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.)