You're welcome. Councilman Rizzo, did you want to be recognized?
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to go back to some infrastructure. If you can explain the relationship that the park has with the Streets Department. I mentioned earlier that you guys did a great job in maintaining Bells Mill Road between Germantown and Ridge. The brush was growing onto the roadway where your vehicle 1202 03/22/05 - FY '06 OPERATING BUDGET would strike it. There's no trucks there right now, other than Streets Department and Water Department vehicles, who have an exemption. If you look west of the creek between Germantown and the creek, there's debris and trash and everything behind the guardrail piled four or five feet high. It's really an eyesore. My main question right now is, do you know Bells Mill Bridge is in trouble? It's defective. The Streets Department, believe it or not, even though there's a three ton load limit, they allow trash trucks and the Water Department crew vehicles, they give them an exemption. It doesn't make any sense to me. I asked the Water Commissioner and the Streets Commissioner to give me that in writing because I want to have that for my file. What coordination has been done, because I understand this bridge is going to come out? As you know, Bells Mill is a very important artery into the City. What is the park's involvement in the interruption of the 1203 03/22/05 - FY '06 OPERATING BUDGET Bells Mill Bridge? Can you explain the project and what impact it will have on the community?
I understand that our involvement is fairly minimal involvement right now. Can we get back to you? Because normally we have pretty open discussions with Streets and Water and I've been working very hard to make them even more open. It's in everybody's best interest and certainly the park's. So we'll get back to you.
Can you explain the relationship? Whose responsibility is Bells Mill Road? Is the vegetation overhang yours, the roadway theirs? It's another situation where the springs run off onto Bells Mill, and many of my constituents complain about the icy patches that develop overnight. Can you explain in general who should we be dealing with here? What should I be asking you to do and what should I be asking the Streets Department to do? The place is just in terrible, terrible condition right now. Debris, all kinds of 1204 03/22/05 - FY '06 OPERATING BUDGET junk. It looks like a roadway into a junk yard.
The responsibility for Bells Mill Road, the vegetation is Fairmount Park's responsibility. The repaving of the roadway is Streets Department. The inlets, I understand that's Water Department.
Could you do me a favor? You did a great job a few years ago. I don't know if you were in the position you're in now. You coordinated an effort where the police shut the roadway down. They went in with this Road Hog or whatever this gadget you have is, you went in there and cleaned all the vegetation back. They opened up the inlets to prevent the water running into the roadway. They were totally clogged from what I understand. I would appreciate it and the people that live in that community would appreciate being able to clean the roadway, the shoulders between Germantown Avenue and Ridge, cut the vegetation back again. Ask the Water Department to open up the inlets and have the 1205 03/22/05 - FY '06 OPERATING BUDGET Streets Department realign the shoulder and the center of the roadway. It is really a bad situation there. We shouldn't really have to ask each year or every few years. This is something that should be like a maintenance list.
Thank you. I know you're doing it with mirrors right now and I wish you didn't have to do it that way. But there are certain priorities, and this, I think, should be one of them. As you all know it is a major, major roadway. I heard earlier, the Friends of the Wissahickon tell me that they're going to have a clean-up event or some type of maintenance that they're doing next week or so at Forbidden and Bells Mill. The whole roadway has washed off. The signage is all laying down into the park. It's a real mess. It's a mess. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments by Members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none. I thank you for all the wonderful work you do. This Committee will stand in recess until 1:30, at which time we will hear from the Recreation Department.
Thank you for your patience. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. We will now hear from the Recreation Department. Welcome, Commissioner. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Vic Richard, Commissioner of the City of Philadelphia Department of Recreation. Thank you for 1207 welcoming us. Good afternoon, Council President and Honorable City Council Members. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce our executive team. To my right and your left is Deputy Commissioner Mary Platt-Coles, Deputy Commissioner Carlton Williams, and Deputy Commissioner William Carapucci. We'd like to thank you for leadership and also for giving us an opportunity to present our requested budget for Fiscal Year '06. 2 million in the General Fund. That includes a decrease of a little over $2 million. This decrease includes cuts due to staff reductions, staff restructuring and over-time reductions as well. 3 million, 82 percent of our total budget is in Class 100. 7 million, 8 percent, is in Class 200. million, percent, in Class 300. There's $209,000, percent, in Class 400. 8 million in Class 500, which is percent. 4 million for Fiscal Year '06. The Recreation Department grant fund appropriations will provide for our summer food and after school food snack programs, our older adult senior citizen programs, Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, Human Services Development Fund and Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block grant funding. The changes in our General Fund position levels from FY '05 to '06 are as follows: In Fiscal Year '05, our full-time positions were 532. In Fiscal Year '06, they are 494. Permanent FY '05 part-time positions were 155 and permanent part-time in FY '06 are 142. Our seasonal positions in FY '05 were 1,972 and in FY '06 are 1,837. 6 million decrease in Class 100 funding. The Department reduced 10 full-time positions in our program unit, 20 full-time 1209 positions in our maintenance unit and eight full-time positions in our administration and development due to restructuring of recreation districts, staff reductions and contracting of our turf management for our recreation properties. Our service delivery impact in maintaining our core mission of public recreation and leisure services, we propose the following: There will be no change in service involving our after school programming. There will be no change in service involving our summer day camps. There will be no change in service involving our ice-skating rinks. The summer aquatics program will consist of a solid eight weeks from June 18th through August 20th. In FY '05 the summer aquatics program consisted of nine weeks. Passive park maintenance will continue to be maintained by SMAs, our seasonal maintenance attendants, and there will be no change in that service delivery as well. 1210 Turf management. Grass cutting will be improved from one cut every three weeks to one cut every two weeks. Three pools, Smith, 48th and Woodland and Waterview have been demolished and will be replaced with new state-of-the-art spray grounds to maintain water play activity in their respective communities. Revenue development and fiscal responsibility. The ice rinks in FY '05 generated $57,652 as of February 28th of '02, as compared to $28,738 for the same time period in '04. This is 100 percent increase in revenue in one year. This increase in revenue is due to improved advertisement and increased fee structures. Island Road Recreation Center was leased for $86,400 annually for the creation of a Montessori charter school. The consolidation of two maintenance warehouse operations within the Department resulted in a savings of $176,000 annually by the elimination of City lease payments. The consolidation of the Fairmount 1211 Park and Recreation administrative units resulted in $175,000 annual FY '05 savings.
We're very proud of some of these accomplishments while still maintaining quality services during these very fiscally strained times. Accomplishments in '05. Our maintenance and capital projects unit in FY '05 we continue to demonstrate our commitment to excellent service delivery. Through the leadership and diligence of our maintenance department, we were able to open another teen center, being number six, at Simon Recreation Center. We are proud to say that we now have 16 centers under the operation of the department; Rivera, McVeigh, Francis Myers, Kingsessing, Shepard and now Simons. Eight facilities are scheduled now for new play equipment, Simons, 29th and Chalmus, Olney, West Mill Creek, 33rd and Wallace, Cohocksink and Windemere, Kingsessing and Kenderton. Thirteen parks were renovated by leveraging City dollars with approximately 1212 $1 million in grant funding from the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. The pride in our daily maintenance of our facilities is the key to quality service delivery. In our administration unit, in administration and development, the division continues to play a very vital role in the development of our workforce. The ongoing investment in the preparation of employees is vital to the service delivery and the safety of our employees and citizens. The division also manages our older adult programs at five Recreation's older adult facilities. The program participation continues to grow at these centers, particularly for programs such as the senior art camp conducted at three Fairmount Park locations, including Love Park this year, where 90 senior citizens attended this past summer. The senior holiday party, which had over 2,000 senior citizens in attendance in '05, was a record setting number. That was hosted at the Marriott. In our senior games, held in the month of May, we 1213 had 495 seniors participating in various sports activities. In our program unit as mentioned, the Department opened a teen center at Simons Recreation Center in FY '05. This brings the total number to six. Since the inception of the first two teen centers, the Department has provided programming services to thousands of youth, ages to 21, who participate in 11 classes, tournaments, dances, field trips or 12 who just drop in to enjoy the teen lounge. 13 Currently there are 2,550 teens that are 14 registered as official members. We also enhanced our partnership with the Police Athletic League at Hunting Park Rec Center and we are close to concluding another partnership at Ford Recreation Center. In addition, we have selected Fisher Park as the permanent headquarters for our year round and summer arts camp. Through our ongoing partnership with the Phillies, 76ers and the Eagles, we are able to maintain special athletic programming in our neighborhoods, in addition to our 1214 ongoing soccer, basketball, softball, baseball and gymnastics which operate year round. The Department will continue to serve over 7,000 children and teens in our community day camps and in our sports and athletic camps that include golf, baseball, basketball, tennis and swim instruction. We are continuing our relationship with the University of Penn's Annenberg Center and Settlement Music School for our performing arts camp, serving over 300 children and teens. m. Our top recreation programs serve over 250 preschool-aged children and families and operates September through June. As you can see, we are just as committed today as we were yesterday to play our role in enhancing the quality of life in Philadelphia. We thank you, the City Council, 1215 for its support and leadership. We will be glad to answer any questions that the Council may have. Thank you.
Thank you. Commissioner, on -4 of your detail, you list $2.6 million of reductions in Class 100. Would you be kind enough to go through each item and explain what the reduction is, the number of positions being reduced and the service impact these reductions will have on your operation? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I will give the overall numbers and I will let my deputy commissioners talk about the details in each one of their prospective divisions.
Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: In our program unit, the deductions in our full-time employees is 10 in that unit. In our maintenance unit there's 20, and in our administration unit there's eight. And that total -- and these are full-time figures -- that total figure for the entire Department 1216 from '05 to what's being proposed in '06 is a reduction of 38. In our part-time employees, permanent part-time employees, the reduction figure in our program unit is 13. We don't have any permanent part-time in maintenance or in our administration unit as well. So that total number is 13. In our seasonal temporary number, in our program unit is a reduction of 77. In our maintenance unit -- this is seasonal temporary -- is 55 and --
I'm sorry, Commissioner. You're going a little too fast for me. The seasonal part-time is 77? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: 77 in our program unit. And in our maintenance unit it will be 55. In our Administration unit it will be three. I'll let Deputy Commissioner Carapucci introduce himself and he can begin with the impact in difference in our program unit.
Deputy Commissioner Bill Carapucci. 1217 Presently we have 222 full-time people in the program division, which is four under next year's projected budget. During the course of this year right now we have a number of what they call A centers that there's one full-time person working and one part-time.
We'll get to that. We'll get to the centers. Let's just talk about the programs at this point in time and the impact.
With the part-time, we presently have 131 permanent part-time workers. The target for this year was 147 and next year it was 142, so we're already under that. As far as impact on services, with the A centers you're going to have a situation that, if we don't get the people in there, many of these places can be closed on Saturdays. Likewise with a number of the B centers. Because with the A centers, if you only have one full-time person and one 18-hour part-time person, you cannot cover that place 1218 six days a week with one person. We're running programs in the gym, in the cultural areas, in the pool, with the ball fields and things like that. Likewise, with all our B centers. In our B centers, if you're working by yourself and you're taking a day off, which is the right of the employee to take a vacation day, or if he's out sick, there will be no one there to cover the facility. All our B and C centers should have one full-time person.
That was going to be one of my questions, but you're jumping ahead of me. Will your FY '06 budget provide for a rec leader 3, a rec leader 1, an assistant rec leader and a full-time maintenance worker at each of the Class A centers?
So what then will the staffing allocation be for the Class A centers?
In some of the class A centers there will be only one full-time 1219 person and a part-time person.
And will full time be a rec leader 3 or a rec leader 1?
In an A center we put a rec leader 3 in. In a B center we put a rec leader 2 and in a C center, a rec leader 1.
Mr. Carapucci, can you identify the A centers that will not have the full-time leader? You said some of them will. Do you already have that identified?
I can give them to you. Most of them I have in my head. Christy will not. They don't have one now and they won't unless we get some ability to hire. Kingsessing, Hunting Park, Rizzo Rink, Disston Rec Center, Bridesburg, Northern Liberties. At present they're the A centers that do not have two full-time people and a part-time 1220 person.
Presently they do not have that. During the course of this Fiscal Year people either retired or resigned and have not been replaced. Now --
Let me stick with the A centers, if I can. Going forward, are there any additional A centers that will be in the same predicament, and could you identify those? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: In Councilwoman Tasco's district right now we're building a brand-new $5-and-a-half million class A facility that will need a full compliment of staffing.
That center is Emanuel, and under the present structure we cannot staff that facility until we get the ability to hire because that facility was a --
My question is, in addition to Emanuel, are there any other facilities today that have a full-time leader that will not have a full-time leader going forward, aside from the ones that you've already mentioned?
We have a number of people in the next Fiscal Year that will be leaving due to the DROP plan. If I go through that DROP list for next year, I know I can identify more that will be in the same position.
Please do. Did we go through the Class B centers? Can we go through the Class B centers? Do we have a rec leader 2 and an assistant rec leader and a full-time maintenance worker in each of the Class B centers? I know what you're going to say. I 1222 don't know why I would bother asking.
We have about or 4 16 B centers where there's only one person 5 working. As far as maintenance, Carlton will 6 have to answer that. But as far as in the 7 program area we have around 15 or so centers 8 that there is only a rec leader 2. And in the 9 C centers, only a rec leader 1. 10
How many 11 recreational programs do you run and can you 12 tell us how many participants do you have? 13
Over the course of a 14 year throughout our various facilities we have 15 over 500 programs. If you want to break that down, in athletics we have over 500,000 children that attend our program. In the cultural area it's over 80,000.
The only program that we really have to adhere to that is with the after school program. And that's 15 to one. And we're pretty close with that. We're pretty good with that number. 1223 Day camps, what we do is we put usually three day camp workers per day camp. Many times that's supplemented by the Local Advisory Council. So they'll hire people until we get close to the ratio in day camps. As far as the other programs at other facilities like basketball, football, baseball, all the myriad of activities that we run, there really isn't a participation to staff ratio. As far as safety in most of these facilities, if you go to a facility -- I'll give you one in your district that you're very familiar with -- Guerin Recreation Center. At the present site there's one full-time person there and a part-time. So that's it. During the afternoon there's one person there. You have three large buildings and a large outdoor area and one person. It's not the best situation for employees.
With that being said, how are we able to operate these programs in a safe environment?
Well, through the 1224 dedication of most of the staff, they've been able to get by. But it's to the point now where if this goes any lower, some of these facilities will have to be closed.
How has the Fairmount Park/Recreation streamlining affected your department?
Mary Platt-Coles, Deputy Commissioner of the Recreation Department. Last fall the Fairmount Park Commission and the Recreation Department formed an administrative services cluster to combine personnel, fiscal units, warehouses and information technology field sites for both departments. Through that process and the staff reductions that we went through in January we were able to reduce our number by eight for next year. The cluster has 36 positions with the combined departments. That is, as I said, covering two warehouses and over 100 field sites for computer services.
Thank you. Commissioner, last year we spoke 1225 about downsizing. Can you tell me how many recreation centers have been leased, sold or just closed? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Leasing, one.
Is that the one in my district? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: That's Island Road. I'm going to ask Jeff to give me a hand. There are no sales that have gone through as of yet.
Good afternoon, Council President and Council Members. I'm Jeff Cardwell, special assistant to the Commissioner of Recreation. I've been overseeing the leasing and selling of recreation properties for the past year. We effectively leased one property, which is Island Road Recreation Center. At the present time we are negotiating four more leases; Schmidt Recreation Center, Ford Recreation Center, Winchester and Weccacoe.
So how much of a savings do we get from leasing these five recreation centers? 1226 COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Right now the revenue on Island Road is going back into the General Fund, and that annual figure is $86,000.
I'm sorry, Commissioner. I was distracted. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: The revenue generated on the Island Road lease is $86,000 annually. That's over a five-year period in the lease agreement will go up to $112,000 annually. That's going into the General Fund. The savings that we will see on the Ford lease with PAL and Schmidt will all come in staffing savings where we will move the staff over to other facilities, but they haven't been consummated. There's no sale of any properties as of yet. Franklin is scheduled to go up for sale, Fontleone, 10th and Lemon, there's another property about the size of a row home called Amusement Park. There's also negotiations on another facility in Germantown called Morton that may either be sold or leased and another facility called Rose. But 1227 none of the sales have gone through as of yet.
Councilman DiCicco wants to follow-up. But Commissioner, I'd like to get back to the leases, please. I know what you said about the recreation center on Island Road. How about the other four? You're working on leases presently? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Right now the lease on Ford is in PAL (ph) with their legal for review to come back. Winchester's lease is in our Law Department. Winchester is located in North Philadelphia off of 15th and York, in that area. That lease is still in the City. Schmidt is back in our Law Department from the potential lessee.
Commissioner, again, I don't want to belabor this issue, but what, if any, savings -- you said we would have savings as far as personnel. In these departments they would be transferred. What is the projected revenue from the leases that we would see? Because there are five all together. I think you're 1228 very clear on the first one for Island Avenue. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: The only one that has been specifically determined is Island Road. I have all of the details in my office, like with Ford. I'd like to give you the details, but Ford alone I can give you an example. This consummation goes through at Ford with PAL. PAL will take over running the after school program. They would also take over running the gymnasium and everything else. The City would maintain operational responsibility of the swimming pool and we would also assist with summer camps. The savings will come with the full-time staffing and also with the full-time maintenance personnel. Also, the lease will carry them. All the responsibilities of the utilities will be paid for by the person that leases as well.
How about the other rec centers that you spoke about? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I'm sorry?
How about the other rec centers that you mentioned that 1229 are in the process of being leased? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: A money denomination on anything has not been determined yet because the leases aren't closed. But all of the leases will carry all the similar things relative to the daily maintenance costs, which would be a reduction to the City's budget, and also all of the utilities throughout the entire months, 11 electricity, the heating, and all of that. 12 All of those would be cost savings that whoever leases the facility will carry as well.
Mr. McPherson is just pointing out to me that on of the supporting schedules for revenues, we do not show any income at all, no 19 revenues for leasing in the Recreation Department. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Thank you. That would be something that we have to correct.
Ms. Reed, that would have to be corrected. 1230 Commissioner, can you tell us why the Administration cut your Class 100 by 8.7 percent? This certainly seems very excessive. Has someone from the Finance Department explained why you received such a large cut? I assume you're looking back. Would you prefer Ms. Reed respond to that question? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Well, I heard the whole part of your question. You asked Finance as well. I know the total cut was given to myself and my staff to address. Some of the ways we try to address it -- quite naturally, I wouldn't want to cut anything given an opportunity not to cut. I would like to continue to maintain the staffing, given that opportunity. But I also have an obligation as well to the entire City's fiscal responsibility. If Ms. Reed would like to talk in more detail, I'll relinquish the mike. I can also add, to answer your question, how we arrived in achieving the $2.6 million that we had to absorb that was given to us. $805,000 of that, Madam President, was achieved through staff reductions and through 1231 the City's layoff exercise that we went through. Turnover and delayed hiring was another component where we achieved $559,000 towards the $2 million plus. We're looking at reducing the pool season down to eight solid weeks, as I said in my testimony, from nine. That would be an achievement of another $206,000. We also looked at the pools that are either condemned or that are being converted and with the staff and operational savings, so another $216,000 was achieved through there. We also felt as though we could achieve more money towards this $2 million through our reduction in our over-time expenditures as well. The rest of it came through raises, bonuses, lump sum. We also are going to obtain a $242,000 reduction in savings to our projected budget through the grass cutting and turf maintenance contracting out that is going to be combined through the Fairmount Park Commission. Then our part-time staff savings. That is the way that we achieved the cuts that 1232 we were presented. Yes, we will be a little bit more challenged. Deputy Commissioner Carapucci talked about some of the challenges we may face if someone is out or ill at a particular facility, especially with our larger As or Bs, so that will tax us somewhat. It will also tax us a little bit more in our maintenance operation as well where we really made a lot of strides and that we're really proud of. It may take us a little bit longer at certain times to achieve some of the quality things or respond to some of the things that we know given an opportunity we could do. This is how we sat down as an executive body to work towards achieving what was presented to us.
Commissioner, I have several other questions I would like to ask you, but I see a number of my colleagues that have their lights on. My last question at this point in time. I listened to your testimony very intently. I would just like to ask you, are 1233 there any pools that will be closed this summer? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: We're not shutting down any pools. The pools that have shut down, Smith, 48th and Woodland, Waterview, the ones that we're building as spray grounds. But intentionally shutting down operations to meet this budget, we did not do that. Now, we have one pool that may be in question. It's Baker Pool that is in Mr. Nutter's district that was closed last year. Right now that one is still not scheduled to reopen. In order to achieve this, we did not reduce pools. We did not reduce any number of summer camps. We did not reduce any number of after school programs or whatever. I know we have Hancock which didn't open last year under Capital and it should come back out. That should be up and open. Kingsessing is under Capital and that should be up and open as well. So no. 25 I need to add one. We have one that 1234 was condemned last year and it's still condemned. But, no, we did not present to this City Council that we're closing down pools to meet this budget.
Are we going to be able to hire the necessary personnel at the pools?
Excuse me. The Budget Director has asked that I qualify something regarding the leasing revenue. At the time the budget was prepared and the Five-Year Plan it was unknown what the revenue would be. The Budget Office is going to make arrangements for it to be worked into Recreation's budget for '05 and '06. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: To answer your question -- and I know Deputy Commissioner Williams hasn't taken the mike yet to talk about some of the impact. I'll just say briefly -- and Carlton and Bill, please feel free to chime in -- in some of our permanent full-time positions, as Bill talked about in our programming unit, that will be very challenging at times. Given 1235 the opportunity, yes, we could use those employees back.
I think we're all delighted to hear that the swimming pools will be open. My question to you is, if in fact they're opened are we going to have the guards to be at the pools? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, ma'am.
That is in your budget? Or are we hoping for it to be in the budget? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: It's in the budget right now.
And how many would you be able to hire with the budget being what it is?
I think it's approximately 340 or 350. What was taken out of the budget was the number of pools that will not operate this year. The number is the three spray grounds, the Baker Pool --
You're still going to have to hire somebody for the spray grounds, aren't you? 1236
But we're only going to have to hire one person instead of 10.
Yes. We hire five lifeguards and we hire one night watchman and four of what they call pool maintenance attendants that help around the pool, help keep some security. There's one other pool that the Commissioner didn't mention, a pool named Heitzman. That's going to be under Capital work. That will not operate this summer. So that gives you a total of eight.
I'm going to recognize you now. I just feel that I want to share the time with everybody, so we'll go with the first round. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Before I ask my questions, I wanted to ask some clarity on the two pools that you 1237 referenced and one that you did not mention. One was Hancock. We talked earlier in the Capital Programs about that little tractor to be put out at the sight for the summer, giving the impression that something was going to happen. Then when the pool season was over, the tractor disappeared. Are we going to have that tractor out there again for the summer or is something actually going to happen at Hancock? The condemnation reference, I assume you're talking about Athletic's pool. I'm still not clear what the decision is on that as it relates to restoration of the pool.
Tom Fox, Director of Facilities for the Recreation Department. The Hancock Pool, the return lines to the pumps and the filters are deteriorated enough that they had to go under Capital Project system. Last year they started to do that project and then that was held --
That was the tractor, right? That's that little tractor 1238 that sat out there all summer?
That's correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: But it's scheduled to be opened. We're hiring the lifeguards and the staff and our goal is to have that pool opened this summer. Hancock is scheduled to be opened. The directives have been given to reopen it. They're working to repair it and they're hiring the staff and it will be on the pool opening schedule. Hancock will open. The condemned pool is Athletic, and that's due to close to a little bit over a $900,000 price tag. Other than that, we're ready to go. We're recruiting and have begun the training for the aquatic staff. Hancock is on the pool opening schedule to operate.
But the decision on Athletic is still outstanding, the long-term decision? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: That is correct.
Let me ask this 1239 question here. The assumption is that the decision to, quote/unquote, streamline some Recreation versus Fairmount Park were to get rid of some redundancies in some respects. We have these facilities that may have Fairmount Park operating a facility that probably should be operated by Recreation and vice versa. There was a decision to streamline that process. Let me ask you this question, and I don't know if any of you can answer it, but I'm going to ask you, Commissioner. Would it make any sense to look at possibly consolidating the two departments, therefore streamlining in a real way, that we just have a Department of Parks and Recreation, one staff, one operation, no redundancy whatsoever? Does that make any sense to look at it at a minimum? I understand there's some restraints as it relates to the politics of it and as it relates to union issues and things of that nature. From an operational standpoint? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I want to 1240 applaud the City for the steps that they have taken. From what I understand and learned, there were documents dating back to '84 and '85 -- Bill, please feel free to chime in on whatever -- where the City was working towards this. I think everybody in this room, the City Council, the Managing Director and the Mayor have started working toward more efficiencies and proficiencies. It's going to be two years this summer when the three pools were moved over. Instead of having two departments, you had one department that was operating 80-something pools and you had another City agency trying to operate three or four. That was a good business decision. That was done. Rec got 158 in Fairmount Park. So those were good decisions. The next phase that just took place was with administrative clusters, where you were having two HR managers, where you were servicing the employees and hiring almost identical job titles. So I think that program 1241 has gone well. We also tried this past summer, and we were half successful, with the trash pick up with the Streets Department taking over responsibility of picking up the trash at the rec centers. We didn't succeed at the passive parts along with Fairmount Park, so we worked toward it. We achieved half. Fairmount Park and Rec right now are working diligently to try to create one trash pick up unit between both instead of having two separate and do the routing as well. I listened to some of the very great questions that you presented about the trees and all of those challenges for the City. It just made sense to have one tree operating department for continuity and leadership in the departments.
Commissioner, I'm on a time limit. I asked you a simple question, and I appreciate the level of detail that you're trying to answer, but could you just give me the bottom line? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes. 1242
Yes, it would make sense to look at consolidating these two departments, that there's a substantial amount of redundancy both in staff and operations, administrative, and the answer is yes? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir.
Has there any been any discussion about that within the Administration or outside of the Administration? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I know we've talked about it amongst ourselves. I know there was some discussion in the Managing Director's Office, but I don't know how far that has gone and I wasn't privy to that. I know there were discussions.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, everyone. On of your testimony you talk 1243 about the summer food and after school snack program. I think it's an extremely positive initiative. My only interest in this program is background checks. Are they done with all those staff who are in any way, shape, form or fashion directly or indirectly involved with young people? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I appreciate that question. No, Madam Chair. The required background checks that we have in place in the Department right now is with our after school programming and also with our overnight camp up in Camp William Penn. Just as of recently, I believe this maybe our third year that we do drug screening on the life guarding staff. But as an overall policy, we don't have that in place for background checks for everybody.
Okay. I would ask that you look into that and consider it. I do know that DHS has a form and/or procedure already in place so you don't have to reinvent the wheel but simply adopt the practice that they have already to the extent that's helpful. 1244 COMMISSIONER RICHARD: May I go on record to say that all staff members and/or volunteers that deal with young people, they all should be background checked. I guess my service attitude is real simple, that we're entrusted to protect the innocence of the young people that we serve, and if we have a volunteer who doesn't feel that they should adhere to that, I'm going to question their sincerity as well.
I couldn't agree with you more. On of your testimony of the measurement percent of centers comprises an increase over the past FY '02. Can you briefly speak to that factor? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Thank you, again. Deputy Commission Carapucci, it's his division. Also, the young man that just stepped up, Leo Dignam and also Kathy Murphy should be somewhere here as well. They were standards that we derived based on percent of utilization, using the amount of time that the facility was open on 1245 an hourly basis and on a daily basis. First is the Almana Program (ph) and customers, being citizens, that came in actually and used the facilities. We also evaluated what type of programming and that it just wasn't, you know, free time or play around or lip service. We actually have the staff to present and formulate structured programming. And, Leo, if you don't mind, you can give the rest.
I'm Leo Dignam. I'm program director for the Recreation Department. Thanks for the question, Councilwoman. In 1999 we changed the way that we collected data from the Recreation Department based on working with the Managing Director's Office. As the Commissioner said, we used to just collect numbers of participants and then we began to collect kinds of programs, the facility usage, and we adopted some national standards based on those numbers. When we got our baseline in 1246 1999/2000 we went from there and continued to train our program staff to adopt new programs to address those areas that were lacking in certain programs, such as cultural programs or athletic programs, whatever the case may be.
If I recall correctly, does that not also include playground equipment?
Good afternoon, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown. How are you? And to the rest of the Councilmembers that are presently here. My name is Carlton Williams, Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Recreation. In 2002 we sent up recreation 17 facility staff members to go out and get 18 certified in national playground safety. As 19 part of that certification our goal was to 20 upgrade our system to meet the ASTM 1487, American Society for Testing Materials, which is the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Playground Safety Institute and the National Park Services Specifications for Upgraded Playground Safety. 1247 Some of the things that we did immediately with play equipment through a state contract program and working with the Capital Program Office, we removed seven playgrounds in approximately three months in 2003. This year we expect to use that same program to replace eight more additional programs to bring them up to standard. We continuously do random inspections at playground safety areas. That's how we plan to address that improvement standard.
I heard the bell, so I'll continue on the next round. Thank you, Madam President. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Thank you. I also want to thank Susan Kretsge in the MDO's Office for helping us put all of our compliance measurement numbers in place.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon. 1248 COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Good afternoon, sir.
Commissioner, I just want to go back to discuss the leases a little bit more thoroughly. Leases and/or sales, when they become a reality, will obviously be generating revenues for the City. I believe you testified that those revenues, that money, would go to the General Fund; is that correct? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes.
On the leased facilities, the personnel who are presently working at those facilities, will then be shifted to other facilities; is that correct? I think I heard you say that earlier. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir.
So there's a direct benefit to the City because we're selling and/or leasing properties, which are generating revenue. There is a savings within your Department because we're not hiring new people. We're just shifting people from one facility to another facility, which translates 1249 into a savings? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir.
How much of a savings has that caused your Department? How much of a savings is that in reality for the Department/the City of Philadelphia? Do you know, in terms of the leases and also the savings insofar as not replacing personnel and just moving them over to another facility, which I assume when you're shifting them over to other facilities where people may be retiring as a result of the DROP and other issues? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir. I'll give a rough number as best I can. Mary, jump in, or Bill, as well. I'll use the one in Madam President's district on Island Road. The staffing cost was approximately how much a year, Bill?
The staffing cost at Island Road was approximately $40,000 for a rec leader, approximately $15,000 for a part-time assistant and probably about $27, 1250 $28,000 for a full-time custodian. That would equal around $90,000.
If I could 7 clarify. I have the numbers in front of me 8 here. The building staff savings would be 9 $88,416. The pool staff savings would be 10 $30,000, for a total of $118,416. And then 11 thus far this Fiscal Year there's been an 12 income of $72,000 due to the leasing income. 13
So if you add the two figures together, the savings and the income, you got $200,000?
Depending on how you look at it the City saves $200,000? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Correct.
Your Department 1251 does not get any of that benefit?
Well, thus far it hasn't happened, but the Budget Director has said that she's agreeable to working with us to get the income into our budget.
Well, that's where I was going. I believe, Commissioner, you and I and Deputy Carapucci have had a conversation that I shared with you similar to the conversation that I had with the Mayor. I even forgot how long ago it was. It may have been this time last year or it was sometime since last year, that where we have facilities in neighborhoods that are either being sold and/or leased, with the support of a district Councilperson, why not, understanding the fiscal issues that are facing the City today, why not give us back some of that money in those same districts for the Department to use to either further enhance capital projects that are desperately needed and/or use some of those savings to hire additional people to man our facilities? Has there been any discussion with 1252 the Administration with regard to that suggestion? Have they spoken to you about it? Have they come back to you with that thought in mind? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: My conversations have not been in the Mayor's Office. My conversations have been with the Budget and Finance Office and the Managing Director. Those were some of the things that we discussed last budget season and even more so now. My staff is very interested, as well as I am, about the incentives for us to continue to either make money for the City towards its fiscal stability, but also being able to put us in a position to continue to comply with what we need to do. I would definitely like to see the majority of the money dedicated to new play equipment to make sure it's in compliance and/or immediate fencing repairs through a dedicated fund. And staffing, as well, where it's needed. Not just mainly in programming, but it may be the staffing that will be skilled employees in the maintenance unit to 1253 do the work as well. So, yes.
My last question. Thank you. The Franklin Field, Franklin Playground, discussions have been ongoing for some time with the School District. What's the status of that? How much will the School District be paying the City of Philadelphia for the purchase of that land?
The appraisal that came in was $750,000 for the appraisal of that land and it's still in negotiation now between the School District and the City of Philadelphia.
Do any of you foresee any problems with the sale notwithstanding the agreement on the price? Are there any issues that may prevent that? Are there any issues that may prevent that from happening?
So conceivably we can have anywhere from a half a million dollars to three quarters of a million dollars? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir.
Now, quick calculations. The Island Avenue facility which is leased, the sale of Franklin, assuming we get $750,000, is about a million bucks, which is 50 percent of what you're being asked to cut your Class 100. We didn't even get into the other facilities. I know in my district, Fontleone (ph) Pool, I still haven't gotten any information on that. I've agreed to close that place, which we did. I'm agreeing to let it go for sale. By the way, we're on your side. Okay? We understand what mission was put on your table. But we have an ability here to raise millions, millions of dollars, but all we're talking about is cutting programs and reducing staff. This place is supposed to be run like a business. Again, it's not for you. 1255 It's for whoever is listening downstairs. I'm sure the Blackberries are going to be going crazy right now. Millions of dollars could be raised literally in a few months by getting all this stuff off the table. I have six properties in my district that I personally went out and looked to see if they're needed in the community. Parking lots, rec centers, public property buildings. Seven months I can't get an answer on an appraisal. Millions of dollars. I'm getting nuts again. I apologize. Millions of dollars are out there and we're going through this whole exercise of trying to figure out how we can come up with $2 million. And the second floor is sitting on this whole business of appraisals for whatever reason on properties that we have people interested in buying and closed deals in 30 days or less. I guess I'm getting tired of hearing myself saying it. None of this makes sense. I just don't get it. I just don't get it.
I don't think that is something that the Recreation 1256 Commissioner can answer. Perhaps, Ms. Reed, can you give us an answer to why it's taking so long?
I do a little bit of real estate work, which they write about occasionally in the paper. I wish I would do more. If you order an appraisal, you can get an appraisal done in 48 hours. I'll give you a week. Months. Six months, seven months, maybe even longer in some cases to get an appraisal back on properties that we have buyers waiting in line for. But we're going to shut down rec centers. We're going to reduce staffing and we are up here going through all of this discussion and we got money just sitting out there, sitting out there, and we're doing nothing about it. I don't get it. (Applause.)
No one is more interested in making sure the assets that we have for sale get sold, because PICA is closely 1257 scrutinizing that revenue item in our budget. We have several appraisals that we have been waiting on of the properties that I'm familiar with. We had estimates of 45 days for those appraisals. I do not know the specifics of why the appraisal take so long, but I do know that the Administration's policy on these properties is that we are waiting for a market value sale, and that is what we're holding out for.
I know my time has long been up. Who's doing the appraisal?
I'll have to bring somebody from the Managing Director's Office to answer that question. We'll have to get you the names. They are all firms that the City regularly contracts with for appraisals, and they responded to a bid.
If I'm hearing you correctly, you said that 45 days is generally what we're looking for?
Of the properties that I can think of off the top of my head, that's been the estimate. 1258
Do you happen to know which properties they are? We already did the morgue. That's done. It's sold. We sold the morgue. It took us several months, but we worked that out and we got $515,000 for that. 12th and Reed, 1300 block of South Reed, the City-owned parking lot, four years, four years. Not your fault. The former Commissioner of Public Property should have been thrown out years ago. Three years to get an appraisal from them. When I had the guy ready to buy it, they couldn't find the papers. So it's a year I'm waiting for them to figure that one out. The Fleet Management building on the 1100 block of Reed Street, does that sound familiar?
No. I'm sorry. I know we had about 20 or 30 properties on our list 1259 of priority properties to meet our revenue goal for this year, but I don't remember which ones are which. I see I'm joined by a member of the Managing Director's Office.
I think we'll have to get someone from the Managing Director's office too.
I'm here. Jim Donaghy, Deputy Managing Director. Councilman, both the properties you have just mentioned, we have recently asked for appraisals. I know in our conversations that there had been appraisals done in the past, which were many years ago. You're in the real estate business. I'm not telling you anything you don't know. The values have changed significantly and we are looking at that. The 11th and Reed facility is currently a City facility. We have a Fleet Management operation and a Public Property operation. As part of conducting the appraisal we're also looking for facilities 1260 where we can relocate those operations. So I can tell you we are actively working on that. As the Budget Director had mentioned, we have approximately properties 6 that we are actively and aggressively 7 marketing. Once we reach the appraisals and 8 we have a buyer identified, we're working with 9 PIDC to move the properties along through 10 sale. We are not holding any of these 11 properties up. We'd like to get them to 12 market as quickly as we can. 13 We have a number of appraisers that 14 we use and have traditionally used, and the 15 estimate for getting an appraisal is 45 to 60 16 days. That is the standard time that we have 17 been waiting for appraisals. 18
I thank you for 19 your answer. But aside from the Fleet 20 Management building -- which I understand we need to find a suitable location, although we have a lot of vacant land in this town now. NTI created hundreds and hundreds of acres of vacant land that we own. I'm not a business person, but I 1261 have a little bit of a business sense because I did own a restaurant and things at one time. These things just take forever. You know you need money. You have interested buyers. These things should be on fast track. I hear you saying 45 to 60 days. I just believe in my heart that we're not holding these people, these appraisers, to the 45 to 60 days in most cases. Again, I go from my experience with some of the properties in my district. I can't speak about Commissioner Perez. He's not here, but it took him almost three years to get me an appraisal. And I assume he's using the same appraisers that we're still using today.
Councilman, I don't mean to interrupt you, but you asked who did the appraisals. Maybe you could respond to that question.
I don't recall the 1262 names as I'm sitting here today. I can get those names for you and I will forward that information to you.
Thank you. Ms. Reed, while you're up there. I was looking at the Five-Year Plan. Do you have the Five-Year Plan up there with you, Commissioner? Or maybe you have it, Ms. Reed?
It would appear that the adopted budget in FY '04 for Recreation was for 601 employees. In FY '05 you have 565 employees. And for the proposed FY '06, we're down to 494 employees, which shows that over the last two years we have lost 171 positions. Then I look on of the departmental summary, if you have that.
It shows 1263 that for FY '05 the budget was for 532, when in fact the Five-Year Plan showed 565. That's quite a difference. Can you explain why these full-time positions have such a dramatic difference?
Do you see where the difference is? From the Five-Year Plan, what is being proposed?
I don't know why there is a difference in '05. I will have to get back to you.
Well, while you're there, I know that the people in the Recreation Department really try very, very hard to do a wonderful job. However, I don't think anybody anointed them as miracle workers. I look on of the departmental summary, every single, solitary line, with the exception of increments and longevity and the 1264 shift stress differential are the only two items that have not been cut. What is the rationale of all of these reductions?
For Class 100 this is just a summary of the increases and the decreases. In fact, the Department had a projected 5 percent personnel cut, and for '06 we had to take out the extra bonus that was put into the '05 budget, and that shows as a decrease.
Look at the Five-Year Plan from last year. It's greater than a 5 percent reduction.
I'll have to check with you on the total number of positions. But please also note in Class 200, the $141,688, that is a transfer of Class 100 positions to Class 200 because this is now outsourced.
Turf maintenance. As a point of clarification, Council President, we have full-time maintenance 5 positions, vacancies that were reduced due to 6 the turf maintenance over FY '05 and FY '06. 7
I know 8 that other Council people have been waiting. 9 The Chair recognizes Councilman 10 Clarke. 11
Thank you, Madam 12 President. 13 I have a question about classifications, rec leader 1, 2, 3. Is that Charter mandated?
That's basically a civil service regulation and it's been a longstanding agreement with District Council 47.
Civil service regs as required by the Charter or civil service regs as negotiated with the union?
Not with the unions. It's part of the City. When you look at the civil service, you look at the various titles, 1266 rec leader 1, 2 and 3, and in the specifications it will say what their responsibilities will be, what the requirements for the job are.
Let me understand. There are certain criteria associated in the Charter establishing civil service. Is it at the level of specificity that it talks about the levels within the Department's rec leader 1, 2, 3, or is that something that civil service people established in the aftermath with that requirement?
I'm pretty sure civil service established that. But I'm not certain, so I'll get back to you.
I think you probably know why I'm asking that question. We have situations particularly in rec districts when we have people, who in most people's minds are good candidates or that work at these facilities, but they're told, no, this person can't stay there. They can't run this facility. Everybody loves them. The 1267 elected official loves them. The community loves them. But you're only a rec 2. You can't be at an A center. I'm trying to get a sense of how set in stone that is, particularly given the fact that we now find ourselves fiscally challenged, to use a nicer term. Is there any ability --and maybe I should be asking the Law Department or civil service people -- to have some alterations in that classification? I think it just too often creates a problem for us to have functional centers the way we need to have them. I can tell you about one of the facilities that happens to be over in the park where we always had to get a rec 3 because it was an A facility. And time after time after time it was just a person that was not acceptable. And we have rec 1s coming in that people love, the rec 2s that people love, but we couldn't have that in that facility.
The situation you're talking about has been something for years. As soon as somebody retires then the 1268 neighborhood would be saying, I want this person. And if the person is a rec leader and the facility is a rec leader facility you wouldn't have any order then. So that's how this whole thing came about. I know when I was a kid I always wanted to run a facility across the street from where I lived. I was only a rec leader 1. To run that center you had to be a rec leader 3.
You'd have to get that from somebody else. But you have to keep a system.
I need to have an answer to that question. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Let us get back to you so we can get an opinion from Law and also from central personnel and civil service. I also know it's all part of a graduated career path based on degree of difficulty and also attained experience 1269 throughout previous performance. As they graduate from, say, a small C facility all the way to a class A, that may have a pool, gymnasium, auditorium, the whole bit. So it's all part of a career path.
That's a long answer. I hate to keep cutting you off, but you're taking up my time. You know you're my man. You're my guy. Let me come from a different angle. Classifications of centers, is that set in stone?
That is done by the management of the department along with the union. When we reclassify a facility we meet with the union reps and we go to the site and have a mutual agreement.
Is the process just that simple? Somebody could reclassify a facility, say as an example, Fishtown, and put a rec 2 person? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Not arbitrarily. It's done on the acreage and the facility itself and the amenities that the 1270 facility carries, and all that dictates the degree of difficulty of the job.
Who determines that criteria? That's not Charter mandated.
That's done by us. The large facility, it's kind of common sense. For instance, in your district you have Athletic. You have M.L. King. We can't put a rec leader in charge of those places. You have to have a rec leader at a large facility.
You can't do that because the union says or the civil service regs say that. But that's not to say that a rec leader 1 doe not have necessarily the technical capabilities of that person, i.e., the designation, but that person could very well be a better supervisor. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: We're also protecting the profession as well. We're protecting the continuity within the organization and we're also making sure that there's no disparity amongst the ranks based on degree of difficulty and level of 1271 responsibility.
So as we look at to some degree reconfiguring the facilities in the City as a result of our budget crunch, and as some people think, streamlining, should there been some thought about reclassifying facilities generally? We're now talking about spray pools being added to facilities as opposed to traditional pools. Does it make more sense to put play equipment in a neighborhood that will require essentially no employees and take it away from direct facilities? I mean, they have a ball field, therefore downgrading the type of operations. Is that going to be a part of the discussion or do you think it should be? I'm looking at solutions for this problem because I don't see the budget crunch being resolved in the foreseeable future. I'm concerned that we could be sitting here next year with some additional proposals to cut some additional facilities, so maybe we need to talk about reclassification of facilities. 1272
If a facility has the same amenities, ball fields, auditorium, gym, swimming pool, I would not be in favor of reclassifying it down. If a facility loses the pool and all it has is a building and a ball field, then there's some rationale to make a change. But if you want to keep this where you have a rational reason and you have agreement with the workers' representatives and the unions, I think you have to keep it based on the size of the facility and the amenities that are at the facility.
But we're in the situation where based on budget restraints, we're talking about closing facilities. You have probably the largest cuts proposed than any department. At some point you have to do something different. You can't continue to have the, quote, unquote, rational discussions about facilities and staffing of facilities when the resources just are not there. At some point you've got to do things differently or continue to have facilities close. I'm trying to figure out a way to 1273 allow us to have facilities continue to operate in neighborhoods in a less costly way. If you're not willing to entertain any types of reconfiguration or reclassifications of facilities or designation of employees, then I don't think we'll ever get to a solution.
In the past two years, Councilman, we have done a number of altering of facilities to where we, in the management team here, came up with objective criteria. The place was too small. It wasn't well used. For instance, in Councilman DiCicco's district, Frankford Valley, we don't operate the place anymore. It was very small. We stepped away from it. We have done that in a couple facilities. Up in the Northeast, a place called Mayfair. At one time, during the hey day of this department back in the '70s, that was classified as a B center when we had plenty of money. Now today we have it classified as a C center because what we had to do is put the staff at other places. So the places that we feel can be done and 1274 without hurting the service to the community and without --
If you took the staff from a facility I've got to think that hurts the community. It was a B, you took the staff away and then reclassified it as a C.
We replaced it with volunteers from the community. It was well received by the community, what we did. For instance, in Councilwoman Verna's we closed Lenier because we had objective criteria. The place was falling apart. But to take a facility and to just arbitrarily downgrade it to save money, I don't think that's something we should be doing.
So you'd rather just not have any money, let the facility deteriorate to the point where you have to close it than to make an arbitrary decision, a proactive decision to make some alterations in the way you do your business to possibly have some money th keep that facility maintained? You'd rather do that? 1275
I'm saying that if this continues where we can't hire, all the cutting that we've done -- and we've done a lot of cutting in the last two years --
So you'd rather have a situation where a person gets laid off --
-- just so a person could keep a career track and be a rec 3, right, which is a higher staffing level at an A facility, that is, more resources are required, and have that in place than let that person get laid off?
If you continue the way you're doing business that's what's going to happen. You're not looking at 1276 changing the strategy associated with your operation. People are going to get laid off.
We've already changed. We've done a lot of altering in the last couple of years. We've downgraded. We've closed facilities. We can't do anymore and be able to go into that office and look in the mirror.
I'm not asking you to look in the mirror. I'm asking you to look at a different way of doing business. That's all. If you're not willing to do that, then you're going to be here next year, you're going to have your budget proposals, there's going to probably be more cuts and you're going to end up laying some people off. At some point you've got to think out of the box.
We have thought out of the box, but we need to get the union to come in with us in this box because we just can't, as a management team, say, we're going to downgrade this facility.
Fine. I'm assuming that a union member, if I'm a 1277 business agent, I'd rather have two people making salaries as opposed to one person making a little higher salary and this person gets laid off and ultimately leaves the workforce. I don't collect any union dues. That's traditionally what union business agents want to do, is keep their employee rate bloated or whatever as much as possible. So I don't know why they wouldn't be interested in obtaining some reconfigurations in that process. But if you don't think that there's any opportunity of entertaining that, then keep doing what you're doing.
I think there's a little bit of opportunity in a couple of facilities that are questionable.
You keep dealing with specific facilities. I'm talking about a different way of doing business in a proactive way, looking at your Department, looking at the classifications, looking at the civil service regs, seeing if there's something that you can change in a comprehensive way that 1278 better enables you to keep employees at facilities, if it calls for downgrading a facility so you can now have a 2 there and a 1 there, but that facility is open as opposed to what we're doing now. We don't have any money. The facilities become dilapidated. They close. You're moving pieces around. Doesn't that make sense to you?
Commissioner, I'm asking you this too. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes. I want to go on record to say that I believe we have been doing some of that. We haven't done it to the extent that you're talking about as far as arbitrarily downgrading some. In order to be fair and have continuity throughout our organization and not just this or any others, it would not be proper for me to expect an employee to run an A facility with one or two gymnasiums, an auditorium, a dance studio, a pool and the whole bit and then pay somebody the exact same salary and they're running a class C facility 1279 that's about three or four times the size of a garage. So that's some of things that we've been trying to express. We have done things different, but we didn't downgrade all of the facilities. We looked at, could we use part-time people or full-time people. What Deputy Commissioner Carapucci is saying, and I'm saying on record as well, is that we're cut. There's really nowhere else for us to be cut unless you close down things. We began this process a few years ago prior to the City getting to where it is today. I want to go on record to say that we reduced 10 operating districts down to seven. We reduced 10 operating districts in our maintenance down to seven. So we believe that's being innovative. We also believe that when the dust settles through the lay-offs, that there's only one employee that's going to be gone. Now, was it something that we were excited about doing, was it something we wanted to? No. But it was something that we know we needed to participate in. It's just like with the pools. Do 1280 we fight to try to keep the pools open for weeks or do we look at closing them eight or do I come here and say, all right, I've got to cut X amount of dollars away and I'm going to eliminate five or pools to make the 7 difference. So from an executive business 8 standpoint, we're coming here today to say, we 9 can have eight full solid weeks and not lose 10 any of the pools, instead of coming here and saying, we're going to keep 10 weeks and then try to do money. Yes, we're very open. We have begun that. I want to go on record to say, we're down to the bare. And I want to clarify that. Based on the level of responsibility that the Department has in the physical plant, the amount of properties that we have versus the manpower and the money that it's going to take for us to keep them at an acceptable level and/or a high quality level, in some phases, we're beyond that capacity where we can't do it and it's going to take us a little longer to do it. But I appreciate that. You are 1281 correct. Where we can do it, we should. The union should be right there with us to help us do it. But I also have to protect the professional structure of the graduated career path as well.
To finish up on this. It's my understanding that in your earlier proposals as it related to the consolidation and elimination of facilities, you referenced the fact that these facilities were established at a time when we had close to 2.5, three million people. The language you used, now that we know longer have that many people, now that we're only dealing with 1.5 million people, it seems to me that potentially those regs that were established to support 3 million people are no longer valid. So we need to keep that train of thought throughout this process. If we're going to reduce them based on the reduction of the numbers, then we need to look at a change in the regs associated that have been established for that criteria. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: We just don't 1282 want to reduce. We want to make it where we have a premiere class A. The number one goal of not just this City, but any major metropolis, your priority is to provide a class A facility, meaning you have dance, auditorium, the full thing. That's the restructuring piece I'm talking about. Not just arbitrarily shutting them down and shutting them down. In particular instances, based on the density of the population and also the volume use on the numbers that you get, then you make the decisions where you build a class B or a more satellite based on the intended use. But, yes, the majority of the City's finances should go into the class A, the premier sites, and then you work your way back. That's what you do to get them up to today's standards and make sure they can be maintained at that level that they need to be maintained where people will be excited about coming.
Regardless of their geographical location? 1283 COMMISSIONER RICHARD: That's correct. Throughout the entire City. I'll give you a prime example, and I believe this is your district right now. On the west side of Broad Street you have a class A facility, being M.L. King. And then I believe you have an older class facility, being Athletic. But when you cross on the other side you don't have any. And I what to say from Penrose, then you go up, I think you have Panati and then you go up to Barret and then you go all the way up to Cherashore. So I want to say -- what is that first cross street -- is it Diamond? That may be from Diamond and Broad, all the way up to Broad and Olney, we don't have one class A facility. So my responsibility to you as the governing body of this City and in me in the position I hold is to make a formal recommendation based on that to say, you may need to close one or two of these down or close all four and build two As over there. And that's part of what you're presenting 1284 based on population and what the City should have for it's citizenship.