COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March 20, 2006, 1:45 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS-BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN TASCO COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL Bill Nos. 050753, 050778, 060172 V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good afternoon, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the bills and/or resolutions before us.
Bill No. 050753: An ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a resolution approved by Council proposing an amendment of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the transfer of the powers and duties of the Fairmount Park Commission to the Department of Recreation, to be renamed the Department of Parks and Recreation, and reconstituting the Fairmount Park Commission as the Commission on Parks and Recreation, with new powers and duties, and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Resolution No. 050778: Proposing an amendment to the 3 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the transfer of the powers and duties of the Fairmount Park Commission to the Department of Recreation, to be renamed the Department of Parks and Recreation, and reconstituting the Fairmount Park Commission as the Commission on Parks and Recreation, with new powers and duties, providing for the submission of the amendment of the electors of Philadelphia. Resolution No. 060172: Resolution proposing an amendment to Bill 15 No. 060003, which provides for the operating budget for fiscal year 2007, and a corresponding amendment to Resolution No. 060019, which provides for the five-year financial plan to increase the budget for Fairmount Park by 3 million a year for each of the next five years for a total increase of $15 million by fiscal year 2011.
I would ask you to please call our first 4 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 witness.
Our first witness is the administration official, Deputy Managing Director Robert Allen.
Is Mr. Allen here? Please approach the witness table. Thank you. Mr. Allen, before you are recognized, I would like to recognize Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'd just like to make a brief opening statement. First I would like to thank all parties, Council members, park advocates, park departments, recreation departments, and all people who have engaged in this issue, also the media who has taken an interest in this issue and thank them and acknowledge they've been doing some great work. This issue has been stimulated to the level it never has before and I'm very excited about that and excited about the level of discussion we're having 5 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 about this issue. Over the past several months, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown and other members have been talking to park advocates about this process and I'm pretty excited about the level of participation and the level of movement we've gotten as a result of those very substantive conversations. Interestingly, enough, probably unbeknownst to the general public that there has been in principle an agreement on probably 75 to 80 percent of the original proposal understanding that the most problematic sticking point is the actual consolidation of the two departments, which requires a charter change, but I think today you'll hear testimony as relates to operational realignments that will not require a charter change. I think that there is a reasonable consensus on operational and governance issues as relates to the selection of park commissions, which you 6 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 may hear during the course of the testimony. Because we have gone so far as relates to things we can agree on, the consensus as relates to those aforementioned issues, today Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown and myself will be offering an amendment to move the time line for the referendum on the ballot initiative from May primary to November understanding that those months that will happen during the course of that time line will more than give us enough time to come to a reasonable solution. And it's our hope that we can all walk out of this issue holding hands and fully prepared to support our park systems and our recreation department systems to the level that it should be. So I don't know if you want me to offer these amendments now in the hearing or wait to the public meeting.
Well, we're not going to have a public meeting, are we? 7 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
I think we may have to actually offer the amendments in the public meeting technically.
We can take a recess for a minute so you could introduce your amendments so long as we have the amount of Council members here that would be voting on it.
That would be fine, Madam President. Simply speaking, it's just that the time line on the amendment, we have circulated these amendments essentially moves back the time line which would have called for a May referendum and we're moving the time line back to November so the ballot initiative, whatever it may ultimately be, would be in November as opposed to May. And that would give us some time. We've also moved the implementation time line from January of '07 to July of '07.
Yes, Madam 8 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 President.
All right. The public hearing will stand in recess and I will now recognize Councilman Clarke for the purpose of introducing the amendments regarding Resolution No. 050779. Councilman Nutter, do you want to be recognized now? Your light is on.
Not at the moment, Madam President. When the amendments are offered, I'd just like to be able to ask a question.
Madam President, I would like to offer an amendment to Bill No. 050778, which simply reflects a change in the time line associated with the referendum that would move it from a May referendum to November 9 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 referendum. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple questions. I thought I heard Councilman Clarke just a moment ago make reference to the amendment with regard to the ballot question and its timing, but I thought I also heard him make reference to 050778, which is actually an amendment to Chapter 19 8.
Actually, it should be an amendment to both the Bill 050753 and Resolution 050778.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. I understand the amendment to 050753 with regard to 10 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 the ballot question and when it would go on the ballot. I did want to raise which I assume will come up in the course of this hearing -- I'm assuming we're still having a hearing?
The Councilman made reference to one of the reasons to do this is that he thinks or shares with us that about 75 to 80 percent of the original proposal possibly either has or soon will be accomplished. I'd certainly in the course of the hearing like to hear about that and what the operational realignments are so that we have a clearer understanding of that, but with regards to Resolution 050778, again to be consistent with the ballot question, I do understand the need to push implementation back from July 1, 2006, as I think the proposal presently reads, to July 1, 2007. I just wanted to inquire 11 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 given the timing of many of those issues and how long sometimes it can take whether there was any consideration or discussion around making this effective sometime in early 2008.
No. Are you suggesting that there should be a particular reason?
I think only in the sense that certainly by that point in time -- and I have no idea how long it would take should this pass to be implemented, but I think all of us are certainly well aware that there will be a new administration and probably not that new of a Council but certainly at the start of a new term that that group of 17 or 18, rather, could take up this particular issue. So I'm just raising the question as to whether or not it was an item of discussion. 12 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
I guess either with yourself or Councilwoman Reynolds Brown or anyone else that may have been involved in the proposal.
The earlier discussions centered around an '05 time line that was subsequently moved based on the concerns raised. And we moved it back to '06. We're now talking about moving it back to '07. I can, Lord willing, assume that I will be a Councilperson in this particular term. I do not know if I will be a Councilperson in the next term. So the work that I work on relates to this term. While I don't know who the next Mayor will be --
I can only function based on my current term. I hope that I will win, but I cannot speculate I'll be around for the next term. 13 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
That makes us visionaries. No. I just needed to ask the question. I understand. I appreciate the spirit of the amendments.
During the course of the testimony, I believe that -- and I don't want to steal the thunder from Mr. Allen's testimony --
-- that he will talk about certain operational functions that probably -- may be able to start in this particular administration and will clearly overlap the next administration. And there may even be some that could move into the next administration.
Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No response.) 14 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
A motion was made and seconded that the adoption -- the amendments as presented by Councilman Clarke be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and the amendments to Resolution No. 050778 have been adopted. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 16 050753.
Madam President, I would like to move to have the amendment to Bill 050753. It will be in similar nature as to time line, move that this resolution be adopted -- I'm sorry -- this amendment be adopted to this particular bill. (Duly seconded.)
It 15 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 has been moved and seconded that the amendments as proposed by Councilman Clarke be adopted. All in favor say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. We will now resume our public hearing. And I thank you, Mr. Allen. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. Good afternoon, President Verna and members of City Council. My name is Robert Allen and I am assistant managing director. I have been asked by the managing director to update you on the work of the managing director's office and the leadership and staff of Fairmount Park and the Recreation Department. We're in the 16 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 process of planning functional realignments to provide service improvements, operating efficiencies, and economies of scale. The departments have a four-year history of working together with the managing director's office to realign or consolidate functions and I would like to take a moment to describe what's been accomplished and then tell you what future realignments are being designed. In fiscal 2003, the park transferred the operations and management of six recreation centers and three outdoor pools to the recreation department. This was a cost neutral realignment to place the City's recreation centers under one management. In fiscal 2004, the Recreation Department's grass mowing was outsourced under the guidance of the park. This increased mowing frequency and also provided an annual savings of $400,000. At the same time, the park assumed 17 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 responsibility for the Recreation Department's tree crew and for tree maintenance at all recreation facilities and sites. In fiscal 2005, the departments reassigned several administrative functions to form an administrative cluster under Recreation Department management. Personnel, budget, purchasing, and IT support for both departments are now housed in one unit. The annual savings is in excess of half a million dollars. The process of planning department realignments continues in fiscal 2006. The park, recreation, and managing director's office are currently working on a plan to realign three functions by the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2007. These are volunteer management services, park trash collection, and fleet management. Our plans are still very much in process and may change, and additional functions are being examined for future phases of 18 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 realignment. I will describe those later in this presentation. However, I would first like to briefly describe the benefits anticipated from the three alignments underway. Under volunteer management services, we're planning to combine volunteer services for Fairmount Park's 62 regional and neighborhood parks and the Recreation Department's 79 neighborhood parks. And we anticipate many benefits, but here are a few important ones: A combined department will allow us to share and implement best practices. For example, in the area of volunteer park maintenance and restoration, both departments provide support to numerous partners and friends groups, but they utilize different models. The park volunteer maintenance and restoration program relies primarily on park staff to provide oversight and it operates year round. Recreation utilizes an outside partner, the Pennsylvania 19 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Horticultural Society, to operate a highly successful program called Parks Revitalization Project. Each program offers attributes that could benefit the other. The Recreation Department currently provides park activities such as summer night movies and children's fishing, and the realignment will allow these programs to be provided at parks in both departments. And, finally, combining volunteer management services will provide a central point of contact for the public. Under trash collection, currently Fairmount Park and Recreation Department staff remove trash from interior park containers and haul it to various transfer sites around the city. Crews are sent by both departments into the same communities to collect trash. For example, a park crew goes to Rittenhouse Square and a Recreation crew to nearby Fitler Square.
The plan under development calls for organizing parks 20 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 and facilities by zones and routes. Staff on assigned routes will remove trash at all sites along the route regardless of department affiliation. And the realignment will provide many benefits, the most important ones being reduced travel time and improved productivity, reducing wear on equipment and vehicles, and finally allowing departments to provide a central telephone number for citizens and friends groups to call for trash pickup at park and recreation locations. Under fleet management, the departments currently utilize separate fleets of vehicles and equipment managed by the Office of Fleet Management. Each has a fleet liaison that performs various management functions such as working with staff at budget time to identify vehicle and equipment replacement needs. Realignment will allow one individual to be fleet liaison for both departments and this will facilitate sharing of vehicles 21 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 and equipment and increased productivity by reducing the wait for specialized vehicles or equipment. We can also combine annual vehicle and replacement requests and this could potentially reduce the number of specialized or less frequently used vehicles and equipment. And, finally, we can reduce travel time by deploying vehicles and equipment closest to the project site. The three realignments I just described will create operating efficiencies and service improvements. However, it's too early in the planning process to determine if any net savings will be gained. For example, we are unable to tell you at this point if reducing travel time for trash pickup will enable a crew to pick up one or two additional sites per day because we have not yet mapped out the routes and determined appropriate staffing levels. As I mentioned previously, Fairmount Park and Recreation have 22 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 identified several other possible functional realignments for implementation in future phases. And I would like to briefly describe those also. The first is a marketing and business development unit. The departments propose creating a new unit responsible for the marketing, development, promotion, and revenue initiatives of both departments. These duties are currently handled by employees who have many other responsibilities. The departments believe that establishing a dedicated staff will generate significant revenue and provide an excellent return on investment. We are in the process of identifying possible additional revenue sources, and examples of those are as varied as providing full restaurant and concession operations at golf courses to kayak rentals on the Schuylkill River. The new unit's responsibility would include the creation of new revenue sources and concessions 23 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 and increasing revenue from existing sources, and also fund-raising and grant acquisition from the public, private, foundation, and corporate sectors. Another area that we will look at is construction and maintenance. A district structure similar to the trash removal structure and a shared work order system will allow management to schedule crews to work on jobs in close proximity providing scheduling efficiencies and reduced travel time. Realignment will permit management to establish priorities systemwide for both recreation and park facilities. Another area is permitting for ball fields and event. A centralized permitting system will provide better coordination in local communities and allow staff to share resources. It will also enable both departments to offer alternative sites to user groups in the event that a site that they wanted is already reserved. Also, we want to look at 24 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 recreational and passive park site responsibilities.
And the departments will analyze the advisability of transferring active Fairmount Park recreational sites to the Recreation Department, especially those that are nearby or adjoin rec centers presently. And we also want to look at the 79 passive park sites managed by the Recreation Department and perhaps move those to Fairmount Park to better align these with the areas of expertise: GIS management, the park maintains a GIS system for capital program and other purposes. The Recreation Department has no GIS system or capabilities, so the departments will examine the benefits and costs of working with a unified GIS system. And, finally, the warehouses, there are two warehouses, one operated by each of the departments. And we're going to evaluate the advisability of consolidating those into one location. 25 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 I want to conclude by thanking you for the opportunity to describe these plans. As you can tell, we have a lot of work to do and we look forward to your suggestions and to keeping you informed of our progress. And now I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. As I sit here and listen to the things that you've talked about that have been accomplished or are in the process of being accomplished and are intended to be accomplished, I don't think there's anyone in the room that would argue with the efforts, the tax savings, the rationalization of equipment and people and better service. I think this whole issue has and continues to come down to the abolition of the Fairmount Park Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Commission and its perceived independence I guess from the city government. In your course of your work in research, and perhaps if anyone else in the room when they come to the table can talk about what was the intent, the legislative intent or the charter creation intent of keeping the two entities separate, the city government and the Fairmount Park Commission. Because while I recognize all the rationalization issues and all the savings and the good things that the Recreation Department and the Fairmount Park Commission are doing to better do their jobs, why does it then also require the abolition of that commission or a substantially reestablished commission and that perceived independence or distance from the control of city government? Because I think in the end that's a lot of what this whole argument comes down to despite all the good things you've testified to.
Right. Well, I'm 27 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 not sure I understand your question, but I would answer by saying all of these things can be done and should be done regardless of governance issues.
And you don't really need us to give you permission to do it.
No, that's correct. We started doing this, as I pointed out, four years ago and we intend to move forward because these are the right things to do for the city and the citizens.
And it seems to get bogged down in the governance issue because, as Councilman Clarke said in his opening statement and as I've talked to Councilperson Brown about the progress they're making, it seems that we're moving in the right direction until we get to the point of why we either need to entirely restructure the Fairmount Park Commission -- I understood the board of 28 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 judges issue. It's very complicated. But there must have been some reasoning or rationale. And the charter has been in existence since 1951 and there's things in there I don't understand why they're there, but they were studied and we attempted a number of years ago to change the charter in certain areas and that was not successful. I guess what's the benefit of not having a commission? To me, it seems that it allows the branching out of the commission to other areas of government and society and public and corporate and all the other things that could be brought to the table for a diverse and independent board. I don't understand why we would get hung up on all the other good things that get accomplished.
I would answer that the two departments are not hung up on that at all.
They're not? I'm sorry. 29 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
The two departments are not hung up on that at all. I mean, we know very much what should be done here and want to proceed with that regardless of the governance issue.
Are there recommendations going to be made relative to the abolition of the commission or its restructure? I know Councilman Clarke talked about 75 or 80 percent of the operational issues and that's terrific. I'm encouraged, but again there must be a reason why there was a perceived need for independence on the part of the commission from the city government directly and I'm still struggling with why that needs to change.
I'm here solely to testify about the work we're doing on these administrative functions. 30 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
That's fine. It was well-presented testimony too. Thank you. Councilman Clarke I think has --
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I may to some degree be the appropriate person to answer that question since I was one of the prime sponsors of the legislation. My issue around the Fairmount Park Commission because I genuinely think there should be a consolidation, and we'll continue to talk through that issue, but as relates to the Fairmount Park Commission -- and I commend and thank all the current members and the former members. I was a former member. I know I've told this story, former president of the advisory Council. All the wonderful work they do, it's a nonpaid position. One of the issues I had had to do with the lack of 31 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 transparency in the selection process having sat out there in both capacities not having an opportunity to have an open process like we do in a substantial amount of the commissions and boards that come before City Council that are required to have a public hearing, not having an opportunity to have seats on that actual commission by advocacy groups, which is what we call for. When I was president of Fairmount Park Commission Advisory Council, I got extremely frustrated we could only take it to a certain level and then were quickly reminded we were only members of the advisory council and not the commission. It actually caused me to resign because I thought our ability to move the process ahead was thwarted because of that, which is why we propose a system that's transparent. And it can change as we continue to talk through this issue. Nothing's set in stone. But we talked about a process that would have 32 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 a public process, have public hearings and subsequent discussions. And this may not be reflected in today's testimony with some of the groups we're talking about formulating a separate nominating panel because we understand some of the concerns that have some level of governance between City Council, the Mayor, and the actual commission. So we were going to recommend the nominating panel. How that nominating panel is structured is still part of the debate. So we would not be the ones who ultimately recommend how that gets selected and then we vote on that because that would essentially be the same as board of judges.
Because we have to do it in public. But we think having a process with a nominating panel and a set of criteria so we have commissioners who are clearly focused on 33 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 park issues and having the advocacy groups as a part of that commission we think is the way to go. While I believe that those two groups, that Department of Rec should be consolidated along with the Department of Parks because I think the Department of Rec can benefit from as you heard in some of the testimony from some of the professionalism and certain issues as relates to park management. I think it can be beneficial to that department and some of the issues as it relates to operations of recreation facilities can benefit the parks. That's one of the reasons why I talked about the consolidation issue. This issue has moved a lot, although you haven't seen it in paper, Councilman, but there's been a lot of substantive conversations and we have moved a long way in coming up with some consensus. That's why we're asking for a delay.
I will say 34 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 for the record since I've been here I have noticed even within the current system a substantial improvement and change in direction of the commission and its staff and the people involved with it. And that's happened through a process that hasn't been changed from the charter, the charter's inception. I mean, I do look at the work that the commission does and its members do and its staff do. And coupled with all the consolidation and savings that is ongoing, I still recognize a major improvement in my opinion in the quality of the board members and the quality of staff and the quality of work that they do with a minimal amount of money.
I agree, Councilman. I agree there was to some degree an upward trend, but I must acknowledge that a lot of that happened as a result of certain publications as relates to the selection process. That change in that selection process happened 35 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 because there were a number of news stories about the board of judges and that process. Some of the things that you've seen over the last year I believe personally have been stimulated as a result of the introduction of this bill. And while I'm happy that they've happened, it has taken a number of external issues to move that along. And I'm glad to see that it continues to move and I in no way, shape, or form want to imply the members of the current commission are not doing a good job. I just personally think some things need to be changed so we can move this to another level. Unfortunately, the only way that we can change the selection process is a charter change. I know the charter is sacred in some respects and I don't like the fact that we have to do that, but that's just the process.
I would be interested if staff could potentially research some of the legislative intent 36 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 behind -- I'm sure there's voluminous notes as to as that process went forward establishing the charter what the discussion was relative to the way in which the board commission members were picked and why this perceived need for independence. It would be interesting just from an historic perspective what the charter framer's thoughts were at the time. Thank you, Madam President.
I believe Councilman Nutter is next to be recognized.
Do I take it are you the individual in the managing 37 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 director's office that has primary responsibility for the implementation of the -- I think the term of art here is the operational realignments between Recreation and Fairmount Park?
Yes, I am. I'm facilitating that work for the two departments.
Do you have a work list of items that you're using to make these reassignments?
Yes. Well, we're still in the planning stages on these realignments. You mean is there a work plan?
A work plan or do you have a list of we need to do these things or these five things or 20 these ten things?
Not yet. We're still in the process of developing that on these three initiatives.
On the three issues? 38 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
The three being those we want to implement at the end of the first quarter of 2007.
Those are the items from your testimony, volunteer management, trash collection, and fleet management?
Now, where does the Fairmount Park strategic plan fit in with the operational realignment plan?
Well, many of these initiatives are contained in the strategic plan, are mentioned in the strategic plan.
So are you using that document as the foundation for your work or are you using some other basis?
Well, that document 39 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 I believe and the process of creating that strategic plan was the impetus for beginning this process that started in fiscal 2003. And this is ongoing. So, yes, I would say that that probably is the origin of this work.
But what I'm really trying to understand is there are any number of steps, I think five different areas, many of them have a variety of goals within those areas. Is that the primary foundation of the work or are you just taking bits and pieces of it and doing what you think you can get done in a fairly timely fashion?
No. We are taking the concept that's provided in the strategic plan and looking at functions where we know intuitively it makes sense to begin to realign those. And we're 40 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 also planning -- so we're beginning the work plan steps. We're trying to determine what the steps are to bring those realignments about and we're looking to see what, if any, potential cost savings would develop.
Did I understand you to say earlier, though, you're not sure at this point what the cost savings are by the three areas?
Yes. Until we map out the work plan and know what the steps are and know what staffing is required, and the example I used was trash pickup, until we determine what the routes are and what staffing is needed to manage those routes, we can't determine what the financial impact is.
And what's the time line? On of your testimony, you have a variety of future phases of realignment. What's the time line on those items?
On the future 41 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 phases of realignment? There is no time line at present on those. We're just exploring those, just beginning to right now. So we'll be doing the same thing that we're doing for the three that we're looking at currently. We'll try to set a date, a reasonable date to do that, and we'll try to do these in increments so that we're not diverting our attention away from the core functions of the departments.
Have you had an opportunity to read the strategic plan?
What's your best sense of a time line for implementation of most of the components of that strategic plan?
Well, a great deal of it has already been accomplished. I think these numbers are correct. And Mark Focht is here and he can correct me 42 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 if they're not, but there are 75 major tasks or categories in the plan and 38 of those have already been accomplished.
And it is a ten-year implementation. The plan itself calls for a ten-year implementation.
Well, for each and every component, but I mean within those some are months, some are a year, some are a few years; right?
And so what do you think the costs are to implement this strategic plan?
So, I mean, what is your mandate or directive at this point in terms of either the tasks in front of you, the future phases that you outline in your testimony, or from 43 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 section 7 of the plan, I mean, of all of these items?
Well, my mandate is a little more specific. It's to help these two departments accomplish these realignments to determine what realignment should take place and get departmental agreement and then help to implement that. I have not been asked to manage the implementation of the strategic plan overall.
I thought my first question was, are you the person responsible for implementation?
My answer was yes as it relates to what I testified about. I guess I didn't understand your question.
Okay. Then I'll ask a different question. Are you responsible for the implementation of the numerous objectives that are outlined in the strategic plan? Are you the person responsible for implementing those? 44 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
I may be asked to implement many of them, but the department managers themselves, department leaders are responsible.
Point of clarification, Madam Chair. When you came to the witness stand, you identified yourself as assistant managing director?
What is the difference between assistant managing director and deputy manager?
So we have deputy managing directors and you are assistant. I just wanted to understand better the pecking order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilman Nutter.
So at the 45 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 moment you are not responsible for working to implement the strategic plan although you at any moment could be called to do so?
That's right. It's possible the managing director could ask me to do any number of parts of the plan.
Last question for the moment. It's my understanding that the park commission has a group of citizens that care about parks to make a variety of recommendations with regard to the park system. Are you aware of that?
And how does your work I guess coincide or intersect with their work?
Well, it really doesn't. It's taking place independently of that body. And so the initiatives that I described that date back to 2003 and the ongoing planning really are not related to that. 46 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
As you implement these operational realignments, what should the user community expect in terms of either enhanced service or any different user experience?
Well, I cited some examples. For example, in the trash pickup, having one number to call for user groups for trash pickup, having one unit and one number to call for volunteer services. And I think I cited throughout my testimony some service improvements that are anticipated.
Last question. If you could please forward to the Chair whether it's from Pages I guess into of your testimony or from the strategic plan itself starting on -- I guess from at least the summary that I have starting on , there are a variety of sections, for instance, community mandate and then there's a goal and then there's an objective and a strategy and it has time lines and then 47 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 you have manage consistent standards, et cetera. Could you forward to the Chair your best estimate notwithstanding what the report says of when you think those particular items might be implemented?
The items in the strategic plan as well as the items on primarily of your testimony, which goes over into , time line and costs --
-- would be helpful. Do you have any sense of -- do you happen to know off the top of your head what the current budget for the park is?
Approximately 12.9 million. That's direct allocation from the general fund. There are other sources of funding.
I would say that was certainly not a guess on your 48 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 part. That's a very accurate estimation. You've been involved with the park now for some time and you're trying to implement these particular items. Do you think that that level of budget is adequate to provide the kind of superior park system that we all believe we should have?
Well, it's really not my call to say. I mean, I don't write the park budget. And what I do think should happen is that we should continue to do what we're doing here, look for ways for operating efficiencies to work within the budget we have. And then I think it's our responsibility to come to the administration where we see a need and demonstrate that need and provide financial information and what the return is going to be. And then the administration has a decision to make about whether that funding should be provided.
So if you 49 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 saw those particular needs, you're saying you would advocate for them?
Absolutely, yes. I think it's incumbent on us to provide information about, you know, what the service improvements will be and what the return might be financially from those.
I'll take the privilege of the Chair and ask a question. When Councilman Nutter asked you about your role, could you tell me who is in charge of the entire process of overseeing the realignment? Did I understand you to say that the various departments are working on their own?
No. Well, ultimately it's the managing director and I work for the managing director. And he's asked me to be the project manager and to facilitate this work between the two departments. 50 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
So it's the managing director's office, the managing director who's responsible overall.
And you have been assigned, appointed the job of being the project director to work with the departments to implement the realignment?
Again, it's the leaders in the department that are 51 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 responsible for doing that and the Commission.
Thank you. I want to first thank my colleagues, Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Reynolds Brown, for introducing this legislation. I personally think that we probably wouldn't be here today if the Fairmount Park not necessarily commission but the people that run it on a daily basis would have probably seen some of the things that you're recommending. And my question is this, that when this was introduced on September 15, 2005, I understand in all fairness that there were some conversations under the radar. Were you involved with those and did it take in your opinion this hearing to get the ball rolling?
There have been conversations and, again, this has been an ongoing process for Fairmount Park and 52 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Recreation. And part of my responsibility in the managing director's office is to act as liaison with Fairmount Park and the commission with the managing director's office. And I can say that those of us in the managing director's office, you know, we consider it a primary part of our responsibility to look at more efficient ways to do things. So, you know, I'm constantly looking at what's happening in the park and making suggestions and trying to move things further along.
But, Mr. Allen, the perception here is that the Fairmount Park Commission, the Recreation Department, their back was up against the wall and all of a sudden we become efficient. That's one of the criticisms that many people have of government, that we don't do it the right way, and it took my colleagues' resolution or bill, excuse me, to get management interest in trying to save the 53 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 taxpayers of the city to do it more efficiently. And I don't think that's a good thing that it took City Council to get the administration to do it the right way. End of my statement. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Real quickly, Bob, at the end of -- I just want to clarify. At the end of your analysis in terms of whatever realignment may be recommended, there could potentially be funding increase requests for any department relating to services, there could possibly be a recommendation that the Department of Sanitation pick up all the trash at all of the locations just theoretically if that's more efficient; am I correct?
Well, actually, that has been looked at. And they do pick up trash at some sites, especially 54 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 recreation centers, but it was impossible to have them pick up at park locations because the trash is in the interior sites.
So until we -- I guess what I'm saying, until we get a real sense of the realignment issues, it's difficult to say where the additional funding should go to support the realignment strategy?
Real quickly, on the work that you've been doing, to what level of involvement has both park staff and park director and Recreation commissioner and park staff been involved?
Yes, they've been very actively involved, and not just the leadership of the departments but the individuals on the staff who have responsibility for these functions have been involved. And we have ongoing meetings. We've already been through 55 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 several iterations of these plans in trying to get it right, just getting the basic concept down so we can proceed with the staff to do a work plan.
Could you just for a few seconds go back over the trash efficiencies that you're recommending? Because I want to ask the question, where's the Streets Department fit in?
Okay. Well, what is happening right now in park locations where there are interior trash baskets and where there's no access, there's no 22 vehicle access or limited vehicle access, both park staff and Recreation staff go to those sites and collect the trash and then haul it to transfer sites around the 56 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 city, the same transfer sites that we -- you know, the Streets Department would be using to haul its trash. And they both send staff into the same communities and sometimes to very nearby locations on a daily basis. So what we're proposing is that we divide all of this into zones and we have routes and we assign a route to one group of staff. And it doesn't matter whether it's a park or rec site, they do all of them on that route to make it more efficient so we're not sending vehicles all over the city and wasting transportation time.
It's a given that the Streets Department are the experts in picking up trash. They do a pretty good job at it. Why didn't you consider -- and I believe Commissioner Richard is going to talk about some areas in the Recreation Department already. I believe we had -- before we imploded Veterans Stadium, I believe you were using the Streets Department to take care 57 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 of some of the trash down there. Why haven't you utilized -- I think some of the areas aren't accessible by vehicle, but I think I know the park fairly well and most areas that I know a vehicle, a trash vehicle -- if it's politics, you know, say it. If it's union issues, say it because it still doesn't sound as efficient as it can be to have Recreation Department picking up trash along with the Fairmount Park Commission.
For the record, Vic Richard, Recreation Commissioner. Thank you. Two and a half years ago when we implemented the trash reconfiguration, the City Department of Streets was picking up trash in the neighborhood and on the same street in the same block across the street you had a second truck with three other city employees. So when we did the realignment, we were able to achieve from having two vehicles, two 58 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 trash compactors and six employees down to one, which was very successful. And the sanitation department is picking up all trash at all of the staff sites being mostly all of the A and B facilities and any other facilities where we have programmed full-time staff there. We also tried it along with Fairmount Park to do the trash pickup in the passive neighborhood parks, which we knew would be a challenge, but we tried it anyway because you don't have a person there that can actually collect the trash and bring the trash to the curb. So we had to put that one down and now we're back to this level now where we're looking at realigning the entire city instead of trash pickup being done by Fairmount Park at their site and across the street or three blocks away is a Recreation site. So we will be able to increase effectiveness and also save wear and tear on the trash compactor and also gas consumption by the reconfiguration and 59 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 consolidation. Both departments do need to keep and maintain capacity of the trash pickup, especially during the summer months when the park does a lot of special events. They host a lot of family reunions. So instead of just that once a week pickup that may be done by the Sanitation Department, the same thing happens in the Rec Department where we open up 120 something summer camps and we're feeding 10,000 children a day. Sometimes we have to go in there and pick the trash up beyond that in order not to create a rodent problem within a particular neighborhood or rec center. But we're comfortable with proficiencies that have taken place in that first phase. We relinquished three drivers and three compactors to the Streets Department. So it's working well. And I look forward to when we do the other piece. Thank you.
May I add one more thing? Again, Robert Allen, assistant 60 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 managing director. One of the things about the passive park sites is because there's no staff there, if we send a Fairmount Park group and truck out or Recreation Department truck out, the staff would pick up the trash and put it at curb side, but then we have to send another truck out, a Streets Department truck, to pick that up. And so that really didn't create any operating efficiencies in doing it that way. And that's another observation after trying and a reason we backed off on having Streets do that.
Are there any more questions for Mr. Allen? (No response.)
Just one for Mr. Allen. 61 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Mr. Allen, I notice -- and we've worked together on a couple issues here recently, so I'm pleased that you're involved. And I know that Commissioner Richard and Mr. Focht are working together on any number of these issues as was testified to today and on previous days. Is there a document at this point that might be available beyond your testimony that lays out in greater detail the operational realignment plans?
There are memos that have been exchanged between staff members, but not a final plan, not a plan that we could circulate at this point. Again, we haven't gotten to the work plan stage of this process.
Do you think you would be able to put something like that together so we can stay as informed as possible about how these changes are taking place and what, if any, items might have a budgetary impact for FY '07? 62 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
Yes. We will eventually have to put that document together in order to implement the plan and so we could certainly share it at that time.
I really don't want to comment or provide a deadline right now except to say that we fully intend to have those three issues implemented by the end of the first quarter, so end of September of this year.
Do any of these three items require additional funding?
Are any new people being hired to enhance any of the services?
Well, we haven't gotten to the staffing level issue yet because we haven't mapped all of this 63 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 out, but we're not anticipating that right now.
For your volunteer services coordination, I know that again both departments have some amount of that activity going on. This will be just a net using of the people who presently exist?
Well, what we're going to do is first off bring the two groups together. And then after they're together -- we'll, of course, have a work plan, but after they're together we'll plan for additional service improvements, which may involve coming to the administration to ask for some additional resources, but right now we don't know.
Do you think you're going to know before we pass the budget?
You don't believe you're going to know or you don't 64 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 believe you're going to ask for any money before we pass the budget?
You're welcome. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No response.)
Good afternoon and welcome. Nice seeing both of you. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.