COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BUDGET - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, April 1, 2008 10:15 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILLS 080022, 080157, 080160, 080164 and 080165 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill Nos. 080022, 080157, 080160 and 080164 and 080165. The first department to testify will be Fairmount Park. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
I'm Mark Focht, Executive Director of Fairmount Park. Good morning, Council President Verna and members of Council. I am very pleased to appear before you today to present Fairmount Park's proposed Fiscal Year '09 $15,640,540 Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2009. Joining me to my immediate right is Chief of Staff Barry Bessler and 3 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. joining us in the audience, along with several members of the senior staff, are two Fairmount Park Commissioners, Commission Treasurer Phil Price and the Mayor's appointee, Commissioner Debra Wolf Goldstein.
Welcome. Please stand so that we can see you. (Witnesses stand.)
The Park's Fiscal Year '09 budget includes a two and a half million dollar increase over our Fiscal Year 2008 target level and represents a percent increase in operating dollars. 19 The Class 100 request of $10,106,560 is 936,000 above the Fiscal Year '08 estimated obligations and includes funding for 21 new staff positions, raising Fairmount Park's authorized position level from 169 to 189. Additional increases in Classes 200, 300 4 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. and 400 total 1,564,000, including one million dedicated to tree planting throughout the City. The mission of Fairmount Park is to preserve, protect and maintain the open space, trees, natural and cultural resources of Philadelphia's parks for the recreation and enjoyment of citizens and visitors. The 63 parks that comprise the Fairmount Park system, totally 9,200 acres or 11 percent of the City, provide Philadelphia citizens and visitors with opportunities for passive and active recreation and comprise one of the largest municipally operated landscaped park systems in the nation. Fairmount Park also serves as an economic driver for the City by designing, building and maintaining the highest quality public open spaces. Operation of the park system directly supports three of Mayor Nutter's core service areas in the City's Strategic Plan. And they are, first, 5 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. healthy and sustainable communities. Since our establishment in 1867, the Park has served a pivotal role in the City's environmental health. We are pleased to be one of the City agencies guiding the development of GreenPlan Philadelphia, which is our blueprint for a sustainable future. Specifically, the Mayor's proposed budget increase of $1 million will allow us to increase the City's tree canopy by planting between 2,500 and 3,000 new trees in Fiscal Year '09 along streets and in parks. Planting of trees in our larger watershed parks will allow us to increase acreage of our restored natural areas. The second area is public safety. The Fairmount Park Rangers Corps' role is to provide a safe environment for park users. The proposed FY09 Operating Budget includes funding for three additional rangers, increasing the total number of full-time park rangers to 21. 6 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. The third area is jobs and economic development. The Park strives to provide the highest quality public open spaces, such as the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, the Wissahickon Valley Park, Schuylkill Banks and Rittenhouse Square, amongst many, to support economic development of the surrounding areas. A majority of the additional positions 11 in Class 100 will provide a higher level 12 of landscape and facility maintenance. 13 The new positions and higher standards 14 will be supported by increases in Class 15 200, 300 and 400 for materials, supplies, 16 contracts and equipment. 17 The Fiscal Year '09 budget will 18 improve customer service and response to 19 citizen service requests. Quality 20 customer service and accountability in 21 the delivery of public services is a guiding principle of Fairmount Park's management. Customer service standards have been developed to address issues that we have found to be most important 7 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. to citizens. These support one of our priority outcomes, which is to increase the number of satisfied park users and partners. Measuring our progress will be achieved by internal and supervisory monitoring procedures and tracking the frequency of redress. Our customer service standards include the following. Under tree requests, site inspections resulting from citizen-generated requests for either tree planting, prunings or removals will be responded to within ten business days. Supervisors will monitor the requests and will make sure the inspections occur. If an inspection does not occur, citizens will receive a verbal explanation and apology, and the inspection will occur within a subsequent three business days.
The second area is turf mowing. All of our turf will be mowed every two weeks between April 15th and October 1st. Park staff monitors all of our mowing contracts and will respond to any 8 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. complaints, again, with a verbal explanation and apology. Subsequently the turf will be mowed within one business day following the complaint. And the third area of customer service is wedding and picnic permits. Wedding and picnic permits will be issued within ten business days of submission of a complete application. The applications and permits will be date stamped to track this process. If this standard is not met, the customers will receive a 50 percent discount on a future permit application. In conclusion, we at Fairmount Park are very excited by the opportunities presented in the Fiscal Year '09 proposed Operating Budget to further the mission to protect our resources, green our City and serve our customers. Thank you for your time, and I would be very pleased to answer any questions from members of Council. 9 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Thank you very much. Your proposed General Fund budget is being increased by $2.5 million. How much of this increase is tied into the proposed parking tax increase?
Council President, as I understand it from the Budget Director, the entire increase of two and a half million dollars is tied into passing the proposed parking tax increase.
Thank you. Can you tell us how the 2.5 will be used?
Certainly. Of the 2.5, $1 million is specifically for tree plantings, and, again, that would be tree plantings both on streets and on public property, in parks, around rec centers, libraries, any public facility. That will gain us about between 2,500 and 10 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. 3,000 trees. That's one million. Another 936,000 is to fund staff positions, about staff 5 positions, the majority of those being 6 front-line men and women that work in our 7 operating departments, both landscape 8 operations and facility maintenance. 9 Also part of that 936,000 is funding for 10 three additional park rangers. And then 11 the balance of the increase, about 12 500-some thousand dollars, is for 13 materials and supplies, equipment and 14 contracts to support the additional 15 staff. 16
Do we 17 have any money allocated for various 18 parks such as the FDR Park and others 19 that are in districts? 20
Our budget is not 21 allocated by specific parks. It's allocated by operating district. We have 63 parks in the system, but the system is divided into four operating districts, and, in fact, the operating district for 11 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. South Philadelphia and Center City is based in FDR Park. So in each of our operating districts, we have a district manager, a district supervisor. We have a whole hierarchy of staff in those districts that are responsible for maintaining those districts and the parks within those districts. So our budget on the operating budget is allocated over our four operating districts.
I know that's a beautiful park and I know that I guess it was last week they had an election for a new Board, and people are really very, very unhappy with the condition of FDR Park. They say it's really been neglected something terrible, and I would like to see something positive happen there.
Absolutely. We had a meeting. Some of my senior staff met with the new leadership of the Friends of FDR Park shortly after the election, and we're working closely with them on both 12 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. operating projects and capital projects. So we're thrilled that there's new leadership at that Friends group and it will reengage the community.
And I'm very happy to hear that you're aware of it.
If the proposed parking tax increase is not approved, what impact will it have on your budget and service levels?
I guess I would ask the Budget Director if he could join me at the table. (Witness approached witness table.)
I'm seeing more of you than I see members of 13 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. my family these days.
Steve Agostini, Budget Director. Madam President, what we have proposed is funding from the parking tax for some specific initiatives. Fairmount Park is one of the sort of centerpieces of that. The other you will hear in the next day or two when the Streets Department comes forward where we have proposed $10 million in additional funding for pay-as-you-go, something that hasn't been done recently. If, for whatever reason, the parking tax does not move forward, we would then ask that those expenditures be taken out of the budget, so both Fairmount Park and Streets, because we wouldn't have the funding sources available for that and it would create a 14 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. significant hole in our Five-Year Plan and in the '09 budget.
Yes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a point of information.
Thank you, Madam President. The money from the parking tax, does that go into the General Fund?
Madam President, Councilmember Green, yes. What we have proposed is that it would come into the General Fund and we would allocate it. We have not created a special tax kind of nexus or a dedication.
Right. So really the parking tax proceeds are really part of the entire revenue of the City of Philadelphia in the General Fund, and this Council could choose to increase 15 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. funding both on the capital and the operating side in the Park regardless of whether or not there's a parking tax? In other words, we don't earmark money in the City's budget. It's just increased revenue, and it will either be -- we can choose to have the parking tax or not and we can choose to fund the parks or not. They're not really connected in the way you're saying.
Madam President, Councilmember, that's quite clear. The Council could decide to allocate to not move forward with that. What we propose, though, is, we felt it was very important to link the two, that a parking tax increase should not be taken into the General Fund for sort of ongoing purposes, but rather we believe a strong argument existed for increasing the parking tax from the 15 to 20 percent generating $16 million in additional funding annually and then allocating that for specific new projects, not ongoing 16 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. operations. We felt that that was not only the appropriate thing to do, but the best argument.
But you could have tied it to the pay raises that you're giving to City employees. You could have tied it to anything you want. It's just more of a political move than any other move to say parking tax equals trees, parking tax equals $10 million pay-as-you-go funding for Streets. It's the same pool of money, the same pot of money. It's a link that doesn't have to exist.
It's more of -- it's not really a budget statement. It's trying to tie the two to pass the parking tax; isn't that correct?
Not quite. We made a conscious decision to make an economic link where we said that there were impacts associated with cars that had to do with additional pollution, 17 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. additional congestion, additional wear and tear on our City streets, and that, as economists would refer to that, the externalities associated, where people who are driving their cars, whether they are from within Philadelphia or outside of Philadelphia, were not paying the costs associated with that wear and tear on streets, with the additional pollution, and so what we did was make a conscious attempt to say those externalities, those impacts needed to be addressed, and the best way to address them is to levy a tax that would then fund initiatives that would address those things, which is why you see the investment in trees, why you see the investment on pay-as-you-go Streets, why you see the investment in the parks. We tried to make a direct linkage that taxes associated with parking needed to address, and cars, needed to address the impacts and the externalities, as economists refer to them. 18 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Well, to be fair, the $58 million a year we already get in parking tax can be applied to trees and pay-as-you-go funding. It's just you have to find the money elsewhere for some of the other priorities that the Administration set the budget. I mean, you can take five percent of the 10 percent that exists and apply it to this. 11 So there is a payment that's 12 being made to the City for people who 13 drive, and it's $60 million a year, plus 14 the $25 million a year you receive from 15 the Parking Authority. I'm just making the point that --
Well, I understand your point. I think we would agree to disagree on the sort of necessity of it. We do believe strongly that in order to fund these initiatives, 19 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. it was important to impose that tax, particularly since we are making rather significant changes in other tax streams. This is one that where the nexus between what you're taxing and what you're funding seemed to be very clear cut to us.
Thank you very much. I just have one last question. On of your testimony, you state that, quote, "Wedding and picnic permits will be issued within ten business days of submission of a completed application. If this standard is not met, customers will receive a 50 percent discount on a future permit application." While I see the merit of this for the picnic application, I think you should refund 50 percent of a wedding application so that they do not have to get married again simply to receive the discount. Wouldn't you agree? 20 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Very well put, Council President Verna. Thank you. Duly noted.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
And I apologize, but your testimony doesn't say who is sitting there with you. So you may have said it, but I --
Good to have you with us. Thank you. I have several questions. Number one, tree requests. To what extent are those requests going to come 21 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. in through the City's new 3-1-1 system?
We anticipate that many of the requests once the 3-1-1 system is established will come in through that system, yes.
Well, okay. And so that it will be tracked through the 3-1-1 system and we can get information on it through the 3-1-1 system. If people call the department when the 3-1-1 system is in effect, are you going to refer them to the 3-1-1 system?
I don't think we're that far along in understanding the impact of the 3-1-1 system to know if we will accept calls still at our Street Tree Division, which is what we do now, or route everything to 3-1-1. I don't know if we're that far along in planning of the 3-1-1 system.
I think 3-1-1 is not effective unless everything goes through it, because then we don't 22 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. have all the data put into the system for us to be able to track every single request with this 3-1-1 system's tracking number.
There has been some conversation, Councilman, that since folks, particularly community-based organizations, such as Tree Tenders, are very familiar with calling our office directly, that they could still call our office, but everything would go into the 3-1-1 system through our office. If someone calls us as opposed to someone calling us and routing them, telling them they need to call another number.
Or just automatically using that number to go to 3-1-1 is what I'd suggest. It takes efficiencies out of the system that otherwise be there. You don't need operators for tree requests with a 3-1-1 system in place.
It allows 23 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. you to use those resources in your department to provide customer service and to meet the other goals of the Administration with respect to the service delivery that you have.
Turf mowing, many of our turf mowing contracts are with people who are businesses not located within the City of Philadelphia. There's some in Bucks County and Montgomery County, people that provide that service, and I'm wondering whether or not different people from the City applied. Why is that the case and are your department and the potential vendors aware of the LBE preference for contracts like that?
The turf mowing contracts are let by the Procurement Department on behalf of Fairmount Park and I am not intimately familiar with their process, so we'll have to get more information on that. 24 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Okay. There is a five percent preference for businesses located within the City of Philadelphia for contracts like that that are let through Procurement, and I'll follow up with them as well.
I want to talk to you briefly about the infrastructure repair needs in the Park. We all know it's 9,200 acres and 11 percent of the City. It has 435 structures, including 200-plus historic structures. Do you know the dollar value of the Park's physical structures?
No. We don't know the dollar value of the physical structures, no. 20
Has the Park in the recent past conducted a survey similar to the PICA survey that would state the value of the structures in the Park, the repair needs of those structures, done a whole assessment of 25 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. what's needed in terms of repair?
Portions of that have been done over time. We're currently doing a facility assessment right now on eight structures in the Park, which is funded through our capital budget. This is structural and utility assessment. I will say we probably have not gone through as comprehensive kind of system-wide analysis as PICA did several years ago, simply because we've never had the resources to do that. We do have a back-of-an-envelope -- perhaps a little bit more detailed than that -- calculation of about $85 million in deferred maintenance on our facilities and proposed projects in our various master plans. We have trails master plans. We have natural lands restorations master plans that were completed in the late '90s, early 2000's. If you put into it the cost of all the recommendations in those plans, plus what 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. our estimate of deferred backlog -- so it's a combination of deferred backlog and capital -- it would be about 85 million.
Probably about 55 to 60. The master plans recommended about million, 20 to 25 million, in 11 projects. So taking that out of the 85 12 million. 13
Okay. So 14 what is the capital budget for the 15 backlog for FY09? 16
Our capital budget 17 annually is about $4 million. I mean, it 18 fluctuates around that year to year, but 19 on average it's about $4 million. 20
And we had the opportunity to drive around one day together in the park system, which I really appreciated, and during that discussion, we talked about what it means when you continue to defer maintenance 27 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. and the expense associated with continued deterioration of historic properties and how much more expensive it gets over time if you don't tackle it up front. Could you talk a little bit about that to us?
Well, certainly with deferred maintenance, not maintaining our buildings and our properties on a daily or periodic basis, eventually those properties deteriorate from when they can't be managed on an operating budget into kind of slip over to the capital budget side for a major repair. I would say that our proposed FY09 Operating Budget with the increase proposed by Mayor Nutter, it does include in those positions funding for 20 additional facilities maintenance 21 individuals and additional carpenter, plumber, so that we can start to rebuild that staff so we can address in some small way the backlog of differed maintenance so those properties don't end 28 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. up sliding over to the capital side.
So 85 million is not at this point capital; it's deferred maintenance?
Well, yes. I mean, we would call it deferred maintenance, but it really almost ends up being capital needs, because most of the deferred maintenance, they've deteriorated to the point where they would now be a capital item, not an operating item.
So really where we are is 55 to 60 million almost in emergency type repairs to our structure so that they don't continue to deteriorate and then with -- is that correct?
I wouldn't classify them as emergency, because that has a certain connotation to it. Some of them are emergency, some of them are we need to do these so that they don't become emergencies. 29 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Okay. Well, which is an emergency in my lexicon. So that's $55 to $60 million. Are the new financed positions enough to prevent that backlog from growing, other than the increase in cost of construction for the 55 to 60 over time? In other words --
We haven't done an assessment, but intuitively, I would say it's probably not enough increase in the facilities maintenance staff to -- it will curtail the --
It will slow down the rate of growth of the necessary deferred maintenance, but will not --
Could you please provide the Chair how many positions would be required to stop the growth of deferred maintenance in the 30 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Fairmount Park Commission?
And could you also please provide the Chair information about the $55 to $60 million necessary in capital improvements that would be necessary to get the Park to where its operating budget kind of can pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the systems without having to go over to the capital side?
Does Fairmount Park have any kind of business plan that would talk about its ability to keep or increase the revenue it gets in the Park and any thought about how it can become more self-sustaining that you can talk to us about?
Certainly. Our Strategic Plan that was completed in 2004 talked about the need for the Park to capture -- generate revenue and retain revenue. It's something that we have 31 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. began a conversation with the prior Administration and are now continuing that conversation with the new Administration. We are beginning to build the infrastructure in the Park to do that. We have a Director of Properties and Concessions Management, and also the proposed increase in our operating budget includes the potential for two positions, one to be a specific property manager and one to be a concession manager, so we can start to look at our assets and figure out how to optimize them to generate revenue.
I hope you utilize the advice and counsel of one of your new park commissioners, Farah Jimenez, who is very good at asset management, has done great things for Mt. Airy and other places, and I think she'll be a good resource to you as you look to expand that office.
Absolutely. I 32 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. would add Commissioner Jimenez serves on our Finance Committee for the Commission, chaired by Commissioner Price, and she's been very helpful to us on a number of fronts, yes.
How many structures in the Park are not currently put to productive use; do you know?
When we use the word "structures," as you cited, over 4-- structures in the Park, that includes everything that has a roof. So that can be an open-sided picnic pavilion. So a structure to us does not necessarily mean a building. Of the 400-some, I would not know an exact number, but I would say intuitively probably over 90 percent of our structures are used for their intended purposes, either they're occupied or the picnic pavilion is in good shape and people use it for a picnic. We have very few structures in the Park anymore that do not have an 33 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. active or appropriate use in them.
And are most of those not in use because they need repair?
I'd say there's probably two or three categories. One is that, yes, they need repair. Two is that they would be in a location in a park that there's no potential use, there's no 14 interest in using that structure. Or, three -- and this is probably the majority of them -- they're in the process of restoration. We have a number of structures where, for example, we've done extensive capital work to restore the exterior envelope, put a new roof on the walls to secure the structure, and are pursuing through grants additional dollars to restore the interior of the structures so we can tenant them. So there's probably three 34 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. reasons that any particular structure in the park system would not have a use in it right now.
Okay. With respect to the structures that have tenants, I'm aware that in most of those kinds of deals that exist, that tenants are required to do the maintenance on the property in exchange -- or in many of them, to do the maintenance on the property in exchange for very low rent. How has that been working out?
I'd say it's been a mixed bag of results across the boards going back to we actually have leases that date to the late 1800's all the way up through obviously our more recent leases. Historically, our leases have been year to year based upon the tenants at some point making substantial capital investment in the building, and then it's ongoing maintenance. We've had tenants that have absolutely been stellar in their performance in maintaining our 35 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. assets and others that have been less so. And our Strategic Plan again spoke to the need to manage our properties at a higher level, which is why this position of Director of Properties and Concessions Management was created, is now filled with a real estate attorney who is helping us work on lease issues on a case-by-case basis. It's just there's a large volume of them. We have over 110 leases in the Park, so --
Councilman Green, would you mind making this your last question for this go-around?
So I would like to give everyone an opportunity to be recognized.
Yes, ma'am. 36 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. The Strategic Plan recommended that the Park develop and implement written maintenance standards for all infrastructure elements. This recommendation was designated high priority, with a four-month timeline for completion. As of March 2007 status report, this task had been started. So that's over a year ago. In the years since, what steps has the Park taken to implement this recommendation?
We are continuing to evolve our maintenance standards in a written form. At the end of the day, it comes down to having enough staff to actually implement those maintenance standards. And, again, with the proposed budget increase of adding 12 positions in the operations staff, we hope to provide that level of maintenance. But you can develop the standards, but then you need the staff to implement the standards.
Would you please provide the Chair with what you'd 37 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. need in terms of providing the staff and doing the maintenance?
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I start my comments every year by letting you know I've been around for a while now and have watched Fairmount Park the best part of my adult life and as a child, and I want to compliment all of you that work there, because I remember the days when there were probably triple the number of people that worked in the Park, and some days it amazes me how you even do what you do.
But still there's times when we have some tough 38 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. questions that need addressed.
And one that I spoke to you briefly about, but I want it to be on the record, and Councilman Green talked about some of our assets, and it troubles me. And I don't know whether you saw it coming or didn't see it coming, but recently L&I condemned the East Park Canoe House on Kelly Drive, and because of that, four of our great schools in the City had to be -- State Representative Perzel wrote a letter to me about it and says evicted, but I don't think you actually evicted them.
But what concerns me in the Representative's letter is the fact that Father Judge, LaSalle, Northeast Catholic High and Temple University use that facility, and what's troubling me is, he says here in the letter that you haven't committed to repairing that facility. I'd like to 39 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. hear for the record our position on that and what you're doing to try to accommodate these young people in the interim.
Certainly. I'd be pleased to. First of all, let me correct one thing that may have been in the letter. The facility was not condemned. It was cited by L&I, and that's a very significant difference legally. So, yes, that happened in late January. We worked with the four schools to move them out of the building. They were not evicted. I met with all four schools and representatives of the Schuylkill Navy on January 31st. When I gave them our absolute commitment that we will -- we have no intention of demolishing the building and we have every intention of repairing and restoring the building for a rowing function. I've told them that repeatedly in meetings we've had with them. We are doing a facilities 40 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. assessment of the building. Fortunately, we were able to get a consultant in there immediately and begin the structural and systems assessment. That report is due to us, with cost estimates, in early May. We've had ongoing communications with all four schools. Temple and North Catholic have relocated immediately adjacent to the building in temporary tent structures. You will see they're off of Kelly Drive. We've worked closely with them to establish that. Father Judge has moved into one of the boathouses on Boat House Row. They graciously made space available to them. And LaSalle College High School moved up to a rowing facility on the upper Schuylkill temporarily. So all four schools have been accommodated, two indoors, two outdoors. We've worked very closely with them. All four schools have been very good to work with. I had a meeting with three of the schools -- Temple did not attend -- that 41 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. was called and chaired by Councilwoman Maria Quinones-Sanchez and was attended by Councilman Greenlee, Councilman Jones and Councilwoman Krajewski about ten days ago or so when I gave them a status report on the facility, status report on their temporary housing and said that we would convene a meeting again in early May after the report is done so we can all assess the report and understand the magnitude of the repairs that need to be made.
You pointed out that the L&I department didn't condemn the building; it cited the building.
So condemn it, cite it. Condemning it I'm sure is more significant than citing it, but when you cited it, it was deemed dangerous? 42 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Correct. It was deemed dangerous. An inspector from L&I had gone in there with some Fairmount Park staff. In early January a leak had been reported in the building. When my maintenance staff, plumbers, went to repair the leak, which they did, they saw some cracks in some of the interior walls that caused them concern. So we reached out to L&I, who has building inspectors, and asked them to walk through the building with us. When they did walk through the building, within very short time of walking through the building on it was a Friday, they said this building needs to be cited, and for the security and safety of the mainly young people, high school students, that are in the building, their access needs to be restricted and we need to come up with a plan to relocate their boats out of the building.
Just to sum it up one more time, this is on the fast 43 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. track?
By May we'll have the report from -- the assessment report done by the architects and engineers that are currently combing over the building. That will give us short, medium and long-term repairs that need to be done, with associated costs.
That's fair. May. April 1. Okay. That's good. And I'd appreciate -- I'll get you a copy of Representative Perzel's letter and you could respond to him.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee. 44 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Thank you, Madam President. Just a follow-up to Councilman Rizzo's question on the East Canoe. As you said, numbers have been working on that, and we all appreciate the cooperation you've given on that. Thank you.
A couple questions on street trees. First on the pruning issue, is there kind of a regular schedule you try to work with on pruning? Is there a certain amount of years? What would that be?
Yes. Ideally, arboriculture standards for urban street trees, every tree should be pruned on about a seven- to eight-year cycle, ideally. We have 135,000 street trees in the City. Ideally, we should be on a seven- to eight-year cycle. Currently, we're probably on about a nine- to ten-year cycle, which is down from 45 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. several years ago when there wasn't any cycle because we weren't systematically pruning trees. So we've made substantial improvement in systematically going through the City. We're not quite on the cycle that we should by national standards, but we endeavor to get there.
That's the right direction to go. As far as removals, what would constitute actual removal of a tree? I used to hear the term generally said "dead and dangerous." Is that kind of still where we're at?
Yes. The standard is dead and dangerous, which means if we have a report of a tree from a homeowner or property owner that asked us to remove a tree, we will send an arborist out to inspect the tree. If in the arborist's 46 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. opinion the tree is -- if the whole tree or any portion of the tree is dead or dangerous, we'll authorize its removal, and then that's done by contractors. So we have contractors on call that will remove the trees.
I know often times the homeowner, obviously their feeling of what's dangerous and what Fairmount Park or what the inspectors would be is different. Do you find that often times there's that conflict, that people think a tree -- I guess just a tree just being dead, would that be the homeowner's responsibility?
No. If the tree is dead, we would remove it. Sometimes the homeowner or property owner will look at a tree and say the tree is dead and maybe there's a limb or a branch that's diseased or rotted or dead, and we can remove that limb or branch and take care of the risk, but keep the tree alive and keep the tree there, providing shade and 47 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. all the environmental benefits. I think, in our staff experience, the majority of times when our staff goes out and engages the property owner in a conversation about the tree, generally they're educated about it, they understand the value of the trees, and as long as we take care of the immediacy of the problem, again, if it's a dead limb or a lifted sidewalk, if that's taken care of, they're satisfied.
And you mention the lifted sidewalk. How do you remedy that? As far as Fairmount Park, do you just remove the tree and is that sidewalk then the property owner's responsibility?
Correct. The sidewalk is the property owner's responsibility. So if the tree is dead or dangerous or dying, we'll remove the tree, but then it's the property owner's responsibility -- including grounding out the stump, we'll do that. 48 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Yeah. We cut down the tree, we grind out the stump. It's then the property owner's responsibility to replace the sidewalk.
I'm going to ask this question again. Did you say that you all will ground out the stump?
Absolutely. For every tree we remove, it's done by two separate contractors. So one contractor will come through and cut down the tree and then a separate contractor will follow along, because it's specialized equipment, and ground out the stump, yes.
What if 49 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. the tree is not dead or dangerous, but is causing the sidewalk to rise, damaging the plumbing of the homeowner? What is the policy on that?
It's two different situations, Councilwoman. If it's damaging the plumbing and the homeowner can provide us with evidence, which is generally a plumber's report, that there's a root system, sometimes they videotape the line and you can see the root in there, if that's the case, we'll take down the tree. If it's just lifting the sidewalk and there's space to pour the sidewalk with a larger opening and keep the tree if the tree is healthy, that's what we recommend to the homeowner. And, again, the sidewalk is the homeowner's responsibility. The tree is Fairmount Park's responsibility.
Thank you 50 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. very much. Don't take me off, though.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Let me echo the remarks of Councilman Rizzo for the good work that you do, knowing that the mountain is still much bigger than the staff members to get over it.
Looking first to your testimony, you speak and state that there are 21 new staff positions. Are those -- tell me about those positions instead of me trying to 51 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. answer the question.
Are they management level? What types of positions are they?
One moment, please. Let me get to my notes. Of the positions, the 21 10 proposed new positions, 12 of them are in 11 our Operations and Landscape Management 12 group, which are the men and women that 13 are responsible for the maintenance of 14 the Park on a daily basis. 15
On the front line. 18 And that also includes additional 19 arborists and additional tree crew to 20 help with the street tree work, 21 considering the million dollars in additional street tree money or tree money. Another four positions are in our Facilities Maintenance Division, 52 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. which in response to Councilman Green's questions earlier, these are the men and women such as masons, cement finishers, carpenters that help maintain our properties. So there's four positions in that. So that's so far. 8 There's the one position then 9 each in the following departments: 10 There's one position in our Planning and 11 Historic Resources Group, which would be 12 a park preservation planner. We 13 currently don't have a full-time person 14 to really care for our historic assets. 15 Then another position is in our 16 Environment Group, which would be a GIS specialist to help map and track all of the Park restoration work that we're doing. And then one position each -- I've mentioned these earlier -- in an Assistant Director of Concessions to help manage our concession and help build revenue, a Property Inspector to help again with the monitoring of our leases and the maintenance of our properties. 53 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. And then the 21st position, as I'm totally these up, is an additional administrative member in our Special Events Office, which is the office that permits all activity in the Park. So that's a direct customer service person, interaction with the public in providing permits and helping support special events.
And many of those appear to be highly specialized positions. You state later in your testimony that there's a commitment to continue to grow a healthy and sustainable community. So when you look at these positions, are there any 19 requirements for any of those positions 20 to have a green profile? 21
Well, all of the 12 positions that are in our Operations Group, all of those men and women, I mean, those are all green positions. Those are arborists, horticulturists, 54 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. maintenance folks that are front-line folks. And then also the GIS position is a person that really will help map and plan all of our ecological restoration projects.
Very well. So all of these individuals will be recruited through the normal Human Resources Department --
All right. Then if that be the case, my concern and interest always is that government looks like Philadelphia across departments, across position levels. So if ultimately the recruitment and identification is done by Human Resources, does your department ultimately participate in the interview process?
All right, then. I looked through your paperwork, and I ask first, are you aware of a letter that I sent to Mayor Nutter on February 7th wherein I stated that I would be interested in hearing about opportunities for businesses owned by women, the disabled and people of color in the City of Philadelphia across government? Are you aware of that letter that was sent to the Mayor and then it was, as I am told, shared with all department heads that there would be the expectation that each department head would share with us exactly and precisely what you're doing in those areas across your department?
I was aware in our preparation for today that there was a request for us to provide information on what was called non-government -- excuse me. Let me make sure I have the terminology correct. 56 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Non-governmental entities. And specifically for Fiscal Year '08, the fiscal year we're in. We as an operating department have let no 8 non-government contracts. So I have nothing to report on. All of that work is let specifically through the Procurement Department.
Okay. So let me make sure I understand this. So Fairmount Park does not get involved in any contracting of any kind?
Not directly from Fairmount Park, no. Everything is done through the Procurement Department.
That's important to know. Okay. So if I want '07 numbers and information, I need to go to Procurement to get those numbers for Fairmount Park; is that what I'm hearing? (Bell rung.)
Okay. Well, the bell has rung, and we will honor it. I'll get you on the next round. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
You answered the one question. In the 58 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Managing Director's budget, there is a line item for tree removal. Do you know, how does that coordinate with you?
That is the money that we use for tree removal. It's not directly in our operating budget. It's in the Managing Director's budget. We administer it on behalf of the Managing Director's Office.