COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 7, 2004 3:55 p.m. - - - - BILL 040257 - An Ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six Fiscal Years 2005-2010 inclusive. BILL 040258 - An Ordinance to adopt a 2005 Capital Budget. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 334 I N D E X BILL 040257, 040258 MAXINE GRIFFITH, City Planning....... 335 CHARLES ISDELL, Phila. Airport....... 338 EDWARD ANASTASI, Phila. Airport...... 338 MARK GALE, Phila. Airport............ 355 ROBERT DUBOW, Budget Director........ 364 JOSEPH SYRNICK, Streets Department... 382 RICHARD TUSTIN, Capital Program...... 402 WILLIAM GAMBLE, Procurement.......... 407 ROBERT HESS, Deputy Managing Director 426 335 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258
Good afternoon. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill Nos. 040257, an ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six Fiscal Years 2005 to 2010 inclusive; and Bill No. 8 040258, an ordinance to adopt a Fiscal 2005 Capital Budget. Ms. Griffith, do you mind taking the witness stand? Ms. Griffith, the last public hearing we had, I had asked what is the amount of tax-supported new loans in FY '05 Budget for economic development. I also asked for the break-down of those funds and how the funds would be integrated in city's overall development strategy. At that time, you said you did not have the information and you would supply us with that information. Do you have that information now?
We do have the information in writing. I apologize, the type 336 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 is a little small and we have someone working to get that increased. And, hopefully, that will be in your office by the end of business day, but we do have it to give to you now.
All right. Do you mind telling us what it is for the record, please? I don't need to see a copy of it. I thought you could just read it into the record, if you will. You probably can't see it either. If you can't, we can wait for it until Monday.
My staff is laughing at me because they told me to get it blown up before I came over here.
If you have difficulty doing it, I can wait until we receive the letter.
I think there was another question that I asked and that was, I believe you stated in your testimony that $260 million is allocated for 337 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 neighborhood development. How much of that is CN funded and how will these funds be used?
32.437. And we also have a chart for that as well, Madam Council President.
Thank you, Madam President. I'd just like to bring up two points today. One, I was hoping to get a copy of the feasibility study on the garages at the airport that we're being asked to pass capital money to purchase. And I was wondering if the airport had that. I won't ask questions on it today. I'm sure they'll be back later. I 338 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 just wanted to have the document to review.
President Verna, Charlie Isdell. I'm going to ask Ed Anastasi, the Deputy Director for Finance Administration at the airport to respond to the question.
We talked about two documents last time that I believe you had requested, Councilman. First was the majority and interest or MII report that the City submits to the airlines to obtain approval of all projects, in this case it would be the parking garage acquisition. That includes the cost benefit analysis that you also requested. So our time frame for putting together or to finalizing the MII report that goes out to the airlines is next Wednesday.
Now, the reason I didn't ask for the MII report, including the cost benefits analysis which wasn't mentioned two days ago, the cost benefit analysis part 339 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 of it, my question specifically was: "Have you done a cost benefit analysis?" You said, "Yes, but we call it a feasibility study." I said, "Could you get me that feasibility study?" You said, "Yes." I assumed since we had a hearing two days later, you would come here with the feasibility study which will become the cost benefit analysis when the MII goes out, which I was already aware was not ready to go out. But for our purposes, we have a Capital Budget in front of us. I don't want to wait until you transfer the feasibility study into a cost benefit analysis for the MII and the airlines. I want to be able to analyze it now, look at it and ask questions. So if you don't have it with you today, I would hope first thing tomorrow morning I can have the feasibility study whereby you have already made a decision that you're recommending to the airlines based on that feasibility study that it's the right 340 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 thing to do for them and for you. So if you could get me that, if you don't have it with you today, ASAP. I'd appreciate it.
What we can do, Councilman, the feasibility study is a report that not only shows the cost benefit analysis of the parking acquisition, it also shows the feasibility of the entire airport system. The feasibility study will be ready by the 23rd of April. However, the cost benefit analysis piece that is in the feasibility study mirrors what will be in the MII report which will be available next week. Now, if you would prefer that we provide to you a copy of just the cost benefit analysis piece of that MII report, we can provide a draft of that to you tomorrow.
Okay. Whatever has already been done, whether it's called a feasibility study or cost benefit analysis that shows the justification for your recommending it to the airlines in the very near future is what I want. Then I will gladly have the fuller airport feasibility 341 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 study and all the MII requests. And at a later time -- and I hope we have a specific hearing on the Capital Budget so we don't get too mixed up with the Operating Budget even though some of it is an overlap. I'd like to be able to stick to Capital Budget items in a single hearing. Thank you.
Okay, Councilman. I'm sorry we were unclear about that on Monday.
I would just like some clarification too, if I may. Will the feasibility study that we haven't seen, probably won't see until after the 23rd, is that what you're saying?
Well, what are we going to see tomorrow? I thought we were going to see the part that deals garages tomorrow.
Didn't you indicate that this feasibility study will not 342 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 completed until the 23rd.
But on the garages, that part has been done, as was testified to on Monday. That's what I'm asking for as soon as possible.
Okay. Now, will the feasibility study specifically address the benefits of the City taking over the garages?
Yes, but what we are going to provide tomorrow is that piece of the feasibility study that deals directly with the cost and benefits of the City acquiring the parking garages. That will be handed over to Council tomorrow.
Would that also show if the Parking Authority kept it what impact would that have?
Wht it would show is the cost and the benefits of the airport, that being the City, taking over the airport parking operation. 343 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258
I think we would all like to see a copy of that feasibility study, so if you would have it delivered to each Councilmember's office, it would really be appreciated.
I don't know what the gentleman means when he's referring to the City. What part of the City?
So your cost benefit analysis will show that it would be better for what?
It would be better for the City's Aviation Fund or Aviation Department to acquire the airport parking operation from the Parking Authority.
Well, the airport is part of the City. The airport is a separate 344 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 Aviation Fund within the City's Fund structure, including Water Fund and General Fund and the other funds.
So that you see the City acquiring ownership if the airport acquires the ownership of all of parking?
And you see the Parking Authority as a what? Not the City?
I just have a question. I know we're going to get something tomorrow on this, but if it's not -- whatever we get tomorrow or later even is not going to show us that the airport will get more revenue by taking it over, will that show that you're going to get more money net in doing this?
Not just 345 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 control, but more money?
Because hopefully there will be a debate between those that believe that and those that don't. And if it's just control, then it's philosophical discussion and whether the US Air, as much as we love them, being in charge of our parking because they get to control the vote on anything that goes on down there is the right thing to do. But I would be very interested in seeing something that shows that us putting out all this extra money and hopefully not putting any money in this bond issue that's going to help pay off some other problems down there that are going on with airport expansion that have been overrun by millions and millions of dollars, that it's just a pure issue to defease Parking Authority bonds and create our own expenditures even though we get 15 million or 13 million this year, 15 million next year from the garages. But I appreciate your willingness to get at least the preliminary analysis to us tomorrow. 346 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258
And I'm sorry if we didn't state that properly on Monday, but we will provide that cost benefit analysis for you tomorrow.
Madam Council President, can I, just as a point of clarification, would you like those copies to go to your office for dissemination, or would you prefer them --
I think it should be delivered to each Councilmember's office tomorrow.
Madam President, I just have one other matter and I've got a recreation center I've got to get to, and it's not close. The Water Department, we're in the middle of a Capital Budget, an Operating 347 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 Budget and a Water Department increase of some magnitude, 43 percent over years. I met 4 with the Managing Director today. He stated that he would meet with the Water Department, and I want to put the Commissioner and the Department on notice so they can get ready not just for the Managing Director meeting with them but for us meeting with them. The cost of the laterals -- the City is now going to take over the replacement of laterals that are defective and damaged and need replacement under the street. It will no 14 longer be the homeowner's responsibility under the public thoroughfare. That is a legitimate capital expense. Those pipes will not only last longer than five years but many, many more years than five. Private companies will be hired to do this work, the same as they're hired to do a lot of other sewer work under the streets. If we're going to switch to lateral responsibility in the public domain rather than the private homeowner, I'd hate to see it killed before it gets out of the box because a large water increase is being tagged 348 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 as having to be necessary because of this change in responsibility when it's a Capital expense. If this water increase could be very small but for the laterals and the laterals can be properly placed in the Capital Budget where they belong, I believe, from a governmental and accounting standpoint, we have to give it every possible review we can. And I would hope this Administration would do the same thing because with all the problems with our budget, they don't really need the 43 percent water increase if it's not necessary. The one thing we do need is for the Water Department to be properly in control of what's under that street and be able to repair it, make sure they're uniform repairs, make sure we have the longest guarantee from these companies that we can possibly negotiate that a homeowner can't possibly do themselves. There's a great benefit to that. I don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bath water because we're making it such a large part of such a large increase when it doesn't have to be part of the increase at all. 349 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 First of all, there's going to be a spike in the first few years because there's a lot of laterals out there that have to be fixed and it's going to happen for several years. Then there's going to be a leveling off. But once you get a water increase, it never gets reduced and it will be built into the rate structure and we'll start spending that money for something else. I think there's a very valid area here for us to explore but for the Water Department to really get into with the Managing Director because I think there's going to be a great interest in the Administration and not putting that in the water increase. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Councilman O'Neill, I'll address the Chair. I'm pleased that you brought that up because I am having a hearing in the next few weeks when the date is scheduled to address this water increase, and 350 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 I'm pleased to say that I believe every member of City Council has supported that concern for this potentially 43 percent increase. So I just want everybody on record to know that we're going to have hearings very soon on that particular issue. I don't know if this is directed to the Planning Commission or to the airport directly. My question is that with the price of fuel, and our Fleet Management people really have to be congratulated that they just apparently entered into a contract that they're buying fuel well below the price of other large corporations or users of fuel. And I don't think we've really done enough in the area of alternative fuel vehicles. And my question to the airport is that we had a company, a rental company, that wanted very much to be able to supply green vehicles, to alternative fuel vehicles at the airport. And because of security concerns, they could not couple up to the fueling location that is at the airport. And I was told that there was going to be an alternative fueling location 351 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 for natural gas at other locations. And I'm sure that natural gas vehicles would be music to PGW ears, but I don't really see a real effort to develop alternative energy vehicles, whether they're high bred or natural gas. And I'd like to know in the Capital Budget do we have money in there? What is the status of the location -- again, this company picked up and left at least with their natural fueled vehicles at the airport because they couldn't fuel them, they had to run them all the way to a PECO Energy facility in Chester or somewhere in Delaware County and it became cost prohibitive for them to continue to operate. And they were assured-- and they recently contacted me saying that they never heard another word about the facility at the airport where they could fuel these vehicles. So I would think that the Planning Commission, I don't know whether that's something that you do, look at getting close -- even though we're buying fuel at a very reduced cost per gallon, but this summer I'm confident that we're going to see regular at over $2 a gallon. And I 352 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 think that it's going to continue to increase. And I think that the City really has to charge the Managing Directors Officer or Deputy Managing Director of Fleet Management to really start seriously looking at alternatives. So I'd like to know did the project at the airport location ever get completed? If it didn't, will it are?
Ms. Griffith, Mr. Isdell is here and I'm sure he'd like to respond.
Mr. Isdell, he knows the situation where I forget the name of the rental company, they just packed up and left with their natural gas vehicles because they couldn't get fuel. And I understand your position, you just couldn't let them fuel at the location that's on site at the airport. And then there were supposed to be an alternative developed. Did that ever happen?
We're still -- again, I want to introduce Deputy Director Mark Gale who is our Operations and Facilities Deputy. 353 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 He has more specifics on the CNG station at the airport than I do. But my recollection is that that rental car company, I don't know that the company itself left, but they stopped using that small number of alternative fuel vehicles because, you're right, they were not able to fuel them at our -- we have a temporary CNG station that we've had in for a number of years and you've encouraged us to expand that into a permit facility. We do have a plan for a permanent CNG facility. I think we've had some difficulty relative to the location that we want to facility to be developed on. Mark probably has a better sense of where that project stands today. But in addition, we do cooperate fully with the Office of Fleet Management. We have some vehicles in our fleet that are alternative vehicles, and that's the way that we fuel them, from a CNG station that we maintain at the airport.
My point, being a large facility but a small facility in the same breath, there's a natural location to 354 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 have CNG vehicles. Now, my last conversation with the airport -- I don't think it was specifically, Mr. Isdell --
The plan was to go outside the airport parameter, there was going to be built a new fueling site, Eastwick Avenue or --
That natural gas facility was supposed to be there. Did it ever happen?
We needed to have a facility -- to make it the cost beneficial, we needed a facility that would be accessible both to the air field and also to the public road which would be Island Avenue in the example that we were working on, and that does present some security considerations so that those vehicles from outside the airport can't have access to the secured area inside the fence. But we had a design, I believe, that 355 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 was going to work around that. We had some problems, I think, actually getting the piece of property that we needed. I'm not a hundred percent sure. I think it may have been at the time a swap of real estate with the Parking Authority. But ultimately, we also, I believe, had a grant that had been offered. I'm not sure if it was from the State or the federal government, and the grant, unfortunately, expired before we were able to award a bid for the construction.
Councilman, what Director Isdell is true. There was grant money out there. The total project cost for the creation of the permanent CNG facility at the airport was approximately $2 million.
We lost it hopefully on a temporary basis. We continue to work with the Department of Energy and the Municipal Energy Office along with DVRPC to recreate to station to be a regional CNG station that's capable of 356 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 fueling not only private on the land side portion, as well as air field vehicles for the airport at the same time.
You know, correct me if I'm wrong. I was of the impression that we have a fueling site somewhere in the proximity of the airport that they were just going to add the CNG refueling -- they were just going to like -- this is a little bigger than the bread box, this thing. That they were going to add this natural gas fueling to an existing fleet management fueling station. Isn't there a fueling station somewhere right outside the airport.
The airport does have a fueling station which is located in a section 18 of the airport at the very west end called corridor City.
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about an existing Fleet Management location somewhere near the airport.
There is an existing Fleet Management facility on Island Avenue, 357 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 but it does not have fueling facilities at it.
The Fleet Management facility that maintains the vehicles which is on Island Avenue directly across the street from the old overseas terminal does not have fueling facility at it. That's used just solely for the maintenance of vehicles.
It's almost directly across the street from that fleet management facility.
Well, what happened? Why can't we get this accomplished?
What originally happened, as Director Isdell was stating, we went through a process doing a land swap. The land that was going to be used for this CNG 358 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 facility was PPA property. We did a land swap with them. And at that time when we were getting ready to build the facility is when we entered back in discussion with PennDOT, with DVRPC, with Department of Energy where they actually engaged the use of a consultant to take a look at this to make sure that what was going to be built met the needs of the region, not just the needs of the airport. And that's essentially where things have been going and they've been finalizing it and fine tuning it and they're actually getting ready to hopefully get moving on it if, in fact, the grant funds can be allocated again.
Where is the closest -- and I want to end this because I've taken more time than I should. Where is the closest Fleet Management facility where you can get fuel near the airport?
The Water Department on Enterprise Avenue, there's a fueling station there.
So why can't we keep it simple? It's nice maybe to have 359 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 public and take advantage of the $2 million. I guess that's the caveat there, to have private vehicles be able to fuel there also. But at this point, can't we put this fueling station at the existing facility that exists so the airport could start converting their equipment to this very clean-burning fuel, the buses the, shuttles, all that? Why can't we temporarily even make the investment to install -- which I understand is not a complicated process. And I don't know if there's gas line there or what. Why couldn't we focus on something we already have before we start worrying about the region? I'm worried about the airport. I'm worried about the Water Department. I'm worried about PGW. Why can't we get it accomplish where we already own the property? That's what I was led to believe, that the location you just described was where this was going to go? I mean, is that possible to think about putting it there first before you create this massive fueling station that I believe never took off?
To do it on the Water 360 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 Department property?
I don't think we would have objection to that whatsoever. I think it is a central --
Because the Water Department, I'm sure, would love to be able to run some of their vehicles on natural gas.
I think the other reason that the airport was made a focal point in the early going for a CNG station was the Municipal Energy Office and, in fact, the airport took an initiative as early as the mid-'90s, if I recall, we did a bid and we actually awarded a bus service contract to a company, and one of the requirements -- that was, I believe, in 1997 -- that all the new buses had to be CNG buses. Unfortunately, that company severely underperformed and had to be ousted, was replaced temporarily by SEPTA and subsequently by the company that is operating at the airport today, and the requirement for CNG buses was removed during that transition. But our intention when the 361 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 current contract expires which is very soon, we developed a spec that will be CNG buses again. Again, it's certainly an enticement for us to use our bus contract as a motivator to have a CNG station, if not on our property, certainly nearby.
What do we do to get this really rolling? Because I understood that the during the National Republican Convention that they had lift equipment that ran on CNG, they got transported people to the aircraft or -- I forget. And they told me it worked very, very well. But my point being, it's a shame to see a company pull up their natural gas vehicles. They have them in airports all over the country except Philadelphia. And it's not good to not cooperate. So the Planning Commission, the airport, the Water Department, Fleet Management, can we all get together and get this thing rolling?
I think that's the ticket, we all need to get together. 362 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258
If I may, I think you're absolutely correct. We would be very interested, and I know the Managing Director actually came to the City with an abiding interest in the alternative fuel issue. So if you would allow us to work with him to explore the broader issue while the airport continues to work towards solving the specific concern, we would be pleased to do that.
I'd really appreciate that because I think what greater place than the Fairmount Park Commission to see a little logo on the side of their cars that these are --
And really you're talking about a City-wide initiatine, not simply a one-agency initiative.
But, again, I described the airport as very big but very small. To be able to have alternative use vehicles down there, from police vehicles to the Department of Aviation vehicles, everything that runs down there.
Airports have been 363 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 focal points around the country because also of the preponderance of the small ground service equipment that the airlines use and those types of vehicles can easily be alternative fuel vehicles as opposed to --
In terms of the broader initiative, if you would allow me to caucus with the Managing Director because it's both a planning and an operations issue and get back to you very quickly, I would appreciate that.
You're welcome. Ms. Griffith, I know we asked you this question the other day, and I think when you were responding I was distracted and I don't know that I really understood your answer. To the Capital Program Office, can 364 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 you explain to me why we would be funding 78 positions at a cost of $6.5 million out of the Capital Budget at the time when our debt capacity is minimal?
Council President, I believe that the Budget Director was the one that responded to your question. And I see he stepped up to the plate again.
We fund that out of Capital because it's essentially a cost of the capital projects because that's what people are working on so the cost gets capitalized into the project. And instead of spending all of our cost related to a long-term project in one year, we spend it over the life of the project. So we're matching our cost to the asset we're creating.
I don't know how we can justify this in light of our capital constraints. I really mean that. It's going to cost us over the five-year bond more than, what, $38 million?
$38 million that we would borrow over those years for this, that's 365 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 right. I mean, the other option is to put it into the General Fund and then cut another million -- 6
Well, doesn't every other department go into the General Fund?
Wouldn't we put every other department in the General Fund?
But they're working on things that are operating costs as opposed to things that are capital costs, so that's why we allocate them to the Operating Budget as opposed to the Capital Budget.
First to the Planning Commission, is there anything in the Capital Budget or any part of any budget that deals the removal of trees that were planted many, many years ago right near the curb and as a result of 30, 40, 50 years passing, maybe 366 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 even 60 years, the pavements are uprooted, the pavement is dangerous to walk on? Is there any money for the City-wide program with respect that the trees are huge? I expect that if an individual owner wanted to remove a tree and had the money for it, it might run several thousand dollars. I spent a lot of the last couple days traveling around the City wondered who had designed these plantings of trees, because in many parts of the City, the same problem exists, pavements are unsafe to walk on. People living there generally now were the older people who live on modest Social Security or even less than that and don't have any funds to remove the trees. The trees are not dead so they don't fall within the removal of dangerous trees. But what is dangerous is the condition of the sidewalks. And insurance companies are increasingly, I'm told, refusing to offer any home insurance because they think the likelihood of damage to people and injury to people is so great that they can't afford to insure them. 367 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 I was wondering has there ever been any attention paid by the Planning Commission to that kind of a problem in the Capital Program? Because I think it fits in well with the question about laterals.
