I understand that. But have you spent FY '04 dollars on some of the... or some of the elements of the expected capital improvements for some of the facilities that are now on this list?
Have you done 337 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 design work?
Some are. Some bids have been opened also. All the jobs are in different stages.
I'd like you to forward to the Chair a list of all the projects that have started in any phase of having started. I'd like to know what their status is, and how much money has been expended for these facilities that you now propose to close.
And who made the decision to stop the process on these centers?
Were these 338 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 Administration capital dollars or were these dollars provided by the Council member allotment.
Okay. So how is it that you can stop a project without telling anyone, for dollars that were provided by a Council member?
Well, no. 21 Actually, a work not in progress at that point.
Well, not construction work, but work towards the budget, yes, sir. 339 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04
No. You're saying that you made a conscious decision to stop the process unilaterally, with no 5 discussion with the Council member. Is that what you're saying?
Yes, it was an Administration -- an Administration decision, yes, sir.
Is this all a part of the larger plan of the Administration and Council working together on these issues? Is this one of the demonstrations of that partnership and working relationship, that you stop projects and don't tell anyone?
I didn't attribute it to yourself. I'm asking to what would you... How 340 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 do you explain a decision to stop funding for a project where funding was allocated, some work has been done, no explanation, no 5 contact, no discussion with the Council member who's provided funding for that project, has a constituency that expects that it's going to happen? How else would you explain or characterize that kind of decision-making process?
Well, the Administration is not a thing. It's not... I mean, it's just not --
It's not the matrix, the rise of the machines or something. I mean, there are real live people who make decisions here. Who 341 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 decided to do this?
It was an Administration's decision, based on the budget process and the fiscal stability, that --
Mr. Dubow? You're the Budget Director for the City of Philadelphia?
Okay. When did you decide to stop funding for Recreation Department Capital Projects?
We decided to stop moving forward on projects on that are on this list probably right around when we developed the list.
Well, which one 342 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 of the many lists?
Well, I don't think the list was out in February or March. Didn't the list just come out a couple weeks ago?
Well, I think the first draft, the internal drafts of the list were done in early February -- in February or in March.
So you had an internal list of facilities unbeknownst to members of City Council or the general public; and the Administration internally decided to stop funding those projects, even though funding had been allocated, with no discussion or input by City Council.
We should have had discussion with Council members before we held it up.
I understand that. And I appreciate your statement. I 343 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 hear what you say what you should have done.
I'm saying we did, and we should have talked to Council members.
So, again, you're making clear by the statement, you did not have any discussions with City Council members.
And until today I did not know that you had stopped funding for various capital projects. So, which capital projects did you decide not to fund?
Capital projects involving the facilities that were on the list of sites to be closed.
Okay. And if we happened not to have this particular hearing today, when would the 344 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 Administration have told us? When was someone going to get around to mentioning it?
Individually we had talked to some of the Council members at meetings, specifically about capital dollars, so that we would make sure if anything did go forward, that they weren't wasted monies.
Well, we had a meeting. I don't remember that part of the discussion. As a matter of fact, I think I recall mentioning that I had recently approved an expenditure for a particular facility. And I don't recall, Commissioner, you mentioning anything about not funding recreation sites. Do you have any recollection of that discussion? That was a meeting where you came and told me about three facilities, and. Then by the time the hearing was over we were up to seven facilities. It was the Conshohocken Windemere 345 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 Playground. And I told you in our meeting that within about a day or so I had already approved $150,000 worth of new play equipment for that particular facility. This is the one in the neighborhood where there is no other playground facility that's already closed that you want to close a second time. I'm not sure exactly how you do that, but that's that particular one. It's a new phenomenon.
Do you think it might have been a good time -- Do you think it might have been a good time, as we were sitting there around the old desk, telling little camp fire stories, do you think you 346 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 might have wanted to mention to me that your recently approved $150,000 was not going to get spent? Do you think you may have wanted to mention that to me before I told the community people over there that they were getting new play equipment?
Your honor, if... If I may, we're not interested in closing down the playground and the play equipment, taking out the building, not to close the playground two times. And I -- And I do recall our conversation. If I misunderstood, the appropriation of the 150 was for the building and not the play equipment and/or vice versa.
No. The 150 is for the play equipment. We had a conversation about the building. You and I have had conversations about this particular building.
We had a meeting 347 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 with some residents about the facility. And while we talked about possibly a part of the roof coming off because it's a haven for pigeons, we did talk about keeping the building for storage of equipment and possibly the bathroom.
Okay. All right. Do you think it might have been important to mention that none of the money was going to get spent over there? Is that the proposal?
If the money is appropriated towards the play equipment or anything else beside the building, that should continue to take place. Now, the present status right now, I'm not... I don't have it in front of me, unless Eric knows. And he could say. 348 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 If the money is appropriated or anything dealing with the possibility of taking out the building, that was frozen. Anything relative to fixing the wall, the play equipment, the lighting, or the ball field or whatever, we should continue to move forward 100 percent.
And if I didn't communicate well or I messed up, I'd like to apologize to you. And I'll make sure that I will look into it first thing in the morning and get back to you.
All right. Well, I appreciate that. There are a lot of things that we should do around here.
Let me ask this question. What's been the size of the personnel in the program and maintenance area or division of the Recreation Department over the last three years?
Good evening, Councilman Nutter. My name is Carlton 349 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 Williams, Deputy Commissioner for Recreation Department. For the Maintenance Division, there's been approximately 260 employees.
Presently we have aboard on staff approximately 239 employees and to vacant positions as of date, 10 according to the last payroll. 11
So you've been 16 carrying on the books 260 for the last 17 three years. On staff you presently have 18 how many? 19
On staff to date we 20 have two hundred and... approximately 239 21 employees. Six are about to be hired which are facility caretakers. They have a high rate of turnover.
How many did you have on staff last year? 350 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04
I believe we -- complete capacity, we were up to 255 employees last year.
The year before that? I believe that that amount was approximately the same. I don't have an accurate figure for the year before that.
In program we're budgeted full-time for 255. We have 238. There's 17 vacancies in full-time. In part-time we have 17 ARO vacancies. They are permanent part-time positions. We're budgeted for 153. We have 138. 135, rather. Excuse me. Whatever it is. We are 17 off. 17 from 153. So, we have 136.
How many did you have last year? 351 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04
At the end of last fiscal year we had vacancies that we filled immediately at the beginning of this fiscal year. We had 153 people. In the past eight or nine months we've lost numerous people full-time for various reasons: DROP, just regular retirement. And with the part-time people that's always a class of a position that leaves. A lot of the kids are in college, and when they get a full-time job they tend to move on.
So both program and maintenance have a running... Both seem to run at the same number, 255? Both seem to have the same --
That's what we're budgeted for. I'm budgeted for 255. Carlton has approximately 260.
And if you're budgeted for these positions, why don't you fill them?
Because sometimes we 352 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 can only fill a certain number of positions. We have a target budget that's always a little bit under what the full budget is.
So even if you're budgeted for 255, that's not the real number? Is that what you're saying?
It's the real number. Sometimes when the freeze is on, it takes us longer, and I have to go over and testify getting employees hired back on as they attrit out or transfer out.
Are you going to be able to staff the rec centers and swimming pools this summer?
Yes. We're... Carlton, how many the maintenance staff? How much did you just get now?
We just hired 6, and then we have another 7 to hire. So it's 13 facility caretaker positions. 353 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04
Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman. We have 6 people that we currently processing right now, to bring aboard, to replace 6 facility caretakers. There's another 7 positions, 7 recreation facility caretaker positions that's open. For seasonal employees, we hire 45. There's another allocation coming in in June. We've put in that request for summer program, yes, sir.
We also feel confident in the program division that we'll be able to hire the lifeguards and leaders that are needed for the summer.
What happens to the people that presently work at facilities that you propose to close?
They will be transferred to that A or B facility that's recommended for proximity, and then the change will take place through attrition 354 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 and not rehiring, if it happened to that.
How many people in the course of the next fiscal year do you expect not to have? So you're going to close facilities, but you're not either laying people off or doing anything else. They're going to stay on the payroll and stay in the system. They're going to stay with the City. Is that what you're saying?
You're asking me the employees? Yeah. Yeah. Our number one mission, as I stated when I first came in front of you all, sir, is not to lay off any employees. Immediately the difference would be in some of the seasonal.
I thought your number one mission was to provide recreational service and activities for young people in Philadelphia. I thought that was the mission.
Correct. But in order for me to achieve that, as well, I need the 355 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 employees to do it.
So how do you get the cost savings that you're trying to accomplish, if you're keeping all of the same people on the payroll?
Well, it's not all of the same people. We had vacancies now that we have not been allowed to fill, that will go towards the cost savings. There's also cost savings that are projected through employees from --
Well, you're getting the savings from the positions you're not able to fill by not filling them. Right? I mean, if you're budgeted for 260, and you only have 230, we have a cost savings because you didn't fill the positions, not because you closed the facilities and moved people around.
There's both. What you just said right now about not filling positions, quite naturally is; and then the other one would be savings by not hiring 356 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 employees, based on services that would be rendered. So, it's both.
But you're presently in a hiring freeze anyway, right?
All right. What's the size of the administrative staff?
I'm Mary Platt Coles, Deputy Commissioner for the Recreation Department. The administrative staff is budgeted at 61 people. And right now we're staffed -- full staff -- or not full staff, but we're staffed at 55. We have 6 vacancies currently.
Approximately the same. We were budgeted for 60 or 61, and 357 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 we had about or vacancies last year. 3
When this plan 4 was put together, was there any discussion 5 about reducing the size of the 6 administration? 7
There was discussion 8 about not filling some administrative positions right now, in order that we may fund some summer programs.
Well, is there any discussion about... I'll ask it this way: Reducing the size of the administration to have more people in program and maintenance?
Yes, sir. And we've actually done some of that. And I can give a couple of examples, if you'd like; but yes. I appreciate that.
Okay. And based on the presentation today which -- I mean, 358 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 I always appreciate the pictures, explain to me how our facilities, after significant capital improvement in the '90s through 2000, with the increase in maintenance staff, I believe at our B centers in the '90s, how did they get in such condition that you're now recommending that they be closed?
Your honor, the majority of the facilities that were presented today were little small Cs and Ds. A few of those facilities were labeled Bs, and a lot of them might have been labeled B, and that was only due to the fact that they had a pool. I'm a stickler, like you are, for the maintenance, the presentation. I would say throughout the course of the years, also better accountability, preventive maintenance programs, those are some of the valid reasons why a facility get into a state. But I can also elaborate on a lot of the pro-active things and some of the 359 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 character things that we've been doing to prevent that, as well. But to go on record, the majority of the facilities are Cs and Ds.
For A, B, and C centers, how many maintenance people are assigned? Is there a standard?
Definitely for the bigger Class A and Class B facilities, we want a full-time staff because of the size and the usage of that facility. When our budget doesn't support all full-time seasonal C centers, we try to cover them with part-time workers, which either do about hours a week at the C 17 centers, depending on how busy a C center 18 is. Some facilities are extremely busy, 19 where we definitely have to put a full-time 20 person there.
Is your testimony that you do have a full-time maintenance person at every A and B center?
Not at this current time, no. 360 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04
Currently we are looking to... I'm sorry. You say how many facilities don't have any --
How many As and Bs don't have full-time a maintenance person?
We're in the process of, again, hiring because of attrition through retirements, and so forth. There were six that just recently are being processed, and there's an additional seven that we are requesting.
And I want to thank you for that question, Mr. Councilman. That is one of the job positions that I have been, for a better term, very pushy and adamant about. As fast as they attrit out, for us to continue to get them back in, so we can maintain the facilities the way should be. 361 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 Thank you. That is one area hasn't been froze.
Your testimony last time you were here -- I was going to say last week, but I don't think it was last week -- seemed to focus more on usage and lack of activity, as the primary reason to take these actions. This week the focus is more on fiscal distress and issues related to the budget. My recollection is that Councilman Goode asked the question at the first hearing, which facilities are being closed or proposed to be closed purely for operational purposes versus those that are on the list because you're trying to fill a budget gap. I don't think the question was answered.
You're going to have to help me. The first part of your... I guess your statement, and then you proposed a question, was my previous testimony leaned more towards something else. My 362 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 testimony --
Right. My -- My -- My testimony then and testimony now is relative to a set of criteria that the City is using now, and we should continue to use, in order to make sure that we manage our buildings right, and not just the Recreation Department. So, I -- I -- I want to go on record to say that I'm not leaning towards usage, I'm not leaning towards proximity. They may fall in one of those three, six, seven different categories. So, it's all of them. Your Honor, I may have spoken about a facility or brought a certain point out relative to one of those seven bullets or criteria. The part from the question about the facilities that are being done because of either operational and/or because of fiscal status of the City, it's both. Some of it 363 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 is both. I would have to go back through the entire presentation or if not the presentation but through my -- my notes and just take a look at all of the criteria, along with the Planning Commission, as well, to look at strictly what the City should get rid of, not use any more. Operationally it doesn't make sense. So, some of it is both. Some of the facilities are both. Some of the facilities is due to... some of the fiscal stability, but most of it is due to criteria.
Okay. So let me ask this question: If somehow, you know, a philanthropist, a lottery winner, somebody sitting at home possibly with virtually nothing else to do watching these hearings, said, you know, that's really a shame, and decided that they were going to... The cost savings here is $4 million?
And is that the 364 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 $4 million in FY '05?
Okay. If someone just decided that they were going to make those funds available, what would you do?
I would prioritize the facilities based on the criteria, the volume, the usage, the proximity, and sit back down and then re-present back individually or as a group to maintain all of the operations.
So if the funds were made available, you would still close many of the facilities?
Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. So even with the funding you would still propose to close percent, 50 24 percent, 75 percent? 25
I couldn't give you 365 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 that number. I would sit down, along with the Planning Commission as well...
...to use all of the criteria, and especially to look at the proximity, and especially the age, and the types of some of them, how they were built. But yes. And like I answered your question earlier, some recommendations I've strongly feel would be that you -- we should rebuild certain parts. But that would be the proper process to go through with the Planning Commission out front, doing all of the work, along with the input from the Council people, along with what we need to do, based on the population and the type of facilities.
This is my last question. Do you think this proposal represents a... if all of this were to happen, that the resulting program would represent a high quality recreation program for the citizens and children of our City? 366 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04
If your plan went through, whatever was left standing and operational, do you think that that would qualify, under any set of criteria, as a high quality recreation program for the citizens and children of the City?
No. There's still more work and more components that need to be done within the department, relative to programming and maintenance as well, that we're working on. So, this one --
I appreciate the expanded answer. What I'm asking you is, if this budget were to be approved, and the facilities that you showed us on the Powerpoint were to be closed, I'm asking you, would the resulting program, the amount of facilities open, the amount of staff, would that represent in your judgment a high quality recreation program 367 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 for the citizens of this City and the children of this City?
Okay. It does not meet your standard as a high quality program.
For closing all these facilities -- I want to make sure I understand what you're presenting. You're saying this project, closing these facilities would make the department have a higher quality programming.
Not a higher quality. Would the resulting program, in your estimation, in your opinion, be considered a high quality program and service for the citizens of Philadelphia and the children of the City?
Well, you don't have any money to do anything else. At the moment. You don't have any money to fulfill any of the rest of what you think 368 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 needs to be done. You don't have any money for spray pools. You don't have any money to rebuild anything at the moment, so you will have what you will have. And I think your answer is, it's not a high quality program at that point, without many other elements which you can't identify the funding for, correct?
Well, I believe we've been very innovative with some of the grant funding that we've done in the past.
Some of the work that we've done in our maintenance unit. There's some things that we could talk about, but --
-- to answer your question, there still needs to be an investment made within the department in 369 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 order to achieve everything that we can achieve.
Well, I hear what you're saying. I don't know that putting forward this plan represents an investment...
All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I will be brief. Thank you. Sorry I was not here during your presentation. I heard a lot of good things 370 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 about it. I was downstairs in the Mayor's Office with some of my colleagues, talking about other issues. You and I and your Deputy, Mr. Carapucci, have talked about some sites possibly replacing pools with water parks, and stuff like that. And I actually have some people who might be interested in that in one of my rec centers. I put it on the table, as I told you I would, for discussion, and they're considering it. What I need to know is -- I have to go back to those folks. And is there a way in which we can either do a demonstration or presentation of what the water parks actually do, how they function? And would there be a significant savings if we were to eliminate the pool and opt for a water park or parks, depending on where those things we can agree to replace?
The answer to all of that is yes, sir. We can accommodate a 371 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 demonstration. We can accommodate bringing you to an actual site where there's one up and running. I believe there's a second one now in Cherry Hill. There's also the one that we went and physically visited in Neshaminy, and it's a huge savings. You eliminate the entire operation of the aquatics unit itself. It's a humongous savings. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But on a facility by facility basis, am I correct, was it a $50,000 annual savings, approximately?
That is correct, sir. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So it can be a little bit more, I mean, if you have a larger facility with more usage.
Right. We can design it the same way that you can design and erect a new play equipment. You can make it as big or as small as you like. And the only restriction is based on the amount of property that you're working with. You can 372 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 build it as big it as the one they have at Water World. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So if there was an agreement, the community agreed with us that that's the best way to go, and it's something they accept and support -- I'm using Sacks as the example, by the way. Sacks is the place where I did have a public meeting and been talking to the folks down there. When could we expect that? When would we expect something like that? Would this poll shut down this year at Sacks or would it stay open for this year, and then is this something we would entertain doing for the next summer?
My commitment to you, Mr. Councilman, and any other Council members, is if we weren't able to put it in place without disrupting, we would wait until the next year. And that would be my recommendation. One of the things that we recognize as a department, myself personally, where I 373 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 sit, is a term that's called play value, play value to the children, play value to adults, play value to senior citizens. We also understand passive green space and what it means in the neighborhood, as well. And that's why, as you've been going on listening, if we say we want to take out the lower building, we want to keep the ball field, we want to keep the tennis courts. We want to keep that. The same thing where we came up with the idea to present the spray ground. A spray ground has more play value than a pool. MR. DiCICCO: Understand.
So my public statement to you is, if we could not replace not just Sacks but any one of them, without disrupting the summer swim experience or the summer fun that the children and the parents deserve as well, we would wait and do it in the off season. That's... As a matter of fact, it's 374 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 the same process that I've been adamant about with Capital, as we have done some of the pools since I've been here. You know, I won't let them start a pool in the beginning of spring. I'll let them shut it down a few weeks earlier, if it can give us a jump on winter, if they can guarantee me that the pool is back up and operating come June of the following year. And I believe all but one time we were successful in doing it. So, I appreciate your comments. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The other question I had is about Wecoco. You know, we've discussed... There's been discussion between the Queen Village Neighbors Association and the possibility of them taking over the responsibility of the Wecoco center. My understanding is that the liability insurance is about $15,000 a year, and currently doesn't seem that -- It's unlikely that Queen Village Neighbors would be able to afford to do that. 375 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 So in that same discussion, what does it cost for the facility of Wecoco on, an annual basis, for the department? Do you have any ballpark number, if you don't have an exact number?
The cost... We haven't staffed it, Councilman, as you know, in years. So the only cost is the utilities and to maintain -- the outside maintenance. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So there's no 13 staffing savings by --
No, there's no 15 staffing savings at all. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: See, what I'm getting at is the same conversation I've had with you guys a couple of times, and with the Mayor, is that if I agree to other facilities, if I agree to the closure of other facilities, that some of those savings be brought back into my budget. If we close Franklin, if we close -- continue to keep Fonte-Leone closed and sell those assets, the $15,000 a year that 376 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 the Queen Village Neighbors can't presently afford, I think that's a way in which we should plow that money back into that facility, for them to be able to pay for that because they're taking responsibility anyway. So there's a savings. You know, the trade off, I think, is worth it. And maybe if you do that -- And I don't know how you can do it. Just a thought. Maybe you could do that through the Activity Fund Grant, possibly. Just explore some of those issues over the next few weeks, to think about how we can figure out on giving Wecoco, Queen Village Neighbors Association the $15,000 or so that they need to maintain the liability insurance while they, in turn, operate the facility, maintaining it, et cetera. I don't think, you know, in the scheme of things, looking at all the other savings in my District alone that we may be able to benefit by the closing of the pool at Sacks, assuming that happens, Franklin 377 Whole - Bills 040255, et al - 5/18/04 Field closure completely. Black -- What was the other one. I forgot. One of the other centers. McBride, some of those places. It's saving the department a considerable amount of money. So I'm asking in return is at least, for this situation, is a way of compensating for the... It's almost like a lease back. We talked about doing leases. We're going to lease it to a nonprofit neighborhood association that will maintain it, and do a good job at it. I think it's in our best interests to figure out how we get them the $15,000 to pay for the insurance.