I think the plain answer to 118 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 your question is yes, but a full answer requires me to remind you that the Finance Department has an ongoing responsibility for the City's overall accounting, that the classifications of projects is initially determined by the Finance Department, and I'm not talking about just for Bill 000535; I'm talking about as an ongoing basis. I don't know whether you may recall back ten or fifteen years ago, an ordinance such as this would have had ten or twelve allocations of money. And I can recall one where Veterans Stadium was a specific line item. But somewhere back in the last administration, in the early days of the last administration, the Finance Department did make an effort to streamline those various classifications of projects and has been using that streamlined reduced number. We have now five instead of what might have been twelve ten years ago. It's not because of Veterans Stadium. And today, it's the practice --
I understand that. I mean, that sounds like an internal policy and management issue. I mean, that not a legal issue, 119 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 is it?
No. I think that the Charter makes the Finance Director the person who is initially responsible or primarily responsible to keep orderly management of the City.
I understand that, but in all of what you just said, I mean, does that matter in the context of one question or two?
The number of questions on the ballot is determined by the number of loan authorizations that Council enacted.
Right, okay. Is there a particular reason under these extraordinary circumstances that you wouldn't do it, so that it would crystal-clear as to what the voters are being asked to make a decision about, that they have a clear understanding that this set of dollars is kind of for the general, regular, routine things that we do every year, every other year, and that we also 120 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 have this unusual or slightly different situation that we subject to the voters' judgment and education, that they make a decision about that. Is there some reason why you wouldn't do that?
Well, I see my role as a technical one. I think what you're describing is a political/policy decision.
So your real answer is, you are now exiting from the discussion and go back on the other side of the -- (Laughter.)
Now you go back to the other side of the rail 'cause have nothing else to say about this particular issue. Very good very good. Ken, he gets the rest of the day off. (Laughter.)
I thought you would. 121 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535
Because I think that one of the -- you indicated that because of the very special nature of this, you know, this kind of decision that we're about to make, we have already committed to fund maintenance repairs at the Vet when we undertook, you know, to develop the Vet and enter into the leases. If we don't fund the repairs this way, the -- notwithstanding, you know, the decision not to fund this way, we have an obligation to fund and would end up funding it out of the operating budget of the General Fund. You know, and in that respect it's not --
Excuse me? That's right, or through a PAID option, that's right. But, you know, what --
Well, I guess the flip side of this is, you mention it, you don't mention it, people figure it out. Or you do mention it, it's in there. I mean, is there any concern on the other side of this coin that if for some extraordinary reason the voters, and a 122 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 significant number of them, felt so strongly and passionately about not wanting to put dollars in Veterans Stadium, that, similar to a previous Charter effort, where, you know, people may have felt strongly about two items in a commission report that had 64 components to it, and the only way to negate the item you didn't like was to vote the entire question. So is there any concern on the flip side of this that if people felt so strongly about not wanting to put money into Veterans Stadium, that they actually voted the question down?
I mean, that's always a risk. I don't think that that is -- I don't think that that's a greater risk.
So tell me what the argument is against two questions.
I think that -- I think that it implies that it's a decision to fund the repairs of the Vet or not fund it, when, in fact, we have an obligation to fund the repairs of the Vet, and we'll be paying for that out of the operating budget or a PAID issue. If it's turned down, it's not as though we're presenting the 123 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 public with, you know, a fund/no fund kind of decision. We're going to have to fund repairs to the Vet because, you know, years ago, we decided that we were going to take on that obligation.
And, you know, to imply somehow that there's this critical decision that's being made, I think, in fact, is misleading. We're going to be repairing to the Vet and it's a much more discrete kind of question that we're putting before the public -- do you fund it out of, you know, a PAID issue, do you fund it out of the, you know, capital budget, do you fund it out of the -- you know, I mean, it's a much more discrete question and subtle question that people are being asked to make.
But also much more likely if it's all bundled with everything's else to go forward, right?
I think it will -- I don't know. I mean, that would be my guess, yes.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 124 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 Mariano.
Thank you, Madam President. Along the line of what Councilman Nutter was just speaking about, in fact, Councilman Nutter asked every question that I was going to ask. That's why I like going behind him because --
Councilman, when you were out of the room I took your notes.
He took my cheat sheet? Thank you. But he just asked -- he asks them a lot more. He went to the Prep and he gets the words out better. The obligation that the City has to the Veterans Stadium, now, the taxpayers pay for that. And I'm a taxpayer and you're a taxpayer and everyone in this room and everyone in this city is a taxpayer. So if we separate this bond question, without beating around, that's what we're talking about and if it's shot down because everybody's got a problem with the City funding professional athletes --
Councilman, 125 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 I'm sorry.
The stenographer cannot hear you, we still have not worked out most of the kinks on this new system. So if you could speak directly into the mic. rather than look at the witness, we would appreciate it. Thank you.
What I was getting at was, we as taxpayers have to pay this. Now, is there a difference if we float the bond -- bear with me here -- and it passes, and it passes along with everything else, of if it comes back? I mean, I know there's a difference between it. Could someone explain that. If it comes back to a PAID bond or it's taken out of the General Fund, Joe, the taxpayer, is still paying. And, actually, we're losing money, or correct me if I'm wrong. Are we losing money if it comes out of the General Fund because we can save money by doing it as a bond issue?
Well, when you float bonds, typically, which is for 30, you're years 126 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 paying for it over time, versus taking money, the 40 million in total out of the General Fund and paying for it upfront. So it impacts the General Fund greater if you pull $40 million out from there, versus paying for it over time.
So it would impact the Administration greatly if we were unable to either do it with the PAID financing or do it with the loan authorization.
Excuse me. Since we passed the operating budget for '01. Wouldn't we have to take the money out of the '01 budget and, therefore, we would have to make cuts in order to realize the $40 million that would be spent?
I think that -- Linda Berkowitz, Budget Director. I think that would have to be a discussion between the Administration and City 127 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 Council. But because it is almost October, the value of the 40 million is greater because we would have to make those cuts over months rather 5 than over 12 months. 6 The other thing, if I can just remind 7 Councilmembers respectfully, is that this proposed 8 ordinance is to support the capital budget of $162 million that was passed by City Council. City Council did not approve two separate capital budgets; it approved a single capital budget for $162 million. And that is the question we are asking to be put before the voters. Will the voters approve borrowing of $162 million to support the capital budget proposed by the Administration and approved by City Council?
Councilman Mariano, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I just wanted to get that clear in my own mind.
But along that 128 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 line of what Councilman Nutter and Councilwoman Verna was talking about, the money -- it's actually better for the taxpayers if we float this bond?
I'm correct in assuming that? Now, I think the problem we're getting at here, and the closest, I think was Councilman DiCicco, who had to leave. He compared it to buying a house that needs to be fixed up, but we know we need to get rid of this house. I mean, it's obvious that Veterans Stadium, we probably shouldn't in there, and it's in a state of disrepair, whose ever fault it is. It's probably something this administration inherited from the previous administrations inherited, whoever was around before, whoever, you could point fingers all day, but that's not going to make anything. But what I personal would like to see, let's put what we got and put it in there and let's get out of here. I mean, in Council, we sometimes tend to make -- like the 60 days is a long time. November 30th is our drop-dead date. 129 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 That's 60 days, we can do a lot of things in 60 days. If this was the 28th of November, I wouldn't be saying this, but I think we just have to -- like DiCicco said, if we're going to put this money into this place, we got to make sure that we put the one shot into it and that's it. I mean, I went over them reports last night and yesterday morning, and some of stuff that I spoke about yesterday was, you know, electrical systems that I know a little bit about. There's some dangerous things going there. But I always have to think about when I was young and I went to a couple rock concerts at the old municipal stadium, that was JFK Stadium. How did that place ever last for so long? I mean, maybe they were different in them days, but that electrical system was in disrepair. And I'm not saying that we should jeopardize the health or the safety of any of our citizens, but sprinkler stuff had to be done, and that stuff they didn't count on in 1965 and 1970, when this thing was being built. A lot of these things didn't happen. And that electrical system that was put on in the late '60s wasn't set up for Fanovision and it wasn't 130 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 set up for all the things that were going to happen. If this was my house, if this was a house that I owned, I'd be looking to get rid of it real fast, but we do have some kind of obligation, the lawyers tell us, to these two teams. And we see the teams and we see their consultants running around here and they're figuring out things. I mean, they're here, or if they're not here, they're listening outside. Again, and I've said this before on the floor, the Eagles have been good corporate citizens. I heard some encouraging stuff the other day by Mr. Hankowsky saying (inaudible) because you work for the Mayor, I think he doesn't want to tell us stuff because maybe he doesn't feel we could be trusted with that information, and that might make a lot of my colleagues upset, but I think it's gotten to that by the relationships that some of us have had with this administration. If this was the 28th of November, I'd be a lot more concerned, like I said. But Mr. Hankowsky said that the Phillies are talking about 131 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 it, as you answered Councilman Rizzo, that this site, if this they do this 12th and Vine site, it's going -- there's a big expense, and the Phillies are talking. And you had said what, they're saying they're not expected to do that? That's positive. I mean, I think we have to try to be very to try to be positive in this thing and try to wait these 60 days a little bit and try not to second-guess everyone. And I admire you three or four for coming here (inaudible) trying to tell us what you're trying to tell us without telling us anything. (Laughter.)
(Inaudible.) I pretty much think that's where it is, and the scary part is, I'm starting to understand why you're (inaudible), so maybe I've been sitting here too long now. But, you know, we could talk about sites as long as we want to. If we have private discussions with different Councilpeople. Everything I hear -- and I'm not the Councilperson in South Philadelphia, thank God, but I don't think that's acceptable, that north lot site to 132 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 the constituents of that Councilperson, so I don't know how that goes on, but I could put myself in that Councilperson's place and realize it would be real hard for me to introduce legislation in a district where it's a problem. So we better start really listening to what the teams and the Administration is coming down for and what they're coming down with in these next 60 days. Thank you, Madam President paragraph.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you, Madam President. It's 40 days -- it's 48 days before November 7th, and both Councilpeople and the Administration have talked about this presented to the voters. And as I look around, there's only Administration people over here, so we don't -- we will not be hearing from voters as to the overall discussions that we're putting forward, and we're asking them to vote on it. And I wonder whether we may not have -- I think Michael Nutter was alluding to this, so 133 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 that we don't have a misunderstanding as to what the ballot question says, and I agree with Joyce in terms of misunderstandings that may be given in terms of the ballot question, that it might be a stadium question or it might be construed such as that. And I think that given the need for the other expenditures that are involved in this ballot in terms of recreation centers and other facilities, I think we have to be very, very careful that what happened, as Michael said before, does not happen once again. So I think it behooves us to listen and maybe have another hearing in terms of being able to invite the public, because the public is not here, the public is not testifying. And I think we should hear from the people because, as the Revenue and Budget Director just said, the voters will be asked to decide this, not City Council, not the 17 members of this body, the voters. And I think it behooves us to make a hearing available to the voters to hear their opinion as to the ballot question that is going to be going forward.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown. 134 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mrs. Berkowitz, you stipulated in your answer that City Council approved, quote, a single capital budget, correct? City Council approved a single capital budget. As a point of reference, has City Council ever approved a multiple capital budget?
So to do this would be in, in some ways, unprecedented?
Well, I think there are two -- there are really two separate questions. The issue of a single ballot question really simply addresses the fact that City Council did approve one capital budget for Fiscal Year 2001, and this ballot question simply is to allow the City to move forward with that 2001 capital program.
So that being the case, then has City Council ever been in a circumstance where we were to consider multiple ballot questions around capital budgets?
I don't know that. 135 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535
I can try and get that information for you, but I don't know that. I know that it did not happen in '97.
It did not -- there was a single ballot question in 1997, which was the last loan authorization that -- which was the last time we asked the voters to vote on a loan authorization.
Okay. And for my information only, do you recall what the circumstances were for that?
It was basically to fund the capital program for the City. Like I said earlier, approximately every 18 months or 2 years, the City issues bonds from its capital programs. And in 1997, when we came to Council to seek approval to have a loan authorization, it was for the Fiscal Year '98 and capital budget, and it was for the entire matter. It wasn't bifurcated or wasn't in a series, it was for the entire capital budget. 136 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535
That's what I'm trying to get a handle on. Thank you very much, ladies.
Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This will probably be it for me today. Earlier the timetable that was laid out was, the question goes forward, the $162 million, you go to the bond market in January and you expect, hopefully, to have dollars in hand in March. Can you talk to us a little bit about what happens at that point in the context of the requirements, as laid out by at least Bill 82 and the other bill that was passed back in the spring in terms of if we, unfortunately, find ourselves in a renovation of Veterans Stadium scenario, what is actually coming back to us at that point? And can you just kind of generally, with a little specifics, lay out what our role in this is and what the process is from that point in time in 137 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 terms of potential repairs and who does what?
My understanding is that in Bill 82, Council reserves unto itself the ability to approve by resolution the repair agreements that are worked out between the City and the two teams.
So at some point in time, again, if we unfortunately find ourselves in that situation, maybe sometime in the spring, a list would come over with the --
It would probably be substantially before that when we would be coming back to City Council, saying, you know, this is what we've negotiated, these are the repairs, you know, the City will be funding with the, you know, the bond proceeds and --
Let me take a step back. We would have to come back to you probably at the same time we are requesting -- we are floating the bonds because we need to get the list to size the bonds projects.
We have to make sure that the project are of a capital nature, get the 138 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 dollar amount. And it's from that that the transactions is sizes. So it wouldn't happen after the bond financing; it would happen coterminus with the bond financing.
In the November, December time period, you'd have a list of items, you would bring it here, end up in the same, I guess, hearing situation and go through the various items. At that point, some engineering person or someone would have to come in and explain what those are, go through the list. Maybe the list is what it is, maybe it can change one way or the other. That gets approved, then you go take care of your transaction.
And these are all items that, in essence, would need to be done, stadium or no stadium -- new stadium, no new stadium scenario, some set of repairs must be made and need to be made -- and I'm very clear about that -- to Veterans Stadium no matter what we do 139 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 for the Eagles and the Phillies in the new stadium scenario.
Because they will be playing in that facility for a three- to five-year period of time no matter what.
Again, I'd like to make certain that the record is very clear. I thought that Miss Wilkerson indicated earlier in her testimony that we would be getting a list of the repairs to be made --
-- in November. Now -- and as I said, I'm having trouble hearing. I thought you had asked the Councilman about the list, and I think, Joyce, I heard you say something about in December.
So each 140 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 time. I know we're having trouble with the mics. today, which will be corrected, but I think the record has to be very clear as to when Council can expect to receive the list for the necessary repairs.
When I generate the timetable, I'm talking about -- I'm referring back to Bill 82 that was adopted by City Council and signed off on. I believe it anticipates a November schedule that we will be negotiating with the teams on specific repairs that need to be made in the event that, you know, there are no 14 transactions for new stadiums. It turns on our ability to sit down with the teams and negotiate. I mean, there are a host of things that could -- you know, litigation could happen, there are a lot of things that could happen that we can't account for right now. But it's our intention to negotiate with the teams, come up with repairs and, you know, and follow what is provided for in Bill 82. And my reading of it is that it anticipates a November schedule.
And then I think that 141 9/20/00 WHOLE COMMITTTEE - BILL 000535 what --
Talk about the financing of the bonds. Once that's done in November, we have to go through a process of certifying that these are capital -- for purposes of issuing the bonds, and then we can size the transaction and float the debt. And that's why I come up with the December date.
Right, exactly, it doesn't. I was referring to -- answering Councilman Nutter's time schedule with respect to the financing of the bonds.
Very well, thank you. As I said, we are having some difficulty with the mics. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions or comments.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no 142 9/20/00 WHOLE COMM. - Public Meeting one, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. Just a moment, let's give the other members an opportunity to be present. Councilman Mariano, we're about ready to vote, if you don't mind. This will conclude the public hearing on Bill No. 000535. We will now go into our public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. The Committee of the Whole reports out Bill 000535 with a favorable recommendation and also requests a suspension of the rules so as to permit first consideration at our next session of Council.
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 000535 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. 143 9/20/00 WHOLE COMM. - Public Meeting All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, the motion is carried. And I thank you all for your patience and attention.
Madam President, I'd like to remind my colleagues that we have a meeting at 2:30 with the Managing Director on skateboarding. Please, all who are interested, please come, we'll be across the hall in the caucus room. 2:30, the caucus room on skateboarding. Thank you. (Adjourned at 12:55 p.m.) - - - 144 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, September 20, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO. 000535 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter