But I expect that that is made up by, in part, the home funds that are spent on administration, and also that a substantial piece of the general funding is spent on admin. as well.
Well, their home 3185 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 fund administration numbers percentage-wise are about the same as everyone else's.
They're on the high end, but you're right, they're relatively the same.
No one seems to spend more than about percent. So what do you 8 attribute the higher percentage of CDBG funds that 9 are also used for housing as compared to 10 Philadelphia?
My conclusion -- and this may be mistaken, but it's my conclusion, based on the information that we're reviewing, is that a substantial portion of the administration is funded through the General Fund commitment, which is slightly larger than the Community Development Block Grant.
Mm-hmm. Also, there seems to be some fairly decent disparities between what we spend percentage-wise on economic development and public facilities and improvements as compared to their use of those funds, which, I assume, if they're not spending it on that, it ends up on the housing side.
Is any of this information at least presently, and I know you said you were still reviewing, but do you get the feeling from looking at what other cities are doing that there is any particular need to rethink what we're doing in Philadelphia and how we expend out funds as compared to not only the practice but possibly the results from other cities?
Yes, I do. I think there's a need to rethink both the Community Development Block Grant funding and also to look more carefully than we have at the issue of support for moderate- and middle-income housing. The Economic Stimulus funding that was made available during the past five years for that purpose was relatively small and relatively restricted, and I think we could learn from New York and other cities about what has been done. I know Chicago has made several efforts to devote funding to middle-income housing, and I think this is a good time to study those efforts and determine whether any of them would work for Philadelphia.
When you say that 3187 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 people have dedicated money to middle-income housing, how do they do that? I mean, what do they do?
Well, the most direct way that I'm aware of is in cases such as the New York City case, where a substantial amount of the general funds were simply used to construct market-rate housing without income limitations or with more flexible income limitations than those which apply to the federal funds so that moderate- and middle-income people could purchase those homes that are being subsidized with the city funds.
Okay, interesting. Okay, I'm sure that we will continue some of this discussion between now and CDBG time. But thank you for compiling the information, it's been illuminating. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Kromer. 3188 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Mr. Kromer, I have received the document from your office from Kevin Brooks yesterday. It talked about the participation of residents versus nonresidents on various projects throughout the City. And frankly speaking, I was somewhat amazed at the percentage of nonresidents. A couple of them -- one of them was actually in my district. We had one that's 61 percent, others that are 59 percent, and others that are 57 percent of nonresidents. A couple years ago when the Mayor did the Section 3 new hires program administrative order, were the numbers comparable to this, or is this an improvement on those numbers?
The numbers have improved since the time when that executive order was issued, but they haven't improved across the board and they haven't improved enough. I don't know of anyone who is satisfied.
Are you saying that we've had -- prior to that executive order, we actually had higher numbers than 59 percent nonresidents? 3189 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
You're acknowledging that those numbers are not acceptable.
What else are we going to do as it relates to that? 'Cause this is, frankly speaking, amazing to me.
This is a big issue and it cuts across some other discussions that we've had in Council -- most recently, the discussion last year of the prevailing wage ordinance and the participation of the building trades. A key issue that we've got to grapple with is the need to get more neighborhood residents employed on these jobs so that we have a percentage of participation that we can be proud of. At the same time, we have to deal with the fact that because of the history of the greater Philadelphia economy over the last 10 to 20 years, most of the members of the building trades happen -- or a substantial portion of the membership of the building trades happen to be nonresidents of 3190 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Philadelphia neighborhoods. Clearly, some significant strides have been made by the building trades -- the carpenters, the union, and others -- in developing training programs apprenticeships for neighborhood residents, and that situation has improved, but I believe there's still a substantial disparity between the level of work that is out there that's being funded through the City of Philadelphia's programs and the availability of members of the building trades who happen to be neighborhood residents. So I think we've got to come to grips with that situation. It's a bigger issue than the issue of the community development program. There's a lot of respect for what the building trades have done for Philadelphia, so I think we've got to get to the table with the building trades as well as with the representatives of the neighborhood interests. And I think there are only a few alternatives available to us. One is to accept that the change will be gradual, there will be a few apprenticeship opportunities periodically, and 3191 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 we'll move neighborhood residents into those. We won't be happy with the numbers, but we'll think in terms of the long view and, you know, expect that the numbers will improve over a longer period of time. I don't think most people would be happy with that solution. I think another potential solution is to have some discussion about mixed project workforce teams and project labor agreements in which the developer, the builder, and the unions all agree that in order to advance the goal of neighborhood resident participation, we agree to a mix of labor force in which some trades will be union-represented and will have certain expectations about the level of neighborhood participation there, and others will not, and those that will not will be there because they will be builders and contractors that will be able to -- subcontractors, I'm sorry, that will be able to demonstrate a substantially higher level of resident participation. And that mix will give us numbers that we can be proud of.
So the reality is that the majority of the skilled trades people are 3192 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 nonresidents?
And I haven't reviewed the data but I think there's a combination of things. One is that a substantial number of the union members happen to be nonresidents, and the other is that there's a great demand on the building trades. It's a region-wide demand, and the result is that we don't have the level of neighborhood participation that we'd like to see.
So when the Mayor did the Section 3 executive order, he talked about new hires, am I correct, for a job?
The executive order related to three areas. One was employment, the second was contracting, and the third was purchasing of supplies and materials. And the executive order simply said that the Mayor expects that every developer that receives funding from the Community Development Block Grant program is expected to work together with City agencies' 3193 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 staff and with the community to try to achieve a goal of returning half -- at least half -- of the economic value of the venture to the community in terms of locally purchased-- local hiring, local subcontracting, and local purchasing. And "the community" means first looking to the immediate neighborhood to try to find opportunities to achieve that result. And then to the extent that that result can't be achieved in the immediate zip code where the development site is located, looking at the adjacent zip codes and then going further out, but with the bottom line being to look to the City and the City's neighborhoods before looking outside the City.
So it was local preference as it relates to the City, not necessarily a zip code.
But starting -- the highest priority being the location of the development site, yes.
When you do your RFPs -- it's the Redevelopment Authority that does the RFP process?
Is there any thought given to putting some local preference in the actual RFP? Meaning that if a developer or a contractor is told that there -- I'm assuming that you rank those by points?
And if a contractor does "A-B-C" as it relates to local preference in the county of Philadelphia, that they will receive additional points in that ranking system? Have you ever given any thought to that?
No. And what I've been told -- and, again, I haven't researched this exhaustively, I'm not a member of the Bar, but I've been told that some specific forms of local preferences wouldn't stand up to a challenge. Now, I'm not clear that that would mean that there's no way that in the context of an RFP, we couldn't give some recognition of that. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
What was your understanding of that whole issue? Is it more related to MBE/WBE, or is it related to local 3195 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 preference? 'Cause I had heard it was more relating to the racial aspect of --
I had heard both -- that it could be -- a local preference could be a problem as well. What I'd like to do is just consult with the Law Department and get back to you because I know the issue has been looked at, and if we haven't looked at the RFP dimension of this, we definitely should do that.
Just a couple more, then I'll move ahead, Council President. My understanding is that in a couple of municipalities -- one in Detroit and one in Savannah, Georgia -- there was a local preference ordinance passed. Have you all looked at that?
I haven't but I know that's been looked at by members of the Law Department, so let me consult with them and get back to you because I know Detroit's has been. Savannah I'm not sure.
But I will check on that and then respond to the Council President.
You know, it's 3196 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 clear that we have to do better and I'm a little amazed at these numbers, and we've obviously not doing a good enough job on it, and I think we need to look at some very creative ways. Can you get that information back to me in the same timeframe as you get Councilman Nutter's information so we can be prepared for the CDBG areas on that?
And I think more -- I think the real issue -- I'm not saying that we know all of the answers to this problem, but I think there has to be some dialogue involving the building trades and the question of project labor forces and mixed labor forces, or some other solution that gives us immediate results that are much better than what you see there.
Okay. So you think that -- I mean, I know there was discussions prior to prevailing wage relating to minority participation, women's and disadvantaged participation, but I've never heard any serious discussion about the local preference issue and 3197 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 any concerns raised by the building trades on the local preference issue, and that's why I'm wondering, have we given much thought to that as opposed to going the other way?
The issue of Philadelphia resident employment has come up and I think we should tackle them all, and this is a good time to do that.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say to my colleague, Councilman, I appreciate the questions and the line that you had taken. I think you and I are probably looking into the same direction and in the same area on this particular issue. I've also had discussions with the Law Department and they have laid out a series of issues and problems, 3198 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 although I think there might be some opportunities to work on a couple of things. The one issue I did want to mention, Mr. Kromer was talking about the executive order. I know the Councilman will remember that the executive order that was a part of your earlier discussion is now actually in the Philadelphia Code. Council codified the executive order last year and it is now a law here in the City. And it is at the same 50 percent rate. I would suggest maybe to my colleague one of the more immediate things do that we can do -- I still think we need to deal with the opportunities-for-local-residents issue, but we may now, because it's law, I want to look at the percentage that's in what used to be, I think, Executive Order 295, and see if we might initially want to raise the 50 percent rate to some higher rate while we're still dealing with the opportunity for local residents to participate in some of this work. I mean, I know, Mr. Kromer, you must know this, that it could really kind of burn a person up a little bit when they see all this activity going on in their neighborhood and folks 3199 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 arrive at the site by a vehicle often with a registration that is not Pennsylvania and then leave and go wherever they go. I mean, you know, people have a right to work, it's nice that you're working and all of that, but I didn't think that we had solved the unemployment problem in Philadelphia. And when you read the reports that the Councilman makes reference to, we had a big blowup about this last year. I think it involved Loews Hotel. Is Loews the same as PSFS?
Okay. And there was one other. And they showed, you know, rates of 55 percent of the people were Philadelphia residents. Naturally, the flip of that is, 45 percent were not, many of whom were from the four surrounding suburbs, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, New York State, and Florida. Now, I know that there's a lot of work out there, but it seems to me that until the folks on whose back the funds that we get are generated -- I mean, CDBG funds are generated to the City based on our population and specifically based on the low- and moderate-income population. We put 3200 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 our money into the projects, the people who the money came here for don't participate in the projects and the people who do participate in the projects are obviously not low- and moderate- income and, as matter of fact, are doing well enough to move out of town. I mean, that has got to be on the list of definitions of "crazy," where we have a system that money comes to us that's supposedly for poor people, generating jobs for who are not, and the end result of which is, they make enough money to leave town. I mean, it seems to me that we lose, at some level, all the way around. Now, I know we get wage tax and some various other benefits but, I mean, that cannot have been the intent --
So I will join in a discussion with my colleague about getting some resolution to this particular issue, 'cause it is not going in the right direction.
Thank you. 3201 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Councilman Clarke, do you have any further questions? Your light's still on.
I want to say for the record that Councilman Nutter, I understand, sponsored that bill to codify the Section 3 regs, and he is to be congratulated on that. Thank you.
Fine. Any further questions of Mr. Kromer? (No further questions.)
Council will be in recess for 15 minutes. (Council stands in recess.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
Will Councilmembers kindly report to the chamber. - - -
Will all 3202 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Councilmembers kindly report to the chamber. - - -
We heard from all of the witnesses before we recessed. Do any Councilmembers have any other questions or comments? (No response.)
There being none, this will conclude the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. The first bill to be considered will be Bill No. 000003. Ms. Suber, it's my understanding that you are going to be proposing an amendment? (Stephanie Franklin-Suber and Rob Dubow come forward.)
Actually, we have amendments for Bills 3 and 4, and I have testimony that goes along with it. I think it's been 3203 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 distributed to Council before, but there have been slight revisions, so we have new copies to hand out.
My name's Rob Dubow and I'm the Budget Director for the City of Philadelphia. With me today are Stephanie Franklin-Suber, the City's Chief of Staff, and Cathy Paster, Deputy Budget Director. I appear before you today to offer testimony on Bill No.'s 3 and 4, which propose to establish the City's FY '2001-2006 Capital Program and FY 2001 Capital Budget. These measures were introduced on February 3, 2000. Today we propose to amend these measures to add additional appropriations necessary to carry forward all unobligated funding from FY 2000 appropriations and to include additional appropriations from sources unanticipated at the time these bills were introduced. In this proposed amendment, all unobligated capital appropriations have been carried forward from Fiscal Year 2000, with very 3204 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 few exceptions. These few exceptions fall into mainly two categories: unspent PICA or GO appropriations, for which projects have been completed under budget; and federal, state, or private appropriations for which the anticipated grants have not materialized. In those few cases where general obligation funds have not been carried forward, the projects have been completed within budget, leaving a very small balance. There are a large number of projects in the Capital Budget that have been included at the direct request of City Council members. I can assure the members of Council that all remaining funding for these projects has been included in the carry-forward in the amendment proposed today. This recommendation does not include the lapsing of any unencumbered funding for projects of this nature, whether or not those projects have been completed. Other than the addition of the carry- forward appropriations, there are further proposed modifications to Bills 3 and 4, as introduced February 3rd. Those modifications have been recommend in the Fairmount Park and Recreation 3205 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 budget and program. An additional $75,000 State appropriation has been included in Fairmount Park, Line 47, for the restoration of the Livezey House. This is necessary to appropriate funding from a State grant that has been received from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. No 8 additional general obligation funds are required to match this grant because previously appropriated general obligation funds will satisfy the match requirement. Additionally, a $400,000 State appropriation has been recommended in Fairmount Park, Line 49. This appropriation will finance a grant received from the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for footway restoration and site improvements in the area around the Fairmount Waterworks, Art Museum, Schuylkill River Park, and Kelly Drive. In Line 101 of the Recreation Department, we are proposing a title change from "Veterans Stadium" to "Veterans Stadium Renovations," in accordance with Bill No. 82 of the Year 2000. That concludes my testimony and I'd be 3206 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 happy to answer any specific questions from Council. Thank you.
Mr. Dubow, I understand from this statement, the amendment, that if the deadlines in Bill 82 are not met, the Mayor will spend the capital funds appropriated for the Veterans Stadium repairs only after submitting a specific list of those repairs to Council and obtaining Council's approval for such repairs? Is that correct?
President Verna, for the record, my name is Stephanie Franklin-Suber. And on behalf of Mayor Street, the answer to your question is yes.
Thank you. Does anybody have any questions? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Unless Councilwoman Blackwell is asking a question, I assume that you recognize, therefore -- are we about to take a vote on the amendments to Bills 3 -- 3207 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
-- and 4? And does that include the tail-end of the testimony that Mr. Dubow just gave with regard to Line 101 of the Recreation Department?
Has there been any discussion about that particular item?
I think I just asked a question and it was responded to. Were you out of the room?
I think I was but I think I was distracted off to the side. If it was, then. . .
Miss Suber, apparently, there needs to be just some slight explanation as to what this amendment will do in accordance to Bill No. 82.
So that the 3208 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 record is very clear.
Yes, I'd be happy to respond. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that there is no confusion with regard to the Mayor's authorization under the Capital Budget authorization and Bill 82 by clarifying that in the event that Council approves the Capital Budget and Program, in the event that Council authorizes -- adopts the loan authorization and there are no 12 amendments to the Capital Budget by Council, that the Mayor will spend the capital funds appropriated for the Vets Stadium improvements, in accordance with Bill 82 -- which means that the Mayor, before expending the capital dollars, will submit the specific list of repairs by resolution 18 to City Council, as set forth in Bill 82.
And that means that it's only under those circumstances that the repairs or the expenditure is made? And are there any other funding sources that can be accessed which don't require this particular process to be followed?
Well, Bill 82 3209 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 provides that if -- and I believe we've covered this in a prior testimony, but if we have to implement the contingency plan, the Mayor has said in a written letter to Council President Verna, that we will explore other possible sources of funding to make the Vets Stadium repairs and use capital funds only as a last resort. In the event that we cannot find an alternative source of funding and we are going to use capital funds, then by virtue of Bill 82 and this amendment that has been proposed by the administration, it is clear that a list of repairs and the process set forth in Bill 82 is the process that we will follow before the repairs are made to Vets Stadium under the contingency plan.
So -- and by offering this -- by the Administration offering this particular amendment, you're saying that the Mayor and the Administration are, in essence, binding themselves to that particular process? Because, I thought in another discussion or in another forum, it was made somewhat clear that with Bill 82 by itself, Council was not able to impose that precondition or restriction; is that 3210 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 correct?
I'm not sure I understand your question, I'm sorry. Bill 82 sets forth the process.
And what the Mayor, or what the Administration, is trying to clarify with this amendment to the Capital Budget is, we will follow the process in Bill 82.
The Mayor made a commitment to City Council that if we implement this contingency plan before we make the repairs, we will submit the list of repairs to City Council for approval by resolution. And to the extent that there is any possibility based on the authorization under the Capital Budget loan authorization by City Council, that somehow the Administration could take the position that we don't have to follow Bill 82, we are closing that possibility by virtue of this amendment, because the Mayor made that commitment to City Council.
That's what the 3211 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 amendment is.
So the amendment is trying to respond to -- there had been a question or some confusion or lack of clarity between the Council and the Administration about what Bill 82 was doing. And, I mean, I think it's since apparently been determined that without this type of amendment, the Mayor would have been able, once the Capital Budget was passed and once the loan authorization question was passed, either from a theoretical standpoint or a technical standpoint, the Mayor would have been able, or the Administration. I don't think the Mayor's going to personally be out spending the money, but the Administration would be able to use capital dollars that were authorized by the budget and by the question, without having provided such a list or without Council's approval. That was the issue that was of concern, I guess, last week and that's the purpose for this particular amendment, to clear that up?
Yes. To clear up the relationship between Bill 82 -- and, again, as you pointed out, the authorization that the 3212 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Administration would have by virtue of the Capital Budget and the loan authorization. I mean, to the extent that City Council was concerned that under the Charter, the checks and balances, in terms of Council's ability to amend the Capital Budget and Council's ability to deny the loan authorization or modify or impose whatever conditions, were not of sufficient comfort, and there was a question about the relationship to Bill 82. The Administration, the Mayor, made a commitment to submit this list of repairs to Council by resolution, and we are offering this amendment to alleviate any concerns or any possibility that we would do otherwise.
Councilman Nutter, do you have any further questions?
Not on -- not on that particular issue, Madam Chair. I did need some -- I don't know whether this is the moment, but I know we're talking about our Capital Budget. There had been an issue some time ago, and I got somewhat of a second- or 3213 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 third-hand response with regard to the Robin Hood Dell East. There had been extensive discussion at Capital Budget time with Recreation and, I know, Mr. Dubow. And since the questions were asked on the record, I'd like to make sure the record is clear about the Administration's position with regard to requested or needed capital repairs at Robin Hood Dell East and the prospect of having some funding put in the out-years, not in the Capital Budget for '01, but in '02 to deal with what is apparently a great need at that facility.
At this point, there's the $550,000 carryover in 2001. As you know, we received a consultant's report that said there was a need for, I guess, approximately $4.5 million in repairs at the Dell. We are looking at that report. There are some questions about the actual extent of repairs that are needed. For example, the $550,000 would go toward that 4.5 million. There are some things that are recommended in the report that we think might be done more cheaply. When we're done reviewing that 3214 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 report, we'll have a better sense of what appropriate levels of funding might be.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. I am awaiting -- I was under the impression that the discussion between Councilman Nutter and the Chief of Staff dealt with some amendment. Was I wrong?
That's the entire amendment? 3215 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
No. We have -- Mr. Dubow has amendments, copies of the amendments. If it could be circulated please. (Copy of amendments not submitted to stenographer for inclusion notes of testimony.) In
Well, what is the wording of the amendment? Is the amendment contained here? Am I missing something?
Yes. That's the whole wording of the amendment. It changes title from "Veterans Stadium" to "Veterans Stadium Renovations," in accordance with Bill 82 of the year 2000.
Because I have a question about the discussion but I don't know whether it's going to deal with the amendment or not. I hear the discussion and I hear that the Mayor is going to -- he agrees to a process to send us a list of proposed improvements to Veterans Stadium that we can approve by resolution 25 -- and I'll listen intently and wait for the 3216 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 decisive words -- and that he will act accordance therewith with the action of Council, but I don't hear it. I wait for words that indicate that somehow, after he sends us this document, known as "a resolution," submitting the proposed improvements, that we're going to act on it, and somehow, our actions may influence his actions, and I don't get that either. So what does the Mayor agree to other than sending us -- say, he sends us this resolution and we disagreed with the resolution, what happens then?
Then those repairs wouldn't be made if because Council didn't approve the resolution.
The repairs would not be made if Council didn't approve the resolution.
The repairs would not be made. And that means, then, that if there are changes in the resolution, that the Mayor would abide by the changes? If there were some improvements that we approved and some that we thought were not justified, does your answer also 3217 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 apply to that? As a lawyer, it would seem to me that it does, but I want to make sure. I don't want to commit the Mayor to anything the Mayor's not prepared to be committed to, but I also want to know what I'm voting on.
Councilman, I would think -- if you could just take a second. If we are being asked to vote on something which would indicate that only the improvements that we -- Council and the Administration -- have agreed on will be the improvements done, if we made a change, I would think that it wouldn't be any different. The Administration would still have to agree, thereby a situation again occurring where both Council and the Administration agreed. I don't think it's a complicated decision, but I don't think it's going to be just we change and they eat it and we wouldn't want to eat it if we didn't like it. So you still need an agreement. I don't see how it changes if we send 3218 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 something back different than the way it came here. There still has to be an agreement, the same way it had to be agreed on when it came up here from downstairs.
Well, you know, is that the official answer of the Administration? Do you accept that? I don't know in what regard Councilman O'Neill was --
It's just logic. I mean I don't know how you're going to have -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Well, I'd like an answer. The Administration has witnesses here, Councilman O'Neill. I would just like them to answer 'cause they speak for the Administration.
What is the question, Councilman Cohen? Councilman Cohen, just state your question, please, so it can be answered.
In the event that 3219 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Council acts on a resolution by way of amending it and, say, for example -- it's only an example -- that it approves part and disapproves part. Does the Administration agree that it will be committed to the action taken by the Council? What Councilman O'Neill said is always, you know, a possibility of a follow-up statement, we always have to get ultimate agreement. But I want to know, what's the meaning of sending the resolution to us, Mr. Dubow? And I offer him my condolences, 'cause I think he's leaving a very exciting position where action occurs every day.
Councilman, isn't that something that City Council asked for, the approval for any repairs to be made?
Yeah. And I don't understand why there's any delay in saying, Yes, we agree to be found --
I'm asking the 3220 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 question, do they understand that to be an agreement? And I don't understand --
-- I think Councilman Cohen would like to have your understanding of that. He doesn't know why you're hesitating to answer, so please respond.
The only reason I was hesitating, Councilman Cohen, was because you were talking and I didn't want to talk over you. Now that you've, I think, phrased the question and none of the other members of Council have made statements, I'd be happy to answer your question. The sole purpose of the amendment was to implement the procedure that City Council put into effect in Bill 82. And as we testified, in connection with Bill 82, the teams, both the Phillies and the Eagles, will propose a list of repairs that we have agreed on -- the Administration, the Phillies, the Eagles. Because when we gave the preliminary list, Council 3221 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 requested more specificity. So the process we're going to have will be to get the -- all of the analyses and the A and E work, and so we will come in. And at Council's discretion, we would submit the resolution with the specific repairs that are being proposed and the budget and the nature of the repairs. And if Council needs additional information or wants to conduct a public hearing to ask any questions about what is being proposed and why, we would be available to respond to any of those issues or concerns. We -- Council has the right to approve the list by resolution. And I guess there is some question as to whether or not if you approve only part of the list and disapprove the other part of list, whether that constitutes an approval or a disapproval on the part of Council. But there certainly will be an opportunity to explain and talk about the nature of the repairs, which is what he thought would make City Council more comfortable with the expenditure of the capital funds. So the Administration would not proceed 3222 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 with repairs until they were approved by City Council.
Well, that's -- the last sentence is what I'm looking for. The rest -- you say that the City Administration will not proceed with the repairs unless Council has approved them.
Okay. I -- I -- I think I understand that, that Council has to approve the repairs before they undertaken.
And, therefore, I interpret -- now, this is just my interpretation -- that if Council does not approve certain repairs, they will not be done until such time as Council does approve them.
And I think that was the point that Councilman O'Neill was making.
What's that? 3223 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
I just wanted to make sure that we're all agreed that there had to be joint agreement on the repairs before they were made, and I take it that's what the Chief of Staff is saying.
Okay, all right, very good. That clears my mind as of now. I can only live in the hope that the same agreement will apply in the fall as it does in the spring, when the leaves begin to turn brown.
Thank you, Madam President. I want to go back a minute to Councilmember Nutter's line of questioning as to 3224 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 the genesis and reason for the amendment in the first place. And I think the Chief of Staff -- and I'm paraphrasing her -- indicated some confusion as to Council's level of comfort with the protections provided, or purported to be provided, by Bill 82, as amended. There was really, in my opinion, no 9 confusion and I think it was confirmed by a draft opinion from Kenneth Trujillo relative to our request which I made to Council President and Council President made to her staff, who drafted extremely competent and clear questions to ask the City Solicitor, and I want to read, for the record, the reason why the amendment exists in the first place. "As I read it," Mr. Trujillo writes, "Bill No. 82, as amended, does not purport to restrict the Mayor's ability to expend available capital dollars in any appropriate way he sees fit and is authorized by the Charter. Indeed, any attempt by Council to so restrict the Mayor's spending decisions would likely constitute an improper intrusion into an exclusive administrative prerogative. 3225 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 "Bill 82 does authorize the Mayor, subject to further Council approval, to enter into agreements with the tenants of Veterans Stadium, committing the City to make certain specified repairs and improvements, but nothing in Bill 82 requires, or could require, the Mayor to enter into such agreements, and nothing in Bill 82 prohibits, or could prohibit, the Mayor from expending available capital dollars to make additional repairs or improvements to Veterans Stadium beyond those authorized by Bill 82, or even beyond those committed to by the City in leases or any amendments thereto. "Thus, it is my conclusion that the passage of the Capital Budget and Capital Program will legally authorize the Mayor to expend $40 million for repairs and improvements to Veterans Stadium either under the terms of the existing leases with the Phillies or Eagles or under the City's own initiative, without regard to the terms of said leases, and that the terms of Bill 82, as amended, do not and cannot restrict this authority. "The Mayor, through the Public 3226 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Property Commission, is the authorized by the Home Rule Charter to make such repairs to City-owned facilities as he deems fit and appropriate, assuming available funds appropriated and authorized by Council. And nothing in Bill 82, as amended, purports to or could restrict his ability to so spend City capital dollars. "Council's role in the Mayor's discretionary use of City funds is in shaping and enacting the budget. If the budget authorizes the expenditure, Council's formal legal role in the process is at an end. And certainly nothing in Bill 82, as amended, suggests to the contrary." I cannot see a clearer, more uncomplicated, unconfusing position on the City Solicitor's part that, in fact, if we had not taken the measures to amend the Capital Budget to discuss and reference Bill 82, that the possibility exists, and would exist, for the Mayor to spend the money in any way he saw fit. And that's -- there's no confusion as far as City Solicitor's concern and there's no confusion as far as this Council's concerned that the actions that we're hoping to take on the Capital Budget 3227 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 will, in fact, keep that from happening.
Councilman Kenney, I don't disagree with the City Solicitor's interpretation of Bill 82. I think that, unfortunately, you did not paraphrase my comment correctly, because what I was referring to -- I agree with your analysis of Bill 82. What I said, or what I thought I said, and if I didn't say it clearly and there was a misunderstanding, I would like to say it clearly for the record. What I said was that to the extent that City Council was not comfortable with the checks and balances that exist in the Charter -- not Bill 15 82 -- with regard to City Council's ability, even with the authorization, even with the approval of the Capital Budget, the fact that under the Charter, City Council has the ability and the right to amend the budget subsequently, and also the fact that even with the approval of the budget, City Council has another check and balance in the process to approve the loan authorization. So the issue became looking at it in the entire context. And from a timing standpoint, based on the commitments that had been made by the 3228 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 Administration to City Council of an open process, the objective of trying to have a conceptual agreement with the teams by the end of June, the fact that we would anticipate submitting a full and complete legislative package to City Council at the beginning of September, the fact that at that point in time, we would have a clear sense as to whether or not the contingency plan would need to be implemented, because we would know whether or not we were proceeding in the discussions of new stadiums, and the fact that at that point, City Council would have the ability to amend the budget or to modify, restrict, preclude the loan authorization, from the Administration's perspective, we believed that City Council had other checks and balances in addition to Bill 82. But to the extent that -- what I was trying to say was that Council was not comfortable with the checks and balances and the power that it has under the Charter, we propose this amendment, because we do agree that there is a possibility, assuming, assuming, that City Council does not, based on the information it has, amend the budget and does not -- and authorizes, you know, adopts 3229 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 the loan authorization, there is that possibility. So to address that possibility, we have offered this amendment. We do not disagree with that analysis at all.
So, I mean, I'm sure you could understand that upon reading Mr. Trujillo's position on this particular legislation, that an additional level of comfort might be required or at least be suggested and --
So my point, I guess, getting back to Councilmember Nutter's line of questioning, is the amendment to Bill No. 3, referencing Bill 82, had has much to do with -- or had just about everything to do with the fact that Mr. Trujillo's position on the unimportance of Bill 82 potentially could have been in the event that we didn't reference Bill 82 in the Capital Budget. That's all -- you know, it's just to clear up the confusion that seemed to have been in the beginning of the testimony. 3230 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
As I said -- what I said earlier was that to the extent that Council was not comfortable with the checks and balances that exist in the Charter, we were prepared to offer up the amendment to deal with the possibility.
Well, I became more uncomfortable after I read Mr. Trujillo's opinion. So, I mean, based on the City Solicitor's position, or at least draft opinion on this thing, I think that we are doing the right thing by moving forward and amending Bill 3.
And we recognize that. And because the Mayor was committed, which was why we agreed to Bill 82 in the first place, and his intent always was to come back to City Council, we have no problem agreeing to and offering up the amendment so that there's no doubt that the Administration will submit the list to Council for its approval by resolution.
I just wanted to make sure that the record was clear. Thank you.
Thank you. 3231 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. Last night, a hypothetical constituent made a hypothetical telephone call to me. (Laughter.)
And said, "What happens if we spend that $80 million on the Vet that the Mayor talking about wanting to spend and you all agree with it? What happens then? Does that mean that we forget all about stadiums until the end of 2010?" And I said, "That's a good question, I don't know. Tomorrow, I'll ask the Chief of Staff."
The answer is yes. Because if we get to a point where we have made $80 million worth of repairs to Vets Stadium, that means that we have not gone forward with new 3232 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 stadium development, that we have made an investment in Vets Stadium, and that one or both of the teams are going to be playing at Vets Stadium until the end of their lease term, which is 2011.
So that means that we can put the stadium question to bed. One way or the other, by the end of this year, we either will have voted for a new stadium or we will have authorized sufficient repairs and made such a heavy investment in the stadium that we can for the next decade -- I'll be in Council still.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions.) 3233 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010
Hearing none, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the amendment proposed by the Administration for Bill No. 3 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 3, as amended, be approved, with a request for suspension of the rules so as to allow for first reading on City Council's next calender. (Duly seconded.)
It has been 3234 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 3 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Madam President, I move that the amendment proposed by the Administration for Bill No. 4 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment, as proposed by the Administration, be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is 3235 3/22/00 - WHOLE - BILLS 000003-000010 carried. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.