COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, October 19, 2004 11:25 a.m. - - - - BILL 040785 - An Ordinance amending Bill No. 040602... BILL 040786 - An Ordinance amending Bill No. 040603... PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN - - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X BILL 040785, 040786 MAXINE GRIFFITH, City Planning....... VICTOR RICHARD, Recreation Commissioner RICHARD TUSTIN......................... 27 DIANA REED, Budget Director............ 74 LINDA HOWARD, Deputy Budget Director... 76 3 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing/ of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill 5 Nos. 040785 and 040786. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the bills.
Bill 040785, an ordinance amending Bill No. 040602, approved July 1, 2004, relating to Fiscal 2005 Capital Budget, by reenacting certain appropriations made in that ordinance for improvements to existing recreation facilities. Bill No. 040786, an ordinance 15 amending Bill No. 040603, approved July 1, 2004, relating to the Fiscal 2005 through Fiscal 2010 Capital Program, by reenacting certain appropriations for improvements to existing recreation facilities for Fiscal Year 2005, and by making certain technical amendments.
Ms. Griffith, would you please approach the witness table? Identify yourself for the record and 4 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 proceed with your testimony.
Could it be possible for the Clerk to summarize briefly the two bills so we know what we're talking about at the beginning?
Yes. The amendments to the Fiscal 2005 Capital Budget and the Fiscal 2005 through 2010 Capital Program are really one in the same. When Council adopted the 2005 Capital Budget and the related Capital Program, Council put an amendment in there that added $7 million to Line Item 67, which was improvements to existing recreation facilities. However, when Council did that, we did not have time under the Charter to get the Planning Commission's recommendation. Because we did not get the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Solicitor, when he signed the Capital Budget ordinance and the Capital Program ordinance, 5 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 severed that $7 million, indicating that we did not go through the proper procedure. That's why in the title of these ordinances, we're stating that we are reenacting the appropriation.
My name is Maxine Griffith, I'm Secretary for Strategic Planning and Executive Director of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Before I start my testimony, Madam President, I want to reiterate the comment I made in my recent correspondence to you. I've been invited -- and thank you very much -- to speak on behalf of the Planning Commission. However, we could not get a quorum of the Commission before this afternoon. We'll be meeting at 3 p.m., and we will convey immediately after that meeting the findings of that meeting to you. However, the Mayor's Chief of Staff had asked whether I would give 6 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 testimony on behalf of the Administration, and that's what I'm prepared to do today.
Good morning, Council President Verna and honored Members of the City Council. I am Maxine Griffith, Executive Director of the City Planning Commission and Secretary for Strategic Planning. I am here this morning on behalf of the Administration to testify on Bill 040785 and 040786, which propose to amend the FY 2005 to 2010 Capital Program and the FY 2005 Capital Budget by adding 7 million to the Recreation Department's Improvement to Existing Facilities, ITEF Project, in Line Item 76.
I apologize. We'll change that on our testimony. The proposed amendments would increase the appropriation for the Council-designated project from the Administration's recommended 4 million to a 7 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 total of $11 million. The Administration opposes these amendments for several reasons. The proposed increase cannot be sustained in a period of increasingly limited resources and in view of other critical Capital City needs. Over the past several years, the Administration has sought to reduce City tax supported general obligation debt funding in successive capital budgets. This decision was made in response to both the restricted debt limit imposed on the City by Pennsylvania Constitution as well as the capacity of our Operating Budget to service the debt on these borrowed funds. Since FY 2001, City tax supported funding in the Capital Budget has been reduced from over 117.4 million to 67.6 million in the FY 2005 Capital Budget. Despite this dramatic overall decrease, until this year, FY 2005, the Administration has not recommended any funding reductions for this project which is designated for discretionary City Council district improvements. 8 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 While the Administration has maintained higher ITEF Project funding levels in the past, FY 2005 represents a watershed year for allocating capital resources amongst critical municipal needs. In light of the City's current fiscal situation and with an eye towards increasing pressure on the City Capital and Operating Budget resources in coming years, substantially increasing the funding for this project cannot be supported. With few exceptions, the projects included in FY 2005 Capital Budget address important economic and neighborhood development, health and safety and critical physical infrastructure needs. There are no 17 superfluous projects and few additional Capital dollars to go around. While we would all appreciate having more capital funding available to make the many renovations, repairs and improvements needed at our municipal facilities, the increase proposed by these amendments are more than the current budget can bear. In maintaining the City's fiscal 9 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 health, the Administration must consider our ability to incur and service additional debt, increasing the Capital Budget total would have an adverse effect on the City's debt-to-revenue ratio and place the City in increasing unfavorable position with bond rating agencies. In addition, because the City is nearing its debt capacity, the City cannot continue to issue bonds for non-essential capital projects. The current FY 2005 budget appropriation for this project, 4 million, is adequate to continue recreation facility improvements in close consultation with individual Councilmembers. In addition, substantial, unexpended capital funding carried forward prior budget years remains available for facility improvements. The Administration is always prepared to discuss with Councilmembers how we can more effectively use these available resources to accomplish important quality-of-life improvements in our neighborhoods. 10 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Thank you for permitting me the opportunity to express the Administration's views on these proposed amendments. I'll be happy to take questions. But also, I'd like to point out that I am supported by our able -- I was going to new, but I don't think she's new anymore -- Budget Director Diana Reed.
Ms. Griffith, during our budget hearings, we were told that there would be savings from facilities being sold or leased or demolished. Can you tell me how many recreation centers have been sold, leased, and how many are proposed to be demolished? And to date, how much of this savings do we anticipate?
If you will permit me, I would ask the Recreation Commissioner to come to the table, Commissioner Richard.
Ms. Griffith, somebody can just pull up another Chair, please. You can sit there. 11 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Good morning, Commissioner. Please identify yourself for the record and maybe you can respond to my question. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Good morning, Madam President and City Councilmembers. My name is Vic Richard, Recreation Commissioner. I want to make sure I have your question correct. How many facilities have we sold to date, leased; am I correct?
Yes. And I think there's some talk about several of them possibly being demolished. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: As of to date there's no sales that have taken as of yet. There is one lease, and no demolition as of yet. That one lease that has taken place so far is Island Road.
In my district? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, ma'am, that's correct.
Is it anticipated that there will be a few that will be sold? 12 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, ma'am. I want to say there's two properties, and I don't believe I have all the documents, that have just been evaluated and assessed that the School District is interested in. And I don't have that with me. That hasn't taken place as of yet. And there's talk with -- there's three facilities that are being negotiated right now with community groups to take over as well.
Councilman DiCicco, I see your light is on. Apparently, you want to ask a question on this.
Thank you, Madam President. Would the Commissioner -- could you give us the names of those facilities where the negotiations with community groups is taking place? And I think you mentioned one sale; has that been finalized or is that in negotiations or is that under consideration? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: That's under consideration.
Is that 13 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Franklin in my district or is that -- COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I don't have my other real estate -- it may be Franklin.
The one that the School District has expressed an interest in? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: That is correct. I'm not sure if that's the one that we just got the assessment on. Lanier is one that is being in consideration with the community group. Another one that's being done right now in a community group is Schmidt in Mr. Mariano's district. And the other facility is Ford Recreation in your district, Councilman.
Hasn't there been discussion ongoing with Queen Village Neighbors concerning the Weccacoe? Weccacoe is a site where we developed a tennis court a couple years ago. A community organization has expressed an interest in using the -- for lack of a better 14 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 description -- the field house as their community headquarters. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, but nothing's change. All the service is still in place. To my knowledge, in the last two months, there haven't been any other further discussions. But I can follow up on that.
My understanding is -- and this is not for criticizing, but it's for the record -- is that there was some sort of an impasse as to the liability issue, should Queen Village take responsibility for the Weccacoe Center, would they be liable for insurance purposes. And we haven't been able to get any follow-up in that discussion. They're anxious to get the place. If we can find some common ground, since we would be relieving the City of a financial liability and we're self-insured City-wide, maybe there's an opportunity that the City would at least take the responsibility on the liability issue while they maintain that facility. But my understanding from my legislative assistant is it's been a couple 15 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 months. There's an impasse. And I don't know where it is. I don't know if the impasse is in the Department of Rec or whether it's at the Law Department. But it's certainly one of those situations where we've got community support to take over a center, which is what one the goals of the Administration is all about, but yet we never seem to be able to move forward. So if we can move on that, come up with an answer some way and then we can work from there, I'd appreciate it. Thank you, Madam President.
Your welcome. I'll get back to my original question. We were informed during the budget process that there would be a savings of at least a million dollars. And to date, Commissioner, we've fallen very short, I would think, of that number if we only are leasing one of the recreational facilities and none have been sold. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: That wasn't the entire process, Madam President, in order 16 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 to reach the 1 million.
What was the process? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: It's a combination of winterizing facilities, transferring employees, downgrading some of the facilities from full-time employee to part-time employee from the summer months to the winter months and then back into the summer months as well. So it's a combination of all of that along with some of the money that was saved with pool operations as well. So the entire million dollars just was not based upon sales or leases, Madam President.
So if we're winterizing some of the facilities, can I safely assume that those buildings will not be used? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: The buildings will be used whenever the community needs them during the winter months. If they need to have a community meeting or special event or what-have-you, they can just contact --
So they 17 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 will only be used upon request; is that what I understand? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Some of them, during the winter months, that's correct.
And how many such facilities are there that you're winterizing? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Five, Madam President.
How many recreation facilities do we have in the City? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: 153 rec centers.
Could you ask the Commissioner what five that are going to be winterized?
18 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Commissioner, can you indicate to us what five recreation centers will be winterized? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, ma'am. Schmidt, Fisher Park, Pleasant, Wissinoming and Holme.
What are you doing with Lanier? Is that being winterized or is it just being closed completely? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Right now, it's closed. The small rec building is closed. And we're in the process of having conversation with the Grays Ferry community, I think the baseball organization -- I'm sorry, I can't recall the exact name of the four or five organizations -- to try to turn that facility over as well. The grounds are still being maintained and the playground, the fields, the basketball, all of that is still open to the public. The same with all the other facilities.
How many other facilities are there like Lanier that you'll be doing the same thing? 19 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Do you have any other facilities that you will be literally closing? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Fonte Leone is one that has been down, from my understanding, for about six years. There's another one called Franklin that has been up and down for the last three years, and more down which is another facility that I'm aware of that we're looking at doing the exact same thing with, Madam President.
Commissioner, while you're up at the table, what amount did your department request of the Planning Commission in FY '05 for improvements to existing facilities? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: We normally don't make the request. We normally make the request through capital projects. And I can probably have that answered better by either Rick or either Eric from Capital.
I'd like to know what was requested for FY '05. Is there anybody here that can answer the question? 20 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, ma'am.
While we're waiting, the question about Fonte Leone pool, that was in response to? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Were there any other facilities similar to Lanier that would not open or may not open or had not been open.
Did we not make that transfer of that property from your department to Public Property? Did that not occur? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I believe that is complete.
It's no longer in your inventory? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Correct.
Your, meaning 21 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Department of Rec. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir.
Commissioner, you can stay. We have plenty of room.
In the meantime, I would recognize Councilman Cohen.
Yes, I wanted to ask the Commissioner some questions. I'll be ready to wait until he finishes what he's doing.
At whose initiation did activities begin concerning 22 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 these five installations? Was it an overwhelming request by the people in the community that led the Commission deciding that these places may be available for sale or lease or other disposal, or did the City initiate it? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: You're asking me if the City --
Who initiated the proposal about these five locations being shut or sold or disposed of? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: It was an initiative through the Department with myself along with the Planning Commission when we began plotting the responsibility versus the budget and also usage of facilities and different types of facilities.
Was there a demand by the people saying they no longer needed the facilities, they were useless, and therefore, they wanted to get rid of them, they were a blot upon the community? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Was the community saying get rid of the property? 23 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786
Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: No, sir. Not to my knowledge.
In none of the cases? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Not any of them that I'm aware of no, sir.
Then what's the theory behind cutting it, some crazy financial theory that it's unimportant to take care of the needs of people? There are lots of other places in the budget that can be cut and provide the money. One place that's easy to start with is just to stop campaign contributions and you cut immediately the cost of government because then the campaign do not have to be recovered in any bidding for new contracts. So I don't understand. If it's allegedly money, there are certainly much better places to get the money than to take it away from kids and people in the community; that's if your proposal were to succeed. If they don't succeed, you're putting the 24 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 community at great disadvantage with other communities. Why should the youngsters have to play in the streets and be more subject to the sales of the drug dealers as to how to get along. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Mr. Councilman, I agree with you a hundred percent, and I would like to be in a position where I am properly and fully funded so I can maintain the quality of service, enhance the quality of service, the facilities as well. So I'm agreeing with everything that you are saying. I'm not disagreeing. I'm also in a position where I do have to either render tough decisions or make either tough recommendations, and my responsibility to this body and to the taxpayers of the City is to substantiate and take a planned, organized approach. Will it all be perfect, will it all be right? No, but a very concerted effort. But I would love to be in a position to say that I can enhance or I can change or we can continue to improve the 25 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 quality, we can continue to address risk management factors, outdated play equipment, just as an example. So I appreciate your comments and thank you, sir.
Yes, but isn't it a fact that the reason you cannot do it is because the Administration doesn't permit you to do it? There isn't any other question -- COMMISSIONER RICHARD: The restraints are around the Operating Budget that I have been presented, that is correct, sir.
So therefore, the suggestion I made on who ought to pare the cost of necessary reductions applies. It's the Mayor that makes the decision, and I think the Mayor makes the wrong decision and we ought to oppose it. That's why we have a two-bodied government in Philadelphia, why it's been decided originally by the Charter people and thereafter maintained all these years that both the Mayor and the Council, not just the Mayor, makes the decision in this matter. And when the Mayor says he's willing 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 to sit down and discuss at any time, let me suggest that I believe this Council would like to make the decision and then we'll take the same position that the Mayor takes; we'll be ready to sit down and discuss. But we want to be the ones to make the decision with respect to the people in Philadelphia as well as the Mayor. We don't see why only the Mayor has the right to decide who suffers during a budget crisis. As a matter of fact, the budget is the principal responsibility of the Council and not of the Mayor. So it seems to be clear under the form of government we have in Philadelphia, it would be up to this Council, first, to decide if budget cuts were necessary; and second, where they should be concentrated. So I'm opposed and wondered why when this was first disapproved -- did I understand from Mr. McPherson that the first effort by Council to replace the 7 million was turned down by the Administration on the basis of the City Planning Commission not meeting? Was 27 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 this reason also given at the time, or were we given just a one-sided version?
If I can be clear about that, Councilman, it was a technical problem, a logistical problem that had to do -- as you will remember, it was an anomalous process last time. It went on for quite a while. There was a lot of back and forth, and it was simply a technical issue that the Planning Commission did not vote and get that communicated to Council. And so that's why we're going back through the process. Let me also say that we concur with you that this is an issue that is jointly determined by the Mayoral Administration and Council, which is why we are here to at least give our views to Council about what should happen in this matter. We absolutely agree with you that there's a balance in government and that's why we're here. If I might, Mr. Tustin is here.
Mr. Tustin. 28 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786
When we work with all of our client agencies in putting in requests for fiscal year budgets, what we always do is we go back to the prior year program. In this case it would have been FY '04 through '09 Capital Program. And we look at the allocations that have been given to each one of our departments. We make sure that we adhere to those allocations so that the program -- the funding that gets requested actually is in line then with the Capital Program. I believe in this particular case, we submitted a request for $7 million for existing facilities for recreation.
Perhaps you can explain one step further. Why did you give me that explanation? What was it relevant to?
Council President asked the Recreation Commissioner if he recollected what the request was for capital funding for, I guess, renovation to existing facilities in 29 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 the FY '05 budget, and that's why I'm responding, Councilman.
You're responding on behalf of the Recreation Department?
Tell me, is it on record, did the District Councilmembers, the affected districts agree with this recommendation or not? We're always interested in that question at least. We don't always agree with them, but at least we want to know their position. What districts are involved in these five proposals? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Ms. Verna, Ms. Tasco, Ms. Miller, Ms. Krajewski and Mr. O'Neill.
I would appreciative if the District Councilmembers involved would state their position. If a District Councilmember is ready to say he doesn't need it, I think that's important for the Council body to know. And if the 30 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Councilmembers say he or she does need it, I think that's also very important for us to know. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I need to also let you know, Councilman Cohen, that those five facilities are not being closed down and are still accessible to the communities. So they're not being closed permanent. I just want to make sure that is on the record, that they're being winterized, and during the winter months they're still accessible anytime the community needs them. And then when the springtime comes back, a part-time employee will be reemployed by the City to reinstitute all of the spring and summer programing and summer camps as well. So I want to the go on record to make sure that the Council is not misled that these five facilities in discussion are being closed permanent. They're not being closed permanent.
Well, when are they being closed? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: They are 31 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 being winterized, your Honor.
And why are we talking about selling or leasing or otherwise disposing of them? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Not these five facilities, sir.
I'm sorry. I may be very confused. I thought we were talking about a saving proposed by the City of some $7 million, that that's the reason this was being refused by the Administration as a recommendation is because the City found it too costly and that by taking certain action on these five facilities there would be no 19 need to give this additional $7 million. Isn't that what this hearing is about?
That's what I understood from what Mr. McPherson read and what his testimony was.
There are two related 32 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 but different issues. One issue is how we came about to our recommendation that the ITEF funds be less than Council's recommendation. The other issue has to do with winterization of specific centers -- five of them have been chosen. That would mean access to be restricted during the winter months. So they're related issues because they're both Recreation Department issues. And since the Commissioner is here, of course, we're going to take questions on a whole range of Recreation Department issues. But one has to do with the budget and the items directly before us, and another has to do with Councilmembers just trying to get more information and taking advantage of the fact that the Commissioner is here to answer whatever questions you might have.
Well, the two bills that are before this body, what do they deal with? Do they deal with winterization, too?
No. Except perhaps in the case of the fact that funds that were 33 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 available to an individual Councilmember, that Councilmember might choose to use it to winterize yet another facility. But these really have to do with the discretionary funds that have been traditionally conveyed to District Councilmembers.
I have a whole problem about that. I think the Administration participated in an illegal action to divide City Council into members that have special appropriating power and those that don't. But that's for another day.
Well, I don't know. It may well be a legal issue which I'm contemplated because I can't understand how 7 or 9 or 10 District Councilmembers can be given special powers not given to other Councilmembers. And secondarily, I think if they were legitimately granted, those powers have been clearly abused in the way in which they've been used. But that's not -- any of that is not before us today. 34 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Before us is a bill which I understand two bills were changed, were vetoed by the City because the Planning Commission has not had the opportunity to take action on them, and these bills have been introduced in order to take care of that situation.
Correct. Not vetoed, but because of a technical matter, they were not allowed to move forward. Yes, you're correct, Councilman.
I would find it -- this is a point of order, Madam President. I don't think we can go between. I'd like to first get the answer on the $7 million. The winterization question may be a totally different one and it should be, in my judgment, handled separately.
Councilman Cohen, Mr. McPherson is going to come over to explain to you about the $7 million, sidebar. Councilman Mariano.
Madam President, I just want to clear something up with the Commissioner. 35 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 We spoke about two lists. We spoke about Franklin, Lanier, Schmidt, Ford, and I think Councilman DiCicco mentioned another one. But those four, Franklin, Lanier, Schmidt and Ford -- Schmidt is mine, and that's one of the ones that we talked about possibly giving to a community group and we're talking with a community group, but -- COMMISSIONER RICHARD: That lease right now is in the Law Department for review between two parties within the community, and it's looking well. It hasn't been consummated.
And also, you spoke about the winterized ones and Schmidt is one of the winterized ones. Can you explain to this body a little bit? Schmidt is a very little playground. It consists of a pool, a set of swings, a couple of things like that and a little tiny room, smaller than my office, very small. When you say winterize, what do you mean? The pool is obviously closed. Nobody's going to do nothing there. The play area is 36 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 still going to be there. I'm sure if some youth wants, the gates will be open. And if a community group wants to use that tiny little office, they could probably use that, right? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I appreciate the question. First of all, we would be as innovative as we could to maintain the full operation if we could without shutting them down, period.
Commissioner, if I may. I think this winterize thing, when you say that, I think we just think like winterizing our car, making sure we have antifreeze and not water in radiator. Elaborate a little bit more on your explanation of winterization. To winterize Schmidt is obviously different than to winterize like Cione which is bigger or a big-sized one. Explain winterizing. Could we do that? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: In the five facilities that we're talking about, they're still accessible. The public grounds are open, the lot is still being cleaned, cut, 37 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 maintained if the basketball goal breaks or whatever. The small building where we were once hiring a full-time Rec Leader I and in maybe another case a Rec Leader II in a small building, we've relocated that person to a Class A big facility during the winter months. Now, during the winter months, if the community would like to have meetings or any access to the building, all they have to do is just contact the office or the district manager. We make the building open, accessible, whenever they need to anytime during the winter months. When the spring and summer comes back, we will hire a part-time seasonal summer employee that will come back in and embrace the neighborhood and begin the preparations for baseball, any sports in the spring, and then also to run and do summer camps again. So we may not have the building itself open every day during the winter months, but the accessibility to the property and the building is still there. And I believe we've done a pretty decent job of 38 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 still maintaining to keeping a facility if the budget won't allow us.
Commissioner, if I may, that being said, I think part of my problem is I'm familiar with Schmidt and Franklin, even though Franklin is Councilman DiCicco's. That's probably a little bit bigger than Schmidt but not much. Now, these other ones like Lanier and Ford, I don't know where they are. That's a character flaw on my part, but I don't know where they are. I assume that these are all like Schmidt. Are they all small ones. None of them gymnasiums or anything like that? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: No, the big Class A and the Bs and the gym, this is where we're deploying --
These four are just little ones like Schmidt and Franklin? That's a small one. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: But the property is still being maintained, it's still accessible to the community, correct.
Councilman 39 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 DiCicco is saying Franklin is big but the house is little.
It wasn't clear to me when you started -- like I keep going back to the analogy of changing the radiator and stuff. I wasn't sure what winterization meant.
That's perhaps the confusion because sometimes when you say winterization, it means putting up the storm windows. And here, we really mean it's a different mode of operation, a winter mode of operation.
If I may, without insulting anyone, when you talk to this body, you have to be really clear because I think a lot of times people assume we know everything. I know very little about a lot of things and a lot about a few things. It's very confusing. I'm not sure what goes on at Ford, and I don't want to know. That's someone else's concern. 40 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786
Even Einstein might not have been able to get the subtle differences here.
But don't take for granted we know what you're talking about because we're smart and we're here. Sometimes it's luck. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Thank you, Councilman.
Mr. Tustin, if I may get back to my question to you. You said that you determined the allocation by the previous year. You don't really make the determination by need?
If I can respond to that, because it's the Planning Commission, the Budget Office that actually shapes the call. We did that this past year and may do it again this year because the amount of money available in the Capital Budget is the same. So the starting place with all the agencies, including the ones that Mr. Tustin coordinates, since the amount of money we have 41 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 is the same as we had last year, the way we'd like to start the conversation is by your putting forward the same budget that you had last year and let's see where we are.
I'll tell you, I think that when we approve our budget, we as District Councilpeople walk away from the budget hearings thinking that we have accomplished something for the recreation facilities in our district. And I think we delude ourselves in thinking that because -- I guess it's five years now that we've had money in the Capital Budget for certain projects, and we're still waiting for the projects to be completed. Why does it take so long? Mr. Tustin, I understand that you wait until you get X amount of roofs to be done before you put it out for bid. However, in the interim, if a roof is leaking, invariably that means that there's that much more water damage in the facility because the roof was not done. To me, it's such false economy. What are we doing?
Let me try to answer 42 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 that question. As Councilman Mariano said just a couple minutes ago, many of these rec centers are C and Ds that are very, very small buildings. Some of the cost to do a roof, for instance, on those type of buildings could be fairly minimal compared to the other type of projects that we work on. The cost and the time to concentrate on each one individually would probably end up taking longer than what we're trying to do, which is package three or four of them together. We work very closely with Commissioner Richard and the Recreation Department on maintenance. A lot of times we'll go to the maintenance area and say, "This roof may have a particular problem in this one area. Can we do a patch, can we do a fix to hold it over until we can group enough of these facilities together?"
How many do you group at one time before you put it in for bid?
It could be anywhere from two to seven, depending on the size of 43 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 the facilities.
Then we must move very, very slowly if you have to wait five years for a roof to be done. I know we have 153 facilities. I think Councilman DiCicco is very familiar with Guerin Recreation. I don't know how long we had to wait for a new roof. And apparently, the contractor did the roof but did not complete it. He did not put the -- what do they call them -- flashers. And consequently, there was damage done to the bocce court, there was damage done to the electrical work, there was damage done to the gym area, the gym floor. Now, who's responsible for that? Will that be the contractor who will be responsible?
Yes. Let me explain what happened in that particular case. The contractor completed most of the roof work 44 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 with the exception of the flashing and the detail work that had to be completed. Normally, when a contractor leaves the job the end of day, he needs to cover and protect the area that's still unfinished. If I remember properly, we had one heck of a storm that night, and part of the problem was whatever protection he tried to put on, it naturally didn't hold or didn't cover. There was damage done inside. The contractor is held fully responsibility for any damage not only to the work he's doing, but anywhere else within the facility that's a result of that and he's responsible to come back and to correct those situations.
I believe the contractor was actually on the site the following day. I can follow up with the Rec team.
Point of order, 45 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 if I can interject. I am familiar with the conditions that took place because of the storm. But that facility goes back to the question that the President posed to you earlier. I'm on the bocce league and I play occasionally when I'm off on a Tuesday night, so I'm familiar with that facility. That roof for the last two years that I've been involved in that league has had a serious leakage. I mean, serious leakage. The guys go in there and do the best we can to maintain it. We have these big 32-gallon buckets that we place in various strategic places around the court from one week to the next in the event we have rain. So I know it took at least two years for that roof repair or replacement to get to the point where we did. Now, the storm obviously made a bad situation worse. No 21 one's to blame for that.
No. But it was two years that I know of. And I don't know 46 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 how much longer -- it may have been a year or two before I got there, but I'm familiar with two years that it took to get that roof contractor out there. And in interim, there was a lot of damage that was occurring at least during those two years. So I think it goes back to the question the President was addressing.
Madam President, I'd like to table this at the present time. I understand that these ordinances do not spell the whole -- all the facts about the usage of this money. And I understand there has been for a number of years known only to some Councilmembers and not others some kind of plan which separated District Councilmembers from the Councilmembers-At-Large and gave District Councilmembers certain appropriation rights of money unbeknownst to others. I've never heard of it, although I'm informed that it may have existed for a number of years. There's a hidden secret among District Councilmembers. I regard that as an illegal diversion of money, of taxpayer money. And I 47 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 want to make sure -- I'm for part of this bill. I think there ought to be more money for the Recreation Department, but I certainly don't think it ought to go to just District Councilmembers and have them vote in secret about this money.
At the conclusion of the testimony, you could make that motion. But since we're all here and there are a number of Councilmembers that would like to be recognized, I think we should go forward.
Well, a motion to table takes precedence. If you want to vote it down, so do it, and continue the hidden game.
Councilman Cohen is making a motion that the matter be tabled. Is there a second to the Councilmember's motion? (No response.)
Sorry, Councilman, your motion fails. 48 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Councilman DiCicco, I believe you were -- did you get a response to your question?
No. I was pointing that out as a point of information as it relates to your question.
But I don't understand. I mean, Mr. Tustin talked about when they have two or three small groups. Guerin is not a small group. Why would it take us years before we decide to address the issue?
Council President, I need to look into that particular issue on that particular roof.
Well, I will tell you, it's not only that roof, but I have a number of issues that I have had in the budget. It's five years and we're still waiting for something to be done. I just don't understand why it should take us so long.
If I can interject, Councilwoman. This is not the first time, 49 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 obviously, we've heard these concerns. Commissioner Richards has made some suggestions about how to deal with these matters a little differently. We haven't had an opportunity to discuss them in-house. If you would give us that opportunity, we would appreciate that and we would get back to you. But we do acknowledge that -- and it may be that we can divide these matters into different classifications and deal with them somewhat differently. But I don't want to preempt the opportunity to discuss --
I know there are other Councilmembers that want to be recognized, and I certainly want to give them the opportunity. But as long as we're on this issue, Commissioner Richards, do we have roofers, carpenters, electricians that work in the Recreation Department? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, ma'am, we do.
How many roofers, how many electricians, how many 50 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 carpenters? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I'll have to get that to you. I don't really recall all of that to memory. But, yes, we do that type of work and we do have the capacity to achieve that work. Yes, ma'am.
So the roofers, I'm sure, just go out and do patch work? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: The majority of the time they do go out and they do inspections. They do repairs. A major job as of the nature you're speaking of, we won't do unless we don't have any other means of doing it. Francis Myers in your district was an example of the interior that was done through the skilled labor of the Department.
Okay. I would still like to know how many roofers, carpenters, and electricians you have in your department. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I'll get that for you, yes, ma'am.
The Chair 51 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President. I just want to follow-up on a question that was asked of Mr. Tustin and make sure I'm clear on the answer. When you were making a recommendation for this line item, you said you asked the department heads and made a recommendation based on that input of $7 million; is that correct? Fair?
I just have a question because while Councilman Cohen may not be aware, it's only been years that 20 I've had one-tenth of the Recreation Capital 21 Budget. I've always had Councilmen-At-Large 22 confirm with me. I know about a need here at 23 a district, and that's been going on for 25 24 years. I try to put that input -- because 25 that's community input, which is what I'm 52 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 looking for. But the Recreation Department and the Capital Budget Office certainly has known that District Councilmen are very active in programming these funds.
I'm just limiting my remarks to what I know. But I don't dispute that. Because that actually enlarges my question, that the recommendation was made based on departments giving information to Mr. Tustin, when it seems to me, based on the practice of several decades, that Councilmembers should have been contacted. And I won't limit myself to District Councilmen, Councilman Cohen. But I certainly feel that I should have been contacted and I'm sure others feel the same way. Can you tell me why that wasn't done?
If I can respond in part to that question because it was a question that was asked of me by another Councilperson at the Capital Budget hearings 53 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 and I believe I had to apologize. We actually had thought -- and I later found out that there was a briefing given around this issue. It was not a briefing, however, that was only about this issue. It was, I believe, a general briefing to Councilmembers about some of the changes in the budget process. And apparently, this issue was not particularly underscored or highlighted. So it was certainly the intent of all of the folks working around Capital Budget to convey to Councilmembers and to get input from Councilmembers with regard to a change in the approach. Unfortunately, because of the unusual -- I'm assuming because of the unusual deliberations last year and the lengthy nature and the number of meetings and sidebar meetings that were held, this very important issue did not get the emphasis it should have in terms of pointing out the differences from previous years.
Point of order, 54 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Madam President. I'd like the witness to tell us what she means by the differences this year. I don't know what she's referring to.
Councilman, I don't mind follow-up on my own question. I was going to ask the exact same thing. I don't understand the difference this year, other than the difference in money, the process being different. I mean, I just mentioned that we weren't consulted, department heads were, even though this is money that is our discretionary pot, if you will, for recreation facilities. And I don't see how that's being cooperative with the Council at all. So what did change this year in addition to the size of the pot shrinking?
Let me clarify my response, and then Mr. Tustin wants to follow-up. When I was talking about the difference, I was simply talking about the difference in the entire budget process last year which was -- I don't know if elongated is 55 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 the appropriate word, but it was a very long, complex process. And there were, as I understand it, a number of briefings held by the Department of External Affairs and others with Council about negotiation around the budget. Indeed, you're correct, Councilman. As far as I understand it, the only difference in the ITEF funding was the decrease in funding.
Thank you, Councilman Nutter. Improvements To Existing Facilities.
Councilman, if I can follow up on your question and try to be clear in my answer, every year usually starting in August, well before budget call, we work with a representative from each one of the departments that we represent to review with 56 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 them the work that needs to be done within their facility. Now, I'm not talking about the money that City Council gets to use on facilities, I'm talking about the whole Capital Budget in general. One of the things we use as a guideline to start off is the funding that was allocated for the previous year as part of that plan. And that's the purpose of the plan, is to try to adhere to it in some way so you can track and know what your funding is going to be going forward. We look at all the facilities that need work, what type of work needs to be done, we prioritize that work, what has to be done this year --
Mr. Tustin, are you talking in Recreation or are you talking broader?
I'm talking departmental wide. I represent not just Recreation, but 15 different departments. So we do this with all 15 agencies that we do work for. We prioritize the work that needs to 57 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 be done: Does this project need to be done this fiscal year? Can it wait a fiscal year? We look at every one of the projects. We compare it to the funding that we were allocated from the previous year. If, in fact, we can complete the priority projects with that allocation, those are the requests we put in for. If we find there are one or two projects that we didn't know about the prior year that have come up this year that need to be done, we put them in as a special request over and above what our allocated budget stated to us was from the prior year for consideration when City Planning looks at the Capital Budget as a whole. That's the process we usually follow. As far as the Recreation Department is concerned, in addition to the funding they get for pools that is outside of the money that goes to City Council, our Department meets at least once a year with each Council District Councilperson and we review with them our spreadsheet of projects that we're working on for that Councilperson both from prior 58 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 years. We also ask whatever new projects they may be aware of through their constituents, through the people that they deal with every day and what they think needs to be done over and above what we have heard needs to be done through the Recreation Department --
I think what you're doing is totally illegal because you're participating --
What gives you the right to select among Councilmembers and to decide that only some Councilmembers are worthy of a report? 59 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786
Councilman, we don't determine or decide what Council -- where the money goes in the Council as far as who gets the funding. We work with the Council Districts, districts which represent the 7 City. 8
You have no right 9 to work with the districts. You have to work 10 with 17 members of City Council, 7 of whom are Councilmembers-At-Large. You need a vote from 17, not just the 10 District Councilmembers' vote. And I never want to hear again you rely solely on District Councilmembers, because if you do that, you're participating willingly in an illegal enterprise. I'm startled to hear this, that you've gone along. So I enlarge my attack on illegal diversion of taxpayer money to include the Recreation Department as well as the 10 District Councilmembers. You have a duty to meet with Councilmembers. If the District Councilmember has a question, of course, he can ask or she can and so can Councilmembers-At-Large. But if you've initiated an action aimed at 60 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Councilmembers, you've got to include all the Councilmembers and make available to them all the information. Councilmembers-At-Large, in my opinion, have a much greater burden than District Councilmembers because we've got to see to it that there's fairness between the different districts. Each District Councilmember apparently regards himself or herself as kind of a developer. Each one strives to make their district outstanding on development. Then they should stay out of Council and do development work if they want to be developers. That's why the District Councilmembers seem frequently to not have the interest of all the members at heart because they seem to be just worrying go about development issues. Councilmembers-At-Large have the responsibility for seeing that City services are equally provided to everybody in the City.
Thank you, Councilman Cohen. I believe Councilman 61 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 O'Neill was asking a question. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Excuse me. If I may respond to that. I didn't make the statement that I meet with just the 6 District Councilmembers. For the record, when 7 I first took this position, I met with you and 8 worked with you diligently to make sure that 9 we brought Belfield in. At that time it was 10 seven years in the making. I just recently had meetings and conversations on two different facilities with At-Large Councilmember Kelly and also Councilman Ramos. I frequently meet and interact with our Chair of the Recreation Department, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown. It's an open process. It's public record. And I want to go on record to correct the statement that you made. I do not meet with just the 10 District Councilmembers. I make sure that I inform each and every Councilperson whether they inquire or not and try to give the best possible service that I can. Thank you.
Well, I 62 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 appreciate that correction, but hope you would spread that throughout the department so that everybody knows your views and follow your practices. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Thank you, sir.
Councilman O'Neill, can I recognize you so you can continue your line of questioning?
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Tustin, are you saying that you did contact the Councilmembers in addition to the department heads when it came to the recreation before you made your $7 million request?
No, I didn't say that. What I said, Councilman, was as we deal with the individual departments, our office meets with Council representatives as well once a year at least. And in addition to that, Eric Iffrig who heads up the recreation team for our department has an open communication with all the Councilmembers and their staff. He 63 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 probably talks to them at least on a monthly basis on concerning projects. So we try to stay as current as possible with the needs.
Excuse me. Let's focus on this series of discussions where you're trying to put together your recommendation. We're not part of that. Your department heads are. I speak with Mr. Iffrig as other Councilmembers do all the time. We talk about pipeline projects that are already funded. Once we know how much money is available, we talk about that year's project. It's no use talking about it until we know the amount of money because we can't hire any consultants or anything else. I, at least, have never had a conversation with Mr. Iffrig about what I thought the level should be of capital improvements in the Recreation Department, at least as the 10th District is concerned. It would be a totally different conversation if he were asking me for a proposal to have you evaluate. I can tell you -- and I don't think 64 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 anyone has that conversation because it's just never happened. If you're going to be the point of communication of the Planning Commission, I would hope in the future we could give a needs assessment for our district rather than responding to available dollars. Because you are giving a needs assessment, we haven't been consulted in that needs assessment. We can't go backwards, but we certainly can try to do a better job going forward. So you recommend 7 million. The Planning Commission recommends 4 million of the 7 that you asked for based on what I call an incomplete assessment because you didn't contact Council. But be that as it may, Ms. Griffith, how did you pare down the 7 million to 4 million?
Well, as you know, Councilman, we take a global view of the budget. We frankly are less involved in the details of the individual agency budgets for 65 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 the operating agencies. Indeed it is a Capital Program Office and Mr. Tustin who does that. We are looking at the Capital Budget in toto along with the Budget Office and trying to get that budget in balance and moving forward. So we're not only looking at the Recreation Department, we're looking at the other operating agencies, we're looking at the requests of the economic development agencies for funds as well and simply trying to -- I don't want to use the word trade-off because that trivializes it. But we're trying to bring a budget into balance where there is much more need than there is funds. I've testified previously, Councilman, that according to my staff's analysis, we should really have about twice the amount of capital money as we do for a city of this size with this population to simply maintain our capital infrastructure. So we are always moving forward with less money than we need. And then it's a question not of choosing good projects over bad, but looking at a lot of good projects and trying 66 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 to -- and admittedly with the Administration priorities in mind -- trying to move forward with those projects. And in this case, especially because there was unexpended funds from previous years, for whatever reason a number of projects had not moved forward for some of the reasons that Rick outlined, it was our recommendation in conversation with Mayor's Advisors and with the Planning Commission that this was one place where this year we might do things a little differently and cut back the funding.
Given that global view, would you prefer that when Council, as we've done this year once already and are proposing to do again, increase the recreation center money that we instead of adding, for instance, $7 million, take $7 million, delete $7 million from projects that we differ in judgment with you over the critical aspect of them? In other words, you said in your testimony that in a period of -- "this 67 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 proposed increase cannot be sustained in a period of increasingly limited resources and in view of other critical Capital City needs." Well, you made a judgment differing with us as to critical capital needs. We think there are other critical capital needs in the Rec Department in the recreation facilities than you do. So given that this limited resources issue is in play with the Capital Budget, would the Planning Commission prefer that we delete $7 million when we're adding 7 in disagreement with your assessment? You're nodding.
I'm nodding because I understand the question. I can't speak for the Planning Commission. I will certainly put that before them this afternoon. I can only speak for the staff, and will do that. And to be honest, we would prefer you do neither. We would prefer that you accept the budget as proposed by the Mayor. However, I think the context is correct, that if additional monies are added, they're going to have to be taken from 68 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 somewhere. To go back to Councilman Cohen's framework, which I think is correct, that is done, you know, in this democracy with kind of a give-and-take and a push-and-pull between, in this case, the executive branch and the Council. So if you're saying could we in some sort of Committee format sit down and look through the budget again especially looking forward to -- because we're almost -- because of this unusual year, we're just about ready to go to the next round of capital. Could there been a different kind of dialog or a different kind of discourse? I can certainly bring that back to the Commission members and to the Office of the Mayor and I'm sure the Budget Office would want to weigh in on that as well. But I can't deal with the kind of Sophie's choice you've put before me in terms of taking and giving in concept. I think it would have to be related to specific projects.
I sympathize very much with your position. I've only been here about 25 years, but while the Charter 69 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 puts a place for the Planning Commission in the Capital Budget, a very strong place of assessment, I have never once -- it can be a coincidence, but it's been years in a row 6 that the Planning Commission and the Finance 7 Department, the Budget Office, the Mayor's 8 Office have always agreed 100 percent on what 9 the Capital Budget should be. The only 10 disagreements have been when Council disagrees 11 with the Mayor, Council disagrees with the 12 Planning Commission. I've never seen an 13 independent assessment that said, 14 "Notwithstanding the Administration's 15 assessment here, we think there is an extra 16 million dollars for X, Y, or Z." It's just 17 never happened. 18 So it's frustrating from our 19 standpoint. Talk about Sophie's choice, 20 push-and-pull -- there's a lot of pull, 21 there's very little push going on here. 22 We're looking at a situation where 23 if you gave us in the 60-some million dollars 24 worth of recommendations that aren't 25 recreation, that they're all critical but 70 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 you've categorized them as A, B, C level critical, and we would only look at the C level that we were going to exchange for, then obviously would make less of an impact on your initial judgment than if we went after all the A's, not knowing which they were. We don't have any tools like that to work with. So our only option is to use our best judgment which is that we feel the minimum we need is 11 instead of 4. And we're out there every day, so we think we have some credit on that. And we know that we can't spend this money if the Administration eventually says no. But we also know that if the money isn't in the budget, it doesn't matter how much the Administration may change its mind later, it's never going to be spent because it was never approved. So we're in a catch 22. We'd like to know your priorities and go with your lower priorities if we're switching. But at the same time, not knowing them, the only way we can make sure we can have that discussion later, because the ballot question is coming up, we're trying to conform this Capital 71 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Budget to the approved ballot question level that the Mayor signed. And we're also looking at it in the context of all this, there's a whole lot of deferred maintenance that we do. It would be great if we didn't have to do it out of Capital and we could do it out of Operating. But it was either Council President or the Majority Leader the other day said to me that they had heard that there were 40,000 work orders backlogged in recreation maintenance. Now, I used to hear a number 25,000 years ago, but 40 is even high for my level of -- I don't know what you call it -- just accepting these wild numbers. With 40,000 or 25,000, I don't care what number you throw on it once it gets up there, $4 million, $400,000 a center doesn't cover very much. And I'm quite sympathetic to somebody who pretty much has to tow the line and say there's got to be $7 million less in this line item. So I'm not here to jump all over the Planning Commission or the Capital Budget Office, but we know that there was no 25 starting point where there was an assessment 72 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 level that was given by the Council as to these recreation needs. It was just done from within the Administration. So I just hope you understand what we're doing and maybe in the future not have that assessment ahead of time, but we can also when we get to a situation like this where we walk into the budget, we differ on a certain line item, rather than having to add 7, we stay within the guidelines but we know your higher versus lower critical areas. I'll just leave it at that.
If I can respond just briefly. First, let me just say for the record, taking the Commissioner's tact on this, there is a robust conversation amongst the various elements that make up the group that come to closure on Capital Budget. And I would also say that Rick pointed out that there are conversations that happen with the Capital Program Office, with the Budget Office, and even in some cases with the members of our community planning staff ongoing. Those conversations play a big role 73 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 in our discussions. In every discussion that I have had around recreation facilities, someone has said, "Well, I've talked to this Councilperson. This is what they think. This is what they would prefer. This is the conversation they're having with their community." So although I'm not giving short shrift to your point, that's a very different kettle of fish than having that conversation directly with the Councilperson and having the facts and figures on the table. I take that point. I do want to say that the recommendations and the concerns of individual Councilpeople are taken tremendously seriously in those conversations. As to whether there can be some kind of modified process with regard to work orders, et cetera, I think I mentioned in response to the Council President that Commissioner Richard have made some suggestions and we have not had an opportunity to have that conversation not only with the 74 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Capital Program Office, with the Managing Director who is obviously very concerned and has purview over this matter. So I would hesitate even speaking to the specifics of that without having discussed it with him. But that is a concern.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning -- or good afternoon at this point. I just have a couple items in a couple different places. So first, let me ask Ms. Reed. Welcome back to our little place. I think you were here the other day, but I missed you. The proposed Capital Budget was approximately 67 and a half, $67.6 million; is that correct?
We'll have to get back to you on that. Sorry, we don't have that with 75 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 us.
We will have to get back to you on that. We do not have that number with us.
Well, I appreciate your honesty. But if we were not here today for this hearing, this question would have worked its way to the ballot probably a long time ago if all these other issues had been resolved. And I know it started prior to your time, but it is unfathomable to me that a question would be going on the ballot in two weeks and the City does not have any idea what the debt service is going to be on $67 million.
We won't know the debt service until we borrow the money. We haven't borrowed the money yet.
Well, I understand that. But, Ms. Reed, you can give me some estimate. We know what the number is. I know that it is quite possible that Alan Greenspan can say something this afternoon 76 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 that could send the financial markets into cataclysmic decline, but we must have some estimate on present interest rates of what it would cost to borrow 67 and a half million dollars.
We'll have to get you an estimate based on current interest rates.
No one in the Administration knows what this bond offering is going to cost?
Okay. When do you anticipate going to the market with this bond offering?
Linda Howard, Deputy Budget Director. 77 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 The next general obligation borrowing is expected in 2006. We did a major borrowing in 2004.
We don't -- Councilman, we don't know the debt service on money until we borrow it.
My question is, when will you borrow it? You mentioned two possible dates. You mentioned a date in 4 and a date in 6.
The borrowing is based on a cash flow analysis, not on a budget number.
And that means what? What kind of an answer is that when I asked when do you intend to borrow it? 78 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786
It's based on an analysis of the revenues coming in and the expenditures and the debt service payments.
We do. We expect the next borrowing to take place in about two years.
Is it going on the ballot now to authorize it two years from now?
The ballot question is to authorize the spending, sir, not the borrowing. It authorizes you to borrow the money --
So we're not going to borrow for two years, if at all, because things can change in two years, and you're asking for authorization to spend the money that won't be even borrowed for two years? What kind of planning is that?
This is subject to the conditions of the marketplace, Councilman. 79 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786
It doesn't make any sense to me, Councilman Nutter. I yield. Nobody knows anything.
Well, let me ask this question: What amount of capital dollars do we have available presently?
We've carried forward approximately $180 million in general obligation.
We've carried forward approximately $180 million in carry-forward funds of general obligation.
And how much of the 180 is designated for specific projects?
That is non-project specific and it's reserved for the City 80 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Controller certification, some of which would be the ITEF money.
Okay. So what is the difference to the City other than the obvious subtraction but from a debt service perspective between a $67 million Capital Budget and a $74 million Capital Budget?
And is the 67 presently anticipated to come out of the 180?
That would be new authorization. The $12 million that City Council has been receiving since Fiscal Year '99 was about 9.4 percent of the money that was authorized to be spent. At this point, with the authorization so much lower, about half of that, at 67, the Council amount has stayed 81 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 flat at 12. If it was proportional, which it probably should be, it should be a lower amount more in the range of 5. And that does make a difference to the bond rating agencies. They are concerned about the level of debt in relation to revenue overall, and we are already on watch with all of them. We have to be conservative about our debt obligations. And this is why there is some true rationality behind a decrease in that number. In addition to, of all the money that has been allocated to Council so far, there is a carry-forward of about $41 million, and 10 million of that Council has not yet designated for projects. So we have a decent backlog and there are still projects that need to be named. And as we keep rolling, if we were to keep rolling a high number forward, that decreases the amount of money that's available for other kinds of projects. So it's just kind of a perspective on this numbers.
Ms. Reed, first, let me say thank you. I'm glad that you have arrived here and I am incredibly pleased that 82 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 someone actually gave an explanation as to why, purely from a fiscal perspective or a percentage of funds perspective, the bond rating agencies and their concerns perspective because I don't believe in all of the Capital Budget hearings earlier this year that explanation was offered. Now, my memory could be a little faded; there have been a few hearings since that time. But that kind of perspective had not been laid out, so I do greatly appreciate it. It is a new view. Having said that, I do want to at least put on the record so that we're clear with each other in speaking from the same perspective, whenever you state that money has been given to City Council, that Council has not allocated certain funds, that there are unspent or unspecified projects that City Council has, I want to be very clear that it's not like the Budget Office or the Planning Commission or the Capital Program people are giving City Council a gift or a grant or some fund from which we can just buy whatever we want and spend money in a, some might say, 83 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 willy-nilly fashion. It's not our money; it's the citizens' money, and it goes to support infrastructure or buildings or facilities that are owned by the City of Philadelphia and by the citizens and it is for these purposes that these dollars are spent. So they're not coming to us and we get to do whatever we want with them or buy in some frivolous kind of fashion. I have a book --
Point of order. I'm asking whether Councilman Nutter will yield for a question.
Councilman, I was just getting up a head of steam here.
This is the first time I've ever heard that money's been ever made available to Council for any projects. Why is that? And who is it made available to? I have to dispute that, Councilman Nutter. I've never before known that money's been made available to Council. I never before until a couple weeks ago learned that there's a secret group of 10 Councilmembers who have access to millions and millions of 84 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 City dollars without it passing through the body of City Council and that this group, in my judgment, illegally makes decisions about use of the money and the City is fully complicit in that. So I have difficulty with your conclusion that this money is wisely spent or well spent. I had no idea it was being spent. I never knew it was available to City Council. I never remember being at a meeting at which it was decided there's 10 million available, what do we think ought to be spent with it, here are a list of projects Council's been interested in. If there's been such meetings, I've certainly never been invited to them, never known they existed. I think there's been a second group operating illegally in City Council. And I've got to find out what that's all about. I never knew there was money available to City Council for projects.
Will the Councilman yield back on my yield to him so that I can be somewhat responsive?
I yield back. 85 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786
Councilman, all I can tell you is that prior to my arrival in City Council, as desperately as I've sought to get here in the mid-'80s, I have at least partially been aware that -- it may have had a different name. I think the name changed in '92 to the ITEF category, Improvements to Existing Facilities. It may have had another category prior to my arrival, not that I had anything to do with changing the name. But I was certainly aware in the mid-'80s when I was seeking office that Councilmembers had access -- at least District Councilmembers because that's what I was focused on, that's the office I was running on -- had access to capital dollars either through the Capital Budget process or through the Redevelopment Authority. What I meant by my earlier comments if I wasn't clear is that there is, I believe, somewhere a line in the Capital Budget when it's submitted every year for either now improvements to existing facilities. I believe it has a number attached to it. In 86 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 most instances for those years, now speaking for myself, there is no particular anticipated project or projects for which those dollars are specifically allocated, but the reality is this is what happens: When the Recreation Department or the Fairmount Park Commission or the Water Department or any other of the various departments in the government have projects that they want to get done which may also be listed in the Capital Budget specifically as items, when those projects go out to bid, often the bids come back over the amount that they are authorized for. And you are then faced with one of two choices: You can either rebid it, which will add about to months to getting that project done in the hope that the bids will come back lower; most of the time they don't. Or you can add 20, 30, whatever the amount that was over and make sure that your project gets done and on time. Because with every respect to Recreation Commission or Fairmount Park or Rick Tustin, whatever that time is for it to get done, more 87 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 than likely it is a little behind what anyone would like it to be done. So these dollars -- and I'm prepared to go through some of them. When we needed new play equipment and safety matting out at Granahan Playground last year in the 34th Ward, through those dollars I was able to access money for that project, which was way over the Recreation Department's capacity. So what you have here is a system that was set up sometime ago and prior to my inglorious arrival at this incredible institution where you either get your project done now because you have some funding available -- and all the departments know that the dollars are available. There is a general belief that the departments sometimes may, unfortunately, have to short the amount of money available for projects because they know that the mid-management people are going to come right back to us and say, "I'd love to do your project, but I don't have enough money for it." And that's kind of the way it works.
It seems to me, 88 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Councilman Nutter, there will be no difficulty informing all the Members of City Council and gaining their support. But I see no 5 justification whatever for having a kitty of cash available for District Councilmembers.
I understand that and I think that is a slightly different debate.
The votes that take place, sometimes a District Councilmember's vote is a block.
I don't know that this particular issue is involved in that. You asked me a question. What I can tell you is on of the Capital Budget and Program that we passed earlier this year, there is a Line 67 that has 4 million for improvements to existing recreation facilities. That money has -- historically, that number, I believe, has been $12 million and has been split up. Sometimes it's been 10, sometimes 11, sometimes 12 in the better years, which Ms. Reed has made reference to. 89 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 The debate about --
It's never been split up by Councilmanic action. I've never participated --
The debate about who gets to decide which facilities or District Councilmembers versus At-Large Members, I would only suggest to you in an effort to get through some of my questions and then get to where I need to go is it's a legitimate discussion and debate. I cannot account for what information you may have or not have, but when I walked in here, that is the system that was in place 12, 13 years ago. And I've known about it at least going back to 1984, 1985 time period. Again, as I said to Ms. Reed, these dollars are only used for the benefit of the citizens. It's not like --
Well, I doubt that, because if that were true, then there would be no reason to hide it.
Councilman, it's listed as an item in the Capital Budget. You 90 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 can't get much more open than that. I'm not reluctant to having a conversation about it. And the only reason, the only reason -- because you know me, I love a good discussion and debate. The only reason I'd like to short circuit that part of the discussion is because I have four questions that I need to ask and I have a speaking engagement to go to. But it's been in the budget every year. We vote on it. We go through this budget, I think, pretty much in a line item kind of fashion. So I would have to slightly dispute any notion of something being a secret. It's right there in the book. And it's been --
Where does it say in the book that the vote on this will be determined just by District Councilmembers? I don't see in that line item that it expresses that opinion.
That's not mentioned in that line, you are absolutely right about that. Why don't we do this? I really need to ask my questions and then I really need to 91 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 go. So I do not want to be disrespectful and I don't want to short change this conversation because it's an important issue. I don't know how it got started. That is the system and that's what I understood when I got here. I didn't create it by myself. So can I -- I need to do this. So since it isn't particularly clear what the debt service is on the 67 and a half million dollars -- because I need to ask the question -- then do you know what the debt service would be the 74 and a half million dollars, which is essentially the $7 million difference that we're discussing here?
No. The answer would be the same. We are looking into that now as we speak.
So I guess what I'm slightly perplexed at, if we don't know what the cost is, then why is it automatically 92 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 assumed that we can't afford it? How do you make the one statement and not know the answer to the question?
I think that the issue has to do with an appropriate level of spending, given how much we have to spend altogether.
I hear what you're saying about that. And I guess -- and I didn't hear all of Councilman O'Neill's discussion with the Planning Commission Director, but this is probably one of those situations where if there had been a little more discussion early on about this then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion today. But since that kind of discussion never took place and it was just "this is what the number is, take it or leave it" without any of the benefit of the three or four items which, I mean very seriously, are important pieces of information that you laid out. I'm not going to sit here and say that because of that argument I now agree with you, but they are important pieces of information that could 93 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 have been helpful in the decision-making process back in January or February or March when the budget came in as opposed to in June or now October. So that's kind of that. Director Griffin, I've got just a couple questions for you and then put everybody out of their misery. What was the submission to the Mayor on the ITEF line?
As you know, the submission to the Mayor is a formal one from the Planning Commission and the submission to the Mayor was as it was presented to Council.
So it went into the Mayor at 4 million; is that what you're saying?
Sir, if I might add, it's really 5 million all together. One million is 94 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 in the Managing Director's Office for projects as they arrive.
But I'm speaking from memory, but I will double-check that. But that's my recollection.
If you went through this with Councilman O'Neill, then, please, don't go back through it. But how did you decide that 4 million was the number?
Then don't go back through it. Does the Planning Commission or do you as the Director -- how many Recreation, Fairmount Park facilities have you been to.
How many do we 95 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 have between those two departments?
Actually, I was specifically speaking about recreation facilities, not about parks.
Commissioner, how many facilities do you have? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: We have 87 pools, 153 rec centers, we have another 72 passive parks, Fort Mifflin, 3 museums, Camp William Penn --
Why don't we say 300 plus? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir.
And out of that exhaustive review of just the recreation facilities -- and I think I understand Fairmount Park has approximately 400-some-odd facilities. One year they had 300 and then the next year they actually found another hundred. So between the two departments, 700 96 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 facilities, you've been to -- let's throw in a few for Fairmount Park. I'll give you the same dozen. What's that like, 3 percent? And you guys made a decision that $4 million was enough?
Well, now that I understand the premise of your question, as you know, I have a huge staff of 50 folks. And the Capital Budget is coordinated by our planning and policy division along with our community planning division. In no case, not only with the Recreation Department but in any of the activities, do I count on personally visiting or reviewing every situation. So I would say if you're talking about the staff that works on the Capital Budget, certainly I would think that within the four-year period of my tenure, the majority of the facilities have been seen and reviewed by my staff; and not only that, but we rely a great deal on Director Tustin's staff and on the Recreation staff's input and review. So certainly, where there are conflicts, where I am told that there is special Council concern or a 97 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 difference of opinion between Council and staff members of the Recreation Department or where there's an unusual situation or a troubling situation, and since I come up and testify before Council on Capital, I'm especially attuned to situations where I've been inquired before. So it is not simply the or or facilities that I get to see 10 personally; it is, as with any agency, the 11 accruing of all the input of all of my staff. 12
Now, who from 13 your office talks to Councilmembers about 14 their either interest or needs or concerns 15 with regard to the Capital Budget? 16
Primarily the 17 community planning staff. Since the NTI 18 process has sort of taken precedence over the 19 community planning process, that is done 20 primarily in the context of outreach for the NTI plans. And we now have a situation where --
NTI doesn't have anything to do with rec centers, libraries, Fairmount Park facilities or anything else, as 98 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 far as I know.
I apologize, Councilman, that is not the case. When we do our planning, it is comprehensive. So we do rec centers, bus routes, cobblestones in streets --
I understand that. As far as I'm concerned, at least from my perspective, it has nothing to do with any of the money that we put into any of these facilities. I don't remember anybody having a NTI conversation with me when we needed to put new rec equipment at Granahan or fix the steps in Manayunk or do a ball field somewhere else. It has nothing to do with NTI whatsoever.
Let me make sure I understand your question because I might have jumped ahead. Are you talking about the discretionary --
I asked who from your staff goes to each and every Councilmember and talks to them about the Capital Budget in their respective areas.
There is no formal codified process of that kind of outreach. For that kind of outreach, we rely on the Recreation Department and Capital Program Office. There is, however -- and I'll take the phrase NTI out of it -- as part of our community planning process, intensive discussion with Councilmembers about what facilities in toto they want in their district. And that information is funneled to our Capital Program staff which is why sometimes there are disagreements, frankly, between Capital Program Office and my staff. And those are often the cases where I personally go out and see the facility.
I'm going to leave this and go to my last thing because nowhere in any of that, even when there's a dispute between Capital Program or your staff people, there still does not appear to be anyplace in that discussion or that dispute or that debate for us in this body.
Maybe I should have 100 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 used the phrase gentle disagreement.
It's like a wake, everyone wants to talk about the person who's over in the thing while they're there. The only problem is we're not dead.
You're absolutely right. I think I should restate it. I did respond to Councilman O'Neill's similar inquiry. And you're absolutely right. We get opinion that is forwarded to us from folks who have spoken to you, but in the process there is no provision for us to sit down with the data with perhaps an ABC list or some other prioritization and discuss those directly with you, you're correct.
So in '03, this is now again about the dollars that have been spent, when we put the money in Granahan or at the Mann Music Center or at the Memorial Hall Dome or Germany Hill or Fountain Street, spending thousands of capital dollars for those types of projects, which of those would fit your definition of superfluous projects?
I don't know the 101 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 projects well enough to speak off the cuff.
Which projects from last year's Capital Budget, because you know last year's Capital Budget -- which of those would meet the superfluous projects definition?
I'm perhaps not understanding your question and where the phrase superfluous comes from.
of your testimony says, "With few exceptions, the projects included in the 2005 Capital Budget address important economic and neighborhood development, health and safety and critical physical infrastructure needs. There are no 19 superfluous projects and few additional capital dollars to go around." That's from your testimony. Did you write that?
Don't answer 102 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 that question then.
I asked you not to answer the question yet. Who wrote the testimony?
I don't remember which staff member drafted the testimony, but I certainly reviewed it, modified it, changed it and stand by it.
Very good. So tell me what superfluous projects we have in last year's budget.
That's not the way I read that sentence. And I'm sorry if it's unclear. I don't read the sentence to say that there were superfluous projects last session. I just don't.
The purpose of the phrase is to simply to say -- perhaps not as well said as it should be -- that there is no 25 additional funds to go to projects that are 103 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 not core, absolutely necessary projects.
Who gets to decide what are core, absolutely necessary projects?
Well, I think that's the core of this discussion, this debate.
I'm asking the question. Who gets to decide that, from your perspective?
From our perspective, when it comes to what we suggest is a $4 million distribution of discretionary funds to Councilmembers, it would be Councilmembers who would decide which projects were core. And where it comes to the primary capital dollars, it would be the Recreation Department, the Capital Program Office in concert with Councilmembers.
Okay. In this year's budget, there was a major project cut out. Can you get back to me -- part of the Philadelphia Zoo, not the big part but a small part, is in my district. The bulk of the zoo, obviously, is in 104 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 Councilwoman Blackwell's district. Could you get back to me with an explanation as to why the zoo was taken completely out of the '05 budget?
Thank you. Are there any other questions from Members of the Committee? Councilman DiCicco.
I don't know if it's appropriate at this time, but I just want to bring up an issue that has been discussed and I brought up many times. Is there any movement on Camp William Penn? Have we explored the options that we talked about, selling all of it, some of it? Any further discussion since last spring, I think? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes. There was an appraisal done by Public Property. I don't have that information. We are putting together a request for interest on outside 105 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 operations of the camp, as was asked by the body as well as the Managing Director Office as well. And we're 's still moving forward.
Could you share that information with the Chair, whatever information you have relating to the appraisal? Has there been a consensus, an agreement, an understanding, between the Department of rec, Department of Public Property, Managing Director's Office that this is something they even want to pursue? I mean, I don't want to spin my wheels and waste everybody else's time when we have these meetings to talk about this issue if it's something that they're really not even considering. I mean, is it something that you're seriously looking at the possibility of either selling it entirely or a portion of it? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Not the entire property. The possibility of selling a portion of it and maybe having an outside developer to look at commercial development as far as a corporate style retreat that would 106 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 bring revenues back it maybe self-sustaining of the pre existing camp, yes, sir. But not total sale of the property.
So presently, that camp is now in the -- I don't want to use the word winterization, but it's closed for the season and we still have two employees that are full-time employees working and maintaining that property? COMMISSIONER RICHARD: Yes, sir. Roofing work was just completed. An overlay was just completed. I was there the weekend before last. Mess hall, rec hall was stripped down, total floors re-varnished and sealed. The boys' side camp is almost totally winterized, lines blown, pressure washing and sanitizing with Lysol and high pressure. We're working on the girls' side.
I really appreciate the answer and you know, Commissioner, you and I work very well together, both professionally and socially we're pretty good friends. But I'm hearing all these improvements that are taking place 107 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786 in on a facility that gets used six weeks a year, and we have some problems in our facilities that are used year round. And I think that's the rub is. This is not personal, obviously, as you know. This is where the rub comes in with me and some of the other members about this camp site that is a hundred miles or 80 miles away from Philadelphia, and we have facilities in our districts that we're waiting weeks, months, in some cases years to get these improvements and necessary repairs to. So I'll just end with that. I'll go on, I'm sure, a long dissertation about my concern for why we even keep that place. But I appreciate your honesty. And hopefully you can get some information to the Chair. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARD: I'll forward it.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.) 108 10/19/04 - WHOLE - BILLS 040785, 040786
Do we have anyone else who would like to testify? (No response.)
Seeing no 6 one. Would you get us the recommendation from the Planning Commission today, please?
Thank you. This concludes the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. - - - - 109 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - - - - Public meeting conducted by the Committee of the Whole, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 040785, 040786. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN 110 10/19/04 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
We will go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell regarding Bill No. 040785.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 040785 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and also recommendation for suspension of the Rules so as to permit first consideration at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 040785 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. 111 10/19/04 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING Again, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell regarding Bill No. 4 040786.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 040786 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 040786 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. 112 10/19/04 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING This concludes the public meeting of the Committee of the Whole. Thank you very much. (Council adjourned at 1:25 p.m.) 113 C E R T I F I C A T I O N. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, October 19, 2004, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR