I'm sorry. Would you repeat just the last part of your question?
No problem. Your budget over the years has been about $13 million.
You received a grant four and a half years ago which was double the size of your regular operating budget. And at the conclusion of the process, about 40 percent of that grant remains unspent that is now not available to the park; is that all of that factually correct?
It's factually correct in that the Foundation has elected to give Park Conservancy a 1 and a half million dollar grant.
I understand that. That's a separate issue from my perspective.
Okay. And over that 16 same period of time, the park has consistently or at 17 least park advocates have consistently -- and I 18 think you in the course of doing your job and being 19 respectful to whatever process has been in place 20 over the period of time and the general notion that 21 department heads or agency heads are not 22 specifically and directly supposed to ask for 23 additional funding, but it's been obvious that 24 people have been asking for additional funding for 25 the park over the years. We are now left in a 1080 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) situation where notwithstanding an incredible grant, and a half million dollars goes unspent, is 4 subsequently pressed by a conservancy created to 5 work with the park and help the park has approached 6 the same funder and asked for either some of those 7 funds or -- I mean, I don't know whether they keep 8 the funds separate, but they have now been the 9 recipient of a million and a half dollars to keep some of those same activities going; is that right?
The continued efforts of the Natural Restoration and the staffing that's associated with implementing those improvements. There's actually a breakdown.
If you want to take a few moments to get that together. I mean, look. I think, Mr. Mifflin, you know and many of the advocates know that I've 1081 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) certainly been a strong supporter of the parks. I have, though, had some level of pause over the past couple years seeing how the grant dollars were being spent or in some instances not being spent, which raises some concerns, I think very serious concerns about the spending of dollars, the making available of resources. And if more resources were made available, what would happen to them? What would you do with them? And Council President, I believe, asked earlier what your original budget request was. Now, I took down that you had asked for an addition will $1.6 million; is that correct?
Of that amount, did you receive any additional funding from that request?
It will be 161,000 in FY '03. $350,000 for the park rangers. Additional money in Class 200. $156,000 for additional street 1082 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) tree maintenance. And then some incidental money for code compliance work, and I guess that would be in Class 200 as well.
And if you had received the 1.6 million, what would you have done with it?
Spread out throughout Classes 100, 200, 300. Some additional key positions in the park.
Well, we did ask for three environmental educators. We asked for a development officer and rec. center facility custodians.
Well, let me ask this question, it's a two-part question. One, what made you decide to ask just for the 1.6? And then the larger question is what does it cost to run a first-class park system in the City of Philadelphia?
I thought the 1.6 request was something that was of critical nature to me and 1083 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) the operation of the park. I thought it was a reasonable request. Again, understanding the budgetary constraints of the City --
Well, I appreciate you taking those into consideration, but that's not my question.
Well, you asked how I came to 1.6, so I'm giving you my rationale for that request.
The second part of your question was, what would it take to run a first-class park system in Philadelphia.
Right. Fully funded, fully promoted, fully doing the kinds of things that citizens in this City and this region would like to see. Full operations. I'm talking about a place that becomes nationally if not internationally known and is run well and does the things that people want to see happen in a park system. What does that cost?
Well, in fact, let me answer it. First not with a specific number because I think it's pretty hard for me this morning to give 1084 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) you a specific number. I'll give you a pretty good ballpark idea. First, let me say that that is part of what a strategic plan would provide. In 1983 the Fairmount Park master plan concluded that the annual Operating Budget of the Fairmount Park Commission should be about $25 million; that was in 1983. If you add for inflation, you could add for all the other good things that have occurred since 1983, you can easily double that. I'm familiar with park systems across the country, Chicago, St. Louis, LA, Cleveland, Tampa, that have budgets that are similar to the number I've just given you. When you compare --
And how does their acreage compare and number of facilities and those kinds of things?
Well, wouldn't expect anything less from you. Some of them are smaller in total acreage. It's kind of a moving target. New York City has 25,000 acres of park land in five boroughs. We have 9,000 acres in the City of Philadelphia, but 1085 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) we're one-tenth of the total land mass in the City of Philadelphia. So we have a very large system here. Some parks are responsible for stadiums and museums. Their operating budgets of stadiums and museums and theaters and their budget is interwoven with their cultural amenities. Our museums here largely operate, from an operating standpoint, staffing standpoint, independent from Fairmount Park's Operating Budget.
Well, the employees who are at the zoo, at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the other major cultural institutions have their own staffing components. Their staffing levels are not part of the Fairmount Park Commission's staffing levels. That may not be the case in another city. Those numbers may include folks who work at those facilities. That was my point. So it's hard to compare Philadelphia to another City unless you really do a detailed analysis of who's doing what.
Let me ask this question. Back in 1983 for that particular master plan and if the recommendation was the funding level 1086 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) should be at about $25 million, tell me if the park's budget had been increased at that time at that level, what kind of park system would we have today? What would that money have gotten us at that time?
It would have improved the appearance of our park. It would have provided for adequate maintenance and custodial levels. It would have provided for additional security services, whether they be park rangers or others. It would have provided the park with trades people that would be working in our buildings that I've previously mentioned, historic structures.
Have you ever sat down in a private moment away from the many budget directors that you've had to deal with over the years and figured out, whether it's the '83 plan or various other events and activities that have taken place since that time, and made the determination of what the system should look like, how it should function, how it should operate, number of people? I mean, have you had the opportunity to layout a view and a vision, if not a dream, for what Fairmount Park should look, notwithstanding 1087 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) budgetary considerations or any other issue, but that you're the director of the Fairmount Park system and this is the way the system should look and this is what I'm advocating and this is what I'm looking for and demanding, not only from the government, but to provide a service to the citizens of this City; what would that look like?
I think it would look like a system that would have close to three times the amount of operating money than it has on an annual basis today.
Now, earlier you had some discussion with some of my colleagues about a strategic plan. And I thought I heard you talk about possibly some corporate money or some money from the Conservancy Grant or doing some other fund-raising or something like that. What do you think a strategic plan costs, to do it well, to do it right? You talked about the '83 plan taking two years, you didn't want to take that long, a lot of things have been put into place, a lot of other 1088 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) plans have been developed other time. How long will it take and how much will it cost?
I think you could currently spend $250,000 on a master plan.
It's hard to say, Councilman. I said earlier what I'd like to do is to do a plan that would get us to a level that we're more intelligent about our resources so that -- as an example, I've testified probably more times than you and I remember to the number of street trees that we have in Philadelphia; 250,000 is the number we use. That is literally a guess.
But I want you to be very careful and very specific in your responses to this question. I asked you what do you think it costs to do a good strategic plan. You told us earlier that in 1983 a plan was done for $250,000.
That's correct. 1089 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET)
Your response today, years later, is that it would $250,000 to do a 4 strategic plan, notwithstanding inflation, increased 5 acreage, other things that have happened. Now, are 6 you saying that because not as much work needs to be 7 done? Are there other plans that the strategic 8 planning person, organization management person 9 would of access to? I want you to be very careful 10 and thoughtful about this particular number. What 11 do you think the number is? 12
Well, obviously, I'd 13 benefit from having an opportunity to spend a bit 14 more time talking to consultants and crunching the 15 numbers and working out the numbers. I feel -- and 16 again, I apologize for being repetitive, that 17 there's some missing gaps of information, but that 18 we know a great deal more about the workings of the 19 park today than we did in 1983. I don't want to guess at the number, Councilman. I gave you a number I feel based on discussions that I've had with some of the senior staff, knowing that what's a reasonable grant request but -- I think the mistake has been that we've waited 20 years to do the next one. So if we could get back on to like a five-year 1090 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) single, that maybe the first one might cost more than 250, but then every five years you do an update and it's certainly less money. So it's a tough number to give you, Councilman. I think the more important thing is what's appropriate for the plan. And again, if I could just go back to the William Penn Foundation Grant, and we talked about the planning process, we now know a great deal more about 5200 of our 9,000 acres because they focused on the watersheds. And lastly, I don't know if you were going to return to this, but the 9 and a half million dollars that was remaining, 4 million of that was for development of environment education centers, which both the Foundation and the Park Commission decided that that was not something that we wished to do.
Well, I understand that, and only because I'm very focused on this other issue. You know that that's a very sensitive topic and not necessarily one that you probably want to have any further discussion about, given that two of the centers were supposed to be located in the 4th District and didn't happen. But we'll go past 1091 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) that for the moment. Mr. Mifflin, what I'm going to do is I'm going to recommend to the President and ask the President to direct the staff to prepare an amendment to the City Council budget for $300,000 for the City Council to fund a strategic plan for Fairmount Park System, okay?
Madam President, can I ask you to ask the appropriate staff people to work on such an amendment to the Council budget?
As you can see, one of the staff people is already working on it.
Thank you. Mr. Mifflin, I have a couple other questions but, Madam President, I know that I was on for a while and there may be other members who need to ask Mr. Mifflin some questions.
Thank you. There are other members. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. Good 1092 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) morning.
Could you tell me, what is the backlog you have on dead tree removal?
Councilwoman, there are approximately 6,000 dead and dangerous trees on the streets of Philadelphia.
We have a more aggressive tree removal program with assistance from the Managing Director where we anticipate removing approximately 4,000 trees a year.
We have increased our level of tree trimming. In FY '03 we plan to trim approximately 14,000 street trees.
Are you going to follow the list that you presently have on file? What are you doing about new requests for tree 1093 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) trimming? How is that being worked out?
Our street tree office under Jim Donaghy does work on a list of trees that have been developed by complaints and by requests from citizens, elected officials, and others. The requests are inspected and placed into a priority order. We try to do it block by block so that we're not running around just doing one tree at a time. I can tell you that we are in all 10 District Council areas. And by the end of the year, we will have almost equally trimmed 1400 trees in each of the 10 Council Districts. And we encourage you to provide lists to us as well.
We will. I know there was a previous plan to remove a tree, plant a tree, and we ran into some problem with that in the 9th District. Is that still the same plan?
Yes and no. Let me give you more information on that. When we remove a tree through our capital dollars, we are required to plant a tree in its place. The removal of a tree does not qualify for capital expenditures. And we remove approximately -- this year between 350 and 500 will be removed through the Capital Budget. And 1094 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) so that same number will be replaced. It's difficult in your particular community, in the Logan area, to replace trees because the residents are either unwilling to have a tree replanted or it's just physically impossible. And I think we work within a ZIP code boundary line of if we remove a tree somewhere in that ZIP code replace the tree. In the operating dollars that we're receiving through the Managing Director's Office, that requirement is not in place. So we can remove as many trees as we are funded to do and not do a one-for-one replacement. So on one hand, we're removing more trees, but we're also planting less.
And the capital dollars, what you are you doing to address the issue if you can't plant a tree within a ZIP code, so the tree doesn't get removed?
In that situation, we would use the operating dollars. So we would substitute that location, which would have been on the Capital list on the Operating list.
So you'll use Capital dollars where you can replace tree for tree.
And other than that you'll use the Operating dollars.
The other day the Managing Director talked about removing tree stumps. Now, I've been here a long time, and we always got the message that you did not remove tree stumps, and that has been a problem in removing trees. Now I understand you're going to remove tree stumps?
Yes. This year, Councilwoman, we are now removing tree stumps. We have a specific price.
So when you remove a dead tree, you're going to remove the entire tree down through the stump.
If the sidewalk is damaged because of the roots of the tree, who repairs the sidewalk.
Sidewalk repair is clearly not Fairmount Park's responsibility. It's my understanding that it is the homeowner's responsibility.
So what are you 1096 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) going to do to coordinate with the homeowner to repair the sidewalk? If you're going to go out and cut down dead tree, do you can you communicate with the homeowner or just one day somebody shows up, removes the tree, takes out the stump, and there's no communication with the homeowners.
Well, we certainly attempt to communicate. We'll show up the day before and place signs on that tree that it's going to be removed on a certain date. We'll leave a hanger or something on the doorknob, a business card or something, so that there's attempt to get dialog with the homeowner. And we personally have been involved in these situations. We'll even lift the sidewalk physically if we can, because a lot of times the flanges of the root of the sidewalk life. We'll peel it back and rout out the roots of the stump and then re-lay the sidewalk for the homeowner when we can. Now, that's not doing sidewalk work, it's just trying to be helpful to the homeowner and encourage the homeowner to have a professional contractor repair the sidewalk.
That works if the homeowner is not a senior citizen on a fixed income 1097 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) who couldn't afford to have the tree removed to begin with. What happens when we end up with broken sidewalks -- I know the problem. I'm just trying to figure out how do we make the sidewalk whole. At least some thought should be given to that. We probably won't resolve it today, but certainly we need to be able to think about how we do that. At least let the homeowner know for the moment until we come up with a solution that it would be the homeowner's responsibility for the repair of the sidewalk. And we may have to come up with another solution to address that through some other means because that creates blight. We leave a broken sidewalk in an otherwise stable block, you've created blighted situation. Let me ask you a question about -- I see in the budget a $51,000 reduction in John G. Johnson art collection. What does that mean?
Councilwoman, we were behind in our payments to the Johnson Collection, the maintenance of the collection. And in Fiscal '02 we received additional catch-up money to catch up with on those payments. So in '03 we'll need only half that amount so we've reduced it by $51,000 dollars, 1098 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) but actually we do have insufficient money in '03 for the Johnson collection.
Would you, for the record, explain what the payment is for?
Payments are for the maintenance of the John G. Art Collection at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The payments are made to a trustee which is the first union bank is the trustee of that collection. They provide -- they have an endowment from the will of John G. Johnson to maintain that collection. The City also has responsibility to make up any shortfall that that endowment has with the collection, and that's where the money os provided through the Parks Commission budge to pay the trustee the money any shortfall of the funding.
I know it's an old, old, longtime, long-going relationship. But how did Fairmount Park get involved in it?
Basically, the City of Philadelphia is not allowed to appropriate money directly to outside agencies. They have to do it from a department. So basically it was -- because of our relationship with the Art Museum, we have a 1099 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) number of collections down there ourselves, the Commission does. The money was placed in our budget many years ago. When this first came about when the money was first to City and we've been managing it since that time.
The endowment when the art collection was given to the City, excuse me, and the money was given to the trustee, at that time an appropriation was placed in the Park Commission's budget to pay that difference in the cost of the maintenance of the collection.
Does it cost the City money, or is it the trust that's providing for the maintenance.
The City is paying a good portion of maintenance because of the trust. The trustee does not provide sufficient income to maintain the collection in its entirety so there's shortfall there and the City is required to make up for that shortfall.
Does the City have anybody on the monitoring process of the trust funds 1100 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) to see if the funds are adequately invested? Do we get a return that could maintain the collection?
Yes. The City through the Budget Office, the Finance and also the Controller's Office looks at the trustee as well as the Park Commission. We do sort of an annual review of the Johnson collection. So a lot of different agencies are looking at it to make sure the money is being spent appropriately. It's being watched.
Not spent, but I meant invested, the return on the trust.
The original will of John Johnson only provided that the endowment be placed in bonds. And there is a move right now also being forefronted by the City to change the will to place the endowment in equities also. But currently right now, the investment is only in bonds and it generates whatever the trustee purchases in bonds, whatever that income is. But there is a move now, as I said, to change the will and now divest and do some equities.
We've been working on it for 1101 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) sometime now, but we think it's at a head and I know the City through the Budget Office and Finance Department and the Park Commission are really pushing hard to get that changed and I know they're currently working on it right now. There's a committee that's working on that to get that changed.
Could you please tell me what the sustainable urban ecosystem is?
That's the area in the Fairmount Park system that's -- first of all, it's throughout the park system, mostly in our watershed areas. We would like to have -- and we do have practices that ensure that the watershed areas, the natural areas are appropriately providing the plant material -- that the watersheds are being maintained appropriately with appropriate plant material. I'm sorry, I'm getting my words tangled here. It means in summary that we're looking at our watershed areas and providing te planting of native plant material so that exotics and other plant material which is not appropriate for those systems will not -- are so invasive will not take over the entire area of that park and that through sustainability we can ensure 1102 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) that future generations of vegetation will on itself regenerate and will provide for an appropriate landscape. As an example, it's regrettable, but or over-browsing of deer in certain areas of the park have resulted in an unbalance in our ecosystem, where native plant material and the regeneration of it is not occurring naturally. So we're taking action to help that. There's certain areas of the park where runoff, uncontrolled storm water runoff comes into the park creating large gullies and washes away plant material and top soil that eventually ends up in the streams. We're trying to debate that phenomenon by investing in our natural areas. So a sustainable area would be something that would be in balance and one with interaction by park staff will, again, continue for future generations. If we did nothing, quite frankly, we would lose the watershed protection of the park.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. 1103 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) Is he in the room? The Chair would then recognize Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Mr. Mifflin and staff.
I had to leave the room to go to a press conference so I wasn't really able to hear all the questions. I don't want to be repetitive, but one question I'm sure someone asked -- I'm not sure whether they asked. But I need to ask can we get a monthly activity report per Council District that will tell us the blocks where dead trees were removed. I just feel like I need to have better information about what's going on with dead tree removal because, you know, since I've been here, that's been one of the major issues in my Council District issue.
I appreciate your request, Councilwoman. We do provide you now an update on perhaps an annual or maybe a little less than an annual basis. A monthly update would be right now a 1104 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) little bit difficult for us to do given the activity level that we have. We'll try to improve our response to you, but at this point, I could not commit to a monthly response for all Councilmatic 6 Districts. 7
I do know that we 8 get it once a year, but we need it more than once a 9 year. We may quarterly in less time than a year. 10
We really need to have it maybe quarterly or in less time than a year. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. This is our second go around. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Mifflin, could you bring the Committee up to speed on the recent fire at the Water Works during the construction? And officially let us know if there's an investigation. I know 1105 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) that initially it appeared to be very, very serious, and I'm sure it is serious. Could you just tell us where we are with that?
Yes. We're in the last week of the investigation and the analysis of the cause of the fire. I'd like not to go into details publicly on that matter, as this was -- it would appear that there maybe some litigation as a result of the fire. I'm going to leave it at that. We are estimating the amount of damage at about three-quarters of a million dollars. We are seeking to obtain those funds immediately so that we could begin a restoration effort perhaps as early as this spring so that we could reopen the Engine House, which was really the only part of the Water Works that was damaged and specifically the salon room 18 area of the Engine House is what suffered and the ceiling is what suffered from fire damage. Our estimates are that it could be probably repaired or restored in three to four months. So it's not a long elaborate project. And we'd like to do that perhaps in concert with a restaurant operator so that we're able to really get a good bang for the buck on its restoration effort. We're fairly 1106 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) optimistic we're going to negotiate a lease and do that simultaneously with outfitting as a restaurant and restoring the fire damage so that we could open as early as fall of this year.
Thank you for that. My next question, I want to go back to the tree pruning issue. There are also private contractors that trim City trees. And you know I brought to you in the Bella Vista community the way these contractors treat out City trees. I learned from conversation with some of those people that standards for that once were a fine industry standard are no longer adhered to. Trim as much as you can and do whatever you need to do to our City street trees is the philosophy now. I hope that is not the case. But I was told and it was confirmed to me that the rigid standards that once we did have are no longer being adhered to, at least by those subcontractors. So could you give us a report on how the Fairmount Park Commission manages some contractors that don't work for you and the way that they are pruning our street trees.
Yes. Thank you. And I'll certainly defer to Jim Donaghy who is director of 1107 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) operations who manages more directly than I on the day-to-day street tree management issues. But I'll tell you, Councilman, from my perspective -- and I think we were very clear on this. Certainly, all the contractors who work directly for the Fairmount Park Commission adhere to national standards as well as local standards that have been established through the Fairmount street tree ordinance, and we feel quite comfortable that what's being performed on street trees meets all of those standards. You and I have discussed our unhappiness at times with those contractors who work for the Philadelphia Electric Company PECO Energy -- I forgotten their name is today.
They spent $3 million to change it from Philadelphia Electric to PECO Energy.
PECO Energy. Thank you. I should have known that. They do have different standards for clearing around their electrical wires that differ from ours. They have a 10-foot clearance which is required by them, and it is actually approved by national standards. I think what happens here is that we're into street tree 1108 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) populations in the City where the trees are older and in order to get that foot clearance, we're 4 going back almost to the main trunk. And when 5 they're finished, the tree looks certainly a lot 6 different than it did previously. And we are the 7 recipients, apparently, as well as you are in the 8 complaints from folks who are the homeowners of 9 those trees. PECO Energy Company has a cycle of 10 trimming trees that are somewhere around 8 to 10 years per cycle per year -- excuse me per tree in the City, and we try our best to work with them. If there's an egregious mistake by one of their contractors, it's immediately brought to the leadership of PECO Energy and we attempt to resolve it. And if there are bad practices, we do all that we can to stop it. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. We do our best. We're in the business of maintaining aesthetically -- aesthetics in tree pruning is certainly our criteria, and the PECO Energy people have a different mission and that's to provide for energy. And we're not always on the same page.
Mr. Mifflin, you indicated that the cycle that they try to do is 1109 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) eight years. Well, based on some of the trimming that I've seen recently, it looks like they're trying to double that.
Well, to look at a street and see that the trees are just -- actually, one side of them just taken off, I can understand why people that live in Bella Vista and other communities would be concerned. My bigger concern is the oversight, and I hope within your organization that you have people going out and monitoring what they do, because if they can get away with it, you know, when there's a crew there if they can bring the tree down back to the main trunk -- I'm not suggesting that they're being violating any law, but I would think that if they can get as much done on this cycle as they can and get away with, they're going to do that. So I would hope that there's some oversight there.
There is. And I appreciate your comments very much, Councilman. And we'll continue to work with you and PECO Energy on appropriate trimming. 1110 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET)
My final request of you, if we don't have in place, I would like to see you work with the Police Commissioner on a particular issue. If I ask you this question, do you know how many crimes are committed within the 9,000 acres of Fairmount Park, is the Police Department breaking out crimes that are committed in Fairmount Park? And could you provide to the Chair, if you do that? And does it come out monthly, weekly? I'd like to know how many crimes, theft of auto, assaults, whatever -- what's occurring in the park on a monthly basis or whenever that report is available, because I think that could help us and understand better the need for more park rangers, the need for more police officers in the park. So does the Police Department provide you data on the crimes that are committed within your jurisdiction?
They do not provide me regular reports on crime in the park. It's really on a basis that I will call and ask about certain levels of crime because I'm aware of complaints that I've received by park users. And I always get a very efficient and effective response from the Police Department. But to answer your question 1111 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) directly, I would have to direct it to the Philadelphia Police Department.
Well, what I think would be helpful to you as a manager is to know -- we talk about park rangers, we talk about police. You need a baseline here. We need to know what's going on in the park. Are people's cars that visit Valley Green coming out from dinner and their cars are stolen? Are people being assaulted, robbed of their possessions and maybe worse? So I think you need to know and I'd like to know and whatever the appropriate interval is, whether it's monthly, I would be interested to know what the crime experience is in Fairmount Park. And if the Police Department is not categorizing them today, when it occurs in that 9,000 acres, whether it's a stolen car, whatever, that they should start doing it. I would think that they do. I think it would be helpful to me to better understand and support your budget when it comes to park rangers and the need for police or in the event that there is some truth to the rumor that they're going to close the 92nd Police District and police the park in a different way. So if you could provide the Chair statistics 1112 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) on the crime experience in Fairmount Park, it would be greatly appreciate d.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions from Members of the Committee? The Chair recognized Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President. I will be leaving shortly. I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Mifflin. I won't call you Elliott today. And all the other members of the Fairmount Park Commission for a job well done. You're always very responsive to my requests. I know you have a huge, huge problem when it comes to trees being removed, but you've always been there and you're very cooperative, and I just want to thank you.
I appreciate the comments. I appreciate working with your office.
I'm just going to wait a few minutes for Councilman Nutter. He has 1113 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) a question to ask. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize for being late coming back. Mr. Mifflin, just as you came up in the Capital Budget hearings a couple weeks ago which had to do with maintenance and capital improvements and what the system is that's presently in place to help ensure that our facilities in the park system, which certainly by your testimony are extensive, that they are checked on a regular basis both for maintenance and safety-related items. And I saw in the back of the testimony about the new playground initiative, but also especially given the somewhat rapidly decreasing Capital Budget that the City is experiencing which affects all the departments, the fact that there had been a decrease in capital spending through the '80s which then led to -- because in the government, there's actually really the term "deferred maintenance" is certainly oxymoronic. And so we then spent significant dollars through the '90s when we got in the capital markets to improve a number of facilities during the mid- to late-'90s. We're now starting to see 1114 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) decreasing capital budgets, and my concern is that we will, whether we want to or not, potentially repeat the same cycle of lack of maintenance, lack of capital improvements which then lead to increased deferred maintenance, further deterioration of facilities at a time when we have virtually no money to fix them. In five years we will have a Capital Budget of about $50 million. Whereas, eight years ago, we had a Capital Budget I believe two years in a row of $120 million. We obviously cannot take care of with 50 what we could with 120. My question is, what system do you have in place that helps to ensure that every one of our facilities is checked on a regular basis for safety and regular operating support maintenance items as well as getting up-to-date information on capital improvement needs and that we actually perform the capital-related items in a timely fashion so as to not end up in an increased cost situation at a later point in time when we basically have no money? What is the system that you have in place?
The system that we have in place is a multifaceted system. The first thing that we do -- one of the things that we do, 1115 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) Councilman, and you're also on the Board of the Park Trust, is we seek to find qualified tenants who can help maintain those structures that they occupy. We have over 400 structures in the park system. So the more partners that we can have in place who are capable of helping us, we do, we make a concerted effort.
I don't mean to interrupt you, but unfortunately I will. At that same hearing, that issue was raised. And I believe I asked at that time for a list of the facilities, tenants, type of agreement or arrangement that we have with them, what are there responsibilities as tenants, what is there responsibility in terms of letting us know what's going on with the facility or the condition of the facility. And I also did ask at that time, are each of the facilities inspected on at least an annual basis.
Well, we in fact responded to your question, Councilman, on February 14th. I have my draft response here dated February 15th. We sent a list. The response went through normal process to the Council President.
Mr. Mifflin, let me 1116 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) just tell you that wherever the response went, I do not believe it has reached this place yet.
Well, the response was a joint response between my office and the Capital Program Office. And I know I signed off, if you will, on that response earlier this week.
Do you know that the response has actually been sent, or did you just forward your portion of it to Capital Program and Capital Program is the responsible party to send it over? We don't have it yet. I will obviously look for it and read it when it gets here, and we can move on from that if the response is not here, but --
I understand, Councilman, it's being reviewed by the Managing Director and the Budget Office. Upon the completion of their review, it will be forwarded.
So let me just make sure I have it right. You did your portion, you sent it wherever you sent it, but the response has not been sent notwithstanding the fact that you have a draft of your response dated February 15th, but it has not been sent over to us yet? 1117 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET)
Well, what I said was that we should work -- we, the Park Commission, should work with the Capital Budget Office. And they gave us some numbers on what it would cost to do an analysis of our buildings that we have in the park. They're occupied, not all 400 of them are occupiable buildings, but those that are, to ensure that they meet code compliance and to make some estimates of the type of capital improvements that would be required to keep them in safe and in code compliant matter.
Let me make sure I'm understanding this. How many buildings are there?
Total through our GIS mapping, there are 400 buildings in Fairmount Park.
Now, is that 1118 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) exclusive of the list in your testimony when you talk about -- I mean, this is not including the 4 recreation centers, the 11 day camps, the 39 5 playgrounds, the 113 tennis courts, they're not 6 included in that, are they? 7
The recreation centers are included. I forgot what else you just read. I don't believe the tennis courts are. Whatever the second item --
The recreation centers are considered a structure. And there was the second one that you read, and I apologize --
All right. Of the 400 structures, how many are actually occupied.
So you have 80 1119 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) leases.
I understand. What's going on with the other approximately 320?
They run the gamut of picnic shelters and our maintenance buildings where we have staff reporting to, public rest rooms.
And what's the current condition of the 80 leased structures?
I can't give you a brief answer to that. They are in various stages.
Is there a report or a document from your system that would --
I would have to go through the 80 inspections to provide a document. The question that you asked in the Capital Budget hearing, I believe we answered which facilities have 1120 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) tenants and which facilities there's a lease agreement to and those which have a caretaker. We did, in fact -- apparently this response is forthcoming. We did respond to those specific questions.
Okay. Let's talk about which agency is responsible for what facilities. Now, you and I and actually the Recreation Commissioner had some discussion back on October 31st at the hearing about two items. One was the Recreation master plan and the other had to do with jurisdiction of facilities or structures. At the time, I asked how long would it take to come up with those documents. Your response was you needed to do a little checking back at the shop, check your schedule, kind of figure something out. Commissioner Richard said that he thought he could have something in 10 days. You guys then had some conversation at the table and, I will assume from that, reached some level of agreement. On November 30, a month later, having not heard from either of you, I wrote both of you a letter asking about that and included the notes of testimony from October 31st at the pertinent section 1121 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) on Pages 132 through 134. I have still not heard anything from the original request on October 31st nor from the letter of November 30th. Now, Commissioner Richard did call me and let me know that he was not ignoring the request from either October or the letter of November, but that there were some complications in terms of being responsive. I have not heard from you on this particular issue and so I'm then left to wonder one of two things: Either, one, did you ignore the request? Or two, have you just decided not to respond to it?
No, of course I would not ignore a request from you, Councilman Nutter. It was my understanding that your conversation with Commissioner Richard concluded in an understanding that we would return to you after some dialog with the Administration with an appropriate response. I thought that covered the response from both of us.
Well, Director Mifflin, today is February 27th. The hearing was on October 31st. I believe that that was four months ago. I have no information. I have not had any 1122 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) additional contact since the contact with Commissioner Richard. And so I now need to better understand what's going on. Is there a response that is being developed on these two particular issues? We have a Charter issue, Section 5-600, and we have this facilities issue. What's going on?
Well, I think that it was, again, my understanding that Commissioner Richard had a conversation with you -- I hope you ask Commissioner Richard this question, obviously, because I was not party to the discussion.
I've got a similar line of questions for Commissioner Richard. You happen to be here. I mean, we can have the two of you up here together. We can get the Managing Director. I want an answer to the question.
Okay. I think your question is a very good one. I think, as I've testified earlier today -- and you have submitted and suggested a change in the Park's budget for a strategic plan. I think these are all issues that --
Let's make sure we're very clear. I did not make a recommendation 1123 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) for an increase in the park's budget regarding a strategic plan. I'm recommending an increase in the City Council budget to fund a strategic plan. And we will have some discussion about the scope and the nature and potentially who and all of those conversations. It is not a proposed increase to the park budget. It is a proposed increase to City Council's budget to fund such a study. Madam Chair, can I have Commissioner Richard and the Managing Director so I can try to get an answer to this question, please?
This is Estelle Richman, Managing Director. Councilman, would you repeat the question?
Sure. Madam Managing Director, a previous hearing back on October 31, 2001, Councilwoman Reynolds-Brown as Chair of the Committee had hearings about park and recreation related issues. I asked a question back at the time about the fact that in Chapter 6 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter at Section 5-600 there is a requirement that there be a coordinated recreation program for the City. Coordinated by the 1124 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) Recreation Department, supported by the Fairmount Park Commission, which also requires that any recreational facility in the park be made a part of the coordinated plan as overseen by the Recreation Department, although they may be staffed by the Park Commission. I asked the question as to when there would be compliance with that particular section of the Philadelphia Code, since it had been established earlier in the hearing that there was not such a coordinated recreation plan in accordance with that particular provision of the Home Rule Charter. That was the first question. The second question was, there's been an ongoing debate and discussion in the government for many years, preceding Commissioner Richard to his predecessor Commissioner DiBerardinis and Director Mifflin about the fact that the park system has recreation facilities even though generally they are really in the open space management business. The Recreation Department has passive parks when they are really in the active park recreation business. Both of them have staff that do the other's business, if you will. In my particular view and some view of others, neither of them do the other 1125 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) thing that well and that the Recreation Department primarily should be in the recreation business and the park system should primarily be in the park business. That would require a switching of jurisdiction of some of their respective facilities. I asked the two gentlemen at the table when they could begin a discussion and have a plan for the proposed switching of jurisdiction for the facilities. Commissioner Richard said he could have a plan in 10 days. Mr. Mifflin said he needed to check his calendar. I had a conversation with Commission Richard who told me that there was some complications in terms of getting an answer to that particular question. We are now four months since the request. I have no answer to the question. We're in a budget hearing. I'd like an answer to the question.
Thank you. Councilman Nutter, you were out the room 24 on some City business, and asked a similar question about that. And I believe Mr. Mifflin already 1126 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) answered the question. So I'd like him to, for Councilman Nutter's benefit and for the record also, restate the answer to that similar question earlier today.
Thank you, Councilman, for bringing me up to date. I'm sorry I missed your question.
Mr. Mifflin, could you restate -- I basically asked you a similar question today and you responded to it.
Can I have the stenographer replay my answer? My response to you was that I felt that both agencies were working in a cooperative manner or sharing resources, and I listed a few of those specific examples. And I did, in fact, say that part of my opinion and part of a strategic plan would include the Department of Recreation and the Fairmount Park Commission and others, the School District of Philadelphia and others who provide recreational opportunities to ensure, which is mandated by the City Charter as part of the Recreation Coordination Board, that we would in fact provide that level of dialog and that level of 1127 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) planning and that level of response to this question. I don't -- I have spent a great deal of time, personal time -- and again, I apologize, Councilman, if it was inappropriate not to respond in writing to your communication. I take pride in responding to all of your communication. I was under the impression that it had been resolved in your discussion. But I can tell you personally that I've spent a great deal of time of looking at both agencies because I've had the benefit of being here for a while. And I believe that both are working at their full capacity. There's no question that there are more program people in the Department of Recreation on a percentage basis and more resource managers in the park than program on a percentage basis. That doesn't necessarily mean, in my opinion, that the departments are not without their abilities in the lesser of the areas. I mean, as an example, the park has nine recreation centers. We provide an myriad of recreation often in concert with the Department of Recreation, but in fact, the staff that are assigned to the facilities come from the list of recreation leaders that Civil Service list that the City provides to us. I think the 1128 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) folks there are equally qualified as they're brothers and sisters who work at the Department of Recreation. The issue may be, can we -- and Commissioner Richard used the example. Can we right size both departments to make sure that in fact the correct number of facilities are there for our citizens? And we can figure out who should best run them, quite frankly. You know, as a manager, I can understand where as an elected official there may be some confusion or you want to ensure that we're getting the greatest bang for the buck. But I quite frankly think we are, given our resources. But I also agree with you totally that a review of our respective delivery of services would be helpful. Basically, Councilman Nutter, that's what I would have said to you had I thought that the written response would have -- and I'm sorry.
I appreciate that. I'll respond after Councilman Rizzo.
Mr. Mifflin, we started this dialog I think when Commissioner Richard first arrived last year. We got a lot of favorable comments that in fact there should be. 1129 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) Councilman Nutter's letters are four months old. My initial discussion is a year old. And it appeared Commissioner Richard and you were going to get together to resolve this. It appears today that we're nowhere, that the Recreation Department is still doing what they do and the Fairmount Park Commission is still doing what they do. And I think what we're trying to get here is -- you used the term the "biggest bang for our buck." Yeah, that's what we want. We want it to be as efficient as possible. If you should be doing it and the Recreation Department not doing it, that's what this whole discussion that's a year old is all about, at least as far I'm concerned. So just not responding to the budget questions a year ago and then not responding to the issue that was communicated in writing, that's why we're having this conversation today. It appears that the issue of who's best to provide the service is being ignored. Thank you, Councilman Nutter.
Director Mifflin, let me say this. Had I heard that response at the time, I would have strongly disagreed with your particular perspective. And half of the 1130 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) disagreement as least comes from two examples. A number of years ago, McMichael Park which is in the East Falls Section of the City at Midvale and Henry, that park had always been the jurisdiction under the Recreation Department. And almost from the start of my time here in Council, my constituents complained bitterly about the lack of attention to that park. It is a completely passive park. The only piece of recreation-type equipment is apparently this thing that I guess the City must have gone through back in the '50s, it had one of these turtles. It was the only piece of non-grass, non-tree thing in McMichael Park. And it was completely ignored by the Recreation Department -- this has nothing to do with you, Commissioner Richard, you weren't here at the time -- primarily because Recreation people want to be involved in recreation, and there was no 19 recreation at that site. We did transfer that particular facility from the jurisdiction of the Recreation Department to the Fairmount Park Commission. You do a good job on turf maintenance and we virtually had no complaints since that time. The Recreation Department was not in a position to mow the grass on a regular basis. It would never 1131 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) take dead trees out of the place. And if a tree fell, not only did no one hear it, but no one did anything about it either. The moment it transferred to the Fairmount Park system, I haven't had a problem since. At the same time, at Carol Park, which also completely fell apart under the jurisdiction of the Recreation Department many, many years ago, there was also no recreation type activity, although it was a neighborhood park under Recreation. When the neighbors got together over there and first cleaned it up themselves and then got a grant from PHS and then got some Recreation money and that now there is recreation activity in that park, the Recreation Department does a tremendous job at working with the Carol Park neighbors and other people over there because there's now something going on there that is pertinent to their job. There is play equipment for kids, there's a track, there are a whole host of activities over in that park. People do what they like. And if you have people in your department who are assigned to jobs that are really not within the general 1132 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) jurisdiction of the entity, I think some of them spend a little less time worrying about it. We're going to talk in a little while about Poppa Playground. It's a big recreation facility. It probably should be under the jurisdiction of the Recreation Department because that's what it is. And now I'm looking at a $750,000 bill to get the place straightened out because of deferred maintenance, lack of attention, lack of program which the constituents complain about bitterly over there as well. It probably should not be in your jurisdiction because it's a rec. center that happens to be surrounded by a park. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not complaining about the people. I'm not complaining about what they do. Park people do park work. Rec. people do Rec. work. And you guys need to figure out how to make the two work better. That's all I'm saying. I'm not criticizing the effort of the people. They need to be doing their jobs and what they were hired for and what the mission of their department is. That's the issue. So Director Richman.
Commissioner Richard 1133 2/27/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 ('03 BUDGET) wanted to speak first.