COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY and PUBLIC WORKS Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March 22, 2010, 9:35 a.m. - - - BILL 090785 - Sale of City real estate for 50% of its fair market value for purpose of creating retail and commercial jobs... BILL 100094 - Authorizing PAID to purchase approximately acres on Summerdale Avenue... 10 BILL 100101 - Council approval of redevelopment proposals and contracts submitted under 11 provisions of the Urban Redevelopment Law... 12 BILL 100130 - Authorizing Public Property to deliver to PAID a deed conveying fee simple 13 title to parcel at 5326 Pulaski Avenue... 14 BILL 100132 - Extending term of sublease for mailroom operations at 1628 JFK Boulevard... 15 16 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Darrell C. Clarke, Chair Joan L. Krajewski 17 James F. Kenney, Vice Chair Donna Reed Miller W. Wilson Goode, Jr. Frank Rizzo 18 William K. Greenlee 19 COUNCIL MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT: Jannie C. Blackwell 20 Bill Green Curtis Jones, Jr. - - - DISCOVERYWORKS GLOBAL Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094
Good morning. This is the Committee on Public Property and Public Works hearing. It will now come to order. Mr. Carter, please read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 100094, an ordinance authorizing the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development (PAID) to purchase approximately twenty acres on Summerdale Avenue between Foulkrod Street and Godfrey Avenue, under and subject to the Philadelphia Industrial and Commercial Development Agreement among the City, PAID, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation.
Thank you. For the record, we have established a quorum: Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Greenlee, and Councilwoman Miller. Thank you. May I please have the first 3 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 witness. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Thomas Dalfo, and I represent the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation and the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development. I am here to testify in support of Bill No. 100094. This bill authorizes the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development (PAID) to purchase an approximately twenty-acre property located at 5000 Summerdale Avenue, in Northeast Philadelphia, for a consideration not to exceed $2,800,000. After acquisition by PAID, PIDC will market the property to private companies for industrial development. This site is an attractive location for modern industrial development. At twenty acres, this site is large. It has good access to Roosevelt Boulevard, and it is 4 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 easily accessible to residents of a number of neighborhoods throughout the City. Sites which possess these characteristics are virtually nonexistent in the City. Based on an extensive survey of industrial districts that the Planning Commission, the Commerce Department, and PIDC completed in 2009, there are approximately a dozen large, cleared industrially-zoned sites in the entire city. Only a fraction of these sites also possess the quality of access to highways and potential employees as the Summerdale Avenue site does. This lack of marketable industrial properties greatly limits Philadelphia's ability to attract and retain industrial companies and the employment opportunities they represent. The purchase price is based on a recent appraisal of the property by an independent appraiser. The current owner 5 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 of the property, Cardone Industries, has agreed to sell the site to PAID. The cost of this acquisition will be paid from the Industrial and Commercial Revolving Fund. I ask that the committee consider this bill favorably and that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next regularly scheduled meeting of Council. Thank you for the opportunity to testify bill. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this ordinance.
Thank you. Let the record reflect that Councilman Kenney has also joined the committee. Real quick. The acquisition dollars, where are the dollars coming from for this acquisition?
They're coming from the Industrial and Commercial Resolving Fund that was established in the 6 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 mid-1970s by the City that's administered by PIDC and PAID on behalf of the City.
And is 13 there an established return on the investment? I mean, do we --
I mean, is there some criteria associated with the creation of jobs or the amount of revenue that we should get on the sale of the property? Or is it just...
The fund doesn't operate quite like a private equity investment fund. Its chief purpose is to acquire industrial land and commercial land for the City to be available for 7 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 private development. There are job goal targets established for properties. The goal is to try to create approximately around 6 jobs per acre, sort of a net usable land. 7 So on a site like this, ideally, it would 8 be up around 300 jobs total for the site. 9 But they're goals, and it sort 10 of depends on what the type of site -- 11 what type of activities is most suitable 12 for the site. 13 There aren't specific financial 14 goals other than to try to make sure the 15 fund is self-sustaining, and it has been for about the past thirty years or so.
All right. One of the concerns I've had -- and, you know, I've talked to Mr. Deegan and members of PIDC earlier, and, you know, I'll actually have some conversations with Public Property about this whole land disposition and the acquisition strategy, that there are no established goals. 8 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 And I guess, you know, from my perspective, I really don't know exactly what to tell people who may call and inquire about the things that could be available from the City of Philadelphia -- or from PIDC in this case -- in terms of being in a position to develop a business. Is it -- now, this is the first I've heard that there's -- jobs per 12 acre is the threshold. 13
Yeah. And we'll do it at another time because we have budget hearing later on, but at some point, you know, I really would like to have a detailed conversation. As we market our opportunities in the City of Philadelphia, it's really not clear. It's kind of somebody calling or sending an e-mail, and then you kind of sit down and you don't know going in, and there are a lot of good things 9 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 apparently that are available, but people don't know it, frankly speaking, and we could probably get more people involved or engaged in the ability to deal with the City of Philadelphia or some of its quasi-agencies in terms of creating business opportunities. But we'll talk about that later.
Okay. If there are questions about this land that PAID has available, if you want, I would suggest that they reach out to our website, where we have all of our industrial properties listed and the asking prices and the details on it. What we try to do is mirror what a private real-estate investment company would have in terms of the information available about sort of developable parcels.
A number of our parcels are a bit challenged because of 10 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 their physical condition, so that compromises that a little bit, Mr. Chairman.
Could you please tell me how long Cardone has had this property and what was on it before?
Cardone has been in the property, I think, in the area of around 13 or years. 14 It was originally the warehouse piece for the old Sears distribution facility on the Boulevard, the front portion of which was acquired by Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust and developed as, I think they call it, the Tower Center on the Boulevard. So this was a warehouse for Sears.
When we do a deal like this, this twenty acres is environmental cleaned and checked, and we 11 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 aren't inheriting any environmental issues at that location?
Part of what we're doing under an agreement of sale that we've entered into with Cardone is doing an environmental study of the property. We completed a Phase to determine whether or not we need to do any testing. Some testing is being done to determine its environmental condition very specifically. And we'll make those points of a negotiation with Cardone.
Just a curiosity question. And I guess you can't speak for Cardone, but it's just something that I'm curious about. Why would Cardone do this deal with PAID and PIDC and not do it themselves?
I don't think they want to be in the real-estate sales and development business. There was a company that had 12 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 come to them previously -- or an organization that had come to them previously wanting to buy the property; that transaction fell through. That's when we became aware of it, and we reached out to Cardone and said we would be interested in pursuing an acquisition of this property.
I understand that, but it's just sometimes strange to me that if it's as valuable as you say that's that they would do this kind of a deal rather than not market it themselves. It's just a curiosity question. Thank you.
One last question on this from me; I don't know if other members have questions. In terms of the -- because this is a quasi-agency, in terms of the 13 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 disposition of this land to a private developer, are there any criteria established in terms of job creation for MBE/WBE/DBE? I know we had this earlier conversation. PIDC actually said that they do well in that, but there's really no 9 established goals and -- documented established goals.
PIDC has its goals that have been established for contracting.
So any type of contracting we would do related to this property, which is likely to be focused on the due diligence investigation and then allow us to market the property. In terms of the requirements to the actual purchaser of the property, if they're securing any financing from us that have goals associated with it, then I think that those pass through. So if someone has financing that comes from the 14 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 City that has a requirement, then they would have to follow the goals established by that.
But if they don't get financing from the City, then there's just --
Thank you very much. What's the -- are there any tax arrearages on this property?
We haven't found any, but before we go to settlement, we'll require a certification statement --
You'll do a title search and figure out what, if anything, is owed?
We would, we will. We won't close with someone if they owe the City taxes; as a condition, they need to be in compliance wit that.
If, in fact, they do owe the City taxes, actually, we would be paying ourselves back; is that --
Yeah. It would sort of be coming from one pocket to the other, yes.
At this point, no, we don't have a specific use in mind. Our sense is that it would work well as a distribution facility given its location and its characteristics.
What's the zoning now? 16 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094
Councilman Rizzo -- oh, I'm sorry. Councilwoman Miller and then Councilman Rizzo.
I don't know when the warehouse came down. I think it's bee, I would say, ten or twelve years. It's probably been down since before Cardone bought the property, I think.
My recollection is they've owned it for about that time 12, 13 years.
So what -- if no one has been interested in purchasing it from him, why do you think 17 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 they'll purchase it from you?
Okay. So these are the building -- or is it vacant land?
Near the old Sears complex? I'm just trying to visualize it. I go up there, to Home Depot.
It would be to the rear of the Home Depot and to the right. So if you're looking at where the Home Depot is, it's sort of to the rear and to the right, with frontage on Summerdale Avenue. 18 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094
And it's about a -- it's a twenty-acre, roughly rectangular parcel.
Not to exceed 2.8 million. Do you know the deal that Cardone when it fell apart, what they were going to be paid for the property?
What they had the property under agreement for? I don't know what the -- the value of that.
Because there are -- there could be credits against that. And so, the 2.8 million is the negotiated number with Cardone. And if there is environmental conditions, as you had asked before, in 19 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 our agreement, they would be a deduct from the price. If there's demolition required to the property, then those would be a deduct from the price as well. And if there's any sort of limitation or lack of capacity of surrounding infrastructure that needs to be upgraded or extended, those would also be a deduct from the price. So 2.8 million is the absolute sealing. And then, if there are conditions that compromise that value, they would come out.
There's no 16 intelligence when this property was on the market? There's no one -- I mean, how would it not be known what they were asking for this property? And my final question is: Based on your professional evaluation of the twenty acres, what eventually do you think you'll receive once it's all disposed of? What will be the projection? Hopefully more than 2.8 20 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 million, or even less just to bring business in.
In would be in that area of around $2.8 million. It's an attractive site, from our opinion; we don't think it's going to need a lot of infrastructure. We'll complete our due diligence to determine that. And the market value for an attractive site like that is in the area of $2.8 million. So ideally, we'll get our cost back and then some, but --
Yeah, yeah. And that would be the -- if the transaction doesn't return the dollars that were required to purchase it, then we would look at sort of the other goals of the job creation and tax revenue that the activity would generate.
Thank you. 21 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 Who's the Councilperson for this site?
All right. I mean, I knew the answer; I just wanted to make sure you knew the answer.
Okay. Cardone. I recall earlier we had some conversations about them. It's one of the larger industrial businesses still in the City of Philadelphia. Are they doing --
My understanding is, it's the largest manufacturer in the City.
Are they 22 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 doing well?
I mean, I know we were concerned about losing them at one point. Okay, great. Any other questions for this witness from members of the committee? (No response.)
Oh, one last question: The sales price, will that be established? The minimum sale price, will that be established by the purchase price?
I 23 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100094 understand that.
Ideally, it will. We'll look to return that, but it would depend if a certain project comes in that has, you know, strong job creation or tax revenue generation, then --
Okay. All right. That's, again, a part of the conversation I want to have later with Public Property. All right. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
There being none, Mr. Carter, please read the title 24 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100130 of the next bill.
Bill No. 100130, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying for nominal consideration fee simple title to the parcel measuring approximately 58,402 square feet, which is located at 5326 Pulaski Avenue, at the southwesterly side of Penn Street and Pulaski Avenue, with the buildings and improvements thereon, for further conveyance at nominal consideration. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Chairman Clarke and members of the Committee on Public Property and Public Works. My name is John Herzins and I am the Deputy Commissioner of Public Property, here today to testify in support of Bill No. 100130. 25 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100130 This bill will authorize us to convey a deed for a property located at 5326 Pulaski Avenue, at the southwesterly side of Penn Street and Pulaski Avenue, to PAID for further conveyance at nominal consideration. This property, along with the neighboring property, will be redeveloped by the Philadelphia Housing Authority into low-rise public housing. The new development will replace the high-rise public-housing project. The Department supports this measure; and, accordingly, I respectfully ask that City Council approve Bill No. 17 100130. I am requesting a suspension of the rules so as to allow for first reading at the next session of Council. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. And we also have people here to talk more about the project.
Thank you. Well, why don't we bring them up. 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100130 (Witnesses come forward.)
And Mr. John is going to dazzle us with his presentation. (Laughter.) Good morning.
Good morning, Chairman Clarke and members of the Committee on Public Property and Public Works. My name is Bob Archie, and I'm a partner in the law firm of Duane Morris, and I'm here as counsel to the Philadelphia Authority, also known as PHA. I'm here to testify on behalf of PHA, in support of Bill No. 100130. This bill provides for City Council to authorize the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed conveying, for nominal consideration, fee simple title for the parcel measuring approximately 58,402 square feet, which is located at 5326 Pulaski Avenue, at the southwesterly side 27 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100130 of Penn Street and Pulaski Avenue, with the buildings and improvements thereon, for further conveyance at nominal consideration. The factual background as to why PHA is in support of the approval of this bill is that 5326 Pulaski Avenue is located approximately to the rear of 301 West Queen Lane, which is owned by PHA. The 301 West Queen Lane site consists of a 16-story high-rise apartment building built in 1961, with 120 apartment units. This high-rise building -- apartment building has suffered from years of deferred maintenance and poorly- designed units that are undersized for today's living standards and amenities. The major systems are antiquated and would be too costly to bring up to current standards. Therefore, PHA proposes to demolish this high-rise building and build approximately 50 to 60 new, affordable rental units. The new units 28 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100130 will consist of high-energy, efficient townhouses, duplexes, and quadplexes that will utilize the latest green technology such as global thermal heating and cooling, solar domestic hot water, solar electric, and rain-water harvesting. In addition to the creation of new housing units, new streetscapes and infrastructure improvements will be provided as a part of this new development, including off-street parking spaces in the rear, new curbs, sidewalks, one new street, driveways, new trees, and new lighting as well. The transfer to PHA of the Recreational Department-owned, which is the subject matter of the bill, which is the owned parcel, the Recreation-owned parcel, which sits directly behind the high-rise is critical to the proposed development. The estimated cost to the new development is approximately $24 million, and financing will include the use of 29 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100130 low-income housing tax credits from the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency and the use of PHA's annual capital dollars from the federal government. I want to thank you for your time and consideration of our client's support of Bill No. 100130. And I also have Mr. Johns here to answer any questions that you may have regarding this bill.
Sorry. We were having a debate as to what district was getting the most money. (Laughter.) The whole notion is that somehow, the Fifth District is the only one that gets tax-credit deals is clearly not the case. (Laughter.) Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. What's the timeline on this? Do you already have the tax credits in hand? 30 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100130
All right. And you have been quite successful, so I would anticipate the groundbreaking very soon.
I think PHA is the largest user of low-income housing tax credits in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
What's the process? So if we transfer this today, when does relocation start to be a consideration?
It would be this year. We start to consider the relocation this year, in anticipation of 31 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100130 some of the new tax-credit application next year start. So we'd like to start that process as early as possible.
Okay. Well, you know, this is a project that we have been talking about for several years, and I'm glad it's finally coming to fruition. I think it's going to be good for the neighborhood. People have heard about it, and, you know, they all support it. There are a few people that have other questions -- suggested other uses, like making a ice-skating rink out of the playground, and that's the most recent that I've heard. But this is certainly something that we all support, and I'm just glad this morning that we're going to get 21 million. 22 Councilman Clarke, you know, I 23 sit on Rules, I know when funding comes 24 in. And he's up here badgering me over 24 million when I've seen hundreds of 32 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100130 millions of dollars go into the Fifth Council District. So we're just glad that this is finally on its road to being successful. And, again, I want to thank you guys. I think you've been very cooperative.
I have to make a full disclosure: I live in Councilwoman Reed's Councilmatic District.
And this will be really good for the neighborhood. I spoke the other day to Senator Specter, who doesn't live far from this development; you know that. And so, we're all looking forward to seeing something positive happening here. And then we'll work with the City and PHA to see what we can do in the surrounding community. 33 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100130
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just as a councilman at-large, I'm just glad to see development in all Council districts -- although, Councilwoman Miller, I do live in the 5th, so I'm not complaining about it. Just a quick question, and Councilwoman Miller alluded to it. This was a Recreation site?
The actual -- it's actually more of a playground than center. The center is 34 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100130 just very, very small. It's actually a part of the PHA high-rise.
And it's mainly a basketball court and a play area. And we're also -- in the planning, we're also thinking about other places to put some type of recreational use.
Okay, great, great. And just one another question. As far as the applicants, I know when you were here about a week ago, I think it was a development in southwest Philly. Is it the same way; is it going to be a separate list of applicants?
It's similar to that? I forget the name of it, but -- 35 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100130
I think -- one other thing I want to add regarding recreation. There's a Boys and Girls Club within, like, maybe a block if you go in one direction; two blocks if you go in another. So there's still certainly a basketball court and other activities that can happen there.
Thank you, Councilman. Let the record reflect that Councilwoman Joan Krajewski has joined the committee. Are there any questions of these witnesses by members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
There being none, Mr. Carter, please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 100132, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to extend the term of a sublease agreement between the Philadelphia Municipal Authority as landlord and the City of Philadelphia as tenant for mailroom operations space at 1628 JFK Boulevard, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman Clarke and other members of the Committee on Public Property and Public Works. My name is John Herzins, and I'm the Deputy Commissioner of Public 37 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100132 Property, here today representing the Department to testify in support of Bill 4 No. 100132. This bill will permit the City to extend the term of sublease up to an additional ten years for certain space currently utilized as a City Revenue Department mailroom operation center located at 1628 JFK Boulevard, also known as Eight Penn Center. The Department supports this measure; and, accordingly, I respectfully ask that Council approve Bill No. 100132. I am requesting a suspension of the rules so as to allow for first reading at the next session of Council. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Herzins. Mr. Herzins, real quick, what's the square footage of the space we occupy?
Approximately 38 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 100132 9,700.
So it's a relatively small space. Okay, thank you. Any questions of this witness by members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you very much. I think you're testifying on the next bill? Duane? Oh, whatever. Okay. Well, let me not manage you guys' activities. Mr. Carter, please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 090785, an ordinance authorizing the sale of City real estate for cash consideration of fifty percent (50%) of its fair market value for the purpose of creating retail and commercial jobs, provided a first-priority lien on the property is retained equal to the difference between 39 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 the fair market value and the cash consideration, extinguishable based on fulfillment of retail and commercial job-creation requirements, under certain terms and conditions. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Clarke and members of the Committee on Public Property and Public Works. My name is Duane Bumb, and I am the Senior Deputy Director of Commerce. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 090785. This bill would authorize sale of the City property for 50 percent of fair market value, where the sale will result in the creation of new retail and commercial jobs. Offering incentives to businesses in exchange for job creation and business growth are strategies the Administration fully embraces. There are several programs in 40 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 place that leverage tools the City controls to encourage investment. The ten-year property tax abatement, for example, for new construction and rehabilitation is a significant tool for businesses that build on or redevelop property; and under current rules, it can be applied in any location throughout the City. Many of the tax-credit or discounted-loan incentives offered by the City have clawback provisions to ensure that the level of job creation promised is maintained for the prescribed period of time. When owned by or on behalf of City, land valuation is another tool the City can use to help ensure economic growth. On the City's behalf, the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation, or PIDC, often mitigates adverse soil or site conditions on a property it sells by discounting the sale in proportion to the funding needed to 41 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 properly redevelop the site. In addition, the Department of Commerce work with Public Property and has, on several occasions, agreed to reduce the sale price of property where to businesses where adverse site conditions or when permanent jobs are created. For example, as part of the sale of the Famous Cookie factory parcel on the American Street industrial corridor, the price was reduced by 50 percent based on the Commerce Director's recommendation that a number of jobs were being created. The Administration support the intent of Bill 090785 and views its implementation as consistent with our existing efforts to stimulate job growth. However, we would recommend that the legislation be amended to address a few concerns we have with implementation of the current bill. First, we suggest that the 42 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 first-lien position now required by the bill be changed to a second-lien position. In our experience, if the City or PAID are in first position, the grantees will likely not be able to get any private financing; we often take a subordinate position on our loans with the bank or private lender in first position. Also, creating specific standards for the number of jobs created relative to the value of the property and the process by which the City verifies and monitors the creation of these jobs should be clearly defined. Since we would want to add land valuation as one of the tools used to provide financial assistance to growing businesses, we would propose using the criteria that has been established for PIDC's existing loan programs with respect to reporting requirements. We would recommend that PAID not be the lienholder because, in case of 43 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 foreclosure, the property should revert back to the City ownership and not to PAID ownership. And, finally, we would recommend including industrial jobs among the retail and commercial jobs when considering a reduction of land sale price based on job creation. Industrial jobs continue to offer living wages to a portion of our workforce that does not typically have post-secondary educations. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. My colleagues and I would be happy to answer questions that the members of the committee. I might also add -- I actually prepared some proposed amendment, if that's helpful to you.
Sure. Thank you, Mr. Bumb. Thank you for your testimony. I actually agree with pretty much all of your recommendations in terms 44 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 of amendments. And I must say that I actually held a hearing because I needed to get that type of suggestions from the Administration 'cause, as you know, we've been talking about this for some time. So sometimes, when Councilmembers need to get answers, we hold public hearings for the purpose of getting the answers 'cause we know you guys will always come prepared. What I actually would like to do, now that we have some template in terms of what fixes we need to do or what recommendations we need to do to implement this bill, what I'd rather do than propose the amendments today is to sit down with you all and establish some guidelines such as you've recommended. But I would also like to have a broader discussion about not just publicly-owned properties but properties that are in some level of government ownership to establish certain criteria 45 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 for all of the various things that we've talked about today. But in particular, I understand Mr. Herzins thanked me -- he actually got a -- apparently, we have approximately 60, 65 properties in our inventory that are of substantial size, and I'd like to be in the position where we can market these properties in a very aggressive way, with some clear designed levels of incentives that a potential purchaser or a developer could look at and make the decision as to whether or not to buy or move into the City of Philadelphia. So I'm going to hold that bill; and hopefully, we'll have some subsequent conversations; and when we come back in the committee, we will approve the appropriate amendments to make sure we move ahead on this in an aggressive way. Any questions by members of the committee for this witness? (No questions.) 46 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
Mr. Bumb, thank you very much. Mr. Carter, please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 100101, an ordinance amending Title of the 11 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Public 12 Property," by setting forth certain 13 requirements for Council's approval of 14 redevelopment proposals and redevelopment 15 contracts submitted to Council for 16 approval under the provisions of the Urban Redevelopment Law. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, Chairman Clarke and members of the 47 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 Committee on Public Property and Public Works. I'm Terry Gillen, the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority. And with me is Mike Koonce, the Deputy Directory of the Redevelopment Authority. Bill No. 100101 provides that Council will not approve redevelopment proposals and contracts under the Urban Redevelopment Law unless the Council resolution or ordinance providing approval includes a certification from the Redevelopment Authority's counsel that the redevelopment contract itself contains certain revisions on changes in terms of the redevelopment contract. Specifically, the redevelopment contract would have to specify that Council approval by resolution or ordinance would be needed if any of the following occurs. 1. Assignment or transfer to a new redeveloper of the contract. 2. Change in the purchase price of the property being conveyed. 3. Change the preliminary plan 48 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 or disposition supplement. 4. Certain changes in the ownership of the redeveloper. The challenge we face here is balancing the needs of Councilmembers to have a say in the development activities in their districts with the desire by all of us to encourage and promote housing development and economic development. We think that this bill begins to address those competing needs but may not strike the right balance. The Administration's concern is that this bill, if implemented, might have the unintended effect of discouraging or at least delaying development. In Philadelphia, as we know, there are too many obstacles for business, especially small business, to locate and expand here. The Administration is working to eliminate as many obstacles as we can and encourage business growth that will hopefully 49 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 provide jobs. For example, we are committed to reducing business taxes and improving the permit process at L&I. The Administration is concerned that this bill moves in the opposite direction by creating adding a layer of approval that currently does not exist, thus potentially making it more difficult for properties to be developed in a timely fashion. As an additional reason for the Administration's concern is that there are several times during the year when City Council does not hold regular meetings; thus, if a project requires City Council approval in June, for example, the project may be delayed due to the needs for Council approval. We believe there may be a way to tweak this initiative and do it so that the bill does not discourage development. For example, perhaps City Council may not need to approve a decision to assign an affordable housing 50 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 project to a related entity. Also, Council may not need to approve a decision to allow amendments to a plan that does not change the use of the project but that merely may have an impact on the number of properties being sold. Perhaps Council would consider working with us to amend the legislation by allowing a change in the site's proposed usage or allowing the introduction of a new developer for a particular housing project, without the need to return to Council for approval. We appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about these matters, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman. I'm sorry, one 51 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 second.
I've got to go to members of the committee first. I want to make sure I keep my committee chairmanship. (Laughter.) Councilwoman Miller.
Great. Miss Gillen, I have a question about your testimony. In one, two, three -- in the fourth paragraph, where you start talking about how there is a challenge to face the needs of Councilmembers in development activities in their district. You've been here two years?
Okay. 52 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 Have we -- have you experienced any delays in development caused by Councilmembers?
Well, we want to make sure that this bill doesn't change that by putting in new requirements; that's the only issue that I'm raising.
Okay. I've been here years, and it's been my 14 experience that if things are held up, 15 it's held up not because of the 16 Councilmember but because of funding, 17 because of financing, because of the Administration, not Councilmembers.
So I think you guys may have some work to do on your end. That will then remove this particular challenge. And I think it is important -- in terms of just bringing something back 53 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 to Council, I don't know that we take that much time to approve or disapprove something. We have bills. I don't know that -- that our recess in June really hampers development. And so, I just have some -- I'll let Councilman Jones go, but I certainly don't see Council as being the group that causes the delay in development. And I'm glad to hear you say that you have not experienced delays caused by City Council. City Council has to be involved in their district, they need to be involved in their district. I mean, many times we work for years to get a proposal to the table and ready to be funded. And I, for one, as a District Councilperson, am not going to give up my authority to be involved.
I know, with every administration, it's different. But I have not -- I don't 54 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 know that we've ever hampered any development in our districts. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilwoman Miller. I just want to follow up real briefly on Councilwoman Miller's issue with respect to the timing of the (indiscernible) that are put out either by PHFA or OHCD or any of the other funding entities. And the reality is that the traditional timeframes on our requests for proposals or opportunities for funding are traditionally earlier in the year or in the fall, both times which we are in session. So in my -- I don't even want to say how long I've been here. I can't ever recall a project being held up because Council was on recess. And even in the event that there was some opportunities that there was some concerns about, I've witnessed the fact that if the Administration and 55 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 the member of Council have indicated to the funding source that upon the reconvening of Council session in September, then such ordinance or resolution would be introduced and passed, that traditionally is sufficient for any -- particularly for PHFA 'cause we have had a longstanding relationship with them. Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. What is the mission of the Redevelopment Authority, generally?
To use financing and land tools to renovate the City of Philadelphia, particularly Philadelphia's neighborhoods.
And in so doing, land acquisition is a integral part of development, obviously, site control and things like that. Is it also a part of your job to market those opportunities to private-sector 56 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 individuals that want to invest their capital into the City of Philadelphia?
So when we ask as a body what our inventory is and what it is worth, would that be a helpful tool to know so that we can market it to private-sector individuals?
Mm, I am sure we know it. I don't know it off the top of my head, but I can get you that number.
We have asked this same question at least since I've been here, and I can go back into 57 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 the records where we talked about you working on a system that would give us that information. I think my colleague Donna Reed Miller is accurate when she talks about the role of the District Councilperson, because often, people, whether they live in the City of Philadelphia, don't live in the City of Philadelphia, come to the District Councilperson to seek out investment opportunities to do your mission.
And when we can't tell them what a property is going for or what it could possibly yield or what our inventory is worth, we're not the problem.
So we've asked for that for the last two years. 58 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 Do you have any idea when that is going to be completed or when we can expect an inventory of the value of the asset that we have so that we can, in these tough budgetary times, be able to market it and help you do that?
I mean, let me just sort of say where -- 'cause I know we've had a conversation about this about a year ago. Just so folks know, the three major entities, right, that I think we're talking -- I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. So of the three major City entities that hold land, the first is my agency, the Redevelopment Authority. So 59 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 last year, last June, in fact, in June of '09, we put our entire list of properties owned by the Redevelopment Authority up on our website. So any -- and that's a dynamic list; it changes regularly. So anybody can go to the RDA website. We're the first agency to do it in the City, in the history of the City, to put a list up on our website. Anybody can go to that, and if they're interested in acquiring a parcel, it tells them who to talk to and that sort of thing.
So we -- PHDC is the second entity, the Philadelphia Housing and Development Corp.
They've had a list for years, but you had to pay to get it. And so, we've changed that; we've changed 60 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 that policy so that now we all have access to that list. And we're working with them to get that up on their website. And then the third list, of course, is the largest, which is the City Public Property, the Department of Public Property, which is the City of Philadelphia. You know, they actually have a list that they've now put together. Their list is less dynamic. I mean, they've got resource constraints. So one of the things that we're working with them on is how can we get their list regularly updated. And then the real place we want to go, I think, with all this, is to get all three of those lists together, posted in one spot.
That's what we don't do right now, but we're working to try to get there. 61 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
Well, I'm excited to hear that, finally, we're going to know what -- and you will break that down by district? That would be helpful to us.
Yeah, we can do that with the Redevelopment Authority's list.
I'll check on the other two and see how -- it shouldn't be that hard, but, you know, it's mostly done by zip code. So breaking it down by Council District may take a little more time, just so you know. But we can do it.
Just out of interest and curiosity, how many deals did we do last year and the year before? How many developments have we, as a -- did your agency actually deliver? 62 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
Well, it depends on what you mean by "development," I guess. So I can give you some numbers.
You can give me commercial versus housing development and a sense of total value of what that's worth?
Mm-hmm. We did about $3 million in property sales. We... Mm, I'm trying to think of... I'm trying to think of what -- the other thing we do is affordable housing lending. So in 2009, we did 475 units of affordable housing lending. We did 142 PHILoans.
PHILoans. That's the PHILoan Program, which is also done by the Redevelopment Authority. So I can get you all of this if you want it in a report.
I'm not sure what 63 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 you mean by "project."
So if you did 475 units, how many developments is that? I mean, just in my district, how many developments did you do in the 4th Councilmatic District last year or the year before?
I can get you the number; I know that we summarize that and we have it.
No, but I know we that did a couple because when we did the summary list, there were several in every district except for the 10th. So I know there were some, but I just have to let you know what they were.
Well, I don't know about other Councilmembers, 64 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 but that's the kind of useful information, and it leads to this question: Historically, before you conveyed or worked with the developer, it's my understanding your agency would meet with the District Councilperson to -- it wasn't necessarily a sign-off but to get a tacit approval of are these people -- is this developer compatible to this neighborhood? did you feel that this is a benefit? And is that written in the -- in your standard operating procedures, or was that like a courtesy policy-something that you did?
Let me make a of couple points. On the question of how many projects we did in your district, I know that we sent you a letter in January, so I'll dig out that letter, because we sent a letter to every Councilmember because I know that several Councilmembers called 65 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 me in response to that letter about some of the projects. And we did send you a letter about all of the projects that were done in your district.
Was this after the fact that they were done or -- I'm -- this leads to my question.
It was to answer your questions of how many projects were done in the last year. It was really partly how many projects were done since Mayor Nutter took over the chairmanship of the Redevelopment Authority, so it was really covering about months. 17
But on your question -- the other question, which was the process, I would say that when I got to the Redevelopment Authority, none of the procedures were written down. And, in fact, one of the things that I've been trying to do since getting there is 66 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 writing some of this down, because there were many things that were done, and people said to me, "Well, this is the way we always did it." And we actually now have a written rule book of policies and procedures.
So in that written rules, policies, guidelines, is it written anywhere that you meet, before you convey property to developers that do the development, with the District Council people?
Sometimes we meet and sometimes we just notify, depending on the nature of the project, so...
Well, at least for me -- and I can't speak for other members; I can speak for me -- it is crucial that you meet with me before you do that, because we have, believe it or not, boots on the ground and have a better sense of the community and their response to particular projects as they, 67 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 you know, start.
And it's better for us to be able to at least be notified about that.
So that we can gauge accurate information to the communities in which these developments are.
What comes to mind is the apartment buildings across from the $80 million development of -- in West Park that was owned by your organization. After the fact, you told me that you sold them to a nice enough guy. I have no interest in him other than the fact that I want him to do a good job in maintaining the direction that that neighborhood is going. But that person had not met with not one community organization, not one religious organization, not one elected official 68 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 until after the deal was done. And that kind of reversal in policy for your agency is deeply concerning to me, because it does not allow us to play our proper role and, I believe, legitimate role to be a liaison ombudsman to the community, and it totally takes us out of the process. So whether it was mandated by law or just in practice, I think it's important and one that should be maintained, because at the end of the day, they look at all of us as government, the community. And if one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing, it just reinforces a negative opinion of all of us. So sometimes, in attempting to do a good thing, we wind up doing something that is detrimental to the community. And I don't know if that can be written in your policy, but I strongly suggest that it does, because at the end 69 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 of the day, after the directors are gone, we live with the community who have to suffer from bad maintenance often. And in the case of that facility that was owned by you, that was a major, major trafficking area for drugs in the area owned by us.
It was beginning to be developed -- and I don't know the status of it today -- as a place where individuals actually staked out their victims from the mall across the street. So communicating with us -- 11-year-old, 12-year-old kids knew it, but you won't know it unless you talk to us. And so, I think that that is a valuable way to gain information about the direction of the community.
And I agree with you, Councilman. I will say that when I came in, in '08, that was one of the reasons we 70 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 made the decision to sell that property, because, in fact, the Redevelopment Authority had done a horrible job of managing it, and we determined that we ought not to really be in the property management business; that's not what we do. You didn't hear me say we're in the property management business when you asked. I do want to clarify, what we did in that case was an RFP. And when we selected the person who had put forth the best project in the RFP, that was when we came to you. I want you to understand we had not done the deal at that point. And, in fact, we came to you and said we want you to you meet with the developer; that's when we took 'em out to meet with Lucinda Hudson and some of the folks in the community and had him meet with -- because, in fact, we would not have gone ahead with the sale had he been problematic for you or for the community. 71 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
So I just want to clarify that legally, we had not done that.
I was the one who came to you guys and talked about the fact that there were a lot of complaints. I mentioned to you in specifics about the need to sell it because of some of the mold problem --
You got back 72 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 to me after the fact. But my point is, if we communicate better from the start and we don't have these gaps -- and there may have been other people willing to pay more had we known that the process had moved along, because what we also do is that we will never -- and I never want to -- make a decision for you. That is what we pay you to do.
But I always want to add to the discussion, I always want to add to competition. There may be local concerns that are from Philadelphia that may have wanted to take part in that but did not know because we were out of the loop and. That's where that communication, once again, comes in. And if we know of the parcels to market, people who come -- once again, in my conversation, where I began, most people don't know of you. They know of us and they may expect us to know and be 73 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 able to reach out to you.
So that's why that is important to me as a District Council person, and I think I sensed it from my colleague Donna Reed Miller.
I just want to ask a few questions in terms of some of your answers to Councilman Jones. If you have a set of new policies and ways that you run the RDA, I would appreciate getting a copy of that so that we can understand what you're on so we can figure this whole thing out. I have a question, but instead of asking it as a question, I'll just ask -- I'll just make a statement. City Council members are going to be involved in the revitalization efforts of their districts. Put 'em all 74 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 together as ten districts that makes up the City. The Administration is involved in the revitalization of the City of Philadelphia. And certainly, in the various departments, they're involved in what happens in our Council Districts. Whether you like it or not, we must be informed, we have to be informed; we're doing our job. Councilman Jones should have been informed. How do you think we feel when we pick up the newspaper and see that a property is being advertised for sheriff's sale if we had no prior knowledge? And I'm not talking about any one particular property. But I talk to Councilmembers and I hear what they say. We're going to be involved. I'm going to be involved in the 8th District. You know, I've been involved for 17 years. We've been out here, pounding these pavements, meeting with community 75 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 people, getting the constituent calls about the blight, et cetera, and we're just going to be involved; that's one of my roles. Your role is to lead the RDA; that's fine. But we got to work together. I don't want to come to work and not know what's going on in my district 'cause nobody at the RDA level decided to tell me.
Well, we had spoken to you about the Germantown Y; is that the --
You've spoken to me about lots of things. In fact, we have a meeting set for tomorrow or Wednesday -- I can't remember which day it is, I have to look at my schedule -- to talk about a number of tings.
So don't 76 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 go there, okay? However, we have to talk. I'm not going anywhere, and I don't think you are. We have to work together, we got to figure out how to do this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the beginning of my term, I introduced a resolution that was looking at the economic-development agencies and the alphabet soup and the different responsibilities of them and how they coordinate and interact -- the RDA, the PIDC, the different housing agencies, et cetera. And one of the major concerns I had was the lack of accountability to this body for the properties that we turn 77 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 over to these agencies. It seems like we don't either exercise our oversight authority properly, or perhaps we should not transfer properties until there is already a deal with respect to them that the City Council or the District Council people approve of them. And I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts about how we, as a body, should be holding the Redevelopment Authority accountable to us, as a body, for results, so that the feeling that a lot of people have that properties are transferred and go into a black hole can be alleviated.
Well, I do think that partly what we're doing, which is to try and provide more transparency and better data, is a first start. I mean, again, when I -- the first question I got when I went to the Redevelopment Authority was people saying to me, Why don't you list your properties up on your website? 78 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
I believe that was one of the first questions that was asked in the first budget season. That's correct.
Well, part of the answer was, we didn't have a website. So it's very hard to be open and transparent if you don't have good mechanisms.
And so, first, we got a website, and then we spent literally a year going through the list of properties and doublechecking it against records to try to make sure that the list was accurate. And so, it literally took us a year to get to the point where we could just give you that information.
That's right. It was in response to a question from my office, where we asked you to please list every single property owned by the RDA, and you had to literally go through paper records to determine that. 79 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
As a part of that process, you discovered that properties that were transferred years ago were not -- were still on the tax rolls as City-owned or owned by the RDA, even though they had been transferred and developed.
Yes. There were bad records in many ways; yeah, that's correct.
Okay. Could you please provide the Chair a list of all of those properties that you discovered and tell us whether or not the Administration plans to go back ten years, which is what we're permitted under the law, to collect taxes from the people who have transferred those properties, who did not receive tax bills on all of the parcels that were transferred to them.
I'm sorry. What's the subject or -- 80 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
We transferred properties to people. And say it was a group of properties and I got this from you.
And, say, the deed listed one address, even though there were ten addresses.
So the tax bill was sent only for one address, not for ten addresses, and this is a problem that existed for a long time. I'd like to know what the City's plans are for going back and collecting taxes from the transferees for the last ten years and how much revenue that would bring. And I guess I'd suggest that it would make sense to get bills out to 81 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 these people during the amnesty period so that they're incentivized to pay it quickly, sort of as one think that you could help us with.
The other thing is, I have a few ideas about maybe how we can create accountability, and we can talk about them over time. I'll talk to the chairman of Public Property about it. Things like -- what would you think of conditional transfers that require you to come back to the District Council person with thirty days' notice or ten days' notice prior to transferring a property in order for that transfer to be a valid transfer? Not reauthorization, but notice, so people in the districts know what is happening.
Yeah, we're happy to talk about all of that. I mean, it's -- I think there's a spectrum -- I 82 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 think the problem is that we don't have enough tools, and the tools aren't nuanced to deal with the different conditions in the City and the different types of property. So you've been, for example, very active and, I think, a strong advocate, as is Councilman Kenney, of the idea of using real-estate brokers to sell land, right? Well, brokers want a different thing, right? What real-estate brokers want is, they want a very simple, straightforward process that looks a lot like the rest of the process. And so, when we did a pilot program with real-estate brokers, they didn't want to hear about all of this procedural stuff and how we had to go through, you know, lots of steps, whether it's the RDA board, City Council; they didn't want to hear about any of that. So, on the one end, we have a group of properties that we think maybe 83 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 fall into the category of eligible for broker sales and really good properties to sell to brokers that may need one set of oversight. And then I think there are the larger projects -- or the projects that have large development potential that may need zoning change, planning change, or whatever, that clearly need much more of a dialogue and much more input from community groups and all that stuff. The problem is, we've got a system right now that treats everything the same, and I think that's the frustration. And so, we've got to figure out a way either to develop a larger set of tools, which what we've been trying to do, or figure out a new system, and that's really what I think we're all trying to work on.
Mr. Chairman, do you remember the name of the property management system that was 84 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 online during this Street administration that was taken down, where you could actually go on and you could search and find properties? This administration -- the previous administration spent about 3, 4 --
It was online. All publicly-owned properties that were in Public Property --
-- were available online. And that was taken down in 2008.
Well, I know the NTI had a website, but I don't think they had all of the publicly-owned properties; I know that they had some of the publicly-owned properties. 85 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
There was also a private entity, as Councilman Greenlee reminded me of, Hall Watch. They actually did significant work in making available on the website, properties across the City of Philadelphia. Then there was actually a system that we were supposed to purchase, and I think we spent around $5 million of NTI dollars to put it in place.
Okay. Well, I look forward to continuing this discussion. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilwoman Blackwell. 86 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
Thank you. It's not narrowly related, but in general, I just wanted to ask the director if we're clear on legislation coming to Council before it goes to the board so we don't have so much confusion in our communities.
Absolutely, yes. I know that you raised that when we met a few weeks ago.
And the other thing is, I wanted to contact you -- I could have waited till after the hearing for this, to see if we couldn't, before we have our formal hearing, work some Council people on specific issues, and maybe we can meet in the Caucus Room 23 or something to get their specific property issues resolved.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Hold on a second, please. Okay, I held my questions for a reason. I just want to briefly go over -- and I promised myself that I would not allow this to be an adversarial hearing as it relates to my conduct. But briefly, I just want to make a couple of statements. This whole issue about the relationship between Councilmembers, particularly District Councilmembers, and the Redevelopment Authority comes out of, I know in my case, frustration and years of having prior relationships with prior executive directors that were a lot more open and a lot more sharing of 88 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 information, the ability to get on the phone and talk to not only the executive director or the staff members and have it -- and I know early on, in your administration, you would not allow that. You have now relaxed that, and I don't know why. But, you know, it is what it is. And our inability to, frankly speaking, as it was referenced earlier, to know what in the world is going on in our Council District, because at the end of the day, we all got elected. I understand you got appointed, but we got elected. And at the end of the day, the people live in those neighborhoods, if something happens in those neighborhoods, they're not going to look at you, and, frankly speaking, they might not even look at the at-large Councilperson; they're going to look at the District Council.
And say, "You're the guy that let that come in my neighborhood."
So our inability to have that type of relationship has been very frustrating to me, to the point where I have to call the Mayor because he's the chairman of the board.
And I shouldn't have to bother the Mayor about every little thing, but that's just the way it worked out. When you came in, you essentially defaulted -- I don't know if the majority of all of the developments that had not complied with the redevelopment agreement. That's fine. You know, it's within your right. But the reality, under the existing regs, you essentially have an unfettered ability to do whatever with 90 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 those properties as it relates to the executive director of the board, without Councilmembers ever knowing how, when, or what the ultimate outcome. That didn't bother me before. And, in all honesty, I didn't know that until it was referenced to me. But it bothers me now.
'Cause I'm a little concerned about how you do things over there. I'm just being straight up.
So it caused us to introduce this ordinance 21 that essentially, as we move ahead -- and hopefully we'll get this NTI thing moving relatively quickly -- all of the redevelopment agreements that are done heretofore will -- I'm sorry, subsequent 91 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 to this, will have some ability to have a relationship. I would hope that those defaults that you've issued -- and I understand there are a significant number of 'em, that you craft some regulatory process where Councilmembers will be able to know exactly what's going to happen if you change the developer, if you change the development plan, or if it were nominal and now you want to sell it. It needs to come back to Councilmembers so that, at a minimum, they know what in the world is going on.
So I would hope that as you think about, you know, the aftermath of this hearing, that you develop some sort of process that puts us in a position where we're at least in the loop to some degree. And I understand you feel that you need to have some level of an ability to move projects quickly. I don't think 92 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 any member of Council would like to do that. You know, as quickly as we are, I mean -- that's what we're about.
I don't understand, frankly speaking, why you have gone from two-times-a-month meetings to one time a month 'cause I think that actually delays your ability to expedite development. But, you know, as I say, you're the executive director; you made that determination. What I would like to do is offer an amendment today that will respond to two of your concerns. One is, in the ordinance, it said that by resolution or ordinance, the conveyance shall happen by members of Council. What I'm prepared to do, assuming that the committee is accepting of this, is to take the ordinance out and do it by resolution. As you know, a resolution only needs one-day notice and a one-day vote. 93 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785
And if it's controversial enough that we need a hearing, we can always have a hearing on the resolution. The other issue has to do with the change in the price on that particular property if it has to come back to Council. I'm prepared to delete that section because my assumption is that if you change the price, you're going to charge more, so that's a good thing for the City. But in the event that there is a nominal consideration to a developer, and then you want to charge that developer for that consideration, I would like to see that come back 'cause that changes the scope of project in terms of, you know, the ultimate outcome. So I will be offering those two amendments to this bill today.
So 94 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 hopefully, we can come to some agreement as we move ahead -
-- where we can strengthen our relationship, and I mean it in a real way because I'm just not used to doing business like this, as a number of other people are, okay?
Right. And I hear you, and I agree with you. And certainly on the defaults, absolutely. We would fully intend to go back to you all of the District Councilmembers and talk to them about the properties.
Like so many things that goes on around here, I really don't always understand why we're in the situation that we're in. It just to me seems commonsensical that there should be at least one person that represents the authority that has 95 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 interface with the folks here. I mean, even companies in the City have -- I mean, I see Ed McBride, you know, once or tries a week representing PECO. I see other people that are representing other entities, other governments, other everything. Isn't it easier just to have a person that stops into Councilman Clarke's office or stops into Councilwoman Krajewski's office and says, "Hey, how you doing? Is there anything going on?" Or, "This is going on today" or, "This is going on next week. Here's a heads-up." It seems that it would be just the flow of business and the flow of cooperation. It's much simpler than having the questions that Councilman Jones asked about a project that got, you know, out of the barn before anybody knew about it. I just -- to me, it would seem easier -- not that you should have to 96 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 walk around every day and visit Council offices, but there's got to be somebody in your shop that you trust that can interface with the folks here. I mean, again, as Councilman Clarke says, it's not as much an at-large issues as it is obviously a district issue. But I've been around here long enough to know that the common-sense approach really always -- usually works.
It can be someone you designate to say this is what's coming or this is what to expect or this is what we'd like you to help us with. It seems that life would be so much easier and one less piece of contention between the Administration and Council.
So is that 97 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 090785 possible?
Thanks, Councilman. Any other questions of this witnesses by members of the committee? (No further questions.)
There being none, this concludes the hearing on Public Property and Public Works. * * * 98 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY (Public Meeting)
Councilman Kenney, could I please have a motion on Bill No. 100094.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 100094 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Those opposed? The ayes have it. Bill No. 100004 is reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. Councilman Greenlee, can I please have a motion on Bill No. 100130.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 100130 be 99 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY (Public Meeting) reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first readings at our next session of Council. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Those opposed? The ayes have it. Bill No. 100130 is reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and with a rules suspension so as to allow for first reading at the next session of Council. Councilman Rizzo, please get a motion on Bill No. 100132.
I move 02 out of committee with a favorable recommendation and ask that the rules of Council be suspended --
32, I'm 100 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY (Public Meeting) sorry. And that the rules of Council be suspended and that this be heard at the next session of Council. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor? Those opposed? The ayes have it. Bill No. 100132 is reported out of committee with a rules suspension to allow for first reading at the next session of Council. Bill No. 090785 has been held at the request of the sponsor. Councilman Kenney.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 100101 be amended --
Hold on, hold on a second, Councilman. There's a question. (Brief discussion held off the record.) 101 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY (Public Meeting)
There's a question about 85, the 50 percent Public Property. What we -- ultimately, the outcome of the conversation was that we will be having conversations with the department, and we will come back at a later date in the committee and amend it after we get some of the specifics in terms of the criteria established, so we're going to hold it right now. Councilman Kenney, can I please get a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 15 100101.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 100101 be amended according to your on-the- record comments relative to the changes in the bill. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor of the amendment? 102 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY (Public Meeting) Those opposed? The ayes have it. Councilman Kenney, please.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 7 100101, as amended, be reported out of this committee favorably and that a request be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor? Those opposed? The ayes have it. Bill No. 100101 is reported out of committee, as amended, with a favorable recommendation and with a rules suspension to allow for first reading at the next session of Council. This concludes the meeting on the Public Property and Public Works Committee. 103 3.22.10 PUBLIC PROPERTY (Public Meeting) Thank you all very much. (Proceedings end at 10:58 a.m.) * * * 104 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee on Public Property and Public Works are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Monday, March 22, 2010, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (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.)