I just want to make sure I understood the question. As I understand it, you were asking, during the last three years, how many Section 108 loans have we --
Right. Do you know that in dollar amounts offhand? Do you have that? Or you can always submit it to us.
Good morning. 53 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING In the Housing 108 loans, we've applied for a $10.5 million 108 loan for each of the last three years.
All right. Thank you very much. And finally, could you give us any detail that would not violate confidentiality on who got the ECA -- people assisted by the ECA grants, tract and 1260 housing?
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. First, an individual case. Has anybody from the Redevelopment Authority discussed with you the problem that exists with respect to driveways on back of the new homes on the 1400 block of West Grain Street, a problem caused by the fact that the new homes share a driveway with homes that existed for many years on the other 54 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING side of Grain Street?
Yes. I have heard of the problem, and I believe we've recommended a compromised approach to dealing with the problem, which includes some additional funding.
All right. Do you think that whatever was recommended is going to assist in the solution?
I'm sure it will, and I believe we're all on board with that.
Good. Second, are there jobs -- is there funding for housing where prevailing-wage rates do not have to be paid as well as certain funding where prevailing wages have to be paid?
In terms of the federal law, there are a number of housing activities which are not linked to a prevailing wage requirement. For example, rental housing does not trigger the Davis Bacon regulations.
Is there any single-family housing that stopped required to follow prevailing wages under the federal law?
Single-family of fewer 55 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING than eight units is exempt from Davis Bacon as well.
Do those homes cost the same or more or less? The cost to build than the homes that are prevailing wage? What's the relationship?
Well, as a practical matter, most, or all, of the housing development activities in reason years have been prevailing wage, whether the federal regulations required it or not.
Is that because of City ordinances filling the gap or because of just practical problems?
No. It's really, in my view, because the building trades and the developers have supported that approach to the extent that there may not be any jobs that are done that are not prevailing wage.
Is there any way of finding out statistically, as a result of the construction of homes, whether under the required prevailing wage or those that nonetheless apply method, how many local people have been trained so 56 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING as to be able to become members of labor organizations in the construction industry, the building trades, I guess.
We could provide some of that information from sources such as Congreso and Youth Build. So we could respond on a limited basis, but that, I think, would give you some of the information you're looking for of.
All right. And I would like that compared with the number of -- if this could be tracked -- the number of young people, men, women, ethnic backgrounds that get involved and how many of them pass through at various stages. How many, say, get jobs and then only last for a very short time, how many go on to become eligible perhaps for the apprenticeship program, how many have gone beyond that and gotten into union membership.
Is there any method by which the City tracks what happens, say, after union membership? Because sometimes we get complaints that members don't get employed too 57 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING frequently. Now, maybe the complaint is wrong I; have no idea of its truth. But could we find out that? Because we understood -- I think there was testimony at a recent hearing that for the next five years, the construction industry seems to be booming; I don't know whether that's been impacted upon by what's happening on Wall Street these days.
We could provide some of that information as well, again, through the training providers that we're working with.
All right. I would like -- and if you could send that to the President, that information, I think, would be useful to every member of City Council, and I'm sure that she will see it gets there. Thank you very much. Madam President.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions of Mr. Kromer? (No further questions.)
Thank you, 58 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING Mr. Kromer. Thank you.
The recreation is next. (Witnesses come forward.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner,, I wanted to get some follow up based on a couple of items that have been raised both by Councilman Darrell Clarke as well as myself specifically related to the future operations of the Robin Hood Dell East, some outstanding capital issues as well as Operating Budget issues, and I wanted to have an opportunity to get an update on the record as to what's going on with the Dell. There was some construction issues of a somewhat pressing nature as well as the ability of the facility to open not only on time but also in a way that we can ensure that we have the various acts and performers under 59 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING contract as early as possible, get a schedule out as early as possible, and ensure a successful season. Could you provide an update to us on operations of the Robin Hood Dell East? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Great. Good morning. The Budget and Operating Budget is the same that it's been for the three previous --
I'm sorry. Commissioner, you have to identify yourself for the record, please. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I'm sorry. Good morning. Vic Richard, Recreation Commissioner. On Operation Budget, our budget for the Robin Hood Dell is consistent to what it's been in the past three years: 388,000 in operating funds. No changes, no cuts have been made whatsoever, so we should have no problems. The money that was needed for us to do early bookings, an additional $75,000 is being put in place to be in place for us to be able to have the shows in a earlier fashion -- booked in a earlier fashion by April of this year. The issues that you brought up -- 60 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING raising infrastructure and capital project -- there's a half a million that has been appropriated over the past three or four years through the capital fund. Presently, there's a open bid that's out that's due to be opened on the 29th of this month to address two of the three pressing issues right now. The present structure of the speaker towers at the facility are presently structured out of wood; we're having them torn down and replaced for this upcoming season in steel framing in a permanent basis. We also have some problems with the floor of the stage. That will addressed prior to this season as well. We also have a larger issue: substrata subsidence in a higher level of being in the Dell. And we're looking to see if we can do a patch-up job to get us through this season and appropriate more monies next year to do a total dig-out. And our major concern is to preserve and maintain the present operation and the infrastructure of the Dell.
As a result of those projects, will the present seating 61 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING arrangement and the number of seats remain the same or be increased or decreased? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Our goal is to maintain the present seating capacity at the Dell, not to decrease it whatsoever. The work, based upon the subsidence issue, will dictate if we will be able to maintain the present level of seating this year because we want to make sure that all of our patrons and guests are safe, so that would be a security issue. But the Administration and the department has no initiatives to reduce seating. That would only be towards addressing the construction issues.
Okay. Lastly, based on my experience over the years and given some of things that have happened in recent times, I would ask if you would give strong thought and consideration to either a strategic plan or a full and comprehensive review of the operations and activities out at the Robin Hood Dell East, both from a capital perspective as well as the day-to-day, week-to-week operations, reviewing a variety of items -- whether it's tickets, 62 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING security, parking, lighting, additional uses for the facilities -- so that we get the maximum use of an outdoor ampitheater. I understand that it obviously is not covered, but it is in a unique location, serves a wide variety of purposes and neighborhoods. And I think that at this point, we need to possibly take it a step up in terms of how we run and operate this facility, similar to other major ampitheaters and entertainment facilities throughout the City. And I would ask that you give consideration to that kind of strategic planning and a full laid-out plan for how we make this facility not only function and operate for people in the course of a year, but also how, from an economic standpoint, we make it a more viable facility and allow it to be somewhat self- sufficient. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Thank you. That's the goal.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. 63 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING Commissioner, did I understand you to say that you had to advance $75,000 for bookings for the concerts? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: It's not a -- may have worded it wrong. It's money that we have appropriated, that we just need to move up. It normally kicks in, I want to say, July 1st. So we need to move the money up. It's already pre- appropriated money; we just need to access it earlier.
Thank you, Madam President. First, I wanted to congratulate the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, and the Recreation Department in what appears to be finally nearing completion the Bellfield Recreation Center, which, for seven years, I've been complaining -- maybe it's eight years -- that it's only partially in use because the rehabilitation of it was fouled up by contractors 64 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING going broke, contractors being chosen and then not performing, matters being stolen, by doors not fitting. And it appears as if there's going to be enough work done by the end of April to perhaps have a formal opening of the rehabilitated structure. It will certainly surprise many people in the community, because they've given up the recreation center for dead. But it seems to have come to life. Am I right as to that?
Thank you, Councilman Cohen. My name is Deputy Commissioner Carlton Williams for the Department of Recreation. We were -- one of the challenge and tasks that the Commissioner and I had when we first came into the door was introduced to the Bellfield Recreation Center, and we met with the community leaders. We also met with our planning and construction division to ensure that we would be able to turn the facility back over into the community. And so we were more than happy to address those issues, and we will have it open by the end of April. 65 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING
And it wasn't easy because you suffer from the old (inaudible) for a while, but you persevered and overcame them all, and the community wants to, and I'm expressing it on their behalf, give you thanks from the community for that. Secondly, having done so well on that, it raises in my mind the question of -- and I don't know whether either or any of the three of you at the table remember or have ever heard of something called the "Playhouse in the Park," which for many, many years was a great feature of Fairmount Park. I'm sure Councilman Nutter would remember it, although he was probably a young boy the last time they had plays there. It was located in a beautiful part of the Fairmount Park many. For many, many years, it was a great success. There were frequently professional plays, occasionally amateur groups. And then it just kind of lost attendance, perhaps the direction, you know, or the will to keep it going. I wonder, in keeping with Councilman Nutter's talk about strategic planning, whether 66 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING that could be researched again to see whether Philadelphia could restore an outdoor theater. It was a delightful place to go to, you know, during the summer for those who were in the City. And I would just like to see if there's any way to revitalize it over a period of years. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I'm not familiar with the facility, but I've written down the idea along with Councilman Nutter.
It was the Playhouse in the Park. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yeah, well, I wrote that down, but maybe we can augment the Dell in doing outdoor small-neighborhood community plays using the Dell.
Well, maybe so. It existed sort of side by side, very close to the Dell, but it was a separate performance. It might be able to be. I'd be very much interested, you know, in your conclusions as to how that kind of programming could be done. All right, if you would do, I'd be very appreciative for a report maybe at the next budget year. 67 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Commissioner, I want to get back to the $75,000, but I would suggest that you speak to Mr. Dubow before you leave the room. I think he is present here. To the best of my knowledge, you cannot transfer money from this year to next year, or advance it. You cannot advance the money prior to July 1st. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Okay, we understand.
So are you aware of it? So the $75,000 is coming from the current budget.
If we have any surpluses 68 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING in our current budget, we will definitely dedicate it to the Dell. We did that last year.
Thank you, Madam Chair. On that particular item, can we -- I missed the first part of it, but I have a very good sense of -- don't repeat it, don't go back over it. Do we need to get Mr. Dubow up here to make sure that everybody's clear about this particular issue so that we don't run no a problem subsequent to the hearing?
Well, he's just testified that they have a $75,000 surplus, which they will be able to use for that. Is Mr. Dubow in the room? (Mr. Dubow not present at this time.)
He's operating in a parallel universe somewhere. I don't want to hold this portion of this hearing up, but if at some point, we can get him.
If he is not 69 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING here, we will verify it. We'll just wait a second. (Mr. Dubow returns to witness table.)
Yes. It's coming from the FY '01 budget. We will look for appropriate places, a place to put the allocation.
Okay, one of the many places where you hide the money, and you'll just get it from one of those --
Excuse me. Mr. Dubow, is that coming from the Recreation Department's budget?
All right. So just so we're all straight, the Recreation Department will be able to move forward in terms of accessing 70 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING dollars that they will need almost immediately to lock in contracts with either promoters or concert artists in anticipation of this year's upcoming season and do it in a way that's timely such that they can get people under contract and announce their schedule whenever it's put together as quickly as possible, and this particular issue will not slow that process down?
Thank you. I'm just very curious. I mean, we never hear about departments coming in and say they have surpluses of this size. What are you doing that's right?
Well, can I answer that? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I don't think she meant to say "surplus." It may have been money that we use from the Vets Stadium or maybe supply money, but I'm looking for a surplus myself.
It's not -- it's not really a surplus money if, at the end of the year, 71 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING we haven't expended money because --
I'm sorry. You're going to have to for identification yourself.
My name is Josephine Mangano, and I'm the Administrative Services Director for the Recreation Department. If at end of the fiscal year, we identify any money that we have not expended, then we will put that towards the Dell. And we have some expenses that we cannot really project with 100 percent certainty. Where it happens that we fall under that projection, that's what we will dedicate for this purpose.
Do you have more than the 75,000 that you would like to share with us?
No. We're scraping together for that. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Madam President, if I may say, the snow weekend alone for the football game and the Mummers exceeded six 72 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING figures, so we have no surplus, I can guarantee you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for the Recreation Department? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to compliment the Recreation Department. They have been on walking tours with me, they have been to my rec centers, they have come to community meetings, and the service is very well. I just wanted do compliment all of you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: Thank you.
I think everybody appreciates the work of the Recreation Department. As I indicated before, it's been at a level that I have not seen in a long, long time, if ever. 73 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING The Mann Center, is there any parity arrangement between the Dell East and the Mann Center with respect to funding?
No, not at this time. I think they have a separate organization, although it's a City agency, that governs, and they assist with the family group. We have a family group also that we're working closely with. And I would like to say for the record also that we are seeking public-private partnerships to improve the entertainment venue at the Dell and also doing cost-effective methods to provide affordable entertainment for the public.
And does that mean that whatever financial problems existed at the Mann Center have been resolved? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: We don't manage the Mann, so we're unable to we have no fiscal or managerial responsibility at the Mann, so we're not able to answer that question. I'm sorry.
(Inaudible.). . . About the support of the Mann Center. Do we know who -- it sounds like a form of privatization, but -- 74 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Mr. Dubow may know, but trust me, I've got enough responsibility.
I think that was contracted out; was it not, Mr. Dubow?
Yeah, how is the Mann Center financed? Who operates it?
The Mann Center is privately run by -- I think the name is the Mann Center for Performing Arts. They actually reached a -- they bid for the operations of the Mann Center. As part of that bid, they agreed that they would be self-sufficient.
No. They just -- they operate the facility. They didn't buy the land; they just operate the facility.
Do they have an accounting system that reports to the City, or do they -- are they free of the auditing processes? I mean, I'm just trying to figure out what kind of 75 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING operation it is.
Yeah, they don't report to the City on a regular basis. Occasionally, they've come back to us and requested additional funding. At that point, we've gone through their records, and there have been a couple of instances where they've requested funding and gotten some additional funding, even though their actual agreement calls for them to be completely self-sufficient. We have not gotten any such requests this year.
Is it an association or a corporation of some kind? What is the --
Thank you. Councilman, it's actually the Mann Center for the Performing Arts Incorporated. They're an incorporated organization, as Mr. Dubow indicated. They bid as a, I guess either as a vendor or as a concession operator for the operations at the Mann Music Center. 76 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING I'm working with their Executive Director, Peter Lane, on their operations out there. And actually somewhat similar to request of the Recreation Commissioner, actually, the Mann Center for the Performing Arts is presently going through a strategic planning process for their future operations. As Mr. Dubow indicated, there have been past discussions and there may be future discussion about their financial situation out there. We certainly want to see that facility continue to operate and function as a premier outdoor entertainment facility in the City. They do have a very different situation as compared to the Dell. We own the Dell, we operate the Dell. I think we helped to build possibly the Mann Center. All of that is before my time. It's in my district, but I wasn't in Council at the time. We obviously own the land. We also make capital improvement to the Mann Center. Again, given the nature of the relationship, they have a building on our land, and that's nature of the contract between the Mann and the Fairmount Park Commission. 77 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING I am actively monitoring their financial situation. They have from time to time had some difficulties. We obviously want it to be successful, but they did respond to an RFP, and through that process, made certain commitments with regard to their future financial stability. Sometimes things work perfectly the way you want, sometimes they don't. They're kind of in between. And we're continuing to work with them. I'd be glad to give you a further update on that activity out there, but the City has been very cooperative with the Mann Music Center over time, even under the new contractual arrangement.
Well, I raise the question because the programming at the Mann Center is quite different from the programming at the Dell East.
I think they're both extremely important cultural centers.
And the emphasis of the Mann Center is in the classical field, and I'm 78 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING concerned that, you know, throughout country, that's been losing a base of support and --
Well, Councilman, I will tell you that over the past couple of years, Mann, while maintaining a core program -- and I believe they have a new contractual relationship, which is helpful to them, with the Philadelphia Orchestra -- their programming over the past couple of years has changed quite dramatically with regard to either popular concerts and other shows and activities, and so they have significantly upgraded the programming at the Mann so as to not be soley dependent on the activities with the Philadelphia Orchestra. We love having the orchestra out there, but they have diversified their program so as to provide new and different funding sources to keep their operation viable. And I think they're trying to better promote the diversity of programming that they have out there as compared to what everyone thinks, which is just a summer with the Philadelphia Orchestra. It's a very different operation over the past couple years.
Thank you very much. 79 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING
Thank you. Are there any other questions for the Department of Recreation?. (No further questions.)
Thank you all very much. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Thank you, Madam President.
The School District is next. (Witnesses come forward.)
I believe several of the Councilmembers had asked that you come back. Who wants to be recognized first? Who wants to be recognized first?
I know Councilman Nutter is so shy. Here we go, Councilman Nutter. 80 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. It seems like so long ago when we last saw each other. Last week, we had a discussion with regard to obviously a wide variety of items, but one was particularly pressing, and I think there was a meeting that was scheduled this past Friday with regard to the Parent Cooperative Nursery program and a meeting between the staff, I think, overseeing childhood education programs and the parent leaders. And then I know there was a Board meeting yesterday. I had made a request at last week's hearing that, notwithstanding the meeting on Friday and possible presentation to the Board with regard to proposed new fees, that no action would be taken in that regard at the Board meeting yesterday because of today's continuation hearing on the budget. Can you give us an update on, first, Friday's meeting, what happened with that, and then any of yesterday's activities, and then where are we?
Good morning. Yes, 81 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING Councilman Nutter, a meeting was held --
I'm sorry. Deirdre Farmbry, Chief Academic Officer, School District of Philadelphia. A meeting was held on Friday with representatives from the School District; specifically, our Director of Early Childhood Education, our Associate Superintendent for Leadership and Learning, and the person who has responsibility for Parent Cooperative Nurseries. At that meeting, the results of the parent surveys were shared, and in addition, there was discussion around two proposals. One set of proposals that was --
I'm sorry, Dr. Farmbry, before you get to that part, can you tell me what came out of the parent surveys.
Okay, yes. Basically, the surveys -- the parents in the surveys, their number-one requirement was that there be no fee; that was the overwhelming outcome of the surveys. After that, there was a letter that we 82 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING received, I think, the very next day -- and I understand it was cc'd to all members of Council -- written by two of parents from Parent Cooperative Nursery in which they set out about three particular designs for fee. There was discussion about that letter, and members of the District also shared a proposal that we wanted to submit to the Board as well.
All right, let me understand the first part of it. So you're saying that there was a letter, a document, some piece of paper from the parents that, I guess, possibly notwithstanding whatever the surveys may have said or revealed or showed, that the parent leadership of this particular program made some response or made, I guess, a proposal, if you will, to the District on a variety of increased fee scenarios, whether in a sliding scale fashion or in a flat-fee scenario? Is that what you're saying?
That is correct. One of my staff members has the a letter. I thought I had the letter with me, but I do not.
I understand. And 83 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING whatever that was, it was an increase of over where things are today; is that correct?
All right. So, again, just so we're following the path here. There had been a fee in place. We had last year's situation. The District suggested that the fee should be somewhat higher, although at the time, maybe not completely and necessarily fully defined. Then the fee was suspended. And we don't need to go back over what did or did not happen from September to February, but then we got to February and into March, the result of which was at least the parents did come back with their own increased fee schedule, whether on a sliding-scale basis or on a flat fee basis. Are all of those facts correct?
Okay. At which time, the meeting concluded with the staff letting the parents know that we would take this information to the Board. We were -- we understood that a decision would not be made at yesterday's Board 84 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING meeting but that we would take the fee back to the Board.
The fees that the parents were proposing was a flat fee of $5 per week.
In addition to the a month? I mean, why don't we talk in monthly 10 figures. It's $45, right? 11
So they proposed to 13 go from 25 to 45 on their own? 14
Okay. That's close 19 to 100 percent increase in the program cost? What 20 is it, 80? 21
So yesterday morning at the Board meeting, we relayed the information that had transpired since Friday, and we made a proposal to the Board of Education for a flat fee that does give credits to parents for the time that they work. Basically, it would be a $14-a-week fee, in addition to the money that the parents that have already been used to paying for snacks and for trips.
Bringing the total to a $20.55 total weekly fee for PCN parents.
Okay. The monthly on that -- again, if we can stay in monthly terms, it's a little easier to keep track of.
All right. So let me make sure I understand this. The present fee is $25. The District's proposal is to go -- I think it's somewhere in the $80 to $81-a-month fee. 86 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING
And that is an over 200 percent increase in the present fee schedule; is that correct?
Yes. And it's my understanding that at the end of last year, the proposal actually called for a $50 fee. So we have reduced that amount in revisiting this.
At the end of last year, if I look at the entire -- the chronology over the last-- in July of 2000, there was a decision made to implement a flat-rate fee of $50 per week.
All right. So you're now taking the perspective that last summer, you proposed to raise it to $200 a month; this year, you're proposing to raise it to 81 a month.
And so, therefore, you're actually proposing a savings of $119 a month. Is that the way you're presenting this?
Over what our -- the original decision was in July. In other words, from July to date, through the interactions and the discussions back and forth, we have come to the current rate of $20 a week, which would be about $80 a month.
Now, just for the record, I'll say this, and you don't have to respond: That was the original poorly-timed, bad strategy fee that was suggested last summer. That was the one in July, after people had already signed up in the spring, right?
Okay, all right. Let me say this: One, the School 88 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING District has obviously done a tremendous amount of work to try to grapple with a whole host of issues around this particular program, and I know you're doing a longer-term look at all of the preschool programs that we have -- Head Start CDC, and PCN, which I am certainly, one, deeply appreciative of. I think it is due and maybe overdue as we try to figure out how to prepare kids now for kindergarten since we have already decided that we're going to try to well-prepare them for 1st grade by having made the commitment to kindergarten, and now we're basically in the 4-year-old business, but we have a variety of programs that have various funding sources, which come with various strings attached to them and complexities and the like. Two, I know that over a long period of time, possibly before I was ever here or spent much time focused on PCN, there have been efforts to either increase the fee, change the program, some would probably talk about expanding it, some would probably talk about shrinking it. There's been a lot of discussion about this over a long period of time. Last year's effort was last 89 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING year's effort, and I think we all learned a great deal as a result of that. My problem at the moment is, in days and days of hearings, no one has said that it's not a good program, no one has said that it doesn't do good things for 4-year-olds as they go on to kindergarten. And it seems that we've now just come down to the financial component of this. There doesn't seem to be a should we have it, should we not have it; it's more in the realm of, we've got a $235 million deficit, we've been trying to increase the fees in this program, probably appropriately -- I won't comment on the methodology. And now we have this opportunity, based on the Board resolution, which laid out a series of steps that would be taken. From my perspective at least, in terms of completeness of steps, only one of them is now complete, which is the fee proposal. The comprehensive review of all of the programs and activities may not have been done by this point in time, but I don't know whether that got off to the right start or not. And now say we want to announce in a 90 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING reasonable period of time, which is good, a 224 percent increase in a program in one year. And I guess my problem with that is, under no 5 other circumstance, in no other business, in no 6 other universe would anyone propose a $224 percent increase in the cost of their product and expect anyone to continue to utilize it. I have stated a million times that I would agree with the School District in terms of some increase in fees on this particular program. There are probably some parents who are not thrilled about that, parents that I have worked with, but I have stated that publicly, and I'm going to maintain that position. And so now the discussion is, as best as I can figure out, is really a discussion about $45 versus $81 and whether there's some number in between that makes sense for you, is not harmful to the parents, and creates an environment in which, well, yes, you can still have this program, but financially, you may not be able to access it, and then you will not use the program, and ultimately, we will have no problem.
And I say all that -- and I'll close 91 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING with this -- in the context of, it is very clear that based on the work that the District is doing, whether with United Way, the University of Pennsylvania, Harriet Dichter and the Office of Child Care and anyone else who we may be working with, that all of these programs could very well be different in the following school year, 2002, such that the question comes, how much do we need to do and how much change needs to take place at this particular moment versus a larger change that more than likely will happen in September of 2002, when we have either a variety of different programs or all one program serving the 4-year-old or 5-year-old or both populations. And so I'm just left with, if we're down now to the money and if, by your own calculations, this raises at the max $200,000, and I don't discount a dollar, they're all important and they actually add up, but given where we are and what this has all has been about, the question for me finally is, is it really all worth it? And is there a number that we can reasonably agree upon that let's everyone have basically what they need to have and close the book on this particular 92 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING issue and move on?
Councilman, I'm Pedro Ramos, President of the School Board. I think, Councilman Nutter, you summarized the what the Board of Education is grappling with pretty well. I would add that although there's some piece of this that is financial, and certainly, you know, we're headed towards a whole lot more difficult financial decisions, given the School District's fiscal crisis, that the Board of Education, as it's considered these issues, has also thought about balancing, you know, what kind of what's fair when you look at the system as a whole. When you look at for example, the Comprehensive Day Care program, which I know you're familiar with. And, I mean, one way of putting at it is, what's the percent increase another way might be, how's it compare to what a -- compared to what CDC, which is based on need and takes income into account and requires income verification, what parents there are expected to do for a similar amount of service, and the methodology that staff used in the proposal that was given to the Board 93 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING although, you know, at your request, we got into the discussion of what staff was working on at the time. Yesterday was the first time that the Board heard the staff proposal.
And that methodology started with looking to see what was fair, comparing to programs like CDC, taking into the account the hours that parents work in the PCN, taking into account the difference in hours, and other factors. And I agree -- I agree with you in terms of, you know, other than utilities, you don't usually don't see that type of increase, but --
I'd be glad to have a fairness discussion with you as well. And I think my argument about fairness is, should there be an increase? Yes. How much is also, I believe, a function of fairness as compared to any other program, and I don't know their history and their development. All I'm saying and my argument today is, in an environment of fairness, because our 94 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING first discussion, not about this issue, but about your budget, is that you're laying out a plan to show to us and to show to Harrisburg. Now, I didn't hear anybody at the table, including Miss Chatzkel, say, We expect to get $235 million from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia combined this year. No one said that. I don't think anybody expects that, I don't think anybody believes that. And the reason you don't expect it and the reason you don't believe it is because it is unreasonable. And no matter how much of a fairness argument you made to the Commonwealth or to the City, we cannot do that. And so at the same time, all I'm arguing is, on a fairness argument, you are asking for too much too soon, and that over a period of time -- the program didn't get to where it is overnight and we're not going to solve all of its issues and problems overnight, similar to the School District. And so all I'm making an argument is on fairness. Let us be fair in what we ask for and the timeliness in which we ask for it and 95 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING acknowledge the fact that some progress -- I think significant progress -- has been made. You probably could walk away with a 100 percent increase, declare victory, and go on about your business.
And I think at the moment, given where this started and where it is today, that's fair.
Councilman, you know, a couple things just for the record in terms of the methodology that the staff used and then I'll come back to your question. The other thing that the staff did was, they reported to the Board yesterday that they had looked at what similar programs that provide the service charge and also determined that the rate being proposed by staff was also fair from a market perspective. It's not going to your issue of fair increase.
And the Board also yesterday heard testimony from parents that raised some questions, even under the District's 96 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING methodology, whether the number was right, whether there's some dispute about the number of hours that the parents are required to work.
And with more time and more research and more dialogue --
The Board yesterday got a proposal that it's trying to be fair, that it's here at Council in these budget hearings to also hear what Council has to say. Councilman Cohen sent a representative and testified at the Board yesterday, and that, you know, that the Board, you know, expects to, before making any final determination, have to conclude that what it's doing is fair to everybody, and we're not -- you know, when we get something new, we've been following up on it.
I appreciate that. Madam Chair, I'll close with -- then all I can ask -- and I now other colleagues have questions -- is that you could take a sense back to the Board that we want to see these programs, 97 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING we want to support these programs. We are very sensitive to the School District's financial situation. The School District from my perspective at least -- I mean the School District is us. We all serve the same people. And one day I'm arguing for somebody about, you know, a day care program, and the next day, I'm potentially argue for that same person about their trash getting picked up or an abandoned house next to it. They're all the same people. We're a little more, from my perspective, empowered on, you know, the government side, the City government side as compared to the School District's side, given the nature of the funding and who has the relationships. But on a day-to-day basis, it is all of us who make all of these decisions. And so what I'm asking for at the moment is a sense of fairness and compassion about this particular situation, acknowledging that we have a million additional issues to work on together. I'm going to continue to be a friend and a supporter of the School District. It's in 98 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING my heart, it's in my soul, it's there. But I feel very strongly and very passionately about this particular issue. And I think in the context of all of the other things that we have to do that need to be done, some accommodation could be made, and I'm asking to be made by the Board in this particular circumstance given the nature of all of our relationships and all of the other things that we have to get done. And that's all that I can ask.
Thank you, Councilman. I will certainly relay that to the Board.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would also like to express my support for program and am hoping that some reasonable solution can come of this conversation because we've spent a lot of time, a lot of effort, and I think if we did the arithmetic, we'd probably spent more than the program probably can 99 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING produce in revenue, so I hope we would come to some decision quickly. I appreciate the District providing some information as a result of our questions the last time you were here. And, again, I don't want to appear to nitpick, but I must. I must respond and ask a couple questions about the documents that you've submitted. The one telecommunications expense, where it indicates we've spent $5.3 million on telecommunications. And I believe I asked the question about the existing communications system that the School District has and asked approximately what that system cost to operate and maintain, and I don't see that question addressed in this document; at least if it is, I've missed it. But let me just point out -- I've done some arithmetic while I'm sitting here, I've added up some numbers. And we learned that the School District has Nextel telephones, and I know there's a preference in Council for -- what was that other brand?
Nokia. Councilman Nutter likes Nokia. But in all seriousness, I've done some arithmetic, and I have to point out that the information is for Fiscal Year 2000, not Fiscal Year 2001, because we're still in that fiscal year, but I'd be curious to know six months of Fiscal Year 2001. Now, I've done some arithmetic here and I'm looking at communications, Nextel. And I'm looking at Bell Atlantic Mobile and I'm looking at other line items here that add up for cellular telephone service $419,000. I'm adding up the paging and I probably have done -- and missed some things here of $34,558 for paging, and it goes on and on and on. And I'm -- an uneducated guess that if that is if this is Fiscal Year 2000 that the history of the School District is maybe things -- maybe there's nor Nextel phones or maybe there's more Bell Atlantic cell phones. I think that I bet that there are more than less, and I'm suggesting that probably this particular expense is going to be more in this fiscal year. 101 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING So I'd like to just nitpick for a minute and talk about almost a half a million dollars in paging equipment and cellular telephones. I was told that this radio system that the School District has doesn't cost anything to operate. Well, what good is it -- and I can understand that certain executives, certain supervisors need cell telephones. But, boy, I'm telling you, this does not send a very good signal to me that you over at the School District are really trying to get your financial -- the financial condition in order over there. So -- and by the way, one thing I do is dot my i's and cross my t's. I was told this was negotiated or there was some interface with the City's Communications Division, and I called the Communications Director, and he didn't know what I was talking about. Your response?
Rhonda Chatzkel, CFO for the School District. Councilman Rizzo, if I might respond and add some additional information on our telecommunications charges for 2000. When I reviewed what had been sent to you, I realized 102 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING that there was not an offset to those expenses that the School District Reeves receives. It's called the e-rate. The e-rate is a surcharge on telephone bills that are paid. And to the extent that any of these expenses are used at the schools, they're offset by an e-rate, up to 86 percent of the cost. I don't really know the protocol, whether this could have been given out before, but brought with us this morning our net cost for Fiscal Year 2000 for all telecommunications charges, which is $1.6 million, for an offset of about 67 percent of all costs.
"Offset" that means on a net basis to the District, we're seeing much lower expense than this gross number that you saw.
I'm not -- let's forget the dollar amount here. In other words, I'm told that you spent -- let me see here -- $419,000 on a cellular telephone bill. That to me -- I don't care if it's federal money, State money, it's taxpayers' money, no matter where you 103 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING come up with this money. You know, it gets -- I get tired of hearing, Well, it's federal money, it's State money, it's not our money. Well, it is our money, and sometimes I think we in government forget that there's people out there working to pay their federal income tax, their State income tax, their City wage tax. And I'm just commenting on a cell telephone bill when I was told that we have a communications system that doesn't cost us anything. Well, I'm curious to know how much it costs to operate system. But, again, I know that this is nitpicking, but it's important. This is a half a million dollars. We're talking about cutting programs, we're talking about $190-some million shortfall. And this isn't a signal to me or the taxpayers of this region that you are really trying to save money over there.
Two comments, if I may, Councilman Rizzo. One is that the e-rate cannot be used to offset other operating expenses within the District. We need to apply it to the 104 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING telecommunications charges only. Those are the guidelines. So we have to deal within those guidelines. But to your second question, which is the magnitude of total charges, even though we do have an offset, there is a policy change and I guess a reduction in telecommunications expenses by design that our CEO, Mr. Goldsmith, implemented. And, in fact, the budget for next year shows an overall reduction in the gross cost before e-rate of all telecommunications charges, being mindful of what you raised.
Uh-huh. Well, I appreciate that, but again, there's another line here: Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems. That's another wireless company. That isn't even factored -- that's factored into the number, but that's 24,978, so obviously, that wasn't good enough for someone and we had to go out and do a deal with Nextel, which is City communication. We're talking about trying to consolidate services here. And I checked the record. It was stated that this was done in cooperation or in 105 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING consultation with our communication division, and the director of that organization didn't know what I was talking about, I repeat. So, again, I'm going to be interested in after receiving this morning -- you have two pages of expenses, and I'm confident that with some consolidation and some work with the City communications system, this new technology that's on the way, that many of these costs that are on this page, that according to the information that I have and the e-rate and all of that -- all I know is that the document says $5.3 million, and I don't know a lot about the e-rate or any of those formulas, but this is a lot of money.
Councilman Rizzo, if I may. Phil Goldsmith, Interim CEO of the Philadelphia School District. First, I apologize for not getting the information on the maintenance and cost of the other communications system, and we will get you the cost of that, and I apologize. Let me just say that the whole cost of telecommunications is one that I have instructed our staff to look at. You know, we got sort of 106 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING the headlines on eliminating phone lines, which to me is somewhat of a no-brainer, but there's a bunch of other initiatives going on, and I will provide with you what those initiatives are and what we see the savings being in undertaking those items. I think you will be impressed that we have a lot of things going on, have been going on, and continue to be going on. I think getting our arms around the different cell phones is another issue that we've been trying to do and, frankly, get from the vendors by department the costs, the usage costs of the cell phones so that we can start to centralize that and understand where those costs are coming from and so forth. So I think your concerns are warranted and it's something that we're working on. I'm trying to get my arms around it and I will provide you with additional data.
Thank you. And I would like to also complement the School District in reference to the energy conservation issue. I think that is a great job in identifying the cost savings. And, again, this 107 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING information is important. Now I'm able to communicate, and I'll explain for those that might not be familiar with this issue, there's been some criticism about the District leaving lights on at schools at night unnecessarily. And a little bit of information goes a long way, and it's interesting that you've negotiated with the union the ability to do maintenance work during the overnight hours so they can't work in the dark, so they need to have lights on.
But it would have been -- now that I know this, I have no problem now being able to respond to a constituent that says, Can you believe it, at George Washington High School, all of the lights are on. And now I'll say, Yeah, because they're inside because of some creative techniques that they're working during the overnight hours 'cause the building is used probably from 6 o'clock in the morning to 10 o'clock at night, and you just can't clean and have people around. So this is very important and it's impressive with the energy conservation effort 108 3/13/01 - FINAL FY '02 BUDGET HEARING that the School District is undertaking.