COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:05 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN, CHAIR COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE RESOLUTION 070213 - Resolution authorizing City Council's Committee on Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs to determine the feasibility of the Department of Parks and Recreation partnering with the Philadelphia School Board... RESOLUTION 070292 - Resolution authorizing City Council's Committee on Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs to determine the feasibility of installing surveillance cameras in all of the recreational facilities... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
The City Council Committee on Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs is now in a public hearing to hear testimony on Resolution 6 Nos. 070213 and 070292. The Councilmembers in attendance at the beginning of this hearing are my colleague to my left, Councilman Frank Rizzo. I will now ask the Clerk to read the title of Resolution Nos. 070213 and 070292.
070213, a resolution authorizing City Council's Committee on Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs to determine the feasibility of the Department of Parks and Recreation partnering with the Philadelphia School Board for the purpose of developing community-run recreation programs in public school facilities to be used after hours; such community-run recreation programs would be sponsored and run by the Parks and Recreation 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. Department. Resolution 070292, a resolution 4 authorizing City Council's Committee on Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs to determine the feasibility of installing surveillance cameras in all of the recreational facilities, as a means to further enhance the safety of all persons utilizing these facilities; and as a means to fight crime and violence in these facilities.
Thank you. Please, if we could have the Department of Recreation to please come forward. Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: Bill Carapucci, Deputy Commissioner of the Recreation Department.
Proceed with any testimony, remarks you'd like to offer on these resolutions. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: 4 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. Well, we support, Councilwoman Brown and Councilman Rizzo, we support both resolutions. The resolution working together with the School Board, we've already done that for a number of years. We're probably in at least 130 school gymnasiums now. We get permits or we run the programs within the schools, and the rec leaders at the nearby facilities coordinate the activities. So we've been doing that for a number of years, but obviously it can be expanded even more so. As far as security cameras, that's one of our priorities. We would like to get security cameras at our facilities.
And you say security cameras are a priority? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: Absolutely. In fact, our Commissioner has requested a grant from the congressmen to hopefully get some federal money to install the cameras at the 5 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. facilities.
And the facilities that make the good luck list, the criteria for them will be what? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: Right now it's 120 of what we call the A and B centers. The A and B centers, A centers are the large centers that have a gym, ball field, usually a pool. The B centers usually have a pool, ball fields and a mid-size building. We have 160 facilities, but the other 40 are small. So if you have limited resources, what we're trying to do is at least get the top 120 facilities covered with the security camera.
Councilman Frank Rizzo. And please let me acknowledge for the record that Council colleague Frank DiCicco, a member of this Committee, has joined the hearing.
Commissioner, in reference to Recreation 6 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. using School District facilities, could you elaborate or help me recollect, was there some controversy, the School District wanted to be paid? Could you go into that for us please for the record? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: Over the last 30 years, at least 30 years, every four or five years it's always come up where the School Board, which now I guess is the School Reform Commission, would always want to get some funds from our department or from the City for use of the gyms, and it's always been worked out by the Administrations that doesn't happen, because over the years, there's always been a quid pro quo relationship. When this first started, it probably was about 40 years ago, it was predominantly in the Northeast, where there was an agreement -- and I'm sure it was a verbal agreement -- between the Commissioner at that time, the Mayor, School Board that they wouldn't build A 7 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. centers in the Northeast, in the far Northeast, above Cottman Avenue, but they would build smaller facilities with ball fields, and it would be an agreement that the community groups can use the school gyms. Well, that concept has now spread throughout the City. So we have right now approximately 130 gyms that we're using in all sections of the City. But that's where it all began, and it's most of the times community oriented, community driven, and our rec leaders are the conduits between the school and the community groups. So that was the genesis of it. I've been in the Department 40 years. We always had school gyms. I remember myself when I first started, I was working at 15th and Morris in South Philadelphia and I was deployed to 17th and Tasker in the evenings. We had a school called Child School where we used to have activities in the school. So this is not something new. 8 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC.
Commissioner, has this been resolved? It's going to be difficult, in my opinion, to expand a program if the issue on funding or reimbursement to the School District hasn't been resolved. Where are we with this? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: The reimbursement has always been worked out by the Mayor, whoever the mayor is. It's always been worked out, because of the fact that if you look at our rec centers, the School Board uses our facilities also. I mean, they use our ball fields. They use our gyms during the day, especially the last 15 years with the expansion of all the charter schools and the specialty schools. They actually have permits to use our facilities, and we don't charge. So it's always been worked out that they can use our tennis courts, they could use our baseball fields, they could use our gyms during the day, and then 9 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. what happens, in the evening we're able to use their gymnasiums.
Commissioner, do you think we should leave well enough alone or do you think this should be formalized? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: I think we should leave well enough alone. We've been doing it for so many years that -- I mean, I don't see a problem, because it's always worked out. From what I can see, from the Mayor and School Board, people on that level have always worked out any request for reimbursement.
You would think that this wouldn't pop up in the media as an issue if -- I don't remember exactly how this recent issue surfaced again, but I know it did cause a lot of controversy about the City reimbursing the School District, and it was a substantial amount of money, from what I remember. 10 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: But I can tell you, if you tried not to have these school activities, there are so many community groups that use these gymnasiums in the evening that you would really have a controversy. Because I can tell you, we are in schools five nights a week, sometimes even on a Saturday, and there's activities going on.
I guess it's just because there is an expense associated with it, the energy costs, et cetera, even though it's a good rate, I guess it's responsible for the School District to basically remind everyone that part of the tab is this program that they're funding. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: But I think it's a great program, and you would have so many groups that I'm sure you're familiar with that would be knocking on your door and all the other Councilpeople's door, because they are in our schools and they're doing worthwhile 11 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. activities. And it's not just in one area of the City. We have them throughout the City.
What's the swimming program? Is that in a rec center, the swimming program up at -- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: We have in the summertime, obviously, we have our 75 outdoor pools, but year round we have another seven pools, and a few of them are in the schools, like Lincoln High School in the Northeast, Sayre Morris in West Philadelphia, schools like that. I mean, we've had that for years.
So it balances out? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: Well, they're always considered part of our program of our centers. Sayre Morris in West Philadelphia, it's a rec center. Even though it's within Sayre Junior High, it's a rec center. We've been in there -- that place was built in 1970. So you're talking 37 years. 12 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC.
What's the one in Nicetown? Marcus? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: Rhodes, Marcus Foster. Marcus Foster.
Big one, big program there. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: Yeah. We have a great program. Our PDR swim team, the one that just made the movie on Pride, just came out of this. I mean, this is not something new. This is something we've been doing for a number of years.
We thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Carapucci. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CARAPUCCI: Thank you.
Anyone 13 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. that's to testify on either one or both of these resolutions? (No response.)
Madam Chair, I think it might be good to hear from Mr. Phillis in reference to the budget for the camera surveillance since that's his shop.
Not a problem at all. Please let the record reflect also that in attendance is a member of this Committee, Councilman Darrell Clarke. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon to you, too. I'm Terry Phillis, the Chief Information Officer for the City.
Michaelle Cooke. I'm the Program Manager for the 14 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. Surveillance Camera Project.
Terrific. We welcome any testimony you may have on the first of which would be Resolution 6 070292 around surveillance cameras and their use and/or need in recreation facilities around the City.
Well, I think that the obvious inclusion of the rec centers, especially the A and B rec centers, is one of value to be added into and to complement the video surveillance project that is already going on, which, of course, addresses almost entirely the public safety issues. But those A and B rec centers, in talking with the Commissioner, he would very much like to be part of the camera selection process so that we can add their funding to this project to be able to adequately supervise through video monitoring the rec centers to protect some of the things that are going on in there today and also to be able to offer as part of that 15 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. forensic evidence for things that go wrong. So many of the people that are around the rec centers when there is a problem are afraid to testify. This project, video surveillance cameras throughout the City, will provide the one witness that cannot be intimidated, and for the rec center supervision and prosecution against people that have problems there, I think this provides an excellent opportunity to do that. We did not include the rec centers as a specific item within this project. Instead it was aimed at public safety in general. So from the rec center standpoint, they just need to be able to come in to the process and to help identify their priorities in the selection of cameras.
Mr. Phillis, 16 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. could I suggest that somehow you look at the possibility of utilizing the cameras that would be used for a recreation facility to also serve the perimeter of the recreation facility so it could serve the public that's in the facility and also outside of it. And I know when we have conversations, you talk about the fact that the monitoring is a big issue. Is there a possibility as we move forward that even though the systems wouldn't be monitored, at least we'd have video surveillance in the event -- and the ideal is to be preventive, to stop a crime because of the presence of the camera, but if the monitoring becomes an issue, is there a way to roll it out that we could at least have video surveillance that could be interrogated in the event something happened? I mean, that's not my goal. The goal is to be able to see something happening and have the police or whoever respond. But is there a way that we 17 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. could roll a program out that would allow us at least to gather information in the event we need it?
That will be part of the program. As the rec centers would be merged into the process that we have today, it means that they would be part of that same process. We store all images from video surveillance for a period, as it's set up right now, of 12 days. During that 15-day period, if 13 anything had happened, you could go back 14 and you could produce a DVD that could be 15 used in court to either investigate or prosecute someone who had caused a problem. There is a process that's been put in place to continue the chain of evidence so that the extraction of that data will stand up in court to do that. The other part of this is, the solution that we have for video surveillance in the City is a robust and a scalable solution. So if as a city we 18 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. have the opportunity to throw more money into this process to be able to expand the scenario that we're currently rolling out, we can do that. So we can expand this to whatever we can afford. And the process for monitoring, et cetera, is also available to be modified. So, for instance, if we decided that the rec centers were to be monitored by their own individual monitoring people, we could make that change so that that could be done. So, again, I think we start -- and I always say this in the City: We start with what are the requirements. If you can define all of the "what" questions or the requirements from an IT standpoint, we can deliver a solution that will meet those requirements, but we need to start with what are the requirements. So from a rec center standpoint, if the requirement is to have monitoring available at some central 19 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. point or through the police dispatch system or through whatever, that becomes a requirement and then we set it up so it works that way.
Mr. Phillis, one of my associates, an attorney, brought something I think is a good point, that days is short. There 10 might be a situation where someone, a 11 defense lawyer, might need that 12 information and 15 days could pass prior 13 to that attorney being hired and look at 14 the case and then go and ask for the 15 information. Fifteen days seems a little -- can't we expand that 15?
Well, we just expanded it from seven to 15. So, yes, we could expand it to 30, we can expand it to a year. It's all a question of how much money do you want to spend to save the images throughout the City. It's strictly a cost issue. It is not anything that can't be handled. If we throw more money at the storage device, 20 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. we can store it for a longer period of time. Because this project is rolling out in a disciplined and a predictable way, the storage requirements won't be an issue, no matter how long we store them, until near the end of the year when we start to run out of space.
I think it would be helpful that you ask the Law Department what is a reasonable -- you just did it for some reason seven to 15, but my colleague indicated that in some cases a person that's hiring a lawyer and until the lawyer gets to the point where they're really knowledgeable of the case, 15 days could pass.
You're absolutely right, and those can be changed, but I'll go back to my other statement, what are the requirements. The requirements that we have today were derived from visiting all the other places around the country where they save images today, and 15 days is about the average around the country 21 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. for what is saved. Because once you know that you have an issue, you can go in and save the data. You can retrieve it at that point even though you might use it later. If you know you had an incident at a particular rec center, you could go in and capture all of that data --
So that's why the 15 days is not necessarily a problem unless you wouldn't know about an issue until 15 days later.
But there's got to be some communication between law enforcement and technology people to know that they need to push the button on a particular day and not let that information get away.
And that process is being documented and built today. 22 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC.
Okay. But that's a great question, and those are the kind of questions that we really want answered, because this system is meant to answer all those kind of issues, and it's built in such a way that, again I repeat, that it's scalable and it's robust. You can make it as big and you can make it do whatever it is you needed to do, and that's what's different and why it took us a little bit longer to get to this point, because we didn't just go out to RadioShack and buy a bunch of cameras to hang on a pole.
But you wanted something you could manipulate based on needs going forward.
But to answer my question -- I think you did, 23 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. and I just want to make sure I heard it -- that you could start up a video program that may not be monitored but would be able to -- in other words, our first step, and then you could bring in the monitoring after the fact --
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. Real briefly, our ability, the City's ability, to have cameras implemented in rec centers right now aren't subject to the current arrangement we have with Unisys; am I correct? That we can essentially go out and put cameras; the only issue was because they're not integrated into the 24 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. ultimate system. So if we tomorrow say there's a need to put cameras in recreation centers to simply record or either have them monitored on site internally in the building, we can do that tomorrow, assuming we had the capital funding?
So do you believe -- and I guess this is more policing, and Mr. Carapucci is still here -- that if there's a significant need, that we may want to proceed with a low-cost camera to monitor a particular recreation center sooner than later? Because based on earlier discussions as it related to priorities, rec centers weren't initially the phase one high priority areas. I know I saw a map that had certain areas. Is it possible for us to do a relatively low-cost program at recreation centers to simply record or have a monitoring system in the facility 25 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. so the rec leader could be able to -- and I know some people like to discourage because they don't like rec leaders sitting in the building and not getting out upon the premises.
I think we could work out a solution from a technology standpoint as to what would be the best for the rec centers based on that kind of criteria that you're talking about. If we were looking for just the forensic use of the stored images, we could come up with a solution that would solve that short-term problem, but maybe by buying the right kind of equipment, it would also give us the ability a little bit further down the road to come back into the network and go back into the ultimate solution where everything is tied together. So at this point I wouldn't be safe saying that we should go out and buy a cheaper solution that might not be integratable six months or a year from 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. now. I would rather see us buy a solution that at the right point we could take advantage of our investment and integrate it with the rest of the project.