To some extent, Councilman, it has to do with the definition of dangerous trees. There is $300,000 in the Capital Budget, and we were just actually caucusing a little bit to see whether a tree that uproots or the damage to the sidewalk could itself be considered dangerous. If that is the case, it would be covered in this line item.
There's also money in the Operating Budget in the Managing Director's Office. There's about $3 million for tree removal and tree trimming.
Well, I think we probably need to check with how the program is run to see whether that falls into the definition of dangerous. So we need to check 368 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 that. I mean, there's money for tree removal in a few places in the budget and we just have to see whether it covers that.
Because I have a feeling it's very much like retaining walls. It's a problem that grew, suddenly appeared but for many years it wasn't a problem. And like the question of laterals being replaced after long years. How soon can we get reply from you?
I think fairly quickly. We can talk to the Managing Director's Office.
Because I think City-wide it's an enormous problem. I'd like to suggest, if anyone have any questions, look at one particular place, an ordinary very lovely little street, Widener Place in East Germantown or Oak Lane. They call it the 1800 block. And it's a block lived it. It's just directly west of Ogontz Avenue between 18th and 19th. And there, I counted the, I think there were 18 trees, each one causing the pavement in front of the home to move up. There are a few houses that never had the 369 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 tree. And even where they planted and gave the tree lots of room to grow, it was just too close to the curb and it occupied the whole block and finally ripped that up, the whole pavement block.
We were just talking about our own situations with our own homes, and we certainly know the problem.
I don't know the name of the tree, but it's well planted throughout the City. I don't know whether the City planted these trees originally or whether they were planted by private developers to make the area look attractive. And probably if you remove them all, you'll also have to think of a tree replanting.
The street would look barren without them after all these years.
And there are trees with very shallow root balls that don't cause that problem and probably the Fairmount Park 370 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 folks and our urban design staff can also be helpful in designating what those trees are. But we will get back to you on the question of funding.
If you get back, it will be very helpful, because I have a specific problem brought to my attention about a week ago. A 77-year-old woman with very small Social Security pension and the pavement in front of her house looks like it was set up by maybe Disney Land to try to sell tickets to see who could walk on that block.
Good afternoon, 371 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 Mr. Isdell. It was a very good change of scenes here from a hearing we just had about PGW and its big, big problems to have aviation come and because I know firsthand that you don't have any problems that are anywhere near the problems that PGW has, so I commend you for a job well done, not perfect, because none of us are perfect in what we do. But I want to ask you a couple questions. As well you know from 2000 to 2003 you and I interacted a lot as I headed up the Labor Standards Unit of the City of Philadelphia. And I know that through the year 2001 at least through 2002 that I was responsible for monitoring close to a half billion dollars in prevailing wage Public Works jobs in the City of Philadelphia. And half of that was over at the airport. And I was always glad to know that whenever I went there or investigator was there that whenever he had these meetings with contractors, they would have to give you a report on how minority participation was taking place at the airport. And I remember on many occasions I 372 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 would tell my representative to go there and I'll have him go with a list of people that in the event any of your contractors would say, "Well, I couldn't come up to getting the minority numbers that we needed because they just weren't there, they weren't there through the unions, they weren't available." And I always would try to have my representative go there with at least one or two names. "Here, we know of a program, the Diversified Apprenticeship Program," or a program out in the community somewhere and would give the names to the contractors. It would help the contractors. How are you today -- how satisfied are you today with all this amount of public dollars at the airport and the participation of minority contractors, the minority workers on your jobs at the airport or the services you provide at the airport?
We're never satisfied. We do think that we have a good record and we continue to do the kind of monitoring and follow-up that you just referred with meetings 373 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 with contractors to ensure that they're living up to commitments that they made when they won the contract throughout the term of contract in question. In terms of workforce participation, I don't believe, other than the expansion project that was for the two new terminals for which we kept very specific and discreet totals on workforce participation by both minorities and females, I don't believe that we keep those statistics. I'm not sure if the Labor Standards Office does that for the City as a whole. But our emphasis is usually on the minority participation by the subcontractors under the prime that won the contracting question. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question or not, and I may need some help from one of my deputies.
I would ask you to send to the Committee -- you can do it through the office of the President -- on what your minority participation looks like today. Also, I remember that through just 374 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 my personal concerns about it that I had requested from your HR office to send me notices, although they come routinely also into the City flow, but that I would get a list of job openings and I will make them available to community groups, to agencies that were doing workforce development. I think that especially where we have a big infusion of public dollars that we have to guarantee the Philadelphia public takes full advantage of these and have the opportunity to apply for these jobs. And I would like to continue to have some reports from the airport to take a look at how you're doing things, how it has improved, how we can learn from some of the things that you have done there. In the three years that I was head of Labor Standards for City, I was always very encouraged that there was some progress, very good progress being made at the airport. During the last few years, have you had any contact with the Minority Business Enterprise Council where they have come to your level, to your office, and have engaged 375 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 you in minority participation?
Absolutely. On a regular basis we interact with MBEC. Before every bid that we put out and before every request for proposals or requests for qualifications for professional services is put out, those contracts are reviewed by MBEC and participation percentages or goals are set out for each of those contracts. Now, the construction contracts are done through the Procurement Department's public works bidding system, and I believe we have met or exceeded requirements through all of those contracts that are bid through Procurement. On our professional services contracts that are done through RFP or RFQs, we also comply with MBE standards in terms of the percentage participation that's required. And, in fact, we exceed those numbers in most cases. We do have -- I can give you and I think that's what you're requesting -- a statistical report that shows our success. We also have been extremely successful in perhaps more than any other area in minority 376 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 participation in our concession program and then ultimately the day-to-day purchasing that we do of materials, supplies and equipment which is also bid through the Procurement Department through their normal bidding procedures. Again, we meet or exceed the MBEC requirements for those. Their statistics are maintained by Procurement, not by the airport.
Do you have in your statistical data a breakdown of how many Philadelphia City residents versus non-City residents? And if you have that, can you please make it available to me?
Just the workforce, the people that work at the airport, whether they are contractors or -- I know your concession business has its own operation. Can you request of them see how many minorities they have, how many are owned, how many are workers in that area of the airport?
I think we can do that 377 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 through the ID badging system that we use through which most, if not all airport employees have to be put into a database after they clear the federally mandated background checks, et cetera. The only hesitation I would have is I'm not sure if there any legal qualifications on how we distribute the racial and democratic information. But if there's no 10 legal problem with it, we certainly would be happy to put that out and share it with you.
I was just agreeing with the Director. I think we'd want to be forthcoming with all information possible in this regard. Obviously, the Administration is very concerned. The only caveat would be if we cannot legally do it.
Thank you. One last question. How about your the airlines. As Director, do you ask them in a formal or informal way about your minority participation in business, the workforce, and so forth? 378 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258
To be honest, I don't think we do that on a regular basis. It certainly was an issue -- I remember reading the testimony before Council when the US Airways project was originally introduced before Council to build the two new terminals which we have since completed and opened. There were statistics presented by US Airways in particular relative to their own staff demographics that had been required by Council prior to Council's approval. I don't know that there are ongoing requirements that US Airways or any other airline provide that information, but we can encourage that, I think.
We have Southwest Airline and -- what's the other airline you have?
You have Southwest and Frontier that are already in town, again, ready to launch their operations. Southwest in May, I believe. 379 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 This Council, please correct me if I'm wrong, is very much interested that Philadelphians get jobs. We're try up economic development with workforce development around here, that minorities have participation at the jobs and with the contractors. And I sure would like for you to use your influence in conveying that message to all the airlines, but you new airlines coming in town that we have a good workforce in Philadelphia, that Philadelphians should get priority on job placement, that there are Philadelphians that can be trained by these companies to do the jobs that they need done, and that minority contracts and business are encouraged by the Philadelphia government both the executive and legislative branches. I know that you can be an influential voice for us in your shop.
We have done -- whenever we have the opportunity, we've done job fairs, particularly in the Eastwick community which is the Philadelphia community that's closest to the airport for jobs both in 380 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 the concession program and also when the new Transportation Security Administration was created, they hired, I believe, over a thousand people in Philadelphia. We made great efforts to share the application process information and the locations for applicants to apply for those jobs, particularly in the Philadelphia community. We do understand that we're a regional facilities and we know that -- the airport is obviously a generator of jobs. That's one of the reasons we've work so hard to entice new carriers to come to the City because they create new job opportunities, particularly in an industry that's lost jobs since 9/11/01. And I will do everything and continue to do my best to try to get as many of those jobs as possible to come from the citizens of Philadelphia and that we have an appropriate representation of minorities and females in that hiring to the best of my ability within all legal means that I am able to do.
Thank you, Mr. Isdell. 381 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 Thank you, Madam Chair.
If I might add one comment which came to mind in one of your earlier questions. I would like to mention that Philadelphia International Airport will host the Annual Conference of the Airport Minority Advisory Committee in June of this year. We certainly will share information about the event with Council. We hope that you'll find the opportunity to attend at least one of the week-long events. And we see this as an opportunity to demonstrate on a national level some of the accomplishments we've had at our airport in minority and female participation in all sorts of contracting.
Thank you. Councilman Clark did you want to be recognized? Your light was on earlier.
Yes, please. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'd actually like the Streets Department to come up. I want to ask some questions about process, 382 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 streetscapes.
Good afternoon. Joseph Syrnick, Chief Engineer and Surveyor, Streets Department.
I wanted to get a sense of the procurement process and implementation process on a project that is multi-funded, one that has a State match or a federal match and City contributions, in particular similar to the Avenue of the Arts. I think City and State, I don't know if there were federal dollars in it. Can you talk to me about the process and the involvement of each agency and the timeline on each agency's involvement from the onset, I guess from the initial funding on through the Procurement process and then the implementation.
I'll give it a go. Let's talk about funding. If you have federal funds involved, you need to have that project approved by the Regional Metropolitan Planning organization which in this area is DVRPC. That usually happens as part of the TIP, 383 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 Transportation Improvement Project which is done, usually, several years ahead of time. If there's state money, you need to get the state money lined up also. And of course you need to get the City money programmed in the City's Capital Program. All these things Ideally should happen early on in the process.
Does that normally happen concurrently or is it required to have one funding source in place before you can get the match or the supplement?
Generally it happens concurrently. Ideally it would be concurrent. Once the money is in line, if the City is going to manage the project, the first step would be to get preliminary engineering underway. We would, in most cases, outsource that to a consultant. You've got to pick a consultant, you've got to into a contract with a consultant. And then depending on the level and complexity of the project, that could take a year or more to get preliminary engineering approved. That would include on a federal 384 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 project all the environmental and historic clearance, which in Philadelphia, especially historic, is a time-consuming process.
Let me stop you. So when the City initiates its process, its solicitations, its funding, what is the State doing? Is the State currently going through its process or the federal government in the case that it's federal funding going through its process concurrently, or does one trigger the other?
AGAIN, they're usually done concurrently. If we're talking about funding, which is the main area that the Feds are involved in, we would not be able to enter into a contract for preliminary engineering without having at least the federal funding for that phase in place. And normally we would try to get federal funding on all phases of the project.
All right, let's deal with the State. During the course, particularly from the onset of this City's process, is there any requirements in terms of 385 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 analyzing the project, its ultimate awardees on a state level that happens similar to what we do on the City level?
Again, if we're using federal funding, the federal funding in most cases for Streets Department projects would come from the Federal Highway Administration. The Federal Highway Administration has designated PennDOT as their oversight agency. PennDOT as an agent of the federal government would be involved on a large project, a complicated project virtually every step of the process, which would include approval of preliminary engineering, approval of all final design aspects, would be involved in approval of the bid process. They would have to concur in the recommendation that the City would make and whether to award a project or not award a project. They are involved in --
Excuse me for cutting in because I want to make sure I'm -- so they approve these various categories along the way. Do they do this after we've done all our due diligence, approvals, bids, 386 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 architectural design, and then they do come in and approve what we've done?
No, it sort of happens as it moves along. Again, the first think would be preliminary engineering, which actually the Feds themselves are involved in historic and environmental clearance. They do not delegate that to The state. But in terms of such as the conceptual alignment of a highway, for example, PennDOT would have to approve that.
All right. Let me stop you there. So when we do the alignment -- who actually does the preliminary alignment? Does the City?
The City does it. Sometimes we have a consultant working on a big project, sometimes we do it in-house.
So is the State involved in that process during your analysis to determine the out lines of the project, or do they wait until we do it and then they get involved, then they come in and approve it? 387 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258
Is there a reason why they can't be involved in your process, therefore, I would hope, shortening the process if they're involved in your first phase concurrently in every sense of the way, being at the meetings, participating analysis to determine that first phase? Is there a reason that they can't be in that process?
I would think that they say that they don't have the manpower to be involved in it on a day-to-day basis. We do have status meetings along the way that sometimes they attend and are kept up to speed on what's happening on a project so that they do know what's going on, especially if our PennDOT project manager is someone who gets very involved. You have some people who are very hands-on and some people who sort of --
So you're telling me that essentially -- I'm assuming because the State has State-wide responsibilities, they don't have the 388 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 person-power to be involved in that process along the way at every stage of the way?
That's right. A project that they were managing, they would have somebody that would be involved on a daily basis. But when they're just providing oversight, such as to us, they're just not staffed in order to provide that day-to-day oversight. And truthfully, we don't need them involved on a day-to-day basis.
But this is my concern, and I think you probably know where I'm going with this, is that what I see happening particularly in the Avenue of the Arts project, is that the City does an action, be it bid solicitation or whatever. Then it's sent to the State. And then the State does its due diligence. And State basically analyzing and ultimately approves what it is you have done, and that could take six weeks, two months. And what I'm saying, if they're involved concurrent with your analysis or your due diligence on a particular phase of the project, it would seem to me that that would 389 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 shorten the process because the State would be involved, they can sign off when you sign off and then we can move on to the next phase and then they can be involved in that phase as opposed to us doing what we do and then send this stuff to the State, then they have to take two months, three months to analyze it and they send it back. Then they say, "Well, you have to correct certain things. And then it comes back to you. Then you do two or three weeks to correct it. Then you send it back to the State. It would seem to me that if you're working on project jointly, concurrently, that we can eliminate the time it takes to get these things through system. If they're there and they know as you proceed on that process what will be acceptable, what needs to be corrected. And when you're finished your analysis, you know that that's going to pass mustard with the State because the State was involved in the process.
Councilman, I think if we could set up a process as you've described, 390 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 it would speed things up.
You agree with me that that makes sense? I'm a layperson
I agree that it makes sense. I think it's a hard sell because I just don't think they have the people to do it.
Well, when we have a project of significance both in terms of its impact on a particular neighborhood/corridor and has State funding involved such as Avenue of the Arts North, I would think that it would merit attention/person-power involved in the process along the way because I think that's an important enough project to, one, have the State employees to some level be participating in that project. I'm obviously not asking for every little road that we pave or every little road that we reconstruct, but Avenue of the Arts North, to me, is very significant; as significant as the Avenue of the Arts South. And when we have something like that, I'm wondering why can't we enter into a process 391 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 that we truly move this thing along on a concurrent basis. Is that simply just somebody saying hat it should be done? Because it sounds like to me mechanically it can be done.
First of all, Councilman, that was one of our biggest projects, so I agree with you, it is very significant. I'm willing to try to get PennDOT to participate in that kind of process on these big projects. But truthfully, I know what their answer is going to be. We might need some help from someone higher than I to that make that happen.
Well, I think somebody at the State level who has similar interests in moving these projects along who could have some clout.
I mean from the City side. When you say higher than you, you work for the City so I'm assuming you're talking about higher than you in the 392 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 Administration.
Well, it would have to be somebody who could have clout at the State level. And I'm not always sure who that would be, but certainly I think if a Councilperson made some phone calls or certainly a Managing Director or Mayor, I would think that would be listened to.
And I'm bringing up a specific project because we were involved in that, but I'm just looking at process, particularly when it's a project of significance. And you and I agree on that, that a process can be set up that would allow us to move this along in a way that makes sense. I'm assuming it would actually be less costly not only to us but also to the contractors who have to sit around and wait for the submission of additional information, that if it be the Commissioner or the Managing Director or the Mayor, that involvement of those individuals interacting with a high level official in PennDOT, and I would assume that the Mayor is going to be involved, the 393 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 Mayor would want the minimum the head of PennDOT and probably ask for the Governor to be in meeting too, that we need to move that along or at the minimum have that discussion. You're the veteran, you've been doing this and you've probably been told no 8 more often than not from the level of bureaucrats that you deal with, but if you're saying that we need to take it to another level, I think we should investigate that. Because that particular project is extremely frustrating to me, something that was funded -- and I'm sure to you.
It's frustrating to all of us. And we're not there now. As you know, we're trying to rebid that project, but there was court hearing just yesterday. We're going to get a ruling back in about a week, we hope. Who knows what will happen with that.
From my limited knowledge of the process, I would have thought that had the State been involved early on in the process, some of the decisions that were made on a local level may not have been made 394 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 if we had known that there were going to respond in a different way in terms of qualifications with certain contractors or disqualifications of certain contractors based on capacity, based on participation, then we could have cleaned that up a lot earlier on as opposed to finding ourselves here starting this all over again. You concur?
I'd like to think that we could do that, but in that particular case -- everyone probably is not aware of the specifics here, but this was an issue of pre-qualification of a contractor. The City did an initial pre-qualification. We pre-qualified 12 out of 13 potential bidders. We checked with PennDOT. They approved the 12. We bid the job. The apparent low bidder looked fine to us. We recommended award. We sent it to PennDOT, and PennDOT said they were not pre-qualified to do the amount of work that they were required to do. We disagreed, but they control the federal funds. So we're in a position now of having really no choice but to re-bid. We didn't agree with their 395 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 decision at that time. I don't agree with it now. But everybody sees things a little bit differently, so here we are.
It would seem that this would be a matter for the Managing Director. And we'd be happy to convey those concerns.
I want to go a little further than convey concerns. Can I ask you, whomever is appropriate to ask the Managing Director to look at our policy as it relates to PennDOT? You're saying that PennDOT deals with the federally funded project, so I guess we would be interacting solely with PennDOT to entertain working on a process that allows us to truly concurrently do our due diligence on these various projects, both shorten the time period and probably lessen the cost as we move along, particularly for the City people who you continue to have to deal with this project for the last 10 years. I'm sure there are a number of other things that you guys could be doing other than responding to PennDOT's many 396 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 concerns that were raised.
Councilman, we can certainly look at this. I will tell you that within the last six months, we've worked a process out with PennDOT whereby on lesser complex projects -- the Avenue of the Arts would not fit this category -- we are doing a trial basis, we have a list that has maybe 10 or 12 projects on it that are within this trial, and on these projects PennDOT is basically going to be out of process. They're going to delegate their oversight responsibility to us. We need to do kind of what they do, sort of have some internal checks and balances. And on these 10 or 12 projects, if things go well, then this process, this expedited process will be set in place. Now, we've just started. We've done maybe one or two projects under this trial. They are the more simple projects. We're starting out slowly, but this next year is going to be very critical to make sure that we perform well under this trial, because it is a 397 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 trial and they're going to valuate it afterwards. And clearly there are some people at PennDOT who are not happy with us doing that. It's sort of a turf battle there. But we're moving on this trial thing. It took us, I would say years to get this process 8 worked out, but as I said, we're moving. 9 We've done two projects, I think, under -- 10
You think it 11 will take 15 years to get the process worked 12 out? 13
That scares me. I shouldn't look forward to getting the policy in place that I asked for if you're telling me that on projects that are --
Well, theoretically there could be some quid pro quo if we're freeing up staff working on the smaller projects, at least there's a rationale for saying, "Could you then reallocate those staff 398 04/07/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040257, 040258 to work concurrently on the major projects?" At least on paper, it would seem that that would be a reasonable argument. But I also bow to Mr. Syrnick's experience in these matters.
Well, let me ask you this. And, Councilman Nutter, I know you have some questions. I'll be through in a minute. Let me ask you this. In the PennDOT world -- and I don't know how this works. I know in government, in our government, mid level bureaucracy, the players tend to be the same but traditionally in higher level position those people change with the change of administration. Has that happened at PennDOT? Are the same people in charge of PennDOT on an upper level that were in charge under prior administration? Are we dealing with new people?