2990 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BUDGET HEARINGS - CONTINUED - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, March 22, 2000 10:00 a.m. - - - BILL 000003- Adopting Capital Program, 2001-2006. BILL 000004 - Adopting FY 2001 Capital Budget. BILL 000005 - Adopting FY 2001 Operating Budget. BILL 000006 - Amending Wage and Net Profits Tax. BILL 000007, 8, 9 - Re School Tax Authorization. BILL 000010 - Amending Business Privilege Taxes. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2991 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 I N D E X Page Fairmount Park Commission William Mifflin, Executive Director . . . . . 2994 Department of Public Property Andreas Perez, Commissioner . . . . . . . . . 3065 Vince Costello, Communications Division . . . 3067 Personnel Department Linda Seyda, Director . . . . . . . . . . . . 3083 Streets Department Lawrence Moy, Commissioner. . . . . . . . . . 3087 Joseph Doyle, Lighting Engineer . . . . . . . 3088 Charles Trainor, Chief Traffic Engineer . . . 3115 Clarena Tolson, Deputy Commissioner . . . . . 3119 Managing Director's Office Joseph Martz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3154 Robert Solvibile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3157 Office of Housing and Community Development John Kromer, Executive Director . . . . . . . 3178 Budget Office Rob Dubow, Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3202 Mayor's Office Stephanie Franklin-Suber. . . . . . . . . . . 3206 Chief of Staff 2992 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the titles of the bills before us.
Bill No. 000003, an ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six fiscal years 2001 to 2006, inclusive. Bill No. 000004, an ordinance adopting a Fiscal Year 2001 Capital Budget. Bill No. 000005, an ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2001. Bill No. 000006, an ordinance amending Chapter of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Wage and Net Profits Tax," by decreasing the rates of the tax. Bill No. 000007, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-1800 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "School tax Authorization," by amending Section 22 19-1801 to further authorize the Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia to impose a tax on real estate within the City of Philadelphia. 2993 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Bill No. 000008, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-1800 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "School Tax Authorization," by amending Section 5 19-1806 to further authorize the Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia to impose a tax on the use or occupancy of real estate within the School District of Philadelphia. Bill No. 000009, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-1800 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "School Tax Authorization," by amending Section 12 19-1804 to further authorize the Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia to impose a tax on net income from real property and tangible and intangible personal property of residents of the School District. Bill No. 000010, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-2600 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Business Privilege Tax," by decreasing the rates of tax based upon gross receipts.
Thank you. There were several departments that we had requested be called back, one being the Fairmount Park. Is there anyone here from Fairmount Park? Why don't you approach the table, 2994 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 please. (Fairmount Park witness come forward.)
I believe that Councilman Rizzo had several questions he wanted to ask. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Mr. Mifflin, the reason I asked you to come back to Council is to address a couple of issues. The first one specifically is the situation with our street trees throughout the City of Philadelphia. I know I've had many conversations with you basically telling me that you're doing the best you can with the money that you have available. What I'd like you to do is take a 2995 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 couple of minutes and review and tell the Council the severity of the problem, the situation that exists, and what you really need to do it right. And do we have a dangerous situation out there? Could you take a few minutes and review the situation, because of all the calls that I get in my office, it seems as though trees are starting to knock out potholes, and I would like you to talk a little bit about the tree situation throughout the City.
Sure. Thank you, Councilman. My name is William Mifflin, the Executive Director of Fairmount Park Commission. I apologize if this is somewhat redundant, but --
But I think most know that we estimate there to be approximately 250,000 street trees in the City of Philadelphia, and that is our best estimate. We have a quarter of those trees inventoried and know a great deal of 2996 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 information about that percentage of the total population. As you know, the Fairmount Park Commission has the responsibility for the street trees in the City of Philadelphia, although PECO Energy Company also has responsibility for clearance in the City of Philadelphia. That accounts for approximately one-third of those trees. So some of our trees are maintained -- at least a partial amount of those trees that are maintained by PECO Energy come within ten feet of a PECO Energy line. We do provide a systemic and full, if you will, delivery of services for our street tree population that runs the gamut from removing dead and dangerous trees, pruning street trees, planting new trees and, on occasion, spraying trees for intersect or disease infestations. We accomplish this work both from our operating budget and our capital budget. And most years or every year, there is some funding available for that type of work. We perform that work contractually as well as through the utilization of some Fairmount Park staff mostly on an 2997 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 emergency basis for street tree maintenance. In FY '98, we received from the City administration, supported of City Council, $1 million, which has been repeated in the last three years, where we're able to accomplish street tree trimming and some removals through that $1 million allocation. And we -- as my testimony's indicated, we've trimmed approximately 6800 tress, or will trim approximately 6800 trees in FY 2000. And with those funds, we will remove approximately 1272 trees. As I have testified previously, when we go into a block, we like to do it block by block, as opposed to sort of running around the City and doing one tree here, one tree there. We like to do it in more of a systemic manner throughout the City. We remove a tree if it's determined dead or dangerous and if it qualifies for removal in that same block in which we are pruning other trees. In addition to that, in FY 2000 we spent $300,000 for tree removal and tree planting from our capital budget. And to make it easy, we use the number of $1,000 for each unit. And as you know, with capital funds, you are required to 2998 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 plant a tree for every tree that you remove. And our costs are about $1,000 to remove one tree and plant one tree. So doing easy math, that's about 300 trees for the City that will be removed and replaced this fiscal year.
Are you prioritizing based on need the removal process? Can you document the trees that have been slated for removal? And do we have dangerous situations out there? Because I know there are trees that have fallen and killed people. Do you have a list of trees that, in your opinion, should be removed immediately but you don't have the available funds to do that?
We have a -- we do, Councilman, prioritize our work. In the last few years, we have worked extensively with our employee training, and we have at this time ten certified arborists employed by the Fairmount Park Commission to determine the extent of necessary work for our street tree population. So I feel that we have the expertise to professionally and 2999 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 adequately identify the extent of damage or the necessary work and the prioritization of that work for street trees regarding the condition of a tree. If a tree is classified to be dangerous it goes to the top of the list. Obviously, we have a responsibility to respond to that in an effective and reasonable manner. If something is determined to be imminently dangerous, that often can be removed by our own workforce. As I indicated, we do respond to emergency situations. I don't believe that we have a catastrophic situation at this time that we're facing in street trees. We do -- as I say, every day we're out on the street and we're making inspections. When something is identified -- we get a lot of requests as well for inspections, and I'm confident that the proper action is taken in a reasonable amount of time.
In reference to liability, if a street tree falls in front of a residential home and injures someone or a fatality results or property damage, do you know how much in the area of lawsuits the City has paid out in 3000 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 dealing with fatalities and also injury and property damage?
I can't give you a specific number, Councilman. I've just very recently in the last 48 hours opened a dialogue with the Law Department and the manager's office to see if there was some number that we felt comfortable in providing. It's a -- it's broken down, and my understanding of the experience that you've just related, where trees have fallen, there are also incidents where people have tripped over a tree root or tripped over a sidewalk that has allegedly been lifted by a tree root. So there are, you know, like anything else, a number of categories in which the City could be liable, like they could in much of the other services that we provide.
Now that the City has assumed responsibility of removing street trees, what responsibility -- like you just described, the root that raises the sidewalk creates a tripping hazard. What responsibility does the property owner have?
The property owner is 3001 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 responsible to maintain the safety of the sidewalk, the footway. It's the homeowner's responsibility to ensure that there's a smooth or safe sidewalk.
So the property owner still has some liability if the tree falls and creates property damage, falls on a parked car? What's the Fairmount Park Commission's or the City's responsibilities for that occurrence?
My office does not handle the claims. I suspect you'd have to confer with the Law Department or Risk Management.
Can you please get back to the Chair with the answer to that?
In other words, what's the mix and the insurance damage?
Well, we're first on the scene when there's an emergency situation.
Now, the monies that you have, you haven't asked for any additional money in this budget --
-- in capital or 3002 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 operating. Is there a reason? Was it that you feel didn't the need for it? Why didn't you ask for it?
I'm confident that the program that we're providing presently under our existing levels provides for a safe environment with our street trees.
The last issue I'd like to address is the park ranger program. I know you've addressed this and, again, I don't want you to repeat it, but I've gotten a few letters from people interested in the stabilization of the park ranger program. Can you tell me greatest number there are in the park at one time?
150 park rangers. 3003 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 And the reason it's down is due to funding?
By design because funding has been gradually reduced and is facing a termination by the original funder in the next 6 months. The level of 150, I'd like to point out, 7 though, it was attained in the early years of the 8 program, where the funder provided for the 9 educating component of two years of college-level 10 work at a local university as part of the donation 11 or grant to the Fairmount Park Commission. So the 12 number's a little misleading because at any given 13 time, at least half those individuals are enrolled 14 in a full course load at the university, so they 15 were not all available to us at once in park the 16 park setting. 17
Did I hear you say 18 you will not have money for the 24?
Well, we won't have the funding from the original donor -- that will in fact be the case. However, there is a separate board beyond the Fairmount Park Commission Fairmount Park Ranger Corps, and their job is to raise funds to sustain the program hopefully. At the present time, the Park Commission is receiving 3004 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 $500,000 annually on the operating budget, and the board has matched that amount, and that's an amount that's sufficient at the present time to continue the complement of the existing program.
I don't think I need to speak for you, but I know this is a program that is very important to you.
Yes, and we want to see it continue. I think they're a very valuable service.
And in months, 13 you're confident that you'll have the funding in 14 place to continue with the 24 rangers that we 15 have? 16
Thank you very much Councilman. 3005 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 The Chair recognizes Cohen.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand there's some kind of a federal program to accelerate the development of bike trails throughout the park. Is there new federal funding? 'Cause I'm getting all kinds of calls from folks from Overbrook Farms who are upset about the proposal to run bike paths through the area, that they feel very uncomfortable about it. I think there's going to be a meeting in the community soon -- or maybe it was yesterday or maybe tomorrow, maybe today, I don't know. I just that know they're very upset 'cause they say they've read something in the paper that says, without any consultation with the community, a program has been decided on. What's it all about? We all favor bike programs, but --
I'm also troubled about the bike programs and I'm a strong supporter of them, but I've seen what they've done to traffic in areas where the bike lanes are unused on a two-way street. You know, two-lane highway 3006 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 suddenly becomes a single-lane highway and is backed up for a couple of blocks and there's no 4 traffic at all -- no bikes, no nothing -- on the painted lines. I'm worried what are we doing. You know, bike trails -- we love the health benefits and we think it's good and we like people to get out on their bikes, but only a tiny percentage of people do in fact do it, but when we do it, we don't like to see it create problems with the community and create traffic jams. You know, on Pennsylvania Avenue right downtown here, you often have blocks of long traffic at 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock in the evening, yet the bike lane is totally cleared, and cars are now forced into a single lane driving west from 20th Street 21st Street, 22nd Street in the downtown area. So I'm wondering about this particular bike trail. Why bring it into an area that the community seems to be very unhappy about?
I hope we're not bringing it into an area where they're unhappy about it or don't support it. We take very seriously our work at the community level, and if there are some particular concerns from the Overbrook Park 3007 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 community, we will absolutely address those concerns. I am not personally -- I say "personally" -- aware of specific concerns of residents in this part of the community. I suspect strongly that they are aware of our project that we refer to as the Cobbs Creek Recreation half. This does enjoy federal funding and it's been in the planning stages for two or three years, and there have been a series of community meetings led by our consultant and attended by senior park staff. That's not to suggest that we've satisfied every concern or every question, but there is a path that will just in general go from City Line Avenue down into the Eastwick community, touching in parts of Cobbs Creek. Our recreation paths are paths in the park itself. We generally do not go on the streets as opposed to the bicycle lanes that perhaps you were referring to just a moment or so ago. There are occasions when we will use existing sidewalks, and I'm thinking this morning of Cobbs Creek Parkway as an example which has an existing sidewalk that will be used in part, and 3008 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 that part of the path as the path itself, whether or not that's where there are some concerns, again, I'm not personally aware of it. If there is a meeting scheduled tonight or whenever, I assure you we'll be there. I think we'll have the right answers to the concerns, but I'm unable to address them specifically as I'm not aware of them this morning.
Well, there's talk. From what I've been told on the phone, it's aimed at bringing people from outside the City -- the park at 63rd and Market -- and then travel into the City.
We've heard those concerns not just for this area but in other areas of the City where we have a path, but we've found that not to be the case. People are concerned that the paths will be used as access routes in the commission of a crime, or people are concerned that the paths are not lit well enough and could lead to antisocial behavior of some type, drinking or other forms of antisocial behavior perhaps by youth. And, primarily, we've not found that to be the case. 3009 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Most of the communities embrace the idea and help the Park Commission actually police them. We employ -- we have equipment to keep the paths clean of debris. We place them near lighting, present or existing lighting. On a safety perspective, a lot of people like to be down near the water sometimes. And, again, this has been a three-year planning process. They get significant input from the community on location of the paths.
Well, I hope this doesn't result in a further exodus from the City,, and I'm concerned about a whole host of the issues that you have referred to in general.
Apparently, the discussions at the preparatory stage have not involved very many members of the communities 'cause the community seemed totally unaware until this announcement of the meeting, so I'm just hoping that you will be very considerate and not take any actions that are going to destabilize what has been a stable community. But stable communities with problems, they don't need an 3010 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 acceleration of the problems; they need an acceleration of the solution to the problems.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski.
When it comes to the pruning of trees, the replacement of trees, who makes that determination?
I realize that, but who makes the determination of what trees? I mean, we have a list in our office with maybe 200, 300 trees that have to be pruned.
And we have a list of maybe about 70 trees to be planted and so on.
Now, how do you make the determination of who is getting those trees and. . .
Well, we would certainly take the request of any Councilperson on trimming; that does become a priority for us. And that's an easy one because, as you well know, Councilwoman, it's only been in the last few years that we've been able to do some routine trimming so that almost every community in the City would benefit from pruning. So we realize how important trimming and pruning is to constituent services. So as long as it fits within the schedule that we 3012 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 have established across the City, we will satisfy, I would hope, within a relatively short period of time any requests from a Councilperson on trimming. As you well know, with the 6800 trees that we do have across the City, we have systematically, and I think correctly, placed that service across all ten Councilmatic Districts.
Now, let me just ask you one question. We have a park within the district. Now we have a list sent over of X-amount of trees in our district that need to be pruned or replaced or what have you. Now rather than just the residential areas, we're also getting credit for trees in the park.
But we need the work done in the residential areas 'cause I'm getting lists sent over that maybe 20 trees have been planted in the park or what have you.
Pruning or whatever services Fairmount Park does. 3013 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Oh, as soon as you said "plantings," I think I have a different answer to that.
We would be very happy to work with you on planting requests coming from your office, because often, given the location of our layout, if you will, narrow streets and row homes, we're not always able to go back in and put a new tree in the same location where we removed a tree.
I can understand that, Mr. Mifflin, but what I'm trying to say is if you're planting X-amount of trees in the park, the whole district gets credited for that many trees.
Councilwoman, what you're asking is that they plant in the residential areas?
Exactly. But they're giving me credit for having X-amount of trees in Pennypack Park, Fairmount Park, whatever, 3014 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Floral Park.
I can't speak to the specifics. There are times that we cannot plant in the same location. But what we should do is go to your office and ask --
Each Councilperson would like -- they would like to have a say as to exactly where they need those trees too.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you very much. Madam President, one of my colleagues here in the chambers asked me to raise an age-old issue. Mr. Mifflin, a lot of times, even as hard as it is to get some trees removed and even dead trees, there's a real issue that more and more 3015 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 trees are falling and leaning on the next-door property. Some may be dead but some may not be dead. So that if you were to do an inspection of it, it may be a live tree, or the tree itself may be in okay condition, or sometimes it's not. But it's a real issue when trees lean or fall on other properties as to what we do. It creates a problem for neighbors, and I know it happens in the rear, but we have it in the front as well. What can we do about that?
Well, I can't imagine, with all due respect, that a tree leaning against a house is a street tree and alive and blown over in a storm or something. We wouldn't respond to that. But I differentiate that from a tree that's in someone's backyard or alleyway or side yard or on a vacant property that's still owned by an individual. It is true that Fairmount Park has jurisdiction of street trees only and would not respond to that issue, of trees in resident's front or side or back yards. However, we take the appropriate action and refer it to the Department of Licenses and Inspections or some other 3016 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 appropriate agency like the Housing Authority, or whatever, that we realize has some expertise on abilities or authority in those areas. We certainly don't ignore it. If the tree is leaning, it doesn't necessarily in and of itself mean that the tree is dangerous. And obviously that's a somewhat subjective decision that is made. But we do, as I've testified to, respond to the imminently dangerous and do a list day-to-day for tree removal, and it's often difficult to explain to the homeowner that the tree may be just growing in that direction for years and is reaching for some light, or there's some other reason for it that's a reasonable and logical reason. It just doesn't necessitate the removal of a tree. So. . .
It's a real problem, and at some point, I don't know how we're going to resolve the current that we find in all of this and I focus on neighborhoods and our changing world.
I think the Park Commission could do a better job in educating homeowners and take that opportunity in Council 3017 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 offices or take that opportunity each time we have it at community meetings to display what the rules and responsibilities are. I think with a better educated public, people understand that it's not necessarily a dangerous condition or something that can be dealt with by the Park Commission. Typically, it's a plumbing problem and, as an example, they will blame trees for causing plumb problems. So educational issues, I think, can go a long way.
Well, you have a plumbing issue because of big city trees for many years.
I'd be the first one to say I believe that's true. You know, these old big trees have ripped sidewalks and pipes, and I think that's just a problem that all of us realize is a real one and that we have to come up with an answer. We haven't budgeted for real solutions, and I think part of it is that Fairmount Park or the City doesn't do that is because a number of years ago, you removed all of them. In more recent years, you've cut 'em down 3018 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 and don't even deal with what's underneath that ground. I believe we are not sure what we'll find. It's a big issue but I think it's one that we as a city have not yet faced. I hope that in the near future, if we want to improve our neighborhoods, we have to deal with all of these issue surrounding street trees. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I got a letter dealing with an issued raised by various Councilmembers. It's dated March 15th and talks about some of the issues that have already been discussed, but I wanted to try to get a better understanding of some of these responses. On the first page of the letter to the Council President in response to questions raised by Councilwoman Miller and Councilwoman Tasco, there is a list that talks about capital budget funds and constituent services laid out by Council district, how you do it. 3019 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Now, are you telling us here that there were 348 plantings and 318 removals during FY 2000?
As of what date? 'Cause we're in FY 2000 right now; is that correct?
Yeah. The plantings have been completed as of this date, and for the removals, a total of 318 is in the process.
The plantings completed as of this date is 348, and 318 removals will be completed by June 3rd. We're in the process. I don't know the exact number today of how many of those have actually been removed, but these were scheduled by Fairmount Park Commission and were given to our contractual service.
So 318 trees will only be removed in the whole fiscal year?
And are those 3020 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 street trees and park trees? Are they only street trees or are they only park trees?
And what's the level of need for removals? How many trees need to be removed?
Industry standards as well as our own list put the number somewhere around 3,000 on average.
I thought I read somewhere that it was closer to 5,000.
Did it read in your testimony that it was closer to 5,000?.
So there are 5,000 on what might be considered a backlog list?
And at the rate of -- let's say if you're lucky, you get 320. That's on the capital side; how many on the operating side? 3021 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
If we keep going on at that pace with the current 5,000 backlog, it will take years to remove all of those trees. 9 And how many are added to the list every year? 10 'Cause trees grow, trees die, trees get sick. How many are added to the list every year?
You have to assume that there's going to be a certain percentage, and that percentage is usually down under 5 percent.
Yeah, yeah. That's just an industry standard given what the approximate age of the population is. 3022 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Let me make sure I understand. We remove 600 trees, or 600 trees a 4 year. 5
We remove 5 or 600 a year. With a backlog of 5,000, it will take us 10 years just to work on the backlog based on the present pace. And every year, twice as many trees as we take down are added to the list; is that correct?
Okay. So doesn't that -- that gets you, without ever touching the new ones, in 10 years, that gets you another 12,000, at the end of 10 years.
Yes, following that. . . 3023 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
I mean, there would be virtually no end in sight, based on the present system, to even get close to addressing this particular problem.
Well, I think that there are a couple of dynamics that do help here. One is that there is a certain level of individual homeowners and businesses that will remove and replace trees themselves.
Now, hold on for one second. The Philadelphia Code presently says that the Fairmount Park Commission is responsible for street trees; is that correct?
Okay. And even though that had always been the case, there were some regulations that were in conflict with the Philadelphia Code, and then I thought we cleared all of that up somewhere in maybe around 1997, and actually provided a million dollars to start a street tree program. And so it is crystal clear now that the Fairmount Park Commission is responsible for street trees; is that correct? 3024 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
So notwithstanding whatever the individual homeowners do, when they get one of these letters, the new letter that apparently goes out, that tells them that we are responsible, we, the government, are responsible for the trees, but if you would like to wait two to three years before we get to you, you can go ahead and hire one of the contractors that we have a list for. That's what we tell people; is that right?
Well, I guess under those circumstances, there would be a few people who might take care of it themselves, lest they wait for the tree to come crashing through their living room.
Again, we do have certified technicians on the streets. If there is an imminently dangerous tree or a dangerous tree, it is given priority.
I understand that. But, Mr. Mifflin, your testimony -- I mean, this is not -- I mean, you didn't plant all these trees 3025 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 out here, you just have the wondrous responsibility of having to take care of them. If you have a backlog of 5,000 and if you're only removing 5 to 600 a year, if 1200 are added to the inventory every year that you never get a chance to touch, you can't deal with this particular problem, based on your present resources, correct?
Given the numbers that you've just suggested, we are -- we are not keeping up. We are --
And so what is the game plan going forward? Or what -- I mean, if we don't solve this problem, which we may not, in the course of FY '01, we've at least taken some baby steps toward getting there. But, as with you or any other agency or department that comes to the table, my question is, give us a plan and a program that gets us a little closer to even some level of break-even so that we don't have a 5,000 tree backlog and we are close to dealing with the realities of life, which say that we will plant some, we will lose some. And if we can even stay even with that, 3026 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 what would it take financially to do that? I mean I don't know -- I mean, I know I'm not the only person that case about this.
There was a whole lot of activity, I think, before I even got into the room about this particular issue. Now, what are the needs and what have you done, or what have you possibly been denied by any budget office, cross administrations or anything -- and this is not about this administration or the other administration. I mean, I know-- I mean, Mayor Rendell had a tree planted in his honor and he tried to do some things but, you know, he certainly could have done a little better as well. I mean, what do you need to address this particular problem? It's a danger to the citizens of this city, it's a liability to the City of Philadelphia, and it's not good for the inventory the of the trees that we have anyway.
So what do you need? 3027 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Well, I think you're right in stating that we have taken some steps, and you referred to them as "baby steps." As a result of work of the City Council and the Administration in '97 and '98, a million dollars has been placed in the Fairmount Park's Operating Budget. We are trimming trees now for the first time in or years on a scheduled basis, and 10 that's prolonging the life of those trees, as was 11 testified at that time. So it is a start. 12 We're working closely with PECO Energy 13 Company, with SEPTA, with other organizations, and 14 even with nonprofit organizations who will help -- 15 the first two I mentioned will do trimming, others do planting. So it's been a -- just something that we've reached out for support, looking at grants from other levels of government, in an attempt to bring as much resources to the table as we can.
At the end of the day, PECO will do what PECO has to do to protect their wires -- they are not in the tree business. 3028 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 I don't know what SEPTA has to do with trees other than running their buses under them and breaking the branches off, so I don't know that they have a big interest in trees. You are the steward of an 8900-acre park system, the largest urban park system in the United States of America, and we are estimated to have 250,000 trees in an inventory. If the Park Commission does not have the necessary funds to take care of that inventory of trees, we need to know what the financial needs are of the park system. I don't really want to talk about what PECO does, I don't really want to talk about what SEPTA does or the Rec. Department or anybody else. You cannot do it with a million dollars. We knew that going in. We're three to four years now into the process. It is not getting better; it is getting worse. I would like to see in a documented form, forwarded to the President, for the members to take a look at, three levels of a street tree program that get us farther along from a minimal to a mid-level to some form of, you know, you can 3029 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 call it "a Cadillac program" if you'd like.
I think some members of City Council would like to be helpful, but they can't do it in a vacuum and they need to do it in conjunction with Fairmount Park. And if you would provide that information -- and I don't think the Budget Office can be too upset if I make a request for financial information for a program because there's, quite honestly, not a lot that they can do about it. I'd like to know. Do you have any estimates off the top of your head of what would get us in a better position?
I don't feel comfortable giving you estimates off the top of my head this morning.
Okay. I had complained in the past about the type of letter that went out to constituents, and I get impression that there is now a new letter, which is attached to the material. The letter talks about spring, pruning, trimming, removal, and stump removal. It doesn't particularly or 3030 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 specifically talk about whether or not the tree is in fact dead or dangerous. So I'd like to know if that can be noted on the form. And, secondly, what is the real purpose of saying, "For non-emergency service, a two- or three-year response time is possible. We will respond immediately to imminently dangerous trees." What kind of a message are we sending to the citizens when we tell them that?
Well, I think we're being forthright to the homeowner with our resources, number one, so that people don't have any expectation that we'll respond, you know, within one month or something like that. And, again, the prioritization is based on our determination of the condition of the tree. And, number two, it's a written response to a number of individuals who wanted some information as to what they can inform their constituents about the approximate waiting time for the services.
But we also can't guarantee people, quite honestly, based on the testimony earlier, even about the dangerous or 3031 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 imminently dangerous tree; is that correct? If we're only taking out to 600 and we have a 4 backlog of 5,000 -- 5
Well, I want to break down the backlog of 5,000. That backlog of 5,000, I guess I'd refer to it, using your term, as sort of the "Cadillac," if you will, of tree removal. That would be in a perfect situation, where trees would be removed, you know, for lifted sidewalks or other trees or other problems that -- where today, that condition of the tree doesn't rise to a dangerous or certainly not an imminently dangerous level.
Unless it cracked the lateral coming out of your house. I mean, it will kind of shift your perspective if it's causing you plumbing problems.
So, I mean, there are all kinds of situations out there. I mean, again, I'd like to get to a point where we knew 3032 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 what our true funding needs are --
-- given the experience we now have. At the time we put the million dollars in, we had no particular experience, other than maybe the years 8 previous. It is now time to move this program 9 forward to some level of maturity that allows us 10 to legitimately tell citizens that we have a 11 street tree program, that we're able to take care 12 of some level of trees out there that is 13 responsive and respectful to their concerns. I 14 don't think we're there at this moment. 15
Now, lastly, I asked a question at the budget hearings, and you responded in a letter to the Council President. This had to do with comporting the Fairmount Park regulations to the bill passed by Council, which was effective July 1, 1997. And the response here is that "The Park Commission is now working with the Law Department to amend the Park's regulations to effect the changes to Section 15-203 made by Bill 960826-A." 3033 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Am I to understand that it has taken three years for the Park Commission to conform its regulations to a bill passed by City Council?
No, no, sir. We conformed immediately and have been following the policies and procedures established in this ordinance.
Has the Commission voted by resolution to change the regulations of the Park Commission be in compliance with the bill?
What has been taking this amount of time is that we are rewriting all of our regulations. The Board has accepted the ordinance, and we are in the process of reviewing and renewing all of our Park policies.
It's really a question of just kind of printing the policy book.
I understand that. If I called -- if citizen called the Park right now, would the regulations that were sent out to them, or if they stopped in the office and got a copy of the regulations, would they be the old 3034 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 regulations or would they be the regulations that are in compliance with the bill passed by Council three years ago?
Well, we would show them the old regulations, which does not include this ordinance, and our existing revision as it's being written.
That would be about three years to the date, okay. When do you think you can have an updated and improved draft proposal for Councilmembers to take a look at with regard to street tree maintenance and removal?
Operating and capital? 3035 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
And you will lay out what the needs are and how many trees are to be taken care of as a result of that.