With all due respect, I mean from 2003... When was -- 2003 was the first year? 1999. From 1999 till now, we've spent $300 million of a surplus, $150 million in debt. I mean, we're kind of spending money before we realized it then, which has kind of put us in this position. The administration's now proposing to include approximately $55 million of gaming revenue in the plan. Can you explain how you arrived at that number? 158 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04
The state law that put gaming into place made special provisions for the City of Philadelphia, both for... out of general proceeds, and also some that was just dedicated especially for Philadelphia. And we have assumed conservative yield from that. We would be entitled, based on what the expected proceed level of gaming would be, that we would get $25 million a year starting in '07, but we are phasing that in at 12 and a half, 17 and a half, and then 25 in the fifth year.
Would it be fair to consider those funds speculative? I mean, is that a fair description of it?
Yes. So, we are not really trying to balance the budget on the basis of the gaming revenue, yes.
So speculative dollars, speculative gaming revenues of $55 million is okay to put in the five year plan, 159 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 but the $30 million of supply side revenues we talked about when we were trying to do the tax cuts, that was irresponsible.
I mean, it's the administration's position that we didn't put those in when we were simply talking about gaming. We waited until there was legislation. The legislation anticipates a time line for those facilities to be up and operating. Like Diane says, we've been conservative in estimating when we begin to realize that revenue. I think one of the problems with supply side is, you know, you don't know the companies that are going to come in. You don't know the kinds of jobs; and, you know, it's our sense that that type of revenue is too speculative.
Well, I mean, even if a lot of the $256 million is anchored in the real estate transfer tax, there's got to be some increases in the other taxes and 160 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 some of those taxes we cut or attempted to cut. We didn't think at the time that $30 million in supply side revenue was that outrageous. But $55 million in gaming revenues, when we haven't had even the Executive Director or legal counsel or any awards given to companies to do the gaming... We don't even know when they're going to be up and running. And $55 million seems to be obviously more speculative than 30. I just wanted to touch on what seems to be, you know, a reversal of position on speculating on revenues. I hope it's correct. That's all I have for now. Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Clarke.
Thank you. Good evening. Couple of quick questions. Where are we at in asset sales? Have we pretty much sold everything that we could possibly 161 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 sell or do we project having the ability to do some additional asset sales any measurable way?
We could do a lot more asset sales. The Public Property Commissioner is looking at what would be a responsible plan for asset sales beyond what we would have budgeted for in FY05. And there are interested parties coming forward to acquire properties all the time, and this just needs to be planned out carefully. And that is in the very early stages right now.
What are we bound to, in terms of requirements of sales of property? Are we bound to the appraised value or do we have flexibility, depending on the end use?
We are using an appraised value, like you would do for any sale. In some cases a buyer has come forward, such as the School District, in which case we get a couple of appraisals and use that as the basis, to make sure that we're getting, you 162 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 know, a market rate for that. In other cases we have an appraisal, and then take it to the market and market it; PIDC is marketing properties for us such as the Mercantile Library right over on Chestnut Street, which has been closed since I've been in the City. And people are walking through that property right now. And we'll see what the market will bring.
I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last part; feedback. People are doing what?
They are walking through that property right now, and we'll see what the market will bring.
So if there's... Give you an example. If there's a parcel of land that someone has expressed an interest in, there's the potential of that company, for profit, to develop the site to a job producing, revenue producing entity, increasing the number of jobs from the current location, and the problem associated 163 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 with the, quote unquote, appraised, slash, market value will prohibit them from developing that site, do we have the wherewithal to take that into account, the upside of creating those additional jobs, additional revenue, or... I mean, is there a form -- I guess I'm just trying to say, is there a set form on asset sales or is it based on, you know, case by case.
I think that if, you know, if we wanted to negotiate a transaction, you know, we first convey it to PAID and do the negotiated sale through PAID. If we're just disposing of it out of the City, you know, it's got to be a bit out. We can sell to the highest bidder. As a policy matter, the administration has taken the position that we want the appraised value. You know, we're trying -- One of the things that came out of the Tax Reform Commission, one of the things that certainly came out of the last cycle of budget hearings is, we ought to take a look at asset sales, you know. 164 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 And so, we're selling assets. We are expecting fair market value on a case by case basis. If there's a compelling reason, you know, we're not going to turn away an opportunity to create jobs, but as a general proposition we're not discounting the properties. We're selling for fair market value.
Okay. On in your testimony, a couple of issues. One is a reference to a gun bill, 2.1, understanding that it requires state authorization. What is that? What does that reference?
Right. And the administration has a number of initiatives that it was moving, that would require state legislation. We had good results on a number of them. We will be increasing or submitting legislation to City Council to increase the 165 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 short dumping fees. We'll be introducing legislation in City Council to increase the overall general fees.
Yeah, stepping it up in, I think, $500 increments. So there are going to be a number of bills that we bring to City Council in order to increase fees. We have legislation that we're working on in Harrisburg that would increase substantially the gun registration fees. That was not enacted by the legislature before it recessed, but we're still working on that.
I can get you an update or a copy of the legislation that we're working on.
All right. Well, can you, through the Chair, get... And 166 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 you said -- you indicated you're going to be submitting legislation. I didn't know, you know, if you were going to be submitting it in dribs and drabs. But you're currently lobbying efforts in the state to increase various fees. It would be helpful if we understood what those were.
I'll get you a copy of what it is, you know, that we've accomplished and what's still on the ledger for us in the coming session.
Okay. Last question, same page. Increase in NTI debt service to close out FY05 programming. What is that?
We had been funding, I think, the NTI program debt service at $18 million a year. We're looking to do $19 million in debt service for the next traunch that we put out. And so that would be a $1 million annual increase in the amount of debt service, towards the last --
Why are we doing 167 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 that?
We've been bringing to City Council annual budgets for NTI. We didn't issue all the bonds initially. We didn't issue the whole $275 million initially. We just draw down the money as we need it. And so, this is the last bond issue that will roll out in support of the NTI program that's presented to Council that was presented to Council -- It was presented to Council last June. The bonds we're getting ready to issue will fund those activities and activities in '05.
So, is there an increase in our ability to finance bonds, based on our delay? We had this done the entire two... whatever... 250, 290.
We didn't want to issue the debt before we had the ability to spend the proceeds. And that's why we did it in 168 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 two traunches.
Some of the bonds have a three-year spend-down requirement. And if you recall, the demolition part of the program had a slow start because we weren't sure, you know, what the roll-out was going to be on that. You know, we didn't go at it at the same time.
Are you suggesting that we weren't able to spend money?
No. We've caught up, and we're actually spending those dollars more aggressively than we had projected initially when the program was first brought to City Council. So, you know, we've recovered from what had been a slow start. But, you know, because there was -- you had to have the money, the tax exempt dollars, spent within a three-year window, and you didn't want to have the money out there, and you didn't want to be paying debt service on the, you know, dollars you weren't using, we staged it. 169 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04
And when you ask if we had done it then, would we have been able to raise more money than going to market now, I'll just track the interest rates...
The interest rates have gone up a little bit, but not substantially. So I don't think there would be a material difference. I could get you that number, though, if that would be helpful.
One last question, somewhat related to NTI. My understanding is that we are closely approaching the termination of bond proceeds to demolish buildings in the City of Philadelphia. And to a large degree I understand we're using basically the L & I's budget to pay the debt service. What are we going to 170 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 do after we run out of money?
We began programming demolition dollars again in FY06. I think we have $8 million in FY06 and years moving forward.
That's right, out of General Funds revenue, as opposed to bond proceeds. You know, we had initially anticipated that we would have more bond proceeds for demolition. You know, the collective decision was made to reprogram some of the money that initially had been targeted for demolition, and to move it into acquisition and some home improvement line items in the NTI program. And so, you know, while we... So probably earlier than we had anticipated initially, we're having to go back to the General Fund to support NTI, to support demolition. I think, you know, we've been 171 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 successful in moving through some of the backlog. You know, it's a lot like tree trimming. You know, we were able to work through a lot of the backlog, but we are back into the General Fund beginning in FY06.
Thank you, Madam President. Good evening. On the discussion of asset sales, I want to raise one of my new favorite topics, our lease with SEPTA. Has the administration began to seriously look at the fact that lease will expire next year?
We're looking at that. There are a whole host of SEPTA issues, you know, that are on the table, but we're looking at the lease that expires in December of '05.
But without going too heavily into it, everything is, in fact, 172 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 on the table as of December 2005. And there are both franchising rights and infrastructure that we will take ownership of. To go through the deal that was transacted back in '68, properties were acquired from Philadelphia Transportation Company. There was then a bond sale to pay for that. Those properties were assigned to either SEPTA and/or the City. We paid rent to each other, as we leased those properties from each other. The City leased SEPTA's properties. SEPTA leased the City's properties. At the end of the lease we actually owned the Broad Street Subway, half of the el, significant infrastructure that essentially could be bought from us, if SEPTA chose to or if someone else chose to. But that's probably not even the greatest benefit we can reap from it economically. The franchising rights are just a 173 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 tremendous opportunity, particularly if those franchising rights in part or as a whole are not given to a quasi-public entity.
I think this last several weeks has made the significance of SEPTA front and center for everybody. And, you know, we have to take a look at all the potential opportunities out there. The Mayor has raised a lot of concerns. You know, we pay a disproportionate share of the local share in support of SEPTA, that there is no one in control of SEPTA. The governments are so dispersed, that there's -- you know, in these times of crisis, there's nobody to really go to. Everybody can kind of punt and look the other way. But when you look at the potential ramifications for the local economy, regional economy --
I just want to underscore there's a multitude of opportunities there, that as of next year we actually do not have to look at SEPTA as the 174 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 entity. It was an entity that was created when PTC was going out of business 37 years ago. There in fact -- 36 years ago. There, in fact, was only one member of this Council who was actually here then. Councilman Cohen, I believe, was a freshman.
We get to blame this on Councilman Cohen. Councilman, they're blaming SEPTA on you now.
He actually voted for the lease agreement which was a very bad lease agreement, but he voted for the lease agreement. But what I'm saying is that it's something that was done so long ago, that -- and I think a lot of people don't understand how SEPTA is structured. In fact, we did own that infrastructure, that it's not just a matter of whether we renegotiate, it's not just a matter of whether we try to bring another system in, but even pieces of the system, pieces of the franchise rights, pieces of the 175 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 infrastructure that we can possibly sell, lease are tremendous opportunities, in terms of turning fiscal problems of the City around.
I look forward to following up with you on that because, you know, it is critical to the City and the region. One of the things that we always promote with the City is the transportation infrastructure we have. And we can probably make better use of the resources that we do have.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. Let me give you something more to blame on me. (Laughter.)
In the Daily News editorial which was highly critical of my 176 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 position on the matters before City Council, particularly with what they call ethics, they pointed out one point that I agree with. And that is that a clean city, a city can be more economical than a City that is not clean because it can be more efficient. Now, I'm going to direct this to you, Miss Reed, since you're a newcomer to City Council. Do you think that campaign contributions have something to do with the cost of City contracts? What do you think -- You were with the Pennsylvania League of Cities for a long time. What do you think would happen to the cost of government of Philadelphia if there were a rule adopted that there were to be no 19 campaign contributions at all? Let's say that. Do you think that would have impacted at all on the cost of doing business or do you believe it's a fiction of mine and perhaps of other people that businesses consider campaign contributions as 177 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 investments, and therefore in the contract offers they make to cities, they're making them with the hope of recovering at least the amount they give and probably in multiples of ten times or a hundred times more? Which policy do you think exists correctly? And I raise it for the simple reason it seemed to me that the quickest, fastest way to raise money for the City of Philadelphia -- and I regard saving a dollar as the same as increased revenue, because at the end of the day you have a dollar more than you would have had otherwise. But it would seem to me we could enormously decrease the cost of government by eliminating campaign contributions, even if the businesses only recovered one-fold, if they only recovered the actual investment. In the Mayoral race it was indicated that businesses may have contributed as much as seven or eight or nine million dollars in one year. And if they recovered four-fold or five-fold, that was an awful lot of money. But even if they only recovered a hundred 178 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 percent of it, that was seven or eight million. What do you think the impact would be on City finances, if the Mayor announced tomorrow that there would be no more contributions to the City, to any City officer?
Well, Councilman, you're right. I am new. And we have not -- I have not looked at that kind of an analysis since I've been here. We also did not look at that kind of an analysis the whole time I was at PEL. I think that's a very complex thing to take a look at. As someone who has come from a consulting firm, I would say that when you're doing a proposal, you do it on the basis of how much time you think it's going to take, even with the cost of your people is. And to me, there's no relationship. But you've asked a new person. So, this would have to be examined. And I really can't tell you anything more than that about 179 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 that concept.
Is there any other member of the panel appearing today that would have an answer? Because it seems to me that would be an easy solution, not to all of the City's problems, but it would certainly make the cost of government in Philadelphia much less costly. Joyce, do you or the acting Finance Director have an opinion?
Well, my opinion would echo what Miss Reed said. I think it would -- It's complex, and we would have to take a look at it. I wouldn't want to venture a guess one way or the other.
All right. Well, may I ask that you all think about that and maybe be ready the next time you appear before Council to answer that question? Because it seems to me to be unrealistic in the business world to expect businesses to put money in places and not seek to recover them. 180 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 I have difficulty in accepting that notion, where, for example, there was a businessman from Germantown that contributed $165,000 to the Mayoral campaign three weeks before the election, and immediately thereafter renewed his strong request for City benefits to be awarded him in the Rittenhouse Square, with respect to his efforts to create a ten-story theater complex. And to me, businessmen are investors. They invest in their business. But they've got to get their costs back, at least, and usually like to maximize their investment. So that oftentimes I think the return is much more than simply a return of the investment. I think it may increase dramatically. So I'd be very much appreciative of your answers, because until I get something very solid showing no relationship, it will be my opinion that the quickest fastest way to cut heavy expenses off of the City is to 181 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 announce that the climate of pay to play no 3 long exists. No sense paying because you're not going to be able to play, except by competitive bidding or something like that, and that you're going to play whether you've contributed or not, and you'll have the Mayor's strong statement against contributions. I'll appreciate your analyses and how that fits. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. In the narrative, the administration mentions lower receipts from other governments in FY04 amounted to $116 million, of which $90 million was in Act 148. One would then expect to see a significant reduction in FY06 in Act 148 as a result of the one-time bubble of the $90 182 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 million. Yet there is no drop-off in the original FY06 estimate, in this revised version. Can you explain why? And can you also elaborate as to why the FY05 amount is only being increased by 21.5 million for Act 148, and not the $90 million you mentioned in the narrative? There seems to be some money floating around in there somewhere from the '04 drop-off, to the '05 increase, to the '06 estimate that stays the same regardless of the additional money.
Every year the Department of Human Services interacts with the state on what services will be performed, and the level of funding is responsive to the services that are going to be provided. And the way the numbers flow from '04 to '05 has to do with accounting rules of when the proceeds... Or I shouldn't call them proceeds. The...
Reimbursements were received in relation to when our cut-off date 183 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 had to be for counting revenue from one year to the next. But really, it isn't a change in the funding level. It really has to do with the recognize of revenue.
But there was a change in the funding level. There was '04's funding level was lower. '05's is higher. '06's is the same. Wouldn't there be some reflection in each of the years, out years, from the '04, '09 plan, that would indicate that there has been that either reduction or increase? Why would '06 be the same? Wouldn't it reflect some action, either in lowering of receipts or an increase? I don't know what accounting rule would require you to put down the wrong number.
The bump-up that we recognized in '05 is really what didn't get counted in '04.
And then we are assuming 184 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 a flat level, until we know -- in the future years, until we know what the demand level is going to be, and that it will be adjusted each year if we know what the service level is going to be.
Right. We got the $90 million bubble. Got that little bubble. Why are we only reflecting $21.5 or $21.7 million of that in the '06 line? I mean, wouldn't you -- If you got the money, you don't get it back. If you had the money, you're going to reflect what the actual number is. Why the difference? Why the $68 million difference in not reflecting it? It's not reflected in '06. It's only reflected $21.5 or $21.7 million worth. You didn't bump it up to the number --
Well, it's -- To the '05 number is the 270 plus the carryover. And then it's -- You know, the number is really kind of constant. If you look at the 240, the 210 185 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 number, that's kind of -- 210 to 270 is kind of the real progression there, and the rest of it is just what year it got recognized in.
The Finance Director says we'll take a look at it, and we'll get back to you.
Okay. And hopefully PICA will, too. This is a pet peeve of mine, and I'm going to beat this dead horse again. We're looking at asset sales, we're looking at layoffs, we're looking at service reductions, we're looking at not plowing snow when it's below four inches, we're looking at firehouse cuts, we're looking at police layoffs possibly, we're looking at recreation and library hours shortened. And I know it's not a lot of money, but we have some assets that we don't necessarily need to sell, but we could lease. And we have what are known as City suites at the Lincoln Financial Center, at Citizens 186 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 Bank Park, at Wachovia Center, and at the Spectrum. Now I know it's nice when we have a lot of money and we're sitting on a $300 million surplus, to be able to have that luxury. But when we have the ability to take very highly sought after amenities, and be able to take those which we own or we at least have control over, without having to pay any debt service on -- so all the money that we make as a result of leasing out those facilities is profitable, profit on the food, profit on the rental, profit on the alcohol, and profit on the money it takes to rent the facility. It is estimated, I think conservatively, that considering the success of the Eagles, the success -- well, partial success of the Phillies, but the new ballpark that's attractive, the Wachovia Center which could be rented out for Sixers, special events, Flyers when they ever come back or if the NHL ever plays again, concerts. 187 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 There are an innumerable number of dates that those facilities could be used for, and conservatively estimated at about $2 million a year could be generated, and that $2 million is an increasing figure, considering the way in which ticket prices and the cost of sporting events increase. It just befuddles me to think that we're not even considering taking that kind of possible interest that companies might have. And you know what? The City could -- You know, the City could use that money right now. Maybe I can't afford to have a luxury suite myself as a company. I'd like to rent it out for my customers or for my employers, and to take those facilities for the all those very attractive Eagles games, playoffs; you know, NFC championship game possibly, and to rent those facilities out like any other of those companies, rent it out, and those four facilities, and to make $2 million a year or more, I don't understand what why we're not 188 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 looking at it, when we're looking at selling our assets, and when we are looking at laying off people. I could tell you how much $2 million or $3 million a year could save in firefighter layoff or police layoff or Public Property Department layoffs, while we're using those facilities to entertain and to be like, you know, big deals in a City that's broke. I don't understand it. I wish you would look at it again. I know what the answer is going to be, but I think it's unconscionable for City officials or for people who are raising funds for campaigns or for anyone to be able to take what's known as a City suite, which is the City's asset, use it for personal use, and not be able to turn it around to create revenue in a City that's sorely in need of revenue. So I will make the dead beaten horse request one more time, to please look at the possibility of doing that. I would very much appreciate it. 189 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04
I don't know whether... I know Councilman O'Neill's light was on earlier. I don't know whether he wants to be recognized. While he's concluding his conversation, I'd just like to ask a question. Self insurance on health medical benefits, $61 million over the life of the plan. Could you explain what this initiative is, and how you arrived at the figure of $61 million?
The initiative is that on the City sponsored or the City plan, the non-union, that the City would self insure their medical claims, as opposed to currently we use Blue Cross Blue Shield Insurance. That would save the $61 million.
How about with utilization, if utilization should rise? Wouldn't that be more costly.
It would -- If -- 190 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04
Aren't we paying more now? Because I thought the utilization was such that that's what caused our costs to rise.
The cost would rise. What you save is the insurance. You would have to manage the claims, without a doubt. You would have... What you save is the profit that the insurance company adds on to the top of the claim.
Now, I think that at a future date we have to talk about this because I don't know who would determine what you would be eligible for. Who determines that? Joyce, I think you've been looking into it, haven't you?
It would be the third party administrator. You would have -- We would always have somebody that... Because we're not -- we're not doctors. So, we would have someone, a third party administrator, that would handle that.
I think 191 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 this is something that we should really be discussing because I don't think -- I don't understand it fully. And I don't know that any of my colleagues do. And I think it's a very, very important issue.
The revised five-year plan, is there anything in it that requires transfer ordinance to be approved by City Council, from the approved plan to the revised plan?
Yes. We have, for one thing, increased revenue that we need to appropriate. So, just on the basis of the appropriations, yes.
Well, there are going to need to be authorizations for expenditures to expend... I mean, really the cost of the contract in arbitration.
Have those Ordinances been prepared? 192 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04
No. We were expecting that these would be rolled into the mid year transfer ordinance, as has always been in the past.
PICA doesn't require any approvals of those things before they pass the plan, since it presumes the passage of an ordinance?
Okay. All right. Thank you. So we won't get them for quite a while.
I'm being told by Mr. McPherson that he feels very strongly that this is a variance. Can we get some opinion from the Law Department if in fact it is?
We'll get an opinion from the Law Department stating the position on that issue. 193 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none -- Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see your light on. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ramos.
Thank you, Madam President. It's not on the revised plan, but on the Central Library expansion, Miss Wilkerson, did the administration consider other ways of getting the $30 million that is being requested through issuance of bonds, that you look at other places where you might have $30 million stashed?
The administration proposed previously a different financing model that was, you know, rejected. It was roundly rejected. But we did not look at, I believe, funding it out of PICA dollars. No, we didn't.
Would you look at 194 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 that now? I know, not to undermine the good director here, but is that something that you would realistically take a look at and possibly, you know, decide not to float this bond?
What might be helpful is if we get a clarification on the uses of those PICA dollars. They're not just capital dollars sitting out there. There are special constraints on them. We can get you something from bond counsel or the Law Department that explains the use of those dollars.
Did you want to also ask about the $24 million in the capital projects fund?
We'll get an explanation of those dollars and their availability for use. 195 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, this will conclude our public hearing. m. - - - BILL 041039 - An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, acquire by purchase, condemnation, or other means the properties located at 314 North 19th Street, 316 North 19th Street, 1932 and 1934 Callowhill Street, 1936-1942 Callowhill Street, 1937 Carlton Street, and 1939-1945 Carlton Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, under certain terms and conditions. BILL 041040 - An Ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 63 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Carlton Street from Twentieth Street eastwardly approximately 98'4" to a dead end and by placing on the City Plan a certain right of way for public utility purposes, all under certain terms and conditions. 2670 197 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 portion of such land and certain improvements to be renovated and constructed thereon, including renovations to the existing Central Library of the Free Library of Philadelphia, a library facility expanding the current Central Library and accessory and related amenities, improvements and infrastructure ("Central Library Project") and the payment of certain costs for such library facilities and further authorizing said officers to enter into a Lease-back/Lease Agreement (the "Library Leaseback") between PAID and the City providing for the sub-subleasing of said land as improved back from the City to PAID; covenanting to be bound by the terms of the aforementioned Library Ground Lease, Library Prime Lease and Library Leaseback; and requesting PAID to finance a portion of the costs of the acquisition of such land in connection with the Central Library Project, demolition, site preparation, improvements and infrastructure in connection therewith and any and all other costs incurred in connection with the Central Library Project, and the issuance of bonds by PAID to provide such financing, imposing a limitation on the aggregate amount of bonds which are to be issued by PAID to finance or refinance the project; covenanting to make appropriations in each of the City's fiscal years to provide for rental payments due under the Library Prime Lease; authorizing the Director of Finance and other officials of the City to take all actions necessary to accomplish the intent and purpose of this Ordinance and the Library Ground Lease, Library Prime Lease, Library Leaseback and a Library Lease and Development Agreement between the Free Library of Philadelphia Foundation Inc. and PAID containing the terms and conditions substantially as approved herein; and authorizing approval of all of the terms of the aforementioned Leases and other documents and amendments thereto by the Director of Finance and/or the City Solicitor. RESOLUTION 041046 - Resolution approving a Revised Five Year Financial Plan for the City of Philadelphia covering Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009. 198 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO 199 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill Number 041039.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I make a motion that Bill Number 041039 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL MEMBER: Second.
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill 20 Number 041039 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will indicate by saying 200 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Again the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke, regarding Bill Number 041040.
Thank you, Madam President. Move that Bill Number 041040 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and request for rule suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL MEMBER: Second.
it has been moved and properly seconded that the Bill Number 041040 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; also a recommendation that the rules of 201 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke, regarding Bill Number 041041.
Madam President, I believe there is an amendment to the Bill.
I'd like to make a motion on the amendment to Bill Number 041041 that has been previously circulated. 202 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 It's referenced as Exhibit D. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be approved. All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Those who are not in favor please indicate so. (No response.)
The amendment is approved. Again the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, prior to me making the motion, I just want to indicate for the record that there have been several concerns raised by some of the members about certain aspects of the financing of this particular program, and parking and other ancillary issues. So for that, I'm asking that this Bill be reported out of Committee. But it is 203 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04 our hope that some of those answers can be resolved prior to the final passage of the Bill.
And we could always hold it on the second reading and final passage, until such time as you're satisfied with the parking issue, and other Council members are satisfied regarding alternatives to the funding for the project.
With that in mind, Madam President, I'd like to make a motion that Bill Number 041041 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; request for suspension of the rules as to allow reading at the next session. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL MEMBER: Second. 204 041039-041040-041041-041046, Whole, 12/8/04
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill 4 Number 041041 as amended the be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it; the motion carries; and this concludes our public meeting. I thank you all very much. (Public meeting concluded at 7:50 p.m.) 205 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing and public meeting of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on December 8, 2004, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (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.)