m. - - - 041080 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, for nominal consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in an area generally located at the intersection of Wheatsheaf Lane and Sepviva Street for further conveyance at fair market value. 041082 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed for nominal consideration conveying fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 837-839 Montrose Street, with the buildings and improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. 041083 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land and located at 626-36 North Delaware Avenue, with the buildings and improvements thereon, fur further conveyance at fair market value. 2670 2 041084 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, for nominal consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in a rectangular area generally bounded by Ruth Street on the northwest, Clearfield Street on the northeast, Emerald Street on the southeast, and Orleans Street on the southwest, generally under and subject to the terms and conditions of the Philadelphia Industrial and Commercial Development Agreement between The City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. 041085 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. 050061 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 3300-02 North Front Street, with the buildings and improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. 050066 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 1826-34 South 10th Street, with the improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. 3 050105 - An Ordinance approving a Lease Agreement between Philadelphia Gas Works by Philadelphia Facilities Management Corporation, solely in its capacity as operator and manager of the City-owned Philadelphia Gas Works, and Greater Germantown Housing Development Corporation for certain premises located at 212-14 West Chelten Avenue. 050106 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into a Sublease Agreement to lease from the Philadelphia Municipal Authority portions of the building located at 701 Market Street, for use by the City and affiliated agencies as office space, under certain terms and conditions.
050132 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to acquire by condemnation or by purchase in lieu of condemnation a certain underground easement through 3111 West Allegheny Avenue, for sewer and drainage purposes, under certain terms and conditions. 041059 - Resolution authorizing City Council's Committee on Public Property and Public Works to hold public hearings on the development and implementation of public and private strategies for the renovation and use of the underutilized areas of City Hall. 050153 - Resolution authorizing City Council's Committee on Public Property and Public Works to hold public hearings on the status of land lines and other means to support the need of the City for data transmission, communication, and public safety and security; and, in furtherance of such hearing, authorizing the issuance of subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents to the full extent authorized under section 2-401 of the Home Rule Charter. 4 050183 - Resolution approving the City of Philadelphia Amended 9-1-1 Plan, and authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to submit the Amended 9-1-1 Plan to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency ("PEMA") for review and approval, as required by the Pennsylvania Public Safety Emergency Telephone Act. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO 5 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - - CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Good afternoon. The committee on Public Property and Public Works will now go into session. For the record, we have a quorum. To my right is Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, Council President Verna, Councilwoman Tasco and Councilman Franny Rizzo. Will the clerk please read the title of the first bill. COUNCIL CLERK: Bill Number 041080, An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, for nominal consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in an area generally located at the intersection of Wheatsheaf Lane and Sepviva Street for further conveyance at fair market value. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Anyone 6 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 to testify on this bill?
Good afternoon, Councilman, members of the committee. My name is Joan Schlotterbeck. I'm the Public Property Commissioner, and I'm here to support the bill and willing to take any questions from the committee. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Proceed.
I actually just said, unless you'd like me to read my testimony here, I'm here in support of this bill. And I didn't know whether you wanted to just ask questions or have me read through each one. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Do you have any written testimony? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Please proceed. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Okay. Joan Schlotterbeck, Public Property Commissioner. I'm here today to testify on Bill 41080, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Property to execute and 7 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development for nominal consideration a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with buildings and improvements thereon, situate in an area generally located at the intersection of Wheatsheaf Lane and Sepviva Street, for further conveyance at fair market value. This bill will enable the City to convey this property to PAID for sale to an adjacent developer at fair market value, with net proceeds being deposited into the General Fund. The former bed of Sepviva Street -- I'm not even sure I'm saying that right -- was purchased in fee by the City. The street was stricken in 1952. The purchase of this parcel will enable the developer to have an entrance to its property fronting on Wheatsheaf Lane. The Department of Public Property supports this measure, and accordingly I respectfully ask that City Council approve 8 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 this bill. I also ask that the rules be suspended so that the ordinance may be passed upon second reading at Council. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: You're welcome. Any questions from members of the committee?
Is this for a side yard, you know, the adjacent property? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I'll ask John to answer that. JOHN: This was a business I bought, a parcel of land at this site, and thought they had title to this small parcel adjacent to its business, and asked us to convey to the business.
Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Councilwoman 9 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Tasco. Any other questions by members of the committee on this particular bill? (No response.) COUNCIL CLERK: Will the clerk please read the title of the next bill. COUNCIL CLERK: Bill Number 041082, An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed for nominal consideration conveying fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 837-839 Montrose Street, with the buildings and improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Do you wish to testify on this bill? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Again, I'm Joan Schlotterbeck, Public Property Commissioner. And I'm here to testify in support of Bill 41082, an ordinance authorizing me as Commissioner to deliver to PAID a deed 10 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 conveying simple title to certain tracts of land located at 837 to 839 Montrose, with the buildings and improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. This bill will enable the City to convey this property to PAID for sale to a developer at fair market value, with net proceeds going to the General Fund. The property is the recreation site purchased in 1909 and formerly used as the Fonte Leon pool. The site is obsolete and not used and is part of the Recreation Department's right-sizing initiative. Public Property supports this measure. And therefore, I'd ask Council to approve the bill. And I would also ask that the rules be suspended so that the ordinance may be passed upon second reading by Council. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Council President.
This is one of the City's surplus properties? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes, as 11 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 part of the recreation right-sizing.
Fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: You're welcome. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah. Just for point of information, this site is located in my district. It's the former Fonte Leon pool, City-owned pool, which has not been operative for at least five or six years. Over many, many years the pool -- the condition of the pool caused some severe problems to adjacent properties. And at the request of the community, several years ago we closed the pool down. It's really no 17 longer functional as a pool. So, we agreed to let this go.
I'm assuming we have somebody of interest. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: There were actually two people who were interested. One gentleman because of his physical condition is no longer interested. He was actually thinking of buying it and building his home 12 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 on it. There's a business person on South 9th Street who has expressed an interest to take the building and expand its present operations, his business operation. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: I'm assuming you got it timely. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What? CHAIRMAN CLARKE: I'm assuming you got a timely appraisal on this particular parcel. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We have an appraisal, I think, on this one, right? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes, we do. And it was timely. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Very timely. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Councilwoman Tasco.
No. 22 CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Okay. All right. Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.) 13 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Any other questions by members of the committee on this particular bill? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: There being none, will the clerk please read the title of next bill. COUNCIL CLERK: Bill 041083, An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land and located at 626-36 North Delaware Avenue, with the buildings and improvements thereon, fur further conveyance at fair market value. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: For the record, the language in the title is referencing nominal consideration. That is the nominal consideration to PAID? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: From the City. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. 14 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 CHAIRMAN CLARKE: And subsequently PAID will convey for fair market value to the purchaser. The revenue associated with that purchase will then go back to the City's General Fund. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Okay. Thank you. Do you want to testify on this bill? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Joan Schlotterbeck. I'm Public Property Commissioner. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill 41083. This bill authorizes me as Commissioner to execute and deliver to PAID for nominal consideration a deed conveying fee simple title to certain tracts of City land located at 626 to 636 North Delaware Avenue with the buildings and improvements thereon for further conveyance at fair market value. This bill will enable the City to convey this property to PAID for the sale to the developer at fair market value, with net 15 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 proceeds being deposited into the General Fund. The property is the department's special events warehouse purchased in 1947. This site is underutilized, and the warehouse will be relocated to another City-owned facility. Public Property supports this measure. And accordingly, I respectfully ask that City Council approve this bill. I also ask that the rules be suspended so that the ordinance may be passed upon the second reading of Council. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. One question. This came up at the last hearing, as it relates to property conveyances by PAID. Upon the sale of the property, does the property then come back to City Council for disposal or does PAID simply enter into an agreement, sales agreement, and ultimate purchase? Does it subsequently come back to the Council, the District Council person for 16 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 conveyance? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: We actually had met with Council President, as she can tell you, and we discussed having a resolution accompanying these bills so that it would come back to the respective Council person for final review and approval. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Okay. I'm assuming that's not going to be a cumbersome process, as per the discussion at the prior hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Actually, the Law Department has sent me language. And I forwarded it to the Mayor's Office. And I'm just waiting for that approval at this point. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Okay. Because you know earlier we raised some concerns about not knowing what the end use of those properties could ultimately be, if there was a situation where PAID or P.I.D.C was not having conversations with the Council person which they normally do. But we were concerned that at some point that could 17 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 potentially happen, and the end use wouldn't be conducive to the community's use. Okay. All right. Councilwoman Tasco.
Has a buyer been identified for this site yet? JOHN: No. 9 COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: No, we do not. It's at Delaware and Spring Garden, is the location.
Councilman DiCicco. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Councilman DiCicco, there was a question about potential purchases -- purchaser of this particular property and whether or not we had any -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: None that I know of, not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Any other questions by members of the committee of these witnesses on this particular bill? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: There being none, the clerk will please read the title of the 18 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 next bill. COUNCIL CLERK: Bill Number 041084, an ordinance authorizing the commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia authority for industrial development for nominal consideration a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in a rectangular area generally bounded by Ruth Street on the northwest, Clearfield Street on the northeast, Emerald Street on the southeast and Orleans Street on the southwest, generally under and subject to the terms and conditions of the Philadelphia industrial and commercial development agreement between the City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Testimony on this bill. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. Joan Schlotterbeck, Commissioner of 19 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Department of Public Property. I'm here today to support the Bill Number 41084. This ordinance authorizes me as Commissioner to execute and deliver to PAID for nominal consideration a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of land, City-owned land, generally bounded by Ruth Street on northwest, Clearfield Street on the northeast, Emerald Street on the southeast and Orleans Street on southwest, with the buildings and improvements thereon for future conveyance at fair market value. This bill enables the City to convey this property to PAID for the sale to the Philadelphia School District at fair market value, with net proceeds being deposed into the General Fund. The property is the Elkhardt playground site purchased in 1947. This site is also known as 1930 East Elkhardt Street. The site will be used as the new Willard School for the Philadelphia School District. The department supports this measure. And accordingly, I respectfully ask 20 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 that City Council approve Bill Number 41084. I also ask that the rules be suspended so that the ordinance may be passed upon the second reading of Council. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Any questions by members of the Committee? (No response.). CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Anyone else to testify on this particular bill? (No response.)
Thank you. Good afternoon, Councilman Clarke and members of the City Council committee on Public Property. My name is Pat Henwood. I'm the Director of Capital Programs for the School District of Philadelphia. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill 041084. This bill is the first step in a process that will allow the School 21 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 District to acquire the Franklin/Elkhardt Recreational Center. Once acquired, the district will build a brand new state-of-the-art school to replace the existing Willard Elementary School. The existing Willard Elementary School, located at 2900 Emerald Street, is severely overcrowded. Constructed in 1907, during the era when students went home for lunch, the building is without ancillary rooms, such as gymnasiums, cafeteria or an auditorium. The school's principal and support staff use a converted classroom as their work space. The current library also consists of converted classrooms. Basement rooms that were used for coal and ash storage now house a small lunchroom and play areas for students. There are 775 students currently enrolled in grades kindergarten through four at Willard, exceeding the educational capacity of the building by 125. The 22 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 additional students are being served in portable trailers located in the schoolyard. The new Willard Elementary School will be a K to building and will satisfy 6 the district's K to 8 and to system 7 initiative. 8 The Willard replacement is a 9 critical lynch pin to moving all of the 10 schools in the Jones Middle School feeder 11 boundary including Willard Elementary to K to 12 8 schools. This cannot be done today because Willard does not have the space, size or facilities to become a K to 8 school, and the school yard is too small to support construction of an addition. We are very excited about the Willard School project. The tentative design for a new 13,000 square foot facility for 1100 Kindergarten through 8th grade students includes 39 state-of-the-art classrooms, 20 shared classrooms, including science labs, art studios, computer labs, language labs, multiple life skills support, technical 23 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 education classrooms, family life management classrooms, music suites and speech and hearing therapy classrooms. It also includes a cafetorium, an instructional media center, a gymnasium with basketball court, volleyball court and locker rooms, administrative offices including counseling and health suites, and building support facilities including storage, maintenance and mechanical spaces. The new building will be fully air conditioned and have state-of-the-art fire alarm and security systems, a fire protection system and computer network wiring systems, as well as indirect light systems and classrooms. The building will be organized around modified P-shaped configuration with a primary two-story classroom wing and a circulation wing that contains a lobby, a cafetorium and a gymnasium, all of which will be designed for after-hours use by the community. Finally, the building configuration 24 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 will organize the site into three distinct open areas: A formal lunch entry courtyard for visitors, including an enclosed kindergarten play area; a large school yard recreation area; and a designated parking area that will accommodate 90 cars. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak before the committee. I ask that you please support Bill 041084 and will be glad to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. What's the consideration for this conveyance? JOHN: The appraisal value? CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Yes. Is it fair market? JOHN: Fair market value. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: It didn't indicate that on the title. JOHN: It is on our bill, testimony. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All right. No 24 problem. Any questions by members of the 25 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 committee for these witnesses?
COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Not unless they have a question for me. ) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you very much. JOHN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Will the clerk please read title of the next bill. COUNCIL CLERK: Bill 041085, An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Joan Schlotterbeck, Commissioner of Department of Public Property. I am here to testify in support of Bill Number 41085. This bill authorizes me as Commissioner to execute and deliver to Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 PAID a deed conveying fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 1002 to 1010 Lemon Street, with the buildings and improvements thereon for further conveyance at fair market value. The bill will enable the City to convey this property to PAID for sale to a developer at fair market value, with net proceeds being deposited to the City's General Fund. The property is a recreation site purchased in 1968. The site is currently unstaffed, receives minimal use, and is part of the Recreation Department's right-sizing initiative. The department supports this measure. And accordingly, I respectfully ask that Council approve Bill Number 41085. I also ask that the rules be suspended so that the ordinance may be passed upon the second reading of Council. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Briefly, earlier in your testimony 27 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 we talked about a process being arranged by resolution that properties would be conveyed to the ultimate purchaser. How long do you anticipate that process to take place? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I actually don't have an answer, but I can find out as soon as I get back to my office today, get a call into Joyce Wilkerson, Chief of Staff. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Do you have a sense that any of these properties that have been discussed or that will be discussed will be able to be -- the deals will be able to be consummated during the course of this budget discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I would certainly hope so. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: What's the traditional time frame from the time we authorize the conveyance to PAID? I'm assuming that in some instances we already have interested parties. Like in this -- The reason I asked this question, in this particular situation, the Lemon Street, 28 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 I know that there's a substantial amount of interest by developers to build new construction. There's a couple of units going up as we speak. And I'm assuming that this could be sold as soon as the appraisal is completed.
All right. After it's transferred to PAID, assuming there isn't a long due diligence period set up by the developer or interested party, it shouldn't be very long to complete the transaction. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: In its totality, what do you anticipate, assuming the best case scenario, that all of these properties that we're conveying today will be sold at fair market value? What did you anticipate? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Time frame? CHAIRMAN CLARKE: That level of due diligence.
The average due diligence period? CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Well, I'm saying, 29 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 we all know and acknowledge that we have a budget concern which was why the City, working with Council members, are aggressively seeking to market surplus properties. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Right. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: And as we deliberate on this budget, I guess we're trying to get a sense as to whether or not we can anticipate any revenue generated as a result of the conveyance of deeds to be a part of this budget discussion.
Well, the appraisals we received to date on properties number about $22 million. And we're still waiting for a number. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: On this?
For all. On all the ones we've gotten information back so far. We're still waiting for information on other properties, but to date we've received $22 million worth of appraisals. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: That list includes what? All surplus properties or the 30 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 properties that we're conveying today?
No. It includes other properties in addition to these. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: How many properties in total?
(Nods head up and down.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Best case $22 million? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Best case scenario?
There are some large properties we haven't got appraisal information back. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: I'm sorry. Did you say including these or not including these? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Including these, yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of 31 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 information. If I may, Mr. Chairman, what is the cumulative value of the bills in front of us? What's the worth of these, assuming we get fair market value?
I have individual numbers. I don't have... I could... COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I think Franklin Field is about $750,000, if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Tom Dalpo is here from PIDC.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Good afternoon.
I'm Tom Dalpo with the Philadelphia Industrial Development Incorporation. The appraised value on the aggregate on the sites that are considered for the committee today is in the area of about $2.5 million total for those sites, if you add them all up. Some have some significant value and 32 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 some have some pretty limited value. When you average it out, it comes out for all of them all told $2.5 million. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, this is a small percentage of the $22 million.
Yes. So far. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, I'm assuming that the number of properties that you've indicated, between 30 and 40 total, that the other properties that are conveyed are either much larger or much more valuable. How do we get from $2 million to $22 million?
I would say there are two ways that you get to the $22 million. There are a handful of properties that are relatively high value. A couple of the sites that I think have not yet been brought to the committee are in Center City or in near Center City, where the real estate market has been exceedingly high in recent years. And I think the City would realize a very good value for those properties. In 33 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 some cases probably more than the aggregate value of these pieces here for a single parcel. There are some other large properties that would be attractive for developers or have revenue potential for developers as well, that I think would get you to that number. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you again. The recent transaction or the sale of the former morgue building at 13th and Wood, is that included in any of these numbers that either... COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes.
That was sold for 500. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Did that deal get consummated? I mean, I know it's all done. So, we received the $516,000? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: 512. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: $512,000. I'm sure. For $4,000, okay, give me a hard time. 34 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 I know. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I owe you. Yes, that's actually money in the bank, so to speak. We received that already. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right. Thank you.
That's included in the $2.5 million? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. Yes. No, no. That's included in the $20 million, the overall.
Oh, in the $20 million. I personally would be curious to know how much revenue we have generated as a result of the sale of the properties. They have -- For instance, the one that Councilman DiCicco just referred to, the old morgue, I don't think that's been included in the budget that we're considering, as far as revenues are concerned. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: No. It has. We have Public Property's budget 35 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 reflects a certain level --
I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Public Property's budget does reflect revenue being generated from the sales.
The $2.5 million that we're talking about today is also included? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I believe... Is it $10 mill?
(Nods head up and down.) COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I believe our budget reflects $10 million. Or if it's not in my budget, it's in Finance. We have a $10 million projection for this fiscal year. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: For asset sales? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: And the $22 million is what? Where is that?
That's the total 36 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 appraised value we've received to date on properties that we've asked for an appraisal for. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: So if we're aggressive and things move fast, we get more. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: But you're only budgeting $10 million? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Right. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: You're only projecting $10 million in your budget? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: But the best case scenario, there would be $22 million available.
No. It's $22 million received to date. We're still waiting for a number of appraisals. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: You said received to date. I'm not clear. You received the appraisals for $22 million?
Yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: And we 37 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 have others waiting. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: What is your $10 million dollar projection based on? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Actually, Councilman, when we first started this, we were very conservative. And within the last, I would say, six or eight weeks, more and more properties have been added to the list either by just our own knowledge and our own research within my department. We haven't really done detailed researches at this point. This is -- These are properties that are... either we have people coming to us with interest. We figured that they were worth selling because they're not used for any valuable purpose. And the market is commanding large dollars. So, what we're trying -- When we initially projected these numbers, we were very conservative because we know how everything takes time. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, how will we know if the best case scenario takes place, as it relates to what your original 38 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 estimation in your projected budget? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: How will I know? CHAIRMAN CLARKE: If you get $15 million, how do we know if that $5 million is now available in the General Fund? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Well, Finance would know that. And I guess they would route that money for other use. That wouldn't be something I would make a decision about. In other words, if I was -- my results yielded more funds than what I projected? Is that your question? CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. That money would be used for other purposes. That would not be a decision -- CHAIRMAN CLARKE: No. It wouldn't be a part of your budget. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: It would go into the General Fund. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: I understand that. But that would not be a part of your 39 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 projected budget. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: No. 4 CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Just asset sales. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. It would just mean that we received more revenue than we projected. And that's a good thing. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All right. Councilwoman Miller.
Hi. Good afternoon. Will this property in Bill Number 0061 be more of a residential or commercial use? What would be the use or what do you think would be the use? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Which? I'm sorry.
The one that we're talking about, 050061. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Didn't do that one.
Front Street. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: We haven't gotten there yet. 40 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05
I thought we were on that bill. I'm ahead? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. You're ahead by two.
I guess that's just wishful hoping. This is the one that's going to be used for the School District on Lemon Street? CHAIRMAN CLARKE: No. Lemon Street is a relatively small parcel. It's just north of Spring Garden. It will probably be used for residential construction.
I think it's just good for us to know, everybody on the committee. I am not familiar with where these locations are. So, it just helps me understand what you're targeting, whether it's in my district or not. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Oh. Okay.
Okay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you want me to explain? The pool location is on Montrose Street between 9th and 8th. Montrose is 41 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 between Christian and Carpenter, just on the Italian market. Just off the Italian market. Wheatsheaf Lane which was the first bill. Aramingo Avenue at Wheatsheaf Lane, going north, it would be on the left-hand side. It's... You can't even see this property from Aramingo Avenue. It's kind of set back. And when the original buyer who was seeking the additional piece of land purchased it, I think when it came in, Mr. Hersin was explaining that there was a -- they omitted a small portion of what should have been part of the original sale. Basically of no use to anybody but the owner of the 21-acre parcel that was bought a few years ago which is currently being used as a furniture distribution and assembling plant. Company was located in Councilman Mariano's district. Largest furniture wholesale distributors in the country. They have businesses in Boston and Chicago, and I think in Georgia, if I'm not mistaken. 42 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Considering moving out of the City at one time. I was able to convince him to stick around, and through a lot of incentives of P.I.D.C. and others, we were able to keep them here. And they've actually expanded their business. I think that is that. The pool... And what else did I have? Delaware Avenue. Again, that was something that the City came to me about, asked me if I would support the legislation. I mean, anything's possible to happen there. I don't know of any -- any particular interest in that site. It could be housing, it could be retail, commercial along Delaware Avenue. And then the next one is the Emerald Street property. That's Ruth. That's the one that was just explained the School District is interested in buying. It's a playground recreation facility. It's very, very under utilized, and made the decision that I think it's in 43 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 the best interests that we do the new school as -- and not keep the playground.
Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Councilwoman Tasco.
Who does the appraisals for the City? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: We have a list which we actually submitted as part of our testimony or if we haven't submitted our testimony response yet, we will be.
We have forwarded that response to the Finance Department who's coordinating the responses to City Council but we did list the appraisers that both us and PIDC have used in the past year. There are about eight to ten.
It's our policy to only use City based appraisers for projects in the City, so all the appraisers -- all the appraisers that we use are experienced appraisers of industrial or residential or commercial property. And they're all based 44 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 in the City of Philadelphia. And we have enough range that we have about to that we use on kind of a 5 rolling basis that will do work on these 6 properties. 7
So, how are 8 they -- How do you use them? They are each 9 given a turn to appraise a property or do you 10 use one more than the other? 11
We tend to balance it 12 based upon an overall kind of scale of the appraisals and each particular appraiser's expertise. Some are better -- Some have more experience with certain types of property. So we tend to try to even it out amongst the ones that we have. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Are these all commercial appraisers or are they both commercial and residential?
They are predominantly commercial and industrial. But the sites that we're looking at here in many cases are residential sites for development, as opposed 45 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 to a residential site for an individual purchase of a home or a property. So they all are commercial, even at residential values, the work that we get done is really done by commercial. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Commercial. Okay. The reason I ask that question is when you talk to the Redevelopment Authority about the time line associated with some of the condemnations, they insist that they're just an extreme limited number of appraisers, which is why it's taking so long for a number of our acquisitions, but you're using an entirely different list of appraisers.
No. We use some of the same appraisers. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Some of the appraisers?
Some. I don't have the complete RDA list, but I do know that some of the appraisers that we've used and we can consistently use do work for the Redevelopment Authority as well, some of which they do as residential work and some of 46 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 which they do as commercial work. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: By limiting our pool to City-based appraisers, which I conceptually support, are we to some degree limiting our ability to have the most competitive opportunities.
Potentially. But I think that the reality is, most appraisers tend to do it on a relatively localized basis. So, to the extent that the appraisers are very familiar with real estate values and the real estate sales process in Philadelphia, we found that firms that are based in the City of Philadelphia are most familiar with that. That's not to say that a firm based in the suburbs couldn't do that as well. There have been times when we have had very specialized appraisals from very specialized pieces of property where there wasn't anybody in the region that was particularly experienced with that, where we've gone outside of the City. 47 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 But typically, there's enough of a base of experience within appraisers in Philadelphia that we haven't had a problem where we felt as if we weren't able to get a good appraisal. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Okay. What's the selection criteria? Do we sign contracts with appraisers on an individual basis or is it per property or is it just do we contract with them to appraise a certain number of properties or...
We typically do it on a property-by-property basis, but given the volume of properties that we've been working with the Department of Public Property on, we've been packaging properties together to hopefully to get a better price, get a better unit rate from the appraisers, to get a quicker turnaround time, and to group properties that have some similarities together to get it in the hands of an appraiser who can have move forward with it as quickly as possible. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Okay. Thank you. 48 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Any other questions from members of the committee for these witnesses? ) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: There being none, thank you very much. Will the clerk please read the title of the next bill. COUNCIL CLERK: Bill Number 050061, An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 3300-02 North Front Street, with the buildings and improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: My name is Joan Schlotterbeck. I'm the Commissioner of Public Property. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill 050061. This ordinance authorizes me as the Commissioner to execute and deliver to PAID for nominal consideration a deed conveying 49 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 3300 to 3322 North Front Street, with buildings and improvements thereon for further conveyance at fair market value. This bill enables the City to convey this property to PAID for sale to a developer at fair market value, with the net proceeds being deposited into the City's General Fund. The property was formerly used by the 24th, 25th police district. The site was replaced a new facility at 3827 to 3837 Whittaker Avenue in 2004. The Department of Public Property supports this measure. And accordingly, I respectfully ask that City Council approve Bill Number 50061. I also ask that the rules be suspended so that the ordinance may be passed upon second reading of Council. And just by way of reference, this is Councilman Mariano's district, if you didn't know that. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. 50 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Any questions? ) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Anyone else to testify on this bill? ) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: There being none, will the clerk please read the title of the next bill. COUNCIL CLERK: Bill Number 050066, An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 1826-34 South 10th Street, with the improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Joan Schlotterbeck, Public Property Commissioner. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill 23 Number 50066. This ordinance authorizes me as Commissioner of Public Property to transfer a 51 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 certain parcel of land with buildings and improvements thereon, in the vicinity of 1826 to 1834 South 10th Street, City of Philadelphia to PAID, all under certain terms and conditions. This bill will enable the City to convey this property to PAID for sale to a developer at fair market value, with net proceeds being deposited into the General Fund. The property is the recreation site purchased in 1922 and formerly used as a swimming pool. The site is not being used at the present time and is part of the Recreation Department's right-sizing initiative. Public Property supports this measure. And accordingly, I respectfully ask that Council approve Bill Number 50066. I also ask that the rules be suspended so the ordinance may be passed upon the second reading at Council. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you.
Anyone else to testify on this bill? 52 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, just as a point of reference for the committee. As the Commissioner stated this is a -- formerly was a pool. It's been out of use probably ten years or longer. The pool has actually been filled in ten years or so ago. It sat there as vacant land for a number of years. A private developer bought a portion of the site. What is reflected in this bill is the front portion which fronts 10th Street. This site is adjacent to the St. Maria Goretti... Well, it's different now, isn't it? Newman-Goretti High School in South Philadelphia between Moore and Mifflin Street on 10th. There is an interested party, private developer, who purchased the rear end of this property for the purpose of developing housing at fair market rate, market rate housing. 53 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you, Councilman. Any questions by members of the committee on this particular bill? ) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: There being none, thank you. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Could you have forwarded to the Chair and this particular committee the appraisals for these bills that we hear today, if you have them, what the appraised values are and all prior appraisals? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: The actual appraisal or just the value? CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Appraisals. The values, yeah. Just like to know for the record what type of dollars. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Could I add on something before I leave? CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Certainly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Although there 54 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 is an interested party for this 10th Street parcel, my understanding is there will be a sale sign posted based on the appraisal, so it may not go to this interested party. It may go to the next highest bidder. But just as a point of reference, there was someone who was interested in buying it because he already owns the back end. And I think the number was around $300,000, but that doesn't mean that at the end of the day that that will be the final price.
Yes. We're issuing the RFP on that. So we will have a bidding process on this property because of the high interest in this site. So, we'll probably hope to get more than the appraised value. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah. I would expect a lot more activity. The only thing that may restrict that from happening is the fact that the interested party today does own 55 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 the back parcel. So, for someone to buy just the front piece, it may not be worth it, in terms of the return because they may not get as many houses on it as if they had both parcels. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Okay. Thank you. Will the clerk please read the title of the next bill. COUNCIL CLERK: Bill Number 050107, an ordinance approving a lease agreement between Philadelphia Gas Works by Philadelphia Facilities Management Corporation solely in its capacity as operator and manager of the City-owned Philadelphia Gas Works and Greater Germantown Housing Development corporation for certain premises located at 212 through 214 West Chelten Avenue. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Clerk, please re-read the title. COUNCIL CLARKE: Was it 050105?
You said 107. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Just read it 56 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 again. COUNCIL CLERK: Bill Number 050105, an ordinance approving a lease agreement between Philadelphia Gas Works by Philadelphia facilities management corporation solely in its capacity as operator and manager of the City-owned Philadelphia Gas Works and Greater Germantown Housing Development corporation for certain premises located at 212 through 214 West Chelten Avenue. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: We have a representative here from P.G.W. who will testify. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Please read your name for the record.
Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Randy Murphy. I'm the Vice President of Customer Affairs at the Philadelphia Gas Works. Good afternoon, Councilman Clarke and members of Council. I am here today to testify in support of this bill which permits 57 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 a lease agreement between P.G.W. and the Greater Germantown Housing Development Corporation or P.G.W.'s Customer Service Center located in Germantown. This lease agreement will enable P.G.W. to continue having a local customer service center to serve P.G.W. customers in the northwest area of the City. P.G.W. typically services about 28,000 customers a year at this office. Customers use this office to make bill 13 payments, enter into payment arrangements, register inquiries and complaints about their bills, and apply for P.G.W.'s low income customer assistance program and for the LIHEAP and crisis grants programs. This lease agreement is for 4,012 square feet of office space located at 212 West Chelten Avenue. P.G.W. originally leased this premises on July 29, 1993, from Chel-Wayne Associates. This lease agreement will give P.G.W. an additional two-year term, beginning as of August 1, 2004, and with the right to 58 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 renew on an annual basis. The lease agreement provides for a monthly rental payment of $5,140, increased from the rate of $4,626 per month. We have verified that this rental amount is comparable with others in the area. P.G.W. received P.F.M.C. board approval for the lease agreement on September 8, 2004, and at its meeting held on November 16, 2004, the Philadelphia Gas Commission also approved the lease agreement and has recommended its approval to Council. The Philadelphia Gas Commission order and resolution and transmittal letter from Chairwoman Tasco to Council President Verna are attached hereto as exhibit A. P.G.W. respectfully asks for your approval of this bill and for a suspension of the rules. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. And I also have with me today a member of P.G.W.'s legal department representative who can assist me in answering 59 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 questions if necessary. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Let me ask you about a facility that was closed. I know it has nothing to do with this particular location, but I have an opportunity to talk to you about the 9th Street site. Were you involved in that process that made the decision to close the 9th Street customer service location?
Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: What's been the impact on the closure of that site, as it relates to availability for local customers?
Well, when we did the evaluation of all the sites, that was, in fact, the least used site out of all of our customer service centers. Most of our customer service centers are located not that far apart. I mean, there's a site at 13th and Erie which is about ten minutes up the road; is accessible by public transportation. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Ten minutes riding? 60 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05
By subway or car, I'd say. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Where's the subway?
On Broad Street. Or by bus. Excuse me. I'm sorry. By bus. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, you catch the 3?
I don't know which exactly bus it would be. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: When you give me a time, that's assuming best case scenario on public transportation. It rarely happens.
Well, we actually did a study of how far all the service centers were apart and how accessible they were to the public and by transportation. It was important for us to still service our customers. We do open the 9th Street site for the LIPEAP crisis program in the winter. 61 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, what's the alternative site south of the 9th Street location?
South would be the Center City office. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, what's the western most?
Well, I would say, then, you would be going over into West Philadelphia or up into this office up into the Germantown office. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: And the eastern most?
I think you're just going up into the northeast into the Frankford site. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, you're talking about an area from West Philadelphia to Frankford, from Center City to Erie. People that live within that particular area, those will be the closest locations.
That's correct. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, when you talk about your ten-minute time frame that you 62 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 gave, that's from the 9th Street location. That's not from any of those other areas.
That's correct. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, when you did your evaluation, did you base it on the 9th Street location or did you base it on that targeted area?
Well, again, when we did the evaluation, we considered several factors. They included the number of customers served by the site, the type of traffic we had in the office, the number of low income applications that we received at the office. And basically, we came up with a matrix on all our sites. And this site and the site up in the far northeast were chosen to be closed down. Also, we looked at the cost to operate the sites. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Cost to operate the site? You didn't have a lease at that site, right?
No. We actually own that site, sir. 63 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So... But you're leasing this particular site.
We are leasing this particular site, that's correct. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: And I'm assuming that you took into play that you own the site, so there was no lease associated with the 9th Street site. And you're paying rent probably on all the other locations.
We rent three of the existing customer service centers, and we own three of the existing service centers. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Own three, rent three. So, what -- in terms of cost effectiveness, what determines the cost associated with the 9th Street site versus the other sites?
Well, we were under mandate by the Public Utility Commission to take a look at the operation of our customer service centers. They believe that it would be cost effective to shut down all of our sites. We reviewed the sites that we had in 64 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 place. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Say that again. You're talking kind of fast.
I'm sorry. We were asked to review the operation of all of our sites, potentially closing down all our sites by the Public Utility Commission and a study they had performed. And when we studied all the sites, we elected that we would shut down these two sites in order to be -- to bring our operation into a more cost effective mode. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: How did you determine that? What did you use? I mean, employees or...
Yeah. We had -- CHAIRMAN CLARKE: You clearly didn't use the cost associated with the use of the facility because the gas company owns the facility. So, what's the cost associated with the site?
We actually reduced our personnel who reported to the sites and operated in that department. 65 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 I believe we basically eliminated or 14 positions from all our customer service and our operations. And we pared down to our existing service levels today. So, it was actually -- CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, you eliminated customer service reps from that site. Did you relocate or you just eliminated the positions?
We actually eliminated 12 the positions in our customer service center 13 department. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: I'm still trying to understand how -- In terms of cost effectiveness, if you had eliminated the employees in any position, you would have decreased costs. I'm just trying to get a sense at that particular site.
This particular site was based upon the volume of customers coming into the site. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: It's more the volume, not the cost.
Right. Right. Had the 66 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 least number of customers coming to the site, the least number of low income activity in the site, which was a primary usage for our customer service centers. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: What were those numbers?
Offhand I don't have them here with me, but I could provide them to you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Could you get those numbers for us, please?
Have we done a follow-up to determine the impact on that community?
We have not done any follow-up. We basically did a lot of outreach, as far as notifying the community, that the site wouldn't be open. And then we did open the site for 67 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 the LIHEAP for the last two years with the LIHEAP and crisis program for a two-month period in February and March, in order to take inbound traffic to get LIHEAP and crisis applications. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Okay. How time sensitive is this particular lease arrangement?
When you say "time sensitive," can you be more specific? CHAIRMAN CLARKE: In terms of your getting the authorization to finalize this lease arrangement.
