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.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of Council. My name is Robert Nix and I'm the president of Fairmount Park Commission. With me today 65 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 is Zach Stalberg, who cochaired the task force with me that did some initial recommendations and continues to work on how we can move the park system forward. You folks hear enough from me all the time so I'm going to be very, very brief and let Mr. Stalberg speak a little bit. I would just like to thank my fellow commissioners, my Vice President Debra Wolf Goldstein, the treasurer Phil Price, Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Richard, Commissioner Binswanger, who also chairs the Conservancy, Todd Bernstein who chairs our trust, together with the leadership of the Citizens for a Better Park who have worked very closely with the task force, and Friends of the Wissahickon and other friends groups. And I will say right off the bat which Mr. Allen was a little reluctant to say is I believe the Council bill and attention has very much pushed this process forward. I think it's been a very, very important part of the 66 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 process in moving what may have been a slowly moving rock moving it quicker. And I agree with Councilman Clarke that we have come a long way. I think rather than giving percentages I think we agree on a lot of things. The one thing we haven't heard today is the critical issue and that what we're going to keep looking for and make recommendations for and included in any charter or bill change is how to appropriately and properly fund the system. The realignments are great. They're money savers, but they don't make the funding better. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague to tell you a little bit about where the task force is, but we're not going anywhere. We're going to have our report finished and Zach will talk a little bit more in conjunction with our friends for the Citizens of a Better Park who have worked separately but come to many of the same conclusions together. And those final or next stage reports should be 67 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 finished by the end of this month. Zach?
Good afternoon. I'm Zach Stalberg and I'm president of the Committee of Seventy and, as President Nix said, cochair of his group of advisers on this issue. I want to make a few opening remarks and then move into more substance. First, the members of this committee served as advisers to Bob Nix, not to the commission as a whole. The group was independent as we promised you. The work was not easy. It is not quite finished. And not everyone is in agreement about everything. I want to thank Bobby for having the willingness to acknowledge that the current system is deeply flawed. Perhaps this could have happened a little bit earlier, but in Philadelphia this is remarkable nonetheless. Finally, I should say that my 68 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 own organization, the Committee of Seventy, is focused on transparency, accountability, and effectiveness in government. The leadership of the Committee of Seventy fully supports the preliminary recommendations of the advisory panel. I feel privileged to be part of a process that can end years of decay in the park. I believe we are all nearing the end of the beginning of that process. This Council should be proud of making the parks a front burner issue. And I want to thank Councilman Nutter for now putting the funding issue squarely on the table as well. We routinely refer to our park system as a treasure, but what it really is is a missed opportunity, the kind of opportunity we let slip away on the Delaware waterfront. Fairmount Park can benefit Philadelphians far more than it does today. It can be a place where more people have fun. If expanded smartly, it can help rescue troubled neighborhoods and it can be what Stanley 69 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Park is to Vancouver, a magnet for suburbanites and for visitors. I want to get into the specifics, but first I want to recognize what Councilman Clarke had to say. We may indeed be 75 or 80 percent in agreement, but the or percent 9 that's left is pretty substantial in 10 terms of the nature of the differences. 11 And the realignment issue is worth some 12 more serious inquiry. I am clearly 13 worried that we will have essentially a 14 fait accompli and that by the time we get 15 around to the voters voting on this issue 16 and a complete plan for a new park system 17 that there really won't be much of a 18 Fairmount Park system left. So all of 19 that deserves as Councilman Clarke says a 20 lot more discussion off-line. 21 The advisory group favors a 22 delicate reengineered consolidation with 23 city government although not 24 consolidation with the Recreation 25 Department. Our group strongly favors 70 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 unified coordinated park management, which includes sensible inclusion of private entities such as the Conservancy and the Historic Trust. The parks deserve their own space within the city government and they deserve leadership that is very clearly focused on the park's mission. I might feel differently about this if the task was not to reverse years of neglect in the park. Parks and Recreation seem to have similar purposes, but the notion of merger is deceptively simple but wrong. The Recreation Department generally oversees contained facilities and programs. Fairmount Park represents a tremendous amount of open space, only some of which is used for recreation. It has environmental purposes and it should have economic development purposes. The parks need a new oversight bored to replace the commission but not a weak advisory board. Members need to be intelligently and honestly selected, not in secret, with 71 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 true criteria and with the involvement of the Mayor. Why do the parks need an oversight board when other departments do not? There is the matter of sheer size. The parks represent percent of the 7 city land. There will also be a great 8 temptation to mishandle that desirable 9 open land.
This is a town we have 10 learned where favors can be bought for a gym membership. The parks need a board because the park has a complex set of missions from preserving historic structures to serving as a watershed. Perhaps most importantly, Fairmount Park needs an entrepreneurial board that can inspire confidence and raise money. The park will never attain true excellence by depending completely on the city treasury. What is needed next is a highly detailed transition plan developed by professionals and overseen by a truly engaged transition committee. I hope we'll get as Councilman Nutter requested a detailed alignment plan or realignment 72 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 plan as well. This transition team should complete the work by the time the next administration takes office. It should work aggressively to update the strategic plan and to complete it. I am confident that Councilman Clarke will be will be reelected and so I think we can't afford to match that timing with the beginning of the next administration. The transition plan needs to confront the vexing issue of how to appoint members to the new Board of Trustees, a board that should be a partner with the Mayor and the administration but not subject to direct political control. The issue must be resolved as soon as possible because the terms of the commissioners expire next June. So there is a need for some speed, but there also is a need for time to build consensus around these new ideas. I am not a lawyer, but the lawyers at the Committee of Seventy tell me that if an issue is brought before the voters for a charter change and it fails, 73 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 then it can't come up again for five additional years. So what we really need to do is develop a plan that is well done that can't be misunderstood and that won't fail at the polls. Assuming that voter approval is necessary, I think the November 2006 time frame that Councilman Clarke referred to is doable. Like Bob, I want to offer a few words about the all-important issue of funding. This park system needs tremendous public and private investment. The park needs the ability to keep the money it raises. Adequate funding, especially a dedicated funding stream, won't happen unless there is a more rational, trustworthy, and effective government system, and it cannot happen without a dynamic and probably expensive parks commissioner. The mechanics of change can make your head hurt, which is probably one reason Fairmount Park has been run like this for 150 years, and has helped me to imagine the real potential 74 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 of this park system and the effects on the quality of life here we could expect. My hope is that you will set your sites on the big fix, not bureaucratic tinkering. And my hope is that the goal you set for this new park will be magnificence. Thank you. (Applause)
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's not a question, just a comment. I want to make sure there's something on the record with regard to just one technical item Mr. Stalberg mentioned which I don't know the complete answer to, but we can get one shortly. I'm not exactly sure about the five-year issue with regard to a particular amendment to the home rule charters versus a charter commission and its work, which there would be a distinction 75 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 between these two items, but for the moment I'm not prepared to site chapter 4 and verse, but I think that five-year rule is more relevant to a charter commission putting forward a comprehensive amendment to the Home Rule Charter.
Nor am I an expert on this issue, but I think it is an argument for doing this right.
I understand that. There's always an argument for doing it right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Please share with me your opinion on the value purpose of this strategic plan. 76 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
I think in this case the strategic plan was the foundation for everything that's happened so far. The strategic plan when it came out made a number of recommendations. However, realignments are a lot of those being implemented. Fortunately or unfortunately, though, what happens is those recommendations cost or need to be funded and that's where we run up against the wall. This is my opinion. Other commissioners may feel differently. What I'm concerned about is that the plan is created to be implemented jointly with a number of pieces coming at the same time. It appears to me with some of them funded, some of them not being funded that you're getting a piece here and a piece there. So all those things are good and moving forward, but they're not conjoined, which would make it a much more stronger, effective piece.
Has the commission or the star panel had 77 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 an opportunity then to provide recommendations to this body then on the incremental but progressive changes that should be made as they relate to and speak to the strategic plan?
I believe when you get our report on the 31st, that's what it will be.
Okay. That's encouraging. Mr. Stalberg, you mentioned that -- and I try to take quotes as I hear them -- the realignment requires more inquiries. Speak to that. Help me understand what that means given the work that has taken place by both departments since this proposal was introduced September -- actually since the work that has taken place prior to the introduction of the bill in September '05 under the former managing director.
Well, I should say that it is my understanding that the details of the realignment haven't been 78 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 discussed at great deal in public and I think this body and the citizens have a right to understand exactly what's happening as that realignment takes place. Assistant managing director Allen was for a time anyway a member of the panel of advisers and the issue of realignment did not come up there in great detail. My concern is -- and it may be a misplaced concern, but my concern is that when the smoke clears, the city will have created a combined Department of Parks and Recreation whether the members of this body intended that or not and whether the citizens of Philadelphia intended that or not. So that I believe is my reason for concern and for wanting to see the details of the transition plan.
Sure. Have you had a chance to read the strategic plan?
79 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Do you agree a number of what was outlined by Mr. Rob Allen are consistent with recommendations from the strategic plan?
They certainly seem to be. What concerns me are what are the other issues, are there other issues regarding the realignment that haven't surfaced today. And Mr. Allen -- and I think in response to Councilman Rizzo's questions, the issue was who is in charge of coordinating the realignment and implementing the strategic plan. If the answer was yes, we could have had that discussion today. Since the answer was yes -- wasn't yes, I'm not sure who is in charge and what that realignment is going to look like.
Sure. This is certainly not my call to make, but would it be of value for the star panel to invite Mr. Rob Allen and others who are as deeply concerned about this progressive move we want to make to 80 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 the meetings so that there is input from members of the star panel?
Mr. Allen was on the commission -- on the committee. I think we will as a group have to try to get into that issue more deeply.
Based on your testimony that the realignment requires more inquiries and the seeming -- I hate to use the word "doubt" because that's too strong a term. There seems to be reservation in the acceptance of the alignments as he has described them. My recommendation would be there would be extreme value to do that if we are all serious about ultimately executing and implementing the recommendations in the strategic plan.
I certainly believe in the implementation of the recommendations in the strategic plan. I just think the citizens of Philadelphia have a right to know all of the details of the realignment so that they can 81 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 comment on it.
Well taken. You also state that, and I quote, needs a new oversight board but not a weak advisory board. And, again, the question is premature because your anticipated report may speak to what that means and what that translates into?
I think the report will deal with that to some degree and I think the transition phase that we envision, the transition report should deal with that in much greater detail. Part of the doubts about the current Fairmount Park Commission involve accountability and exactly what is the role of the commission versus the role of city government. So in the short term and in the long term, I hope we can really clarify that for the public.
And will there be clarification as well on, and I quote, needs an entrepreneurial board? In that report, there will be 82 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 some discussion as to what that is and how that can be achieved, et cetera?
There is mention of the bill or resolution introduced by Councilman Nutter regarding more money. What is the feeling with regards to what comes first, more money or a plan?
I mean, we think -- I mean, we agree every dollar is needed. When Councilman Nutter put his resolution 15 forth, I immediately reached out to my executive director and asked him were this to be funded, how would we use it, and I think that's a good example. We need to come up with a better plan because $3 million is great but we're not kidding ourselves, $3 million isn't the magic number. So we need a plan to instill confidence here's the amount of money's needed, here's how it's going to be used, expected outcome, anticipated 83 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 outcomes, and if you, we, private sector invest, this is what will be returned. If that confidence isn't there, then I wouldn't expect the funds to come.
Has there been any intersect with the friends group and the work they're doing as well so that we're all traveling hopefully in the same direction? But they're parallel tracks of activity, so has there been any intersect conversation, dialogue with the friends group who are also presenting a report at the end of the month?
Yes, there's been regular conversation and it's been very good conversation. And I think we are traveling -- there are some differences, but we're traveling basically down the same track.
Okay. Thank you for your testimony, gentlemen.
Thank 84 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I actually want to clarify a couple things. The Councilwoman actually asked a question on the statement that you made, Mr. Stalberg, and you said something about the system being flawed?
I'm talking about how the Fairmount Park Commission works now and its relationship to city government in terms of both accountability and results.
So let me understand this. Who's not accountable to whom?
There is definitely a good deal of doubt about 85 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 what the commission does and whether it's fully accountable to the public.
And I think there's certainly a disparity in terms of understanding about how it relates to the city, who does what and what its relationship is to the city.
Would you say that the public has similar feelings about city departments in terms of accountability?
It's hard to generalize, of course, about the public as a whole, but when you --
When you have a separate entity such as the commission, it definitely encourages more questions than about a department of city government.
So why 86 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 would you be against having the commission be more of a city department if you suggest that there's probably less accountability in the current system as opposed to the current city department?
The advisory panel is not against that. The advisory panel favors the elimination of the commission, the establishment of a parks department, and the establishment of a strong oversight board.
Generally speaking, I'd say the only true difference here is we would prefer to see a pure parks department as opposed to a parks and recreation.
So you don't have a problem with having the parks department purely be a city department, you just don't want it merged with Department of Rec and a more enhanced park department? 87 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
Right. And I think it was the sense of the advisers that it should be a strong board with independent members, with members who are capable of helping guide policy.
And assuming that there was a set of criteria associated with the selection of the membership, you would be supportive of a process that was open, i.e., public hearing for the selection, or would you support the current process that the board of judges select?
No. I think all the -- the full panel of advisers is not happy with the current system of selecting members to the Fairmount Park Commission, the behind closed doors system.
Would you be -- and you don't have to answer. I guess I'm asking you the question. You'll either choose not to answer or answer. Would you be supportive 88 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 conceptually of a process that had a separate nominating entity that had as a charge to select members based on a set of criteria, park relationships, understanding of parks, business practices, the whole nine yards and the community component if such a nominating panel were to recommend that group to the Council, the Mayor -- /the Mayor for public hearing and then an authorization by a vote of a resolution for the selection of those members?
I think we need a transition plan that's written by professionals, and I'm certainly not one of them, who would directly address that issue, but generally speaking I think the belief of the advisory panel is we need some process like that in which there's established criteria, there's some sort of a nominating panel, and whoever is Mayor has some input in the actual selection so that he or she feels some ownership for some relationship to this 89 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 board.
You know, I've heard the arguments and some people have raised some concerns about the level of participation of the politicians, but I mean, we were, in fact, elected and you're actually suggesting I'm going to get reelected by the people. So it's not as if we're somehow independent of the process as it relates to representing the citizens, so I think that the government elected officials should be involved in that process. How you get there is clearly open for discussion.
Mr. Nix, the letter that you forwarded to some of us this past week or last week, that was not the recommendations or from the task force? Was that from you?
That was what my thoughts are to the commissioners to bring them up to date a little bit. 90 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
In terms of the process as it relates to realignment, and I agree it was done internally within government, the process that the task force is currently embarking on, is this a public process? Have you had public forums?
We haven't had public forums. Once we do the next stage, the report of the 31st, what we've had conversations with is with the friends groups, Citizens for Better Parks about --
Citizens for Better Parks, which is the park alliance. Now that we have a framework to work within, how do we make this as public as possible. I don't have an answer yet. Maybe it's the community town hall 91 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 meeting once we have something on paper that we're all talking about and discussing. And I understand it should be in stages, it shouldn't be final. So our thought was there should be some documentation on the 31st and we'd like some -- we would like to get public input on that and then at some stage keep the work going and sometime early summer have another, you know, stage here's where we are now, what does everybody think about it. And our hope is, and it's in context with the amendments you made to the bill 15 today, that we can -- that I can make a recommendation to my commission in September, I think it's September 13, which would allow us enough time to handle any ballot questions that may arise.
Okay. First, I wasn't recommending or suggesting you should have a public forum. The only reason I asked that question is because there was some 92 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 suggestion that the alignment strategies are not a public process and I was wondering if there was a public process in terms of the work product that you will be shortly bringing before us. And you've explained that.
What we've learned is I think we've learned that there's tremendous buy-in. However, to get to the next stage I want to make sure that that buy-in continues. And the best way is to keep everybody involved, acknowledged.
Can I express a little concern about your time line? The initial introduction of the bill, I guess we were relatively naive. Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown and myself thought during the summer of '05 there would be some substantive discussions, but once June happens people do whatever they do and we weren't able to have any reasonable conversations until October. I'm a little concerned if 93 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 you're not going to have a reasonable recommendation by June as opposed to allowing the summer months to go and then expecting to come back in September --
I agree. We're working towards that. I understand. I remember what happened last summer. I understand.
You've made a reference to Councilman Nutter's resolution suggesting some additional funding for the parks. Personally, I think at some point there obviously should be some more money for the parks and the Department of Recreation regardless of what happens with this process. You said you talked to your executive director and you asked him where should the money go. Where did he --
Well, he actually is here if you'd like step by step. He has prepared an outcome based on if we got an additional $3 million the money would be 94 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 used as. And if you like --
You know, when you talk about where the money should go, I mean personally being a park user I think that there should be more money in landscaping. Some people think it should be more staff. So the question is, where would this money actually go?
Good afternoon. Mark Focht, executive director of Fairmount Park. Staff has started to look at both the strategic plan and working with the administration to see perhaps where additional funding could be allocated. There are certainly recommendations in the strategic plan about increasing front line staff members. You just mentioned landscape maintenance, building trades that would help improve our facilities, rangers that would help with education and policing actions in the park. We have not gotten 95 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 yet down to the level of knowing exactly how the money might be divided amongst all the different things that the park does and all the different service levels and staffing that we have, but the general gist of the conversations have been to reinforce the strategic plan, look at front line services first.
You know, I think it's more important before you ask for more money that you kind of let us know how much some of these programs that you're talking about implementing, how much money it's going to save. Nobody wants to be involved in providing you with the appropriate funding for the Fairmount Park, but I want to know that you're running it right. I want to make sure that you're doing everything humanly possible to bring the number down to 96 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 where it really needs to be. Then we should talk about more money. I don't want to be part of a conversation where you're asking for more money and you don't know exactly how much you need to run the place. So I think you indicated earlier or the deputy assistant managing director said there wasn't a clue on how much money -- he didn't say that. I'm saying that -- how much money we're going to save through these improvements in operations in the combination of trash and all the other I call them little things we're talking about today. So you have a feel for what we're going to save?
The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a point of information.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Councilman Rizzo. I wanted to jump in at the moment before Mr. Focht tried to respond to your question because I think it should be 97 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 very clear that neither Mr. Focht nor Mr. Nix other than when either I or others have asked the question about underfunding, they have not asked for the funding amendment that is a part of this budget process. They didn't ask for it. I put it forward because I think as much as the discussion about operational realignment is important, and it is, and our colleagues should be recognized for pushing that issue forward as much as any of the other aspects of creating a great park system are important, and they are, I don't want to have -- I don't want to continue to have theoretical discussions about funding. We should make the park as efficient and as productive as possible, but I don't think anyone can escape the reality that the Fairmount Park system is underfunded and understaffed. It has grown from the 8,700-some-odd acres we had when I came here to 9,200 acres. Any study anyone has legitimately done shows Philadelphia 98 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 on a per capita basis underfunds the Fairmount Park system. So as we have inspired the departments to look at operational realignments, cost savings, changing trash routes, having volunteers work together and shift passive parts to the park and active parts to Recreation, I think we also have to have a simultaneous conversation about what additional funding the park system should have, what that funding could do to enhance the user experience. I asked that question earlier. And as much as we're focused on the internal changes, I think there's a large public in Philadelphia and counties around us who enjoy the park system presently and would like to see it enhanced and we just could not escape the discussion around the funding issue. So I want to make sure for whatever Mr. Focht is going to say that it's clear he did not ask for the bill, Mr. Nicks did not ask for the bill, I introduced the measure or the amendment 99 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 as a member of Council because of my own concern. I'm a park user as well and a significant amount of the park is in the district that I represent. So I just want to make sure that he's not in a defensive posture for something that he didn't ask for. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Councilman Nutter, I appreciate that clarity. But, again, I think there's no 17 question that the park needs additional monies, but I don't want the other side of the coin to be considered. I don't -- I want to see you get more money, but I want to see you also run the place as efficiently as possible and accept the recommendations and whatever, whether we have a parks department or combine with the Recreation Department, let's do it as 100 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 efficiently as possible and also be able to utilize some of the monies to be able to take care of this beautiful park. And again Councilman Nutter said he is a user of the park. I live right next to the park and it bothers me terribly to see it deteriorate and not have the presence of maintenance that it once had. And I'm sure with the extra money we can do a lot more, but, again, I've said it enough now. I think you know what interest I have here to make sure it's been done right and accept the recommendations. And I think as long as we debate it, it will come together and be where we need it to be. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. Councilman Clarke, I know you had the floor a long time ago.
Madam President, actually with the two points of order I forgot my next question. 101 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Actually, though, Mr. Focht, I just wanted to get a little clarity on your statement that in response to Mr. Nix' request you've looked at certain aspects of potential park needs. You don't have it at the level of specificity that you can say this much should go to that department or this much should go for front office staffing; am I correct?
And as you work through this process, and I understand you are working with Mr. Allen, will you take into account any of the potential realignment recommendations? Because they may call for some additional staffing based on the realignment in the Department of Parks that may reflect some additional funding.
Correct. The two exercises basically go hand in hand, the realignment conversation that the deputy managing director referenced and looking 102 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 at additional needs the park has through the strategic plan and what the budget implications are, absolutely.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions of these witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you. Mr. Goldsmith, we do have a copy of your testimony. A copy of it will be given to the stenographer. She will transcribe it in full. I would be very grateful if you would simply abbreviate 103 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 your testimony.
I will try to do that. My name is Phil Goldsmith, former managing director of the city and also former interim director of Fairmount Park. I'm pleased to be here to participate in the continued discussion on how we can create a unified park system for Philadelphia, a park system that helps us to attract and retain residents, employers, and visitors to our city. Before I discuss governance and operational changes, I want to emphasize or clarify certain points that have occurred during these debates. Number one, under the current configuration, Philadelphia has two separate uncoordinated tax-funded park systems in a city which is struggling to support one. Two, despite mischaracterization I occasionally hear, Fairmount Park is already a part of city government just like Recreation, Streets, Police, and other departments. Its employees are 104 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 city employees subject to the same Civil Service and personnel rules as all other city employees. Its executive director reports to the managing director. And the proposals under discussion do nothing to make a private park public or make a public park private. And, three, while we all agree I think that Fairmount Park like many other city departments could benefit from more money, it must be pointed out that Fairmount Park unlike all other city departments is a beneficiary of millions of dollars of trust funds which is not included in the $13 million city appropriations that are always bandied about. Many of these funds help off-set costs that otherwise would have to be borne by city funds. It's important I believe when discussing the park's financial resources to understand the value and the limitations that these funds have. Furthermore, in my experience as managing director and executive 105 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 director of the park, I would stress that the real financial needs of Fairmount Park are capital funds. We are blessed with 175 historic structures, which represents about one-third of all park properties. And these properties are aging and deteriorating, and the capital budget is woefully inadequate to care for these treasures just like the city's budget is inadequate to care for many of the City's needs. Finally, an infusion of additional city operating dollars should only occur after it has been demonstrated that Fairmount Park has a genuine vision, leadership capacity and commitment, and has implemented basic management and operating procedures as outlined in the strategic plan to protect the investment of additional tax dollars. I want to talk somewhat about the increased realignment between Fairmount Park and the Recreation Department. The administration has done 106 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 significant realignment from Fairmount Park to the Rec Department, consolidation of Rec Department's turf maintenance to Fairmount Park at a significant savings to the taxpayers, consolidation of human resource and budget responsibilities into administrative cluster. I'm sure that there are other initiatives that have occurred and will occur to streamline other administrative or operational functions such as purchasing, information technology, maintenance, and trash collections. These efforts like the ones already accomplished save taxpayers hundreds, enhance expertise without jeopardizing objectives of either Fairmount Park or the Recreation Department, and these changes are within the prerogative of the executive branch of government and do not require charter change. If I had one suggestion along these lines, it would be to appoint a deputy managing director for Parks and 107 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Recreation. Since Parks and Recreation both report to the managing director, it would be advantageous to have a deputy oversee both to ensure these consolidated activities worked well and there was no 7 undue partiality between park needs and recreation needs.
In addition, this individual could continue to explore the proper realignment of responsibilities and ensure appropriate cooperation among the units. This individual should also oversee the grant writing capacity of both departments, which I might say if we're talking about funds we need to do a better job of raising grant dollars, and we should have one individual overseeing that so we are not competing for the same dollars but cooperating and garnering our fair share of dollars. So if we agree that both Fairmount Park and the Rec Department are already City departments and we agree consolidation of many redundant functions has already taken place with some 108 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 additional work to be done, we need to ask ourselves what all the fuss is about. And it comes down in essence to the commission itself, most notably, what is its role, is it needed in its current form, if not, what should replace it, and how should its members be selected? The role, responsibilities, and duties of the commission are unclear and, to my knowledge, have not been articulated by the current commission notwithstanding the recommendation of the strategic plan more than two years ago to do just that. It's a critical issue because without a defined role, responsibilities, and duties, the commission or any such agency can get involved in issues it shouldn't and avoid issues that it should focus on. So I would like to take a crack at it. Let us remember that the commission has no budget authority nor does it set or implement personnel policies. Many of its most significant actions need to be approved by the 109 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 administration and many cases by City Council itself. In short, I recommend that the commission be changed to what it really is. It's an advisory body and would have two responsibilities. Number one, the Fairmount Park Advisory Commission would advise City Council and the administration on any proposal to sell, divest, acquire, or exchange park land or to alter in a significant way the utilization of any such property. In assessing any such proposal that may reduce park land or significantly alter its use, the advisory commission should fully consider any impact to the City's water supply or water quality and quality of life to the citizens of Philadelphia. I think the advisory commission should take into account the economic impact any such transaction or proposal may have on revenues of the city as well as job growth or employment opportunities. In short, this would apply to transactions such as Fox Chase, the reuse of Memorial 110 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Hall for the School District School of the Future. None of those could be consummated without the advisory commission weighing in. The advisory commission, which would be subject to sunshine laws, would provide a forum and vehicle to ensure any such transactions or proposal that could diminish open space or significantly alter the use of park land would be fully aired in a transparent way and provide additional expertise and oversight for the City Council and to the administration. I might add that Peter Harnick, a leading expert on park space, was in Philadelphia recently and it is my understanding -- and if I misstate this, I hope someone will correct me -- that he said that the combination of parks and recreation as exist in virtually every other city in this nation does not lead to developers consuming park land. In fact, he said cities have actually added park land. 111 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 The second responsibility of the advisory commission would be as such: To issue recommendations on how the city can use its distinct park and recreational assets to enhance neighborhood revitalization and make the city more competitive in attracting and retaining residents, visitors, and employers to Philadelphia.
One of my concerns has been that Fairmount Park has been too insulated from the city and the city has not fully appreciated the value Fairmount Park can bring to the vitality of this city. The advisory commission would lend its expertise to bridge the gap. It would make sure unique assets in virtually every neighborhood and hug the banks of the Schuylkill, Delaware, Wissahickon, Poquessing rivers or creeks are helping to elevate this city to new heights. As for the composition of the commission, it should include a variety of expertises that can serve this City 112 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Council, administration, and citizens in a professional way. Rather than being selected for political or other conversations, its members should bring a particular skill in several relevant categories. They should include water quality, horticulture and landscaping, planning commercial tourism, and neighborhood revitalization. It is important its members also include representatives of neighborhood as well as larger regional parks. For example, I would suggest the following composition: One, the head of the horticultural society; two, the head of the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation; three, the president of the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Organization; four, the dean of landscaping or similar department from a university or college located in the Philadelphia area; five, an individual with historic preservation experience; six, the head of the City's Planning 113 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Commission; seven, the commissioner of the water department or the head of the watershed management division of the water department; eight, three representatives of watershed park friends groups; nine, three representatives of three neighborhood park friends groups; ten, two representatives appointed by City Council; and 11, the head of NTI or similar city agency geared toward neighborhood revitalization appointed by the Mayor. This group brings a blended experience of neighborhoods, parks, landscaping, tourism, horticulture, economic development and water quality. In short, we would replace the group chosen for no particular reason in a shroud of secrecy and with no set agenda with an advisory group comprised of both experts and park representatives that are specifically charged to add value to two key strategic issues, one, the efficacy of changing the current ownership or use of park land and, two, 114 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 how to elevate and leverage our park for the betterment of our city as opposed to treating it as an oasis separate from the city. My final governance recommendation already exists. It is a recreation coordination board and includes members from parks, recreation, and schools. It is intended to bring, quote, maximum coordination of all recreational activities, end quote, among these groups. It has not been convened since the 1970s. It's time to activate this group and bring a cohesive and thoughtful rationale on how we can be sharing and coordinating our limited resources for the sake of the children. In conclusion, I recommend continuation of the administration -- by the administration of eliminating duplication; two, designation of a deputy managing director; three, the activation of the recreation coordination board; and, four, the restructuring of the 115 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Fairmount Park Commission to eliminate its meddling in mundane activities and specifically to serve as a steward for the proper preservation for park land and serve as a catalyst to bring a strategic focus on making our park system an integral part of the fabric of Philadelphia. Our park is too valuable an asset for the future to cling to the past. The longer we wait or frankly stall in the hopes a new administration or City Council will be distracted by the issues, the only thing that will happen is that our grass will grow longer but not greener. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you for your testimony. Please discuss if you will for me of your testimony, bullet No. 3. You discuss, 116 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 and I quote, unlike other city departments, it is the beneficiary of millions of dollars of trust funds which is not included in the $13 million city appropriation.
Well, there have been trust funds left by individuals over the years which the park has access to. And while these are private funds, they still help support the park system. We do not discuss those funds and yet they are a resource contributor to the park. Now, I would tell you because I got into this issue when I was interim executive director some of these funds are very restricted, restricted as to place and to use, but there are also some funds there are less restricted and can be used for other reasons. I think Council if it's going to get into a debate or if we're going to have discussions as to the needs of the park and the resources capable of meeting those needs should have a fuller picture 117 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 of what's there.
Prior to your testimony, representative of the star panel indicated, and I quote, that the board should move to be an entrepreneurial board. Could you comment on that?
I was confused by that. I think what I heard in testimony is not what I heard in Q and A, but I think what he said is the group he sits on is in favor of eliminating the park commission and is in favor of a consolidated department to be called park department as opposed to parks and recreation. That's what I heard, which is not what I thought the tenor of his opening remarks were, but remind me of your question again.
I was looking for my notes because I like to quote. I believe the comment was that the next configuration or mission of the board, one of its missions should be that 118 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 of entrepreneurialship.
Well, entrepreneur, I looked up that definition in Webster's dictionary because I've always said an entrepreneur is someone that puts his own money at risk. It's not an entrepreneur when you have other people's money at risk. Okay? And so I would not use the word "entrepreneurial." I would use the word "creative." Okay? I think there's a difference because I think some of the work frankly the commission has done which one might call, quote, entrepreneurial has not turned out very well and I think as I mentioned last time the parkwide concession agreement and golf course concession. So I would use that word with great trepidation. If people want to put up their own money and they're at risk or they're at risk because they hold public positions and could lose their positions or accountable to the public, then the word "entrepreneurial" is more suitable for 119 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 me. But clearly we need more creative thinking and more marketing prowess. How do we take this great thing we have in the city and really market it and make it a greater place? So, in theory, I'm in favor of what I think they're talking about.
It's my understanding that some of the alignment actually began to commence prior to even the completion of the strategic plan, if you could just speak to the triggers of whatever that you saw that inspired you from a manager's standpoint to take action.
Well, I had some familiarity with the park because I was there for seven or eight months and then I became managing director. I understood the financial issues the City had. My background is basically as a manager and I felt that there was some low-hanging fruit that we should take. And some of it was in the -- we didn't 120 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 call it strategic plan back in the '80's. We talked about moving rec centers and swimming pools and moving them from Fairmount Park to the rec centers. It was a no-brainer. Everything we did has been a no-brainer. We put the turf maintenance under Fairmount Park, saved the taxpayers $300,000 and we've increased the number of times rec gets their lawn cut. So this is really simple stuff. I mean, any organization, any manager, certainly any business would be doing this. We cannot have redundant activities. And so to me it was somewhat of a no-brainer. And I'm happy to hear that it's still continuing. And none of these had any impact on programmatic issues. These are administrative and operational things. One thing I did suggest in my testimony was to have a deputy managing director -- I have high regards for Bob Allen, who's a very bright person and is committed clearly to this park -- is to 121 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 have someone that's overseeing those functions because I think some of the feedback I got was, well, the park doesn't have credibility in this person because they're really a Rec Department person but they're overseeing budget or anything like that and vice versa. So I think it's important to have a person in a neutral capacity that's not invested in parks or recreation to make sure everyone's getting their fair share and allocation and so forth and to give the deputy managing director the charge to really figure out how we can better realign responsibility. It's a classic management 101 thing and I don't think we have to go into a lot of details on it frankly.
This is my own opinion. That may go to the point raised by I believe Mr. Stalberg suggesting or recommending a transition period and there being a person principally responsible for the 122 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 transition period, so that may or may not be an answer.
I think it depends on what we're transitioning. I think some of these administrative things like fleet management, make sure both departments don't have the same special equipment and that there's a way to share that equipment because they're not always used, I mean, those are administrative operational issues. I don't think you need a transitional thing. If you're starting to go to major transformation and moving recreational activities in the park such as ball fields and stuff like that over to the Rec Department and things like that, then you might want to. I think it's fine to have a transitional plan. There should certainly be an operational plan people are kicking the tires on, but it shouldn't be a delay tactic.
All of us anxiously anticipate the 123 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 reports from the two advocacy groups. Have you had an opportunity to share your view of the world as it relates to the composition of the commission with either one of those groups?
No. I just thought of it this weekend. I'm surprised it's taking these groups so long to be quite honest with you. The strategic plan has been around for two years and had adequate hearings and so forth. And a lot of the implementation in the strategic plan costs no money. I mean, some of it you need some money, but a lot of it doesn't cost any money.
We've actually seen that already with what Mr. Bob Allen has outlined and it hasn't cost a dime. Finally, have you had an opportunity to review the document shared with us by Chairman Nix, the March 15, 2006, document?
Wherein he articulates a number of recommendations, benefits, et cetera. Given what you have presented and what we've heard in testimony today, what do you vote for the future? What's your perspective for the next steps?
I think it's time to move on. You know, there's been progress made. I think these hearings have been terrific. There's a guillotine over people's necks and we're starting to see some action. When the guillotine's put away, are we going to go back to business as usual? I have a great regard for Bob Nix and I don't like these public discussions we have, but the fact of the matter is there's nothing in this letter that we haven't known for three, four, five, six years, that we haven't read in Zach Stalberg's former newspaper. And for us all of a sudden to get religion on this issue and say let's really do it, you know, you got to look at -- when 125 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 people are promising future action, you got to see what their past action has been. Frankly, you know, some of that concerns me. Now, I also think from a substantive point of view where he talks about moving this into the one department would be immense and unwieldy, you know, virtually every city in the nation has this so I don't know why ours would be more immense and unwieldy. And if you talk about comparing apples and oranges and there's a lot of discussion on open space in this letter and trails and so forth, at least my experience at the commission, which has been limited, there was very little discussion among the commissioners about our trails, about our open space. That's not what the commission spent its time on. So to now use this as a rationale why we have to hold on, you know, is curious to me. And, quite frankly, if you want to take what he's saying here and saying okay, 126 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 maybe this advisory group or the commission itself focuses on the trails and open space, if you want to do that, fine. Then all the athletic and recreational assets should be moved over to the Recreation Department, the ball fields, the six golf courses. And I raise a question whether we need six golf courses and so forth. So if you want to take this letter at its literal value and say we want to start to move those assets over as we have the rec centers and swimming pools, it starts to make a little more sense to me. But my concern is that this just not be a letter that's just going to hoping for more time and then you get off to other things or Councilman Clarke gets off to other things and we go back to where we were. I think that's a big mistake for the citizens of Philadelphia.
The record should reflect that as a result of the more meetings now than we 127 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 can count that Councilman Clarke and I have had with all stakeholders since September '05 that there's an expectation that the strategic plan not rest on the shelf. We were not willing to be guilty of a document that a recommendation came out of this legislative body to get a strategic plan, we got a strategic plan and there was no action on it. The good news is that there has been progress, but I think I can speak for Councilman Clarke and I when we say that we expect at the end of the day to have firm recommendations on how we continue with the alignment and have a plan for the expenditure of what we all believe to be needed more dollars.
Well, I would repeat Councilman Rizzo's words about commending you and Councilman Clarke for making this an issue for I think everyone that cares about the park. It may be uncomfortable for us and make us squirm, but it's the right thing to do. 128 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Goldsmith.
First of all, thanks for your service. I'm just curious. And, again, my question is not meant to be argumentative or hurtful in any way. My question is, you were the acting director, the interim director of the Fairmount Park Commission; correct?
You said for about eight months. How long were you managing director?
Today your 20 recommendations have been obviously long 21 thought out, some of the things you've 22 suggested here. When you were executive 23 director of Fairmount Park and also 24 managing director, what did you do to try 25 to make a change? 129 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
I think a lot of the consolidation we've referred to happened under my watch moving swimming pools, rec centers, turf maintenance, the trash, oversaw the strategic plan. You know, to be quite candid, I feel a little invested in this process. I'm no longer involved in city government. I'm a private citizen. I feel invested in this. I think I did my fair share both when I was at the park and as managing director and I hope to maybe became a pain in the butt to a lot of people, but I'm going to continue because I think it's important.
But my recollection -- and I have a pretty good recollection that back then we were in a similar situation. A lot of those changes were a result of budget hearings. I don't think there was any voluntary move to combine the Fairmount Park or the swimming pools. I remember sitting in this chamber asking why this person -- 130 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 similar with the neighborhood parks with Fairmount Park cutting grass in one location, Recreation Department in another. That's sometimes what's discouraging is that we discuss so many things here in this chamber and we get yes, sirred to death and then nothing ever happens, but a lot of those changes -- and I understand you're going to tell me about the strategic plan, but I think a lot of that was motivated here in Council.
Well, Councilman, there's a lot of good ideas you've given me over the years, but I think the ones we took in doing some of this consolidation were done because it was the right thing to do and so forth.
Agreed. But my question is that from your experience, and I know you are a creative man, that as your time as the interim director of the park and managing director, what was your -- why couldn't you get the rest of 131 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 the deal done? Was there a --
No, not necessarily. You heard today about all the other great ideas about combining the trash pickup and all that.
It's little potatoes to you, but it's big potatoes when you're responsible for implementing it and you have to make sure the trash gets picked up and you get calls from City Council people wondering why the trash isn't picked up.
My point is that is something good managers do without being pushed to do.
And I would say we did do that including some of the 132 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 trash pickup. And we learned some things and learned that with some parks it wasn't working and we pulled back. It's important to know what you're doing and when you have to pull back, but I think most of this consolidation stuff was done and it's going to continue to be done I hope.
Again, I hope you understand I'm not trying to be disrespectful of your service, but I was trying to get to the bottom of why has this been such a difficult task. Honestly, I don't think we'd be here today talking about consolidation if some of the things that are being suggested today, some of the things that you suggested -- and what you said earlier, bigger issues will come and it will be forgotten about and business as usual, I hope that's not the case.
Well, I think part of it -- like I say, I'm not going to sit here and defend my record. 133 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 There's a lot of things I wish I had the time to do and could have done, but when you're trying to get two departments to work together and have somewhat different cultures and viewpoints and so forth, it's not as easy as you think. And plus I think it's the role of City Council to cajole and raise these issues. So I think it's the same issue a board of directors has with a corporation. It's an appropriate role, not an inappropriate role.
One last question. It was suggested -- and you can answer the question. We were talking about the possibility of an inmate work release program to try to help the park and it was suggested that the managing director at the time killed that. Was that you?
You don't recall that? 134 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Mr. Goldsmith, let me ask this question: When did you come to despise the park commission and its appointment process and the current structure? Just when did that happen?
My concern with 135 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 the park commission, and I had the concern when I was executive director, was that I didn't think that it clarified its roles and responsibilities. And I thought it was more difficult for staff to work with a board that the roles and responsibilities weren't clarified.
Had they been previously clarified at some other point in time?
I don't know. In fact, we did have one off-site retreat, I think it was at St. Joe's University, to start clarifying what those roles and responsibilities should be.
I forget. July of -- July of '02 I think it was. September '02.
And in your previous service in the government, had the park adequately defined its roles and responsibilities at that time.
I don't know. I really didn't have that much dealing with the park. It obviously had more money and at one time we used to have a program called SEDA, which provided a lot of employees to the park and so forth, but I wasn't -- I don't recall being close to the park at that time.
What were your impressions of the park during that time?
I'm not really sure I had impressions of the park. Frankly, I really got to discover how great this park was just prior to taking over as executive director. I tried to 137 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 walk a lot of this park and all the watershed parks and so forth, and it absolutely blew my mind away how great this park is and how vast it is and what an asset to the city. And it's sort of gotten to me a little bit. And that to be quite candid is my -- I probably had the same impression of the park as a lot of people, that it was West River Drive or Martin Luther King Drive and Kelly Drive and the Wissahickon. What I learned is the park goes into every neighborhood and it's a vast treasure.
So what do you think has happened to the park over time prior to your service and since?
I don't know. I mean, I think part of it has been a money situation. I think part of it's been a political thing. I don't think the park for whatever reasons has developed a constituency that, for example, the Recreation Department has.
I guess in 138 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 the Recreation Department model it's usually site and neighborhood-specific.
I mean, it might be a little harder to develop a particular constituency for Kelly Drive.
Look. I've always thought that the hardest challenge of the park is marketing the park because it's called different things in different neighborhoods. You have Pennypack Park. Probably people don't even know that's part of Fairmount Park or McMichaels Park and they don't know that's part of Fairmount Park. And I think it's a real challenge that the park has in marketing the park and people to understand it's all part of one system. So I think from a marketing perspective it's a very, very difficult challenge.
Now, I mean, for all that you've laid out, and I'm looking at what I've numbered on your testimony, you talk about the 139 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 roles and responsibilities, duties of the commission are unclear, to your knowledge they have not been articulated by the current commission. I mean, again, have you seen this by previous commissions or groups of commissioners in the past?
I wouldn't have been involved in it. I do think that -- I mean, one of the things the strategic plan called for was this very issue of clarifying what the roles and responsibilities were. And frankly when we met with the Mayor on the strategic plan, he asked I think it was Commissioner Nix, he said come back and tell me what you think the roles and responsibilities of the park should be. I don't know if that's ever been done, but it's a fundamental issue as to whether it becomes an advisory commission or whether it stays the same. And I don't think it's a very difficult issue. I think people just have to say this is what we're about and this is how we're 140 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 going to operate, you know.
Did you have the same sense of a lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities when Fitz Dixon was president?
I mean, you were here in the city of Philadelphia, a citizen. Did you have any impression?
I really wasn't familiar with it. I wouldn't have been involved. If I was involved with the park, it would have been as a user, but my guess is these issues have been going on. It doesn't lay at the feet of this particular commission or leaders.
I understand. on your testimony you make reference to the park's capital 141 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 budget as woefully inadequate to care for the previously mentioned 175 historic structures and other treasures just like the city's capital budget is inadequate to care for many of the city's needs. Why do you think the park budget, capital budget, continues to decline?
Because the city's capital budget continues to decline. You know, I think the park -- and I think one of the things that differentiates our park from other parks is the number of historic properties that we have, and over time they're costly to maintain and so forth.
I don't know. I don't know. But if I were going to, you know, get a bunch of people together from an entrepreneurial point of view, that would be the issue I'd think about, is there some taxing mechanisms or some tax credits, things that I'm not an 142 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 expert in, is there a way to carve out these parks as a special district like Williamsburg, but I think that's really where I would spend some real energy thinking about how do we take these properties, preserve them and really utilize them. I think it's a shame, you know, what's going on. The Historic Preservation Trust is one answer and that's a slow process.
Also underfunded. What did ever happen with -- wasn't there a national search at some previous point in time -- this has nothing to do with the current director. Wasn't there a national search for a new director?
I got all afternoon. 143 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
What happened was that I was leaving the commission to go become managing director.
I was leaving the commission to become managing director. There was a decision made to have a search. I used to be chief operating officer of a search firm. I said I'd be glad to help the commission determine the right type -- the types of questions they should be looking for in hiring a search firm. I said I wasn't going to get involved in the search. I thought that was inappropriate.
Stop right there. If you're the managing director, why would it be inappropriate for you to be involved in the search?
It may have occurred before I was managing director, but the decision was to get a search firm.
But it was 144 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 clear you were leaving that position?
Well, it was clear that I was there on an interim basis, but I hadn't resigned or anything like that. And I sat down with some members and said this is what you should look for and so forth. And eventually a search firm was hired. You know, time went on and a lot of time before the search firm was hired and a contract was signed and so forth. I don't know the exact chronology, but it took quite a while.
The commission was handling that. And I think there was private money used to pay for it. And by the time the contract was signed, it took, you know, a while. And then most searches regardless of what search firms tell you take a good six months to consummate. So at some point in time there were two candidates that the search 145 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 committee or commission decided they wanted the Mayor to see. I was involved in the interviewing process with the Mayor. And it was clear that they were both not appropriate for the job, that we could do better.
A search firm did the search under the guise of the Fairmount Park Commission.
I'm not sure because it was private money. I think it may have been $30,000, but I'm not sure.
Search firm 146 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 does what a search firm does. They bring you two candidates. This is a national search. They bring you back two candidates. Did you interview them? Did you and the Mayor interview them?
Yes. And I will tell you as a rule of thumb when a search firm does a search, they should usually be presenting a panel of three to five candidates, so two is really pretty thin.
I don't know. The search was being done by the commission. I was not involved in the search. But I was concerned that these 147 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 candidates that I'm sure were nice people and so forth were not the type of candidates -- you may have presented them in a panel of three to five, but they were not the type of individual that I think the Fairmount Park needed. So they went back to the drawing board. And my understanding is that, you know, at some point in time we had an interim executive director and we said, you know, are we going to have the interim executive director, make her the director or aren't we, and if we are that issue should be presented to the Mayor. And I think it was a determination of the commission that they wanted to continue the search. And I suggested another search firm I had just dealt with and I recommended. I said it's up to you, and they chose to stay with the search firm they had chosen, which was their right. To my surprise, however, they had to renegotiate the contract with the search firm. A retained search firm usually 148 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 works until they complete a search. And for reasons I didn't really understand, they were engaged for either a specific period of time or whatever. That's highly unusual. And so they had to go back and redo the contract. By that time, a couple more months passed. In the meantime, they had come up with a candidate from New York who on paper seemed excellent. He came to Philadelphia. We interviewed him, took him around the park and so forth. He was with Central Park. And in the meantime, he got promoted to run Central Park and took his name out of contention. And so the search continued. Then two other people came up. One guy took his name out and the other guy was very good. I think we were all very excited about him and the end of the story was that he chose not to come. So it was a long laborious process and that's what happened.
Yeah, that 149 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 was a long story.
Lastly, how is it -- you made mention in your testimony -- I don't know what page this is. Next to last page. You raise the issue of the recreation coordination board. I've raised that one a couple times myself.
I appreciate it but it's okay. How is it that it has not met for all these years? I mean, what is the problem?
I don't know. You know, I'll take fault for not instigating that when I was managing director, but I don't know. But it sort of makes sense when you think that we've got a School District that's got its recreational activities and Fairmount Park that has its and we have the 150 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Recreation Department. It just makes sense to get a bunch of people that all have sort of the same issues and needs together and figure out how they can work together. It may well be that when Commissioner Crawford who was Recreation Department commissioner and also served as chairman of Fairmount Park, that may have been the last time it was activated. I don't know. But I think it's a good idea and I think programmatically it would help us and help rationalize the systems.
One last item on this search issue. What I was looking for is in your testimony, which raises the issue about the relationship certainly between the city and the commission, but it seems actually somewhat crystallized in your testimony. You say let us remember that the commission has no budget authority nor does it set or implement personnel policies. Many of its most significant 151 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 actions need to be approved by the administration and in many cases by City Council itself. The reason I raise this is because in your recounting of the search story, at times -- and I mean your position at that moment seems slightly unclear, but you know that you were there. When the administration wants to be involved in something, I think it is very clear what the administration's position is, what their issue is, and what they want. On the other hand, if the administration for some reason chooses not to be engaged or not to be involved, it seemingly reserves the right to say, oh, that's the commission, wasn't involved in that, that's their right, et cetera, et cetera. The bottom line, of course, is that they don't have any money of their own and ultimately those kinds of decisions we all know and even as you recount in your testimony are made and have to get approved by in this particular case the managing director and 152 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 the Mayor. So, I mean, I guess for -- I don't remember when we may have done a national search for a park director in the past. The only one I've really known was Bill Mifflin and he was kind of here for a long time. So why wouldn't the administration take a heightened interest in ensuring that whether it's a good search or a panel of three to five people or whatever the case may be as opposed to what seems to be basically your own description of a bit of a hands-off policy and we'll just kind of wait and see what happens? I mean, you don't get to search for a new director of a 9,200-acre park system every day.
Right. Well, I think if you look at the city charter, I'm sure you know this, that one clear responsibility that the park commission does have is the appointment of an executive director. And I felt that I think there was strong feelings on the commission. I think they were right that 153 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 that was their responsibility. I think it was also understood certainly by Chairman Nix and other members that you could not recruit someone into a position like that without that person being acceptable to the Mayor, whether it be this Mayor or anyone else.
I think it would be very difficult for someone to come into a position like that.
No sane person would walk into that situation without knowing they were going to have significant support from the administration responsible for funding that operation.
It was clear I think we always agreed that the Mayor couldn't hire a director without the approval of the commission and the commissioner couldn't hire a director without the approval of the Mayor, but it was the commissioners that had the lead 154 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 in this. Look. I've heard through the grapevine people trying to blame the Mayor for that and nonsense. The Mayor was responsive and I disagree with that characterization.
I didn't know that much about it. There's been all kinds of rumor, speculation. I figured you'd have the best version of the story.
But I want to get back to your point and that's what I sort of said in my testimony last time, which is administration can be involved when it wants to be involved and it can say that's not my responsibility. And that's why the current system doesn't make sense because there is no -- it's sort of like the old school board where the Mayor could say, well, that's not my board and they're able to turn their back on it. And I think it's the same thing. And I think --
That was 155 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 one of the reasons we changed it.
Exactly right. That's exactly right. And I think by and large that was a good thing. And that's what I think the problem is now is that no one's fully accountable and it's a violation of basic tenets of good government.
Thank you for sharing on the search thing. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. Any other comments or questions of this witness? (No response.)
Good afternoon. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. 156 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
Good afternoon. I'm Lauren Bornfriend, executive director of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance, and I'm joined here today by alliance board member Joan Reilly, who is the director of the Philadelphia Green Program of the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, as well as a member of Commissioner Nix' advisory committee. Also joining me is the Alliance's board president, Beth Ounsworth, and board member and public policy chair Graham Finney. The Philadelphia Parks Alliance and the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society have been working together on a project called Citizens for Better Parks. Since last October we have convened several meetings for the leadership of park friends groups from neighborhoods across Philadelphia and have facilitated a series of ongoing working groups to discuss in detail the challenges and opportunities facing our parks. Next 157 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 week we will release a detailed report of findings and recommendations based on those discussions. Today I'd like to be brief and focus on three points. First of all, the work that Councilmembers Clark and Reynolds Brown are doing on behalf of Philadelphia's parks is absolutely essential so let me begin by thanking them. They recognize the parks are a vital part of our city and they recognize that significant reforms are necessary if our parks are going to live up to their potential. They understand that the old way of doing business is not good enough and that a better system of park management will result in better parks and services for all Philadelphia. So once again I thank them. Second, let me catch Council up on the work that Citizens for Better Parks has been doing. Our working groups included people from all walks of civic life, grass roots neighborhood leaders, 158 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 former public officials, environmental and economic development experts, advocates for recreation and historic preservation, and more. These people all see tremendous potential in our parks, but they agree that the system as a whole is underfunded, understaffed, and underperforming, but as we said in testimony last December, our working group members don't just want more money for parks, they want a more dynamic, more creative, and more accountable system that can use resources wisely and effectively while protecting Philadelphia's remarkable open space. Next week when we release our report, you'll see what kinds of specific solutions the Philadelphia Parks Alliance and the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society recommended. For now I can tell you we've kept in touch with Mr. Nix' committee during its process and we're glad to see that his recommendations reflect a number of the same conclusions 159 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 we testified about at the hearing last December. But before I move on, I'd like to commend Commissioner Nix for thinking big and taking a stand in the best interest of Philadelphia's parks. My third point is this: The Parks Alliance and Horticultural Society cannot support the legislation or amendments currently before Council. Our constituents have made very clear to us that they don't support a merger of Fairmount Park and the Recreation Department since the missions of the two departments are so different and don't need to be merged in order to better coordinate their functions or improve operations. Furthermore, many questions remain about the responsibilities, role, authorities, and composition of a new board as contained in the legislation we've seen. What kinds of qualifications are required for membership on the proposed board? How will it expand and diversify the park's financial base? 160 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Will it set policy and strategies for things like land use, environmental protection, and constituent services? How will it make the City of Philadelphia a cleaner, greener, and healthier place to live? Some might say that we can work out these details later, but we respectfully disagree.
For a charter change proposal to win the support of our constituents, these details must be addressed before legislation goes before Council and before a question goes on the ballot. What we have heard in our discussions with community, civic, and business leaders is that the citizens of Philadelphia want to understand how the proposed charter change fits into a plan that will make our parks, our neighborhoods, and our city better. In closing, I'd like to say that despite specific concerns we have with this legislation, a great deal has been accomplished since last fall and we're moving in the right direction. We 161 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 can assure you that the Philadelphia Parks Alliance and the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society are in this for the long haul. We are ready to work with City Council, with Commissioner Nix, and with anyone else who believes that a stronger park system can help build a stronger Philadelphia. Thank you.
You're welcome. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
I'm Graham Finney, a board member and public policy chair of the alliance.
Beth Ounsworth, president of the board of Philadelphia Parks Alliance.
We certainly welcome all of you. Are you going to testify? Are any of you going to testify? 162 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
Fine. Thank you for your time. Thank you for coming in and letting us know how you feel. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of Council. My name is Philip Price, Jr. I'm a member of the board commission and member of the Fairmount Park Conservancy. And Mr. Binswanger, whose testimony I'd like to read, could not remain for this so he asked me to read his statement into the record. Dear Madam Chair and members of Council, I'm testifying today as the president of the board of directors of the Fairmount Park Conservancy. As you know, the conservancy is an independent 163 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that raises private sector dollars for Fairmount Park and markets the park as a focal point for Philadelphia's economic development and neighborhood renewal. For the past five years, we have raised nearly $13 million for Fairmount Park projects. In fact, we brought in $2.5 million in support of Fairmount Park just since the last hearing on December 14, 2005. Our success is proof positive that Fairmount Park is important to the citizens of Philadelphia and, in fact, to people throughout the region. Philadelphians are willing to give above and beyond their tax dollars to support Fairmount Park. It is much loved but government must also do its part. The Fairmount Park Conservancy serves as a part of the advisory committee convened and led by Zach Stalberg and Bob Nix and concurs with its general recommendations. However, we remain convinced that a merger between the Fairmount Park and the 164 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Department of Recreation either legislatively driven or through realignment will adversely affect our ability to attract private and philanthropic support for Fairmount Park. In the Conservancy's view, three changes to business as usual are most urgently needed to make Fairmount Park the park system that Philadelphia citizens deserve. They are, number one, increased public sector funding. Fairmount Park's chronic underfunding severely impacts the park's ability to serve its communities and to provide a catalyst for Philadelphia's neighborhood renewal and economic development. Alternatives that significantly increase public operating support for the park must be identified and put into place. Private sector donations can supplement but will never supplant the city support the park needs and deserves. Number two, a restructured government system that will improve accountability and clearly 165 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 define responsibilities. It is very important to note that under a new structure private sector fund-raising activities and the dollars generated must remain independent of city government control. Three, a hundred percent of the revenues generated in Fairmount Park should stay in the park and be applied to park needs. The Conservancy is in the midst of investigating a number of ways to increase the park's self-sufficiency. This is an ongoing process but essential for the future growth and development of the park. With a serious green deficit that exists, these dollars must be used to address park needs and should not flow to the general fund. It is unfair to expect the park to support other city needs when it cannot support its own. We are committed to a vigorous private partnership and look forward to working with you to envision a Fairmount Park of which all of us can be proud. Thank you, Madam Chair. 166 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06
Thank you. Are there any questions of this witness or comments? Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony. Did you serve on either one of the star panels?
I'm on the task force that was created by Mr. Nix and Mr. Stalberg.
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just an observation about the third point. When the recommendation was that funds generated within the park should be earmarked for park purposes, that was the specific intent stated in the legislation which 167 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 created Fairmount Park in 1868. There's a paragraph in that 1868 act that stated in effect that the treasurer was to take all funds generated from park fees and park uses of various kinds and hold those funds in trust for the benefit of Fairmount Park. So while it has gotten away from that at some point, it's certainly worth looking at that to see if that's a reasonable way to help fund the park and particularly since that was the original notion in the first place.
Thank you for your recent comment. Would it be fair to say that the recommendation for or the vision that one role of the park to be entrepreneurial really stems from the original intent of the park as you just described? One of the recommendations that was put forth by a member of the star panel or the star committee was that it move to consider 168 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 having an entrepreneurial role. So my question is, given that recommendation, does that stem from what you just informed us about, which is the original intent of the park and that is all funds that it generates, the funds that it generates should be devoted to the uses and needs of the park?
I can't answer that specifically, but I think the notion today is that entrepreneurial is a difficult word for some people, in fact, some witnesses here today. Rather, funds that are generated through user fees or permit fees or parking fees or whatever that have a park function as opposed to a commercial function should be dedicated. That's what I think the Conservancy is getting at. And certainly that's in keeping with what I mentioned earlier about the original intent of the state legislation.
Okay. Can you please make sure we get a 169 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 written copy of your testimony? It would be very helpful for us going forward.
Yes. I thought this had been submitted. I'm sorry. I'll make sure it's distributed.
Good afternoon. I'm Tom Pelikan and pinch-hitting for our president, Bob Lukens. He couldn't get out today. At the previous hearing in December, both Bob Lukens and one of our former presidents, David Pope, submitted testimony for the record and I hope you've all read it. The Friends of the Wissahickon have enjoyed a partnership of more than 80 years with the Fairmount Park Commission. It's been a good and mutually beneficial partnership. For example, this year alone we'll spend 170 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 close to half a million dollars on the Wissahickon. At the same time, we recognize that the status quo just isn't good enough. We support genuine constructive reform of the park commission. The proposal by Councilmembers Clarke and Reynolds Brown has generated spirited public debate about reform and we appreciate this and their commitment to a bright future for Fairmount Park. However, we cannot support the proposed merger at the time. We're pleased with the amendment that gives more time to consider the complex issues regarding the positioning and functioning for the park commission. One of the most important issues facing the Wissahickon and gives face to the most concern on our board of directors about the proposed legislation is land use and disposal. One of the primary purposes of the park commission is to protect, preserve, and care for the open space of Philadelphia. The evaluation of any 171 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 proposal to allow nonpark use of lands within the system must be made with this purpose in mind. Specific considerations should include such issues as whether or not the lands in question have value as a natural preserve, a designated landscape, or a recreational area or an integral part of a larger area, and whether or not replacement lands of equal or greater park value are to be dedicated in place of lands proposed to be converted to a nonpark use. Evaluation of these issues should take into consideration plans and policies of city, regional, public, and nonprofit entities relating to Fairmount Park and overall city and regional plans and of park friends groups, including the parks alliance. We congratulate the efforts to realign the several functions within the park and recreation departments, but we feel there are too many unresolved issues concerning a full-blown merger of the commission with the Recreation Department at this time. 172 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 We have to wonder about the fate of Fairmount Park trust funds and lands under the proposed merger and we can't help but wonder about the fate of the proposed partnerships that the commission has so ably built over the years. For example, we feel that the appointment system for commissioners should be carefully examined with several options explored that will make the process more transparent, whether through a panel of the Mayor's office or combination of both or even the Council getting involved. In any case, the idea of staggering appointments and terms has merit and using well thought out and well publicized criteria for the process and who should be appointed to the commission. We support the work of the parks alliance and I've personally served on the alliances on the Citizens for Better Parks land use task force in an effort to suggest reforms on the park. I want to thank you for your time and 173 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 attention today and we look forward to continuing to work with a stronger and better park commission in years to come.
Thank you very much. Questions from members of the committee? (No response.)
I'll get you copies of our written testimony within the next day.
I think there's some confusion on my testimony. I signed up to testify at the bill to -- Nutter's bill to transfer money to Fairmount Park. If that's going to be heard today, I'll stick around. But other than that, I don't want to testify. I'll wait for that bill to be heard. Proceed? The 174 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 bill to transfer the money? I have a copy for the clerk. My name is Fred Maurer and I testify for the adoption of the resolution to amend the proposed budget. The quality of our public park system has been seriously underfunded for the past 40 years as Mayors and managing directors neglected to allocate reasonable resources to maintain this common infrastructure of our city divided by a river and five free-flowing watershed parks maintained by the Fairmount Park Commission for good and welfare of the people. Our park system began in 1907, 99 years ago, with about the same population we have today. We had an excellent Fairmount Park Commission that fulfilled its duty of protecting public lands and providing us the enjoyment of open space recreation until the last generation of insensitive leadership. I hope today's resolution will start us back to a sane appreciation of the 175 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 quality we want in our park system. The last decade of deliberate cutting park staff and undercutting has left us in destitution. The ultimate degree of destitution I measured in Tacony Creek Park when I counted the number of family picnics in our park at the most popular picnic grove that annually had 400 to 600 persons. Last year I counted two families at Fourth of July day and on Labor Day it was zero, zero uses on national summer holiday of family outings. The free public use conditions of this park were lost because the so-called natural lands program erected fences and made lawns into weed fields and removed park maintenance staff. This park had three outdoor playgrounds when I moved here. Today it has zero playgrounds. The last playground demolition even removed sitting benches. When Philip Goldsmith was the park director, he tried to bring back some amenities to the park. He said parks are 176 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 for the people. I agree with him and I want to have parks that are safe and usable with good maintenance and loving care of a dedicated staff. When the Fairmount Park Commission testified last week, they testified that they were happy with the submitted budgets. I only wish that it was Councilwoman Verna with her questions at the Recreation hearing when she asked are you sitting there and telling me honestly that you are satisfied with your budget problems and you don't need more? That's a good question. I'd like to present that to Fairmount Park at last month's budget hearing. Fairmount Park Commission's testimony showed willing subservience after a staff had just been reduced to 167 people, below the lid of 170 people, when it actually needed hundreds of more. That park testimony was dishonest testimony. Fairmount Park Commission has been in crisis mode for too many years. They made an excellent master plan in 177 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 1983 to rectify its needs, but it was unfinanced. The current term of commissioners have dealt in poverty situations too long and the park system is breaking down. Our city park lands are made into false leases to avoid the cost of funding the park. The pride values of our founder William Penn parks of Washington and Franklin Square are no 11 longer city park lands and Memorial Hall was sold to the highest bidder. I recall a City Council resolution to have Fairmount Park provide a free Art Museum for the public which preceded the making of the Philadelphia Art Museum placed in Fairmount Park. When we pay our city taxes, public parks are part of the bargain we expect and we need as public service. Every time we pit parks against some economic theory, the businessman mentality wins.
We need this new park funding resolution to provide public service and quality of life from a good park system. I judge the resolution is 178 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 rational enough to make significant improvement and not be wasteful. However, the commission has not asked for this income. I think we need a public process to plan where and how it will be spent. I think you should exclude consultants and contract services and be done by Civil Service employees in the operation division only. The matter of Fairmount Park rangers as outside of Civil Service needs a foundational accommodation to increase their staff. I think this funding should also prohibit the commission from imposing any nuisance fees disguised as mandatory donations and should practice a state mandate of free parks. I think the intentions of City Council need to be decided before the commission meeting and not controlled by unseen staff or the city finance office. I suggest Council write a letter of intentions to clarify -- I'll repeat that line. I suggest Council should write a letter of intentions to clarify it before 179 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 the board so the city solicitor will not withhold its goals. That's my testimony. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the witness? (No response.)
Good afternoon. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. Thank you for your patience.
Thank you. I'm Friends of Sedgley Woods executive director Pete Wade. It's fitting that these hearings should take place today, the first day of spring, since this is an opportunity for the rebirth of our largest -- our city's largest natural 180 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 resource. I am serving as the executive director of the Friends of Sedgley Woods. In 1977, the City and the Fairmount Park Commission demonstrated foresight in approving the East Coast first disc golf course. Disc golf is a sport played like regular golf except with frisbees tossed into a catching device. Disc golf integrates the natural environment. The trees and bushes are natural obstacles which we work had to preserve as opposed to ball golf which clear land by the acre. Anyone can play and there are no 15 greens fees and the course maintenance functions are handled primarily by a group of over a hundred volunteers who donate their efforts because of their love of this natural resource. Thousands of man hours and much money has been donated to care for this little piece of heaven in the city. Over the nearly 30 years we have maintained the approximately 15 acres near 33rd and Oxford, we have endured the arson fire 181 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 which partially destroyed the abandoned cliffs house, the dumpings of thousands of tons of fills from various construction projects undertaken by the city in the meadow behind the course, the theft of over half of our game targets, rampant crime, prostitution, and drug use in areas adjacent to the course, and the benign neglect policy of the city to an internationally renowned and historically significant course. The volunteers of Friends of Sedgley woods and the incredible growth, now some 5,000 courses and some 5 million players internationally of this highly accessible activity have contributed to the stabilization of the surrounding neighborhood both in terms of East Park and the Strawberry Mansion and Brewerytown communities. We work with our neighbors, Smith playground, the Friends of East Park, and the driving range to better our section of the park, which Councilman Clarke has previously 182 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 cited as an example of duplication in city services. The good councilman himself has assisted us in the past where it borders his district. We as a park user group and volunteer organization have donated food to the Strawberry Mansion neighborhood Action Center and are working towards a youth outreach program which would include local schools, the East Park Revitalization Alliance, Smith playground, and others to bring area youth into the sport which offers a truly positive impact in terms of environmental awareness, physical fitness, and sportsmanship. We recently encountered two problems which the current staff handled admirably which point to the need to further develop this consolidation plan before it is put to the voters as a charter change. It really is an incredible opportunity that I hope will not be lost due to as the Councilwoman termed in the last hearings political arm 183 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 wrestling. The first problem is the divergent nature of the missions of the Fairmount Park Commission and the Recreation Department. As we know, the Rec Department is a program-based department admirably attempting to use resources given it to provide most benefits for all neighborhoods across the city. In contrast, the Fairmount Park Commission is really a natural lands trust designed to protect the environment to benefit all. This recently came into focus for us as we plan to improve our course. Fairmount Park Commission has a meadow reclamation project behind us designed to reclaim a sensitive area once a landfill. As recreational users, we had asked and been given permission to further develop our course. However, Fairmount Park Commission is charged with looking at the big picture and saying no.
23 Some of our natural resources are important to the flora and fauna in ways we recreational users cannot conceive. 184 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Once the two sides forged the basis for understanding, a compromise was developed that would allow us to play in less sensitive areas and for the Fairmount Park Commission to utilize an outside grant to help restore the environment to its natural pristine habitat. In the 9 I've been playing at Sedgley Woods, I 10 have personally seen an incredible 11 variety of wildlife on the course, 12 including a five-point buck, red foxes, 13 owls, hawks, a wild turkey and other 14 animals all within a quarter mile of a 15 busy city neighborhood. This kind of 16 resource must be managed carefully. It 17 is a vital importance to all park users, 18 which include tourists and regional 19 visitors as well as our neighbors from 20 the immediately surrounding area. While the appointed commissioners may not be highly qualified in some of these areas, it is clear to me that the staff of the commission has an evolved and enlightened perspective which I am afraid might be 185 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 lost in the proposed consolidation. As noted, the environmental focus has enabled the Fairmount Park Conservancy to obtain grant monies which supplements the city contribution. We at Friends of Sedgley Woods because we value nature as an integral part of the disc golf experience, were able with the help and communication of the Fairmount Park Commission staff to see that short-term gains would not be achieved at the expense of long-term environmental mission of Fairmount Park. It would be nice to know that the same safeguards will be built into the proposed consolidation legislation. Many park supporters, and I'd like to think that that term includes everyone in this room, will be watching closely to see this is achieved in an open and ethical manner. It is my opinion without knowing the details many would reject it as politicization of the park and a valuable opportunity for reform would be lost. 186 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 The second issue we recently encountered is private and quasi-private development of revenue from park sources. We are a simple volunteer friends group, nothing more. We are not a nonprofit as our neighbors Smith Trust nor a semi-private development as our other neighbor, the East Park Driving Range, is. In the last several years, both our neighbors have developed ambitious multimillion dollar redevelopment plans which we applaud; however, both plans initially called for incursion onto land that has been utilized by the disc golf course for nearly 30 years. It was the Fairmount Park Commission that served to protect the public access to this natural resource in a reasonable balance with environmental preservation and economic growth. Many others have recognized the concern which I share that to strip away that layer of protection afforded by the commission and give to the administration or the Council or proposed consolidated 187 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 department the right to dispose of park lands as they see fit would be remarkably short-sighted. This is why many question changing the charter and hashing out the details later. Without safeguards for us as many other user groups, this would be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire of political infighting. And the public perception is very important here. Fairmount Park, unlike any of the other world class park systems the strategic plan alludes to, has developed voluntary stewardship of the park. These voluntary efforts by groups like mine have been calculated to be the equivalent of many millions of dollars of contributions.
If there were the perception that Fairmount Park was being carved up into some political pie, I have little doubt that the confidence the volunteers have in the commission as flawed as it is to protect this incalculable natural resource would be shaken at best and possibly lost for 188 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 good. I would respectfully add, and this is my personal opinion and certainly does not reflect that of my group, it is somewhat disingenuous for the administration and City Council which reduced funding while adding acreage and responsibility to the commission staff consistently over the last decade and more to castigate the Fairmount Park Commission for not ably completing its mission. Ten percent of the land in the city including an incredible array of public resources managed by 169 people? These people should be given medals, not having their department absorbed. If anything, the Fairmount Park Commission and its staff have produced above and beyond the call of duty considering all they have been working against. No one is saying that the current Fairmount Park Commission is without flaws. It's definitely flawed, but to cure the flaw of political independence without 189 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 transparency and consideration of potential benefits would be a mistake. We all want park reform, but is charter change the beginning or end of that movement? A quick fix is not going to provide a lasting solution to the problems Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Brown have identified. Let's use this forum and reform the process -- and the reform process to unite the parties. Fairmount Park is too important to play politics with. Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the committee? (No response.)
Is there anyone here to testify after 190 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Mr. Kates? (No response.)
Good afternoon. My name is Jim Kates. I'm with the Friends of Fox Chase Farm. I will dispense with the background information which I submitted before. And I do have copies of my testimony here.
Let me say this: The Friends of Fox Chase Farm with a membership of over 450 families want to make sure this gem remains a working educational farm open to the public. Our members have genuine fears that Fox Chase Farm which has been almost continuously farmed since 1962 could be converted to athletic fields in a merged department. This would be a real loss for Philadelphia and city kids of all ages. Please don't push the ballot question for 191 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 merger. The overlap has largely been addressed by administrative processes. An independent Fairmount Park Commission has cared for and protected this park system for 150 years. Please have the courage to deal with the real problem: Funding. Do what you can to bring staffing and funding up to a respectable level. Hold the administration's feet to the fire with any increases appropriate. Make sure the administration lets the Fairmount Park Commission hire additional staff you insert in the budget and spend any additional funds you appropriate, insist that the administration find a way to allow funds generated by the parks to stay in the parks. This is not in my written testimony, but Councilman Kenney had raised that issue about is this really necessary to change the charter. And I am not an attorney, but my understanding is that the selection process for the Fairmount Park Commission was established 192 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 through state law. I believe it could be changed through state law. So I would urge City Council if you feel there needs to be a change in the appointment process and make it more open, and I'm sure we all support an open transparent process that will get people that are as dedicated the current people who also have some background that would be very appropriate for the parks, but use your good offices to get the state legislature to change the law. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any other statements from anyone here? (No response.)
Any comments from members of the committee? Councilman Clarke.
I just want to make one reference to one request. Thank you for your testimony. 193 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 Realistically getting the state to do anything in a positive for us is slim and none. We can't get the state to change gun laws, you know, given the fact we've had record deaths in the city of Philadelphia by gun violence. And to suspect somehow they're going to do something to allow us to alter the park system is just unrealistic. And while I understand your concern, I just want to say for everyone here, you know, this is a process and hopefully we're going to work our way through the process. And we have gotten substantial recommendations of change as a result of this process. I'm a person who loves the park, grew up in Strawberry Mansion all my life. Staying in the park sometimes caused me -- not going to tell you what my father did to me, but it happened when I was out there because I loved the park so much. There's not going to be any process I'm involved with as long as I'm a Councilperson that's going to allow the 194 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 park land to go to any uses not conducive to the city. If anything, I'd like to see it expanded.
Wouldn't that be one of the processes if you put it under city government as a regular city department? I worked for the city for 28 years so I know some of the processes and they put it on a list called the surplus property list and offer it to other city departments. If they don't want it, it's disposed of. Without the intervention of an independent park commission, I fear the farm that I love and a lot of other open space is going to be gobbled up for the benefit of jobs and development and things like that if you put it under the administration where they can essentially without a lot of public input do away with what we consider park land.
Sir, it currently is under the administration. Fairmount Park is a public city department. No land can be disposed of 195 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 unless it goes to this body of Council. It must be done through an ordinance or resolution and has to be voted on by nine members of Council and signed into law by the Mayor.
This whole issue about somehow if the change -- the governance of the park commission were to change that all of a sudden it's open season on park land is a myth. I mean, these are individuals that I serve with as Councilmembers feel very strongly about all park systems, although we don't fund them to the level it should be funded and I agree we need to increase funding. We need to increase funding to a number of departments. But at the end of the day, I believe from a personal perspective that we need to change the nature of the way we do business. I wish we could do some changes in governance without a charter change, but the law 196 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 requires any changes in governance requires a charter change. I don't think the state will give us the wherewithal to do much of anything even if, in fact, they are required to do that. I care about the parks or I wouldn't be involved with this issue to the level that I am. I walk in the room today and I see people sitting in the audience and act like -- the looks on their faces as though I'm trying to take away their first born when all I'm trying to do is improve a system that is clearly flawed based on the testimony. Regardless of where you are on the issue of consolidation, people have indicated this is a flawed system. And it was our attempt to stimulate the level of discussion to move this process and it has moved. We got people coming to these hearings who never even came to a budget hearing before. And I think at the end of the day if people are sincere about this issue, if we continue to move this process, I believe by November we 197 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 can have a proposal on the table people will feel comfortable with and then we can address those much needed increases in revenue for the system. That's just my personal perspective.
I do respect what you and Councilwoman Brown have done because I think you have stimulated public discussion on this issue. Just don't -- I just don't think consolidation and doing away with the independence of a commission is the right way to go. And if you're going to -- if you work out some sort of compromise, you need to share with the public all the details. The devil is always in the details. You can't just put a very short proposal on for a ballot question and then expect the public to accept it without knowing what it really means. And most of the people don't know what it means. The changes you've talked about, the amendment to move it to next November is a good thing, but you need to publish a report that 198 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 shows what the effects are going to be, what the appointment process would be before you ask people to write you a blank check and say sure, we'll change the charter.
I agree with you. That's why we've been working through this process. It started in June of '05. We're now moved along considerably. So we continue to amend the process. We continue to extend the process because the last thing that I want to do is to try and muscle 12 votes through this Council for something the citizens don't buy into because it will be soundly defeated on the referendum. So we're trying to be as open as possible. We've had a number of public forums stimulated as a result of introduction of this bill. The level of participation has been such it has never been on issues like this. So we will continue to work and we will continue to solicit ideas. And we appreciate all of 199 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 the individuals that come down to give testimony.
Thank you very much. Are there any comments or questions? (No response.)
Is there anyone else who would like to testify? (No response.)
Madam President, we'll give you the honor of announcing the continuation of our hearing.
Resolution No. 060172 will be continued until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. And Ordinance 050753 on Resolution No. 24 050778 will be continued to the call of the Chair. Thank you all very much for 200 Committee of the Whole 3-20-06 your patience. Thank you. - - - 201 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence, and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on March 20, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ Kimberly A. Overwise Certified Realtime Reporter Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)