Where the address range changes we four signs up, two signs designating each street.
What portion of the Streets Department deals with that? Is there a separate unit that has the responsibility for it?
It is part of the Traffic Engineering Division's responsibility.
Traffic Engineering 1513 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 Division. Is there a sub unit?
The investigation is made by the engineering section which investigate all signs, whether the street name signs are regulatory signs, the signs are made up at our traffic sign shop and are install by the sign installers.
There is a work order issued for each intersection where we are installing signs, yes.
There is a master index, digitized index. I believe that's about 12 months to 18 months old. Prior to that, there was no 1514 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 master index.
The database that we have 6 only has about the last 12 to 18 months' worth of 7 information knit. 8
That is when we started 10 the database. Prior to that, when the work order 11 was finished, it was installed into the file 12 system by location. 13
Well, that looks 17 like maybe some progress, having a master list. 18 Or am I wrong?
Yes, that is what the database to some extent is leading to so that we know when we installed those signs the last time.
And how many signs approximately are in your database now?
That, I do not have any idea. I really can't tell you on that. 1515 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005
Do you have any database that could tell you what percentage of the City signs exist in accordance with the formula what you expressed, the two and four system?
Not specifically, no. We only have a gut feeling as to what we're looking at out there, and I believe we're probably down to about 10 percent where we need to either install signs because they are missing or replace signs, maybe another five percent for replacing signs.
No. We have a preventive maintenance program where visiting each intersection approximately twice a year throughout the City, and one of the areas that are being checked is the street name sign, whether it's there, the visibility of it, and the condition of the street name sign. Besides the street name signs, they are also checking out the stop signs, one-way signs, the no-turn-on-red signs, etc.
And the name-of-the-street signs. 1516 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005
That is one of the areas they're supposed to be checking out, yes, sir.
So you're saying that somebody from the Streets Department twice a year visit every corner in the City?
Well, can't you ask them to note where there is a failure of the two or four signs?
That is one of what they're supposed to be doing when they're out there, but we can reinforce that issue at our next staff meeting.
With that information, the investigator will write up a work order to replace that particular street-name sign. That work order then is sent to our shop where it is entered into the database. A sign is subsequently made up and then installed.
There's a big gap somewhere. How long has the visitation been going on twice a year. 1517 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005
The visitation, the preventive maintenance program started, I believe, really back in 1993. The initial thrust of the preventive maintenance program was for control signs, specifically stop signs and one-way signs. This was the first time that it has been ever been done to the City where we did a preventive maintenance program. It was not until, like, 1995, '96-ish that we felt comfortable with the regulatory signs at the intersections that we are able to expand to start looking at other non-regulatory signs, including the street-name signs.
You know, I'm amazed that it's never -- as far as I can recall, I've never heard about this, and I've been asking every year about these signs and always got met with a total blank, that we don't know about any missing signs and we don't really think there are any we're talking about.
Well, I know I have approximately -- I have over a thousand work orders sitting at our shop right now for street-name signs. 1518 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005
To make sure that you meet the two and four combination?
Could I get a list of your work orders? Could you put them together what's being covered?
I believe I can give you a list of our database as to what we've done and also a list of what we still have outstanding.
I would very much appreciate it, because I think maybe we're going get somewhere on that because the Capital budget can be amended. Sometimes it doesn't even need formal amendment if there's a transfer of capital funding or even operating funding, you know, within the category, within the classification. I'd very much appreciate getting that material. I heard your response to Councilman Nutter asking about the traffic signals and the stop signs. Does that mean now that when an ordinance is passed by City Council, it will require an ordinance but that the ordinance will 1519 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 be carried out with respect to the placement of traffic signals and stop signs? COMMISSIONER MOY: I think there was also a conversation or a statement made by Councilman DiCicco which I think made a lot of sense, and that was to convene a meeting so that we could go over our next steps, where we go from here in terms of making both our lives a little easier in terms of complying with State law or if we have to change State law addressing that and finding out just how we can work something out with Council, and we agreed with Councilman DiCicco that that made a lot of sense, to meet and develop a procedure.
Well, what was the procedure used with respect to the ordinances already passed. COMMISSIONER MOY: We've agreed in this case to work with Councilman Nutter on his ordinance. And what I'm suggesting is in the future, you asked for in the future --
Yes. We've been holding up some. I've had about four revolutions at York Road and Champlost because of what 1520 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 appeared to be senseless decisions by your department denying either stop signs or lights in which the people are terribly upset and feel that there's a need for signalization. That's a new large word I learned today. And we've never been able to understand why it's been turned down. You're saying the direction is at least to move in the direction of honoring the ordinances? COMMISSIONER MOY: I said we would do that, certainly, with Councilman Nutter's and then we are going to meet with Councilman DiCicco to address the subsequent --
Just remember, I'm vice-chair of the Streets Committee and would like to be included in those meetings.
