m. - - - Bill No. 990023 - An ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA A. CLARK COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO CHARLES MCPHERSON, Chief Financial Officer - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 1748 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE I N D E X John K. Leary, General Manager, SEPTA . . 1751 Joe Casey, Director of Budgets, SEPTA . . 1772 Jettie Newkirk, SEPTA Board Member. . . 1774 Denise Goren, Deputy Mayor of Transportation 1778 Frances Jones, SEPTA. . . . . . . 1782 Richard Voith, SEPTA. . . . . . . 1809 David Volpe, First Deputy City Controller . 1850 Emanuel Ortiz, Chairperson Board of Trustees 1851 Community College of Philadelphia Dr. Ronald A. Williams, Acting President. . 1854 Community College of Philadelphia Dean Kaplan, City Budget Director . . . 1888 Isadore Schreger, Board Member. . . . 1902 Community College of Philadelphia Margaret M. Tartaglione, Chairwoman . . . 1905 City Commissioners Office Bob Lee, Administrator, Voter Registration. 1907 Constantine Papadakis, President. . . . 1924 Drexel University Natasha Barnett, School of Public Health. . 1932 MCP/Hahnemann University Audrey Johnson-Thornton, President. . . 1936 American Women's Heritage Society Belmont Mansion in West Fairmount Park Cathy Paster, Deputy Budget Director. . . ) William Mifflin, Executive Director . . . 1953 Fairmount Park Commission Dr. Walter Palmer, Chairperson. . . . 1972 Health Care Center 2 Shelah Harper, Board Chair. . . . . 1974 Health Care Center 8 Alice Hayes, Member of Board of Citizens. . 1982 9 Health Center No. 9 C. Gloria Akers, President. . . . . 1990 Philadelphia Cultural Fund Adrienne Jenkins, Executive Director. . . 1992 Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance James Maxton, Vice President. . . . . , Freedom Theater 1998 Susan Gobreski, Clean Water Action. . . 2001 Jane Bordehaas, Victim Service Agency . . 2006 Stephanie Mayweather, Director. . . . 2018 East Division Crime Victim Services Esther Mercado, Crime Victim. . . . . 2021 Shelly Yanoff, Executive Director, PCYY . . 2024 Dr. Michael Danjczhek, Executive Director & 2040 President, Children's Home of Easton, PA Melvin Buckman, East Philadelphia Coalition 2044 for a Free Library Branch Roseanne Gill, Member, Board of Directors . ) Karen Talarico, the Executive Director . . 2051 Friends of the Free Library, Joe Torres, Vice President. . . . . 2054 Board of Directors, Tabor Rams Youth Gretjen Clausing. . . . . . . . 2057 Philadelphia Community Access Coalition Lauren Townsend, Executive Director . . . 2063 Citizens for Consumer Justice David Acosta, Private Citizen . . . . 2068 For Public Access Television Gerry Givnish, Artistic Director. . . . 2073 Painted Bride Art Center Wendell Young, President. . . . . . 2077 United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 1776 Timothy Siftar, Business Librarian . . . 2079 Keith Brandt, Adjunct Professor of. . . 2082 Communications, Radio Broadcaster Estelle Richman, Commissioner . . . . 2090 Department of Public Health Michael DiBerardinis, Commissioner. . . 2090 Department of Recreation James Tayoun, Former City Councilman. . . 2093 1751 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. I apologize for the delay. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 990023. This morning, we will hear from SEPTA. So I would invite them up to table. (SEPTA panel members come forward.)
Oh, Mr. Leary, before you leave the chamber today, remind me that I want to talk to you about something in my district.
Thank you. Mr. Leary, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the City Council. 1 million Fiscal Year 2000 SEPTA Budget Request and to describe a few key initiatives the Authority has pursued over this past year. I'm joined this morning by Jettie 1752 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Newkirk and Richard Voith, the two Philadelphia representatives to the SEPTA Board, and I appreciate very much their joining me this morning for this hearing. Since last year's Operating Budget hearing, many important initiatives have taken place that will ensure the economic prosperity of the City into the new millennium: the Regional Arts Performing Center is now under construction, the Apollo Arena at Temple University is opened, Market Street and the waterfront area development activity is strong, and the prospects look bright for two new sporting stadiums, and now Philadelphia has been selected for the site of the Republican National Convention. Even with this positive news, we face great challenges, particularly the effective transition from thousands of Philadelphia residents from public assistance into the workforce. Like Philadelphia, SEPTA has experienced positive change, although we also face challenges that will shape our future. A five-year plan for strategic change, adopted just last year, provides the framework for undertaking 1753 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE business initiatives that will improve the quality of the customer travel environment, enhance the provision of service across all modes, enable the Authority to effectively manage resources and contain costs, and provide a focus for activities to improve ridership and increase revenues. Building on this framework, we've been able to introduce new state-of-the-art vehicles into our fleet, including the new Market-Frankford El cars, and we're moving forward to obtain 88 compliant low-flow buses and articulated buses. We are continuing with our dynamic program to rebuild our aging infrastructure and our facilities, including construction of a new Frankford Transportation Center complex, the reconstruction of the Market El line in West Philadelphia, and we are completing the planning for the Girard Avenue Light Rail Restoration project, with construction scheduled to begin next year. We have also introduced enhanced service in response to the needs of our customers, including better access to growing employment centers in the City on line sections such as the Route 68, 37, 25, 5 and 7. 1754 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE These achievements, however, were tempered by the unfortunate events of the 40-day strike service interruption this past June. We regret the monumental inconvenience City residents, businesses, employees, and workers faced during this time. We are, however, grateful for the tremendous support from the City and the collective willingness of the public to return to SEPTA. Senior management and the employees of SEPTA are keenly aware of the important role we play in the lives of many Philadelphians to get them to school, to work, to health care, and to leisure destination. We must work to strengthen the partnerships formed with our workforce, our customers, and the local businesses and government stakeholders. For example, an Executive Labor- Management Committee was recently established. By enhancing communications and building a cooperative work ethic, we may be able to work now to avert future work stoppages. The growth and prosperity of the region offers encouragement SEPTA's and for SEPTA's continued ability to bring riders to the system, 1755 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE if we have the resources to respond to our customers' demands. We have achieved small surpluses in each of the past two years. A similar surplus is forecasted for this fiscal year as well.
These financial outcomes are the result of numerous cost-reduction issues, including reduction of administrative staff, prudent management of contractor services and material purchases, revision to our purchasing process, aggressive negotiations for better fuel and electricity prices, and better management of our injury claims -- all the while, increasing service in the region. In short, SEPTA has made more effective use of its limited resources. 1 million operating subsidy, and believe it provides sufficient revenue to leverage the State's proposed operating subsidy. Several months ago, SEPTA launched an advertising campaign with a theme serious about change. This message reinforces our commitment to the community and to ensure that mission to provide quality transportation service to the Philadelphia region is met on a daily basis. 1756 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Now I would just like to summarize a few of our recent activities that focus on the provision of SEPTA's service within the City. Regarding welfare-to-work, we have partnered with the Greater Philadelphia Works Program and established a traditional pass benefit for former welfare recipients who have secured employment. We've improved bus service to the Airport area employment centers and on Routes 124 and 125. We've expanded a pilot program to furnish transit passes for participants in job training and in job search programs from 5 Philadelphia county offices to all 19 Philadelphia County Assistance Offices. And we've partnered with the Private Industry Council to create a job opportunity program for recipients to become paratransit drivers. We've also developed a "How to Ride" guide both in English and in Spanish, with information about transit services to key employment centers. And these How to Ride Guides are in your packets at your desks. I'm also pleased to report that crime is down. Part I crimes, those are serious crimes 1757 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE against persons and property, are down an additional 45 percent in calendar year 1998, and this is due to the increased police visibility on the system and in the community SEPTA serves with a very aggressive outreach program. We have also -- we ran the Operation Lifesaver Program for over 25,000 children from 65 schools throughout the City. This program is designed to teach children about the safe crossings and crossings only at designated place along the railroad tracks. We're continuing the SEPTA Sparkles Program, a program we're very proud of, with particular emphasis on the improvements to the Broad Street Subway stations, including Olney, Race and Vine, and Walnut-Locust. And we've completed the Phase I renovations regional rail stations at Overbrook and Allen's Lane Regional Rail stations. And we're moving forward with major modernization projects for City Hall Station, Spring Garden Station, Fairmount Station, and Girard Avenue Station on the Broad Street Line. These are just a few of the long list 1758 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE of improvements that will move SEPTA and the City into the new millennium. org. Council President Verna, thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony this morning. The City Council's generosity and continued support of SEPTA and our commitment to enhance public transportation service in Philadelphia has made it possible for the Authority to be responsive to the needs of our constituents. I look forward to working with you and Councilman DiCicco in his new responsibilities as Chair of your Transportation Committee, and with other members of Council to address key business initiatives in the coming fiscal year. If there are any questions, I'd be more than happy to respond. And I also, Council President, would like to introduce you to our new Board Chairman who has just. I understand that Pat Dion, the new 1759 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Chair of the SEPTA Board is -- (Mr. )
We welcome you. Thank you. Mr. Leary, you have all of these beautiful charts up here. Did you want to share them with us before we get into the question-and-answer portion.
Yes. I've tried to provide just a little information to graphically display the budget breakdown, Council President, both from the point of view of total expenses -- well, let me begin on the left -- total operating subsidies and the breakdown of where the subsidies come from; total operating revenue and where it comes from; total expenses; and then a total look at the budget and some general facts about the SEPTA service and the extent of SEPTA service in the City of Philadelphia. Each of these charts is in your packet. So if you have a chance, you can take a look at them.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 1760 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. First let me start out by thanking you, Mr. Leary, and your staff for the cooperation that you've been giving my office over the last year few years that you've been here.
It certainly has been a very positive thing for my office to get that kind of cooperation. In particular, the Broad and Oregon situation where the Head House area is now a portion of that land that was really of no use to anyone is now going to be additional yard space for the people on the 2600 block of Watts Street. I think at the end, they will think they're in suburbia with an extra 15 feet of yard space. And I want to thank you for that effort and your cooperation, and in particular, Frances Jones. I have a couple of questions. Within the next year, the City of Philadelphia, along with the Council President and I, anticipate some 1761 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE major streetscape improvements on South Broad Street, from Washington Avenue at least until Oregon -- maybe somewhat further than that, but at least to Oregon Avenue. Senator Fumo has been very helpful and will be getting us some additional State money to do those improvements. The improvements will be in the area of lighting and banner poles and trees and median planters, what you have. There is a condition, though, an unsightly condition, both on the east and west side at the intersection of Broad and Snyder, and I was wondering if there's anything in your budget to address those two head houses; and if not, is there something that we can look to do? You know, Broad Street will be probably the major, if not the major arteries for he Republican National Convention bringing the conventioneers down Broad Street, so I thought this was a good opportune time to look at doing something with those head houses. Do you know if there's anything in your --
Councilman, I can't say specifically whether we've got anything in the 1762 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE program at this time, but that's an excellent recommendation. I mean, we're focussing our resources these days a great deal in trying to improve the experience and the environment of the rider, and what you're talking about is exactly the kind of thing we're trying to do. I'd like very much to work with you on that and to do just that, kind of improve the environment of the station areas, much like we did at Broad and Oregon, and I was pleased we were able to do that for you. I will look into that and --
Yeah, I'd like to, if we can, maybe set meeting up with the Council President and go over that.
Yeah. And it's typically not a big money issue; it's just a matter of putting effort into it.
I don't think we're looking for anything really elaborate there, but those glass enclosures have seen better days, and I think it just -- esthetically, it just doesn't fit it.
And when we're going to do the other investment, I think it would be in appropriate. As to the other subway entrances, which are the staircase entrances, I think just a paint job would probably be sufficient there, so we're not looking for anything in major capital dollars there.
On that same issue of head houses, now that DisneyQuest is coming to Eighth and Market, I was wondering if there's anything in the plans to renovate, restore, improve the Head House condition at Eighth and Market. Frances Jones and I had had a little sidebar before you began your testimony, and she suggested that maybe Disney -- or you're looking to see if Disney would be willing to adopt that head house.
That would be wonderful, and I would love to promote the "Adopt-a-Station" idea.
Well, I'm letting 1764 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE you know, as the chair of the Transportation Committee, and the fact that Eighth and Market's in my district, I'd be more than willing to see if we can schedule a meeting with yourself and your staff and the Disney people to talk about that.
I'd love to do that. And at the very least, we'll move our SEPTA Sparkles team in and make sure the place doesn't -- as we tell our people in the organization these days, it's okay for it to be old, but it has to be clean and shiny and sparkling.
But, again, I would be more than willing to facilitate that meeting.
And sooner, obviously, rather than later, because they're in the construction phases now. And I think it would probably work. You and I had a conversation a year or so ago where I had suggested that maybe we could to do something to make the experience of standing at an el stop or on a subway platform a little bit more pleasurable, with some public service 1765 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE announcements. And where are we with that, by the way? Have we moved any closer to doing something like that? Or --
No, no, we have. I mean, I'm just a little disappointed 'cause these things are not easy to do. We do have a major station renovation program going on along on the whole line, including the introduction of a closed-circuit television study. And coming with the closed-circuit television study is a communications system that will then enable us to communicate with our customers on the platform. Those stations that have it today, it's very, very old, and it barely works. So we're moving in that direction. But I'd have to get back to you to say just what the timetable is. I think we're still at least a year away from seeing any of that in place.
Okay. But I thought with Disney at Eighth and Market -- I mean, if you've ever been to Disneyland or Disney 1766 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE World, when you wait for the shuttles or the trams or the monorail, I mean, there's messages constantly being put out over the PA system. And I just thought that for those people who sit on the -- stand at the subway elevated -- the elevated -- the platforms, thank you, the platforms, that message is -- and I think we maybe even talked about maybe some advertisement there like, "White Sale at Strawbridge's Today," you know. But, again, you know, it's just to make the experience of being more pleasurable. And Disney might be an opportunity for us to work with the Disney people, and that could possibly be a pilot for some of the things we'd like to do, and I'd be more than glad to work with you SEPTA people on doing that.
A couple of other quick questions. One has to do with, what is the status of the light rail line I think we discussed about a year ago? At least as far as it relates to the 23 Line. Is there going to be light rail back on 1767 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE the 23? And if so --
Councilman, what we're doing is, we're moving forward to restore the light rail on the Route 15, which is the Girard Avenue Line; that was the route that was selected to move forward first. We've engaged a consulting team -- Robert Burns Associates is doing the engineering and design necessary to begin a construction program sometime next year, with a scheduled completion of that restoration project in the year 2001. We've taken the position that we're one like back, and when it becomes a success, it would create the momentum to begin to talk about the other lines.
And I'll end with this question and then come back on the second round. We had some discussion this past holiday season about for next year, extending the trolley line on the down into South 23 Philadelphia. I think, based on my conversations with my neighbors, that if it came further down to South Philadelphia, that you'd probably get -- 1768 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ridership would improve. Leaving people off at 12th and Bainbridge just doesn't work for anybody who lives below Washington Avenue. And, again, I think, being a baby boomer, and I really don't have any grandchildren yet, but many of my friends do, it's very exciting for the kids when they see that going by. And I think it's a good way of promoting public transportation. I mean, for me, that's -- the nostalgic thing is obviously one thing, but more importantly, I think it may give people an opportunity to get on public transportation that have not been using public transportation for the better part of or 30 years -- who only live 10 16 blocks outside of Center City but, for some 17 reason, figure they have to drive in. And that 18 might be a good way of getting -- 19
Okay, I'll end 1769 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE with that and then come back possibly with another question. Thank you.
Thank you Councilman. Mr. Leary, you indicated in your testimony that the implementation of the five-year plan for a strategic plan adopted by the Board one year ago provides a framework for undertaking various business initiatives. Would you elaborate on what actions you have taken to improve ridership and increase revenues?
Yes. Council President, we put together the five-year strategic plan for change as a blueprint for the entire organization to take us into the future and to guide us so we would all be working in the same direction as we move forward to modernize the organization, modernize and change the way we conduct our business on a daily basis. And we've already seen some things develop from that that have allowed us to reinvest in some productivity improvements and allowed us to reinvest in service on the street. Today we 1770 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE have we've been able to put a half a dozen new service initiatives out on the street. The five-year strategy plan has a focus in five areas. The first area deals with customer service and customer quality. We try to tell all our people now that it's no longer acceptable just to have a bus run from Point A to Point B and be on time; it's more than that. We need to have not a satisfied customer, but a delighted customer, a customer that's an advocate of public transportation if we're going to be successful in the next century. But service quality, ridership and revenue. And on the ridership and revenue front, as you know, we were very aggressive in an advertising campaign earlier this year. Almost unheard of, but we have now returned to the ridership levels of the pre-strike ridership levels in just a few months. A lot of people worked very hard to bring that about, and we're very proud of that initiative. Customer safety and customer security. We want people to feel -- we want our facilities to feel very friendly and very comfortable. When 1771 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE you walk into a transit station, it should be like walking into the lobby of City Hall where you feel very comfortable. And also, we want to empower our employees to do the very best job possible. And that entails the installation of -- new training program have been put in place and partnering programs inside the organization. So everybody knows exactly where we want to go and how we want to get there.
Thank you. For the record, would you please tell us the amount of the proposed State's subsidy for SEPTA.
I see that in part of your testimony, and I would like to ask why, you are projecting revenues generated by the Shared Ride Program and Senior Citizens Transit to decline in FY 2000. Can you give us an explanation for that, please.
Yes, let me. . . (Joe Casey comes forward.) 1772 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
My name is Joe Casey. I'm Director of Budgets for SEPTA. The senior citizen counts projected for next year are really based on actual counts. During the last few years, we've been converting to cycle counts or test count to actual counts from the fare box. The decline in senior citizens is really a reflection on what the actually ridership is, which has steadily been going down over the last couple years. But primarily, it's a recording of the senior citizens, the change in way we report or count our senior citizen ridership.
Thank you. Mr. Leary, why are you projecting employee benefit costs to grow at a faster rate than your direct labor costs?
Yes. I said, why are you projecting employee benefits costs to 1773 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE grow faster than your direct labor costs?
There's two major increases in our benefit area. One is the -- one of the things that we negotiated with the TW Union is an early retirement program. That had a major impact on our pension costs for next year. The other area is our health benefits costs.
Our health benefits costs. We're currently projecting approximately an 8 percent increase in our health benefits costs for next year.
What is your early retirement plan? How many years must an employee work there? You said you have an early retirement plan. What was it and what are you seeking now?
The early retirement plan is basically a one-time offer to TWU members. It affects approximately -- we're talking about approximately 400 people to go out on the early retirement. It's similar to what we offered our 1774 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE management employees a few years ago. Basically, it -- the program provides for an additional three years to their service base so it accelerates some of the workers, but a large part of the 400 people that are going out basically retire a couple years earlier than they normally would have.
I believe it's a minimum age of 55, with a minimum of 30 years of service.
So one can now retire, what, at 52? Or would he still have to be 55?
No, because it's limited to 400 people, no one would be earlier than 55.
This one-time offer, Council Lady came as a result of the recent TWU contract. So this is a one-time matter.
So how old would one have to be to be eligible to retire with 30 years of service?
Theoretically, it could be 52 years old if you had 27 years of service, but I 1775 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE don't think there's anybody in that category.
Okay, fine. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. First, let me congratulate SEPTA on at least two aspects since the labor strike: the fact that the ridership program is very close to what it was prior to the strike; and the establishment of the Executive-Labor Management Committee in the hopes that long-range-wise, labor problems will be at a minimum.
And I think effectiveness will also be increased at every level to the extent you can develop increased cooperation from the labor force and really make it a joint partnership. I think moving in the directions you have in those two areas is extremely important. Just to finish the budgetary aspect, how much of the funding is coming from neighboring counties? 1776 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
So if you compare it with the 58.1 budget of the City, which is also a county, I think there are four other counties participating in it.
Yes, there are four other counties. Delaware County provides $5.8 million; Montgomery County, $3.4 million; Bucks County, $1.8 million; and Chester County $1.1 million. And then the State gives total subsidies of $288 million.
Totally, the four counties come to approximately 11, $12 million?
So less than one-fourth -- just about a fifth is the City of Philadelphia's contribution. Are special steps being taken? I note with respect to the so-called welfare reform program, are there special steps being taken to afford improved transportation possibilities for folks that may be leaving the welfare rolls 1777 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE hopefully to get jobs?
Could you explain what the details are of this transitional pass benefit that you referred to.
Yes. We've been working with all the local agencies to try to facilitate their efforts to get people into jobs. It's been said that on the welfare-to-work program, that transit is the "to" in the welfare-to-work program, and that is very true. So working with both the State Department of Welfare and the City organizations, we have made passes available to people, monthly transit passes.
Sir, could I ask to you speak additional in the microphone.
Yes, okay. We have been working both with the City and the State organizations. We have been working to make transit passes available to recipients that are both in the process of searching for jobs and training for jobs. And there is a program that 1778 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE when they get a job and begin to work, they're provided a transit pass for a period of time to ease the burden of going into the workplace. At the present time, we're selling thousands of passes to both the State Department of Public Welfare and the City of Philadelphia Works Program for this purpose.
Well, what is the financial cost to the welfare recipient currently?
I don't believe the recipient pays anything. And Denise Goren, the Deputy Mayor, has offered to help with this. So come on, Denise. (Denise Goren comes forward.)
Councilman, there are several different programs available under the welfare-to-work. For specific recipients, actually the passes are free. Under other programs, there's going to be a sliding scale of passes so that at the first month, it's free; the next month, they'll be half price; then a quarter price. So that there will be an to opportunity then as they start to get paychecks in for them to 1779 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE be able to cover their own transit service. In addition, SEPTA's program has been spectacular in really targeting specific transit routes and matching those up with employment centers that we know have jobs available -- it's particularly focused on this population to assist them in realigning those transit services. So that there's really a three-part point partnership between the job placement centers, the employees, and SEPTA -- not just on transit passes, but also on service times and hours and routing needs.
All right. That's good to hear. We'd like to avoid the situation that occurred with day care where there was a sharp increase in the costs to the person for day care service, because the salaries that the folks will get when they get a job will probably be at a very low rate, and any charge for the transportation's going to be a burden, whatever it turns out to be. So I'll just say I think you're in the right direction, moving in the right direction, but I think we've got to be particularly sensitive 1780 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE at every level to understand that every penny is very important and that to whatever degree we can cut or eliminate the transportation cost, I think it will help the whole drive to take people from welfare into the workforce. Because otherwise, I think, you know, people may just drop off, they may just find that from a financial point of view itself, that it's too burdensome, and they may not be able to carry the weight. Thanks very much. And City Council is also going to be working continuously in that area and we hope that when have hearings, we'll hear from both the Mayor's Office and from SEPTA about what it is doing to make it possible for people to travel to the suburbs, if that's needed for job placement. Now, in discussions with Councilman DiCicco, you spoke about rehabilitation of some -- I think you called them "head houses." Are they what, out in the northern part of the city, are called station "station houses"?
Yes. I believe they're the same -- that portion of the station that's above the sidewalk. 1781 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Right. Allen's Lane, that's been the subject of discussion in that community for a long time. What is the outlook for the rehabilitation, not just of the house, but of the whole station? It's been an historic landmark, it's been one of the most attractive aspects of the community. It's what we have used to strengthen the efforts that bring people into the community and there's widespread concern that other than that money applied for the renovation of the house itself, which I think the community worked with SEPTA on to obtain a number of years ago, that the rest of the station is in danger of kind of falling apart and getting to the point where it won't be safe.
You know, Councilman, you're right. That's a beautiful little station, and we've got to do what we can to save it.
The Phase I, saving the building, has already been undertaken. The building has been now restored.
That's that 1782 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE transitional grant, the 500,000?
Yes, the first transitional grant. And, in fact, the work has been completed and we actually now have a resident that has been awarded a license to move into the building and take care of it. So we're feeling pretty good about that. We're moving forward now on Phase II. We've applied to the State, and I believe we've received some State money and some federal money to move to the next phase of the project. And I also believe the City, in the City's Capital Budget, has put some money in. It's about a 3.5 or a $4 million investment to finish it. And I think we've assembled, I'm going to say, approximately 2 to $3 million at this point, to keep the project going.
It was approved yesterday 1783 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE by our Board.
The real estate action was approved by our Board yesterday for Allen's Lane.
Could I get a summary of the conclusion of those statements. How much more money is there available for the rehabilitation currently of the result of the actions -- including the action taken yesterday by the Board.
The action by the Board yesterday authorized the execution of the contract with the real estate for someone to move into it and take care of the property. So the property is now occupied. The building has been rebuilt.
And someone is moving in and will be -- the building will be occupied; is that right?
Okay, Councilman, the first phase, for half a million dollars, has been done. The building has been renovated.
The second phase is a $1.2 million phase to begin to deal with the overpass and the station structure itself, and the Board awarded that contract yesterday.
It's been awarded, so that will take place. Now, there's one more phase that has to take place, and we'll be working over the next year so that the third phase will be continuous with the second phase. And I believe the City is helping with that.
Right. And we appreciate the City's participation in the Capital Program. 1785 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE What portion of the 1.2 million comes from federal and State sources? Or is that all capital funding from the City?
Good. And you feel 14 the outlook in the near future for the rest of the 15 funding will -- 16
Oh, I think it will happen. 17 I think there's a whole lot of people that want to 18 see it happen. 19
All right, very 20 good. We'd like to continue to work with you, with the community, and to do whatever is needed to maximize the federal and State support.
Very good, thank you. 1786 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE One last question. I do appreciate the way which SEPTA has been approaching the problem of Riverview, the senior citizen apartment house that has very special problems. And I appreciate the sensitivity of SEPTA in arranging for the hearing to take place at the location where the senior citizens live. I hope I will be able to as warm in my recognition of SEPTA's role after the decisions are made because it's just a very important thing in Philadelphia to make sure that senior citizens don't feel that they've been discarded, that they have the same ability as other citizens not only to meet their own needs but to feel like a full person if they want to go down to Penn's Landing, to be able to make the same decisions that other people make, sometimes almost at the last moment, decide, Well, let's see what it's like, if they want to go shopping somewhere, to be able to do that. So we hope that when it's all over, that something will be worked out that will basically accommodate the needs of the citizens and accommodate SEPTA's needs as well. 1787 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE So thank you very much.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
To the Board members Mr. Voith, Ms. Newkirk, and to Frances Jones. Mr. Leary, it's my understanding that you have not exercised the good wisdom as the other three individuals that I mentioned to have moved into the 4th Councilmatic District. (Laughter.)
And I would hope that by this time next year at the budget hearing, you will have corrected that particular condition. I will not hold it against you during these hearings. 1788 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (Laughter.)
Mr. Leary, I'd like to commend you for your excellent choice of being a member of the 1st Councilmatic District. It is also my understanding, Madam Chair, that the new chairman of the board may be here with us today.
Yes. Mr. Dion is here. Mr. Dion? (Mr. Dion stands for recognition.)
Good morning, welcome. Would you like to move into the 4th District? No, I'm only kidding. (Laughter.)
Pleased to have you this morning, and congratulations to you. Actually, I'd like to talk about at least two, possibly three, topics, the first of which is the long-standing issue which we -- some of us may have tortured you and the City representatives and even the most recent board 1789 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE chairman, tortured all of you to death, which is R6 commuter rail line. A couple issues do arise with that, and some of you may not have an answer to it right now, but I'd like to talk about additional upgrades or attention to that particular line, specifically with inbound 9:30 a.m. service and outbound 2 p.m. service to serve senior citizens in the area who are trying to possibly get into town. And with the changing composition of the workforce and some people getting out a little earlier, trying to possibly get back home to deal with kids getting out of school, the service in the afternoon needs some additional look-see. In our various meetings -- and I see that you decided to spare Susan Stern from further torture on the R6 -- we've had a lot of discussion about Zone 1, Zone 2 for the Bala Station. We've had a lot of discussion about this. I guess the -- I don't know whether you measure distance from Suburban Station to determine what the zones are, but I think we might find that the Bala Station is very close in comparison to other stations to being more of a Zone station than a Zone 1790 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE station, and I think that would help with our ridership. Ridership is up on the R6, I believe; is that correct? It continues to be up?
Okay. The third issue has to do with the stopping of the train at a particular switching point. I think now we presently do -- you go to a log situation. They stop the train, someone gets off, they fill out a log. This has to do with Federal Railroad Administration guidelines, but SEPTA has been looking at the prospect of getting approval from the FRA for radio communication as opposed to physically stopping the train? Do we have any updated information on that?
I don't have a report on that at this time, but I can get back to you on that. I'll look at that.
Okay. And lastly on that particular situation is the Manayunk Bridge rehab. Any update on the status of that particular project?
Councilman, I can only tell 1791 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE you that I have been working on that personally to try to get that project off dead-center. I have personally met with the contractor and, as you know, the contractor left the site. The contractor has advised us that he is willing to come back on the site, and we are negotiating, as we speak, with the contractor, trying to bring this to a resolution and get that work finished. I can only tell you that as a backup plan, if necessary, we have the plans and specifications being assembled to rebid it to bring another contractor on board, if that's necessary. But I'm hoping within the next 60 days, there will be a resolution of that, and work will get underway again.
Well, I appreciate that and I would refrain from getting into the deep details of those particular discussions. But, I mean, you feel a sense of confidence given what has happened in the past? I don't want to get into the contractor is at this particular moment, but just all things being equal and looking at the situation, I mean, obviously, we want to get the project moved. 1792 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE As I said, I don't know who the contractor is, I don't want to know, and if you end up going to somebody else, I don't want to know who they are, so I have no -- you know, I don't have anything in that gain. I want to get a project done, and if we're having a problem with someone for whatever reason, we need to fish or cut bait here.
Councilman, I know exactly where you are. My intention is to get that project moving again. And if the project ends up in court between the contractors, so be it.
That will give the General Counsel's Office something to do.
Okay, all right. I appreciate that. The second issue is, can you, for the record, give an update on the West Philadelphia Market-Frankford El project. Where are things, are we on schedule, behind schedule, ahead of schedule? And can you give us a sense, for the record of the scope of this project. 1793 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Okay. Councilman, that's, as you know, that's the biggest and most aggressive project that we have undertaken at SEPTA, and we're very anxious to get that project moving. Just yesterday, the Board of Directors at SEPTA took some action to allow the design to again get rolling.
I'm sorry, Mr. Leary, just for the record, could you give a brief description of what this project is.
Okay. This is the complete rehabilitation of the guideway and all of the stations for a distance of about 11,000 feet through West Philadelphia, the complete rebuilding of the Market-Frankford structure.
From the point it comes out of the ground, all the way to 69th Street.
(Unintelligible) portion in Delaware County but principally in the City of Philadelphia. And there are six stations involved 1794 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE and about 11,000 feet of guideway. The project has undergone some pretty substantial revisions along the way. As you know, we have converted from the standard type of four-column bent structure to a single-column, more modern-looking structure, and that set the project back some time. In the process of doing that, there are companion projects. To fully achieve the benefits of this transportation investment in that corridor, we have combined these -- there are a number of companion projects going on at the same time. The City has there's a streetscape project going on (unintelligible). We are now looking at a schedule that has construction beginning late next year. We have about another year of engineering and design before we will get the major construction projects underway. The good-news part of this story is this, just a few years ago, because the maintenance of the project was a ten-year construction project, we have been able to accelerate it and then reshape the project so there is approximately five and a half to six 1795 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE years of construction now, and this project will be done. That's a good-news story and sort of a bad-news story in the sense that -- the good-news story is that we'll get the project done and get it out of the way. The level of disruption will be a little more intense. We're very sensitive to that. As you know, we've been working to put some supporting network contracts in place to support the ridership on the el, the business community along Market Street. Those contracts now have been awarded. We're in a full-go mode right now to finish the design. We expect to begin a fairly extensive community participation process in the next 30 days. That community participation process will focus on the coordination of the design detail for the stations. We want the community to see what this is going to look like, how it's going to function, and we want their input as to how the finishing touches should be put on it. And that should take place over the next 30 to 120 days. And the design will be 1796 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE finished, and construction projects will be out in the street next year.
Thank you for that update. And I would mention for the record, I participated in a meeting recently with -- she'll kill me for not recalling at the moment her last name but I know her first name is Rhonda.
Johnson, was at a meeting not too long ago. There was a great amount of concern expressed not only regarding the timing of the project but the length of time that it takes to have a project of this magnitude completed. But also as a part of the, I guess, regular discussion about this, we should also think about the impact of the project not only along the Market Street corridor, but specifically along the numbered streets, the major numbered streets, where we have intense commercial activity -- 52nd Street; 56th Street; and presently to a smaller extent, soon to be a larger extent, with a massive project that's actually over in Councilwoman's Blackwell's district, on the south 1797 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE side of Market Street, the Rite Aid project; and the huge tract of land going from 56th to 57th, Market to Chestnut; 60th Street, naturally; and again up to 63rd. The meeting I attended was a 60th Street Business Association meeting, and people are very, very concerned about the impact on their businesses. I mean, some of the mindset is, we look forward to this project; hopefully, we'll still be in business when the thing is over, if we can last, you know, through five and a half to six years of construction. What I said to them is, you know, you're talking about rehabilitating part of the heart of the SEPTA system while the thing is still running. So it is not a -- you know, we're not just repaving the street, if you will; we're changing over an entire system while the train is still going to be running above. I said, now, you know, we could shut the system down and do it in two years. Then you'd have no one virtually walking the streets or being near you; they'd all be on over on Chestnut Street somewhere. So we could shut the system 1798 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE down for two years and get it done quickly, or we can have it up and running, and it will take, you know, five and a half to six. So, I mean, it's balancing all of those concerns. Lastly, you made mention to the streetscape project. I feel very, very strongly -- and I know Councilwoman Blackwell does as well -- that while you are operating, you know, maybe feet up in the air, we have to better 11 coordinate our efforts for what goes on along the 12 ground level and take advantage of the 13 opportunity. 14 That is, you move down the street, up 15 in the air, and we're at ground zero doing 16 curbside, walk, street trees, signage, lighting, 17 and taking advantage of the opportunity to fully 18 rehabilitate, if you will, Market Street, not just 19 the el, but the place where cars are and where 20 people walk. The business community, working with them, I believe that we're looking at expansion opportunities, financial incentives to help people in their businesses and get through this particular process. So I appreciate your putting that on 1799 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE the record, and I look forward to working with SEPTA on the massive project. "Patience" will be the watch word of the day to get through it. Lastly, but equally important, from time to time, the issue of SEPTA tokens and the School District and cost issues of getting kids to and from school, at least the kids who generally want to go to school. We presently have, I guess, a contract, or you have a contract with the School District of Philadelphia for tokens; is that correct?
We sell at a discounted price to the School Department -- Councilman, I'm going to say nearly $20 million worth of tokens in the course of the year for distribution to the --
Yeah, for distribution to the students. The School Department, I think, gets reimbursed from the State, and they discount them even further to the students. 1800 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Now, does the School District pay you $20 million, or do you give them $20 million worth of tokens?
No, they pay us. The sale of tokens is a fairly substantial --
Well, we discount them; we them the discounted rate of $1.15 apiece, I believe.
Okay. And then there is some reimbursement from the State.
And then they turn around and discount them to the students and get reimbursed from the State. They sell 'em, I believe, for 90 cents to the students.
How does that 1801 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE work?
The School Department pays us -- hold on. (Mr. Leary confers off mike with other SEPTA reps.)
I'm told that there's a formula, that the School District pays us for the transfers to enable us to give them to the students free.
Is that a part of the $20 million or is that separate from the 13 million? 14
I was talking on the order 15 of magnitude, and I think that's about right. 16 Yeah, it's all a part of the $20 million. 17 (Mr. Leary confers off mike with other 18 SEPTA reps.) 19
Okay. Now, in some 1802 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE other cities, are there different distribution or funding scenarios that allow, I guess, the additional distribution of tokens or a cheaper rate? I mean, I guess there are a lot of different ways to try to do this.
Yeah. That's the problem, Councilman. All over the country, it's done in all different ways. The most common is the fact that the State provides revenues to school departments to provide transportation; that's the most common mechanism to fund --
So that's what you're familiar with in other locales where you've worked?
Excuse me, Councilman. Would you conclude your questioning for this round because there are others members whose lights have been on for some time that would like to be recognized.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney. 1803 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Thank you, Madam Chair. Continuing on the line of questioning relative to the school tokens, it's my understanding that, for example, in Detroit, those children that are eligible for the free or reduced lunch, which represents about 80 percent of the children in our district, ride for free for the hours before school and the hours immediately after school. Also, it's come to our attention in your testimony that the cost of the transfer issue is about $2.3, 2.5 million a year to the School District. Truancy is one of the major problems we face with getting our kids to school. Because of the difficulty in many families, because of the long stretches that children need to ride early in the mornings and the availability and the affordability of tokens, it creates a situation where many of our kids don't go to school primarily for that reason. While I recognize that -- and I do recognize that the School District's probably the largest single customer that SEPTA has. You say 1804 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE -- I think you said it was -- is the School District million, or is that combined public 4 and private token purchases t $20 million? My 5 number's about 9 or 10 million. 6
It's combined? So 8 it's about 9 or $10 million that the School 9 District pays for this service. 10 SEPTA has offered discounts to many of 11 our companies in Philadelphia and in the suburbs, 12 larger companies who are committed to moving 13 people through public transportation. Considering 14 the benefits of getting our kids to school on time 15 and every day, considering the cost associated 16 with the cast of transportation for many families 17 in the city who can't afford it, and considering 18 the fact that we give discounts to companies, 19 would it not be appropriate to consider maybe 20 SEPTA eating, for example, the cost of the transfers minimally? Or looking at the possibility of providing, as we do, with senior citizens, for those children who are qualified for the reduced or free-lunch program some type of reduction which maybe could be directed at those 1805 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE families or spread across the entire system to make it more able for children to get where they got to get in the morning and home at night. And if we can offer it to large companies, what makes a large company or a large customer like the School District any different than a company that's offered a discount?
Well, Councilman, the discounts are very similar. But as much as I'd like to sit here and say, yes I think we should do that, it just becomes a matter of resources.
And, you know, if you take $2 million out of the revenue pool, it translates into $2 million in reduced service somewhere, reduced hours somewhere. And I honestly just don't know how to deal with this. It's a public policy issue that's bigger than SEPTA.
What is the justification economically for the offering of inducements or discounts to companies who get their people to use public transportation? Do we engage in that kind of -- 1806 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
It's a volume, it's a volume discount, much like the discount -- we sell tokens for $1.15 to the School Department, and a single token, the cash price for a single token is $1.60, so we sell them for $1.15 to the School Department, and they discount them down to 90 cents.
Well, I recognize that the State does reimburse 66 percent of the cost. I would appreciate -- while I recognize that there's no free lunch and there's no free ride, that somebody pays for it, if the ultimate goal from a public agency like SEPTA, although it should be run as a business, is to get more and more children to school every day affordably -- I mean, we could make an argument, and I won't make it here in election year, that the senior citizen discount perhaps should be approached in a means test. We have discounts for water and gas and other things that everybody pays for.
But the point is that, you know, do the children have a different status than people we offer the business people we 1807 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE offer discounts to, to seniors we offer discounts to? And there's costs always associated with them. I'm just wondering if there's been any examination of the issue.
Councilman, on the matter of the seniors, that is not a discount; the State pays for that, so SEPTA is actually making money there. And, as you know, SEPTA has been looked upon askance in past years for coming to Council and going to the State looking for additional money while we have not done certain management efficiency budgetary kinds of things. So that if we talk about making this discount more for students, then it means that we then have to go and look someplace else for that money, and it's either going to be here at City Council or it's going to be the State or it's going to be federal. And as you know, federal subsidies have steadily declined over the years. We're getting more federal money in terms of the capital but very little in terms of our operating budget. So, as Mr. Leary has said, it is a matter of discount and a matter of resources. So 1808 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE if we make a larger discount, and I am sure the Board would have no problem adopting that kind of policy, if we could identify where that additional resource was from. Because, unfortunately, the trend on the Board, as we get more and more of a look at the fiscal side of it, has been to make sure that we are becoming fiscally responsible and in a conservative manner and that we are pulling our own weight and not continually looking for subsidies from everyone else.
Let me just say as a preface that I've been on this Council since 1992 and am fully aware of what it takes to be fiscally responsible and recognize that when you take from one, you need to replace from somewhere else; and when you reduce, you need to increase somewhere else. We recognize the ability to balance -- if anybody in this Commonwealth recognizes the ability to balance, it might be this group and the people on the second floor. I am not suggesting that we do this and eat the entire cost. What I'm suggesting is that if the emphasis was trying to get from Point A to Point Z or Point P first, and then have a joint 1809 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE discussion -- City, State, SEPTA -- on how to get there, perhaps it makes sense for the City, for SEPTA, for the State, or a combination of the three, to try to get where we want to be. Obviously, on the common good, no one will argue that getting kids to school every day consistently is best not only for them, the children themselves, but for an improved workforce, an improved opportunity for these children to grow up and to work in the City or in the suburbs. So this is not something that's in a vacuum; it's something that affects all of us and affects SEPTA's future ridership. I'm not suggesting that you go back today and cut the tokens for free and eat the $10 million. What I'm suggesting is that we have a goal of trying to get to a point where we can offer some relief or some extra added incentive to get to school for these families and for these children and then come up with a plan that shares the pain with everybody. Now, that's my only request and suggestion.
Councilman, I think the idea of dialogue is really good. And in a certain 1810 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE sense, we in the welfare-to-work world, we've managed to come up with transitional passes in a manner that didn't harm SEPTA's budget, and it was very productive, and perhaps, you know, the dialogue can reach that end. I just want to -- we as an organization really have had an unchanged budget for three consecutive years now, so the case of balance is really extreme in our case.
But dialogue perhaps -- and even within that balanced constant we have, we've been able to negotiate and shift and meet one particular need, so perhaps the dialogue can move forward.
Let me ask you a question relative to potential savings. I live on the route -- used to be trolley, now the bus 20 line. From my second-floor bedroom window any 21 time after 9 o'clock, when that bus route goes by, 22 that bus is generally -- and I will say generally 23 90 percent of the time -- empty or near-empty. Maybe one or two people ride on it, and it's not filled until maybe the 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock in the 1811 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE morning rush hour in the evening. What are we doing relative to the acquisition of buses and/or large vans and/or Philly Phlash style buses that can get us the savings associated with operations on gas and other things that may give us some of these savings we could put into other service.
Councilman, there's a good-news story here. We have -- today we have purchased 50 small buses for the SEPTA organization.
And we have 50 more on order. And we were able to play around and the region did do just what you're talking about. On off-peaks, late nights, weekends, the idea is to utilize smaller buses rather than the bigger buses and achieve that kind of savings.
My wife has refused to open her front windows on 11th Street since we've lived there because by the time the bus stops near the corner, when the bus begins its start-up, there's this spew of stuff that winds up 1812 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE all over the place, and I think that those kind of maneuvers, those kinds of strategies will also help both the environment and your costs.
I want to come back to a couple other questions, but I just want to say one word of compliment about a lot of things your guys are doing well. I started in politics in government back in 1978 as a volunteer for Senator Fumo and worked there for about years. I've been here 14 for seven and have worked through three governors' administrations, two mayoral administrations, and have worked with lots of legislative liaisons from almost every department in the State government and City government. And I have not found anyone who is more competent than Frances Jones. (Applause.)
She not only takes the information and tries her best to be innovative but truly cares and gets back to you in amazing time, I mean in amazing time, on issues from the smallest, pettiest things that annoy 1813 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE people or annoy us to the larger issues. And, I'm telling you, whatever you've got to do to keep her there, you better do it because I mean, private industry-wise or government-wise, she could go anywhere tomorrow, and I think she's one of the best I've ever dealt with in my years involved in government. 9
Well, 12 Frances, it's time to ask for a raise. 13
Thank you. 20 The Chair recognizes Blackwell. 21
Thank you, Madam President. I heard you ask SEPTA what the State subsidy was, and I wrote down $176,500,000. What was that subsidy for? 1814 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (Mr. Leary confers off mike with other SEPTA reps.) UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: That's the base operating subsidy.
Well, how does that react to the math we have, total operating subsidies?
That includes a combination of many other items. In addition to base operating, it includes asset maintenance that we use to maintain our assets of about $40 million.
And then you said the City -- or I saw someplace that the City was $763,389,000 so I don't know what your verbal figures are versus this chart.
Excuse me, if I can answer your first question. The 288 million for State includes the base operating subsidy of approximately $176.5 million. It also includes 1815 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE approximately $40 million of asset maintenance. The source of the asset maintenance is Act 4 Funds, which is the dedicated funds for SEPTA. 5 In addition to those dollars, there is 6 also supported through Act 26 our debt service 7 items to support bond issues, etc. that fund our 8 asset acquisition programs. 9
Well, what's 10 763,389,000? What is that figure? Maybe I saw it 11 or maybe I heard it. 12
Okay. So in 15 other words, so the -- so the City's total share 16 is what, then? 17
Okay, so 19 58.1 million is what we -- is what your budget is 20 from the City for the next fiscal year; is that 21 right? 22
Okay. With 24 regard to welfare-to-work and the new SEPTA 25 routes, which we applaud you on that, does this 1816 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE schedule, How To Ride, reflect that? And if it doesn't, could you give us something that indicates what the bus routes are for welfare-to-work folks that we can give out.
Because this is really good. Or some kind of flyer.
We have those brochures for the entire region, and we will get them to you, little packages.
Thank you. I'd like to have them, maybe 2000 if I could get them, the flyers. Or I'll Xerox it if need be so we can get that out.
Thank you. Now, with regard to this whole contract matter -- in fact, that's been news as of recent days. Now how does that affect -- how does that affect the West Philadelphia project? You may or may not know. We tried to meet with all entities to get them to come together to do one proposal. We couldn't get it, obviously, because of this Mayor's race, and one of the people involved would 1817 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE not consider doing that. In fact, the winner of the contract who for -- my opinion is that due the mayor's race, he made other political decision. Now, I don't know how that affects the project, how they work with us. It's affected our regular meetings. And in fact, we requested -- and Frances didn't want to do it -- that that last meeting be called off because of that, because of all of this had seeped into, because the people in the meetings were manipulated by one of the persons applying for the contract so that we had a big muddled mess and we couldn't move forward. How does this impact on the meetings in Philadelphia, and where do we go from here?
Councilwoman, I think all of that, the entire procurement process is behind us. I mean, the competition among the firms is one thing. I think the SEPTA procurement process has produced a very strong team to provide all of the community outreach needed to support this project over the next three to five years. I think we have a good team now, I think we're now ready to go into the community and begin the community participation project to support this 1818 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE construction activity. This should begin within the next 30 days.
How does that affect, for example, the partnership? CDC did a proposal. You have the Transit Task Force who had some concerns like neighborhood office. You had various concerns. We had several community meetings where people talked about jobs and minority participation, they talked about relocation of businesses. They brought all of these issues to be revolved at community meetings with you folks there. Or are these issues to be discussed within a framework of the winners of this contract?
Councilwoman, the community relations and the communications outreach of the program is contained in that contract. We are very optimistic that we have a proposal for a contractor on board now that can handle the issues in the community. And, in fact, because there has been -- their time has lapsed in the meeting with the community, we have tentatively scheduled a meeting for the 25th of March, at the Kirkbride Center where we will introduce the new consultant 1819 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE to the community. As far as affirmative action side of it and the contracts for businesses, that's contained in another contract, our affirmative action contract. However, we will be working -- those constants will be working very closely together to ensure that we're all on the same page, we're communicating, and will work very closely with my office also. So we've looked at the full scope of the contract and the outreach aspect of it and we've put together hopefully two contracts that will address your needs, the needs of the community, in addition to the Urban Mass Transit Task Force that has been assembled as an oversight committee. So we're optimistic that we're moving in the right direction.
May I suggest that we, at least the elected officials -- who naturally wouldn't know what the contract called for because we wouldn't be involved in that whole process -- be apprised of who does what, who's responsible, to whom we address questions; 1820 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE otherwise, the community meetings will be crazy and out of control, and we don't know where to direct them. I think that all of the questions that pretty much can be asked have been asked. And I think it is now time for us now to respond. We can't start that process all over again, and we're going to have bedlam in our community meetings. So it's out there; it's just, who's supposed to respond, how do we give the community the answers. I think that at this point, we have to respond to some of the issues they have raised over the various meetings in West Philadelphia or we're going to have more problems. And that's too, too difficult.
Councilwoman, as you know, I have been deeply, probably more immersed than I wanted to be in this process.
And what I ask is that everybody just hold on a little bit longer until we can get this West Philadelphia office open. 1821 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE And at that time, we can then direct questions through that office and through this contractor and then begin to set up the process for filtering through all of the various things. For example, Mr. Leary talked about the new contract designs, which is another piece of this. The community has actually not had a chance to respond to designs on the stations in a specific way that would make an impact. This -- all of this will be done through this community service office and this contract. So as soon as the office gets open and set up, we will then be able to direct all of these kind of questions, including the job questions, through this office. So we ask you to hold on a little bit longer because that's the direction in which this will go.
I think we can hold on if you hold on. In other words, you can't call a community meeting with none of this worked out. I won't go to that kind of meeting 'cause I can't killed and I can't get beat up when I have no information.
It's easier to make that information publicly known, all of that. I don't think you should tell somebody in an office, working in an office something about the design; you've got to have those discussions in a big meeting, in a community meeting, and then field questions after an office is opened. So that's all I'm saying -- let's not, you know, you can't have a blind community meeting scheduled that doesn't react to when things are in place or when these parts are in place, who does what for this contract or whatever else happens at your level so that we don't have problems.
But what I'm saying is, nobody knows that but you. We don't know -- I wouldn't know it as an elected official 'cause I didn't submit an RFP to do it. So what I'm saying is, you need to let me know what happens where, whether -- Frances just said one part of the contract calls for something and another part of it -- or contract or another something calls for something else -- and 1823 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE then not have any community meetings until things are in place so that -- if we call the meeting, I also suggest that, for example, that a meeting is called for a specific purpose. This meeting is discuss the design or something, so that we have something organized. We've had as many general meetings as I think are productive. If you have more general meetings, informational meeting, you're going to have a problem. We know have to focus in on the other end. We've done the first half; now we've got to focus in on the other end to specifically deal with specific issues with people who can resolve questions. We can't just go out there and open up again.
We can begin now, Council Lady, to develop a fact sheet for you and people like you in your office so that you will be able to answer these questions as this process develops.
But you 1824 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE understand what I'm saying about calling these meetings.
And my last question is to Mr. Leary. On this West Philadelphia on the Move, you know we want to try to do things and we need to follow up with you. I think I wrote you a letter -- maybe I didn't, but I would like for us to follow up. It may not be able appropriate here, but on what we're trying to do with 52nd Street, for example, in lots, getting a parking lot to alleviate some of the --
We met with you and Mr. Stoddard (ph.) From the West Philadelphia Partnership. I think you gave us a proposal on Philadelphia on the Move.
Right. All 1825 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE right, so we don't have to follow up now but I would like to follow up so we know where we are with those things. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Leary, I would appreciate it if could you look into transporting the school students from the school system more so than you do now this -- token arrangement, $20 million. I think we had this conversation before, where you suggested that you would like to because it would work well for the way the system -- 3 o'clock and around that time, it would be something that you would be interested in. Could you get into a serious conversation with the Board of Education to see if could you work something out and start working together on some mutual assistance in doing that? You told me that that was something that you would be interested in doing. It would be beneficial to 1826 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE you, it would be beneficial to the taxpayers.
It's clearly something that a dialogue needs to begin and to focus on this issue. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the entire issue of student fares needs to be -- needs to be studied.
Most of these young people are out of school at 2:30, 3 o'clock. And you indicated to me that you would be very interested in doing some of that transport rather than these yellow school buss that we have running around.
Yes, okay, I know what you're talking about. The issue of the public transit system providing school bus transportation. As you know, there's a conflict in the law that prohibits the public transportation system from providing exclusive school bus service. That's something that needs to be looked at. Very often you see going down the street a transit bus that's half full and a school bus half right behind it that's half full, and it's just a waste of resource.
It's not efficient. 1827 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
It's not efficient and I think it's all a part of this dialogue that needs to take place as to providing transformation for the schools.
Could we get into some really serious conversations to see if there are --
I have another question. Today it was brought to my attention that many of the facilities at SEPTA aren't working. Point: those escalators at Broad and Lehigh. Why aren't things -- is there a problem? Do you know exactly what works, what doesn't work? Because some of the seniors, especially those steps are quite a chore for them. And if you have a critical location like Broad and Lehigh and the escalators don't work, that's a problem. Do you know, does anyone in your organization keep track of that? 1828 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Yes, we do. Every day, as a matter of fact, we get a report on which escalators are working and which escalators are not working. And I will share with you, it's a real problem because many of them are very, very old and they're very difficult to keep working and very difficult to get replacement parts for.
I think that would be a priority because of the fact that many of your customers are really dependent on those.
Yes, sir. It's a critical issue among all our station modernization projects, and every chance get, as we invest in the stations, we invest in a new escalator.
Councilman, the FTA has funded the Liveable Communities Grant. Two of them in Pennsylvania, two -- one at the Chester Transportation Center and one at Broad and Lehigh. There will be a complete overhaul of that station within the next two to three years.
I thank you for telling me that, but I don't think we can go without escalator service for two or three years, 1829 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE waiting for that project.
My final question is, could you explain to me what public rest rooms are available to SEPTA passengers? I've heard complaints that some of the conditions of some of the facilities is not good -- specifically and I don't know what's available, to tell you the truth, at many of the locations.
But the ones that are available I hear are horrible. That was how it was described to me.
Well, the ones that are available should be maintained and should be kept better, at a reasonably decent standard. If you could let me know which ones, you're talking about, I will about reinforce that with our folks.
The one -- I don't have it on the tip of my tongue right now, but I was told that 69th Street, many people coming into the city to work on occasion need to use the 1830 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE facility, and I was told that -- this one particular lady that made contact with me said that she decided not to use it; it was that bad.
I'll check on that. That should not be the case at 69th Street.
A broader question, a broader question. What public facilities are available to folks that use the system?
Councilman, we have very, very few facilities open to the public.
That's been the standard policy for a lot of years, as I understand it.
Is that standard throughout -- do most transportation systems not provide public facilities for their passengers? I mean, if you're stuck on the platform and have a need, that could be -- I'm not suggesting that we start building facilities, but the ones that -- we have some and if they're not presentable, we need to take care of them.
Well, it's a very difficult question. I can tell you that in both of my previous worlds, Boston and St. Louis, the policy 1831 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE was made in both places not to provide rest rooms for the public because of the inherent difficulty that that brings in a number of areas. Even in the new system we built in St. Louis, we did not provide rest rooms as part of the facilities that were being built. And I believe that that's been the policy here at SEPTA as well.
I can understand the problem, but if you do have them, there should be and effort to make them presentable.
If we do have them, that is very true. And I'm very surprised about the 69th Street facility. That's one of our major facilities, and I will check on that today.
You're welcome. Councilman DiCicco, did you want to be recognized again? Okay, thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. 1832 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE First let me say that I think that Councilman Kenney actually laid an excellent framework for the discussion going forward on the tokens. Mr. Leary, the only thing that I would ask you to follow up on is, your earlier statement to me was you had some familiarity with other transit systems in other locales and that in many of those areas, there is more State support for the transit system as it relates to tokens and school kids. As a part of this discussion, or it sounds like maybe you're going to set up a working group, if you could compile any information on how other primarily major urban environments, what goes on in New York, what goes on in Boston, what goes on in Atlanta, Chicago, Washington D.C., Baltimore, those systems? What goes on this those places? What is the funding formula for those cities and the nature of their relationship, you know, whatever the name of the transit system is with the State or the Commonwealth of the particular area? And how those funding formulas match up or exceed or under-perform as it relate 1833 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE to Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I think that information would be very helpful. If we're going to make an argument to someone that ours is not right or could be better, then I think we have to demonstrate that other people are doing other things in a different fashion and try to get some commonality between systems.
Councilman, I will do that. And I just don't want to mislead you. The relationship is typically between the State and the School Department covering student transportation --
I understand that. MR. LEARY -- with the transit authority.
Just whatever your knowledge base is, if you can share that with us through the Chair, compile some information. I think I clearly heard the Councilman -- and if I didn't communicate it clearly enough, I don't 1834 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE think we look at this as just a SEPTA problem. You're in the transportation business; you're not necessarily in the education business. But somewhere between SEPTA, the Commonwealth, the School District, and the City Council, if we're going to have that dialogue then I think we also just need to know the facts and be able to compare and analyze between the various systems so -- I mean, we're not expecting you to solve this problem by yourself. I do have one, I guess, kind of jurisdiction question, although it does not involve rest rooms, but it involves a place that is often used in that capacity. If you come of City Hall on the northwest corner, which I believe is the Dilworth Plaza area, you go down the steps and into that concourse. You can either go straight across and you end up in that hallway that leads to where the Post Office is and the SEPTA station that used to be enclosed and now is wide open -- and let me commend you on the little trains and all the other things that you sell over there. Invariably, I'm sure I'm going to have to buy one for Olivia. 1835 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE But that concourse area, is that part of your responsibility or is it the City's responsibility? There's an open area and then there's a covered area. Many people don't walk in the covered area because any last breath you have, you really don't want that one to be the last one that you take. Who is responsible for that area?
Denise Goren, you're responsible? Thank you very much. (Laughter.)
And the answer really is, It depends. One of the issues that we have --
In the entire concourse area is a phenomenon that if it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium. Believe it or not, every time you walk in or out and the floor changes, a different entity is responsible for the 1836 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE maintenance of that area. It's one of the reasons that the City and SEPTA is working on creating a concourse maintenance organization to centralize control of the maintenance because it could be on half of that hallway, a private building owner, SEPTA, the City. It's nuts.
Why don't you color-code the various blocks as you walk along, and then --
The area that you're talking about before you get to the Post Office.
In that corridor, if it's the linoleum part of the floor, it's SEPTA's. If it's concrete, it's the City's.
What about the circular area that's actually covered? Which is 1837 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE probably the most offensive part of the trip down there.
At the top of the stairs, it goes down to the subway surface, and it's literally a gray area.
Yeah, it pretty gray. All right, thank you very much. I'm finished. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As you know there's a boom of economic development in Center City: Disney's coming; we're building hotels; the waterfront's ready to get started on the Simon project; in North 1838 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Philadelphia, you have the Apollo, which is completed and up and running; the North Philadelphia Avenue of the Arts; our own Avenue of the Arts on the southern part of Broad Street; two stadiums. So there's lots the economic development on the table in the next three, five, seven years. What long-range planning is going on now in an effort to maximize our opportunities public transportation-wise to maximize our opportunities transportation-wise as a result of all this ongoing development?
Councilman, this is a terrific opportunity -- not only for City but for SEPTA, and that is the focal point for our five-year strategic plan for change, to position ourselves so we can provide the best possible transportation and the best possible support mechanism for all of these investments in the City. As you know, we're modernizing our fleet, we're buying new buses, new trains, we're modernizing our stations, we're talking about extensions. All of this is part of trying to make 1839 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SEPTA more relevant and to be a contributing partner to the growth and economic vitality that's going on in this community.
I have read letters in the newspaper written by from people out of town, people from Europe.
I think there's a repeat story that one of our -- I think it was the Daily News or Inquirer that did it about this couple from Germany, and the guy -- with the bus, and it was a terrible situation. And they went on and on and on and on about how wonderful our public transportation system is. What is it about our own natives that we have trouble getting through that it's a good system. (Laughter.)
I mean, people come from German -- and I have never been to Germany, but everything I read about it is that it's a model of efficiency and cleanliness. So why would a couple from Germany go on and on about how wonderful our system is, and when you talk to the 1840 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE average Philadelphian, they think it's terrible?
Well, Councilman, I'm starting to think of myself as a Philadelphian now that I've been here almost three years -- or going on three years. But I can tell you, it's sort of -- when you arrive in this community, you get the sense that Philadelphians are very hard on themselves in terms of what they have in this city. There's a lot of wonderful things in this city that I think are appreciated more by people from outside the city than inside the city.
Yeah. We booed Mike Schmidt, and he's probably the best third base man that ever played the game. And so it is a very difficult, kind of negative attitude. As a native Philadelphian, I can say that. What do we do to change that? Besides what you're doing already to change that attitude? I mean, for example -- and I don't want to pick on the drivers 'cause your drivers, far and away, are terrific people, but there's still this general attitude that relates to the relationship between passenger and driver that's similar to what people feel about City employees 1841 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE -- or used to feel City employees; that somehow, you know, that there's not the courtesy, there's not the intent to be helpful. When I rode buses in high school and college, there were bus drivers who almost had their own talk shows, you know, and had their loyal following of riders and, you know, and birthdays. And people would -- and granted, they're extraordinary too, and the average bus driver is a courteous and decent person. How do we become more customer-friendly and --
You know, we're in the business that in one sense we're fortunate in that we get to see every one of our customers twice a day -- most businesses don't have that luxury.
But the person driving the bus, the person in the cashier booth in the station is the kind of -- that's where we meet our customer and that's, you know, how our customer thinks of us. And we have a long way to go. We're a very, very old transit property with tons of tradition, and that transition, to some extent, 1842 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE is a handicap because the world has changed and the expectation has changed. And the ways you deal with people today are much different than just a few years ago. We're putting a lot of emphasis today on training inside the organization. We're bringing every single bus driver in to the headquarters to -- and we don't call it "training" anymore; we call it "partnering" because we need to empower our employees to do a good job and do it the right way. Many of our employees are very, very skill heavy-equipment operators, but the training that's needed is the interface with the customers and how you deal with customers and how you deal with problems that they face every day. Some of our employees meet thousands of our customers every day, and it's a difficult job. And all I can tell you is we're working very hard at it and we're going to continue very intensive training program.
Have we tried to partner with any existing public service businesses in Philadelphia? For example, when we 1843 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE had our problem with 911, we had the City coupled with Independence Blue Cross and dealt with some training issues -- we actually had ongoing training issues in dealing with customers. So have we looked for local resources to help partner with our transit agency?
Yes. I'll tell you what we've done right along those lines with Mara Levitz (ph.) and the tourism bureau. We have worked out an arrangement with those folks where they come in and actually participate in the training of our employees, trying to introduce the whole idea of hospitality training into our employees. And, conversely, we're using some of our resources to provide some of the things that they need to market the City. I mean, we have facilities to print things build things and build things and so forth for them. So we've started this partnership with those folks. We have to do more of it. But, yes, that's the way that this is going to change, and it has to change.
In the issue of 1844 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE security, there's a pilot program that you guys introduced at the request of Councilmembers Verna DiCicco and myself as it related to security cameras in the Tasker-Morris Street Broad Street line. I got -- I have not heard much complaint about continuing violence or robberies or any of that that was going about even six, eight months or a year ago. A lot of that is due to the terrific job that SEPTA police, the transit police do. But I think a lot of it may have to do, especially at that stop, with the existence of that video cameras at various locations. As you know, the older subway systems often have these labyrinth of hallways and exits and entrances that make it easier for someone to lurk in the darkness or lurk in the area and do crime. I don't think there's been any major incident there since the cameras have been installed. And what are we doing in --
What are we doing in the future to try to provide that safety for 1845 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE those -- for ultimately all of our stops, but those that at least have had crime.
You know, a little demonstration we put together at Tasker and Morris has turned out to be sort of the forerunner of something bigger and better. We have adopted a policy now inside the organization -- all our stations, all our new stations, as they get modernized, they're going to get -- they're going to have closed-circuit television included in them. I mean, you're correct. There have been no incidents down at Tasker and Morris. And we are moving forward to expand it. We're picking out a few other stations. Hopefully, next year, we'll have Broad and Erie and Allegheny and a couple of others up and running, but it will take us a few years. I mean, this is not something that gets done overnight. But our goal is to have every single station, both on the subway station and in the regional rail, monitored by closed-circuit television at our control center and by both our operations folks and operations controllers and 1846 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE our police.
Have we also thought about the possibility of providing signage, even in stations that aren't monitored? I think one of the things that we suggested was that, you know, we monitor some; and while we're moving to monitor them all, we also use some signage to discourage those who think they're not being watched, that they are in fact being watched I mean, is that --
That's an idea. I will take that back. I should also tell you, too, that we have now approximately 50 buses that have closed-circuit television in the buses, and we're moving to put some closed-circuit television in the trains as well. So this idea of monitoring our customers, monitoring what's going on, the experience that they're feeling.
One of the final questions I have is and one of the regular security complaints I receive about bus routes is that when an incident -- or if an incident occurs on a bus, sometimes the driver will either ignore 1847 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE it or refuse to become involved or refuse to raise their voice to stop it. I get a lot of times with children coming and going from school when, for example, there may be two different schools on the same route and there's that natural -- used to be natural rivalry, now it's a natural rivalry that sometimes turns to violence, that the driver is kind of oblivious to what's going on, where if a deranged person, a mentally ill person, you know, gets on or if someone intoxicated gets on and is harassing customers, sometimes it just seems not to be something even mentioned by the driver. And what are we doing to get our people to --
Yeah, I'm sorry to hear that because it is the driver's responsibility. The driver has two-way radio communication with our control center, a direct connection to our police department. It is their responsibility if any of your constituents --
Yeah. And if they encounter that, I'd welcome a report on that. 1848 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
One final question in trying to understand the budget. My question is, if were put in our language, which is "operating and capital budget," could you give me a figure? I mean, I know we see operating subsidies, operating revenues, operating expenses. Then we see fringe benefits. And, you know, I'm just trying to get a general -- trying to get a better handle on this budget stuff. And is that possible for you to tell us generally in our language --.
In your language, the allocation for the City's allocation for the Operating Budget is $58.1 million.
Okay. Is that -- that's for operating; now, about capital? 1849 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
I could have asked those folks back there doing 5, huh?
Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions at this time.)
The City Controller will testify next. (David Volpe comes forward.)
It is my understanding that the City Controller had a very important prior commitment and that Mr. Volpe is here and will testify very briefly. 1850 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE We do have a copy of the City Controller's testimony, which will be made a part of the record in its complete form. I would suggest, if you will, if you would simply abbreviate the Controller's testimony.
Surely, Madame President. My name is David Volpe. I'm the First Deputy City Controller. Today I will be presenting the Controller's FY 2000 Operating Budget testimony. To be very brief, the Controller's FY 2000 Operating Budget proposal, as proposed by the Mayor in an amount we can accept, is $6,913,444. That's a 2.3 percent increase over FY 1999's appropriation. That is what the Mayor proposed. We have agreed that we can live within that amount for this year -- I can't say what will be next years in terms of FY 2001, but in FY 2000, we have agreed that we will live within that amount based on internal savings. There are basically no changes within the budget other than funding negotiated wage increases for our employees. That's basically the long and the short 1851 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE of it.
I wish everybody's testimony were the same. Are there any questions by members of the committee? (No questions.).
Thank you very much. Community College is next to testify. (Community College panel members come forward.)
Good morning, Madam President and members of City Council. My name is Emanuel Ortiz. You know and met Mr. Schreger (ph.), Isadore Schreger. And to my right is Dr. Ronald A. Williams. I am the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the Community College of Philadelphia, and I'm honored to have as colleagues on the Board a group of dedicated civic and business leaders in Philadelphia who recognize the importance of the Community College of Philadelphia to our great city. With your permission, Madam President, 1852 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE I would like to introduce those present today. I'll ask them to stand as I recognize them: (Following names spelled phonetically.) Delores Brisbonne, Christine James Brown, Bruce Caswell, Rhonda Cohen, Marcine Mattleman (I believe she had to leave. Allen Skimmle, the Honorable James Roebuck. I should note that we have well over a quorum of our Board here at present.
Let me first express our appreciation to the Mayor for recognizing the excellent work of our faculty, administrators, staff, and students, some of whom are in the audience today. By recommending a significant capital allocation to the budget this year, we are most appreciative of this investment into the educational future of our city. Community College of Philadelphia was founded in 1965 and opened with an enrollment of 700 full-time and part-time student. Today your city college is one of the ten largest community colleges in the nation, with over 1,000 full- and 1853 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE part-time faculty and more than 41,000 credit and noncredit students enrolled in programs throughout the city. We are proud to be the third largest degree-granting institution in the City of Philadelphia. As you know, the college and the city lost a great leader last year with the untimely passing away of our president, Dr. Fredrick W. Capshaw. The Community College Board has put in motion a national search for the fifth president of the college to advance the institution and its students successfully into the 21st century. Late last year, we established a 15-member search committee, including trustees, staff, faculty, administrators, a student, an alumnus, and a representative from the business community. We anticipate having a new president by the end of this school year. In the interim, our board is appreciative and feels fortunate that since Fred's death, Dr. Ronald A. Williams has been leading the college as acting president. He is here with me this morning and will provide the primary budget testimony on behalf of the Board and 1854 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE administration. We understand the great potential of the college to be a dynamic force for the city's economic development into the next century but are candidly concerned that under the current climate, restricted funding will limit that potential. At this time, with your permission, President Verna, I would like to ask Dr. Williams to comment on what the college can do at the current level of funding and what the limitations are we are facing at this level of funding.
Thank you very much, Mr. Ortiz, and good morning, Council President Verna and members of City Council. I'm Ron Williams, as Mr. Ortiz has explained, the acting president of the Community College of Philadelphia. And I'm honored to testify on the college's 1999 2,000 Operating and Capital Budgets. Allow me first to congratulate you, President Verna on your election.
And to extend thanks to 1855 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE all members of the Council for the support that each of you has provided over the past year. This Council has historically been supportive of the Community College of Philadelphia, and many of you have frequently indicated to me your pride in the college. We are very much appreciative of that support. You have received from us written testimony of the history of success of the college in both aspects of its mission, one of which is to provide education which allows students to transfer from our college to four-year institutions; and the second, which is the place them directly into jobs. The Ford Foundation identified the Community College of Philadelphia about few years ago as one of the top transfer colleges in the country, and students' success in transfer is demonstrated in the chart which I have sent to you. The college has also been successful in providing career education. Thousands of students are working in the Philadelphia workforce who have been trained and educated for jobs at the 1856 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Community College of Philadelphia. The average starting salary of our occupational graduates is $27,000. Again, our written testimony identifies those successes for you. Also, the college is a major resource for the economic development of Philadelphia. We are where the action is. We have developed a number of exciting relationships with companies like CSX, Kvaerner, and PNC. Everything we do is designed to assist in the building of the human resources necessary to support the city's economic growth, and we have been demonstrably successful at this protect. That success is the product of our board, administration, faculty, staff, and students all cooperating with the city's leadership to advance the economic development of the city. Community colleges are the colleges of the future. And President Clinton, Governor Ridge, Mayor Rendell and members of this Council have all emphasized the role that community colleges are playing and will continue to play in economic development in the years ahead. Now, let's talk a little bit about this 1857 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE year's budget. 9 million deficit. In the years since then, we've gradually reduced that deficit to the point where, last year, we were able to balance the budget through some good fortune as well as good sense. In 1998 and 1999, we're also projecting that we will have a balanced budget. However, that balanced budget is very slim. We've got something like that a $7,000 variance in our budget, which means that even a minor emergency can cause us to slip into deficit again. Reducing the budget from a $3 million deficit to be in balance in five years has caused some erosion in basic services of the college. The college suffers seriously from deferred maintenance. Key components of the college's main campus buildings, which were completed in 1982, have reached their life expectancy. We need to invest in new hallway flooring, building caulking, rest room restorations, mechanical systems, and so on. The college has delayed public space and classroom painting, replacement of faculty and office furnishings, elevator overhauls, and other 1858 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE facility expenses in an effort to preserve academic programs and student services. 7 million in deferred maintenance remains. Each year that the college fails to address these facilities-maintenance issues, it escalates the cost of addressing them in the future. We've held back on discretionary and other important spending. Last year, we completed negotiations and provided a modest increase for our hard-working faculty and staff. 6 million this year. In addition, we will be occupying the old Pennsylvania College Optometry building this coming fall. The opening of that building will cost an additional $800,000 in new money.
This year, over the last year, we've seen a modest growth in credit enrollment, and our noncredit enrollment continues to grow dramatically. This year, therefore, we've got the largest enrollment that we've ever had in the 1859 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE college's history. 4 million inflationary factor in our budget. Now, the college has only three ways to raise funds. We can get additional dollars from the State, we can get additional dollars from the City -- or, as a last resort, we can get additional dollars from students, meaning we raise tuition. The State has indicated that community colleges this year will get a 3 percent increase. That represents about $700,000 in our operating budget. 8 million in capital dollars to complete the purchase as well as the outfitting of the new building in the northwest. We are very, very grateful for this. However, the pressure on our operating budget continues. Without additional funds for that budget, we will be forced to raise tuition. This would be the second year in a row that we would be raising tuition and fees. However, if we receive no further assistance for our operating budget, the increase will be necessary simply to provide 1860 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE the basic services at the college. This is never a good idea. The impact on the students is always great. And since so many of our students have so little disposable income, even a $2 or $3 increase can have profound effects on them. And yet, at the same time, we have to worry about quality of the services that we provide the City. For your investment, I think you get quite a lot. We've got some 41,000 students at the college right now -- and that operates on a $76 million budget. For that amount of money, about $25 million of which is the City's contribution, you get significant workforce development, a sound transfer in career education. You get increased training to businesses and industry, and that has increased dramatically in the last couple of years. You get GED, literacy, ESL instruction -- very important to the City at this point. In addition to which, we provide greater access to technology for the students who are at the college. Currently, we have no plans to cut 1861 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE personnel. What we would like to do is to continue the progress that we've made over the last few years in reaching out to the community in a variety of ways. We have some sites in 6 addition to the main campus and the three regional 7 centers around the City where we're providing 8 instruction, and we'd like aggressively to reach 9 out into the communities to continue that kind of 10 service. 11 We'd like to maintain the customer 12 services on campus as well. We don't want to 13 create long lines because we don't people to 14 respond to the student' needs there and so on 15 during registration. 16 We face a number of issues on campus 17 because of the lack of funds. I think our 18 services have become less effective in the last 19 four years as we've had to cut. The place, 20 because we've had to cut services is dirtier that 21 it used to be. The lines are longer, and there's 22 more grumbling among students about having to wait 23 in line for different sorts of things. 24 I'd like to conclude, however, by 25 saying that think you've got a wonderful group of 1862 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE employees at the college. They're loyal to what they do and dedicated to the task of educating the citizens of this city. I think you're getting a pretty good deal, as a matter of fact, for $3600 per head. I am tremendously optimistic about the future of this college. I think we've done some wonderful things in the place, and there are many more to come. We need and we desperately want to be a part of the City's efforts to improve itself. We appreciate that these are tough times all around, but we sincerely hope that you can find a way of helping us to improve our operating budget.
That way, we can avoid the increase in tuition. I thank you very much for your time and attention, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you, Doctor. On of our testimony, you state that the Community College is one of four colleges nationwide selected by CSX to produce and train 1863 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 1500 crew members this year.
How are potential candidate selected for this program? And is the program still ongoing?
Yes, it is -- the last question first. We started it immediately after CSX took over Conrail, and we were aware that one of the issues that they faced at the time was they were going to move people out of Philadelphia. One of the things that they offered to do originally was to give us a grant of some -- I think it was $60,000 for our foundation, or something like that. We pointed out that that would be minuscule and that it would be more useful if we could get involved in providing training for the people. As a result of those conversations, we developed a program where we are one of four colleges around the country now providing training for CSX in certain sectors of the country. Community College of Philadelphia right now operates their training program from as far south 1864 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE as Richmond and as far north as New York -- that full corridor. The students are selected by our people. Largely, they tell us the areas where they will be hiring. We bring the people -- we advertise in the area, bring the people to Philadelphia, provide the instruction, and then they hire them.
Thank you. Doctor, what are you projecting your reserve balance to be at the end of your current Fiscal Year 1998-99?
Are you expecting to have to use some of your reserve funds in the school year 1999-2000? And if so, how much?
We're hoping actually that we can find a way of balancing our budget without tapping into our reserves. That reserve fund was 17 million four years ago. And as a result of the deficits that we've incurred, we've had to spend it down -- I think we got as low as 1865 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE million or maybe 10.5 million a couple years ago. We are trying to build that back right now. It's the only mechanism that we have, by the way, for responding to any major emergencies that might come up. It seems like a lot of money, but on the base of a $76 million budget, there are any number of things that can happen at any time where you would need to tap into dollars that you don't have in your immediate budget. So we've tried to keep that very liquid so that we have a mechanism by which we can respond to major emergencies.
Thank you. In your testimony, you state that the college continues to operate under serious financial constraints and urgently needs additional City support for the 1999-2000 year. Does the Mayor's proposed operating budget reflect the Community College's budget request for FY 2000? If not, what was your original request, and do you know why they chose not to grant it?
Okay. The original 1866 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE request is $1.5 million. We were provided $600,000 in capital. The 1.5 would have been in the operating budget. I can only speculate that the provision of capital funds is a one-time provision; whereas operating funds carry through to the next year.
Thank you Madam President. I wanted to certainly just thank Community College and certainly give special kudos to my good friend Mr. Isadore Schreger and all of the Board members who work hard to bring our school forward. Thank you.
On behalf of the whole northwest community of Philadelphia, we wanted to welcome Community College to its new location in the old Optometry College. We think you're going to be a tremendous asset to the community there, and we're just very happy that 1867 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE you're coming. I wanted to go back to a question raised by President Verna; I'm not sure I got the answer. What was the original request for operating funds?
An you had a series of discussions with the Budget Office?
And can you give us 1868 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE any explanation by the City for its position?
I'm not sure that I can represent the City's position for them. The only thing that I can say is that the $600,000 in capital funds would have been a one-time offer to the college and, therefore, wouldn't accelerate our budget over the next five years, which is the standard budget cycle.
But it doesn't help you at all with the operating fund.
No. The dollars that we've gotten -- the City, by the way, paid for the building, paid $2.5 million for the optometry building. We got the 1.25 -- the second half of that 1.25 this year, and the City graciously added another $600,000 so that we can outfit that building. But we were told that they were unable 1869 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE to provide operating funds for us this year.
Well, generally, one-time expenditures on capital funds are easier on any institution.
And that's including the City, and that's the reason it's frequently easier to get that capital one-shot fund than to get something that's going to be required year after year.
It just seems to me an urgent necessity if we're talking about the need for a workforce that's going to be used as an asset to bring employers to come in, that the City support to Community College has to be increased. I gather you're already working on helping to training folks for the Kvaerner Shipyard?
That's correct. We, about five years ago, put together a consortium of colleges, of which we were the lead institution, including Drexel University and Camden County College across the river, as well as Delaware 1870 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Community College. The idea there was that we create a regional consortium colleges in order to be able to respond to regional needs. This was originally done to respond to the issue of the shipyard being closed. But once that project was finished -- and by the way, we did retrain about 2500 of the 6,000 people in the shipyard. Once that project was over, we decided the asset was probably too good just to leave, and we funded it basically out of (unintelligible) the four colleges until the Kvaerner project came along. We started negotiating secretly actually with Kvaerner as soon as that project was in the works, and we are now the sole provider of training to the Kvaerner Shipyard.
Well, it just seems like such a short-sighted opinion. On the one hand, we have all kinds of campaigns aimed at trying to bring businesses in. We grant all kinds of tax benefits, TIFs, abatements, all kinds of things, and any other funding sources we can use to help bring people in. We know that one of the needs that they have desperately is a workforce, and a local workforce is a major asset in bringing 1871 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE new employers in and in retaining other employees. I don't understand. And maybe that's why we're not able to get a reason from the City why we're so short-sighted and don't recognize the wonderful asset that Community College is -- not just as a school of education, say, or as a training ground, but for the very economic development purpose that you're proving is so important in the Kvaerner operation. And you have graduates everywhere. Madam President, I'd like to suggest that before we finish the budget process, that as you've indicated in other areas, that there ought to be an effort to see what could be done to readjust the budget. One thing, tell us, where does this reserve come from?
The reserve essentially is and -- Tom can probably answer that question better than I can.
'Cause over the years, it seems to used against Community College.
But the reserve essentially -- what happens is, we sometimes 1872 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE create efficiencies in the budget and try to create a surplus at the end of the year so that we could put aside some dollars. Essentially, that's how we build the reserves. It's really taking our budget and really using some of the efficiencies that we can. Some of them are beyond our control. For example, if we don't replace a position for a whole year, there's some dollars left over in the budget, and that goes into the reserve. So that's essentially how it's built.
Well, universities that are located in the city often receive large sums from the State government on an annual basis. I've never heard of the existence of endowment funds 'cause I think, Mr. Schreger, the University of Pennsylvania's Endowment Fund is around the $1 billion mark. And that's always viewed as a sign of strength of the institution and a reason for giving it more support. Yet frequently, I think here in Philadelphia, we've regarded the reserve fund as a vehicle through which you will be able to take care of the deficits created by our failure to 1873 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE sufficiently fund your operation. And I'm hoping we're going to be able to correct that 'cause I think you need more not less support. And I think it's got to be recognized the role that you play in the City of in economic development and in the retention of people in Philadelphia and in the retention of businesses. So I would just like to see a reconsideration, Madam President.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It does seem really pound-foolish. And, you know, there is such a little amount of money within the overall budget that we have. A million dollars -- and it concerns me that in your statement, you say that if the funding remains the 1874 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE same, that the tuition may have to be increased, and that that will have an impact on how many people will be able to really attend, especially since we have the welfare reform package taking place during the next several months. And I was hoping that Community College would play a significant role in the transition of people coming off welfare from welfare-to-work. And I don't know what, if any, plans are involved in -- if Community College is involved in any of those plans.
We are very significantly involved in both welfare-to-work as well as the Workforce Investment Act. We currently have over 100 teen parents on campus as part of that process. We're working very closely with PIC to provide education. It's very likely that we will also be a one-stop center for -- have one of them on our campus and. . We certainly will have a presence within their one-stop centers in order to be able to direct people towards education. We expect that a number of these recipients who will be coming off welfare will 1875 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE also have a profound need for literacy education and that sort of thing. So we are the organization and the City that's best situated to respond to that.
And so we are on the front lines with that particular issue, Councilman Ortiz.
I visited the on-site day-care center that is right on 16th Street that students avail themselves of those facilities. And I'm afraid that with the impact of welfare reform, that those young women who have their kids there while they go to school may not be able to attend any longer; that's part of the reality that we are facing.
I think you're absolutely right. We have -- and this is not necessarily precisely researched, but we've got some information from which we can deduce the fact; and that is, at a time when enrollment was going up at the college last fall and this spring, one site of ours, which we know is occupied almost exclusively by women on welfare, has been going 1876 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE down. And we figure that the reform can have that potential impact on the college as well in the broader sense.
So if we add to the operating budget the 1.5 million that seems such, you say, a small quantity, too tiny to not be able actually put in, and I think Mr. Schreger, who's been the strongest advocate for the years that 10 I've been here for Community College, and Manny 11 Ortiz who's the current Chair, I think we have to 12 really -- 13 Madam Chair, we have to really look at 14 how we can begin looking at the budget and see 15 where and from we can add some operating monies because we need Community College to have full capacity -- and not increase tuition because all that will do is that it will exacerbate and make much worse the problem of welfare-to-work in the City, and I don't think we can afford to do that. So you have -- you have a lot of good support in this Council. And if we can make it happen, Mr. Schreger, we will.
Thank you, Councilman Ortiz. 1877 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to join my colleagues in expressing support for an increased support for Community College. It is an institution that has already proved its worth by sending forth a steady stream of leadership and redirecting people's lives. I'm particularly concerned that the amount of your request is de minimus when compared to the kinds of benefits that your existence gives to Philadelphia. You are a regional asset. I'd like to speak a little bit about the training that you are doing for Kvaerner. Is it 2500, is that what you said? How many people and what kind of skills? And is it a one-time contract, or will you continue to provide training for the various needs as that shipyard gets up and running and needs new skills?
Before I start, let me correct the numbers. The 2500 referred to the numbers we trained in the old shipyard as they 1878 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE came out. The expected number for Kvaerner is about 1500 people that we'll be training. And they'll be trained in a variety of skills involved in shipbuilding, ranging from welding to steel bending, sheet-metal work, that sort of thing. We will also be doing the recruitment and, in a sense, be finding the subcontractors to us where we don't have the skills to provide the training that will be necessary to keep that operation going. I'm not sure if I got to your question -- if I answered your question.
Are you under contract to Kvaerner to do this training?
We don't have a contract. What we have is a letter of agreement with Kvaerner to --
You have something like this, right? (Holding up a piece of paper.) (Laughter.)
We have a letter of agreement with them to be the sole supplier of training. We don't have a formal contract. I believe when we approached that issue -- it must 1879 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE have been six months ago -- their legal counsel indicated they didn't want to go in that particular direction. So we got -- instead of the contract, we got a letter of agreement. However, up to this point, we have been providing the training so far.
Well, if you don't have a contract, if what you have is a letter of agreement, what's it worth to you? If they agree to contract with somebody else, what does that mean to you?
I think in the circumstances in the worst case, it probably leaves us on the outside. Up to this point, though, we've been working with them for close to a year now and negotiating with them probably for the last two. They have not, up to this point, proven to be a problem in that regard with us, anyway. But you're right, we do not have the certainty of a contract.
Let me speak to your curriculum on hospitality because, in the long run, hospitality is likely to provide more 1880 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE jobs in the Philadelphia area than Kvaerner. Tell me about that curriculum and how many people you place and. . .
We've got a program -- I don't know if it's called exactly "hospitality," but we've got a restaurant program and a culinary arts program. (Addressing someone off mike) do you know the population of that program? We have about 400 students in that program. There is no difficulty at all in placing them. They're very highly regarded by the market so that when they come out, they're finding jobs. In fact, I think one of the difficulties we're finding is that we can't retain people to graduation because people are snapping them up before they've graduated, and then they're working and finishing the degree at the same time. So that program is strong and very highly regarded.
Now, you requested 1.5 million additional dollars, which, to this point, has not been granted or promised to you. 1881 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
But what would you have done if you had gotten it? Did you have programs planned that were conditioned and contingent on getting those dollars?
Sure. One of the major problems that we have as an institution right now is providing a sufficient amount of technology to the faculty and staff in order to be able to train students well for this marketplace. I don't have to tell you that every job that we now in the newspaper demands at least some minimal understanding of computers and some familiarity with the use of electronic technology. Essentially, the major weakness in, I think, our institution is our inability to do. That has been a major initiative over the last five years. We've invested probably over $5 million in that regard. When we started the initiative, we had our student-to-computer ratio on campus of about 49 to 1. That's now 69 to now. So we've done a reasonably good job there. However, if you come to a campus on a Saturday afternoon at 2 o'clock and you go outside one of 1882 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE the labs, you will still see a line around the corner of students trying to get the technology. So a major issue that we face is putting more technology in the hands of our student.
And is that what you were planning to do with the $1.5 million?
It's one of the things that we were planning to do. A major initiative within the budget would be, in fact, to provide greater technology to people. The other issue, though, is that in opening the new center, as a larger center, it's also created some demand for staffing. That's part of the package of dollars with we need to support that as well. And, thirdly, we negotiated an increase last year of about 3 percent for the staff, which is not out of line with what people were settling last year, and that's worth about 1.6 million. Now, moving our dollars around in the budget, we felt that 1.5 would cover our costs. That's not a quality initiative, by the way; simply semi covering our basic increases over the 1883 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE last year. We're still going to have to figure out ways to keep moving the institution forward to create what I call the "quality edge," which we never seem to get to be able to get to because we're always struggling so hard to do the basic things in the institution.
Okay, I'll give you a clue. The next time I give you a softball like that, I need a shorter, tighter answer. Something is not going to get done because you're not going to get 1.5 million. Okay, if you could spread it out like that, then that would help me with the urgency that I need to get it for you, all right? I did get your answer, I heard it. I think a tighter answer might have made it easier for me to help. Please do enlist me as one who knows what you're trying to do who approves of what you are doing and who will help to close that $1.5 million gap.
Councilwoman Clark, just so you understand, one of the things that our Board 1884 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE looked at five years ago was, you know, we were carrying deficits for a long time, and so we took a very strict and hard position as a board that we would, one, reduce the deficit and henceforth, carry balanced budgets, and so that's something that our administration has to deal with in relation to that. The other thing is, you know, as Dr. Williams explained, with the State and City funding, the only other recourse that we have is tuition increases, and so that's something we're trying to avoid this year, but we may be faced with it if we don't receive further support.
To my mind as ugly as deficits are, they are to be preferred over drastic student tuition increases, because you can pay off a deficit with money. But if students do not get an education, then you change their life chances, and some people will be turned away simply because they cannot afford the increases. I have heard you and you have heard me, and we will work together.
Thank you. 1885 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Williams, Mr. Ortiz, and my good friend, Mr. Schreger. Mr. Williams, I missed the beginning of your testimony, and I apologize for that, but I've picked up that you have a $1.5 million additional request that you are trying to make; is that my understanding?
Okay. And in the materials provided to us in your testimony, is that particular point listed anywhere? I've been looking for the 1.5 million additional request. Is that mentioned in your testimony at all?
Okay. Now, your testimony does indicate, you say, "This year, our total allocation was $19.268 million." Are you talking about the current fiscal year that we're in?
That's correct. 1886 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
All right. And your '99-2000 or FY 2000 allocation, or I assume what was approved by the Budget Office is the $20.167 million; is that right?
Okay. To follow up somewhat on the line of questioning that Councilwoman Clark was pursuing, could you forward to us in a more formal fashion through the Chair a listing of what you would do with the additional $1.5 million?
And in conjunction with that, could you provide us with a listing of the things that you will not be able to do if you don't have those additional dollars.
Tell us how you will have to shift your budget around or make cuts or your end result may be, as the Councilwoman articulated, you might just have to make tuition hikes.
And if you could 1887 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE provide us with what the size of that hike would be both in a percentage value and in a dollar value and how it will affect the students, and any anticipation of the number of students who would not be able maybe to attend the college as a result of the tuition hike going from X-dollars to X-dollars. Could you provide us with that?
Okay, all right. Madam Chair, if it is okay with you, I would like to ask, as it relates to Community College, maybe our Budget Director to try to get a little better understanding as we do from time to time of what the thinking was in making the determination of what the figure would be for Community College. Could we have him up please.
Is Mr. Kaplan here? Mr. Kaplan, you're being asked to come up to the witness table. (Dean Kaplan comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Kaplan. As you've been listening earlier, the discussion is around the proposed Communal College 1888 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE budget versus an additional request. And I'm simply trying to understand how we arrived at the $20.167 million figure versus there's an additional request on the table for 1.5. Before you respond to that, through, Mr. Williams, can I ask you, through the budget call process, did you have a discussion with the Budget Office about this additional request?
And did you detail to them what it was that you were trying to do.
With that in mind, Mr. Kaplan, can you give us some information?
Certainly. I should say by way of disclaimer that both of my parents taught at the community college level and, obviously, I have a relative on the Board. Nonetheless -- (Laughter.)
But what are your parents' phone numbers, Mr. Kaplan? (Laughter.) 1889 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Obviously, this was -- as always with the college -- a fairly complex decision. Over the past several years, and particularly over the last five years, as you know, we have increased the Community College budget by percent on the operating side in 11 addition to the fairly substantial commitment to 12 the new facility. 13 On top of that, the -- rather, as part 14 of that, over very the last year, as you know, we 15 have just increased Community College by 16 $1 million this year, and that followed the 17 $500,000 increase the prior year. 18 So we're looking at a very substantial 19 series of increases compare compared to what we 20 had done for other agencies. Notwithstanding that we --
-- agree with the work they do. On top of that, we looked at, as the 1890 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Council President pointed out, an agency that had a fund balance of essentially $11 million, which, on a percentage basis, if that was the City's fund balance, it would be about twice as large as ours. And we're not recommending that they spend their reserve down to zero, but they do have perhaps a somewhat greater ability to accommodate that pressure than some other agencies who have asked for funding. The $1.5 million increase, of course, would require us to come up with $7.5 million in the five-year plan, and that again would be one of the single largest increases in the budget, as you know from the prior testimony here.
Mr. Kaplan, you know I love engaging in the "whatever-the-figure- is-times-5" discussion with you. No matter what the number is, the Administration or the Budget Office love to automatically multiply it by 5. But the for the moment, the request is 1.5, right?
I really can't concede that point. I know PICA watches these proceedings, and I would be remiss if I did not 1891 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE invite you to one of our many meetings with PICA in which -- I can't have it both ways; I have to be able to give you the same number that I have to defend to them.
I understand, and it's duly noted for all the PICA watchers out there that you've maintained your credibility with them. Now, for this discussion, though, let me -- if you could refresh my memory. Is it -- do I recall that with regard to Community College, there is a general funding formula that essentially talks about 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3. Is that my recollection on Community College? Is that true?
The formula as generated by Act 35 originally talked about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. 1892 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Right, okay. And according to your document, Mr. Williams, you're showing in the year '99-2000 or FY 2000, the bar graph on the total, which I assume is your total budget, is that what that means? And it's $77.62 million; is that right?
Okay. And the City's share of that you're showing at $20.167 million.
Okay. Now, Mr. Kaplan is familiar with this little device that I use from time to time -- I got a PECO Energy dual-power calculator. And 77.62 divided by 3, according to the handy-dandy calculator, is 25.66. Would you agree to that figure?
Very good. So is it my understanding that according to the State formula, the funding formula, that the City should be supporting Community College at the $25 million level for 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3? 1893 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
That's my understanding of the way the State formula is proposed.
And so if there's a shortfall on the City level, and if the State -- for the moment, we'll assume they're doing their share -- then Community College is left to pick up the shortfall, and the only way that they can make up the shortfall is by an tuition increase, right?
I think that's one of two ways. The other is to increase the amount of State subsidy.
The State has provided substantial support. Our position has been -- as well as that, I believe of the State Association of the Community Colleges -- that the State participation should be much greater.
Greater than a third? Okay, but for the moment, that is the formula?
Okay, all right. 1894 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE So based on the formula, would you at least agree or concede that with a budget of $77 million, 1/3 of which is 25.66 million, the City's proposed allocation this year is million, that there is 6 a legitimate shortfall just on the City side 7 between what you're proposing and what it should 8 be by way of the State formula. 9
Well, I understand 16 that. That's an answer to a different question. 17 But there is a gap, correct? 18
There is a gap between 19 what that formula -- between what a third of their 20 expenditures is and what the City is providing, yes.
Okay, all right. And I mean, there are essentially two ways that we could try to attack this particular problem: we could either try to amend the budget at this 1895 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE moment as a part of these budget hearings; or pursuant to subsequent discussions -- and we know, for instance, that there are ongoing discussions between the Budget Office and the Defender Association or the Budget Office and the District Attorney's Office, and there could be subsequent discussions between Community College and the Budget Office. And even if we did not solve this problem today or by sometime in March when we pass the budget, subsequent discussions could lead to increased funding through a midyear transfer ordinance. Is that possible?
Okay. Will you engage in the subsequent discussion process and procedure that we've alluded to with regard to a couple of other agencies as it relates to Community College?
We would certainly be willing to engage in that. And, obviously, we do talk with Community College during the year. The one caveat I'd have is that none of those agencies have the size 6 of reserve that the Community 1896 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE College does, and that is a fact during and how we approach their budget compared so some others.
All right, I might agree to that point. But I think, as Councilman Cohen may have articulated, Community College is a little different than most of our other agencies who really don't necessarily need a reserve and operate in a totally different function and capacity. And as a result of that, at least there is some need to treat them slightly differently.
I would agree. And I think the way we've historically approached that is, as in the case of the new campus, we have not asked them to dip into their reserve to do that from at least our portion of the contribution but, rather, have come to the table and said, you know, we'll give you $3 million for that.
So that, you know, we have handled it differently on the other side as well.
Okay, all right. Mr. Williams, you'll get to the Chair the information that was requested by way of charts or documents? And we'd like to continue to 1897 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE try to help you through this process.
Thank you. And Mr. Kaplan, when you have your meeting with the members of the Community College, I would like Mr. McPherson to be included, please.
Thank you, Madam President. As a recent college graduate in the last two years, I know how important Community College is, and I just want to touch on something that Councilwoman Clark spoke about. She said that we can always work on surpluses, and we understand the importance of a surplus. But if there's a point -- and I have an 18-year-old son that's looking I at colleges now, so I'm going through that whole deal. I could have never gotten through college if it wasn't for 1898 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Community College. I mean, even when I went to college and had to come back and get credits in order to graduate, I could get cheap credits at Community College. Okay, I mean, that was important. I took television courses, I took all kinds of courses. And when you're in your 30s and 40s and you're looking to go to college and you're working on a construction site or your working at City Council or in an office somewhere, Community makes it easier. So I don't think there's any way we can even think about raising tuition 'cause there's probably an 18-year-old boy or a woman out there going, I really can't afford to go to college, and there's no way I could go to college and I know I have to go to college. And these private schools, even the State schools, and I don't know if my SATs are high enough, but if I go down to Spring Garden Street and take a test and I pass certain qualifications, I can be on the road. And I know you and your predecessor, who I've spent a lot of time with, he used to tell me like amazing stories of people who probably 1899 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE would have never gotten to college and went on from Community and graduated from Villanova, Temple, St. Joe's, Harvard, you know. I mean, there's all kinds of success stories. State Representative Dwight Evans is another success story that -- whom attended Community College. So we let the number crunchers like Councilman Nutter and Mr. Kaplan worry about surpluses and deficits, but Councilwoman Clark and people like her and myself, we're concerned about those people that may never get to college. And now a college degree is as important as a high school degree was when I got out of high school. So I'm sure there's reasons for you to have a $25 million surplus, just as there's reasons why the University of Pennsylvania has 200 million. I mean, that's an ivy league school and this is a community college. But we do things at this college that Penn couldn't do. We have people at this college that could never go to Penn unless they go to Community first, okay? So we need to sit down and think about -- and I understand what the Budget Director is trying to do. He's thinking, like Councilman 1900 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Nutter and his PECO solar calculator said -- it's times whatever with everything. 4 We can always come and do transfer 5 ordinances if that's what we see fit with the number crunchers, but we got to think about the human part of this, and that's that kid sitting somewhere, getting his last couple of months of high school right now, thinking about, It's either the U.S. military, Community College or Burger King. So I would like to see more people be able to go to Community College. So everything you do there is great, and if there's anything I can do, anything we can do, we would like to be there. But, again, you got to sit back and think of what the Budget Director's trying to do and what he's trying to -- he has other departments -- he needs police cars. I saw Rollie walking there, and he needs new motorcycles for highway patrol. I mean, that might not be important as a kid going to college, but it's important to other people that live in this city. So we have to work all that out, but 1901 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE this is really important.
Yeah, Councilman, thank you very much for those words. We fully appreciate that we're a part of a community and the City of Philadelphia, and all the work that we do in the City is designed to make that community better. We realize that the other agencies are there to do exactly that as well. So I appreciate the kind of concern. And I'd like to point out that Mr. Kaplan's absolutely right. Over the last 5 years, even though Councilman Nutter pointed out that we were at 25 percent, I think that's moved from 17 percent to 25 percent as well over the last 5 years. So there has been some aggressive movement on the Administration's part to help the college over the last 5 years as well.
Let me just add, Councilman Mariano, that I'm also a product benefit of the Community College of Philadelphia, so I clearly understand the benefits of a community college education.
Then we should be 1902 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE friends, we should hang out together, all right? You would be supporting me in my reelection bid, probably. You could make that statement here now, Mr. Ortiz. It would be, you know. . .
Look, you know I'm not allowed to do that. Mr. Schreger has some comments, also.
I don't think the stenographer could hear what was said.
It probably wasn't important after all -- what I said. I can't say that for Mr. Ortiz. Thank you. Thank you for that. No further questions, Madam President.
Thank you. Mr. Schreger, do you care to be recognized?
I'm sorry, just identify yourself for the record so that the stenographer will have it.
I'm a member of the Board. My name's Isadore Schreger. 1903 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE As I had started to say, approximately 80 percent of persons who live in the Philadelphia area and have a college education is because Community College gave them that opportunity. And, also, you have to realize that the admission, all you need is a high school education. It's not the same as going to Penn or Temple and you have to have so many other attributes. But at the same time, those who graduate from Community College, after the two-year program, they do just as well when they go into the third year at a four-year institution as those who started the four-year institution as a freshman, which says a lot for Community College. And also, when you take a look at -- I mentioned this before, but I think it's important to realize that the Community College student, after being there two years, does very well when they go to a four-year college, which indicates the kind of tutelage that they got when they were at Community College. Also, I think it's important to realize that when a person has an opportunity to have a 1904 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE college education, obviously, his chances of getting a job are much greater than those who don't have that opportunity. And it's vital to see to it that Community College is given every opportunity to educate as many Philadelphians as is possible. And also, we don't look at Community College students who graduate hanging around corners and getting into trouble; it's just the very opposite. So it's a real plus for the city. I know the time is limited and I could go on for a long time, but it would be unfair to everybody here.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions at this time.)
The City Commissioners are next to testify. (City Commissioners come forward.) 1905 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Thank you for your patience. I know we're running a little late this morning. Please identify yourself for the record and continue with your testimony. I don't think you have to read your entire testimony. We will give a copy of it to the stenographer. So if you want to abbreviate it, that would be fine.
Madam President and members of City Council, good afternoon. I am Margaret M. Tartaglione, chairwoman of the City Commissioners Office. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present our Fiscal Year 2000 Operating Budget. The City Commissioners' approved spending level of $8,271,684 for FY 2000 is allocated as follows: Class 100, Personnel Service, $4,226,655; Class 2000, Purchase of Service, $3,111,035; Class 300, Materials and Supplies, $640,657; Class 400, Equipment, $12,255; Class 800, Payments to Productivity 1906 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Bank, $281,082. This represents an additional $105,220 in Class 100 over FY '99 estimated obligations to provide funds for wage increases. Candidates for 1999 general election will be running for the office of Mayor, City Council members, City Commissioner, Clerk of Quarter Sessions, Register of Wills, Sheriff, Appellate Justice, Superior Court, Trial Judges, Court of Common Pleas, Municipal Court, Traffic Court, and Judicial Retentions. The 2000 primary election will concern the nomination of candidate for President, Vice President, U.S. Representative, State Attorney General, State Audit General, State Treasurer, State Representative, State Senators in the odd-numbered districts, State Committee Members, Delegates, Alternate Delegates to the National Convention. The priority of this department is to ensure the citizens of Philadelphia their constitutional rights to vote. We have made every effort to reduce our expenditures whenever possible, and we will 1907 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE continue to carry out cost-saving by striving to provide the level of services to the citizens of Philadelphia.
Thank you. When are we anticipated to get new voting machines?
That has not been done at all, no. 11 There will be meetings with the Procurement Department, members of the Law Department, and one or two representatives of the City Commissioners Offices to go through the various technology that's available and then to set some chronic criteria for putting out either a bid or a request for proposal. That goes -- for request for proposal, you would have to go through a qualification process first. It could be a long-term situation and again in the year 2000. We'll be conducting some high-activity elections in '99 and again in the year 2000. It may be that this procurement process would mesh to the point where citywide, the best time to operate or install and run those 1908 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE for the first time might be the elections of 2001, when you have a lower turnout, where the boards get used to them with the everyday voters and acclimate themselves before they get into a situation where you have a high turnout. Again, though, the entire process is predicated on going through the procurement steps, which have not been done yet and will be done in the near future.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. In that same area and good afternoon, Commissioner Tartaglione and Bob Lee. Is it also my understanding, though, that there are some restrictions placed on the companies that you can even get these particular machines from. On the one hand, there are only so many -- there are only, I think, three companies that even produce these machines. And secondly and probably more importantly, any company that we get a machine from, don't they first have had to be on a State-certified or -approved less? 1909 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Yeah, that's correct. Currently, if you're talking about direct-recording electronic machines, there are four machines on that list in Pennsylvania -- three of which are, I believe, full-face ballots, one of which is a small compact unit. There are currently four units, all of which are small compact units that are being examined by the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Office --
-- or four more producers who are going through that examination stage right now with the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Those reports should be issued shortly.
So they produced a prototype where they've actually created a new machine. Are these the same companies producing a new product, or are these four new companies with four new products? 1910 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
I believe they're additional companies producing additional products.
No, those are all the small compact version where you have a touch-sensitive screen; they're not full-face ballots.
Just for terminology sake, I mean, I think all know what a full-face machine is. Is the alternative to a full face either something that you would call either a scrolling -- I mean, don't know if this terminology is used. But in any event, if it's not full faced, the voter has to either press a button or do something to make the rest of whoever it is they want to vote for or whoever is running that year, they have to take an additional step to see who the rest of those people are. Is that fair?
That's correct. On some of these small compact units, you may be limited to having one office per page; or maybe, depending on the number of candidates for a particular office, you may have numerous pages for the same office 1911 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE where you have to push a button or activate the screen so that you can scroll to or advance to the next page containing the candidates.
Has the City Commissioner -- as "The Commissioners," have the City Commissioners, I guess, taken a position operationally on the question of full-face versus whatever else we want to call the alternative? I mean 'cause won't that -- I mean, if you made a decision about that issue, wouldn't that then drive a part of the process as to what you will even consider?
It would but that has to also be put into the procurement process itself specked out that way when you do that.
And that hasn't even been done, it hasn't been specked out to that point. When we consider putting any new equipment out on the street, whether it would be the poll books that we just finished with or the machines that we've been mandated to do, we'd like to do it in a manner so that the change is very minor to the voting public. 1912 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
The voting public in Philadelphia is used to a full-face ballot --
-- where you can walk in see everybody on the machine, you pull a lever.
Right. Well, that would lead to my next question. I mean, if minimizing disruption to the voters is one of the goals -- and I agree that that is a major goal, I mean it's got to be one of the top three in this whole process -- the first minimalization of disruption, would you agree, would be if people are used to a full face, the bill hulking machine, but a full-face ballot nonetheless, would you at least agree with the statement that it would minimally disrupt the voters and change their voting process if the new electronic machines were full face also?
The full-face DREs would represent the least amount of change to those voters, yes.
And the least amount of 1913 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE disruption.
Okay. And if you have an opinion, you can say so. If not. . . Would it also make it easier for people to utilize that particular type of machine and go through that voting process versus one where you have to either continually push a button, touch a screen, or something like that?
I think it's pretty readily apparent that it's a lot easier to vote when you can walk into a voting booth and look at every particular office or candidate on the ballot and find him by looking, without having to scroll through numerous pages or scroll back to make sure you voted for somebody before you execute that ballot, sure.
There's a potentiality that if you have a scrollable machine, that those offices which are closest to the people, as far as size, being District Council or a State rep and none closer than committeeman would be on the last page.
They may be forgotten, they might get lost. A person votes and then realizes, Oh, I had, you know, three other offices that I wanted to vote for but now, you know, I don't know how this thing is going to work. But in the current machine, you know, you push the red button back, and you're finished.
If it was on the scroll page, like we had, there was 125 candidates that filed for Council-at-large --
And by the time you went through the pages of District Council and Committee person or whoever is beyond that wouldn't even be considered in some instances.
Well, in the municipal election, as we all know, the last position is the District Council race.
So we'd like to not be forgotten. Some would like to forget us but 1915 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE we'd like to at least create a situation where we're not going to automatically be forgotten. (Laughter.)
Another issue is basically that in any given election, what is the hot race in one area of the City may not be the hot race in another area of the City.
So at least you have all of the offices basically all the candidates in front of you, you can view them all at one time. And then once you do select your candidates, prior to executing that ballot or casting it, you can stand there and review them by just looking. If you're dealing with a scrollable page, to review it, you'd have to go scroll back through the pages.
So it's readily apparent which is the type of which is device which is least disruptive, would cause the least amount of delay in people voting.
My last comment on 1916 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE that is, I mean, it is a statistical fact -- and I think we all agree as just participants in the political process -- that there is a term presently with a full-faced machine called "drop-off."
I mean rarely is it disputed. Unless, again, in the example that you point out, Mr. Lee, where you have a hotly contested race, it is rare that the number of votes, that whatever the race is, that top-of-the-ticket candidate -- and it could be, you know, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is generally always going to be at the top, there's always a tremendous drop-off between the top-of-the-ticket candidate and the bottom-of-the ticket candidate.
And we know how many people walked into the booth because we know what the vote count is on the machine, and we know that there's a big difference between the total votes for the higher office versus the total votes for the lower office you're into scrolling. 1917 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
And the voter can see everything. But it's an unwieldy machine and mechanism and, I mean, sometimes you'd literally have to stoop down or get on your knees almost if you have a long ballot on that day. So, again, I just think that all of that leads to a conclusion that we pretty much need a full-face machine as opposed to a scrolling okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
I attended the City Commissioners meeting on this subject earlier in the week, and I think we're all generally in agreement that City Council would like to be kept apprised. The full face also gives you all options. I can remember elects where my advice to people was to start at the bottom. And I think 1918 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE every politician has occasions when sometimes you want to start in the middle. You know, you want to do something other than begin at the top. And particularly, you know, with our municipal election year, when the Mayor and the Council and all of the County offices are on, we also often do it with the Committeeman's election. Committee people have a very strong interest in their election. And it would be very difficult unless we could get a full-faced machine. I understand there are sometimes problems with the different guarantees offered by the companies.
Well, that is something that is going to have to be handled in the procurement process itself. I mean, the contract that is written with these companies shouldn't be something that they're willing to give us. It should be something that we could feel that we're satisfied with, that we're getting our money's worth, we're going to have the level of support that we're going to need over the first one, two, three years that the machines are here. It's as important as the machine 1919 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE itself, the warranty to support service in the year following
So what you're suggesting is that we may need a special contract for provisions and that the best method of getting that, I guess, is if the City put out a request for proposals and then could negotiate with the companies that responded and that seemed to qualify.
Exactly, yeah. We would put our needs in proposal itself and let them respond -- in the request for the proposal and let them respond much the same way we did with the imaging system.
They'll give us input into 1920 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE the technical questions and the needs of the department as far as what the machines are going to be required to do, yes.
'Cause I just think it's very important that you who are, you know, the real professionals, you know the problem better than anybody else. You've had a great deal of experience and you do a great job out on Election Day. There are always bound to be problems in the human beings dealing with them, but your response time is excellent on the repairs, and I wanted to do commend you for that.
And I would feel much more confident if I knew that you were in the process all the time rather than a department that just works on contracts but doesn't have the firsthand knowledge. And I'm sure that we in City Council would like to be kept apprised by the commissioners of the progress being made and if we can be helpful in any way. But you certainly do a great job under difficult circumstances. And if we get these machines, we're hoping it's even 1921 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE going to allow everybody to do a greater job. Thank you so very much.
Thank you. I certainly concur with the statements that are made and certainly only add that if it were not for you at this table, I don't know if any of us could survive and stay out of trouble. So I just wanted to say thank you for all that you do and we're certainly committed to supporting you in every way we can.
Thank you. The first time that we utilize the electronic voting machines, will all voters have access to them, or will we phase it in? How will 1922 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE the process work? Will the entire city vote with the new technology?
It's a question that's not been answered yet. If the City pushes for a quick installation of these, there's no way to install them all at one time. We're talking quite a few machines, you're talking 1681 election districts, at least 2 machines a division, you're talking maybe 3600 voting machines. Depending on the manufacturer's capability of producing them and depending on the choice that is made by the procurement team as to when they would like to put 'em on the street, that would determine that. But my opinion is that they should go all out at the same time so that there's no -- any kind of confusion that one particular area of the City is being favored over another area of the City in any kind of crucial election.
Just a curiosity question. Do the old machines that we presently have any value? And are they planned just to be scrapped? What's the situation.
The value is probably scrap 1923 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE value or a parts value. We haven't addressed that yet also.
Thank you very much. There are no further lights on, so we thank you for your testimony.
Okay. We're about to turn a corner. We're now about to take public testimony on the operating budget, but the stenographer needs a few minutes, so please stand at ease for about five minutes while the stenographer changes her tape. (Short break taken.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
We're back on the record. The session of these hearings will now turn to the public testimony on the operating budget. The first witness to be called is Dr. 1924 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Constantine Papadakis, President of Drexel University. I know that he's in the building. (Dr. Papadakis comes forward.)
Sir, will you please call to the table any other persons who are a part of your presentation, and then please feel free to conduct your presentation in any way you see fit.
Madam Chairperson, members of the City Council budget committee, and members of the public welfare Committee, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to appear before you today as MCP/Hahnemann University President.
Just give me your name and spell it for the stenographer.
My name is Constantine Papadakis. That's spelled C-O-N-S-T-A-N-T-I-N-E. And the last name is Papadakis, P (as in "Paul") - A-P-A-D-A-K-I-S. And I'm the only one to testify.
MCP/Hahnemann University respectfully requests a $2 million appropriation from City Council in support of our 1925 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE School of Public Health. This need is immediate for the coming fiscal years, starting in July of '99, because of cash flow considerations. Drexel University is proud of its long civic commitment to the City of Philadelphia, which has now been enhanced through our operation of MCP/Hahnemann University. At the time when the City was in danger of losing this respected medical institution, Drexel came forward to preserve 3,000 jobs and to sustain the education of more than 3,000 currently enrolled students. (Applause.)
This has presented us with many challenges. To cite just one example, the operating deficit we inherited on November 11, 1998, when we saved the MCP/Hahnemann University from liquidation, is estimated to be close to $10 million. But despite those challenges, we remain committed to the success of this institution. As recently as 1993, Philadelphia had no school of public health. We lagged behind New Orleans, Atlanta, St. Louis, Baltimore, Boston, Washington, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Chicago, and 1926 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE New York. In 1994, MCP/Hahnemann established a school of public health, one of two such schools in the Commonwealth; the other being a part of the University of Pennsylvania -- I'm sorry, the University of Pittsburgh. Why should City Council support Philadelphia's only school of public health? Because there is a critical need for the unique community-focused approach to education and to public health that our school provides to Philadelphia and its residents. Let us not overlook that one of the original reasons for creating the school was to defray the cost of emergency-room services for lower-income citizens. Over the past two decades, public- health problems have multiplied. AIDS, complications from drug- and alcohol-induced premature births, tuberculosis, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, and poor diet are just a part of a long list. Philadelphia has not been immune to public-health problems. Eleven percent of the women who gave birth in Philadelphia in 1996 received inadequate prenatal care. As of last 1927 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE month, nearly one quarter of Philadelphia's population -- 360,000 people -- were eligible recipients of the Commonwealth's Medical Assistance Program. The combination of the new welfare laws, a lack of employment opportunities, sexually-transmitted diseases, substance abuse, inadequate medical care, an aging population, homelessness, and industrial pollution fed in to raise public problems in Philadelphia again. The urban health concerns that I have outlined about illustrate just a few of the reasons why the MCP/Hahnemann University School of Public Health is such a vital resource to the people of our city and our region. Each week, during the second year of their studies, our students spend one and a half days a week at a community- or health-related agency working as an integral part of that organization. For example, I mentioned earlier about inadequate medical care. Our students help educate the neediest among our City's population free about preventive medical programs such as disease immunization. Each of our students is also required to work on a project that focuses on 1928 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a public health issue that is as prevalent in our communities and to develop an approach of methodology for addressing this problem. We are training Philadelphians through community participation, projects, and research to meet the public health needs of our neighborhoods head on. Why do I say "Philadelphians"? Because I am pleased to say to you today that 77 percent of the School of Public Health's first graduating class are from Philadelphia. (Applause.)
With your support, the School of Public Health can benefit the City of Philadelphia in many more ways. We can serve as a hub for health programs in conjunction with the clinical sites throughout the City and the region. Our faculty can provide consulting services to hospital throughout Philadelphia and nationally. We can contribute proactively to Philadelphia's public health by developing strategies to address the future health-care needs of the City and the region. And we can partner with the City's Department of Public Health in offering training, research, and consultation all 1929 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE with the important goal of improving the public well-being of the constituents whom you represent. We are committed to the mission of improving public health, but we cannot do it alone. Public health problems do not solve themselves. As a community, Philadelphia cannot turn its back on such problems. Instead, City Council can solve those problems through its support of MCP/Hahnemann University's School of Public Health. This support sends a clear message that the public health needs of your constituents are being met. On behalf of all Philadelphians, on behalf of the students of the School of Public Health represented by Natasha Barnett, who is a student of the college, sitting next to me, and all the faculty and staff of the School of Public Health as well as the entire MCP/Hahnemann University community, I invite your support of this important investment in the future of our city, our communities, and our citizens. Thank you for your time today. (Applause.)
The Chair 1930 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to say thank you to Dr. Papadakis who, from the inception of coming to West Philadelphia to be the President of Drexel, has been an outstanding neighbor, has been an outstanding partner in the community, and has continued to do creative, innovative programs to enhance our entire city. Certainly, we are committed to the programs. This is one of many that he has propagated, and are committed to doing all that we can. And, certainly, I ask my colleagues to do the same to support him in this endeavor. Thank you, Dr. Papadakis.
Well, I wanted to associate myself completely with Councilwoman Blackwell's remarks, and perhaps further to thank Dr. Papadakis for his general work in coming to 1931 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE the aid of the situation when the Allegheny problems developed. I know that the Mayor and other City officials worked with him very closely to make the best of a very difficult situation, and we very much appreciate the role you played in that as well as in all the other civic endeavors that you have participated in. And we think Councilwoman Blackwell is very lucky to have you and the university you represent located in her direct.
Thank you, Mr. Cohen. The Chair recognizes Councilman Angel Ortiz.
I want to thank the doctor because I was a student at Drexel last year for a few weeks, a ten-week course on SCUBA diving, and --
Tell us you didn't flunk out. (Laughter.) 1932 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
No, I passed the course, and I am a certified SCUBA diver thanks to the Drexel University course, and I want to thank him. And also because, as Councilman Cohen stated, I was one of the first individuals to begin speaking in terms of the Allegheny issue and when they started laying off people very early on in a very irresponsible manner. And the university is part and parcel of our academic life here in the city, and I can see no finer institution stepping in and directing it. And I know that you and my friend Constance Clayton involved in the process, we will have go into the 21st century with a first-class medical institution that we need. I want to thank you for that. Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Papadakis. The Chair now recognizes Miss Bennett.
Barnett. Thank 1933 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE you. Please introduce yourself to the record, spell your name for the benefit of the stenographer, and proceed with your testimony.
Okay. My name is Natasha Barnett, N-A-T-A-S-H-A, B-A-R-N-E-T-T. I just represent the School of Public Health. I'm a second-year student. Just to give you a little bit introduction about myself, I'm currently working at St. Christopher's Hospital for Children for my master's project. And just to say that our school is committed to community-based activities. We have all our second-years working in various community sites. And within that, we also do extracurricular activities in the community. And I just would like to recognize that.
Well, we thank you very much. You do an outstanding service, and we appreciate it.
Dr. Papadakis, my 1934 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE list says you're with Dr. Constance Clayton and Estelle Richman. Are they going to join you at the table for a presentation, or are you just here to answer questions in case you have some?
They're here for questions, to answer questions. Thank you.
Okay. Well, I have no more lights. Oh, I have one more light -- Councilwoman Blackwell's.
Thank you. Certainly, we would be remiss if we did not thank Dr. Clayton and all who have assembled on this fine team for this program.
The prospect of establishing a school of public health is one that is very intriguing to all of us. This is a very fat proposal chock-full of information that I have just received. I am going to suggest, Dr. Papadakis, that copies be made available for all members of Council so as to permit everybody to background themselves on where you're going and your proposed route to getting there. 1935 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE I think that you know that there is a strong residual support for you in this Council. Connie Clayton, I know you know that you have friends here and well do the very best we can. I want to be certain that we don't raise false hopes but we will do the best we can to be responsive to what I consider to be a very outstanding proposal.
Thank you very much. I cherish your friendship because we are working to the for the betterment of Philadelphia.
I would like to mention that our School of Public Health has been in operation since almost 1994. And as I said earlier on, I want for you to remember that 77 percent of our students have been Philadelphians, so it is a great contribution not only to our students but also to the communities whom they will serve when they graduate and stay in the city. And I do thank you very much for allowing me to take your time and make this proposal to you today. We have a very strong need, and we hope that you will work with us to 1936 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE satisfy it. Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir, and thank you for the presentation, Miss Barnett.
Okay. Next to be heard is Audrey Johnson-Thornton from the Belmont Mansion. (Ms. Johnson-Thornton comes forward.)
Good afternoon. I'm Audrey Johnson-Thornton, President of the American Women's Heritage Society, Belmont Mansion, in West Fairmount Park.
We have several of our executive committee here. I will be making a presentation, and we have Velma Goode, who serves on our Honorary Advisory Committee; we have Ethel Gillette, who is our Vice President; and we have (coughs) -- you have to forgive me, I come here sick with a cold, but I wouldn't dare miss this. And we also have Olivia Scott who is our 1937 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Financial Secretary.
), so our officers have come to hear the presentation. Thank you for giving me this opportunity of speaking to you today and to correct an apparent oversight on behalf of the Belmont Mansion Restoration Project. The American Women's Heritage Society has been for years committed to the 13 preservation of Belmont Mansion and the interpretation of its historic significance to the public. Belmont Mansion, one of the most historically and architecturally significant houses in Fairmount Park, was singled out as the most significant structure at risk in the 1987 assessment of ten historic structures in Fairmount Park. The City of Philadelphia, in 1987, allocated $400,000 towards the restoration of the Belmont Mansion. In 1992, the Belmont Mansion Historic Structures Report was published on a completed historical study and architectural 1938 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE analysis. As a result, in June 1994, the Belmont Mansion Restoration Project was approved, and the Fairmount Park Historic Preservation Trust assumed responsibility for the management of the funds for restoration of Belmont Mansion. 3 million for the total cost of the restoration project. " The Fairmount Park Commission and the Fairmount Park Historic Preservation Trust decided to carry out the restoration in two phases, Phase I and Phase II: Phase I being the now completed cottage in 1997; and Phase II, the mansion house itself. 3 million allocated to the project. It should be mentioned that much to our dismay, it was almost a three-year project to complete Phase I. This was quite surprising, as 1939 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE the Fairmount Park Historic Preservation Trust was able in its infant stage to completely renovate a historical site within the park, which they use for their office and to its original state in approximately six months. We were unable to speak on exactly how the money was spent for Phase of Belmont Cottage, as we did not have access to the actual costs. Meanwhile, the historical and significant Belmont Mansion remains closed since 1994, now five years. We are told that it is not safe to enter the building and it is in deteriorating condition. The Belmont Mansion porch roof is considered a potential danger to visitors, the roof is falling, water infiltration threatens the historic fabric of the building and the preservation of the mansion's unique molded plastic ceiling. The original window sills and other woodwork are deteriorating and rotting. This historically and architecturally significant house is at risk. It is essential that the City of Philadelphia honor its original commitment to the restoration of Belmont Mansion and appropriate the necessary funds for its 1940 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE completion by July, year 2000, in time for the Republican Convention. Eugene Dixon, Jr. President of the Fairmount Park Commission, announced at the Fairmount Park Volunteer Recognition Event that he was requesting funds from the City of Philadelphia for the restoration. It is estimated, so we are told, that the complete restoration of the Belmont Mansion will be between $750,000 and $1 million. We were distressed to learn that the proposed City budget does not include the proposed funding needed, and we are requesting that it now be included. It is your decision which determines if the Belmont Mansion is to have a viable future in the 21st century and beyond. We enlist your support to unravel this dilemma and save the Belmont Project. The Fairmount Annual Report, in 1992-'93, identified Belmont as having the highest number of visitors, over 90,000. We have lost all of these tourists for the Belmont Mansion since its close for the restoration in 1994. I thank you for allowing me to speak.
Thank you. (Applause.) 1941 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Miss Johnson-Thornton, how are you?
And thank you for coming today. You and I have been engaged -- I'm sure longer for you, but I would venture to say that maybe I had a little more hair when this process started than I have today, and I didn't start with that much more. We've been working on this for some time, and you know that I've tried to help and support the project over the years. What I'd like to do is to ask you probably just a couple questions and then get some of our City people to the table. I'm hopeful that we might actually be able to resolve a number of issues today.
I mean, the two 1942 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE primary issues are the mansion and its restoration, which is a funding issue, and then a lease for the entire -- whether you call it "the complex and the mansion" -- I refer to the entire property as "the complex." But you need a lease, and there are some outstanding issues with that. You've shared your testimony with me. The complex is currently open and available to the public; is that correct?
Which supplies a banquet room. When they split the building, they allowed two other parts of the room, which are a part of the historical structure of the house, remain. What was added was an atrium porch, which goes out onto a tent.
Which allows for rental. That is how we are able to generate income, through renting.
Right. Well, that's what I wanted to talk about. 1943 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
But that nothing to do with the historic mansion house itself.
The American Women's Heritage Society is a nonprofit organization.
And, previously, you have had a year-to-year lease, as most other entities have with the Park, and you have essentially been the caretakers of that facility for a long period of time.
And when you lease the facility -- banquet, party, wedding, whatever the particular function is -- the funds that you generate, I assume, go to cover your cost of putting on that event or activity.
You have in the 1944 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE past, I believe, used some of those dollars to help with the operation of the --
Yes. That's the only way we can help with the operation.
And do you have other costs -- personnel costs, staff costs --
Okay. The mansion structure, though, has been closed for some time, and your primary issue today is to figure out how to get some funding --
To complete it. 1945 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
You have an unfinished project for our purposes here. One part is done, one part is not done.
Exactly, I understand. Madam Chair, with your indulgence, I would like to have someone from the Capital Budget Office come up and have some discussion about how we might be able to try to get resolution on one of the two issues that we've raised here today. My understanding is that Dean Kaplan had to excuse him from the table but that Cathy Paster, who works with him, is here, and I'd like to be able to ask her some questions on the record.
Please join us at the table. (Cathy Paster comes forward.)
Introduce yourself 1946 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE to the record, spell your last name for the benefit of the stenographer, and proceed with your testimony. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. My name is Cathy Paster, P-A-S-T-E-R, and I'm Deputy Budget Director for Capital Programs.
Miss Paster, can you bring that microphone a little closer?
You may recall back on capital budget day, which I believe was February 9th, I raised with the Budget Director three major capital projects. Those were: the Belmont Mansion, the 21st Ward Ice Rink, and the Wynnefield Recreation Center. Do you recall that?
Okay. For this portion of today I'd like to talk about the Belmont Mansion. You're also aware that we essentially have an unfinished project, and we don't have a 1947 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE precise understanding of what the full cost would be to complete the Belmont Mansion; is that correct?
But that there are estimates somewhere in the neighborhood of $750,000 to $1 million maybe needed to complete the Belmont Mansion facility; is that right?
And in an effort to get a better understanding of what the actual costs may be and to actually do the project and allocate the dollars that are necessary to complete this project, what would we have to do?
You want to move forward to get a more accurate estimate of the construction costs for the project?
Well, that's first, and then I want to do the project.
Right. So you would need to engage a design team, an architectural or an engineering type firm to design the project, then 1948 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE come up with a cost estimate. So we would need to first identify the money for the design of the project and then when we have a more firm estimate sometime down the road when they're gone through that process, we would then need to identify construction funds.
So the City would have to identify the design costs, which we can do on our own. And then once you had a design team in place, they would then work with Miss Johnson-Thornton and American Women's Heritage Society to talk about the project and what would be done? Is that the way that would work?
They would work with her in the process actually, as they're designing with her and, I would assume, Fairmount Park to identify what the parameters of the project are before they can complete the final design.
And given what has happened in the past, and we don't want to -- I mean, we acknowledge the past, but I don't particularly want to live in it, especially given some of my history. What would we do going forward to make sure that the project gets 1949 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE completed on time and on budget? Who would do this project and oversee the design work and the specifications and what the project's actually going to be? Who would specifically oversee that?
I'm not entirely familiar with the way the first phase of the project was -- the full oversight of that project, but going forward --
The Capital Program Office -- the Fairmount Park engineering team has been -- has now become a part of the Capital Program Office, so they would take the lead responsibility in oversight of the project.
Because the Capital Program Office is now in charge of all Fairmount Park capital projects; is that correct?
May I ask a question? What happened to the original design that included the total amount of the project, the 1950 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE house as well as the extension?
I don't. I'm not familiar with that. I guess someone from the Park may know the answer to that. My current understanding is that the full design for the mansion has not been undertaken; however, I would defer to the Park on that.
Well, the Park will be up in a few minutes. So, lastly, do we have an ability to identify for this particular project in the design phase, are you in a position to say on the record today that we have identified the dollars that we would be able to make available July 1, 1999, at start of FY 2000, to be able to make this project go forward in order to determine what the full scope of this project is?
I can commit that we will identify that amount of funding within the current recommended Fairmount Park capital budget. There's currently nearly $9.5 million in the recommended budget for Fairmount Park. And given 1951 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE that we don't anticipate that we will obligate each and every dollar, obviously, we will move forward with all the projects, but some of them will take a little longer so I believe that within that $9.5 million, we could identify sufficient funding to move forward with the design on Belmont Mansion.
Okay, so the translation out of that is -- the answer is yes.
We will have the money available for July 1, 1999 to start a design phase of what the actual Belmont Mansion Project will be. The result of that phase will tell us exactly with work needs to be done and how much that work will cost; is that correct?
Could that be done for the year 2000, July, in time for the Republican Convention?
We could identify the design funding and move forward with design. I'm not sure -- what could be done, I'm not sure. 1952 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Miss Johnson, I'm sure, is going post-design; she wants to know if people are actually going to be able to come into the facility, a completed facility by the summer of the year 2000. That's her real question.
Again, I think that we would probably have to defer to the Park and the Capital Program Office in terms of the timing for that design period, but my current understanding is that design alone would be a six- to eight- month process, probably eight months.
Depending on what you see and what you come up with and --
And what, if any, documents or information remain from the previous design work that may or may not have been done.
Okay, all right. Okay, for the moment, Miss Paster, I will think I may be finished with you, but please don't go too far away.
Can I have Mr. Mifflin and the rest of his people come up and talk about the second part of this, which has to do with some lease issues and maybe a very short history of what happened with Phase I. (Fairmount Park panel members come forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is William Mifflin, Executive Director of the Fairmount Park Commission.
Okay. Mr. Mifflin, you will not, I'm sure, be able to answer this question immediately, but what I would now formally request from you is a complete detailed explanation of what happened in Phase I of this project, what design plans were or were not made or may have been proposed to have been made when this project started, and what they may have been for the Belmont Mansion complex -- I'm sorry you call it now "the Complex." It is still generally referred to as "Belmont Mansion," the unfinished portion. 1954 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE I'm requesting a complete accounting from the Historic Mansion Trust organization as to how much money was expended, where those dollars were expended, and for what those dollars were expended. So I'm looking for any information you may have with regard to original plans, change orders, any other delays that may have driven up costs that ended up utilizing the total of $1.3 million.
Now, I do want to get clear for the record, and Miss Johnson-Thornton, in your testimony, you make reference to an allocation of $400,000 from the City of Philadelphia.
It my understanding that the total allocation from the City of Philadelphia is actually in the neighborhood of $800,000, and the remaining $500,000 was from the Consortium of Foundations and other supporters that you may have had. Is that the correct figure?
Well, you're 1955 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE probably correct, but I was speaking in relation to your first $400,000 thousand that was disposed to take care of putting on a new roof.
That was before the Preservation Trust came on board.
When they came on board, they transferred those $400,000 to the Preservation Trust.
And, of course, like Bill said, there was more added that I was not aware of that.
Exactly. All right, but just so the record is very clear, the City of Philadelphia's portion of this project is $800,000; and the outside funding, primarily from the foundation community, was $500,000.
Okay. So Mr. Mifflin, you got the information request. But what I want to talk to you about is 1956 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE primarily some outstanding lease issues which are the second problem with regard to the Belmont Mansion. It is my understanding that the Park has asked for a number of -- for lack of better terminology for the moment, I will say either "concessions" or "requirements" as a part of a lease agreement with Belmont Mansion; is that correct?
And they are articulated in the testimony as the following: 1. A contribution of 30 percent of the gross income from the Mansion to the Park, regardless of Mansion expenses. 2. Allow the Park Commission to approve the fees that are utilized at the Mansion. And there may or may not be a dispute about whether or not any other historical house in the Park has that particular provision in their lease. It is mentioned in this testimony that that has been a previous component of the lease but had not been enforced in the past. 3. That a member of the Fairmount Park Commission or the Park Commission President will 1957 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE be an ex-officio member of the Board of Directors of AWHS. There is a contention that that requirement may or may not exist anywhere else. 4. That they will pay the operating costs of the Mansion which have always been a part of the their lease. There may not be any dispute about that. 5. The creation of an escrow account dedicated exclusively to capital repairs and replacement. That maybe related to item number 1, which is the 30 percent gross income set-aside. And, lastly, that they will pay for the installation of a fire and security system and provide fire escape equipment and extinguishers in full compliance with all requirements of the public authorities. This was supposed to be a part of the restoration, and supposedly these items are in place but they are not monitored. Now, can you comment on these six issues? And can we try to get, to some extent, some resolution or a better understanding of why these are outstanding issues in the first place?.
Yes, would be happy to. 1958 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Thank you, Councilman. As you've already heard testimony and you're already aware of the long, drawn-out exercise this has been with regards to a lease. And in the interim, during the construction period and today, AWHS has been occupying another Park facility.
Known as "Hatfield House." The contribution, as indicated in the testimony, of 30 percent, I believe was suggested by the Fairmount Park Commission as a point of negotiation or as a start of negotiation. And in fact, in the most recent meeting between the Commission Council, and counsel for AWHS, we asked AWHS if they would make a suggestion or an offer of what type of dollars or a percentage of the amount of revenue would be acceptable to them to be placed in escrow. So we're -- this is clearly something that can be negotiated.
It's an open item 1959 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE of discussion.
It really is. We just think it's important to have something.
I understand. I guess my -- I mean, I'd like to kind of go through these relatively quickly.
I guess the only issue I would raise with you is that 30 percent of gross can potentially really eat into the overall income of the organization versus some percentage of the net.
Because there are obviously expenses that need to be covered. And if you're taking out of the gross, you could have a situation where they're not necessarily making any money but they obviously have a requirement to set aside dollars.
The bottom line is, we want AWHS to succeed, so we're not interested in 1960 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE making it. . .
Can I say something to that? The 30 percent is really not important. We already put 90 percent in, you see? So when you talk about 30 percent, we wouldn't even be able to operate. Now, we do have the Belmont escrow account, which we established when we left Belmont and had to go to Hatfield because of the construction, and so that is where we have been trying to add monies to it, to continue with its maintenance.
But, of course, we cannot do with only half of a facility, you see?
All right. The second item, the approval of fees, are there any other historical mansions where we have that kind 1961 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE of arrangement? Or are there just other facilities that are income-generating that we have that kind of arrangement? For instance, golf courses, park-wide concessions, those entities. I know that the Park --
Clearly, Councilman, in all of those issues, the approval of the fee by the Fairmount Park Commission is a requirement of that concession agreement. However, in addition to those, we do have leased properties, in fact, where fee increases are also -- where the requirement is to be approved by the Fairmount Park Commission. Specifically in historic houses, the Glen Ford facility in Northeast Philadelphia, which is also a Fairmount Park facility, its fees are all approved by the Fairmount Park Commission.
What's the nature of Glen Ford does in comparison to what's going on 1962 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE at Belmont?
It's very similar to what AWHS does in Belmont Mansion. This is a not-for-profit organization which has a $1-a-year lease with the Fairmount Park Commission for the operation and management of an historic structure.
Other examples include the Owens Lane Art Center, Bartram Gardens. Other lease agreements -- those are all historic houses -- include the Zoo, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and the Mann Music Center.
Well, with regard to Belmont Mansion, I mean, what fees are you interested in either trying to oversee or monitor? Are you talking about rental fees, the price of a party versus the price of a wedding, or versus, you know, someone going on a tour? What are we talking about?
We have basically, Councilman, fiduciary responsibility for the activities that occur in our houses. We just want to be assured -- and we have no reason to believe that we would not be, and we ask this of all, 1963 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE through their annual report and a copy of the bylaws, of all not-for-profits which occupy our facilities. We just want to be assured that the charges that are being requested of potential sublessees are appropriate and reasonable so as not to exclude people who may not be able to afford a --
But any decision you might make -- I mean, I'm going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt. You're not going to make it in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. It would be subject to discussion with the tenant -- in this particular case, AWHS -- and more than likely on whatever day you're having fee passage day, there's some agreement between the parties, right?
All right. What's the purpose of having the President or any other member of the Park Commission as an ex-officio member on someone else's board?
Basically to ensure 1964 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE better coordination between the needs and the concerns and the desires, if you will, of that particular board in that particular Fairmount Park facility. If we are able to attend their meetings often as ex-officio members -- and it doesn't matter to us in what official capacity, whether it's actual board membership or ex-officio membership -- we can try to bridge that communication gap. There are 80 leases in which the Fairmount Park Commission has responsibility, and 11 facilities --
Does the Park have a board member on other people's boards of directors?
In addition to all the ones that I just mentioned, in which we approve their fees, of which I mentioned five, we have the Pegasus Riding Academy, Briars Mansion, and Friends of Riverfield. So we have 11 facilities in which we have enjoyed membership on their board. And again, it's not, you know, a situation where we want to know everything about 1965 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE this operation; we're just there to actually help them in operating needs, in capital needs. And 3 those 11 facilities are staffed by my deputy directors who, again, have, you know, great knowledge.
But you're not necessarily expecting the Park Commissioner is going to be in a position to vote --
-- if you will, with regard to that entity's operation or anything. Your position is that it's more for liaison and coordination.
Let me say this: We have no problem with that. The situation is that we belong to the Fairmount Park Council for Historic Sites.
Certain areas that Bill has mentioned are not historic sites; 1966 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE they are a separate entity from the other places that he's talking about.
Now, in 6 years, we have not proven ourselves in what we 7 have been able to do in making Belmont become one 8 of the most beautiful sights in this city? We 9 want to work with you. 10
But don't make 12 it so hard for us, you understand? We're 13 struggling, you know, right now because we only have half a facility. We need the other part.
I understand. But, I mean, Miss Johnson-Thornton, I don't get the impression that you're saying that even in an ex-officio capacity that a Park Commissioner is an onerous burden on you.
No. But, you see, it's not me alone; I have a board of directors.
And they voted 1967 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE against it because they weren't clear on what this really meant, you know what I mean? Was it being a rock star kind of thing or what?
Okay. The one item that seems to not be in dispute is the operating cost of the Mansion; you already take care of that, right?
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Clark for a point of order.
Madam Chair, I could not be more some supportive of any project than I am in continuing this project, but I believe that this process is not a good one. I believe that what is going on now ought to go on off the record at Mr. Nutter's office or in some private spot and that they ought to come back and 1968 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE say to us that they have agreement. Because where they are right now, Mrs. Thornton is going to ask for the most and the executives are going to promise the least, and you can't close that gap on a public record. But if they could negotiate off the record, they could come back with something that each could live with. I think we're burdening the record with far too much detail here.
Councilwoman, I greatly appreciate that. Audrey Johnson-Thornton, though, is well aware that many of these discussions have actually taken place in a variety of private forums. And quite honestly, one of my purposes here today -- not so much for her but with our public agency people -- is to establish a very public record about what they are going to commit to and what is going to get done. Because I really, during the course of this budget season, have as a goal to wrap up the two primary issues. There's a funding issue and a lease issue.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Clark for a point of 1969 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE order.
Mr. Nutter is making an argument. I agree with what he wants to do, I think it is very clear, but I just disagree that this is the time or the place to do it. And I believe that it burdens this record unnecessarily without getting us to the place where he's trying to go.
And for that matter, I offer myself as a negotiator to help do it in private, but I think that this is the wrong forum.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Mr. Mifflin, going forward, you've heard the testimony of Miss Paster with regard to engineering and design phase commitments.
