And that's for professional services. We have that -- since its creation in August 1996, your office has overseen the completion of over 300 projects equaling $453,695,512. That includes projects that have taken all the way from the professional service of design, right?
We would like to see, you know, the companies and the subcontractors in terms of minority participation.
For all 300 projects. Yeah, I would like to see what has been the minority participation in the professional contracts in this huge amount of money that we have given in terms of professional contracts. I will like to see also in terms along those lines, the minority participation in the building and the contracting -- the subcontracts 192 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings that have gone out to minority contractors in terms of construction and so on down the line.
This is going to take us longer than five days to compile.
Well, we have until -- the budget process does not end in five days, right, Madame President?
But I really would like to see the participation of minority contractors in terms of this process of the buildings and so on that have taken place. It's following along the lines of Councilman Nutter that he asked and if you can give us that.
All right. One other question that I have, and it's something that is quite dear to me because John Anderson began it and worked on it while he was here in City Council, and that's the Public Access Corporation. And we had an agreement with the cable companies of certain monies that were supposed to be given to the City, and we -- and then there was 193 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings supposed to be capital projects being built in terms of studios and so on. That has never happened. Never happened. And, in fact, the Public Access Corporation, although an ordinance 6 was passed by City Council, it has never been established. And I'd like the Administration to give us a reason why the Public Access Corporation, which would be a great benefit to the City, which is something that the cable companies promised capital dollars to construct and build studios. I'd like to have an answer as to why we're not following up and getting those monies from the cable companies in order to implement the conditions. Of the contract that we entered into in 1984 on. That's information to be gotten and that's the question that I would like to have answered. I don't think you have an answer right now.
But I would like to see an answer come from the Administration.
You're correct, I don't 194 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings think we can answer that right now, but we will provide an answer.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madame President. I'd like to go back to something that I believe you bought up, Madame President, earlier. It's line item 103, One Parkway, Elevator Upgrade, $1.5. If a person home, they get a home inspection. When we bought this building, did we know that after we bought it, that we would have to spend $1.5 million to upgrade elevators? And if we didn't, why didn't we? And do we have any recourse to go back to the person that sold us this, if we have a need already to upgrade the elevators for $1.5 million.
Yes, we did know that eventually we would have to replace the elevators. And similar to when you buy a home --
We're talking about we've been in this building six months, not even that.
Right. It was a six-year, I believe and I'd have to go back and check the reports, but I believe the reports stated that the elevators should be in good shape for six years. That report was done -- and, again, I'd have to go back and verify the date. So, yes, we did anticipate and know that eventually we would have to replace the elevators.
Well, six months from the date the report was actually issued.
I'm sorry -- six years after the date of the report was issued, and I think the report was done in -- I don't know, it was before my time, but I think it was '94.
Nowhere -- I can't 196 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings recollect, but I sit on a committee, Public Property, but I never heard that we would need to spend an additional $1.5 million on upgrades to the elevator system in that building. Do we have any recourse at all? Do we have any recourse at to go back to Bell Atlantic and say, Hey, look, we bought a building that the elevators aren't adequate.
Councilman Rizzo, we were very aware of the fact that the elevators were 30 years old.
Next subject. I understand that we're about $70 million short in fixing City Hall. I'm tired of explaining to people and having people ask me if it's safe to come in to this building. Because I understand it's a $100 million project to put a new roof on this place, and tourists really truly ask me, What's with City Hall, it looks like a dump. We have $30 million, I believe, budgeted, and I don't see 70 million additional anywhere.
Okay. Just to answer the first part of the question, it's more 197 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings than just to replace the roof. Councilman Rizzo. We're also going to be stabilizing the entire shell of the exterior, we're going to be cleaning all the cast-iron elements, we're going to be rebolting them onto the facade. So it's more than just a roof project, and the dollars are spread over seven years. I think it's like 34 million now.
While they're looking for the detail, the City Hall roof project overall is well over $100 million. And, obviously, we could not accommodate that all in one budget year. There's approximately -- and we'll have to check the exact numbers, but there's somewhere between 32 and $34 million currently available in money already appropriated for City Hall, which we are proposing to use as the first phase of the project, and we'll be able to discuss that in a little more detail. Because of that, we will not need additional funding until FY 2001. And if you look on of the program, you'll see that in Line 4 for City Hall Renovations, there's approximately $65 million over the life of the 198 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings plan. And then there's actually two more years, I believe, beyond that. So there's somewhere in the range of 120 to $130 million over the entire length of it. And it's a fairly daunting project, but Emily may want to speak more about the details.
Well, I can come back and discuss further details. We actually just brought on board the Vitetta (ph.) Group, who has worked on the City Hall project since the beginning of the administration in 1991. We recently brought them back on board again to put together a total scope of the project in cost estimates. These are preliminary estimates that they, in fact, also helped establish. But it's -- as I said, it's roof, it's exterior stabilization, it's structural, it's cleaning of the cast iron, it's re-assembling or re-attaching those pieces. And so it's a major effort.
My last question, Line No. 104, City Hall Telephone Switchboard Replacement. Are we serious? We're going to replace a switchboard? There's no look at another 199 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings way to do at business?
I think this is in connection with 800 megahertz. Do you want to take that one, Vince? (Vince Costello comes forward.)
Councilman, it's really a misnomer. It's really a replacement of the existing telephone console that the switchboard operators use. The existing consoles are over ten years old now. And in conjunction with the move of Public Property communications from the sixth and seven floor in about a year now, we're asking for additional money to upgrade the old vintage consoles that the operators are now using.
Mr. Costello, has there been any consideration of a better way to do business, coordinate the telephone communication network. Telephone operators, in all due respect, just don't seem to be the way to enter the next millennium -- not with no disrespect for 200 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings what they do. But I'm hoping that we're just not carrying a technology forward that should be revisited and looked at to a different way to do business. I would hope you're just not cookie stamping out the same way we do business going forward. I think we've had this conversation before, that there may be a way to centralize all of us and do it differently. I would hope we're just not going to spend half a million dollars to replace technology that, in my opinion, is antiquated.
There was some consideration given some years ago, Councilman, to perhaps at least cutting back some of the shifts that the switchboard operators make, to making the switchboard 9-to-5 operation, as some other cities have done. But in consideration doing that, someone has to take the calls after hours. And that's always been a decision made by successive administrations that it's better to have a minimum number of people in place from 5 o'clock throughout, until the next morning, rather than 201 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings having calls dispersed all over the City.
I'm not suggesting that that's not a good way to do business. But I'm suggesting that we have a fire department, that we have a Police department that has 24-hour operations. Has anyone talked to see if we can't get together and again save the taxpayers of this city some money instead of having stand-alone operations in almost every operating department in this government? I mean, come on now, let's start talking to each other.
There has been further discussion about combining the call-taking and dispatching operations of police, fire, and municipal. That does require, however, a centralized location, or at least one location which the City does not have at the present time. As you're well aware, there's really to room at the Police Administration building or Police Headquarters, and there's very little room at Fire and very little room here in City Hall.
Well, I would appeal to you or to your commissioner, before we spend a 202 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings half a million dollars and have to spend another half a million ten years from now, that we look at this entire -- this big picture to see if there isn't a better way to utilize the people that we have.
Some cities have done that, Councilman, but they never really combined the public safety and the municipal functions.
I'm not here, you know, developing a plan; I'm developing a concept, which I can't believe that we can't save some money and do it a better way.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madame Chair. I have two questions: one for the Recreation Department and one for the Streets 203 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings Department. I notice that in this year's Capital Budget, swimming pool improvements are listed. And I just wanted to get on record that the Awbury Pool that was not in last year's budget nor this year's budget is in fact -- I've been told it's in its design stage.
Councilwoman, funds for renovating the Awbury Pool were incorporated in the FY '98 Capital Budget, and those funds are still available. And to my understanding, that renovation is currently in the design stage at Recreation.
Okay. It must have been included after this was printed because last year, I couldn't find it.
This is the FY 2000 budget, so you have to go back two to find it. We can find actually the particular page, and it will also, you know, appear when we propose the carry-forward of current projects into 2000. You'll be able to see it more clearly. This just 204 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings includes the 2000 projects.
Okay. Well, I meant the one last year that was printed. And I'd also like to know if the allocation for the Streets Department under Traffic Control, if that includes money for school flashing lights?
Okay. Well, maybe we can talk a little later, but that's a really big issue with lots of parents and lots of schools.
I know that, clearly, there are a number of Councilmembers that have raised that issue. I believe that the original -- there's been a fair amount of discussion between members of City Council and member of the Administration on this. I think the Administration believes that it made a commitment to funding a certain level of flashing lights. That may be something that we can, as you suggest, talk about further.
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madame President. 205 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings
Thank you. Do you have any indication as to how much flashing lights will be approved for installation?
Originally -- my memory may fail me here, but originally, I believe that $500,000 was made available to do school flashing lights on essentially a first come/first served basis. Based on individual Councilmembers' requests and those which were able to be completed, I believe 44 projects were completed. So the average cost is somewhere around $11,000, $12,000.
So for the members that are here listening to you today, should we send our list down today so that we could be first come, first served?
I believe that the Streets Department has been keeping a continuing list.
They may be keeping a list, but I don't think they've made a 206 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings commitment to fund school flashing lights.
That is correct. The Administration believes its original commitment was to fund $500,000; and that beyond that, individual Councilmembers would fund those projects.
Thank you. I understand the Administration has already agreed to that, Councilwoman. I just have one last question. The Capital Program contains funding requests in excess of $672 million in new tax-supported general obligation bonds during the period FY 2000 through FY 2005. What is the City's current debt-incurring capacity, and what do you anticipate it will be in FY 2005?
I should know those 207 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings numbers off the top of my head but I don't. The current capacity, as I had mentioned earlier, is in the range of 1.4 billion, I believe, the last time we calculated it. Subsequent to our recent issue, we had somewhere in the range after about $350 million of capacity remaining. Obviously, that changes each year, depending on how much principal we pay off and what the assessment values are for the City. It's our estimation that somewhere in the range of 2005, the City probably would hit the debt ceiling. And, frankly, the question isn't whether we will or not; it's just when. At some point in the middle of the next decade, the City will need to entertain a number of alternatives for addressing that issue. One reason we have tried to maintain capital spending at the $125 million-per-year level for general obligation funding is that -- the other being the affordability. As you know, Philadelphia's considered to be a city which has a very high proportion of debt to begin with.
Thank you. I also note that $17.5 million is earmarked for 208 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings streets to be reconstructed. I'm sure that many of the District Councilpeople would like to know what streets are scheduled for reconstruction. If you could send us a list -- if the Streets Department could send us a list, I will make certain that every District Councilperson has it.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madame Chair. Could someone at that table explain to me the relationship that we have with SEPTA. And have all of these -- on , these budgeted items, been reviewed to see if we need -- to see that SEPTA doesn't have more responsibility for some of these improvements? I'm -- sometimes it's not clear to me why we have so much responsibility to do as much as we do for the SEPTA. (Denis Goren comes forward.)
Denise Goren, Deputy Mayor, 209 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings Transportation. Good afternoon.
SEPTA's Capital Budget is primarily financed out of federal grant funds which require matching dollars. The City's match is usually so highly leveraged that for every dollar we put in, $27 for capital funds come from other sources. These projects which are listed here are those capital projects which go through a fairly long iteration, through the regional planning process as well as our review as to projects which we believe keep intact the infrastructure of our transit system the City is a relatively very small partner in investing in these projects. There are additional capital projects that SEPTA funds that are a part of the City's system through other resources for which our capital dollars are not included. Some of those funds come directly out of fares.
Are these projects reviewed to make sure that we're paying our fair 210 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings share and not being --
Each project is reviewed not only from a fiscal standpoint, but actually from an engineering perspective. All plans, specifications, and meetings are reviewed either by representatives of CPO and my staff and through monthly meetings with City planning members as well looking at these priorities and projects in terms of what the expenditures are, what the useful life of the infrastructure is. And that's done, of course, not only at the local level but at every level of government for this Capital Program.
Line Item 109. Are you telling me that this $2.25-million-plus here, that this citywide SEPTA Regional Rail Division Bridge Improvement Program is also being funded by federal and SEPTA dollars?
Oh, absolutely. But we are finding that as I take my glasses off --
If you look in this book, I think you'll see the other -- 211 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings
Yeah, yeah, I've already looked in that book; but I'm working n this book.
Well, it's the same project. I think the smaller book doesn't show the other sources of funding. So if you look at in the larger book, you will see that for each of the subprojects, you can see that the City's share, which is represented by "CN" is a very small portion of all the funding that's allocated. You see ?
Okay. The first subproject, Regional Rail Division Bridge Improvement Program -- 175,000 of City money and then all of the other money is either federal or State or other sources. So we're getting, you know, for $175,000, we're getting over $7 million of funding toward the project. And if you go through the others, they're pretty much the same way. So that we're spending, you know, a very small portion of City dollars to leverage a very great deal in terms of 212 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings federal and State funds. And then, as Denise Goren indicated, there are also projects that are in SEPTA's capital program that you don't see here because we're not contributing anything to those projects, and they're also benefitting the City portion of the system.
So where can you go without having a book in the right hand, a book in the left hand, and running over to SEPTA to see all of this -- the bottom line, I hate to use that word, but where do you get the bottom line?
Well, if the thick book tells you all the sources of funding, what you don't see here are the projects that are in SEPTA's capital program that are not in our capital program; we could get you that information.
I'd be delighted to get a copy of SEPTA's capital program. They, in fact, have not finished their capital budget process for this year. In fact, they're just initiating it right now totally. And as soon as that draft's together, I 213 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings can get it to you. That will show projects such as the total rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Frankford elevated in West Philadelphia, which isn't listed here.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madame Chair, two questions. Miss Kaplan, I'd like to talk about Line 67. Actually, this is probably more of a Dean Kaplan as opposed to a Barbra Kaplan conversation. Line 67 in the Capital Program, which is on Page. . .
, Capital Program book. Barbara's in the other book. In the Capital Program book, , Line 67, Dean Kaplan. One, thank you for putting the money in the Capital Program. But you're aware that the voters of the City, I think, by over a 70 percent affirmative vote, said that 214 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings they'd like to have new voting machines. You're also aware that the timing on this is that the project by State statute is to be completed within 103 weeks. The election that this was voted on was in November of 1998. You have the $21 million, which I greatly appreciate, in the FY '01 budget. How do you propose that we're going to complete this project that has a clock running already of 103 weeks and the money is not available until FY '01, which is July 2000?
We think that's sufficient time to purchase the machines and have them installed, in 103 weeks.
Well, the only problem with this is -- you said you think it's sufficient time?
Isn't it correct that there is virtually no manufacturer and that there are only three manufacturers basically in the new electronic voting machine business. None of them are going to be able to manufacture upwards of 3600-some voting machines immediately, 215 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings right? So how are you going to do it?
Well, I. . . I think that there are two issues. One is -- you raise a good point. However, first of all, I doubt that we'll be ordering new voting machines well before that time. Second of all, I think that there probably will be an opportunity for us to either partially certify that purchase or certify it --
I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first part of what you said.
I think that the timeline for procuring the voting finances that we anticipate -- and I hasten to add that that is not something that's been developed in detail at this point -- is such that I don't anticipate that we would be paying bills with this money before July of 2000.
I don't know that anything's going on right now, other than preliminary investigation of how to purchase them, assuming that this money is approved.
The clock started ticking in November of '98. Your own estimates were that it might take upwards of a year to have a procurement process in place -- although I think at the public hearing on this issue, we had some debate about whether it would take the wondrous Lou Applebaum a year to develop a procurement process for machines that could only come from one of three vendors. The vendors are well known. I have no 14 interest in any of them in particular. We know their products. Some of them are in use in other jurisdictions close to us. So why would we be waiting, or why is there nothing going on right now?
I think we know who the potential vendors are. I don't think that there is necessarily an agreement on what particular product we would be purchasing.
Well, the only way you're going to get agreement is if you're having discussions about types of product. I mean, it's 217 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings kind of a Procurement City Commissioner's discussion. You'll never have agreement if nobody talks to each other.
I don't disagree with that but I think that in anticipation and prior to approval of the budget, I don't know that we would initiate a full-blown procurement process.
Well, what's the definition of a "full-blown procurement process"?
Well, I think it's dedicating time and procuring the voting machines prior to the approval of the Capital Budget and moving forward is the --
But those dollars aren't in this year's Capital Budget; they're proposed in the Capital Program and hopefully they'll show up in next year's Capital Budget. I mean, I guess part of the assumption here was that we would phase in the use and site location of some of these machines as opposed to trying to show up at 1600-plus polling places on one day with 3600-some-odd machines. I mean that sounds like a logistical nightmare to try to do that. 218 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings
Yeah. I don't know that I've ever been -- I have not participated in enough discussions to know but I'm not aware of any discussion about phasing it in, although it seems like a reasonable idea. On the other hand, that means that you would have to find -- because you probably order all of them at once, if you do that, you would have to not spend other money in order to free this up earlier.
Or you could allocate some dollars in FY 2000, and the bulk of the dollars or the remaining dollars in FY '01, right?
That's possible. It would probably cost you more, but you could do that.
Why would it cost you more if you're dealing with the same contractor? I mean, they can't provide all of the machines that we need in '00, in '01 anyway. But if there is some lead time and if they have a contract with us and they know how many machines we're going to need because we know how many machines we have now and more than 219 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings likely, we're going to have same number of machines, it's one price.
Well, I think that if we're going to fund it, we have to have an appropriation in place to sign the contract.
Not necessarily. But I'm saying it would depend on how we set it up.
I think it was clearly we made a choice in this year's budget that if we were to spend 10 or $20 million in voting machines in next year's budget, in the FY 2000 budget, we would have to forego a large number of important projects; whereas, we had clearly identified 2001 as the funding year, and obviously, there was a presumption that we can purchase the machines within the time allotted.
But that also sets back your time of implementation and installation of the various machines, and we did identify for you, and this Council did pass a resolution 25 seeking funding from PICA for which you have sent 220 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings projects over that have been reprogrammed from past PICA dollars; isn't that correct? So, I mean, we don't have to have a discussion about not spending some City dollars on worthy and worthwhile projects; you have another funding source that's been sitting with dollars on, quote/unquote, emergency projects back from 1992. You recall that discussion, I'm sure.
I do, and I think that we disagreed on -- I don't think we disagreed on whether they qualify as, quote/unquote, an emergency, but I think our analysis at the time was that it made sense to pursue this project in 2001 based on the increased cost of the machines as they age versus the cost of procuring new ones.
That was a unilateral decision by the Administration, though.
That was our position, I would agree. I would say it's a unilateral decision that was our contention.
So the voters should just wait notwithstanding their expression of their will back from '98.
I think the voters voted 221 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings to have it in 103 weeks.
Right. Is it your testimony here today that we'll new voting machines in all the public places in Philadelphia within two years of November of 1998; is that your testimony today?
Okay, all right, no 11 problem. Line Item 119, in the current budget. The explanation in the Capital Program book is under "Recreation Improvements." It says that recreation facilities will be improved under a grant from the Commonwealth. Site selection is contingent on forthcoming grant requirements. Can you tell me what the source of the State grant is from the Commonwealth? And how is it decided what projects would be on that list?
Eric Iffrig from the Recreation Department is coming. (Eric Iffrig comes forward.)
Good 222 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings afternoon.
My name's Eric Iffrig, Director of Planning and Construction with the Recreation Department. The grant application was turned in in November, this past fall. It's for a series of court improvements throughout the City -- both roller hockey and tennis courts. And that's to --
What part of the State government has this overriding interest in hockey courts and tennis courts?
This is the State's Keystone Grant Program, the old Community Affairs Department. That's a standing program that's, I believe, funded by -- it's DCNR now, thank you.
It's DCNR in the State. There's a Keystone Grant Program, which is funded by, I believe, state sales tax transfer taxes. And a certain amount of that is committed to fund bonds for community improvements, particularly recreation improvements. So we won't know when the grant award is. It's usually in March or later in the spring. 223 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings
That there be improvement municipal property, that -- this particular phase of the grant -- of the grant program, there are other phases. That it be serving the community, City property.
It's not that specific really. Improvements to recreation facilities.
Well, we try and determine the number of projects that we'd like to see funded within the limited budget that we have. We look at projects that we've proposed over a series of years to try and get them developed somehow. We have partnerships with the NJTL and with professional sports tames for the roller hockey. And those programs work well, they've 224 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings been growing. And it's a citywide program; it's not of any particular interest to any specific part of the City, but to the City overall. So we try and get either large programs or some citywide program like this funded on these grant applications.
So this category might be a potential prime funding source for something like the 21st Ward Ice Rink, Wynnefield Recreation Center.
They're -- they have some limitations on new site acquisition and facilities. The program is pretty much a successor of the RERA (ph.) Program, which was a renovation program for existing facilities. It has somewhat of the same intent on it. I personally don't know. The RERA Program used to have a specific percentage set aside for different types of community programs, whether surveys or acquisitions or renovation programs. And the ability to secure the grant would be affected by the type of grant you put in. There was a limited amount of study money 225 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings that would be granted much more in reconstruction money. So the odds were better on the grant award with reconstruction projects.
But if we were creative, we might be able to put something together.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions for members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, I believe we have several other witnesses that would like to testify. Miss Harper? Is Miss Harper here? (No response.)
Dina Mendros? (Dina Mendros comes forward.) 226 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings
Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Okay, my name is Dina Mendros, and I am a member of the Philadelphia Community Access Coalition, which is a group that has been around for about a year and a half, that is trying to get the City of Philadelphia to fulfill its commitment, which it made in the '80s when television came to this area, to create public access television in Philadelphia -- that is, to create the not-for-profit corporation that was passed by Council that would be in charge of getting and disbursing monies to create public access television. Philadelphia is the only major city in this country that does not have public access cable television. And public access cable television provides the opportunity for people throughout the community to express their views on any number of subjects. It is something that has been important for democracy and it is something that could be very beneficial to the city. Earlier today, I was at a meeting that 227 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings took place in the Mayor's reception room that was about the issue of welfare change. And one of the things that came up during this meeting was that there's a lot of misinformation or non-information that is not going to people who will soon be off welfare rolls. That's something that the present mayor, Ed Rendell, has remarked is a very serious issue that will take place for the City of Philadelphia in March. If we had public access television, this is just one of the ways that this kind of -- that this type of a media outlet could be used for. It could be used to inform citizens, residents of Philadelphia about what the changes are and what are -- what is -- information that they need to be able to go through these changes with the least amount of distress. Also City Councilpeople would be able to take advantage of public access television. They would be able to reach their constituents and give them lots of useful information. And any number of city agencies would be able to use public access television to tell citizens of Philadelphia information that they need to know to 228 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings have a better situation living in Philadelphia. Another way that public access television would be beneficial for the citizens is, it could become a place for job training, both for young people, for people coming off welfare programs and needing training and jobs to go back to work to fulfill their requirements. Another way that public access would be beneficial is just to be a way that other organizations throughout the City and other individuals throughout the City could express their views on issues that are important to them, their views about some of the things going on in their city, and just their views about whatever they felt they wanted to express to the community at large. The city government has been negligent on this issue. They have been -- they themselves have implemented a law, or some type of legislation, that they wanted to create public access television. They set up rules that a nonprofit corporation was supposed to be set up that would oversee and create this public access television. 229 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings City Council and the mayor has not done that step. And our group, Philadelphia Community Access Coalition, is asking that City Council indeed go forth with this setting-up of the nonprofit corporation and bring public access television to City Council. One of the things that has been told to our group from former City Council President John Street and other City Councilpeople is that funding is an issue. There is money that was in the original contracts and that is written into the present contracts, continuing the same amount of financial resources that would go to the capital expenses of setting up public access television.
We were also told by some City officials that the television stations that are supposed to be used for public access are -- have basically been given back to the cable system, cable companies, free of charge. And in New York, this issue had gone to court, and it was found that the -- the courts found that it was illegal for the city to give these public access stations -- either public educational or government 230 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. " That it's illegal to give these stations back to cable companies free of charge. And probably if this was brought to court in Pennsylvania, the same finding would probably be found. Basically, public access is important for the citizens of Philadelphia. It's an important way that people in a very dispersed city can communicate with one another and to tell people information that, for whatever reasons, is not getting out to people. And we are asking that City Council put into their budget that money will be allocated for public access television. They said that they would do this 15 years ago and, you know, the time is now to go forth with this. Does anyone have any questions for me?
Thank you, Madame President. This is exactly what I was talking about before. Councilman John Anderson, who was one of the pioneers and the leaders in terms of 231 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings the overall public access issue, he derived -- and the main concession to the public actually from the cable companies in 1983, '84, the main concession to the citizens of Philadelphia that the companies made was that they would commit themselves to give -- I think it was $75,000 each per year, I think, or something like that in order, one, to build a state-of the-art public access studio available to the people of Philadelphia. And that they would commit to then keep on being of service and participating in the overall technical assistance and contributing to the maintenance. Reading, Lancaster, all the cities across the Commonwealth have asked, have demanded, and have gotten public access TV in their cities. For one reason or another, in over two administrations, we have still not fulfilled what John Anderson got for the citizens of Philadelphia. And you're right, each one of those channels is very, very lucrative. For us to give them away for nothing is really, really irresponsible. If they want them, they should 232 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings have to pay for them. But I believe that it's time that we demand and we make the cable companies really responsible and to live up to the contract obligations that they made to us in 1984. And I think that the Mayor has to be able to respond to that and give a reason why two administrations still have not incorporated the Public Access Corporation and still not named a board I think it's about time we did I think it's about time that the largest city in the Commonwealth at least came up to the standards of Reading and Lancaster.
I want to add that there has not been a big fight to get public access implemented, and our group is wondering why it is taking so much to get it implemented in Philadelphia. And when we had public hearings on this, it resulted in a resolution that you proposed and was passed in December, so we hoped that we could get to the bottom of why, in fact, this has never taken place. Because it's something that not only are the citizens missing out on, which is the main and most important thing, but City government 233 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings itself is missing out on something. For instance, in giving back these stations to the cable companies for no fee, it's money that should be going to the City. And we hope in order to establish this not-for-profit corporation, the papers of corporation have to be signed by Mayor and the President of City Council. So City Council President Verna, we hope to be meeting with your office soon to discuss this more in detail.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
No questions for the witness. In one of the public records on the renewal of the one of the cable companies, and my colleague Ortiz may have mentioned this, but there was a request made for information regarding the establishment of the Public Access Corporation as well as the financial implications to the City to run a public access station and facility and the like. To the best of my knowledge, Madame Chair, I don't believe that that proposal has 234 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings either been sent or received. And so I would ask if there are knowledgeable representatives from either the Department of Public Property or the Law Department -- but I think Public Property in particular -- if they can at least for the moment give us an update on what they have done and when they plan that proposal over. Certainly, we have the opportunity to have public property here during the operating budget cycle, but since the witness has raised this issue, we did ask for that information some time ago.
Right. I was here at the hearing when you asked for that. And we've been also wondering what happened with that information.
And last summer, the summer of '98, we met with then-City Council President John Street and he asked for similar information, and we've never heard back if that information ever got back to his office too.
Commissioner 235 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings or Mr. Costello, do you want to address the, please.
I do recall the request, believe it was the Greater Media renewal.
Part of the request was a request to look at the rates charged by respective franchises. I think you introduced the on behalf of the Wade representatives, and the Council President introduced a resolution 12 regarding Greater Media subscribers.
That was on rates; that was not on renewal as it relates to --
Right. It was an investigatory hearing on the rate structure and a comparison of Wade's rates as compared to the other two cable companies, and also it came at a time when they had just announced a rate increase.
Okay. I can comment on the rate situation if you'd like or we can save that for another time. 236 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings
I don't want to talk about rates today talk; I'd like to talk about public access and what you've done in response to the requests made at that time for a schedule and a program and the full financial costs that are estimated that the City would have to absorb to have Public Access Corporation up and running.
We have estimated over the years that the cost of running a public access corporation on a 365-day basis would cost anywhere from 500,000 to a million dollars a year. I mean, that's based on funding levels provided in other cities of our size. We certainly could do it for less. The problem with that is you jeopardize the quality of program and the ability to replace parts and supplies, insurance, rents, whatever the case might be. I mean, it can become a very big operation in a large city such as Philadelphia.
Right. Is that a propose -- is there a proposal that is responsive to the request that was made at the time of the Greater Media franchise renewal hearing that is in 237 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings a form that can be sent to the Chair and then distributed to the Councilmembers that is specifically responsive to the issues that were raised and requested at that time?
You'll have it by the time you come here for your Operating Budget testimony?
Thank you very much. Our next witness is Gretchen Clausing.
She's with my group and not here right now. She might be here later; will she be able to speak then? 238 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings
This is Dina Mendros from Philadelphia Community Access Coalition. And one other thing that I wanted to say to the Department of Public Property was that in our meetings with John Street in the summer, he also asked them to look into alternative funding sources so that all of it -- and Gretchen has just walked in -- so that the City would not have to foot the entire bill, such as Councilman Ortiz mentioned, that at least half of that -- we heard close to half a million, which is the low figure that was just given by Mr. Costello -- is provided for -- that operating cost would be provided for according to the contract with the cable companies. And that there's in the millions of 239 2/9/99 WHOLE COMM. - Budget Hearings dollars an amount of money that was specified in the cable contracts that would go to capital expenses for buying equipment and building the studios and that sort of thing. So a lot of the money would not be coming from the City coffers.