COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March 3, 2003 9:50 a.m. - - - FY '04 OPERATING BUDGET TESTIMONY - - - Bill 030004 - Ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for FY '04 Bill 030008 - Ordinance amending Section 19-2604 of the Philadelphia Code... Bill 030010 - Ordinance amending Section 19-1301 of the Philadelphia Code - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS-BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 (215) 567-2670 954 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
Good morning, everyone. This is a continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill Nos. 030004, 030008, and 030010. I would like to welcome all of the school children. Where are you from? STUDENTS: Elwood.
Welcome. Fairmount Park will be the first to testify. (Applause.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President. My name is Robert Nix, III. I am President of the Fairmount Park Commission. To my right is Karen Lloyd Borski, who is the acting executive director of Fairmount Park. Together with us today is Commissioner Leon Tucker; the park treasurer, James Blume; Commissioner John Binswanger; and another commissioner I'm sure will be floating in, as, I hope, will be the managing director, my former executive director. 955 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget Lastly, the vice president commissioner, Debra Wolfe Goldstein on my behalf is introducing Commissioner DeBernadenis, who is now the commissioner of the DCNR, to the Conservancy of Pennsylvania meeting over at the Horticultural Society or she would be here as well. It is my pleasure to appear before this body today to present on behalf of the commission a recommended operating budget of $14.3 million. As you know, in the park it is our mission to write passive and active recreation to all the citizens of Philadelphia and those who come to our city to enjoy it and it is our vision to create the park to be a destination site to different visits and different uses. For instance, Council has heard or read about the request for interest for the use of Memorial Hall. In that case we are looking for a rehabilitative and adaptive reuse of the whole site. That use would be hopefully something that fits in with the district. We would create what I would call a West Park District, which would include the Mann Center, the Zoo, the Horticultural and the Japanese House that we would hope would create a 956 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget destination place for people when they come to the city to come to that section of the park for those uses. So as we look at the results of the expressions of interest, we would look for that use that would be most likely to fit in with the other uses in that area. A second example in East Park would be where there is a proposal for the East Park Reservoir to look at and make a change -- to look at and to do some passive and active recreations as well with the bird sanctuary. We are in discussions now with Councilman Clarke on what active and passive recreations would be preferred in that part of his park. One of the things that we are trying to do is to make the park council, the administration, a partnership where we work closer together than we might have perhaps in the past. I'm not sure why that happened, but going forward we would like to be partners rather than estranged cousins if you would. Before I go on, I would like to introduce -- our friends are here as well, but particularly the kids from Elwood Elementary. The kids, if you would, hold up your signs for me. That 957 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget is pretty cool to see. (Applause.)
Thank you, kids, and thanks for coming. As you know, the commission now is fairly newly constituted with eight new commissioners so there is a learning curve but an enthusiasm curve that all happened at the same time. We have the strategic consultant on board who is looking to tell us better how we can operate, how we can do more for less. In today's environment it is not just cities who do that. It's corporations and every other entity out there, so hopefully, when we get our strategic plan in, we will be able to do better with what we have. We also have -- as I mentioned, Miss Borski is our -- I guess Phil is our interim, so Miss Borski is our acting executive director. We have a search going on with the search firm of Isaacson Miller. Isaacson Miller was chosen because they are the leading search firm in civic governmental placements and, as you might suspect, the executive director's job is probably one of the most difficult to fill because it's a multiheaded 958 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget monster when you are running a department that reports to a commission, reports to Council, reports to administration and reports to the users in the friends groups. So that is going to be a very special person, so we tried to get the firm that we felt was best capable of doing it. We would expect -- and Miss Borski is not yet -- as of today has not yet decided whether she will be interested in the position. We have some time. I think the search is in the beginning stages. Probably in the next two or three weeks Karen would have to make her decision as would most other candidates who will be approached and attested. We are moving forward on the Waterworks complex where we are in negotiations with a restauranteur to fill out the site. As you know, there are some questions about expanding the usage, which we are working on now, and I'm not prepared today to say that we have resolved that point and issue yet, but I think we will. Actually, we will because we want to get it open this summer. Maybe even more important than our mission and plans to make the park a destination 959 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget place is this commission's commitment to the youth of the city. Two examples of that are our community rowing program which St. Joe's University has graciously agreed to host this year. They will provide the boathouse as well as the instructions and lessons and they will give us an opportunity to have maybe an extra hundred, 200 kids on the river this year. You will all get invitations this year. At the end of our season we have our regatta with our rowing program against that of Newark, Delaware, and we would hope that any Council people that would be interested could come down. We would love to have you. Last year we won for the first time after six years that were not successful. I would like to take credit for that, but I think the kids are just getting better. Finally, a second example is that we have just reached an agreement with First T to provide a youth golfing program at FDR Park in conjunction with our concessionaire. What First T will do is it will introduce golf to a hundred, maybe 200 inner city youths or urban youth a year to help us bring the game of golf to those children who 960 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget may not otherwise have that opportunity. Finally, at Gustine Lake we are in the process of doing the Arthur Ashe youth tennis program which is a leader in the industry in bringing tennis and tennis instruction to urban and inner city youth and, again, that is another example of what this commission is about. Lastly, but certainly no less importantly, we would like to thank what I would say is our corporate partners, the Conservancy and Fairmount Park Historic Trust. The Conservancy is well on its way to being our fund-raising arm and improving our ability to raise dollars that are nongovernmental.
The Historic Trust has converted most recently two of our park buildings by inducing suburban firms that come into the city to open up their offices by rehabbing and operating out of two of our houses. So we are very enthusiastic about where we are today. We believe we are on track and we hope to continue, and with that I will say that the managing director did arrive, so now the floor is yours to ask questions. Thank you.
Thank you. On 961 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget of your testimony you indicate you will need $340,000 to complete your strategic plan and you will be seeking private and/or state funding. What happens in the event that you do not receive these funds?
Madam President, we are fairly confident we will raise those dollars, but in my conversations with the budget director, if we are unsuccessful, the budget director has said that the city will find those dollars.
Thank you. You also state in your testimony that the park will be transferring its swimming pools and six of eight recreation centers to the Department of Recreation this coming spring or fall. What does the park currently spend on these facilities?
Do you have the numbers? We currently spend a little over a million dollars in these facilities today.
Will the park be keeping these resources, or will they be going to the recreation department?
The transfer is one of the whole site, so they will be going to recreation. 962 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
Thank you. Can you explain what the street tree information management system is and its benefit?
As I understand it right now, we cut the street trees by district, so we might be in District 1, then we --
I'm sorry. We do the street trees by district, so we might have our contractors in District 1, District 2, District 3, and we do cycles. What the street tree maintenance plan will do, it's a software program where we can put on a computer the program of cutting on an annual or a regular basis, so that we would not -- we still wouldn't be jumping from district to district, but we would have listed on a schedule what trees need to be done, what areas are in dire need and what areas are in lesser need, and it's a way for us to better compile and manage the program.
So it will be a program citywide going on at the same time?
Sounds good. 963 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget You state in your testimony that there will be no decrease in tree services in FY '04 thanks to the $3.3 million and continued NTI funds budgeted in the managing director's office. The managing director estimates they will spend $4.6 million in FY '03 and that they are reducing the amount by $1.3 million in FY '04. Could you explain your statement that there will be no decrease in tree services in FY '04?
I'm asking Mr. McPherson to time me. Each Council member on the first go-around will be allotted five minutes for questioning. Mr. Dubow?
I'm Rob Dubow, the budget director. The decrease in Class 200 in the managing director's office that you are talking about was offset by an increase in Class 100 and it is a shift in the way we do lot cleaning, but there wasn't a change in the street tree money.
So we have 964 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget exactly what we need for tree pruning and removal.
Thank you. Mr. Nix, you state that the park has developed three programs which will spearhead the park's new strategic approach to service delivery. Can you explain the three programs, please? I believe one is the rest room management program?
The rest room management program is historically the park has had a problem with users and the rest room program. When the former executive director came on, who is the current managing director, one of his major initiatives was to increase the ability or the service, and this would be the rest rooms. At this stage the rest rooms, a majority are temporary sites and not permanent sites. What we hope to do is to increase the temporary setups as well as, for example, when we -- I will give you an example. The Mann Music Center is doing a master plan, a design master plan for the center. One of our discussions with the Mann is when they redo their site, one of the things we have asked them to 965 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget do is to have public rest rooms on the outside of the building so if a user is in that part of the park, he will be able to use those rest rooms. What we are attempting to do is with each and every vendor or partner that we bring into the park or rehab of a building, that part of the program would be additional rest rooms.
Let's stay on that issue, if we may. You indicate in your testimony that the park will be adding 34 additional portable toilet locations to its current list of 17. What is the cost of this? Because on -36 of the detail you are only showing an increase of $3000 for portable toilets. How is that possible?
I want to apologize. I have been told that the number may be off. We are increasing the number for those Port-a-Potties by $30,000.
But where is it in the budget? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. 966 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
Thank you, Madam President. Can I just ask if Mr. Nix could repeat the response. I didn't understand the response.
I'm sorry. The response was the number should be an additional $33,000 for the temporary units.
Where are we? Are we in the testimony, or are we in the book?
The numbers should be $30,000. When we did the rest room plan, it was done after the initial budget submission was made. Why that number is that far off, I don't know.
And where is 967 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget the 30,000 coming from?
Yeah, I was going to suggest you might want to take a seat. Just get comfortable. Thank you, Madam President.
My name is Paul Nice. I'm administrative services director for the park. The money will be coming from our mowing appropriation. We will be --
No, no, we are going to be prioritizing the acres that we mow and I think we are reducing the mowing in certain areas that we've identified that we are going to be letting the --
I'm going to say the same thing. You are not going to do some mowing in 968 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget order to deal with the portable toilets, yes or no?
You can bring eight people up to the table if you want.
We have a schedule that we have for grass-cutting. We are extending the schedule in some areas that are not as used, a less intensive use, so, yes, the grass-cutting is going to be in those areas cut back.
Let me come back to that because I took up some of the President's time and she'd like her time back.
I have a question on the grass-cutting too, but I don't think you completed the question regarding the three programs. You spoke about the rest room management program. What are the other two?
The hard surface trail program, the goal is to clean the miles. This again is under the initiative of the former executive director, was to have a program for cleaning the trails on a regular basis. In the past we have 969 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget not -- I think we have done it in a nonregular method. This time it is a regular schedule for cleaning the 37 miles of trail with the most service done on those highly intensive services and scaling back where the usage is less.
The safe playground program. That is a program that we are going to go in and repair, fix, make the playgrounds safe for use, and that's a one-time hit with a followup and I'm not sure of the time frame. But, again, it allows us to bring them up to scale where they are safe and user friendly and then a followup program probably quarterly.
Would you please identify the resources that will be dedicated to each of these programs, please.
The staffing has been in place. What we have done is the park historically is worked out of districts and what we have done internally is centralize some of the operations, so that, for instance, the folks that would do the hard surface trail cleaning would now be central, not 970 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget working from a district, so they would be scheduled out of one central system to go from surface to surface to surface, so what we have done is by, we hope, reutilizing employees in a better manner, that we will get more efficiency out of it.
Thank you. I have several other questions, but I notice that several of my colleague would like to be recognized. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
I was out Sunday getting petitions signed and I went to a home on Slocum Street and the trees had just been trimmed; however, the complaint was that they did not trim the top of the trees; they only trimmed the lower part, the branches, and the trees are very, very full. They do impede the lighting and what is the ruling now on tree-trimming and how will it be done?
I'm going to ask Jim Donaghy to answer because he is in charge of the tree-trimming program.
Jim Donaghy. I'm the 971 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget operations director for Fairmount Park. Councilwoman, I believe the method you are referring to is called topping. It was something that was done many years ago and is no 6 longer acceptable arborculture practice. It actually damages the tree long-term and creates more problems. We no longer cut the top of the tree. With our pruning program what we do is go in and remove dead and dangerous limbs one inch or larger in size. We elevate the tree over the street to 12 feet, 10 feet over the sidewalk, and we will clip it 13 back from homes or other obstructions to about 10 14 feet. This is the program that we are working through the entire city. Everyone is being pruned the same way and we do occasionally run into homeowners who have expectations of the old method where trees were topped, but it is not anything that we do any longer and we have some literature that we can make available to anyone to help them understand the reason we prune the way we do today.
Well, does the same rule apply to PECO when they go in and cut the trees around the wires? Doesn't that have an impact, the same impact on the trees? 972 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
Actually PECO has changed the way it prunes also. Years ago PECO would also top the tree. They no longer top the tree. PECO does what they call directional pruning. PECO must clear the limbs away from the tree for safety and so they don't have service interruption. The trees are cut back or limbs are cut back to a main limb to open the center of the tree up and the outside of the tree is allowed to grow as naturally as it can. Where this practice has been occurring for more than ten years, the trees actually grow up along the sides of the wire. There is usually about 10 or 12 foot of clearance, but PECO no longer does tree topping also.
So that's for the record so I can tell my constituents that they will no longer get tree-trimming from the top.
I have been in office for 15 years and we always were told that there is a waiting list for tree-trimming. Is there an accelerated schedule? Now that we have appropriated more money on a regular basis for tree-trimming, will the list ever go away? 973 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
Yes, the list will go away. Currently today there is a backlog of about 4100 trees. When we started this program two years ago, there was a backlog in excess of 8000 trees. On an annual basis we receive about 2500 new requests for tree removal, so within three years the list will be completely gone, but I can also tell you that the waiting list has been reduced from one to two and a half years to now six months to a year, and in situations where we find that the tree is imminently dangerous, we have been able to do that within, I would say, two months after we receive the request. Things are improving with the street tree population and I can attest to the fact that with the major snowstorm we had just about two weeks ago, normally Fairmount Park would have received anywhere between 200 and 300 street tree emergencies. We had one. So the program is working and it is due to the commitment of the administration to continue funding this. And it was set up as a ten-year program and is the fifth year is when we were supposed to zero out that waiting list you were asking me about. 974 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
In three years it will be completely zeroed out, but I think the waiting list is disappearing. It's down to six months to a year at the most and that is even as we prioritize the trees. If it is imminently dangerous, we try to get to it within two months. If it is a request for a removal for a sidewalk that's being raised or some reasons, we will put that one on the waiting list.
My first question speaks to the strategic plan, the planning process. I know we are off to a terrific start and it is my understanding we will be hosting Council 975 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget members on March 20. Can you outline for my colleagues today what type of measures will be done to ensure that the community, the grass-roots community that cares about parks, is intimately involved in the process as well?
As a brief overview, there is going to be a number of focus groups. The focus groups are going to include hopefully every segment of the community that will be interviewed with their input and thoughts about the park. So we should get an overview of the park as well as an individual look at individual parks. That focus program should be underway probably end of March, early April. I know they meet with the advisory Council this Wednesday, the friends of Philadelphia Park fairly shortly this month as well, so it's done by focus group and the group is kind of pie-sectioning the different parts of the city and those groups that have shown an interest in the park.
As a matter of record, the first phase of the entire strategic planning process is scheduled to end when?
I think it is near the end of June and then Phase 2 would pick up probably right 976 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget on its heels.
So tell us about that. What's the status of the funding for the second phase of the strategic plan?
Well, Councilwoman, I think before you came in Madam Chair asked the question and the question was we are going to try to raise some money. Actually, we are going to try to raise it privately, but, if not, the City is committed to pick up those dollars at the end if we are not successful or whatever the difference is.
To date there are no dollars committed, no hard dollars committed at al?
Let's move to a discussion about the environmental centers. Where do we stand currently with the environmental educators?
They are funded for this year. In our discussions with William Penn, William Penn has always been a promoter of having the City assume more and more of the responsibility for those 977 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget employees. So what we have done this year is reduced the environmental staff by three, so we still are operating our centers at a level that we are very comfortable with. Our challenge moving into next year and in the year after that is either finding a way to get those folks on our City -- on our Class 100 dollars or finding a way to transfer their services to already existing City employees.
If that does not happen, potentially what could happen with those environmental centers? Could they become dormant if we are not successful in moving those employees to --
-- the programs active, not only the centers, but the programs themselves.
I have received a number of letters from constituents regarding the, I guess, lack of or need for a grant research writer. Does the park currently have one?
The park is in the process of 978 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget looking at and/or hiring one. We don't have a full-time grants writer. We have people that write grants; however, my discussions with the administration is that the administration is considering doing a citywide grant writing program similar to what we did with the capital programs office, capital projects office, so we are going to hold off. What the park will do is hold off to see if the City program materializes, and if it doesn't, the park has to move ahead with the grant writer.
Finally, on of your testimony you give a paragraph to the Memorial Hall matter. What is the status of that?
The status is we should receive expressions of interest by, I think, 3 o'clock today. The committee that is overseeing that process meets on Friday to review what responses we have. We would publicize at our meeting on the 12th, which is next Wednesday, the responses to that RFI and the process moving forward. What I would hope to happen is the commission would authorize that committee to move ahead with the negotiations with I don't know, 979 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget whoever the respondents are.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Councilman Nutter, you're next, but I just want to clarify one response if I may. Mr. Nix, you indicated that transferring the swimming pools and the six to eight recreation centers to the recreation department in the spring or fall, that the recreation department apparently would receive a million dollars?
They wouldn't receive. It is not dollars. It's the $600,000 plus the staff that is in the --
You said it was over a million dollars. That was your response.
The whole program. Our budget for the six recreation centers and the two pools is over a million dollars. The actual transfer in all class dollars is about $600,000. I'm sorry.
Where is it in the budget? I mean the transferring. It is 980 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget certainly not in the recreation department that I see.
You don't have it before you. The numbers are being worked out now. It is after the budget process was underway and we -- do we have the numbers done? It is about $600,000 and I will get to you those numbers. Excuse me. My brother is here to help.
We don't have the numbers finalized yet. That's why it doesn't show in the budget. We know when we do get them finalized we will have to come back with the transfer to show the movement of money from Fairmount Park to Recreation.
And I assume that you are going to have to make some corrections regarding the tree services?
I asked you a question earlier about the MDO estimates that they will spend $4.6 million in FY '03 and that they are reducing that amount by $1.3 million in FY '04. The managing director's office is down 19 positions in FY '04 from FY '03, so I just don't know how this 981 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget program is going to work.
In the managing director's office budget there is actually an increase in Class 100 for lot cleaning and most of that increase is shown as expenditure transfers from other departments, so it's employees and their departments doing the work. If you look at the detail, you can see how it is shown in there.
We're not talking about lot cleaning work; we're talking about the tree services.
Right. The change in 200 there was really a change in the way we do lot cleaning. The two items were lumped together in a line that said tree removal, but what the managing director's office testified to was that there were really two items that were lumped together. One was lot cleaning and the other was tree removal and that the lot cleaning money is getting moved from 200 in '03 to 100 in '04.
And what class 982 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget is that? Is that the seasonal employees that you are referring to?
If you look at the increase in 100 in the lot cleaning section it's about a $900,000 increase.
Because the managing director's office is one of the places that is taking reductions as part of the senior administration position reduction. So there are reductions in the amount of deputy manager directors and the number of assistant managing directors, but it is not related to the lot cleaning program. 983 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
You know, I don't want to belabor this and take too much time. I think we are going to have to sit down and discuss this --
-- because it certainly deserves much better explanation.
We can show you where the reductions are. It is not in the lot cleaning program. The reduction in costs that we have talked about before is really in the central administrative positions in the managing director's office.
It really doesn't make too much sense. At this time the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Mr. Nix and Miss Borski. I'm going to do a couple quick things and then I have some questions. Mr. Nix, on the first page of your testimony in the second paragraph one of these items I read about in the newspaper, which I thought was 984 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget very exciting, which is the National Audubon Society and the nature center. I just wanted to mention to you -- and I know that from your verbal presentation you indicated that you were working with Councilman Clarke, which is certainly important. I did just want to mention to you at least for the record that by way of location this particular site is actually in the 4th District. People who live across the street on 33rd Street who are most adjacent to the facility naturally are residents of the 5th, but the site is in the 4th, and there were some previous site visits before National Audubon Society came along looking at that --
-- water basin and any information about that I would appreciate.
The same would be true of the 33rd Street Driving Range, which is also physically located in one district, although that is I guess a bit of a citywide facility that captures a lot of attention, but the councilman and I have worked very closely together, and I understand that the nearby neighbors are certainly his constituents, 985 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget but by way of information and active involvement I would appreciate anything --
Thank you. Appreciate it. With regard to this transition -- and you've been a participant long enough to know that this issue actually goes back to the days of Commissioner Mifflin and Commissioner DeBaradinis when I raised this issue a number of years ago, so on the one hand I want to commend you for actually doing something that I asked to be done. That's not the norm for me. I'm used to, quite honestly, being ignored at a certain level. On the other hand, let me at least express to you, after having pushed for this for so long, let me at least express to you some concern now about the details and the speed of the transition. First, and I think you have probably gotten the list correctly in terms of facilities, but reading the testimony the other night was actually my first information on which facilities were going where. Second, I would also like to 986 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget better understand the plan of transition as it relates to the active participant constituent groups for those various facilities and public parks in terms of what do the people know, how extensive has their involvement been and naturally again I would like to have some discussion about this and then lastly I guess is the issue that the president raised earlier about transfer of people and transfer of resources and funding to go between the departments. Can you lay out for me just what the conversation has been with the constituent groups that care about these particular facilities and any conversation that anyone has I guess thought in their minds that they might actually have with me about the facilities that are in the 4th District.
Councilman, let me start by saying that you are absolutely correct. This does go back a long time and my major involvement in it is to be the agitator, pusher, to move the process. One of the things that I find happens in the park -- I shouldn't speak for other departments -- is that we come to Council a lot of times and we shake our heads and say we are going to do this and we are 987 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget going to do that, and we tend to come back next -- a little quick aside is that we always read the testimony from last year and it's incredible how similar the questions are every year. You would think at some point in time we'd move on from our end, I mean the questions would be answered. So we have the concept state and we want to move the programs. There are a few hiccups and one is from the park side is that we have changed personnel. This was initially Commissioner Goldsmith's baby. When he became the managing director, his focus moved -- I shouldn't say it moved away from it, but his focus was generalized to some other areas. The executive director, Miss Borski, starts actually today and we have a list of things that I would say are prioritized from the commission point of view rather than the day-to-day and this is one of the things that the executive director will look at face to face.
Again, I appreciate the attention that has been shown to this issue. It is more than long overdue. I do want to though ask more detailed questions with regard to both swimming pools going from the park to Recreation and what is 988 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget it, six rec centers going to the Department of Recreation?
All of the rec centers but for Memorial Hall and Lloyd Hall for obvious reasons.
Well, I would like someone to tell me how the two departments are prepared for that kind of transition this spring/summer, and, again, I'm not going to be out there cutting grass or running programs or doing anything, but I would like to better understand how it is going to happen in such a -- what appears to be a rapid period of time and that there is in anybody's notion a seamless transition between two --
-- totally different departments, if not cultures. How are you going to do that and who have you talked to about it?
I would like to respond if I could. Phil Goldsmith, managing director. I think the approach here is that six of the eight recreation centers exactly in the swimming pools -- and this, as you well know, has been in the master plan back in 1982. I think the approach 989 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget right now -- and we are in the planning stages of it -- is that this would be a relatively transparent transition in Year 1. In other words, the people and the dollars that are associated with the swimming pools would move over to the recreation department, as would the recreation department employees at Fairmount Park move on over. I don't think in Year 1 we would see much change nor would the users of the swimming pools or the recreation departments see much change. It would look to them pretty much like a Fairmount Park pool and a Fairmount Park recreation center, and the same thing with the Recreation Department. Over time we will make sure that we are getting the policies and procedures and making sure we are getting the best of all worlds, but I think Year 1 it is really just transferring sort of the management oversight from Fairmount Park over to the Recreation Department. We are in the process now with the Recreation Department and Fairmount Park with the assistance of the managing director's office working through a detailed plan on precisely how that would take place and what some of the personnel issues, if any, we would face and if there 990 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget is any gap in funding that we would have to figure out how to do, but those plans are in the works now and we will keep you and Council and the community involved as those plans go on.
When do you think this transfer is actually going to be effective?
I think the transfer will be effective by next fiscal year, by the end of June. We are going to try to do it as quickly as possible. I think the point is with the swimming pools, for example, the swimming pools, everything is going to remain open. People that have come to Kelly pool are going to see the same Kelly pool with the same operating procedures and so forth as they have in the past. The difference is it is going to be managed by the Recreation Department. Over the long haul there could be changes, but we don't think right now we have the time nor the planning effort to do that. We think Stage I has got to be able to transfer this over to the same management; otherwise, we are never going to get to do it and I think that has been part of the problem in the past. It always gets down to --
Well, are park 991 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget employees going to transfer over to the Recreation Department?
Yes. Those are the details we are working on now, but, yes, the presumption is that they will be transferred over. Those are the issues that are being worked out now.
For the constituent groups tell me what the contact has been with them.
I'm not sure what contact there has been at this point because we were just really starting the planning process I think. You know, that's as far as we have gotten. Obviously we will have more involvement with the community groups and constituents groups.
Will that contact happen prior to the transfer or while it is going on?
No, I think it will happen as the planning process goes on to make sure we understand what the needs are and so forth, but, as I said, I think Year the users of the 992 1 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget recreation facilities and the pools will see really very little change from what they have experienced in the past. Over time -- and I think part of the reason this is being done is we think the Recreation Department has more programmatic expertise and has a larger critical mass of recreation centers and swimming pools, and we hope over time there will be service enhancements to those sites. But I think Year 1 it is just a change of the management oversight.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe the managing director should hang around for a minute. I just want to go back to that environmental educator program. It got very controversial last budget. The former managing director bailed it out by providing some money out of the managing director's office. I want to make sure that I really understand what you said earlier. The present level of educators will 993 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget remain the same. The three that you mentioned is not a decrease from where we are today?
No, it was beginning -- where we are today -- what you see is where we are.
I hate to remind you, managing director, that the managing director before you made a commitment that even though that money isn't in the budget for the park, that those positions would be funded from the managing director's office. Is that how you understand that because I think you were the executive director at the time? Were you?
Actually, it happened just prior to my coming there, although the actual transfers took place, but it is my understanding that they are in the Fairmount Park budget now and those dollars have been moved over and they are reflected in the Fairmount Park budget? Correct? In fact, I believe if you look at the William Penn Foundation funding grant, that there are nine positions that Fairmount Park has absorbed over the past 12 months, so that is now taken from -- the foundation grant is now moved over to the Fairmount Park budget. 994 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
That's good to hear. So I understand, the managing director's office will no longer have to fund these positions, that they are being picked up in the budget of the Fairmount Park at the existing level of service?
Now you can tell us what you are going to do with that money you have back in your budget. Just kidding. That's good to hear and I thank you for that. Thank you, Madam Chair, for that time.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to Councilman Nutter's question, all of the recreation centers -- and that is defined, for instance, Mr. Goldsmith, the one you and I have been in conversation with, for instance, the one up at Olney that runs the baseball league, is that classified as a recreation center for the purposes of this transfer?
I do not believe it is, but I will stand corrected if I'm wrong. No, it's 995 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget not.
The swimming pool at 9th and Hunting Park, is that considered part of this transfer?
So they will be transferred to the recreation, but the baseball league up at Olney will not be?
The fields will stay under the care of the Fairmount Park Commission?
The building and the clubhouse will stay within the care of the Fairmount Park Commission?
The one on Fairmount Park and the Parkway, that will stay under the Fairmount Park Commission?
In terms of the league at Olney, you and I over the last year and 996 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget before Hugh Mifflin had been speaking about a gate that really is to prevent garbage dumping onto the area where the kids play baseball and where they do that. Also, the electrical system of the clubhouse itself that the volunteers depend on them to make some money in order to run the baseball league, which now has close to 400 kids, has been in total deterioration for the last few years. Commitments a few years ago were made to fix that electrical system and it still hasn't been done. They are opening up very soon and the clubhouse that they need in order to do the things that they need to do will not be ready.
Councilman, can I ask if it is okay that I have Miss Borski look at it directly and get back to you directly on it because she is new, but it would be the executive director's --
I understand that, but we can maybe alleviate it if she takes a look at it.
And we have looked at it and I just don't know the answer. There has been 997 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget some homework done on it and we will make sure she gets that.
So the baseball fields at 9th and Hunting Park, will those still be on the Fairmount Park Commission?
At this point in time when we are talking about recreational facilities we are talking about -- what's the word I'm looking for -- physical indoor buildings that we are talking about transferring, six of the eight, the two exceptions being Memorial Hall and Lloyds Hall because they have really performed other functions and we thought at this point in time it would be overly complicated to do that.
It would be good to 998 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget have a good idea of what it means because it really is conflicting and I think the two systems, by the way -- I think Michael mentioned that -- I think the culture of the two institutions is quite different, so meshing those cultures is not as easy as people may think. It is not just a matter of transferring some --
I think that is a point well taken. I have been involved over my career in these types of activities and that's why I don't think the answer is Day 1, Year 1 to try to make everything all the same because of those cultural differences. So I think Year 1 is simply getting it under the auspices of the Recreation Department with making as little change as possible and then being able to use that period of time to start to make the types of changes that we all want to really make those facilities and the swimming pools better. I think if we try to do that all at once we will not succeed. I think if we get it under the same management structure and start to work our way into it we will be more successful.
I think what we will find is changing the cultural and the modus operandi 999 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget of the different institutions is much more difficult than just transferring the dollars. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. Mr. Nix, do you have any employees in the DROP program and when will they be leaving?
There is nine in the DROP program. I think the beginning started the first leave October 1.