Why couldn't they 5 do the energy audit in the analysis and then, of course, the Property Department replace the lighting?
I can't answer that question. It was decided that it would be better to have it under the Energy Office 'cause they would do the audit, they would, you know, know what fixtures to purchase. We have someone here who can to answer that question. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Kent Miller, I'm the Executive Director of the Municipal Energy Office. Our work in reducing energy for lighting involves several steps. We first do an audit of the facility, and we look at the lighting and see if it's energy-efficient by current standards. And if it is, then we ask for capital dollars to replace the lighting. We have private contractors that do this. Sometimes it involves just replacing a bulb, but usually it's replacing 239 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, the ballast and the bulbs and the fixtures.
So it doesn't have 4 to go -- none of this money goes through the 5 Procurement Department?
Oh, yes. After we've identified a project and it's funded in the Capital Program, then we put it out to bid.
So why wouldn't Public Property perform this function?
Well, perhaps they did before the Municipal Energy Office was created. I'm not sure who handled it then. But the Energy Office was created, I believe, in 1993, with the idea of championing the cause of energy cost reduction. And so we're the ones who look for opportunities to reduce the City's utility budget.
Does -- so your efforts are directed to the City buildings property?
All right, nothing on the Streets. Do you advise the Streets Department about street lighting and -- 240 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Well, the City street lighting is -- the technology used for city street-lighting is the most efficient and cost-effective technology available. But we did recommend that the Streets Department use a new technology for traffic signals, and we received about $3 million in 1995 or 1996 to replace all of the red traffic signal lights. There are about 28,000 of them, and we estimated we're saving about $800,000 a year through using that technology.
So I'm just trying to trying to figure out, was this office created to give somebody something to do?
It seems to me that the rationale could work for each department. I mean, the Property Department can certainly look at energy-saving measures, the Streets Department, I believe they order traffic lights, could look at energy-saving measures.
So I mean -- 241 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
So those functions 4 no longer exist in the Streets Department? 5
Well, we work with the engineers and the technical people in the various departments, trying to identify new energy-saving technologies, but it is not their primary mission to reduce energy. And many cities throughout the country and many states have established energy offices whose primary purpose is to reduce the city's energy bill, in addition to investing in -- to identifying new opportunities to save energy and competing for capital dollars in the Capital Program. To implement those, we also work in trying to reduce our energy cost through the purchase of our energy supplies. So there are other things we do, too.
Four people -- five people are authorized and we have four positions filled.
What is your budget? 242 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Could one person 5 possibly be an advisor to the various departments -- Streets, Public Property -- in working with them to develop an energy-saving program rather than set up a new department?
Well, the department already exists and has existed for some time.
And the report, you'll see that we have, we believe, a good track record for reducing energy costs. Could we do this more efficiently than we're now doing it? I think we're a pretty small staff for the amount of work that we accomplish. And I think our savings are a testimony to that. The work that the MEO has done is saving the City about $7 million this year.
I guess my point is, if you do an assessment of, say, street lights, and you, through your research and evaluation, determine that if the Streets Department bought a different kind of street 243 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, light, they could save some money, then why are you purchasing the light and why not the Streets Department? I mean, your role could be advisory as opposed to us now having yet another department buying capital products that's done by other departments.
I think the answer to that relates to the way in which projects are funded in the Capital Program. As I understand it, each year, far more projects are proposed by the departments for the capital programs than are funded. There just isn't enough money to go around. It's not -- it's probably unlikely that the line departments would give priority to energy-saving measures. They would have other needs that they would rather see funded.
But we're still spending the money. Whether you do it or the department does it, the money is still being spent.
Well, remember we have to -- well, we have to prioritize -- each department that makes an application has to priority-rank 244 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, their projects because there isn't enough money to go around, and it's likely that the other departments would not give a high priority to the -- their energy-saving projects because the departments don't pay the energy bills. The energy bills are paid from a separate account, and the departments don't realize any savings to their budget from the energy cost reductions. So they would have no 11 real reason to champion those projects.
I have a question relative to SEPTA, and it comes from the Public Property Department. (Witnesses come forward.)
I have a very simple question. The dollars that are being requested for transit facilities, such as a light-rail paratransit vehicle acquisition, the money that's provided by the City, is that matching money for the federal money? TRANSPORTATION WITNESS: Yes, I'm Chris 245 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, (unintelligible), from the City's Office of Transportation. Yes, that is matched. Typically, the City provides only 1/30th of the share of capital projects. A typical project is either 80 percent federal, and 2/3 percent State, and 3 and 1/3 City. Some projects are funded 97 percent by the State and the remaining 3 percent by the City.
Let me just add that I think in the budget year, the transit projects carried out through SEPTA are about $162 million. Of that $162 million, the City has only contributed $5 million, 'cause all the rest is federal or state money or money from SEPTA. So it's a very high leverage.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you all very much. I would like to remind the 246 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Commissioners that are here to please submit their testimony 48 hours before public meeting -- a pubic hearing. This committee will stand in recess until Monday, February 14, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. (Adjourned at 7:48 p.m.) - - - 247 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, February 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO.'S 003, 004, 005 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter