Fleet Management15 did a good job with maintaining what we16 did have.17
They're18 holding my ten-year-old City car together19 with public help.20
Can I have25 328 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 a point of information on that?2 We get a lot of complaints3 about the businesses with graffiti on4 their buildings, and I understand that5 they are responsible for removing the6 graffiti. If they don't have the7 wherewithal to do it, is there any way we8 could charge them for that service?9
The Anti-Graffiti10 Network is a free service for private as11 well as public businesses. They can12 contact us through 3-1-1 if they want to13 speak to a live operator, visit our14 website at www.phila.gov/qualityoflife.15
So you16 provide the service already to the17 public?18
I always hold23 Tommy to 24 hours. So you can tell that24 to folks.25 329 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
I do want2 to commend the graffiti guys and the3 vacant lot guys based on their4 capabilities in terms of resources.5 Graffiti responses have been great.6 Although I would like to see us change7 our strategy, because this is an ongoing8 issue as it relates to we clean it, it's9 like a game, they come out the next day,10 they tag it, we clean it. And as you11 say, we're providing the service for12 free, so it is taxpayers' dollars. The13 old days we had undercover police14 officers. For whatever reason we don't15 do that anymore. Graffiti is at its16 highest point in quite some time. One,17 it would be nice if we can give some18 thought to that. Maybe not a police19 officer but maybe a SWEEPs officer so you20 don't want to take people off the street21 dealing with graffiti that need to be out22 on the street dealing with serious crime.23 And this recommendation that I made to24 somebody in government not too long ago,25 330 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 that we've seen successful cases where2 there was an issue or a person who had3 committed a crime or a person that has4 done one thing or another where there's a5 small reward put in the paper, a picture,6 and people -- if they know, they want the7 money, they're going to tell. And the8 thought was that a significant number of9 these graffiti artists, if that's what10 you want to call them, have very specific11 tags, particularly the ones that have12 these things all over the place. People13 know who they are. I thought that it14 might make sense for us to possibly get15 some of the most prolific taggers, put a16 picture in the paper, pay a small fee,17 probably wouldn't be as much as one18 graffiti removal given the manpower19 associated with the removal, and just see20 what happens, see if we get a call, a21 tipster saying, You know what, I'm22 telling on this guy, I don't even like23 this guy, and I can pick up a couple of24 bucks if I tell on him.25 331 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I was given information three2 days ago about where apparently a number3 of them congregate before they come out4 and assault the neighborhood. So people5 know who these guys are. So I'm thinking6 maybe we can get a little creative in7 terms -- because this tit for tat, I8 mean, you know, it's like a game. They9 say, I'm going to tag it. We come out,10 we clean it. We got four or five guys.11 At some point we need to get outside of12 the box on this one.13
We do work with14 the Police Department's Neighborhood15 Services Division with regards to short16 dumping and graffiti surveillance. With17 regards to short dumping surveillance,18 we've issued 65 tickets, $300 tickets19 within the last two years, and the Police20 Department's Neighborhood Services21 Division made about 43 arrests for short22 dumping last two years.23 Graffiti, last year I think in24 2010 was about 15 arrests for graffiti25 332 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 vandalism. And, again, it's a big city.2 We only have about four officers that we3 coordinate with.4
That's how9 we cleaned it up before. We had very10 aggressive police officers, undercover,11 and we cleaned that issue up. And then12 once it got resolved, we took the13 officers away and put them back out on14 the street to fight crime. And it is15 back in a big way. I mean, it's not in16 just, quote/unquote, challenged17 neighborhoods. It's everywhere.18
It's throughout19 the whole City. And then the CLIP20 removal is our biggest deterrent at this21 time. As soon as it's seen, we ask22 people to report it, let us know where it23 is, because we do have a pretty rapid24 response with regards to removal.25 333 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
You guys2 respond. We call you all the time, but3 at some point, I really don't want to4 have to call you about that. You know5 what I mean? So if we can -- you and the6 Managing Director can kind of give us a7 written response to the possibility of8 looking at other strategies associated9 with that, please.10
My last16 question, I promise. Thank you, Madam17 Chair.18 My last question, I promise.19 And Councilman Clarke seems to be a real20 authority on tagging. I'm wondering in21 his youth in North Philly if he has some22 practical experience there.23
I was wondering24 the same thing.25 334 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
You seemed2 like an expert, Councilman Clarke, on the3 whole tagging thing from back in the day.4 All right. What I wanted to5 ask about finally -- and this is wishful6 thinking. Councilwoman Tasco brought7 this issue up when I first came on board,8 and I joined her in my end of the9 district, alleys and driveways. I just10 thought we would end on that note to11 figure out is there light at the end of12 the tunnel budgetarily by way of alley13 lights, by way of alley cleanings and by14 way of potential projects such as15 driveway patching, paving or whatever.16 DEPUTY MAYOR CUTLER:17 Councilman Jones, Rina Cutler, Deputy18 Mayor, Transportation and Utilities.19 We have been -- we sent a crew20 out on the street for the last, I think,21 six weeks just trying to get our arms22 around costs, and we expect within the23 next 10 to 14 days to be able to come up24 with at least some estimation based on25 335 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 whether it's a row house versus a single2 versus square footage on the driveways.3 So we actually are trying to finish an4 analysis now that would highlight what5 the costs really are in terms of moving6 forward, and we have committed to7 Councilwoman Tasco that we would come8 back and try to create a process once we9 had our hands around the costs for this.10 So we will make sure that we get you in11 that loop as well.12
Thank you.13 We realize the realities of our budget,14 but wanted to keep this on the radar.15
I appreciate21 it. Because we think both in the case of22 alleys and the way of driveways, regular23 citizens but also our first responders24 have to travel those alleyways, and they25 336 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 need to be lit, they need to be safe for2 both the residents and someone, God3 forbid, a fireman or a policeman that has4 to go through them. And so it's on our5 radar, and I'm glad it's on yours.6
We've been7 working with the Streets Department and8 Ms. Cutler on this issue for the last9 three or four -- couple of months.10
Thank you.13 The Chair recognizes14 Councilwoman Brown.15
Bike16 sharing. There's a growing interest17 around those who are brave enough to ride18 bikes and their advocacy groups, who care19 about the notion of bike sharing and the20 likes. Could you just provide us an21 update on where we are as a city with22 bike lanes and all that type of response23 to that growing constituency group.24 DEPUTY
Yes,25 337 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Councilwoman. As you are aware, last2 year we did a pilot and made permanent3 segregated bike lanes on Pine and Spruce4 Street. We have just finished an5 analysis to try to identify two streets6 running north/south for the next set of7 bike lanes. And so we will shortly go8 into the community and start working with9 the community groups for the next two.10 Long term, there is a new bike11 plan, if you will, that came out of a12 collaborative effort with the City13 Planning Department. And so I'm happy to14 get you a copy of that, which sort of15 lays out the planning process for the16 next several years in terms of additional17 bike lanes.18
That's a20 different issue than the bike sharing21 program, which, as you are aware, there22 has been at least a small but vocal23 constituency to do a bike share program.24 It is very expensive. We have been25 338 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 working with the advocates to try to2 convince them -- and I think we finally3 have -- that it's probably not in the4 cards at this point for City dollars to5 be used for a bike share program given6 our limited resources and the list of7 needs for those dollars, but we have8 embarked on trying to figure out how9 potentially to raise money privately.10 And so there are folks out there trying11 to figure out how to fund a bike share12 program. And so it is certainly13 something we support. It is our14 expectation that at some point we will be15 able to get one underway, but it is not16 going to happen in the short term or with17 City dollars.18
The Chair25 339 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 recognizes Councilman Clarke.2
Thank you,3 Madam Chair.4 A couple of quick questions.5 Why is CLIP housed in the Division of6 Transportation and Utilities?7 DEPUTY
That8 change happened actually just before last9 year's budget process. Primarily because10 most of my agencies do operations, and11 the agency that is tied in the most12 closely with CLIP is Sanitation in terms13 of clean-ups and picking up the vacant14 lot stuff once it's done, and they have a15 lot of the same equipment, and so it was16 easy to put them both in the same17 operational group so that we could share18 those resources.19
So it's20 because of the Deputy Mayor being -- so21 it has more --22 DEPUTY
-- to do25 340 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 with the Deputy Mayor structure? Okay.2 DEPUTY
I was3 going to say everyone wants to work for4 me, but I'm not sure that's true.5
Just kind10 of follow-ups. The car share issue --11 I'm sorry. Let me get to the first12 issue. The bike sharing, is this the13 Russell Meddin issue?14 DEPUTY
He won't20 like the fact that you referenced him as21 a small but vocal group.22 DEPUTY
I'll make25 341 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 sure I tell him that.2 With respect to costs, we're3 going to be putting a proposal to you4 shortly on the car sharing issue. Right5 now we have -- what do we have, Zipcar6 and PhillyCarShare?7 DEPUTY
And one is10 a non-profit, which is PhillyCarShare; am11 I correct?12 DEPUTY
Councilman, we can19 get that whole breakdown for you on the20 car share piece on where Zipcar and21 PhillyCarShare.22
I thought2 your former tenure.3 I think PhillyCarShare is4 probably zero or close to. And the5 question, Zipcar is a for-profit, but we6 have been working on -- I've actually7 been talking to Councilman DiCicco. We8 have interested for-profit entities, and9 you probably know about this, essentially10 rental car companies who are interested11 in getting in the market, prepared to pay12 a reasonable amount in terms of a fee.13 The question is to what degree we can14 impose a fee or a rental for the actual15 space, because there's some question16 around who actually owns the space. But17 whatever governmental regulation we can18 put in place, they're prepared to pay for19 that, and my question is, would that be20 something we'd be willing to entertain if21 we have an entity that's going to provide22 the same service, electronically23 triggered vehicles, on the street,24 targeted areas around universities,25 343 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 places that make sense? Would that be2 something that the --3
I actually4 originally misunderstood your question.5 You're not talking about the City6 contract with Zipcar. You're talking7 about the Philly -- you're talking about8 car sharing on City streets, correct?9
Car sharing on11 City -- it depends, is the easy answer.12 I'm very aware that rental and some of13 the other car agencies are interested in14 having on-street parking for car sharing15 operations.16
I think we'd18 have to do additional research about what19 restrictions there are. If I recall from20 my time in Council, I think there's some21 state laws that have some restrictions on22 how that operates. I think we're happy23 to explore the situation and have a24 conversation with you further.25 344 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Yeah.2 Well, one of the issues is who actually3 owns the streets. There's some thought4 that the property owners'5 responsibilities; therefore, capabilities6 in terms of -- actually goes to the7 middle of the street. That's one of the8 things that was said.9 DEPUTY MAYOR CUTLER:10 Councilman, while it is certainly true11 that the property owner owns the sidewalk12 and their land may in fact go to the13 center of the street, curb to curb that14 is the City's right-of-way and we have15 the right to decide what goes into the16 City's right-of-way.17
And do we18 have the right to impose a fee for use of19 the right-of-way?20 DEPUTY
Well, we21 do for parking meters. So I think22 philosophically legally the answer is23 probably yes. I would just like to throw24 one sort of caveat out there.25 345 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 There are so many people,2 entities who want to use curb space who3 pay a fee to use curb space, that4 actually it's starting to get somewhat5 out of control in terms of taking up6 public parking on the street. So you've7 got valet operators who are charged a fee8 to use the public way. You've got no fee9 charged but disabled parking that gets to10 use the right-of-way in front of their11 homes. You've got contractors who get to12 use the right-of-way with the placards.13 You've got resident parking program.14 You've got a whole bunch of folks, buses,15 cabs. Now the Bolt and Mega Bus16 communities are looking for curb space as17 well.18 So for me, it's less a question19 of is it legal to charge a fee. I think20 the answer is absolutely, because we do21 for many of those functions. I think for22 me the real question is, at what point do23 we stop providing the public benefit by24 using that public property for private25 346 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 and public use other than public parking.2 So just a little tricky.3
And I4 understand that, and I can see how it can5 be potentially a challenge, but the whole6 premise around car share and subsequently7 Zip was to reduce the vehicles here8 generally, because people would be able9 to share this one vehicle. So that's the10 basis for authorizing the initial11 PhillyCarShare program.12 So my question is, if that13 would be the direction that we think14 makes some sense in terms of reducing the15 number of vehicles on the street,16 wouldn't it also make sense to entertain17 a proposition that would actually pay us18 a lot more that's being charged, which is19 not difficult to do if people aren't20 paying anything to currently park on the21 streets? And I think that's something22 that makes a lot of sense.23 DEPUTY
Well, we24 would need to look at it. My25 347 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 understanding -- and I'll go back and2 check the numbers and get the information3 to you. A lot of the current car sharing4 vehicles are off street. They are not --5 they are parked in parking lots. They6 are --7
There are8 some, but there are a whole lot of9 them --10 DEPUTY
I think11 the majority are off street, and I will12 get the numbers for you.13 The rental cars have the14 ability to house their own vehicles and15 still do car share, because they16 currently have garages for their rental17 cars.18
Is there a19 reason that we don't want to get more20 money? Because it seems like you're21 being argumentative.22 DEPUTY
No.23 Actually, in most cases, I'm fond of24 raising more money, but I think at some25 348 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 point one has to weigh the public benefit2 and how much money you could actually3 generate. And so if you could4 generate --5
Let me6 understand this. If PhillyCarShare and7 Zipcar is a public benefit and we're8 talking about the same operation,9 different person, entity, aren't they10 also a public benefit?11 DEPUTY
Well,12 they certainly could be. What I need to13 double-check is how many of those spaces14 are on the public right-of-way and how15 many of them are currently in private16 parking facilities. And I think the vast17 majority are in private parking18 facilities, but I will double-check that.19
And,20 Councilman, I think it's important to21 also remember how PhillyCarShare was22 originally founded, which was with23 significant public support. It was brand24 new. And I think that was one of the25 349 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 original reasons the fee was kept low.2
All right.3 It's not free to the public, though.4 DEPUTY
So what I'm7 talking about is an entity who is8 prepared to provide the same service that9 is prepared to pay.10
And I think the13 Deputy Mayor is more than willing to --14 sounds like we're willing to explore that15 option.16 DEPUTY
Yes. The17 only caveat I raised -- and I continue to18 raise it. It doesn't mean we wouldn't19 consider it, but is at some point -- and20 we're going through it now with valet21 zones. In the past, the policy has been22 that every single individual restaurant23 could apply for its own valet zone.24 Well, they grew like weeds, and so now25 350 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 there are large parts of the City in the2 evening where they only have valet zones.3 And so actually the question has come up4 as to whether or not valet zones should5 be shared rather than have to have6 individual restaurants with individual7 zones in order to have some ability to8 have public parking when people show up9 without having to pay $24 to go to a10 restaurant. So all I'm saying is, it11 just needs to be weighed as part of the12 equation.13
They can go14 get one of those car shares. They have a15 designated space for them, right?16 DEPUTY
It would17 be interesting to see if they'd pay as18 much as the valet guys. But, yes,19 certainly -- so that is the only caveat.20 It doesn't mean there aren't public21 benefits and we should not consider it.22 They will start to become eventually the23 same problem we're now having with Bolt24 Bus and Mega Bus. They started with one.25 351 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Now the private operators like Greyhound2 want to get in the market for that. They3 now want public on-street spaces.4 Everywhere you want to put them,5 neighbors say, Don't put them here. And6 so it's just a policy question of7 balance; that's all.8
All right.9 That's fair. If you can get that10 information.11 DEPUTY
You're15 welcome.16 Any more questions?17 (No response.)18
Thank you19 very much. We appreciate the testimony.20 MR. McPHERSON: The next21 department is the Records Department.22
Let the24 Records Department in, please. We got to25 352 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 go.2 Would you all please take your3 conversations outside. Thank you.4 (Witnesses approached witness5 table.)6
Good7 afternoon, Ms. Decker. You might want to8 summarize.9 COMMISSIONER DECKER: I shall.10 Thank you.11 Good afternoon, Councilwoman12 Tasco and members of City Council. My13 name is Joan Decker, Records14 Commissioner, and I have with me today15 Jeanne Reedy, who is the Administrative16 Services Director. And I will go very17 quickly and summarize.18 For FY12, the Records19 Department is requesting a General Fund20 operating budget of $4,009,212, which is21 a carry-forward of the Department's FY1122 estimated obligations. This budget23 reflects the following: Class 100,24 2,845,219; Class 200, 1,083,797; Class25 353 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 300 is $600,502; and Class 400 is 18,256;2 Class 500, 1,456.3 There is just an internal4 transfer of classes. So you'll see a5 little bit of an adjustment in the6 numbers.7 I think many of you are already8 familiar with our mission, so I won't9 repeat that.10 Some of the initiatives related11 to the Five Year Plan. As you probably12 know, the Records Department from FY0913 experienced a 48 percent budget14 reduction, which totaled $3,670,659. It15 was a breakdown of reduction of 2216 percent in Class 100, 71 percent in Class17 200, 69 percent in Class 300, and 8718 percent in Class 400. We had experienced19 some downsizing as a result of that,20 obviously.21 Just very quickly, through the22 different parts -- divisions of the23 Department. Document Recording, we have24 maintained a pretty quick turnaround25 354 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 time. We've used a number of tools,2 including optical character recognition,3 eRecording. Our eRecording volumes are4 up to 50 percent, which means great5 reductions and improvements in6 efficiencies, reductions in turnaround7 time.8 Our PhillyHistory website is9 very popular. We had approximately10 442,000 visitors this past fiscal year,11 and they made more than 2.4 million12 research requests and searches on the13 website. We now have a little over14 87,000 photographs, which are scanned and15 available online.16 Conservation in the archives.17 We continue to take care of the most18 valuable historical items in our19 collection, and probably most notable20 this year is participation of Civil War21 History Consortium, and one of the22 notable volumes is prison records, which23 really show the great challenge to the24 Fugitive Slave Act. So we worked with a25 355 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 lot of other historical institutions on2 that initiative.3 Document notice letters. This4 is the eighth year of our sending the5 document notice letters out for deeds and6 mortgages. We have sent approximately7 948,000 letters to date.8 We provide online access as9 much as possible to our records to10 provide customer service, quick11 turnaround time to our requestors. I've12 highlighted some of the records13 management initiatives that we have14 engaged in and completed.15 You know that we support some16 of the campaign finance and financial17 disclosures on an ongoing basis.18 Our minority participation goal19 of 25 percent was met and exceeded, and20 we're committed to that goal for the next21 fiscal year.22 And that pretty much sums up.23 That was a quick tour through our24 department. And I thank Council for25 356 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 their continuing support, and I'm here to2 answer any questions you may have.3
Thank7 you, Madam Chair.8 Very quickly. Good afternoon,9 Commissioner.10 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Good11 afternoon.12
Yesterday13 the Inspector General talked about some14 of her investigations and she talked15 about a couple of things in the Records16 Department. And just to preface, I know17 the vast majority of your employees are18 honest, hard-working, do a great job.19 But she talked about some of the things20 she recommended to you.21 Now, I don't know what you're22 free to tell us. I know you mention in23 your next-to-last paragraph about24 upgrading the cameras and that kind of25 357 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 thing. I know there was issue in the2 Accident Reporting Room.3 Is there anything you can tell4 us or forward later that kind of came out5 of that investigation that you're6 changing in the department?7 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Well, we8 already have made changes. The room was9 completely reorganized. There are no10 partitions. There are no internal11 partitions. The room is completely open.12 The staff is segregated from the13 commercial badge holders in the unit, and14 also from the walk-in customers. We have15 five security cameras, which tape and16 record everything that is ongoing. We17 have them over the cash register.18 We have implemented, I guess,19 stricter rules about engagement. The20 cameras are focused on the commercial21 badge users, who cannot really interact22 and whose every move is really closely23 observed.24
Okay.25 358 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Thank you.2 Thank you, Madam Chair.3
Thank you7 very much.8 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Thank9 you.10
This11 Committee will recess until tomorrow12 morning at 10:00 a.m.13 Thank you.14 (Committee of the Whole15 adjourned at 4:40 p.m.)16 - - -17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 359 1 CERTIFICATE2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the3 proceedings, evidence and objections are4 contained fully and accurately in the5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on March 29, 2011, and that7 this is a true and correct transcript of same.8 9 10 11 12 --------------------13 MICHELE L. MURPHY14 RPR-Notary Public15 16 17 18 (The foregoing certification of this19 transcript does not apply to any reproduction20 of the same by any means, unless under the21 direct control and/or supervision of the22 certifying reporter.)23 24 25