COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:05 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILL 050753 and RESOLUTION 050778 - - - 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
The Committee of the Whole will now go back into a public hearing regarding Bill No. 5 050753 and Resolution No. 050778. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of both the ordinance and the resolution. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 10 050753, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a resolution approved by Council proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the transfer of the powers and duties of the Fairmount Park Commission to the Department of Recreation, to be renamed the Department of Parks and Recreation, and reconstituting the Fairmount Park Commission as the Commission on Parks and Recreation, with new powers and duties; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. 3 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Resolution 050778, resolution 3 proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the transfer of the powers and duties of the Fairmount Park Commission to the Department of Recreation, to be renamed the Department of Parks and Recreation, and reconstituting the Fairmount Park Commission as the Commission on Parks and Recreation, with new powers and duties, and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of the City of Philadelphia.
Thank you very much. It is my understanding that Councilwoman Brown does have an opening statement she would like to make. Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon. This hearing today is about the future. In sponsoring a Charter change to create a Park and 4 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Recreation Department in the City of Philadelphia, the objective is clear: To create a first-class Park system for the citizens of our City's residents, employees and visitors. As we all know, there was a comprehensive strategic plan of the Fairmount Park system which was conducted over an 18-month period, ending last year. The plan was conducted by a team led by Leon Younger --
Excuse me, please. There's a point of order. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I apologize to my colleague, but the reason for the point of order is that I ask if the President could call for quiet. I cannot hear my 5 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 colleague. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Madam President, and I thank Councilman Nutter. The 18-month strategic plan was conducted by a team led by Leon Younger, one of our nation's foremost authorities on parks. The planning process involved the support of many people, many of whom are here today, including the input of citizens, community groups, park allies, park friends and other stakeholders. The Steering Committee consisted of the Managing Director, the Executive Director of Fairmount Park, the Recreation Department Commissioner, myself as Chairperson of the City Council's Committee on Parks and Recreation, the President of Fairmount Park, our City's 6 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Budget Director, the President of the Parks Alliance, the head of the William Penn Foundation and representatives from the Mayor's office. This plan costs over $600,000, of which 300,000 was paid for by the taxpayers, the remainder by a generous grant from the William Penn Foundation. The plan consists of significant recommendations designed to both elevate the quality and the status of our Fairmount Park system. Unfortunately, not much has occurred with those recommendations in the more than a year and a half since its completion. Councilman Clarke and I have introduced legislation in the form of a Charter change proposal to implement one of the key recommendations of the strategic plan and thus provide impetus for reform for our Park. The Charter change calls for the creation of a Parks and Recreation Department for the City of Philadelphia. 7 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 The strategic planners felt that a change in the governance structure was an essential ingredient. The strategic plan states, and I quote, A review of the governance of the Fairmount Park Commission identified a lack of focus on policy development and overinvolvement of the day-to-day operational issues of the Park system. In addition, with no public criteria or appointment process for the Commissioners, stakeholders perceive a lack of representation and accountability. Also, the roles and responsibilities are not well defined between the Commission, the Mayor and the Managing Director's office. The planners talked to a number of community stakeholders and comments included some, but certainly not limited to, the following: There's a confusing governance system with Fairmount Park. There is complexity, confusion, overlap and non-conformance in the roles and 8 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 responsibilities between Fairmount Park and the Department of Recreation. There were many more recommendations in the report in terms of revenue generation, operational standards, improved maintenance, management improvement and more. All of these changes are important, but it is clear that the governance recommendation is essential and fundamental to ultimately elevate the Park and help it win both political and funding support as we move towards creating a world-class Park system. It is essential for three fundamental reasons. We cannot continue to afford the duplication of services that currently exist between the Recreation Department and Fairmount Park. We've already seen a number of streamlining, but there's evidence that more can be done. For example, consolidation of maintenance operations, grants writing, warehousing, special 9 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 events, the permitting process. Currently each department performs its own functions. This is unacceptable in a city where we're still trying to balance tax reductions against service needs. With each department being separate, there's constant bureaucratic arm-wrestling that often prevents getting things done in a reasonable framework. In an era where reform is essential, we can no longer allow any governmental entity to run without some level of accountability.
It is clear and well understood that the Fairmount Park Commission is appointed in what is viewed as a private process by the Board of Judges. It is not accountable to the taxpayers, the Mayor or City Council. Good government requires that we realign responsibility and accountability. A similar initiative took place with the school system in 1999 when the voters agreed to have all members of the 10 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 School Board appointed at once by the Mayor rather than the staggered process which allowed each Mayor to say he didn't have full control over the Board. Running two park systems hinders our City's ability to have a cohesive and comprehensive open space and recreational plan. Redundancy and the lack of coordination currently exists in a number of places. Example, today in our City, Fairmount Park has 49 soccer fields and the Rec Department has 75. Today in our City, Fairmount Park has 15 football fields and the Recreation 16 Department has 54. Today in our City, 17 Fairmount Park has 125 tennis courts, the 18 Recreation Department has 170. 19 What Councilman Clarke and I 20 are proposing; in fact, what the strategic plan proposes, is not new or radical. Virtually every city in the country has a combined Parks and Recreation Department, from Chicago to Phoenix to San Antonio, San Diego, 11 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Boston, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and others. We need to be clear on what this proposal is not about. It is not about making Fairmount Park a Department of Recreation. It is not about making Fairmount Park a Department of Recreation. Fairmount Park and the Recreation Department will both be equal partners in a Park and Recreation Department led by one professional for making sure that our limited resources are properly allocated. Councilman Clarke and I are not naive enough to think or believe that this best practice realignment will solve all of the Park's problems, including funding, but we are practical enough to know that it is unlikely that this Council will significantly increase the amount of funds to Fairmount Park as long as its current governance structure is out of step with best practice. Let us learn from the last major plan done for our City in 1982. 12 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 One of the recommendations in the strategic plan in 1982 was to move all of the swimming pools and rec centers from Fairmount Park to the Rec Department. For years, nothing occurred, because 7 the two departments, for reasons that we 8 won't understand, did not value that, and 9 finally happened in 2004 because of 10 pressure from the Managing Director's 11 office at that time. 12 We've waited 18 months to act 13 on one recommendation in the strategic 14 plan, and as with any Charter change, 15 there are a number of details to work 16 out, just as they are for any reform 17 effort. 18 Councilman Clarke and I and 19 others commit to the ample transition 20 time required to iron out details for implementation. I'll repeat that. Councilman Clarke and I commit to the ample transition time that will be absolutely required to iron out the details for implementation. 13 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 So in closing, to further reform our government and to move our City closer to a first-class park system, it is imperative that we begin to act now on the recommendations in the strategic plan. We invite all of our citizens who care about the future of all of our active and passive rec facilities, that includes both Fairmount Park and the Rec Department, to join with us as we move to shape a best new proposal that moves us closer to a first-class park system. I thank you, Madam President, for allowing me to have those opening comments.
You're welcome, I'm sure. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. First, Madam President, I'd like to thank anyone who was at the meeting last night. We had a town 14 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 meeting last night to discuss this proposal. I believe it was a spirited debate. In retrospect, we probably should have had more of those debates a little earlier on, but we followed a different process, and I can say that I can always learn something in this Council, but I was happy about the level of debate, the level of participation. I think we learned some things, the Councilwoman and I, and I think based on the presentation, a number of the participants learned some things. Over the course, as the Councilwoman said earlier, we've been discussing this with a number of advocates during the course of the past several months. We will be offering some amendments that reflect some of the issues that were raised in this public meeting today, and we anticipate that there will probably be some other things coming out of the discussion that we could possibly incorporate in the 15 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 document. So I just wanted to say thanks to everybody that participated and thanks to everybody coming down about this very important Park system and this very important Recreation Department, because one of the things I think that gets lost in the discussion is that a part of this process, we hope, will also improve our recreation system. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call the first witness. MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Robert Nix, Chairman of the Fairmount Park Commission. Wait a minute. I don't like this. Why should the woman sit in the back? Come up front, join the men. Certainly welcome all of you. Good afternoon, Mr. Nix. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with 16 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 your testimony. CHAIRMAN NIX: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of Council. My name is Robert Nix and I'm President of Fairmount Park Commission. Joining me at the table today are Commissioners Debra Wolf Goldstein, the Vice-President, and Commissioner John Binswanger, who is a Commission member in addition to the Chairman of the Fairmount Park Conservancy, and also with us are other Fairmount Park Commissioners, Commissioner Price, Commissioner Little, Commissioner Pauciello, Commissioner Mason, Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Baum. Also together was the Chair of the Fairmount Park Historic Preservation Trust, Mr. Bernstein.
Wonderful. CHAIRMAN NIX: At the outset, if it pleases the Chair, I'd like to read a short statement and then open for questions. 17 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
Thank you. Please do. CHAIRMAN NIX: At the outset, let me say that I am grateful for the opportunity to testify about the Park and work that we are doing to preserve our treasured open space, especially at a time when continuing budgetary constraints, together with the growing demand for development in Philadelphia, have made our mission more challenging than ever. We are at a crossroads in Fairmount Park. And while I know that all Philadelphians share great pride in the Park and are concerned about its future, just as we are, the fact is that we must resist any quick-fix solutions that do not get to the heart of the problem and offer real meaningful ways to protect the Park's legacy and its future. With all due respect, while I appreciate the views of those who would call for the abolishment of an 18 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 independent Park Commission in favor of a consolidation under the Department of Recreation, consolidation just isn't the answer. It ignores the work that already has been done to combine functions and achieve savings. And it simply assumes that a larger combined bureaucracy will somehow be able to demand more of the City's budgetary resources. Let's face the facts. The real problem facing the Park is money. The Park's budget today is roughly half of what it was in 1975. For most of the last decade, City funding for the Park has remained static, even as our duties have increased. 45 percent of the City's total budget. We spend about $1,500 per acre on the Park in Philadelphia. As a point of comparison, Chicago spends about $40,000 per acre. I am not here to complain about these budgetary facts of life, but let's 19 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 be clear about what we're facing without a significant increase in funding. Consolidating the Park and the Recreation Department simply won't solve the problem. The assumption in Council Resolution No. 050778 is that by combining the two organizations, Park issues will demand a larger share of the City budget. This viewpoint is misleading for the following reasons: There is no provision anywhere guaranteeing that financial support for the Park will be increased as a result of a departmental merger. In fact, the City's revenues for its operational budget are shrinking, not growing. The savings that can be realized by combining the functions of the Park Department and the Recreation Department, accounting, purchasing and others, have largely been achieved already, thanks to the work that the Commission has been doing with the Rec Department over the last three years. 20 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Private support for the Park will decline as a result of the merger. The Commission found that raising private dollars as a government agency was a very difficult task, and for that reason, it formed a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the Fairmount Park Conservancy, to raise private dollars from private and public sources. If the departmental merger occurs, the Conservancy's successes would be significantly hampered. Recognizing these limitations, the Park Commission has been working hard with the resources at hand to create a new vision for the future of the Park. We have made great strides in recent years. Some of the examples as I listed is Please Touch Museum at Memorial Hall, Schuylkill River Park Recreation path, the School of the Future, The Restaurant at the Waterworks, the Arthur Ashe Youth Tennis and Education Center, the Mann Center for the Performing Arts expansion, the collaboration with LaSalle University 21 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 at Wister Park, and the Three Parkway Aviator Park. And we are poised to do much more. Last year, the Commission accepted a strategic plan that set forth an action plan for the future. The strategic plan calls for a number of changes in the operations, funding and governance of the Park.
The professional Park staff has instituted a number of these recommendations presented in the plan, although it has been hampered from doing so more fully because of the lack of staff and funding. The Commission has continued to demand of its staff to report on the implementation of the plan's recommendations, and that work will continue. So too will our effort to professionalize the governance of the Park system. That is why the Commission passed a resolution that would provide qualifications for the appointment of 22 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Commissioners. Most recently, we have created an independent Advisory Committee to review the Park's vision and to provide recommendations on the Park's future, including recommendations on the continuing implementation of the strategic plan, Park governance issues and development and fundraising recommendations to help the Park become increasingly self-sufficient. An example of this is the efforts of the Commission to reach an agreement with the City for the Commission to retain 50 percent of all new revenues generated in the Park. Finally, I want to stress that Resolution No. 050778 fails to address how consolidation would impact the Park's role in the preservation of green space throughout Philadelphia. Since the Park's founding by state law in 1867, the Commission has been the number one defender of the parks. We are very effective in preserving and protecting 23 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 our open space, historic houses and art collections. It is paramount that an independent body or a commission be maintained to oversee these and all the assets of our parks. Shrinking the Commission's role does not bode well for maintaining its ability to serve this guardian function for our open spaces, especially at a time when the demand for development in Philadelphia puts the City under great pressure to yield some of this acreage for development. The citizens of Philadelphia and the region have repeatedly said that the Commission should be independent, outside of City government. Surveys, including the one found in the strategic plan, show that more than 50 percent of the citizens want the Commission to keep its independence. This opinion was further expressed last night at the town meeting, yet Resolution No. 050778 ignores the need for an independent Park watchdog. In fact, the Council proposal 24 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 would demote the Park's Executive Director to a Deputy under the Recreation Commissioner. This will only serve to further mute the Park's voice in City government and make it difficult to retain and attract top-notch talent. We recognize that Council's intention is to find ways to improve our Park system. I intend, on behalf of my Commission with all the other Commissioners, to work with Council to jointly make a better system of parks. The creation of the independent Advisory Committee is a major step in that direction, and I pledge that the Commission will share the Committee's recommendations, which should be forthcoming in the next 90 days, with Council and that we will work with you to build a strong and exciting future for the Park. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today and I am now available for questions. 25 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
Thank you very much, Mr. Nix. Do other members of the Commission like to testify? Would any of the Commissioners like to testify? (No response.)
Seeing none, Mr. Nix, I will then open this period of time for question and answers, if you don't mind. COMMISSIONER NIX: Certainly.
You state that the Commission created an independent Advisory Committee for the Park. Who are the individuals or organizations in this Committee? CHAIRMAN NIX: I don't have the list with me, but the Chair of that Committee or Co-Chair of that Committee, Zack Stalberg, is here and will be testifying. I'm sure the Chair can identify each member of the Task Force.
You state that the Commission passed a 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 resolution that would provide qualifications for the appointment of Commissioners. Has the Board of Judges accepted the Commission's recommendation? CHAIRMAN NIX: As far as I know, Madam Chair, the Board of Judges has taken no action.
Did the Commission make any progress in getting the City to agree to allow the Commission to retain 50 percent of all new revenues generated in the Park? CHAIRMAN NIX: The Commission had -- when the former Managing Director, Mr. Goldsmith, was in place, the City and the Commission had an agreement that was never signed, and when Mr. Goldsmith left office, the agreement has withered. So currently there is no existing agreement for that revenue sharing.
But that was supposed to be part of an agreement? CHAIRMAN NIX: Yes. 27 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Nix, I don't want to get into the substance of the bill, because there's more witnesses coming and it would be premature, I believe, but your opening statement at the very beginning mentioned the budgetary constraints of the Park, and I may just be short on memory, but I can't remember since I've been in Council for about budgets 15 having the kind of public pressure coming 16 from the Park through the citizenry -- 17 and you have supporters all over the City 18 that we heard from just on this issue 19 alone -- compared to, for instance, the 20 library cuts twice probably in the last 21 five years, the fire station cuts that 22 happened very recently, and I'm just 23 wondering if there's ever been any 24 discussion within the Commission within 25 staff to sort of reach out. 28 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 I mean, these numbers are kind of staggering, and it's been going on long before this Administration. It probably gets back to the '70s, your cuts compared to percentage of budget and amount of cuts, staff reductions and all that. Has there ever been any discussions at the Commission about mounting a sort of -- I don't say a public relations campaign, but a campaign to get the average citizen that cares deeply about the Park informed and sort of organized on that issue, sort of your grassroots lobbyists? CHAIRMAN NIX: Councilman, I can remember in the past at some of the budget hearings where I attended where the room would be packed with supporters with signs saying, Fund the Park to a higher level. As we all know, the practicalities are Council can allocate whatever number dollars it would like, the Administration has to approve the 29 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 spending. So we have reached that with the Administration, but we are working on -- one of the reasons we work with the former Managing Director, one of the things we worked on is the revenue share, because the Park does have a number of revenue opportunities. So what we have pledged to do is even if you just keep our budget level and we can generate other revenues, if we can keep those revenues, then we are effectively increasing our budget. Some of the other jurisdictions have actually worked that way, particularly New York where the revenues they generate go into the General Fund, but there's kind of a check system where if there is targeted budget cuts, the revenues can offset those cuts and then even increase revenues. So we have tried to work it out. We continue to work at that, and I will say that the current Managing 30 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Director favors that, but it's a very, very difficult budgetary time.
Let me just say, it may have been a little different with the libraries because of the hours of service that were just being cut out completely and the use and the small children involved, but something like that the Park Commission should really consider as an initiative coming from the Park through its user and its advocates. CHAIRMAN NIX: Thank you. I will.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, gentlemen and ladies. CHAIRMAN NIX: Good afternoon. 31 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
Real briefly, I'm not going to ask you a lot of questions because we had a pretty good debate last night, because I know we have a lot of individuals that are here to testify. Let's start out with one, the selection of Commissioners. You've indicated you made some recommendations to? COMMISSIONER NIX: The Board of Judges.
The Board of Judges. And what exactly were those recommendations? CHAIRMAN NIX: At that point in time, there was -- what the recommendations were? There's a fairly long list, and I think we sent Council a copy. I'll re-send it. But it really sets qualifications. On selected Commissioners there should be -- and there's qualifications of what the service talents level should be. And if 32 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 I haven't sent it to Council, I will ask the secretary to re-send it.
So it primarily focuses on the qualifications of the applicant? CHAIRMAN NIX: Yes, because I don't think -- yes, because I'm not sure it's our responsibility or our bailiwick to go out and say how the selection process should be done.
I mean, you brought it up. CHAIRMAN NIX: Yes. That's what --
That's the only reason I'm asking you. Do you recall if in that recommendation there was a recommendation of a more public process as it relates to selection of Commissioners? Or not a more public process, a public process, period? CHAIRMAN NIX: If it doesn't say, I would fully support as public a 33 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 process as possible. But I believe it does.
So you would support a process as it relates to the selection of Commissioners that would be public in nature, not the current process where essentially a number of names get referred to the Board of Judges -- and I'm not even clear how that happens and when it happens and who does it -- and there is some discussion or debate, I'm assuming, somewhere where they actually get selected? You would support formation of a process? CHAIRMAN NIX: I will support a process.
Would you support a process that the Commission members would be selected by virtue of an ordinance or resolution having a public process in this particular Chamber or in another chamber somewhere where there was full participation of the community? CHAIRMAN NIX: I might. I'd 34 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 like to see the ordinance, but, I mean, I wouldn't say no just on its face.
You'd like to see the ordinance? I'll have it to you before the end of the day. With respect to the Commissioners, what level of public accountability do the Commissioners have? I mean, we, as elected officials, at the end of the day, the public can reach us pretty easily, and they know every Thursday we'll be here, they know where our offices are. Beyond the day of the Commission meeting, what level of access does the public have to Commissioners and what level of accountability does the Commissioners have to the public? CHAIRMAN NIX: I don't really know how to answer that. I think the public knows where the Park offices are. If they want to reach the Commissioners, they can reach out to the Park office. I guess as President, I'm 35 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 probably reached out to, contacted more than the others, but I think there's an office. There's a Fairmount Park Commission office. With the move of the Park staff from Memorial Hall to 1515, it probably makes it less easily contacted because it's not as identifiable being an office building as it was in Memorial Hall. But I think --
That's where the staff is. COMMISSIONER NIX: It was. Now they are.
Where are the Commissioners? CHAIRMAN NIX: The Commissioners have their own professional careers, so the Commissioners are wherever their business takes them during the day.
So there's no accessibility to Commissioners beyond the -- CHAIRMAN NIX: Well, 36 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 accessibility meaning can I walk into the Commissioner's office? No. But can I reach out and contact the Commissioner? I would think, yes.
Councilman Clarke, if I might add, I think all of the elected Commissioners, and we're all volunteers, have received calls at home, at work from people who have concerns about Park issues. We're in the phone book. We can be reached. When people call the Park office, they can call us at home. So we're all very accessible in that way.
All right. And let me tell you why I'm asking that line of questioning. I'm asking that line of questioning in the context of our proposal, because our proposal calls for a little different set-up, particularly as it relates to the day-to-day operation of the Fairmount Park system. Personally, and I hate to keep saying 37 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 this, but I was in fact a Fairmount Park Commissioner for a number of years and I was in fact the President of the Fairmount Park Commission Advisory Council, so I have a little knowledge about that side of the table. Our proposal essentially calls for, particularly as it relates to operational components, a situation where you have a daily Executive Director, which you currently have, and Deputy Directors that deal with different aspects of the operational side, which you currently have, but our proposal calls for a Commission, understanding the nature of the Commission, where people have private jobs and private lives and work for free. So I can't very well expect you to sit in an office somewhere and deal with issues as it relates to the daily things that come up in operations of a Park and Rec system. Our proposal calls for a body, a Park and Recreation Commission or the 38 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Commission of the Parks and Recreation, because of the limited ability of you to be around on a daily basis to take the time, the very valuable time that you have, to focus on issues that deal more with Park conservancy, that deal more with Park lands, to deal more with wetlands, to deal more with policy-related issues as it relates to the Park, to deal more with funding opportunities for the Park, and it frees you up from the day-to-day operations of having to review permits and permitting processes for play areas or to review the Parkway operations that happened at -- every other month I get a call from my constituents down here that want me to limit the number of events on the Parkway. CHAIRMAN NIX: I get those calls, too.
You get those calls, too. So what we're attempting to do 39 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 is to create an environment because of your limited time and your commitment, that you have the ability to do the things on a global scale, to bring the Park system up to the level that it should be, freeing up, as it relates to the operational component, freeing up your time and letting the government do the day-to-day operations of the Park and not having you involved at the level that you're currently involved, because it can be somewhat cumbersome. That's one of the things that we're attempting to do. Commissioner Binswanger, you look like you want to -- COMMISSIONER BINSWANGER: Councilman, my concern with that is that -- you're talking about personnel. Right now there's a lot of time being put forth by members of the Commission personally outside of their normal business, and they should be. That's what we committed to do and that's what our job is. We do not run day-to-day -- 40 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 I agree with you, certain of our Commission meetings get bogged down with trivia, and I think Bobby has been able to get rid of a lot of that in the last year from back in the old days, but there is some, and I guess there will always be some. But staff is running all those things. We're not running those. We're still dealing with the issues of how to run a park and to get the best park here, how to raise money for this park. Everything that you're going to talk about, and I respect what you're trying to do, is really getting back to staffing and dollars, and I don't think we can forget that and put it aside like it isn't an issue. If we had the funding that we believe we should have and I think you believe we should have, a lot of these issues are going to go away. And the Park will be run more what you would like it and the more the way we would like it. 41 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 So I think all of these questions are proper. I'm very pleased that they're out in the open and that we're doing this, because I think the process is beneficial for all of us, but I can't get away from the fact that it is really a dollar issue. It is nothing more than that at the moment. Thank you.
Well, I agree with you that it is a dollar issue, but I disagree with your statement that that's the only issue on the table, is that there's simply not enough funding. I agree more funding would position our Parks in a better position to be enhanced, but I do not agree that's the only problem associated with the operation of Fairmount Park. COMMISSIONER BINSWANGER: We have problems. We have things we must correct. I have no question about that. There are things we can do better, and we should together figure out what they are 42 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 and make it a more efficient operation. But putting it into the Rec or combining it with Rec is not the single answer.
I don't believe there is one single answer. I believe that there are a number of things that need to happen, but I do think that fundamentally this is one of the things that we should do. Let me ask you another question. Madam President, are we on a timer?
We haven't been, but I think we're going to have to start very shortly, because a number --
Let me get my questions in before we get on the timer.
-- a number of Councilmembers want to be recognized. So would you finish your line of questioning? 43 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nix, you indicated in your testimony that the consolidation would possibly cause the private support for the Park system to decline. Why do you believe that to be the case? CHAIRMAN NIX: It has been our experience the Commission is an arm of government. It's an independent body. It's still an operating department. In the past when the Commission was trying to raise private and non-City public dollars, there was resistance many a times. It was very difficult to raise dollars because it was viewed as giving dollars to government for a function the government should be funding. To that end, we formed the Conservancy, which Commissioner Binswanger chairs, which is the more independent arm, and our experience is is that that entity has had much better results at fundraising.
Now, you 44 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 understand that this proposal does not call for the elimination of the Conservancy? CHAIRMAN NIX: I understand that. I understand that, but it does call in its original form -- and I know we spoke last night about changes to the original form, but it does abolish the Commission from -- abolish is the wrong word. It does reduce the Commission's authority, so it makes an Advisory Commission rather than the Commission is today.
What does that have to do with the Conservancy? CHAIRMAN NIX: Well, because I still believe, and I'll believe this forever, is that the Commission is one -- it's layers. Commission is one layer away from City government. The Conservancy is the second layer. When you remove the layer, it gets closer, I think, the Conservancy, to have more --
So if you 45 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 had a more enhanced Commission, this newly formed Commission, dealing with all of the issues that I mentioned earlier, it would bring back -- and eliminating the trivia, as you indicated earlier, which I think we agree with, some of the stuff you probably don't need to be dealing with at the Commission level. If you made it a substantive Commission that dealt with all our parks and all of our rec centers, forgetting the operational side of the Commission's day-to-day or month-to-month and having the Park Conservancy in its full form adequately receiving whatever resources we need and the Commission now having more time to support the Conservancy's efforts, would that work? CHAIRMAN NIX: I speak for myself. I believe most of the Commissioners would agree. I think if that Commission is an independent body and it is -- if we agree on it, I mean, I'm not so sure what the trivia minutia 46 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 is, but let's assume that there is a layer of that that would be removed. I would agree with you.
When you say "independent," because we throw that term out a lot, I just want to get clarity what independence you'll require. CHAIRMAN NIX: I think independent in the original no-frills bill. I forget how you phrased it last night, but the first --
The first cut, yes. CHAIRMAN NIX: The Commission's appointed Mayoral appointees, Council confirmation. If there were to be a change, I think there are better models. One of the things -- and I'm not saying this is a fact, just as a thought, is PIDC I think is 40 percent Mayoral appointment, 51 percent business appointment. That's what I mean by independent, where the transparency is is that the Mayor or the 47 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 selected officials don't select everybody.
You must have read my amendments. CHAIRMAN NIX: Great minds think alike.
I actually think we should go a step farther, because I believe that there should be some sort of nominating panel so we, the Council and the Mayor, wouldn't come up with a name out of whatever process we use directly, that that nominating panel should actually be the entity that recommends those names to the Mayor and to the Council for its consent, because I think another layer of independence would be there. And in addition, which we also believe, that that Commission that is formed should also have advocates on the Commission, because one of the things that I was always frustrated with when I was a member of the Fairmount Park 48 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Commission Advisory Council, I was only allowed to go so far in terms of what we were attempting to do in support of the Park, and I was reminded on a couple of occasions that I was not a Fairmount Park Commissioner, I was only an Advisory Councilmember. So I think that the advocacy group should have a voting member at least, probably three voting members, on that newly formed Commission and have full voting rights. Do you agree? COMMISSIONER NIX: Not to argue the number or the details, but I think community involvement is critical.
Councilman Clarke, if I may, I think independence has different facets. One is how they are elected and who has a say in that, but the other is the scope of their responsibilities. And under the draft of the bill, as far as I read it, the scope of the responsibilities of this 49 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 independent body is drastically reduced, and whether -- at this point, of course, the Commission has a big say over disposition of land, acquisition of land, disposition of land, and it's very important that that independent role continue on into the future so that some independent body has a say over the disposition of land. So I think the scope of the responsibilities needs to be looked at more closely.
I understand, and we heard you in our earlier discussions. We're going to make some proposals to change some of that, particularly as it relates to the responsibilities of the newly formed Commission. And for the record, one thing that individuals here should know, that disposition of land I clearly understand is a very important issue, but the current system requires that City Council dispose of any Park land. So it's not a situation where the Commission 50 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 can ultimately sell off Park land without going through a governmental process, for those who don't know that. So we are involved in that process currently. I'm going to ask my last question, then I'll come back on the second round. With respect to some of the recommendations that you've made, that you spoke of today, would you acknowledge that a substantial amount of those happened after or either around the time that the Councilwoman and I introduced this bill? CHAIRMAN NIX: I would acknowledge that the sponsor to the bill -- the bill has been a very good agitator for sparking action, yes.
This is my concern, just speaking personally: Some people suggested that we delay until whenever, is that if we don't do anything, nothing is going to happen. Because I've been there before and we've 51 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 had -- and you and I have talked. We've had these discussions years back about doing some things, and nothing ever happened. I'm just concerned if we don't do something, then nothing will ever happen and we'll be here three, four years later talking about our Park systems are not -- CHAIRMAN NIX: The only thing I would argue now is, I think what the Council bill has done, it's allowed the Commission to be much more aggressive in its outlook. The Task Force has been empowered and asked to make sweeping recommendations. These recommendations now, I don't think the Commission has a chance -- I don't think we're going to have an opportunity to sit back, and I don't think you'll let us sit back. So in that case, it may have happened in the past. I don't see it happening in the future.
Okay. Just to understand, personally I think this is 52 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 something we should do and it's my intention to move this process forward and ultimately get a bill passed. CHAIRMAN NIX: The only thing I would say is, personally I would disagree with some of the bills, but I agree with the action you speak of.
You're welcome. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown, and I would like to remind her that a number of Councilmembers would like to be recognized.
I need to go on record, however, also in saying a 53 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 huge thank you to the members of the Commission for engaging us in what I thought was a spirited, healthy, informative debate last night and a real signal that there's still work to be done and we're prepared to do that. If you were asked to identify one, two or three, the top three, attractive, appealing, productive, relevant functions of the Commission, what would they be? CHAIRMAN NIX: I'm sorry.
If you were asked to identify the top three functions of the Fairmount Park Commission where you believe you're indeed making a difference, what would they be? CHAIRMAN NIX: There's probably more than three, and it was one of the things that the Task Force is looking at. But I think at least three is open space management.
I actually 54 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 wrote that down. CHAIRMAN NIX: I think the second thing is the ability to create new sources of revenue through fundraising and revenue zones. I think it's very important that the Commission supplement its budget.
Supplement? CHAIRMAN NIX: Supplement the budget. Given the times we're in, we should be responsible to raise more and more dollars, but we have to be given the tools to do it.
Okay. CHAIRMAN NIX: And, thirdly, open space and I think the maintenance of the collections, the historic houses and the assets with it.
And if you had to identify three items of functions on the back end that you could absolutely do without, what would they be? CHAIRMAN NIX: That's funny, I 55 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 tried to do that in the past, and the reason why we asked the Task Force to look at things and we want to have further discussions is -- and I'll give you my example which I use. One of the things I thought about when we first chatted with yourself and Darrell -- with Councilman Clarke, I'm sorry, was, we talked a little bit about why does a Park do street tree cutting, and it seemed to me that that could be a Streets function very easily, but then when you get through it, that crew that does that street tree cutting or that group that oversees the cutting, they also do tree removal in the natural areas. They also do non-street tree cutting. So it was difficult for me to find three things that are easily locked off. So that's why I basically asked for help.
Okay. Well, I should mention that in the City of St. Louis where they have a Department 56 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 of Recreation and Parks, they actually have an entire division devoted strictly to all tree-related issues. All of those issues fall under one division of that department. Next question, in areas where the relationship with the Department of Recreation works, what examples can you cite where but for that relationship, this particular activity, function or whatever would be jeopardized? CHAIRMAN NIX: I don't understand the question.
There are a number of examples that currently exists where the relationship between Fairmount Park Commission and the Department of Recreation is healthy, positive, it works. Cite for us examples where that partnership works for those two worlds. CHAIRMAN NIX: I think where we transfer responsibilities. And we said a little bit -- I think of what Phil 57 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Goldsmith said last night very well, when we talk about active and passive, we kind of lose the focus a little bit. But the things that we have to do on the Park side is, we have to ensconce ourself on -- right now, in my opinion now, I'm not speaking for everyone else, the Park is a big, big entity with a lot of different parts and pieces. I think we have to share off some of the pieces, refine what we do, refine our vision, refine our mission. Let's hope that's what our Task Force would do. Once we do that, I'd be better to answer the question what works and what doesn't work.
All right, then. My final question -- I have others, but I'm going to save them for the current Managing Director. You mention that currently members of your team have come together to craft recommendations. Is one of them to actually define a vision, a unified 58 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 vision, for the Parks going forward? CHAIRMAN NIX: Yes. That would be -- and I think that the Chair of the Task Force will testify to that, but that is the linchpin to what we do, the unified vision. I think then once you have unified -- as I see it, once a unified vision is established, the governance issues kind of fall into line, the funding issues -- what the funding issues are fall into line. So I think the discussion narrows dramatically once the overall vision is agreed to.
Very well. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Nix, just a couple preliminary questions just for the 59 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 record. Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN NIX: Good afternoon.
Your term of office is how long? CHAIRMAN NIX: Five-year term.
How would you characterize the relationship between the Park Commission and the City Administration? I'm not asking specific to the current Administration. You've been on the Park Commission for some time. Is it one where the Commission routinely makes decisions that are contrary to requests that may come from the City Administration from time to 60 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 time? CHAIRMAN NIX: From time to time, I think we differ, but I think for the most part, there's been open discussion. I think sometimes there's not agreement on everything on the discussion, but for the most part, what we've been able to do over the last two Administrations is really kind of formulate relationships with the Managing Directors, at which point some of the aggress will go --
Some of the what? CHAIRMAN NIX: Some of the tension is released because there's conversation, and the debate is done prior to a confrontation, but there are issues where there are disagreement.
Can you recall in recent times any proposal or plan by the Administration where the Park Commission just refused to either take action or take the action that was 61 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 requested? CHAIRMAN NIX: I wouldn't say the Administration proposed it, but, I mean, one of the examples was Burholme Park near and dear to Councilman O'Neill. When that discussion arose, the original proposer from an economic generator from the City wanted to take a number of acres of Park land to expand and increase economically jobs and tax basis. The Commission then disagreed with the City and had the overall amount of land and the use of the land limited. We worked with Council, I think, and I spoke with Councilman O'Neill over it, and there's some things still not resolved. But there's an example of something where I firmly believe that were there no Commission, the negotiation wouldn't have gone the same way. There wouldn't have been a limiting of the amount of land to be developed.
So for the 62 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 most part, the Commission, even though there might be differences of opinion from time to time, ultimately this is a relationship where you work in a cooperative spirit with the City Administration? CHAIRMAN NIX: I would say so with the Administration, yes.
Is Fairmount Park Commission an independently funded agency? CHAIRMAN NIX: No, it's not.
What's the source of your funding? CHAIRMAN NIX: It's all City of Philadelphia funding. We do have $4 to $5 million of trust funds that are probably 90 to 95 percent restricted funds with uses.
So you have to spend them pretty much for whatever the donor requested, right? CHAIRMAN NIX: Right.
And are all 63 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 of your staff public employees? CHAIRMAN NIX: Yes, I think. I believe so.
So notwithstanding the general independence of the Commission, whether it's by way of appointment and the various Commissioners and how they might get on the Commission, Fairmount Park Commission, for all intents and purposes, is both funded and controlled by the City of Philadelphia. CHAIRMAN NIX: I would say it's funded by. I wouldn't say controlled, but there is a working relationship.
Well, I use the word "control" in the context of a budget -- CHAIRMAN NIX: Yes.
-- perspective. You don't have the ability to ultimately hire however many people you want or do whatever you want because you have a set budget to live within, correct? 64 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 COMMISSIONER NIX: Yes, sir.
Excuse me, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a point of information.
Thank you, Madam President. Excuse me, Councilman. Chairman Nix, in your response to Councilman Nutter's questioning, you said that the Fairmount Park Commission has had a close working relationship with the Managing Directors in the last two Administrations. Could you elaborate on that? CHAIRMAN NIX: Well, the authority line is the Executive Director of the Park reports directly to the Managing Director. 65 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
I mean, could you elaborate on which Administrations. CHAIRMAN NIX: Certainly the current Administration because of -- I think the Commission worked very well with the former Executive Director and Managing Director, Phil Goldsmith, and I think that relationship continues with Mr. Ramos, but in the past, I believe -- now, the former Administration, the Managing Director and the Chief of Staff roles were semi-reversed, so the relationship was more with the Chief of Staff.
Under the Goode Administration? CHAIRMAN NIX: The Goode Administration, I was -- I just got on at the end, so I can't answer because -- I know I look older than I am.
Is it true that the Goode Administration attempted to do the same consolidation? 66 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 CHAIRMAN NIX: I don't know.
Is there any member of the Commission that remembers that? CHAIRMAN NIX: I'm the senior member of the Commission, so no. 8
It's my understanding that the Goode Administration attempted to do the same consolidation, and the compromise that was reached was that the Recreation Commissioner would chair the Fairmount Park Commission, which I believe ended up to be a very tight working relationship. CHAIRMAN NIX: When I went on the Commission and Mayor Goode was Mayor when I went on, the President of the Commission was Fitz Dixon, so it had to precede me. So there were arrangements. I just don't know it.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Nix, I think I just asked you whether the Park Commissioners have offices or office space somewhere designated for Park Commissioners. CHAIRMAN NIX: No. 13
So there's no central place for the Commissioners. Other than a meeting, there's no place for them to be -- CHAIRMAN NIX: Yes.
-- where people would access them. This may have been touched on earlier, but I'd like to ask the question directly. Who is in charge of the day-to-day operations of the Park? Is it the Commission members or your staff? CHAIRMAN NIX: It would be the 68 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 staff; namely, the Executive Director, Mark Focht.
I assume the Commission members from time to time get any number of requests regarding activities in the Park? CHAIRMAN NIX: Yes, and those activities are forwarded to staff.
And what's the level of either staff or Commission member involvement in permitting decisions? Is that a staff function, a Commission member function or sometimes both? CHAIRMAN NIX: Currently, now it's a staff function. I think when Councilman Clarke was on the Commission in that time, every permit did come to the Commission. Today that function is more staff-driven, where I do not believe the Commission approves permits in particular.
Point of order. 69 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
Point of order. Madam Chair, there's a point of order.
I'm sorry. Point of order for Councilman Clarke.
Thank you. Are you telling me that the current Commission does not approve permits for the Parkway? CHAIRMAN NIX: The Commission, as I understand it right now, and I think I'm correct, we have to approve their major events, but, for instance, we used to do permits for ball fields back then. The ball fields are done by staff. So only what we would call major events and permits that would -- because on the Parkway, I think there's a Commission resolution stating there should only be eight events on the Parkway. So to do a ninth event, you're contravening the resolution. 70 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
Thank you. Just briefly to touch on the funding issues. Do you have any information at the moment as to what the impact on your budget has been the past few years of funding decisions? CHAIRMAN NIX: As in most City departments, there's been constant reductions. I don't have the percentage in front of me. I can get them to you. But in '04, I believe the operating budget funding was around $14, $14-1/2 million, and projected for '06 it's $12.4 million.
And your staffing levels, have they gone up or gone down over the past few years? COMMISSIONER NIX: The staffing 71 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 levels have continued to decrease from in '04 a level of 215 employees to projected in '06 at 169.
And over the past few years, total acreage in the Park has actually grown? CHAIRMAN NIX: Yes. As we have joked about before, the acreage is -- I don't know -- I would say we don't have an exact count, but it's hovered around 9,200 and we've probably acquired more.
Last question. Can you give us an update on what is the status of the strategic plan? I know it was done. I know it was produced. What is its status with regard to the Park Commission? Has it been either received, adopted? Are various components being implemented? What is the status of that report? CHAIRMAN NIX: The strategic plan has been received. There are a number of initiatives under the plan that have been implemented. There are a 72 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 number of recommendations that we continue to look to implement. We are limited by funding and resources under the plan -- to implement the plan. Some of the things, they would require funding. So, for instance, one of the examples in the plan says we should create a number of revenue zones and those revenues would go to the Park for maintenance of the Park. So until there's some kind of agreement with the Administration that these dollars go back to the Park, the revenue zones are effectively impossible to create.
Well, then how are you going to implement the plan? CHAIRMAN NIX: We will do as we can with the means we have, but there are certain things that just won't happen.
What would it take to be able to implement the plan? CHAIRMAN NIX: Well, in my discussions with the planners, I think to 73 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 implement the plan, you would need to be funded to a level of the peer group park, which is almost -- it's more than double what our current budget is. To do that then, it allows you to hire the professional staff, hire the grant writers and the like you need. So a lot of it is -- it's almost like being stuck in snow. You're just treading. You can't turn because there's no traction. We can't get more grants without a grant writer. You can't cut more grass without more dollars to cut grass.
In your estimation, given the legislation in front of us at the moment, what's the impact of this legislation in the context of your ability to implement the plan or address any number of issues that are components of the plan? How does the one either enhance or interact with the other? 74 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 COMMISSIONER NIX: I don't see how combining departments helps implement the plan. I mean, what you could argue is that the plan has -- one of the proposals over a period of time in the plan would be the combination of the two departments, but that's one of three alternatives in the plan. The way I read the plan is that the plan says give the Commission three to five years, give them a chance, and then see what plan should be initiated through that period of time as how the Commission reacts to the plan.
Okay. I'm sure I'm way over my time, so I will impose some discipline on myself. Madam Chair -- this is a rare moment -- I'll come back.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, 75 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Madam Chair. Can't get over that. Mr. Nix, Commissioners, good afternoon. CHAIRMAN NIX: Good afternoon.
I just want to follow up with what Councilman Nutter was mentioning about revenue. I know presently you're trying to reach an agreement with the Administration on retaining 50 percent of all new revenues generated by the Park. Could you give me an idea of what we're talking about here as far as the estimated revenue projection? Would this be a dedicated funding stream given directly to the parks? CHAIRMAN NIX: I guess it would be dedicated such that if we generated -- for instance, an example is the restaurant the Waterworks. Right now the contract reads that X amount of dollars goes to the maintenance of the site, $100,000 a year or so, and then three 76 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 percent of the contract, which equates to the rental payment, comes to the City as a General Fund number. If that 50 percent arrangement were in place, 1.5 percent would go -- and I'm not good on detail. Maybe it all comes into funding, it gets credited or it gets accounted. I don't know how you do it to earmark funds, but 1.5 percent of the gross revenues would be allocated to Park usage, if there were agreement.
Would this make up for the reductions you've been receiving with budget cuts in any way if you were to receive that? CHAIRMAN NIX: Well, in a perfect world, what we would like is the steadying of the budget and then allow us to raise more and more dollars. In a perfect world, we'd fund --
-- to what 77 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 you feel that you need? I also have a question on the -- you have a pact, a non-profit pact, which you mentioned here in your testimony that you've been raising private dollars. Could you give me an idea of what you have been raising and what you project to raise? CHAIRMAN NIX: It's a 501(c)(3). It's not a pact. We're not the political side. COMMISSIONER BINSWANGER: Councilman Kelly --
I always think of political things. CHAIRMAN NIX: That's fine. COMMISSIONER BINSWANGER: We have been fortunate to raise or obtain, or however we have it, approximately $10.3 million over the last several years.
Could you repeat that, please? COMMISSIONER BINSWANGER: 10.3 78 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 million over the last several years.
And that was over the last several years, right? COMMISSIONER BINSWANGER: And we are continuing that process. We continue to go out to the private sector to get dollars for or institutions or whatever for various capital needs of the Park. We are not raising money for operations. That's one of the issues that I have with the concept that can we raise money going forward with the Rec Department and all together, because at least the information we get back from that private sector is that they're interested in the capital issues, they're not interested in serving and replacing money that the City should be paying to run the Parks or to run the Rec or any other place. I think it changes dramatically our job if we're in a different mode as far as the structure of the Recreation and Commission combined in whatever form. 79 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 We have been relatively successful. We have currently funded a study by PFM for revenue opportunities that might be out there for us within the Park system that we could generate real income over a period of time. That study will be available by the end of the year. It's another thing I think should come before the Council in the next, whatever the session is, that they should see and have an understanding of, but we're working to try to determine where those definitive revenue areas are, because we'll need those to supplement what the private sector is doing. It's not going to all come from one area.
I would just like to say that I'd like to give you a pat on the back, for many years ago I know that I dealt with the Commission in regard to obtaining some additional grounds for Cardone Industries, who was probably the largest manufacturer in the City of Philadelphia, and you came 80 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 through very well and they were very happy at the time, and I believe now that Cardone is also interested in obtaining additional space, and I'm sure that -- COMMISSIONER BINSWANGER: I'm call them.
That's your district, I know. But it worked out well and -- COMMISSIONER BINSWANGER: It did work out well.
And that was quite a few years ago when the district was different. COMMISSIONER BINSWANGER: Thank you, Councilman.
And I thank the Councilwoman Tasco for her interest in Cardone Industries. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 81 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Nix, I appreciate you saying that this legislation has really begun to cause some agitation, because I do believe that whether one supports this abolition of the Commission and the creation of something else, that the Park Department -- and we'll just say the Commission, because I don't think it's just the Commission itself that's been the focus -- but needs a lot of fixing, and I can just tell you from a service standpoint that even though your revenues have gone down drastically over four decades probably now or certainly three decades, and pretty bad in the last couple of years, in about the last three, four years, the level of service to citizens as it comes out of my office and I'm sure my colleagues has been drastically inadequate and yet wasn't while somehow -- and maybe you've reached 82 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 a tipping point with employees and budget, and maybe that's something we have to really focus on, because every organization has some level that they really can't operate well beneath. And I don't know if it's that or if it's something internal, but I'm not ready to support this now, and I don't think I could ever support something that took away the Commission's -- and I do think there's that independent step. Even though Council is needed to pass legislation that would dispose of Park land, it doesn't get to us unless you say it's okay, and I think citizens realize it hasn't gotten to us just about ever unless there's been a school like Microsoft where there's a swap. I mean, I agree with you on -- and I'll just leave it with that on that point, but the second thing is, I do think the Park Commission did not have its finest moment on the Fox Chase Cancer Center discussions and negotiations, but 83 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 I do agree that it was still a lot better than what would have come directly from the Administration, because there would have been no regard at all for the Park issue. It would have been strictly an economic development issue. And I would hope from our lessons learned, if that came back again, we might be in a position where the Park and myself and my constituents were in greater agreement. But I still have to agree that that would not have been the same if it had just come out of a City department just out of the Mayor's office, because their focus is jobs, their focus is economic development. The balancing comes in, Park advocates on your side, legislative position on mine, talking about the neighborhoods around the Park and what the issues are are there. And so I just hope we can fix this, because I think it's worth saving, and it's worth saving in the sense that you could probably go back to the 84 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 beginning of the Park. Not only don't we get rid of Park land or dispose of it, but the Commission has really actively sought to increase it and only dispose of any where there's been a real trade-off that's better off for the Park afterwards usually than before. CHAIRMAN NIX: That's what we believe. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, Chairman Nix and members of the Commission. CHAIRMAN NIX: Good afternoon.
Let's pretend for a while that I wasn't Vice-Chair of the Parks and Recreation Committee of Council, that I knew nothing about this issue, that I wasn't lobbied by different sides of this issue, but 85 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 came to a public hearing as a member of Council and read the legislation. The debate wouldn't mean as much to me, because essentially this Charter change legislation simply deals with organizational structure. I mean, in order for it to be a Charter change legislation, it would have to be very specific. It is confined to a number of words that go on the ballot. It has to fall within the structure of the City Charter as it is; in other words, amending it. And that Charter change and that ballot question will not discuss policy, won't discuss a plan, won't discuss funding, won't discuss strategy. So isn't this actually Charter change legislation that simply deals with organizational structure? CHAIRMAN NIX: I would agree with you, except for the fact that you're doing a Charter change without discussing policy, procedures, operations. So you're saying we'll get rid of this and 86 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 then we'll fix it later.
That was the set-up question. So let's say we agree upon policy, plan, funding and strategy, and we have an optimal approach to how we're going to better our Park system. Could that approach be implemented by the new organizational structure? CHAIRMAN NIX: I would think if that partnership were there, I think it should be -- I don't know the legalities. It could be implemented without a Charter change.
But could it be implemented? If we agreed upon policy, plan, funding and strategy, could that approach actually be implemented by a new organizational structure as proposed in this legislation? CHAIRMAN NIX: As proposed in the legislation? COMMISSIONER BINSWANGER: No; as opposed to. 87 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
As proposed in the legislation. CHAIRMAN NIX: Proposed or opposed?
Proposed in the legislation. CHAIRMAN NIX: I don't think so because I think there's some -- as drafted, I don't believe so.
The legislation simply deals with organizational structure. So we agree upon policy, funding, strategy. What possible reason would there be that that approach could not be implemented by the new organizational structure? CHAIRMAN NIX: So we're not talking about the existing bill. We're talking about --
Let's scrap the bill, period, for a second. If we agree upon policy, funding, strategy, that approach could be implemented by a different organizational structure than 88 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 it is now? CHAIRMAN NIX: Could be, yeah.
And does not have to be implemented by Fairmount Park Commission, could be implemented by the Recreation Department or some other entity? CHAIRMAN NIX: If there was widespread agreements, I would believe so.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Nix, I want to go to the other side of this discussion. First, again, just for the record, there's 16 Commissioners, right? CHAIRMAN NIX: Yes.
Ten are 89 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 members of the public and the other six are ex officio who are essentially automatically on the Commission due to the nature of their position in the government, right? CHAIRMAN NIX: Yes.
So they're not really picked, if you will. They automatically sit if they're in those particular positions, right? CHAIRMAN NIX: Yes.
And the public has nothing to say about that. CHAIRMAN NIX: No. 16
From the strategic plan, I'm going to read you a series of community and stakeholder input comments and then I'm going to ask you for reaction. Confusing governance system; limited access to leadership and decision-makers; complexity; confusion; overlap and non-conformance in the roles and responsibilities between Fairmount 90 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Park Commission and Department of Recreation; archaic Commissioner appointment process; no formal accountability by Park Commission; limited understanding of the Park Commissioner role and their perceived value; Commissioners perceived to micromanage; disconnect between the Managing Director of the Fairmount Park Executive Director and the Fairmount Park Commission President; Fairmount Park Commission operates out of political and personal mode; Commissioners are viewed as being elitist; lack of system-wide vision; Commissioners are filling in for leadership vacuum. As an operational review on , it talks about "Commission does not have an articulated or written vision. Park Commissioners have created a culture that is largely introspective. The Commission operates in a manner that appears to be for self-preservation versus a focus on Park and open space 91 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 needs of the City of Philadelphia; a lack of focus on policy development by the Commission; lack of clearly defined or recognized accountability for Commissioners based on resource allocation, budget management, performance measurement, contract management and property management; no 10 clear definition of roles or responsibility between Commission and staff; lack of strategic thinking, entrepreneurial practices and planning process; no plan in place for joint recreation programming of Park facilities. Fairmount Park staff has a victim and bankrupt culture. The staff is very distraught by years of lack of vision and leadership. Fairmount Park Commission and the staff are removed from the, quote/unquote, City physically and an identity creating a disconnect in achieving mutual goals and operating in isolation. What's your response to that? 92 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 CHAIRMAN NIX: Well, I would say that some of the content I think is dead on. Some of it I would disagree with strongly. But, again, it is a snapshot. It's a consulting company intending to look, saying here's where we are today, here's what I see. So if we were to go down that list step by step by step, some of the things are in fact a problem that hopefully we're working through. Some of it I think is just inaccurate; ergo, that's why the Commission is plotting through the plan rather than flying through the plan, because some of the aspects we think are incorrect.
Do you believe that under the current structure, given many of the items that have been raised in this report -- and that was certainly not all of them and I could have read on other pages many complimentary aspects that the consultant found, but I chose to get to the heart of 93 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 the matter and I think what's driving some of this. Do you believe that the Park Commission, in your words I think now more recently, energized by some of this discussion? Do you believe that you can turn many of these issues around? CHAIRMAN NIX: I believe we can turn many of the issues around. Some of the issues are going to be beyond our control because of -- for instance, in the strategic plan, we should have a strategic planner, one or two or three identifiable individuals, implementing the plan every week. We don't have that individual. So one of the things the plan says in there, one of the things I always find interesting is that one of the complaints was the Commissioners are too involved in day-to-day operations. Well, that's kind of like a curse and a kiss at the same time, if you would, because you have folks that are volunteers who are getting their hands 94 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 dirty because they're trying to help. Now, they may try to help, but it's like you're fixing your own car. You don't always make it better, but you shouldn't be damned for an effort. So what we're doing now is -- perhaps we should focus, and we are doing that, and we will implement as much as we can, but we are limited in our ability.
Well, I would only say, Mr. Nix -- and you've been involved in this business for a long period of time -- you know that there is no inconsistency in politics that we do curse and kiss people at the same time. You understand that. Last question. With regard to all of these items and many more that are in the report that do not necessarily paint the most wonderful picture of current Commission operations notwithstanding all of the implementation steps that you've taken since the report was released last year, just give me your 95 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 perspective on those criticisms in the context of this proposed merger between Fairmount Park and the Recreation Department. Is there anything about the proposed merger that either enhances or impedes your ability to implement the kind of changes that clearly need to be made? CHAIRMAN NIX: I believe that the merger as proposed would -- well, certainly the merger if the merger were incorporated, the Commission would have absolutely no authority to implement any changes, and I don't understand -- I mean, it could be something that's going to come, but I don't see how a combined department addresses a lot of those issues from the Park end, because the 169 people are still 169 whether they have a Park shirt on or Recreation shirt or a Parks and Recreation shirt on. They're still only 169. They can only still work at this level at this time. So I don't see it as a cure-all 96 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 other than what it does, it does spark the debate. It does get on the front page, and it does energize us. I will say it does -- it motivates me. I think it motivates everybody else who is here.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Is it safe to say that the real value of the Commission is the preservation of the land that is so valuable in an economy and in a City where we seem to be always strapped for cash? We're all trying to maximize our investments and try to make as much money for other services that we need to provide. Isn't the preservation and conservation and stewardship of this largest urban park in the world, I guess, 97 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 and the pressure on that park to be pieced off for various potential development proposals, isn't that the real gatekeeping function of the Commission, that it's outside the realm and control of any Administration that has a different agenda in addition to preserving Park land but an agenda to maximize the opportunities to make money for the City to provide services? We're always hearing about the cutting of fire companies and we have more healthcare issues and we have a growing population of poor and elderly, our school system. And it's not that they're bad development proposals, but isn't protect the land from incursion, whether it's a good project or not, the most important function? COMMISSIONER NIX: I agree wholeheartedly. I think the Commission -- (Applause.) COMMISSIONER NIX: -- or an 98 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 independent body is imperative to have. I absolutely agree.
I honestly don't think it's impossible or even I think it's worthwhile to explore every area of consolidation of services and making sure we purchase together and we coordinate tree cutting and grass mowing and field maintenance and whatever else we can do with the Recreation Department. Because I was just talking to someone today. To me, the Recreation Department employees and the Fairmount Park employees really do have a true mission, and I know from working with both of them, both groups, that they really take pride in what that mission is, that's recreating kids and having good facilities and taking care of that land. So I don't think there's anything that's keeping the two entities from cooperating in every area possible now, but the one place where you diverge, the one place where you go off into your 99 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 bailiwick is that that Park land needs to be preserved as best as possible, and I think that's the real hurdle that you provide from developers or the Administration or us trying to get over and use that Park land for other purposes. CHAIRMAN NIX: I would agree. Yes. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilman Kelly, and then I'll recognize Councilman Clarke.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a problem here. I think that this is about funding, funding and funding. If under the perfect world this Council and the Administration would say to you that we're going to increase your budget by 100 percent, I don't think any of us would be here. I don't think any of us would be contemplating any 100 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 merger with anybody at this point. I think this is the -- (Applause.)
I think the problem all has to do with budgets and has to do with proper funding for any department or any commission or anything else in this City, and I, for one, don't look favorably on just merging for merger's sake. I don't think it's going to produce anything. I don't think it's going to improve anything. So I just want to put those comments out there and just hope that we do find proper funding in the future for this great Park of ours. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NIX: Thank you. (Applause.)
The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. Councilman Clarke, Councilman Rizzo just put his light on.
That's 101 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 fine.
Can we recognize him or did you want to be recognized first?
No. I just wanted to give one small statement following up Councilman Goode's question, but I defer to my good friend, Councilman Rizzo.
Madam Chair, I just wanted to point out an observation that I've had for many years. Growing up in this park and seeing a beautiful park in some cases, with no fault of the people that work there, just become in disrepair, and look back at the day when they had, I believe it was, as many as 800 people working in the park. And you can't do fence repair and you can't fix bridle paths and you can't do all the things you need to do with mirrors. You 102 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 need people and money to do it. And one of the things that I think has been great for the park is the friends groups that have pitched in. When you drive through the park on any particular weekend or even during the week, you see people cleaning up debris, you see them doing all of this work, and it really -- you feel good on one hand and you feel bad on the other because you wonder why there has to be so much volunteer labor to do the things that employees of the park should be doing. It's great that they're doing that. And I personally believe it's about money myself. If the park was properly funded, we wouldn't be as Councilmembers getting the calls from our constituents complaining about the lack of maintenance, complaining about the way people refer to the way it was. And I think that that's what we really need to straighten out, because you just, again, can't do this without bodies and you 103 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 can't do it without money. I know that there's a need for both of those things to make this park a better place. So, again, I agree with most of my colleagues here today, that something needs to be done, and I think that you guys are professionals and you know how to do it, and I don't -- in the conversations I've had, I have seen no 11 resistance in trying to take a good, hard look at it and say, Hey, look, there is a better way to do business. And as long as I see an honest effort to do things that need to be done -- and I know for years I've mentioned that -- and you did it. There were some areas with the Recreation Department where some of the neighborhood parks were at one time in the Recreation Department's responsibilities and it got shifted, at least I hope it did, got shifted over to where experts that know how to do that work are now doing some of that work. So as long as I don't see any 104 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 resistance in at least taking a good, hard look and doing some of the things, again, I want to have an open mind and hear -- that's what this hearing is all about -- the pros and the cons. So as long as I hear that commitment from the Fairmount Park Commission's leadership, I'm just going to sit by and listen very, very carefully. CHAIRMAN NIX: Thank you. (Applause.)
Councilman Clarke, I know your light has been on. Councilwoman Tasco --
Thank you. 105 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Thank you, Councilwoman. Real briefly, in terms of the time line, Councilman Goode was talking about any potential time line as it relates to implementation of any changes in this particular bill would actually call for a vote on a referendum in the May primary, and as Councilman Goode indicated, it would simply talk about an organizational change, it would not talk about the specifics of any changes that were proposed. But that does not mean that during the course of the time of the passage of the bill and the actual referendum there could not be that level of discussion. The amendment that we anticipate proposing would actually call for the implementation to be in July -- I'm sorry; in January '07. So you're essentially talking about more than a year to formulate a process that works as it relates to the nuances of the structure of the departments, the 106 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 jurisdictional issues, the actual Commission and the roles and responsibilities. So we did not or we cannot get into that level of specificity in the actual bill, but we do have time if in fact we agree to move ahead with some process to get to that level of specificity. Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BINSWANGER: I don't know if you're directing --
I was just talking to anybody. COMMISSIONER BINSWANGER: I was just going to suggest, I think the concept -- it's very hard to ask obviously the Commission, the public, even the Councilmembers to vote on something which we don't know the answer to. I think that Councilman Goode said if we had all the answers and we could get to an agreement, could we all sit here and vote. I'd say yes, if we had all those answers. But to try to go 107 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 ahead and say we'll have a Charter change or an amendment and then worry about what it's going to be after, to me, just doesn't make logical sense.
I hear you, and I agree with you. I would not ask you to vote for something or support something that you don't understand or it's not clear to you what we're attempting to do. I must say, though, in all due respect, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown and myself have been reaching out since June to attempt to get people to respond to give us information, because we indicated clearly in the introduction of the bill that this was the first cut and we were soliciting support and information from everybody to tell us how we need to formulate this process, how we need to formulate the ultimate outcome of the proposal. Now, could we have done a better job? Probably so. But I remain and continue to be interested in 108 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 listening to ideas about how we do this. I agree with you, the original cut as it related to the roles and responsibilities of the Commission were woefully inadequate, and as a result of that, we're talking about now having monthly meetings, public meetings. We're talking about expanding the roles and responsibilities of the Commission on Parks and Recreation. So, I mean, we've heard you, and we're willing to entertain anything that you have that brings us to an end that ultimately enhances our Park system and our Recreation system, but if I don't have that response from anybody, it's very difficult for us to craft something that people are comfortable with. That's all I'm saying. COMMISSIONER BINSWANGER: That's very fair. Thank you.
Thank you 109 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 very much. This report, A Bridge to the Future, of the Fairmount Park Strategic Plan, where are you all with this in terms of the recommendations, the overall view and the recommendations? CHAIRMAN NIX: There are a good number of recommendations. What I would characterize is, the low-lying food has been picked. We're looking at ways to get to the middle-level fruit. In other words, the things that are easily accomplished with current levels of staffing and funding have been implemented. Those that take some maneuverability of moving monies around or moving people around are being looked at and trying to determine how to do it. Those that require both at the same time on a constant basis are at this point unreachable. Did I answer your question?
I'm just kind of out of the loop on this issue 110 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 here in terms of the details of it. Who commissioned the study? Did the Commission? CHAIRMAN NIX: It was commissioned actually through the Managing Director's office, but the Commission did not disagree with it. I mean, but it was commissioned through the Managing Director's office and funded through the City and, as Councilwoman Brown said, the William Penn Foundation.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee of the Commissioners? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I thank you all very much. CHAIRMAN NIX: Thank you.
111 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 You've been very patient. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. McPherson. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Phil Goldsmith.
Good seeing you. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Phil Goldsmith. Good afternoon, Madam President, members of City Council. My name is Phil Goldsmith. I'm a former Interim Director of Fairmount Park and most recently Managing Director of the City of Philadelphia. I want to commend Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown and Councilman Darrell Clarke for serving as catalysts for change by introducing legislation 112 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 that will bring the governance system of our Park system into the 21st century. My views on Fairmount Park, its governance system and its relationship with our Recreation Department have evolved over time. I've had the benefit of serving in a variety of public positions and have had the opportunity to both manage the Park on a day-to-day basis and then, as Managing Director, to have oversight over as well as the other operating departments of the City, including the Recreation Department. As a result of my direct experience, my involvement with the strategic plan for Fairmount Park called A Bridge to the Future and my research into the best practices of other park systems, I enthusiastically support this initiative. I support it because I believe it is a reform effort that brings accountability to government, that facilitates sound business practices and 113 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 will promote a cohesive and rational Park and Recreational plan for our City that will better serve our residents and make us a more attractive place for employers and visitors. I might quickly add that what is being proposed is not radical, it is not untested, it's not out of the mainstream with the practices of the vast majority of jurisdictions in our nation, whether they be suburban, rural or urban. Cities as diverse geographically, politically and demographically as Pittsburgh, Baltimore, New York City, Phoenix, Houston, St. Louis, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, Denver, Portland, District of Columbia, Indianapolis, Boston, San Antonio, San Jose, Austin, Dallas, El Paso and Los Angeles all have a Park and Recreation Department. This initiative was recommended in the comprehensive strategic plan, which, to set the record straight, I 114 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 believe was encouraged and really instituted by this body, City Council. It was participated in and funded along with a generous grant from the William Penn Foundation. I believe we owe it to the taxpayers to bring this plan to life rather than to allow it to gather dust. Given the practices of other cities and the advice of the strategic plan planning experts, I am somewhat at a loss, frankly, to understand why there appears to be some hand wringing over a proposal that brings accountability to government, facilitates sound business practices and promises to provide a rational and cohesive open space and active and passive recreational plan for this City. As someone who spent a considerable amount of my adult life dealing with organizational change, I know that change can be difficult, and I don't subscribe to the theory that just because everyone else is doing it, we 115 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 should automatically do the same thing. So let me start with -- so I would like to take a few minutes and explain why I believe this reform initiative makes sense. Then I would like to address some of the concerns that I have heard about it. Let me start with bringing accountability to government. There is no tenant of good government more essential than accountability. Elected officials who are responsible for the public good should not be shrouded in secrecy or out of harm's way of the democratic process of voters or have the ability to shield themselves by a privately elected, third party Commission. Unfortunately, that is precisely what we have today with the Fairmount Park Commission.
In saying that, I am not criticizing the individual Commissioners who have given generously of their time, but I am criticizing a 116 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 system that selects Commissioners in private with no explanation nor any recourse. The officials who funds the system; that is, the Mayor of Philadelphia and City Council, who are ultimately responsible to the taxpayer, have no say as to who oversees the Park system which encompasses ten percent of this City's land mass. Nor is there any significant recourse to the Commission by citizens. During the strategic planning process, focus groups as well as individual surveys were conducted with citizens. As reported in the strategic plan, citizens complained that there was perceived limited access to Commissioners, there was an archaic appointment process for those Commissioners and there was no 22 formal accountability of or by the Commission. I should add for the record, since I have mentioned the strategic 117 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 plan, that there was a selection process and oversight process for the plan itself. The selection of the consultant was done by a group that included the President of the Fairmount Park Commission; the President of the Park Alliance; the Executive Director of Fairmount Park; the Commissioner of Recreation; the President of the William Penn Foundation; the Chairperson of City Council's Park and Recreation Committee, Councilwoman Brown; the City's Budget Director; the Mayor's Chief of Staff; the Managing Director and a Senior Executive of the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. Many of those persons also served on the Steering Committee to oversee the planning process itself, including representatives of Fairmount Park. A key member of Fairmount Park staffed the project. Everyone was kept abreast of the plan and invited to regular meetings. 118 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 In no instance were the consultants instructed to come up with certain conclusions. I mention all this because occasionally people who do not like the results of a process they participated in subsequently forget or try to distance themselves from their participation in it, and they become concerned not by its gathering dust but by its gathering steam. Aside from the current process of a privately chosen group of Commissioners that provides no 16 accountability, the system allows a Mayor and a City Council to shield themselves from responsibility by saying that they do not control the Park. It's the Commissioners, they can say. In short, no one is accountable for one of the City's great treasures. It breeds neglect, cynicism and frustration of those who know and want things to be much better. 119 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 I am reminded of the Charter change approved in 1999, changing the selection process of the Board of Education. As you will recall, until then, Mayors appointed Board members on a staggered term, so a Mayor did not have a full complement of his Board members until near the end of his term. Such a system allowed Mayors to duck behind this cloak of not being responsible and thus avoid accountability. In 1999, the voters, with the impetus from City Council, changed the system to give an incoming Mayor the power to immediately select all nine members of the Board. It is little coincidence, I believe, that this Mayor became the first Mayor in my memory to take a full and active role in our educational system. And it allowed him to engineer a deal with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of shared responsibility that has resulted in increased funding for our schools, 120 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 increasing test scores and a host of other bold reform initiatives. And for those who seek more funding for our Park system, I say there is no better chance of success than to make a Mayor and City Council both responsible and accountable for its operation.
We now have that opportunity. Don't run from it. Another reason I strongly favor this initiative is that it will facilitate the acceleration of sound business practices. There is not a businessperson worth his or her stock options that would allow their business to operate with as much redundancy, confusion and overlap as we have allowed in this Park system. Until recently, each had its own swimming pools and recreation centers. Each had its own financial and personnel staffs. Each had its own tree pruners. Each had its own lawn mowers. One would think we were talking about two 121 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 different Park systems in two different cities. Instead, we are talking about two separate Park systems in the same city, our City, the City of Philadelphia. You could go to Cobbs Creek Park and see an ice skating rink run by the Recreation Department and just a few yards away a recreation center run by Fairmount Park. Different maintenance staffs, different supervisors, but the same plot of ground in the same city. I am proud to say that during my tenure as Managing Director we changed some of this craziness. We moved all the swimming pools from Fairmount Park to the Recreation Department, which had the experience of managing far more pools. We also transferred Fairmount Park's recreation centers to the Recreation Department for the same reason. We created an administrative cluster, headed by an Assistant Managing Director, to serve both Recreation and Fairmount Park in financial and personnel 122 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 matters. We then transferred Recreation Department's turf maintenance operations to Fairmount Park. By doing so, we increased the frequency of cuttings for Recreation Department property, which maybe had been mowed once every three or four weeks. We changed that to what the Park Commission has done. The Park Department wants every two weeks. And we did that while reducing the entire cost for the City by $250,000 or a million dollars over the Five-Year Plan. In short, in a day and age when we are stretched for money by competing needs for more tax reduction and citizens' needs and desires for greater services, how can we dare to allow such duplication to exist? And yet it still does. We still have separate maintenance operations, grants writing, warehousing, special events, permitting and separate equipment and fleets. 123 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 And the reason is that the current dual system does not facilitate change, because you end up with department heads regardless of how good they are, Fairmount Park and Recreation, competing rather than collaborating, trying to protect their turf, both figuratively and literally. I might remind you that the last master plan that was done for Fairmount Park was 1982 or 1983. It called for the transfer of Fairmount Park recreation centers and swimming pools to the Recreation Department. It took over years to make 17 that simple transfer happen. Why? 18 Because the two department heads, 19 administration after administration, 20 arm-wrestled with each other, and I 21 finally forced the issue because of my 22 prior involvement with managing Fairmount Park, and as Managing Director, I had the power to do it. I knew the world would not come to an end, but you cannot expect 124 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 a Managing Director to involve himself in those types of issues. He or she simply has too many other responsibilities, and that's one of the key roles a Director of Parks and Recreation plays, to make sure resources are organized in a way that makes sense for the entire Park system. Our taxpayers cannot wait another years to make some of the 11 improvements recommended in this 12 strategic plan, to say nothing about the 13 former 1982 plan. It needs a driver. It 14 needs a leader. It needs someone who can 15 oversee both units.
16 Finally, I believe this 17 initiative will help facilitate a 18 cohesive and rational policy for open 19 space and active and passive recreation 20 activities. Imagine this: We have one Park system that has 49 soccer fields, we have another Park system that has 75; baseball fields, 29 in Fairmount Park, 140 in Recreation; tennis courts, 125 in Fairmount Park, 170 in Recreation; 125 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 playgrounds, 43 in Fairmount Park, 200 in Recreation. Fairmount Park has 64 acres of neighborhood parks, Recreation has 812 acres. This is the result when you have two departments operating in a vacuum, with little planning, collaboration, cooperation and no one is able to bring them together to provide a cohesive strategy for passive and active recreational activities. I do not subscribe to the belief that a change in governance alone will be or is the answer. There's a need for better leadership. There's a need for better management practices. There's a need for standardized operating procedures. There's a need for more intense fundraising. There's a need for more strategic thinking and, most of all, there's a need for a vision for a Park system that will excite people and want them to contribute, whether it be their private funds or their taxpayer funds. 126 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 But I think I can safely say that it will be difficult to bring about those improved practices without a change in governance. I would like to take a few minutes to answer some of the concerns I've heard about this initiative. One, it will subordinate Fairmount Park to the Recreation Department. Actually, it does just the opposite. If you read the City Charter, you will note that Fairmount Park is subordinate to the Recreation Department. Section 3-100 of the City Charter places the Fairmount Park Commission in the Department of Recreation, in the same status that the Board of Trustees of American Flag House and the Betsy Ross Memorial. " As I understand this 127 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 initiative, there will be a creation of a new Department of Parks and Recreation. It does not make Fairmount Park subordinate to the Recreation Department. In fact, if you look at the organizational charts of other cities, as I have done, you will see instances where they are co-equal, a Recreational division and a Parks Division, supported by shared functions for administration, maintenance, fleet and equipment and capital planning. Some of them have a natural resource division. They have a fundraising division. No. , to protect the City's water supply. At the time Fairmount Park was created, there was a legitimate concern as more and more industry coalesced around our rivers, but that was 200 years ago. Today we have a professional, first-rate Water Department. It has its 128 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 own Office of Watersheds, responsible for implementing a comprehensive watershed-based initiative to remedy the primary cause for the ill health of our urban streams, storm water runoff or non-point source pollutions. Working closely with Fairmount Park, the Water Department has assumed responsibility for cleaning and clearing short-dump sites and removing large trash, such as cars, shopping carts and other debris, from the 100 miles of stream systems that define our City neighborhoods and watersheds. But there was another purpose for the formation of Fairmount Park. It was to improve the quality of life for its citizens, specifically the health associated with open space and its enjoyment particularly for the City's working class. In fact, Fairmount Park came into existence at the time when Philadelphia was being consolidated 129 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 around 1855. In fact, the author of the enabling legislation, Eli Kirk Price, a State Senator, said, quote, One impulse, one heart and one pulsation will equally pervade and give life and power to the whole.
In short, they created a unified Park system for a newly unified City. It was not until the 1930s, as a result of a legislative investigation of the Park Commission by the state legislature into the Commission's management practices and neglect of recreational activities, that a separate Recreational Department was created. It seems to me we have come full circle. It is time to unify our dual Park system and significantly alter the role, responsibilities and selection process of a Commission. It makes no sense for us to operate two separate Park systems as it did then, when our City leaders understood the need for consolidation. 130 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Three, I have heard concerns that this does not address the real needs of funding. Frankly, I believe before you ask City Council and the taxpayers to fork up more money, you need to make fundamental management improvements. First and foremost is to proactively eliminate the duplication and redundancy that I have outlined. Managing its existing funding should have been a starting point for improving the Park, but history has demonstrated that the Park has not exploited its existing funding streams to its potential. Let me point out that the Fairmount Park could have had more funding if it not mangled two important concession agreements that the Commission itself gave birth to: First, a system-wide concession agreement for food that produced a paltry sum of money of $36,000 to the Park and City and ended up in expensive litigation. Secondly, a 131 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 4 million in revenues and now provides $146,000. We can argue all we want about giving the Park 50 percent of new revenues, but there aren't new revenues to give 50 percent to. This bungling has resulted in Fairmount Park receiving less than seven percent of its revenues in concession fees. The best practices of other cities indicate that percentage should be closer to 40 percent. Let us also not forget that Fairmount Park is a beneficiary of trust funds, some of which are specifically dedicated to certain projects in certain locations and others are more general in nature. You cannot talk about the adequacy of funding without fully understanding those funds and how they are used. Finally, let us not forget that Fairmount Park was a recipient of a $21 132 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 million grant from the William Penn Foundation and had to return about $10 million of that grant. Much of this is now water over the dam and did not involve this Commission, but, frankly, the Commission's track record as an institution does not merit the energy of those who clamor for reform in other areas of the City but cling to a vestige of another era. Four, I also hear concern that people will not donate to the Park if it is perceived as part of City government. In fact, the Park is City government. Each employee of Fairmount Park is a City employee. They're part of Civil Service. They're represented in almost virtually all the cases by the City's municipal unions and it is funded by the City taxpayers. I will also point out that the Philadelphia Free Library has done a great job of raising money through its 133 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 foundation, and I believe the relationship of the foundation of the library is a type of model that the Fairmount Park Conservancy should follow. Such a model has an Executive Director who presides over both. It provides consistency of purpose and priorities. It is a model that was recommended by the consultant retained when the Conservancy itself was launched but then ignored. It is a model used in many other systems. It is a model that has boded well for our library system that has been very successful in elevating its prominence of this library by hosting a very, very successful lecture series at an annual fundraising ball.
And I will note that the Mural Arts Program, which at one point served under the Recreation Department, has done a wonderful job of external fundraising and developing an extensive constituency. Its secret is simple but not easy to replicate, because we're not allowed to 134 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 clone individuals, but it's because of the leadership of Jane Golden, who brings a passion, energy and can-do attitude to the job. Five, without a Commission, the entire Park system will be turned over to developers. That is simply a red herring. There are enough federal laws and regulations to prevent that from happening, and any such actions would have to be approved by City Council and only after extensive hearings. Now, I do believe it would be smart to have an advisory group of outstanding professionals to advise the City Administration, City Council on any such proposals, perhaps similar to like an Art Commission. Six, another refrain I hear is, Let us wait, give us more time to get our Park house in order. Furthermore, it's argued that the strategic plan listed three alternatives for governance and suggested that consolidation not occur 135 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 for five years. In fact, if this change takes place with the start of the next Administration, it will be almost five years since the proposal first surfaced, and it will provide ample time to do the necessary planning and transition work. But, most importantly, asking for delays ignores a major reason for change. The current governance structure flies in the face of good government for the reasons I indicated earlier: No 14 accountability, no clear lines of responsibility, an Executive Director who must serve two masters. A privately selected body answerable to no one is not going to improve with age. We are not talking about wine. We are talking about a governmental reform. And now is the time for reform. Despite the best intentions for those who ask for more time, experience also tells us that regardless of motive, it often becomes a delaying tactic in the 136 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 hopes that the public spotlight shifts elsewhere so the status quo can reign. And I would take more comfort in allowing time if the Commission had a track record of proactively addressing some of these issues itself. Instead, it left the Park system in interim hands for far too long. It has not clarified its role as indicated by the strategic plan. It's often separated the wheat for the chaff, only to deal with the chaff, and has only shown signs of life as its very existence has been threatened. There are other concerns I have heard and they go something like this: This is a good start, but... " If you want to kill an idea, the best strategy is to say you support it and then suffocate it with a bunch of conditions. I submit that this change, hopefully to be voted on this May, be made effective at the start of the next 137 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 City Administration. It allows people to focus on the issue rather than personalities. It will also allow ample time to iron out whatever details have to be ironed out. Again, I salute Councilwoman Reynolds Brown and Councilman Clarke for their courage in raising this initiative, which I know has attracted a swarm of bees like a honeycomb in a Wissahickon pine tree. Frankly, I don't know if there is a such thing as a Wissahickon pine tree, but I sort of like that phrase. In my judgment, this is not only about reforming government, facilitating sound business practices and creating a cohesive and rational Park plan for Philadelphia; it's also about the type of city that we wish to live, work and play in. I am reminded when I was Chief Executive Officer of the School District of Philadelphia and we were about to go 138 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 to Harrisburg to meet with then Governor Tom Ridge because we were running out of money.
We were literally a few days away from making payroll. As I approached the School District building to meet some of my colleagues who I would be traveling with, two School District employees got a hold of me. I thought they were going to wish me luck on our meeting. After all, we were trying to get money to pay their salaries. But instead they pointed to a plot of ground in front of the administration building and asked whether they could plant flowers there. It dawned on me then that we all have our own little garden. My garden at that time was the School District and the Mayor's was the City and Governor's was the Commonwealth. For these two employees, their garden was that little plot of land. But we all really live in the same garden, because what happens over 139 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 there will impact my part of the garden over here. What this initiative is really about is whether we are willing to recognize that our Park and Recreation facilities are all part of one garden or separate gardens. In my judgment, it's time to see the forest from the trees and realize it's all one garden. Thank you.
We have a number of Councilmembers that would like to be recognized. I would like to remind my colleagues that we have approximately 30 people who would like to testify.