Where do I start? Mr. Mifflin, as Councilwoman Miller mentioned, I also had some concerns about street trees and park trees. And on of the testimony, you make reference to utilizing both operating and capital funds. And I thought it was my general recollection that we primarily used capital funds for planting and removal of street trees.
Why are we using operating dollars also? 1269 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00
We use -- I thought I knew the answer to this. Was there just numbers? Okay, the number reflects trees removed for emergency purposes. That would include the use of operating dollars. May I also add, as a footnote, through the pruning program, which you may wish to speak about, and in part to my answer of Councilwoman Miller's question, I think, on pruning, I don't think I really answered that part of the question, when we list our trees by block, by street block, and when we prune trees in that block, as opposed to pruning individual trees throughout the City, if we come upon a dead tree, we will remove that tree in the block. So we are utilizing the funds from that contractual program.
Okay. Now, in the 1270 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 section on street trees and the section on park trees, if I'm reading this correctly, you say in FY 2000, you anticipate removing 1231 street trees and you expect to plant 489. And that in '01, you expect to remove 1180 and to plant 640. The math on that seems to indicate a net loss of street trees of 750 in FY 2000 and 540 in '01.
Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. We have an answer. May I ask my Director of Operations to explain those numbers.
James Donaghy, Director of Operations. Yes, we do experience a net loss in our street-tree population every year. We have more trees dying than we can replace with the current funding.
Well, what level of funding would you need to stay at least equal? I mean, if we played this scenario out over an extended period of time, there would be virtually no street trees left in Philadelphia.
That's correct. 1271 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00
What's the funding level that you need to at least stay at the current number?
I can get that to you. I can't give you that today but certainly can give you an answer.
We're at somewhat of a disadvantage in that we are estimating the number of trees in Philadelphia at about 250,000. That's a number that we have used for probably a decade, and we would -- we are working our way through the City with an inventory.
How long is that -- I mean, I seem to recall that a couple years ago, there was an effort and an approach made through U.S. Senator Arlen Specter to get some funding, I believe from the Forestry Service.
And if we have been doing pruning -- I believe the million dollars started maybe three fiscal years ago.
And we had people all over the City doing this kind of work, I mean, 1272 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 shouldn't we know by now better than the decade-old estimate?
We have completed about a quarter of our tree population from an inventory perspective. We're going to speed up that process with support from sponsors and other individual organizations who are interested and supportive of our street-tree efforts.
And part of the problem is that -- and maybe I should have qualified my statement that we have been using that same number for a decade because we're not quite sure. We're not aware of all of the activity that occurs in street trees; it's unreasonable to think that we could, quite frankly. Individuals plant trees without permission, individuals remove trees without our permission, and when we come upon those locations, we'll add it to the data bank. But short of an ability to be in every neighborhood on an annual basis, as an example, there's always going to be some variation of the number of trees. 1273 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00
Well, I understand that but, I mean, the net activity by our citizens, I would think, is somewhat negligible, both on the -- certain on the planting side.
And on the removal side. I mean, people often talk about taking the tree down but, you know, if you've got a 20-, 30footer outside your house, you might take a few whacks at it with a hacksaw, but I don't know of many situations where we have people taking down large tree on residential neighborhoods illegally.
So we don't know what the citizens, but we certainly know what are doing.
And if we took down the numbers that we took down last year and we're taking down what we're taking down this year, the total over the two years is close to a 1300 net loss of trees.
No matter what the inventory is, if you take a net loss of 500 to 700 trees or so a year, you will significantly decrease this population, no matter what the number is.
So my question, to go back on this portion is, I'd like to see a budget or some detailed explanation as to how we get a smaller gap between the number that come down and the number that get planted. I mean, and similarly, I mean, we've been doing the million dollar piece, as I said, I think it's about three years now.
The number, you can only do so much with that amount of money.
And we know from the start that we were actually talking about more of a 5 to $6 million program if we were going to legitimately try to deal with the street-tree population in Philadelphia. You're only going to be able to squeeze, you know, 7900, 8200, 8500, 1275 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 somewhere in that neighborhood, at the most, out of the million dollar. And so now my question is, what efforts have been made, or what discussion has taken place, about getting the million-dollar figure up at any level over some time, closer to what we all, I think, generally agreed two, three, four years ago would be a more legitimate street-tree program? I mean, we can't just keep doing it at a million and think we're solving major problems out there for any extended period of time.
Has there been a request for additional for street-tree pruning?
Any particular reason? I mean, does Mr. Dubow not like trees, or I mean, has he got a tree problem, or did he fall out of one time?
I mean, is he like an anti-tree element in the budget office?
Mr. Dubow, please 1276 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 come up and defend your character now that I've assailed you. (Rob Dubow comes forward.)
Mr. Dubow, has there been a request over the past couple years to revisit the street-tree funding issue from a dollar standpoint?
Okay. If you received a request, what would be your response?
Whenever we get additional funding requests, we analyze the costs and the need. So without looking at what their request looks like, I can't really tell you that we would analyze it.
Okay. Well, based on what you know, based on what you know and even on what you've heard today, 200, 225, 250, whatever the number may be, if we're at a million, it's estimated that to have a legitimate street-tree program, it would cost 5 to 5, and we have a tremendous continually decreasing street- tree population based on trees that we take down 1277 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 and trees that we plant, and we don't know what the citizenry is doing out there. But we at least want to look at and legitimately evaluate some level of increase to deal with the street-tree problem within the City of Philadelphia, which any arborist knows and some regular citizens knows, that you can extend the life of the trees, decrease long-term the City's liabilities by keeping the trees healthier because they're not either falling on people, falling on cars, falling on houses. I mean, we actually save money if we do this thing right.
We would be willing to look at and totally analyze any requests.
Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. You'll -- similar to our discussion earlier with Dell East, you'll have that discussion prior to any voting out of the budget bills?
Thank you. Now, the budget of the part has 1278 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 seemingly been somewhat -- Mr. Dubow, you might not want to leave -- is seemingly covered in a fairly tight range for the past eight fiscal years. In FY '93, when I started here, the Parks budget was $11.2 million. The current budget year Parks budget is $13.1 million, about a 17, percent increase, which would seem to be a 10 lot of money. 11 As compared to the earlier testimony 12 with regard to Recreation Department, which, 13 during that same period of time, has seen about a 14 33 percent increase in their budget, can you give 15 us some sense of why there's such a disparity 16 between the Recreation Department -- glad they got 17 the money, happy for them, they have a lot of 18 facilities, but this is the largest municipally owned park system in the United States of America, and what are we doing to maintain it and support it as a regional place?
Well, I think there are a few levels of answers. I think Recreation has done a very good job of putting together their requests for programs and explaining how those 1279 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 programs would be of benefit to the City and to their system, and they have had good success at getting those requests funded. I think the Parks has also been able to use outside funding to enhance its services.
The outside funding is normally targeted for specific purpose and use. And outside funding or no outside funding, we have a responsibility to fund the parks ourselves. You can't penalize someone for being a good fund-raiser for outside sources, nor do we pawn off on the private entities or the foundations our fundamental obligation and responsibility.
That's true, and we never -- I mean, as you said, we have increased their funding, and we haven't reduced funding in reaction to their getting large grants, like the William Penn Grant, but it obviously reduces the amount that they'll request from us if they're getting that much outside funding.
But you're not going to sit there and say that it hasn't maybe affected your judgment, viewpoint, or thought 1280 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 process if somebody gets a large grant from the outside, although it's specifically targeted or was acquired for particular reasons, and if you thought that you might be able to offload some responsibilities, or if they had some special feature that might be interesting to a wide variety of people, I mean, you wouldn't necessarily say, Well, we still need to provide significant City support since they already have significant outside support. I mean --
And I don't think -- and, Bill, you can correct me if I'm wrong -- that there have been any major operating requests that we've denied them over the last several years.
All right. So it's really more of a request. I mean, you at least have to put in a request again and again. You might still get a no but, I mean, if you don't have anything on the table, then it's really no. 25
Okay. All right. Let me go back to Director Mifflin. With regard to your budget, I guess I read the increase for this year is $265,000, and I got the impresses either from the testimony or some documents that that's only for scheduled wage increases. Is that a part of the union contract?
We had some discussion a year ago and I got a hold of the notes of testimony from last year's public hearing. And as I was reading through it, getting ready for this upcoming year's budget testimony, I saw where we had some discussion last year about the Environmental Education Centers and the number of centers and the need for personnel to run these centers. Now, your testimony at the time was in the realm of -- I think you planned to staff them by a reorganization, or maybe it was a combination of reorganization or attritioning out of certain 1282 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 positions and maybe you put other people into these slots. Can you give me an update on that? And where do we stand with the funding issue? 'Cause if the dollar increase is only to deal with wage hikes, then I don't get the impression that there is a request for additional personnel to staff these centers.
Mm-hmm. We did not submit a request for additional personnel in the submission to the Finance Department when called for budget call, if you will, for our documents to move over to the Finance Department. We have subsequently developed a plan that would identify new revenue to the City, that would, in part, support some of the positions in environmental education. I have previously testified that --
Are the revenue items directly related to what people would be doing in environmental education? Or are the revenue initiatives just park issues, and if you have more money, you can fund more people?
It's more the latter, Councilman. Although since we last met here last 1283 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 year, we have commissioned a feasibility study for the Environmental Education Centers performed by an outside consultant.
And they have made certain recommendations and we actually have -- and certain conclusions. And we now have a very clear path identified as to the cost of operating and maintaining these centers once they are built. In addition to that -- and that's in part why we are looking perhaps for additional revenue to sustain positions, but it also suggests that we can do things at the centers, once they are built at well, to help them become sustainable, including staff.
Now, when the park generates revenue, I don't know if the park is renting items, you know, like bikes to use, whatever, events at the various facilities, does the park keep that revenue or does that revenue go into the General Fund? I didn't realize the park had the ability to capture specific revenues for itself.
Revenue fees for services 1284 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 are all directed to the City General Fund. We do have the ability --
Right. But how does that translate into an automatic increase to fund new bodies?
Well, we would hope that by showing these increases in revenue that a request for additional staff would be offset, where one would offset the other. So rather than go in and just ask for additional staffing, additional programs, we've elected to support that request through suggested new revenues.
Well, aren't we at the stage where these centers are just about ready to go? I got the impression when I reread last year's testimony that it was estimated that somewhere in the next year and a half or two from that time, these centers would be, I guess, on the verge of being built, and then you would need to put people in them. Based on the scenario that 1285 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 you have at least laid out, I'm assuming that you have to get through at least a year of the revenue enhancements to be able to be able to show any level of track record --
-- of additionally generated park funding before you'd ever be able to fill the positions or even get to the point of having a, I'm sure, really warm and fuzzy conversation with Mr. Dubow about that request.
Right. Well, some of the initiatives that we believe are quite capable of occurring are just expansion of existing contracts. So it would not -- there would not be a, you know, a long lead time, we believe, in our ability to increase the revenue. And as an example, that could be at a driving range or on our golf courses. As you may know, we just recently did an (unintelligible) on our golf courses, and we've seen already that revenues are going to increase. We're ready to open a new trolley service to Fairmount Park from the Visitors Center. The contract's signed, and it starts 1286 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 March 15th. So we think that there are a number of revenues that are -- we're as confident as we can be that will actually materialize. In addition to that, we've been taking a strong look, a very hard look, led by Nancy Goldenberg and her staff, on the sustainability plan that I alluded to earlier in my testimony and by questioning Councilwoman Brown that we owe to the William Penn Foundation. And basically the foundation, two and a half years into the grant, has said to us, Put everything on the table and come back to us. And we're not opposed to making some changes in the way that, in 1996, we said we were going to spend that grant. And early on, in this planning process, which has been going on for about the last six weeks, we've made some decisions -- as an example, the staffing of volunteer coordinators and other people that assist in implementing the grant goals are going to be held. We are going to ensure that they will be fully funded through the life of the grant. So whereas some of the staff positions were to leave the grant in a year, we've now, 1287 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 through a reorganizing the grant, have secured the funding for those positions for the next two and a half years.
Well, basically, Councilman, I've bought some time, is what I've done. After that we will have to be in a full fund-raising mode or revenue-enhancement mode. It goes to your question of timing.
Right. I mean, I am deeply concerned, and I continue to be, I was last year, and I would say just for the record that I'm even more concerned now, that this ends up being potentially an even more expensive example of the Ranger Program.
And when people come to us, or we go to them, or somehow parties meet up, have great ideas about some grant-funded activity that people want to have, they ultimately, I'm sure, expect for their investment that we, the government, will still do what the government is supposed to figure out how to keep 1288 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 it going.
And I guess it's my assumption that during that time, we have a clearly laid-out plan over a period of years, 'cause I think I said last year that it's virtually impossible in any one fiscal year to capture all of the people that you need to fully run a program. I mean, I might not even necessarily be for that since you'd see explosive growth in someone's budget in that particular year.
But, you know, if get three here and four there and five there, you know in five years, you could actually have something serious going on. And I've just not seen that and I'm getting very concerned about it. And I also need to know, I guess, if you're talking about revaluating what the agreement was in 1996, then what is the status of these Environmental Education Centers? Two of them are designated for the district that I represent, Strawberry Mansion and Wissahickon. 1289 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 What's going to happen, when do they start, who's going to run them, and when will they be working?
Well, we have a number of initiatives underway to answer those questions. One is that at least one of the centers of the six centers may -- in fact, its construction may be delayed. It's a combination of both because the community of support was not identified in that particular geographic area, and the price of these -- construction of these buildings which are, as you may know, about 3,000 square feet, for a cost of construction, are coming in a little bit higher than we had anticipated.
So this is a part of the planning process that we are going through -- evaluating if we should delay something or if we should move made into other areas. So we're not finished that planning process. As I said, an action plan is due within a month to the William Penn Foundation for their consideration. We're not going to abdicate our responsibilities under the grant, nor are we going 1290 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 to saddle the City of Philadelphia with a burden of sustainability when the grant is completed. That's why the plan that we have developed of revenue enhancements is a five-year plan. It does build up to the crescendo that you've suggested over a five-year period of time. And I'm confident as I can be that --
And you're two and a half years into the five-year period of time.
I mean, how do you get -- I mean, you've got a gap there.
Sure. Our five-year plan's pretty aggressive. Our five-year plan goes beyond this grant issue. We're looking at the ability of improving our services in recreation, in helping bolster our budget when we have to respond to storms. We spend a lot of overtime in those categories. So it goes -- it does go well beyond this initiative, which is -- what I'm 1291 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 saying is, we think we can raise enough money to cover the cost of the grant employees. In addition to that, I mentioned a feasibility study that we had completed. And I think we feel fairly comfortable with the numbers that came out from the consultant's report on what it will cost on an annual basis to sustain the buildings and the staff within the buildings. So I think we have the numbers there, and we're not discouraged by the numbers, particularly given the opportunity that we now have with the William Penn Foundation and the fact that we may be able to do some things a little bit differently. Let me further expand. When we last talked here on this project a year ago, the term "Growing Greener" from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was not mentioned. Well, Growing Greener's been passed by the state legislation, as you know, with $650 million over 5 years, and it provides opportunities, among other things, to acquire open space. Well, our William Penn grant had $1.7 million for acquisition of open space in 1292 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 Philadelphia. There may be an opportunity that we can use State dollars, through Growing Greener, to acquire that --
Let me give you a little reaction, though. I mean, I will always support and encourage any possible effort to get anyone else's money to do whatever it is that we think is good and appropriate for the park. On the other hand, again, by way of the discussion about the budget and funding levels over an eight-year period of time, I mean, I'm left of field -- I mean, I start with the fundamental premise that Fairmount Park does not have the financial resources that are appropriate to its size, to its importance, to its significance in the City and in the region. It's a basic fundamental premise. And that we are then left to treat it almost as a person who is borrowing from one credit card to pay another credit card. And, I mean, that will get you through next month, it might get you through the whole year. I mean, you know, I get a credit card application like every week. And if I signed up for all of them, I could 1293 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 probably get through the whole year -- I could buy groceries and do all kinds of stuff. But one day, the bill's got to be paid.
And I do not believe that this park system has the financial resources as a base to do the things that the citizens of this city and this region deserve. And so then -- you are then forced -- and you should be anyway, but you are then forced, because you're not the getting fundamental support at home, to run around and try to get this grant, that grant, and the other grant, all of which generally have some timetable -- two years, three years, five years.
So, I mean, I go back to -- we saw what happened with the Recreation Department over time, we've seen what has happened with the libraries, and they also had the opportunity to participate in the William Penn 1294 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 Grant funding. But their budget has also increased at its base at a higher level than the Park Commission.
And some combination of what Recreation did, what the Free library has done, both in the government and exterior to the government, through the various Friends groups and a whole host of people who have lobbied everyone imaginable, I'd like to see that level of aggressive, passionate, dogged pursuit of the core funding that the park system needs, which then allows you to leverage additional dollars but not be fully depend on them.
I mean I don't anticipate -- unless we really make some major mistakes in our budgeting process, I mean, I don't think we're going to see the Recreation Department budget go down, notwithstanding whatever grant funding they get for a wide variety of programs, but they set on a particular path and then it began to take off. And we've seen that with some of the other agencies and departments. 1295 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 So I'd like encourage more of that, more discussion with Mr. Dubow and other people and with members this Council. I mean people, I believe, in this City Council actually care about this park system but, you know, we need to be more aggressive about what's going on in the system programmatically. You mentioned earlier in response, I think, to either Councilwoman Miller or possibly Tasco, about the park's appearance. I have some concerns about the park's appearance as well, and I guess from some of the discussion earlier with the Recreation Department, their brochures and materials and game plan on how they make sure that rec. centers are clean and what they plan to do going forward, you can forward to us. I'd like to know if we have the same kind of documentation and game plan in place about the cleanliness of Fairmount Park in the various areas. I understand it's spread out all over the City. But, again, we're not going to have people very interested in the park system if it's perceived as dirty, trash-filled, and debris all over the place, or trees, vines, and all that kind 1296 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 of stuff in various states of disrepair. So I'd like to know what the -- kind of the operation and maintenance aspect of the park is, and that may be underfunded as well.
I don't know, but I'd like to know how we get the park to the next level of being a premiere place. Lastly, some concerns about actually parking related to the combination of off of the Kelly Drive. The Art Museum, Lloyd Hall and the restaurant at the Water Works. It seems to me that on an average day, there is a bit of a parking issue over there, and if the Art Museum really gets going with a particular exhibit or something, how are we going to park all of those cars over there? What is the parking plan?
As I'm talking, I'm trying to do the numbers in my head. We'll expand -- our plans include the 1297 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 widening of the road going into the Water Works from Kelly Drive to permit perpendicular parking. And the roadway -- we'll refer to it as the forebay of Aquarium Drive going up to the Engine House -- will be widened and will provide for additional perpendicular parking. It's my --
Well, is it enough to accommodate the various activities over there?
That will add about 200 parking spaces to the present number.
If you can get to us, through the Chair, some more detailed information that, I would greatly appreciate it.
Let me just put three things on the record and then I will unburden everyone. In October of last year, I received a letter from Mr. Dubow based on a letter that I sent to Mr. Dubow regarding letters that my constituents were receiving when they would ask about street-tree removal. And the letter would basically say: 1298 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 We inspected the particular location, this tree will be done in the future when the money is appropriated -- and "money" is actually spelled wrong here. Enclosed you will find the total of trees listed for removal that are also backlogged for the same reason. Please call with any questions you may have. I mean, we started getting a bunch of those, and naturally, the citizens reacted very negatively to that. Is that type of response still going out?
Can you get me a copy of what response is going out for people when they inquire?
When we did the street tree ordinance actually a couple years ago, I had sent a request asking if the Park Commission regulations had been amended to incorporate the Council ordinance that was passed. I'm not aware 1299 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 of getting a response on that. Do you know if the Park Commission has amended their regulations to reflect actions by City Council?
Yes, they did. My recollection is that I had asked the City Solicitor's Office to forward to you that action of the Commission, and I will ask them to do it again.
And last for the day, which we can talk about later, I need to more fully discuss with you the situation of Chief Buffy Red Feather Brown and their request for access to a park facility for the American-Indian organization with which he is associated. I don't have a clear understanding of where that situation is.
Mr. Waller is more intelligent on that issue than I am. So you might want to have your discussion with him.
Okay. Well, if he can give me a call, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
Councilman, 1300 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 are you finished?
Thank you. To follow the questioning about the appearance of the park, I'd like to know a couple of things. Liability, Risk Management, they obviously support your claims. Are we getting many lawsuits? Or since accidents occur out in the park, people accept them as accidents, but do you get many lawsuits because of people being injured in the park?
I can't give you, Councilman, a specific number. I don't think that the number -- if you're relating it to the appearance of the park, I don't believe the number has dramatically increased or decreased over the years.
But my point is that yesterday morning, I witnessed a very violent, serious accident on Kelly Drive on the way to work. And the roadway was totally flooded with water, the drainage is just terrible along where 1301 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 the marine unit is.
And I've noticed lately that the drainage on the drive is just not good, and I'm confident that that standing water yesterday morning contributed somehow to that accident. I'm speculating.
The Kelly Drive, is that a state highway, a city highway, a park road? Who's responsible for the condition of Kelly Drive?
Well, it is -- legally, it a state highway. It is the Department of Transportation that has jurisdiction over that highway. The maintenance of the highway is shared amongst departments. The Fairmount Park Commission has, as an example, snow removal and de-icing responsibilities. Flooding responsibilities will probably be the first 1302 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 responder to a clogged inlet. However, I am familiar with the situation that you've just described, and I know that the Water Department is a frequent responder to clogged inlets on Kelly Drive. So in summary, it's the City throughout -- perhaps the Streets Department, the Water Department, and the Parks Department -- that's responsible for the maintenance of Kelly Drive.
Mr. Mifflin, I would appreciate someone surveying the next time we have a severe rain storm the conditions on Kelly Drive. And also, I recall that there was some attempt to manage the runoff of springs along the drive, which on a day like tonight on the way home, that runoff comes out onto the roadway and freezes up, and there's a patch of ice that could be as much as 100 feet of pure ice there.
And on many times I've called and asked for the Streets Department, whoever, to get out there and put salt down, de-icing materials. But I remember when the drive was in pretty good shape and you didn't have as 1303 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 many springs running into the drive, even in the summer.
You've got these wet situations that I'm sure -- and I didn't mean to interrupt you -- can contribute to the vehicular accidents along the drive. So if someone could again focus on trying to divert that water away from the roadway, I think we would probably avoid the many accidents that that contributes to.
Thank you for your comments. It's not unreasonable to expect the Park Commission or other City agencies, you know, to attempt to capture the water before it goes over the curb, and capture it and pipe it to a drain in the roadway. So it's an engineering issue that we somewhat successfully accomplished on Lincoln Drive, and I know you use that drive as well. I think, however, if I could just for 60 second time pontificate on the reasons why. This really goes to the heart of the William Penn 1304 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 Grant, if you will. There's just been so much development that has occurred in the City that water is running off at higher levels than it was previously. And you just indicated by your remarks when Kelly Drive was in better shape, the water was not coming down there. Well, there's more water cascading down the locks of Kelly Drive today, quite frankly, than there were years ago. And that's the case on most park roads. And it goes a lot to the fact that there's been development. There's been paving that's occurring on the ridge, if you will, and the water is just finding the lowest spot.
But I do obviously recall a response from Fairmount Park to -- I think I recall you actually dug some --
You trenched behind the curbs to capture that water. And if you're coming up there on a night like tonight and then all of a sudden, you encounter glare ice --
It's a high-maintenance area. It's clogged with leaves and other debris, and then the water cascades over it. 1305 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00
And going back to my initial question about Risk Management, I know you're probably like any other recreation facility. Lots of things don't happen during the winter months, but as spring comes along, you start an aggressive effort to get the park ready for peak use. An example I'd like to make -- Forbidden Drive, and I know the drive was devastated during Hurricane Floyd, and the condition of Forbidden Drive is in pretty bad shape. I walked it about a week ago from Northwestern all the way down to Valley Green, and it wasn't fun negotiating all the holes and puddles and all the things. But I noticed something that I think could cause some consequence to the City. I noticed that there's a tremendous amount of the rail, the wooden rail that would prevent a person from falling off there gone. And, again, it's not -- it's nature's --
Trees come down, but I don't see any of it being replaced, and I would 1306 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 hope to see that rail along Forbidden Drive restored to protect the people that are using the drive.
Yes. Thank you, Councilman. For pointing that out to me. It is a somewhat dangerous condition, we are aware of it. Although we've made some emergency repairs and we've had some volunteer efforts to assist us in replacing missing guardrail, we have the ability, again, through this grant, to have a major improvement project, including resurfacing and refencing Forbidden Drive, which will be started this fall. So this summer, we will continue to do somewhat of the emergency repairs, if you will. We've lost a lot of footing where the fence would go. It's just not as simple as going back and placing rails. As you've probably witnessed, the posts have eroded.
Yeah, Hurricane Floyd brought about $2.5 million worth of damage to the watershed areas of the park. 1307 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00
My final, you know, ongoing question is -- I should have brought this up when we were discussing Kelly Drive.
The lights. If we don't do something very soon, and I talked to PECO Energy. And, apparently, that project is on track, but I would appreciate it if --
And the rest of this audience knows what I'm talking about. The underground cables on Kelly Drive have failed, and many years ago, PECO Energy, to get the lights back, strapped wires, physical wires to the aluminum fixtures, which are not meant or designed to support that kind of load.
And I'm surprised that many of them are even still there.
But I'd appreciate it if that would get a top priority because, again, there is a situation where if someone takes out one of those street light standards, with 1308 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 those wires being attached to it, you could take four or five of them out, and I wouldn't want to be in a car when one of those light standards is flying down the highway.
It's my understanding that ground will be broken on that project this spring.
It is not a project which we are administering. It is, as you know, from the City Streets Department, but they've been in contact with us and we have had an opportunity to comment on the plans.
Because every time I see Corbin McNeil out socially, I say, "When are you going to get the underground cable done on Kelly Drive?"
In spring of 2000. 1309 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00
This goes back to trees. When you put the RFP out for tree-trimming, is the RFP put out for tree-trimming citywide, or do you ask for bids on various areas of the City?
Okay. Once the person -- the company is successful in securing the project, how do you determine where the trees -- where dead trees are cut, where trees are trimmed, and where trees are pruned?
The Director of 1310 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00 Operations could provide a more explicit answer than I can.
The list for the tree pruning and tree removal, which is done with those $1 million line-item operating dollars, is developed in May of the previous fiscal year. That list is sent out with the bid to all of the contractors. So they actually go out and look at almost all of those trees. The way develop that list initially is by reviewing our records and looking where we have the most requests for pruning in areas of the city. We do divide it up. We're pruning 6800 trees this year, and we are going to be pruning about 680 trees in each Council District, plus or minus 10 to 15, depending on how it worked out in the geographic area. But the list is developed from our existing records based on requests for services. So this -- within the next -- over the next three months, my staff will be putting together the list to do pruning work and removal work in FY 2001. So that we hope -- I hope to have that completed by the end of April. 1311 OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D. - BILL 05 - 2/16/00