By the parties -- RDA and New Eastwick Corporation. The last time I believe it was extended was is in 1995 or 1996, when the PNC headquarters property was developed.
That was done by the RDA without any approval from this Council?
'Cause we were there 45 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010191 in '95. I do remember the PNC deal and the PNC TIF, but I don't remember the discussion of any extension of additional development rights of parcels from 1961. I don't remember that being part of the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Scafidi, if my recollection is correct, there's another situation like this that involves SEPTA with the development of a railroad station, where the same situation exists and has to be dealt with?
There is a similar situation in the same vicinity. There's a piece of ground owned by the Redevelopment Authority on which SEPTA is operating a station and transportation center on that site.
And I understand the 46 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010191 question, but from a perspective of SEPTA, at least it's a public agency supported by the public. And, again, no offense to the private, not-for-profit, but that is a different situation I believe than --
But my point is, Mr. Chairman, that the similar constraints are occurring to SEPTA as are occurring to the Airport.
And my next question is directly to the Airport management. I recollect during the budget, we discussed the fact that the Airport wanted to purchase the Scott Paperer site.
And there were negotiations and a significant deposit -- was it a million dollars?
And $2 million was forfeited because the deal never got done. Did that $2 million deposit come out of the Aviation Fund?
So the airlines spent $2 million -- 47 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010191
Now, are we in a similar situation? Are we going to have to engage in a deposit for this particular transaction that could be forfeited? That's $2 million. Could you tell us where we are with that deal, with the $2 million forfeit?
Well, the International Plaza acquisition is still an active issue with the Airport. In fact, we met -- we cannot acquire the property in -- any property in Tinicum Township without the approval of the Tinicum Township commissioners. We have met with them as recently as last week regarding the possibility of still getting their approval. We have an understanding that we will, within the next month or so, get some final sense from them whether such approval is forthcoming. We believe there is a possibility that if we can achieve that approval, that the $2 million 48 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010191 deposit will still be deducted from the purchase price. We've had conversations with the property owner to that effect -- nothing formal, nothing in writing. But the property, because of its location and potential value for future development at the Airport, is still a very interesting target for us, and we're -- we're not going do let it die, but there isn't really a lot to report since the conversation you mentioned in the budget hearings, Councilman.
Could tell me this: Since we don't know the numbers of this deal, are we committed to any type of a situation where a deposit could be forfeited in this transaction?
We are not at this time, but I'd prefer if I could let Jim Tyrell, the Properties Deputy, clarify the answer.
Councilman, if we are going to pursue the acquisition through an amicable process by negotiated agreement, my guess is we would have to put a deposit, in which case we would forfeit if we did not consummate the transaction. Through a condemnation process, there would be no 25 deposit required. 49 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010191
Thank you very much. Relative to the line of discussion and conversation we've had relative to this bill, it is the Chair's determination that Bill 010191 will be held to the call of the Chair until additional information could be provided to enlighten this committee on what exactly is intended and what the terms of the deal will be or could be. And I apologize for the delay, but I can't in good conscience ask this committee to vote on something that's as open-ended as this.
Mr. Chairman, if I may just say, we have offended either you the or the committee by not bringing sufficient information, we apologize for that.
Oh, not offended, I'm enlightened as to this particular arrangement that the RDA has made since 1961 on parcels that are as valuable to the Airport as this is, that many have gone undeveloped, and I'd like to investigate it further before we proceed. Councilmember Rizzo. 50 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010191
And as a -- for the record, as a member of this committee, I want to be supportive of the chairman's decision to take that action. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment. I want one thing to be really made clear on behalf of the Korman Company. This is not a case of land lying fallow. The Korman Company has during all of these years developed probably a thousand acres or more there -- apartments and apartments, two shopping centers, hotel after hotel, which the City wanted us to build, and has invested enormous resources to do so.
No, I think it's a tremendous company. I just -- I have a responsibility when I swear an oath to uphold to do this job, that I have to have the information I need in order to vote and make a reasonable vote. I can't be expecting to either chair a committee or to ask members of this committee to vote on a process or a bill that is as open-ended as this. And I'd 51 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010191 like more information on this entire -- what's apparently a 40-year arrangement that has been made. And, look, I mean, I would love to have -- I mean, despite Korman's contribution to this community, I still would like to have -- I'm sure any company would like to have a deal where you have basically ownership rights to a property that you don't pay taxes on, that you don't necessarily have any deadline to develop, and that you can sell off at some point in time to make a profit. It's a pretty good arrangement, actually, and I'd just like to get more details on that arrangement.
Also, I'd like to make it clear that we did not -- the Korman Company is not here today to ask for permission to enter into an agreement. What we would like is some guidance as to whether this will proceed or whether we can go back to developing the property.
We're going to need more information before we can make a determination, and that shouldn't hamper your decision or your company's strategies in moving forward and doing whatever they can legally do on a property that they have this equitable-interest ownership in. It's 52 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010191 just that I can't at this point, without the information necessary, make a decision that's a reasonable and intelligent one. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, if I might just close by saying, we will do anything that we can to get you the information you've requested, and if you wish, immediately after the public hearing, we can share with you what we think is an estimated purchase price. And, again, without being a real estate attorney, I just wanted to add that the main issue for us right now is the fact that we do literally have altercations on a pretty regular basis over parking spaces in a lot, and it just being, you know, and an average guy and you see an empty, undeveloped piece of property right next to the lot, it seems like the appropriate place the try to expand the parking lots.
I have no problem with the concept of the project, I have no problem with Korman either developing it or negotiating it, the sale, or having it condemned. My problem is that this is also public land. I mean, this is -- 53 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010191 RDA is a public entity that owns the land. It's not only just the information for me on the financial part of it, it's the public's right to know what this publicly owned land is going to be soled or condemned for. And while I understand the concerns you have, I just at this point, because of the information that developed at this hearing today, I can't ask the committee members to vote on something as open-ended as this.
I'll be happy to talk to you but today we have schools and stadiums, and we can talk, but it's being held at this point.
Thank you very much. The next bill is Bill No. 010378, which is an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into a lease agreement with the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development for further sublease to Urban Cable Works of Philadelphia L.P., a Delaware limited 54 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010378 partnership, to lease a certain parcel of land located at 5201 Umbria Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, under certain terms and conditions. (Witness comes forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record an proceed with your testimony.
Thank you very much. Will the Sergeant-at-Arms please. . . (Amendments are distributed.)
The amendments are actually the exhibits that I believe did not come over with the actual ordinance.
Fine. So is there a 55 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010378 need to amend the bill?
Yes. There is a need to amend the bill for Exhibit A, which is the prime lease, and Exhibit B, which is the sublease with Urban Cable Works.
Thank you. Once again, good afternoon. My name is Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Public Property, and I'm here on behalf of Commissioner Andres Perez. It's a pleasure to be here before the committee to briefly review the substantive provisions of a sublease agreement by the City to Urban Cable Works of Philadelphia L.P., better known as "Urban Cable Works." Based upon negotiations pursuant to this sublease, it is my recommendation that City Council give its approval for this transaction. Bill No. 010378 was introduced May 24th of 2001. Representatives from the Department have engaged in negotiations with representatives from Urban Cable Works concerning leasing of City property as presented by the bill. Through the 56 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010378 lease negotiation process, we have sought terms for a lease that will enable Urban Cable Works to complete the upgrade of their cable network to better serve the needs of their subscribers and provide additional capability for the City's new 800-megahertz digital radio network. Specifically, these terms include compensation in the form of rent, with escalators, maintenance and repair obligations for the property, dedicated strands of fiber optic cable for exclusive City use for governmental purposes, and interconnection of points within the cable franchise area to implement provisions of an institutional network. In conclusion, the terms of which Urban Cable Works is committed or acceptable to the Department, I respectfully ask the committee that the rules of Council be waived to allow this bill to be reported out of committee and have its first reading at the next Council session. Specifically since you may not have had a chance to look at the two exhibits, the rent is in the amount of $11,400, which was the appraisal done for the parcel of land in question, and it is for an 57 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010378 initial term of five years with an extended term of two additional five-year terms.
Thank you very much. Is there any questions? Councilmember Rizzo.
This particular facility, I know that other organizations have had to go before Zoning to get various adjustments to the zoning. Could you describe whether there's any zoning-related issues associated with this?
Not that I'm, you know, that familiar with, except all of the provisions of the zoning ordinance, but I would think that they will need to go before Zoning to get a variance for this parcel for them to build this hub site. It is a parcel of land that sits outside of the northwest transfer site. It is mainly right now just grass and woods, so they would have to clear the site and probably get a variance to build a hub site on that location.
Don't you think that should occur first, that the zoning issue be addressed with the community before we start clearing a site? I know we've gone through this 58 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010378 before where sites have been cleared, zoning rejected, and then you have devastation to a wooded area.
To my understanding, the members of Urban Cable Works have met with the community neighbors before the bill was introduced and before they got support of Councilman Nutter to introduce the bill. The zoning -- they won't be able to clear the land without getting their permits. And later on today, we plan to, based upon our understanding today, is meet with members of Licenses and Inspections to help Urban Cable start the permitting process, which from the permit, they will be then sent over to Zoning before they do any work.
Nothing goes into the ground without a permit and certainly not without this bill 22 being approved.
Thank you very much. I've been authorized by the District Councilperson, Councilman Nutter, to state for the 59 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - BILL 010378 record that he has met numerous times with community organizations in the area and they are wholeheartedly in support of this project as he is.
Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. James? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
That will conclude the hearing of the Public Property and Public Works Committee. - - - 60 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now convene a public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski for a motion to approve the amendments to Bill No. 010378, as proposed by Deputy Commissioner James.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendments to Bill 010378 be approved.
It's moved and second. All in favor, aye? Opposed? There are none opposed. The amendment to Bill No. 010378 is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski for a motion on the amended Bill 010378 with a request for a rules suspension of.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 010378, as amended, be approved as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) 61 6/6/01 PUB. PROP. PUB. WORKS - PUBLIC MEETING
Moved and seconded. All in favor? Opposed? There are none opposed. Bill 010378, as amended, will be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made to allow for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. That will conclude the business of the Public Property and Public Works Committee meeting, and we shall, I assume, convene relative soon the Committee of the Whole. Thank you. (Adjourned 2:36 p.m.) 62 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, June 6, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS BILL NO.'S, 010191, 010378 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter