These are just a few companies that I've come across and that my team has come across who are success stories within the doing business with the City. One is Intelligent Business Solutions, IBS. The owner of that company is Darryl Boozer, and he is a technology systems integrator. He was one of the companies that received a subcontract for installation and repair of the security cameras for the City. His largest contract, $1.5 million. And this is a minority-owned business. He employs 15 people, and he is a stellar representative in the African American business community. We have Alpha Supply, largest contract -- and he works in collaboration with Staples -- contract $5 million, hires and employs 55 employees, many of them ethnic. 136 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
I sure hope your third example is a woman, because Blondell is going to --
Being very much engaged now with the economic opportunity plans for major projects around the City, I am very proud of the work that the Temple Group does, and that is operated by Dr. Lorraine Brown, and she has been in the construction industry for decades. She is now responsible as the contract manager for the Youth Study Center. 137 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Now I need three departments that you think are the gold standard that get it right.
Absolutely. And so she is one company, but I have a few other names of MBEs and WBEs who have in fact demonstrated that they can do business with the City, engineers who have done great work with the Water Department and continue to expand their business. One company, Berner Construction, a WBE and DBE, has $1.6 million contract with the Water Department for Wise Mill Run and Cathedral Run streams. We got Cortrol --
-- list to the body, because I could see Wilson's finger itching towards to push -- oh, you pushed it. Okay. So the difference for me 138 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. is that at least you know some examples of people who are in fact engaged in contracts with the City. I asked that question six months ago. It drew a blank. No disrespect to anyone else, but you are supposed to know, document, memorialize and advocate for that at greater levels. So that is at least one difference.
With that being said, 82 percent of contract dollars went to businesses owned by white men; is that true?
It was the 139 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. same the year before?
So there's no need to compare OEO to OEO. And in the comparison between OEO and MBEC, I'm quite sure my colleague was not trying to suggest that he didn't do all the things that you plan on doing now when he was MBEC Director. I'm quite sure he was suggesting that he did all of those things, which means that there is not necessarily a difference between OEO and MBEC, because he did all those things back then. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good point, Councilman. But let me say this, that those are different times. It's post Crowson, which was a lawsuit that was filed by the general contractors. We had teeth. They filed some of your dogs' teeth down. Now you have to do what you can do to get that participation, and I just wanted to 140 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. put that on the record. But I am encouraged by the fact -- I have some operational efficiencies. If you are going to move away from certification eventually, as my colleague points out, how will you redeploy that manpower? And if I understand your department's function, field compliances help to incentivize people to do the right thing contractually. How are you going to take those 11 people, and if I understand the volume of contracts from now and then, it is higher now.
Absolutely. Councilman, you're absolutely right. With the stimulus dollars moving through the operating departments, the volume of contracts where goals are to be set, volume of bids that come in that have to be reviewed for compliance, and then ultimately the contracts that are awarded, there is a requirement for -- or I should say, there is an interest in 141 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. measuring the compliance more vigilantly than we have in the past, because we just need to have a presence out in the field to ensure that the workforce is in place and that companies are in fact delivering. And the goal would be to leverage the Bureau of Labor Standards and the people who are already out in the field with our operation to make sure that we have a presence out there and we're looking for the right things.
I'm sorry. Department of Labor Standards are looking for employment compliance, correct?
So you're talking about two field trips combined into one?
Potentially, yes. I'm talking about the absence of a field trip versus the one who makes the 142 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. field trip looking for two additional pieces of information. So we're not only confirming that people are paid right from a standard, wage standard, but also that the faces of the people on the job demonstrate the diversity that we're trying to find for our projects.
I would only beg the Administration one other. If that is the plan of the Administration to do that, that is a sound plan coming from, as my colleague outed me, as a former Director of --
No, I wasn't going to do that. But anyway, I think that combining those two functions is an efficiency. And if you use technology, you probably could fit in a third, which is the license for the contractors and subcontractors that we're talking about putting on the trucks, I believe it is. 143 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. You could go right down the list and do maybe three compliance checks in the field versus everyone doing one, sending another person. So if that is indeed what the Administration is going to do, I think that's a step both in the right direction to get increased participation but also maybe even do what we'd like to see is cut some costs in doing so. And I'm wondering, is that -- I hear you saying that. Do I hear the Commerce Department and Deputy for Economic Development saying that's the plan?
Yes, that's the plan. I would also, Councilman, like to add one other piece of this story, and, that is, basically having the willpower to at the contracting phase, not at the field phase, to turn back proposals that are non-compliant. We've turned back two of them in the last month and a half. They were -- one of them was 144 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. a relatively small contract, one was a very sizable contract, and the difference between the non -- I should say the difference between the non-compliant firm and the next lowest bid in one case was rather significant. We turned it back anyway. They were kind of egregiously non-compliant.
Well, that's for sure different from the last -- and God help us if you ever de-certify or, what is that, de-bar someone in recent history. That would be a signal sent that we are serious about your mission.
I do -- I'm not going to name names, but in the one case where there was a significant difference between the first and second bidders, it almost felt like the low bidder was daring us to deal with it.
And we dealt with it. We said, no, sorry. 145 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I hear my clock ringing and so I'll stop the questioning. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. I'll use the power of the Chair to be next. Actually, no, no. Actually, I was already in line to be next.
I was wondering if you were going to do that. Thank you.
Good afternoon again. Mr. Greenberger, a quick question about casinos. And looking at your testimony, you referenced your involvement in the SugarHouse Casino as one of the FY10 initiatives. A part of the process has been from the Administration -- and I want to thank Mr. Gillison as it relates to the portion of his involvement relating primarily to public safety, operational issues 146 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. associated with the actual casino once it's up and running and leading up to that. A little late, but better late than never. And they laid out what I think is a reasonable plan and interacting with the surrounding community and the leadership in the community, and they've started that process that I think ultimately will work, working with Councilman DiCicco and myself. In terms of the SugarHouse Casino, once it's up and running, I think the belief is by most people that it will have some level of a stimulative effect on the surrounding area as it relates to opportunities beyond the casino, the physical casino itself. I'm hearing that there's also speculative activity as it relates to purchasing properties around the perimeter. Is there an effort, separate from Mr. Gillison and the public safety people, from the Commerce side to 147 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. aggressively work with any potential property owner to develop a business that will be supportive or will feed off of the casino operation?
Well, I don't -- nobody has come forward to us yet with a specific proposal that would, the way you characterize it, would feed off of that. We expect that those will happen.
Real quick, the response to that particular statement. Do you think that because your department's responsibility is to promote that, that we should simply be a reactive government as opposed to proactive? Because I can talk to pretty much any person over there who is in leadership in the community and they can tell you who just bought that building 148 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. and who just bought that building.
So don't you think we should have a more proactive approach as opposed to waiting until someone comes in?
Yeah, I agree with you. And exactly how to do that, I didn't come prepared to talk about it, but I can at least give you an opinion about it.
You put SugarHouse Casino as one of your accomplishments, so be prepared --
I'm not complaining. It's fine. There's two ways to approach it. One is that through the waterfront master plan, we need to be able to identify the sites and the sort of, you might say, the logic stream behind development opportunities that make sense, let's say, in conjunction with the 149 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. casino. The same thing is true for other parts of the waterfront where that may or may not be appropriate. So that's in process right now. That's going to lead to very specific public policy initiatives that will probably take the form of things that will come across your desk and Councilman DiCicco's by way of zoning changes. I fully expect that to happen. In the process of doing the master plan, we are talking to every property owner along the waterfront to try to get an assessment of what they're thinking about, if they're thinking about anything. The thing that I want to distinguish is --
Who is -- I apologize for cutting in. Who is responsible for that specifically?
The master plan team is doing that on behalf of the Waterfront Corporation, but that feeds very positively into my world, because I 150 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. participate strongly in that both as a representative of Commerce and a representative of Planning.
Who is the master plan waterfront team? Because they don't necessarily interact with me, so I don't know.
That's the firm of Cooper Robertson and their larger team.
They don't have a contract directly with the City, but they obviously coordinate with us. So the thing I wanted to distinguish between is that there are property owners and there are developers, and they're not necessarily the same thing, as you know. There's a lot of 151 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. people who own property along the waterfront that I would not characterize as developers. They're going to need developers. And so part of our job through this master plan needs to start pairing people off or at least creating, saying you need to talk to this fellow over here because he has an idea, and I'll give you an example of one. Because these are way before -- these are in financial negotiations, so I can't really name the names, although I'll be happy to share with you privately. There's an opportunity that we're aware of for the evolution of what sounds like it could be a pretty nice brewpub tavern that has some historical connection both to the waterfront and to certain things that happened on the waterfront. We're actively taking a proposal from them, and we're encouraging another entity who happens to own property in the area who has expressed, let's say, general interest in the same 152 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. facility to also give us a proposal on that. So we are -- in selective instances, we're aware of things that are out there. We're encouraging people to give us letters that indicate what they're thinking about as a way of starting to evaluate how to move some of these properties. We're trying to do it in a strategic way.
So in terms of the proactive approach, we're primarily depending on the Waterfront Corporation?
It is being filtered through the Waterfront Corporation, that's correct, but as I said, because of my position on both their Board but, more importantly, on the Planning Committee and the need to integrate this with the efforts of both Planning and Commerce, I am personally a very active participant in this entire master plan. 153 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Okay. And I must tell you -- and thank you for those responses -- I'm a little concerned, because having been there for probably more years than some people would have wished, I've seen situations where sometimes a plan doesn't necessarily meet the reality of today's world and today's market and particularly from a private sector, and that in some instances actually impedes our ability to have a very aggressive development approach. So I would ask that we not lean too heavily on the Penn Praxis plan, because that plan was more of a conceptual nature about what we'd like to see, although it was significant participation from the community. The reality is that we need to be in a position to create jobs whenever there's an opportunity, and if we have to be somewhat flexible in our plan, we need to be in a position to do that given today's economy. 154 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
I appreciate your saying that, and I think you know from working with me and I think it's a particular benefit that I have of sort of seeing both the planning side and the implementation side, we are very, very interested in making things happen. But I appreciate your comments. I think they're correct.
Okay. The Foxwood Casino, my understanding is that we have built the revenue on the Foxwood Casino in the out years, maybe Year 13, 12 or 13?
Given the uncertainty of it now, one, from a revenue side -- and I guess I should ask Mr. Agostini.
Mr. Agostini is behind the pole over there. 155 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
All right. And he actually doesn't have to respond. I guess my concern is, as we all are concerned, not necessarily about the location, but the thought that in Harrisburg there's actually an attempt -- but I don't know what the status is -- to actually move the awarding of the license to the City of Philadelphia to another location within the State. If that were to happen, the worst-case scenario, depending on how you feel about casinos, is that we will lose that opportunity for the revenue, and maybe the best-case scenario, that it still happens in whatever location, but it happens in a much later date; therefore, affecting our out years' projections on revenue. My question is, what level is the City involved, both your department and I guess from the budget perspective, in ensuring, one, that we don't lose the 156 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. license to the City of Philadelphia and, two, facilitating -- and I understand the limits as relates to the Gaming Reform Commission and the fact that it's a Harrisburg-driven process. What level of involvement do we have to ensure that we don't lose that potential revenue source?
Well, first let me say that we don't want to lose the potential revenue source. We think that's important to the City, both from the perspective of revenues but also from the perspective of a very significant number of jobs. As you know, the SugarHouse Casino I think is now because of table games is up to projecting 700 jobs. Presumably the second one is equivalent to that, if not better. So that's a serious job count. We don't want to lose it. And as you point out, we are somewhat at the mercy of the State Gaming Control Board. Right now we need to let that 157 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. process play out, which is going to play out in probably ten days' time. We're going to have a sense from them about where they think they're going with this thing. Once we have that sense -- so we may after their process, we may find out that Foxwoods' investors are given another chance at finding somebody else and that this is still based where it is based. And we've indicated both to the Gaming Board and to Foxwood investors that we are ready to work with them any time. We've been doing that for a year and a half, and we meet actually as a kind of interagency working group weekly on this subject. We still meet weekly even when nothing is happening to make sure that we are on top of all the issues that are out there. As to the budget implications, this is your chance, because I can't answer for this one. (Witness approached witness 158 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. table.)
Well, I'll answer for you if you like, but you may not like what I say.
Councilman, as you know, in the out years, starting in 2012, we start to realize or at least we anticipate realizing the revenue from both of the facilities. If either of those are delayed, particularly the one that you've been describing here, then we'll have to reassess where we are with the revenue streams. We anticipated that one of them would open a little sooner than had been projected in the prior two Five Year Plans that this Administration has presented to Council, which is why we have a $4 million number in 2011, but, 159 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. again, if there are alterations in that in 2012, we'll have some changes we'll have to make and have to consider. But given the information we have now and the uncertainty surrounding, it's really hard to determine exactly what to estimate what to put into the budget.
And to be more specific in terms of our efforts to ensure that we don't lose the opportunity, what exactly are we doing from a lobbying perspective?
Not a lot of love up there in Harrisburg for Philadelphia.
Well, that's true. At this very moment, all we are doing is waiting to see what the Gaming -- which direction the Gaming Control Board thinks it's taking.
This is in 160 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. ten days?
Yeah. It's probably ten days away that we'll have some indication. They've given us no 6 indication thus far or even hints of how this might go, and as you know, I mean, as of, what was it, a week and a half ago, we were totally convinced with visits by Mr. Wynn that he was quite enthusiastic, excited and appeared to us to be ready to move. That's where we were ten days ago. Now we have to see what they're going to do. I think once we see that and understand how they think this process is moving forward, I would expect us to develop a plan that I can talk more sensibly about with you. Right now it's just not out there, because it's speculation against the unknown.
Okay. Thank you on that one. Let me get another question in. Actually, Mr. Agostini, thank 161 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. you. With respect to the Commerce Director's role, and I know depending on the Administration, the role changes to a degree. Just generally the structure and the flow of the government changes depending on the Administration, but one of the things that I have a little concern about, because at the end of the day the Commerce Director should be ultimately primarily focused on creating jobs regardless of where they are, and as you know, the City has been very dependent on the construction trade in past years and actually for a long time based on the -- during the housing boom the fact that we were getting substantial revenues from the transfer tax, that's basically what kept us alive, which obviously we're now suffering as a result of the inability to collect that in an aggressive level. What level of involvement does Commerce have with the side of the 162 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. government, if there is such a side, that focuses on the construction of residential units, both subsidized, non-subsidized, partially subsidized, getting a handle on the market to ensure that we as aggressively as possible, if the banks are finally forced to put money on the street as a result of the federal government's attempt to both legally and legislatively change that whole nature of the financial market?
There's probably two parts in answer. One, obviously, as you know, there are housing agencies in the City, multiple housing agencies, both OHCD, Philadelphia Housing Authority and, to an extent, the Redevelopment Authority, and at least on the affordable housing side and the moving of land to make that possible, those are the agencies that take the lead. They coordinate with Commerce, but they don't -- we don't run their agencies. 163 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. However, on the other side, there are people who want to build --
Because I think that those agencies -- and they do a good job. Not to be critical of any one or any worker in those agencies. They tend to be more responsive to NOFAs, notices of the funding opportunities, as opposed to proactively coming up with strategies to increase the amount of revenue, whereas Commerce and Planning tend to be more --
-- aggressive as it relates to plans and possibilities, and that's why I'm trying to get a sense of the interaction between those agencies.
I think you've characterized that correctly. We 164 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. often wind up dealing with the very same subject, whether it's a project or an initiative, but you're right. This is not exclusively the case, because people are capable of thinking more than one thing, but they are generally focused on getting the housing done, getting the land reckoned with. Our focus is more on, in a certain sense, at least in Commerce, getting the business activity generated. So, for example, there's a project that we are on the verge of making happen, a pretty substantial residential development in the center of the City. It would be the first speculative development since the recession began. We're down to, we hope, crossing T's here. That's something that has been very much an engagement for both me as Planning side, because they had entitlement issues to deal with, but also as Commerce side and getting a deal done so that we can make this thing happen. 165 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. And we involve ourselves with those kind of projects all the time, specifically from the perspective of, in the case of development, make development happen, make the construction jobs, make the permanent jobs that go with it. And that's very much a focus of Commerce.
Who within your shop has that responsibility of overseeing that operation?
That is led by our Senior Deputy Director Duane Bumb, who is right there.
You know him. I thought so. What was the last comment? I missed it.
There was too much laughter. I didn't hear it. 166 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Marginally, and we can talk further, but there are a number of other members, so I'll defer to them at this time. Councilman Green.
Good to see you all. I certainly enjoyed working with you and your leadership on the Zoning Code Commission. That's been a great way to get to see you in action, building consensus and other things, and I want to thank you for your work there and for stepping up to the plate. I do want to ask you about that.
As you probably know, there's in the Commerce Department's budget a 185,000 per year Deputy Mayor for Economic Development position. And your salary -- I can't remember exactly what it is.
130, 140, 150. It's not that. And you're doing both jobs.
So we're getting this terrific bargain now. Why would we change that?
Hey, listen, you can give me more money. It would be okay.
How about we just give you half of what the other 168 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. position is and eliminate it.
Well -- I'm going to let you ask a question, or did you ask a question there? It was put there -- the story behind it is that back last summer when we were in the worst of the budget crisis and I had been just appointed as Acting Deputy Mayor, we also had an Acting Director of OEO. We had a choice. We could either choose to save that money as a matter of FY10 or we could lay off a bunch of people who were actually doing things. So we chose not to lay them off. We chose to keep those staff because we want to keep doing the work. However, it's shown as a restored budget, first of all, because now we've hired Angela, and so part of the money was needed for that. And the placeholder for a Deputy Mayor I think is appropriate because it gives the Mayor the opportunity to think through what he wants to do long term with this. 169 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Okay. So every department I've been going through vacancies. So in Economic Development Division, Section 36, , there was an unfilled accountant position as of November. Has that position been filled?
Good afternoon, Council. My name is Folasade Olanipekun-Lewis. Currently that accounting position is indeed vacant and the responsibilities are being shared amongst the current staff, three staff to be specific, the head accountant for our 170 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. department, a Fiscal Analyst, as well as our Information Specialist who supports OEO. We're doing that currently with the hopes to fill that position. They're taking on the added responsibilities to make sure that we comply with all of the citywide procedures to make sure that we carry through our fiscal responsibility.
We are. We are by having those three staff people carry out those duties, but it is not their responsibility at this point.
For one of my staff it is. The other two, not so much.
Is there overtime that we're paying associated with this?
We don't pay overtime and there's none reflected 171 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. in our department, but this specific staff person is clearly overwhelmed.
So if we were to reduce funding to the department by the amount of that position, you would still be able to get the job done?
We would, but I'd probably burn out that particular staff person.
Okay. There's also an $85,000 per year Industrial Development Manager position.
172 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Councilman Green, one of the things --
One of the things that -- Commerce is a very unique department in that not only do we have multiple funding sources, we have staff that sit in different areas within the City, and for purposes of transparency in this Fiscal Year FY11 budget, we wanted to demonstrate exactly who the staff are and where they -- and their funding source. So what you're seeing in this particular budget is the staff person reflected in this department. Last year -- rather, in this current year's fiscal year budget, you would see a lump sum amount that's a transfer from the MDO's Office. In this proposed FY11 budget, there are no 22 transfers from the MDO's budget. We're reflecting the true staffing costs and the staff positions. So what you're seeing is -- 173 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Okay. So have you reduced the MDO's budget by this amount?
No, sir. We make a payment to the MDO to fund these staff.
Okay. Just out of curiosity, what does that position do?
Well, he's involved with our industrial -- he's involved in our real estate services initiatives group. So he works in our industrial areas.
Okay. I think that's all I have with respect to 174 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. positions. I want to pick up on a line of questioning that Councilman Clarke started, and this leads to a discussion we had several weeks ago in my office, which is how many people in the department -- obviously Mr. Greenberger who is wearing hats doesn't have a lot 9 of time for this. How many people other 10 than Mr. Bumb and Ms. Randall are focused 11 on job creation through getting deals 12 done, attracting businesses to the City? 13 What kind of external outreach are we 14 even capable of doing with the staff we 15 have?
The ones you mentioned are the primary ones. However, there's another piece that we didn't talk about when we met a few weeks ago, and that is through the Office of Business Services. I mean, if you want to -- if we want to think about job creation, we're thinking about several things. We're thinking about attracting businesses to Philadelphia, which is 175 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. arguably the high profile, that's kind of the good sexy stuff, happens probably the least in a certain way. The second one is to retain businesses that are here, and that's probably the least interesting in some way, but is probably the most --
But is probably the most powerful engine -- interesting in the sense of profile, but I think is probably the most powerful engine we have. And that's not only done through that side, the folks you mention, but that also happens through our Office of Business Services and the people that we have out in contact with businesses throughout the neighborhoods.
So back to one of Councilman Clarke's questions. With respect to that office, how proactive is it compared to reactive?
In the Office of Business Services we have six individuals 176 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. there that are aligned around the City, each with a respective geography. They're engaged with working with the business associations, the chambers, all of those -- community development corporations there in the communities, along the commercial corridors.
How do they identify businesses that you're trying to save or prevent from moving out of the City or keep interested in making investment here?
As they understand their geographies, for lack of a better description, their territories, they understand the businesses that are there. They're interacting with them. Those businesses are telling them, Hey, I'm trying to move. So through that --
No. We go to them. We go out there, we walk the corridors, we get involved with the chambers, we get 177 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. involved with the business associations.
I'm talking about serious -- I understand on commercial corridors there's businesses that you can easily identify, but what about manufacturing facilities, which are still percent of our economy? Is 9 there a schedule, a requirement that 10 these people meet with a certain number 11 of businesses of this kind of type, of 12 this kind of revenue stream every month and enter that data into a database?
I won't say it's a schedule, but that's what they're being held accountable to.
Do you know 178 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. how many businesses in the City of Philadelphia have total taxes paid to the City of above $500,000?
It's 11,000. Above a million dollars taxes paid to the City, do you know how many?
It's about 6,000. So you've got 6,000 businesses who are our highest taxpayers. Above five million you're only looking at 2,000 businesses. What are we doing to specifically make sure that those businesses, the ones where we get most of our revenue, are happy with us? What specific plan is in place? Is there one?
Well, okay. So what I'd like to see is a written plan to do that. I'd be happy to sit down and help you with it, because I think --
-- we can clearly target people through direct mail, through other things, because we know who pays a lot of taxes and we know who have paying points.
One of the things, if I could point out, that the Mayor has done -- and I've gone on several of these visits with him -- is to take some of those at that very top of that food chain and on a regular basis, meaning at least once yearly, go out and talk to them, talk to their CEOs, find out how things are going.
I understand, but I want to know what the 180 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. six people who are on the ground every day are doing.
That's fine, yeah. And just to -- I don't know whether this clarifies it or confuses it, but I'll offer it up anyway. The tendency is that the larger operations, particularly the ones that either need to grow or are making noises about where they intend to locate or relocate, tend to come in through Duane Bumb's side of the Commerce Department. That's where we really actively want to pursue them on a very individual basis. They are also the businesses -- I know you know this, but --
Yeah, and they are -- it is reactive, that's right, but they do come to us, because inevitably they are also businesses that are looking for some level of assistance. COUNCILMAN Green: I 181 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. understand.
But we don't have a proactive plan to deal with this that I can see, and I really think it's job retention -- a job we already have is far easier to save than a job we need to create.
That's right. And fortunately, speaking as somebody who ran a business for years in the City, 14 didn't really need the City very much and 15 most businesses don't need the City's 16 assistance, but then there comes the 17 moment when either you could have used 18 something -- I can now from this 19 position, I now see that there were at 20 least two instances in those 22 years 21 when actually the City could have been 22 helpful. Didn't know.
And this is where Office of Business Services is 182 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. critical to start getting the word out there. My business is, I guess, characterized as a mid-sized business, 20-something people. The other part of it, though, that I want to bring up -- and I'm happy to work with you on this --
Are two people sufficient to be reactive to all the demands we get?
With the help that we get part time from people like me and others, the answer so far has been yes. But if you're asking the question will more generate more, the answer to that might also be yes. There are certain things, for instance, that I would like to see us do that we don't have resources to do, and I think I may have mentioned this to you when I met with you that time. We should be doing more trade missions.
If they'll save or create jobs, then let's put 183 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. together a business plan and do it.
There's also if I -- what I wanted to also add is that there is a very big side to businesses and why they stay in a place that are outside the pure business models, and they have to do with quality of life, they have to do with public safety, all those things.
Yup. I agree. Okay. Well, I look forward to continuing that conversation.
I have two quick points to make. In 2008, I brought the then-Commerce Director, who was unaware, an idea from a successful real estate person in the City of Philadelphia who is a former marine and --
I know what you're asking about. We're working on that one.
But you cited that as one of the proactive things 184 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. and that walked in the door and has been a project that's been trying to get done for some time. In fact, they had all the engineering drawings done for Pier, I think it's, under the bridge and were 7 willing to pay to redo that pier, to have 8 open park space and to put the project 9 there, and it seemed like the left hand 10 didn't know what the right hand was doing 11 when we said we were just going to make that parkland and we were going to spend $2 million of the City's money rather than have a private sector -- I know it was grant money, but we could have used the grant money elsewhere -- rather than having some other not-for-profit put that there. Is there any thought or ability to shift that grant funding to elsewhere on the riverfront and allow them to go to that site that they originally wanted?
No. I think we're committed to developing Pier 11, or Race Street Pier, as we had proposed, but 185 4/21/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. I know who you're talking about and we are actively engaged with them in a conversation about another property --