Okay. Thank you. And I think you answered the question about the status of the tree trimming schedule. Is that pretty much up to date?
Yes. We are -- again, we're trying to get to a seven- to eight-year window of pruning every tree. We're currently at probably a nine- to ten-year window. One moment, please. In Fiscal Year '09, we'll be pruning -- we're scheduled to prune about 6,600 trees. That's the budget 59 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. allocation we have through the Managing Director's Office. So far, we've pruned about 4,400 of those. So we have about 2,200 left to go this spring, with about three months left in the fiscal year.
So do you notify the neighbors if there's going to be a tree pruning or you just go in the neighborhood?
No. The way the notification occurs is that every tree -- a sign is roped off on the tree asking folks not to park in front of that tree or under that tree. That occurs about 72 hours before the tree crew comes through to do the pruning. They won't prune, obviously, if there's a vehicle parked there, so that cars have to move. So that's how the notification occurs. It doesn't occur on property owners because we want to make sure that the person that's parking the car at the tree knows that we're going to be coming through to prune that tree. So it 60 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. happens by actually posting the trees that are going to be pruned about 72 hours in advance, and then they come through and if there's no vehicles there, they prune the trees.
Okay. Just for the record, when you are going to cut dead and/or dangerous trees on a block or if there's a request for removal, do you have to have a certain percentage of the neighbors sign to do that or what is the policy?
For the removal of a tree, there's no requirement to get property owners' permission. Because the trees are technically property of the City of Philadelphia, it's the City's professional arborists' determination whether or not that tree is at risk of harming someone. So in the end, it's the City's responsibility to make that 61 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. determination and remove the tree. So, no, we do not need property owners' permission to remove a tree.
Okay. And just to, again, for the record, if the tree is dead or dangerous, you will remove the tree and including the stump?
See, the reason we ask these questions, I've been here a long time and I've gotten different answers depending on who the Administration is. So that's the policy for right now?
It might change after that? 62 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
I just want to be clear. My staff is watching. I want them to understand what the policy is, because they have to deal with the public.
And every day it's -- so we know what the next eight-year policy will be relative to dead and dangerous trees. I hope you heard that, Pat. Thank you.
Thank you. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
First of all, thank you again, for the record, of orientating me, Councilman Green and Councilwoman Quinones through the Park. We took an extensive tour of the facilities and gained an appreciation, a greater appreciation, for what you do.
My question revolves around the whole effort to do greening within Philadelphia, and narrowly tailored, my question is, to what degree does the parks work with the School District to create or reinforce the experience of environmentalism and greening jobs per se that we have? And one project in specific which you have been helpful on is Concourse Lake and Centennial Lake. We're attempting to do an outdoor environmental classroom out of a restoration of an underappreciated lake 64 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. in my district. So generally, what does your department do to reinforce these jobs of the future and work with the School District and other great groups like the Overbrook Environmental Center? American Cities has a developing environmental curriculum. Are you working with them?
Certainly. Let me answer your question on three fronts, if I may. Specifically, first around schools and physical properties, we have worked closely with the School District to try and get trees planted around schools. We did a project two years ago through TreeVitalize, a program of DCNR and the Philadelphia Eagles. We planted about elementary schools across the 20 City. And with the change in leadership 21 of the School District, we're looking 22 forward to reactivating that conversation 23 and moving that forward. So that's about 24 greening the environment around the 25 school, so the students see that. 65 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Second, in our Environmental Education Division at the Park, our environmental educators regularly interact with school teachers by either providing programs to the schools, will go out to the schools and provide programs or, at our two environmental centers, having schools come to the environmental centers for programming, And, third, when you get to more senior high school level and the youth are beginning to think about jobs and careers, our staff often goes out and interacts with schools, particularly Saul High School in Roxborough and Abraham Lincoln in the Northeast, that have programs specifically focused on green initiatives, horticulture, arboriculture, grounds maintenance, career paths like that. Several of our senior staff members are graduates of those schools and continue to be engaged with those schools to provide --
I just would 66 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. encourage you guys to -- Saul is in my district, and I appreciate that, but there are a number of other high schools. And I think we're on the cutting edge of a new kind of job description called green, and I think you guys in particular have a vital component. Yes, green jobs mean buildings and skyscrapers and waterless urinals and gray water reusage. All of that is fine, but the largest asset we control is the Fairmount Park, which I think is also a part of it. Let me give you some specifics. We entered into negotiations with Chairwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown involving the golf course. You've been very helpful in that, but what I would like to see is, for example, the golf courses engaging with local high schools near them to talk about careers in outdoor maintenance of facilities like golf courses, also irrigation of golf courses, so that those green jobs become a reality. Not to mention the fact that 67 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. the next Tiger Woods may be discovered in one of those high schools. So what I'd like to continue to courage you to do is have our concessions, which are the golf courses, maintain relationships with local high schools, such as Overbrook, Roxborough High School and others around the City of Philadelphia, to develop that relationship. So I'd like to see that in two ways. One, recreational, of course, but also in the jobs of the future, which are green. So the Concourse Lake and Centennial Lake, I appreciate your support of, but I want to encourage that connection with public schools so that our young people, Philadelphians, can actually move towards curriculums that create real jobs in the future.
Point of 68 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. information.
Gentlemen, if my memory serves me correctly, in the agreement with Mr. Billy Castor -- help me if I'm wrong.
Yes. In the legislation it stipulated that the owners of that outfit will -- not optional, but they are required to engage in the type of relationships just articulated by Councilman Jones with the area high schools, correct?
Correct. They have to produce the plan for our joint review, Fairmount Park and City Council's review, of the engagement of the high school students in both recreation and employment, yes.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you. Real quick, make sure that they know that that's a requirement. The Parkway, I had an opportunity to go in a different tour with the Art Museum, and they're going to testify later, so I'm going to ask the question while you're here to reinforce that. It's my understanding that 30 weekends a year we shut the Parkway down for one activity or another. What I would like to encourage is a study that might shift some of those activities, not all of them, from the Parkway, but to an area within my district along Parkside Avenue, near the Please Touch Museum and other areas, because what has been brought to my attention is because of the 70 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. use of the Parkway, there is some vehicular traffic that is obstructed and the attendance is impacted by some of those particular functions. And I know you guys work closely with the events coordinators to do that, but can there be a study that is done to look at that strip between Please Touch Museum and the Mann Museum as an alternate park parade route or festival route?
Yes. There was actually what's called the Centennial District Master Plan, which we discussed when we did the tour of the Centennial area, proposed how special events could be staged in that area, and, in fact, we are staging many special events in West Park now in the area near Parkside. To be very honest, there are some challenges with that, too, because of traffic flow in and around that neighborhood impact on the Parkside community and, frankly, with Please Touch moving to Memorial Hall, they've been very gracious in saying they 71 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. would accommodate some special events, but we don't want to overburden that facility, which is making obviously a very significant investment in that City asset. (Bell rung.)
So it's a very delicate balance. We're very aware of it. We can certainly give you more information on it.
That signifies the end of my questioning, but real quick, I can get this one and you can respond to it. There's some thought of losing Camp William Penn and we're looking at some of the alternate suggestions for that land. One of the issues was raised that we could supplement the Park experience, the camp experience within Fairmount Park. Currently, we have Outward Bound operating there, but have you given any thought to that and where would that be and how could that happen? 72 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
This is the first I've heard of it, so, no, I haven't had the opportunity to give it any thought.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Picking up where we left off, does the Park have a database in which it tracks information about the physical condition of their structures, their maintenance needs, scheduled repairs, et cetera?
Yes. I mean, we've been -- a work order management system would be the appropriate vehicle to do 73 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. that. We've never had the resources to implement one. I understand that through the 3-1-1 process and other initiatives coming out of the Managing Director's Office, the goal would be to provide work order management systems for most of the City's operating departments. That would be on a unified platform. Some information could be exchanged. But right now we have no work order management system.
And that would be for current requests, though, and not include sort of all the deferred maintenance that wouldn't come through a 3-1-1 system and --
Well, I don't know enough about how the system might be functioned to know if backlogged or requests that are on pieces of paper or that are floating around in our facility staff could be input into the system to track them as they move forward.
I guess 74 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. where I'm going is that the Park probably needs to do a thorough review of its assets to determine what needs to be done, get it all in a database and then keep track of it, and if you would provide the Chair with what that would take, working with MOIS, I would appreciate that.
Just a related question. You addressed this a little bit, but we have heard very good things about your Deputy Director for Property Management, Doug Kubinski. I apologize if I got the name wrong. But that being said, the task of managing all these assets and 9,200 acres is a significant one. Do you think it's appropriate to have more than one person performing the function of managing these assets?
Well, Councilman, we currently have two people doing it. We have Director Kubinski and a support 75 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. staff member. So we have two currently funded civil service positions. As I mentioned earlier, our proposed operating budget increase would add two more positions to that department, one as a concessions manager and one as a property manager.
So the bridge to the future -- well, let me get to a couple of specific questions, then I'll get to the general questions, I guess, on my next questioning. You and I have discussed the situation at Northwestern Stables. And there seems to be some disagreement within the Park Commission about a proposal you received from an entity called Desfor Farms, or perhaps disagreement in the way we may view it.
And my question is, the last time you and I spoke, there are $750,000 in the capital budget to improve Northwestern Stables; 76 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. is that correct?
And what Desfor Farms has proposed to do is, as a private entity, spend that $750,000 and allow you to spend that 750 on some other capital project. It's my understanding that Desfor Farms in return for that wanted a long-term lease on the facility, guaranteed to allow all of the existing boarders to stay at that facility, said that they would provide one or two days a week during the summer of low-income sort of outreach and allowing people to come, be on horses and other things. And I guess I don't understand, with all of the financial and capital needs of the Park, why we wouldn't take up that offer.
Okay. Some of those statements are not correct, from my understanding and my meetings with the Desfors. First of all, they did not commit to providing $750,000 in capital investment. What they committed to was 77 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. if they got a long-term lease, over the life of the lease they may make, may make, some investment in the facility. However, even their indication that they would do that was proposed to be in the out years of their agreement, not immediately up front. And this building has severe structural and code issues that needed to be addressed in the short term.
That is not my understanding based on conversations I've had, but okay.
I've had several meetings face to face with the Desfors in 2006 and 2007 and that was fairly clearly conveyed to me at that time. Second, their own very draft financial pro forma indicated that if they were to make capital investments in the facility, it would result in potentially significantly higher boarding rates over time, again, when they would make those improvements. 78 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. (Bell rung.)
And the response from the community was almost unanimous in their concern that if the boarding rates would be increased, it would drive out most of the community use of that facility. So, again, in January of '07, I convened a meeting of the Desfors directly with the Board of Northwestern Stables to try and broker an agreement where the two could work together as a for-profit operator and a non-profit kind of community liaison. That was fairly clear from that meeting and other communications that the two parties could not work together or would not work together, and subsequently I received many communications, e-mails, phone calls, letters, from current boarders and neighbors that valued the non-profit model there, the Northwestern Stables non-profit model, as opposed to a for-profit commercial operator. 79 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. So at that point, a decision was made not to do a long-term lease with the existing non-profit, but to stick with them through the points that 6 we've spoken about that they were 7 required to meet, and, again, they're 8 currently on a year-to-year basis. 9
That's my 10 time. I'll get back to this. Thank you. 11
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
One might think it's a good thing that we don't hear about this whole notion of violence and whatever in the parks. Of the 63 parks citywide -- I don't want to ask that question. We don't want to single out any particular park. Has the Commission taken a comprehensive look-see at the issue of violence in the parks or ways to be proactive and prevent it where we can 80 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. when it comes to issues of violence in the parks?
Councilwoman, I won't say that we've done a specific study of violence in the parks, but I will say that we're in regular communication with the 92nd Police, which is the police for the majority of the park, and then the adjacent police districts. I can say confidently that crime is very, very low in Fairmount Park. There are very few crimes that actually occur in the park. The situations you often hear about are the very sad situations where occasionally a body is left in the park, but the crime has been committed somewhere outside the park and then -- but the body is found in the park. We work very closely with, again, with the 92nd. There are two areas that periodically seasonally have increased quality of life crimes, break-in to cars and stuff like that. We 81 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. respond with increased ranger patrol and increased 92nd patrol. We've also looked at increased lighting and other issues in those areas. So, again, I won't say we've done a comprehensive study, but I will say we respond very quickly on a case-by-case basis.
On the issue of lighting, is the Fairmount Park a beneficiary of the new lights that are being put up at intersections around the City or in high-crime areas around the City?
I'm not familiar with that initiative, so I don't know if we are or not.
Let me suggest that you have a conversation with Councilman Darrell Clarke and/or -- would you say the Police Department, Councilman Rizzo, for the new effort regarding cameras?
I think you 82 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. might have misspoke. I thought I heard you say street lights.
Have a conversation with them. And in areas which you might deem as high violence, for whatever that definition is, look to see if there are opportunities to further lighten or put cameras in those particular areas.
Help me in the testimony. You're going to add to 83 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. them. Did I not hear you say that?
Yes. The proposed budget increase would add three full-time rangers to our current complement of 18, bringing us to full-time rangers, and 7 that is supplemented by anywhere from 8 eight to ten seasonal rangers, which are 9 already in the budget. 10
And the 11 recruitment and identification of them 12 happens where? 13
It happens through 14 our Ranger Corps and it's done by 15 outreaches to colleges and -- we have a 16 number of vehicles because we're always, 17 as with any staff, you're always having 18 turnover, so we're always reaching out to 19 hire rangers and bring them into the 20 program. 21
Tell me this: Does Fairmount Park have an intern ranger program for high school students to sort of trigger or spark their interest in that world as a career? 84 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
It would be our seasonal ranger program, where, again, we hire anywhere from eight to ten rangers. They would not be high school students because the requirement of the ranger program is at your minimum of years of 8 age. So often times our seasonal 9 programs bring in recent high school 10 grads that work as a seasonal ranger, and 11 then many of them, if a position is open 12 and they enjoy the job, will apply for a 13 full-time position. So the seasonal 14 program has kind of become a feeder 15 program for the full-time ranger program, 16 yes. 17
We talked 18 about the Billy Casper, which is a part of my questioning. The tree planting, can or does a constituent have any say in where the tree planting happens or is that left purely to the decisions rendered by the leadership at the Park?
No. What happens is, a property owner will make a request 85 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. for a tree. We send out an arborist to look at the site. The arborist looks above for overhead wire, looks at certain safe distance from corners, knows where underground utilities are, and makes recommendations for where the tree should be planted and what the species of the tree should be. That information is then given to the property owner, and the property owner has to sign the form and send it back to us --
-- saying that, yes, they definitely want the tree planted, and if they do, then our contractor goes out and plants it. So the property owner gets to approve both the location and the species.
Not close enough, right? So I'll have another 86 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. round, because I just have a couple of more remaining. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode. Before we do recognize the Councilman, as far as the tree planting, what is the waiting period between the time the resident signs the form and the tree is planted?
It all depends on when the resident signs the form. We only plant trees five months of the year. We plant them from about April 15th to June 15th and then again from about October 15th to December 15th. So that's about five months. If an individual comes to us and says they want a tree in January and we inspect it and approve it, it could be four, five months until they get the tree. If they come to us in September 87 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. and say they want a tree, it could be a month or two. So it all depends on when they actually request it. It also depends on how much funding we have and availability out of the nurseries, because we order -- our contractors order the trees in large quantities a month or two in advance.
Actually, there has, Council President, but I'm very pleased to report that we are eliminating the backlog. With the plantings we will do this spring coming up starting in a few weeks, through the spring into early summer, we will satisfy all of the requests that we currently have in our system. Now, requests continue to come in, but what has traditionally been termed our backlog in these hearings for tree plantings is substantially almost eliminated.
88 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Wonderful. I'm glad to hear that. Councilman Goode.
I found your earlier conversation with Councilwoman Brown kind of interesting with regard to participation with disadvantaged businesses, and you stated that you were informed that you should include that within your testimony, but because you didn't do any direct contracting with non-governmental entity, you did not include it in your testimony. I have a series of questions with regard to that. The first is, why did you not think it important to include in your testimony that you did no 22 contracts with non-governmental entities to at least fulfill the request?
Actually, not in the written testimony, but in the 89 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. PowerPoint presentation, which I believe you have, there is a box on that slide that states exactly that, that said that we had no -- that we directly contracted with no non-governmental entities in Fiscal Year '08.
None in Fiscal Year '07. We don't contract directly with any agencies. Everything is done through Procurement.
I've been down this road with some departments already. You did not do any contracting whatsoever in terms of Class 200 in terms of non-governmental entities?
So you didn't spend $15,388 with a non-governmental entity and you didn't spend 87,000 in total? 90 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Those were done through contracts released by Procurement Department.
Well, how much in contracting was done in terms of Class 200?
We'll have to get you the answer to that. I don't know the total number of contracts, total number or total value released by Procurement on our behalf.
Are you familiar with the fact that the Finance Department now has to release an annual report stating what dollars were spent that does go through each department, that I introduced a bill which was now signed into law last week that mandates a ranking of those departments, and that in fact from the information contained within that report for Fiscal Year 2007, there is information on Fairmount Park that does say that there was an amount of money that was spent, it does say a 91 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. portion of that was spent with disadvantaged businesses, and at the end of the day, Fairmount Park is listed as having spent about $15,388, with participation of about 17.5 percent? But my series of questions now is several fold. Are you involved at all in the contracting process?
I'm not sure I understand your question. We're involved and identified --
We're involved in determining what services need to be contracted, such as turf mowing or tree maintenance, but then they're done -- and we develop the specs, but the specs are released by Procurement.
So you 92 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. determine what services should be contracted. You develop the specs for that. And then is there any other involvement in the process whatsoever?
You also review the bids within the process. Is there any other involvement after that?
Okay. You are familiar with who the Procurement Department selects on an annual basis?
Are you familiar with who the Procurement Department selects as contractors on an annual basis?
Okay. Do they generally select the same firms on a year-to-year basis?
No. It all depends 93 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. on what service you're speaking of.
For specific services, are there basically contractors that receive the business over and over and over again?
I will actually take it upon myself to investigate whether that's true or not, because I believe it probably is not true, but I'll get to my next point. So you are not aware that there's a report out stating that Fairmount Park has 17.51 percent disadvantaged business participation?
And even though the Procurement Department handled the actual bid process, at any point were you aware of the level of participation of disadvantaged businesses and the work that was being done?
Are you aware of what the City's disadvantaged participation goals are on an annual basis?
Is it possible for you to identify contractors and/or subcontractors that are disadvantaged businesses that could perform services for Fairmount Park, possibly meet the bid specifications and essentially, at the end of the day, you know can perform the work from having reviewed bids over and over again? (Bell rung.)
I would have to get back to you. I'd have to ask my staff, who works with these contractors, if they know of contractors. I understand the question. I personally don't know the contractors.
So if the 95 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. City has an overall goal, don't you think Fairmount Park can help raise that goal or meet that goal through actually doing the type of due diligence?
I would agree that we should be part of a system to meet that goal, yes.
And so there is a greater responsibility on your part than you led on to. You can't just pass it off on Procurement Department.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Briefly, back to Northwestern Stables, it's my understanding that current boarders were provided guaranteed competitive market rates similar to that they were paying and only new boarders would pay a higher fee in return for the capital improvements if they could -- what the market would bear. So perhaps what we need to do is have the people who want to make the capital investment, as I understood it -- and I understand that you may have gotten a different thing -- send you another proposal that clarifies these issues. And I would agree with you, if they're not willing to spend the money, that they shouldn't be there. But to the extent we can get someone else to spend money in 97 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. the Park versus having it come out of your capital budget when the needs are so great, I just think it's something we ought to pursue, and perhaps we can just follow up on that together.
Rather than beating the horse to death, as they say. Just one quick question about that, though. Was there any political influence associated with the non-profit that currently has the contract?
Did you ever have discussions with the previous Mayor's Office about that contract?
And is there anybody on the non-profit Board that worked in the Mayor's Office?
I believe currently there is. At the time, there was not. At the time that we had these discussions in 2006 and 2007, the Board had about 98 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. four or five members. There was no one on that Board that was political or associated with the former Administration. The Board has currently expanded their membership to nine members, which is one of the requirements, and I do believe on the current expansion Board there's a former member of the Administration.
Joyce Wilkerson, the former Chief of Staff, who is an equestrian.
Okay. Thank you. We talked briefly about this, but one of the goals identified in the Strategic Plan June 2004, as you mentioned, was to increase sustainable revenue sources to support operations and capital improvements within the Fairmount Park system. That was a high-priority recommendation, and strategies for 99 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. accomplishing this goal, to recreate revenue. Division of managed revenue generated by the Fairmount Park system was required to be -- or recommended to be done within an 18-month time frame for completion. Can you tell me where that stands?
Well, as I mentioned earlier, that recommendation resulted in the hiring of Doug Kubinski as our Director of Properties and Concessions Management, also resulted in the ongoing process of negotiating or tightening up both our concession and lease agreements and also the proposal in the expanded staff to add those two positions.
But is there a written business plan to accomplish this currently floating around in the park system?
No. We didn't write another plan to do it. We just went and did it. 100 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Okay. In my experience, in order for a business to be successful, even though you almost throw the plan out the minute it's written because things change, the world is dynamic, in order to successfully implement a plan, the plan and revenue goals and other things need to be in writing so that we can hold the people accountable for increasing revenue responsible for the plan that they submit and are trying to attack. So I would ask that you please provide the Chair -- you may not get to it in this budget process, but please provide the Chair and this Council a written business plan for revenue generation in the Park that we can then hold the people in charge of that accountable for and the Park management accountable for.
Councilman, I'll certainly do that. Again, I don't think that that's in the short term in that -- 101 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
I mean, we didn't have any staff to even do this work, so there was no point in creating a plan to hold no one that existed accountable.
But if you provide us a plan that shows revenue and that the Park can generate revenue and how it can generate revenue and the expected revenue generated, then I'll invest in that plan with more dollars for your operating budget to execute it.
As Councilman Jones liked to say, if it isn't measured, it isn't managed. We have to have written plans. Okay. Another process was to -- you've sort of answered that question. 102 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. As of the March 2007 status report -- okay. I think you have answered my questions. Thank you very much. And I once again want to say that we're all very pleased with your management of the Park. We were very impressed the day we went out, and we thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of our Park and your service to the City. Thank you very much for coming in to testify.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Director, I'm sure you read like I read that Commissioner Ramsey is exploring bringing the mounted police back. One of the bigger disappointments in my political life, that that unit ever 103 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. left. How could you accommodate them based on the contractual arrangements that you have? If we brought even a limited mounted unit back to the City, how would you house them?
I only am aware of Chief Ramsey's plan by what I've read in the press, which I agree with you, I think it would be a wonderful plan for the City. We've had very preliminary conversations with folks in Police about where they could be housed. I have no 15 indication yet of how many horses or what they're thinking about. We need some more information to determine the amount of space. As you know or recall, when the mounted was disbanded, they were occupying a facility on Krewstown Road in Pennypack Park. That was their facility. We have subsequently used that facility for some of our operations. We could certainly consider the mounted going back 104 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. into that facility, depending upon how much space they need or --
Before they were dismounted, they also occupied Northwestern. They occupied --
-- when there were 180 horses, when they patrolled Fairmount Park aggressively, they were at Northwestern. Could you put a limited number of mounted units at Northwestern?
That's a complicated question. I think we could if the restoration of the facility was complete. Right now with the structural deterioration of the facility, there's about, if I remember correctly, between 20 or 30 stalls that are not habitable because of the structural integrity of 105 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. the building. If the restoration of the building is complete, that will make more stalls available, and, in theory, the mounted could be accommodated in those. Right now, currently, I don't believe -- there's only a very small number of vacant stalls in the building because their capacity is limited.
I understand there's an old barn over off of Dupont and Henry. There's a few facilities. They're deteriorated, but they could be rehabilitated, from what I understand, to house the horses if we ever went in that direction.
So I was just wondering what we could do or what we couldn't do. So I think if Chief Ramsey moves forward, then obviously we need to be prepared for that move.
The last question that I have, you addressed 106 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. earlier public trees, about the Fairmount Park's responsibility. My office constantly gets calls from my constituents that they want to talk about private property trees. They want to talk about the tree that's a hundred years old in their next-door neighbor's front or backyard that they're afraid is going to fall on their home. How do you respond to an issue like that? Not a curb tree, but a tree that's on a person's lawn. How do you deal with that if you deem it rotted or dangerous? Do you go in and remove it and charge them? What exactly do you do?
No. There's no -- we won't even inspect trees on private property. If a property owner contacts us about a private property tree, we explain that as per the City Charter, that tree is the responsibility of the property owner, and we will give them -- if they're interested, we will give them lists of certified arborists. If they 107 4/1/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. don't know who to work with, we can point them in the direction, but we don't invest staff resources in investigating that tree and we certainly don't remove trees on private property.
Let's have this scenario, and it happens frequently, where a very senior citizen lives in a property and the tree falls, knocks the fence down, falls into the house next door. The roof is damaged. There's an opening in the home due to the tree falling. The Fairmount Park Commission will not engage at all? They'll just stand back and let that condition exist?