Commissioner, when that meeting is scheduled, I'd like you to notify me because I think we would like someone from our technical staff also present. COMMISSIONER MOY: We certainly will, Councilwoman.
Thank you. And whatever information that you're 1521 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 providing to Council as a result of the meetings today, if you would forward them to me, I would make certain that each of the Councilmembers receives a copy. COMMISSIONER MOY: Fine. We will do that.
I'll make it brief, Madam Chair. Commissioner, I'm pleased, but I was aware that the department conducts an audit of facilities that are installed, signs, etc. And that leads me to a question that I think I've asked you to consider before. Can you explain who's responsible for seeing the things that I see on my way to work, my constituency see every day, stop signs knocked down, one-way signs that are not lagged properly or vibrate loose? In the Streets Department if we had a position in each of the highway districts that would be out there inspecting these Streets Department facilities to see the sign that's missing that Councilman Cohen pointed out or to see the damaged sign. I've 1522 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 reported now numerous occasions a sign that was knocked down by a vehicle. A member of Council had to see it and report it. But why can't we have a person in each of the highway districts whose responsibility is to be out in that highway district to observe the conditions that I know you see and I know that your top staff see every day, to be proactive rather than have a member of City Council have to call four days in a row to report a stop sign that's being run over by traffic, laying in the street, or other Streets Department property? I think it makes sense to either assign that additional responsibility to a supervisor of the Highway District or supervisors or create a position that puts a person out there in the field dealing with these issues that are constantly -- that you're being nagged. It would be great for me to call -- and I think you're already on to this. I think it would be great for me to call and someone say to me "Yeah, we know about that and we're on our way out there." I get that answer anyway even if they don't know. Why can't we give that responsibility to see the things that the citizens and visitors of Philadelphia see and 1523 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 take care of them or create a position? COMMISSIONER MOY: I don't disagree with anything you say, Councilman. And we are looking to our highway inspection force that is available, as it's available, to call those kinds of things to our attention. But I would say whereafter everyone else, all the citizens and the Council themselves to help us because there's such a large inventory, which you acknowledge, of street furniture and it's always something on the way down. If you call it to our attention, we try and get it as promptly as we can.
My final concern is something that really needs to be dealt with, and I don't know whether the Streets Department can adopt this type of regulation or you'd need Council. It's in the area of dumpsters. Does a dumpster that is being used by a contractor that's being left to remove construction debris that's placed out on the roadway require a permit or notification of the Streets Department. COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes, I believe it does, Councilman.
It does? 1524 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 COMMISSIONER MOY: Yes.
What I would like to see is that you develop a specification that requires reflective devices on these dumpsters that people that are driving, especially when they're left in area that is not normally a parking area, I see dumpsters, 40 cubic yard dumpsters, left along the curbline with no -- I don't mean to go to the extremes -- battery powered flashing lights or at least reflective tape on those. Is that something that you can require all suppliers of dumpsters within the county of Philadelphia to make sure that these Dumpsters are visible? COMMISSIONER MOY: We'll look at our permitting. It sounds reasonable to require that in the permit, and we will do that.
A contractor just can't call ABC and have a dumpster dumped on the street without a permit? COMMISSIONER MOY: Right.
You're 1525 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 welcome. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
At the request of the stenographer, we're going to take a ten-minute break. (Break taken.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
Committee of the Whole is now back in session. The next department to testify is Public Property. (Public Property witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Good afternoon. My name is Andreas Perez, Commissioner of the Department of Public Property. Council President Verna and Members of the City Council, it's a pleasure to appear before Council today in support 1526 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 of Public Property's budget request for Fiscal Year 2001. With me today are Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner for Communications; John Herzins Deputy Commissioner for Administration, Joan Schlotterbeck, Facilities Management Director; and George Hee, Fiscal Officer; and Chris Zearfoss, Director of Transit Operations and Planning Division. In my testimony I just want to briefly skip through the submitted written document and touch on a few highlights.
The stenographer will get a copy of your testimony so it will be in the record. So if you could just summarize what you've given us, it would be appreciated. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The Department of Public Property Fiscal 2001 budget request totals $204,462,938 in all funds. An increase of $7,347,120 from your our Fiscal Year 2000 estimated obligations. In the General Fund in Class 100 we're requesting $9,380,423, an increase of $258,160 from Fiscal Year 2000 obligations resulting from 1527 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 the contractual pay raises which are scheduled in the spring. 2-plus million dollars from Fiscal Year obligations resulting from increases in our telecommunications costs, increases to the SEPTA subsidy, both of which have been partially offset by decreases in our space rental expenses. In Class 400 we're requesting $123,000, which is a decrease of $1 million from the Fiscal Year 2000 obligations resulting from the deletion of the City's non-recurring equipment expenditures for the Republican National Convention. We're requesting $16 million in Class 800, which is unchanged from prior year, from Fiscal Year 2000 obligations. 6 million for court departmental operations. In the water fund we're requesting $3,339,572 in Class 200, An increase of 320,000 1528 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 from Fiscal Year 2000. 5 million, which is unchanged from fiscal 2000 obligations. 5 million from Fiscal Year 2000 obligations. Very briefly, we've completed the final phase of the real estate plan where the bulk of our savings has occurred. There are still a few small moves and relocations that will be taken care of during Fiscal Year 2001, and the expenses represent the estimated lease costs and those related costs that are running borne through the leases for those improvements that we anticipate. 3 million since we began this in about Fiscal Year 91-'92 and over the length of the Five-Year Plan, projected into the Five-Year Plan. We have continued the program of 1529 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 improving facility maintenance operations. Y2K problems did push us into converting our computerized maintenance system, so we're beginning the new Fiscal Year, the current Fiscal Year moving into the new Fiscal Year with an improved computerized building maintenance systems database an system, more user-friendly, again, with the intent of continuing the improved maintenance support of our major facilities. With the full collaboration of the Capital Program Office, the department and the CPO were able to acquire the former PECO Energy Philadelphia Operations Center and convert that into an operations building for the Police Department Internal Affairs Bureau. That was largely completed in the main building this year. They're occupying it presently. There are two other aspects to that project which will be completed by CPF with the department's support through the balance of the year and going into the first quarter of the next fiscal year. The contract services program, which we began some years ago, goes forward in another cycle of renewed contract, rebid ,or new proposals 1530 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 submitted in another cycle of support. We estimated that the current package of contracts is saving us a million dollars in the coming fiscal year against prior-year expenses and projections against prior-year expenses. The communications division has, of course, since our last presentation before Council, actually moved ahead with the 800-megahertz program, the replacement of the radio system and related support elements. We are approximately on track to continue that implementation through into the next fiscal year. A number of departments have also been, as a consequence of those smaller moves, been provided with full communication systems conversions, as has been our program since the upgrade of facilities began.
The City net program, which again was gun some years ago through the Department of Public Property, has matured to the point where not only have all the City's agencies mounted their technology seen as a platform, but we've also expanded that to support the Philadelphia Housing Authority, the Philadelphia Parking 1531 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 Authority, and the School District of Philadelphia. The 911 call answering and dispatch infrastructure for police and fire continue to be supported again, as in years past, by the Department of Public Property. And in the most recent couple of years and moving again into the next year continued technology upgrades with the collaboration of police and fire as well as the eventual tie-in to the 800-megahertz system. Franchise agreements, of course, with Council's support, have been renewed for all the areas of the City at this point. The approval was also obtained for the acquisition of Greater Media by Comcast, and we expect the following year to be primarily a transition year because current franchise is still run for about another fiscal year before the new franchises actually take place. We continue estimating revenue from the cable franchises to be in the amount of $8,800,000. The subscriber base for -- the aggregate subscriber base for the franchises is approximately 313,000 accounts. 1532 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 We, again, continue to support special events, activities which have increased in the last couple of years. We are looking forward, of course, to the spin-off activities providing some increase demand, spin-off activities from the Republican National Convention coming to the City. The transit operations and planning division is where historically the SEPTA-related funding, which is funneled through the Department, is contained; and as in years past, I don't comment on the detail other than that what has been provided in the written testimony. However, Mr. Zearfoss and a representative of SEPTA is available for questions, if necessary. And that, in fact, closes my overall testimony, and I'm available for questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, can you tell us what the total cost to your department for the Republican National Convention is in FY 2000 and 2001?
Good afternoon, Council President. My name is Joseph James. 1533 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005
Deputy Public Property Commissioner. The total cost has not been determined yet, but I can tell that you in our 2000 budget, we have approximately $2 million that was put into budget to cover the costs for equipment, hardware, and supplies as part of the City's commitment to the Republic National Convention, and there is no 12 funding in 2001 for the Republican National Convention.
So you do not anticipate that you're going to need any money in the 2001 budget?
I believe there will probably be some carryover expenses in 2001, but they will probably be absorbed in our Operating Budget. Since majority of the work will be done prior to the convention, we anticipate there won't be a substantial amount of expense to the department.
Thank you. Commissioner Perez, why is the cost of 1534 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 the prison contract maintenance presigning by $1.3 million in Fiscal 2001, and can you also tell us what services are provided under this contract? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Generally speaking, it's a replica of the triplex contract. Although it's a different vendor where a full package of overall maintenance services are provided except they're provided in the prison environment and specifically in the current Fromhold facility.
What are those services? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Mechanical support, repair services, general repair services. I believe we don't provide custodial because that's an inmate -- I believe that's an inmate provided activity. But full support of the building, it is a three-quarter million square foot building and it does include a massive food preparation facility that supports the entire prison complex with a capacity of 41,000 meals a day. The details of it, I could ask Mrs. Schlotterbeck to come forward and explain it in a little bit better detail what the general package 1535 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 of services is. The increase that we're looking at is anticipation of, I believe, the combination of a rebid and including some forecasted experiences related to the construction of the new women's facility. So as the women's facility comes on line near the end of our Fiscal Year 2000, we of course have to be ready long before then to take over the building and support it in the same fashion.
Thank you. On of your testimony, you mentioned that you would like to create a master redevelopment plan for the Suburban Station and the adjacent Penn Center concourse area. Will such a master plan require City Council approval? And will the City be providing any operating and/or capital funds in this area? And if so, how much? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The master plan language is actually referring to SEPTA's master plan for the concourse, which has been evolving over a number of years. Several years ago the concept of combining spaces under one management agency was developed. That is, there are Public 1536 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 Property jurisdictions in the concourse as well as areas that are exclusively SEPTA jurisdictions. Often they butt each other in purely hypothetical boundaries and the ordinary citizen doesn't know the difference from one or the other until they try to make a complaint about something that needs to get fixed. The concept was that the funding that Public Property and perhaps some other City-related agencies may have been spending and may continue to spend in supporting the concourse overall conditions, at least those that are entirely ours, would be combined with SEPTA's resources and the revenue produced or a portion of the revenue produced by the new rental arrangements by private owners and SEPTA throughout the concourse into an organization which would be a replica of the Mall Maintenance Corporation which engages in those activity on the east side underneath the gallery. That was the concept and it's taken years to advance itself. It goes back to a policy consideration for the current administration to decide how we're going to move forward. I don't believe that I've got targeted funds in my budget 1537 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 or in my future-year budget to support that other than what I would ordinarily do through maintenance activity if it ever comes to being transferred to this Concourse Management Corporation or proposed Concourse Management Corporation.
Thank you. Can you tell us why the SEPTA subsidy is being increased by $2.8 million? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It's being increased to meet the City's required match of the anticipated increase from the State.
The State. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And, of course, the number is generated from the Finance Department in collaboration with SEPTA.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner, could you state for the record the policy that you have for advertising on the SEPTA shelters, the passenger shelters specifically as it pertains to alcohol and 1538 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 tobacco? I understand you are the final say of what goes on in those shelters. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It's a concession agreement, it's a ten-year concession agreement. The language is buried in the contract and -- Chris. I'm going to ask Chris Zearfoss to help me with this one. It's been a few years since the contract had been renewed. My recollection is that the Commissioner of Public Property as the implementing agency for the contract has a limited control over the advertising content.
You can as the Commissioner of Public Property reject or suggest rejection of any particular advertising; is that correct? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I believe that's correct.
How come, then, we accept alcohol and tobacco advertising?
Good afternoon, Councilman. I'm Chris Zearfoss, Director of Transit Operations and Planning. As the Commissioner stated the, shelter 1539 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 program operate pursuant to a concession agreement which is about ten years in length. It will expire in December of 2001. The contract does has a provision where the Commissioner can have an ad removed which was libellous, obscene, offensive -- I forget the other terms of art that are used. That has only been invoked maybe two or three times over the years. The tobacco ads have been removed from the shelters pursuant to larger bans that have been imposed at the national level. The shelters, however, do continue to have ads from time to time for alcoholic beverages.
Again, for the record, tobacco is no longer advertised at all in any of those.
We almost 270 citywide with commercial ads and we have about another 22 in Center City that have public service cultural 23 posters only. 24
The Center City 25 District? 1540 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005
So tobacco is -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Tobacco is out because of the national ban.
But alcohol is still -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Alcohol is still legal and the definitions over my discretion don't include it. However, Chris, Mr. Zearfoss did mention that it's up for rebid in about a fiscal year's time.
Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: And the time to close any widows or loops that we feel we've got is actually now as we begin preparing the paperwork for that competition.
Great. Commissioner, my last question. In the budget in the Operating Budget there is a proposed $16 million and it's payments to other funds. Could you explain what $16 million payments to other funds is? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Well, it's basically the -- excuse me for a moment. I'll ask 1541 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 Rob Dubow to support me on this one, but there are -- (Rob Dubow comes forward). COMMISSIONER PEREZ: That particular pot of money, the million, is really the 7 receipts from the 911 surcharge, and it's always 8 presented in the budget for appropriation 9 authorization. 10
Say that one more 11 time. 12 COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It's the 911 13 surcharge receipts from the 911 surcharge. 14
That's titled 15 payments to other funds? 16 COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I guess that's the way it's categorized, yes.
So you can understand why I question it. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
You're welcome. 1542 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Good afternoon.
Your testimony talks about a redevelopment plan and a multi-phased concourse improvement initiative. I don't get a chance to ride the City Transit Division a lot. Every now and then from time to time, I ride the commuter rail lines as well. And it is clear to me that there is a distinct difference between the areas where the commuter railline comes in and people come up a set of stairs that if you're going to City Hall that lead to the City Hall area versus coming up out of the City Division areas and a whole -- I don't know what the area is called, but generally in the Dilworth Plaza area and then underneath the overhang, if you will. Can you provide us a map of the entire concourse area, the open area and the covered areas of Suburban Station to show, I guess, in different colors who's responsible for cleaning what area? Because in the City Transit 1543 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 Division area under the concourse, it is clearly one of the most disgusting areas of the City. And the fact that it's attached to this building or to the triplex concourse or however you guys characterize it, I mean I am literally afraid at times that you're either going to catch something down there or something's going to catch you. And I really think that it's just not the way you want to start your day getting into the City Hall area. Between the smells, the fluids, the trash, the debris, and all kinds of other stuff that you have to jump around, it's just -- it's not presentable. So if you could show me on a map who's responsible for what and then what the cleaning schedule is and what the maintenance schedule is, I would like to know that. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: That shouldn't be a problem at all.
Thank you. In the same area, your testimony indicates that SEPTA's going to fund the initial $11 million for the $46 million concourse project. Who's paying the other 35? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I actually don't 1544 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 know the factual answer, but it's SEPTA funds. Whether it's SEPTA receiving State, Federal funds or even other City capital funds directly to their budget, I don't know how that sorts itself out. You'll probably get a much better answer when they're here for their budget presentation.
Well, I'd be more than happy to ask them, but why don't we do this: As Commissioner of the Department of Public Property, and if this is situated within your technical jurisdiction, is raised in your testimony, you could touch base with SEPTA, get a detailed explanation of the source -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We'll get you an explanation.
That would be great. Thank you. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The Planning Commission is also very much involved.
All right. With regard to surplus property, the notices that we get about the availability or the request to determine whether a piece of property is surplus property, the lead time on those notices is not 1545 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 particularly conducive to trying to be responsive. I received a notice sometime last year, for example, a memo dated September 22nd, which was received on September 29th, and required a response by October 8th. Now, I mean, I certainly can't know all of the circumstances -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Certainly, that timetable was tight and it's not standard because we do try to do it on a 30-day response basis, and I don't know if there were particular reasons why we accelerated that particular property.
Well, the other issue is, on these lists, how often are they updated or do people check to see what the real status of that particular property is? I get lists from time to time for property that is under a current lease with one of our authorities for an active operating parking lot. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: That -- I know the notice you're referring to. Unfortunately, a recently hired employee was given a task of go put together a list of surplus properties to sell, wasn't given a lot more instruction, and a number of active, in-place, in-use facilities ended up on 1546 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 that list. Of course, it was -- I won't say recalled, but no action was taken.
But you can imagine the confusion, if not the anxiety that results when people find out that the property that they've been using or have under active lease has now ended up on a City surplus property list. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: That's right.
Which once get in computer system from which it can never been extracted, it's never clear whether you're off the list, still on the list, somebody's thinking about you, or there's, you know, the usual conspiracy that goes with any of these things that it's only a matter of time before they get you. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: In this case there was a compound error. I've been around a long time and I require those lists be reviewed by me personally before they get circulated to departments, agencies, and officials. I saw the errors at my first glance, and it got ahead of me. And I apologize to you and I've already apologized to a number of other individuals who were very distressed by that situation. 1547 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005
I appreciate that. Let me now focus on an area of particular interest which has to do with your communications side of the house, and specifically cable television. I believe that last year around and about this time, I had asked for a relatively detailed memo and explanation for a step-by-step plain-English explanation of what is needed and what's require and who has to do what with whom and where -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
-- on the establishment of Public Access Television Corporation, which naturally go from an ordinance, articles of incorporation, full establishment of the Public Access Corporation. That's a kind of quick, general overview, but naturally, there are steps and many details between those steps. To the best of my knowledge, I've not received that kind of detailed documentation for what needs to happen to go from start to finish. Can you tell me where things are on that and who's working on it? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It had been -- the 1548 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 response had been worked on, of course, not only by Mr. James and Mr. Costello from my department, but also the Law Department. My recollection is that the Administration, through the Law Department, was going to provide, you know, the final response to Council. I'm sorry to say I didn't know that that didn't happen. I don't know if it actually didn't happen, but there's no 10 problem going back and readdressing that issue one more time.
Well, I would certainly like to have it. And as I said, it's the kind of thing that, you know, would have kind of stood out in the mail. If it had come on a particular day, I actually would have probably read it a couple times, so I didn't notice it coming in. If we could get an updated copy of that, I would greatly appreciate it. Along with that, were there ever articles of incorporation for the Public Access Corporation drafted and developed back at that time.
May I interrupt for a moment to tell to you to speak directly into the 1549 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 microphone. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I'm sorry, Councilman.
When you're faced in that direction, your voice goes there and it's -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Certainly. I'm going to ask Joe James to respond.
Councilman Nutter, if I could just verify your question, are you're asking about whether articles of incorporation drafted last year when you made request for memo or are you talking about initially? Initially, when the issue the public access was before Council when the franchises were first being established there was a bill and there were articles of incorporation drafted. They did not go to the State and they did not get formulated.
Well, as a part of the earlier information request, I would like a copy of those articles of incorporation attached as attachment exhibit tab whatever you want to call it as a part of that particular package.
Thanks. Now, what is the Department's current estimate on the cost to operate a full-blown public access TV system here in Philadelphia?
I believe last year, it might have been a little bit longer, when we first looked at this issue and this issue was very prominent during cable renewal discussions, we looked at a budget and forecasted a budget anywhere from half a million dollars depending on how minute we would like to operate it, anywhere from a million and a half to 3 million depending on if we went to the full that was in the renewals or in the actual cable documents of nine studios throughout the City with vans and so forth.
And did any -- how did you do this research or information? Who did you talk to to try to figure it out?
I believe much of then information we researched with other cities, Chicago, Boston, Washington D.C., other cities who already have public access and looking at their budget numbers as far as the positions and the salaries that they were paying, the type of 1551 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 equipment and what it would cost.
Have you had any meetings or discussions with the Philadelphia Community Access Coalition?
Would you have some meetings with the Philadelphia Community Access Coalition as a group of people here in Philadelphia who have probably more than any other group of people and probably with the exception of Councilman Cohen, maybe Councilman Ortiz, have spent more time and effort working on this issue than anyone else in the City? You're not adverse to meeting with them, are you?
I don't think the department is adverse to meeting with them. We have been assisting maybe a year or so ago when it was then-Council President Street had meetings with the members of the organization you mentioned. We provided some technical information and sat in on the meeting to answer some of the background questions on the history. And certainly at those discussions, we would be glad to participate in. 1552 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005
Okay, let me go back to the earlier question. Notwithstanding that earlier discussion, you will be glad to sit down and meet with that group of people to talk about these particular issues on an expedited basis.
I don't think we're adverse to meeting with that organization. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We will do that, Councilman.
Could I hear that answer again? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We will do that.
Would you agree at that meeting to have Councilmembers present, at the meeting?
I don't -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I have no 25 objection to doing that. 1553 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005
Thank you. Last question, Madam Chair. The general programming on the government access channel, which as we know during the budget hearing process and every Thursday, naturally, for Council sessions, the Department makes arrangements to broadcast these particular sessions. But once a Thursday and for a couple months during the budget hearings is when you have primarily have live broadcasts; is that correct? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: That is correct.
During other time there are various screen displays, or I think your more technical language might be kind of be a scrolling screen and then you have all of the fade-aways. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Bulletin boards and other kinds of information.
Has there been any discussion within the department to put public 1554 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 access on hold for one second, just the City's general use of that particular channel as, I guess, a medium to communicate with the public in a variety of different fashions? I mean, you have, I mean, the power of television for the government, and I'm not saying the government should do anything inappropriate or try to influence people, I'm not talking about reviewing scripts or trying to get a message through different TV shows, but I mean we have ten operating department, Fairmount Park, and a wide variety of entities, the alphabet soup agencies and the like. Has anyone had any discussions about getting out more information about those entities, maybe having someone interview the Commissioner of Streets or the library person or anybody to talk about in a kind of a more direct person-to-person fashion about what those agencies are and what they do and how to communicate with them and what services they provide and all of that kind of stuff? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It's occurred, it's occurred rarely from time to time where that kind of a short presentation has been put on. 1555 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 And, of course, those are not necessarily advertised ahead of time. They're used, again, to fill in time between the scrolled information. We can try --
If you're just kind of a surfer -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We can try collaborating with the other departments to see what we can come up with.
I mean, other than if you wanted to watch a rebroadcast of a Council session at 7:30 on Thursday or watch it live at 10 o'clock in the morning or see this activity, you're just kind of left to -- if you can surf up to 64, take a chance, you might kind of maybe see something that might possibly be of interest to you? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We can explore that. The limitations in the past with the other agencies when we've tried to do this in a sort of coordinated, collaborative way has been the time available, the staff with the interest for it, and the eventual cost of producing materials. I would dare say that probably in 1999, if we revisit 1556 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 that, it might be easier and cheaper to do it than when we first tried it almost eight years ago.
Or if there was just a philosophy and perspective. I've never had a cable TV discussion with Mayor Street, but it seems to me that if the philosophy and the perspective of the Administration is "we want to do these things," I couldn't imagine that any Commissioner would show anything short of joy and glee when directed properly to allocate a half hour, 45 minutes to putting on some program for taping that's going to provide good information for citizens of this City. Since the people who are watching are the people who are paying the bill, right? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
Okay. So you'll get back to us on that? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
Councilman, I think this would be a great avenue also to use. We keep talking about an educational program regarding the recycling issue. Why couldn't we use the avenue of TV? We could talk about any 1557 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 number of things. If people have to go into L&I for a permit, how much it's going to cost; the type of information they will have to provide when they go for their permit. I mean, there are a lot of issues that can be explained to people before they attempt to even come to City Hall or the MSB Building, and I think a lot of cities do that.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Last June the Law and Government committee, of which I'm the Chair, held a meeting on public access and invited the City. We were under the clear impression that your department was coming, and then right toward the very end, we received notice that you were not coming. Was there any reason why your department stayed away from the hearings? You were the most important City department involved in public access. Did you get instructions from the then-mayor not to appear? Was it a decision of your department? 1558 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 I'm not going to embarrass you. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I'm on the record and I'm trying to recall. I recall the hearing, I recall the issue of the hearing, I just --
I think it was the last public hearing that Council held. The room 8 was packed with adherence of public access. It was by far the largest group that had ever appeared at a Council hearing on behalf of public access. The testimony seemed to me to be directly on point and very important, and the most important people who should have been in the room 14 were not there. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: My recollection is that we were present, but not testifying.
You were what? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: We were present, but not testifying.
Why would that have been? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I don't recall.
You recollect that you received any instructions from the then-mayor not to participate? 1559 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 COMMISSIONER PEREZ: No, not specifically. I'm sorry.
Well, the reason it's important is we're trying to find out why a law passed by City Council in 1992 is totally unenforced, whether it was stalled by your department, and as you've testified, you've been the Commissioner for many years; or whether it was stalled by somebody else. And that's the reason for the question. Could you give an answer to that? Is your department in favor of public access? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I don't believe I'm at liberty to take that kind of a broad public policy statement entirely on my own. I can answer your question a bit differently by saying that in my budget submissions, I have not included the expenses estimated to support public access.
Is that your own decision? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: It has been for the past couple of years.
Why. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Because it hasn't 1560 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 been supported and provided in the past.
I don't understand that. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Budgets are target figures. When I received my target figure and the things I feel need to be done exceed that number, I've got to eliminate items or reduce expenses where there's discretion to reduce expenses. It ends up being a fruitless endeavor for me to add a million dollars -- I'm just picking a number of right now -- on a budget where I already know that my instruction is to keep it at 1.5 percent lower than the prior years. And so there is that element of the process where, you know, I have other priorities that I can't get in there that I'd rather take care of now than later. And so supporting public access at the expense of what some of those other priorities may be doesn't make any sense to me.
Well -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I don't mean that is a policy statement, just as an operations manager with a fixed budget forecast.
Well, didn't the 1561 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 original agreement provide for payment of funds by the cable companies to whom we gave permits? Didn't it include funding for public access? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: The funds that keep being referred to are not available to us as a department to staff and operate and support.
But you were aware of, weren't you -- COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
And how much funding was that on a yearly basis? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Let me ask Mr. James. 300,000.
Is that what came from the are 5 percent fee? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Yes.
And when this -- let me refer to Mr. James a moment. When you refer to making studies as to what the cost would be for public access, when were those studies made?
Councilman, that information was collected over about a year or so, 1562 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 maybe around the time when you're referring to the hearing or maybe a little bit before that. We've been collecting information on the topic for the last two years.
And did you, as a result of those studies, decide that the 5 percent fee was not enough, that it would only generate $300,000 and that therefore you would want to increase that amount coming from the cable companies?
I believe what was in the franchise agreement is for a fixed amount of dollars to come directly from each franchise area to fund public access operating costs as well as a fixed amount of dollars for the capital cost. The operating dollars could be recovered from the revenue collected from the 5 percent franchise fee. So one could argue you could make it as much as you want, you're just deleting those revenues that would go into the General Fund.
You have 5 percent to work with, so 5 percent of whatever gets collected. 1563 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005
Five percent is the franchise the City receives from the cable operators. That money goes to the General Fund. You can then dedicate the 300,000 out of that 5 percent or more if that's the decision, but it would all come out of the same source of funds which would be that 5 percent franchise fee.
Now, does the 300,000 figure that Mr. Perez refers to, is that the cumulative amount from all of the companies together at the time we have had the four companies?
Well, as I said, the original documents envisioned nine cable studios with a cable van in each area and studio facilities. 300,000 is not going to cover, I would say, the operating cost for the salaries for the people you need to operate it, let alone the 1564 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 equipment cost and the utility cost for running nine different studios.
Depending on the operation, you could size it down to a smaller scale maybe one studio with limited resources and maybe not as fully staffed as you would want. It's a matter of how you design the studios that's going determine the operation cost.
Well, why wouldn't the City when it negotiated this new contract that it just negotiated, why wouldn't the City have asked for what it considered an adequate amount? Did the City feel rich enough, knew it was going to have this big surplus, therefore, wanted to add the money and didn't want to charge the cable companies more? Wasn't this a perfect time to ask for more funding?
Certainly it was. At the time we went through the cable renewal negotiations with all the cable operators, we basically carried forward the obligations that were originally established from the original 1984 1565 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 franchises, and through that process of negotiations, there was no impetus on our part to increase that amount and there was no direction from Council to increase that amount as we went through the process, so the amount did not get increased as part of those negotiations.
They really got a good deal, didn't they, the cable companies.
Well, it's not really a deal for the cable operators. The cable operators will pay what we determine as what we want to spend on public access. It's coming out of the 5 percent franchise fee. It really doesn't make a difference to them. There's really no hardship to them because all we're doing is using the revenue that gets generated from the franchise fee to fund the public access.
Is there anything in the agreement that would prevent the -- you mean the cable companies really weren't paying anything, they were passing it on to the consumer? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: In the end that's correct. In the end there's a bite out of the City's revenue. 1566 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005
The cable companies seem to be rolling in wealth, aren't they? They have tremendous cash flows.
Well, yes, their income is up, but the obligation really it doesn't depend whether or not they are successful or wealthy, it's the obligation that's in there to fund public access. The City has to make a decision whether it wants to do public access and then decide what's the right amount of funds and what's the right amount of operations that the City would feel to be appropriate for that particular activity.
But a good negotiator for the City would have made the cable companies pay something for public access. We're giving them a license to do things, so didn't we have a right to say that out of their profit should come a franchise fee?
Well, as in most cases throughout the nation and through the Cable Act at the federal level, there's really not a lot of leverage municipalities or cities have and in imposing any sort of additional obligations on 1567 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 cable operators for public access, any fees that we collect from them that we use for public access is going to come out of the revenue that they pay us. They're not going to be putting out any money other than the capital costs which is one obligation that we maintain which is directly their are dollars to be spent for the capital construction cost of the studio.
Well, they have, as we mentioned many times before, it's a line obligation in the franchise agreement. There are no monies set aside, there's been no money put in reserve, and there's been no money being expended. They will appropriate those funds when we tell them that we're ready to do public access.
I think the total number for all four franchise areas is around $2 million. Now $2 million dollars is probably not going to build you nine cable studios with vans. So if the City wants to go forward with public access 1568 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 initiative, there's going to have to probably be some refocus on how either there will additional City dollars put in there to build the nine studios or a lesser scaled-down model of what that should look like that is more appropriate to what we have to spend.
Well, I think I would have -- it seems to me as if the City did an extremely poor job of negotiating. I would have to be convinced to the contrary that you somehow negotiated to the maximum ability of the law. But it seems to me that we would not be limited for operational purposes for public access by federal law to a measly sum of $300,000 a year.
Well, not by federal. We negotiated based upon what were the priorities at the time to be negotiated. Public access was not a priority. What we did was maintain an obligation and carry it forward. We did not increase that obligation because this is no public access, there was no public access, and at the time that they were negotiating, there was no 24 immediate impetus on anyone's part to do public access. So we negotiated what was in our best 1569 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 interests for the City, the best things that would be of value to the City. And I think we did a very good job in negotiation. Maybe not to public access point of view, but some of other things that were negotiated, I think we did quite well in comparison to a very competitive market and to an arena where federal regulations or more to the industry's favor as they are to the municipalities. In a lot of cities, public access is funded out of the citizens in addition to the money that they collect.
Mr. James, you have a lot of convincing to do to convince me. It seems to me that what happened was that the Mayor of the City, whoever the mayor was during these periods of time, found this as a good source of separate income for which he decided -- I can say he because there was no female mayor at the time. He decided he just wanted to appropriate that money. And that in the private business world had that been done, it would have been pure theft, the taking of money that had been granted for one purpose was being used for an entirely different purpose despite the existence of a law which 1570 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 required the creation of public access. I'm not holding the department responsible for that, because I don't believe you had anything to do with it. But the franchise fee has been paid each year?
That's years. 13 COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Nearly 15 years. 14
15 years times 15 $300,000 plus interest that that money would have earned if it had just not be tampered. That looks to me like a pretty good kitty of maybe better than $5 million in the Operation Fund which the City has diverted although the money came to it. I question the legality of the City using the money for other purposes because I don't think we're permitted to use a tax that we levied on some private company for one purpose, I don't think we're permitted to use it for another purpose, but we'll let that he go for the time 1571 2/22/00, Operating Budget, Bill 000005 being. Secondly, how about the Capital Fund, that's just never been paid?