate it, is the fact that there's 270 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. new elevators in the building. I mean, they're nice and make a visit to City Hall a better experience than we once had. Once they're all finished, obviously, it will be good. But we understand the situation you're under, but when you hear a story like you told yesterday, you can understand at least my reaction to it.
I guess the -- I probably spoke to the reporter for a good minutes and you were lucky to get 14 maybe three minutes of that sound bite -- 15
-- on the radio. 18 So I'm sure he picked the best portions 19 to air. 20
Well, thank you. We interrupted you. I know you were doing something else. But as you can imagine, this is important. Thank you, Madam Chair.
271 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. You're welcome. Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
When you were here for, I think it was, capital budget?
You had put on the record that there had been some thought with regard to this disputed $7 million and that there had been a facilities assessment done some time ago, I guess, City-wide for Recreation.
A and B. 272 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. And that the cost estimate on that was approximately $4 million or so?
Our estimate to do all -- the assessment looked at the condition of the buildings and broke them down into six levels or six condition levels, Level 6 being the most dangerous and critical and should be taken care of right away. The cost to do Level 6 City-wide is estimated at about 1.25, $1,250,000. If we were to take it to the next level, which is Condition 5, and Condition 5 is also serious -- we also list that as extremely dangerous and critical, compromises structure and something that should be replaced immediately -- it represents another $3.3 million. So what we were hoping is to address --
So what, if any, discussion was there about the 273 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. remaining 2.8?
No; just in your meetings, discussions, conversations.
My suggestion to the Administration was to consider Level 6 and Level 5 items only and I'd be thrilled if I could get funding to take care of that across the City. There was no other discussion concerning the balance of the funding, not with me.
Would you be comfortable with or would it make any sense as we try to work our way through this situation -- you've done an assessment. You know that there are issues. You've identified $4.2 million of need. You know that there is authorized $7 million through the whole District Council procedure. This is FY05 funding, right?
So the money is there. You've not been authorized to spend it. Is that the --
Does it make any sense to you that since we already -- I mean, you could show us on paper through the assessment process, you can identify your six levels. We know what Level 6 and Level 5 is going to be. We know what the facilities are. I mean, as a way of trying to work through this, does it make any sense to you to try to designate those dollars for those items -- I don't remember what the full list is, and, of course, I've not looked at it City-wide -- and have the balance, in essence, go to us, come back to us, which is generally where it was supposed to go in the first place before we got into this dispute a couple years ago?
Councilman, as the head of the Capital Program Office, I'm somewhat focused on the 15 operating 275 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. departments that we do project management for. We don't do any work for the Airport or Streets or Commerce or any of the other agencies around the City. I wouldn't want to presume to suggest to the Mayor how to spend the money City-wide. I can bring to him and his attention the areas of my concern.
Well, I mean, you understand that normally the $7 million would have come to the Council anyway. The various departments, mostly Recreation, Fairmount Park, but sometimes the other departments, would invariably come and make a proposal, make a request, whatever the case may be.
So I'm not asking you or suggesting to you that you suggest how the dollars get spent, but you obviously identified a very critical need. Most of the dollars probably end up getting spent, the bulk of them, on Recreation, maybe Fairmount Park next 276 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. anyway, but it might just be a way to work ourselves through what has been a difficult process if we already know pretty much guaranteed where slightly more than half of the money is going. We all benefit when our facilities get repaired, whether we designate it or not, and at least preserve the other third or so of the overall funding to be used as has been the tradition. I mean, just as a manager, a government person, does that seem to make any kind of sense to you in terms of trying to work through this?
I don't have a problem with what you're suggesting, Councilman. It makes sense to me, but, again, the balance of the funding, there may be items more critical than I'm aware of that the Administration would like to funnel those dollars in other areas. And I'm not saying there are. There's actually been no firm commitment on any 277 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. of this at this point in time.
But as a manager of the Capital Program Office and knowing the need that we have, I think that would be an ideal start to using some of that money.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions of Mr. Tustin? (No response.)
And we will now hear from the Fire Department. Commissioner, I know that you have been patiently waiting to be recognized. We do have a copy of your 278 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. testimony. So if you care to abbreviate it, we will make certain that the stenographer has a copy and it will be transcribed in full. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Thank you.
You're welcome. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Madam President, I understand the importance of your work, so it's okay to be --
I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. COMMISSIONER AYERS: I do understand the importance of your work here, so it's not a problem being patient.
Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Good afternoon. I am Fire Commissioner Lloyd Ayers. With me is Deputy Commissioner Ernest Hargett, Deputy Commissioner John Devlin, Deputy Commissioner Ronald Augustyn and Dave Beatrice, our Fiscal 279 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. Officer. The Fire Department's Fiscal Year '07 budget proposes $175,961,146 for the General Fund; $5,252,250 for the Aviation Fund; and $1,710,000 for the Grants Funds, for a total operating budget of $182,923,396. This represents an increase of $2,839,267 over the Fiscal Year '06 total estimated obligations. The amount budgeted for Class 100 personnel services includes funding for contracted civilian wage increases and anticipated uniform wage increases. Also included is an overall savings of $3,329,000 to be achieved from the Department's redirection of Services Plan. This plan was originally initiated in the Fiscal Year '05 operating budget proposal, but it is still on hold pending further litigation in Commonwealth Court. The current plan calls for the deactivation of three engine companies and two ladder companies. As part of this redeployment plan, the Department 280 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. will increase the size of its Emergency Medical Services Division by adding eight new advanced life support medic units during peak demand periods to enhance the delivery of pre-hospital care and transport services to the public. These changes will enable the Department to direct its available resources appropriately to meet the increasing demand for EMS services in the face of continuing structure fire decreases. 8 percent increase in emergency service responses for the same period. As presented in previous budget testimony, this plan entails keeping all existing fire stations open and reducing authorized personnel levels without laying off firefighters, while maintaining safe fire suppression services and improving emergency medical 281 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. service to the public. In Fiscal Year '05, the Fire Department responded to 73,380 fire-related incidents and 206,670 emergency medical service incidents. 6 percent less than in Fiscal Year '05. There were 2,191 structure fires in Fiscal Year '05. This represents a 6 percent reduction from structure fires in Fiscal Year '05. 6 percent over Fiscal Year '04, increasing from 62,334 to 70,154. 89 percent over Fiscal Year '04, 206,670 incidents in Fiscal Year '05 compared with 200,849 incidents in Fiscal Year '04. These numbers reemphasize my testimony from last year on the need to redirect departmental resources to meet the ever-increasing demand for emergency 282 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. medical service delivery. In Fiscal Year '05, there were 60 fire deaths. This number represents a 50 percent increase over Fiscal Year '04 and a percent increase over the 7 ten-year average on fire deaths from 8 Fiscal Year '95 through Fiscal Year '04 9 despite the number of fire prevention 10 outreach activities conducted by the Fire 11 Department in Fiscal Year '05. An 12 analysis of these deaths shows that ten 13 of the deaths were from three arson 14 incidents, two of which involved multiple 15 casualties. An additional five deaths 16 resulted from one incident in which a 17 child was playing with matches. In 16 of the 42 fire death incidents, no smoke alarms were present, and in nine of the 42 incidents, the batteries had either been deactivated or removed from existing detectors. This demonstrates dramatically the need for the installation and maintenance of working smoke alarms in all City residences. 283 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. In Fiscal Year '05, the Department's Fire Prevention Division conducted 9,765 fire prevention programs, an increase of percent over the 6 previous year. In Fiscal Year '05, the 7 Fire Prevention Division initiated the 8 Take It Outside Campaign, aimed at 9 reducing smoking-related fires, the 10 leading single cause of fire deaths in 11 2004 and 2005.
The campaign utilized 100 12 billboards throughout the City, as well 13 as door-to-door distribution of Take It 14 Outside literature by local fire 15 companies. 16 During Fiscal Year '05, the 17 Fire Prevention Division also assisted 18 200 families with children who cause 19 fires through the Juvenile Firestoppers 20 Program. The Fire Prevention Division, 21 in conjunction with the Department's 22 field fire suppression companies, installed smoke alarms in 2,942 homes and instructed families on home escape planning and fire drills, an increase of 284 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. 563 homes over the previous fiscal year. These programs have been successful in continuing to reduce the yearly number of structure fires in the City. In Fiscal Year '05, the Fire Marshal's Office conducted 3,311 investigations of fire-related activities, which resulted in the arrests of 176 adults and 78 juveniles for fire-related offenses, including the arrest of a serial arsonist, which resulted in a conviction for counts of 14 arson and one count of aggravated assault 15 to a firefighter. 16 In Fiscal Year '05, the Fire 17 Marshal's Office also completed the 18 Vehicle Arson Awareness Training for 75 19 percent of the Department's field forces. 20 In Fiscal Year '05, the 21 Technical Rescue Operations Unit of the 22 Department's Special Operations Command 23 increased the number of available technical rescue specialists on every platoon from six to 16 and the number of 285 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. hazardous materials specialists from ten to 20. These individuals were trained and assigned to the Department's new squad companies, which augment the capabilities of Rescue Unit No. 1 and Hazardous Materials Task Force 1 in various technical rescue operations. In Fiscal Year '05, the Department's Technical Services Unit took delivery of two new American LaFrance Ladder Trucks to upgrade the Department's fleet of emergency response vehicles. The Technical Service Unit also installed accident-preventing hose-netting on 70 front-line engine pumpers to increase public safety during emergency responses. In conjunction with Special Operations Command and field suppression forces, the Technical Services Unit developed and implemented emergency planning for the Live 8 and Welcome America events. In Fiscal Year '05, in response to the attrition of experienced uniformed supervisory personnel in the DROP 286 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. program, the Philadelphia Fire Academy conducted in-house officer development programs for 54 newly promoted fire officers and coordinated off-site training at the National Fire Academy for fire officers, as well as 32 8 additional fire officers in the National 9 Fire Academy's Pennsylvania Weekend 10 training session. 11 Additionally, 16 officers 12 received Pennsylvania State and 13 International Fire Service Congress 14 certificates accreditation at the 15 Firefighter I and II and Fire Instructor 16 I and II levels. The Academy also 17 administered safety officer training, 18 resulting in state certifications for 19 eight deputy chiefs, 44 battalion chiefs 20 and ten company captains. This training 21 qualifies these members to operate as 22 incident safety officers on fire grounds 23 and at other emergency incidents. 24 In Fiscal Year '05, the Fire 25 Department merged its fire suppression 287 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. and emergency medical services warehouse functions. This resulted in an 88 percent decrease between the time of supply orders and the delivery of emergency supplies and equipment to all field suppression and emergency medical services units, upgrading the readiness of these units for response to emergency fire and other emergency medical incidents. The number of injuries in the Philadelphia Fire Department for Fiscal Year '05 were 307, representing a reduction of 12 percent from Fiscal Year '04, in which the number of injuries was 349.
3 percent below the ten-year average from Fiscal Year '95 to Fiscal Year '04. Technical improvements for Fiscal Year '07: The Philadelphia Fire Department's Communications Center is transitioning to an upgraded 9-1-1 phone system scheduled to be completed in late 288 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. Fiscal Year '06 for early Fiscal Year '07. This system will be interfaced with the Department's newly acquired Computer-Aided Dispatch system to provide dispatchers with currently available wireline 9-1-1 caller information in a mapping format. The Fire Department will be expanding its Mobile Data Computer program, currently available only to its medic units, to include field deputy and battalion chiefs, as well as critical staff support units and a pilot program for engine and ladder companies. This enhancement will provide responding supervisors with vital event information for firefighting and other emergency responses for more effective resource deployment and pre-scene strategic planning. This completes my testimony. On behalf of the men and women of the Philadelphia Fire Department, I would like to thank City Council for your 289 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. continuing support.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Commissioner. We certainly thank you and the Fire Department for the wonderful work that you do. During the current fiscal year, you downgraded some EMS units from advanced life support to basic life support; is that correct? COMMISSIONER AYERS: It is correct.
Would you explain what the difference is between an ALS unit and a BLS unit? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Yes, Madam President. Advanced life support medic units in the Philadelphia Fire Department have one or two trained fire service paramedics on board. In the case where there is one fire service paramedic, there will be one emergency medical service technician. The basic life support medic 290 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. units that the Philadelphia Fire Department currently deploy have two emergency medical technicians on board.
Commissioner, can you explain for the record why this was done, where it was done and why you believe that it was prudent to do this? COMMISSIONER AYERS: The emergency medical technicians were placed into service and deployed in medic units in the Philadelphia Fire Department because of, one, a decreasing amount of paramedics that we have in the City, which is a national trend, a trending across the country, as well as an analysis of the data that we have been doing over several years, and more especially, this last year, which we have found that 80 percent of the runs that our medic units -- that our Philadelphia Fire Department respond to is, 80 percent is basic life support calls, which means that it can be handled by an emergency 291 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. medical technician and that person can receive proper services and treatment and be transported to a hospital. Only 5 percent of those calls were advanced life 6 support calls, where the emergency 7 medical treatment for that person 8 required a higher level, a skill level of 9 intervention for that person to have a 10 satisfactory outcome. 11 So it's a higher level of 12 intervention at 20 percent of the calls. 13 Basic life support calls represented 80 14 percent. 15 We looked at that data and we 16 saw that we could deploy emergency 17 medical technicians that we have all over 18 the City. We have emergency medical 19 technicians who are licensed by the state 20 of Pennsylvania, who are trained on an annual basis and who are certified by the state of Pennsylvania to have interventions into emergency medical calls. They respond now and before as first-responders as well. We saw not 292 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. just the opportunity, but the prudent move to ensure that we had the proper number of people on board of our medic units to deploy in certain areas where we saw these high percentages of basic life support, only basic life support requests, what was presented, that we could actually deploy emergency medical technicians instead of advanced life support paramedics in those areas. We have those medic units in North Philadelphia, in South Philadelphia, in West Philadelphia and in lower Northeast Philadelphia, as well as that we found that a by-product of this redeployment and structuring of our emergency medical system, which has experienced an increasing number of calls, a by-product of that was that we had the ability to put two additional medic units in service, which we did. We put two additional medical units in service. So we increased our fleet from 40 to 42. So now we have 42 medic units 293 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. serving the City's citizens now.
Can you be more specific -- I think I did ask -- where this was done? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Yes. 24th and -- Engine station. I remember the 8 exact -- 9
I 10 don't know where Engine 24 station is. 11 COMMISSIONER AYERS: Okay. 12 Engine 24 station is at 24th -- I 13 apologize. 20th and Federal. Engine 24, 14 20th and Federal Streets. We have a 15 company downgraded there. Not downgraded 16 but emergency medical technicians. Also 17 at 22nd and Hunting Park, 56th and 18 Market. We have a new unit at 54th 19 and -- 20
We're 21 talking about the areas that were 22 downgraded? 23 COMMISSIONER AYERS: We're 24 talking about the areas that are downgraded, and I will add the other ones 294 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. at the end of this. The four that were put into service is --
No. 5 Give me -- COMMISSIONER AYERS: -- 20th and Federal -- I'll start over for you?
20th and Federal, 22nd and Hunting Park, 56th and Market. COMMISSIONER AYERS: 56th and Market. And the other unit is at Boudinot and Hart Lane.
I'm sorry. Where? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Boudinot and Hart Lane. Those are the four. And the two additional that we put in service, they're at -- one at 54th and Lancaster Avenue and -- excuse me; 63rd and Lancaster Avenue, and the other one is at Roosevelt Boulevard at Langdon.
Commissioner, when you were in my office and we spoke about 20th and Federal, I 295 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. asked you how close the nearest fire station would be that would be able to provide the necessary service that was being taken away from 20th and Federal. You were to get back to me, and I don't believe I ever got the information from you. So I am again asking, how close is the nearest fire station that would be able to provide the same services as they did at 20th and Federal? COMMISSIONER AYERS: We have a company at Engine 1. Engine 1 is at Broad and -- the exact location is Broad and Fitzwater, 711 South Broad Street, but that is Fitzwater.
So they have, what, one there? That's a big area to be covered. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Well, we also have at Engine 11, which is at 6th and South.
Where? 6th and South? COMMISSIONER LLOYD: 6th and 296 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. South.
Commissioner, I'm confused. In the beginning of your testimony when you started to talk about originally the four engine and ladder companies that you wanted to close, and the Mayor, I believe, from your recommendation, it's down to five, and that's in a court challenge. In your testimony, you just said that you were going to add advanced life support units. What's your motivation to reduce them and then in your next breath you say you're going to add them? Why do that if you plan to add advanced life support units? Is that what you said? COMMISSIONER AYERS: I said that we were going to correctly deploy the resources, is what I said. And I 297 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. said that we looked at the data, and at that time, we saw that we could reduce the medic unit to a basic medic unit and still deliver the same service to the citizens.
But when this was being -- indulge with me just for another moment. Commissioner, when you were going to close the four engine and ladder companies, the spin was that we were going to add advanced life support units. Matter of fact, I think Fleet Management even ordered those units. Then now we get the spin that -- well, not the spin. You used the right word, downgraded them. Earlier you used some other word. But why are we doing this if your original plan was to close engine and ladder companies and add, what was it, eight or ten medic units? What was the initial? Was it eight -- COMMISSIONER LLOYD: It was eight medic units. 298 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
And they were all supposed to be advanced life support, correct? COMMISSIONER LLOYD: They're advanced life support, yes, that's correct.
Forgive me for being confused here. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Well, for one reason is, that we don't have paramedics available. We've been losing paramedics at a regular pace.
I'll come back. This is just a point of order, Commissioner. I apologize to the President, but I'll come back when it's my turn, because I have some questions about that. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Did you understand this point?
Go ahead, finish up. I'm sure she won't mind. Thank you. I didn't want to --
299 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. You're welcome. That's a long point of information. Commissioner, how many paramedics are we short? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Right now I'll say we're short approximately 40 paramedics. Around 40.
And what does it take to get 40 paramedics in the Department? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Well, we --
Who does the training? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Well, we have several hospitals and private companies that do the training in the area, and we've canvassed those companies. We have approximately 63 paramedics in training. They will be coming out a few here and a few there throughout the fiscal year. 300 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
So you will have your full complement before the end of the year? COMMISSIONER AYERS: No, we won't.
How many will you be short? COMMISSIONER AYERS: We will still be short several paramedics. By the end of the year, I don't expect to see more than ten graduating.
So we're still going to be short 30? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Yes. And when they become available, we will hire them.
That's something we're going to have to look into. I don't understand that at all. COMMISSIONER AYERS: They're in school. And also there's a national shortage. It's not just Philadelphia. It's all through the system. These 301 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. decisions that we make, we make along with our doctor, our emergency medical doctor, Dr. Mechem. We sit down. We look at the numbers. We look at the data. He just came back from Dallas with a group, a conference, of doctors, all emergency service doctors from all over the country, from Chicago, from Houston, from Los Angeles, from New York, from Dallas, and we come back and we discuss these things. We look at the problems that everyone is facing and we deal specifically with Philadelphia and then we make decisions. We look at the things like the American Heart Association information that they give us, which tell us that the big problem is not having fire service paramedics to intervene with chemicals in the blood. But the problem across the nation is the fact that we don't have a high rate of bystander CPR to help people with heart situations or heart conditions 302 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. and we don't have enough vehicles to carry patients so that we can dig into the 80 percent presenting to the paramedics -- I mean presenting to the entire emergency medical service fleet, and we need those types of units in there, and the units are basic units. They're the ones who come and they do the carry, get people to the hospital. Some of the good things that we have here in Philadelphia is the location of the hospitals and teaching hospitals, that they're close.
All right. Commissioner, on of your testimony, you mention that you have been assigned $3.3 million in savings as a result of your Department's redirection of Service Plan. Can you explain why the Fire Department was cut when no other agency is being reduced? COMMISSIONER AYERS: The Fire Department presented a Reallocation 303 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. Resource Plan in Fiscal Year 2004. What was to happen was to redirect the resources so that we could capture this increasing demand for fire emergency medical services and to also take into consideration the continuing decrease not only in fires but also in structure fires so that we could reallocate our resources, and in doing that, with the budget presented, this is what we came up with. We have not been able to implement it at this point. We haven't been able to implement because it's in Commonwealth Court.
All right. What are the three engines and ladder companies you plan on eliminating? How did you determine which units to eliminate, and what is the impact on response time? COMMISSIONER AYERS: One of the things, again, as I said, we can't implement. 304 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
I know you can't implement, but you have a plan. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Sure. The plan, they will come from the list that was presented that everyone has, and when we hear from the court, we'll stop and we'll reevaluate exactly what we have in front of us and we'll make those reorganizations.
You mention in your testimony as part of your redirection plan you would be adding eight new advanced life support units. If you are adding eight new ALS units in 2007, I have to assume that you feel they are needed and justified. Could you then explain if the need is there for eight new ALS units why you downgraded some ALS units to BLS units in 2006? COMMISSIONER AYERS: The reason is, as I stated before, because of the review of the data and what actually is most effective and most efficient for our 305 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. system here in Philadelphia. Again, we have 80 percent of our calls are actually BLS. The advanced life support paramedics don't have the opportunity to practice their skills. You go from station to station and one of the complaints that they have over and over is the uselessness of them making a call for some person who had a tummy ache, for some person who only had a headache, for some person -- and this is over and over again. These calls put pressure on our paramedics. They put pressure on our men and women, and we've made the adjustment. We need to put our emergency medical technicians, who we pay for on a regular basis annually to be trained at the Philadelphia Fire Academy and when their time for recertification comes to be recertified and relicensed by the state of Pennsylvania and we use them in our first-responder program and sometimes at special events, doing this, putting them into the system, one, it 306 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. will reduce the pressure on the paramedics, as well as enable our emergency medical technicians to keep their skill level up, and hopefully as we move forward and have more units in the system like the other two that I added, we'll have advanced life support units more available to make the calls where we need an advanced life support unit. So with this dynamic system that we have in Philadelphia, sometimes during the day every unit is out. They're running, they're crisscrossing. They're going all over the place. As we continue to add the units and as we continue to be able to properly deploy the units, we're going to see some satisfaction in the system. We're going to start to see the run times for -- the national run times for emergency medical units decrease even more.
Well, 307 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. Commissioner, I'll tell you, living on South Broad Street, all night long, all night long I hear the sirens of the emergency patrols, and I think if somebody is having a heart attack and you're saying they crisscross all over the place, if they're so busy, if somebody is having a heart attack, I am told that three to four minutes can mean their life. COMMISSIONER LLOYD: That's correct.
It's correct. And can we sit here assured that we will have the necessary wherewithal to help someone who is having a heart attack? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Madam President, our system now is three-tiered. We run with first-responders, we run with basic life support units and we run with advanced life support units. The most important thing that you have with a person who is 308 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. having a heart attack is to get someone started with CPR on that person, and the next most important thing is to get that automatic external defibrillator and other professionals there at your side so that they can start the things that save your life in that situation. The next thing is to make sure that you are packaged and taken to the nearest hospital so that you can have the advanced medical care that only a hospital can give. I do understand what your question is. One of the other things that we're doing in the Philadelphia Fire Department is, we're partnering with our other agencies, the American Heart Association, we're partnering with Red Cross to ensure that we start to train our members who -- not our members, excuse me, our citizens who have a four percent literacy rate in this City for CPR. The other thing that we want to do is to raise that level in the homes, in 309 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. the workplace, because if you have a heart attack, your first best chance is that if someone is there with you that they start CPR immediately. That's another piece that we want to converge on this issue and this problem. It's all a part of the life chain. So that's the important thing. I can assure you only one thing, that if you have a heart attack in the City of Philadelphia, that we're going to get --
Commissioner, I don't want to cut you short. I really don't, but I think public safety has to be our top priority, as I am sure it's yours. COMMISSIONER AYERS: It is.
I'm very concerned about the response time of someone who is having a heart attack and, as I said, three minutes could mean his or her life. I'm not being assured that our constituents are really getting the 310 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. type of service that they need. And as I said, you could talk about somebody in the household giving some assistance, but I don't think that's enough for me. COMMISSIONER AYERS: One of the reasons that we are even asking for those units is because what we realize that we want more units on the street, as I explained before.
Well, you're putting them on the street, but you're taking them away from my area, I'll tell you that. 20th and Federal is my backyard practically. COMMISSIONER AYERS: We're not doing this in a vacuum. We're working with our doctors, as I said, who give us the advice, who work with us and monitor the system and see exactly what's presenting. We do the metrics on this. We don't just make these changes without doing the numbers and understanding where the service is needed, where the basic life support units have the best impact 311 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. on our system so that we could make available the advanced life support units more readily. Also, we have the shortage. When they become available, we will hire them.
Commissioner, I'll tell you, I have to give you credit for being able to save money in your department. It's $3.3 million in savings as a result of your department's redirection of the Service Plan. Then on of the detail, you show a savings of $5.4 million in overtime due to service delivery reorganization, and $2.6 million in other overtime savings. Can you explain how you arrived at these savings amounts and how you're going to achieve them? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Which pages are you speaking of?
I beg your pardon? 312 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. COMMISSIONER LLOYD: Which pages?
I believe it's . COMMISSIONER AYERS: In the testimony?
Detail. I don't know of too many departments that have come in here saying that they're going to be able to save all of that money in overtime, when other departments have come in and --
Madam President, if I may. I'm Dave Beatrice, the Fiscal Officer for the Fire Department.
Thank you. The savings in overtime by the redeployment of three engines and two ladders, that has an overall savings of, without my glasses, 5 million.
5.4 313 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. million.
5.4 million. That would be offset by the additional eight medic units at a cost of million. So that's where the million net savings is arrived at. Now, we're closing the engines, but we are adding eight medic units, whether we prefer ALS. If we can't get the paramedics, we're going to hire them with EMTs, but you will have eight new units. And as the Commissioner already has added, two more than we had last month.
How about the 2.6 and the other overtime savings? What is that?
We are hiring a class of 160 firefighters starting in May. So the overtime savings will -- you see a large number in overtime savings, but the regular salaries would increase, so there's an offset there.
Okay. 314 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. I don't want to dominate this. I see that Councilman Kenney would like to be recognized.
Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner, what was your understanding of the budget deal that was made last year as a result of the proposed cuts and closure of engine and ladders companies? What was your understanding that once Council -- it was certainly a much ballyhooed deal and everybody was all happy and everything was fine. What was your understanding of the deal? COMMISSIONER AYERS: What I understood was that Council added $3.4 million back to the Fire Department budget.
In return for? COMMISSIONER AYERS: In return for? 315 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
What did Council -- COMMISSIONER AYERS: At that point, the only thing we knew, that it was $3.4 million --
As opposed to 6.8, right? COMMISSIONER AYERS: That's correct.
As a result of that, what was not going to happen? Was there anything that wasn't going to happen? COMMISSIONER AYERS: From what I understood, we were still waiting for court. At the time, we had been ordered to arbitration and that we were waiting for the results of the arbitration.
Well, if we made a deal, what did we need court or the arbitration for? Wasn't it a deal that was made as a result of 3.4 as opposed to 6.8, and wasn't the constituency or the citizens getting 316 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. something in return and, that was, engines and ladders not being deactivated? Maybe I misunderstood the deal. COMMISSIONER LLOYD: One of the things that happened was, we were in a process and we were going through that process. Money was added to the budget, as I saw, but at the same time, we went through the process. We weren't allowed to do any action.
I've been involved in court cases before. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been involved in representing constituents in court cases. You go before a judge. People have different sides of opinion, and sometimes a judge says, Go out in the hallway and go settle this thing. So I thought last year's budget, we went out in the hallway and we settled this thing. So why are we still talking about Commonwealth Court, arbitrators? I thought we had a deal 317 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. with the Administration last year on these closures. Either we did or we didn't. Why, if we both agreed, are we even talking about the court or the arbitrator? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AUGUSTYN: I'm Ron Augustyn, the Deputy Commissioner for Administrative Services. The fact of the matter is that these are -- the union brought -- are in the grievance process before the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. There were no cuts that were allowed to be made, no closings.
But still as far as the testimony and the City's position in the arbitration are still intended. Is it the City's position in the arbitration proceedings that the closure of eight fire companies is still on the table? COMMISSIONER AYERS: That's not what's in the budget or what I read.
No. What 318 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. is the City's position vis-a-vis its arbitration position in front of the arbitrator? My understanding is, we still have eight fire companies on the table. COMMISSIONER AYERS: The position is that the decision is still in Commonwealth Court. What the City is here is what I just read into the budget testimony.
Maybe I'm being unfair to you because you're not attorneys and you don't have the City position as far as the legal position. But when we finished last year, the people in the community were of the belief that these closures weren't going to happen because we made the deal. The Mayor gave it back to us with great fanfare. And now we're still talking about the potential, at least in your testimony, of closing three engine companies and two ladder companies, or at least in the arbitration proceedings 319 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. position of the City, we still have the eight fire companies on the table. I mean, which is it? COMMISSIONER AYERS: We're not in arbitration at this point about closing of any companies. Right now it's in Commonwealth Court.
Are we closing any companies or not? COMMISSIONER AYERS: It's in Commonwealth Court.
I understand where it's at -- with all due respect, and you've been very responsive since you've been Commissioner and I do appreciate and respect your position. We left this budget process last year with a very clear understanding in the community that they would not close. We're still talking about it. I don't care whether it's Commonwealth Court or the Supreme Court of the United States. If the Administration comes out with a position that says we are not closing them, we 320 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. don't need to be in Commonwealth Court. We don't need to be in any court. We made a deal. So the deal that was made last year, from my perspective, is meaningless, because we're still talking about the potential of closures. Now, I go to a moment to the issue of fire deaths. Now, I understand your caveat on the arsons, but whether or not the fire starts with an electrical cord or a Molotov cocktail, the house is still on fire and we need to get there. Why would we even consider talking about closures if in fact we're having an increase in fire deaths? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Well, there's not an increase in fire deaths. I don't know where you received that information. It's not correct. It's not correct.
Let me take a look. COMMISSIONER AYERS: There has not been an increase in fire deaths as 321 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. related to last fiscal year and the last half of the fiscal year that we're currently measuring and this annual year that we're measuring.
Hold on a second. I have a lot of paper. It's part of the confusion. How many fire deaths did we experience in 2005? COMMISSIONER AYERS: FY05, 52.
52. And so far in 2006, we're up to what? COMMISSIONER AYERS: In 2006, we have --
13? COMMISSIONER AYERS: No. We have 14 total deaths. We have four murders.
No, no. 21 COMMISSIONER AYERS: Four arson murders, which is important.
Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER AYERS: And we 322 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. have ten accidental.
Commissioner, whether the person is dead through murder, arrest or dead through an accident, the house was still on fire and we still need to get there. And even in the murder case where we have this increased incidence of retaliation on other issues by arson, it's even more important we get there faster, because the accelerant is going to burn the house down faster than the electrical cord. Is that a fair statement? COMMISSIONER AYERS: That's a fair statement.
So why would we be talking about closing any companies and why do we need to always link reductions, potential closures and deactivations with increase in the EMS service? Why does one improvement mean a deterioration of another service? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Because what it does is, it reflects the need for 323 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. us to respond with the resources we have available and have the flexibility to utilize those resources as we best can.
Let me talk about the resources that are available. The FY2000 (sic) budget calls for how many positions in the Fire Department? COMMISSIONER AYERS: FY?
2,224. That's about how many less than two years ago, a year ago? COMMISSIONER AYERS: 180.
Of that 180, we're obviously experiencing a savings in the reduction of that personnel; are we not? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Not at this point because it's still in Commonwealth Court. We haven't realized 324 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. that.
Well, I'll tell you what, this Commonwealth Court is a powerful court. It's going to determine whether we close stations, whether we deactivate companies, whether we get savings from personnel cuts. I mean, you can hide in Commonwealth Court forever, but we're not giving people the right answers. And the right answers are we have less firefighters, and that's fine because structure fires -- I understand that. We turn back money to the treasury on our collection for insurance reimbursements for medic units. So we're saving money in personnel. We're turning money back to the City. And we're reducing service? I mean, I've never seen a department that is run so efficiently and it sends money to the City, but it's the same department that take a hit every year potentially. I don't get it. And it's the one department that has the most contact with 325 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. the public, besides the Police Department. I mean, what basic City service could you provide other than medical attention and fire protection? And at some point in time, when does this department stop taking kicks in the rea rend? It's not fair. I mean, you're running the department efficiently. You're saving money in overtime. You're reducing the size of the force. You're saving money in personnel. Your collections are great when it comes to reimbursements on the medic service, and you're turning money back over to the City, and every year we come in here, we talk about closures, deactivations, reductions. I don't get it. I just don't understand it. Again, I apologized to Commissioner Johnson. I'll apologize to you. I know you don't make the final decision on what happens here, but it is disgraceful that we made a deal last year with this Administration on these 326 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. closures and they're still on the table. Commonwealth Court, Supreme Court, whatever court aside, we should not be talking about any deactivations, and I'll help you get more money to expand fire medical service. I think it's a terrific idea, but not at the expense of engine and ladder companies that need to respond to dwelling fires where people's houses are being fire-bombed. It just to me makes absolutely no sense. And, again, I apologize for my passion and my animation, and I'm not directing it at anybody at this table, because I know you're doing your best to take care of your people and you're a career firefighter and I respect that, but what this Administration does to this department every year is a disgrace, considering the amount of money it saves and the amount of money it earns. And I think that me and this Council ought to one time at least have the courage to put it all back. Thanks. 327 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. (Applause.)
Thank you. Commissioner, I feel the same way about everybody that works with you, but we have to ask some questions occasionally. And the issue which still confuses me -- and I'll say it again. President Verna I think said it better than I did. Did you mean what you said when you were going to close the four fire companies that you needed eight additional advanced life support units? I just can't figure that that was what you were going to do. You were going to close eight units and to replace those eight units, you were going to use those firehouses, et cetera, to house the advanced life support units. What happened in the short period of time from needing eight advanced life support units to now downgrading, and that's the best word, 328 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. the existing -- forget the eight; existing advanced life support units to basic life support units? I know the residency requirement for hiring medics is an issue, and likewise, your organization was supposed to get back to me about that and they never did. Got lots of calls that someone would get back to us about -- Chief Williams, I kept calling him back -- residency requirement. Was your decision based on the fact that you are short medics? And my question is, you pointed out that there's a national issue with medics. Have you been authorized to hire the 40 medics that you're short? If you could get 40 medics today from someplace in the United States if there wasn't a residency issue, are you authorized to hire them? COMMISSIONER AYERS: If that was the case, that would be yes.
What have you done as the Fire Department? I 329 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. haven't seen any recruiting to bring or hire those 40 medics, those technicians. What can you show us that's been done? I mean, we talked about recruitment. We talked about if it's an emergency, some temporary waiver to deal with the residency issue. What has the Fire Department done? And, again, explain to me how we could go from having eight advanced if you got the firehouses closed or the engine and ladder companies downgraded -- and I think Councilman Kenney said the same thing, what's one have to do with the other. What happened from needing eight to where we are today without the eight, downgrading what we already have? COMMISSIONER AYERS: The eight that we talked about in the redeployment was looking at moving forward with eight system status 12-hour advanced life units. The decision that was made to actually put basic life support units within our system to take the ones that 330 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. we had and do ten percent, four units, ten percent, and make them basic life support units and deploy them in the area, in the system, where we're getting 80 percent was made after that, was made after that. And not only did we take and redeploy the resources into four medic units, we put advanced life support paramedics, ALS paramedics, we put them, paired them with other paramedics where there was just one here or overtime here and things like that and we added two additional units. We added two additional basic life support units. That's what we did.
But the point that President Verna made was that -- and you agreed. You said this last week when we had the hearing about the defibrillators. If you have a heart attack, there's nothing more important than speed that we get there and the ability to administer drugs, where the basic life support unit cannot do that, 331 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. and if a person is in serious heart arrest, that there's nothing that's going to replace advanced life support. I believe you said this to me. I asked you that question. You said there's nothing, when a person is having severe heart failure, than an advanced life support can do beyond what the basic life support unit can do. I think, paraphrasing that, you suggested that. COMMISSIONER AYERS: I suggested that that was the best that we had in our system to support a heart attack.
But then we hear constantly that there's a delay in getting an advanced life support unit to where it needs to be. I mean, I just can't figure. It just doesn't make any sense to me, that we went from needing eight, now we're downgrading and now we are concerned just on the kind of service that we're going to be getting. I mean, if a person has a heart attack and the 332 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. best service they can get is advanced life support and we can't get it there, they're dead when we get there. It's not what I want to be part of. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Is there a question?
It was a statement and a question, how we could go from needing eight -- and I hear your explanation to that, but then the second part of that question was, what are you doing to bring in these 40 people that we need to get these advanced life support units possibly back on track again? COMMISSIONER AYERS: The decision to use basic life support units within our system was made based on an analysis of what our system does, what the services are, what's presenting to the paramedics, the firefighters, when they get there and what we actually have deployed. And what we did was, we looked at -- talked with the doctors, looked at other systems and everything else, and 333 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. one of the things that we saw was that we could deploy more carrying units. We have two additional units that carry part of that 80 percent that's basic life support issues to the hospital.
So, Commissioner, the decision to add eight units if you close the four engine and ladder companies was a bad decision? COMMISSIONER AYERS: No. That was not a bad decision. That is not what I said. That is not what I said. I said that if we -- we're waiting to find out what happens with Commonwealth Court. We're going to put those units in. If we don't have the paramedics to go in right away, then we're going to look at other solutions, and the first solution that we would use would be to hire emergency medical technicians, firefighters, to run in those units. The biggest problem that we have in the City of Philadelphia and across the country is an ever-increasing 334 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. amount of calls to the emergency medical systems that the cities deploy. That's not changing.
And I admire the fact that you in a meeting told me that as long as you're Commissioner -- and, again, I'm paraphrasing -- that you will never build a system that will deny a response from our medics, no matter what the severity of the injury is. COMMISSIONER LLOYD: I beg your pardon?
I believe you said to me when there was a suggestion to maybe not service people that have a cut finger or something minor, I admired your position that said you would not deny service, because a person with a cut finger could turn out to be a more serious issue. So I admire that, but tell me, before I finish up here, what we're doing as a fire department, as a city, to fill -- when we first had this conversation, it was well 335 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. beyond 40. I think the number was much higher than 40. What is the Fire Department or the central personnel doing to get these 40 technicians that we need here? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Well, one of the things that -- pardon me. The Deputy Commissioner reminded me that one of the things that we did do was to survey, which we had -- we worked with Dr. Mechem to survey the schools in the City and to monitor when they were coming out so that we could get them on a list through personnel, get them hired and into our system. And that was one of the things. We found 63. And we're looking at -- it's an opportunity to get them into our system. One of the long-term things that we're doing is, we're looking at teaching our children and educating our children that there's an opportunity to work in the City of Philadelphia as a firefighter or as a paramedic. And we're 336 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. currently doing that right now. So we understand that this is a long-term problem. This isn't just a problem that is going to be solved in the next couple of years in any city, and what we're doing here in Philadelphia is, we're making sure that we have the opportunity for people to come up in our system, get a job, become a responsible citizen, working here in the City of Philadelphia, be a part of this City and work and do a service like that for our citizens. And it just makes good sense that we prepare for it now. We started both of those things.
Well, thank you. Commissioner, I think you understand that this has really been a very sensitive issue for us. COMMISSIONER AYERS: I do.
And it's not personal. It's about being able to understand the issue to be able to communicate back to the people that I 337 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. represent, because when they hear that word "downgrade," that scares them, especially our older folks. Also, what President Verna said, when you talk about downgrading a unit that can't provide advanced life support and know that it's going to take two, three minutes longer for an advanced life support unit to get to a location, that scares people. And we shouldn't be in the business of frightening people. So you understand our concern. COMMISSIONER AYERS: It is a frightening thought without understanding. When we sit down with the doctors and we bring in in the information and we use the information from the experts like the American Heart Association and others, it kind of takes the fright away, but the citizens don't sit in those meetings with us. The citizens don't have the opportunity to see what -- working with the system and dealing with the metrics and then having 338 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. the flexibility to make those decisions. They don't feel safe if people pull the alarm and say, oh -- they don't say we have more medic units. They say we have downgrades, we have this, and it's a negative connotation that's attached to it. We're serving the citizens. We have more units running, and we plan on putting more in, because we need them.
Thank you. Commissioner, I just have one last question. You keep referring to a doctor and I just didn't get his name. Is he an employee of the Fire Department? You keep referring to a particular doctor. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Yes. I apologize.
That's all right. 339 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Dr. Mechem is the doctor who has the emergency services contract. He's a doctor with the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.
Okay. Is he on -- COMMISSIONER AYERS: He's the emergency room medicine doctor. He deals with the emergency room.
So does he train paramedics? Is he able to do that? COMMISSIONER AYERS: He licenses every paramedic and every -- well, excuse me. He gives medical command to every paramedic and every emergency medical technician as far as --
What does "medical command" mean? I don't know. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Medical command means that he monitors their practice. He gives them authority to 340 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. make the intervention, to actually put something in your vein or whatever. He authorizes also a call board through a series of hospitals where paramedics call back to a doctor, tell them what's presenting, the doctor will give them assistance and also tell them, Bring him directly to this hospital or try this other drug versus that, those types of interpersonal conversations that happen during a medical event. It's called medical command, and he's the one who monitors those licenses and ensures that they use medical command, that they keep their skill levels up, things like that.
I'm sure he doesn't work 24/7. So does he have doctors that work under him that do respond to these calls? COMMISSIONER AYERS: No. The doctors don't respond to the calls. These doctors don't respond to calls.
Well, if this one doctor is not available -- 341 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. COMMISSIONER AYERS: No. The way the system works is, the paramedics, the firefighters, emergency medical technicians, they are the front line. They go to the patient. It's actually the second part of the life safety chain. They're there. They do the intervention. The paramedic will make a phone call to the doctor or -- and it may not be Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. It could be Temple University. It could be Hahnemann. They'll make the phone call.
So they can call any hospital in the City; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER AYERS: They actually only call the hospitals who are licensed under the medical command, and they're called base hospitals
And how many of them are licensed under the medical command? COMMISSIONER AYERS: I beg your 342 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. pardon?
How many hospitals are licensed under the medical command? COMMISSIONER AYERS: I believe right now it's approximately four or five. I'll have to get that exact information. I can get that for you.
I'll tell you, I think we've belabored this long enough at this point, but I think at another point in time, I would like you to come in and walk Councilmembers through the process whereby a 9-1-1 call is made and just take us through so that we fully understand the system. I don't want you to do that now, but at a later date, I think that we would all be very much interested in that. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Yes. I just made sure that we set that up for you.
I'd appreciate it. 343 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. COMMISSIONER AYERS: And, also, I apologize for -- you stated that there was some information that didn't get to you.
Right. COMMISSIONER AYERS: I'm going to track that and make sure that it happens. I apologize.
As I said, we all become very frustrated because many of us consider public safety as our number one priority, and as I told you when you were in my office, I have a next-door neighbor who apparently has a very bad heart, and I would say that the Fire Department is called, 9-1-1 is called at least twice during the month. My fear is, if she doesn't have immediate attention, it could be her life. That bothers me with anybody, whether it be my 344 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. neighbor or yours. I don't think that we should take that type of chance. So as I said, at a later date, I would really appreciate it if you and whoever from your department would be kind enough to come in and actually let Council know from the time of a call, an emergency call, is made what the process is. And we talk about the lack of and the shortage of the medics, paramedics. We are going to have a shortage of nurses, we're being told. We're going to have a shortage of teachers. But we simply can't sit back and say that there's nothing we could do about it. And I know you're trying very hard, but I think we're going to have to try a little harder. Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing no one, Commissioner, thank you very much. Again, we thank you and your 345 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. department for all of your hard work, and I appreciate your patience in sitting here for as long as you did. Thank you.
Madam President, I wanted to say thank you as well. He works very hard in our neighborhoods. Thank you.
Thank you. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Councilwoman, members of Council, thank you.
Thank you. Water Department next. This will be the last department for the day. Good afternoon, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Good afternoon.
We have copies of your testimony, so I would really appreciate it if you would abbreviate your testimony. We will give the stenographer a copy, which will be 346 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. transcribed in full. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes. Thank you.
Thanks. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: That's fine. I know the hour is late and I'll try to just keep my remarks quite brief. I am Bernard Brunwasser, Water Commissioner, appearing before you today to testify on behalf of the Philadelphia Water Department's Fiscal Year 2007 operating budget request. My proposal for a Water Department budget of 255.3 million is augmented by an additional 287.9 million for other Water Fund activities, including the Water Revenue Bureau, debt service and central agency support, for a total of $543.2 million. As you know, the Philadelphia Water Department is a municipal utility 347 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. serving the citizens of the Philadelphia region by providing integrated water, wastewater and storm water services. We operate three drinking water treatment plants, processing an average of nearly 270 million gallons of Delaware and Schuylkill River water each day; three wastewater treatment plants cleaning over 450 million gallons per day of sewage, biosolids recycling facility, a sophisticated testing lab; and a range of customer services. In addition, the Department maintains 3,300 miles of water main, 3,000 miles of sewers, 78,000 storm water inlets, 26,000 fire hydrants and an extensive related infrastructure. I can report that our drinking water is safer than ever before, and we are substantially better than state and federal regulations for water purity. We are also treating wastewater to award-winning levels. In fact, all six of these plants, the three water plants and the three wastewater plants, have 348 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. been winning awards pretty much on an annual basis for the past dozen years or so. As you know, we've had a rate revision, which has us with an approved rate plan through June 30th of 2008. Our rates are still among the lowest in the region. And I have a table in my testimony which indicates that, as we compare ourselves to some of our suburbanites. Our rates for water are actually less than half of the rates that the majority of our suburban neighbors pay for water service alone. We have a lot of highlights. Many of them are in my formal testimony. We have some new initiatives that you're aware of. We are looking into storm flooding in certain areas of the City that are flood prone, and we're making some real progress there. We should have an interim report to you, a second interim report, on that storm water study. It should be released within the 349 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. next few days or week. None of the financial or service improvements that I have listed in my testimony, my written testimony, would have been possible without the hard work and professional achievements of the people in the Philadelphia Water Department. We are one of the largest publicly owned water, wastewater and storm water utilities in the nation, and we employ a dedicated and talented group of laborers, skilled trades workers, engineers, scientists, technicians, managers and other support employees to provide high quality services to the public. As in recent years, I would like to recognize these workers, some of whom are with me today, and to call your attention to their professional achievements. The Water Department staff holds leadership positions and participates in the American Water Works Association, Association of Metropolitan 350 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. Sewerage Agencies, Delaware River Basin Commission, Eastern Meter Management Association, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Coastal Zone Management Steering Committee for Pennsylvania, Water Environment Federation, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Water Advisory Council and the Pennsylvania section of the American Water Works Association. All of us look forward to continued partnership with City Council toward further improvement during Fiscal '07 and the years ahead. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you. And, Commissioner, we certainly applaud the work that your department does. You have some very dedicated employees, and I know that they have great respect for you. Commissioner, on of your testimony, you mention the Biosolids Recycling Center and that $10.8 million 351 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. has been requested in Class 200 for FY07. If Council does not pass the required legislation, what's the impact on your budget? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: That particular appropriation would go away. The $10.7 million is actually the incremental amount that we would need to add to our Class 200 budget in order to avail ourselves of a new contract with this provider that we have proposed. If that goes through and we use the $10.7 million, then other costs would drop out in Class 300 and 400 and certain capital costs, which are not shown of course here in the operating budget, and also Class 100 would be absorbed within the appropriations of other units of the Department as workers are moved to other operating units, like distribution or sewer maintenance or any of our six --
So they would stay within the Department? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes. 352 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
Commissioner, last year you explained to us the savings associated with abandoning the old fire hydrant system and you provided us with estimated savings. Can you tell us the savings by the Fire Department for FY07 and how they were arrived at? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I'm going to introduce -- oh, I should have introduced already. To my left is Joseph Clare, Deputy Commissioner for Finance and Administration, and to my right is Debra McCarty, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, and Mr. Clare has the detail on the savings for the Fire Department.
Mr. Clare. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CLARE: Hi, President Verna. The high pressure system original cost in the last rate study was approximately $2 million a year, 800,000 of which was capital and 1.2 million was operating. The plan at 353 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. that time, I believe the system was shut down in January last year, and the capital costs continued for some time because there's a bond indebtedness and other costs related to that. So after January 5th, I believe, of last year, the operating cost disappeared. So we saved approximately $600,000 in last fiscal year, and we'll save approximately 1.2 million in operating costs in this and every succeeding fiscal year. In addition, the capital costs are dropping over a four-year period. Last year they were 800,000. This year they're 600,000. Next year they're 400,000, and the last and final year in Fiscal '08, I believe, they're 200,000. So at that point, there will be no cost to the General Fund for the operation or capital costs related to the high pressure system.
Thank you very much. Commissioner, can you tell us 354 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. what the impact of the River City initiative is on the water rate payer? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes. I believe it has very little, if any, direct effect on the water rate payer for a couple of reasons. Some of the work that's part of the initiative is probably projects that we would have undertaken in any event. We understand that we will eventually take over the water sewer infrastructure of the Navy Yard. The problem at this current time is that the Navy Yard system is not quite up to our standards, and so some of that money I know is geared for the upgrade of the Navy Yard and it would be coming out of this particular pot of money. The other thing is --
Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I believe that when PIDC was in here to testify several months ago, they indicated that they did not need money to 355 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. do the necessary work that you're referring to. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I'm working off of the ordinance, the attachment to the ordinance that was introduced recently, and I believe there's a $30 million item there related to the Navy Yard.
How much? 4 million? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: 30.
30 million? I have to go back to the notes of testimony. I recall PIDC being in here indicating that they did have the necessary funds in which to address the Navy Yard problems. However, that's for another day, and I will definitely -- please proceed. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: As you may recall, the Sinking Fund reserve actually is a reserve for the benefit of the bond holders of water and revenue bonds, and under the ordinances that were 356 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. enacted, including the general ordinance 3 of 1993, this reserve may be replaced with a surety bond or an insurance policy, and so that will be -- so long as the insurance or the bond covers the $125 million, then this should be seamless to the bond holder. And that's the source for the money. It should have virtually no effect on the water rate payer.
I know I was distracted and you may have answered this, but since the source of these funds is revenue bonds, why wouldn't you be requesting to spend them through the City's capital budget? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, I think what this program is designed to do, the River City program, is to target water and sewer infrastructure in those areas, those special areas that are looking for a boost to bring in more business and more activity, economic vigor to the Philadelphia waterfront. And, actually, I applaud that, because 357 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. ever since I've been with the Water Department, and that goes back a long time, the City has continued to lose population, and for a utility like the Water Department that is so capital intensive, we have all of these pipes out there in the street and if 30 out of 40 rowhouses are demolished or unhabitable, we cannot get rid of that water main and sewer main in the street. We still have to maintain that. So for a department like ours -- what I've seen happen over the years, and it's still happening, is a reduction of water being used by the public, and anything that helps to reverse that trend has to be applauded by us, otherwise we die of a thousand cuts.
Commissioner, I just asked Councilman DiCicco if we have recently received a report from the Water Department concerning the flooding that took place, I guess, last year this time in our 358 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. community and we had all of our constituents almost literally blocking the streets in protest. Will we be getting a report shortly on what you're doing, what you have been able to determine from your study, and when can we expect that? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: The second of our interim reports is scheduled to be released any moment. It's basically done. And what we've done is, we have inspected well over 60 blocks within the problem area in great detail. We've modeled some of the system as far as actual water going in and what exactly happens. We've certainly checked for debris, and the debris has been cleaned out wherever we found it, and we also checked for mechanical difficulties, hydraulic difficulties. A couple of blocks I know are already scheduled to be redone. The sewers are failing. And so that is happening. The other thing that we're 359 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. doing is, we are beginning to look for projects which can offload some of the storm water from the existing system, which can get surcharged, as we've seen. And we don't have to wait for the end of the report, which may be two years -- maybe another year and a half or so before it's complete, because we're checking out all of the areas in the City that are prone to this kind of problem. But in South Philadelphia, we have a job currently on Snyder Avenue. I think it's replacing and increasing the capacity of 800 feet of sewer, and also I think we're doing 2,000 feet of water main on Snyder Avenue, I guess, near Front Street. And that, when complete -- and it should be, I guess, complete later this year -- will help relieve some of the flooding issues at that area. We are looking very closely at some of the new construction that has happened, even if it's reconstruction, in South Philadelphia, because sometimes 360 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. even though there was a property there before, the new property has been designed so efficiently to get the storm water into the system that it actually exacerbates some of these problems in these very high intensity storms. So we're looking at ways to offload that and maybe send that directly to a creek or river and then relieve the system, which is handling sanitary sewage and storm sewage in that older part of the City.
Thank you. I look forward to seeing that report. Councilman Nutter has asked if I could direct a question to you. How many septic systems are there in the City and can we have a map that identifies them by Council District? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I know that -- I'm not sure we have all of that knowledge, because if this is a private type of ownership, but I believe 361 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. we have approximately 1,700 water-only customers in the system, which means they're not tied into our sewer system. They're not paying for sewer service. That may give us an idea of how many have septic systems. Obviously I have some experts in the room that may be able to help me. I'm being told that the policing of the septic systems is actually under the Health Department's auspices.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner, first of all, thanks for your department's always prompt response to constituent issues. It's greatly appreciated. Commissioner, last week I introduced a resolution asking for 362 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. hearings on the relationship that we have with PennDot as it comes to the 390 miles of state-maintained highways in the City of Philadelphia, and as you know, we have had numerous conversations and, again, some of the concerns that I have are above and beyond your control, but I think that we can control an issue that's becoming a real problem. It has to do with contractors that are working for the Water Department and also for other utilities, the management, the project management, of those contractors. Again, coming from the utility industry, I know how these guys work. They put money in for work area protection. They put money into the old "for restoration," temporary restoration, and then they try to get away with as much as they can, and that money goes in their pocket. The issue that we have is that I think we need more oversight. I believe there's an engineer or personnel 363 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. assigned to every project. They should see what the constituent sees. They should see what I see. And it's a disgrace on how some of these jobs -- and I'm not going to name names, but you know the job that I'm talking about. It was absolutely a disgrace that that contractor left a very major roadway in the condition as -- and I understand there were some other circumstances because of the problems that he had with the particular job, but that's not just that job. It's everywhere you go. A plumber -- you know the job that I'm talking about -- just left the place. I would wish he comes back at night and forgets he did that job and hits that excavation that he left. I pray that that would happen to him. That he would leave that job in the condition it was in on a state highway, working on a private service, and I'm even confused on how -- he obviously had to have a permit to do that work, to dig up the street, issued 364 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. by the Streets Department or Water Department. I just can't figure why we can't do it right, where when the Water Department has a contractor doing work, that the oversight makes them do what they're supposed to do in the deal; that when a plumber digs up the street, at the end of the day, they fix it in a way that will survive that -- I can't believe it takes 30 days to go back and have the Streets Department go back and fix it. We've had this conversation before. Maybe you need to take over the whole project. You figure out a way to convince the Streets Department that you really need to involve yourself at least in the temporary repair. Commissioner, all I know is, it's really frustrating to hear people tell me stories they come home on a rainy, dark night. They're older folks. They wind up hitting one of these ditches. They destroy their car, if they 365 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. don't hurt themselves. Why can't we get this thing organized City-wide? I know they've got this Ditch Committee that PECO sits on and PGW sits on. Intelligent minds should be able to fix this very basic problem that we have when we open up a street in the City of Philadelphia. Could you just comment on what you believe the problem is here? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, Councilman, I certainly appreciate your concern about the way these job sites are left. I mean, they are construction sites and there are some difficulties at times, but we have to impress upon all of our contractors that if they get work from us and the City, they've got to do it right and they can't scrimp on things that matter. And safety, of course, is paramount. And then just -- we want the site to be presentable. We don't want it to be a mess. And I heartily agree with you, 366 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
and I will -- some of the folks are back here. I will impress upon them that this is an important issue for us. As far as the speed at getting to some of these trenches and not let them fester and go bad on us before the Streets Department has an opportunity to resurface that, I think the Streets Department has been given additional funds this year for, I believe it's called, Project Smoother Streets and for more personnel and equipment in order to get to these sites much quicker and so we don't have to continuously do a patch job.
Commissioner, one of my observations, we refer to a pothole, but most of the failures in the highway, in my opinion coming from the utility industry, if you look at most of the problems that we have to steer around or hit, it's not a natural -- it's an opening that has failed because it wasn't restored 367 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. properly. These bellies, these dips in the road that we hit, God didn't put that there. Somebody dug up that street and didn't restore it properly, didn't compact it properly, didn't put -- there obviously is a standard that needs to be met for restoration of excavations. And, again, if we're not watching these contractors that work for us to make sure they're doing it right, they're not going to do it right. So it's something that I think we really need to try to do, and I know that you'll try your best, because you always do when it comes to trying to make things safer, as you mentioned earlier. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, thank you, Councilman, but I know others in the Administration have certainly heard your plea here, and I think we're moving --
It is. It's a plea. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I 368 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. think things are moving in the right direction.
Good. Thank you, sir, and, again, thanks for all of your quick responses to various requests. I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Sure. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. And good afternoon, Commissioner. I'd like to echo the comments made by the Council President and my colleague, Councilman Rizzo, on the service that my office has benefited from by your department, and pick up on the Council President's comments earlier, questions about the report as it relates 369 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. to the flooding issues we had a year and a half ago. As you know, you were in my office with some of your team and you did give me a preliminary report, and I appreciate that as well. My understanding is that with new construction, developers are now required, or maybe have been for a while, required to put in two separate systems, two ferrule systems, one for the waste discharge line and the other for the rainwater coming off of roofs. Is that accurate? And my question is, are we keeping pace -- those systems should go into two separate lines as far as the sewer system is concerned? I would suspect that they -- you're smiling. I mean, the theory, I think, was to take the rainwater off and let it go into a separate system than the sewer systems are. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: You're correct, yes. 370 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is the Water Department keeping pace with -- if a new development were to occur today, and there is a new development in my district at 4th and Reed, the Jefferson Square Housing Development. I think that they were required to install two separate water systems, runoff systems. Are the sewer systems, are they compatible with that yet? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, I think -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Maybe not necessary for that location, but generally speaking, are we keeping pace? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Right. I mean, obviously the sewer infrastructure in the older parts of the City, which encompass, of course, South Philadelphia, have one large pipe. What we have to do, and not only in that area but in all areas of Philadelphia, is something that we've done by tightening up the regulations on storm water for 371 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. construction and reconstruction for any sizable parcel, and, that is, to try to get -- that is, to get less runoff from all property from now on. Any developed parcel has to give off less water than it gives off today. In fact, any large parcel I think has to be designed to take about the first inch of rain, which is a significant amount, which is most storms, of course, in Philadelphia. This is already, just since January 1st because of the construction boom in Philadelphia, it's already saved us, I think, the equivalent of a square mile of runoff, the runoff of a square mile on the new development that's come in just in the first couple of months of 2006. So what we're trying to do is keep as much storm water out of the sewer pipe as possible, and in areas like South Philadelphia, it's essential. It's essential to try to do that. And I think these regulations that we have now over 372 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. time will really diminish some of the flooding problems that we have today, and it's also something that will reduce pollution getting to the river, because once that pipe reaches a certain level, a combined sewer pipe is going to send this diluted sewage out to the river, and that is no longer the state-of-the-art when it comes to the environment. So this works on many levels for us, and, again, we'll certainly share that second interim report with you to kind of show you where our progress has already been made. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I appreciate that and I understand that new development.
I think that was part of the conversation we had when I was curious as to why in some suburban counties, as an example, when you have big box development with large parking lots, there are these catch basins, or whatever you refer to them, that take a lot of that water off, where in 373 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. Philadelphia it just runs off the blacktop and our systems have to basically take all of it, because there's no impervious soil, land or whatever to suck that up. And I think that's one of the problems we had when we developed the Lowe's/Ikea site, which was 40 acres or so of impervious soil and now we black-topped it over. So that added to the problems that the people in that end of the City had experienced, which brings me to my next question or concern, is that using Jefferson Square as the area, immediately adjacent or part of the Jefferson Square community is a former hospital, the Mt. Sinai Hospital, which is currently being proposed to be converted into 220-some-odd condominium units with about 28 new townhouses. So you got about 250 new units on that site. I think based on the uses that a hospital had when it was operating versus the uses that the condos will have, I think you'll see less usage or 374 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. for the systems that have to take less water and sewage. But that's what I believe. It's very hard for me to convince the residents in the community that it's not going to be a worst-case scenario. And I will send your office a letter asking for a formal report, if you will, to -- and I'll give you the geographical areas that are of concern. But that is the concern, and I'm dealing with that, and not only there, I'm dealing with it in many of the high-rise development sites along Delaware River, the possibility of the casinos. Everyone is starting now to talk about do the systems that we have in place, will they be able to maintain, are they sufficient enough to handle the additional load that they're going to have to take with all this development. So it's a statement more or less than a question, but that is something that we need to address, and I think your department could be helpful to 375 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. myself and other Councilmembers, in particular in those districts that have this increased development going on, to address some of those concerns for our constituents. Because everywhere I go, that's all I'm hearing anymore, is in addition to the parking problems, that we don't want this place developed because where are we going to park and my taxes are going to go up because you're removing blight, what about the water system. I'm sure you're aware of it, but I think a lot more information if you can give to us on a periodic basis will be helpful. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: That's great. That is our intention, to give you more information as we go through this process of studying our storm system, but I think I can assure you that from now on, any sizable parcel that's developed in Philadelphia will give off less storm water than it does 376 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. today, because it's in the regulations. We have people watching it. We get a lot of push-back sometimes. We work with the contractors and developers to tell them what will be required. As you say, it's required in the suburbs. It's also going to be required here, and you're going to see more of these detention ponds in Philadelphia. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And if you need any assistance, as we spoke about in my office, if legislation of some sort may be necessary to identify a percentage of land that needs to be retained for impervious soil reasons, please let me know. I'll be more than glad to help you with that. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. 377 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I have questions today for Councilwoman Marian Tasco, who had to leave. Her questions are as follows. It's one question and then a statement. What can be done to address the problem with payment lines at the Water Department facility? Among my constituents, I have found that a number of elderly people frequently must come to Center City to pay their bills to the Water Revenue Bureau. These elderly people are forced to stand in long lines for lengthy periods of time. All of this standing is very strenuous on their bodies, particularly their fragile backs, hips and knees. There was even an incident this afternoon where an elderly woman fell down while waiting in a long line over there to pay her water bill. For now, security personnel at the 378 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. building have been kind enough to reserve some older people places in line and allow them to sit in other areas of the Municipal Services Building until their turn comes. This method, however, is neither systematic nor consistent. Would it be possible to add seating and a number to the water collections facility at the MSB so that people can sit comfortably and wait for their numbers to be called rather than having to stand for long periods? A similar system is in place at the L&I facility and at other locations. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Actually, I will be talking to Revenue Commissioner Nancy Kammerdeiner about this request, because we don't actually collect our own revenues. But I understand the problem, and I know there is only, I guess, two official sites other than the MSB for the collection of water bills. I know there are a lot of other places that will take money, I 379 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. guess, and send the bill to the Revenue Department. But I will discuss it with Commissioner Kammerdeiner and get you a response.
Thank you. In fact, we should have asked her had we realized, but I'm sure the Councilwoman appreciates it, and it was a good question. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a point of information.
Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner, for our record here during the budget, during a hearing you indicated -- and I don't want to speak for you, but I'll try my best to say what you said. I asked you the question, do you believe it would be best for the Water Department to be in the 380 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. business of collecting their own water bills, and I believe you said that that would be good for the Water Department, to be actually involved in bringing in that revenue. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I think --
Now, I have the transcript now. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: No, no. I believe you. I may have said that or said that it's certainly worth looking into. There are pluses that I see and there are negatives.
What would be a plus? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, I think sometimes when your collection arm is apart from you, there's not quite the same knowledge, background --
Or enthusiasm. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Or enthusiasm perhaps. You don't 381 3/7/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. necessarily see the fruits of your labors if you're basically answering customer billing complaints and things of that nature and you don't see what the good is and the revenues that you do collect and what allows the Water Department to do as far as the environment and pure drinking water and things of that nature. One of the things that I've encouraged, and I have to remember to do this again, is, we'd like to invite some of these folks from the Revenue Bureau, and we have in the past, to come and tour some of our facilities so they get a little more pride of service and understand how their work impacts on us and the rest of the City.