Committee Hearing, May 29, 2003

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, May 29, 2003 1:45 p.m. - - - BILLS 030200, 030216, 030245, 030246, 030253, 030292, 030332, 030353, 030370, 030379, 030392. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER - - - V A R A L L O, INCORPORATED LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X BILL 030246 PAGE VINCENT CARNUCCIO ............................ BILL 030292 ANITA ROBINSON HUNT .......................... BILL 030245 JIM TIANO, Police Department.................. EDWARD CHIODETTI, Police Department .......... FRANK THOMPSON, Philadelphia Vietnam Veterans Memorial ....................... 28 LARRY ZIPF, BOMA ............................. 29 WILLIAM CRITICOS, One & Two Commerce Square... 37 DON HAAS, Bell Atlantic Tower ................ 38 RICHARD EVANS, Penn Center ................ 43 KATHLEEN WILKINS ............................. 46 10 EILEEN O'BRIEN, Department of Finance ........ 51 JOSHUA NIMS .................................. 53 11 BRIAN WINTERS ................................ 68 STEVEN BRODY, of Title 10 Skate Park ......... 77 BILL 030370 ANDRES PEREZ, Commissioner, Public Property .. 78 ALBA MARTINEZ, Commissioner, Department of Human Services .......................... 79 RICHARD TUSTIN, Capital Program Office ....... 84 BILL NO. 030216 CHARLES ISDELL, Director of Aviation ......... 87 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority....... 93 STEVEN ENGELMYER, ESQ. ....................... 98 MARTIN GREGORSKI, City Planning Commission .. 103 BILL 030332 THOMAS DALFO, PAID and PIDC ................. 105 RICHARD DEMARCO, ESQ. ....................... 107 ANDRES PEREZ, Commissioner, Public Property.. 108 BILL 030379 ANDRES PEREZ, Commissioner, Public Property.. 109 CAROLYN WALLACE, Pa. Environmental Council... 110 MARTIN GREGORSKI, City Planning Commission .. 114 BILL 030200 ANDRES PEREZ, Commissioner, Public Property.. 116 HENRY SCHWARTZ, Law Department .............. 117 DAN SHAW, Law Department .................... 119 BILL 030353 ANDRES PEREZ, Commissioner, Public Property.. 120 3 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030246

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Council Committee on Public Property and Public Works is now in session. We will hear a number of Bills today. The first Bill is Bill No. 030246, which is an Ordinance naming and designating the Southwark Branch of the Free Library of Philadelphia located at 932 South Seventh Street as the Charles Santore Branch of the Free Library of Philadelphia. Mr. Carnuccio, please. Please come forward. Is there anyone here from the Administration to testify on this Bill? (No response.)

Please identify yourself for the record.

Vincent Carnuccio. First, I'd like to thank Councilmembers for introducing this Bill. I had a petition to rename Southwark Branch of Philadelphia, Seventh and Carpenter as the Charles Santore Public Library by the City has public recognition for over 70 years of civic, labor and political service to the community by Mr. Santore. 4 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030246 I have 2,202 signatures signed on this. I have letters today from Susan Haney, Second Ward Republican Ward Leader; Burhman Smith, former President of Local 696 AFSCME; and John Gallagher, vice president of Ring One Veterans Boxing Association. To save the Council's time, I have these letters here which I would like to hand out to each one.

Will the Sergeant-at-Arms please take the letters. We'll make sure they're distributed to everyone .

The three letters will be read in part.

Actually, it would be easier if we just submitted the letters for the stenographer. If you want to read part of one, that will be fine.

They're short and sweet.

We're all supportive of this, so you don't have to convince anybody.

I sealed them things up, and in there I had something from Ring One Magazine. That wouldn't be on the agenda today. 5 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030292 Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, we'll now move to Bill No. 030292, an Ordinance naming and designating the gymnasium of the Lonnie Young Recreation Center at 1100 east Chelten Avenue as the David P. Richardson, Jr., Memorial Gymnasium. Is there anyone to testify on this Bill? Please come forward. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is Anita Robinson Hunt. I am a community organizer in the 12th Ward, 1 through 6 Division; committee person of the 12th, 12-2; and also Director of the Northwest Community Development Corporation sitting on the Board of Lonnie Young Recreation Center Advisory Board; and also a member of the Citywide Police Advisory Board. The community and friends of the late honorable David P. Richardson, Jr., have chosen to keep the legacy of our late, dedicated civic servant 6 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030292 alive by naming the newly-built gym at the Lonnie Young Recreation Center in his honor. The David P. Richardson, Jr., was a life-long resident of the Germantown community. He was elected in 1973 to the House of Representatives of the 201st Legislative District. He was reelected to consecutive terms. He was a community 9 activist, served four years as the President of the 10 National Black Caucus of State Legislators, a member 11 of the Lonnie Young Recreation Advisory Board until his demise. He also served on numerous boards served as the chairman of the house and Welfare Committee which has jurisdiction over programs affecting women, children, the elderly, handicapped, disabled, and homeless Pennsylvanians. It would take me several hours naming all of his accomplishments. In 1978, he was instrumental in having the East Germantown Senior Building built as an annex to the Lonnie Young Recreation Center. He also had a community picnic for 22 years for the Germantown community. The day of his 23 passing, he was at Lonnie Young Recreation Center 24 with his committee preparing for the 25th annual picnic. 7 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030292 He also fought diligently to get the funds for a new Lonnie Young Recreation Center to be built. Finally had the funding in place for the construction to start but died before he could see his dream come alive. Thanks to the Honorable Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller and predecessor State Representative John Meyers, David's dream finally came true. Mr. Richardson died while serving as a State Legislative Representative on August 18, 1995, and was honored by people all over the world. By dedicating this gym in the name of the late Honorable David P. Richardson, Jr., we will be honoring the life work and importance of community development and supporting the needs of our youth that this great pioneer died fighting for. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Dave was a great man. Councilwoman Blackwell.

Thank you. As many of you know, Lucien served with Dave Richardson and I worked with the Governor in Harrisburg during 8 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 that time so in effect worked with Dave as well. And so we are absolutely honored to honor him. And it is certainly long overdue. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 030245, an Ordinance amending Title 10 of the Philadelphia Code relating to regulation of individual conduct and activity by amending Section 10-610 entitled "Skateboarding on Public Property" and section 10-1608 entitled "Hearings," to prohibited additional conduct, revise enforcement procedures, and make certain technical amendments, all under certain terms and conditions. The Chair recognizes Chief Inspector Tiano and Captain Chiodetti. The Chair recognizes, prior to that, Councilman Nutter for remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. Mr. Chairman, this matter primarily comes to us as a result of a number of meetings and requests from property owners, large 9 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 building owners almost all of whom are members of the organization called BOMA, Building Owners and Managers Association. Their concerns are the damage to their private property which is fully accessible to the public. And the primary purpose of this Bill 7 is to deal with that particular issue, where the open space that the public travels through but is technically owned by private property owners, their concern is is that it continues to be somewhat unprotected, not only from damage from skateboards, but also roller blades and bicycles. As I've stated previously on this particular matter, I am certainly not against any of the appropriate uses of these items, but the concern for property damage, especially for private property owners, does compel me to put this measure forward, listen to the testimony, and see if we can further protect these large property owners who are significant taxpayers in our City from this kind of damage to their private property. So I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. Councilmember Blackwell. 10 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245

Thank you very much. Certainly, I did not recognize our Captain, not in uniform, forgive me. Bit it's good to see both of you. I absolutely believe that it is the responsibility of legislators to try to come up with positive legislation. I don't generally support the tone of negative legislation. I don't believe that we should stop -- and I'm sure my colleague agrees. I don't believe that we should prohibit people using roller blades or bicycles. I didn't support some of the stuff that we've done in the past dealing with quality-of-life issues. And I don't support not being able to use roller blades or bicycles as well as folks not being able to skateboard. I believe that the City is working with those skateboarders to try to find a site and that the City, the Administration, has for sometime. But it's just that the whole issue -- you know, in America there's a place for everybody. We may have to try to find out where that should be, and I think that's the issue. The rub is where we can find a place to -- we want to respect homeowners and business owners, and we want to respect the rights of young people who certainly also want to 11 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 ride their bikes or roller blade or skateboard. So I think that's the rub. That comes down to the issue, where it works, not the activity it itself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. Could you identify yourself for the record and proceed? CHIEF INSPECTOR TIANO: Chief Inspector Jim Tiano from the Community Affairs Bureau. I had been the Commanding Officer of Central Police Division, and before that the Commanding Officer of 9th District for about 13 years in Central Division. Sp I was asked here to basically by the BOMA Organization and the City Police Department to add my expertise. I think you'll see the gallery is full of building owners and managers from throughout the high-rise buildings in Center City. The problem is a lot of damage is caused in the private sector as well as we know it was caused in John F. Kennedy Plaza, AKA, Love Park. Thousands and thousands of dollars. Another factor that we don't touch on and I had the opportunity to talk to many seniors 12 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 that would call, the seniors that walk through there are paying their water bills and different utilities when they're accosted by someone in mid-air on a skateboard. It's a frightening, frightening experience for seniors. We have been very fortunate we didn't have many seniors with broken hips and things like that with the youth jumping up and down off the different plateaus. When met recently with the BOMA Organization, that's again the Building Owners Manager's Association, and they had much concern about the damages to several buildings. I know there's people in this Chambers who would like to testify about the damages and what's occurred at their buildings. So I won't touch on that. I think that's up to them to come up and testify about the thousands of dollars worth of damage being done by skateboarders. When we do enforce skateboarders, we were doing it mostly in John F. Kennedy Plaza, and that was done by the Concourse Unit under captain Edward Giodetti's command and we would issue the code violation notice. And under the new ordinance 25 that was passed a couple years ago, we were able to 13 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 take the skateboarders and put them on a property receipt. The problem with that is we displace the skateboarders then to the private sector where they would go to Bell Atlantic Building and many of the buildings on Market Street. So we're here today -- when I say "we're here," I'm here with the building owners and the managers and people that are concerned about skateboarding in Center City, looking for some relief from Council.

Any questions for Chief Inspector Tiano? Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief inspector Tiano, your testimony is that the Department has had some success in deterring the illegal and sometimes destructive activity, it appears that has also required virtual around-the-clock protection of some sites. Is it also your understanding that -- and you've alluded to it on a couple of occasion -- there have been a number of problems for private property owners who have large or open public plazas, they're not public 14 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 property but they're accessible by public. CHIEF INSPECTOR TIANO: We have many members in this gallery that would love to testify about their respective buildings and the damages incurred; some in thousands and thousands of dollars. When I did mention earlier, Councilman, about the enforcement, the problem with the enforcement is we can't put one or two police officers there to address this problem. When we do it, we need four to six officers. And many times we have to expand our quality-of-life funds that we get from the federal government. And it's kind of a shame to use that kind of money for that. But we cannot enforce it with one police officer because they run right out the park at the high rate of speed on them skateboards. So I would say roughly -- and you can correct me, Captain -- over a thousand code violation notices. CAPTAIN CHIODETTI: Yes.

Captain, could you please identify yourself for the record? CAPTAIN CHIODETTI: Yes, Captain Edward Chiodetti, Commanding Officer, Center City District, 15 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 formerly of the Concourse Unit. And the Chief is correct, we've issued thousands of code violation notices for skateboarding in Love park and Dilworth Plaza exclusively.

What happens to them once they're issued? What's the process? CAPTAIN CHIODETTI: Originally when we first started this, because of complaints from members of city government and private citizens, the officer would take the information, write it down on what we call an incident report, and turn it into our officer who is trained in the issuance of code violation notices. That's probably the equivalent of a parking ticket. At that point, the person that received the violation was required to pay a fine of $25. Apparently, that had little impact or success because the skateboarding continued. As the Chief alluded to, in order to try to prevent this from continuing, we had to actually put together strategies to try to catch the skateboarders in numbers, particularly on weekends when they would come from all parts of the State, I would say, certainly Bucks County, Montgomery County, and surrounding areas of the City to skateboard in Love 16 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 Park for the most part, JFK Plaza Love Park. We had to actually put together these strategies in order to catch them to issue the violations. Again, the penalty was to issue this summons. And whether they paid for it or not, that was really up to them, I guess. We put in some stricter enforcement, the Bill that was introduced two years ago where it gave us the ability to confiscate the skateboards. Again, the rules were applied that if we witness them skateboarding, the police officer on the site could issue the summons and confiscate the skateboard. That was put into play. It required, instead of having one officer trained in the issuance of skateboards, I had to train the whole unit to enable them to have the ability to issue these citations.

Excuse me. This is Councilman Nutter's line of questioning. If you could flush it out a little bit. Did the officers take the boards or no? CAPTAIN CHIODETTI: Yes.

What was the -- CAPTAIN CHIODETTI: We had the ability 17 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 to confiscate the boards. However, they could pay a $25 fine and the board had to be returned. It wasn't permanent. And in some cases, we didn't even finish the paperwork, and they would show up at our headquarters with their receipt and we had to return the board. In some instances, they stayed there for a couple weeks and they would return. But almost every board was returned to the owner, with the exception of a few. That was hundreds of boards over the last couple of years.

Out of that, and again, out of some of the meetings that we've had, a discussion arose around the issue of seeking to increase the fine to then use as a further deterrent. For some people, $25, similar to some of the other violations, they might figure it's just the cost of enjoyment for that particular day. And there were suggestions that the fine be increased actually my recollection is of more than $75, but I think for the moment we agreed that it was somewhat more reasonable to have it at the new number of $75. But your testimony seems to indicate that $25 was almost being laughed at or so immediately responded to that it was of no deterrence whatsoever. Is that 18 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 true? CAPTAIN CHIODETTI: Well $25 was absolutely no deterrence at all. It's listed up to $300. And I really don't know how that works. No 6 one has ever been fined over --

That's if you actually go to court and they go through the whole process. The judge could ultimately -- if you have an actual hearing, the judge could take you all the way up to that number. That's actually the limit for all violations of the Philadelphia Code, not just this particular violation. CAPTAIN CHIODETTI: To my knowledge, the standard price is $25, that's what they're fined. And that's if they're fined. I believe that not everyone's fined. But that's what we were dealing with. From time to time, depending on the number of complaints that would come in and, I guess, the time of the year, like now when skateboarding is most prevalent, we had to put basically a full court press out there.

Tell us about your experience with privately owned property open to the 19 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 public. What's that experience been? CAPTAIN CHIODETTI: Well, to be honest with you, Mr. Nutter, I just realized not too long ago that because of the stringent policing in JFK Plaza that a lot of these skateboarders who normally probably at one time would have skated in Love Park now moved into some of the plazas in these office buildings in Center City. I didn't realize it until I started attending the BOMA meetings and I would hear them complain about it. They themselves would say, "Since they can't skate in Love Park anymore since the renovations, now they're moving into our buildings." That's when I really learned of it. And I didn't realize it was that much or that serious.

Let me ask one last question just for the record. Captain and Chief Inspector, do you have any personal animus, any personal moral beliefs or convictions against the activities of either skateboarding, roller blading, or bicycles in general? Or is your role as police officers to enforce the law and prevent property damage and vandalism? 20 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 CHIEF INSPECTOR TIANO: Not in all. In fact, I started the in-line town watch skates when I was captain in the 9th District. I'm very close to that group.

You took a tumble, too, I think, didn't you? CHIEF INSPECTOR TIANO: Yes, I did. On live TV. Thanks for recognizing that. (Laughter.)

For which Councilman Kenney will not let you forget, right? And you haven't been on the roller blades since? CHIEF INSPECTOR TIANO: No, I haven't. I'm an admirer of them. On a serious note, we do attend a lot of business meetings. And the business community has asked for relief. I know the Bell Atlantic Building, the manager Bob Martin -- I don't know if he's in the court room -- he had a load of damage. We put a detail there on a Saturday or Bell Atlantic would hire off-duty officers. We just had a BOMA meeting a few weeks ago where several members brought staggering amounts of damage to our attention and asked for some kind of relief. That's 21 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 why we're here, basically to support the business community. And of course, like I said before, I do have a fear for senior citizens because I've received calls that they're scared to death when one of them skates come at them. We're just lucky nobody was hurt seriously that way.

Thank you. Thank you, Inspector. Thank you, Captain.

Thank you very much. I think part of the problem with this controversy is it is a younger person's activity, it is a lot of vibrancy and a lot of excitement and people are very fond of it and it's very popular nationwide. I think part of the problem is trying to balance that with the safety of people. I mean, I know myself traversing through an area where they're doing it, I really need to be on my guard as to whether or a board slips away, whether somebody comes at you or you don't really see, your vision is blocked and somebody comes flying over a ramp or a railing, it really does keep you on your guard. And I also know people that have had serious ankle injuries as a result of the board 22 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 slipping out off a trick winding whacking somebody in the ankle. It's really a shame that we can't find a way to coexist. I do think the public safety probably should come first. I know myself, just from personal experience -- I have nothing against the young people. I think they're pretty artistic and pretty athletic. It's just I don't really want to get one of those boards stuck in my neck. That's part what we were all trying to figure out, a way to balance people's right to enjoy public space both from an athletic and an entertaining side, but also from a safety side, too. So I know that's a very difficult issue that Councilman Nutter's been wrestling with and all of us have been wrestling with. Hopefully, we'll make the right decision. Any other questions for these witnesses? CHIEF INSPECTOR TIANO: Just let me close with this: When they opened up the skateboarding park, our officers were giving out hundreds of pamphlets telling the youngsters where to go where the City has provided them a place to go. So we were giving them out for about 30 to 45 days before we even started enforcement. But of 23 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 course, that's not where they wanted to be. I had a kid with a German accent stop me one Saturday. He came from Germany to skateboard here. It was such big deal because this was featured in this magazine. This is a big thing to come here and say he skateboarded in that JFK Plaza.

I mean, Councilman Kenney is absolutely correct, and I think at times my position on this has either slightly obscured or overwhelmed by the larger issue. I think it is an incredibly athletic sport. It is a sport. It is growing across this country, if not throughout the world, and that the City should support it and help promote it. We had the X-Games here two years in a row not too long ago, and I fully support the use of sports equipment at the appropriate location, at locations for which that activity -- for what the place was built for. You generally play basketball on a court. You roller skate on places that are made for that or out on a sidewalk or on the public street. But the plaza issue and the public property issue and the private property conflict where you have multiple users who are not all anticipating the variety of uses. Generally walking down the street 24 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 in Philadelphia or going across an open, you're not anticipating walking into a basketball game. It just doesn't happen. So the Councilman is correct, there is a need for coexistence, but the facilities to be used should be for that particular purpose. There's also been this slight romanticizing of some of this in the sense that many of the users -- and I've certainly observed them -- are kids, but many are not. And I'd like if you could at least share with us again your experience. There's this -- I've referred to it as it's almost kind of an Ozzie and Harriet kind of Opie with the little beanie cap and the propeller on and just out having a good time and walking senior citizens across the street. That's not necessarily been my experience. And there some very young people who are doing it. But many of them are not young. They are much older. And they are, unfortunately, maybe inadvertently engaged in serious property damage. And that's my only concern with this. I'd love us to have a full open -- it could be a replica, for all I care, and would certainly support a replica of the Love Park 25 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 experience at a place that was built for that. And it should be visible, it should be accessible, it should be fully supported by the City of Philadelphia. But you cannot take over someone else's property and destroy it just for your own pleasure and enjoyment. None of us would accept that on any piece of property that any of us owned. No one of us allow people to come and destroy our personal items because it fulfills their sense of pleasure. So tell us a little bit about the user population. CHIEF INSPECTOR TIANO: Well, I'm going to say the majority are over 18, but I would say from the paperwork I saw, a majority over 18, correct? CAPTAIN CHIODETTI: Yes. Many college students from the area colleges. A lot of times we'll get the addresses or their identification, they'll be from out of state, Indiana, wherever it might be. And then we'll find out that they attend the area colleges. So they're from all -- the sport, it's a big sport and the ages are anywhere up to 30 years old, I'd say. 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245

Well, we've supported many sports in this City. And as the roller hockey craze grew, we built roller hockey rinks. As the tennis craze grew, we built tennis courts. We build just about everything that anyone would like, and the City should be actively involved in the skateboard park and other roller-type facilities. And whether it's at our neighborhood rec centers or for something like this at a prominent Center City location, I think we should be fully engaged and active in it and give people a place to go. CHIEF INSPECTOR TIANO: Also, I contacted colleagues from other jurisdictions, Jenkintown, Doylestown, Bucks County. They don't have it.

They don't have it or they don't permit it. CHIEF INSPECTOR TIANO: They will not permit it. They take it very serious.

And so as a result, Philadelphia becomes the location? CHIEF INSPECTOR TIANO: Philly's the place to go. 27 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 CAPTAIN CHIODETTI: I may say, Love Park, JFK Park is the very popular -- I don't know why, but I think it's because of the design, at least before they renovated the park, that attracted so many boarders. I've never viewed it personally, ut my understanding is it was a common website among skateboarders and one of the most prominent places throughout the country to skate, all skateboarders want to come here and skate there. So it's more than just, you know, leniency on the part of Philadelphia compared to maybe the surrounding suburbs. It's just the design of that particular park that attracted the skateboarders. That's the understanding that I had.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anymore questions for these witnesses? (No response.)

Seeing none, we will ask for Mr. Frank Thompson. And is Mr. Lawrence Zipf here? Could you please take a table also? Mr. Thompson, could you please identify yourself for the record? 28 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245

I'm Frank Thompson. I'm the Vice President of the Philadelphia Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Please proceed.

I'm here today to support Councilman Nutter's Bill to increase the fine. Over the past two and a half years we had the vigorous enforcement program with the Center City Districts to cut down on the skateboarding and roller blading which has caused numerous damages to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in excess of over $50,000 in the past two years. The skateboard itself, the metal portion comes in contact with granite and chips it, tears it apart. They use a wax that they put on the granite to give them a lift. That wax has an oil in it. As you know, Councilman, you've seen our memorial, there's permanent staining that takes place. Also, 98 percent of all our arrests -- and we've arrested 156 people in the past two years -- 98 percent of them are from outside the City. And 75 percent of them above the age of 18. Just last Saturday I stopped six people from going into the memorial with their skateboards. 29 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 They were all from Boothwyn. Their mother had dropped them off to go skating in the City of Philadelphia. Of course, we stopped them. Did a pedestrian stop on them and we called for the mother to come back and pick them up and take them out of the City. That's what they're doing. All of our arrests are-- 98 percent of them are from outside the City. They're coming here to skate in the City. And they look at the fine -- if we don't charge them misdemeanor and they just get hit with a summary offense, a lot of them don't even show up at Community Court. They laugh at it. So a hefty fine and the taking of their property is what's actually necessary. It could be, actually, a deterrent not to come to our City. Come here, spend your money, have a good time, go where you're supposed to go; don't damage somebody else's property, especially our beloved memorial. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.

My name is Larry Zipf. Good after noon, Chairman Kenney and Members of the Committee on Public works and Public Property. My 30 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 name is Larry Zipf, and as the president of the Building Owners and Manager's Association of Philadelphia, otherwise known as BOMA, I'm here to ask for your support of Bill 030245. BOMA is a non-profit organization whose members management and leasing services to over 51 million square feet of office space in the City of Philadelphia. Over half a million building occupants, employees, and visitors pass through our doors every day. The assessed value of the real estate of the office buildings you manage within the City exceeds $1.6 billion. This produces annual real estate taxes for the City of approximately $133 million. BOMA member buildings and occupants pay revenues to the City, excluding real estate taxes in excess of $1.3 billion annually comprised of City wage taxes, business privilege taxes, U&O taxes in the Center City District assessment. We're here today to discuss the ongoing, unmitigated and costly damage created by skateboarders roller bladers and bicyclists that has continued despite skateboarding legislation that was put in effect two years ago. Additional support 31 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 from the Members of City Council is desperately needed. While it is typically young people who are involved, these are not children playing. They are acts of vandalism and trespassing and are extremely destructive to private property. Our members are impacted as follows: First, due to the uncontrolled actions of these individuals, our members are faced with increased insurance rates due to liability issues. It is only a matter of time before an innocent bystander is hit by a flying skateboard or individual in their efforts to jump, grind, or traverse steps, railings, and benches all on private property. Second, there are members that have incurred a substantial increase in security costs since they are forced to hire off-duty police or private guards on weekends to maintain safety outside of their buildings. With the increase in security, which is especially critical since September 11th, the security officers are distracted from their primary duties while chasing individuals on skateboards, bikes, and roller blades. 32 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 Third, the cost to repair the damage created by these individuals is over $130,000 annually for some buildings in Center City. These additional costs impact the operating expenses of the property and are ultimately passed on through higher rental rates to the tenants. This is just one of the several issues that make it problematic to retain tenants in our City. Our members have invested millions of dollars on their properties and to have further financial burden placed upon them by the recklessness of the of the skateboarders, roller bladers and bicyclists is unfair. This ordinance will strengthen current legislation, and BOMA asks that you support Bill 16 030245. Thank you for this opportunity. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for this witnesses? Councilman Nutter.

Mr. Zipf, could you give us some examples or if you have any handouts that could put financial figures into the record indicating the different buildings that have been impacted by this activity, the amount of damage 33 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 sustained at these particular locations?

Yes, I can. The Bell Atlantic Tower has incurred approximately $88,000 in damage. Additionally, they spend $8,000 a year in prevention, and an additional $5,000 in security patrols. 1700 Market Street has spent over $10,000 installing marble guards in the seating areas as well as thousands of dollars to clean the marble and replace trash receptacles. United Plaza has spent over $25,000 in repairs just during a six-month period for damages caused by skateboarders. 1600 Market Street is just over $5,000. The granite pavers have been damaged and replaced at a cost of $25,000 each. 11 Penn Center has probably suffer the greatest damage at $130,000. They've had to replace all their building handrails, light fixtures, and they have installed round knobs on the top of the handrails but they continue to be abused. The last example would be 102 Commerce Square has spent over $60,000 repairing and retrofitting signage, pavers, and benches. It does 34 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 not include additional security costs on a daily basis and costs that were incurred during the X-Games when the skateboarders were most prevalent in the City. That totals about $318,000. Many of these are annual recurring costs.

So your position is you have these great buildings, open plazas, I guess they were designed such that people would utilize them, walk through, sit down, eat lunch, look at the sky, whatever it is that people want to do. And your position is you'd like people to continue to enjoy your open plazas, but you'd not like to have them destroyed by activity that the plazas were not designed for; is that right?

That's an accurate summary, yes, sir.

Are there other representatives of BOMA with us here today?

Yes, we have additional witnesses. Councilman Rizzo.

Mr. Sipf, I may have missed this, but you also have liability at those 35 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 properties; am I correct? If one of these skateboarders choose to sue the property owner, they could do that?

Absolutely. The liability insurance issues have gone up dramatically since September 11th, for one. Secondly, the increased risk of safety is a factor for people on our property which we're responsible for. I did mention that.

If one much these security guards calls the police when there are people violating, do they come out and actually ask them to leave, or do they rely on the Philadelphia Police to respond to a 911 call of a complaint that you have trespassing on your property?

If you don't mind, I'd prefer to have some of the folks who are dealing directly with this with the response they've had.

I'm curious on how you move them from skateboarding on a particular BOMA-represented property.

It may be best if you heard from the folks who are making those calls directly.

I'll ask the Chair 36 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 whoever could answer that.

Councilman, we have a few representatives from specific buildings.

I'll wait to get that answer.

They're coming right on.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, we had hd to increase our insurance at the memorial from a half million to a million dollars for liability purposes. And it primarily deals with the people going in there with their skateboards and not only destroying our property, but causing harm to other people that they may be knocking over. I mean, our place -- the War Memorial, they'll tell you that's the greatest place in the City to go skateboarding because of its design. And we have some vets that have been in there, if they run into them, not only hurt are they going to hurt the person with their board, but the person that does the hurting is very possibly also going to become hurt. So we've had to increase our liability from 37 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 500,000 to $1 million on our site.

Thank you very much. William Criticos, Richard Evans and Don Haas, please come forward. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon. I'm Bill 8 Criticos from One and Two Commerce Square, and I support Bill No. 030245. In fact I would be happier if the fines were much higher. Mr. Zipf pretty much went over a lot of what I was going to say in my statement here. But we've had about $180,000 worth of damage over the last three years at Commerce Square. They destroy the handrails. We've put buttons on the handrails to try to prevent it. We've had to add extra security that sit outside during the lunchtime. They disturb people. They intimidate people with their skateboards and their bikes. They destroy our signage out front. We've tried everything. To answer Councilman Rizzo's question, we used to run them off, our security guards used to run them off to try to minimize the damage. By the time we got there, pretty much the damage was done. Since we've met with the police, we've tried another 38 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 avenue we try calling the police and saying we have vandalism in progress. Sometimes the police come, sometimes they don't. Frankly, I understand that they have more important things to deal with than skateboarders. We're a huge tax revenue base for the City of Philadelphia, and we deserve some kind of support and some kind of relief when it comes to the destruction that they're causing.

Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.

My name is Don Haas with the Bell Atlantic Tower at 1717 Arch. The Bell Atlantic Towers is a 1.2 million square foot high-rise office building in the City. We have a beautiful plaza that's been thoroughly destroyed over the years by the skateboarders, bicycle riders. The roller blades haven't been much of a problem. But everybody who wants to grind comes to the Bell Atlantic Tower. The damage to the stone has cost us well in excess of $80,000. And that doesn't even take into consideration the personal liability issues that you could have with people getting hurt. 39 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 We've had to end up running people off that were doing photo shoots for skater magazines at 3 o'clock in the afternoon with no regard for any of the public egress in the plaza or on 18th Street. We've attempted numerous methods to make it less attractive to skateboarding. We've increased security patrols with our in-house people, we've purchased police coverage on prime times. We've put numerous anti-skateboarding devices in place on the most attractive pieces: Handrails, seats, benches that we have out there. It really destroys look and it's only marginally effective. We are, again, asking for some type of relief to mitigate the continual damage that we have. Answering Mr. Rizzo comment about the police. It really depends on the 911 priorities. If you're calling at 2 o'clock on a Saturday night, your pretty well low on the totem pole if you have a lot of other activity going on in the City. And that's when you get a lot of activity. You get people car loads in. You go out and take the license plate numbers down, rarely is it a Pennsylvania plate. We get a Jersey plates, New 40 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 York plates, Delaware. It's amazing. The ranges of ages can be from to year olds and you can have 4 20 of them in a pack. You can some younger kids, 15 5 to 20, just skateboarding around the whole day. 6 It's very disruptive. Thank you. 7

Councilman Rizzo. 8

I'm sorry the Police 9 Department left, but I know there's representatives 10 of the Administration here in the room. Maybe 11 there's something short-term that can be done to get 12 that priority changed in a way directly with the 13 district to get you some response. Maybe there's a 14 way -- and I know there's been other issues that 15 that's been addressed. So I would hope that whoever 16 is here looking around -- I see Jim Donaghy from the 17 Managing Director's Office. Maybe there's something 18 that can bring that response sooner. 19

Even with a fast response, 20 your chances of apprehension are very low. It's a 21 numbers game. If you have to officers come out 22 and you have 20 skateboarders there, you're lucky if 23 you catch the slow on. 24

That's not 25 necessarily -- well, we have bike cops; maybe we're 41 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 heading in the direction skateboard cops. But I think the point is maybe it would be nice to apprehend them, but just getting them out of your area to prevent damage would also be, I think, something that you'd be appreciative of also.

Once they're there, the done damage is done; it really is because it's reactionary on everybody's part. Because once the blade -- you know, once they grind, it's done.

I'm not suggesting that that's a long-term solution. I'm talking about right now if your critical of the response, then maybe we need to fix that.

I don't know if we would say we were critical of te response. I think we're cognizant of other priorities. Property damage is a low priority if I'm answering a robbery in progress or some other type of civil disturbance.

Since we've met with Inspector Banick (ph) and some of the other people from the Police Department recently, they've pledged to give us some additional support and run it up flagpole as far as priority. But frankly, all we're doing is when they're working with my building, 42 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 they're running them off my building; they're going to his building. I mean once they realize they can't skate at Commerce for a while, they'll go to Bell Atlantic, then they'll go to United Engineers. And ultimately we need something that's going curb this on a more permanent basis.

I think Councilman Rizzo raises an important point. And again, I'd at least like to state for the record, I mean, I'm not interested in deterring the excitement of youth or the enthusiasm of sport. I'm not interested in trying to increase fines. This is not for generating revenue for the City of Philadelphia. I'm not even interested in confiscation of the boards. I mean, we don't have anything to do with them if we have them. All we're interesting in protecting private property from destruction. That is the big issue here. And you never have to worry about a fine, you never have to worry about having your board confiscated, you never have to worry about us saying anything to you if you don't do what you're not supposed to do: Skate, roll, ride on someone else's property or anywhere where it is prohibited. You can do it to your heart's content 43 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 where it's allowed. Again, I don't necessarily know that it is onerous on people to ask them to not destroy someone else's property. I mean, it's generally a lesson that I think most of us pretty much have figured out by the time we're maybe 6, 7 years old. It needs to be reinforced from time to time, I think, with all of us. But it's a fundamental premise: Don't touch what doesn't belong to you; put things bac the way you found them; don't destroy other people's stuff. I mean, this is like kindergarten concepts here.

I agree. I think most of our kids here probably own these things, but they don't go up and down our neighborhood's cars or things like that. They skate within the law.

Most skateboarders that I've encountered feel it's their right to skate where they want. And if there's damage done, sobeit.

Thank you. Sir, could you identify yourself for the record?

My name is Rick Evans, and I manage 11 Penn Center at the corner of 19th and 44 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 Market. When the property was designed and built in the mid-'80s, the architect paid special attention to the design of the handrails on our plaza. They incorporated light fixtures directly into the handrails for lighting the steps. This was both a blessing and a curse. It was a blessing because of the dramatic lighting effects surrounding the property. It was a curse because of the skateboarders. Jumping up and down on the handrails with their boards caused the components of the light fixtures to break creating a safety hazard on the steps when the lights when out. Just as important was the damage to the handrails themselves. By the skateboarders jumping onto the handrails, it caused the handrails to crack and break at the base where they were attached to the ground or plaza. The results were a constant maintenance problem and expense issue which passed on to our tenants and increase their occupancy cost. Two years ago, it was determined we could no longer repair the handrails and lighting because of its condition. We replaced all 25 handrails and had to install new light fixtures on 45 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 the steps since the original lights were part of the handrails. The cost was in excess of $130,000. We also installed knobs on the handrails to prevent the skateboarders from damaging them. This has not worked. We are still sustaining damage to the handrails. And in fact, we are missing a couple of the knobs right now. They probably see the knobs as a challenge to jump over. Another aspect of the nuisance they cause is the noise they generate. Adjacent to 11 Penn Center is the Penn Center House, a cooperative. On several occasions, I have received calls from their residents and their property manager complaining about the noise late at night caused by the skateboarders. I have assured them that my security runs them off when they are observed on our closed circuit TV and during their patrol rounds. Needless to say, I strongly support this ordinance on behalf of my tenants and, to an extent, the residents of Penn Center House. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)

Seeing none, we will 46 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 ask Kathleen Wilkins and Eileen O'Brien to please come forward. Please identify yourself for the record and speak directly into the microphone.

Hi, my name is Cathy Wilkins. I'm the property manager at the United Plaza Building located at 30 South 17th Street. About a year ago, my building underwent a major renovation, a $5 million improvement. On the 17th and 18th Street plazas, before the fence was taken from construction, the skateboarders were removing the fence and skating in the new renovated area. It's made of granite and concrete. The skateboarding problem continued usually after business hours and on the weekends. We had to incur an extra cost to install zoom cameras on the outside, and we installed over a hundred pegs to deter the skateboarders. However, it wasn't a deterrent. We also had to increase security in order to control the situation with them destroying the granite on the brand-new plaza. That didn't work either. When they were approached by my security officers, the skateboarders were arrogant, 47 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 nasty, they would pull the pegs off the granite on the benches and throw them at the security officers. They also threw the pegs at a nearby pizzeria across the street and damaged about three or four windows. The pizza owner was very upset and wanted to hold me accountable for the actions of the skateboarders. My building has sustained over $25,000 in damage in a six-month period. I've attached pictures here of the pegs that I've put on the planters to deter them. That didn't work. They ripped them off. So I was continually having somebody come in and replace them. And I had to design granite slabs and strategically place them along the paver in order to prevent them from skateboarding. I just wanted to give you an idea of the size of the plaza. It's about 10,000 square feet.

Did the metal angles, did they work.

No, they did not work. They pulled them out.

As long as they're in, it works? But they take them out?

No. On the one --. 48 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245

I'm looking at these metal --

The second picture is the second design I had to go to due to the fact that they kept ripping the pegs out.

Oh, these are the pegs?

The first ones are pegs.

That's what they were throwing at the pizza place?

That's what they were throwing at my officer and the pizzeria across the street from me. I did work with the 9 District. I worked with security officers. I was successful in about 25 arrests. I worked with the 9th District. They were very helpful. Instead of saying we had skateboarders on the plaza, we tell them we had a vandalism in process. They dispatched an officer. They confiscated the board, took them to the station. But the problem continued. Once of the word got out that we were aggressively pursuing skateboarders, they just went to bill's place, which is Commerce Square. 49 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245

Point of information.

Councilman Rizzo.

SO basically, what you had to do is you had to -- I don't want to use the word fudge it a little, but you had to -- the police didn't know whether it was someone with a hammer breaking your planters or a skateboarder. So you kind of elevate it without being as clear as you could have been.

I met with the captain of the 9th District and this is how he advised me to handle the situation.

The captain's very creative.

It was successful.

Because the police office that got the assignment didn't know what the situation was, and that's unfortunate. That's what needs to get fixed. We need to temporarily ask the Police Department that when you call and you're very clear about the call, not that you have to create a situation that's not clear --

Well, the problem we ran into was as part of the renovation my cameras, our 50 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 digital, I actually had to bring in my vendor and transpose the skateboarder damaging the property onto an analog tape and give it to Police Department. But the problem was once they received that tape, nobody knew what to do. We were looking at not only should the skateboarder be responsible, but the parents should be responsible and try to enforce the $300 fine.

Again, my point, and I don't want to belabor this, we need to work with the Police Department to figure out a way to get the response based on accurate information, not information that's not clear that could possibly jeopardize an officer's safety responding to something other than a skateboarder. We need to get the same response when you call about a skateboarders as when you call and report vandalism. Because I don't think it's fair to the officer that they have to respond to a call that's not other than skateboarding. So we need to figure that out on how to get that accomplished. And I'm going to meeting with the Managing Director at 4 o'clock on another issue, and I'm going to bring this to the Managing Director's attention that we need to figure out that 51 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 if there are bike officers in the area, that they get the assignment. If there are foot patrols, which there may not be, that they get the assignment. That's why we've just spent almost a hundred million dollars on a radio system that gives ours officers on foot and on bikes better coverage. So what we need to do is figure out at the police radio level if you call about that, who in fact gets the assignment. Does the sector car that works in the 9th District get it, does the bike police officer, does a police officer in a special unit respond just to basically get those folks out of the way to prevent further damage? Again, I like your engineering approach to fixing the problem also.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you very much. Any other questions for this witness? (No response.)

We will now call Eileen O'Brien, please.

Good afternoon, Councilman and Members of the Committee. My name is Eileen O'Brien. I'm an Administrative Analyst in the 52 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 Department of Finance Code Unit. I reviewed Bill 030245 with respect to the responsibilities assigned to the Director of the Finance. Current provisions of the Philadelphia Code prohibits skateboarding on posted private property and set the initial dollar value of the ticket that can be issued for this infraction at $25, along with the confiscation of the skateboard. The skateboard can be returned the same day as the ticket issued if paid in cash. This is has not proven to be a sufficient deterrent to the prohibited behavior. The Bill before you today would increase the ticket amount to $75 and extend the prohibition to those using roller blades or bicycles on posted private property, not just skateboards. A provision for the confiscation of these other items is also established. It's conceivable that the issuance of a $25 ticket is viewed as worth of the risk in violating this law present. Increasing that amount to $75 will hopefully discourage many more individuals from engaging in this type of behavior and reduce the damage to private property owners. 53 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 My office is prepared to work with Councilman Nutter, the Police Department, and the Building Owners Association to assist in the implementation and enforcement of this ordinance. And we thank you for your support of this legislation which is intended to improve the quality of life throughout the City. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions for Ms. O'Brien? (No response.)

Seeing none, thank you very much. We've had a request for testimony from Joshua Nims, please. Can I see a hand-raise of anybody else interesting in testifying on this Bill? Anyone else, so I know from time perspective. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record Joshua Nims.

Please proceed.

I think everybody -- I know that Councilman Nutter is familiar with me and Councilwoman Blackwell as well. I represent usually 54 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 the skateboarders in the City through the Franklin Paine Skate Park Fund Organization. We've been very in making what's happening at the Art Museum happen, as well as making a lot of statements over the past couple of years about situation at Love and skateboarding around the City. Today, though, I don't think this issue is as much about skateboarding as it may be a quality-of-life initiative over all. So I come before you today to voice disagreement with Section 12 10-610 Philadelphia Code as amended by this Bill. The proposed amendments, regardless of their negative impacts on skateboarding are simply bad for business overall, in my opinion and I think in the opinion of a lot of skateboarders and business people. Philadelphia is presently in a fight for its life, but one hand may not know what the other is doing. Millions of dollars are being spent right now trying to attract creative young people to our City. We're trying to get high tech, skill-oriented young people to come into our City and to stay here to implement our economy as we go into the 21st century. But this proposed amendment, as it 55 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 broadens the ban on a number of recreational activities on a lot of properties throughout the City, those same people who are affected are likely to be those same young people who we're trying to attract and retain in our City. So it seems like raising the fines and creating a larger application for the existing Bill us just bad for business in terms of attracting and retaining young people in our City. It's the wrong message that we're sending to the people who are most likely to make up the creative class of citizens that Philadelphia has been spending so much money to retain. Cities like Vancouver have taken the type of argument that I'm making about this creative class and treating this creative class with a certain amount of respect in order to keep them here and have actually relaxed their laws against skateboarding and has seen a continued increase in their Center City -- they don't call it Center City -- but their central city locations in terms of young people moving in and staying because they feel welcome. And again, I'm not necessarily saying that this argument is diametrically opposed to the 56 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 argument that there's a lot of property damage going on in the City. There definitely is, and it has to be addressed in some way. Unfortunately, at the same time, if as it's addressed this way we take the chance of damaging our City's reputation to the very young people that we're trying to attract to make our City continue to grow in the 21st Century. I think that's the most salient argument against the Bill right now, rather bringing up all of the passions of the skateboarding community and their parents. I will note that skateboarders -- I've heard in the testimony already that's it's understood now and accepted that skateboarders are adults, that most of these skateboarders we're talking about are over 18. That means they're voting age and they're going to start voting. That means that Council, as it makes its decisions about these Bills, will potentially need to take the skateboarders a little more seriously in terms of their ability to be voters and part of an active constituency, not just young people who like kindergartners, haven't quite learned their lessons about life yet. Again, I'm not making excuses for 57 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 the points that are well taken. Damage is being done and these property owners are obviously suffering a financial hit as a result of it.

I'm curious as to your opinion or your views on what constitutes private property. I guess what I'm bewildered about is while I understand this creative class argument -- and we can argue whether or not that's in fact true, but I'm stipulate that you're accurate. When does a person's private property become subject to protection? Do you own a car?

Yes.

If I decided that I wanted to grind on your fender and you were in the house watching TV and I did a little jump and I grinded down your fender, would that be okay?

I'll say this --

I think part of the problem is that we look at this larger space as somehow it's public, but it really isn't public; it's privately owned as your car is privately owned, as your front step is privately owned, and I don't understand the dichotomy in view as to you can use other people's private property as opposed -- 58 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245

Well, I'm not going to come up here and say that I support using other people's private property in a way that is going to damage it and cause thousands of dollars. That's why I'm making the argument that this is instead is about protecting the interest of a class of young people who we are trying to attract to our City. If we try to attract young people to our City through the advertising and through the outreach things that we're doing through the universities and then at the same time pass legislation that significantly affects their choice of recreation, then there's a mixed message being sent. This may not be --

How do they have a choice in recreation to be on someone's private property?

The point actually is --

No, that is the point.

We're talking about roller blading, bicyling and skateboarding.

On private property.

On property generally.

And Public Property. 59 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245

Public property as well. Obviously, there's going to be some gray area there. From the perspective of the young person who comes into the City --

No. There's gray area.

If you'll entertain me on this.

Go ahead. Always good to talk to you, Joshua.

Thank you, sir. What ends up happening is that young people are going to be negatively affect and already are negatively affect by this type of legislation. They look at this type of legislation and say, "Do I want to come to a City that has this type of legislation on the books, or would I rather go somewhere like Vancouver, like Washington, D.C., like New York City where there is a somewhat more relaxed atmosphere?"

Part of what I don't understand is that if this were a Bill to ban skateboarding, roller blading and bicycle riding in the City, I could understand you being upset or 60 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 being concerned about it. I don't think we would do anything like that. The point is that it's not a ban on skateboarding; it's a prohibition on where you can do it. And when it comes to the issue of a person's or a company's private property, I don't see where there's a valid argument that people should have access to it to be able to destroy it or cause its destruction.

Or that it's a deterrent to them coming here. Do you have a driver's license.

Yes, sir, I do.

Do you think it's an onerous requirement by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that you should have to have a drivers license to drive a vehicle, or is that a deterrent to people coming to Pennsylvania.

No, having a driver's license is a good idea, obviously.

So tell me how the young person is affected by a law that says you can't destroy someone's private property. Tell me why you wouldn't want to come here.

Sir, because the law doesn't 61 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 say you can't destroy private property. It says you can't ride a skateboard on public property and private public.

It does not include the street. It does not include the sidewalk. It includes public property. Now, Josh, you and I have had this conversation many, many times. We met at Love Park. It's public property which is defined and it's private property. What's the gray area?

I guess the gray area is the open space that overlaps. Take the clothes pin, for example, the clothes pin area at 1500. There is a large, flat, wide-open space there. It's wonderful for skateboarding.

I'm sure. It's not ours.

There aren't really any ledges or edges to speak of that are useful skateboarding. The ones that are there are really high and rarely used.

Well, yeah, because if you use the edge at the steps, you might end up on the lower level.

Exactly. But also the large 62 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 blocks out there as well, they're very high and difficult to use. Yet that flat space there is a wonderful place to ride a skateboard. And yet, according to the Bill as it stands now, it's illegal to ride a skateboard there. I have to admit that that doesn't -- it just doesn't seems fair, maybe you can say. If that's as good argument as I have, maybe --

Let me ask you. You raised the fairness argument. You're a lawyer now, right?

Yes, sir.

So you know when you open doors, you end up going behind them, right?

Absolutely.

So let's talk about fairness. Now, is it fair to Bell Atlantic Tower owner that they spent $88,000 to fix damage to their property caused by people who were doing something that was not authorized by them? Is that fair?

No. 23

Is it to the folks at 11 Penn Center who spent $130,000.

No. In fact, we can 63 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 stipulate down your list "no" to all of those. The issue, in my opinion, is that this is not good for our attraction and retention efforts in this City.

Well, let me ask this question. Let's take it from the more positive side, because there are two sides to this particular argument. So what would it take to get the skateboarders or others to stop damaging either public or private property and engage in the more positive side of this? And what should the City be doing to better encourage this behavior? And then I want you to tell me that after we do all those things, that the boarders are going to stop destroying public and property.

I can't tell you that.

So what should we be doing?

On the other hand, we've already actively started trying to build -- get the skate park built at the Art Museum. That's going along very well. We've had a lot of support from Councilwoman Blackwell, from Councilman Darrell Clarke. You've expressed some interest in helping 64 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 with some land in your district. All that's very positive on that front and is moving along very well. And hopefully, yes, a year from now --

And after we do all of those things --

There's something built and in place that the majority of these parents who are dropping their kids off --

From outside City, but we'll put that to the side.

Right, from outside of the City.

Because that becomes a part of our responsibility that we should provide facilities for people to come and use here in Philadelphia that their own municipalities don't provide them; somehow that's a part of our responsibility too?

No, and I didn't say that.

Okay. So after we do all that -- let's say we build a wonderful skateboard park designed by the skateboarders and they have all the input that they could hope and desire; that you build something in my district, 65 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 which I would love to see; and Councilwoman Blackwell, Councilman Clarke, all Members of Council are enthusiastic about publicly built and designed skateboard parks. Are you then telling me that the boarders will stop destroying public and private property? Yes or no?

Not a fair question.

It is a fair question.

Instead, I can say that a large percentage would be moved to another location.

So your testimony is we should do everything that the community would ever want and still be subject to property damage because they have a belief --

No, sir. I'm simply saying that I don't the power personally to make that guarantee to you.

I can appreciate that.

That's all I'm testifying to.

Well, you were smart enough not to fall into that trap. You think the skateboarders have a right 66 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 to damage private and public property?

No, I don't. I will say this too, though, that there's a certain amount of recognition, I think, by a lot of this testimony that we've heard today that skateboarding draws young people into our City.

I don't dispute that.

That has to be a positive.

I want as many young people to come here as possible. The City continues to lose population. I just want them to stop damaging our property that the public taxpayers have to pay for and I want them to stop damaging private property which is discouraging to our business community where some of these young people might actually want to get a job. The two have to work in sync. It's not going to help us attract young people if the businesses don't want to be here because we cannot control or help them maintain their private property. It's not exactly a selling point to businesses.

I also think we could get into a chicken and egg circle about that. 67 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245

So the two go together. We have to protect our businesses. We have to protect the economic engine that helps drive this City that would provide a job for young people because one of the reasons young people don't stay in Philadelphia after they get an incredible education at a City that has more colleges and universities than almost any other region in the United States, one of the reasons they don't stay here is because they can't get a job. And if we further drive our businesses out of here, they can't get a job. That's the bottom line. Stop destroying private property. Again, I would say, it is generally a lesson that most of us learn somewhere between kindergarten and third grade. There is no 17 excuse. None. (Applause.)

Do you have any further questions?

Josh, you know I like you. You don't want to ask me do I have any more questions. You don't have enough time in your life to deal with all the questions that I might have. I look forward to talking to you soon. Send 68 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 contribution form to the Franklin Paine organization, please.

I have a few things to pass out to the group as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any owes questions? (No response.)

None. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? Please identify yourself.

My name is Brian Winters. I live in Philadelphia. I'm years old. I own a 14 small business in Old City. I provide technical 15 services and a retail outlet for people to shop at. 16 I want to make this quick and simple, not trying to 17 suck up anybody's time, but without a place or 18 provisions for me to skateboard, I'm still going to 19 skate these places that you've mentioned before. By 20 raising the fine, I'm just going to run faster. 21 It's been something I've been doing for ten years, 22 trying to evade cops so I don't get the fine, while 23 I was in school and now when I'm out of school 24 trying run the business and my wallet's kind strapped and I want to stay alive, I'm not 69 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 skateboarding.

What kind of business do you own?

I own a retail store in Old City. It's a retail outlet.

Can I ask you question? Baseball is like the American pastime -- one of the American pastimes. If I decided that I wanted to have a hard ball game across the street from your store and had my friend Michael Nutter here pitch me hard balls and I batted them against your window, wouldn't you call the police? Or would you think that that was my right to engage in a sport of my choosing at the place that I chose?

If it was intentional --

No, I'm not intentionally trying to break anything. I'm playing baseball where I want to play it and he's pitching me the ball and I'm hitting will where I want to hit it. And if it breaks your window on your retail store, you wouldn't call the police? You'd say, "No 23 problem, fellows. Enjoy yourself."

I think that if there was baseball field a block away from where we're playing 70 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 baseball in front of my store, I would ask you if you could kindly go down there and let's work on fixing my window.

Why? What's wrong with what the Councilman wants to do? MR WINTERS: It's just common sense.

He just doing what he wants to do our in front of your place. What's the problem?

There's provisions for him to play baseball a block away from store. I think I'd ask him if he would go play there.

The City is in the process of building a skateboard park.

We have one already.

I have heard nothing about a skateboard park and seen nothing about a skateboard park.

We have a skateboard park at Franklin Roosevelt Park, which is known as The Lakes in South Philadelphia.

And how can I get there? I don't have a car or a bike.

You have a subway 71 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 drops you at Broad and Pattison Avenue.

Ride your skateboard.

Actually, the subway stop at Broad and Pattison is right at the entrance of the park.

SEPTA's pretty expensive. It's going to be the most expensive public transportation system to use in the nation in another few months.

That's a different hearing for a different day. Let me ask you a question. Do you allow shoplifting at your retail store?

I don't allow that, no. 17 That wouldn't be a very wise business decision by me, would it?

You think it's a wise business decision for these folks to let people continue to destroy their property?

That's not what I'm trying to get at.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I'm asking you do you 72 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 allow people to do things to your business that are illegal --

No. 5

-- and are against your business interest? That's what I'm asking you now as a business person.

No. 9

Okay.

But if it's in the interest of a community around my business to work with them to keep those baseballs from flying through my window, I would be more than willing to build a baseball park or a place to go and swing that bat.

Well, let's say the folks came in and say, "Hey, it's our community interest to have as many of your goods as possible in our hands without paying for them." Is that okay with you? It's in the community interest. I don't know what your retail business is; you don't have to tell me. But whatever it is, the community believes it's in their community interest to have as many of your goods in their hands as possible without stopping by the little cash register there. Is that 73 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 something you support.

I support shopping at my business.

But not shoplifting?

No. 7

That's fine. No 8 problem.

My statement is purely I think it would be wiser decision to work towards providing a space for people with bikes, roller blades and skateboards to go to, to direct them to rather than to raise this fine to deter them and send a message across that we don't want you in this City at all. There aren't any hard boundaries what determines public and private space.

Yes, there is. It's called a deed. Inside the deeded area is private property.

A deed's not posted on every wall in the City. It's not posted on signs. I don't recognize that when I'm just walking around casually minding my business getting something to eat.

Councilman Rizzo. 74 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245

You know, I don't want to continue making all these examples, but something just hit me. Do you think a person just wanted to go to any one of these properties and set up their barbecue grill and invite five or six friends down and have a barbecue cue in the courtyard, do you think that's okay?

Aren't those what the roach coaches are on each corner?

No, I'm talking about somebody pulls a charcoal barbecue grill in the center of the courtyard and invites 10 of their friends down for a barbecue. You think that's okay?

No. Not without permission.

Well, why do you think you should be able to go skateboarding on that same property without permission?

I understand that I'm not allowed to. But the pure substance of my argument is I don't have a place to go and that's why I'm there.

Well, guess what, you got to change recreation. You got to go play 75 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245 basketball or something until we get it figured out.

So a lifestyle that I have built myself around --

I hate to be real blunt with you here, but maybe -- if you believe that you're violating the law, then you really need to find a different place. If people come from all over the country and the world to skateboard in Philadelphia, and you've just agreed that you're breaking the law, that you shouldn't be doing it. I mean, you seem like a bright young man. You own a business. You don't have to -- it's not a question of right and wrong. You understand that it's wrong, correct? And if you get arrested, it's on you.

I understand that. I'm simply trying to make a point that instead of raising these fines to detract people --

Well, you're make a stupid point. You're making a really stupid point to say that it's wrong and then complain that the fine shouldn't be increased.

I'm trying to make a point that maybe instead of focussing our energies and our thoughts into making -- 76 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245

Are you business person that has -- you see skateboard equipment and supplies; is that what you do?

Can I get the words out of my month without being interrupted?

No, you can't until I'm finished. Could you tell me, is what you do? You sell skateboard accessories and supplies, is that what you do?

I sell mostly books and clothing.

For skateboard.

Skate related.

So you have a vested interest in this, correct?

Yes.

And you're more concerned about your profit and your ability to sell these magazines and clothing to skateboarders than the -- you're not considerate at all to the people that are being harmed here?

I'm here to represent skateboarders because my interests are trying to make -- 77 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030245

Your interest is the dollar. And you should be interested in these folks' dollar too. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? Please identify yourself for the record.

Steven Brody, President of Title 10 Skate Park.

Please proceed.

Our family is in the recreation entertainment business. We own bowling centers, and we have decided to build an indoor extreme skate park on Delaware Avenue. I agree that the skateboarders do need a place to skateboard. I do agree that the property of the assorted buildings and other buildings throughout the City and Delaware Valley should be protected. We plan to offer -- and we've worked with these gentlemen that were here this afternoon and others -- to offer this indoor extreme skate park, a facility where it would be pay to skate but a number of discounts to understand their needs and their sensitivity. And in addition, we are not 78 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030370 going to have a pro shop. We're allowing all the assorted independent skateboard shops to enjoy the profits of their business. So we are coming to Philadelphia August the 1st to August 15th on Delaware Avenue to offer a spot for them to skateboard.

Terrific. Thank you. Thank you very much. No one else to testify on this Bill, we will now move to Bill No. 030370, an ordinance 12 authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to acquire from the Urban Education Development Research and Retreat Center, Inc., fee simple title to, and all other real property interests in, approximately five acres of real estate within the property known as 4601 Market Street, under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself.

Good afternoon, Chairman Kenney and Members of the Committee Public Property and Public Works. My name Andres Perez, and I'm Commissioner of the Department of Public Property. I'm here today in support of Bill No. 030370. In the interest of time, my less than 79 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030370 one-page testimony is summarized simply by saying that it is self-explanatory. It is the City's desire to acquire the referenced parcel. It is the City's interest in acquiring referenced parcel with your authorization for the --

Excuse me. I'm sorry. Could we take all private conversations in the hallway? Thank you. I'm sorry, Commissioner. Please proceed. You're in favor of the transaction?

You're in favor of the transaction to allow the construction of a new youth study center. And present also is Commissioner Martinez.

Hi. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is Alba Martinez. I'm Commissioner of the Department of Human Services.

Please proceed.

I have two and a half pages of testimony. Chairman, I was going to read them, if that's okay. 80 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030370

Yes.

Good afternoon, Chairman Kenney and Members of the Public Property and Public Works Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you as you consider Bill 030370 for the purchase of property to build a new Juvenile Justice Center for the City of Philadelphia. We have worked hard over the past three years to prepare for a move to the City's new Juvenile Justice Center. The City has committed $48 million in its Capital Budget for the new center after the Street Administration pledged and the Mayor pledged in his 2000 inaugural address to make improving the lives of Philadelphia's children and youth a major priority of our Administration. The Mayor outlined a comprehensive agenda for children which included the construction of a new Juvenile Justice Center to replace the existing Youth Study Center. The task for planning a new Juvenile Justice Center has been a daunting one, but DHS as lead agency solicited and received the long-term commitment and collective effort of all Philadelphia juvenile justice stakeholders. A new Juvenile 81 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030370 Justice Center Committee formed in 2001 served as a working group to help the City in its efforts to plan a new center. The Committee reviewed considerable work and research on best practice in juvenile justice programing, policies, and design. It helped provide recommendations and guidance regarding the location and funding for a new Juvenile Justice Center. The proposed center, as the Youth Study Center does now, will provide temporary care, custody, and control for alleged and adjudicated delinquents aged 13 and over who are awaiting court action or placement in a long-term residential facility. The new center, through its state-of-art design and programming will provide protection to the community, a safe and security setting for youth and staff, and ensure that residents are available for their scheduled court hearings. The current Youth Study Center does all of this now. However, the current Youth Study Center was built in 1952 and it has seen its basic infrastructure deteriorate to the point that it is in need of constant maintenance and repair. It is no longer suitable for the provision of appropriate 82 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030370 safety, security, management or care of the juveniles in our custody who have to be served there. The deteriorating conditions adversely affect adequate programming in the areas of medical mental health, education, and recreation services. As a result, our City's compliance with federal and state mandates and juvenile justice accrediting standards is constantly at risk. Yet despite the inadequacies of the physical plant, we persevere and we have improved dramatically the programming at the Youth Study Center so that the City's most troubled youth are provided the most positive services. We still provide a year-round educational program through the Philadelphia School District, which has expanded to six days a week year-round; gender-specific programming to meet the needs of an increasing population of girls; medical coverage 19 hours a day, 7 day a week, and on-site dental care; 20 on-site mental health services to children through a 21 contract with CHOP, the Children's Hospital of 22 Philadelphia. 23 Still, we are not satisfied with the 24 current age and condition of the Youth Study Center can adequately accommodate much of this programming. 83 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030370 We believe, as do all Philadelphia's juvenile justice stakeholders that a new state-of-the-art Juvenile Justice Center would allow is to do even more and meet more fully the comprehensive needs of children in the juvenile justice system in order to give them the best possible chance for a positive and productive future.

A new detention center with more space and ambient surroundings would facilitate more positive interaction between youth, the center's staff, families, legal and social service providers, and the community agencies and volunteers who work with our youth. It would also have an immediate positive impact on our capital budget plans, management, and expenditures. Maintenance contracts and costs would be reduced as a function of the design and construction materials of a new facility. Overtime costs chargeable to the Youth Study Center for borrowing someone from other City departments for emergency repairs would be reduced considerably, if not completely eliminated. Additional overtime savings would be realized in child care costs with new building design that eliminates isolated areas 84 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030370 serving juveniles that currently exist at the Youth Study Center which prohibit efficient and effective staffing patterns when the center population is high. Finally, the need for a new Juvenile Justice Center for the City has been discussed for over years. Today, we are closer than ever 9 before to making a new state-of-the-art facility for 10 our children possible. 11 City Council and your support to 12 approval and passage of this Bill will help this 13 make this a reality. Thank you very much. 14

Thank you very much. 15 What's the construction timetable? And has the 16 design been completed? Is there something -- maybe 17 not today, but is there something we could see 18 relative to -- 19

Mr. Tustin is available from 20 the Capital Program also.

Thank you. Please identify yourself.

Good Morning. My name is Richard Tustin. I'm the Director of the City's Capital Program Office. 85 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030370 Our office has been working very closely with Commissioner Martinez over the past several years to do several things. First, to develop a program; then to do a site search, identify an appropriate site; and hopefully now negotiate with the owners of that site. Should we come to a resolution on the sale and purchase of the property, we would be ready to go out with an RFP for design services. A year ago -- maybe months ago, we 12 went out with what's called an RFQ which is a 13 Request for Qualifications. That went out 14 nationwide of coast to coast. We advertise through 15 national AIA, as well as through business journals, 16 local newspapers, and other periodicals. We 17 received in the neighborhood of 25 responses to that 18 from firms from coast to coast that do this, you know, this is their primary business. We have reviewed those RFQs. And once we do end up purchasing a site, we will go out with a short list RFP to probably six to eight firms.

What is your best timetable as far as design professional selection, design approval, and then start a construction and 86 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 completion.

Our normal process for selecting a firm takes about two months, maybe three months at the most. It would probably be a to 6 10-month design process. And then we'd have a 7 three-month bid award process, which is the normal 8 Public Works. And then we're looking at a two-year 9 construction schedule.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.)

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to clarify that our intention is to acquire a portion of 4601 Market Street; and if successful, we will in the end have a different address for it.

Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, we thank you. We'll move to Bill No. 030216, an Ordinance authorizing real estate transactions necessary to permit the City of Philadelphia to 87 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 acquire property needed for use by the Philadelphia International Airport; in particular, authorizing the Director of Commerce and the Commissioner of Public Property to acquire, by amicable negotiation, swap or by condemnation, any and all interests in a certain parcel of property located on the south side of Bartram Avenue within the limits of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Please identify yourself for the record.

Is is my Charles Isdell, Director of Aviation. Good afternoon. I'm pleased to appear before you today to testify in support of Bill 030216. 26 acres of real property located on the south side of Bartram Avenue within the limit of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, or use by Philadelphia International Airport to expand the existing employee parking lot. The property will be acquired either by negotiated purchase or, more likely, by condemnation. The purchase price or condemnation award, when 88 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 determined, will be paid with monies from the Aviation Fund with no General Fund impact. The City has an appraisal, which I'll be more than glad to share with you. The property is surrounded by PNC Bank to the west, I-95 to the South, the south side of Bartram Avenue to the north, and on the east airport's existing employee parking lot. The location of the property and its proximity to the existing parking lot will allow the airport to use the property for additional employee parking at minimal expense almost immediately upon acquisition. Currently, the airport is severely constrained in its employee parking. The existing lot contains approximately 2400 parking spaces. Since the lot opened in 1996, the airport employee population has grown significantly with the opening of Terminal F in 2001, and the new International Terminal this year. In addition, the New Transportation Security Administration alone has added nearly 1,000 employees with access to the lot. Even taking into account the economic impact of 9/11/01, the airport now employs over 14,000 people who have access to the parking lot. Employee parking capacity, however, has remained 89 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 unchanged. Currently, during peak hours when major shift changes occur, there's a severe shortage of available parking spaces. This can result in employees lateness and occasionally insufficient staffing to provide maximum customer service. SEPTA's recent announcement that budgetary reductions could result in the closure of the airport high-speed line is also cause for concern, as nearly 1,000 airport employees currently use the high-speed line every day. Without it, many of them would be forced to drive to work, increasing the strain on the employee parking lot. For all the reasons specified, the airport has an urgent and immediate need for additional space for employee parking. The property in question is owned by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. You may recall that the Division of Aviation previously introduced legislation in March of 2001 requesting authority to acquire the property. The Bill was held to the call of the Chair at that time until additional information was provided to the Committee. It's my understanding that the information was supplied to this Committee by the 90 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 RDA. Executive Director Herbert Wetzel to my left is here today from the RDA. And if you desire, we'll explain the relationship between the RDA and redeveloper New Eastwick Corporation. The Committee should also be aware that New Eastwick Corporation filed a petition for the appointment Board of View pursuant to the Eminent Domain Code requesting a determination of the amount of compensation New Eastwick Corporation is entitled to as compensation for inverse condemnation as a result of the City's conduct. The petition alleges that the City's actions have taken all beneficial use and enjoyment of New Eastwick Corporation's rights in the property. The City has filed preliminary objections, copies of which I have with me today. The Redevelopment Development Authority has filed a motion for a declaratory judgment seeking to set aside New Eastwick Corporation's rights, if any, in the property. I have copies of the pending declaratory judgement action as well.

Irrespective of the outcome of these pending actions, we will need and, therefore, request Council approval to acquire the property. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to 91 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 speak to today in support of this Bill. I also request a suspension of the Rules so that the ordinance may be passed upon second reading. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. I believe the Department of Public Property also has testimony.

Let's go back, because we've been through this with this before. What we have is a parcel of land, and you can correct my characterization if I'm wrong. A parcel of land since 1961 has been controlled by a corporation that has not developed the land nor paid taxes nor even kept it in clean; that was all on our tab. There's an undisputed need that we need to expand our parking for employees and parking generally down there. But the potential is that we're going to pay this company that's done nothing on this property since 1961 millions of dollars to get out of the way, basically, because it's our land; they own the development rights to it and have owned the development rights since 1961. Help me get where I need to be as a Member of Board of Directors of this company, while wanting to help you with this legislation to get it 92 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 moving, basically giving card blanche to the amount of money the taxpayer will have to pay -- we always get involved in this splitting hairs between taxpayers and flyers. I think the flying public are taxpayers. Passenger facilities charges are basically a tax. It's taxpayers money. It's not General Fund, but it's taxpayers' money. People who pay taxes to go and fly in and out of our airport pay a required fee, which to my mind is a tax, and to use that money to buy this property. And the problem I have is that once I let this go, this property could be sold at a negotiated sale or condemnation for 5 million, 6 million, 7 million, 10 million. I mean, how do I justify my fiduciary responsibility as a member of this Board of Directors by giving authority to the airport, Public Property Department, to negotiate a sale that in the end I can't control the price? Not only control the price, won't have any approval of the price. Because what would really be sad is that if we allow this to go, suspend the rules, get you on your way, you go negotiate a sale or condemn this property and we give the Korman Corporation $7 million for doing nothing on this property since 1961, not even paying 93 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 cents in taxes. I wouldn't even mind if they paid the real estate taxes on the land since 1961. All right, fine. Or if they tried to develop it. It's just they've sat on it as a slum landlord for the most part, and now we're going to take flying public's money and reward them for doing nothing on that land. Granted, this is not your responsibility, it's not your fault, you need the land. But how do I justify that as my responsibility as an elected official and Chairman of this Committee to allow that to happen? I still get an answer to it. Herb, help me.

I'll try, Councilman. My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. There are some others who are with me today that probably could better articulate the legal strategy that we've entered into. When you raised this issue at the hearings two years ago, we began to think about the very fact -- and the issue you raised is why should someone who's never taken title, never had 94 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 responsibility, never paid liability insurance, never paid real estate taxes; if it was dumped on, never had to clean up, gain any benefit from that parcel of land? Why should one public entity acquire a property owned by other public entity and pay this third party because of a relationship that was constructed in 1961? What we did is -- and I think part of the problem was because this agreement was around for so long, people took it for granted that it just was just going to be there. And because it got extended several times, the assumption was that agreement is going to be been there. And I think that's why representatives came to the last Council hearing, as you will recall, and articulated their right to receive their money, which I think is what actually tabled this whole thing. We hired outside counsel who's done extensive research. We have filled a lawsuit to essentially make null and void this agreement, not only for Parcel C, there's other developable land down there, including 50 acres of residential land that is developable that's just being sat on. This could be productive land. There could be people 95 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 living down there. There could be tax revenues coming from that particular land as well. All of that land is essentially handcuffed in that agreement, and it's time for that agreement to end. It's a bad agreement. It's the kind of agreement that you would never enter into today. We believe we have a strong legal case, and I would ask others to articulate that to you, of winning this thing. I think that raises a question. If I were in your seat, I'd be saying, well, what happens if you don't win. I've approved something now and we don't win.

Are you telling me that the approval of this legislation would retroactively effected by the winning of the lawsuit.

No, what I'm suggesting is that winning the lawsuit -- the ownership and title of this land, if this legislation was approved and the City condemned, title to this land would pass to the City of Philadelphia. The fight would not be over who owns it --

Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt. I understood the parcel of land 96 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 to be owned by the City of Philadelphia with the development rights going to Korman Corporation.

No, it's owned by the Redevelopment Authority. The City would condemn the land that's owned by the Redevelopment Authority. Upon the filing of a Declaration of Taking, title to that land would pass to the City of Philadelphia and they could proceed to build the airport parking. The battle would be over who's entitled to the money. The New Eastwick Corporation, which i the redeveloper --

The non-redeveloper.

Well, there's some interesting things about that at this point.

But you can understand too how ironic it is that we're not only going to reward someone who's not developed the land or paid taxes, but we're taking a parcel of land owned by a quasi-City agency, turning it over to a City agency, and paying somebody in the middle to get out of the way.

I agree. Listen, we fully agree with you. And as a matter of fact, your insight that you provided to us really triggered us 97 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 to say, does this agreement really have to exist? Can we challenge this agreement? Our intent is they should not get a dime.

Would the money be held? If this legislation goes forward and a title transferred from RDA to Airport, no money would be paid to Korman until the result of the lawsuit?

Our counsel can correct me on this, but the City would pay the money into the court, it would sit in court while that lawsuit is being fought.

How do we determine the amount of the money that would sit in escrow?

Generally, it's going to be the appraised value of the real state.

What happens if we lose the case?

I would like to have Counsel come up and answer that for you. I think I know the answer, but I'd like Steve Engelmyer who is representing us as outside Counsel.

Good afternoon, Councilman. 98 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216

Good afternoon.

So I'm answering the question you raised, could I impose upon you to repeat it, please?

Ask the question again?

Yes, sir.

The legislation goes forward. Transfer of the title is made from RDA to the airport. An appraisal is made or has been done and that amount of money is parked in a escrow account until the decision of the court on the effort to eliminate or obviate the development agreement.

Yes, sir.

What happens if we lose?

The RDA has brought a lawsuit to try to declare the rights of New Eastwick null and void in the agreement. If your question is what happens if we loss that lawsuit, what would happen is on the assumption there is a fight over the amount that should be paid, it's typical of any condemnation proceeding, it would go to a Board of 99 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 View. They would determine whose appraisal is the right one, and that would set the price for the property. No different than any other condemnation.

What firm do you represent?

I'm with the firm of Kleinbard, Bell & Brecker. We are outside counsel to the Redevelopment Authority.

Please be patient with me. When the revelation of this entire thing came forward, it is so disdainful and so disgraceful that this even existed and that we had to wind up being held over a barrel on the PNC back-of-the-house deal to extend this stupid thing even further, which at the time I think we voted on it but I don't think that was ever divulged that was part of -- or at least maybe not divulged in testimony, that that was part of the deal. What makes you think that we're in a strong position to win this?

Mr. Chairman, what we have done at the RDA's direction, and I thing, again, as Mr. Wetzel indicated, triggered by the issues that you raised, we went back and took closer 100 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 look at the agreement itself and who New Eastwick is. I think you very accurately described them as the non-developer rather than the developer. And here's what we have found. It is our belief, and this is alleged in our complaint, that New Eastwick in reality doesn't even exist any more. They may have existed . They may have existed 42 years ago, which is almost before my time, but they certainly don't exist now. We don't think they're a viable entity. We don't think they're an operating entity. We think to a great extent they have been subsumed by the Korman Corporation, which is why they were here, I think, two years ago. And as Mr. Chairman may know, the agreement does not allow the developer with whom we have signed an agreement to go nonviable and in essence to sell themselves to another entity without the approval of the authority. None of that has ever happened. So our view is we are dealing with a party to an agreement that really -- there's no "their" there any more. So I would never guarantee a result of a lawsuit. You'd laugh me out of the room if I did that. But we certainly believe we have merit, and we look to this Committee and appreciate the issues that they 101 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 have raised.

Okay. I want to do this. I want to get it down. I want to give you some relief on your needs. I'm just going on faith that this is going to work out and that we're going to potentially have no cost at all in transferring the title. If we're successful in the lawsuit, is it a possibility we won't pay anything?

If we are successful in the lawsuit, it is likely, in fact, we would pay zero -- well, let me specific. The airport would pay the Redevelopment Authority. The Redevelopment Authority would not pay anything to New East Eastwick.

What would the airport be paying the Redevelopment Authority? What is the consideration based on?

Councilman, in 1972 when Richard Nixon ended he urban renewal programs and created the Community Development Block Grant Program, there's a close-out agreement with HUD, the City of Philadelphia HUD and the Redevelopment Authority on all the land that was acquired with 102 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 urban renewal financing. And what that essentially requires is that the Redevelopment Authority dispose of that land for fair market value. The money that it receives from the disposition of land must go back into the Community Development Block Grant Program. In other words, during the years post-1972, Community Development Block Grant funds have been used to maintain, clean, stabilize land that was brought from a prior program. And so HUD basically said, if you sell a parcel, that money has to go back into the City's Community Development Block Grant Program. So if the property were disposed of to the City or the airport for fair market value, those funds then go right back into the City's Community Development Block Grant Program. The Redevelopment Authority cannot keep that money. That money must be transferred back under this close-out agreement. So it would come back into the City but it would be different money at that point. It would have to be used for housing and community development, which is not a bad thing.

No, not at all. Any other questions? 103 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 (No response.)

None. Thanks. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? Please let the record show that the Department of Property through Commissioner Perez supports the transaction as outlined. Please identify yourself.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on Public Property and Public Works. My name is Marty Gregorski, and I'm a Zoning Planner with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 030216. Councilmember Blackwell introduced this Bill on behalf of Council President Verna on April 10th of this year. The property that is subject to this Bill is the same property that was subject of Bill No. 010191, which was also introduced by Councilmember Blackwell of behalf of Council President Verna on March 29, 2001. This parcel is located on the south side of Bartram Avenue west of 84th Street and is zoned C-3 Commercial. This property contains approximately 16.3 acres. This is a vacant property 104 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030216 that is owned by the Redevelopment Authority, and once conveyed will be used by the Philadelphia International Airport for employee parking. The Airport needs to create additional employee facilities for its airlines, support businesses, concessionaires and government agency tenants. The existing employee parking lot, which is adjacent to lot, is no longer adequate due to the rapid growth in the airport employment since the opening of the lot in 1996. The Planning Commission at its meeting of April 19, 2001, recommended that Bill No. 010191 be approved. And accordingly, we recommend that Bill No. 030216 be approved. Thank you.

Is this your first time with us?

It is.

Welcome. You did a very nice job for the first time out. We look forward to seeing you soon. Councilman Rizzo.

Mr. Chairman, I have a meeting at 4 o'clock. I must leave, so I'd like to leave my vote yes on all of the Bills before the 105 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030332 Committee today.

Thank you very much. The record will so reflect. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 030332, which is an Ordinance 9 authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, without consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate at the southeast corner of 31st and Oakford Streets, generally under and subject to the terms and conditions of the Philadelphia Industrial and commercial Development Agreement between the City, the PAID, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself.

My name is Thomas Dalfo. I'm a vice president with the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. I'm here representing PIDC and the Philadelphia Authority for 106 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030332 Industrial Development.

Please proceed.

We're here today to support Bill 030332. The Bill will authorize the City to convey a parcel containing 2.3 acres of vacant land located at 30th and Oakford Streets to PAID. After acquisition, PAID will in turn convey this property to J.D. Mack and Company, a private real estate development company. The company intends construct approximately 21,000 square feet of retail space that will include a national drug store chain store and possibly a bank or a restaurant. Their development plans are not finalized at this point. It is anticipated that they'll create approximately new jobs. And the total cost of development is 18 in the area of $4.5 million. 19 The Bill will also PAID to negotiate a 20 sale with J.D. Mack and Company in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Philadelphia Industrial and Commercial Development Agreement between the City, PAID, and PIDC. The sale will be based upon two independent appraisals of the property and its redevelopment as a retail site. 107 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030332 The appraisals have not been completed yet. We expect to have the results from those in approximately four to six weeks. We believe that the development of this property as well as the adjacent property the developer will be acquiring on Grays Ferry Avenue will greatly enhance the development of that particular portion of Grays Ferry Avenue. Representatives from J.D. Mack have met with the various community groups, the Kings Village Civic Association and the Grays Ferry Neighborhood Association to discuss the project and get community input into the type of development that will occur. I would ask that the Committee consider the bill favorably and consider suspending the Rules and permitting reading at the next regular scheduled Council meeting.

Thank you. Mr. Mark.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Richard DeMarco from Klehr, Harrison, Harvey Branzburg & Ellers, representing J.D. Mack and Company. I have no formal testimony other than to thank PIDC for their efforts in helping this project 108 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030379 along and to thank the Public Property Committee and City Council for consideration of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, as Commissioner of Public Property, we support the Bill.

Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, we will move to Bill No. 030379, An Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to acquire from the Consolidated Rail Corporation all of its right, title and interest, if any, in and to certain real property comprised of parcels of real estate, also known as part of the Kensington & Tacony Industrial Track; and to acquire from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting by and through the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, all of its right, title and interest, if any, in and to certain parcels of real estate known as the Frankford Arsenal Boat Ramp 109 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030379 property and the Tacony Boat Ramp properties; all under certain terms and conditions. Please identify for the record.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Andres Perez, I'm Commissioner of Public Property. I'm here in support of Bill 030379. At the recommendation of the Law Department and the request of Councilwoman Krajewski, I would like to submit some corrections to the Bill as an amendment. The purpose of the Bill was authorize the acquisition of the referenced parcels. The purpose of the amendment was to clarify and strike out certain references that would imply that Council is also renaming land that is not public property.

Okay.

Unfortunately, the project behind this is not a Public Property project and I'm not well versed in the details of it. The representatives that were to speak on the issue are not present. There is another individual present to explain details.

We have a witness. Come forward, please. Please identify yourself for the record. 110 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030379

Good afternoon, Chairman Kenney and Members of the Committee on Public Property and Public Works. I'm Carolyn Wallace, Director of Community Redevelopment Programs for the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. Patrick Star, our Vice President of PEC intended to be here today but is busy with last minute details of our annual dinner which is tonight which has over 500 people, so apologizes for not being here.

No problem.

I have testimony of his that I asked to be distributed, so I'll just read a few key paragraphs.

Please.

I'm here today to testify in favor of Ordinance 030379, specifically, the authorization for the City of Philadelphia to acquire an abandoned Conrail rail line known as the Kensington and Tacony Industrial Track. It runs along the edge of the Delaware Riverfront. The Pennsylvania Environmental Council has been involved in working to connect the City neighborhoods to the Delaware River along the section north of the Betsy Ross Bridge to Bucks 111 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030379 County for well over seven years. Our efforts have focused on facilitating new recreational opportunities for City residents, restoration of habitat and ecological elements along the river and advocating for economic and community redevelopment opportunities along the riverfront that would use the river as a front door to the City and take advantage of the tremendous value of waterfront property for diversity of industrial, residential, and commercial uses. We're proud to report significant progress in working to make the Kensington and Tacony Trail known as the K & T a reality. The ordinance you're considering would enable the City of Philadelphia to purchase an initial 1.8 mile section of the K & T, starting at the old Frankford Creek just north of Rohm & Haas and accessible from Tacony Street at the Frankford Arsenal Boat Launch and ending at Millner Street just north of New State Road, so there is an in and out to this section. PEC and the Fairmount Park Commission were successful in receiving a grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to acquire the K & T from Conrail and 112 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030379 conduct the necessary appraisals title search and environmental studies. Conrail's Board has approved of this transaction. The City would purchase the property and convey it to the Fairmount Park Commission for conversion and maintenance as a trail. PEC has also applied for a state grant of $178,000 for design and engineering of the trail and we would be working closely with the Streets Department to award and manage that grant. I need to add that we will not receive this grant for this round of funding unless the City is authorized to enclose us on the acquisition of the rail line from Conrail by the end of June or early in July. So we need this ordinance passed now. We have been working hard on all fronts to make this deadline. The K & T is a key sea project of the larger North Delaware Riverfront Project that would transform major vacant and under-utilized areas along the riverfront into new communities for City residents and others who would locate on the river instead of moving out to open areas in the suburbs. Again, thank you very much for the 113 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030379 opportunity to speak to you today, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about Ordinance 4 030379.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for this witness? (No response.)

Seeing none, is there anyone else to testify on this Bill? Please come forward.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee on Public Property and Public Works. My name is Marty Gregorski and I'm a Zoning Planner with Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 030379. Councilman Krajewski introduced this Bill on May 15th of this year. While this Bill has not yet been considered by the Planning Commission, it will be at the Commission's next hearing on June 17 of this year. It will be the recommendation the Planning Commission staff that this Bill be voted upon favorably, as the acquisition of these parcels is important to the Commission's plan for the North 114 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030200 Delaware Riverfront. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify?

I do want to clarify. There is a representative from Fairmount Park, and it is endorsed and supported by the Fairmount Park Commission. I am a member of the Commission as well Commissioner of Public Property.

Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, we will move to Bill No. 030200, which is an Ordinance 15 authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into a Sublease Agreement to lease from the Philadelphia Municipal Authority portions of the building located at 1601-45 Cherry Street, also known as Three Parkway, for use by the City and affiliated agencies as office space, under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.

Again, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Perez, Department of Public Property. 115 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030200 I'm here in support of this Bill. The intent of the Bill is to provide a long-term lease for the referenced space and the building commonly referred to as Three Parkway, legally known as 1601-45 Cherry Street. It's approximately two floors of the building that have been rented for the expansion of the Department of Human Services.

Are they currently in there now?

They've been in there for about a month. This ordinance authorizes the long-term engagement.

How long?

Initial 10 years, plus --

Ten?

Ten years plus extensions.

Is that standard?

That's the approach we've been taking. This is a permanent increase. This is not a transitional or temporary increase in the Department of Human Services staffing.

Do you know what the monthly rental is? 116 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030200

I'm embarrassed to say that I actually don't know that offhand and I should have had that available. It starts out at $18 a square foot and I believe it's approximately 46,000 square feet.

And how high does it go?

By the 10th year, I believe it's at and then it gets a market value 11 revaluation. 12

What's the strategy 13 on doing it such long term? Is it better to lock us 14 in between 18 and 26? Or is it better to do it to 15 5 and try to figure out what the market is then? I 16 don't remember doing anything 10 years. 17

We started that as part of 18 the prior Administration's overall approach to 19 restructuring the entire leasehold portfolio. We 20 were being victimized by many short-term leases, 21 110 short-term leases costing us approximately 22 $40 million a year and growing with every 23 incremental renewal. So we had many leases that 24 rolled over in one year and often included a slight 25 increase. Over the years, those slight increases 117 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030200 were pretty substantial. So the conclusion at the time was to move to new spaces that were completely rebuilt at what the market's contemporary value was, which was substantially less than what we were paying in some of those old buildings that we had been in for and and years. It is a risk 8 that we take that the market goes unfavorably. 9

Do we have the 10 ability to sublease? 11

I don't believe we have that 12 in this lease. We normally don't ask for it. 13 We have members of the Law Department 14 that were part of the negotiating team. 15

Please identify 16 yourself. 17

Good afternoon, Henry 18 Schwartz, City Philadelphia Law Department. We have 19 the right to use it for DHS purposes or any other 20 City purposes. I think we've expanded it as far as quasi-City so if we wanted to go through PAID and do some other type of public use, we could do that as well.

But not to a private office or anything. 118 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030200 Please identify yourself.

Dan Shaw, City Law Department. There was restriction on use, and the use was for, as Mr. Schwartz points out, City and quasi agencies. So we wouldn't be able to lease it to a private entity. And also, a point of clarification for accuracy purposes, the lease actually -- if this ordinance is approved by Council and signed by the Mayor, the lease in the first year is actually $10 a square foot and it goes up all the way to $28, with the idea of the first years getting very low rent. The other thing is that the landlord here -- landlords in the buildings in which we were looking at which were close to other DHS buildings, only sort of commercial downtown practice is 10 years. So that's another reason why.

That's more --

That's a standard commercial Class A building.

That's fine. All right. Any other questions on this particular Bill? 119 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030535 (No response.)

Anyone else to testify? (No response.)

Seeing none, we will now move to Bill 030353, an Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into a Sublease Agreement to lease from the Philadelphia Municipal Authority portions of the building located at 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, also known as Two Penn Center, for use by the City and affiliated agencies as office space, under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the record.

Commissioner Perez, Department of Public Property. I'm here in support of this Bill. The intention of the Bill is to permit a new agreement extending the lease for the Pension Board's offices in the referenced building. Mr. Kidwell from the Pension Board is available as well as myself to try and answer any questions.

So this is an extension of an existing lease? 120 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030535

I think it's basically a renewal because it includes an expansion of space.

What's the use now, what department?

It's strictly the Pension Board.

And they'll be expanding and extending or renewing a lease?

Yes.

For period of how many years?

Henry Schwartz from the Law Department. For 10 years.

And same basic price structure?

It's A slightly different rent structure, but averages out about the same.

Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)

Seeing none, anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, that 121 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030535 will conclude the business of the Public Property Committee hearing.

We will now convenient a public meeting --

Mr. Chairman.

I'm sorry. We're back into the hearing.

I've got 030392 on my list.

Councilman DiCicco has asked that be held.

Very well. In reference to have the Bills presented and testified by the Department of Public Property, we also asked for a suspension of the rules.

That's blanket today. This is the last day out. That will conclude the public hearing. - - - 122 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS - - - Thursday, May 29, 2003 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Public Property and Public Works, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: Bills 030200, 030216, 030245, 030246, 030253, 030292, 030332, 030353, 030370, 030379, 030392. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER - - - 123 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - PUBLIC MEETING

The Chair now convenes a public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Reynolds Brown for a motion on Bill No. 030246.

Thank you. I move that Bill 030246 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and further move that the Rules of Council be suspended so that we can hear this Bill at the next meeting of City Council. (Duly seconded.)

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No 030246 reported out of this Committee favorably, and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Miller on a motion on 030292.

Thank you. I move that Bill No. 030292 be reported out of this 124 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - PUBLIC MEETING committee with a favorable recommendation, and further that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No 030292 reported out of this Committee favorably, and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on 030245.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 030245 be reported out of this favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended ed so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)

It's been moved and 125 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - PUBLIC MEETING seconded. All in favor, aye. (Aye.)

Any opposed?

No. 7

One opposed. Let the record show that Councilmember Blackwell is opposed to this motion. That motion passes. Bill No 030245 reported out of this Committee favorably, and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Blackwell for a motion on Bill 030370.

I move that Bill just mentioned be reported out Committee with favorable recommendation and a recommendation for suspension of the Rules so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. (Duly seconded.)

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. (Aye.) 126 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - PUBLIC MEETING

There are none opposed. Bill No 030370 reported out of this Committee favorably, and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 030216.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 030216 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, further recommendation Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No 030216 reported out of this Committee favorably, and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. 127 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - PUBLIC MEETING The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill 030332.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 030332 be reported out of this Committee with favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No 030332 reported out of this Committee favorably, and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion to approve the amendment to Bill 23 No. 030379.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment as circulated to Bill 030379 be 128 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - PUBLIC MEETING adopted. (Duly seconded.)

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)

There are none opposed. The amendment to Bill No 030379 is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on the amended Bill 030379.

Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 030379, as amended, be reported out of 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. (Duly seconded.)

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. (Aye.)

There are none 129 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - PUBLIC MEETING opposed. Bill No 030379, as amended, reported out of this Committee favorably, and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill 030200.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 030200 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No 030200 reported out of this Committee favorably, and a request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember 130 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - PUBLIC MEETING Clarke on Bill 030353.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 030353 be reported out of Committee with favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the Rules. (Duly seconded.)

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. (Aye.)