Well, unfortunately, this lease has a little bit of history to it. We've been attempting to negotiate this lease since January of '03. And we received the lease back from the realtors, landlord -- or from the realtor for the landlord in June of '04. So, effectively this lease is post-dated, and that is in effect as of September 1st of '04. Excuse me. Of August 1st of '04. Apologize. 68 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Okay. Councilwoman Miller.
Are people going to other locations if the offices are closed on a particular day? Are you finding that people will actually go somewhere else or they'll just wait and take care of their business the day that the gas company neighborhood office is open in their neighborhood?
What we have found over a period of time is that customers are now waiting to go into the offices in their neighborhood, albeit I'll say that someone who has had their gas shut off for nonpayment will typically go out and seek an office that is open the next day, if they're desiring to have their service restored.
Okay. But basically they're getting used to now the fact that the offices are only opened on a part-time basis?
Okay. All 69 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 right. Okay. Thank you.
Stand by just a minute, okay. (Pause.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Getting back to the 9th Street site, I'm assuming at the time when... I'm assuming -- I know at the time that you did the evaluation the population in that particular area was extremely low, based on a number of things. There had been a substantial amount of demolitions, relocations. But in the last three or four years there have been a substantial amount of new housing starts in that area. Richard Allen is back on line. Cambridge Development is back on line. A.P.M. has built two phases of for-sale housing. Ludlow is on the now the third phase of its development in that area. Assuming that population in that area will continue to increase dramatically over the next several years, would there be any thought to providing customer service in 70 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 proximity to that site or at that particular location, based on changes in population trends and our mission to service our public, our customers?
Well, I can let you know that, Councilman, we will be performing an additional study, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of all of our customer service center operations. The Public Utility Commission demands it and we will be complying with their effort. We'll take a look at it. And if there is a reason that would lead us to believe that it would be effective to have a customer service center in that area, we'll take that into consideration. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: How does that request get initiated? Does it get initiated by you guys or from the public? How would -- You know, if I'm not sitting here having this conversation with you right now, we wouldn't even be talking about this. How does that happen, given the population trends in that area? 71 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05
Well, again -- CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Is it citizens request it or how does that happen?
Well, I would think that it would have to maybe come through our board of directors, down through senior, management to make that request. But I can let you know that we are, in fact, going to do an additional study, as mandated by the Commission, on the operations -- of the Public Utility Commission, on the operation of our customer service centers. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Well, I mean, if you don't have a customer service center in that location, you won't be doing an analysis on that, right? You're talking about existing customer service center facilities. There's no longer -- no longer any customer service facility at that location, so you won't be doing an analysis on that, per the requirement of the Public Utilities Commission. 72 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 My question is about an opportunity to have a new customer service facility in that location. So, how do you determine that?
Well, once again, when we do look at the operation of all of our customer service centers, I don't think we're limiting ourselves or I know we're not going to be limiting ourselves just to the offices of operation. We're trying to determine methods and ways to become more cost effective. And I can't say I have all those ways at my disposal right now. But we have to do a full evaluation of our customer service centers and determine what the best ways to serve the public. If there would be a need, and we could demonstrate that need, well, then, again, maybe there would be that recommendation to put a customer service center back in operation at the 9th Street station. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So you give me the 73 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 same answer.
I just mixed it up a little bit. Well, let me just put it this way. I will actually take your request here today, and go back and talk to my senior managers about it, and see if there would be any reason they would want to go forward with that request, based upon your questioning here today. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: That's a little better answer.
Okay. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: At least tells me that you're hearing me.
I'm hearing you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: And that you're interested in entertaining my request. Thank you. Councilwoman Tasco.
Right. In evaluating the need for service, I mean, you're really looking at... The survey would be whether not to close additional offices, 74 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 right?
Yeah. That's one of our concerns about looking at our overall structure of our offices. Again, the Public Utility Commission doesn't view our operations the way we view our operations here in Philadelphia and how we serve our constituents and our customers at P.G.W. And again, I think it's incumbent upon P.G.W. to demonstrate the need for these offices.
That's correct. They don't see any other utilities in the State of Pennsylvania having customer service centers. I don't think they recognize the unique needs of our citizens here in Philadelphia.
And your analysis would include a review of all of the 75 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 new customers you have that... I guess, the targeted area because there are new houses. I'd be interested to know how many of them do use gas.
Point of information. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Councilman Rizzo.
P.E.C.O. energy has been pretty successful. They've closed everything, correct?
Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Any other questions for this witness? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: There being none --
I want to make a comment about that. P.E.C.O. and P.G.W. are not similar in the base customers that they serve, nor do you have some of the same 76 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 problems that P.G.W. -- does not have some of the same problems that P.G.W. may have. And certainly when they closed the Bustleton office -- you closed that office, right. You have a Frankford office and a Bustleton office.
Right. I mean, certainly your decline or lack of participation of those people in the northeast in the LIPEAP program is nonexistent, I mean, really nonexistent because you don't have an office there where people can go get service.
There are fewer customers using our -- signing up for our low income program in the northeast. And most of these customers now are using our Frankford office.
But you would say that the participation is not what you would like.
In the customer 77 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 assistance program?
No. In some areas it's definitely not what we would like it to be. We like to see an increase in the program.
Mm-hmm. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Any other questions of this witness? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you for your testimony.
Guess you want to know what that has to do with this lease, right?
Yeah. Right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: You're welcome. Clerk will please read the title of the next bill. COUNCIL CLERK: Bill Number 050106, 78 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into a Sublease Agreement to lease from the Philadelphia Municipal Authority portions of the building located at 701 Market Street, for use by the City and affiliated agencies as office space, under certain terms and conditions. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Please proceed. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: My name is Joan Schlotterbeck. I'm the Commissioner for the Department of Public Property. I'm here today representing Public Property and to testify in support of Bill 16 Number 50106, an ordinance authorizing me as Commissioner on behalf of the City to enter into a lease agreement to lease from PAID portions of -- I'm sorry -- Philadelphia Municipal Authority -- portions of buildings located at 701 Market Street in Philadelphia, under certain terms and conditions. This bill will permit the City to lease certain office space located at the Mellon Independence Center, for use as the 79 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 new location for the Office of Behavioral health, MH/MR. The Department of Public Property supports this measure. And accordingly, I respectfully ask that City Council approve Number 50106. I also ask that the rules be suspended so that the ordinance may be passed upon second reading at Council. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Councilwoman Tasco.
Is this additional space for C.B.H. or are they going to move their entire operation over there? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Yes.
Is this additional space for C.B.H.? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: No, no. 23 I'm sorry. This is just City of Philadelphia Behavioral Health. Health Department Behavioral Health. 80 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05
I know, but aren't they across the street? Are they moving their entire operation there or is this additional space? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: No. 7
No. This is the office space that was formally located at 15th and Chestnut. It's relocating from that building to 701 Market.
Isn't C.B.H. at 714 Market Street? COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: They may be. I'm not a hundred percent sure.
Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Any other questions by members of the committee? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: There being none, well, thank you. Will the clerk please read the title of the next bill. COUNCIL CLERK: Bill Number 050132, 81 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to acquire by condemnation or by purchase in lieu of condemnation a certain underground easement through 3111 West Allegheny Avenue, for sewer and drainage purposes, under certain terms and conditions. MR. McCLUSKEY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Good afternoon. MR. McCLUSKEY: My name is Paul McCluskey. I water work for the Water Department. Bill Number 050132 authorizes the Commissioner of Public Property on behalf of the Water Department to condemn a 50-feet-wide right-of-way through the property located at 3111 West Allegheny Avenue for the construction of the Dobson's Run storm water relief sewer. The Water Department proposes to proposed reconstruct the lower end of the Dobson's Run storm water relief sewer in the East Falls area of the City. 82 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Currently the industrial businesses in the area are experiencing severe flooding, due to surcharging of storm water sewer. The existing sewer is in the bed of former Ontario Street which has been retained because of drainage right-of-way. From Ontario Street it runs east and west between Scotts Lane and the C.S.X. Transportation Railroad. The existing sewer begins at the Schuylkill River. It travels eastward to Henry Avenue and beyond. Between 32nd and Ridge Avenue most of the sewer has warehouses and factory buildings built directly on top of it. In order to avoid condemning these businesses, we plan to redirect the drainage in a new sewer and a proposed right-of-way on a line with 32nd Street produced from Ontario Street southward to Willow Street, then continuing at 32nd Street from Willard to Allegheny Avenue. Then continuing the sewer in Allegheny Avenue from 32nd Street to Ridge 83 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Avenue, then continuing beneath the Laurel Hill Cemetery to Kelly Drive and onward to the Schuylkill River. The sewer will be constructed totally in total as not to disrupt the community or its properties. The 50 foot right-of-way required through 3111 West Allegheny Avenue on the line of 32nd Street produced from Willard to south of the C.S.X. Transportation Railroad. The right-of-way will cross the main employee's parking lot of Pep Boys. The existing surface elevation varies from 107 to 67 City datem. The right-of-way will begin at elevation 55 and extend downward to elevation zero. No disruption of property or its business will occur. I recommend that this bill be reported favorably out of committee, and also respectfully ask that the rules be suspended. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 84 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Mr. Chairman, I just want to put on the record that I have worked with Mr. McCluskey and his team on this particular matter, and I'm in full support of it. And I appreciate their hard work to quickly try to resolve the issues over in that community. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Any other questions by members of the committee on this particular bill? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: There being none, thank you, sir. MR. McCLUSKEY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Bill Number 041059 is being held at the request of the sponsor. Will the clerk please read the title of the next bill. COUNCIL CLERK: Bill Number 050183, Resolution approving the City of Philadelphia Amended 9-1-1 Plan, and authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of 85 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 the City of Philadelphia, to submit the Amended 9-1-1 Plan to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency ("PEMA") for review and approval, as required by the Pennsylvania Public Safety Emergency Telephone Act. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: I'm going to ask the Deputy Commissioner Joe James take the hearings from here. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Deputy, please read your name for the record.
Afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Joseph James. I'm the Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Public Property. I am appearing before the committee today to recommend adoption of Resolution 23 050183, which amends the City's current 9-1-1 plan, as required by the Pennsylvania Public Safety Emergency Telephone Act, Act 78. 86 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 The Act 78 requires the filing of a 9-1-1 plan every three years with Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency or P.E.M.A. The amended plan is the first plan filed by the City since the last amended plan was filed in 1999. The purpose of the amended plan is to document the costs associated with running of the City's 9-1-1 system, the technical capabilities of the existing system and future plans for improving the system. Once the City provides the information to P.E.M.A. in the form of the amended plan, a copy of the amended plan is forwarded by P.E.M.A. to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission which reviews the costs associated with the 9-1-1 system and determines if continued collection of the 9-1-1 surcharge rate is permissible. The amended 9-1-1 plan is different from the last amended 9-1-1 plan filed by the City in 1999 with several differences. The present plan provides more 87 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 information regarding technical aspects of the City's 9-1-1 system and provides descriptive information regarding the current and planned technical upgrades to be made to the system; number two, updates information regarding the telephony costs, radio system costs, labor costs, operational costs and capital costs; and three, the City's policy and regulations for the management of competitive local exchange carriers; and four, and detailed information to costs related to the City's implementation of the new 800 megahertz radio system. The amended 9-1-1 plan contains monetary figures for justification of the continued collection of the City's $1 per month per line surcharge rate. The Act 78 places a cap on the recovery of the costs to $1 of the cities of the first class, despite the fact that the City expends at least $3.30 per access line per month to provide 9-1-1 access to residents, business organizations and visitors seeking emergency services. 88 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 The funds collected are used to pay the salary and the operations costs of the city's 9-1-1 center and the capital cost to build the previously approved 800 megahertz radio system. In conclusion, the amended 9-1-1 plan as submitted is reflective of changes and modifications from the original plan and is the form acceptable to the department. I'm available for any questions you might have at this time. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Given the disparity in the costs associated with our operation of the system versus what we capture, per the state cap, is it the understanding of the City -- It's my understanding that the City is interested in having that cap lifted or altered to authorize the additional surcharge for 9-1-1.
Yes. It's been before the state many times. When any amendments to Act 78 have been proposed, the City has always attempted to try to get a better cost justification of the $1 surcharge and try to 89 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 bring it more in line to what the actual costs are for the cities of at least our size or we have demonstrated historically what the actual line rate subsidy ought to be. So far we have not been successful. However, one difference that has occurred recently when the passage of Act 56 which amended Act 78 established the wireless surcharge rate plan which allows us now to recover those costs for handling wireless calls that we seem to be becoming more and more prevalent, as opposed to the traditional wire line call, as more citizens are using, of course, wireless cell phones. I believe the Police Department has estimated that 30 percent of their calls, their call volume, is just wireless calls. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, we currently get no revenue from wireless calls?
Not at the present. Well, at the present time, now that the act has been passed, we are now able to seek a reimbursement from the state for the cost for us to provide wireless 9-1-1 service. That 90 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 was just passed about a year ago. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Year ago?
Yes. We just met with representatives of Pennsylvania Emergency Management, who is charged with implementing the wireless statewide plan. Now that the planning process has begun, we have submitted a wireless submission to the state as part of the application process which was due April 1st, which will allow to us recoup what they consider to be Phase I costs. That determination will be made by July 1st. By July 1st we will know what part of the wireless funds will be made available to the City to cover what we consider to be Phase I costs. And Phase I costs allows us to at least identify the phone number and maybe the tower location of the caller. The second part of it is a Phase II will allow to us actually identify within a certain amount of distance where the actual caller is when they placed the call. 91 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 The way the act was established, it allows both the municipalities and the wireless carriers to seek reimbursements for their wireless calls. However, the plan establishes that everyone must be at what they consider Phase I first. So, the cost for Phase I for the counties and the wireless carriers are paid first out of the fund before we get to Phase II, where we then pay for the cost for Phase II costs. After Phase II costs are recovered, then municipalities and the carriers can seek reimbursement for their operating costs. The plan that's been established is sunset in 2009. It's projected that it will take at least three to four years for everyone to be at Phase II. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: When you say everyone...
Wireless carriers, as well as all of the counties. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All of the other counties? 92 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05
Now, of the 67 counties that are in the Commonwealth, not all of them are even at basic E 9-1-1, let alone Phase I or Phase II, and they may not achieve that by 2009. So, there is some consideration in the future for trying to extend that Sunset so it doesn't end at 2009, to allow everyone to get to that particular Phase II threshold. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Okay. In earlier information provided to us, there was a... from fiscal 2000 through to 2003, I think the number was approximately $45 million in revenue generated from 9-1-1 calls. Based on that number, is the assumption that if you're based on Act 58's passage -- Is it 58 or 56?
56. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: 56, that with the 93 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 30 percent of calls that we currently get no 3 revenue from, we can essentially anticipate a 30 percent increase in revenue?
The way the wireless was established, the state receives all the monies, not the counties. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: And then we don't get any reimbursement?
What we get is reimbursed for our expense; but instead of getting the money first, the wireless money comes directly to the City. The way wireless is, all the money goes and is held by the state. We then submit invoices, and we submit amended 9-1-1 plans for those expenses. And then they tell us what they can fund, and they then send us a check for that money. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, our estimation is that we're essentially three, what, $3.30 per?
Yes. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Is that what we would submit? 94 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05
No. What we would submit -- We have to submit our actual expenses. So, what we would take is, that we plan in our amended 9-1-1 plan to do upgrades to certain parts of our 9-1-1 system. We would identify -- Let's say if it cost $5 million to upgrade the telephone systems in all of our 9-1-1 centers, we can submit 30 percent of that $5 million to the state to be funded from the wireless plan. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So we're really getting no surcharge.
No. No. But we have the ability, if we ever get to the point where we get to the operating costs, that we might be, since we're not getting all of our operating costs paid under the wire line plan, we would at least pick up 30 percent addition maybe funding from the wireless plan to pay some of the operating costs. So, it would give us closer to where we are. But I think at no point in time we are actually going to get to the point where we're actually covering dollar for dollar or 95 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 what it costs us and what we actually spend. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: What are we requesting? What's the number we're requesting for land lines?
Right now the land line -- CHAIRMAN CLARKE: We're asking for an alteration in the cap which is a dollar. What are we requesting?
Well, we've asked for them to consider what we actually have submitted which is $3, which I don't think they're going to consider. But that's what we've submitted. And we've submitted in every plan that we have. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, we've always gone with the $3.
It generally comes out about $3.75 or $3.30. It's within that ballpark range. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Are we locked into that request or is it essentially they approve $3.30, they approve the costs?
Mm-hmm. 96 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Or is that --
What they approve -- CHAIRMAN CLARKE: -- and we get $2? I mean --
No. What the state actually approves is our ability to collect -- to continue to collect a dollar surcharge. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Right.
That's all they approve, because the Act 78 is not amended any other way that you can approve any other amount. So, cities of the first class, you're capped at $1. They basically allow you to reauthorize to continue collection of that $1. They know what our cost is. We submitted it every time we submit our plan, but there has been no modification or changes to it. So what they're going to authorize is at least the ability to continue to collect $1. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Right. Okay. Councilman Rizzo. 97 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05
Just a quick follow-up. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Councilman Rizzo.
You're not suggesting that we're asking for more than $1 from the consumer.
What we're suggesting is that the cost for us and what it costs to process 9-1-1 is more than $1 that we currently collect from the consumers today.
But you're just asking the state to give you more money. You're not asking them to up the surcharge.
No. No. What we would like considered is, if you're going to consider what it actually costs us for 9-1-1, then you ought to up the surcharge to allow us to recover what it actually costs us. Now, that is probably why it's never been approved because no one is supportive of that kind of system where the surcharge -- the consumer covers the entire cost of the surcharge. So, we asked, we document, we show 98 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 you what our costs are. We said, if you were really trying to collect what it actually costs us, you would collect $3.
So, for the record, this administration is recommending that the surcharge be increased from $1 to what amount again? $3.30?
What we are recommending is a resolution to allow us to continue to collect the surcharge. And we would -- we would -- What we're recommending is that if the state ever reconsidered the scheme that they charge today for consumers to cover the surcharge, it would be more than $1. But our cost is $3.
-- there doesn't necessarily have to be a level playing field. There's a lot of revenue being generated in the rest of the counties throughout the state that aren't being used to support an 99 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 emergency 9-1-1 system.
The way the act works, each municipality submits a plan. They identify what that municipality's cost is for delivering 9-1-1. And then they are allowed to collect a surcharge based on their locale and their population. We're capped at $1 because we're a city of the first class. We're the only city of the first class in the Commonwealth. Other municipalities charge $.75, $.50. Some of them may get to $1.
My final question is, this dollar surcharge that Philadelphia businesses and residents pay is not a fee that will -- if not paid, will not -- will not result in a termination of telephone service. This is not a mandatory fee, is it?
I believe the way the act is written, it is a mandatory fee, that everyone is charged the same $1. Now, there are some consumers who refuse to pay the $1 surcharge. If they refuse to pay the $1 surcharge, we don't not 100 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 take their 9-1-1 calls. We don't treat them any differently than anyone else. We tell them what the act says. And it says that they have an obligation, if they're billed the $1 surcharge, what the purpose of it is for, and that they should be pay it.
An obligation is different than a requirement. The law is the law. I hate to ask --
I believe the phone company won't turn anybody off if they don't pay.
Nobody's going to lose their service, and we're going to continue to take their 9-1-1 calls, but they are not contributing to the 9-1-1 surcharge.
I understand. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Assuming, which we probably feel is not going to happen, assuming that the state authorized or basically lifted the cap and incorporated a 101 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 $3.30 cap for cities of the first class, would you then be required to come back to Council to actually set that cost?
Yes. I believe that the state gives us the authorization to allow us to collect. I think we still as -- We would have to amend our plan and submit the amended plan to you to say that now we're collecting $3.30. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: So, if you decided that although you got state authorization to lift the cap, we don't feel comfortable with $3.30 -- we feel comfortable with $1.50 -- then City Council in the passage of the amended plan would have the ability to do that.
I believe that City Council's part of the process by which -- CHAIRMAN CLARKE: When you say you believe, that leaves you some wiggle room.
City Council is part of the authorization process for the 9-1-1 plan. So if City Council disagreed with the administration's position that we want to 102 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 submit a plan for a $3 surcharge, and City Council felt that there would be a $1.50 surcharge, I don't think we could submit our plan without your approval. So -- CHAIRMAN CLARKE: But you're submitting a plan now based on --
We're submitting our plan based on the $1 and what we demonstrated our costs of what we submitted. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Right. But what I'm trying to understand, you're submitting a plan now.
Yes. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: First for reauthorization. And additionally you're asking for an increase or recommending your ability to increase that cap.
No. Let me restate what we are saying. We're submitting an amended 9-1-1 plan to reauthorize the $1 surcharge. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Right.
The purpose of telling you the $3.30 is not a recommendation that we ought to submit a $3.30 recommendation. 103 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 What we're saying is so people understand what it actually costs us, we're documenting and we're letting you know in our testimony that it actually costs us more than what we're allowed to collect. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: To support your argument, at a minimum you should get the $1.
Right. So that we should at least be able to collect the $1. It does cost us more. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Okay.
That means the operating budgets are actually absorbing the additional cost, you know. In fairness to everyone, so they can understand, the magnitude of it, it's not like we're collecting $1 and it costs us $.25. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Just wanted to clarify that. Councilwoman Tasco.
I forgot now where I was going to... The $3.30 per access line per month, is that the cost of staffing 104 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 personnel and equipment and all of that? That's what you calculate as your cost.
Yes. We take all of our operating costs from all of our departments and their budgets and salaries, and of course when they get increases in, you know, wages, we add all that up with overtime costs. That's how we calculate.
What is the responsibility of the City to provide a 9-1-1 call system?
Well, as part of the City's responsibility for public safety and welfare of the citizens, it's our responsibility, through the state act, that we have to enable three digit dialings for citizens to be able to reach the 9-1-1 center so that they can place their emergency calls 105 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 and we can be able to respond to those emergency calls. And that gives the citizens and visitors to the City a uniform manner by which they can expect to be able to access 9-1-1 calling which they can call from pay phones and they can call just about from anywhere at no cost to them, so that no 10 matter where they are they will always get the same level -- minimal level of service to be able to reach the Police Department and Fire Department to report an emergency.
Could you please provide to the Chair... Could you break out how you get the $3.30? Because I'm thinking that this new 800 trunking radio system which we're going to be talking about in the next few minutes has significantly inflated the operating costs to bring it to $3.30, because you indicate that the capital cost of the system's in that figure.
We can certainly provide 106 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 to the Chair how we calculated the $3 rate and explain how we calculated it and how we come to that figure. I'm not sure if it's just the radio system that brought us to that number. I think there's other costs that were --
I mean, triple plus, there's obviously something cooking here.
Well, in the past and I think in our 1999 plan we documented it was actually $3.75. So, it's actually a little less than what it was in 1999.
But that's when the radio system was also being considered in 1999.
Right. And I think that's how we calculated -- when you do the calculations, back in 1999 where we had the $15 million in the bank of money to be able to fund it, we didn't have to --
Let me ask you a question while the Chair is coming back. Some time ago we put in a resolution 9 about the 3-1-1. I know this isn't it, but what are your thoughts about that as another -- to keep the 9-1-1 lines open, 3-1-1 for non-emergency?
I think 3-1-1 is an effective strategy that they use in other jurisdictions to able to get to citizens and visitors and understand the difference between what's urgent and what's an emergency, and also to understand that they can access City services the same -- in the same manner with dialing three digits and be able to do that in a by 7 manner, not 22 having to call a 9-1-1 because they feel 23 that's the only place that's open in the City 24 24 hours a day, you know, 365 days. So the 3-1-1 has been used. It 108 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 started out in some jurisdictions, Baltimore, I believe, in the early '80s as a means to offload 9-1-1 calls. And they used a lot of uniform officers who are not able to work out in the field to be able to take those calls. I think in Philadelphia we've seen the kind of migration, as just a strategy for reducing 9-1-1 calls, as more as a holistic way of how do we deal with citizens in providing them a good quality customer service and is something that we have been working on. We had it as part of our operating budget testimony that we continue to work in that vein. And hopefully some day we'll be able to implement the 3-1-1 here in Philadelphia. But it is a very effective tool to at least get people's mindsets, because they're used to, you know, 9-1-1 is for everything. And that means that somebody else is not getting service because they're calling about things that are really just general City services. 109 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05
Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Are there ever any opportunities when there's an overlap on 9-1-1 calls? A person just outside of the City of Philadelphia makes a 9-1-1 call and the response comes from the City's response team or vice versa? How does that work?
For wire line customers, it's driven by your phone number, that drives you to the particular public safety answering point that actually takes your call. And in most cases that's pretty well 99 percent reliable, that if you call from Philadelphia you're going to get the Philadelphia 9-1-1 system. And if you call from, you know, Cheltenham or Jenkintown or borders around us, you're going to go to Montgomery County, you're going to go to the right county 9-1-1 110 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 center. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: The right county.
Right. I think what the issue has been in the wireless caller, the wireless caller, depending on where they call, they may be on, let's say, Cheltenham Avenue that borders the city and dial 9-1-1 and end up in Cheltenham township, as opposed to they were really calling about an incident in Philadelphia, because the tower that actually took the transmission was on the opposite side of the line. So, by that, that land line then hit the ground and sent it to Cheltenham. Just like some people driving on I-95 or on the Ben Franklin Bridge and may dial 9-1-1, and may end up in Camden; may end up in Philadelphia. Part of what we're trying to do with the wireless 9-1-1 initiative, when we get to that, we'll be able to make that more reliable, and make that so that when they're calling we can at least know where they're calling from, depending on where their 111 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 incident is, and find out where they are, and be able to know whether it should be a Camden issue or a Philadelphia issue or Montgomery County or Bucks issue. And the statewide plan is, the idea is to incorporate that so if police are in pursuit of someone who is driving through a township, and they're on a wireless phone, we'll be able to track them and be able to consistently handle that call from county to county. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Okay. Thank you.
Can I add something to that? CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Absolutely.
I have to compliment Montgomery County. I had an incident exactly like you described. I received Montgomery County radio when I was in the northwest. And they were so courteous, and I hope we are in our police radio. They immediately transferred the call when I told them that I needed 9-1-1 for Philadelphia. 112 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 They immediately transferred the call to Philadelphia police radio. So, I would hope that we provide such a similar service in the event they hit a cell site that's located within the County of Philadelphia.
Let me ask one other question. The funds generated from the 9-1-1 surcharge go into the General Fund?
No. They go into a special 9-1-1 account, as mandated by the state act, so they don't get commingled with the General Fund dollars. They go into a 9-1-1 grants fund account, and then that money is divided between capital costs and operating costs.
Well, it covers the Police and Fire Department for emergency 113 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 services, yes.
Yes. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Any other questions of this witness. (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. James.
Sorry. A. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Why am I not surprised? Thank you, Mr. James. ) 114 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on April 4, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. ) 115 Pub. Property/Pub. m. - - - 041080 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, for nominal consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in an area generally located at the intersection of Wheatsheaf Lane and Sepviva Street for further conveyance at fair market value. 041082 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed for nominal consideration conveying fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 837-839 Montrose Street, with the buildings and improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. 041083 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land and located at 626-36 North Delaware Avenue, with the buildings and improvements thereon, fur further conveyance at fair market value. 2670 116 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 041084 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, for nominal consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in a rectangular area generally bounded by Ruth Street on the northwest, Clearfield Street on the northeast, Emerald Street on the southeast, and Orleans Street on the southwest, generally under and subject to the terms and conditions of the Philadelphia Industrial and Commercial Development Agreement between The City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. 041085 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. 050061 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 3300-02 North Front Street, with the buildings and improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. 050066 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 1826-34 South 10th Street, with the improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. 117 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 050105 - An Ordinance approving a Lease Agreement between Philadelphia Gas Works by Philadelphia Facilities Management Corporation, solely in its capacity as operator and manager of the City-owned Philadelphia Gas Works, and Greater Germantown Housing Development Corporation for certain premises located at 212-14 West Chelten Avenue.
050106 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into a Sublease Agreement to lease from the Philadelphia Municipal Authority portions of the building located at 701 Market Street, for use by the City and affiliated agencies as office space, under certain terms and conditions. 050132 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to acquire by condemnation or by purchase in lieu of condemnation a certain underground easement through 3111 West Allegheny Avenue, for sewer and drainage purposes, under certain terms and conditions. 041059 - Resolution authorizing City Council's Committee on Public Property and Public Works to hold public hearings on the development and implementation of public and private strategies for the renovation and use of the underutilized areas of City Hall. 050153 - Resolution authorizing City Council's Committee on Public Property and Public Works to hold public hearings on the status of land lines and other means to support the need of the City for data transmission, communication, and public safety and security; and, in furtherance of such hearing, authorizing the issuance of subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents to the full extent authorized under section 2-401 of the Home Rule Charter. 118 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 050183 - Resolution approving the City of Philadelphia Amended 9-1-1 Plan, and authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to submit the Amended 9-1-1 Plan to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency ("PEMA") for review and approval, as required by the Pennsylvania Public Safety Emergency Telephone Act. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO 119 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - - CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All right. What we're going to do now, we're going to go into the public meeting and vote the ordinances out of committee that are on the calendar, and then go back into our public hearing and talk in hear Resolution Number 050153. Okay. We will now go into the public meeting. I would ask Councilwoman Miller to make the motion on Bill Number 040180.
I move that Bill Number 040180 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation; and furthermore, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
Second. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All in favor? (Chorus of "ayes.") CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All opposed? (No response.) 120 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Bill Number 041080 is reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; rules suspension, allowing first reading at the next session of Council. Councilwoman Miller.
I move that Bill Number 041082 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation; and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
Second. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: There's a motion that Bill Number 041082 be reported out of committee. All in favor? (Chorus of "ayes.") CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Let the record reflect that Bill Number 041082 will be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; rule suspension so as to allow first reading next session of Council. 121 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Councilwoman Miller.
I move that 041083 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation; and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All in favor? (Chorus of "ayes.") CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Bill Number 041083 will be reported out of committee with favorable recommendation; request for rules suspension to allow first reading next at the next session of Council. Councilwoman Miller.
I move that Bill Number 041084 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation; and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. 122 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All in favor? (Chorus of "ayes.") CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Bill Number 041084 is reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; with rule suspension as to allow first reading at our next session of Council. Councilwoman Miller.
I move that Bill Number 041085 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation; and further recommend that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
Second. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All approved? (Chorus of "ayes.") CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Bill Number 041085 123 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 will be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a rule suspension to allow first reading at the next session of Council. Councilwoman Miller.
Okay. I move that Bill Number 050061 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation; and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council.
Second. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All in favor? (Chorus of "ayes.") CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Bill Number 050061 will be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; with rule suspension to allow first reading at our next session of Council. Councilwoman Miller.
I move that Bill Number 050066 be reported out of this 124 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 committee with a favorable recommendation; and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
Second. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All in favor? (Chorus of "ayes.") CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Bill Number 050066 is reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; with rules suspension as to allow first reading at the next session of Council. Councilwoman Miller.
I move that 050105 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation; and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
Second. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Those approved? (Chorus of "ayes.") CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Those opposed? 125 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Bill Number 050105 is reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; with rules suspension as to allow first reading at the next session of Council. Councilwoman Miller.
I move that Bill Number 050106 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation; and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
Ayes have it. Bill Number 050106 is reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; with rules suspension as to allow first reading at our next session of Council. 126 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Councilwoman Miller.
I move that Bill Number 050132 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation; and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next question.
Second. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Those approved? (Chorus of "ayes.") CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Bill Number 050132 is reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; with rules suspension so as to allow first reading at the next session of Council. Bill Number 041059 is being held at the request of the sponsor. Councilwoman Miller.
I move that Bill Number 050183 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation; and further move that the rules of Council be 127 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session.
We don't need a rule suspension. That's a resolution. I just move that Bill Number 050183 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation.
Second. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Those approved? (Chorus of "ayes.") CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Resolution 050153 is reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation.
83. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: I'm sorry. Let the record reflect 83. I'm sorry. ) 128 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public meeting of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on April 4, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. ) 129 Pub. Property/Pub. m. - - - 041080 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, for nominal consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in an area generally located at the intersection of Wheatsheaf Lane and Sepviva Street for further conveyance at fair market value. 041082 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed for nominal consideration conveying fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 837-839 Montrose Street, with the buildings and improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. 041083 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land and located at 626-36 North Delaware Avenue, with the buildings and improvements thereon, fur further conveyance at fair market value. 2670 130 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 041084 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, for nominal consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate in a rectangular area generally bounded by Ruth Street on the northwest, Clearfield Street on the northeast, Emerald Street on the southeast, and Orleans Street on the southwest, generally under and subject to the terms and conditions of the Philadelphia Industrial and Commercial Development Agreement between The City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. 041085 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. 050061 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 3300-02 North Front Street, with the buildings and improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. 050066 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title to certain tracts of City-owned land located at 1826-34 South 10th Street, with the improvements thereon, for further conveyance at fair market value. 131 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 050105 - An Ordinance approving a Lease Agreement between Philadelphia Gas Works by Philadelphia Facilities Management Corporation, solely in its capacity as operator and manager of the City-owned Philadelphia Gas Works, and Greater Germantown Housing Development Corporation for certain premises located at 212-14 West Chelten Avenue.
050106 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into a Sublease Agreement to lease from the Philadelphia Municipal Authority portions of the building located at 701 Market Street, for use by the City and affiliated agencies as office space, under certain terms and conditions. 050132 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to acquire by condemnation or by purchase in lieu of condemnation a certain underground easement through 3111 West Allegheny Avenue, for sewer and drainage purposes, under certain terms and conditions. 041059 - Resolution authorizing City Council's Committee on Public Property and Public Works to hold public hearings on the development and implementation of public and private strategies for the renovation and use of the underutilized areas of City Hall. 050153 - Resolution authorizing City Council's Committee on Public Property and Public Works to hold public hearings on the status of land lines and other means to support the need of the City for data transmission, communication, and public safety and security; and, in furtherance of such hearing, authorizing the issuance of subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents to the full extent authorized under section 2-401 of the Home Rule Charter. 132 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 050183 - Resolution approving the City of Philadelphia Amended 9-1-1 Plan, and authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to submit the Amended 9-1-1 Plan to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency ("PEMA") for review and approval, as required by the Pennsylvania Public Safety Emergency Telephone Act. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO 133 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - - CHAIRMAN CLARKE: This concludes the public meeting. We will now go back into the public hearing. Will the clerk please read the title of the resolution. COUNCIL CLERK: Resolution 050153, a resolution authorizing City Council's committee on Public Property and Public Works to hold public hearings on the status of land lines and other means to support the need of the City for data transmission, communication and public safety and security; and in furtherance of such hearing, authorizing the issuance of subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, to the full extent authorized under section 2-401 of the Home Rule Charter. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Councilman Rizzo, would you like to make an opening statement?
Thank you. 134 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 The first people that we're going to call to the table is Joe James and Frank Punzo of the City Department of Public Property's Communication Division. While they're doing that, I want to thank everyone attending today and watching this process that you watched today here during the Public Property committee. I'd like to start off by again thanking representatives from Motorola that are here today, even though they won't be testifying, to observe and listen to what is said here today. The reason I've asked Commissioner James and Mr. Punzo to come to the table is that I would like them to outline... The reason we've asked -- And I appreciate the fact that Verizon has come today to report out on some of the issues that have affected. For the record, Motorola's name is on the system but there are lots of technology that support it and keep the system in the up mode, the way it should be. So when we discuss Motorola, we need 135 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 to be clear that not every issue is the responsibility of the Motorola Company. And we have had -- And I'll use a number, and I think we've agreed -- that we've had nine incidents that have been significant and have caused some disruption to the system. And whether the number be three or four, we have had various incidents that have been... have... I don't want to use the word blame, but we've identified the fact that Verizon Communications has had some involvement in what created the difficulties for the 800 megahertz radio system. So, what I would like to do today is ask Commissioner James or Mr. Punzo to identify the various issues that have occurred, and then for the record have Verizon report out what they've done to improve our communications. And when I say "communications," I mean just a dialogue between your department, the communications department of Public Property and their company. So, if you could just take us 136 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 briefly through the scenarios that have affected the system and have pretty much eliminated Motorola as the responsible party for the down or whatever going into the backup mode of our system. Mr. James. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Please read your name into the record. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Sure. Again, my name is Joseph James. I'm Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Public Property. With me is Frank Punzo, Communications Superintendent in the Communications Division for the Department of Public Property. Mr. Punzo speaks specifically to the Councilman's last point about the incidents in question which bring us to today. I'd just like to make a brief opening statement in general that the 800 megahertz system, since the last hearing we've had, Councilman, was in February, continues to operate and perform to spec and 137 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 we believe performing in a way that we're very comfortable that the problems that we experienced last summer are behind us, and that we have worked closely together with both Motorola and Verizon to put together the right kind of procedures and protocols to be able to quickly identify issues as they may come up, determine who is the responsible agency to correct them, and then to implement a resolution as quickly as possible. And as you well understand, when we built the system back in 1999 when we started, our original design was to have as much redundancy in the system as possible because a large communications system with this radio system is going to have issues from time to time. It's a very complex system. F. world, as well as it's operating in a traditional land line world which is part of the issues that we're going to talk about today. And there's a number of complexities 138 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 to that which from time to time may cause the system not to perform at its primary level.
And that's why we've built those redundant levels into the system, so that the public safety folks who are using the system, that their lifeline is always going to be there. It's always going to be operating. It may not be operating in the first preference but it will be operating in such a way that their life will not be in jeopardy. I think the other point we wanted to make is that over this time it's been a lesson learned on how to put together the right kind of procedures because I think anything of this size, no one has a lot of first-hand experience. We certainly have not implemented one of these systems before. So, there was a lot of growing that had to occur on all -- I think on all parties involved. But to get you to your final point, Councilman, there are three parties that are really at the primary heart of maintaining this radio system: The Department of Public 139 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Property, Motorola and Verizon. And I think you'll hear a commitment, and you've heard the commitment from Motorola. You'll continue to hear commitment from The Department of Public Property and the administration that we're working very hard every day to make sure the system is operating as it should. And I think you'll hear comments today from Verizon who can speak to their particular role that they have to play. I'd like Mr. Punzo to take us the through the four incidents that are directly related to Verizon's activity in this project. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Are there representatives from all the aforementioned entities today? COMMISSIONER JAMES: Yes. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Verizon, Motorola and the City?
Yes. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: All right. Thank you. Please proceed. 140 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05
Hi. My name is Frank Punzo, as identified, Communications Superintendent for the City of Philadelphia's Department of Public Property communications. The four incidents that Councilman Rizzo referenced occurred throughout 2004 and one incident in 2005. The dates that Verizon will be discussing are July 20, 2004; November 14, 2004; December 17, 2004; and most recently February 23, 2005. Each one of these incidents was attributable to, you know, failures or systems that were impacted on the Verizon side that did have impact on the radio system. COMMISSIONER JAMES: One other comment for Councilman. I do have that answer to your previous discussion on the 9-1-1 is -3 of the 9-1-1 plan, but I will make a copy and give it to you directly.
The amount of money? COMMISSIONER JAMES: Yeah. How we 141 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 calculated it.
Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: I'm assuming there's at least one Council member on this committee that is interested in some questions.
Well, no. I'm pretty -- I'm satisfied with the fact that with the July 20th, November 14th, December 17th and February 23rd. I won't -- Unless you want to, I understood with of these dates there was a little bit of back and forth between Verizon and Motorola on who was at the end responsible. So, I guess I'll just wait for Verizon to respond to that particular event because it's still not clear to me whether we had a Motorola event or a Verizon event or a combination of both. I don't know. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Okay.
So, I'll let Verizon do that. Thank you, Commissioners and thank you, Mr. Punzo. I think we're ready for 142 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Verizon. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Any other questions from members of the committee on these witnesses? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: There being none, thank you, gentlemen, and please hang around. COMMISSIONER JAMES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Anyone else to testify on this particular bill?
Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Karen Maguire. My business address is 1095 Avenue of Americas, 36th Floor, New York, New York 10036. I am the Vice President of Customer Service for the Enterprise Service Group in Verizon. I am responsible for providing customer service to over 5,000 large business and institutional customers on the east coast, including the City of Philadelphia. 143 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 My team's responsibilities include service management, project management, service ordering, provisioning and maintenance. I have over years experience 6 in Verizon. I assumed my current 7 responsibilities in December 2003. 8 Prior to my current position I was 9 Executive Director of Telecom Process 10 Assurance, responsible for strategy, 11 operations excellence, metrics and resource 12 plans. 13 Prior to that I was Executive 14 Director of Wholesale Customer 15 Infrastructure, responsible for providing co-location, SONET, switch services to wholesale customers across the country. Prior to that I held several jobs in customer service and network planning. I have been asked to appear here to address three specific incidents which occurred last year when the backup police radio system had to be brought on line because the Verizon infrastructure supporting the City of Philadelphia's Police 144 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 Department's 800 megahertz digital radio system experienced problems that affected the operation of the system. This radio system itself, as you know, is provided to the City by Motorola. Verizon provides the high capacity and fiberoptic telecommunication services to the City that support the radio system. My testimony today will address the three specific service incidents which occurred in 2004. In addition, I will provide details regarding a recent service incident affecting the network that occurred on February 23, 2005. I will also review the pro-active steps Verizon has taken in conjunction with Motorola and the City of Philadelphia, that we have already taken and will continue to take to significantly reduce and hopefully eliminate the likelihood of similar incidents, as well as minimize the impact of any 800 megahertz system failures that may occur in the future. To set the stage for explaining 145 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 these four incidents, first let me provide you with a very high level description of the system's network design and configuration. As I mentioned earlier, the Motorola equipment utilized in the City's 800 megahertz system is connected throughout the City via Verizon high capacity circuits. These circuits commonly referred to as T1s, feed off fiber based technology backbone networks known as SONET rings. This SONET fiber backbone is engineered in ring configurations in order to provide survivability against service interruptions in the event of a fiber cut or other types of impediment. So, if a cut or problem occurs which prevents traffic routing over one direction of the ring, the system is designed to automatically reroute the traffic in the other direction so that the transmission of communications is not interrupted. In addition, the equipment incorporated in SONET technology is also manufactured to guard against service 146 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 interruptions which might result from a transmission failure of one location or node on a ring. Therefore, if one node goes down, the system has backup functions built in which protect the overall system's transmission capability. The network architecture and equipment designed for the connectivity of the City's 800 megahertz radio system is comprised of two SONET rings and 86 T1s. Verizon has deployed this same SONET technology for many of today's Fortune 1000 networks with great success and proven operational reliability.
The SONET fiber technology used in the 800 megahertz system was originally put in place by Verizon to provide data connectivity to hundreds of City of Philadelphia sites and has been in operation for many years, with enhancements made as technology has evolved. The City's fiber infrastructure was expanded to incorporate the T1 circuit 147 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 requirements for the Motorola provided 800 megahertz system. Verizon networks are pro-actively monitored hours a day 7 days a week. Our 6 service performance for these types of 7 networks, including the one provided to the 8 City, is excellent. 9 14 percent for the past six months. 15 With this information as a backdrop, 16 I will now address the service incidents that 17 were identified by this committee as 18 occurring on July 20, 2004; November 14, 19 2004; and December 17, 2004, as well as the 20 additional incident that took place on 21 February 23, 2005. 22 Under separate cover Verizon has 23 provided the Department of Public Property's 24 Communication Division a detailed root cause analysis that explained each incident in 148 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 detail, that includes a chronology of all pertinent events. I will provide a brief overview of each of these incidents and then will be happy to address any follow-up questions you might have. m. m. The City had called a trouble report in to Verizon at approximately 5:10 on the evening of July 19th, after Motorola had notified the City that Motorola's monitoring system was picking up errors for two of our T1 circuits. Verizon immediately conducted a number of remote tests for the circuits which did not reveal any problems. , the City requested that Verizon dispatch a technician for further testing. Verizon arranged for the dispatch and our technician arrived on 149 Pub. Property/Pub. m. The technician performed a number of tests on both circuits. The technician's tests did not reveal any problems on the circuits, and the technician closed out the trouble report with the City system manager at approximately 10:40 on the evening of the 19th. When the technician left the site, he believed the circuits were fully operational. The technician confirmed with the City contact that the circuits were testing okay. m. a service disruption occurred which affected the primary radio system. The City reported the problem to Motorola, who dispatched one of its technicians to clear the trouble. m. on July 20th, Verizon was advised of the service interruption. The Motorola technician who 150 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 resolved the trouble indicated that the downed circuit had been left in the test rather than the normal operating mode. This apparently occurred due to an error by the Verizon technician who had done the testing at the site the previous night. Since the Motorola technician corrected the problem, a dispatch of a Verizon technician was not needed. However, this incident was covered with the Verizon technician who had serviced the circuit the previous night to ensure that care would be taken to avoid a recurrence of this problem on the technician's future dispatches. The next incident occurred on November 14, 2004, when the police channels of the radio system were interrupted for approximately four hours and had to revert to backup procedures during this period. The primary radio system service interruption occurred as a result of a planned power shutdown at a City center commercial building which drained the backup 151 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 batteries powering the SONET fiber ring equipment and the T1 circuits feeding off of that ring. As I previously explained, the SONET ring technology is engineered to switch to a secondary path in the event that a failure occurs on the primary path. However, in this incident the components on the secondary path for one of the locations of the SONET ring did not function properly, causing the service interruption. m.
commercial power for the building was restored and about two minutes later the primary radio system became operational. Recent tests conducted on March 30, 2005, have recreated this incident, with no 20 failure occurring on the SONET network or radio system. The next incident occurred on December 17, 2004. , the City reported to Verizon that the 800 megahertz radio system was experiencing 152 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 intermittent problems with transmission loss of every third or fourth word. Verizon opened a trouble ticket and dispatched a technician. m. and obtained the city's permission to conduct intrusive testing on the reported circuits. m. In order to perform an intrusive test, the circuit must be taken off line. As a result, the primary 800 megahertz radio system was down for the duration of the test of approximately one minute. This test did not indicate that there were any problems with the Verizon circuits. Additional non-intrusive testing performed by our technician confirmed these results. Verizon did not receive any further troubles on these circuits or its system in connection with the intermittent radio transmission losses that triggered the 153 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 intrusive testing. The last incident which occurred on February 23, 2005, resulted in lost communication for the primary 800 megahertz radio system for two 15-second intervals. These two intervals are the delay time needed for the primary system to switch to the secondary backup system. As a result of two separate incidents of human error by our maintenance center testers, a trouble ticket requesting intrusive testing was inadvertently prepared for a City net T1 circuit which was actually intended for work on a different circuit that was not part of the City net and served another Verizon customer. Because intrusive testing for the City net circuit was not required and the City did not expect any interruption to the primary radio system, the switch to the backup system and associated two 15-second interval service interruptions were unanticipated. If this testing of a City T1 circuit 154 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 had been anticipated and planned, the City would have been able to take the necessary steps to switch the primary radio system to one of the redundant T1 circuits available and a service interruption would not have occurred. Three of these four incidents were caused by Verizon human error or equipment failures and should not have happened. Verizon is committed to providing excellent service to our customers, and we regret any inconvenience and problems that the City and its public safety personnel experienced as a result of these incidents. We have taken a number of measures to prevent reoccurrences of these problems and minimize the risk of future service interruptions. For each of the radio system service interruptions resulting from a Verizon personnel or equipment failure, Verizon has taken corrective actions to remedy the root cause of each problem. The goal of these corrective actions 155 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 is to prevent possible future service interruptions that might occur as a result of the same or similar incidents. Verizon has also implemented a comprehensive action plan which includes pro-active troubleshooting activities to find and fix Verizon equipment problems that potentially could contribute to a breakdown or degradation of Verizon's high capacity T1 circuits and the SONET fiber optic backbone network ring that provide the Citywide connectivity for the 800 megahertz radio system. In addition, Verizon has taken pro-active steps to improve Verizon's internal service dispatch and service manager and notification processes to shorten repair response times for any service interruptions that occur going forward. Verizon is firmly committed to working with Motorola and the City to ensure that the City's radio net system is as problem free, reliable and dependable as possible. 156 Pub.
Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 We recognize the extreme importance of this critical support system which is vital to the efficient operation of the City's public safety personnel and the protection and the well-being of its citizens. As part of this commitment, Verizon, in conjunction with Motorola and the City, has developed a rigorous test plan and agreed to implement the plan to perform more extensive and rigorous testing of the entire radio system and its ancillary support facilities. Verizon has already begun cooperative testing activities with these partners to thoroughly investigate and identify possible sources for intermittent service interruptions and other operational failures that might jeopardize the integrity of the radio system. Implementation of the first phase of this test plan began on February 9, 2005. This phase entailed the thorough testing of each of the 86 high capacity T1 circuits, in 157 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 accordance with the test plans specifications. The actual testing activities were completed on March 11, 2005. A thorough analysis of the test results by our technical support personnel is under way and should be finalized later this month. Phase II of the test plan began last week. This phase entails a comprehensive and thorough testing of the SONET backbone facilities which support the individual T1 circuits. Although additional testing for other portions of the backbone is planned, preliminary results from last week's testing were very encouraging. This test involved a simulation on the same SONET ring of the same type of events which led to the service interruption that occurred last November. The testing indicated that all backup and other functions worked properly and smoothly. Once the additional SONET testing is completed, these test results will 158 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 also be thoroughly analyzed to confirm the system's reliability. Verizon's testing has been conducted with Motorola and Verizon representatives present at the sites of the circuits. This testing is comprised of both non-intrusive and intrusive testing in accordance with timetables prescribed by the City. Non-intrusive testing includes the verification of options at various nodes in the network, retrieval of performance history or error registers, visual inspections, and a one-hour test for any time slips in the network. Intrusive testing includes a 40-minute end to end stress test by the technicians at both ends of the circuit. To facilitate a smooth testing procedure, a conference bridge has been set up for each test with the following parties participating: A Verizon maintenance center testing coordinator, Verizon technicians for each end location, a Motorola representative for each end location, and a City 159 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 representative. Testing for each site is considered complete only after Motorola and the City have verified that the tested circuits are back in service. Verizon is hopeful that these pro-active measures to perform rigorous, thorough and intensive cooperative testing with Motorola and the City will prevent and minimize potential problems that might jeopardize the performance of the critical and vital 800 megahertz radio system. By taking these steps, the cooperative testing team may identify underlying problems or weaknesses in the complex system which can be corrected before a system problem occurs. Verizon reaffirms its strong commitment to continuing this important preventive work with the City and Motorola to ensure that the City's radio system is highly dependable and reliable. I will be happy to take -- to answer any questions members of the committee may 160 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 have. And I apologize for the length of that opening statement.
That's good. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Very thorough report. Any questions from members of the committee? Councilman Rizzo.
Like Commissioner James and Punzo said, that I was confident also, that Verizon would be stepping forward to do what you've described today here. That's impressive. And the only question that I would like is some clarification for the record. You talked about three events that were definitely either technical or human error. Would you just elaborate on the one event? What occurred in the one event that Verizon apparently is not at issue? Could you just explain where we are with that one, and which one are you referring to again?
Well, the one that I'm referring to -- And just let me make sure I 161 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 find it. In paragraph -- I think we've provided you with a copy of the testimony.
That's correct. We 7 had been asked to open up a trouble ticket on 8 a T1 circuit and we worked with Motorola and 9 the City to test that circuit and did not 10 find any errors. 11 Now, that said, that doesn't necessarily mean that there weren't any errors. We just -- We weren't able to pinpoint what exactly happened, to have them request a trouble ticket to us in the first place. I think in that particular instance, we tested the circuits thoroughly. And, in fact, we did a retest of all of the T1 circuits that support the network, and we see that things are operating as they ought to. If there are issues in the future, I think we've got good processes in place to react very quickly. So, the bottom line on that 162 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 particular incident is, we could not isolate a problem to the Verizon part of the network, and have since tested every single circuit on the network and have not been able to uncover that problem.
Thank you for that. As part of your work, have you critiqued the system? I'm sure you have? And made any recommendations to our communication people on how the relationship with Verizon and Motorola could even be enhanced and better understand that we have some of this equipment in a rental space, and there was some difficulty associated with the power going out and the access to the building.
Would you also consider making some recommendations? The system's going to be hopefully here for a long time. And I'm not suggesting that we have to make all these changes in the next months or years. 163 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 But if there is a better way to make your life easier in servicing and also supporting this technology... If there are recommendations that there's a better way, from your perspective, of supporting this system, have you done that or would you do that?
In answer to your question, we have done that to the extent that I think -- I would say that all three parties are working very well together and have jointly identified troubleshooting procedures, how we can better work together on that. And we've all agreed to it, and it's part of our new operating procedure. And in the future we would certainly do that, if any other issues are uncovered, as we go through future phases of testing or if somebody comes up with another bright idea.
-- to support the 164 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 system which happens by the minute.
The issue of -- The issue of the human side of this, which we always have that.
Is everything being done to assure, whether it's computer access or it's just physical walking into a room and going up to test the T1 line, to make sure that the technician knows -- Are there boots or are there blocks or are there red flags that say to your staff, stay away from it? If you're not here to work on a City of Philadelphia safety security line, don't touch this one? Is there any way that you can be -- you could even do more to assure that your techs know your equipment -- our equipment, our 60-some, whatever the number, 80-some T1 lines are ours and not some company? I understand that they mixed up another organization with ours. How can you 165 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 prevent that from happening?
Well, we have... To your point, there are always going to be humans touching this. So, there's no way to make it, frankly, a hundred percent human error proof. We have put in training procedures for -- Let's say -- The incidents that we've had have created an incredibly heightened awareness within Verizon of the Philadelphia City network. So we've gone through and done retraining for anybody that could potentially impact this network, from that standpoint. We are continuously looking at ways to make sure, to your point, to block this network from others' hands. And, frankly, a lot of stuff is done remotely. There are test access -- that people have access to the circuits remotely, and that's actually a good thing because it helps us to resolve problems when there are problems. So, the best I can say is, we've done a lot of retraining of the individuals 166 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 that are impacted with this, and we've actually made a few personnel changes as well.
I use an expression, coming from the utility industry, electric utility industry, if you get on the wrong circuit sometimes you're dead.
And there were a lot of safeguards at the remote access to let our technicians know that they are on a certain line and they needed to enter it not once, not twice, but three times in some cases to read the document back. Are there some flags that you could put on the computer to make sure the people testing know that they are potentially not on a, b, c company in Center City, Philadelphia T1, that they're on a public safety...
We have put those identifiers on the network. Again, there are human ways around that, if people are not doing what they're supposed to be doing. So, we put identifiers on the network. 167 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 We've actually also made sure that each circuit is identified as a priority, you know, so whenever a trouble ticket or anything does happen on the circuits, it's right to the top of the priority list. So from that standpoint we've prioritized it. We do have the ability to identify the circuits and mark them as City of Philadelphia, don't touch; you know, call service manager before you do anything. The reason I'm being cautious is, these methods are not a hundred percent human error proof. But we have put in a lot of procedures to make it as human error proof as we could possibly make it.
Well, again, I know that just by reading your testimony and hearing you deliver it today, that a lot of work has gone on to make our system as dependable as humanly possible. Because in all fairness to the manufacturer of this equipment, there are so many issues that can affect the reputation, and we just want to make sure that we're 168 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 doing everything we can do humanly possible, and now Verizon likewise, just to make sure that this investment of over $60 million now of taxpayer's money.
Which I'm dying to hear how much of that $3.30 is that.
But I'm pleased to hear all the initiatives, all the work that has gone into this process. And I thank you.
Well, thank you. I'm accountable for emergency services on the East Coast for state and local government. So, I am incredibly concerned. And these are the kinds of things that keep me up at night. So, you have our attention.
Thank you. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Thank you. 169 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Are there any interested parties from Motorola that would like to make some statements for the record?
Since you've sat through this whole thing, we just wanted to give you an opportunity. Because again, we thank you in the past for your support that you've given us. So, we want to give you an opportunity to make one more statement because we hope this is the last statement we are ever going to hear on this issue. (Laughter.)
Mr. McFadden, it's not clear who you represent now. MR. McFADDEN: I'm the spokesperson for Motorola for the City of Philadelphia. I was for 28 years a vice president with Motorola. My team is the team that sold this system to the City. 28 years worth of public safety experience. I understand these networks. And the commitment by Motorola to the City was, even though I had retired, that I would 170 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 stay involved with the City because of the seriousness of the matter and the issues that we're addressing here. We really didn't come today to prepared to make a statement. However, I can answer questions, if you like. We are totally committed. We do work with Verizon on this. It is very serious for us, as it is for Verizon. And we will continue to do what we've been doing. We have somebody there 13 hours a day 7 days a week and we're 14 monitoring this system. 15 And we want to get to the point 16 where you tell us that you're happy with 17 what's going on, and we don't have to be here 18 any longer discussing this, and you're 19 totally happy. That's our goal. 20
Go ahead, Mr. 21 Chairman. 22 CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you. Any 23 questions? 24
Yes. That's an interesting point. Is there any -- Have you 171 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 gotten a feel for how much longer? Because I'm sure this is a burden on your company to be there 24/7. Has there been any indication how long that will continue? And like I said to Verizon, Mr. McFadden, I would hope Motorola has looked at this system from top to bottom and is satisfied with the initial install that occurred here. And if there are any recommendations on making this system even more reliable, I hope that you step forward and make sure that the Commissioner and Mr. Punzo are aware of anything that can be done to improve. You know, there's many times when there's initial installation of anything done that you look back and say, I wish I would have done it this way instead of that way. And this system is so important, such a big investment, that we want to get it right. And if there's anything that needs to be changed or improved or more money spent to make it better -- we shouldn't have to say that -- but I think now is the time to get it 172 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 accomplished. So, if there is anything like that, I'd appreciate it, and I'm sure they would. MR. McFADDEN: No. I believe at this time our feeling on the system is that it's extremely stable. It really hasn't had any incidents. We have someone there 24/7 for customer satisfaction, quite frankly. We're very, very comfortable with the way the system is operating today.
How much longer? MR. McFADDEN: We could take that person away today, in fact.
Wait a minute. Frank Punzo just got pale. MR. McFADDEN: But it is a courtesy to keep that person there. We don't have them there because we don't have confidence in the system. It is a customer satisfaction issue. It really -- It's more of a courtesy at this point. We believe the system is that stable.
We'll let you and the experts work that out, and they'll 173 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 certainly let us know when we don't have that 24/7 coverage. But again, to end this, I want to thank you. You guys stepped forward, and Verizon was as candid as can be today. They didn't try to smooth anything over. They assumed the responsibility where it was theirs, and likewise in the past you have. So, I think the men and women that work in the City and the citizens and visitors will now start to see the benefit of this system. I understand the technology. I know it's better than we had. And these glitches were unfortunate. But I think once we -- now that we're beyond that, that I think that this City will be a better City because of this system. MR. McFADDEN: I agree. Thank you very much, Councilman. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you for your testimony. Any other witnesses to testify on this particular resolution. 174 Pub. Property/Pub. Works - 4/4/05 (No response.) CHAIRMAN CLARKE: There being none, thank you very much for your time. This concludes the Committee on Public Property and Public Works. Thank you all very much. (Public hearing concluded at 4:40 p.m.) 175 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on April 4, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)