I'm sorry, Councilman. Yes, in the existing KOZ, there is approximately 1500s acre, yes.
Okay. I thought I had written that down based on someone saying it, okay. And you have developed approximately 250 of those acres; is that right?
Okay, so that's a little less than 20 percent? About? 63 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092
To what would you attribute that rate of development? Based on what we started with and what's been done so far, how have these incentives led to that level of development?
I should add we have -- and I'm going to check just to confirm this number with Mr. Dougherty -- probably about additional 11 projects in the pipeline. So we have 42 12 transactions that have been actually completed, 13 and we've got probably 20 that we feel are good 14 prospects that are in the pipeline right now, so 15 that the number of deals that will get done should 16 be increasing. 17 In many cases -- and in most of the 18 development, quite frankly, predates my position 19 at the Department of Commerce, but in many cases, 20 the companies have indicated that it was the KOZ designation that caused them to make the decision to develop at that site.
I understand that and I believe that. I guess what I'm trying to understand is when we did this -- and I understand 64 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 it predates your time -- my recollection of the hearings back then were that the City or the economic development agencies picked what they thought were the best array of sites at the time to create the 1500 acres. And the prospect of rolling out a program in which you can get either land at the site or acquire a building at the site or do whatever it is you're going to do and virtually pay no taxes, one would think that that would drive development in a way that you would be reporting today that we started with 1500 acres, 1499 are developed, and folks are knocking down the door, trying to figure out a way to get into the KOZ. That has obviously not happened, correct?
Councilman, if I may, some of the parcels we're talking about of the 1500 acres are the Navy Yard, where the history of trying to get title to that property is well-documented. A lot of them are large parcels along the river and have environmental problems 65 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 that need to be dealt with. Another large parcel happens to be the Byberry Hospital site.
And we still thought it significant enough and important enough to put them in because it doesn't get much better than paying no taxes.
(Inaudible) paying you to be here is not much better than having no 15 taxes to pay, right?
Well, I think what you're seeing, there is a certain lag time between the program starting up and running. It was designated in March of '99 retroactive. So we're just coming into the two years.
What you're seeing are some of the bigger projects coming on now. For instance, a gentleman testified here last fall about the Philadelphia Coke site, which is an old 66 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 polluted site up on the river at Orthodox Street, which is about 70 acres, I believe. To pull that project together, which is going to be a major port facility plus a cocoa bean processing facility, it takes time -- he's got to get up the financing, et cetera. So this gentleman met me almost the first day after KOZ and has been working to get this together. So it's fairly complicated.
Others' projects come along and take a little while to develop, but I think you're starting to see the pace is quickening right now.
Okay. And your testimony, I guess what I take out of that is that you expect that there will soon be rapid development of the 1200 or so remaining acres in the current KOZ because of all of this excitement.
I would expect the same history without the lag time on these KOEZ sites as see in the KOZ sites. So as you widen the pool of potential locations for businesses, you're going to see more and more development. 67 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092
What's the anticipated development at these various sites? Do you have a, you know, an economic analysis or an economic development game plan, or do you have some proposals on the table for each site and how you think that site is going to be developed and how many employees and what are the tax revenue benefits to the City? What -- out of this array in front of us, what do you think the tax benefits are to the City if we do this?
It's -- it's -- that's very hard to predict, Councilman, because you're dealing with a group of properties that, you know, as I said, I don't think would be developed without extraordinary incentives. And just to get back to your earlier question, we've got 250 acres done, we've got 20 more deals in the pipeline, which I think we feel good about. I mean, I would argue that these are all net wins for us, because for most of these properties, they were going to sit there and we weren't going to get them developed without 68 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 extraordinary means. We're targeting primarily industrial sites, commercial if it make sense. I still think that there is a good, strong demand out there for industrial uses. I think the program will help. It's just hard to quantify.
What's the marketing budget that you have allocated to promote these sites?
We will have to do this within, you know, within the resources that we have. I am going to --
What's the current marketing budget for the KOZ Program?
The bulk of that has been spent for brochures. We have very nice marketing materials and --
Approximately $50,000 of that has been spent. We have a supply -- 69 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092
No, no. With the original Keystone Opportunity Zone came a one-time $250,000 grant to cover administrative costs, marketing materials, things like that. The second one has a $200,000 administrative -- or "an implementation grant," they call it. We elected in the first round to put a 100,000 aside for the marketing.
Okay. Can you tell me why there have been no deals done in Zone No. 14 11, West Parkside?
Councilman, I wish I had the answer. I've been involved in West Parkside indirectly through Enterprise Zone and Empowerment Zone, and it's just been a tough sell out there, and I don't know why. It's a nice industrial park right along the park, and I've brought many businesses out there and. . .
Maybe I misheard you. Did you say you've tried to do a lot of things out there but you don't know why we can't get people out there? 70 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092
As I said, I've not been the point person for the Commerce Department out in West Parkside, as you know, but I have been tangentially (inaudible) involved and I just don't know why it hasn't developed.
Has anyone ever expressed an interest in being in the West Parkside KOZ?
We've had half a dozen leads in the KOZ, we have one reservation right now. We also have -- of the other five, for whatever reason, they elected not to go forward.
Okay. Do any of these areas overlap with TIFs? The expanded areas?
They're mutually exclusive. If they're not generating any taxes, there's nothing to pay the TIF loans, from my understanding.
Now, in response to 71 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 a question that Councilwoman Blackwell asked earlier --
And that is going to be removed. They did that the first -- my understanding is the first time the whole thing was TIFed, and then they came back and they decided to designate area an elected to remove the TIF in those areas.
Is that supposed to happen during a part of this process or --
It is my understanding that PIDC will take care of that, and I know. . . 72 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092
So you're assuming that they're going to send over necessary legislation to take care of that?
Now, these areas do overlap, though, with -- I guess the State's enterprise program is going out of the business; is that correct.
And have those entities been notified about possible KOZ expansion?
Those entities, as in the Empowerment Zone and the Enterprise Zone? Yes. They are a part of our economic development team. 73 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092
Okay. In response to a question that Councilwoman Blackwell raised having to do with either City contracting opportunities or goals, or minority contracting opportunities or goals, one of you responded that this would have no impact on any of that. Do you remember that? Do you remember what the question was?
Councilwoman Blackwell, I believe, asked if the KOZ designation had any effect on any existing City policies regarding minority and female business participation, et cetera. And I believe my response was that the KOZ designation would not have any effect on that. So any policies that would normally apply to a project would not be affected if they were designated a KOZ.
Let me ask the other side of that question. Are there any requirements at all with regard to being able to take advantage of a KOZ, that there are either requirements to do business with City businesses or do business with other minority and female businesses in the City, or anything of that type, 74 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 similar to the economic opportunity plans that are put into place for TIFs, and we have somewhat of a similar situation with our most recent large transaction, the sports stadiums. So we've implemented various requirements or criteria or voluntary participation programs when the City provides certain economic development incentives. Are there any with regard to KOZ or the expanded KOZ Program?
No, there are no 19 requirements. And I say "requirements" to the extent that we are involved in the discussions. For example, if it's publicly-owned land, we can certainly encourage voluntary participating, but there are no requirements. So, for example, if a privately-owned building or a parcel of land is designated a 75 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 Keystone Opportunity Zone and another private party comes in and buys the building and wants to put it to industrial use, there would be no 5 requirements on the purchaser regarding employment.
So they could just bring in, as a private business, anybody they wanted and theoretically, the Philadelphians living across the street or down the street or around the corner would have no particular enhanced opportunity to get a job at that site, even though we created this business incentive for that particular business?
Well, I think there's a practical advantage built in. I mean, there are companies that are locating in the City because of our workforce. I can -- I can say with, I think, a very high degree of assurance that, for example, the TJ Maxx warehouse that will be opening up in the Northeast that will employ anywhere in 1100 to 1500 people, I could say with a high degree of assurance that most of those jobs would go to people in the Philadelphia area, because that's one of the reasons they cited for coming in, was 76 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 the workforce, the location and things like that. So, I mean, while there are no 4 requirements, I think practically speaking, Philadelphians stand to benefit by gaining jobs.
Do you have maps of the individual proposed KOEZ subzones, I mean, a map that would show streets and areas and things like that? All I have is a list. And, you know, as much as I get around the City, I don't necessarily know all of these parts as well as some of my colleagues may. Are there actual maps that go with these subzones?
At this point, Councilman, no. Basically, this has been such a fluid process of adding and deleting properties that before we go to City Planning, we give them the final designations, and they do the nice maps that you see as a part of the KOZ package. So at this point, we have no specific maps. We've basically been using that as our working board as to sites to be included.
But, I mean, you're -- I mean, do I understand you to say that you 77 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 would -- I mean, you would like us to approve this without the opportunity to see a more detailed map and put some additional eyes on this to make sure that it's right?
Didn't we have some problems in the original KOZ process where certain properties or streets or locales ended up in the KOZ that should not have been in the KOZ?
I mean, that was just a miscommunication issue more than anything else. These -- we have been in contact with each the District Councilpeople who generally know these or their offices, and generally they know the properties and the areas better than anyone, so we've relied heavily on the Councilpeople.
Now, tell me again, what was the criteria for a property or an area to get into this new round?
The statewide, county-wide, the office-wide, anybody's wide.
Each of the subzones has 78 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 to be a minium of contiguous acres. That's a State-mandated provision. We -- and, again, the spirit of the program targets undeveloped and vacant land. The specific criteria that we applied were -- and I'll run through these quickly, Councilman. No residential; no existing businesses, except in special circumstances; a focus on industrial development, but commercial development if it made sense in the context of the neighborhood; sites that offered opportunities for growth to the high-technology industry such as incubators; a focus on vacant industrial land and older industrial buildings; a focus on publicly- owned properties because we can control the -- we can control the use and make whatever arrangements are necessary to get a project done; the fact that sites must be developable, which is large enough to be developed; and I guess sort of a summary comment, which is properties that otherwise we would not expect to be developed were it not for some extraordinary provision.
Well, in that regard, did you take a look at 116 Fountain 79 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 Street? Did anybody think about that?
Yeah, Councilman. The issue with that property would be that we could not -- we could not make it a part of a 15-acre contiguous parcel. If you -- we could not find --
All that land along the river and the canal and -- I mean, so are you saying that it was looked at and rejected?
Mr. Cuorato, could you explain to me -- I mean, I know what the word "contiguous" what means, but could you explain to me what your definition of "contiguous" is. I mean, "contiguous" is, I thought, next to each other, one parcel that's not split up by any other -- is that correct?
So -- but I'm 80 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 looking at parcels' descriptions here on a map that the parcels that are highlighted, they're not contiguous, and then some of them aren't even 5 acres. 6
Well, actually, they are 7 contiguous by the State's definition. 8
Which is that they can 10 somehow be linked. In some cases for the original 11 program, we were able to do it by a line in the 12 street; or in the properties along the river, we 13 used the river as the connecting point and called 14 it "a river subzone." 15
I'm sorry, Mr. Cuorato, but I believe that probably in the second or third grade, you learned about the associative property in math. That, I believe, is the formula of this. It's the associative property.
Because it -- and, again, I'm not meaning to interrupt, but this contiguous issue is convenient. When you want to make something contiguous, you find a river and make them touch. I mean, there's nothing 81 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 contiguous about a pier at Oregon Avenue and a parcel of land at the Navy Yard. That's contiguous?
We can -- we can be creative to a certain extent. We cannot take a property in Northeast Philadelphia and link it to -- you know, Fountain Street.
We can be as creative as we can, and that's what we tried to do.
Thank you. Madam Chair, I know that -- I'm sure there are others who have questions. So, Mr. Cuorato, is the answer on the Fountain Street either: We could not figure out the 15-acre contiguous requirement or it possibly just wasn't looked at; or it was looked at and rejected? Oh, you're --
You can come back 82 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 to that, 'cause he's tied up with the Councilwoman.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President. I'd just like to thank Mr. Cuorato and Mr. Dougherty. On very short notice -- I guess it was a week -- for the number of meetings and contacts we've had on the phone over several sites in the 10th Councilmatic District, some of which have been included in the final packet, some of which have been eliminated based on discussions, and some of which have been modified with setback ordinances coming down the road. And while whatever is happening in the Administration that caused this to be such a tight schedule, I just want to point out that when I had about ten times as many sites two years ago, I was given a very brief briefing the day before the hearing and wasn't asked, What do you think of 83 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 these? It was, We'll sort of brief you on this and what do you think, okay? That was the end of -- I mean, We got to move to another office 'cause we have ten minutes. And at that particular time, the Administration had not even looked at the Northeast Airport, which the airport was marketing heavily, but the TJ Maxx site, which was mentioned because of the number of jobs involved in terms of the total that had been generated, came out of that meeting. The Council agreed to hold the process for a week because we had a week. We added to the TJ Maxx site, which was a sewage, sludge landfill site that I was aware of and a few other people should have been aware of. It was ideal for this kind of program. Most of the sites in my district that are KOZ -- I don't know why they were KOZed. It was a Rendell Administration's decision. We did not bicker with their choices. The Byberry Hospitals that have millions of dollars of demolition costs relative to land cost, it's much higher for the demolition than any market value of the land. That makes sense. It still hasn't been 84 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 developed, but it gives it a chance to be developed KOZ. It was mentioned that if you go down to the Navy Yard, you're going to have people paying full freight and other people getting a relative free ride. You've got that all over the Northeast, the Northeast Industrial Park, because of the existing KOZ designations. Next door to each other, across the street, some businesses have half of their -- half of their property can be developed KOZ and half they pay taxes on. It is. A mishmash. And we didn't get any where near, I think, at least in my office, the attention in the last process that we did in this, even though we only had a week. And I just want to thank Mr. Cuorato, who, under duress, I think has done a lot with a little. And I know it's not a perfect situation, but I just want to remind you that just two years ago, I think we had less than this imperfect situation and a whole lot of stuff flying through here, much of which didn't need to be KOZed, and obviously, some of these marginal pieces that are in here should have been in the first round 85 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 because of the real tough pieces. The ones that we agreed on are pieces that really need some extra incentive. And I don't know what we do about, you know, the cousin paying taxes and his other cousin not, across the street. We have it residential we've, and we've gone through this debate, and you just make a decision, do you do it or not do it, because I get people griping all the time, I'm paying $4,000 in taxes and I know somebody's going to be living across the street from me next week or next year that's going to have ten years of -- it's one of those things that once you get into it, it's like quick sand, you know, you can't get out of it very easily. But I just want to point out that, you know, I think there's been difficulty in putting this together with the deadline, but from a District Council level, the service and the cooperation an cooperation and the communication, it's been much, much better than anything I experienced two years ago. Thank you.
You're 86 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple questions so I understand better the issue. Could you tell me, these parcels, buildings that are presently owned by an individual, could you identify how many of these are listed with real estate agents for sale? Do you know exactly what effort the owners of these properties have made as of today to sell their buildings? Are they listed? You indicate that it's very difficult, but how can we know if we really have a situation if none of these properties are physically for sale, especially the ones that are occupied?
I would say eight of them right off the top of my -- nine of them right off the top of my head I know are for sale; they been for quite a while. At least a year, two of them, I know; others longer. I also know from my experience in the first go-round of KOZ, some people don't put their properties on the market because they'd just as 87 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 well let it rot, it's not worth their while, they've had no interest or whatever. You put the KOZ benefit on that, and all of a sudden, they have an interest in moving a property. Again, the example is the Philadelphia Coke site up on the river, the 67 acres. The company -- it's a big company, and this was, at most, an annoyance to them, and to turn that around, now they would at least accept calls and try to move this property because they saw this as a great opportunity to get out from under.
With this carrot, how much delay has the anticipation of these properties becoming a KOZ created? If I owned one of these buildings, I think I would sit tight for a few months, waiting to see what happens. Could you comment on that?
Again, based on the first round of Keystone Opportunity Zones, I would suggest that many of these properties have sat for a long time. So the property owner isn't interested in sitting any longer. They see an opportunity to get this property in the new person's hands and get away from it. 88 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092
You have properties listed here that are real estate tax-exempt.
You have parking lots that are owned by universities. I thought that, in many cases, the tax-exempt status only covered the actual institution, the learning buildings. I didn't realize that it extended as far as a remote parking lot from the institution. How do many of these properties become tax-exempt? And is, in fact, the tax exemption a correct and proper one?
I can't address that one. I think that's more of a Board of Revision of Taxes and a Revenue Department issue. I just can't --
Well, I think that we need to know the answer to that question, because a parking lot that's three blocks away from the University of Pennsylvania, to be tax-exempt, that's a stretch. Because I believe that churches are obviously tax-exempt, but some of the residences that the religious live in or not tax-exempt. So it's a stretch to me to give 89 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 that tax-exempt status to something that's remote from the university.
Councilman, are you referring to properties that are on our list that are noted as tax-exempt and asking why that's the case? I'd probably have to defer to the Law Department to answer that.
Well, I think it would be interesting to determine why many of these properties are tax-exempt.
The one I just mentioned. There's a parking lot associated with -- that's owned by the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.
Some of the designations on these are not about what they are right now but what they will be in the future. A perfect example is, in the first round, we included a lot of the parking lots on the University City Science Center properties on Market Street. And from one of those parking lots came the Port of Technology Building, which is 90 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 brand new and, what is it, a 160,000 square foot facility. So that was the intent in the original round of including parking lots is to encourage a higher and better use.
My other -- I notice also that many of these owner-occupied that are on the list that are presently operating as businesses are tax delinquent. You tell me -- I can't understand how business licenses, et cetera, could continue with a company that is delinquent and owes taxes to the City of Philadelphia. How are they allowed to continue to operate, being tax-delinquent in their real estate taxes? Again, I'm asking you questions that I think, if I read this list, I'd be curious to know, if I sat where you sit. But if you don't know, I think that I would like someone to eventually answer those questions, how you have three or four businesses on here that owe a significant amount of real estate taxes and wound up on this list and are operating businesses. I mean, how do we do that? How do we -- is this an effort to recover the real estate tax? I don't know, but -- 91 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092
Well, Councilman, the owners do not get the benefit of the KOEZ provisions unless they bring their -- unless they are current, so they would have to be -- the taxes would have to be paid. I know that there's -- there may be a feeling as to why we would designate certain properties if they're tax-delinquent, but it really does get back to how we view the program, which is to say that we look for parcels that might not otherwise be developed, that are a blight, that we want to see developed, and we include those in the zone. If a building owner is tax-delinquent, he's got to bring the taxes up to date. Will he benefit as a result of this designation? Yes, he will. But we will get a blighted building developed, and that's our goal with this program.
Well, will you approach -- I guess this is appropriate for your team. Will you approach these people? I understand that many of these people aren't aware that this is occurring. Will they be approached and told this won't occur until your taxes are 92 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 current?
So all of these will be current before the KOZ designation is given to this property.
They'll be in the zone, but there will be no benefits. The benefits do not apply unless the property owner is brought -- unless the property is brought up to date on taxes.
Wouldn't they simply have to enter into an agreement if they're tax-delinquent?
That would make them eligible, yes. And one slipup and if they miss a payment, then they would be denied. We do a complete revenue check on each and every applicant, both at the City and the State level before they are approved. 93 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Dougherty, how long have you been working on this process as far as looking at properties, you know, putting up maybe a temporary idea as to what you'd like to do, putting pins in the map? How long has that been going on?
Probably two or three months. Probably October, late October, we started.
Did you give indication to anybody on Council's staff that it's been about a five-month process?
I mean, is it three months? What's your answer to the question as far as when did it first start?
I've been working on this for three months, probably October.
So November, December, 94 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 January. About three months.
An informal poll of District Councilpersons indicates about a two-week period where they've been contacted for input. Do you find that that's a problem? And were you told not to talk to anybody until two weeks ago? I mean, why wouldn't anybody -- after three -- if you're dealing with it for three months, such a critical project that's dealing with years, more than a decade of tax policy in 12 the City, and two weeks ago was the first contact, 13 on average two Council people, I mean, what's the strategy there? I don't understand. Mr. Cuorato, maybe Mr. Dougherty can't answer it and maybe you can, or maybe you can't either. I mean, I don't understand the whole strategy of this.
Councilman, there was an enormous amount of research work that had to be done, which Mr. Dougherty took the lead on. The process really was not as arbitrary or as discretionary as one might think. Because of the criteria imposed by the State legislation and because of City administration policies that were 95 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 pretty clear from the get-go, it was --
I'm sorry, back up a bit. City administration policies regarding what?
For example, no 7 residential. So my block, the 2600 block of Maxwell Street in Northeast Philadelphia pretty clearly was not going to be in a zone.
So there were a lot of areas of the City that automatically just were not included. What Mr. Dougherty was doing during this period was fielding calls, but primarily doing research --
From people who were aware of the program who said, Could you put my building in?
I guess my question 96 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 is, how would they be aware of the program and not the District Councilpeople representing the district? That's -- the main question here is, in October, when Mr. Dougherty started his diligence, which he's done as best he can to date, why wasn't the phone picked up and, Councilman DiCicco, could you give me somebody to go over this with us, to go through the district with you, or to give us recommendations on what should be done? That didn't happen until two weeks ago; in some cases, a week ago.
Well, how some people learned about the process, there were some news reports about it. But during the time that Mr. Dougherty was doing his research, it was really just narrowing the field down to feasible properties, if you will. We know that there are some Council districts that do not have any properties in them because the program doesn't lend it is to certain Council districts. Once Mr. Dougherty finished the research and narrowed the field to feasible properties, at that point, we tried the begin outreach to District Councilpeople. 97 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092
But you had input from people outside of City Council recommending properties, suggesting properties, making inquiries about properties, and you were responding to those requests; denying them, saying it was a good idea, a bad idea, here's the reasons why. Don't you think Council was afforded the same -- should be afforded the same courtesy as private developers, real estate brokers, and whoever else that knew about it before two weeks ago?
Councilman, as soon as we got to a point where we developed what we thought were a list of feasible properties, we started the outreach program.
Well, let me tell you something, this is reminiscent of another deadline we just faced, and that was the deadline to build stadiums. And now we're facing another deadline: to get this into the Commonwealth before the deadline passes. I mean, I've got to believe, after, you know, one time, I can understand; now two times, it's starting to get a little old. And it's not 98 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 fair and it's not respectful to the Council. And, again, I'm not a District Councilperson so, of course, I don't have the kind of direct input that I would like, but in support of other District Councilpeople and because I represent the City at large, I think that this is not a way to do business. And I recognize the October time frame, with whether Mr. Dougherty began his work, but I think the first call should have been made to us or to the District Councilpeople, saying, We have this opportunity, what do you think, where would you like us to look, and what suggestions do you have? And this is reminiscent of the famous November 30th deadline to build the stadiums or the world comes to an end. Now we face a February 28th deadline or the world's coming to an end. When is this going to stop?
Councilman, all I can do at this point is apologize to you and the members of Council for not having done a better job of --
Was it your decision? 99 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092
It was not a conscious decision not to tell Councilpeople. It was more of us --
Let's put it this way: did somebody in the Administration tell you not to contact Councilpeople till two weeks ago?
So the Chief of Staff wasn't aware of it, the Mayor wasn't aware of it? You just made that decision on your own.
Councilman, no one told me not to talk to City Council. What we did was tried to develop the best set or properties that we thought -- that we thought made sense for this program, and at that point -- at that point, begin to communicate with the Council staff.
Sounds like the same process in developing the Capital Budget these days. It's, We'll tell you what we think is good for you, and then we'll give you a two-week 100 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 deadline to get it done, and then if you don't get it done, then it's your fault, and you're to blame. And that's -- to me, it's unacceptable. I mean -- and look at the choice we're given. We get angry about it, we grumble about it, and we're going to wind up voting for it anyway because of the time constraints that this administration continually puts us through. And it's just unfair, it's disrespectful, and I don't understand why it continues.
Well, I don't know if you owe us the apology, frankly.
Well, I will promise to you that certainly anything -- any initiatives that my department brings forth, I will try to do a better job of communicating with Council.
Thank you. I believe that Councilman Nutter's light is on. Is he in the room? 101 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 Mr. Cuorato, just answer one question, 'cause I want this record to be crystal-clear as far as the Navy Yard site. The KOZ, or whatever you want to call it, is not going to affect any of the residential properties, so if in the future we have someone who in fact wants to rehab those properties for condos or apartments, they will not be in the KOZ zone.
That is correct, Madam Chair. The description of the properties proposed for the Navy Yard KOZ subzone, we have carved out the areas and the buildings that are proposed for residential development.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one last quick question. And Councilman Rizzo may have touched on this, but I missed some of his questioning as well. I just wanted to ask, in one of the listings here, and I think the President raised this earlier, about -- there was a parking lot owned by -- it's No. 12, out in West Philadelphia. 102 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 4519-45 Chestnut Street. The owner is the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. I think it was testified to earlier that maybe we had not necessarily been in touch with them. Real estate taxes, it says "exempt." Present use, parking lot. Proposed use, redevelopment.
There is no specific -- this is the parking lot for the West Catholic Girls High School, I believe. We are working in that area.
We are doing work with the Councilwoman and Darrell Clarke to look at redeveloping that area.
So that's a piece of property that, as I testified before, it cost the City of Philadelphia nothing to put that in. There is no benefit that the Archdiocese could take advantage of. And there's no cost to the City of Philadelphia at this point -- unless, of 103 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 course, the Archdiocese sold the building.
Well, that's the one area that I wanted to touch on, and I clearly and absolutely respect the process that Councilwoman Blackwell is going to go through, and I know that she'll be diligent about what goes on out in the area. I only pointed that one out, there may be others. I wanted to, I guess, better understand from at least a theoretical standpoint that if a property like that is -- and assuming that this goes forward, and I don't necessarily want to make that assumption, but just for the moment, a property like that is in the KOEZ, the owner decides, Well, I don't really need a parking lot anymore, I don't know whether cars are presently parked on the lot. Haven't we in fact automatically increased the value of that parcel of land to the present owner, the owner having done nothing, quite honestly, for which to get that increased value? Because they can now market that piece of property to someone, and I don't know who ultimately will end up doing anything with this, 104 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 but if it was a private, tax-paying entity in some transaction, isn't the owner of a property in a KOEZ, or even in a KOZ, the value of their property automatically enhanced by the fact that they can sell it to someone as a site that has a no-tax provision associated with it?
Theoretically, yes. Going on the last two years of experience is what I have to base on. I have not seen major jumps in the cost of real estate that are in the KOZ. As I testified earlier with -- to Councilman Rizzo's question, I believe it was, what you're seeing is, a lot of these properties, people are looking to get rid of, so they'll take whatever opportunity. And Pat Green's here, a commercial industrial Realtor in the City of Philadelphia, and he may be able to testify differently. But what I have seen basically is these older properties in particular, people are just thrilled to get rid them to finally sell them and have them put back into productive use. In the case you say about parking lot, we --
Well, I mean, I 105 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 understand someone being thrilled to get rid of the property, but most people aren't giving property away. And, I mean, they're going to have it appraised and make some assessment of what its value is.
All I ask is, if it has a particular value today, you create a certain designation that has potentially, you know, incredible or substantial tax ramifications for a new owner, it seems to me that you have in fact automatically increased the value of that piece of property. I don't know whether it's 2 percent, 200 percent, 2000 percent, but that is result of that.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you. Mr. Cuorato and Mr. Dougherty, are you aware of any projects that are currently planned 106 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 or in the pipeline for any of these parcels? I mean, some of them are vacant properties that -- like the Sunoco property, I understand, is a vacant and contaminated site that, you know, there's really no plans for it. And are there any other projects on this list that are actually in the pipeline and ready to go, or close to being gone?
Councilman, the one that comes immediately to mind -- and I'll ask Mr. Dougherty if he has any others. The one that comes immediately to mind is the Fast Ship Terminal on the Philadelphia port. Part of the site for their terminal, it was in the existing KOZ. What we're trying to do with the KOEZ is wrap the rest of the land for their Philadelphia terminal into the KOEZ zone.
I can tell you one at 3150 Orthodox Street, which sits next to the Philadelphia Coke site, which I talked about earlier. It has been for sale, it's now -- Atlantic Metals, I believe, owned it, a 10-acre. 107 2/14/01 - WHOLE - BILL 010092 That was on my radar screen to begin with. Subsequent to it being on this master list, we found out that a potential New Jersey trucking company has expressed some interest in this. So that would mean an additional 52 jobs immediately to the City of Philadelphia. So that's the only one that immediately comes mind. There's others floating out there that -- they're floating out there. I don't count a deal till -- I'm very conservative when I say "it's a done deal."
The advertisement of the -- I think Councilman Nutter raised the issue earlier about the $200,000 for advertising. What was the advertising? what did it consist of?