Okay. Do you have a commitment on the level of staffing -- when is the library opening, hopefully, if we get this all done?
The current schedule would have the library open in late '08, early '09.
So what 108 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole impact, considering our fiscal condition and the fact that we're cutting back on librarians and library hours, where are they coming from? Where are the additional librarians coming from to staff the fully expanded Central Library? Are they coming from more branches that were going to be closed down and will that have an effect on the neighborhood?
Well, Elliot, with all due respect, your intent has nothing to do with this. The issue is is that are we going to have a situation where we're hiring new librarians or are we going to have a situation where we're going to reallocate resources, which is a wonderful word I've been hearing for the last few weeks, reallocate resources to staff the Central Library, which is going to need additional staffing, and are those people ultimately going to come out of a neighborhood library, creating more express lanes or whatever you call them, express libraries, drive-by libraries or whatever 109 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole you're doing? How have you planned for that? You haven't gotten any commitment from the Administration that they're going to be able to bring more people on. As a matter of fact, we're laying people off.
I can tell you that with the additional approximately third of the space, we will not need an additional one-third in the staff.
Because we're using a variety of technology that we are experimenting with, we will need an increase, but we have not been able to, as of yet because of the detail work that's going on in the drawings and the design, we have not been able to come up with a fixed figure to say this is exactly what the staffing would be.
How about security? What's your security needs? Will it increase?
That is part of the additional staff that we will -- 110 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
How is that going to impact on the neighborhood library system?
Elliot, intent, that's not my question. No one intends to lay off anybody. No one wants to do any of this. No one wants to shut down the library hours and curtail hours. That was never your intent. It's what happened. Now, the question is, even though it's not your intent, what do you believe the effect is going to be on neighborhood libraries that's not that far away?
Well, I can't tell you right now what the exact budget and City allocations will be five years from now.
Well, considering the doom and gloom we've been painted here, it doesn't seem like we're going to be in any much better condition financially than we are now, maybe even a worse situation than we are now. Therefore, requiring a 111 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole reallocation of resources, personnel, to the Central Library away from neighborhood libraries, is it a potential? Is it a potential?
There are a lot of possibilities. I do not think it is likely.
Of course, it's possible. There are a lot of things that are --
-- possible. The economy could really take a dive. That's possible, too.
Councilman, I could also try to reduce the many points that have been made down to a couple. I think that Mr. Shelkrot saying increased space with the 112 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole increased program, does that create the potential need -- an increased program, does that create the potential for increased staff. Yes. I mean, for starters, you have more -- that is a possibility, given the square footage that you have. But you also heard him mention technology with respect to security, with respect to building maintenance, and as you do a new plant, it's conceivable, as you know, that technology can -- a better technology in a physical plant, systems could in some cases reduce staffing. You also heard earlier about the Central Library as a central nervous system to the entire system, including the branch libraries. And I believe that when you asked the question what's the impact on the branches, you were looking for the type of answer Mr. Shelkrot gave, which is what is the potential expense. There's also a potential benefit, because if the Central Library can maintain itself and strengthen itself as a -- in its capacity as a hub, in a capacity as a 113 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole resource that's drawn upon by the entire system, that that has a benefit to the branches as well.
The possibility exists based on what we know about the government and its fiscal condition now, the possibility exists we'll need more staff at the Central Library and have the same amount of money to spend that we're talking about now. The possibility exists. We may be stuck in a situation where we have to staff the Central Library that's been expanded and not have enough money to bring new people on and need to reallocate resources. The possibility exists.
The possibility with the possible mitigation, too, by technology and better design and all that.
I understand. Let me ask you a question about the financing, and this is for Mr. Ramos. Why would we not at least explore the possibility of Act 71 money and PICA proceeds that can be 114 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole used to improve health and life safety issues in public buildings in Philadelphia instead of borrowing $30 million and paying it back over 30 years?
Councilman, the Act 71 money -- I'm sorry. I'm Vince Jannetti, Acting Director of Finance for the City. Good morning, everyone -- good afternoon. The Act 71 money, Councilman, is -- there's approximately $24 million in those funds. Twenty-two million of those are budgeted in the capital budget for the Juvenile Justice Center. So those funds are spoken for, tied up.
Is 115 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole that for the Youth Study Center?
Yes. I'm sorry. Juvenile Justice Center, Youth Study Center.
And aren't they looking at alternative ways of funding that project?
And what other alternative means are they looking at?
Is there sufficient funds in the capital budget? I didn't see anything for '06.
Yes. What is it going to cost? Is it in the budget? How much is it going to cost?
In the capital budget -- are you asking in the capital budget or in the operating budget?
I'm 116 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole asking how much it will cost to do the project.
80. And how much of the 80 has been approved to date?
So you can't use that and build it because there's nothing in the '06 budget, is there?
Wasn't alternate funding under Act 48? I know Mr. McPherson had attended a meeting about the alternate financing and I believe he indicated to me that there were monies under Act 48 and they were going to be using that instead.
The Act 48 funds 117 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole are reimbursement funds. We have to build the facility -- municipal authority is going to build the facility and we're going to lease it from them. The lease payments will be -- part of the lease payments will be reimbursed to us.
I wanted to ask Mr. McPherson to come up to the table, because I think there has to be a little bit of discussion here. I was not at that meeting that Mr. McPherson attended. I don't want to do this to him, but I think the record has to be made clear once and for all. MR. McPHERSON: My name is Charles McPherson. I'm City Council Chief Financial Officer. Back in a prior capital budget, it is accurate to state that Act 71 funds in approximately $20 million was budgeted for the Youth Study Center. However, I've been to a couple of meetings where the 20 million that was approved in the prior capital budget is 118 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole not sufficient to build the new facilities. There has been some meetings that I was invited to, that they wanted to restructure the financing through PMA, as Mr. Jannetti just said, where they wanted to go for reimbursements out of Act 148, or whatever the act is, which is approximately 80 percent state money, percent City money. 10 Again, I don't know how you could 11 possibly use $20 million that was approved in 12 a prior capital budget to build a portion of 13 the facility if you're going to fund it 14 through PMA, and the only way I know of that 15 you can fund it through PMA is, you're going 16 to have some form of a lease where the City 17 would be obligated to pay the bonds that are 18 ever issued against that while the facility is 19 outstanding. 20 So while I understand they're saying that in the prior budget the Act 71 money was budgeted, I am not aware of an intent to use it for that purpose.
Mr. Jannetti, would you care to respond to 119 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole Mr. McPherson's statement?
The City is in the midst of designing the facility. There is funds being spent for architects. Those funds are -- the Act 71 funds are being used to pay for that. It is our intention at some point, when we know what the actual building is going to be, to at that point do the bonds to pay for them, at which point we would be reimbursing the Act 71 funds. However, the reimbursements from the state are in question as to the amount. We're not really clear on where that's going to be, and we're really looking at alternatives on these funds to try and minimize the effect, the cost, to the General Fund, which would be left over after reimbursement from the state. MR. McPHERSON: Well, again, I would make the argument that while you're analyzing what the alternatives are, here currently is an alternative that you could go forward with utilizing $10 million of it that would stop an immediate bond issue, that you 120 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole would then have immediate cost of avoidance. To the extent you can't come up with any other type of alternative and you had to look at some form of a financing, then it wouldn't matter whether you use the Act 71 money for the proposed library expansion or for the Youth Study Center.
I think it's odd that we're having a discussion over spending Act 71 money on a library or prison, one or the other. I think the library is probably a better use, considering the ability to get the money from other governments down the road. Could you explain to me why we can't use some of the PICA proceeds to do the life, health and safety issues related to the existing library and utilize that in an innovative way? Because I think we've gotten some indication from PICA unofficially that 121 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole that would be something that they would look kindly on.
Because we really can't do it formally. It has to be the Mayor.
Yes, sir. Our issue with that is that those funds are for emergencies, and we're not quite sure that this is an emergency.
What kind of emergency would have to rise to the level of an emergency to be used? Have we asked for it before? Have we asked for any money from that fund before?
What, for 122 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole example? How long has the fund been in existence?
And how many times has there been a request to utilize it?
We have never made a formal request to use any of that $30 million.
So we never had an emergency -- 123 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
We've never had an emergency whereby we had to use any portion of that money; is that what I understand? Is that what we're being told?
I'm told that we've been using the original bond proceeds, the original PICA money, but we have not used any of the interest earnings.
Right. That's what we're talking about. But isn't health safety issues at the library and the possibility of the collections being damaged even further than they are because of lack of appropriate storage space and other things in the existing library, isn't that a little bit of an emergency?
And may I just say that Ms. Naidoff's testimony on 124 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole talks about the building has not been renovated since it was opened and is in dire need of improvements, and she goes on to talk about updating the life safety systems, creating 160,000 additional square feet. Isn't that what some of the interest monies for PICA could be used for?
But right now the library is spending money on designing the expansion, and the money, at least the $10 million that we'd be putting up, is for that.
The design involves retooling the life safety issues. Part of the design of the building is not only the expansion but the design of the existing space, and that requires design of sprinkler 125 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole systems, of fire alarms, of staircases, of life safety issues. Why can't we be creative here instead of just piling more debt on top of this debt-ridden City to begin with? Does it make sense to pay off -- (Applause.)
-- a $30 million borrowing over 30 years? It doesn't make any sense. It's not fiscally responsible. I mean, maybe we can't do a bond deal and that's part of the reason why we're going this way, but other than that, I don't see why it makes sense to borrow 30 -- what's the cost of that money over 30 years at current rates? What's the cumulative cost of 30 million over 30 years at current rates?
The interest rate on that would be about five and a quarter, five and a half percent.
A quick estimate on what that would cost over 30 years.
Does 126 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole 98 --
Whoa. Wait a minute. MR. McPHERSON: You get 30 for 20? You borrow 30 and you only pay back 20?
No. What's the overall cost? When we finally pay off this 30-year --
-- debt, what is the cost? And why wouldn't we want to do something as innovative as we could to try to keep that debt from having been incurred?
It would be about -- the total debt service, the way it's estimated right now, would be $52 million.
And we have $30 million sitting that we could use of, 7 probably everyone agrees that it probably 8 would be eligible, and unofficially PICA has 9 indicated, staff has indicated, that it 10 probably will be eligible, but we don't want to do that. We want to incur $52 million worth of debt so we can do a borrowing. I just don't understand it. I really don't. We can argue the Act 71 money. All right. Maybe you got a legitimate argument there, but you could grab 10 or 20, you can grab 10 out of the other proceeds and save us a whale of money. I don't know why we wouldn't want to do it. Thanks.
Thank you, 128 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole Madam President. Just to follow up on the comments from the Council President and Councilman Kenney regarding safety issues. Mr. Shelkrot, could you just tell us some of the problems you have in the building today, heating systems, air conditioning systems, plumbing, lighting?
Yeah. There are definitely -- the plumbing in the Central Library is constantly in need of repair. There are leaks from pipes that threaten to damage collections and often there are buckets and plastic sheets put over various places. The lighting problems are inadequate in many areas. There are collections that are stored on balconies that were not really intended to have that much weight. There are certainly ADA issues in the building that need to be addressed. During a renovation, we will create the appropriate kind of fire stairs that need to be done, as well as modern electrical and HVAC systems to make the building more safe. 129 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
Thank you. So, again, following up on the Council President and Councilman Kenney's questions relating to could we not use the PICA money, you're stating, it sounds to me, that the building is in a very serious state today, both from a physical and use aspect, because it's not primarily ADA -- it doesn't meet the codes of the ADA, balconies are storing books and you don't know if the weight load of the books is too much for those balconies. So the bottom line is that the building is in serious enough bad shape that it would meet the requirements that we would need to use the PICA money for. I mean, we talked about the library and the artifacts that are in there and the importance of those, and in your testimony, Shelkrot, you're saying you have plastic or tarps covering those same materials that we're concerned about losing. So that's just the physical stuff, but plumbing leaks and structural issues are -- in the interest of public safety, one 130 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole would think that that would at least bring up the conversation -- and I don't mean this to be critical of you -- between yourself and the Administration about getting that PICA badly needed dollars into the facility today, not even taking into consideration the expansion issue. We got a serious problem already. I assume that's why some of the emergency money was used in this building, and it's still being used in this building. So we should be doing the same thing at the library, putting the expansion issue aside. But that would be used as a way of doing the financing that we need for the expansion and not having to borrow the money. Now I wish Mr. Wilson was here, because he's the business guy, and I think if he heard some of this stuff, in a business person's mind, I think he would say, Let's go to PICA, let's see if we can't take that 22 million, start the renovations, work on expansion and keep everything else the status quo, keep the neighborhood libraries, we can do it. 131 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole See, I think we can do it. I think what we're talking about right now proves to us that we can do it. There's enough money out there to do this without having to go borrow it.
