COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, November 16, 1999 10:25 a.m. - - - BILL 990670 - Re redevelopment of the Grays Ferry Urban Renewal Area. BILL 990686 - Re redevelopment of the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area. BILL 990687 - Re redevelopment of Cecil B. Moore Avenue Urban Renewal Area. (Full text of all bills contained herein.) PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 11/16/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES I N D E X Bill 990670 Noel Eisenstat, Executive Director. . . . . . 5 Redevelopment Authority Jeff Brown, Redevelopment Authority . . . . . 7 Bill 990686 Noel Eisenstat, Executive Director. . . . . . 9 Redevelopment Authority Duane Bumb, Deputy Director of Commerce . . . 27 Bill 990687 Noel Eisenstat, Executive Director. . . . . . 29 Redevelopment Authority 3 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990670 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. This is the Committee on Rules public hearing. We have not received any testimony, any written testimony from the Redevelopment Authority, to the best of my knowledge. We're supposed to get this hours in advance of the 10 public hearing. Can somebody tell me why we 11 didn't receive testimony? 12 (No response.) 13 (Noel Eisenstat comes forward.) 14
Mr. 15 Eisenstat, good morning. We're just receiving 16 copies of the testimony. It's always been the 17 practice that we receive testimony at least 24 to 18 48 hours prior to the public hearing. Can you 19 tell us why we didn't get the copies of the 20 testimony? 21
Good morning. I 22 apologize. It was my understanding that the 23 materials were prepared last week, and when Mr. 24 DeMarco of your staff called me yesterday afternoon, to my amazement, they were not 4 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990670 prepared, and Mr. DeMarco did receive them as soon as I found the copies of drafts that were not yet perfect. And for that, I take full responsibility and I apologize.
Will the clerk please read the title of Bill No. 990670.
An ordinance amending an ordinance approved December 15, 1969, as amended, which approved the Redevelopment Proposal, the Urban Renewal Plan, and the Relocation Plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Grays Ferry Urban Renewal Area, by approving the ninth amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal and the Urban Renewal Plan, which provide inter alia for the expansion of the southwestern boundary, from Morton Street east of South 35th Street, along the westerly right-of-way of the B&O Railroad, to the south side of Reed Street, then west along the south side of Reed Street to the east side of the pierhead line and bulkhead line of the Schuylkill River, then north and east along the east side of the pierhead line and bulkhead line of the Schuylkill River to Peltz Street, updating the 5 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990670 Boundary and Land Acquisition Map, the Proposed Land Use map, and the Property Rehabilitation Standards, all as contained in the ninth amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal and the ninth amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan.
Good morning. My name is Noel Eisenstat. I'm the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority. I think that the bill, as described by Mr. DeMarco, outlays much of the bill. Mr. Brown, the Project Manager of the Redevelopment Authority, is with me today with a map. As the bill explains, and as my testimony explains, the purpose of this bill today is purely to update various controls, boundaries, and acquisition and proposed land use controls of the area, as well as to expand the redevelopment area. I would clearly like to indicate that the Redevelopment Authority, through this bill, is not proposing to acquire any properties under this, the ninth amendment of the redevelopment 6 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990670 proposal and the urban renewal plan; that the Redevelopment Authority is undertaking these activities at the direction of the Commerce Department. At one point, the Redevelopment Authority, at the direction of the Commerce Department, was considering the acquisition of certain parcels that no longer are needed today. They've been acquired by other means, and these activities are simply, as explained, the expanding of the urban renewal area. Also with me for any questions would be Mr. Bumb of the Commerce Department.
Mr. Eisenstat, have you had an opportunity to contact the local community regarding this ordinance? And if so, what type of response have you received from them? I know there were meetings.
I'm not -- I know that we have had -- my recollection is that there were some community discussions last spring, and I don't recall most recent discussions that Mr. Brown -- let me just ask. Jeff, have you had any contact with the community since last spring? 7 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990670
You're going to have to take the microphone and identify yourself for the record.
Jeff Brown, Redevelopment Authority. We had sent the urban rule plan and the redevelopment proposal to the Grays Ferry Community Council for any comments, and they had no objection to the revised proposal. In addition, I was out on surveys with Kathy Murray of your staff in the --
Exactly, in the Forgotten Bottom neighborhood, and they were very interested in having the boundary expanded so that they could get public investment in their neighborhood, which has been forgotten.
Yep. And I will tell you, I was just sharing with my colleagues that the police did not even know that this area existed because they never even get any 8 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 calls of complaints. It's really a great little community, and I think that they should be included in any benefits that are available to them. Are there any questions from the members of the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask clerk to read the title of Bill No. 14 990686.
An ordinance amending an ordinance approved December 15, 1969, as amended, which approved the Redevelopment Proposal, the Urban Renewal Plan, and the Relocation Plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area by approving the 25th amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal, the 17th amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan, and the 16th amendment to the Relocation Plan, which provide, inter alia, for additional land acquisitions of 9 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 approximately 88 properties and provision of certain relocation services as required by law.
Good morning. My name is Noel Eisenstat, and I'm from the Redevelopment Authority. Mr. DeMarco has read into the record Bill 990686. That bill, as drafted, addresses a series of acquisitions to be undertaken by the Redevelopment Authority. I would also explain that there is a companion bill, which you may wish to take later today, 990687, which deals with one of the five areas of which you'll be -- of which acquisition is proposed. Let me summarize my testimony in the following way beyond the written materials that I have discussed earlier. This is an activity that -- what you have before you are a series of discrete acquisitions for discrete end-users, many of which are with us today, or I can explain in more detail beyond my testimony. The Model Cities Area is a large urban renewal area located in North Philadelphia, and as 10 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 part of this bill, we're proposing to undertake five separate acquisitions. The first is to acquire nine properties in the 3100 block of Berk Street. The purpose of these properties are to be acquired at the direction of the Housing and Community Development in order for the Redevelopment Authority, again, at the direction of OHCD, to issue an RFP to rehabilitate these properties into affordable home ownership units. The next activity is to acquire a series of properties in the 1600 block of North 20th Street and in the 1900 block of Turner Street, on behalf of Morning Star Holiness Church. In this situation, the Authority is prepared to -- is requesting the ability to acquire nine properties. Along with these nine properties, fourteen other properties will be acquired, some in the Redevelopment Authority inventory currently, four properties currently owned by PHA, and five properties currently owned by the Morning Star Holiness Church. The intent here is to consolidate all these properties so that the Morning Star Holiness Church can consolidate these properties for new church development. 11 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 The next activity before you is the acquisition of 57 parcels by the Redevelopment Authority, along with 42 properties of the Housing Authority, which will not be a part of this bill, in order to support a home ownership activity of a joint venture of APM and Leon Weiner Companies. This activity will be supported by Economic Stimulus funds, and I would note that previous proposals of this activity included parcels that were designated as part of the KOZ. Consistent with notes of testimony and representation by the Rendell Administration, this acquisition for housing will not involve properties that are currently in the KOZ. The result of these developments will be -- of these acquisitions will be the construction of 48 affordable home ownership units. As part of these activities, it will be required to relocate nine residential properties and one commercial property. The next acquisition development in this bill is the acquisition of ten properties located in what is known as the Christian Schmidt Brewery. The Christian Schmidt Brewery is a large piece of real estate that many of you might know 12 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 that has been tax-delinquent and in the sheriff's sale process for some time. The acquisition of these properties, which will include three residential properties and three commercial properties is to, for a better term, round out the development activity -- round out the parcel. These are -- so that the entire site can be cleared and made way for commercial development. This is being done by the Redevelopment Authority at the direction of the City's Commerce Department. It is the direction of the Commerce Director, the Redevelopment Authority upon acquisition in merging with the sheriff's sale property solicit proposals through a request for proposal, or RFP, a request for proposal process that would commence after acquisition has been undertaken.
The last acquisition of the Model Cities, as noted in my testimony, is the acquiring of three outer parcels in the Cecil B. Moore Home Ownership Phase II. The Cecil B. Moore Home Ownership activity is a joint venture of the Cecil B. Moore Local Development Corporation and the NPHDC. A total of 97 units of new construction 13 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 and 62 homes in need of rehabilitation will be completed as part of this activity. These three parcels further complement the acquisitions that have taken place over the last few years as well as the other seven, which are in the joint bill 7 that you may wish to consider later. I have some representatives from some of the groups today if you have any questions, or if you have any questions of me as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eisenstat, is there any technical problem with this bill since it was introduced by Councilmember Darryl Clarke and it's in my district? Does that pose any problems?
I don't know that it proposes a technical problem. I believe that the bill involves a technical problem, no, but maybe a communications problem.
As you and I previously discussed, this bill is a bill that includes 14 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 properties in both your Councilmatic district.
And in Councilman Clarke's district. This is one of the largest urban renewal areas in the city. Maybe Eastwick is larger, but that's all in Council President Verna's district. And in the communication of these materials, I couldn't speak to why one Councilman introduced it over another, but I would -- I believe that we ought to let the Administration and Council know, in general, that we were proceeding on these activities.
Okay. I just wanted to make sure there was no technical problem. My understanding is that they overlap on the districts.
Mr. Eisenstat, I have a question relative to the tax delinquency. Status of the Schmidt's Brewery site and any action that we may be taking today prior to, or at least unbeknownst to myself, I don't know whether the District Councilman has any more information 15 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 about what is moving forward in the way of either acquiring the property because of tax delinquency or a sale of the property of some kind or another, and does this action either enhance or detract from the process and/or the value of the property as it relates to what is owed to us in taxes?
Maybe I can address the issue. Noel can speak to the issue of whether it affects the future development of the site. But as to the issue of the tax delinquency, yesterday a letter was delivered to Mr. Pflaumer, who's the principal owner of the site to his attorney, basically laying out the calendar for the repayment of the taxes and/or the redevelopment of the property. As Mr. Pflaumer has recently indicated, he now has several tenants and allegedly has a bank that is going to provide for the financing, and basically what the Law Department has put down is a calendar of events that must be adhered to by Mr. Pflaumer by a date certain. If those conditions are not met by a date certain, then the process for a sheriff's sale will commence. 16 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686
It's very much more detailed than that, but we are moving along. The line has been basically drawn now, and either something happens in the next few weeks or we move to sheriff's sale.
Are the Schmidt properties different from the Pflaumer properties?
All one and the same. And that's what you were just addressing the sheriff's sale.
Yeah. Could I just explain for a point of reference that the properties that this bill contemplates acquisition of are properties that are not in the control of Mr. Pflaumer. They are -- these are properties that are bounded by the streets described within the bill. 17 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 These properties are necessary in order to create what we would in the development community know as a development site. They are outer parcels within a larger series of properties. I don't understand how it is that these properties are not -- were never a part of the broader Christian Schmidt site. So that the properties that we are acquiring are not owned by Mr. Pflaumer, they're generally not tax-delinquent, like Mr. Pflaumer's properties, and they need to be acquired by urban renewal. These properties, as individual parcels, represent a very small piece of the larger Schmidt's Brewery site in terms of its total mass.
Well, how many properties are you attempting to acquire, 88?
Are any of 18 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 the properties occupied?
In the Christian Schmidt's Brewery site, there are three residential properties and three commercial properties. In the Cecil B. Moore site, there are no -- the properties are vacant; the same with the Berks and the Morning Star. The only other properties that are occupied are within the Weiner development, which are nine residential units and one commercial property.
A total within the bill 15 would be eleven -- sorry, twelve residential properties and four commercial properties. And they're split between the Christian Schmidt site and the APM site. All of the other properties are vacant, unoccupied.
And what provisions are being made for those properties or for the people who occupy those properties?
The Authority is bound by the federal and the State relocation guidelines. The Authority has a -- 19 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686
Have there been discussions that have been started with the residential -- 5
There have been some 6 discussions around the community as it relates to 7 the APM site because this is an activity that's 8 been going on for some time. It is not generally 9 the practice, unless otherwise determined, to 10 contact residents involved in residential 11 relocation prior to an action of a bill other than 12 the public notices and community notices that are given. It is the belief of the Authority that in general, the Authority is -- that the preliminary -- that attempting to contact property owners about a possible acquisition is generally not advised as it relates to issues of inverse condemnation. Once the bill -- to the extent that once the bill is passed and signed by the Mayor, the Authority is then in a position where it can best deal with residential and commercial relocation activities. The Authority isn't prepared to deal with individuals before we know that we have a bill. As to their needs, we will 20 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 respond to individuals, but beyond the general noose that we provide, we generally do not provide -- we do not attempt to contact individual land owners on an individual basis before such an activity.
The concern of the Authority is that the way the federal relocation regulations work, as well as our funding, we want to be able to address people's needs as it relates to relocation with some knowledge, and that's usually a process that requires -- when we prepare a bill before -- when we prepare an action for our Redevelopment Authority Board, the Planning Commission --
An action. This is the result of an action, an ordinance. Generally a survey is done, and where we identify community groups that are active in the area, we will work with them. And we will respond to generalized questions and very often 21 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 with the direction of a Councilperson -- and it's been the case with Council President Verna and Councilman DiCicco -- where there are very active areas, we will attend meetings before an urban renewal bill. I spent a few hot summer nights with Councilman DiCicco. However, it is our belief that to begin to talk to families about possible relocation before a bill is enacted on a one-on-one basis is premature because the first thing after a survey is done, which is the basis for this bill, which tells you how many residents and how many commercial properties, it's really important that the Authority undertake an intake or an interview process.
Have the opportunity to interview and sit down with residents on a one-by-one basis to clearly identify their particular housing and relocation needs as it relates to the size of their house now, how many family members, children or extended family, what their ownership or tenancy might be, the nature of what home they may need. 22 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 That's a lengthy process and it's one that we've been advised that generally, that level of detail is one that one should really only begin once one has the authority to acquire. If the Authority was to undertake that type of activity, the Authority would still effectively have to undertake that activity twice because under the relocation guidelines, that activity really needs to occur after the bill is passed. And we really don't have the luxury to go through that exhaustive of an analysis twice.
But by that time, hasn't the authority to take the property occurred?
True. But in general, as it relates to property values in the area, housing types, and for the purposes of budgeting, we are generally in a position that we have an estimated cost concerning these issues, and that before having the authority to condemn, we really can't tell a person much about when they might be able to move. We don't -- we're left in a position that before a bill is enacted, or when it's 23 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 enacted, we really can't tell a given individual much specific information about what the timeline might be until a bill has actually been signed and put into law and it becomes effective. So we will meet with individuals, but we won't go through a detailed analysis on an individual family-by-family basis on a preliminary basis.
But it's pretty troublesome, I think. I remember when the Convention Center was being built, everybody knew what was going on, the prices seemed extraordinarily high to us because the property had been dead for a long time, but -- and most of the people who made out like bandits were pretty well heeled to begin with. It seems to me that here, where there may be opposite economic circumstances, that we're taking advantage of people, and I don't think it's any more right for a government to do it than for any other landowner to do it. In fact, I think it's just dead wrong for the government to do it. People ought to be able to feel that they can rely on their government, that the government is open, 24 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 and that nobody is trying to take advantage of them.
I share your opinion, and I would only strongly disagree with you that the process which we follow does not take advantage of individuals. And in fact, in many of the situations where we're dealing with less than economically-vibrant properties, the Authority is providing relocation benefits and relocation payments, and in some situations, last-resort relocation benefits that are far substantially greater than the value of their properties -- many times to or $30, 000 more, because in many 15 cases, we're condemning properties in neighborhood 16 where these units are effectively not meeting 17 housing quality standards and following the 18 federal guidelines and federal laws and CDBG 19 regulations. The Authority is bound and required 20 to and further regulated by HUD to make sure that 21 in a relocation matter, individuals must be 22 relocated into a safe, sanitary, decent house that 23 meets HUD-established housing quality standards. 24 And while I fully agree with you that 25 the process of relocation is not -- is a process 25 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 that people who are being relocated don't look forward to, they don't ask to move, they don't want their properties to be taken, that it's a -- it can be a disruptive process at best. However, from a fairness standpoint, the Authority conducts itself in a way that it follows these guidelines to a T. We are audited and monitored by federal regulations, by HUD auditors and HUD monitors on these matters more than sufficiently to ensure that -- and I can assure you that, in fact, the Authority, where we've had situations where the federal law is in place, which is more generous, and the State law is less generous, the Authority, as a matter of policy for the purposes of being consistent throughout the City, has adopted the federal law so that there is no disparity between urban renewal taking or another, Councilman Cohen.
Well, I don't want to prolong this at this time. I don't have any specific information on it. I was responding to your statements, and it seems to me that we would be much wiser if we were very open about it and we went through the process twice, maybe even a third time, if necessary, to make sure that there's 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 fairness. I don't think that saving time is the urgent requirement because I don't see anything that would delay any projects from taking place. It would just seem to me to be much fairer to deal. If we are, in fact, dealing honorably with everybody, that would come out, and we wouldn't -- you know, we wouldn't have to be at all defensive about it. I just think that government ought to be different. Government ought to be completely open and honest. And in that fashion, it inspires confidence on the part of the people in the City. Otherwise, they have to regard the City government as tough an operator as any commercial house that exists only for the purpose of making a profit. The City government is supposed to do much more than that. So I would just like to suggest that we look at that. And, Madam President, I think in the incoming term, we're going to have to look at some of these practices that may not have been looked at for many, many years. No slight is intended to you -- 27 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686
I'm sure you're working within the confines of what most people are doing these days, but I'm not sure that it's the right thing to do. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Yes. Madam Chairman, my name is Duane Bumb. I'm the Deputy Director of Commerce for the City. I've provided some testimony, but rather than read through that, I'll just tell you that we are also in support of Bill 990686 specifically relating to that portion of the bill 21 that deals with the Schmidt site and its redevelopment as a neighborhood shopping center at Second and Girard Avenues. The Schmidt property, as Mr. Eisenstat has already mentioned, is approximately 14 acres. 28 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990686 And as you can see on the map, the green areas are those areas that are not owned by Schmidt's, but in fact, may need to be incorporated for the development of a shopping center. We won't know that until we have a responsible developer, but because we knew that there was strong community support for that redevelopment, we wanted to bring this before you and get your approval before the sheriff's sale process. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
The clerk, then, will please read Bill No. 990687.
An ordinance amending an ordinance approved December 22, 1987, which approved the Redevelopment Proposal and the Urban Renewal Plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Cecil B. Moore Avenue Urban Renewal Area by 29 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990687 approving the seventh amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal and the seventh amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan, which provide, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately seven properties and provision of certain relocation services, as required by law, for the individuals, families, and business concerns which will be displaced.
Good morning. My name is Noel Eisenstat. I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 687, which corresponds to THE one element of the Bill 990686. My comments, I should note, as I clarify with my staff, although it's structured as an urban renewal bill, the bill provides for the Authority to provide relocation services where needed. These properties -- seven acquisitions of properties are vacant.
Yes. No residential or commercial activities exist, and I thought that would be important only because, although our bills provide, from a permissive standpoint, that 30 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990687 relocation activities be provided in all of our activities, and that is also to say that on some occasions, after we acquire -- while we're in the midst of acquiring a vacant property or structure, and the owner may appear or someone may return from a long overseas trip or some other long -- let's say people have been away for a long time and they return. That is permissive language. But in this situation, there are know relocatees identified. This bill, as previously described in my other testimony this morning, further supports the Cecil B. Moore Home ownership activities undertaken by the Cecil B. Moore Local Development Corporation with PHDC to construct 97 new units of housing and the rehabilitation of 62 home ownership unit as well.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.) 31 11/16/99 RULES - BILL 990687
Seeing none we will go into our public meeting. - - -
Mr. Eisenstat, is there any need for the suspension of the rules on these?
I believe it's become practice with us to suspend the rules. In a perfect world, it wouldn't be a terrible thing to ask for, but it is not absolutely necessary. I believe you have time within this session to pass these bills, which is really to your liking.
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. The only request is made in the written testimony from the Commerce Department on bills 686 and 687.
Well, we'll just suspend the rules on all of them, then.
We are now into our public meeting the Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 990670.
Madam Chair, I move 32 11/16/99 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING that Bill No. 990670.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990670 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990670 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 990686.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990686 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and an additional request made for a rules suspension to 33 11/16/99 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 990686 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 990687.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 990687 be reported out of this committee favorably and that a request be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990687 be 34 11/16/99 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and motion is carried. This concludes the public meeting of the Rules Committee. Thank you all very much. (Adjourned at 11:00 a.m.) - - - 35 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, November 16, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO.'S 990670, 990686, 990687 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter