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.