Right. And the reason I ask that question, because I don't know what we'll ultimately end up doing with the Unisys contract, but if a Councilmember had money in their capital budget and they said they want to put cameras in a couple of facilities in their district now and they could be comparable to -- hopefully a little less costly -- comparable to the ones that we currently have at, say, Broad and Erie to simply record --
Right. And then have the ability to put the antenna on top, because I know when we were in Chicago, they had some that were -- initially they were recording, and then 27 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. when they went to the wireless component, they basically put the antenna on top of the box and it was able to integrate into the system. So if a Councilmember said tomorrow they want to get with Capital Programs and you guys and Recreation and say, I'd like to have a camera at a facility, understanding that that camera could ultimately be integrated into the full-blown system, would that be something that we can do, or could you give me a scenario where --
I think we could probably write up several scenarios that would cover those kind of situations where you could have a barebones minimum that would meet just the initial issue for that rec center and not have any means of ever integrating to anything. A second scenario that would be probably a little bit more expensive that would do an interim recording on a local basis, but eventually you could remove the local 28 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. recording and tie it into the network that would bring it all back to the same solution. We could probably develop two or three different scenarios that would have different price tags with them and different expectations, and we can work with the Recs Department to do that.
The reason I ask that question, because my understanding, the initial cut at 250 will be done within a year, and there's a likelihood that a number of Councilmembers would like to have a facility monitored prior to that 250 being implemented like, say, for instance, the start of the season, March, April, and if I had money in my capital budget, I may want to have a camera put at 26th and Master, as an example. We had a significant violent incident where three people got shot this summer. I would like to think that there's a possibility that we can do that in the 29 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. interim, understanding that that camera eventually can be integrated into the broader system. So if you can just kind of lay out something like that.
I think we would be more than happy to participate and come up with a technology solution that would meet those kind of requirements.
It's interesting, Councilman Clarke just mentioned 26th and Master, and I think we have a City facility there, our police garage. Part of our policy, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have some of our police and fire stations be protected by video surveillance. 30 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC.
Again, from an IT standpoint, we're not making those decisions. The decisions for where the cameras go is being made through the Managing Director and the Police Department as to where the best opportunities to provide value by having cameras is. We facilitate getting it done, but I'm not physically making those choices.
I believe I just saw on the national news where a camera that was stationed at a particular location captured all the information of an attempted terrorist attack. So the natural thing is, in my opinion, the policymakers at Police and Fire, if they're listening, should consider that the public facilities be considered for monitoring. I know there's other high-crime areas that people will say should be done first, but long term. And that leads me to the question. Since we started to talk about 31 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. Philadelphia Wireless, I've read article 3 after article about the next generation of WiFi. This is very basic when you talk about putting a camera on a pole and capturing images. Where are we heading from here? In other words, what is on this drawing board that you could put a camera on the new Comcast tower and that one or four or five cameras could monitor an entire city like they're talking about WiFi? This new blast of a signal will eliminate all these little antennas. What's the next generation? What's a decade from now for doing what we're doing today in this very basic, in my opinion, way?
This is more about wireless now. I think the future of wireless is still in front of us. I think that where the City is at with Wireless Philadelphia, for instance, is probably farther ahead than the technology was when the cable company and the telephone companies first started 32 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. their DSL and their cable modem service. For instance, if you go back into the days of Comcast or Verizon when they first brought those service offerings out, there were a lot of issues with that. They would make up to five truck rolls per customer at $100 a year. But those were the early days of developing that technology. So when you talk about Wireless Philadelphia, it's a WiFi program with a mesh network. It's not perfect yet. It's still in some growing pains. The technology is advancing. I don't think maybe we've advertised that enough, that this is still in an early adopter kind of a way. But you mention the WiMAX as an opportunity. WiMAX has not been developed as to the same standards that WiFi has. So the future of WiMAX is less certain than the future of WiFi right now. But I think that WiMAX will become in the future what WiFi is today, but it 33 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. has a way to go to get there. I don't think there's any question that wireless will play a very large part in the future of the City and in the future of technology as to how we reach 135 square miles in the City.
All right. That's wireless. Tell me about where do you think we go from here with the way we're doing video surveillance.
I think the way we're going with video surveillance today, I would be very surprised if in the near future we don't see the extreme benefit of having these cameras be able to relate to the reduction in crime that the police have talked about and be able to get more investments so that we're not sitting here talking about 250 cameras, instead we're talking about a thousand cameras, and we begin to offer the right kind of protection for the citizens of this City. And I think that's very -- that's the very near future. I think 34 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. that we're just on the first step of that technology being used in the City.
But my point again is, you talk about a thousand cameras. What is out there to replace a thousand cameras?
Anyone else to testify on Resolutions 070213 or 070292? (No response.)
It appears then that that concludes testimony at present on Resolutions 070213 and 070292. This concludes our public hearing on the Committee on Parks, Recreation and 35 10/30/07 - PARKS - RES. 070213, ETC. Cultural Affairs, and we will reconvene at the call of the Chair. Thank you very much. (Committee on Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs adjourned at 1:35 p.m.) - - - 36 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on October 30, 2007, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-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.)