The money has always been split between Recreation and the Managing Director's Office. And the reason we do that is so that there's money available for Council members that they can use in places other than recreation.
I understand that. But I thought that in previous years the... What is it, the IETF line was either 10 or 12 directly.
And the extra 2 million was already in the Managing Director's Office.
It's split between the same two places. The amounts are different.
All right. So... And what I took from the Secretary's response was something like, well, there's less money in the Districts specifically, but then somehow you get made whole or close to whole by this City-wide concept or that we're not burdened with the tremendous responsibility of having to 166 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 worry about how to pay for some of these additional items. I mean, based on that thought process, you would take all the money away, and then we wouldn't have to worry about it at all.
I apologize if I miscommunicated, Councilman. I certainly didn't mean to indicate that somehow through this process $12 million would suddenly appear. Simply that since the Administration is looking at a total revamp of the Recreation infrastructure, that some of the objectives that you might have, and where you might have used the original amount, could be met through this process. And I think I said at the time I was going to try to shed a little light on it. The fact of the matter is that the amount was driven by fiscal concerns. And then once that was determined, then we tried to look at how needs could be met.
Well, I mean, is 167 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 there some belief that we're not individually managing our money well? Or that somehow the MDO's office or other components of the government have a better sense of how we allocate the dollars?
No. I think there we were guided by habit and custom, and the fact of the Budget Director's --
Excuse me, Councilman. But the split has been customary. And that, as I understand it from the Budget Director, has been so that there would be some fungibility in the MDO funds, so that if there was no need to spend that money on recreation services, that it could be spent elsewhere, as 168 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 directed by Council members. But I hear your underlying point, and also --
Well, we've always had the ability to spend it elsewhere. It's not only for Recreation; it's not only for Fairmount Park. It goes to the Water Department. It goes to virtually any other component of the government when someone comes in and says, I've got this project. It's ready to go. It came in $30,000 over bid. Now, you know, we can rebid it and add four months... four to five months in the time frame or you can give me $30,000 and we can go start the project tomorrow. In most instances, what do you think the answer is?
Well, we try to be responsible. So the answer usually is, here's the $30,000; go start the project. I mean, I guess it does go back -- And I'm not ignoring the buzzer completely. 169 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 But it probably goes back to the first real question of this whole thing which is where we fit in in this process which pretty much seems to be at the tail end of the decision making. And I understand -- And we don't have to go back through the Home Rule Charter and who gets what when and all that. But, you know, we're not always guided by all those processes. And so, if we were going to have this kind of year and this kind of number, then it would seem to me that there would be a lot of discussion about it ahead of time, just like... I mean, obviously a decision was made that we're only going to borrow -- not only but we're going to borrow, you know, 67 plus million but we've got a capacity of 120. Mr. Dubow did not discuss and maybe doesn't want to bank on it... I mean, won't there be a fairly decent increase in borrowing capacity once we go to a hundred percent valuation? What's the estimate on 170 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 that.
Can I give more than a yes or no? It's yes on our state debt limit. It's no in terms of the percent of our debt as a percent of revenue. We still have a high -- high amount of debt service compared to our revenue. So what will happen is our constraint will really be that level of debt service.
What's with the debt service increase over the past three or four years?
I'd have to -- I don't have that with me. I'd have to get back to you on that.
Okay. All right. I know I'm cooked for the moment, but...
Thank you, Madam 171 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 Chair. Madam Chair, would it be appropriate to ask the representative from the Public Property Division to come to the table? Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner, how are you?
Commissioner, the reason I've asked you to come to the table, the problem that I'm about to describe I don't think is your problem, but I think that you can help solve the problem. I notice that regularly -- And we've talked about this before with the Public Property Department. The problem is that I receive mail from all of these operating departments, and I'm not going to be specific today. I'm not going to say what department. But I've received mail from the Administration from the second floor, from the Mayor's Office, with 37 cents postage on it. 172 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 I get a communication from -- I'll mention that department. I mentioned the other departments that we receive mail. I know that you have -- And maybe today the rest of this group can listen. You have in your department interoffice mail...
...that is sent all over the City, from the Fire Department to the Police Department, from the Police Department to Council. It goes all over the place. And it's supposed to be in place, and we have a number of employees there that we don't need to spend postage, correct?
My name is Joan Schlouderbach. I'm the Public Property Commissioner. And actually, Councilman, we only do a limited amount of interoffice mail in Public Property.
Well, you have a list that you provide, showing a whole list of agencies that interoffice mail is delivered where the service -- must be 25 173 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 minimum departments on there, that Public property distributes the mail.
That's correct, but it's primarily in City Hall, Municipal Services Building, One Parkway. It's pretty limited to the downtown area.
The list doesn't suggest that. The list suggests that you deliver to other agencies throughout the City. That's what the list suggests, anyway. But I don't understand why you receive a letter from Municipal Services Building, with 37 cents postage on it or you get a letter from the second floor and it has 37 cents. So if you're telling me that the interoffice mail system is nonexistent, it sends a terrible message, when you can collect 50, 60 letters in a month that were mailed by the operating departments to just a Council office, and that's just times one. So let's times it by 17. As a matter of fact, I have a box 174 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 full that I'm going to use as an exhibit one day, showing all this waste of money. I mean, the message that it sends -- And I'd like you to provide to the Chair -- And I'm not talking about the mailbox or the water bills. I'm just -- I would be curious to know what we spend in postage, especially postage that maybe if you double check and look at that list, you'll see that, I believe, the airport is on that interoffice mail list, Fairmount Park Commission is on that interoffice mail list. And I'd like to know how much money we spend. And again, not water bills, not revenue. I'm talking about the casual mail that we send out, because I really think that you need to look at that. Give you an example. I had some educational material, some brochures to send out. So I went to the effort to write on the envelope educational material, because there's a special postage rate. It's almost nothing. It's like, you can 175 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 send almost a pound out of mail for, like, 50 cents. Well, I sent it over, put a stickie on it and everything. Person called me back and said, we don't know about this educational mail stuff. Everything goes out first class. You know what that little package costs? Like $7.50 to send, when it could have been sent for 50 cents. So what I'm suggesting is that you get the City mail system, because I'll bet we'll all be surprised to see how much money this City spends on mail. And when you have to receive an envelope from One Parkway, when it could have been delivered by that interoffice systems and it's put into the U.S. mail bin and sent across the street with 37 cents or more. Some of them 57 because it weighs a little more than an ounce. I think that whole system needs to be overhauled. And if that list that you've provided us, Commissioner, isn't 176 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 current, then we need a current list because we are going through a lot of effort to stamp envelopes interoffice if you're just going throw postage on it.
Councilman, if I can interject, I think you're absolutely correct. That's my personal opinion. However, I believe that it's the Revenue Department that has purview over these matters. And what we will do is -- I don't think there's someone -- there's a representative from that department here. We will...
I've checked this out. And the responsibility that I'm told for the moving this interoffice mail is Public Property. Now...
Councilman, it's actually the outgoing mail or the U.S. Postal Service mail goes directly through the Revenue Department now.
That's the problem. It shouldn't be going there. It should be directed to the interoffice 177 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 system. Why would we want to put postage on an envelope that's coming from the Fire Department or the Airport to a Council office?
I think you're absolutely right. I think what the Commissioner was trying to say is, she doesn't see the outgoing mail. So what we need to do is talk to the Revenue Commissioner and say that any mail that's coming to a City agency should not be sent out, because your point is absolutely right.
But Rob, the situation is, you can't expect a clerk in the mailing room at the Revenue Department to read every envelope. I think that the discipline needs to be that if we have an interoffice mail system, the mail shouldn't even go to the Revenue Department. It should be directed to the --
And I was told the last check we wrote to the Post Office was hundreds of thousands of dollars for postage.
That's correct, we need to have a discipline, and we need to send out guidance to all the departments, telling them what they should and shouldn't send out through external mail. And in the process, though, for when departments don't listen to that -- and that has to come through Revenue because they're the final gatekeepers --
Whatever. It took a little clerk, a little high school person, working in the office to say, why would a, b, c department spend 37 cents to mail an envelope that was just across the street, and not put it into the City mail system?
It's a very valid issue, but it should be taken up 179 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 at the time of the Operating Budget.
And I think at that time we ought to know how many messengers we have that would be able to do these deliveries.
Well, again, your point's well taken. But you're right. I would be curious to know -- we have these postage machines all over this government -- how much money we spend. I was told that nobody could tell me that number because they didn't really have the ability to pull it all together. But I'd like to ask the Chair... Again, I'm not asking about the water bills. I'm talking about the stuff that goes out as doing your day's work. At the end you have a big pile like this. 50 of them are going to the going to other departments, a hundred are going outside. I don't have a problem with the ones going outside. But I do have a problem with spending all this money on 180 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 things just going across the street or up and down a floor.
No; you're absolutely right. And the Budget Director just said he will be able to do the research necessary to flesh out a coordinated plan to respond to that and be able to respond to you during the Operating Budget testimony.
Good. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner. Again, it's not Public Property's problem. The problem is that it's not getting where it should be for you guys to deliver it. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Miss Griffith, is Miss Kahn here. 181 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04
Good afternoon. I'll repeat my question. Were you briefed on what the issue was?
Essentially, I was talking about a proposal that was made maybe a year or so ago by the Mayor to consolidation of facilities as we down size recreation facilities because the School District had this massive $1 billion Capital Reconstruction Program. And the thought was that some of those facilities would be able to accommodate recreation needs and other 182 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 community needs, thereby allowing us to take offline some of the facilities that were in close proximity in some cases, such as 25th and Diamond, as an example. You got William Dick right across the street from Hank Gathers Rec Center. So the possibilities of consolidating some of those activities could be very well done in this Capital Improvement Program. My concern, and it continues to be my concern, is that I can't really get a sense that there is a substantive discussion process in place. And I've asked this. And every time we talk about this issue, who is in charge of the process, where is the process, what's happened over the last year, what the time line is for consolidating some of these facilities, because we will be asked very shortly to vote on a budget that talks about reducing recreation facilities, and possibly some other type of municipal facilities. 183 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 And in the earlier testimony it was indicated that... First it was an Administration approach, and subsequently the team approach. And then Mr. Goldsmith was designated as the team leader. And when Mr. Goldsmith got here, he said he handed that ball off to you, as the deputy team leader, and indicated that you were the person who could most adequately respond in specific terms about that process. You know, what have we done since the Mayor made the initial speech about consolidation and who's been meeting, how many meetings. The other thing is that I said that Mr. Vallas, whom I met with three weeks ago, indicated that the School District has done its analysis on capital facilities and accommodations to citizens, as relates to down sizing rec facilities, but they were waiting for the City to respond. So I'm going to... Since you're now the designated individual who's been 184 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 handling all this, can you just tell me where we are and where we're going and what has been done to date?
Please identify yourself for the record, please.
I think it's probably accurate to say that there are sub-teams, and I accept the mantle of the School District sub-team in this process. The issue of coordinating between the City and the School District Capital Plans has been one very important and very much on our minds, and on our agenda, and in our actions for about the past year now. But it's also kind of a complicated process. And I think when the School District first announced its capital process, you know, not everything was set in stone. 185 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 And so, there's been a lot of movement. And it's just recently, for example, that the first ground breaking even occurred. And I say all of that just as a little bit of background. The School District has been made very much aware, and we've had numbers of meetings between sort of the City team which would consist of -- And if you want particular departments, I mean City Planning, Commerce, Housing, you know from time to time have all -- Managing Director's Office -- come to the table with the School District people who represent both the Operating and the Capital Programs. And we shared plans and looked at sites. And this goes back, you know, over, as you say, you know, at least the past year. So that we could all get familiar with what was on each other's agendas and the kinds of areas and neighborhoods that were being discussed for school projects. 186 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 To just bring it a little -- And I think through the course of that discussion, we certainly made the School District very aware -- and they've heard it from the community, as well -- about the need for whatever gets done in school buildings, first of all, to make them accessible to the community. And as a case in point, I found it very interesting at last week's ground breaking at the Feltonville School, they made a point of talking about how the facilities would have external entrances and exits so that after hour's use, as an example, in the gymnasium that's being built there would really come into play. And that was something the community wanted and something that we -- you know, was very important to us.
Right. Well, Mr. Vallas indicated to me that that was going to be done on a number of the schools.
But my question is, are they coordinating that with you to determine that if there is a facility close to Feltonville Rec -- I'm sorry -- Feltonville School, can those needs be accommodated in that school --
And I think that, you know, the answer to that is, of course, there's not a one-size-fits-all approach because again, using that example -- and here you have a really interesting campus where we've got a couple of schools now -- there's an elementary school, we have central East Middle School, and then this new building that's being built so that there will be actually a K to 8 campus. There happens to be a recreation center right across, you know, the street, really, from Central East Middle School. However, you know, when I -- when we looked into it, that, of course, is a 188 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 community that is growing so much, which is of course why we needed the school annex, to begin with. And it's a full-range facility, where it has, you know, all sorts of types of programming, and as I understand it, is really busy, you know, almost around the clock. Right now the... I guess it's the teams from the middle school actually use -- for their home games use the recreation center, I'm told, for their home games to play basketball there. And there's also lots of leagues and stuff. So they have lots of scheduling problems as it is because there's such high demand. So, I think that that's an example, that even though the physical proximity is there, where there needs to be programming coordination -- but let me get, you know -- so there's not a --
So here's what we're 189 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 doing.
I'm just trying to find out what the process is and who's been involved with the process. And I'm not...
And that's a, you know, really important question. So let me just say what we did even just most recently is, before the Mayor released his budget a couple of weeks ago, we made a point again of sitting down with the School District to discuss particularly the recreation issue. And to say that, well, there's going to be some changes here, this was not a situation where we handed over any list because as we've said time and time again, there is no preexisting list. But we wanted to make them aware of 190 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 the fact that there would be changes which could affect them, one, either from a facility standpoint; or, two, just, you know, the resources in their communities. And we said, we are going, however, to make meeting with City Council members the first step in the process which the Managing Director and the Recreation Commissioner have certainly testified to.
Right. Let me stop you there. If the School District is apparently further along in its determination as to the facilities that they were going to rehab or build and being able to accommodate needs other than the traditional school day, wouldn't it make more sense for you to look at their list as you make this analysis on what facilities and proximity that you may want to take offline, as opposed to giving them a list that you're not even sure that's going to be the ultimate list when you start with the School District? 191 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04
It's actually coming from both directions. I was going to say the first step would be to say, again, let's look at those facilities from the City's side that, for whatever reason, are in disrepair and not, you know, in good shape, and then looking at if and whether there are schools in the vicinity that could accommodate those programs. But it is equally true that when we look at what... And while -- The only, you know, thing I will say is that while the School District had those plans in their budget, it's not like from a design standpoint everything was laid out and they really knew exactly what all of the plans would be. Those are happening as we go along as well. But you're absolutely right. I think there needs to be that kind of matching and marrying process. And now that they have refined some of their plans, while we're -- while the City is doing its 192 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 planning and having those conversations with Council members, we intend to continue to bring these two streams together.
So you're the point person from the Administration. And do you have anybody from Recreation entertaining...
-- with the Commissioner and with his folks as well. Brought them to the School District, yes.
So as we move ahead in this process, you as the team leader will be meeting with the Council members, in addition to the Managing -- I understand the Managing Director's going around and meeting with Council members. 193 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04
Yeah. I actually have not been in those, but I can just take whatever --
All right. Well, shouldn't you be in that -- in that -- in those discussions, since you know more about the schools than anybody else, apparently?
I mean, if we want to talk about a rec center and there's a school in close proximity, you have all the information on the school reconstruction, new construction projects. 194 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 And we're not privy to that in these meetings with Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Richards. It seems that you should be in that loop also.
That -- You know, any Council members that at the same time wants to, you know, have information about --
That shouldn't come from us. Shouldn't that come from the Administration?
You might have all the members of the team who have knowledge of this issue at the meeting when you meet with the Council people, I would suspect.
We can do -- I mean, I'm not aware so far if any other Council members had requested that, but that's certainly, you know, something that we 195 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 could do.
We can certainly convey to the Managing Director the interest of Council members in having the point person, vis-a-vis our relationship with the School District, at these meetings.
-- makes sense. We're being asked to make decisions on a rec facility and not understanding what's going to happen with the school in close proximity. If you had a better understanding that this particular school might have an exterior access to a gym, then we may be a little more interested in possibly taking off a basketball court offline in proximity to that because you have an opportunity inside the school. But without that information, it makes it kind of difficult for us to make 196 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 the following determination.
Councilman, we can also share with you some time ago the Victoria Nasan Alias (phonetic), part of her community planning responsibilities did a joint use survey, looking at existing schools and how they could be retrofit to accommodate programmatic activity, with regard to ap school (phonetic), et cetera. And we'll make sure that the Secretary gets that information and has it flow into the...
At what point are we getting this information? I mean, we're going to be considering this budget. I think Council members would like to feel that they're making the right decision. When will we be provided the information that we're seeking?
Well, in terms of the 197 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 ongoing discussions with the School District, I think Secretary Kahn articulated it very well. That is, it's a dialogue. It is not a list. What the Councilman suggests is that since --
But Councilman, weren't you told something entirely different by Mr. Vallas?
Yes. Mr. Vallas indicated that they are far along on their recommendations, if not complete, on the numerous schools as it relates to the Capital Program. I mean, he -- I got a sense that if I asked him for a list at that meeting, he would have given me a list, and talked about the specifics of what schools would be able to have exterior access and what schools could accommodate recreational needs.
I don't see why -- 198 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04
Or if it is difficult to get, you need to let us know, you know.
And we did ask them to take a look at their own facilities absent anything, you know, that might or might not be on the City's agenda, and to give us a sense of what buildings might actually be able to accommodate, you know, additional usage. I mean, some might, you know, for a variety of reasons, and some might not. So -- So I think that's correct, I mean, that they are doing that as well. But that again, I just want to be clear. That's not in relation to any information about particular locations that the City provided, because we did not leave them and have not given them any type of priority closure list whatsoever. 199 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04
Councilman, I guess you know as much now as you did before you asked the question.
This is like the right hand not knowing what the left is doing. And I am telling you very sincerely, before we vote on this budget, Council members want information. And I don't -- And it's something that you've been working for how long? It's over a year. We would appreciate whatever information you could give us. Thank you very much.
Miss Kahn, who is the point person from the School District that's working with the team?
Well, Natalie Paquin 200 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 (phonetic), who is the chief --
Natalie Paquin, who is the Chief of Staff. And also Karen Burke (phonetic), who is the Chief Operating Officer.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple questions in regard to Maxine Griffith's testimony this morning. Good morning.
First of all, it's concerning the Art Museum. I'd like to know what effect the proposed cuts, two-and-a-half million dollars, have on the Capital Program regarding to the Art Museum. 201 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 For instance, if it's -- if they're forced to lessen the facility maintenance on this property, is this going to create, I think, a disastrous effect on the Art Museum itself.
Councilman, if you're referring to the Operating Budget cut...
...I'm going to defer to the Budget Director. The Planning Commission doesn't work directly on the operating --
Will it have an effect on the Capital, is what I'm saying, the facility itself?
Well, I guess it depends on how the Art Museum allocates its money. If it chooses to not allocate as much for maintenance, that could have a long-term impact on its capital needs.
Okay. And since you're there, I'd like to have another 202 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 question. It has to do with the Police development. The allocation, according to Capital Program, I think on , mentions about $400,000. Most of that money, if not all of it, concerns the... I think the headquarters down at Eighth Street, the Police Administration Building. And I just want to know if... if this is true, then there's no allocations for any Districts in the City of Philadelphia. And if that is the case, I would like to know how many Districts are more than years old. 17
We may have to get 18 back to you with detailed information, 19 through the Chair. 20 I know that the Capital Program 21 Office at one point was doing a 22 comprehensive assessment of facilities 23 needs of the Police Department, including 24 vetting through past studies. 25
I'm sorry. 203 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 You're not speaking --
-- into the microphone, and we can't hear a word you're saying.
You know, I was saying that I know the Capital Program Office had done a -- was in the process of doing a comprehensive assessment of police facilities, including looking at past analysis and assessments. I don't know whether Rick might have something to add.
Yeah. Well, I'm just concerned because some of these police stations are, I think --
-- you know, more than years old. Some of them are 25 probably 50 or better. 204 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 And I'm just wondering about what happens if there is a problem in any of these stations. There's nothing allocated for the maintenance or the refurbishing of these police departments.
My name Rick Tustin again, with the City's Capital Program Office. Maxine is correct. What we have in our office right now is a list of every police station, what the age of the facility is, how many -- how many staff are there, what work was done there, when it was done, what type of work. So we've done a complete matrix or spreadsheet of all police facilities. I'd be happy to share that.
-- maintenance program? In other words, what happens in the future? That's what you did --
This is also... We use this sheet every year as a basis of developing the following year's Capital Program or Capital Budget. We meet with the Police Department representatives each year when we put together their budget, and we use that as sort of a starting point each year. It's updated on a yearly basis so that we know what we've done each year, and what we plan on doing in future years.
Mr. Tustin, could we see a copy of that, please?
I'd like to know what's going to happen in the 12th District and the 17th District. As buildings are so old, they're in deplorable condition. And I don't see...
Anybody 206 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 getting any money --
I'd be happy to send a copy right over to you. We have it in our office. That's not a problem. We do -- As I said, we do every year a comprehensive list of all -- look at all the facilities with the Police Department, who are responsible, with the Department of Public Property for maintenance. So if in fact we find a Police District that has an ongoing HVAC problem, that project or that facility gets put on the list for a new -- new installation, based on how old the system is and how much maintenance that's been needed ongoing. So, I'd be more than happy to share that list with you, and even, you know, sit down with you and explain how we go through it.
And with 207 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 that, I don't mean to interrupt you. But I think you've brought up a very good point. Would those monies come from the MDO's budget? If there is a problem, for instance, at the 17th District, there's nothing in the budget that indicates the monies are allocated.
There's no 12 emergency. Where does that money come from?
The money is in the Police Department budget line for -- for the work that we see coming up this fiscal year.
Looking at . So, it's all for Police Headquarters and State Road. Can you hold? Just wait a minute, 208 Whole - Bills 040257, 040258 - 4/5/04 please. We are changing stenographers. (