Good afternoon. I'm Dianne Reed, Budget Director. I'm hoping I can clarify this a little bit. The Administration examined both the PICA opportunity and the Act 71. The reason we did not pursue PICA was that emergencies, as defined in the Court mandate, is a threat to public safety or conditions that if go uncorrected will cause the operation to cease, which is a pretty severe standard, and the Administration in discussion concluded that the library building was not in such severe condition. We'll have to address that --
You don't think that what he's describing fits the category of endangerment to public health and the operation? I mean, if pipes are leaking on books and materials that people go to the library to use, the operation of the library is in jeopardy. The Central Library seems to be in jeopardy.
Right, but unfortunately, it is not a public safety kind of issue. That was the decision. I can't --
It depends on how you want to look at this thing. I think someone sitting down reading a book with water leaking on them and could possibly cause the structural integrity of the plaster above it to fall apart, I mean, there's -- look, if you got an adjuster in that building, they would probably shut it down, telling you all the things that -- it depends on who wants to walk through that building and make those decisions. If the balconies that Mr. Shelkrot described that are currently being used for 133 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole the storage of books were not built for storage but were built as walkways for people to across over, it sounds to me like there's a public safety issue.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney for a point of information.
No. We did not bring the concept forward to PICA after discussion. The thing about the borrowing for the entire library is that that would include renovation to the existing Central Library building. The PICA money really can only be used for a building that was in existence at the time of legislation in 1992.
134 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole That's what we're talking about.
It sounds to me that the conditions that Mr. Shelkrot described -- and I'm not an engineer, but I've done some construction work in my time. I actually was an inspector on I-95 many, many years ago. If construction of the expansion were to begin, you're going to punch out a part of the wall of the existing building.
Let me finish. There's going to be major construction for the purpose of the expansion, jack hammers, maybe pilings. I don't know the extent of it, but there's going to be major construction going on that will have in it a negative impact on the structural integrity of the existing building. It's just the nature of construction when you're doing something on the same site or adjacent to it. So the vibrations from pilings, jack hammers, from expanding the building and punching out the wall as part of the expansion -- I'm looking 135 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole for the right word here. When you breach a wall, the breaching of the walls, tying in plumbing from existing plumbing to new plumbing. I know in my house, my old house, when I went to put a new piece of copper tubing in because I was redoing the bathroom, all the other pipes behind it started breaking, because the pressures change. I mean, I don't want to give you a lecture in construction engineering issues, but for me, it's a very simple thing to understand, that when you do something in one area of an old building, you're only going to exaggerate the problems that that building has. And I think that's going to lead to the public safety issue, and I know it certainly will interfere with the operation, which fits into the criteria that you described.
Well, that would be addressed when the entire bond issue goes forward.
If the entire bond issue goes forward. 136 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
That's the whole reason we're here. We want to keep the libraries in the neighborhoods open.
Yes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney for a point of information.
Would you be willing to allow the fire marshal to inspect the building and see whether or not there's any safety issues, or L&I?
We may have a lot more librarians to put out in the branches after that.
All I'm saying is, you concluded based on what investigation?
I didn't actually do the assessment. I would have to find out for you who did the assessment, but I do think the building is regularly assessed for safety.
I mean, when was the last inspection? 137 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
Does the fire marshal go in there regularly and check it out?
The fire marshal has been there several times. Risk Management has been there several times.
I would have to check the record, but I know it occurs more than once a year.
Have we asked L&I to take a look at some of the code issues to see whether we can build a case on the condition of the building and its potential use of those proceeds to improve that condition? I mean, why haven't we just asked PICA what they think?
Not only that, but what you read, was that interpretation or criteria for the issuance of 138 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole the bond or is it for the interest earnings?
I have the actual citation from the Act of what any of that PICA money can be used for, but, actually, I don't have it with me. It's for PICA money, yeah. I was reading from the PICA -- the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority Agreement.
Was it for the issuance of the bond or the interest?
The interest I understand is a totally different standard than the bonds themselves.
Because we don't want to try to find a way to do this differently, that's why. It's the same thing all the time. We're not going to do it this 139 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole way and we're going to stand in the way of trying to do it no matter what it takes, no 4 matter how much it costs because we're right and everybody else is wrong because this is what we've decided. And that's what it comes down to. Michael Nutter asked if you're going to spend the money if you put it back. The answer is no. We could stand on our head and put back fire companies, libraries, you name it, and the second floor is going to say no, because that's the way they want it, and that's what we've come to. Instead of trying to have some cooperation and figure out some innovative way to do it, we're going to find a lawyer who is going to give us an opinion that we want, and that's all you do. So continue to pile up the debt, it's a lot of fun, because our kids will be paying for it by the time this Administration is gone. We'll be paying for the debt incurred by this Administration for generations to come. So try to figure out some more ways to say no, we'll be here. 140 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
Well, legal counsel did say that the standard is the same for the interest earnings and the original bond.
You can't figure out a way to make a case that that library is in danger, that that library and the people that go in it are in danger and we could use the million to fix it? That's a 10 really far-fetched argument, isn't it? Because we don't want to do it. We're not doing it. We don't want to do it, and we're going to find out ways to keep from doing it, because that's the way we say it is, and that's why this process is a waste. The budget process is a waste, because nobody follows the budget. We'll just spend police overtime on Operation Safe Streets, it was never budgeted, which puts us in the condition we're in now. That's okay, don't worry about it, we'll do what we want to do.
Well, I also wanted to speak, if I may, to the borrowing, why the borrowing seemed like a good solution. We did also look carefully at the Act 71 alternative. 141 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
You know, honest to God, no disrespect, I withdraw the question. It's just like this is a waste of time, because there's no interest in fixing it. So we should just vote on the bill 8 and get it over with.
I just have a very simple question. Why would you not have been in touch with PICA to inquire if we could do what counsel is proposing?
The Administration is still exploring ways to try to use that money for an emergency purpose. This was not the --
Well, we haven't used the money in how many years? How many years have we not used it for an emergency? I mean, what emergency are we expecting that will suddenly come up in the next year that we're going to be using the money, when it hasn't been used in how many 142 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole years?
Well, it hasn't been used since the interest earnings have been accumulating.
And we never had an emergency so that we could use a portion of that money?
So my question is, why couldn't we use a portion of that money for what we're intending to do?
Because the Administration in discussion decided that this was not a sufficient emergency to use the funding for this purpose, and we are exploring 143 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole other uses, and we have had other opportunities that have also been rejected. So we continue to explore ways, because PICA, yes, would like to see this money used.
Well, did you read Ms. Naidoff's testimony at all? You heard her testify. She did talk about the building has not been renovated since it opened and the dire need of improvements. Some of these improvements include updating the life safety systems. That's not an emergency?
Well, that is an update, which is in the planned borrowing. I mean, that is part of the plan, to upgrade the existing building.
I can't talk to her. 144 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole Councilwoman Tasco -- my patience isn't what it should be. Councilwoman Tasco, your light is on.
Well, you all can stay on this issue. Mine goes back to a question --
Well, my question goes to Mr. Shelkrot. It goes back to an earlier statement he made about the staffing when we were discussing the staffing, and I don't want to change the discussion if you're on this money. I can come back if someone else wants to question.
Well, I would ask Councilman O'Neill and Councilman DiCicco if there are financing questions, your lights are on. Is that what you were going to ask, financing questions?
I think it's a financing question. I mean, the whole bill is about financing. And I don't think I've ever had the opportunity to vote on a 145 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole bill to rescind a bond issue. So for me -- and I've heard all the testimony and there's a lot of issues involved here with the library and with how the Administration deals with Council, and I haven't heard too many statements that weren't accurate. But there's only one issue for me as an individual Council member, and that is -- and, Mr. Shelkrot, I just want you to comment on this, because you were here when the original bill was passed. The issue for me is, how would I have voted on the original bill if I knew then what I know now? I don't know if that's ten words or whatever, but to me, that's the beginning and end of this hearing. I would not have voted for the original bill, and I rarely get an opportunity to correct a mistake that I would have corrected at the time had I had the information that I have now. And I don't think many members would have voted for this financing had they known what you already knew. I'm sorry; what you and the 146 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole Administration already knew but weren't forthcoming with. I don't see this as a complicated decision. It is something I wouldn't have done, and I don't believe that nine of us would have done it. So I'm prepared to vote for the bill, because I would never have voted for the other bill. (Applause.)
It's just a pretty cut-and-dry situation for me. Thank you.
My final comment is related to financing, and maybe, maybe we're being too hard on the Administration, just maybe. Ms. Reed, you testified that at the time different avenues of financing were being discussed, are still being discussed, no one looked at the library situation as being an emergency, but based on the testimony of Mr. Shelkrot on the conditions of the Central 147 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole Library today, don't you think it's a prudent thing for you and the other folks to go back and talk about the state of the condition of the Central Library and how it relates to an issue of public safety? Because maybe they didn't know. Maybe they didn't know. I mean, we've had a number of discussions, Mr. Shelkrot and I. This is the first time I even thought about asking that question, and it was only because I listened to you, Ms. Reed, describe the criteria for us being able to use the money and then looking at Ms. Naidoff's testimony about life safety systems, is where it all started coming together. And I'm prepared to ask for this bill to be moved today, but in the interim, as I said in the past, I certainly have no 20 problem withdrawing it if we can make the other things that we have to discuss, the neighborhood branch libraries go away -- not go away, but restored. Excuse me. But in the interim, I think the life safety issues, the emergency issues, in my 148 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole mind, are things that I think need to be brought to the attention of the Administration.
I see that Councilman Kelly's light went on. Is this regarding the financial?
It's more or less -- I just wanted to address Mr. Shelkrot, that this bill that we have today, you mentioned in your testimony earlier about leverage, and I think this bill, believe it or not, is in your best interest for the simple reason it's giving us the leverage to deal with this Administration so that you can get the proper funding to run this library system of yours in a much more efficient and productive way. That's all this is about, and I think I, for one, am going to vote for this bill, because I think it's absolutely necessary. (Applause.)
And it's helping you. This is in no way discriminatory against you or anyone else in your 149 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole organization, but what we're trying to do is to give you the funding so that you can run this library system the way it should be run. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair now recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
During your testimony about the staffing of the expanded facility, you had really no notion about what kind of staff or the amount of staff you would need. My question goes to, is there a plan for the branches as to when they will come back on full operation at some point in time? I mean, what is the plan to bring them back to full operation as they were in January? I mean, has that been given any discussion as a thought?
Well, the operating budget is debated on every year, and I am hopeful that in the future we will be 150 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole able to open those libraries to the schedule that they were before. That's specifically why we did not want to close any branch library, because then it becomes virtually impossible once it is closed. But I don't know the issues. I'm not involved in the issues of looking at the future operating budgets. I only know that at this time, the money was not provided in our budget to allow that to happen.
But the same thing rests with the expansion and having to staff the new facility. That's also based on the operating budget, and if you build it, will you have people to run it?
And what we will be doing is making that argument each year and to have those discussions within the Administration, and then the discussion goes to, once the Administration proposes a budget, then it goes to Council.
Well, it's very interesting. It's not your issue, but the Administration always tells us that we 151 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole can't propose the creation or expansion of a new rec center because they don't have the staff to staff it, so they don't want to approve the expansion of any facility because based on the budget, they don't have the staffing, but this seems not to be an issue with this project.
I just don't know. We will be proposing -- we would like to have all of our libraries open and we'd like to have the staff required for an expanded and much more heavily used Central Library, and those discussions go on each year in the budget process. I cannot be specific about the staff required in the expanded Central Library because there are still details to be worked out. We know that it will require more than we have today, and we will -- as those drawings become more detailed as we approach those years, we will be having those discussions and present the requirements and the case for that staffing.
Ms. Reed, 152 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole based on the philosophy of the Administration about recreation facilities and not constructing them a building because there's no staff, how does that fit into this philosophy of building this site?
All of these areas are part of the five-year plan. We have the locked-in tax reduction plan that the Administration agrees with, and in order to be able to live within our means, we've had to ask departments across the General Fund and also independent elected officials to take roughly the equivalent of a five percent cut in their total expenses, most of which was accommodated through positions, because that is the largest spending area. And the final borrowing in the five-year plan for the library doesn't occur until fiscal '08, and that would take a year or two to complete. So we're getting outside this sphere of the current five-year plan, and it's kind of a situation that to know exactly what that would be, especially since the Library Director is saying they're still trying to see 153 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole how all of that works out in terms of planning, because they may have the same number of people spread out over a larger area since their space is cramped, it's kind of you need to know about that when the time comes. But overall, we need to work toward honestly a smaller work force, because one of the other effects that we have here that drives our overall expenses is that our total benefits package is moving in the direction of 55 percent of our salaries. So the more employees that we have, the more that drives up that side of the cost, huge pension fund increases, $400 million and more than we knew about a couple years ago. So we have to think about having creative ways that we can still manage and, as the Director said, keep library branches open, keep the service to the public while managing the work force to try to keep our overall costs down.