Lastly, do you have any particular opinion -- and, again, if you already articulated this, don't go back over it -- any particular opinion with regard to the timing of all this, when the changes should be made or when any proposal to merge or consolidate functions, when should that be conducted or when should it be effective?
Speaking for myself, I would love to see it effective 222 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 with the beginning of the next Mayor's term. I believe it's difficult to implement any change of this magnitude at the end of an Administration. And so that would be my personal recommendation, but, again, I'm not speaking for the Committee on that point.
I understand. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Councilman Nutter. Councilman Brian O'Neill.
Mr. Stalberg, I'm getting the impression -- I just wanted to make sure I'm correct in it -- that the Task Force will be recommending a Charter change?
No. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. It's probably too early in our process to suggest that. All I'm trying to emphasize is that based on the conversations we've had so far, nothing has been ruled out. And even the 223 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Commissioners who are part of this group have indicated that if their jobs change or their lives change but we get a better Park system as a result of it, that that will be satisfactory to them.
You mention discussions today about qualifications or how the Commissioners are appointed. Will you also, as part of your scope, be looking at the number of Commissioners and also whether there should be six ex officio from the City as opposed to from the world outside? Is that number fixed or is it something also open to the Task Force review?
It's very much open to the Task Force review. I think, in a sense, the fact that there is such a bad feeling about the current appointment system invites deep discussion of other issues around this, either the existing body or the new body, how many, how many ex officio, et cetera.
Okay. 224 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
Thank you, Councilman O'Neill. Any other questions? Councilman Darrell Clarke.
Just one quick question with respect to you indicating from your personal perspective of having this implemented in the next Mayor's term, and I think you said that sometimes at the end of a Mayor's term, it's difficult to get things done, particularly things of this magnitude. Would you agree that sometimes a new Mayor coming in may have difficulty getting things of this magnitude done, particularly given the fact that -- and I have no idea, no crystal ball as to who 225 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 the next Mayor will be. I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. It's getting late, folks. I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. This is my buddy over there.
I would be, to some degree, a little concerned about understanding how sometimes when a new Administration comes in, you have to get new people, you have to gear up, you have to get a sense of the government. We could possibly be two years putting in place the appropriate department heads in various agencies. I'm just a little concerned about -- because you could conceivably be adding three years to this process. Having been around for actually four Administrations now, I see when there's a change, it like takes a long time for people to get up to snuff.
I think that's a 226 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 very fair point. I'm generalizing based on three and a half decades of hanging around this building, that it's tougher to get things done at the end of an Administration than at the beginning of an Administration. But I see no 8 reason -- and, again, I want to emphasize I'm speaking personally. I see no reason why there can't be an acceleration of these transitional steps and with full implementation of a comprehensive reform plan at the beginning of the next Administration.
Very well. 227 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Councilman Frank Rizzo.
You talked about the end of the Administration versus the beginning of a new one. Obviously this is going to become, if it lingers on -- don't you believe it's going to become a political issue, it's going to be an issue during a mayoral campaign?
My own personal view is that there's a relatively short window here in which we can all have a good conversation about how to improve the Park system, and then we'll come under the shadow of the 2007 municipal election. So that's one of the reasons that I personally think it's better to be discussing this -- trying to discuss this topic now as opposed to three months from now or six months from now. I hope that goes to your question.
But based on what I'm hearing here today, I don't 228 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 think this is going to -- the time line that I see does not suggest that this is going to be resolved soon. At least that's my feeling. And I would bet that if it does not get resolved soon, it probably won't happen before the next mayoral election.
I imagine, Councilman, that we're just in a speculative game here, but --
-- I think I agree with your conclusion, that if it's not -- if there isn't a consensus around a good plan relatively soon, we enter a political phase and then not much will be done with it until the next time around.
You're welcome, Councilman Rizzo. Councilman Jack Kelly.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. 229 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Mr. Stalberg, I just want to ask you, in your Commission report, which you're going to be issuing probably sometime in January or February or whatnot, are you going to be recommending any ways to increase revenue or to increase the budget for the Park itself?
In other words, we could have all the great ideas -- I'm sure there are a lot of them that are going to come out of your report -- and unless we have the proper funding and revenue to implement them, I think it's going to be -- I think that's a very serious question that I have.
There is a subcommittee made up of some very good people who are focused on funding both the proper level of City funding and the issue of how to generate additional outside revenue. So I hope we'll be able to put some fresh ideas on the table in mid to late January. 230 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
You're welcome. Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thanks very much. Happy holidays. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Carroll Towarnicky.
Good afternoon and thanks for the opportunity to appear today. I'm Carroll Towarnicky. I'm here as a long-time City resident, a park user and a park neighbor, but also because as the Chief Editorial Writer for the Philadelphia Daily News, I co-wrote a series of editorials about the City's parks that have run over the past four and a half years. 231 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Our most recent series in September argued for the elimination of the Fairmount Park Commission in its present form and in favor of a City Department of Parks and Recreation, which is pretty much the basis of the legislation that's been produced. I'm used to sitting over there, so it's a very odd feeling to be sitting in this seat. In fact, I wasn't sure it was appropriate for me to be here to give testimony, because until last month, November 18th to be exact, I was covering the Park issue as part of my job at the Daily News. Journalists shouldn't be part of the story. We're supposed to be objective. But I have covered the Parks for so long now, that I'm anything but objective about its current state and its future, and I have strong views on this issue in particular. And my personal views, of course, aren't necessarily those of my former employer, the Daily 232 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 News. So I want to focus mainly on the issue of accountability to the voters and the taxpayers, and it goes to the selection process that people have mentioned so often today. When we first began looking into the Parks, we learned a lot about that process that is still a mystery to many well-informed Philadelphians, how the ten at-large members of the Fairmount Park Commission are chosen. Not that we know much even now about how Commissioners actually are picked, since they're voted into their five-year terms by the Board of Judges of the Court of Common Pleas at meetings that aren't open to the public or the news media. Judges are elected, but it's safe to say that no Philadelphian casts a vote for a judge with the idea that the judges choose the people to run our Parks. Nor can we hold the judges 233 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 accountable at election time if the commission they choose turns out to be less than dynamic. Of course, our Mayor and City Councilmembers are elected, but here the accountability is clear. We may not vote on a single issue, yet we expect these elected representatives to provide services for our City. We don't need to know the name of the Streets Commissioner. If the snow isn't removed properly, we know whom to blame, the person who appointed her, the Mayor. But if you have an issue with any aspect of Park management or leadership, who are you going to hold accountable? A group that was picked behind closed doors, who don't officially report to anyone in City Hall and are unconnected to any City department. In the past, often the first anyone heard about the process of selecting Fairmount Park Commissioners was after it was over. So in 2002 when 234 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 the at-large Commission members' five terms were up, we at the Daily News urged the Board of Judges to break from past practice and open up the selection process. As part of our campaign, we invited Commissioners in to meet with the Editorial Board. Those interviews were one of the first times that City Commissioners ever had to answer questions, articulate a vision or accept accountability in any remotely public manner. In a process that was more open than ever before, the Board of Judges selected six new members for the Commission, but the later appointments went right back to the old way of doing things, without public notice. Now, more than halfway through their five-year term, the Fairmount Park Commission still doesn't seem to have exhibited a unifying vision for the Park and how it meshes with the overall vision 235 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES.
050778 of Philadelphia as a good place to live and visit. Regardless of its individual members, the structure of the Commission and its separation from the City Administration works against that. To a great extent, the Commission is forced inward as it tries to get consensus among its own members rather than outward to work with the rest of the City Administration. We've heard a lot today about the Park's real problem being funding, but consider, would the City give more money to a department over which it doesn't have full control? As the Commission is quick to point out, it doesn't control its budget. The Mayor and City Council do. But this is an argument to abolish the Park Commission, not retain it. It's not likely that unelected Park Commissioners ever will have the power to tax or set their own budget, and 236 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 even if the Fairmount Park Commission had managed to achieve a vision for the Park and to provide leadership, it still would be up to the Mayor and the Council to fund that vision and to make it work. The fact that the fate of the Parks already is in the hands of the Mayor and the City Council should be more clear to park users, to the voters and to the taxpayers. It's time to look ahead. I believe, like other people, that the Charter amendment being discussed today should take effect with the next Administration, but even if it goes into effect sooner, the major changes will depend on the next person to occupy the Mayor's office and the members elected to the next Council. Do nothing, and 2007 will see a replay of 2002. The Board of Judges will choose ten at-large Commissioners using criteria only they know for new five-year terms, with no actual accountability to 237 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 the voters. But if we amend the Charter to hand over the Parks to a newly created Parks and Recreation Department, then 2007 will provide an opportunity for the Parks to be a major campaign issue debated by candidates for Mayor and for City Council, who then will have the power to follow through on their promises. That finally would give the voters a voice in the future of their Parks, a voice they don't have now. Thanks for listening.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any members of the Committee have a question? (No response.)
We thank you very, very much. Two housekeeping items. One, we've started actually at 3:00 and our stenographer started at 2:00. We want to give her a few minutes that she needs to 238 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 take a rest, just a few minutes. And then, secondly, let me repeat that this Committee hearing will be recessed. If you must leave, please let us know that you wish to testify at the next rescheduled session of this Committee. So we will take five minutes and allow our stenographer to take a break. (Short recess.)
Folks, we're going to reconvene. MR. McPHERSON: The next witnesses are a panel, Blaine Bonham and Mike Groman from the PA Horticultural Society.
If there's anyone that, again, has to leave but wants to be notified for the next hearing, please make sure you see David Forde or Will Carter on our staff to ensure that you're notified so that you can come back, please. 239 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Good afternoon, gentlemen. Welcome.
We have given you copies of the testimony, and in the interest of time, we're going to shorten it, but I'm assuming that the full testimony will be read into the record.
Is that how that works? Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society lauds the initiative of Councilmembers Clarke and Reynolds Brown to take on the challenge of promoting significant and substantial change to the current management systems 240 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 of our City's parks. The proposed legislation has sparked a robust discussion about the future of the City's parks, something that's not happened for a long time. We have partnered with the Philadelphia Parks Alliance to create the Citizens for Better Parks Initiative to provide a forum for discussing future management of Philadelphia's parks. However, we strongly recommend that any action to combine the Department of Recreation and the Fairmount Park Commission into a centrally managed Parks and Recreation Department as it moves ahead before it is as it's proposed, that several issues be thoroughly examined and considered as key to the final resolution. I'm going to skip to those critical issues. One, of course, is funding. And for the past 30 years, both systems, particularly Fairmount Park, have been 241 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 severely underfunded, resulting in significant --
Mike, please forgive me. Our stenographer failed to hear your full name. Forgive me for having to interrupt.
I probably didn't give it. I'm Blaine Bonham, Executive Vice-President of the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, and this is Mike Groman, Senior Director, Philadelphia Green for the Horticultural Society.
For the past 30 years, both systems, particularly Fairmount Park, have been severely underfunded, resulting in significant reduction to services and staffing. And a system once built on quality service consistently and broadly applied has been pressed to respond frequently to only the most critical and desperate needs. You've heard a lot of statistics this evening and this 242 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 afternoon. , Boston and Baltimore, are responsible for only 9 to 15 acres. Philadelphia spends about $48 per resident on its Park systems, while residents in other cities mentioned spend as much as $289 per resident, as in Washington. The inherent stress on the Philadelphia Park system is obvious. Now, on the other side of the balance sheet, we believe a centrally managed Park system can hold the promise of greater operational efficiencies and subsequently lower costs. Over the past several years, the two Park systems have been consolidating management of certain components, including pools, recreation centers and administrative functions 243 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 related to finance and human resources. However, the potential for greater efficiency should be completely understood and publicly documented before a full system merger takes place. Another issue is the public-private partnerships. Due to the other competing interests and pressing needs in the City at this time, we realize that the City budget alone will not be able to provide adequate funding to the Park system. Therefore, creating and maintaining innovative partnerships with outside private entities, including Philadelphia Green, for instance, the Fairmount Park Conservancy, community-based and other organizations poised to support parks, is one of the most effective ways to increase resources. And just, for example, over the past 12 years, our partnership with the Department of Recreation and Fairmount Park through our Parks Revitalization 244 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Project has been able to attract over $13 million for capital improvements from the city, state, foundations and private corporations. Moving forward, these relationships need to be expanded, nurtured and developed to their fullest potential, which will require the time and energy of the Directors and Managers at each of the systems. Another issue is maintenance. Quality maintenance is key to the success of an urban park system. Neighborhoods with parks that are well managed reap all the social, environmental and economic returns on investment. Conversely, parks that are poorly maintained can be catalysts for neighborhood degradation. PHS recommends that clean, green and safe should be the minimum standards applied across the board. We also recommend that the City's procurement process be streamlined to facilitate timely and effective park 245 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 maintenance. The maintenance staff within both systems are poised to do good work. However, they're often hampered by a lack of equipment. So for the lack of a spark plug, the grass doesn't get cut. The systemic problem needs to be resolved. Leadership and vision, another critical issue. Park leadership needs to have the responsibility and, more importantly, the authority and accountability to get the job done. Without authority, the leadership cannot be held accountable for the efficient and effective performance of the system that the citizens of Philadelphia deserve. Also, the leadership structure would benefit from an independent body of park advisors who can provide guidance and oversight and can seek opportunities to leverage resources. Its members should have a clear affinity for parks and open space, as well as skills and expertise in the business of developing and managing 246 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 such a dynamic asset that demands a high return on investment for the City.
Most importantly, the Park system in Philadelphia needs to be guided by a clearly articulated vision for the role it plays in the City and the region. A well-defined vision sets a common goal, energizes constituents and paints a picture of a park system that's more than a solitary jewel but a vital component of the City's civic vitality. It protects the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Philadelphia and enhances their economic well-being and quality of life. The well-respected park authority and park advocate, Peter Harnik, who works for the Trust Republic Land, says this about money, which is interesting, because there's been a lot of discussion this afternoon and this evening about money, but he says that the lack of money is not the problem, it's almost always the symptom. When there's 247 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 a clear vision and proper leadership built into a park management system, the resources will follow. The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society recognizes that change needs to happen for the future of the Park and the City. We would encourage City Council to consider these issues as critical to the proposed legislation so that the long-term result is the best possible Park system for Philadelphia. Thank you.
We thank you very much for your testimony. Any other comments you'd like to make?
I should state for the record that we tried hard to get the appearance and participation of Peter Harnik for this hearing, and scheduling made it virtually impossible. So we might be more fortunate --
He might be able 248 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 to come for another session. I know he'd be glad to talk about it.
Well, he's a well-respected park guru, if you will, that has a national perspective on what's possible with regard to creating outstanding park systems. So we thank you very, very much for your testimony.
Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Bill Mifflin.
Good evening, City Councilmembers, apparently Co-Chairs of this auspicious event. My name is 249 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 William Mifflin. It is indeed a pleasure and honor to appear before you today on this most important matter, the proposed transfer of the powers and duties of the Fairmount Park Commission to the Philadelphia Department of Recreation. As you know, I had the privilege and the honor to serve in a leadership role in both agencies. I have retired after 37 years of service to the citizens of Philadelphia. Both agencies are remarkable, progressive and resourceful. The employees are professional and dedicated to their professions. I submit to you that the City of Philadelphia is very fortunate indeed to have two agencies serving the multiple park and recreational needs of our citizenry. I further submit that now is not the time to consolidate the two departments, and I urge that Bill Nos. 057780 and 050753 not be approved. I 250 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 make this recommendation out of total respect for the co-sponsors of this bill, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown and Councilman Darrell Clarke, who have historically both been huge supporters of both the Fairmount Park Commission and the Department of Recreation and myself. I can understand and appreciate to some extent the rationale behind these bills. There may be a perception that the departments are duplicative or that the lines of program and maintenance are confusing to elected officials and the public. There is also an awareness that Philadelphia is one of the few cities where the departments appear to be separate entities. I believe that these issues can be resolved without the loss of the authority of the Fairmount Park Commission. The two agencies have always cooperated and shared limited resources to every extent possible. I have personally, along with 251 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 other members of senior staff of both agencies, along with the Managing Director's office, on at least two separate occasions analyzed and researched the financial, economical and effective gains of merging the two agencies, and on every occasion, the gains were minuscule or not to be found. Through the years and up to the present, general and specific responsibilities in programs and maintenance have been transferred or reconfigured to take advantage of the strengths of the other agencies. In fact, it is the responsibility of the Recreation Department to provide City-wide recreational programs and facilities, including those in Fairmount Park. The City Charter and the official City organizational chart presently accounts for the Fairmount Park Commission to be one of the agencies reporting to the Department of Recreation. 252 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 However, given the enormous responsibilities of both agencies, it has been recognized by many having two agencies which complement each other while focusing on their respective missions. Philadelphia is a special City. We have history, numerous resources and a population that cares passionately and unselfishly about our Parks and Recreation. We have a reputation of getting things accomplished that is the envy of park and recreation programs across the state and our country. I am proud that we still have a Park Commission that can or could be independent. The mission of the Park Commission is very similar today as it was when it was first incorporated: Maintaining open space and the protection of the quality of our water. It is even more critical today that we maintain and reinforce that mission. The Commission's 253 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 loss of authority to an advisory role would seriously jeopardize that important responsibility. However, I would like to take this opportunity to make a few recommendations for your consideration regarding the future.