What I would ask at this point in time is given that we are now going 1970 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE to move forward on making a determination of what the Belmont Mansion project is going to be and what it will need, that between now and then, after this discussion about lease issues, that we take the time that we have between now and the start of the project to nail down the discrepancies, the lack of information, and the language disputes between the Park Commission and AWHS over the lease issues, and utilize this time, based on your commitments on the record and based on some of the things that Miss Johnson-Thornton has committed to doing, to get the lease issues nailed down now. We have to have a lease in place to make the project go forward. There have been many discrepancies, many disputes. We need to get those resolved. Now, it does not appear that there is that much distance between you, but we needed to have the funding issue squared away, and I think that we got the commitment that we need for that today. Are you committed to getting that done? 1971 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
I'm committed totally to that. I have counsel here with me with afternoon. We're ready, willing, and able to meet with counsel for AWHS at their request.
I am. We have one of the most magnificent houses in the Park that is just deteriorating, and we cannot afford to let that happen, okay?
Okay. Are you satisfied with the responses you received here today?
And I appreciate Councilwoman Augusta Clark for her input. I think that's what it will take. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. 1972 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from any other members? (No further questions.)
Miss Harper, Miss Rosenthal, and Dr. Palmer, I believe you're all going to testify at the same time. (Above-named individuals come to the witness table.)
Good afternoon, Councilwoman. My name is Walter Palmer. I am the Chairperson for Health Center 2 at 1700 South Broad Street.
Good afternoon, members of Council. I'm Shelah Harper, and I'm Board Chair of Health Care Center 9, located at 131 East Chelten Avenue, in the Germantown section of the city. 1973 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE I'm here today on behalf of Health Care Center No. 9, all of the public health centers in the city and the growing number of uninsured which has changed over the years. It's reflecting people like myself who are self-employed. It's affecting people like myself who are full-time employed, part-time employed, unemployed, people who are moving from welfare to work, people who are losing their medical insurance benefits, period. Okay, our public health system is the only safety net for that majority of people. The number of uninsured nationally over the last ten years has increased by approximately 1 million people a year. Last year, it increased 100 percent to 1.7 million people a year. We are having a growing major uninsured population. The public health centers are the only safety net that remains in the City. It is critical that we allocate additional funds to maintain and support those centers. At Health Care Center No. 9, we have a number of concerns, issues. One, we have no mammography machine at our center at all. We are the only health care center that does not have mammography. In the 1974 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Germantown section of the City, we also have the highest percentage of women that die from breast cancer.
No. What happens is, our facility -- the Health Department has a mobile mammography machine that goes from each center, all of the eight centers. It can't get into our location because of the ramp and access ramp and the lack of room, okay? So, therefore, what we have done in the past was to send our patients over to Allegheny, which, of course, represents a barrier to women who are poor, who might not be able to travel that additional distance in order to get a mammography. So right now, we have no 19 mammography. And as I said, more women in Germantown are dying. It's like 50 percent -- I don't know what the exact number is, I do have it somewhere -- are dying from not having mammograms, which is a preventable disease. Secondly, we also have old X-ray 1975 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE equipment that was acquired from PGH.
That was acquired from PGH, Philadelphia General Hospital, in 1972, without knowing how long prior to '72 PGH operated it. That's the X-ray equipment that we currently use. Its quality may be okay; the concern would be the additional possibility of additional radiation exposure. The other concern we have is dealing with the facility. There's a standard that's set in the city of three patient exam rooms for each physician. We are below that standard. We have 17 exam rooms. We are undergoing renovations that are scheduled to be completed in March. We will have 20 by that time. However, that still makes us the smallest center of all the centers, even compared to a satellite clinic. We're concerned about that. We had a capacity study conducted to increase the number of exam rooms. I am not clear 1976 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE at this point whether the cost for expansion of our facility has been included in the current capital budget. We also have a lack of medical records room storage space and storage space. On the second floor, we currently openly house equipment, records because we have no place to put it, even though we're undergoing renovations. Those are some of the concerns over at Public Health Center No. 9, and they are detailed in a document that I will provide to Council so that you can understand those things. From the standpoint of all the health centers, we have major needs. We have a need for additional equipment, replacement, because all of us have old equipment, X-ray machines, mammograms. We have one mammogram mobile that operates for all eight centers, okay. If we are to become competitive with the people that are encroaching on our areas like the hospitals that are moving up the street from us, and what they're doing is, they're picking off the people with insurance and leaving us with the ones that don't have insurance. If we're to 1977 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE become more competent competitive, if we're to educate people in our community about how to stay healthy, if we are to do some outreach so that people even know that we exist so that we can get people to come in that do have insurance, that would assist us in offsetting some of those costs. Compliance with computer issues, Y2K. I don't know whether or not that issue has been dealt with. We have various operating computer systems where the hardware and the software's not compatible and they don't interact. And emergency preparedness. In the event of biological warfare, the Y2K whatever, any kind of a natural disaster or a hurricane, there are no backup emergency generator systems throughout our entire public system. Yes, we do have batteries that will give us light, but it will not operate all of the equipment, which means that our public health system would shut down in the event of a natural disaster. There are a lot of needs, and I realize that we're competing with everyone, other departments who also need additional funding. We, therefore, are proposing that Council take a more 1978 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE proactive stance in terms of going after the additional dollars that may possibly be available if we take that move. Example. The tobacco industry settlement that's currently being negotiated in Harrisburg. Will Philadelphia get its fair share of those funds? I personally have been fighting every minute a daily addiction to cigarettes, okay, which is a preventable disease. The tobacco industry could finance Philadelphia's public health system to a degree. The pharmaceutical industry. I went to an 18th Annual Mercy Douglas lecture series the other, and we had night shrimp and we had crabs and we had all kinds of wonderful food, and they even got a $45,000 grant from the pharmacy industry. The problem here is, most of our increasing costs for all of the public health centers is coming from prescriptions. And I think we need to get them back, court them a little bit, okay?
Request them to assist us in our efforts to maintain our safety net. That's the second option. Thirdly, as I drive through the ghetto, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE certain parts of the city over the last three years, I've watched some bulletin boards or whatever they call -- you know, those things right across from the government building, and I have never yet -- and I've been kind of taking note. I have never seen anything that doesn't depict young, glamorous females, males, entertainers courting our youth to buy their alcohol and beer. Now, either we can approach them from the standpoint of a lot of the health issues that we have right now are impacting our youth and these are preventable, so will you give us whatever X-amount of dollars we need to begin to go after them. And the final option is to ask Council to cover that whole entire bill. Lastly and very importantly for those communities where Allegheny previously had their programs operating hospitals, from the year 1988, which was a year right after Allegheny acquired those hospitals, nationally, I think it was like $902 million that was being given to serve specifically the uninsured. " Okay, it was 1980 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE $902 million in 1998. In 1996, nationally, that number increased to $19 billion. Okay, I don't know what percentage went to Allegheny from that disproportionate hospital share. There was an increase also in maternal and child health funds that came from the federal government. Were those dollars spent to deal with the uninsured? If they were not -- and at this point I addressed a letter to the Attorney General on February 1st; I haven't received any response as of yet because we would really like to get some feedback as a community. If those funds were spent, which I -- given all the things that I've read in the paper, I don't know whether they were. I doubt very seriously if every single dollar was spent on that population. Although I know the City and the feds and everybody is going to Allegheny getting in line, maybe we need to research the possibility of suing their liability insurance company for funds that were earmarked for the uninsured of our communities. If these things, which we consider to be a more proactive stance, aren't dealt with, we 1981 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE have to then just ask Council and the City to foot the bill. We need a cost-of-living increase or whatever you call it, rising health care costs, across the board for both operating and capital budget expenses if we are to cover all those additional needs of public health. Right now, the system is threatened -- and it's not just in Philadelphia; it's nationally. So we're here today to request that Council make these moves that we are suggesting and add to your capital and operating budget the additional funds that's needed to support Philadelphia's only safety net, the public health centers. Thank you.
Thank you. Miss Rosenthal, are you going to testify?
Miss Rosenthal was not able to come at this time. I think she called earlier and asked your aide if she could come to speak at 2:45.
And my name is Alice Hayes, 1982 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE H-A-Y-E-S. And I'm a member of Board of Citizens at Health Center No. 9. And, again this year, I would like to invite City Councilmembers to visit their health centers on a regular basis in order to see for yourselves firsthand the needs of the citizens of Philadelphia in the public health area. You can see for yourself, once you visit the health centers, that the budget for the Philadelphia Department of Public Health is insufficient and needs to be increased. And we are here today to testify for that increase to occur within the next year's budget for the capital budget as well as the operational budget. And, again, we would like to encourage City Council to visit the local health centers so that you can see how each center operates and how each center needs a number of additional services as well as additional equipment. And we thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
Thank you, Councilwoman 1983 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Verna. And I'll try to make mine more brief and to the point in terms of the process. First of all as you know, the City of Philadelphia's Health Department is a partnership with the community boards that exist in the ten health centers around the City of Philadelphia. And over the past several years, they've attempted to try to strengthen that partnership between the Health Department -- particularly the leadership of our commissioner, and she was a great commissioner. But one of the things that oftentimes happens, and this is historic. In the 1960s, when myself and a number of us were fighting to try to improve the quality of health care for the poor and were setting up these health centers and had the aid of Councilwoman Dr. Allen, who was on this Council and who was an active, proactive person in terms of health care, the health care facilities are oftentimes treated like a stepchild. And largely because they serve the poor, the black and poor. And for many years, we really had to fight tooth and nail. We fought hard to try to 1984 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE get community empowerment and have community boards which really were proactive and could really be the eyes and ears of City government. It was a strained relationship at best. We think that we're getting close to developing a relationship with the Administration and with those who are health advocates. But I think that one of the pieces that is missing is that, in fact, we come to you even today, we come after the fact. The budget has been set, there's a certain amount of money, there's targeted dollars which, in fact, the Administration has to work with and that the Commissioner has to stay inside with. What it does is, it leaves those who are on the front line, the health advocates and those board chairpeople, it leaves us out of the loop for trying hard to give you a sense what is really happening and give our passion about that. , act in concert with the health committees prior the actual budget itself. At that time, I think 1985 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE the kind of specifics specific which Shelah has spoken to then gets into it. My plea, along with the other ten health centers, is that we really consider moving away from a fixed budget allocation, which has been the case for the health centers in the city and move towards some formula which allows us to take into consideration these advances which Shelah talks about. We have needs that are very, very deep. In Strawberry Mansion, there's no X-ray machine, and patients have to go five blocks in order to get an X-ray. In this day and age, in the 1900s and moving into the year 2000, this is simply ludicrous for us to operate like that. , and pharmacists, we need to really think about putting money together which will allow us to do community outreach. We need to be able to get into the communities of Philadelphia and particularly 1986 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE amongst poor people to let them know these centers exist. Many, many people who could use these centers are not using these centers, and we think it's critical that we get those people into the centers. We also recognize the fact that unlike the 1960s, what has happened now is that not only are the poor being treated in these centers but also you have people with insurances that are being treated, and these are the dollars which are being competed for. And unless we have facilities and services which are competitive with other agencies, we are going to lose those dollars, and once again, we'll revert back to the '60s, where, in fact, these centers will be nothing more than warehouses for the poor.
We implore you to really considerate the prospect of this partnership being expanded, where the board chairman and board representatives can meet with Council and Council's committees to really give an earnest assessment of what the needs of the poor are in terms of our health-care needs in the City of Philadelphia.
Doctor, I 1987 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE really want to thank you. I think all of your testimony was very good, certainly extremely enlightening. And I think, Doctor, your ideas are certainly very good ones. I know that Commissioner Richman is in the room and she has heard your testimony. It is our hope that we will be able to get together with her to see how we can be of assistance to you. But I totally agree with you about next year's budget and how we can pursue that. At this point in time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. May I call you "Shelah"? Shelah, I want to follow up on something that you said about alcohol and tobacco advertising on spaces across from public buildings and health facilities. I want to point out something that should even be more of a concern -- that the City of Philadelphia has bus shelters throughout the city and we accept revenue from alcohol and tobacco advertisers and let them place their advertising on those shelters, so I think that that is something. 1988 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE And I'm working with the Administration, but apparently, there's some federal legislation that they'd rather wait to take place rather than the Mayor issue an executive order stopping alcohol and tobacco advertising on these public spaces. So again, I just wanted you to be aware of that, that that's a concern of mine and I hope would become a concern of yours. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And my testimony will be reduced to writing and submitted to you as well.
One other issue. We need extended hours for our public health centers. Right now, with welfare-to-work, we're going to have a lot of people that are going to be going to work. And in order to get health-care needs taken care of, they're going to have to come and sit in our health care center, and maybe they might be seen that day and maybe they won't. Okay, well, when you're new to the workforce and you've never worked before and you 1989 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE call out with too many sick days, that means the possibility that you might be fired. And what are we going to do? Are we going to return 'em to welfare? I don't think we can because that's not even an option.
8 a.m. To approximately 4, 4:30 p.m. every day, Monday through Friday. We do, however operate a pediatric program at most of the centers that's open one day in the evening, but we need to add adult care to those hours since they're already opened in the evening so that we can address those needs of people moving from welfare to work.
Very well. Thank you. We will discuss that with Commissioner Richman. Thank you. (Applause.)
C. Gloria Akers, Adrienne Jenkins, Donald Brown, and James Maxton, all representing the Cultural Alliance group. Would they please approach the table. If Susan Gobreski is here, if she would 1990 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE just come up and sit in front of the rail, you will be next testifying. (Cultural Alliance panel members come forward.)
May I ask you to try to be as brief as possible because we have a number of people that would like to testify today, and I certainly want to give everyone that opportunity. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councilwoman Verna. I am C. Gloria Akers, President of the Philadelphia Cultural Fund. W.E.B. DuBois, in 1903, wrote the following: "Art is not simply works of art; it is the spirit that knows beauty, that has music in its soul, and the color of sunsets in its handkerchief, that can dance on a flaming world and make the world dance too." We have just completed the application process which has resulted in 182 Philadelphia arts and cultural organizations receiving award grants for Fiscal Year '99. We appreciate and thank you for the additional $500,000. The $1.5 million allocated to these 182 cultural 1991 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE organizations strengthens them in a vital area -- general operation funds. And who are these organizations that we fund? Forty-five are small organizations with budget under $50,000. They represent percent 7 of the organizations who receive funding. The 8 Koresh Dance Company, the Latin American Guild for 9 the Arts, Johnson House Historic Site, and on and 10 on. As small organizations, they are dependent on 11 cultural funds to sustain them and allow for 12 growth. 13 And where do they perform and provide 14 their services? In your districts, in our 15 neighborhoods. They exist to create because of 16 the increased funding that you, the members of 17 City Council, have made possible. 18 Cultural funds encourage and increase 19 opportunities for involvement and participation in 20 arts and cultural activities by culturally diverse 21 communities. The largest group of organizations 22 receiving grants are those with budget under 23 $1 million and more than 50,000. They number 105 24 and represent 58 percent of the total groups. 25 Thirty-two organizations with budgets of a million 1992 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE or more receive one-third of the appropriation as decreed in the bylaws. The funds you appropriate for the arts and cultural communities are well-spent. The need has been demonstrated, the importance to our City is significant, and the benefits to the broad community are great. The social impact of the organizations we fund is proven every day. We thank you for the increase this year. We also request that you consider future increases with more funding, we can assure the continued growth of our essential arts and cultural community. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Adrienne Jenkins, and I'm the Executive Director of the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, the region's advocacy organization for arts and culture. On behalf of our nearly 200 members in Philadelphia County, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of an increased 1993 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE appropriation to the Philadelphia Cultural Fund from $1.5 million to $2 million for next fiscal year. As you know, Philadelphia boasts of wealth of cultural organizations which are vital to the City's social and economic quality of life. Not only does culture generate significant income for the City by providing thousands of residents with employment, but it also fuels growing tourism industry, stimulating spending at hotels and restaurants which provides additional revenues to the city. This economic impact is estimated at $564 million in the region, with most of this realized in Philadelphia. Furthermore, the arts are an investment in our children and our families as a means to stimulate learning and enhance community stability. The cultural sector is one of the City's most diverse, bridging gaps between communities of different races, ages, and income. Philadelphia is the fifth largest City in the nation but currently ranks eighth of the nation's ten larger cities in government per capita operating support for the arts. Operating 1994 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE support for non-line item cultural institutions dropped from a high of over 2.3 million to zero funding if fiscal year '91. Thanks to the efforts of this City Council and Mayor Rendell, operating support for the City's nonprofit cultural institutions have been restored and now stands at 1.5 million. Yet the City's current investment in the cultural sector does not reflect its importance to Philadelphia. Increased funds are critical to ensure that the City's cultural institutions, from the Museum of Art to the smallest community art center, can continue to serve Philadelphia residents. The current level of funding provides much-needed operating support; yet additional funds are required to address the increasing demand for the City's cultural institutions to attract visitors and residents to the City, contribute to community revitalization, and fuel economic growth. And as new cultural organizations continue to emerge, a larger pool of funds is needed to sustain the impact across a greater number of cultural groups. As you know, operating funds are 1995 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE extremely difficult to come by for these organizations. Yet, it is this very form of support that enables cultural groups to operate while developing new and innovative programming that involves City residents from every walk of life and elevates Philadelphia's status as a cultural destination. As we consider the potential for Philadelphia to shine in the next millennium, arts and culture undoubtedly provides a positive and significant contribution to economic revitalization, neighborhood development, and renewed interest in the City as a place to live, visit, and work. Viewed in its broader context, increased support for the City's cultural institutions seems warranted. On behalf of the hundreds of members and friends of the Cultural Alliance, I thank Council for its past support of Philadelphia cultural institutions and ask that you renew this commitment with an increase in the Cultural Fund appropriation to $2 million for Fiscal Year 2000. Culture counts, and we hope we can count on you to support it. Thanks very much. 1996 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is James Maxton, Vice President of the Village Arts and Humanities and resident artist. I'm here in support of -- I'm sorry Madam President and City Council -- I am pleased to be here in support of increased funding for the Cultural Alliance. And I'm here to speak about impact. You know, on my community the impact has been great, to say the least, you know. But at the same time, watching the wonder of little kids as they get into an artistic, creative kind of phase to receive visitors from literally around the world, you know, just recently, some people from Taiwan was there in a group to see the village and enjoy the things that we created there. And I was amazed, but more so that two weeks ago that a lady from Australia, Sidney, talked about walking into a book store and picking up a book with images from around North Philadelphia from our particular art organization and then being so moved and so impressed that she 1997 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE came literally around the world to visit this particular place, you know. And that's the impact of art. You know, like I was based at North Central Philadelphia, which also encompasses the bad lands and all of those things that are bad about urban life, but at the same time, it created space, that we could build something beautiful that would, you know, impress people from the other side of the globe, and at the same time, enrich and somehow empower our community residents, know what I'm saying? -- through jobs and job training. And it's a sense of creativity that allows them to see the beauty of life itself rather than, you know, like the vacant, trash-filled lots that permeate their community. And we hope to change all of that, you know, like every vacant lot, we want to try and put some kind of park garden or something that will meet the needs of the residents of the neighborhood or community; and at the same time, give children incite on creative process that can possibly have them reach through another plane and level, you 1998 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE know, so that from a large impact to the smallest of possible tiny people that run around and want to be a part of and to give them something, I think that it is vital to continue to support those organizations and those communities. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Council President. My name is a Donald Brown. I'm the Managing Director of Freedom Theater, a repertory company as well as a performing-arts training program based in North Philadelphia. We serve over 50,000 patrons a year and a little over a thousand students each year. We're here in support of increased funding for the Cultural Fund. We'd like to see the funding increase to at least $2 million this year but we'd also like to urge you to ask the Mayor to include in their five-year plan an increase in the Cultural Fund to $5 million over the next five years. We need this increase for several 1999 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE reasons. First and foremost, we feel the arts are critical to individuals as well as to the community. There's lots of research out right now that shows or talks about the impact of arts on the individual. We also are starting to see the impact of arts on the community in terms of redevelopment. At Freedom Theater, we are developing housing, carpentry shops for job training, and a number of other programs that have served to expand in and around North Philadelphia and Temple corridor. Another reason we need it is because, as a regional organization, we apply for a large amount of national funding. The first thing they ask us is, What is the City doing, what's Philadelphia doing? Because if Philadelphia is showing an increase in support for the arts, then it's saying to Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation that maybe it's a good place for us to invest our funds as well. The third reason is because we're developing a cultural tourism industry here, and Philadelphia needs to be competitive. Baltimore, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE New York, these cities see Philadelphia as a market to bring business out of. And if we have to invest in the cultural organizations, we're investing funds in cultural tourism to say, Come to Philadelphia. But we also need some dollars to say that once you get here, there's something to do, that the places will be open. We need your continued support and we need your continued leadership. Thank you.
Thank you. And thank you all for the wonderful work that you do. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Again, I'm going to ask that witnesses please try to be brief. We have a timer here. We will certainly allot each individual three minute to speak. We would like to hear everybody that's on the list to testify, so I think that's only courteous that we do that. The next witness is Susan Gobreski. And following Susan will be the Victim Service Agency. Are they here? Okay, so you're in the front. 2001 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (Ms. Gobreski comes forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Okay. Good afternoon. Thanks for hearing my testimony, Council President Verna. My name is Susan Gobreski, G-O-B-R-E-S-K-I. I represent Clean Water Action, which is a grass-roots organization working on environmental and quality-of-life issues here in Philadelphia, and which conducts door-to-door educational and outreach campaigns. We are also a part of the Recycling Alliance, one of the founding members of the Recycling Alliance, a coalition of organizations working for recycling. And I'm here really simply -- I feel kind of funny to ask you to support one of your own programs -- expanded recycling in the City. We're asking for your support to fund weekly collections for recycling. When I testified last year, we asked Council for a new recycling coordinator, to push to get a new recycling coordinator hired. That's happened. The other 2002 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE thing we were looking to do is to return to weekly collections, which were much more successful than the current biweekly program. We have hired -- a new coordinator's been hired, and the people working on this program have made tremendous progress in moving forward. We have to actually commend people we were here raising questions about last year. The Streets Department has really worked to be responsive to Council and to the community. Now we need to take the next step and provide for Philadelphia residents to participate fully in a program they know is responsible and that can be successful. As I understand it, the Streets Department staff have recommended expanding the program to weekly recycling this year. We would like to support that, we're very pleased. Philadelphians want this service. As we testified last year, studies done by the Recycling Office show that weekly recycling would at least double citizen participation and likely increase the recycling rate to at least more than 20 percent right off the bat, thus coming much 2003 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE closer to City Council's own goal of a 50 percent recycling. 5 percent, and we can do better. We also need to learn to manage our waste stream with an overall approach. Council itself last year grappled with the issue of sending waste to Chester, a community that's been dumped on. It's got an incredibly high amount of waste facilities in its community, but we have to send it away somewhere. I guess my question is, What if we didn't? What if we could divert or 40 percent 14 out of the waste stream or more? What if trash 15 were a resource and we could get it off the 16 streets, out of the landfills, and use those 17 materials to create new resources, attract new 18 industries, be responsible consumers, stop dumping 19 on our neighbors, and create more jobs? Our 20 streets would be cleaner and we would continue to be our green country town. We need weekly recycling. We need to increase participation, provide access to the service for our communities residents. We need to make the program easier to participate in. At 2004 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE this point, it's also -- communities want it, City Council has stated over and over that they want it, and now the Streets Department is moving it forward. So we need your help. The budget needs to fund the requested funding allocation that the Streets Department has funded this year. Last year, I sat here. Many of you stated your support and interest in recycling. People have been writing to you about this, and I actually have more letters here, and I know some of you are getting letters, and there are more on the way. This is -- just to finish up. In 1987, City Council showed tremendous leadership in passing the first mandatory urban recycling laws in the country when it adopted 1251-A. As you had for the next millennium, we need to show that we see the future as clearly now as we did then. I urge you to once again show your leadership in supporting weekly collections and education to make it work.
And I think what's been requested is fairly small relatively to getting the program going. I know that we're actually paying less per ton to get rid of 2005 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE recycling that to get rid of trash.
The Councilmembers -- not to cut you short, but the Councilmembers have recently met with the Streets Commissioner and some of his deputies. We are talking about increased recycling, heard what you said last year, and believe me, we're very much aware of the direction that you're going, and I think we all want to follow that same direction.
That's great, and I just have one more quick statement, then I'm done. And that is that I think everyone knows or should know that Governor Ridge, as part of his Growing Initiative, there is a recycling fund that provides significant grant funding in municipalities across the State. In the recycling fund, apparently, they've announced that there is an excess of money in it, and Governor Ridge is planning to essentially raid the recycling fund to use it for other projects -- they are good environmental projects that need to be funded, but one of the issues for us is that there is funding for recycling out there and available, and we need to 2006 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE be ready to tap into it. We can get a lot more resources into the City by taking one step forward. The program's going to grow exponentially. We need your help. That's it, I'm done.
Great, thank you. Are there any questions or comment from members of the committee? (No questions.) (Applause.)
Thank you very much. The next group to testify is the Victim Service Agency. (Victim Service Agency panel members come forward.)
My name is Jane Bordehaas. I'm with the Victim Service Agency. And I also have with me to speak briefly Stephanie Mayweather, Director of East Division Crime Victim Services, and Esther Mercado, who's going to speak about her services. Before I start, I would also like to 2007 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE just take the time because to us it's important to acknowledge this, to ask the different members of the victims service agencies to stand up and give their names so that you have a good sense of the range of services that we do provide. Carol Johnson, Executive Director of Women Organized Against Rape. Patricia Dubin, Director of the Women Against Abuse Legal Center. Victoria Ginns, with Women Against Abuse. Ursula Thompson, representing the Elderly Victim Assistance Program, which is part of Action Alliance of Senior Citizens. Mary Rose Atlas, with the Families of Murder Victims Program, which is a program of the Anti-Violence Partnership of Philadelphia. Anika Virgin, Victim Advocate, at Victim Witness Services in South Philadelphia. Rosa Lugo, Core Advocate of the East Division Crime Victims services and also Community Outreach Coordinator. Jacqueline Kemp, Executive Director of Northwest Victims Services. 2008 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Leland Kent, Assistant Director of Victim Services at the District Attorney's office. Germaine DeLeone, Victim Advocate of South Philadelphia.
Thank you for your patience. This is not just an exercise actually for us. This is a real expression of how closely we all work together to make sure that there is a complete safety net of victim services for the City of Philadelphia. We represent a combination of community-based neighborhood agencies who are associated with particular neighborhoods -- as you've heard, South Philadelphia and Northwest Philadelphia, Center City, and then also the citywide agencies which specialize in homicide, domestic violence, sexual assault, and senior services. And all of us all of these agencies are here to serve your constituents. And the funding that you give us allows us to provide them these services free of charge. There are increased pressures on our services. We've done a good job so far in educating our communities about the services that 2009 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE are available. And that, of course, means that we have now more clients coming into access those services, and we're pleased that that's the case, but it does put more pressure on our staff members. We've also found that just recently, some of the changes in the correct grading of the crimes has meant that we have had more clients coming in with police reports that truly reflect the crimes committed, and thus allow them to access more victim services. And we do anticipate, with the welfare-to-work program, that there will be increased pressure on all social services, including ours, at least during the time of transition. We really feel this year, that we really need to keep highly trained and experienced advocates who understand the complexities of the judicial system, who understand the complexities of crime victims' compensation, including, for example, insurance issues. We find that we end up doing a lot of insurance counseling because people do not know whether their insurance covers their medical bills they have as a result of being a 2010 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE victim of violence. So we need people who really understand how those issues work. And, certainly, we need people who have an experience of working with other social services in the City of Philadelphia and know what types of services are available. So we need to be able to maintain staff and be able to provide at least a realistic cost-of-living increase. One area that we've worked on this year is trying to reach out to those victims who may be marginal. We have gotten some increased funding from the State to do early intervention in cases specifically where perhaps there has not been an arrest, and so those victims do not immediately get access to services via the court system, but we need to reach out to them. Frequently, those victims are those victims with language barriers, those victims who, as a result of age or frailty, don't immediately know how to go out and get resources for themselves; they need our help. And sometimes those victims actually require more staff time in order to make sure that we understand what happened to them and what services they need. 2011 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
You're going to have to come to a close. We are all fully aware of the wonderful work that your agency does. If I may interrupt you for just a minute, I'd like to ask a question. Your budget comes under the DA's office?
Well, we did not get a detailed budget from the District Attorney'S Office.
My question to you is, what appropriation did you get last year? And what was your request, or what are you being budgeted for this year?
