Whoa. In your testimony you stated the department is budgeted for 219 positions up from 214 positions in FY '03. Yet last year the adopted budget I am told gave you 225 positions.
Yes. There are positions that are available but with the freeze we have not been able to hire.
How about the nine positions of the people who are under the DROP program; are you including them in the figure that 1000 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget you're giving us?
So your budget 8 is being reduced by six positions? 9
In your testimony you show key performance measurements. I would like you to explain how you can increase the time interval between grass cuts and at the same time increase the total number of acres cut? The math just doesn't work for me. I would like you to explain that, please.
The reason for the time to be increased is that we are not going to be cutting all 2000 acres on a two-week cycle in the coming fiscal year, but at the same time we want to look to try to increase the number of acres that are cut by the contractor at the athletic fields. We want to try to get that as close to one week, so it's a formula -- overall we are not going to see any 1001 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget reduction in the areas where activities take place. In most cases we are going to see that it is cut more frequently.
Excuse me. Let me just go back to your testimony on and let's look at the two columns, acres cut by contracted services and acres cut by park employees.
They just don't equal the twenty-one seven. My calculation is that we are cutting 2000 less acres. Does anybody else cut grass?
I apologize. I don't understand the question. I apologize. It was just pointed out to me that the math on this sheet is incorrect between the 18,100 acres cut by contractor and the 1600 acres to be cut by park employees. The number of acres cut by contractors should have increased.
To what? It would have to be 20,100 for it to calculate properly.
Are you 1002 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget reducing the contractor's budget as we look through this document?
No, we are not. We have an increase, an annual increase, based on I believe it is the Consumer Price Index with a minimum of maybe 3 percent each year. It is a three-year contract. The contract -- it is a one-year contract with three renewal periods so we have built in the increase. That's the way the contract is bid so that we are not going through this work each year.
My time is up. I just want to ask one more question. What did we budget for the contractor in '03 and what are we budgeting in '04?
In FY '03 our estimated obligations are 931,000 and our request in 2004 is 910,000. It's a 21,000 decrease.
So how are you doing so much more with less? And didn't I hear earlier that we are taking 30,000 from this program for the portable toilet locations?
How are we doing it? 1003 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
We are cutting less grass and part of this is going to be -- we are cutting less because the cycle is going to be less. In other words, we are not cutting the same acres on the annual basis, although we may end up cutting the same acres on the extended period.
I don't know whether it's me, but I find this extremely confusing. I really do. We were just told that instead of the 18,100 for the contracted service it is now 2000. There is something wrong here. There is something radically wrong. Can anybody give us an explanation?
Councilwoman, I think we will have to go back and look at our numbers and we will provide you with a proper response.
We will get back, but I believe the answer is the frequency of the cut. If our cut had been every 10 days and we make it every 12 days --
But that's not what your testimony says. It says, "We can increase the time intervals between grass cuts and at the same time increase the total number of acres cut." 1004 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
Looking at what was adopted last year and what is being proposed this year, it just doesn't make sense.
I would like to go back to last summer. I think we all remember the fact that we had a very dry summer, that anyone that had a lawn didn't have to cut grass because I know that I saved a few bucks because of the fact that there wasn't any grass to cut. What happened last year when obviously the same circumstances existed in Fairmount Park. You did very little grass cutting I would assume last year because of the fact that every ballfield that I went by was totally burned out. So I assume that we saved some money or I hope that we have a contract that is creative enough if there is no grass to cut we don't pay. Is that fair enough to say --
-- that we don't pay 1005 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget if we don't cut?
My guess is that money was -- I don't know. I won't speak. I don't know, but that money was --
The savings that we had realized through the summer when we were able to reduce the number of acres cut through most of August because of the drought -- but we could not eliminate the cutting completely because we had some irrigated areas and some areas where the grass does grow -- we were able, because of the fall we had -- if you remember, we had a wet fall. We had to extend our cutting period, so that's why our number of acres cut this past year was -- balances out. We took it out in the summertime, but we had an extended fall growing season and we had to do some additional mowing at that time. We did not realize any major savings through the contract.
This confusion that you need to get back on, back to us, is it fair to say that you are just going to let the grass grow 1006 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget longer before you cut it? If you are going to have a longer cycle, obviously the grass doesn't know that. The grass is going to get longer. There's nothing worse -- I remember there was a period when at the Boulevard the center islands -- and I don't know whose responsibility they are, the state or the Fairmount Park Commission, but it was embarrassing to see what that looked like. If you are cutting -- if your cycle is going to change and we get a rainy period and the grass grows to the point where it's a foot tall, what do you do to change that cycle because I don't think we want to have what occurred -- you drive down the street and you see trimmings just blown all over the roadway. It looks like obviously nobody cleaned up after themselves and I hope in the contract there is some requirement to clean up and not leave that mess behind that I see constantly. So is that increasing the cycle permitting the grass to grow longer between cuts?
No, it is not. Unfortunately this measurement here of the frequency between cuts or the frequency of cuts is very misleading because it is based on the total number 1007 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget of acres and the total number of acres cut and does not even take into account when we have drought periods. They still add those weeks in and that is calculated in there. I will tell you that athletic fields in the Fairmount Park system for the last five years have been cut on a one-week cycle. I don't know if anybody has had any complaints about the length of grass on athletic fields. What we had done is the 2000 acres in Fairmount Park is cut on a two-week cycle, weather permitting, and then on the off week the grass in athletic areas and activity areas was cut again, so it was cut on a weekly cycle. It doesn't come out this way when you look at just this measurement. And the other thing that is confusing about the measurement for this coming year is that, yes, overall we are going to be reducing the number of total acres cut, and I apologize for my misstatements earlier. The numbers on this performance measurement sheet are incorrect at the time. The numbers should be 19,700. What we are doing is looking to create some meadows in areas where we currently cut grass for no purpose 1008 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget whatsoever except aesthetics, not safety. There is no predominant amount of use that goes on there, so we are working with the Fairmount Park program. We have applied for a grant from Growing Greener to replant those areas with native plant material. We are talking to the communities and our friends groups about those areas that we'd like to target. So we are not going to be taking grass out or not mowing grass where it is used frequently and we are working with the communities so we don't create any complaints or objections as we go through this program.
I would suggest if you plan to do additional meadows, which I think is a great idea, that other considerations like mosquito control and things like that could be taken into consideration that you don't want to have a new problem develop when you are trying to do good here. So I like that idea. That sounds good --
The Chair 1009 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. I guess this question should be for the Recreation Department about the quality of service on this transfer of the recreation centers to the Recreation Department. One question I have, you talk about attracting two firms who have signed long-term leases for occupancy of historic park properties. How are you maintaining the historical character of these facilities and in their renovations, are you monitoring these renovations so that these houses maintain their character?
The Historic Preservation Trust, which is an arm of the commission that can do long-term leases, that arm has in the lease program they are scheduled -- the renovations are all done within historic parameters, so, yes, all the historic -- we won't bring a tenant in unless the tenant will rehab the building within the historical framework that's already created for each building.
And how do you fit that in with wiring for new technology?
I'm not an expert, but most of 1010 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget the historic is face and not inside the wall, so all the electric is behind the facade, if you will, so what we do is redo the electric, the plumbing, the wiring and everything that is behind the facade and keep the facade as it was historically preserved.
Miss Toomey would be upset if she knew that you were changing --
-- the character of these historical houses. She is long gone, but she was very mindful of that. Some of my old friends. You are transferring six of the eight Fairmount Park facilities to the Recreation Department. What two are you not transferring and why?
Memorial Hall and Lloyd Hall because both really serve more than recreation centers. They have a caterer so they have catering events and contracts that are above and beyond the recreation part of the facility. So in Memorial 1011 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget Hall there are a number of weddings and events like that, so those are the ones that we already have a contractor that runs events that we are holding those to.
You could make Memorial Hall a casino, you know. (Laughter.) A lot of income. It wouldn't be good for the neighbors though. You are transferring six positions. You are losing six positions from your budget. Are those positions going to the Recreation Department?
You are transferring those. So those employees will be transferred to the Recreation Department's budget?
We believe so. We haven't finalized it, but the concept is to do it that way, yes, but it hasn't been finalized yet, but, yes, that's what the plan is. 1012 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
If I may, Phil Goldsmith, managing director. When you are talking about the DROP, one of the employees that is dropping is a fellow that is now head of the Fairmount Park recreation program and that is another reason why we thought this was a good time to make that transfer, since the person who has been responsible for the recreation programs at Fairmount Park will no longer be with us, so we thought this was an opportune time. But whatever positions or funds are allocated to the swimming pools, whatever positions or funds are allocated to the recreation centers, we will move over to the Recreation Department and rather than that be reflected in this budget right now, we thought we should go through the planning process and really understanding what the needs are before we come back to Council with a transfer ordinance that would reflect all of those details.
Are you going to do that, Mr. Goldsmith, before the end of the budget process? 1013 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
I think that the testimony said that this was going to be done either in the spring or fall of this year.
Or the summer, I'm sorry. So when would this transfer take place?
That would be beyond the time that we would be considering this budget.
If we have to do it sooner, we will figure out what the numbers are. That planning process is going on now. I don't think it is going to be overly complicated because of the way we are doing it. It is really just a shift of identifying the dollars, which I think for the most part we have. We have already done, and the people, so I think we could probably do it quicker.
Because I believe we will be passing the budget that we are 1014 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget presently considering sometime in April, beginning of May. Thank you. The Chair again recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Fairmount Park.
I have a couple of questions following up on Councilwoman Tasco and the other questions regarding the transfer of the pools to Recreation and this question is in particular to Hunting Park. So Recreation will now run the pool and the rec center, correct, and Fairmount Park will operate the fields?
So how will that work? Will you have someone from both departments on staff? For example, now if a baseball team wants to reserve the field, now they have to what, since you will have two different departments handling one park? If I have a Little League team and I want to reserve that field every Sunday for ten weeks or whatever during the summer, how will that work? Who 1015 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget will be in charge?
As we foresee it, there will be one person in that group who will be in charge of the field. The employee that is doing it now will probably be the same entity. Since we are transferring site specific, I would think that the same person is in charge of it as he or she is today.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a point of information.
On the same line of questioning as Councilwoman Miller, if I recall correctly, several years ago when I first came to Council we had a discussion about some of the maintenance problems that we were experiencing for those facilities that kind of had a common boundary between the Fairmount Park Commission properties and the Recreation Department properties if you will. One of the areas of concern was the maintenance. Quite literally I think at the time there was some testimony, and not being critical of either department, as an example, maybe the Fairmount Park Commission was responsible for mowing 1016 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget the grass, cutting down the grass, but they would literally stop at a certain point because that was the property line, if you will, designation between the two entities. So on one side of a two-acre field you had a clear-cut, maintained grassy area and then on that same field when you visually look at it, you saw grass growing on one side and not on the other side, and going with the line of questioning from Councilwoman Miller, don't you perceive that to be a problem again because I thought we were able to undo some of those problems?
I think that's right, the devil is in the details, and I think what we are trying to do here is play to each other's core strengths and I think the feeling is because of what the Recreation Department does in its core mission we will be able to do a better job of doing these swimming pools and rec centers. By the same token, there has been 1017 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget discussion about who takes care of the lawn and the landscaping and so forth and I think that's an issue that we have to address in the future.
I agree. I agree that in many of these cases, specifically when you get into the pools and the other kinds of activities that that is the expertise, if you will, of the Recreation Department, but it sounds to me like we are going backwards in time because we had this maintenance issue several years ago and I forgot what the solution to the problem was, but apparently we have not had that problem since, whatever you guys decided and ladies decided to do then.
Again, I'm not being critical. I'm just a little confused.
I think it's important to have coordination of services because you are going to have to figure out how we are going to make it user friendly for our constituents that use the park or the rec center. In another part of my district we have Awbury Rec Center and Awbury Park and they are right next to each other and there 1018 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget were situations that occurred that Councilman DiCicco just talked about. You know, you have the maintenance that does Awbury Rec Center Park and then the other part that does the park itself, so I just think it is important that coordination of services are really important when these things occur. You don't want people having to run around and try to figure out who is it that I asked to use the field and all the other things.
I thought I remembered a few years ago that Fairmount Park was actually going to -- or Recreation was going to turn some of their parks over to Fairmount Park; for example, Vernon Park, that's a park, but that is still under Recreation. Is that going to happen? Since you are turning over pools and rec centers to Recreation, are you going to inherit Recreation's parks, or is that going to remain the same?
As of right now that is not part of our plan. We are downloading right now.
I also have a question regarding street trees. Is there some way that Fairmount Park could give Council members 1019 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget update and status reports on what trees they have serviced or removed? We get those reports from other departments like the Streets Department will send us a report or the Water Department so that we have some idea of what's happening with these tree removals. I think they have a lot of trees across the district, but I know that in the 8th District we have a large list of dead trees that need to be treated.
So your request would be to have the list disseminated to everyone in Council what is happening?
Right, once a month or something to keep us informed --
Unless you are riding down the street or you are out on a blight tour, you see Fairmount Park and you get an update, but other than that we don't get a consistent update, consistent source of information. And I would be interested in knowing 1020 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget regarding the strategic plan, when you talked about one of the goals of the plan is to prioritize the level and type of services desired by park users, if you have information now currently on what services park users would like to see, how the people would like to see the park used, do you have any of that?
We have not received any information back from our consultant yet. I think the meetings are going on now, so I would assume that the information would come by --
But in the past years you have not taken any surveys?
We have. There was one done by Portfolio Associates that I can get you a copy of that. We can get you a copy of that.
Okay. I just want to commend Fairmount Park on the rest room 19 management. I have used Blue Bell Park a number of times in the summer. Different people will have events there and I really want to applaud you on the upkeep of the rest room there. It's clean. It's well-equipped and it's a big improvement from past years, so I just wanted to mention that while I have the opportunity. 1021 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
Thank you. The Chair at this time recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Mr. Nix, I'm tempted to ask you a question about tax appeals, but I won't at this point.
Wrong forum, right? I wanted to ask you briefly a question about the tree pruning. We had some questions earlier for the managing director during their testimony about criteria in terms of selection of blocks or location for tree pruning and can you tell me what is Fairmount Park's position on that issue, street tree pruning?
I'm going to have Jim Donaghy answer. 1022 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
When we started the program, we used the existing information that we had in the data base as to where we knew the greatest need was and we have just about exhausted that list.
Safety and the number of demands. What we looked at now, currently we are surveying areas and then we are listing it for pruning. What we are looking at is, yes, number one issue is safety, any trees that have dead limbs in them; and then the other one is for clearance for traffic, clearance over sidewalks and clearance away from structures such as homes or streetlights and so on. So our focus, yes, it is safety, so as we are moving through, that's our number one priority.
Well, we have to date under this program -- well, by the end of this fiscal year we will have pruned about 31,000 trees. We have an estimated 200, 250,000 street trees in 1023 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget the City of Philadelphia, so it will be a number of years before we get through the entire population. So at the present time we would continue to use the existing criteria that we developed.
Do you have a strategic plan in terms of selecting areas throughout the City or will you simply work in one area of the City until all of those trees are done and then move to the next, or do you try to spread it around and see that every council district gets a little bit so to speak?
We try to provide an equal amount of service in each of the Council districts, and, as I said, when we get requests, we get demands in a particular area, and we focus on those also. With our street trees we don't award one tree at a time. Our contract won't allow us to do that and that would drive the cost way up. What we do is when we get a concentration of demand, we try to make it at least a ten-block area, whether it is linear or square, whatever the geometric shape is, it doesn't matter to us, but we try to give them a focus area where they can come in and do at least ten blocks of trees, and that's what helps to keep 1024 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget the cost down. And, yes, we do look across the city.
Since you have indicated that you try to provide some level of service in every council district, would it be possible to provide a list of the tree-pruning activities per council district to the Chair and subsequently to the members of council?
Yes. Would you like a summary, or would you like it by address?
I personally would like to have the addresses myself.
Earlier when I actually served on behalf of the council president on the commission, there was an issue with respect to the park acquisition program. I think there was some funding from William Penn, was it?
Of course we have identified more properties than we have the funding for. I think there is -- Mark, if I'm wrong -- about a million dollars for acquisitions and we have the three properties identified. One was under agreement of sale and there was a legality question on encroachments as parts of the land were not what they were surveyed, so there is about a million dollars there and we have the properties identified but only one actually under contract, so of that million dollars maybe $350,000 is spent.
Earlier when Mr. Mifflin, I think, was still on board, we had requested the acquisition of some land adjacent to a housing development east of Broad along the 8th and 9th Street corridors. I guess it was actually adjacent to PGW. And as a result of an extensive redevelopment plan with new housing and a new school, we thought it would make some sense to have a park to accommodate the needs of the new residents, and I really didn't get a formal response. I was just kind of told "We can't do it." 1026 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget Can you tell me what the criteria is associated with the selection process?
Usually our selection process are contiguous park lands and/or watershed issues, so one of the properties is a piece that is very -- it happens to be in the Northeast. It is between two tracts of park land that weren't developed which diminished both tracts of land, so it is a continuous park setting. Why the particular piece you asked about was not considered, I don't know, and I can find out because I'm not -- that doesn't mean that creating parks isn't what we -- in my opinion that is probably not the correct answer. There may be a reason, but let me look back at it.
If you are not fortunate enough to live in a neighborhood where there is a park --
If you are trying to trail from 8th and Montgomery, it is quite a 1027 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget distance to the nearest park.
We were hoping -- particularly because it was part of an NTI initiative, we are anticipating some support from the park in that respect. One last question in this round. You indicated that St. Joe's University -- is it St. Joe's University or St. Joe's Prep?
The outreach I think will be the same as in the past. We go to I think it's middle schools. I think the kids are from middle school to lower high schools across the -- I think the kids are mostly actually pretty much across the country across the citywide, and I'm not sure -- I can find out for sure, but I'm pretty sure that it is a recruiting effort through the grade schools, 1028 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget actually sending information to the schools and inviting the kids to come out and see if they like it.
Is someone here responsible for overseeing that from the City's end?
No. I will get that back to you formally because the person is not here that's doing it.
Good morning again, and thank you, Madam President. I apologize. I got here a little bit late this morning. Is there a list of the centers or the properties that are now managed by Fairmount Park that will be transferred over to the Recreation Department? I didn't see it in the testimony.
Six, six rec centers and three pools. 1029 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
Is Campbell Square one of them by any chance, do you know?
The recreation centers listed in the Recreational Department testimony transferred in are Gustine Lake, Hunting Park, Cobbs Creek, Fisher and Parkside Avenue. The pools listed are Kelly, Hunting Park and Cobbs Creek.
None of the pools are mine. I don't think the rec centers -- the other centers are as well. The rationale for that -- and I understand the rationale as it relates to pools because rec centers basically does pools. Are these passive parks? Did I hear that?
What we do is the Recreation Department is better programmatically than the park is, I believe -- I mean this is my opinion -- in running the centers, so, by transferring, the 1030 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget programmatic pieces of those centers should be improved.
And the reason I'm asking that is Campbell Square is a Recreation Department facility?
That will be in my new district, which I have been given a new district, and Campbell will be part of my district. I would consider that to be a passive park more than a recreation center, so I'm wondering why a park or square like Campbell or even Jefferson Square in South Philadelphia would not be part of that.
What we did, the initial flow, if you would, of this program is to do the park recreation centers and pools and move them to recreation. That has been a big enough headache that I would like to -- let's finish that piece and then I think part of the plan is to take the parks back.
Yes. I think parks should be doing parks and Recreation should be doing 1031 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget recreation.
And it will also be in a strategic plan, as someone reminded me.
I guess this would probably go to Rob Dubow. Each Councilmanic district gets a certain amount of capital dollars to work with in a given fiscal year, and I believe it is equally proportioned, if I'm not mistaken.
So each Councilmanic district gets X amount of dollars, generally a million two or something like that?
Why is that? Why is it that -- and I will use my district, the 1st Councilmanic district gets a million two where I may have facilities -- and I don't know this to be a 20 fact, so please don't be offended -- and Council 21 District 2 may have ten. Notwithstanding that some 22 of the centers may be larger, even though there is 23 ten, the acreage may be greater. What is the 24 formula? How do you get there? Because when I have 25 to spread -- and I'm sure some of my colleagues have 1032 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget the same problem -- a million two across X amount of facilities, in most cases with the best efforts of the Department of Rec and everybody else, it really limits the ability to have an effective capital improvement in many of these centers. You kind of like are doing piecemeal if you will.
I wasn't here when the system started, but I'm assuming it was split evenly -- clearly it wasn't a calculation by the number of --
Divide ten districts into the amount of money that you have.
Exactly. And I imagine they thought politically that was the only way it would work. I don't think they ever went back and looked at the number of centers and did any math there.
I think that is something that's important and not because I'm lacking for the lion's share, but I would like to be able to at least provide an adequate amount of resources to those centers in some places where you have more needs than others, but when they get the same million two that another district may have with half or less than half of the centers to be 1033 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget concerned about, it does cause a problem. Again, I'm not criticizing the efforts of the Fairmount Park and the Recreation Department. They can only do whatever it is that they have available, but in many cases -- I'm sure there are some districts that have more centers than I do, so it is not just for me. If there is a way to calculate it by square footage at the rec center or acreage, but I think something that would be more on balance would work better for all of us. If you put a hundred thousand dollars in some rec center, rec center X, that hundred thousand is probably a wasted hundred thousand because it really needs a complete overhaul or maybe a new building and I think that we may be actually not spending our money as wisely as we should. If we are doing it just to make all the Council people feel they have a million two a year, the reality is that we should be spending it in a way that we get the best product for our investment and maybe one center gets put aside this year but at least we get that place up and running to its full potential and then put an additional amount of money into the other center the following year. 1034 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget That is just a question I had and I don't know if I ever raised it before. I think it is the first time. I think Councilman Nutter may have mentioned this a couple years ago.
He has mentioned so many things. I don't know if that was one of them.
I don't think I have any more questions. Thank you, Madam President.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo. Is he in the room? He's not here. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam President. Let me go back to a couple things that were raised earlier. One, when Mr. Donaghy was at the table I took down a note that he talked about street trees and he mentioned about tree work being done because a sidewalk had been raised by the tree.
If I remember, he said that that would be the imminently dangerous or the emergency work so that would be put on the list as opposed to -- 1035 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
He's here. Is that a new initiative by the commission and just what is our response to the tree lifting the sidewalk problem?
No, it's not a new initiative. We had always put those trees on the list, but when it came to prioritizing, they fell down toward the lower end of the priority list because we had so many dead and dangerous trees standing that were dropping limbs.
It had always been my understanding that the general policy was we only took down dead trees anyway. Is that true?
Well, we are looking at trees that are creating hazards and we are considering if a sidewalk is lifted to the point that it's impassable that we do list that tree for removal. As we are working through our list, we have been able to identify some of those trees and remove some of them.
So you will consider taking one of those trees given the fact that our backlog has come down?
Yes, we will. 1036 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget
I would only say to you that that has never been presented as an option in the past, so I will keep that in mind going forward. With regard to the transfer of facilities, I did want to ask one operational question. The employees in the Fairmount Park Commission who may be going over to Recreation, are they all in the same union?
Do we have operational issues that we need to work through in terms of that transition?
And will there be an operating agreement or some memorandum of understanding between Fairmount Park and Recreation as part of this transition of facilities? What will officially affect a transfer of facility?
I believe there would have to be a memorandum of understanding. This is to embody 1037 3/3/03 - Continuing FY '04 Operating Budget the agreement. I believe that is what has to happen.
And all of this is going to be done prior to the spring/summer season?
I have been promised by May, so I don't know what you were promised. I was promised 45 to 60 days.
Well, I'm not making a promise; I'm just relating one of mine to you.