You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Vallas. I'm going to leave it at Ms. Sade and Mr. Thornton. Mr. Vallas, Councilman Rizzo was at the one end of the spectrum. I want to go to the other end of the spectrum. You made reference in your testimony, and it may have been mentioned a couple times, what I want to talk about is -- unless you've exhausted the subject.
No. I've been -- I'm raring to go. I'm just entering the 146 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. stretch here.
No. I didn't say that you would be exhausted. I'm not sure that that is possible. I'm concerned about you exhausting the subject that I want to talk about, which is the early childhood education. Have you talked much about that today?
I know the numbers are up. What I want to know is, what would it take to provide full early childhood education services for all the children who are eligible? What's the difference between number of students served versus the number of students who might have a need?
I don't have that exact number, but I will have it to you by tomorrow. Donna Piekarski, who is our early childhood expert, has a personal matter today, and I'll make sure that I get you those numbers. But for every $5 million in 147 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. additional funding we've received from the state, we've been able to put another 500 kids and children in early childhood programs, 500 to 600 children and --
That's right. So we've increased Head Start by about 500 to 600 students. I think this year we're expecting a five and a half million dollar increase from the state. The state is increasing Head Start again. And I believe we're looking at an additional 700 kids in early childhood programs.
That's what 148 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. quality comprehensive Head Start costs you. It's actually between $8,000 to $10,000 per student.
And do you utilize any City funding for early childhood education?
The allocation we get from the City is put into the General Fund and used for General Fund purposes. We don't specifically earmark the 45 million allocation we get from the City for specific programs, just for part of our General Fund allocation.
But you do for some of the dollars that come from the state, they are specifically for early childhood education?
And federal dollars. There's also federal dollars that are specifically earmarked. But, 149 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. no, there is no specific earmarks from the City for early childhood education.
In response to Councilman Rizzo just a little while ago, you said you thought that the state uses a, quote/unquote, graduation rate of 68 percent. You thought that number was a little high or at least was not the number that the Philadelphia School District uses. What is the number for the Philadelphia School District?
Sixty-one percent. And what do we know about the other approximately 39 percent of the young people who did not graduate? Where are they? What are they doing?
Well, prior to two years ago, there wasn't too much tracking going on. The District didn't track. It didn't track the drop-offs. Once they dropped out, they were gone from the system. So we've really just begun to 150 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. track. So I can't tell you definitively where they end up, but some may re-enroll, some may move to other districts, but most kids, in effect, just leave the system or leave the school system in general, never to return. Now, let me point out that the education collaborative or the drop-out collaborative that we are part of, it's funded by Penn and the Out-of-School Youth Transition Collaborative. We've been working with them to actually do this very study, to look at children from 1994 on and to look at them when they dropped out, where they went, what happened to them. I mean, children literally from the ages of -- from literally 6th grade all the way through 25, years old. 21 And the collaborative is going to 22 complete their research in June and then 23 they're going to present kind of what I 24 would consider to be a definitive 25 document on what has in fact happened to 151 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. the students who have dropped out of the system since 1994. And no other school district in the country is doing this and there's no other effort on this scale and in this detail. So come June, we will have definitive numbers on just what's happened to the kids who have been dropping out since the mid to late '90s.
I know we're getting the ten minutes, so I'm kind of hopping around to use my time wisely, and then I'll come back. The School District provides up to a certain age of student school bus services; is that correct?
Yeah. We don't bus at the high school level unless -- and, actually, we bus through 6th grade. Any bussing beyond 6th grade is tied to whether or not the children are special ed, special needs, whether they have a specific IP. And, of course, charter school children are bussed, but that's 152 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. it. So we will provide general bussing through 6th grade. Beyond that, we provide the tokens, but that's it.
So approximately how many students utilize the school bus service?
Listen, if there's any numbers out here, shout them out or come on up so we can get an answer.
Why don't you just make yourself comfortable. 153 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. Enjoy yourself over there. It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. You never know what might happen.
And does the School District actually provide the service with its own employees or are these contracted services?
I would say roughly it's about half/half. So we hire most of the available bus companies, because we bus for not only ourselves but we bus for the charter schools, the private schools and the Catholic schools. And then, of course, we have our own in-bus services. So it ranges like 54/45. So that's why when there's a snow day, I have to call it, even for the Archdiocese.
Are you making a public statement today that you on at least snow days have more authority 154 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. than the Cardinal?
No. No. I always ask the Archdiocese what they would prefer that we do, because I find that if they close and we close, we don't get any complaints.
The Cardinal, he's a constituent, so I'm just trying to understand where the power is. So 54/45. Fifty-five School District or private?
Why don't you grab that mike. I don't think he's done this very often.
Fifty-five contract, 45 School District. Okay. 155 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. And how many different companies are involved in this?
We have a new contract going into effect this coming September, and there are about private 7 vendors that we use. Small companies 8 range from like ten buses up to large 9 companies that have close to 300. 10
And is 11 there any distinction between the types 12 of buses when you compare the School 13 District buses to the private sector 14 buses? 15
Basically, a lot of the contractors that we use, we have smaller groups, like special needs students where there's only eight to ten students. So they have a lot of mini buses that go greater distance. And our buses are basically like 48 and 66 passenger that take large groups and transport throughout the City.
And what are the standards that we utilize either 156 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. for the buses themselves, whether they're safety standards on the buses, as well as training and education for the drivers?
There are state guidelines that we abide by as far as commercial driver's license. All of our drivers have to have commercial driver's license. We do the random drug and alcohol testing for all employees, child abuse checks, criminal history checks. Every four years the drivers go through a ten-hour recertification process, and we provide --
Yes. We go above and beyond what the state requires. We have an in-service training that we provide before school opens for all of our contractor drivers, as well as our in-house drivers. So it's an ongoing process.
Are the in-house drivers part of any collective 157 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. bargaining unit?
Some of the larger vendors do have unions, and the smaller ones are no unions involved.
Could you provide to the Chair a list of all the companies -- I knew we were getting close -- a list of all the companies involved?
And you seem to indicate that there was a new contract coming into effect with the upcoming new school year?
It was through an RFP process, and we did get some large companies from around the country that expressed interest, but it came out that 158 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. pretty much the local vendors won out based on the best price.
Okay. If you could provide to the Chair a copy of the bid, as well as all the respondents and the pricing information, the standards, the specifications, that would be helpful.
Excuse me. The gentleman that was just 159 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. at the table, the stenographer needs your name.
Thank you. Mr. Vallas, on in the detailed budget, the graph of total expenditures, can you tell us how you are reducing contracted services-property from $68.6 million in FY06 to $30.9 million in FY07?
I'm sorry. What page? 160 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
Yes. Can you repeat your question one more time? I apologize, Madam President.
On , the graph of total expenditures, can you tell us how you are reducing contracted services-property from $68.6 million in FY06 to $30.9 million in FY07?
No. He's trying to track down the page. I'll get you the page number.
Well, maybe I ought to wait to ask this at the same time. On the same chart, the last category, quote, Other, end of quote, has increased dramatically from FY05 to FY07 from $298 million to $588 million. Can you explain what is included in this category and why the 161 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. dramatic increase?
The "Other" category is capital. Because in these numbers, we're including capital. But I'll get you the explanation of the "Other" line, and we'll get you a breakdown of what all the items are in that "Other" category, but I believe that's capital.
We'll get you the "Other" line just shortly. So we can come right back to it as soon as he scans it.
While we're waiting, I have a couple other questions. The state took away the residency requirements for teachers; did they not?
How about the non-teachers? 162 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
I'm sorry. I don't know that your microphone is on.
I do not believe there's a residency requirement for any School District employees. There's no residency requirement.
So would you venture to say that the greater majority of the School District employees live outside the City?
Of the total employees of the School District, as of March of this year, we have 23,835 163 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. employees. Of that, 72.7 percent are City residents and 27.3 percent are non-residents, or put differently, 17,329 are residents and 6,506 are non-residents.
I would appreciate seeing that. Would you say that the greater majority of the 6,000 are teachers?
Classroom teachers represent 4,684 of that number. So, yes.
But let me point out that the teacher breakdown is 54/48, roughly. So among the categories, the number of teachers who are City residents are -- percentage-wise they constitute the smallest percentage living in the City. So while 72 percent of our employees, almost 73 percent, of our employees live in the City, only 52 percent -- I'm sorry; only 57 percent of 164 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. the teachers live in the City. So, in other words, of our total employees, almost 73 percent live in the City, 27 percent live outside the City. But among our teachers, who constitute the largest group of employees, 57 percent live in the City and 43 percent live outside the City. I'll give you the chart.
Well, that is surprising. Would you say that was one reason why we were able to employ as many teachers as we have?
Yes. We think that the residency requirement would have restricted our ability to recruit teachers. Absolutely.
On , I'd like an explanation of this, please. On , you show two classroom teachers for early literacy at a cost of $226,110, which averages over $113,000 per teacher. Is this accurate?
Wayne Harris, Budget Director. 165 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
That cost does not have to all be full-time salary for those two people. The number that you see there is the number of full-time employees, and then the salary -- the two. And then the salary number is the amount of salary paid for people to do those services, but they don't -- it doesn't mean that two people are getting the entire salary amount.
How many people are getting that salary, the cost of 226?
I would have to get back to you on that, but there are almost certainly significant numbers of part-time employees involved in that number who don't show up. We have per 166 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. diem employees. We have extracurricular pay, after school and things like that.
And part-time teachers, retired teachers. We'll get you those numbers by tomorrow.
We're going to get you that other question before the line of questioning is over.
Thank you. In the meantime, would you explain what you mean by, quote, efficient and effective support operations, end of quote? What do you mean by that?
Are we just using words? It was one of the budget categories.
Well, that's one of the Declaration of Education goals, which means that it says --
For 167 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. to be efficient and effective?
That's right. We like to think that we're more efficient and more effective. Are we as efficient or as effective as we should be? I guess that's in the eyes of the beholder, but the bottom line is, we're making progress in the area of efficiency and effectiveness.
All right. The efficient and effective support operations, I believe, costs something to the tune of $407 million. I believe that's on . So it does cost some money, and I was just curious to know exactly what that means.
We're going to get you the A, B, C costs. We'll break it down for you.
We'll get you exactly what's included in that. That obviously includes people in Finance, people in Human Relations, but those are small pieces of this. It's all of food 168 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. services, it's all of Finance, it's all of HR, it's the Board of Revision of Taxes folks. It's something --
Wouldn't it be easier to put that in writing rather than put "efficient and effective support operations"? How would anybody decipher what that meant?
Well, what we do is, we prepare summary tables and we prepare the summary tables with aggregate numbers to make --
We'd prefer some explanation. So if you would provide us with an explanation, I'd appreciate it.
Earlier this morning we were given a snapshot status report on some of the, I guess, construction and many of the projects that are in design. I guess, Mr. Vallas, I am asking you so it will be on record. 169 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
Audenried replacement, it would appear from the list that you gave today, but I want you to -- do you have a copy?
Yes, I do. In fact, I was looking and suddenly Wayne became Pat.
I said suddenly Wayne magically reappeared as Pat Henwood, our capitals person. So we're ready for an answer for you.
Okay. Audenried replacement, I want you to tell me for the record so I have proof of what you have told me, because Audenried has been vacant now for some time.
It has not been demolished. I don't see anything happening there, and I think the community feels that perhaps we have not been as truthful with them as we should be.
So I want the record to really reflect, if you don't mind, Mr. Vallas, precisely --
That project is -- I'm sorry. My name is Pat Henwood, Director of Capital Programs. That project is on the agenda for award.
Let me ask a question. When is the demolition supposed to take place?
The demolition will start roughly a month after the SRC approves the contract on April 19th.
It went out to bid in February. It was advertised. We got the bids, and it is currently on the agenda for award at the next SRC meeting.
April 19th. And when would we see construction beginning?
You'll see the demolition activities occur roughly a month after the SRC awards it.
So the demolition would take, what, about a month for that building to be demolished? 172 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
We're not going to implode it. It's going to be piece by piece.
Is there any reason why you wouldn't implode it? Is it because it's so close to the highway?
The community doesn't want us to implode it because there are suspicions that imploding creates environmental problems because of the dust in the air and things like that. We've had community meetings out in Audenried. The community has made adjustments in that design more than once, and the decision was made not to 173 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. implode, and so we're going to dismantle it. It will take -- and the same entity that's going to get the demolition contract is also going to get the construction contract.
So we're not going to have to rebid the contract. We're ready. The design is done. As you know, the design was modified at the request of the Arts Council, so that delayed us. And we could not demolish the building before we were able to set up an independent heating source for the --
Alcorn. That delayed the process almost an entire year. But there's nothing stopping it. The design is already done. We've gotten sign-offs from everybody. The contract will be awarded in April. We'll probably begin demolishing a month later. It will take us about six months to demolish, and 174 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. we'll be breaking ground before the end of this calendar year.
Great. And how long do you anticipate it will take to erect the school building?
Nothing is ever easy. Also, I know that, Mr. Vallas, you and I have been at more than one meeting regarding GAMP.
And I see here I'm assuming that ADV means advertising date.
Yes. It will be advertised in May. That is my goal, and 175 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. I expect to meet that goal.
Well, apparently there was a problem with the advertising. Something was radically wrong when the RFP came back, something like $8 million over budget.
Something is wrong. I just can't imagine something like that happening, and I'm not going to question it, but I would suggest that you look very carefully at the RFP so it doesn't happen the same way again. While I have the mike, I'm sorry, also in this lovely book that you gave us, Mr. Vallas --
-- this lovely book that you gave us early on, safe and orderly environment. We're talking about the alternative schools. On you have IEP. Can you tell us 176 4/4/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. where that will be located?
Well, they haven't made a final decision. As you know, they've had their site moved twice. So we don't have -- they have not submitted to us a final plan on where they're going to locate the site.
That's strange, because I was told by area residents that IEP had pulled out of the second site.
Right. I don't think they've secured a third site yet. Have they? They have not.
Okay. Let me just double-check my list again. Penrose/Bartram gym, I see that that's to be advertised August of '06?
It will be put out for advertisement in August of '06?