Sorry, sorry, the stenographer cannot hear you unless.
They're on the south side of the stadium up against -- between the stadium and I-95 that side.
Indeed, in the Eagles lease, they have as an exhibit a plot plan that shows, with notations, where they intend to put their two theme towers. The Phillies lease does not have such an exhibit, and they want to leave this issue open and have this become a point of major dispute, major dispute in the future.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.) 00188
If I could make one other general comment. This is an electronic billboard, which potentially could be 120 feet, under their view, in the air. And the existing one was built sometime in the '70s, I think is the understanding. You know, billboards, ones that don't flash, you know electronic, just regular billboards, even those have been a particular concern of this Council. And in 1991, I believe, this Council recognized the problems that billboard present for the City and had some new legislation addressing billboards. And they said in their legislative history, this Council did, in deciding to go some restrictions, that "such signs are commercial by nature and while they may be appropriately located in certain commercial and industrial areas, they do not belong within or in close proximity to residential neighborhoods." And they went on to say, "Said signs jeopardize public safety by distracting pedestrians and, to a greater extent, passing motorists, since these signs, by their nature, are erected in areas intended to be seen 00189 by drivers of motor vehicles." We have heard Mr. Montgomery say today that's exactly what they want to do. That's the only thing they want to do with these towers direct it to the highway. This whole thing goes against where Council has been for years on trying to eliminate this kind of blight. And now the Phillies want to put this -- another such sign right on the highway, distract motorists, invade the neighborhood, the homeowners in the adjacent area. It's simply unconscionable, it's simply unacceptable. This Council, we submit, cannot let this happen. We look to you, our elected representatives, to prevent this and not let this thing be resolved later on in what will surely be litigation. If we go the route that they're suggesting address it later, we'll address it later, and it's totally unacceptable.
Sir, what are you suggesting? You're suggesting that Bill 726 be amended?
We submit that that's a vehicle by which this issue could be addressed 00190 without voting down the leases. As an alternative, the Phillies are much, as we understand, less far along in their whole development plans. The need to have a final lease agreement for the Phillies, we believe, is not as pressing as the Eagles have indicated. If indeed this lease as presented, if we need to look at it that way, the lease as presented, it is not in conformance to the ordinance as passed by this Council. And I submit this Council could vote down the Phillies lease and they could resubmit it and --
It is in conformity, from what we've just heard. Did you look at it?
We think on this -- well, we think on this issue that -- our position is set forth in the exhibit, which has these limitations on uses within this parking-only and limited-activity zone that, indeed, it's clear, and that they cannot site the second tower there. 00191 They are telling this Council that they think it's not clear in this regard, they think that they can do that. We have an issue. We think that the lease on this issue is clear and it conforms to the ordinance. They think it differently. We shouldn't pass this ordinance and let this issue remain.
I will submit, as I said earlier, that this can be resolved by addressing it in the zoning ordinance. That is the easiest, cleanest way to do this.
I would strongly suggest that the attorneys -- I see that Councilman -- or rather David L. is here, and I see that Mr. Montgomery is here. Perhaps you could go into the next room and try to thrash this out, because I think everybody has worked very, very hard on this. And I know you gentlemen have put a great deal of time into it, as has the Administration and the community, and I think it would be almost sinful to have come this far and for one issue to be outstanding. 00192 So I would really appreciate it -- I know you've been sitting here all day -- if you could just have like a little sidebar and see how we could come to some agreement on this issue and hopefully resolve it. I would appreciate it.
Thank you. I see Judge Bonavitacola returned. Your Honor, are you interested in testifying on this matter? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: No, I think they're handled it more than adequately.
Thank you. And, Your Honor, perhaps you can join the attorneys with Mr. Cohen? Because I don't think you were here when Mr. Cohen made a suggestion as to what avenue the community would be able to take if in fact a second tower were proposed. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: (Nods head. )
I will be here, so before I leave, I would like to know what 00193 you have decided upon. Thank you.
The next witness is Dr. Robert Sklaroff. (Witnesses come forward.)
Dr. Sklaroff, I think you were here earlier when I made my statement that members of the public who wish to testify today are to just give their opinion as to whether or not the leases conform with the terms sheets.
Okay. So please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Okay. My name is Robert B. Sklaroff, MD, and I will confine myself to the written text that you have before you, including 00194 the disclaimer that you just mentioned. The commentary page, which does get into other issues related to our litigation, is not a part of the text. So the text starts essentially on the handout. On the other hand, I do have some clarification points related to points that were just discussed during the testimony about which I had no opportunity to do any kind of advance research, and I'll add them at the end. Here comes the actual formal testimony, which takes seven minutes. Councilwoman Verna and Councilpeople, thank you for holding this hearing and thank you for being so patient while we listened to the prior witnesses. I am Robert B. Sklaroff, MD, and I am here today with my son, Michael David Sklaroff, to voice opposition to approval of these leases. As you know, we have testified against the misplaced priorities represented by such a massive commitment of public monies. And as you know, I am co-plaintiff in pending in litigation that was filed because the ordinances you passed last month are illegal. 00195 The purpose of this presentation will be to focus only on the leases and then to place their potential disapproval within a larger context. Thus, I will not again discuss my rationale for building the Phillies ballpark northwest of 30th Street Station, nor will I discuss the reasons why the ordinances violate the Pennsylvania Constitution, Pennsylvania law, and the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. All key documents and filings may be accessed through my Web site and, of course, I remain available to elaborate upon anything I've written or said that is felt to be unclear. You're on, Michael. MICHAEL SKLAROFF: I am Michael David Sklaroff. I have listened to my dad complain about these laws for a few months now. I just don't think so much tax money should be spent on buildings when so many addicted people need help when they want to stop smoking. Jake here is a former smoker and he would want you to remember the proper priorities.
This is Jake over here. Okay, I would like to ask merely that 00196 you compare the two documents. If you then conclude they are identical, then you will probably vote the same way you voted last month. " Incidently, note that I am quoting from the memorandum dated 12/6/2000. This is the edited version of what had been earlier circulated through City Council with the unamended ordinances. I am going to use the football-related documents as a basis for my discussion. It should first be noted that the 12/26/2000 memo stated that the stadium budget is estimated to be $393 million. Quote, but in no event less than $313 million if opening day is later than August 1, 2003. Further, the stadium complex project budget is defined as the stadium budget plus the $258 million infrastructure budget is on . 00197 Therefore, the total cost is at least $571 million but is estimated to be $651 million if opening day is before August 1, 2003. Yet no ceiling is established for this expenditure. And even after I listened to the testimony today there still is no ceiling established for this expenditure. Furthermore, if the cost of environmental remediation of the T-Warehouse site and the Acme site exceeds the aggregate amount of $2 million, this team may request the City to fund such excess -- that was in quotes. And here comes another quote: If the cost of environmental remediation of the Naval Hospital site exceeds $1 million, then PAID shall have the option of either paying the excess or terminating its obligations with respect to the Naval Hospital side, end of quote, Pages 3 and 4. Although the impact of the former is left unspecified, the latter commits the City to pay an unspecified amount of money. And, again, no ceiling is established for this expenditure. The public contribution section, quote, is stated to be, quote, approximately $205 million of local funding, . Yet again -- still again, no 00198 ceiling is established for this expenditure. These data must now be compared with the lease. 4, . The terms differ between these two documents, and although the same $313 million figure appears in both, it is either the minimum stadium budget or the aggregate cost of the stadium premises. Regardless, the Eagles, quote, shall not be required to expend more than the tenant hard construction cost obligation in connection with the stadium premises construction, end of quote. 2, again, no public cost ceiling is specified. The lease does not specify lease the costs that may be incurred by PAID and, therefore, by the public when buying the land. This represents a black hole, which could commit the City to an unknown and unlimited expenditure that could predictably rise above budget. 00199 Now, we've heard today, after careful cross-examination, that the money which has now been censored, indeed goes over the budget, but they say they have a contingency fund. It's nice to find out about where all the money is hidden perhaps beforehand instead of after all of these approvals have gone through. Regarding the environmental remediation issue, the T-Warehouse and Acme sites are not mentioned. The only reference to the Naval Hospital site is, quote, under the Authority's special construction obligation, end of quotes. The latter states that PAID should either cover any cost greater than a million dollars over budget or terminate this obligation. 2, . Unless on point citations are buried elsewhere, again, no public cost ceiling is specified. Now, I listened to some of the other discussion earlier and they were talking about that there might be potential emergency repairs and so forth and that the City's commitment is general, not specific, and the rationalization was that if there's any kind of a deadlock, then it's 00200 difficult to figure out the result ahead of time, and this is coming from lawyers supposedly representing the City and the City's interests.
Finally, the City should be obligated to maintain the premises for 30 years in the initial lease term, excluding optional extensions rather than years. For the Eagles to allow the 9 premises to fall in disrepair during these latter 10 years, the result five years later would be a 11 property that the City might deem unsuitable for 12 any human habitation. Recalling charges the Vet 13 suffers from deferred maintenance, the prospect is 14 remote that the Eagles would keep any stadium in 15 tiptop condition being obligated to so. It's as 16 if they would want to be given a new playground 17 every quarter century. Thus, the leases should be 18 disapproved. There are both substantial 19 differences between the proforma and the final 20 leases and substantial problems with the leases 21 themselves. 22 It is shameful the public still does 23 not know what the total cost of the projects is 24 expected to be despite the fact that the public is 25 inevitably beholden to pay its bondholders. Not 00201 only does this submission fail to, quote/unquote, cure, end of quotes, the concerns raised in our lawsuit, but it also constitutes further evidence of the capitulation of the City to the sports teams. Thus, although the resolution before you is not amendable, a problem with which you're currently wrangling regarding those signs, you should pass another specifying that PAID, and not the City, is responsible to all those who purchase the bonds. Now, I might add that when I read this discussion regarding the signage, I also saw what Councilman Kenney noted, which was initially (indiscernible) over by the City lawyer. And that is the word S was in parentheses. He just sort of like read it as if everyone knew ahead of time that it was a plural term, when actually it was optional ambiguity. If approved, these lease would compromise a reasonable view of the public interest. Also, they would compound the death threat that was sounded by the City Controller. Because I was told by Councilwoman Verna's staff that Council had restricted testimony to leases, 00202 holding these hearings would not cure the third count of our litigation regarding the absence of proper public hearings prior to approval of the ordinances. And, as noted previously, these hearings fail to resolve their own unconstitutionality and their illegality as detailed in the first two counts of litigation. Frankly, we wonder why City Council would deign to approve anything without knowing its total potential cost. Join me in reformulating this commitment. You have time. You have time is an important concept also because I heard earlier that the Phillies were saying we really didn't have enough time to flesh out all of the details when, of course, they have had plenty of time, both public and private. And thank you for your attention. One other point is that I hear is that you can agree or disagree with certain terms, depending upon how they're calculated, and I had that problem initially when we were working on the lawsuit because I found a fax sheet, which we appended thereto differed numerically if you looked at the proformas when I tried to add up the 00203 commitments of the Eagles and the Phillies and then subtract the monies that were listed therein that were supposedly the public commitments. So I was somewhat confused by that. A couple other point points. I would submit that when the point was made earlier that what we're doing here is not dissimilar to the first CEPA lawsuit, I violently disagree because we have dropped that language that the City would be committed to pay the PAID costs. The issue of unlawful delegation of power we didn't raise, I should explain, because I thought it would be presumptuous for private citizens to act in any way, shape, or form on behalf of a person in City Council. I didn't like what I heard regarding the issue of reports, when they start, how often, and binding the results of the analysis thereof would actually be in what I heard today.
It was also suggested that leases do not require Council approval, which is, of course, not true, because there's a reference in Section 8 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter that mandates it.
Can you please come to some conclusion. Council has approved the leases. We are just making absolutely certain today by this resolution that the leases conform with the terms sheets.
I understand that. My comments are only related to what I heard, which I couldn't have, I told you, prepared ahead of time. The phrase "contingent liabilities" came up related to any difference in costs that were associated therewith, and I found that to be another one of the black holes associated therewith. Included in that phrase was the fact that a lot of this language was written for the benefit of the bondholders. And to me, you don't write language to try to sell something. You try to write language ahead of time that's applicable to all of the issues that are before you. There are a lot of other issues that I'd like to raise, but I think in the interest of time and in my son's not having had lunch -- 00205
And I know it's not my role as a Councilperson to interfere in the way someone raises their family, but I noticed your son has been here since at least 9:30 this more.
And I didn't see him leave the room so I expect that he didn't have any lunch. And I appreciate the fact that you get involved in some of these public debates. Back in December, you were here for the better part of 10 or 12 hours, and your son, David, accompanied you. David, do you go to school? MICHAEL SKLAROFF: Mm-hmm.
What school do you 00206 go to? MICHAEL SKLAROFF: Solomon Schecter (ph.).
Did they give you the day off for this? MICHAEL SKLAROFF: No. 8
How can you put your son in this chamber for 8, 10, 12 hours a day without a break? I think that is a disgrace.
And I'm not going to debate you on that. I'm going to leave the chambers, actually, but I just had to get it off my chest.
As a parent that you put your son through this, I don't think this 00207 fair to that boy.
And you can tell me to mind my own business because it's not my son, but I think I have a moral obligation. That boy sat here for the better part of six hours today to make a 30-second presentation. I think it's a disgrace.
Okay, well, now that you have your point made, I'd like to comment.
All right. Well, I'm going to put my comment on the record.
Okay. Well, number one, I told the principle of the school on Saturday that this was going to occur. Number 2, I spoke with the Council President's office and was told I was going to be the first speaker.
Doctor, Doctor, please. Your time should really be very 00208 limited. Just stick to the issue as to whether you feel that the rest of the leases conform with the terms sheets.
Okay. As I stated in my conclusion, I feel that neither do they conform to the prior documentation -- and I gave you the direct quotes -- nor are they desirable because of the omissions and comissions therein.
Thank you. Any questions of this witness? (No questions.)
Our next witness will be Tina Nelson from CEPA. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Tina Nelsen, and I am speaking on behalf of CEPA, the Consumer Education and Protective Association. We urge Council to vote against the approval of these leases, not just because the City has greater priorities than stadia, not just 00209 because this is an example of corporate welfare taking money from every income class so the super-wealthy can have a playground, not just because it shuts the City out of any possible royalties from the sales of any memorabilia --
Excuse me, excuse me. These leases were approved and the hearing today is simply to make certain that the leases are in conformity with the terms sheets.
So that is the purpose of this hearing today. It's not whether we approved the leases or not.
Okay. I don't mean who will pay if there are overruns during construction, but who will pay if the number of tickets sold fall short of the estimates, if the rental car tax revenues are smaller than anticipated, and if, as a result of the difficulty, PAID is currently paying the bonds it floated to buy the old tax liens lead to higher interest rates. Who is ultimately responsible for the debt? The City, PAID, or the wealthy team 00210 owners? Approving either lease is signing a blank check, and the people of Philadelphia do not sign blank checks, nor should City Council. Please take your responsibility seriously and vote against the lease until all of these questions have been addressed. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
Do we have any one else to testify on these resolutions? (No response.)
Seeing no one else to testify, this committee will stand in recess until Wednesday, January 31st, at 2:30. Thank you all very much. (Adjourned at 2:49 p.m.) - - - 00211 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Monday, January 29, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES. NO.'S 010020, 010021, 010022, 010023 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter