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?
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 --
-- and are against your business interest? That's what I'm asking you now as a business person.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Good afternoon. My name is Alba Martinez. I'm Commissioner of the Department of Human Services.
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
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
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.
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 --
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.
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
So I'm answering the question you raised, could I impose upon you to repeat it, please?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
I have testimony of his that I asked to be distributed, so I'll just read a few key paragraphs.
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.
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.
They've been in there for about a month. This ordinance authorizes the long-term engagement.
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.
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
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
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 fine. All right. Any other questions on this particular Bill? 119 05/29/03 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 030535 (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.
And they'll be expanding and extending or renewing a lease?
It's A slightly different rent structure, but averages out about the same.
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.
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.)
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