We have not seen this in print either. Our understanding, however, first is that -- Well, of all, let me answer your first question. Last year, we got $459,000, I think it was -- $459, 500. Right, $459,500 for victim services. Our understanding is that the DA is 2012 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE proposing the say same amount for this year, that her concerns this year lie in other areas. We are asking of you an increase to $582,150, which averages out to about a $10,000 increase for each of the agencies which 7 receives money from City funds. 8 We did send every Councilmember a 9 statement of need, explaining what we do and what 10 the increased pressures on us are. And then at 11 the back of that, there is a chart showing the 12 history of the funding, so --
What could $10,000 more do for each of the groups?
Right, it does, and we'd be happy to receive more, but. . . What it could do for me would be to hire a halftime case manager, something like that. It could mean finally acquiring up-to-date computer equipment or the ability to network on the computers. 2013 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE There's a lot of pressure now coming out of the Pennsylvania on Crime and Delinquency to computerize to have all of our data on computer, and we're actually taking some leadership in Philadelphia in helping to develop that program, and it's in the testing stages, but that does mean that we need staff members who are computer-trained. We need the right kinds of computers to do that kind of work. And we eventually will need, you know, sort of computer networking, for example, or something like that, and all of that costs money. I think for most of us, it might mean, for example, giving an increase in salary to staff members who have not had a salary increase in a number of years.
Did anyone ever discuss your budget needs with you before your coming here?
We discussed them among ourselves as a coalition, and usually, in the past, we have tried to take the time to talk with City Councilmembers and sometimes with someone from the DA's Office. 2014 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Did you discuss this with anybody in the District Attorney's's office or --
Just briefly, but we have found -- and we have talked with Lynne about asking for increases. And this year, that just was not a priority. In fact, we didn't really put a lot of pressure on her this year to ask for an increase for us; we decided to bring it to City Council.
You know we're always more sympathetic; is that it? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the Chair directly stated this, but as you were going through your testimony. I looked in one of our two big budget books under the District Attorney's Office, and I just think it's important for the record that normally all of the departments which, you know, are often 10, 15, sometimes 20 pages in the big budget book, the DA section is 2 pages. And there is a sheet of paper here that 2015 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE says: "The following departmental summary by fund for the District Attorney reflects the amounts included in the Mayor's Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2000 as proposed to the Council." The district attorney did not supply matching budget detail prior to the printing deadline. So that is the reason we have no 9 information --
-- on you. You know, we have one summary budget sheet that just lists by class. There's none of the contracts or any other information.
Mm-hmm. Exactly. We did ask someone in the District Attorney's Office, and his response was that the request was going to be the same this year as last year's.
And now, in the previous fiscal year, though, you did get -- 2016 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Yeah. I think it's listed back here. My math is not great, but it went up from 385.
It had gone up to 456 in 1995-96 and then it went back down again into the 300,000 range. And then last year, it went back up to 459. So it's about now just slightly more than it was in '95-'96.
Just one technical piece of information. Do you know -- this was a program that was maybe originally created or conceived by, think I, the Mayor?
So that's how you essentially ended over in DA's Office, the DA's 2017 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE budget. And, I think, one year, because of a dispute, you were actually taken out of there and placed over in the Managing Director's Office, although operationally, maybe that didn't work out too well.
And so kind of your fortunes often go the way of the DA's fortunes -- or, in her particular case, misfortunes at times.
Mm-hmm. We try to keep the two separate, and I don't know what goes on in the background, but we try to --
And we try to -- that's why. Because we have a very good relationship with a number of City Councilmembers, you know, we try to sort of maintain class 250 for the victim services as a slightly special in the group.
And I'm sorry, just one more time for the record. I heard the $10,000 figure; I know that can't be the number. What is the real number?
Oh, I'm sorry. That 2018 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE was -- it's $582,150, the increase. And I just sort of divvied it --
Yes, and then I divided it by and that's how I came up with 10,000. 8
Are there any 11 other questions or comments from members of the 12 committee? (No further questions.)
Did you want to recognize the young women that are with you?
And I'm going to ask you to please try to be brief.
Yes. This is Stephanie Mayweather, who is Director of the East Division Crime Victim Services, and Esther Mercado is here to talk about her experience also.
Again, I'm Stephanie Mayweather, and I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on behalf of Victim 2019 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Services. I'll be about a minute. The City is covered by a network of seven community-based Victim Service agencies and five citywide specialized agencies, each serving an integral and vital part of Philadelphia neighborhoods. We are active in the communities of your constituents. Victim Service agencies provide a myriad of much-needed service to victim, witnesses, and family members whose lives have been greatly impacted by a criminal act. We provide information, support, and counseling services at preliminary hearings and trials. We help victims determine eligibility for crime victim compensation funds, funds for funeral expenses, funds to cover uninsured and under-insured medical expenses, loss of wages, and loss of support as a result of a violent criminal act. We act as a liaison between the victim, witnesses, and families with the District Attorney's Office, the Police Department, the Probation and Parole Departments, the Crime Victim Compensation Board, medical providers, and 2020 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE employers. We refer to other social service agencies for emergencies and long-term needs. We track the progress of cases as they move through the judicial system and maintain contact with victims in each of these cases. We intervene in harassment and intimidation cases, helping victims obtain protection orders and helping them contact assigned detectives in the District Attorney's Office. We provide an early support program where we attempt to contact all victims and witnesses prior to their scheduled preliminary hearings. We notify victims and witnesses who do not appear in court of the outcome of their cases. We speak to community groups, churches, seniors, colleges, schools, and other groups about our services and victims' rights. We provide knowledge and empowerment. We respond to the emotional and psychological needs of victims. We provide a feeling of safety for those in need. In the words of one of our victims, we help victims navigate through the uncharted sea of the criminal justice system. 2021 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE We are also efficient in the expenditure of City funds. We are lean but not mean. Who are we? Today, we are the voice of all victims throughout the City, asking for your much needed continued and increased support. And today I have with me again Miss Esther Mercado, who will speak to you about how the Victim Service Agency has helped her.
Hi. My name is Esther Mercado, and I'm here today to talk to you about a family that was in a very tragic accident. She was 28 years old at the time, with three children. Her son was six years old, her daughter four, and a two-year-old. This mother of three and her finance went to pick up her son from school. As they traveled west on York Street and stopped at a traffic light, bang. From that day on, the family's life changed forever. The mother suffered a collapsed lung, she was in the hospital for a week. Her six-year-old son suffered from a fractured skull, fractured arm. Due to the injury of the brain, he lost senses in his right leg and 2022 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE an abrasion to the right eye. Her four-year-old daughter suffered a broken left leg, and the two-year-old daughter died at the scene. Three parts of her spine was broken, and she lost oxygen to her brain. The two-year-old daughter died February the 5th, 1997, on her sister's birthday. The defendant came from Jersey, speeding to buy drugs, when he ran three lights and plunged into the car. The mother that went through that tragedy was me, and that is my story. This is my daughter (holding up photograph). Due to my injuries, I was unable to arrange and attend funeral service for my daughter. The next time I saw my daughter, her ashes was handed to me in an urn. The crime victim agency helped me get crime victim compensation information about funeral and medical expenses, short-term counseling and much-need long-term support. They also helped me deal with the fact that the defendant did not receive as much jail time as I thought he should have. Because of a parent of a murdered loved one, no defendant ever receives as 2023 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE much time as you feel they should have. The support I receive from the Crime Victim Agency I received was so important to me that I want to give back what was given to me. Now I am currently working as a court advocate at East Division Crime Victims Services through AmeriCorps. Today I ask for your continuing and much-needed support to Victim Service agencies. Thank you. (Applause.)
Are there any questions or Councilmen from any of members. (No questions.)
Esther, thank you very much for coming in to testify. And I assure you that we're all very much aware of the wonderful work that the Victim Service Agency does, and we applaud you. Thank you very much.
Thank you. I would like to point out one thing because we try to make a point of this every year, and I'm sorry I didn't quickly bring this in, but 2024 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE we brought back into the City more than $820,000 in crime victim compensation payments to doctors, for counseling, and so on, which is almost twice as much as the City put out to fund our agencies.
It's $820,000. The exact amount is listed in the statement of need. It's $820,802.
Our next witness is Shelly Yanoff. And after Miss Yanoff will be Michael Danjeczhek. (Shelly Yanoff comes forward.)
Before starting, I want to underscore the important work in the plea that was just heard. 2025 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE I'm Shelly Yanoff, Executive Director of Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth, which is the region's child advocacy organization. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Unlike other times, I will be relatively brief and focus on just a few issues. We are pleased that the trend for children's services in the City, in most cases, is incrementally going in the right direction. As always, the question is whether the increment is sharp enough to save children and to have the City be one which supports children and families. The question will be particularly important as we continue to face the dramatic impact of welfare change and other system change. The budget, as presented, continues in most instances the work that has been begun several years ago. The Department of Human Services appears funded to be able to continue it's system reform efforts, with more emphasis on prevention, adoption, in-home services, and family preservation. The progress in securing better funding from the federal government and in shaping initiatives has been very positive. 2026 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE But there is still, as always, much to do, and there is serious trouble on the horizon. I need not describe to this Council the possibilities of the increase in foster placement because of families' loss of cash assistance. And I need not remind you of the possibilities of families acting out under the pressure of welfare reform, or of juveniles being unsupervised and getting into and causing trouble. Yet these are distinct possibilities. I encourage you and urge you to do all that you can to correct some of the worst aspects of the welfare reform law and to expand the youth opportunities in the non-school hours to respond to some of the issues which are under your control. I understand that some child welfare providers are struggling to keep staff within the current rate structure and that many others have had to expand their hours and times because of the impact of the new welfare change. I believe that there is a rate study underway which may change some of the figures within the budget. I would urge that the Department be 2027 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE provided the resources to make sure that every family threatened by welfare change that is also on the Department's case load be visited by someone to make sure that the kids are all right. We are entering into a new era. It is very important to keep track of what's happening to our most vulnerable children. There are currently fewer reports coming in to the system reporting children being abused and neglected. That may be very good news; it may mean that many of the reforms are working. But it may also be bad news; it may mean that people are giving up and not reporting. We have to keep careful watch over these issues because we simply don't know and we can't let our kids become invisible. More people should be sent out into the community to check on what is happening, both as a result of welfare and as a result of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. We are concerned additionally that it seems that it's more than ten years since there was acknowledged agreement that we needed a Youth Study Center replacement, and it doesn't look as if ten years later, we're moving very close to 2028 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE getting it to happen. It seems that we should move much faster than that -- think of it as a stadium or something and get it done. The Health Department budget continues to show progress. The health centers are serving more uninsured people, as you heard today, and will probably continue to do so. The Maternal and Child Division is serving more at-risk families through home visiting, in collaboration with private agencies and the Department of Human Services.
The collaboration which you approved last year between the School District and Community Behavioral Health Services is particularly important in trying to meet an unmet need of providing preventive mental-health services in the community to kids. There are thousands of children in the city who need more such assistance. The model that was begun last year of CBH taking its resource savings and reinvesting in children's preventive services is one which we support and would urge be spread. There are thousands more children who need counseling throughout our schools and 2029 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE neighborhoods. We are concerned that the number of children, however, being served in early intervention programs has not grown. We are further concerned that there appears to be no plan in place to require that health centers be open on Saturdays and off-hours to accommodate families who must work during the regular hours. We urge you, as those before us did, to advance that need and provide that support. The Mayor's Children and Families Cabinet has broken out of its categorical funding and moved to coordinate services and collaborate in ways that are making a major difference in the neighborhoods. We are pleased that the youth access centers and the family centers continue to grow and provide services to family where they live, that the anti-violence youth activity Safe and Sound initiative are all taking and offer a great deal of promise to a city that's had more than its share of disappointments. The Library and Recreation Department's maintenance expansion this year are important and overdue. We particularly applaud the growth of 2030 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE after-school programs over the last several years and are pleased that there's more funding for the libraries to expand their after-school effort. We are, however, disappointed that there's not more expansion, nor significant quality-improvement funds for the Recreation Department to make the difference that it must to get to scale so that we can reap the benefits in neighborhoods all over the City of youth development activities in the non-school hours. The growth in after-school programs has been important but must continue and improve if we are to have a good city to raise children in, a safe city for all of us, and a better chance for all our kids. As we've said before, we urge that investments be linked, we urge that putting a 1 percent ticket surcharge on tickets to events that are held in arenas or stadiums that were built with public dollars. If we did it, we could provide support for youth development funds in the neighborhoods, so that when we pay $50 or $20 or $10 to see a football, hockey, or basketball game, the kids in the neighborhoods get a better chance 2031 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE at recreation in their world. Currently, a 1 percent surcharge would bring in about $1 million. A 50-cent surcharge on each ticket would bring in about $2 million. Think of the youth development and other family support activities that could be created and used with that money. That's more than we have spent in the last two years in our great expansion of after-school programs. We urge you to increase the support for youth development programs by investing more in after-school programs. Do it now and do it later. As you look to the future and develop new stadiums, make room for what is a promise to the future. Send the message that we sent with support for public art years ago that changed the face of and helped revitalize the city. We urge you to send the message that as we invest in lots of things, we set aside or invest something in creating a city that values and supports its children and families. Our next issue is that we urge that the City create an Office of Child Care to assist families as they struggle with the serious issues 2032 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE of child care.
We also urge the development of the Health and Safety Fund to help family providers with critical safety issues. We are working with the Task Force of the Children's Cabinet on these issues. Finally, I want to urge that school kids in this city stop having to pay so much money to go to and from school. The issue was brought up this morning, thanks to Councilman Nutter, Councilman Kenney, and Councilman DiCicco. Let me summarize. A total of 30,000 kids ride SEPTA to and from school. Most of these kids come from poor families. The School District pays full -- not discounted. I want to say that again. The School District pays the full price, not discounted for these tokens, and then turns around and discounts the fares for 20,000 kids. Those are kids who go to public as well as parochial school and private school. The School District is SEPTA's biggest customer. 5 million. 5 million could be put back and further cut the cost to kids. We 2033 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE could cut it in half. 50 a week for families to pay to get their kids to school. Now, it should be zero like it is in New York, but half is a good start. We urge you to really undertake something like that. The City's school children should be like those in other cities which encourage kids to go to school and not discourage them. Finally, we would like to commend the Council and the Administration again. This broad linkage policy, every time a waiver or incentive is offered to an industry, set something aside for a youth fund. If a hospital needs bonding authority, establish a home visiting fund or a sick child care support fund. If the arts institutions are supported -- and we urge that they are -- make sure that a part of the function supports kids' exploration of the arts. We can be a city that is known as one that invites and supports all children and families and families. We should be. The budget is the first step. Thank you. 2034 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? (Applause.)
In terms of the after-school programs, you see the budget that has been proposed for after-school programs, and you mentioned that we should add to it. What would it cost additionally to has been proposed by the Administration for us to have an after-school program that really covers the children that are most vulnerable and that really covers the -- as you stated here, that will cover almost the whole city?
We estimate that there are probably about 40 to 50,000 kids, from 6 to 16, who have nothing to do and nowhere to go after school. We can't in one year do it all, but we can continue the expansion that has been begun if 2035 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE we had $2 million more to improve the quality of the programs that have been begun. And when I say "we," I mean the City -- it's not PCCY. To improve the quality and to expand and have the School Districts also expanding. And we could get to the place, and it's so critical that we get to the place now that welfare reform is here now because neighborhoods are going to be abandoned without it. We could get to the place that every community had something positive going on for most of the kids in the area. We have the school buildings, we have the recreation centers, there is the Mayor's Children and Family Cabinet that is working on violence prevention. We need the resources and we need to just bump it up and keep going.
If that universe of 40 to 50,000 kids that you say are not now being serviced, is that universe going to increase because of the welfare reform? And do we have any idea? Because I've asked this -- I've asked this of the Welfare Department, and they don't seem to give the right answers. 2036 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Is there -- do we have any idea of how that universe is going to grow or what services -- kids are going to be coming in and there are no 5 services that are going to be provided.
Well, part of the reason that you can't get an answer quickly is we that we don't know what kind of jobs, assuming the job are available, for the families that are going off welfare, and what those hours of the day are. So you have to take educated guesses. It is clear that there will be more need for resources in every neighborhood, and there will be more need for schools to be open and for recreation centers to be open and to have something positive for kids to do during those hours.
If we add $2 million and we improve programs, what percentage or number of that 40, 50,000 students are we going to be able to reach additionally?
If we added $2 million, we 2037 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE probably -- and I think the Commissioner of Recreation is here.
I think we probably, since it was 1.5, and we got to 125, then we probably could double that and get to 500 -- we could probably get to 300 programs at the rec centers, which would substantially -- I believe we would then be creating another 10,000 slots. There is private philanthropy that's very interested in this as well. And if we bump up ours, they will bump up theirs. The William Penn Foundation is putting a major initiative together. We can be, as other cities are becoming, a city that says that supporting families and kids is important and, in fact, is economically attractive as well as good for children.
I think it's the biggest public safety measure that we can take.
And it would 2038 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE probably give us more safety than adding -- even though we are for more police, I think if we do this, it will increase the safety in our neighborhoods immeasurably.
Right. From the US Attorney General to the police all over the country, they say the most vulnerable hour for juvenile offenses is between 3 and 6.
I just really wanted to make an observation, hoping that somehow we could deal with the situation. The mayoral candidates, all of them, seem to have adopted the mantra of the main qualification to be mayor is to be able to say no to worthy causes, which seems to me to imply that you only say yes to unworthy causes. And many people studying governmental activities might say that seems to be pretty accurate. But I think we've just got to get people to understand that human values are at stake, the issues raised by you, the issues raised by the folks who just spoke before you, the 2039 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE victims of crime. In every area, somehow something has happened in this country which tends to say, They're all worthy causes but, you know, we've got to be tough, we've got to be really fiscal conservatives. And if it's a worthy cause, the answer's got to be no 'cause that shows how tough you are. And I think it's just such a bad public policy. Government ought to be out in front in leading the way to better lives for people and ought to accept that responsibility. That's what government's about. That's why we have government in the first place. So I think if your message can get out and the message of those who testify on all human areas, I kind of think in the long run, if we put one one-hundredth or one one-thousandth of the money into these human projects, that we're talking about putting in stadiums and river front casinos, I think we would really bring about a major improvement in life for everybody. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. 2040 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Thank you. I just wanted to add one piece, and that is that there are a lot of wonderful programs going on right now, but we will not reap the benefits citywide until we get enough of them in every neighborhood -- that's enough home visiting, it's enough child care, it's enough after-school care. And then we will see the decline in juvenile delinquency, and then we'll have increased safety and then we'll have the human values supported. So we're moving in the right direction, but we've got to beef it up. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Michael Danjczhek. I serve as Executive Director and President of the Children's Home of Easton, Pennsylvania. And I'm down here this afternoon at my 2041 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE own request to the Department of Human Services to say a few words as Council considers the budget process, perhaps to realize that dollars that have been well-spent in the past might indicate a good reason to consider spending more dollars in the future. And also to thank the Council for the work they're done in the past on behalf of children who need out-of-home care. The Children's Home of Easton, in partnership with the Department of Human Services, and specifically with Commissioner Reeves and Deputy Commissioner Tucker and funding from this City and this Council, have been able to accomplish several things over the last few years. But I want to go back a little further to 1885 and tell you that we were founded because of problems in Philadelphia. And there's a region around Philadelphia, outside the city, who understand city problems and from day one, did not view things in a parochial nature but rather in partnership with our neighbors, and we were founded in 1885 for inner-city orphans and specifically Philadelphia. So we have a 113-year history of working with the city. 2042 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE I only arrived -- I was not there in 1885; I just look like it. But I did come in 1974, and so the first class that I worked with graduated in 1975. Since that time, we have put 97 of our residents from the City of Philadelphia through public schools and with diplomas. Our students have gone on to public job training, private trade schools, military service, business schools, and on to higher education. In terms of higher education, we've had at least one student graduate from the following: Indiana University of Pennsylvania, West Chester University, Kutztown University, Moravian College, the Katherine Gibbs School, Allentown College of St. Frances DeSales, Villanova University, and the United States Naval Academy. 85 cume, and did it in three years, not four. In terms of jobs, our students have gone on to be: a supervisor for Bell Atlantic under customer service; we have a police chief in the Commonwealth -- these are all Philadelphia children. Into the marketing department for CBS; 2043 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Executive Assistant at Lucent Technologies; a professional football player who today is a professional wrestler; an Assistant Director of Hospital Admission; day care teachers, etc. I want you to know that the dollars you've spent on children and those that have been wisely monitored in a partnership in the Department of Human Services -- and, therefore, agencies like the Children's Home of Easton, and we are not so unique, the Department uses many similar homes -- does not stop the day the Philadelphia dollars stop. Any student who graduates from our program in good standing in high school is welcome back in our program at any point in his life, provided that they've left in good standing and a place to come back to. Home is home, and we agree to be home long after your dollars stop. Just in a way of saying good-bye and in a way of show and tell you that might enjoy, I have with me Private First Class Isaac Cameron. Isaac came to us in 1997, graduated from Philadelphia, would have needed at least two more years of high school as an 18-year-old, asked us 2044 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE if he could consider GED training instead and get a job. He did that, he finished that. He just finished six months active duty and has now finished his training Wednesday. Today's Friday. Two days ago, he came home. There's no more funding from Philadelphia, but he's with our children's home.
I want you to know that's the sort of work supported by the Department of Human Services, that they are not just cranking through dollars and living up to regulations; they show a true caring nature for the children of this city. I work with lots of counties, and I have no 15 prouder partnership than I have down here in Philadelphia. Thank you for your support in the past. Continue to support them in the future. Thank you. )
Good afternoon to members of the committee and Madame President. My name is Melvin Buckman. I live on Addison Street. I've lived there for ten years. 2045 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE My business is out of the city, it's in Radnor, but I live in the city. I grew up in Philadelphia and attended the public schools and graduated from Overbrook High School. I am very much committed to Philadelphia and its future. And as part of that commitment, I served as President the Society Hill Civic Association from 1995 to 1998. I am here today on behalf of the East Philadelphia Coalition for a Free Library Branch, which is a consortium of neighborhood associations in the portion of Center City lying east of Broad Street -- specifically Chinatown, Old City, Society Hill, South Street Neighbors, Queen Village, and Washington Square West. In the 1990 census, this area had 25,380 residents -- 2300 were children and 2550 roughly were senior citizens 65 years or older. But the despite the important and central location of these neighborhoods, they do not contain any Free Library branches, and our residents have, therefore, been without local library service. We are, therefore, most pleased that the proposed City budgets provide for a branch 2046 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE library in our area. We thank all who have made this possible -- Councilman DiCicco, Mayor Rendell, Director Shelkrot, and all the others who have worked with them in this effort. We are very much looking forward to our new library branch. We understand that the location presently under consideration is a portion of the building of the Balch Institute in the 100 block of South Seventh Street, a location which is near the center of the entire area. We think the location is ideal, and we are also pleased that if it is located there, the new library branch will be able to benefit from the Balch activities in the balance of the building, particularly the Balch's own private library, its large collection of documents from other organizations, and its own large volume of materials and programs relating to ethnicity in our society. As residents of the city, we are especially interested in attracting and keeping young families in Center City. Adequate library facilities are an important factor in achieving that goal, especially when the lack of a library 2047 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE in East Philadelphia is contrasted with the extensive library facilities in the suburbs adjacent to the city. But this will not be a facility only for children; residents of all ages will use it, and it will become an important part of our community. I appreciate this opportunity to address you. And once again, we thank everyone who has made this new library a reality. Thank you so much.
Thank you for coming in to testify. Friends of the Free Library. And then the Tabor Rams Youth Association will be next. Are they here? (Roseanne Gill comes forward.)
All right. We will certainly make your entire testimony part of the record, so I ask that you abbreviate.
Certainly. It's short. My 2048 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE name is Roseanne Gill, G-I-L-L. Good afternoon. I would like to thank you, Madam President, and the Members of City Council for allowing me to speak here this afternoon. As I said, I'm Roseanne Gill, a member of the Board of Directors of the Friends of the Free Library of Philadelphia. My involvement with the Friends began at my neighborhood library, the Roxborough Branch. The Friends of the Free Library of Philadelphia are glad to have this opportunity to support the proposed operating budget for the Free Library for Fiscal Year 2000. The items in the budget that the Friends considered to be so important to the citizens of Philadelphia include funding for full staffing at all of the 53 branches, and expansion of the LEAP Program, and continued support of the new technology of the branches in the Central Library. I think what you'll be hearing are some common themes with some of the earlier people. The Friends have also supported -- excuse me, have always supported high levels of service to the public. Currently, all of the 2049 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE branches not being renovated are open six days during the school year, and the Central and Regional libraries are open seven days a week all year around also during the school year. As the Library works towards its goal of renovating all branch libraries by January of the year 2000, it will face the prospect of having all of its branches operational at the same time. Naturally, these branches can only be opened if there is sufficient staff to serve the public. The current budget includes funds for staff salaries at the renovated and reopened branch libraries, but it is important to note that the amount of the appropriation covers staffing at those branches for only thing the last half of the fiscal year, that's the reopened branches for the last half of the fiscal year. As the renovation process moves towards completion, additional funds will be needed to fund positions at all of the branch libraries for the entire budget year. Another of the line items in the proposed budget will allow the Library to expand the LEAP After-School Program. And for people who aren't familiar with it, "LEAP" means "Learn, 2050 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Enjoy And Play." Currently, this program operates the 37 branch libraries three afternoons a week. The additional funds will allow the library to expand the program to five days a week at of 6 these branch libraries. 7 This program is so important for the 8 children of the neighborhoods that serves -- 9 Councilman Ortiz was talking about this. The 10 libraries provide a safe, welcoming environment 11 for the children, while at the same time offering 12 them help for homework, instruction on computer use, and cultural and craft enrichment programs. I heard the buzzer there. We're talking about technology. With the support of City Council over the last year few years as well as the support of many foundations, the Library has upgraded its technology. Of course, when you upgrade technology, it changes frequently. We definitely need additional support both in money and manpower to support that technology and get the latest. Also, with this new technology, we have increased our number of patrons in the Library, which means greater circulation, which means greater materials, non-technical materials 2051 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE -- other books, magazines and so forth. We feel and I think many of you feel that the Free Library of Philadelphia is one of the greatest assets to our city. Our public libraries welcome everyone, no matter what their background and give them access to a world of knowledge in many different forms. The Friends would like to thank the Mayor and City Council for their past support of the Free Library and urge the passage of the Library budget -- both the operating and the capital budget for the upcoming fiscal year.
Thank you, Miss Gill. We appreciate your coming in to testify.
Thank you. I'm Karen Talarico, the Executive Director of the Friends of the Free Library, and I think that Ms. Gill has really said it all about the Friends. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. 2052 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (Applause.)
The Tabor Rams Youth Association. (Joe Torres comes forward.)
Your written testimony will be made part of the record, so if you can abbreviate your statement, we will certainly appreciate it. Okay, Councilwoman. I was looking forward to reading my statement, but I know that we are lacked for time so I'll try to abbreviate it. My name is Joe Torres, and I'm the Vice President of the Board of Directors of the Tabor Rams Youth Organization. We are located at Whittaker and Louden Streets and are currently operating on Fairmount Park grounds. The reason why we are here today is to ask for funs for a capital budget for our facility on improvement. On an average, we serve yearly about 800 children in different activities -- baseball, football, cheerleading, after-school programs, etc. Though we have never come before the Board, I guess it's because this youth 2053 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE organization was run differently in the past. The neighborhoods have now been changing, and now we were left with an organization who had no capital budgeting, and we did all of our own budgeting. It was all a nonprofit organization. And our building is deteriorating, and we really need funds to help bring it up to par so that we may be able to continue the services that we provide to all the young children in our neighborhood. I just want to take in text out of the statement that brought in an event that happened at a Peewee football game that was taking place. A young man decided to ride an all-terrain vehicle on the field. One of the opposing coaches was an off-duty police officer who attempted to stop the individual, interrupting the play. When the officer engaged this person, a gun was drawn, putting all the football players, cheerleaders, families, lives in danger. The ignorance shown by that young man on that day when he drew his gun directly affected each and individual on the field that day. It is an incident that will never be 2054 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE forgotten. We believe we can prevent this from ever happening again by enclosing our fields with 3-foot cement wall and a 12-inch high fence. That is one of the things that we were asking for. And repair to our roof and to our gym floor, which is termite-infested. Like I said -- not to go all the way through our statement -- we are on Fairmount property, we are a nonprofit organization, we help our children in the community a great deal. And we would just like to ask to be supported in some type of a capital budget for our building.
Have you ever spoken to your District Councilperson about this?
We are engaged with Marian Tasco, we've had meetings with her. We've also meetings with Angel Ortiz, we've also spoken State Senator Shirley Kitchen. So we are is getting engaged. Like I said, this neighborhood is going through a transitional period but being that this facility never came, I mean, we're not under the Department of Recreation, but the Fairmount Park Commission. I mean, we are on their property, so 2055 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE we have been talking to them. They have a need and assessment that we are going to bring to City Council showing the need for the Tabor Rams facility.
I see that Councilman Ortiz would like to be recognized. Maybe he could add something or give you some information on this.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As Mr. Torres says, it has been a transitional period, and this Council previously has had great support for that recreational facility. But when an organization and an institution begins to go through transition, certain things start going through the cracks. And I think, just as the previous boards were not taken care of because they were leaving, a certain sense of deterioration took place. And it is probably one of more effective recreation centers that we have up in the East Division. And I think over 800 kids play football, basketball, baseball during the summer. And I think at this point, and Marian 2056 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Tasco is very much involved, but the key is to persuade the Fairmount Commissioner and the Mayor that these are monies that are very well spent now rather than later, because we all keep talking about engaging the youth to take them away from criminal activity in the street, and this is a place where the youth is engaged. And I hope that as we sit down to deliberate as to the capital program, that we're able to find the monies to be able to fix this recreation center in this capital period. Thank you.
I would suggest that you continue to work very closely with your District Councilperson and Councilman Ortiz.
Harold Boing, Miss Clausing, James Tayoun, Marje Dugan, David Acosta, and Jerry Mondesire. 2057 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (Access Cable Television Passage panel members come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Certainly. My name is Gretjen Clausing. That's G-R-E-T-J-E-N. And Clausing, C-L-A-U-S-I-N-G. And I'm here with the Philadelphia Community Access Coalition. If I -- I would just like to make a couple corrections. ) and Lauren Townsend, and they be making brief statements. We will try and make this as pithy and interesting as we can 'cause we're here to talk about television, we're talking about America's favorite pastime. And we have been before Council before, but I believe that we are here to make some very persuasive arguments that we have not be able to make in the past. Television is, without a doubt, the most powerful medium in our society today but most 2058 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE of us have no say in what is broadcast, and public access cable television puts that power in the hands of ordinary citizens by providing free training and equipment to any individual, nonprofit, or community group that would like to make their own shows. The focus of our testimonies today is to show you that the establishment of public access cable TV in Philadelphia would significantly improve the quality of life in the city by providing citizens with an affordable, accessible, and powerful means of communicating with one another, and that public access would also contribute to the economic interests of the city by bolstering the outreach possibilities of nonprofits, thereby increasing their reach and effectiveness, resulting in an even more vibrant and interesting Philadelphia to live in and visit. Before I continue, I would just like to note that on Monday, when Commissioner Perez was speaking, he made the point that it was his opinion that there wasn't sufficient interest or demand for public access television in Philadelphia. And really I would just really like 2059 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE to counter his belief in that. There's most certainly a demand. The Coalition represents over 50 organizations, and at this point, we have over 10,000 signatures of individuals who are interested in seeing public access television established in Philadelphia. So as I continue, I just want ask you at this point to please, as Councilmembers, institute the -- submit the papers for incorporation so that the independent nonprofit corporation could then be set up and the Public Access Corporation could begin operation. And at that point, you could then ask the cable companies to turn over the capital monies, and then you could begin taking money out of the franchise fees that are paid each year to the city's General Fund. So in looking at this year's budget, I think it's very important that you decide what percentage of that 5 percent -- which is $8 million -- that comes to you from the cable companies is going to be earmarked for public access. We've been waiting for 15 years for this. So, anyway, that's what we're asking for today. 2060 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE I want to just quickly dispel a myth. People do watch public access television. There are over 70 million people across the country that have access to this programming, and 73 percent of those people are aware of it. Chicago is a really stellar example in that in individuals and 8 out of 10 nonprofit organizes polled in Chicago are aware of public access programming, and 92 percent of these people in Chicago see public access as valuable to their community. I just want to make the point that every single organization that testified here this afternoon could use public access. We see this as being an incredibly important way that nonprofit organizations can use it for outreach and saving on marketing and advertising dollars. I'd just like you to think about this a minute. There are roughly more than 4,000 nonprofit organizations in Philadelphia qualified to use public access. And if -- let's just say for argument 'cause we've done research on this that it cost them about $800 to make a low-budget one-hour program for here at present.
Under public access, they would be able to do that free 2061 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE of charge. And so in a sense, if you think over the past years what forfeited in not having 4 public access TV, it's at least $1,600,000. 5 So you know, I just see this really as 6 a win/win situation for everyone. And, again, 7 we're not asking for new money. This is money 8 that has been promised and set aside for the past 9 15 years, and we think it's time for us to get 10 public access TV. 11 So, again, we really want to work with 12 you on this, and I'm going to sort of stop my 13 testimony here. And would you like me to then 14 introduce the other people that are going to be 15 coming up?
Before you do that, I notice there are several commissioners in the audience. I don't see any need for them to have to sit here. I think if the Commissioner of Public Property is here, he would probably be the only commissioner that may be required to stay.
I would really like to urge Commissioner DiBerardinis -- and I don't know who some of the other people who are here, but I really see that this issue pertains to 2062 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE commissioners in many departments. You know, if I may, in looking at recreation and looking at being able to do things with young people, this is a no-brainer.
Will the Commissioner of Recreation stay, Public Property could stay. I don't see the need for Mr. Moy to be here and several of the other commissioners.
Public Health should stay here as well. Again, public access television would be --
Before she testifies, can we see who is here in support of 2063 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE the public access table TV? (Applause.)
There are approximately or people who are here. The 8 record will so indicate that. 9
Good afternoon my name 10 is Lauren Townsend. I'm the Executive Director of 11 Citizens for Consumer Justice a statewide consumer 12 organization. I'm here today to talk about why 15 13 years of consumer-funded public-access money 14 should be restored and why public access should be 15 a line item in the budget of the City of Philadelphia. On Access Tucson today, the community is watching Abilities and Disabilities, Arizona Rural Human Services, Better News (a news program reporting on positive news), Blue Collar Speaks (a labor perspective hosted by Iron Workers Local No. 22 75), Church Services, Chamber Music Sounds, Community Action Network, Find the Children (a program to help find missing children) -- I think Ms. Yanoff would appreciate that program, 2064 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Kaleidoscope (children's stories and songs), Orgoyo (a live talk show targeted to Tucson's Spanish-speaking community), and Open Door (a show for teens, produced by teens, about social and cultural issues). We could have this programming in Philadelphia. In Chicago, as was mentioned before, they're very enlightened. Viewers can watch neighborhood news, community views, teens, seniors, Haitians, motor sports, SCUBA diving for Councilman Ortiz, jazz, hip-hop, and labor issues. On week nights, they can watch live call-in programs covering health, education, domestic violence, economic development, and local issues. They also have an educational bulletin board service, a Chicago public schools program, and other educational information, religious and spiritual programming, and daily French and Italian news. I could go on and on about what's happening in Houston, what's happening in Milwaukee, my birth place of Long Island where viewers are today watching African-American news 2065 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE networks, African-American news. Again, we could have this programming in Philadelphia. And we should be the leader of public access television. We should have years of 6 experience and programming under our belts. 7 Aren't you embarrassed? Aren't you enraged? I 8 know that I am, and I know that the people in this 9 room are today. 10 It's 15 years of squandered 11 opportunities. Public access in Philadelphia 12 could give people GEDs, save lives, stimulate 13 minds, create jobs, help neighborhoods, help 14 fledgling small businesses, and serve as an 15 incubator for emerging artists and a stepping stone for audiences who are not apt to patronize live arts venues in the community. It might foster more people attending internationally renowned Philadelphia Orchestra, which is always struggling for audience participation. We could subsidize and establish arts infrastructure, allowing the local arts industry to go and better complement other economic development strategies such as tourism, which we heard about earlier, and the Avenue of the Arts. 2066 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE And we could offer a head's start with the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation for young people and program targeted at preschoolers and elementary-school-aged children and opportunities for young people in the rapidly growing field of communications. Today's youth are media-savvy and they're comfortable with using technology and they can readily adapt to expressing themselves via public access video. I realize we don't have very many people here, and it's all the more like the Twilight Zone. I actually wrote that into my testimony today. It's ludicrous. You can't accuse public access of being an unfunded mandate; we've paying for it through our cable bills for 15 years. We've had the funding. Where's the money and why has it not been used for its original intent? Each year, we have, as we heard earlier today, over a city budget, and who and what is going to get how much of the pie?
Since so much of what we spend is on education, outreach, and information for the community -- we've heard this 2067 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE over and over again -- think of how much easier this process would be if some of that money could be saved because we would have a free nonprofit venue in public access to reach the community. Citizens for Consumer Justice is a statewide consumer organization. I think back to the last year and a half of our work. Recently, we led the fight for preserving over 100 years of accrued charitable assets throughout the demise bankruptcy of the now-infamous Allegheny Health System. With more community education and awareness, the patients -- not profits coalitions -- might have been able to establish a foundation, a safety net of funds at our local hospital infrastructure earmarked for delivering health care to the uninsured. And now we have to rely on and forever negotiate with Tenet to provide this care. If we had public access, CCJ could have programming about our justice and jury system. We could work with the Victim Services folks to talk about the justice system, which is the envy of the world, and might through education raise awareness and consciousness about the importance of serving 2068 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE on juries. This could help to diversify and sophisticate our jury pool. And finally, through public access, we could do programming on volunteerism, foster a sense of community pride, spirit, and participation that's critical if we are to enrich and improve our quality of life. We musn't squander any more time or money. We must restore the last years of 11 funding and make public access now a line item in 12 the City budget. 13 Thank you. 14
Good afternoon. I'll keep my comments actually very, very brief. You also have had a very long day. Good afternoon City Council President Anna Verna, members of City Council and citizens of the Commonwealth. My name is David Acosta. I am a writer, poet cultural worker, and for the past ten years, I've been involved in the area of 2069 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE public health, working in HIV education and prevention through the GALAEI Project, an organization I founded ten years ago and where I currently am the Executive Director. I am here today to ask City Council to make public access TV a reality in Philadelphia. The benefits that can be derived from allowing community-based organizations and citizens access to noncommercial channels for public use will have a tremendous impact upon the exchange and sharing of information among Philadelphia's diverse communities and institutions. For years, the City of Philadelphia 15 and its political leadership have lacked the will to make public access a reality for Philadelphia and its citizens despite the fact that public access make sense in three very important ways: Economically, public access will lead to the creation of jobs and training for the community. It will also save millions of dollars in outreach and advertising costs for portions of City government, like the Philadelphia Department of Public Health, the Department of Recreation, Arts and cultural institutions, and nonprofit 2070 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE organizations like mine to better serve our constituencies. I'm testifying at this budget hearing because I believe, as do others, that public access would have a positive effect on the annual City budget debate. Each year, we see different departments of the City vie for a piece of the pie. We believe that many City entities, such as the Health Department, who must outreach to advertise important information, could be saving money if they were able to use public access, a free venue to get their message across. More importantly, however, public access will allow us to reach Philadelphia's diverse communities with live-saving information regarding health issues of importance to our well-being. Traditionally, public health education is an issue that mainstream TV ignores. Public access would allow us to reach ethnic communities who are oftentimes at highest risk for health problems and have the lowest access to culture and language-appropriate information. Public access would help to rectify that fact. Public access 2071 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE can carry a public health message that is culturally language-specific, bypassing cultural stigmas surrounding the discussion of health issues. In closing, at a time when HIV AIDS continues to cut a path of destruction among us, when the incidence of STDs, hepatitis, and other communicable diseases threaten our public health, public access can become an important vehicle for the examination of frank and factual information giving organizations like mine and the Department of Public Health a fighting chance to counteract the irresponsible messages about sexual behavior found in commercial television. TV messages from the community itself are the most effective at changing behavior in the community. The AIDS service system would have much more City funds for its issues if the City met many of its communication outreach needs via public access. More importantly, however, public access will allow us to reach individuals so that they could participate in the planning process for the allocation of AIDS dollars, as mandated by the 2072 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Center for Diseases Control and the Health Resources Service Administration. The latter has been a difficult task to undertake and has led to many problems within the AIDS services system due to the fact that communities have felt excluded from the process.
This, despite efforts to disseminate information about consumer participation in the planning and location of services and money for AIDS by the Philadelphia Department of Public Health. Public access will allow for greater consumer participation in the design, implementation, delivery, and allocation of funds with which to provide health care and special services to people living with HIV AIDS and their families. In closing, I want to make -- I want to ask you to make public access to be a reality in Philadelphia. For 15 years now, money paid by Philadelphians to cable companies earmarked for public access have been stolen from us. It is time to give us back what is rightfully ours. We have paid for public access. Put the interest of the citizens who elected you before those of the 2073 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE cable companies, who are the only ones opposing the creation of public access TV in Philadelphia. Public Access makes sense, and the time for it to happen is now. I urge City Council to honor its 1983 vote and make public access TV a reality in our city. Thank you.
Next is Gerry Givnish from the Painted Bride Art Center. (Gerry Givnish comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Council President, and good afternoon, Councilmembers. My name is Gerry Givnish. I'm the Artistic Director of the Painted Bride Art Center. And I'm here to advocate for public access cable television and Bill 1963. Television has gradually over the past 20 years limited access to the variety of community voices and interests. In the world reflected by television, there are no artists or 2074 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE poets or dancers. Cultural organizations, large and small, are mentioned so occasionally that they're exotic creatures in the world of television. Similarly, other important public services are absent from what is currently being offered. The public owns the right-of-way that cable TV uses. We are placing our faith in our elected representatives to protect public interests in the use of cable. This ordinance was established in 1983. It was signed by Mayor Bill Green in the final days of his administration and left to Wilson Goode for implementation. Sidetracked by the incident on Osage Avenue, it was forgotten when Mayor Rendell and the current City Council were pulling the City out of financial difficulty. It was perhaps in good civic spirit that media activists did not raise the issue then. But now is the right time to return to that founding ordinance. We are enjoying a modest economic revival, and there are many more channels than in 1983. We seem to be swiftly recovering 2075 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE from amnesia about Ordinance Bill 1963. We are lucky to have this City Council led by Councilman Ortiz and Cohen who are turning City government's attention back to public access cable television. The Painted Bride wants to add its voice to this coalition and courage and urge the City to implement this ordinance. I want to tell you what public access would mean for my organization. We present some of the most exciting work in contemporary performance in visual arts, work that is culturally diverse. Our challenge is that these artists lack name recognition. Without the immediate potency of cable, our marketing budget is too small to gain the visibility we need in this market. Through a public access station, the Bride could increase earned income and develop audience interest. Philadelphia-based artists are too often ignored by television. Their potential audience and their careers require that their talents be more widely known. Public access would provide this exposure. The City's energy and diversity is 2076 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE captured by contemporary artists -- rappers, poets, dancers, jazz and Latin musicians, performers in theater arts who could create a new and different kind of television programming that would make us proud to be in a city of such talent. Television has become commercially driven and averse to taking risks. It has consequently limited access to the medium to a variety of community interests. In the new world reflected by television, information about nonprofit arts, as well as information from the public health department, from the Philadelphia School District, from the consumer interest groups all need to be present. The public's interest and ownership need to be represented and advocated for by City Council. Now after years of forgetfulness, it is time to act on Bill 1963.
Three. I'd like to 2077 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE introduce Wendell Young. (Wendell Young comes forward.)
Wendell Young, President of the United Food & Commercal Workers, Local 1776. We have 26,000 members, 10,000 in Philadelphia. And I'm glad to see Frank Rizzo's still here, my competitor on another channel -- as long as he's there. He doesn't have as good a show as I do, but we'll put up with it. (Laughter.)
One of the things that I was involved with over the years, years ago, 14 when Bill Green was mayor and we proposed this 15 under, we weren't one of pioneers in this business, but we were one of the cities that developed this program. Mr. Wade used to sit on PCDC with me. We had to recuse him when we were doing the cable recommendations. And one of the big issues at that time was the fact that the cable companies were supposed to give something back for what the City was going to do for them. There were bids -- one bid had to be a minority, other bids -- it was a lot of 2078 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE controversial over what was happening with the bids. And one of the issues that everybody brought in in Council and the Mayor was that they would give back to the community. And the money, as one of the previous speakers said, was going to go to a good cause, it was to provide access. You can go up to Allentown, you can go to Bethlehem, you can go to most of these counties -- even Montgomery County, where I now live -- and the access television is there. It's a shame that a big city like this, which is the freedom capital of the world, does not have access television. We should have it. I think the organizations here, including labor, would benefit by it. Even Councilmembers would benefit by it. All the people who testified here would benefit by it. Senior citizens would benefit by it. Senior citizens have issues that are very rarely talked about, and these kind of issues only are available where access public television is involved. So I would urge the Council very strongly -- and I'm going to present this at our 2079 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AFL-CIO meeting Monday -- that this Council should exert the efforts empowered to Council bipartisan, to bring that percent back, to set up a 5 committee that's going to be community-based that will implement the access that we were supposed to have 15 years ago. Thank you very much.
I just want to take this opportunity to submit for the record statements by Thomas Paine Cronin, president of AFSCME District Council 47; and Marjorie Dugan, who is an education advocate. So I would like to submit those for the record along with my complete statement. Next is Tim Siftar from Liberty Net. (Tim Siftar comes forward.)
My name is Timothy Siftar. I'm a business librarian currently working on Internet Websites that promote Philadelphia as a destination for high-tech workers and businesses. The projects are funded by local an State economic development agencies, 2080 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE though I offer my statement to you as an unaffiliated information professional. In the interest of brevity, I will submit the preliminary economic research I have done on paper and offer you only a summary. That's here. I submit that cable public access is part of the public service infrastructure that permits both businesses and community groups to reach audiences that they would otherwise be unable to reach. I'd like to correct the figure quoted by Gretjen Clausing earlier that the value of the public access subsidy to Philadelphia's 4 to 5,000 is commercially equivalent $1.6 million per year. The value in the last 15 years would amount to over $20 million, assuming each nonprofit made a one-hour video per year. When you consider that there's a nine-month waiting period to get programming on in the Brooklyn cable public access station, that's not unreasonable to think that we'd all be making videos. If all five cable channels were fully utilized for the potential 10 hours per nonprofit 2081 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE possible per year, the value raises to over $200 million for the past years that inaction 4 has cost the local nonprofits in a lost 5 opportunity. 6 I suggest that the continued inaction 7 will result in even grater opportunity costs when 8 consider the following fact: in many cities 9 across the USA, cable public access studios are 10 incorporating Internet technology to this free 11 public infrastructure, where the public can use 12 cutting-edge technology to reach audiences both on 13 the Web and on TV. This phenomena is called 14 "convergence," where within two years, TV will be 15 -- interactive television will be widely accepted. I find it a bit ironic that the Mayor and business leaders have declared Philadelphia will be developed as a center of commerce when this obvious resource of community technology centers is being overlooked. I will just close with the point that I've learned in examining this market as compared to other economic development markets, and I will mention today's Philadelphia Business Journal 2082 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE article which places Philadelphia as 44th among the country's 50 largest metropolitan areas as a place to start and grow a business, according to a demographics consulting firm. My primary point is that the City is operating at a competitive disadvantage without this public infrastructure. It's costing business associations, it's costing nonprofits, and it's costing the community. So I would be concerned that we not only look at this as a freedom of expression or a free speech issue, but the cost to the local economy in terms of the jobs that will be developed in these new industries as well as the old. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Keith Brandt. I'm an adjunct professor of communications at Ursinus College and Temple University. I'm also a broadcaster -- the host and music programmer of Sleepy Hollow on 2083 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WXPN-FM. I've made it my career to study the media. I came to the struggle for public access eight years at the suggestion of one of my professors and have since that time written and presented a number of papers on this topic. In that same period of time I have witnessed a public that is increasingly at odds with the content of mainstream television. A recent study of Chicago residents stated that less than percent felt that commercial television 13 was doing a good job of serving the local 14 community. 15 Political debate is increasingly 16 focused on personal issues, violence is out of 17 proportion to its occurrence in society, 18 irresponsible portrayals of sexuality in a news 19 media that seems unconcerned with some of the 20 positive things that are going on in our neighborhoods. In 1983, you, the City Council of Philadelphia, passed an ordinance establishing a public access cable television in Philadelphia. This is a system that has worked with an 2084 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE astonishing degree of success in nearly every other city in the United States. It's based on a simple idea: the cable companies are allowed to use public utility poles and streets in order to string the wires that deliver their programming rights-of-way, which belong to the public. In exchange for this, the City negotiated for five channels to be turned over to the public. There's nothing revolutionary about this quid pro quo. It's the absence of this system that is incomprehensible. Why, after nearly years, 14 have you chosen not to act on this ordinance? My 15 reading of the Home Rule Charter does not grant City Council the right to veto by inaction. It's time to clean up this mess and get this project moving. The reasons are simple. Every single group that has testified here before City Council today can benefit from public access. Every community can benefit from the kinds of programming and stories that are generated by the people of those communities. Arts and culture in Philadelphia are a 2085 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE significant economic generator in terms of jobs and tourism. These cultural groups have ready-made programming. Public access has a ready-made audience of more than 700,000 people within the City. In addition to strengthening the economic foundation of these organizations, public access can also save money for outreach. Public health is a vital concern to all people here in Philadelphia, and education is one of the most important aspects of what do. We are here to tell you that with public access cable television in this city, these groups can reach an audience of at least 60 percent of the people of the City of Philadelphia. There is no medium that has that potential to reach such a large and audience. Can we save these organizations and ultimately taxpayers in this city we're allocating for these precious resources? Well, I can't responsibly answer that in terms of a dollar equivalent; I can say that public access will strengthen the outreach efforts of labor, cultural, social, educational, and the public 2086 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE health organizations. Why do we need to do this now? I'm reminded of a report that was released by the Consumer Federation of America just a few weeks ago. They warned of a growing divide in American between the information haves and have-nots. We're under the delusion that new technologies and public policy have increased access to services that are being touted as being indispensable to job growth and the foremost economic generator for the future. But instead of becoming more competitive, the telecommunications and cable industries have become highly concentrated.
We have only to witness here in Philadelphia with Comcast to know how true that is. We have witnessed sharp increases in cable and intrastate long-distance, and the deployment of advanced technologies are benefitting only those who make intensive use of that network. If we are to build an infrastructure that is to support the training and socialization of young people in this city to the jobs that will be at the forefront of this 2087 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE information revolution, we have to do everything we can now to provide access to those technologies. " Our schools are trying to do a valiant job but it's not enough. Libraries are trying to offer access, but it's not enough. Public access centers are a vital piece of what we must do to build a vibrant and vital technological base for the future of our economy and the future of our children. It's been over 15 years since you passed the original legislation establishing a Public Access Corporation here in Philadelphia. What do we need to do to get the job done? Perhaps you should consider withholding from the general budget the over $8 million that you collect yearly from franchise fees from our cable companies and transfer it into your 2088 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE discretionary accounts. This way, it would be less likely that those funds that are collected from cable companies would be used on unrelated projects. We contend that funding of public access is not a battle between competing interests in a shrinking public pie. Do not tell us that if we fund public access, children in the city won't get vaccinated. A mechanism has been in place since its inception about how to fund this system. It should be and always has been from the cable franchise fees. It should be clear to you now that this is a potential public good. I quote to you something that was said in the meeting with former Council President John Street. He said, "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is good for the City. " This struggle has been going on for 15 years, and you have the power to make it happen. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. (Applause.) 2089 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Madam Chair, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity this afternoon.
And I urge you to please share these testimonies with your colleagues.
They will all have the notes of testimony given to them.
It will be made a part of the public record and we'll give them to the stenographer.
My question would be, Madam President, if public access were available, would it be useful to the work that the commissioners here are doing. I'm not going to ask them to get involved in any of the technical questions, but both departments have the need for outreach, as I understand. The Health more than maybe Recreation, because you have so many services that are apparently not being utilized -- vaccination, cleaning up of lead paint poisoning, all kinds of things that we keep hearing at 2090 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE different Council sessions, people are not utilizing, even though the programs exist. (Estelle Richman comes forward.) COMMISSIONER RICHMAN: I am Estelle Richman, Commissioner of Public Health. I think that public access television would be very helpful but I'm not sure -- and we obviously do a lot of outreach to the public, but I'm not sure that our programs aren't being used. At this point, 82 percent of the children in Philadelphia are immunized, but that's reaching to 90 percent. So while it would help, I'm not sure that it's, you know, we aren't reaching out and getting to many of the people who need to have this information but it gives us another resource to do that. And reaching the population with as many ways as we can is obviously helpful.
All right. And then the Commissioner of Recreation. (Mike DiBerardinis comes forward.) COMMISSIONER DIBERARDINIS: Yeah. My name is Mike DiBerardinis. I'm the Recreation Commissioner. And I would essentially agree with 2091 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Commissioner Richman that anything -- any instrument to sort of get more information to the public relative to what our department or my department does would be obviously a benefit to the citizens -- as well as any kind of programming that can sort of carry the values that we're trying to present in our programs and in our centers. We would also think that will also be important to us.
All right. 'Cause I understood from -- maybe I misunderstood the years of testimony given by City officials that there are various programs that people not utilizing, although they're available. When the Water Department, for example, failed this past week -- or, no, I guess it was earlier last month to deduct the payments, you know, they carried on a campaign to get people to authorize the bank to deduct water bills. The Department failed to do so. They've been put to enormous expense to try to reach everybody, you know, who is affected because those people for whom the City failed to deduct the water bill are now being threatened with water 2092 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE shutoff through no fault of their, but because of a own breakdown of a computer system. If we had public access, it would be a very simple way to reach people to notify them that there's been a breakdown of the computer system. There's so many health programs where women particularly are not getting the benefits of legislation that already exists and because of lack of knowledge. And in the welfare-to-work program, we're told there's constant failure of communications, that many welfare recipients are still not aware of all of the procedures they've got to follow. Would the availability of these means without having to pay advertising costs be helpful. I think that's the question that we're raising. COMMISSIONER RICHMAN: I think it would be helpful but, at the same time, I mean, there are so many other issues. Part of the issue with welfare-to-work is that it's our belief that the State is not passing out clear information. It doesn't make any difference what your medium is; it's what people are being told, if it's 2093 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE inaccurate. So you know --
Well, we could at least make it clear that the problem that exists is a problems in the State's failure to put out clear information. COMMISSIONER RICHMAN: I think any way to reach as many people as possible is helpful.
I'm sorry, if I could ask for Madam Chair's indulgence. One of our other testifiers has just arrived, Jimmy Tayoun.
Only if he promises to be very, very brief. Yes, he's going to be brief or else he will find that he's going to find that he will be sitting there by him.
I got the picture already and understand what's happening. 2094 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE I just want to reiterate the fact that each and every Councilperson who begins to understand that the citizens of this city have been shortchanged by our own dereliction by our passing the buck, by permitting the Administration to take the ball and not carry it all the way, by Council not checking its oversight on this situation, by all of us feeling that the powers that be who were given this great largesse, this great wealth of money through this media would do the job that they were supposed to do for our citizens. By being aware of that now and by picking up the ball and finally moving toward public access, you'll be doing us all a favor. In New York City, it's amazing. I've watched their television. And I'm looking at neighborhoods doing their own thing, and it was really interesting. And I said, How come they get on television in this big New York City area? They said, That's public access. And I always thought always, me, a suave Philadelphian, that public access meant Channel 66. Little did I realize that while they gave us Channel 66, they were also taking away 2095 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE five whole channels from us. So whatever you can do for us in this area, I would appreciate it very much.
This concludes our public hearing. The Committee of the Whole will stand in recess until Monday, March 1, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. (Adjourned at 4:01 p.m.) - - - 2096 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Friday, February 26, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BUDGET HEARINGS BILL NO. 990023 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter