COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, March 9, 1999 1:15 p.m. - - - BILL 990037 - An ordinance amending Section 1 of the Ordinance approved June 25, 1998 (Bill No. 10 980452), entitled "An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, Director of Commerce, Director of Aviation, and other officials of the City of Philadelphia to acquire real estate and enter into certain leases and other agreements with the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, and other parties, necessary to permit development of two new airport terminals and other airport improvements," by further providing for the acquisition of certain interests in real estate by amicable negotiation, swap, or by condemnation; and authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, the Director of Commerce, the Director of Finance, and other City officers to do all things necessary to carry out the intent of this ordinance. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA A. CLARK COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 I N D E X Charles Isdell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Acting Director of Aviation Philadelphia International Airport William Martin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Chief Deputy City Solicitor Philadelphia International Airport Ken Sipos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Department of Public Property 3 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Rules Committee public hearing. I would ask the clerk to please read Bill No. 990037. Just read the title, please.
Okay. Bill No. 990037, an ordinance amending Section 1 of the Ordinance 10 approved June 25, 1998 (Bill No. 980452), entitled "An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, Director of Commerce, Director of Aviation, and other officials of the City of Philadelphia to acquire real estate and enter into certain leases and other agreements with the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, and other parties, necessary to permit development of two new airport terminals and other Airport improvements," by further providing for the acquisition of certain interests in real estate by amicable negotiation, swap, or by condemnation; and authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, the Director of Commerce, the Director of Finance, and other City officers to do all things necessary to carry out the intent of this 4 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 ordinance. (Charles Isdell et al. come forward. )
Sorry to have kept you waiting. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Charles Isdell, and I'm the Acting Director of Aviation for the City of Philadelphia. To my left is Ed Anastasi, the Deputy Director of Aviation for Business and Finance. To my right is William Martin, Chief Deputy City Solicitor for Regulatory Affairs. We're here today to testify in support of Bill No. 990037, which amends Section 1 of an ordinance that was approved by Council on June 25, 1998, which, you may recall, authorizes the City to acquire certain real estate and enter into certain other leases and agreements in order to permit the development of two new airport 5 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 terminals and other airport improvements at Philadelphia International Airport. The original ordinance anticipated the acquisition of certain real estate by amicable negotiation. This amending ordinance requests that Council provide the Commissioner of Public Property, the Director of Commerce, and the Director of Aviation with additional flexibility to acquire the same property by amicable negotiation, swap, or by condemnation, if necessary. It also anticipates acquisition of something less than a fee simple interest -- for example, an easement. The property in question is a 5.6-acre parcel located in Tinicum Township adjacent to the Airport. The parcel is owned by K/B Fund II, a Delaware limited partnership, and is necessary for the construction of the new terminal projects. In particular, this parcel will be used as an apron around the new terminal and for underground utility lines. Since the introduction of this ordinance, agreement has been reached with K/B Fund II for the acquisition of the parcel. The 6 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 agreement is, however, subject to land use approval by Tinicum Township. This ordinance is still needed in the event that K/B tries to withdraw from the transaction or if the City is delayed in receiving appropriate subdivision approval from Tinicum. The ordinance will also permit K/B to grant to the City an easement over the parcel which will facilitate the construction of the project on an interim basis, if necessary, until appropriate approvals from Tinicum can be attained. After Tinicum approvals are received, the City will complete the acquisition of title. The purchase price for the parcel is $10.5 million, which will be paid from the airport's passenger facility charges and will, therefore, have no impact on the City's General Fund. In order for the construction schedule to be maintained, it is requested the Council pass the ordinance immediately. And we're available to answer questions. Thank you very much.
Thank you. 7 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Clark.
Thank you. How will we bring the acquired piece of property within City boundaries, or is that a problem? You say it's presently located in Tinicum Township.
Do we need to annex it and make it a part of Philadelphia? How does that work?
An agreement was reached with Tinicum Township last year use --
-- which allows this acquisition to take place. In other words, they gave us approval to acquire this 5.6-acre parcel 8 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 as part of a settlement agreement last year.
I'm sorry, please identify yourself for the record.
The property would remain as part of Tinicum Township and part of Delaware County, but would be owned by the City of Philadelphia.
Okay. And they would not -- is there some kind of a long-term lease that prevents their interfering with our intended use of it? How do we preserve the use that we intend for property that's outside of Philadelphia?
Well, the agreement also included a commitment to make best efforts for Tinicum Township to approve the necessary zoning and land use so that we could, in fact, construct Terminal 1, the new international terminal, on 9 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 using this parcel as a part of that project.
Mr. Martin, you're certain that legally, nothing will come up that will interfere with the intended use after we have acquired it and improved it?
Councilwoman, I think that Tinicum Township and Delaware County have entered into an agreement with the City which would bind them. They have acknowledged and consented to the acquisition of this property, and they have acknowledged and consented to the development of the new international terminal, consistent with the City's development plans. And I think that our contact with Tinicum and with Delaware County has continued to be very amicable and cooperative all throughout this process. If there were to be a change, I think that the City would have clear rights under its contract.
The agreement with Tinicum anticipated the acquisition of this property and detailed total amounts of taxes that would be paid 10 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 by the City for all of its airport property in the township. So there is a total amount of taxes being paid which covers not only this but also other City-owned properties in the township.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question is going back to the previous ordinance back in June of '98. You're here today because that ordinance only allowed you to -- in the words of your testimony -- amicably negotiate?
Yes. The wording was "to acquire by purchase." It did not include condemnation, swap, or provision for such easements, as we've referenced in the current ordinance.
If you were to swap 11 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 a piece of property, would you have to come back to us for the acceptance of the then swapped property?
Or the giving up of, I guess, in that case -- I'm sorry, bad phraseology. Actually, for the giving up of the then swapped property? Because we would take in this property and we'd have to give them another property, right?
Wouldn't that hold up this transaction? 'Cause you don't have approval today. Or are you -- is there something in this ordinance today that allows you to swap any piece of property as long as it's of comparable value?
No. I think the swap provision is really, at least at this moment, not contemplated as a likely mechanism to acquire the property.
No, I understand that but you're asking for our permission to do that. I'm just trying to play that scenario out 12 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 and understand what would happen.
I think, Councilman, that if the Aviation Department wanted to take advantage of this language, they would be compelled to come back to Council and --
Identify a piece of property, say what you wanted. But you would not be able to conclude this particular transaction 'cause you don't have a piece of property at that point that you're legally authorized to swap out, right?
Not that I'm aware of. If they wanted to conclude the transaction through the swap component in the language.
Right, okay. And then by condemnation -- now, how would we as a city government condemn a piece of property that's in another jurisdiction?
The filing would be made in Delaware County but the enabling legislation --
Who would be condemning? What governmental unit would be proceeding to condemnation?
The City of Philadelphia 13 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 would be exercising its authority to condemn in connection with expansion of the airport and taking that action in the courts of Delaware County.
You're saying that the City of Philadelphia can -- because we have property adjacent to another county, that we can go into their courts and try to condemn a piece of property that's not in our political jurisdiction?
Yes, Councilman, if we have consent of the -- the language in the statute is "local authorities," which we do. It's 53, Section 14161.
Tinicum Township, I mean, have they passed a resolution saying that if you need to do this, we'll agree to this? Or, I mean --
Tinicum has agreed by a contract signed by their executive branch, 14 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 representatives of their executive branch, to exercise best efforts to provide us any necessary assistance in the acquisition of the property.
Including condemnation. Okay. Later on in Mr. Isdell's testimony, you say that the ordinance is still needed in the event that K/B tries to withdraw from the transaction. Are you -- I mean, what's the status of the negotiations? Are we at that -- are things that bad that they might just back out?
No. The negotiations continue to be amicable, but it does seem prudent to us to continue to pursue the passage of this ordinance so that we will be protected in the event that the SALE does not come to closure.
And so your theory is that if they back out, you'll then use the condemnation right or theory as laid out in the previous discussion. That completes that loop, that's why you want to do that.
And then, secondly, 15 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 you say that if the City is delayed in receiving appropriate subdivision approval -- and that sentence goes on. What do you consider "delayed," and is that more a function of the sales transaction? Or do you -- I mean, you've indicated that you get general cooperation from Tinicum Township, so. . .
I think in terms of the potential delay in the subdivision by Tinicum, it's really just a practical matter of -- they have a once-a-month meeting. We are hopeful that we will get the approval within the time frame that doesn't set back the start of construction.
But, again, just to be on the safe side, we felt like it would be a good idea to continue this ordinance.
Okay. Last question: What's the anticipated start date?
We want to begin construction -- originally, it was supposed to be April 1st; we're now looking at mid- to late-April as our start date.
Okay. Thank you. 16 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
How long have there been negotiations with this company that owns the land?
I believe the actual negotiations began late last year -- possibly November but I think definitely December. December.
I am just puzzled as to why now this legislation is being requested. Has there been something that was not foreseen or anticipated before, when the legislation was first introduced? 'Cause we have acquired land from Tinicum Township for the airport over many years, haven't we? It's not a new venture into Tinicum Township. Isn't a good portion of the airport in Tinicum Township?
So that we've had an ongoing relationship and, from what we seem to know about it, it's been a good relationship with Tinicum Township. 17 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037
That's also correct. Again, I think that our introduction or our request for the introduction of the ordinance, which originated in January, really grew out of the negotiation process and our sense that we were, in fact, negotiating a business transaction with an entity, which certainly, you know, has been a worthy competitor or adversary; and therefore, it was very important for us to come to the table with all of our prerogatives, and -- I'm sorry -- am I --
Mr. Isdell -- excuse me, Mr. Cohen. Madam Chair, I do have to leave. I'd like to be recorded as voting aye on this bill.
Yes, and I vote 18 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 for suspension as well as for the bill as it comes out.
I guess my next question is -- I'm just still, you know, I think there must be something that has not yet come out in the testimony. It seems unusual at this late stage to suddenly ask for what would otherwise seem to be a fairly routine, you know, request.
Well, I think in all candor, that in the process of negotiating for the purchase of this parcel, our feeling became stronger and stronger through the month of December and early in January that if we had it to do over again, we should have included the condemnation language in the original ordinance. And we certainly, you know, apologize for any inconvenience that that would cause to Council. But our ultimate decision was that the prudent course of action would be to attempt as quickly as possible to add that -- those provisions to the acquisition language we already had in place so that we would be completely armed and prepared for any eventuality. 19 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 And the real overriding concern we have is the absolute necessity to get onto this parcel before the end of April. The potential loss of -- the potential cost in terms of interest by not starting the project on time is significant enough that, again, we wanted to cover all of our flanks, so to speak. And that's really how we arrived here today.
And to the Chief Deputy City Solicitor, the basis of our having jurisdiction to condemn lies on the consent of the Tinicum Township government? Is that what gives us the jurisdiction?
Councilman, the language authorizes cities of the first class to take the condemnation specifically in connection with airport uses, and the quote is: "With the consent of the local authorities where such land is situated."
All right. One last question. 20 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 In response to Councilman Nutter's question, you said that if there was a swap, we'd have to come back to City Council. Now, I don't find -- it seems to me the language of this ordinance totally makes coming back to City Council unnecessary. And I would agree I think it ought to come back, but I see nothing in this language which prevents the City from moving right ahead because it directs the various departments of the City to proceed. And in Section 2 -- that's in Section 13 1. In Section 2, it authorizes all of them to execute all documents and do all things necessary to carry out the intent of the ordinance. I don't see anything which indicates, under any circumstances, that anything comes back to City Council. But if you could explain that Mr. Martin, I'd be appreciative. I would kind of feel that maybe there ought to be some language in here that indicates that it's coming back under whatever circumstances it would come back, but it seems to me this ordinance talks in opposite language. 21 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037
I understand your question, Councilman. I guess I have two points. Because of my familiarity with the transaction, I know that there's currently no expectation or discussions relating to a swap. So I understand your concern.
Was that the only circumstance under which the matter would come back for consideration before City Council, only if there were a swap?
Yes, I think so Councilman. The two scenarios that I think are -- the most likely scenario is that the acquisition proceeds under the pending agreement of sale under the authority granted back in the June ordinance. The two other potential scenarios are that the transaction is delayed in Tinicum but the airport wants to enter into an easement to facilitate the timely commencement of the development. I think that this ordinance would permit the entering into that easement without coming back to City Council. The other potential scenario is that unexpectedly, our dealings with the seller fall 22 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 apart altogether, and the City attempts to secure the property promptly by proceeding with condemnation under the terms that we've discussed generally here. Again, I don't believe, if that was the course of action taken, that it would come back to City Council. And I think what I understood Mr. Isdell to say was that his commitment here would be that if a swap arose -- but again, it's not currently at all being considered -- that he would anticipate coming back to Council.
You mean if some of the City-owned airport land were ever considered as a swap for this land that we need, that under those circumstances, it would come back to the Council?
But you don't foresee any possibility of that occurring from the present circumstances?
The swap would presumably be with Tinicum Township and not with 23 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 the owner of this property were that ever to occur?
I think the language would contemplate a swap with the owner.
But, again, that's what the language contemplates, but that's not contemplated by the transactions currently being discussed.
Is there any kind of an agreement of sale with the owner?
The subdivision approval by Tinicum Township, which we had previously mentioned, I think, is pretty much the only outstanding matter that remains to be completed at this time.
So the only matter is with the government, which has pledged its cooperation to us.
That's correct. And, 24 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 again, I think it really becomes more of an issue of timeliness than of our ultimate approval. And we wanted to be able, as we said, if necessary, to access the property and begin work, even if it's through an easement while they continue their appropriate deliberations and approvals.
Is that really the main reason to be able to get onto the property? And if you can't work out all the details of whatever remains yet to be negotiated, that you would at least want to get the right to go onto the land in the form of an easement?
Yes, because the utility relocations that precede a lot of the other construction work are, unfortunately, centered around that one little parcel of property. And that has to start right at the beginning of construction.
Are there any other questions? The Chair recognizes Councilman Ken.
Thank you, Madam 25 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 Chair. Isn't a swap highly unlikely under any circumstances? I mean, we would have acquired land at the airport because we need in the first place; we probably wouldn't be in a position to want to swap it anyway. And under normal circumstances, any land we need, we could either buy or condemn.
You're absolutely right. It's highly unlikely. And I guess it was put in there because it was one of these situations where since we had to come back and, in effect, technically amend the previous ordinance, the best legal advice we got was to include all possibilities this time so that we wouldn't have to theoretically come back again.
Does this also open up the possibility of a land swap with land being held by public property, not by the airport? For example, if this company, instead of a negotiated sale, had interest in a similar sized parcel in some other part of the City, does a swap potential exist in that scenario? And then you would, of course, have to come back to Council 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 with any public property action that had to be taken. But is there a possibility that that kind of swap could take place with land owned by the City in some other part of the City?
Again, I think it's highly unlikely. I think whether the language in this proposed ordinance makes that a legal possibility, is that your question?
Thank you, Mr. Isdell. I believe that there would be in this situation a commitment to come back to Council. And, you know, I'm trying to pick my words carefully 'cause I'm not trying to assert any general position of the Department regarding the significance of the phrase "swap" in an ordinance 20 of this type. But as to this transaction, Mr. Isdell's indicated that if he wants to take advantage of the phrase "swap," that he'll come back to Council.
Okay. But as far 27 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 as anything the Public Property Department might have available to swap, they would naturally have to come back here in order to dispose of that land, anyway.
Outside the realm of what the airport can do on its own or through this ordinance.
Are there any other questions? Mr. Isdell, could you tell me what, if any, adverse effects can the Philadelphia residents -- particularly those in Eastwick -- expect from the operation of this airport expansion once it's fully operational?
With the expansion specifically of the two new terminals, Terminal and terminal F, I don't really see them having a negative impact on the surrounding communities. I'm thinking specifically of the two most common complaints, which would be noise and traffic. 28 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 There will be a lot of reconfiguration of airport roadways associated with this terminal construction, and there will also be a reconstruction of the I-95 ramps approaching the airport from the south in a northerly direction. Those traffic patterns would not have any impact on the Eastwick community specifically, as far as I can determine. And in terms of noise, because these terminals will not have any impact on the use of our taxiways and runways, I don't see them having a negative impact on the community from a noise basis either. I do think we could probably tout some of benefits of both the construction in terms of employment and the general economic benefits to the community that these projects would entail, but I don't really see any negatives, frankly, at this time.
I know people in the Eastwick community have complained on numerous occasions about the noise level. And we live in South Philadelphia and I can almost tell you the time of the evening -- I know exactly at 29 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 o'clock that there's going to be a plane going by. And, I'll tell, you some nights, if it's foggy or what have you, I think the plane's going to come right into the bedroom.
Yes. Well, there is some 7 good news, which is that we have just initiated 8 our Part 150 Noise Study, which was also included 9 in the agreement that was put together with 10 Tinicum Township last year, but that noise study 11 encompasses all of the surrounding communities of the airport. It will look at the decibel levels in what they call "concentric contours" emanating from the runways outward. And it will also look at noise abatement procedures that the airport would propose after the initial analysis is done, which may or quite possibly could be funded by the federal government in order to reduce the impact of noise on the surrounding communities. But it is true that in foggy and rainy conditions, we frequently get more complaints than on clear days and nights because the low ceiling amplifies the noise at ground level. It also generally results in a turnaround of our normal flow. In other words, we're generally operating 30 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 in a flow that goes from east to west on our two main runways. In periods of rain and inclement weather, frequently the winds have turned in the opposite direction, and the air traffic controllers then turn the traffic in the opposite direction and it runs in a west-to-east flow. And that change triggers commonly a number of noise complaints from people who, about 70 to 75 percent of the time, are not affected by noise. This is the kind of thing that we will be analyzing in a more scientific way over the next 12 to 18 months and coming up with what we hope will be solutions that will help us in the future.
I live about three blocks from both Council President Anna Verna and Councilman Kenney -- we live three blocks away in 31 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 either direction. The flight patterns that I've been noticing in the last couple of years are the morning return flights, I guess, whenever the Red Eye is coming in from wherever they are, are different from the flight patterns that I observe at night. At night, it seems that the planes returning go out more towards the Delaware River and follow the river up. And I'm able to see this 'cause I have a roof deck.
So I literally can sit up there and observe these. And it's a pretty sight, but in the morning at 6, it's kind of disturbing when they kind of cut across that. They come from maybe Center City and kind of cut across on a southeasterly pattern, which literally cuts across the neighborhoods that we live in. And I'm not one to really complain, but I'm sure you must be getting some complaints. If you haven't, I'd be surprised. My house -- the light fixtures -- I have recessed lighting. It actually vibrates; they're that close. I don't know what the ceiling is, a thousand feet or 32 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 whatever.
Is there a reason? And it doesn't matter whether it's clear weather or foggy, rainy weather, the pattern seems to be more in the a.m. more than in the p.m. -- with me anyway -- to come across the residential community more so, as opposed to going out, down the river and up.
I just want to add on if I may. This is something I've raised at least a half a dozen times. It's an issue of time, as far as I understand. My understanding, from the flight path required by the FAA, they're supposed to go down the river, both down the Delaware bank and right over the Schuykill for safety issues. I mean, if they ever, God forbid, have to ditch, they're going to ditch in water as opposed to ditching over Frank's house.
But the issue, as I understand from my investigation with the FAA, is that the tower gives them permission to do that cut across -- basically across South Philadelphia 33 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 in an effort to save to minutes in flight time. And it is both concerning from a safety point of view, from a noise point of view, and from an environmental point of view with the emission that actually, I assume, pops down on top of the houses as opposed to down on the river. And I've seen ongoing flight patterns while driving over the bridge -- you see those that do it the right way, come right down the Delaware, bank right, come down the Schuykill, and in for landing. I just think it's an issue, Frank, of time that they save the 5, 7, 10 minutes so they cut across the City as opposed to going down the regular flight path.
I think that's possible. I honestly have not heard this specific complaint before. We actually have computer equipment at the airport already that enables us to track flight patterns throughout the day. I would like to take a look at that. This is specifically -- it seems to happens a lot in the early-morning hours? 34 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037
I find it more in the evening too. But he's a single guy and he's probably out at night. And also the height at which they come in. In the evening hours in the summer, for example -- I guess in the winter, you notice it less 'cause your windows and doors are closed. But in the summer, I mean I remember -- I mean, I lived on the 300 block of Cantrell Street; I sometimes thought I could see the movie that was on in the plane itself as it came over in eastern end of South Philly. I mean, it's annoying when you hear it and see it, and you wonder why they're cutting across as opposed to going on what I understood to be the approved flight path to enter from the northeast section of the City.
Right. It's also true -- although this usually is only an isolated incident. If you're hearing this repeatedly, it's probably not the case. But there are times when the pilots don't do what they're supposed to do, 35 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 and that's something that we do find with what we call our "Tracor tracking system." But, you know, if you're agreeable, what I'd like to do is take a look at some patterns over a period of a week or two and report back to you what our findings are. I don't know that we can make the noise problem go away permanently or, you know, reduce it to everyone's satisfaction, but we can certainly identify areas where pilots or airlines are not following proper procedures. We can identify the altitudes that the planes are flying when they're passing over. And if you could, it would probably help me if you had like an intersection that's near all three of your homes that I could use as a point of analysis.
Or even further north, like at Broad and Washington Avenue. It's kind of between Broad Street and the river, kind of, most of it when they cut in?
Broad Street and 36 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 the Delaware River, in that general vicinity.
I'm sure that my colleagues from South Philadelphia get the same amount of complaints from the area residents as I do about the noise level. And I'm not exaggerating when I tell you that I do not need a clock in the bedroom.
I can usually tell what time it is by the airplanes flying over. And I know that every night, at 11 o'clock, there's one; I think at quarter after 11, there's another. I mean, you could actually time them. So if you could check into that, Mr. Isdell, and get back to us, I'd appreciate it.
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions at this time.)
Does the Department of Public Property want to testify? 37 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL 990037 (Ken Sipos comes forward.)
Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee, my name is Ken Sipos, from the Department of Public Property. And Public Property supports this legislation.
Thank you very much. Mr. Isdell, do you want to make a formal request for the suspension of the rules?
Yes. The Division requests a suspension of the rules so that the first and second --
First reading will be at our next Council session.
Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions or comments at this time.)
If not, this concludes the public hearing. - - - 38 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990037 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and A further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council.
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990037 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 session of Council. All those in favor will signify by saying aye? Those opposed? The ayes have it, the motion is carried. This concludes the public meeting of the Rules Committee. Thank you very much. (Adjourned at 1:51 p.m.) 39 3/9/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING 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 Tuesday, March 9, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO. 990037 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter