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.