Fairmount Park and the Department of Recreation are embarrassingly understaffed and underfunded. They have been for decades, and the toll of deferred maintenance, unsafe conditions and burned out employees have reached a critical level. They must receive a larger portion of the City budget. The work of these two departments actually serve and assist other agencies, such as the Police in fighting crime, the Water Department in storm water management, Health Department in fighting childhood obesity through organized physical activities, the Commerce Department in supporting and hosting large special and cultural 254 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 events, and have always been a partner with the School District of Philadelphia in the education of our children. There are other agencies that are affected by their work which largely goes unnoticed, unrecognized and unrewarded financially. Additional funding could be spent strategically and would represent one of the best returns on our dollars. The agencies do an excellent job in receiving grants and support from corporations, government agencies and, of course, the wonderful friends groups and volunteers. However, the City needs to support the Fairmount Park Commission and the Department of Recreation so that we can more effectively leverage the support. No. 2, upon completion of the term of the existing Commissioners of Fairmount Park, we must have in place a different appointment process that would change the present process of election by 255 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 the Board of Judges to a more open, transparent process, with criteria established that would ensure the most qualified and dedicated candidates would serve. Further, the maximum number of Commissioners should be between seven and nine, and we should continue to include the representation from City Council, the Recreation Commissioner and I suggest that we add the Managing Director, among others. Three, creation of a regional park. My vision is to encompass East and West Park and the Wissahickon. This acreage contains some of the finest cultural, historic, tourism and recreational amenities anywhere in this country. The district -- and I use that in quotes -- could be managed in partnership with the Commonwealth and the federal government along with the support of a special Cultural and Recreational District. I think that separating East 256 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 and West Park and Wissahickon from the other 9,000 acres, it makes a great deal of sense, and I sincerely believe that we could have other levels of government interested in helping create that as a national showpiece. No. 4, the Fairmount Park Commission has as much in common with the Philadelphia Water Department Watershed Management Division as they do with the Department of Recreation. Consider creating a special entity with the Park Commission to focus on storm water management issues throughout the City. No. 5, expand partnerships with universities, such as Philadelphia University, Temple University, Penn, Drexel and others in support of both departments. I know I've about teaching at Temple since leaving the City employment and I've been able to craft numerous internships and partnerships in natural resource projects here. So it can really be leveraged. And the 257 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 faculties of those universities, quite frankly, would be very interested in supporting our Parks and Recreation. No. 6 is to reenergize and enforce the City Charter responsibilities of the Recreation Coordination Board. The major benefit of this would be the assurance of the School District of Philadelphia participating in providing in provisional recreational programs. No. 7, the Executive Directors of the Fairmount Park Trust and the Conservancy should report to the Fairmount Park Commission through the Fairmount Park Executive Director.
I will note that in addition to these reporting relationships, that the City Managing Director is responsible to supervise both the Department of Recreation and the Fairmount Park Commissioner and its Executive Director. So the Managing Director's office, again, is sort of the glue that keeps the two departments together. 258 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 No. 8 is support the expansion of such programs as the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society Philadelphia Green Program that has done so much to improve our parks and open spaces in the City, and, of course, you just heard from them. In conclusion, I would commend City Council for bringing attention to the need for improving the delivery of services of the Fairmount Park Commission and the Philadelphia Department of Recreation. Much has been accomplished and much more needs to be done. The status quo is not acceptable. The City is blessed with significant natural and historical resources and a substantial infrastructure of recreational amenities. The agencies responsible for these amenities need the support of everyone. The agencies do not overlap, but struggle daily to meet their responsibilities. Administratively the two can work cooperatively. However, it is critical 259 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 that we have an effective Fairmount Park Commission to ensure that future generations have a Park system of which we will all be proud to have been a part and a protector of. Thank you very much. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Quite all right. I'll reread it with interest, and your recommendations in particular. Speak briefly, if you could, or elaborate on potential partnerships that could exist with universities. I think all City departments need to think out of the box and look to the next generation of leaders in various professions. And elaborate, if you will, on -- you mentioned a number of departments, Police, Water, storm water, 260 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Commerce Department, School District, which rely on or interface with Fairmount Park.
Sure, and the Department of Recreation. Both. Well, with regards to the universities, as you know well as an educator, there's really a wealth of information and interest in working with, from the Presidents of the universities on through the School District, with working with the City and making this City a first-rate educational City, and the Park can become a laboratory, a science laboratory, for many of the classes and many of the schools. At the high school level, the environmental science is now part of the science curriculum for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And in other areas of the Commonwealth, they use the state parks, again, as their classroom laboratory. So we could be doing much more 261 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 and going beyond presently what we're doing, but I think it has to be a summit from the Mayor with the Presidents of these universities, and really begin to think about how they can interact with these City agencies. They're here in the City. I don't know of another city that has this opportunity. And Penn has landscape architecture seminars and they have a major in landscape architecture, as does Temple University. Philadelphia University now, of which I'm also teaching, is environmental sciences, and, of course, Temple University has horticulture as well. As I speak to the faculty members, they would be extremely interested in doing research and doing increased internships and really working more cooperatively with both agencies. As it relates to the other City agencies, of course, we have been doing this forever, quite frankly, at both 262 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 departments, but storm water management is becoming one of the most critical issues facing our natural resources, and the Water Department does really a very effective job, I believe, given its resources in watershed management, and they are presently working cooperatively with Fairmount Park. My suggestion is that this could be a focus for both agencies. The Water Department has a serious budget there and could perhaps help the Park Commission and look -- they look at Park property as detention and retention areas for storm water management, and I think this is an opportunity to do even more work like we're doing at Sailor's Grove along Lincoln Drive, and I just think that really could be a focus of both the Commission and the Water Department to really begin to think about how we manage our natural resources here. When we talk about what white-tailed deer does to the Wissahickon 263 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 and the Pennypack and some of the other things, we have admitted that uncontrolled storm water runoff is, quite frankly, probably a worse or a greater damage to our natural areas than white-tailed deer, particularly now that we're bringing that somewhat under control. It's difficult to document what recreation programs do as far as crime prevention is concerned, but we know that having children in gymnasiums, quite frankly, as opposed to being out on the street or in after-school programs -- the School District and the Department of Recreation have to sit down and come up with a policy of who pays for when schools stay open later than the end of the school day, because the one doesn't want to pay for the people to open and lock up the doors. And it's ridiculous, because we're really missing significant opportunities here. I have a number of issues like 264 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 that that I'd be happy to -- that I didn't articulate in detail in this testimony, but I'd be happy to provide it to you as well.
Thank you again for your testimony. I certainly can't -- well, but I can, because I've been invited to be a member of the Steering Committee that Zack Stalberg spoke about. So therein lies an opportunity to make sure there's some cross-fertilization in all of the testimony that has been shared. So, again, I thank you very, very much for your testimony.
You're welcome. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Penny Balkin Bach from the Fairmount Park Art Association. (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Mike McCrea. (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Andrew Hohns? 265 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Mary Ferrell? SPEAKER: I'm standing in for her. Her report has been given.
Let the record show that we have written testimony from Mary Ferrell of the Conservancy. Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: David Thornburgh?
He did leave his testimony. MR. McPHERSON: Bob Lukens and David Pope?
I'm hard of hearing. Are you calling the next witnesses? 266 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
Yes. We're calling up additional witnesses. MR. McPHERSON: We're still calling the original list. Jim Kates?
Good evening. My name is Jim Kates. I'm the Vice-President of the Friends of Fox Chase Farm. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about these critical issues today. Fox Chase Farm is a 112-acre facility administered by Fairmount Park. It is situated in Northeast Philadelphia and was jointly purchased in 1975 by the City, Montgomery County and Abington Township. At the time of this purchase, it was agreed that Fairmount Park would be responsible for the administration of the site. Since Fairmount Park did not have sufficient staff or experience to continue running this facility as a 267 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 working farm, it cleverly leased it to the School District of Philadelphia as part of the agricultural education program at the W.B. Saul High School. In 1995, the lease and responsibility for the operation of Fox Chase Farm was transferred to Abraham Lincoln High School. Lincoln provides educational farm tours for over 8,000 school children annually from virtually every neighborhood of the City. From the early 1980s, Fairmount Park has done farm-related public programming at this facility that attracts 10,000 people annually. The Friends of Fox Chase Farm volunteer their time at these public events. School children and adults are thrilled that they can actually come in contact with sheep, pigs and cattle and other farm animals right here in Philadelphia. We have an active 4H program run by volunteers. The children in the 4H are preparing to show their pigs, 268 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 sheep and steers at the Pennsylvania Farm Show. They also compete in other livestock events. The Friends of Fox Chase Farm, with a membership of over 450 families, want to ensure that this gem of a facility administered by the Fairmount Park Commission remains a working educational farm open to the public. Our members have genuine fears that Fox Chase Farm, which has been almost continually farmed since 1692, could easily be converted from fields for grazing livestock to athletic fields in a merged department. This would be a real loss for Philadelphia and City kids of all ages, including me. There is no doubt that the Fairmount Park Commission has been underfunded and understaffed for some time. However, merging it with the Recreation Department will not solve the problems. The Fairmount Park strategic plan is only a year and a half old and it 269 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 appears that some progress is being made. Now is not the time to make hasty decisions without any details of how a merger will help either Park or Recreation programs. Please don't ask advocates for Parks and Recreation to sign a blank check for change without the details. You all know that the devil is in the details. The Friends of Fox Chase Farm believe it would be prudent to wait until after the Philadelphia Parks Alliance and the Task Force headed by Zack Stalberg make their report in February. If at that time a decision is made to still proceed with a combined department, please, please provide us with specific details of the roles and authority of the Park and Recreation Commissioners, as well as some way to assure that the passive recreation provided by natural areas will be protected from development and more athletic fields. The citizens 270 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 of Philadelphia and all users of parks deserve no less. Thank you.
I've heard a lot today about the Fairmount Park Commission and the dissatisfaction with the selection process. You all know that that was designed through state law. I really think the way to solve that part of the problem is go back to the state legislature, use the good offices of the City to persuade them to provide a selection process that is more open to the public. I don't think you need a Charter change. I don't think you need to merge the departments to accomplish that. You can do it by getting the state legislature and our representatives in Harrisburg to change that selection process. 271 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from my Co-Chair?
First, let me say thank you for coming last night. I would be remiss not to acknowledge your passion. It is clear that you care about this issue, and we thank you for your testimony this evening.
