Well, I was going to say good afternoon, but now I'll make it good evening, Members of City Council. My name is Jim Helman. I'm a resident of Grays Ferry. I'm a member of the Committee of Concerned Citizens, and I'm Treasurer of Vare Recreation Center at 26th and Morris Streets. The Philadelphia Department of Recreation is in trouble. Our Department is in trouble. The trouble stems from the fact that the Street Administration has some sort of strange vendetta against the Department of Recreation. Now, I haven't reached that conclusion easily, and I don't make that statement lightly. I have carefully weighed the evidence that supports my conclusion. And try as I might, I cannot interpret the evidence in any other way. 00304 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Let's examine some of that evidence. One, the Street Administration has given some $30 million of taxpayers' money to Safe and Sound, to fund family centers, beacon programs, and after-school programs, by private organizations throughout the City. $30 million is 63 percent of the entire Department of Recreation annual budget. The funding was given to Safe and Sound through something called The Child Investment Strategy. Safe and Sound gets to decide who receives funding and how much funding is made available. Nobody really knows how those decisions are made or who gets what funding. And this can raise some serious questions. For example, $355,000 of taxpayers' money was awarded to an organization called Education Works. The funding is to be used for a beacon program at Auden Reid High School. The problem is, there is no Beacon Program at Auden Reid High School. So, who is Education Works and where is $355,000 of our money? Another example many is the Harrison School in North Philly. Temple Center for 00305 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Intergenerational Learning received $776,525 of taxpayers' money for a family center. The family center concludes an after-school program. An organization called REDI. That's R-E-D-I, was awarded $355,000 for a beacon program. Guess where? That's right, the Harrison School. That's over $1,100,000 for private programs in one school on one block in one neighborhood. At the same time the Street Administration is talking about a formula to close public recreation facilities for lack of funding. There is something seriously wrong with this scenario. First of all, unlike the Department of Recreation, the Children's Investment Strategy, Safe and Sound, or any of their family centers, beacon programs, or after-school programs have no public accountability. Unlike the Department of Recreation, there is no advisory council system in place that gives a voice to the people on what happens in our communities. Anyone who wants to can create a 00306 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole program, apply for funding, and do their thing, without regard to the taxpayers. I don't get to vote for Alba Martinez or Naomi Goobernick, or the members of the so-called Children's Commission, or any of the other people who get to throw around $30 million of taxpayers' money. Unlike the Department of Recreation, Safe and Sound has no professional staff in our communities who are well-placed to determine local needs. Unlike the Department, there is no 14 interaction between a government service and the people they serve. There are only nameless, faceless people who decide what is going to happen in our communities, who is going to do what, and how much taxpayers' money they are going to get to spend. No Department of Recreation program anywhere in the City is eligible for any of the $30 million Safe and Sound gets to distribute. It's as if the Street Administration wants to create some sort of competition between public and private recreation. Why does it have 00307 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole to be that way? The AGAP Community Outreach Services gets $91,500 for an after-school program that serves 50 children.
At my facility we struggle to come up with $24,000 for an entire year's funding for five basketball leagues for three different age groups, a gymnastics program, a tumbling program, an after-school program, a drama program, four different dance programs, Girl Scouts, an art program, three different summer camps, and more, that serve hundreds of children. Are our programs worth any less than any of the private programs? Are the children we serve any less entitled to funding support than the children who are enrolled in private programs? Why does the Street Administration insist on treating the children we serve as second class recreation citizens? Why do organizations that serve the children and youth of our City have to compete? Why can't all the programs be funded fairly and equally? Who on earth is responsible for this situation? 00308 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole The $30 million is earmarked especially for children considered to be at risk. Children at risk certainly deserve our attention and support. But there are thousands and thousands of children and youth in Philadelphia who are not at risk. There are children and youth who are not truant, who do well in school, who have strong family support, and who have not visited our juvenile justice system. These children also deserve our attention and support. They frequently get that support, along with the children who are at risk, at our public recreation facilities, facilities that the Street Administration is allowing to deteriorate, while throwing $30 million at private programs. By committing most of this funding for children at risk, while forcing the Department of Recreation to struggle for funding seems to me that we are choosing between categories of children. Why do we have to do that? What kind of an Administration would create something that causes us to choose between 00309 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole children? 5 million from the Department of Recreation's budget after the budget was passed by City Council. Although this may be legal for the Mayor to do, it certainly smacks of sneakiness, even underhandedness. The public gets no voice on what amounts to a budget reduction. The Mayor simply says what he wants and sets his bean counters to the task of getting it done. If City Council passed a Department budget today, there would be no guarantee that the Department would actually get to use the money appropriated. Last December Mayor Street told a reporter almost gleefully that recreation facilities and pools will have to close. The Mayor didn't say which pools or which facilities. During Commissioner Richard's testimony before this Body, it was stated that a formula will be in place sometime next year to decide on facility closings, conveniently after 00310 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole the November election. In the meantime, the public is left to wonder whether their facility will be included. This is arrogance, pure and simple, and a blatant disregard for the public served by the Department of Recreation. The Department has requested $150,000 to fund infrastructure repairs for their facilities. With 157 or so facilities, that averages just $955 per facility, $955. 4 million of funding for Philadelphia prisons. 4 million of City business given to campaign contributors from the last Mayoral election. $955. What a joke. Mouth is getting dry. In his Budget Address, Mayor Street asked for $25 million to refit our schools, to offer the same programs already offered at our public recreation facilities. Mark my words. The day will come when Mayor Street points to a school and describes what is offered, and then points to a nearby 00311 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole public recreation facility and asks: Why do we need both? The Mayor will then close the recreation facility, turn the property over to some developer, and call it neighborhood transformation.
There is more. There is much more, but in the interests of brevity, and because I'm hungry, we will move on to examine our options. We could try to convince the Street Administration to concentrate at least as much on right thinking as they are on right sizing. That probably won't be productive because everyone knows by now that all knowledge in Philadelphia is concentrated on the second floor of City Hall. Anyone who is not in that charmed circle simply doesn't know what they're talking about. We could somehow try to get a grip on the bean counter mentality that permeates the Street Administration on the public recreation. That probably won't work either. Bean counters, 00312 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole by definition, don't think much about people. They think about figures. And they use those figures to advance whatever agenda the Mayor chooses to advance at any given moment. There is a third option. We can have a Department of Recreation in Philadelphia. We can have a Department that continues to serve our communities, as they have done for the last 50 years, long before anyone ever heard of investment strategies or Safe and Sound. We can have a Department that we can all be proud of. We can have our recreation facilities. They can be properly funded and properly maintained and properly staffed. It requires dedicated and inspired leadership. Given their track record, that leadership is not likely to come from the Street Administration. It is, after all, the Street Administration that in just three short years has turned our Department into a struggling, underfunded, unappreciated, and demoralized City agency. But you know what? Despite all of 00313 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole that, the Department continues to strive to deliver more bang for the taxpayers' buck than any other City service. That is a testament to the Department's dedicated professional staff and our volunteers, who understand the value of public recreation to our communities and to our City. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Helman, did I understand you to say that at Auden Reid a Beacon school is being -- a Beacon Program is being funded but is not there?
All right. Mr. Dubow, can you approach the witness table and give us some explanation as to what's going on, please. While we're waiting for Mr. Dubow, I certainly want to thank each and every one of you, not only for your interest in the community, but more importantly, for your interest in the children. I think you've done a fabulous job. And I know that I said this before. 00314 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole I have the greatest respect for the employees in the Recreation Department. I've known them all for a number of years, and they do outstanding work and are very, very responsive. And I'm very, very proud of just about all of them. Mr. Dubow, come on. We're all tired, hungry. And the court stenographer needs a break.
Hi. Rob Dubow, the Budget Director. As I understand it, that's an award that's just been made. The program hasn't been started up, but it will be starting up within the next several months.
That award was actually made some time ago to something called Education Works. It has just been made again to an entirely different organization, same amount, $355,000, which is now supposed to start in December. But the award was actually made some time ago. And as you know, President Verna, I'm fairly familiar with what happens in Grays Ferry, 00315 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole some people would say too familiar with what happens in Grays Ferry. And I'm telling you, there is no program of any kind at Auden Reid High School.
Well, whatever happened to the monies? Well, who can address this issue? Who has any knowledge of this issue? Please come forward.
I think we'll have to get back to you with the details on that.
Thank you. Yes, you're next. MR. McCRAE: Thank you. I'll make mine brief. I'll be home in less than four minutes; how about that?
That's fine. MR. McCRAE: All right. For those who don't know, I represent the three individuals 00316 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole here, as well as 180 volunteer organizations across the City of Philadelphia. I'm Mike McCrae. I'm President of the Philadelphia Recreation Advisory Council. For the third year in a row I bring disturbing news to these hearings, news that should be no surprise to those who have been listening, raising some difficult questions to those in position to change things, and who have been silent and done nothing. It's hard to imagine the fortunes of the Recreation Department have changed so drastically in such a short period of time, and I think due in large part to funding reductions and a general lack of support from the Street Administration. For the past three fiscal years the Department -- Sorry. Can't even read this. Here we go. 5 million. That amounts to almost 10 percent of the $37 million total obligation. To make matters worse, these 00317 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole reductions were all completed months after the Operating Budget had been debated and passed by this Body. In our mind we see this as a cowardly act, being done out of the spotlight and with no opportunity for public debate. Now on, the surface you may not see any noticeable changes, but on the front lines we feel those changes each and every day. As Advisory Council, it's our responsibility to ensure that the services offered at each local facility meet the growing needs of the community. Its dedication of the current staff and volunteers to find additional resources is what keeps every facility afloat. And the weight of this awesome tasks rests squarely on their shoulders. And under the circumstances we feel they do a very good job. While we understand the importance of delivering these vital services to every community, we cannot help but feel as though we're being taken for granted, not by the Recreation Department, but by the Street Administration. 00318 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole We work very hard to build on the partnership that exists between us and the Recreation Department. However, the Street Administration has gone out of its way to try and minimize our contribution and impact on these services. We don't mind doing our part, but we also don't appreciate being taken advantage of. Children's Investment Strategy was created three years ago, in part to administer a pool of over $30 million to fund after-school and other youth programs. Many of our facilities already provide these services that were outlined in the RFP created just for this funding. However, even though as non-profits we supplement every after-school program, we are specifically excluded from even applying for this funding because we partner with the Recreation Department in delivery of this service. Not only were we specifically excluded from applying, the private non-profit organizations that received this funding have set up in and next to many facilities where our 00319 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole current programs have operated for years, in essence competing for the same children who are already being served, rather than creating new opportunities for those children who are not being served. When it comes to youth services, competition in this way means that the children are the ultimate losers. Because these programs receive three times the funding that we do to provide the same service, the Street Administration has created a playing field that's nowhere near level. Now, the most disturbing aspect of it all -- and Mr. Helman also alluded to this, too, is that these programs are not accountable to the communities they serve, only to Safe and Sound. Safe and Sound is also not accountable to taxpayers and citizens of Philadelphia, only to the Mayor. As non-profits, we must be accountable, not only own individual communities, but to the City as well. And the City Charter does not allow to us exist without it.
00320 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole When you put all these circumstances together, it's clear to us that these programs are created ultimately to replace and privatize existing programs, effectively reducing our numbers and therefore making it easier to close some facilities, as the Mayor so gleefully promised he would several months ago. To move on, several of us were present on March 3rd when Fairmount Park and Department of Recreation presented their testimony. There were some very important points raised that we feel need to be followed up on. Concerning after school, the new TANIF funding is not -- I repeat not -- a supplement to our existing budget, as it was referred to several times in the hearings. Every dollar received through TANIF constitutes a replacement of General Fund dollars that have been already budgeted for something else, having nothing to do with recreation. It is not -- I repeat not -- a supplement. And that point needs to be made extremely clear. Also discussed was a transfer of existing facilities from Fairmount Park to the 00321 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Recreation Department. This has been talked about for a long time and it makes sense. However, it also needs to be done right. When we became involved in this about six weeks ago, there appeared to be no 7 particular transition plan and funding was woefully inadequate. Currently there appears to be an attempt to organize a transition plan, and the funding has improved, at least on paper. While Council Members asked many appropriate questions, the answers need to be followed up, and a final plan needs to be reviewed by this Body and funded accordingly. Now, to put all this in perspective, however, our bottom line has always been and continues to be providing those necessary services to our community. Even with our existing shortfall the Department of Recreation continues to offer and deliver a vast array of services to every community across the City that costs less than $2 a day per person. Now, I might be slightly biased, but 00322 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole I don't believe there's anywhere in this City's budget where the taxpayer gets a better value for the dollar than right here. We feel that in a city this size, it should not be acceptable to turn any child away, simply because you don't have the resources to accommodate them. That has always been and will always be our line in the sand. In conclusion, just like the Wizard of Oz, we need to pay attention to the man behind the curtain and wish that he finds the brains to care about the issues, the heart to feel the urgency of the situation, and the courage to do something about it. While it's true there is no place like home, I just hope we don't get there too late. Thank you.
Would you return to the stand for a moment. 00323 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole
Thank you, Madam President. MR. McCREA: Sorry. I'm getting hungry, too.
Could you, without repeating everything... MR. McCREA: Sure.
...just very briefly outline the purposes. You were reading a little too fast for my hearing aids, and they were running behind. What was the theme? I agree with your final conclusion. MR. McCREA: Well, part of it was about the funding that Children's Investment Strategy gets that we weren't qualified for.
Slow down a little. MR. McCREA: Sorry. The Children's Investment Strategy gets $30 million that they're giving for after-school programs and other youth programs.
Yes. 00324 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole MR. McCREA: We were specifically excluded from even applying for that money because we are in part a partner with the Department of Recreation in our programs, because we are not totally private, because we operate in facilities and we -- and there's funding for teachers and whatnot from the Department of Recreation for those services. And a lot of them actually operate in or across the street or right next to facilities that we already operate the same programs out of. And basically it's creating a competition, instead of creating more spots for more kids so you can serve more kids, it's basically privatized the whole thing, to a point where they're competing for the same kids that we're already serving. So it's not actually increasing it as much as the number of kids that they're served, other than just the dollars are being used to basically serve the same kids.
How does privatization work in this case? 00325 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole MR. McCREA: These are 501C3 non-profit organizations that are allowed to apply for this money to set up new programs in schools, beacon programs, some of them; some of them just after school. And the beacon programs, for instance, operate in a school. They offer pretty much the same things that we do in an aid facility. They would offer -- The gum would be open for them. They'd have other kinds of sports things. They'd also have tutoring and all kinds of other activities in the building itself. Now, most of our aid facilities do that already. And in some cases, we operate in the school for seven or eight years, say, in Mars, for example, that we operate the pool, the gym, and an after-school program there. They brought in a beacon program for $355,000 in the same school that we're already doing that in. So it doesn't make sense to, you know, to bring in a private program to do the same thing that we're doing exactly in the same building. To me it just doesn't make sense, Councilman Cohen. 00326 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole
Sounds to me that you're right. We do have a very high regard for the Recreation Department. MR. McCREA: I appreciate that.
And we are very concerned about efforts to privatize. For some reason or other the City Administration for a number of years has seemed to be ready to wage war on its own employees, instead of appreciating the fine work they do. And we're determined to reverse that. So we applaud you for being here. MR. McCREA: I appreciate that. (Applause.)
I'm glad to see you're fighting for your rights. MR. McCREA: I appreciate that. And I think the thing is, it's not that we object to these programs. But if they're going to create more programs, it should be created, and we feel, and it says so in the RFP itself, they should be created to serve more children, not compete for the same ones we have. It doesn't make sense to me. 00327 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole
Absolutely. MR. McCREA: And it doesn't make sense to me. Thank you.
Well, I will tell you that I feel that it's wrong to close any recreation facility. I don't know of a single one anywhere in the City that's surplus or not used properly. If anything, I think we need more at a time of declining employment. In times of economic depressions or recessions, I think you need more services to the community, rather than less. And I think the City is headed and the Mayor is heeded in the wrong direction, when he tries to shut down on services to the people in the community. Long live the Recreation Department and its employees. MR. McCREA: I appreciate it. And also, I think if we were allowed to apply for some of that funding, I think we could make very good use of that money. I think we already do make good use of the little money that we have, but with that 00328 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole kind of funding we could increase the services and the number of kids that we serve at some of our aid facilities.
The City has been very stingy in its treatment of the Recreation Department. You're absolutely right. (Applause.) MR. McCREA: I have to agree with you. (Applause.)
And your determination that more money should go to recreation. MR. McCREA: Thank you, Councilman. I appreciate that.
Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Any other comments or questions? (No response.)
Thank you. At this time at the request of the stenographer we're going to take a half hour recess. I'm sure his fingers must be very sore at this point in time and his legs must be numb. So we'll take a 00329 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole half hour recess. Thank you (Brief recess.)
Good evening. We're now in session again. Our next witness is Jacob Gray. Good evening. Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
Good evening. Thank you, President. My name is Jacob Gray. And I'm the Director of the Equity Project, which is a national non-profit, dedicated to ensuring every American gets a fair share. And I want to introduce Lance Haver, who's going to describe some of what we brought for you.
Good evening, Madam President. The worker-owners of the companies that were here earlier this afternoon and weren't able to stay for this evening's session, these are products that we make from worker owned companies. And we've brought you some samples over there. The basil is grown right here in Philadelphia. This is a non-toxic citrus-based cleanser that's made by a worker-owned company. 00330 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole And we brought samples for all of the Members of Council so you can see the benefit of a worker-owned business.
I also wanted to acknowledge we -- earlier today we had worker-owners from Laser Labs which is an eyeglass manufacturer in the City, and their CEO. We had the CEO of Urban Works, which is a janitorial firm in the City. We have the CEO right here of Phoenix Foods, and we had all the employees here; City Sort, which is a mailing facility; Sun and Earth. The CEO is right here. And we had about seven of their employees here. They're all worker-owners. And Robert Fishman, who's the Director of RHD, Resources for Human Development, was also here earlier. The Equity Project is sponsored by Resources for Human Development. If you're not aware, RHD is a one hundred million dollar non-profit headquartered here in Philadelphia. RHD has invested in worker-owned companies and has created about 250 jobs in the 00331 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole City. The Equity Project is an outgrowth of those efforts. Lance Haver here is our Board Chair and Philadelphia is our pilot region. I am here to urge the City to use its Budget to fight poverty by encouraging the growth of a different kind of business. That's a business that shares profits and ownership with all its employees. Let me begin by mixing my metaphors. When we were talking about poverty, it's better to teach a man to fish than to give a man a fish, right? The Equity Project is concerned with a different question. We say, who owns the boat? Because a fisherman may eat for a lifetime, but what about saving to buy a house? A rising tide may lift all boats. But that only works if you own a boat. Worker ownership isn't about everyone being the captain or even everyone being the first mate. It's about the fisherman who owns just a little bit of his boat so that when the boat rises the fisherman comes up with it. 00332 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Now, I timed myself. This takes three minutes. I'll skip through and be respectful of our time. You know the facts about wealth and poverty in the City better than I do, so I won't bore you with all the statistics. Fact is Philadelphia lost 68,000 people in the last year. Median income has shrink from $32,000 to $30,000. And we have 38,000 more people living in poverty in the City. We all know this from the five-year plan. But the rest of the year isn't -- The rest of the country, that is, isn't doing much better. Let me show you right here what I mean. I can't show everybody out there, but the median annual compensation over the last 30 years for average -- the average American really hasn't gone very far at all. In 1970 the average American made about $32,000. In 1999 the average American makes about $35,000. That's the average American household. So, back in 1970 I think some of us remember things weren't so great. Now they're not that much better. 00333 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole However, if you take the top 100 CEOs of American corporations, back in 1970 they were averaging about $1.5 million in compensation, but today they're averaging $35 million in compensation. So that goes from, you know, being able to afford maybe a little sailboat to being able to afford a gigantic yacht, like this. Now, there's nothing wrong with wealth, and I'm not arguing against wealth. However, if the average American had kept up, just in terms of percentage growth, to the top 100 CEOs, the average American household would be making about $1 million a year. So how does this happen? How come with the rising tide only the yachts are rising? Well, it is the answer -- one answer -- there are many. But one important answer is the rest of us don't even own part of the boat. We're still splashing around in the water trying to grab a lifesaver. So, how can worker-owned businesses help?
Now they're 00334 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole trying to take the lifesaver away.
Good point. Let me talk how worker-owned businesses can help. Phoenix Foods produced the basil. I hope everybody will grab some. They're in the boxes in the corner on the way out. It keeps in your refrigerator -- Actually, don't put it in your refrigerator. Keeps on your shelf for about two weeks. Phoenix Foods is a fish and basil farm located in West Philadelphia Empowerment Zone. Every employee there gets paid a living wage, about $8.50 an hour. Every employee gets a share of the profits, and every employee is an owner. Together they own about a third of the company. Sun and Earth made these non-toxic cleaners, right here in the buckets. There's a bucket for every member of Council also. I hope you'll get them. They offer ownership and profits to all their employees as well. These are not hobby businesses. These are real businesses. Sun and Earth will produce about two and a half million bottles of 00335 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole cleaner this year and run about $8 million in sales. So, no business is perfect. But at these companies, entry level employees win because they get living wages and they get to earn profit-sharing and ownership. The company wins because worker-owned companies actually often outperform their standard traditional competitors. And the City wins because taxes and jobs and wealth are generated and remain local. So, just suspend your disbelief, those of you who are here, and imagine, if you will, 500 companies, worker-owned companies like Phoenix Foods, and Sun and Earth here in the City. Imagine that they employ 20,000 people. Imagine what our schools would look like, with a tax base to support them, or what our children could achieve if 20,000 more parents could afford quality child care. Imagine what the streets and houses would look like if 20,000 more people had the money to buy that market rate housing that we're building. 00336 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole This is no fairy tale that I'm spinning for you. Thirty years ago a small change in the tax code, the Federal Tax Code, rewarded owners who sold their businesses to their employees when they retired. That's called the Aesop Legislation. As a result, today there are 1.5 million workers nationwide who own their companies, just like at Phoenix Foods and Sun and Earth. So what I want to urge the City to do is to lead the nation with a new agenda that benefits ordinary people, working people. Encourage business that share ownership. As one example, give them favorable bidding on services that are contracted out. You can also provide tax credits, perhaps cut the City Business Tax on businesses that share ownership. You can make that tax be commensurate with how much ownership is shared, so that if you share 90 percent of ownership, you pay 90 percent less Business Tax. Carve out parts of the loan funds that already exist at PIDC and other places. 00337 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Invest two percent, just a small slice of our public investment funds, in worker-owned companies. Now, these are ways to encourage new businesses. There are not an enormous number of worker-owned companies in this City right now. We're not talking about ways -- I'm cognizant of the fact the City doesn't have a lot of extra money to go throwing around tax cuts. These are ways to encourage the growth of a new kind of business that shares wealth, spreads around ownership, shores up our democracy, and keeps -- builds -- rebuilds a middle class tax base, and builds decent working-class jobs. With these and other changes, the City can help Philadelphians come up out of that water we were talking about and onto a boat that they own. Who knows? We might be known as the Equity City. Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? 00338 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole (No response.)
Thank you again. Our next witness is Carol Hemmingway. Is Carol Hemingway here? JOE: She wasn't able to be here.
Are you going to testify on her behalf? JOE: Briefly.
Please approach the table. Thank you. JOE: My name is Joe. I work for ACORN, the community organization. Unfortunately we weren't able to bring members with us tonight, including Miss Hemingway, to talk about the state of home repair in the City or lack thereof, and a lot of the home repairs needed, which I'm sure everyone is very much aware of, given the housing stock in the neighborhoods of Philadelphia is so old, many of the houses being over a century old. So basically we're here to comment on the Targeted Basic Systems Repair Program that's being used as a part of the Neighborhood 00339 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Transformation Initiative to really bolster, you know, the ability of the City to respond to home repair needs. It's a really tremendous program. Unfortunately, at the moment, only $400 million -- $4 million over the next two years is going to be going towards Targeted Basic Systems Repair, which should cover about 250 households. Obviously, there's a lot more work that needs to be done. I have information here for any Council people who are interested in looking it over, detailing the, you know, the budget for Neighborhood Transformation Initiative and specifically the Targeted Basic Systems Repair.
Oh, fine. We'll have it distributed. JOE: I appreciate that.
And we'll also give a copy to the stenographer. JOE: Yes. I appreciate that. 00340 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole And... Yeah. And so, basically, our members would like to offer out to all of the Council people to please work with ACORN members and the other members of the communities, to bolster these funds, really make this into a program that has the ability to prevent blight, rather than just dealing slowly with the blight that already exists, and truly make this a program that could change the face of rowhouse Philadelphia. And I'm sorry that Miss Hemingway was unable to attend tonight. Thank you.
Welcome. Now, I think we'll be having hearings on CDBG and NTI later. I think it's very imperative that you come in at that time or have Carol come in at that time. So that I think that's when it should be addressed. JOE: Okay.
Thank you. Is Al Williams here? Al Williams? PHA 00341 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole construction training. (No response.)
Do we have someone here from the Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth and Family Services?
Good evening, Madam President and Members of City Council. I am Lauren Preheim. I'm the Executive Director of Presbyterian Children's Village. And I'm here this evening representing the Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth and Family Services. The Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth and Family Services a statewide membership organization that supports the work of private, not for profit agencies. Our mission is to improve the quality of life for Pennsylvania's children, youth and families who are at risk, by supporting and promoting an accessible delivery system within our communities. 00342 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole The diversity of our membership has increased in recent years, as have the services provided and the complexity of the children and families served. We are here this evening to offer support for the Philadelphia Department of Human Services fiscal year 2004 operating budget as presented by Commissioner Alba Martinez. Under her leadership, the Department has undertaken numerous initiatives to protect and support at-risk children and families. Through innovative, research-based, outcome-driven programming, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services has become a model for service improvement, not only in the Commonwealth, but also nationally. The efforts of Commissioner Martinez to make the Department more responsive and accountable for Philadelphia's children and families are commendable. We urge City Council to support the Department's Fiscal Year '04 Budget so that these critical efforts to improve services continue. 00343 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole The Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth and Family Services has more than 100 member agencies statewide, and over one half are based in the southeast region. Our members serve non-adjudicated, dependent and delinquent children and youth and their families, through a broad spectrum of programs, including in-home services, foster and kinship care, treatment and medical foster care, mother-baby foster care, adoption, independent living, emergency shelter care, group home, institutional care, and residential treatment care. Our member agencies also deliver services aimed at averting the involvement of children and families with the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. These community-based prevention programs include home visiting, day treatment, after school, school based, case management, and truancy prevention programs. Many members also have strong behavioral health and educational programs incorporated into their array of services and 00344 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole supports. Over 70 of our member agencies contract with the Department to deliver these services. Approximately 82 percent of the Department's budget is allocated for purchased services. In conjunction with the Department, our member agencies also have undertaken extensive efforts to ensure that the Department generates Federal and State reimbursements through TANIF, and Title 4E, by completing necessary documentation to maximize these resources. 82 percent of the Department's funding requests being offset by Federal and State dollars. A positive and productive partnership has developed between the private provider community and DHS, under the leadership of Commissioner Martinez. Council member agencies have worked closely with DHS staff on a number of committees, including those focusing on continuing practice improvement and treatment foster care, the 00345 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole adoption task force, the multi-disciplinary team review, and the Philadelphia Outcome Measurement Project. Additionally, this past year providers worked intensively with Department staff in preparing for the Federal Child and Family Service Review. This monitoring vehicle for the $325 million Federal received by Pennsylvania was completed in August 2002. A highly detailed report, setting off the Department's strengths and areas needing improvement followed the review.
We are pleased to be viewed as two partners in creating systemic changes that will promote the goals of permanency, well-being and safety for children. While Philadelphia exceeded designated outcome measures in some areas, the Federal Review identified the Philadelphia did not achieve substantial conformity with benchmarks established for the achievement of permanency. We have and will continue to support attainment of higher rates of permanency for 00346 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole children in DHS custody. Over the past several years, providers have significantly increased their efforts to secure safe and permanent homes for children. Our efforts are reflected in the data that Commissioner Martinez presented to Council in her March 4, 2003 testimony. 8 percent or 1,044 children in the reporting period ended September 30, 2002. It should be noted that even prior to the Federal Review, the Department had initiated reforms to address permanency outcomes for children. Work to modify the contractual requirements for the delivery of family foster care services began over a year ago. During the last 18 months, Pennsylvania Council member agencies have met regularly with the Department staff to plan and 00347 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole implement a performance based contracting model for the delivery of general foster family care. While there have been times when the development of this model has been marked with areas of disagreement, it has been one that has been inclusive of private providers. Under performance based contracting DHS has developed structured contracts with providers which includes specific permanency expectations. Providers will have three permanency options available to meet these expectations. The three options are: Reunification, adoption, and subsidized permanent legal custodianship. Providers that meet or exceed expectations will receive financial benefits, while agencies falling short of their contractual obligations will be subject to financial disincentives. While providers wholeheartedly support the goals of achieving higher rates of permanency, performance based contracting places tremendous financial risks on the financial sector, risks that cannot be mitigated solely 00348 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole through our efforts. In order to achieve permanency goals for children, providers must be able to access appropriate and adequate resources for families. These include behavioral health and substance abuse services, as well as affordable housing. The recent cuts in State funding for drug and alcohol programs will adversely impact efforts to reunify children with parents who have drug and alcohol problems. Such factors which are critical to achieving permanency for children are beyond the control of private agencies and raise concerns for them about performance based contracting. The Department has undertaken initiative to locate permanent homes for children. And we applaud their efforts to increase the number of adoptions through community outreach efforts, such as Publishing Philly Kids, Connection, and the building of a post-permanency peer support network. Additionally, the Department has undertaken extensive efforts to ensure that children for whom reunification and adoption have 00349 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole been ruled out have access to the third permanency option, subsidized permanent legal custodianship. These efforts are part of the Department's larger efforts to improve communication with the public, including the development of Philly SOS, which is a web-based searchable, community resource data base, and the launching of a parenting awareness campaign, which will provide parents with information about appropriate programs and resources. The Department now has 13 publications to inform Philadelphia families about 14 DHS related services.
We urge City Council to support the Department's efforts to share information about its resources with consumers, as well as the broader community. The Department has also increased its efforts to work with other community partners through an unprecedented number of collaborations with public and private agencies. And the Pennsylvania Council commends the Department's effort to strengthen its partnership with the behavioral health system. 00350 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole This partnership has been evidenced by the deployment of staff from community behavioral health to the Department's Central Referral Unit. DHS and CBH staff work in tandem to ensure that children entering care are referred to the most appropriate level of care to meet their behavioral health needs. Additionally, CBH staff now is stationed at Family Court to make sure families entering the system can access services as quickly as possible. In January 2003 the Department, in collaboration with private providers and the behavioral health system, implemented a new treatment foster care model. This model combines traditional foster care with specific mental health interventions. The Department anticipates that many of the 311 dependent and delinquent children now placed out of state will be able to return to Pennsylvania because of the availability of enhanced services. 00351 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Private providers are responsible for the delivery of this critical service, again, demonstrating a willingness to take additional risks to support positive outcomes for children, youth and families. Currently the Department has allocated $60 million to support prevention efforts. In the coming fiscal year the Department's plan to intensify and expand -- the Department plans to intensify and expand its prevention services. We endorse the Department's plans for the use of additional TANIF funding to enhance the nurse family partnership, to increase the number of women in substance abuse treatment who receive supportive services, to provide parenting education to parents of school-age children, to deliver short-term case management to youth referred by Truancy Court, to expand the truancy prevention services, and to create two new family centers. In particular, we applaud the Department's creation of the Achieving 00352 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Independence Center which functions as a one-stop resource center for youth transitioning to independence. We also commend the Department's plans to enhance services to older youth transitioning from placement. The need for expanded and enhanced services has become increasingly critical as the number of adolescents in care continues to grow. 8 percent, almost 50 percent of the youth in care are adolescents. Private providers have been acutely aware of the growing proportion of older youth and on their case loads, as they struggle to achieve permanency for those youth, or in the alternate, to prepare them for independence. Private providers, through their contractual relationships with DHS, are responsible for the delivery of most of the direct services available to Philadelphia's children and families. It is clear that in order for the Department to be responsive to the children's and family's needs, it depends on the service capacity 00353 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole which has been developed within the private sector. To ensure that this capacity remains available, the private sector must be adequately reimbursed for the services as provided. In the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, the Commission has proposed a two percent increase for purchased services. In her testimony before this Body she stated, quote, that the cost of living allowance, two percent is used to adjust payments to reality, that inflation is constantly occurring, end of quote. In Fiscal Year 2003 providers received a two percent increase for some purchased services.
Class 290 services, those which are dependent delinquent per diem services, received an increase, while Class 250 program services, truancy prevention, crisis nursery programs, did not. We appreciate the Commissioner's efforts to adjust service rates across the board to reflect at least a minimal cost of living increase. 00354 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole This has not always been the Department's practice in years of past without rate increases in certain service areas, leaving programs woefully underfunded and compromised. Even with the two percent increases, providers are still far from being fully reimbursed for the costs of providing contracted services. A review of rates for contracted services completed last year reveals that reimbursement deficits ranged from 6 to 50 percent, when comparing DHS contract rates to the actual cost of providing services. Most troubling is the reality that mandated services remain underfunded. In the last year alone, providers have experienced astronomical increases in their operating and liability insurance costs, health insurance costs, and transportation costs. We are in the process of completing a new rate analysis and will be happy to share the results with you when it is completed. Historically, providers have generated and used private dollars to supplement 00355 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole public funding for services, including those services for which there are clear public mandates. As private dollars become more scare, many providers have closed or are considering closing programs. This is particularly true for in-home service programs. Ultimately, the rich array of services currently available to Philadelphia's children and families will be diluted, as providers can no longer afford to operate at deficit levels and sustain continuing losses. The Commissioner's efforts to assist providers in meeting these costs must be supported. In conclusion, we strongly urge City Council to support the Philadelphia Department of Human Services Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year 2004. The Department continues to set an ambitious agenda, aimed at protecting and supporting our most vulnerable residents. We urge City Council to provide the necessary founding to enhance and expand these critical services. 00356 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Preheim. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Sir, it's very gratifying to hear the laudatory remarks that your agency makes about the City. It's the first such report I think I've heard in many a year, which raises again the opposite question as to how has your agency benefited or the agencies that you represent benefited from Commissioner Martinez's stewardship of the Department over her predecessor? Has there been a marked difference in the way in which your agency has been successful in obtaining for its provider members dollars for your various services? Or is it a continuation of previously good services? I'm just very interested in it, because I've never heard such a laudatory report by an agency of existing City Department, and I'm excited. I have a very high regard for 00357 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Commissioner Martinez. But it seems as if your agency feels that this Department is the best of all possible Departments and that the Commissioner makes a difference. And so I'd be derelict if I didn't raise questions to what the interest of your agency is in the City's Department.
I think it's best for me to respond to that at several different levels.
First of all, I would say that the laudatory comments that are being made about the Commissioner and about --
They happen to parallel my own individual beliefs about the Commissioner.
Those comments about her and about her Department reflect our belief that the reforms that she is attempting to secure for children and families in Philadelphia are necessary and important.
I think the most 00358 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole important ones are to achieve permanency for children that are in placement services, either through reunification with their families, adoption, or through permanent legal subsidized custodianship.
Hasn't every predecessor Commissioner attempted to do the same?
That's right. But currently there are, I think, enhanced efforts to do so. I would call the current environment, in which there's really been a partnership here with the public and the private sector working together, to create what is referred to as a culture of permanency where we all work together in a way that we've never done before, to secure permanencies that are more effective, that are achieved in a more timely manner than has been the case in the past. And we support her efforts in doing so, and think that that is probably one of the most important reform activities that she has promoted during her tenure as Commissioner.
Could you be 00359 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole specific as to how has she done that? What has she advocated or what changes has she made?
Well, during my testimony I referred to a process that we've been working on for the past months. And that's 7 called performance based contracting. 8 Performance based contracting is a 9 new way of doing business between the City and 10 private agencies. And it creates both incentives 11 and disincentives for the private agencies. 12 Those incentives are tied directly 13 to benchmarks that private agencies must achieve, 14 in the area of permanency outcomes. 15 And private agencies that achieve 16 those benchmarks will be rewarded. Private 17 agencies that do not achieve those benchmarks, 18 that is, do not reach the number of reunifications, adoptions, or moving children into permanent legal custodianship arrangements, will receive financial disincentives. And in my testimony I mentioned that there are significant risks for the private sector in moving in this direction.
However, we are prepared to assume those risks, for two reasons: One, because we think that it's really in the best interests of children and families that we obtain the permanencies, either reunification, adoption, or legal custodianship; and secondly, because there are financial incentives available to those agencies that are successful in attaining those permanency outcomes.
That process has only begun. It began on March 1st. And it is too early to tell. In my testimony I also indicated that one of the concerns the private agencies have is that achieving permanency for children and families sometimes extends beyond our own ability to do so. That is, there are external factors that impact on the ability of an agency to secure permanency for a child in a family. One needs to have affordable housing. One needs to have access to good quality mental health services. There has to be 00361 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole cooperation at all levels in the court system. So that it isn't just the relationship between the private sector and DHS that is at stake here. I think one of the exciting things about the development of performance based contracting is that Commissioner Martinez and her staff have worked to also address some of the external barriers that have impeded reunification, or adoption, or legal custodianship occurring in a timely way. So there are a number of different reasons why we applaud her efforts, but that's one example that I would present to you.
Well, Madam President, I would suggest we not pursue this further. I find it very exciting. And I would like to suggest that at some future time, a briefing be arranged, because if so, then Commissioner Martinez certainly deserves many, many plaudits because government tends to be stuck in the mud sometimes and never gets out of it. And many of us had great hopes for Commissioner Martinez. This is the first time 00362 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole I've heard in detail the fine contribution she's made. And we'd like to know more about it, and see whether the same formula she's applied in her Department can be applied elsewhere in government. So I thank you very much for your answers, and am very pleased to get this warm response from you, with respect to the functioning of a City agency, particularly since it refers to the most vulnerable of all of our people and the most important. That's the youngsters. So thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? (No response.)
Thank you again, Mr. Preheim. Emily Bertram. Is Emily Bertram here? (No response.)
How about Ann Lavitt Brubacher? 00363 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole
All right. Would you please approach the witness table.
Yes. Are you Christine Knapp, by any chance? Okay. So this is the group that we had on for 6 o'clock. Okay.
Thank you, Madam President. My name is Nicole Hostettler. I'm a registered voter in Frank DiCicco's District. I would like to briefly -- make my comments very brief for the time -- for all that are here interested in recycling. Between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00 I 00364 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole am a City Planner. I do many projects for the City. And I would like to ask each and every one of you to not disregard the importance of recycling as a quality of life factor for retaining the urban renaissance that we have experienced in the 1990s. And I'd like to pass along -- I'd like to read a statement from another member of our organization that was here earlier that could not stay. And it's very brief. When you speak, could you mention that there is a woman in Olney who recycles practically everything. She's left this bag full of recyclable materials. Recycling takes little time, effort, protects the environment, and prevents waste. Please keep funding the recycling effort. Signed, Diane Olsick. And now I pass my comments along to Christine Knapp, my colleague.
My name is Christine 00365 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Knapp. I am program organizer for Clean Water Action, a grass roots environmental action, representing 5,000 members in Philadelphia. Clean Water Action has been active in promoting recycling in the City for over a decade, sitting on both the Mayor's Recycling Advisory Council and helping co-found the Recycling Alliance of Philadelphia, which represents over 30 community and civic associations, environmental groups, and local businesses. I'm here today on behalf of the Recycling Alliance of Philadelphia and the thousands of other recyclers, who have asked me to come here today and please show their support for recycling in the City. Two years ago the Recycling Office issued a three-year blueprint plan. You might recognize it. This plan was widely supported by recycling advocates, environmental groups, and commercial recyclers alike. However, few of the goals set forth by this plan have been enacted. The City has, indeed, launched an extensive recycling marketing 00366 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole and advertising campaign. And I applaud their efforts for that. Yet no plans to expand weekly recycling to Sanitation Areas 2B in South Philadelphia and 6A in Northeast Philadelphia have come to fruition. The blueprint also planned to expand weekly recycling City wide by Fiscal Year 2004. But we have not seen any movement towards that goal as well. The blueprint also planned to add more materials to curb side collection. The plan outlined a move to include plastics, corrugated cardboard, and yard waste. This plan has also fallen by the wayside. Since this blueprint was the last piece of planning issued by the Streets Department, we should expect that this would be the time line that we would be following at this point. However, it's become obvious that the Streets Department is not following this plan. The Recycling Alliance of Philadelphia has made repeated unsuccessful attempts to meet with the Streets Department representatives who can give us new plans. 00367 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole While the Recycling Alliance used to be included in policy discussions and informed of changes ahead of time, we are no longer able to get access to information about recycling goals, plans, and other recycling information. Even good news, such as the switch to same day as trash day was not released to the Mayor's Advisory Committee or to the Recycling Alliance of Philadelphia before the change was made. Since our goals of our organization is to promote recycling, one would think that the Streets Department would take advantage of having a large advocacy group such as ourselves to distribute information to, yet we are not informed of changes before they happen. I stand here today to ask this Body to put pressure on the Streets Department to give your constituents what they have asked us for, more effective recycling. I hold right here 3,000 signatures on petitions of people who want City-wide weekly recycling and more materials in their curb side collection. 00368 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Each dot on this map (Indicating) represents to signatures -- 15? 4 UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Five. 5
Five petitions. Five 6 signatures? Okay. Five signatures for each dot. 7 And you can see that we have them represented in 8 every District in every neighborhood of the City. 9 There's another 300 to 400 10 signatures that were never entered into this map. 11 So, you can see how extensive the support for 12 recycling stretches throughout the City. 13 There are thousands more who I have 14 met with and spoken with who have expressed the 15 same sentiment. These residents live in every part of the City in every District, and they all want the same thing, a better recycling program that protects our environment, saves tax dollars, and adds to the quality of life in Philadelphia. Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Christie Hudson, and I'm a resident of West Philadelphia, at 58th and Baltimore, District Number 4. After living in several metropolitan 00369 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole areas, I've been very frustrated with Philadelphia's recycling program or lack thereof, both residential and commercial. Filthadelphia is definitely behind other cities in its recycling efforts. And the last thing we need to be doing is cutting funding. If anything, generous funds should be allocated to improve the system. Commercially, I work downtown in an office building, and was very disappointed to find that our building was not recycling correctly, as required by law. And residential, it's no surprise that Philadelphia has a serious litter problem, especially in poverty-stricken areas. I can't count the number of recyclables that I see on the street every day that should legally be in a recycling bin. It's both disturbing and depressing to have to shuffle through garbage on my way to work, especially when it's items that could have been easily recycled. In order for recycling to become a habit for all residents of Philadelphia, I see 00370 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole there are three steps that could be taken. One, education about the recycling program, how it helps the environment, community pride, and energy efficiency needs to be repeatedly introduced to the City. Secondly, like other cities, Philadelphia needs to make recycling simple and accessible, by providing public recycling bins for all homes and street corners, and by putting plastics and recyclable matter. Thirdly, Philadelphia has a great opportunity to reestablish goals in the areas of litter reduction and recycling improvement, not only for our community, but as a leader for the country. We show support for our urban environment with beautiful murals and parks, that we are ready to hypocritically cut funding for our recycling program that already needs much improvements. Thank you for your time.
Good evening. My name is Rebecca Feaser. I am a resident of Mt. Airy. 00371 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole It's a pleasure to be here. I hoped to be here earlier and to bring my daughter along, because she's quite a supporter of recycling. And instead, I brought her testimony. I'm speaking to the need for us to model for our children recycling. What she said is: Recycling is good. Please don't stop. Me and my mom go to recycle every recycling day. And what it says here is: Keep the world clean for all of us, with a drawing of a bunny and a fawn. Please support recycling. I see recycling as a very simple matter. We teach our children to clean up after themselves. My daughter's in pre-school. And she and her friends sing a song at the end of the day as they pick up their toys and put away trash. Clean up; clean up; everybody do your share. And on that level, we want to be modeling. Not just saying the words, but doing, putting into action. I do realize that recycling represents something that's much more difficult. 00372 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole It's using resources: Money, time. But when I think about keeping the world clean for the next generation, I think it's a very worthy effort. Thank you.
My name is Bob Pierson. I'm on the Recycling Alliance Steering Committee. I'm a member, original member, of the Recycling Advisory Committee of the Mayor's. And I'm also Coordinator for the City's Neighborhood Based Partnership Recycling Program. When my younger daughter was in third grade, she won a prize in a science fair for a project measured how much of our household trash was potentially recyclable. And since that time, a number of programs have come into play so that a lot of what we saw was recyclable is -- actually can be recycled. And she measured that 75 percent could be. And it didn't occur to me until a couple years ago to actually measure it again. And so for three months I measured what was going out the back door and what was being recycled and what wasn't. 00373 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole And I came to a very surprising result, that 88 percent of the material that goes out our back door is recycled. percent goes 5 into the trash can. 6 Many weeks it was less than 10 7 pounds that I was putting out on the curb for the 8 collection crews to pick up as trash. And the 9 rest of it went into the recycling programs that 10 the City has. 11 Now, it takes a zealot in a 12 household to make that conversion. But once it's in place, it's very easy. New habits take hold and you don't think about it any more. Now, this next comment is in the category if we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs. If every Philadelphia household only set out 10 ponds of trash a week instead of the City wide average of over 50 pounds, and recycle the other 40 pounds, the City would save a cool $25 million, simply in the landfill costs. The City would also save on trash collection costs. With only 10 pounds a week of trash per household and with no ordor-forming food 00374 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole waste in it, because that would go to composting, the City could run the trash routes once a month, instead of every week. The money saved on landfill costs and local trash collection can be applied to improving the recycling service, and more frequent and reliable collections and targeting more materials. Instead of recycling less than 50,000 tons a year, the City could offer over half a million tons of recyclables as raw material to area industries and scrap yards and be in much better position to negotiate a good price on its recyclables. Now today, the $25 million savings and other improvements to the City's recycling program seem as impossible a dream as a 75 percent recycling when my daughter did her first measurement 15 years ago. What we and a small minority of other families do, though, is no big deal; just a change of several household habits, and a back yard compost bin, and you immediately get a high recycling rate. 00375 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole The other thing -- My other comment -- And the other point is to -- is a recommendation to the Streets Department and to the City to improve the inter agency and intra agency cooperation around recycling. The recycling office staff shouldn't develop a plan to further recycling through inter agency action. That's part of the blueprint that Christine spoke about. But it takes more staff to do this. And that means more budget, and getting qualified people in there that can do that can leapfrog us into the next level of recycling. Right now we're doing about... my guess is about six or seven percent, maybe seven or eight percent. But we need to go far beyond that to achieve these savings that are possible out there. Because it's in the trash stream and we just have to figure out a way to get it back to the industries where it came from. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Mr. Dubow, I think a statement was made during 00376 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole this testimony that funding was cut for recycling. I don't believe that to be true, but I would like you to confirm that, please.
Actually, I believe the statement was made that a cut was being considered or had been considered.
I don't think that it was ever talked about, to be honest with you, to the best of my knowledge. Mr. Dubow.
There was no funding reduction for recycling in this year's Budget.
And there was never any talk about cutting the funding for recycling.
Could you, without going to the Budget book, could you just comment: Is there any increase? 00377 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole
So you obviously can't move a program forward with a status quo budget.
I thought our goal for recycling was to expand and do more.
Well, there were changes. I mean, David can talk about it more. We made changes in '03 that actually improved the program, if you want to talk about that.
In other words, you're doing more with the same amount of money because of management improvements or technology? Would you take the table and explain?
Sure. I'm David Robinson, Recycling Coordinator, Councilman Rizzo. Let me first thank my friends and colleagues here for raising some of the key issues that we want to get to in the long run. And those 00378 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole are, I think, long-term goals. But let me just state on what we've done right now, to respond to your question, Councilman. This blueprint that was referenced here was actually an internal document that was not officially presented, although I did present many of the Council people with a version of it, that indicated some very basic goals. And I'd like to state just for the record that we have hit some of these goals. In this document we mention that we wanted to design and implement a multimedia marketing campaign, because education is critical for recycling. We have done that. And I think many of you may have seen the commercials, the bus wraps, all the other elements that we've used to raise the attention level of recycling in the City. We've increased the enforcement presence of our sidewalk education enforcement personnel. This based on research which told us that in 90 percent of the respondents who were in the focus groups, on what would make 00379 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole non-recyclists recycle, 90 percent of them indicated that if there were a legitimate enforcement presence, they would recycle. Moving forward with that, we increased our presence with sweep officers. Making service more convenient. We have done that by making service same day as trash every other week. Now, we certainly would as a Department like to move toward weekly service, but there are expenses related to that that we haven't yet overcome. Add materials and increase the number of materials collected. Until we're able to increase the amount of households we serve, it is fiscally unwise to try and add more materials because the markets simply aren't there for it. One of the tasks that I see ahead of me is to improve the service without increasing cost. And I think that is an important government -- an important way to approach a service like recycling. Forge partnerships with both our alliance partners, as well as our corporate 00380 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole allies. As we know, budgets are tight. And we want to -- we have forged alliances with Smurfit Stone, with Blue Mountain Recycling, to the point where we are receiving... We will receive this fiscal year up to $850,000 in revenue, which is the highest number the City has ever seen since 1995, which was a spike year. With numbers like that, we're very encouraged for the future. We also want to seek expansion opportunities, which I think Christine mentioned as well. These things, though, also require market. So, bottom line, though, Councilman, we are up percent in our tonnage since last 18 year, although we've not increased our staff. In 19 fact, I'm down three people from when I started 20 two years ago. 21 We are still not only moving 22 forward, but we're making strides so much so that 23 we're being called by New York City to testify and 24 be a technical assistant to them. Liverpool, 25 London; Cincinnati; and most of the cities on the 00381 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole East Coast. So not only are we doing well, we are actually being looked at as one of the leading programs, in terms of changing and turning a program around on the Eastern Seaboard.
Madam President, first of all, let me apologize to the panel. I think I was out of order asking --
All right. Would you put your light on, please, so we can recognize you when it's your turn. The Chair recognizes Councilman 00382 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening. I want to ask some operational questions. And actually, you just answered a couple that we're recycling now on trash days, because I know at one point in time we were kind of all over the place, and people weren't sure what day was when, what week was when. And you've answered that. One of the other issues -- and I don't know if you've investigated that -- Philadelphia's a City of different neighborhoods, different cultures, different types of people, different socioeconomics. Have you realistically looked at the possibility of having different strategies and different neighborhoods, in terms of recycling? I can recall -- And well, I'm going to say I was told as a kid that there was actually a time when you can take the bottle back to the store and you could get the five cents -- I forget exactly -- and they still do this in some parts, I know in New England, I think that they still have some sort of a reimbursement program. 00383 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole And I was wondering, are we looking at some sort of creative ways and different areas where we're not getting the responses that we'd like to get. I understand representing a District that has all types of different communities. And in some areas there's very, very minimal participation. And then in some areas there's very strong participation. I'm just wondering if we try to figure out, you know, regionally or geographically, to approach this in different ways in different areas. MR. ROBINSON? We have, in fact, Councilman. We have done extensive studies on why certain communities recycle at higher levels than other communities, and what kind of systems we need to put in place to improve the numbers and improve the participation in those communities that aren't doing it in sort of a traditional way. And what we found, and this is fairly well known in the industry, is that there are, in fact, things called buy-back centers that seem to work better in areas where people are a 00384 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole little more economically challenged. There are things like incentive programs where you voucher. So, in other words, if we bought -- family brought material to a particular center, they would receive a voucher for perhaps food, for something of value in return for the raw material that they give to the center. And we have investigated that. And we are hopefully going to be able to put something together to make sense that we can share with you.
Yeah. And I see on occasion in some areas you have a truck that's fully staffed, I'm assuming. I don't know what Sanitation or the Department of Sanitation workers or Streets Department workers --
-- make a day, based on the amount of materials that they pick up. I'm inclined to believe in some areas on that route those workers make far more than what we're getting, in terms of the materials in those particular communities. Wouldn't it make more sense to just simply invest in some sort of a reimbursement 00385 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole program, that probably would be half of what we're paying for the employees in the vehicles, and increase our ability to get this recycling program going on in certain communities. So that's why I kind of brought it up. But I just -- Just in seeing it, sometimes it just makes no sense when you got a truck that has one can on a block, and you got three people on a truck. I mean, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I agree. The simpler we can make it, the better. And we're looking at ways to make the service apply to the community. And in those areas where we have three-man crews that aren't picking up much material, that doesn't make any sense. And Commissioner Tollson and I have begun to look at ways to change that system around. Bob Pierson down at the end here, he and I went out this weekend, in fact, and looked at the sites where we have volunteer programs. And what I want to do is increase the level and the number of the volunteer programs in those areas that can support that. 00386 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole In those areas that a voucher or buy-back system works, we're going to try and institute those as well. But it takes time because you have to find the right kind of volunteers. You have to adjust the system. We obviously have unions that are interested in this process. We want to make sure that we work with them on this.
So we are thinking that way. But it's just a matter of, you know, kind of step by step walking forward.
Okay. Could you keep us apprised of your progress on that, please?
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. About 20 years ago when I believe I was the author of the Recycling Bill, we learned that there was a real culture in the Streets 00387 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Department that hated recycling. I don't know why, whether they saw it as just a new-fangled idea that ought to be fought, or whether they were worried that it was going to take away the trash collector. We're not sure what it was, but there was a built-in opposition to recycling. The talk took many shapes, like it was too expensive. Getting rid of trash was cheaper. When Mayor Goode came in and he wanted a trash to steam plant, he needed trash. He didn't want anything recycled because he needed trash for the proposed trash to steam plant. When, to the good fortune of the City of Philadelphia people, we defeated that idea, and saved the City a billion and a half dollars over the proposed life of the trash to steam plant, we opened the door to recycling in a real way. And I think, Bob Pierson, I think you've been active almost all the time, maybe from day one of that, over many, many years. The fact is that the culture remains 00388 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole in the Street Department, despite Commissioner Tollson's efforts to move in a different direction. But I do deplore the testimony he gave originally that the... apparently, the activists in recycling were having the same difficulty they had years ago, in being pushed 9 aside. 10 And I would like to hear of any 11 difficulties, because the Streets Department is 12 supposed to be totally open to the people of 13 Philadelphia and their ideas. 14 Maybe Bob Pierson can tell us more 15 about the Recycling Advisory Committee. And to 16 the extent -- I know we'd had all kinds of 17 difficulties with the City in the beginning. I 18 hope it's surviving. I hope it's surviving. But 19 recycling, the City has fought in every way. 20 One reason, many of us believe, that the City has never instituted regular weekly collections is that that would make it simple for people because then they wouldn't have to decide is this the week for recycling or isn't it the week for recycling. 00389 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole Because the simplest thing in the world would be to have regular collections at the same time. It took a long time before the Streets Department ever agreed to have recycling and trash collected on the same day, but then they confused it by saying every other week. So when every household in the City you got to figure out is this the week or isn't it the week, so that oftentimes you just decide it's too much trouble to try to keep score. You got enough other problems at home to deal with. So we'd like the Streets Department to be totally open. They ought to welcome participation, because the real education doesn't come from the very expensive but totally ineffective marketing tools that the City used in advertising recycling. The strength of the recycling movement comes from citizen participation, from the activities of groups like your own, in the neighborhoods. I know you've done all kinds of things, Bob, on recycling. People in the 00390 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole community have got to advertise it. The great new news was the news we got at the Budget hearings for the Streets Department that for the first time recycling has shown it saves money. The first time was in the, I think, the last quarter of last year where it was clear on black and white that recycling saves money. So that the one major complaint they always said, oh, this is just a toy you're playing with, and it's too expensive to deal with has now been utterly disapproved, and the recycling activists have been found to have been right all along. I would like to suggest, because what's happened in the country in the last 17 years is a diminution of the interest in all 18 things good for the people.
19 You know, big business has spent its 20 time convincing everybody the proper function of government is economic stimulation, period, and anything else is wasteful. We don't even have enough money to put in the budget to clean up lead paint poisoning or to provide adequate education for kids. 00391 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole I can keep on going and name hundreds of things there's no time for or no money for, because it's good for the people. And unless you can show that you're going to help the business man by tax cuts or something like that, you know, government was thought to be doing improper things. It's time to reverse that cycle again and bring back the important thing. Government ought to be working for the benefit of the ordinary people in the City, the people who live in the cities. And in that, the recycling movement is extremely important. We you also regret the fact that the Streets Department has never done anything of significance to try to compel recycling by commercial companies. They've let that all alone, because they didn't want to, you know, interrupt or disrupt in any way the thinking of businessmen. So we've got to reverse that. And the way you do it is by an active community. I think community activity on behalf of recycling ought to take place all over the City and quickly, 00392 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole because this is the time to move, now that you have in black and white that it pays to recycle. On top of everything else, it's going to save the City money. And in this time when the City likes to talk about fiscal crisis, as it spends untold thousands of dollars for SUVs and doesn't worry about how much money lawyers get because they know it's going to come back to officials in the form of contributions, campaign contributions, it's time to refocus the work on good deeds by government, to provide services and do it economically. And I applaud the recyclists for their activities, and take a lot of hope from the fact that I kind of note there seems to be revival of interest. And I think it's the best thing for everybody. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, sometimes you grow 00393 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole cynical, because you just sit here year after year, and they promise you certain things. And we were promised those plans to be structured and done during the Wilson Administration.
Wilson Goode Administration. Not that far back. I don't go. You go that far back; I don't. During the Wilson Goode Administration. And we were supposed to really make recycling into a very profit-making enterprise. And we began along those lines. Then some other priority came along, and recycling and the progress we're doing was put aside. And the effort was not maintained. Then Ed Rendell came along and he -- the same thing. Different Street Commissioners would come in and say, Well, these are the goals that we have, and we're going to achieve them by so many years, and by this year we will have weekly recycling throughout the City in every 00394 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole neighborhood, not just the wealthy ones, not just the upper middle class one. Not just in Mt. Airy and Chestnut Hill and other places, but in every neighborhood, North Philadelphia, the barrios, everywhere. And now we come to the new Administration, and the same thing is happening. And we are getting again the promises that it's going to happen sometime. And I expect that if we're here in the year 2010 -- and I won't be here but I know that Dave Cohen will be, that we will be hearing those same stories. And we will have people like you up there saying, why doesn't -- why don't we do this, because it makes economic sense, it makes sense all around the place, because it cleans the neighborhood, it maintains -- it eliminates blight, and it does all of these things that really government should be doing. And if we had really kept to our plans that we began in the '80s, I think we'd be probably a model across the United States right now. But I don't hold much hope that that will 00395 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole happen. Hopefully it will, but I don't hold much hope that it will happen.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Black Well.
Thank you, Madam President. We appreciate all that has been said today. In addition to that, we would like to say to Miss Christie Hudson, thank you for your testimony. But you are absolutely in my District, in the Third. Thank you.
It's my turn for real now. When I asked you to please come up to the table to explain some issues, you said something that got my attention. The recycling issue, when it started -- and forgive me for maybe not explaining this as clearly as I should, but it was to save the environment, to try to prevent the landfills, the landfill areas from being overcrowded. But 00396 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole then I heard you say that it wasn't a good financial decision to include plastics. Now, I go to Montgomery County, occasionally to New Jersey, and they do all these things, including plastics. The volume that we would produce out of the City, I think, would affect those smaller communities. But it seems as though they're driving the boat instead. I just can't figure why we can't -- Part of the problem is I go to the shore for a weekend in the summer, and I put a plastic bottle in the recycling bin. I come home to Philadelphia. At 11 o'clock I feel guilty. I run out and get the plastic because I'm still in the New Jersey mode because I put the plastic bottle in the recycling bin. And I go out and I put it in the trash. Can we just level here for a minute?
Why are we talking about... Because recycling to me isn't -- and I guess it should be. There should be some part of it about money. It's about bigger things, because I 00397 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole understand that the recycling programs throughout the country normally costs some of the new municipalities versus the revenue. Why wouldn't we just try to do everything? And you tell me there's no market. How does Montgomery County sell plastic bottles and we can't?
Let me restate it. Perhaps I misstated it. There is a market for plastics. Fluctuates. But there is a market. There is. In fact, markets drive this industry. And to respond to your question, Commissioner and myself, we desperately want to eventually include plastics. But with the current configuration of the types of trucks that we have, the size containers, just the way that the program was designed some time ago, if we included plastics, we'd have to spend a great deal more money in order to be able to handle the material, because I'm sure you're aware once the liquid or whatever is inside the plastic container is out, it weighs absolutely nothing. And you need to get a great deal of it in order to be market ready. And if you put it 00398 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole in a truck that doesn't have compaction, you fill your truck up very quickly, which means your trucks aren't that efficient on the street. And that's what I mean by the economics of it.
But think about it the other way. You get one of these big plastic 30, 60, whatever ounce bottle it is, and you put that in a truck. And what you're saying, that the trucks -- that little bucket would fill up real fast with a couple big soda bottles.
So what you're telling me, because of the way we do our recycling, the small little blue bucket, that it's just not feasible at this time to include. Because the majority of my trash is plastic bottles.
And it just doesn't seem to make sense to overlook what in my opinion the majority of the milk carton -- You can't even throw a milk carton in that, the plastic milk can -- bottle? That goes in the trash, right? 00399 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole
So all the things that kind of take up room, you're suggesting that you don't recycle them because you just have no 6 way to handle them.
Well, a little history for you here, Councilman. When the program was initiated back in...
Absolutely. Back in '83 glass was the predominant container in the country. Since that time, plastic has become the more predominant container in the country. And there are a variety of different plastics that are out there. And it took some time for them to king of get to essentially two types. And now that there are markets for those two types -- although there are seven types, there are two predominant ones in your kitchen and your bathroom. Since that time, the program has not -- We kept those buckets out there. We still 00400 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole have buckets out there that are years old. We've continued to go the same direction, and now we're going to change the program in order to reflect the change in containers. Bob and I worked together to increase the amount of the volunteer plastic collection programs. That's where we are now, in terms of getting to the plastics. We're going to grow that part of the program. But we're also going to try make changes on the street so that we can respond to what you're saying. But that -- Obviously that means adjustments to the trucks, adjustments to the routes, and so on.
I'm glad you had an opportunity to explain it because as you sit back from a distance, it appears that you're just saying: Look, it's not cost effective. But then when you explain and you start to think about the capacity of one bucket, then you go to the second bucket, and Councilman Nutter was jesting with me. He said, if he misses a week, he can hardly get the bucket to the curb. (Laughter.) 00401 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole
But it makes more sense, once you sit back and listen carefully to the problems. But I would hope that, like you suggested, that you could resolve that and start to recycle those. Councilman Cohen doesn't want to hear this ten years from now, he said.
Oh. My name is Christine Knapp again. Sorry. The concerns that I've heard so far are about plastics, about increasing education, not just, you know, with the commercials and the marking campaign, but locally; and adding more materials and increasing the service. And all these things, we know why they can't be done. We're not here to say, you 00402 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole know, why aren't these things being done. We understand that. We work with David. We understand why. It's because of economics. But like Councilman Cohen said, we now have more proof that recycling is cost effective and it is cheaper than ever before. So this is a service that's actually saving the City money. So when we talk about not cutting the Budget, we should probably use the term to increase the budget. The more money you give them, the more education they're going to be able to do, the more service they're going to be able to provide, the more materials they're going to be able to pick up. And that's what we're here for. This is Budget hearings. And we think the Recycling Office and the Streets Department deserves more budget to do more with their program and to expand the program that's actually saving the City money.
Is plastic the last thing that we need to bring in? 00403 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole
If I had my way, I'd like to get to all your leaves, all your corrugated cardboard, all the box board that comes out of the home, just about anything. I think Bob mentioned it, that we can recycle -- I've heard 50 percent, but Bob says 88 percent. We can do more. And we are working to get there. And what we need to do is just continue to have this dialogue with our colleagues, and to continue to share with Council how we're going to get there so it makes sense to you.
Thank you, Madam President. What's the City percentage? The Last I heard was 70 percent. What is the percentage of collectibles?
The diversion rate is... The last figure I saw was 5.8. But that's because the amount of garbage that Philadelphians 00404 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole produce has increased by about percent. 3
Well, if we're 4 the bellwether and the star of the northeast, God 5 help the northeast. Because my understanding was 6 we have a terribly low rate in contrast to a 7 number of cities that really specialize in 8 recyclables. 9 And if we're the stars, it's only 10 because other places may even be much worse. We 11 don't know what causes them to be. 12 Because I don't think Philadelphia's 13 record is anything we can be proud of. And I see 14 no reason why Philadelphia's being honored by 15 having delegations come to see how we fail in the recyclable things. Bob Pierson, I'd like to hear your comments on this.
Yes. I think he was speaking to the rate of increase, not the rate.
Philadelphia has a large increase in rate of recycling, but it starts at a fairly low base, around six percent. And it 00405 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole has increased that remarkably but it's still not above ten percent. Some cities -- Before this happened, we were third to last, I think.
Yes. And there are many cities that are up 30, 40, some even 50 percent.
Let's develop a record that really deserves commendation and visitation from other cities. We all welcome that, and I'm sure the community would love it. But the community has got to do its job, because I don't think nicy glossy material that costs a million or a million and a half to produce and market can do one-tenth what the community can do when it gets behind this. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. 00406 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole I'd like to say, in looking at your chart, that it's no surprise to me that a lot of the petitions came from my District, because I've gotten numerous e-mails, so many -- and I'm really the worst person to e-mail because I don't open my e-mails every day. So when I open them maybe once every other week, and I'll try to answer people back as many as I can or I'll forward them to my staff. But I called the Streets Commissioner and said, are we doing cutbacks in recycling? Because I had not heard. And tonight it was verified there are no cutbacks planned for the recycling program. I really don't know where the information came from and... But I do appreciate your interest. Appreciate you coming in. And I'm happy that you're very interested in recycling. What we need to do is begin to work together, the residents and the City government, to educate people to recycle more. And I think that's one of the major problems. When we first started the program, there were lots of buckets out, you know, years 00407 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole back. And now when you ride through the streets, you don't see as many buckets out in areas. But again, I just want to thank you for coming in. And I'm very happy that there no 6 cutbacks in the recycling program. So if you e-mailed me, I might get to you.
I'm Christine Knapp again. I would just like to say, we were anticipating cuts. But we never heard an actual, you know, recognized fact that there would be cuts. But we did hear the Mayor's Budget Address, in which he said a lot of City departments would be facing budget cuts. And we saw New York City cut their budget in their recycling program, and we saw a lot of other neighboring cities that were cutting back on their programs. And it looked like the trend in cities was to cut -- when you face budget crisis, that you cut back on that. So we did a lot of outreach to prevent that. And maybe we had something to do with it; maybe not. But I'm sorry that, you know, 00408 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole we were alarmist. We just didn't want what happened in New York to happen in Philadelphia. But I will let people know not to e-mail you, to write you a letter instead.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee?
Good evening. I apologize. My name is Erin Muzzy. I'll keep my comments very brief. I'm a voter in, actually, Madam President Verna's District. Most of my testimony has been gone over, but I do want to share just one note. This past week my downstairs neighbors put out my recycling for me. That was very nice. It's not a recycling week. And they had put their recycling out when I explained, oops; no, no; wrong week, because I make that error, too. They recycling in the trash rather than haul it back inside and store it for an additional week. and I know many neighbors that 00409 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole do do that. So, weekly pickup would be a huge improvement. Thank you.
I agree. Weekly is the way to go. Thank you all so very much. Thank you very much.
Edna Williams. Is Edna Williams here? (No response.)
Mary Ann Sewell, please approach the witness table. Good evening and welcome. 00410 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole
Good evening, Madam Council President. My name is Mary Ann Sewell. And I'm here with my husband Mark tonight to honor the Councilman who represents our District in Manyunk. His name is Michael Nutter.
I know it's probably no 11 secret that Manyunk has undergone a lot of change in the last few decades. Used to just be a sleepy post-industrial town, lots of vacant homes and lots of vacant factories. And now it's been discovered, and it's become gentrified almost. But the area that we live in is an area called The Blocks. It's a hot and dusty section at the bottom of Manyunk, where there's little relief in the summertime from the heat. But the area directly in front of our neighborhood is a little patch of hillside called Germany Hill. And Councilman Rizzo might recall that many years ago his father, Hizzonor, 00411 03/18/03 - Committee of the Whole initiated a process to make that dusty patch of hill part of Fairmount Park. And I'm sorry to say that he didn't live long enough to complete that. But Councilman Nutter, through his great diligence and through the rest of Council's support, the bills for appropriations that he initiated has finally achieved what Hizzonor set out to do so many years ago. And so, in January, when I was at my civic association meeting, and I heard that Councilman Nutter had finally acquired the last piece of land from private owners so that all the speculators and developers who were drooling over that piece of land for so many years didn't get their way. The people got their way. The people got to save that piece of land through Councilman Nutter's efforts. And I'm so grateful to him, and I know that my neighbors are, too. And so, I was inspired to write a poem for Councilman Nutter. And I'd like to deliver it publicly for him now, if you would indulge me.