You're welcome. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Eric Werner. I believe he left. Barbara Kaplan left her testimony. Scotty Gemballa? (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Alma Jacobs? (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Ellen Wert?
Good evening. 272 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
Good evening. Thank you very much. You were kind enough to listen to my testimony last night, and I won't reread it. I will submit it, but I just have a quick addendum.
For the record, my name is Ellen Wert and I represent the Friends of Cloverly Park in Germantown. I just want to reiterate our statement last night that the Friends of Cloverly Park urge Council to defer action until such time as the findings of the Task Force and Citizens Initiative be presented in February 2006 and considered by Council and advocates of the Park system. We'd also like to leave you with three seemingly impertinent and cranky questions, but they are not. They are meant as cautions, and they are requests.
They're in 273 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 your testimony as well?
Can City Council assure citizens and stakeholders that merging the Parks with Recreation in a City department is truly an effective practice and, moreover, that it is appropriate for our unique and extensive Park system? Many people have said that other systems have a merged system. It may not be -- just because they have it doesn't mean it's effective. Can City Council assure citizens and stakeholders that this proposal is not designed to cede to City Council control of an important entity and advanced political aspirations? And, finally, can City Council assure citizens and stakeholders that the proposed merger is not about securing the resources of the Fairmount Park system and enabling the City to sell Park land to developers and other interests? 274 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Thank you very much for your consideration and this opportunity.
We thank you very, very much for your testimony. Councilman Clarke.
I don't want an answer right now. I want you to think about it, very hard. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Joseph Syrnick.
Good evening, Madam Chairperson, members of City Council. My name is Joseph Syrnick. I'm the CEO of the Schuylkill River Development Corporation, and I'm appreciative of the opportunity to testify this evening. The City of Philadelphia benefits from an incredible system of open space and parks unlike any other city in the nation. This wonderful system was born out of a well-founded 275 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 desire on the part of City founders to protect the water supply. Over the years, the system has grown to 9,200 acres, 62 parks and over ten percent of Philadelphia land. It's a wonderful amenity and one that Fairmount Park Commission has been the steward of for over 150 years. While I understand that the proposal to realign Fairmount Park and the Recreation Department into a new Department of Parks and Recreation is good intentioned, I fear that unless it is looked at more carefully, the result will be less than what we would all hope. We at the Schuylkill River Development Corporation have worked closely with Fairmount Park with their staff in landscaping the Schuylkill Trail, bringing summer programs to Schuylkill River Park, constructing two new docks on the Schuylkill River and implementing a branding and identity program for Schuylkill Banks, 276 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Philadelphia's newest riverfront destination. We've had a great working relationship with Park staff. I'm sure this will only improve over time. And as you've heard today, there's a number of initiatives underway to look at ways of implementing the Park's strategic plan. Allow the folks advancing these initiatives to do their work and report back to you. The Park Commission and its staff is comprised of smart, caring people who understand their stewardship role. Our collective goal, I think, is to make Fairmount Park the best it can be. Let's fully understand and map out the best route for doing this before we begin the journey. Thank you.
Thank you very, very much for your testimony. I have no questions. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Bill LeFevre from Bartram's 277 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Gardens.
Thank you for staying with us. MR. LeFEVRE: Thank you for letting me speak. Good evening.
Good evening. MR. LeFEVRE: It's been a long day, and I made my wishes known last night and my concern for the fact that it's not just a matter of governance, but it really is a matter of accountability and, most importantly, funding. I run Bartram's Garden, which is 45 acres of the Fairmount Park system. We partner public and private with the City. We worked with the Schuylkill River Development Corporation recently to build a $400,000 dock. Just on a per-acreage basis, at Bartram's Garden, the John Bartram Association invests for every dollar that the Fairmount Park system invests, we invest an additional $10. On a per-acre 278 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 basis, for every staff member of the Fairmount Park system -- and one person takes care of about 40 acres -- I've got nine full-time equivalents taking care of 45 acres and running programming on 45 acres. You talked about universities. Temple University's Landscape Architecture program has held their student studio at Bartram's Garden. The University of Pennsylvania's second-year architecture class will be coming this fall to run their second-year studio at Bartram's Garden. But I have the staff and the capability to provide staff and the services to enable them to do that on our property. The Fairmount Park Commission doesn't have the staffing level in order to enter into those types of partnerships. They do need more staff. They do need more money. But, most importantly, I think what you've done and the discussion that 279 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 I've heard in the last hours, the level of public debate on this issue, the incredible expertise that we've heard in the last three hours would lead me to believe that a door has been opened here by you and Councilman Clarke that you might not have realized that you opened a few months ago or weeks ago when you wrote this legislation, that there really is an opportunity right now to fix something in the City of Philadelphia that's been broken for way too long. There is a Commission of 15 that sits and develops policy for the 16 Park, and I think that most people would agree that a majority of the people who sit on that Commission really have very little knowledge of or interest in the Park as a whole. It is a politicized body, and it can be fixed. And I think that you might be in a position now where the Fairmount Park Commission and City Council and the Administration in the next few months can come together and 280 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 craft a solution that will allow in the future a merging of both departments into a vital and effective Parks and Recreation Department for the City and gather the resources and the funding that's needed in order to make it all happen. So I thank you for starting that debate, and I wish you God's speed and good luck in pursuing this now that you've opened this door that really, I think, is providing an opportunity much greater than you might have realized at the beginning of the process. Thank you very much.
Thank you for your testimony. Councilman Clarke, comments?
Thank you for your testimony and thank you for your participation last night. And I concur, that I had no idea that the level of response would be what it has been. And I'm happy. There's no way in the world I 281 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 thought we'd have a witness list of 30-something people this afternoon and the level of support that came out last night, both pro and con. It was really stimulating. So I agree with you, that I personally didn't have a sense of the magnitude of the response, but I'm glad to see that it was such. MR. LeFEVRE: People have been talking about vision and about economic drivers in the City of Philadelphia, and really there are few things in this City that possess the potential to become a major economic driver in the revitalization of this City than the Fairmount Park system. Just the small work that we've been doing on the lower Schuylkill River with Schuylkill Banks and building a couple of docks has created a tremendous amount of excitement on just one small part of the Fairmount Park system. The potential is endless.
Enormous. 282 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 It's really enormous. MR. LeFEVRE: It really is.
Let me echo Councilman Clarke's comments in saying thank you, and it's clear to me as well that we all want to end up at a different place. The challenge is finding some consensus, if you will, around one, two, three, four or items 11 that we could be so lucky that move us to 12 a different place. 13 So I'll repeat by saying for me 14 it was the strategic plan and the 15 recommendations in the strategic plan, and we sort of picked one, and it opened up the door in a healthy way, given what has happened over the last 48 hours, but actually was started in June with meetings going through the summer all the way up until now. So we are encouraged, but it's a clear signal, too, that there remains work to be done. So we thank you for your testimony. 283 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 MR. LeFEVRE: If I could add one last thing. There's sort of an 800-pound gorilla that hangs out there in this whole process, and that's the politics of how the Fairmount Park Commission has gotten to be the way it is. And I don't think it's just the Commission's fault or just the judges' fault or just the Administration's fault or just Council's fault, but everybody is a part of that process. And to be able to now grasp this opportunity and to in a sort of bipartisan, even though there's really only one party in Philadelphia, but in a real unified way to grasp the opportunity to rise above that and have the strength and the courage to finally rise above that, throw some of the people under the bus, as it were, who need to be thrown under the bus and move this whole thing forward, I think it's a great opportunity, and I thank you for starting the process.
Please 284 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 tell us that you have written testimony. MR. LeFEVRE: No, I don't.
Then we'll just have to reread the record in the transcript. Thank you very, very much. MR. LeFEVRE: Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is John Boyce. (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Rebecca Bodner? (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Mary Tracy? (No response.) MR. McPHERSON: Henry Magaziner? Is that it, sir?
I'm Henry Jonas Magaziner. I'm an architect. Now that I've reached the tender age of 94, I can give you a little historical perspective that nobody else here has been able to do. Back in the days of either Mayor Clark or Mayor Dilworth, they brought over to Philadelphia a wonderful 285 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Recreation Director, Robert Crawford, who was a Recreation Director for the State of California, and Mr. Crawford ran a wonderful shop in the Recreation Department. Before I became Regional Historical Architect for the National Park Service, I ran a small architectural office. I did a couple of jobs for Bob Crawford. He loved my work, the work of my office. He called me, said he's giving me a much bigger one. And six months later, I still didn't get the contract. Then I got a phone call. How many tables am I taking for the Rizzo dinner, the dinner to get money to raise money to have Mayor Rizzo reelected. How many tables would I take at $1,000 a table. I didn't shake. All of the sudden, Mr. Crawford called me and said, I'm awfully sorry, that contract went to somebody else. So obviously you didn't come through the way you were supposed to 286 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 for the Rizzo campaign. I said, Well, that's true. So months later, I ran into Crawford on the street. He said, I am so sorry you didn't get that job, because I am getting such a lousy piece of work from someone. I won't mention the name. But this is Philadelphia. Now, put Fairmount Park in the Recreation Department, it's going to be just as political. And I know other cities, many cities, have a Department of Parks and Recreation, but there's no city that has the kind of park that we have, with all those wonderful treasures, Lemon Hill, Belmont, Strawberry, the Waterworks. We have Memorial Hospital, all these wonderful pieces of architecture. There's no other city that has that. And, fortunately, these buildings have been watched over by a Park Commission of people who are devoted Philadelphia citizens, who are not 287 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 politicians, who are not out to have their palms greased. These are people who are really devoted Philadelphians. I've worked with people like Ernesto Ballard and Howard Sailor. These are wonderful citizens. They were the people on the Park Commission, and they were the ones who were entrusted to save these buildings. Put the Fairmount Park in the Recreation Department, it's going to be political. I'll think ahead -- I talked about 35 or 40 years. Going the other way for 35 or 40 years, put them in the Recreation Department, these buildings will be loused up. We have a responsibility to our children and our grandchildren to save these treasures, which are unique to Philadelphia, and I think that if you merge the two departments, you're going to really -- I'm thinking now as an architect. You're going to really louse up these buildings. 288 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 I know when I took over the job as Regional Historical Architect for the Park Service, I saw some of the lousy work that had been done on Independence Hall before the Park Service took over. That was when the City controlled Independence Hall. We have a wonderful tradition in Philadelphia, corrupt and content. I remember the corruption that went into the Century Centennial. I remember the corruption that went into the Bicentennial. And even if the present Administration, if it were living clear, absolutely clear and pure, and if the Recreation Department had no politics, I'm thinking ahead 35, 40 years, Philadelphia, as -- who was it? " And this is what keeps happening in Philadelphia, and we have to save these treasures. These are not just -- they are not just pieces of 289 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 architecture. These are great pieces of America's heritage that we fortunately have inherited and we have to save them.
And putting it in the Recreation Department, it's just going to louse them all up. That's the end of my story. Any questions?
Well, I first thank you on behalf of this entire Committee for the historical perspective. It comes at a perfect time as we move towards adjournment. And we thank you for just reminding us that out of all of the issues that have been raised, I think you are probably the first or the second that put the spotlight on the fact that our Park does have unique one-of-a-type, 290 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 one-of-a-kind architectural facilities. So you then give us another assignment as we look to come up with an ultimate end point that factors in, that we have to protect our architectural buildings as well, architectural treasures is what you called them. So we thank you very, very much for your testimony.
You're welcome. MR. McPHERSON: Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Well, then on behalf of the Committee of the Whole and -- please come forward.
Fred Maurer. I won't give full testimony today. I think everyone left. Councilpeople are not here. And I'm not going to give full testimony, but I think I'd like to at least ad-lib some remarks after Henry. 291 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 He gave a good history of it. I've been doing a lot of history, too. Besides these historical structures, the structure of Fairmount Park 167 years ago was a major accomplishment, which we seldom realize how difficult it was for all the politicians to do this thing, to give up their income and their resources and create a Park system that -- when the City Charter came about, we had 50 years of republican rule, a lot of corruption. Henry just mentioned a few of them. But all the 50 years of corruption, they left a good Park system. We had a full staff of Parks. We had a full -- a Park Ranger system, Park Guards. We had a wonderful Park system. Everyone said before about what was here before. We had it. Republicans brought it. That playground that Darrell Clarke played in at 33rd Street, that was made by a republican, Barney Samuels, who made the first recreation programs in the City of Philadelphia. That's the kind of 292 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 status we had. After republicans left, we had a good system. Unfortunately, the reformers left. They're no longer here, Clark and Dilworth that Henry mentioned. We don't have that same attitude among our present Administration. Fifty years of democratic rule have forgotten that we inherited a wonderful system. And the two-park system we have of -- it's really not a two-park system. It's two different programs. The Recreation Department, which no one has talked about at all, was created in City Charter with three purposes. One purpose was just to be an integrator between the Recreation Department and the Fairmount Park. The second purpose was to run a recreation program. The third purpose was to run Veterans Stadium, because we had to save the Phillies from leaving town. So we created Veterans Stadium, made a multi-purpose stadium so both stadiums 293 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 would survive in the City. Now, Veterans Stadium, that was an economic resource for the City to create income for the City. That park where the stadiums are built was part of League Island Park. When Henry talked about the Bicentennial -- or the Century Centennial, that was done in League Island Park. We divided that in half. We said one half of it was going to be FDR Park, the other half is going to become a benefit to the City. We built stadiums there, municipal stadiums, then Veterans Stadium. Now, Philadelphia Department of Recreation Commissioner was responsible for the management and the income sources from Veterans Stadium. Once they demolished Veterans Stadium, we no longer had those income resources. Half of the job of the Recreation Commissioner is gone. So when you talk about getting rid of Fairmount Park, you might just as 294 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 well say the Recreation Department. What are you going to do to them? Do you want to demolish them because the same one -- or are you going to say they are capable -- you haven't said how they're going to be handled in the future. How are they going to survive? Bill Mifflin said about how they work together. We have. We had very good cooperation between those two agencies. There's not been a problem. And I think you have to put some perspective in this. We had a good system. Once we got rid of the stadium where we could have funded income streams from there, but we gave all our tax benefits to the stadium. All the teams have big incomes for their team players. They make millions of dollars every year for each player, but we have no income from the City coming from that. If we had an income stream alone from that stadium complex, we could fund the Recreation Department and Fairmount Park 295 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES.
050778 budgets completely. One resource alone would fund all the rest of it. I think the City one year was too generous in giving away our stadium lands. You forgot that we have a Recreation program that needs constant funding. And the greatest source we had was building that stadium. I think when you look at this a little more carefully, those resources -- every time we give a developer a tax deferral, we're stealing from Fairmount Park in order to benefit their business, but we're not taking care of the City's business. I feel very sad that we're giving all these tax benefits -- and I think last week you had the article in the newspaper about the benefit that the Commerce Department for tax relief, you're giving out thousand dollar donations to the politicians, which Mayor Goode -- or Councilman Goode rather rejected his. I mean, that kind of problem still exists. 296 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 I think we have resources that we're eliminating. Tax deferral now seems to be the thing that they're after. And I don't know where we're going to go, but it makes me sad to think that we had given away Veterans Stadiums, given away a constant stream of income to the City. How are we going to develop that again where we can those assets to fund the rest of the Recreation Department, including Betsy Ross House, all these little things that play -- the City Historical Museum down on 7th Street, all those little things that come under the Recreation Department Commissioner, which he's responsible for oversight, not for management but for oversight. So I think you need to look at this thing. We have a uniform budget system, and the Recreation Department Commissioner is supposed to be assured that all those agencies that are under him for oversight get adequate funding. 297 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 If he doesn't get enough for his budget, we don't get enough for the Park, we don't get enough for the Art Museum. Giving away stadiums was a great loss, and I don't know of another thing until maybe we get the Olympics to come here or have another big event which may produce some income. But that's some ad-libbing information for you.
Well, we thank you for your testimony. You've raised a number of important questions that we expect will be addressed as we continue to go through this process. Thank you for your participation.
When you advertise for your next hearing, I'll reschedule myself with -- will your assistant Forde be doing the same thing?
I will call him. 298 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
We will welcome you and your written testimony. We want to thank everyone for coming and staying. The record should reflect that the Friends of Pastorius Park, Incorporated were here and left their testimony to be a part of the public record. We want to say thank you to the Friends Park Alliance for helping us get the word out. We'll lean on you again to help us spread the word, along with our own internal notification process. So we thank you all very, very much. The door is open, and we're all going through it until we get to a place where we have a great Park system. Have a happy holiday. We will recess to the call of the Chair. (Committee of the Whole adjourned at 7:50 p.m.) - - - 299 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on December 14, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)