Okay. Again, in 105 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 the Article 19, it refers to 19.2 organization membership. It says, "The Authority further agrees to cooperate with the Commission on Human Relations of the City in any manner that the Commission deems reasonable and necessary for the Commission to carry out its responsibilities under Chapter" blah-blah-blah. And. . . is that standard language?
Yes, that is standard City language that the City has in their contracts and that we pass down to people that enter into the contracts via us.
And will we have a nondiscrimination plan to accompany all of the agreements?
Will there be a nondiscrimination plan that will go out with all solicitations --
Thank you. 106 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 And we would note for those that are in attendance that all these questions are asked about affirmative action because it has been generally established that Council won't see the agreement. Since we won't see it, we have now way of knowing of what's in it without asking these specific questions. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess directed to Miss Franklin-Suber first, and we can move the answers around if they're required. I think what we've seen since this issue came up over a month ago, there's been a lot of second-guessing. The Mayor is the negotiator for the City in this matter and he presented a negotiation that he had accomplished with the teams to us in early January and said, This is the best I can do. I thought as hard as I could, I held the line here and there. He explained why and said, This is the most I can get at this time. He gave us a history of the last year as he had learned what was going on between 107 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 the teams and the Administration and the Council and explained that in light of all of that, he wanted to get everything back on track, have some good faith, and get to stadiums by the end of the year. I trust Mayor Street. I trust him when he told us that he giving us a full, not a half a picture, not nine-tenths of a picture, that this was the best he could do. And we sit here as Councilmembers, and I think we're second-guessers. I mean, this is what we do for a living. "Monday morning quarterbacking" might be another way of putting it. And we probably -- most of us belong to "Second-Guessers Anonymous," and we flunked the 12-step plan, the whole thing. And we like to find ways to improve situations, whether it be legislative or otherwise. But when there's a negotiation, it gets a little different. It's one thing if you all missed a minority requirement that should be in the deal, and I think they're valid. And there's also, I think validity, to if you haven't done this, for instance, any one of the things that the Daily News, the Controller, several Councilmembers 108 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 have enumerated that they find wrong with the deal, we should vote against it. What I have inferred from what the Mayor has told us is that if we don't accept this deal, approve this deal in its fullest part -- I'm not saying that there are things that we can't negotiate -- for instance, a reasonable date for us to get the -- "we" meaning Council and the Mayor -- a reasonable date to get the legislation. I mean, it's one thing for us to agree to a date like November 3rd, it's another thing for you to give it to us on November 1st, and we all know that that might need some work, but that's not between the Eagles and the Mayor and then us trying to become a part of the negotiation. That's more Council-Mayor. If this is the best deal -- I just want you to put it on the record, because it's my understanding that, you know, I could find all kinds of reasons both to attack this and to defend it. There's all kinds of good reasons to defend it. We're heard the attacks, and you just pick up the Controller's testimony, the Daily News today, the other bills, and you talk about -- which talk 109 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 about committing the Eagles to being there. Well, I can say that the Eagles aren't going anywhere else. I'm not going to build you a house, tell you you can possibly live in it for free, which is the bottom of where the negotiations would be, which is what the Mayor explained is what the teams wanted up front, and you're going to say, No, I'm going to move somewhere else and build my own just to spite you. Business people don't do that, especially when we would be in the position that they would be leaving in 2011 at the latest. They're not going to go finance $30 million or so of new construction somewhere else to spite us, and some bank's going to lend it to them for five years. It's just not going to happen in the real world. But even if it did, even if it did, we would still have them at the Vet till 2011, and then we have these costs that have been deferred that we are hoping and still hoping we don't have to spend.
If nothing else, we get four to six million, depending on whose figures you listen to, in skybox revenues for the next then years. It doesn't look to me that the Mayor 110 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 did such a bad job of negotiating. )
You know, there's two sides to negotiation. We've hear the results coming from our negotiator. You can undo any negotiation, redo it, if it's susceptible to that. I'm under the understanding that this isn't, that essentially, this agreement is one that we approve and keep and moving with the teams, or we disapprove it. It's not, we go back and renegotiate this part or that part, 'cause the Mayor has already taken those things into consideration. He knows that the teams wanted a dollar a year, they'll stay in the facility that they didn't have to pay to build at that point. He'd like to be able to work in the naming rights, work that into a bigger deal or have the chance to get more than the teams are willing to pay right now. I think that's what I've heard. Could you elaborate on that, because I love second-guessing, but I don't like killing 111 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 deals that I and, I think, a lot of other people are in favor of.
Councilman O'Neill, I think you summarized it perfectly. This is where we are. The Mayor has met extensively with representatives of the Eagles. And as he shared with Members of Council in the several briefings, a number of issues, a multitude of issues were raised, which is why I go back to the statement I made before. There is a fundamental purpose for this agreement, and it is simply a first step in setting the stage to discussing new-stadium development. It is not the discussion of new-stadium development, it is not the negotiation of the practice facility lease terms. In the event that the City buys the practice facility and we own it, we are not going to give up naming rights revenue; that doesn't seem to make sense at this point. We have said we are not going to agree at this point in time to any particular tax breaks. We are not going to agree at this point in time to nominal or no rent on the part of 112 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 Eagles. The Mayor's thinking is very simple, and I think it's prudent and appropriate. You look at the circumstances that exist at that point in time because our perspective is going to be different. It's different if you are looking at Vets Stadium. There is no new-stadium development, and you are looking at extending the useful life of Vets Stadium until 2011 with teams playing there, you look at the economics at that point, and then you sit down with the teams and you look at and you negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement, taking into account the issues of their financial competitiveness, but also the impact and cost to the taxpayers. We are not in a position to make those judgments at this point in time.
We were told that this was the only practice facility -- it would be the only practice facility in the National Football League that was actually in the city where the team plays. I assume that that's still true a week later from when we heard it. But we have enormous tax implications 113 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 there. Could you just explain them? In some cities, it's just to be in the suburbs because somebody gave 'em land. Sometimes they don't play in the city they call themselves anyway. I mean, that often happens. So it's not that big a deal where the practice facility is 'cause the team isn't in Dallas, for instance. So where the practice facility is isn't important to Dallas, they don't even have the team. But in many of those cases, even if they were in the city, there aren't wage taxes. Most of this country does not wage tax. It is not a big issue. Could you explain the implications just from a wage tax standpoint on the facility, the practice facility being in the City.
Councilman, to amplify my response from a little bit earlier, the change is fairly dramatic. You go from a situation today. We use the term when we tax people that move around of "duty days," how often they're here versus somewhere else. Where today we look at taxing the players -- and we all know that is a very big wage tax generator -- on the basis of 125 duty days. That would drop to 10, the days of the 114 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 games at Veterans Stadium. And the consequence of that reduction is, for the players and also then management -- the coaches and everyone spending all of their time watching films somewhere else, not in Philadelphia -- is on wage tax alone, we project in 2001, is a $2.7 million loss to us. That grows as the salaries particularly of the players grow dramatically with the salary cap. And it does not include certain business taxes and use-and-occupancy and other kinds of taxes that we would get with the facility here that we won't get if the facility is not here.
One of my colleagues mentioned, and I've heard it myself separately in one of the meetings had on this issue, that the State -- there's been some discussion in Harrisburg about the car tax, that we wouldn't just get the car tax if we didn't use it for a stadium-related purpose, somebody would pull it back. And that's, I think, at least in the realm of reason that if we're not doing stadiums, we're not doing practice facilities, that we got the authorization for the car rental tax because it was all a part of a stadium 115 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 package. I can tell you also I have heard our discussions when people here in Harrisburg, how unreasonable many people think November 3rd is, or doing this by the end of the year or not doing it, that they have a certain pot of money on the table that they put up for us and for Pittsburgh, and they are at -- least some talk, just as with the car rental tax discussion, about them putting a deadline on us. They're not going to put money out there and just let it hang for years, whether we want it or not. So you may want to mention it to the Mayor, that it's not only, I think, a good idea for us to get this thing over with or not do it, one way or the other, but tat the people who are authorizing what hopefully would be the bulk of the public funding of this are thinking the same thing, that this wasn't something that was going to go on forever. They thought the thing was going to be done last year, and that he was in a hurry, the Mayor up there rushing to get this done, along with Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh apparently was in a lot more of a hurry than 116 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 Philadelphia indicated it was.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman Nutter?
A point of order and information, Madam Chair. I was listening to the comments with regard to what had been negotiated, at least what's in front of us, and I am reminded that from time to time, other projects come to the Council and they go through the same public-hearing process. And my recollection is on a different project but of considerable size. On the Convention Center project, which I believe was about $500 million, there had been some discussion 117 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 about the speed by which that project had come to Council and had been passed. And in the realm of the best negotiated deal, I have to assume -- I wasn't a member of Council at the time -- that Mayor Goode sent over, in his opinion, the best possible deal he thought he could get. But there is information that seems to indicate that the deal came over to Council sometime in 1988 and was essentially negotiated for some period of time, and a new bill that did receive all of the support apparently of City Council was subsequently passed, but it had significant involvement of Council. I believe at the time, the lead negotiators for that were Councilman Blackwell and at the time Councilman Street -- now obviously the Mayor. I think many members of City Council who voted for that subsequent bill may agree that what came out of that process was certainly somewhat different, if not better, than what had originally been set up by the Administration. So I want to raise that as an issue that, yes, we all want to see this go forward and see it happen, but I think a part of the 118 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 discussion is around, how do we make sure we get the best possible deal that we can? And it's not to question someone else's negotiating skills or judgment or anything else. I would have to assume that then-Councilman Street thought it appropriate for City Council to be involved in that discussion and negotiation, and I think he would probably be the first to say that the City, and certainly on behalf of City Council, got a much better deal than was possibly set up initially by then-Mayor Goode. So you where here at the time, I was not but that is at least factually what the history is, as I understand it.
Councilman Cohen, I was going to call on you next. However, I notice that there are a couple other Councilmembers who did not have a chance at the first go-around. So at this time, I would recognize Councilman DiCicco. 119 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a truly historical day in Philadelphia when my colleague Councilman Cohen is concerned about the excess tax we're imposing on the business community. You are to my right. Again, thank you. We are switching here. (Laughter.)
Councilmember O'Neill spoke to a few of the issues that I was going to address, and I concur basically with everything that he has spoken to. As someone who represents a district that has probably seen the most, if not the majority, of economic development in the last three years in the City of Philadelphia, I'd like to -- I look at these packages, these bills that we have today in front of us as similar to some of the things that we've done in attracting new businesses to the City of Philadelphia. We spoke -- a few of the Councilmembers spoke to the issues about the taxpayers' investment. And from time to time, this Council, in the four years that I've been a member of this 120 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 Council, had to deal with a number of issues as it relates to development, some very significant development -- the Penn's Landing project, the Entertainment Center, as example -- where then-Mayor Rendell selected a developer to develop that site. And there were negotiations that were going on and I was not even made aware of some of the things that were being spoken to at the time regarding the negotiations. Those matters were handled by the Administration and PIDC. And at some point in time, the package comes over to City Council where we have to look at supporting or not supporting a TIF. There are all kinds of incentives that developers have the ability to look to use in the City of Philadelphia today. Some are in the form of TIFs, some are in the form of tax abatements, some are in the form of tax exemptions. But no matter how you look at it, in one shape or another, those kinds of incentives do affect the taxpayers. I mean, the TIF is, we delay the collection of taxes, we put the collection of taxes off for a certain period of time. But in effect, someone could argue that the 121 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 taxpayers are funding that project -- even though I don't see it that way generally, but that's a way you could look at it. So I like to look at the issue practice facility and the stadium issues as economic development for the City of Philadelphia. And I agree with Councilman O'Neill. Never in my wildest dreams did I suspect that the Eagles were really going to let us build this practice facility and then somehow decide to leave the City to go to Delaware, which I keep hearing, Delaware, which has no wage taxes, and I'm wondering what the benefit is to them. " It just doesn't make sense, and I don't think that that's what their intentions are. I think that the way this may have been presented initially, it does make many of us a little bit uncomfortable that we may have more or less have been in a position where it looked to us as though we had no other choice but to take the deal the way it is. And I think over the last two 122 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 weeks, with the leadership of the Council President and in talking to some of our colleagues, I think we're all going to be able to work this thing out. And I think that going forward -- and let me just stop here for a second. I'm going to go back to a couple of the comments during the previous administration, and with all due respect, to then-Mayor Ed Rendell about some of the dates that we were always looking to do some stadium deal by, and they came and went and they came and went. This is a lot different. We have something, we have something in writing. We have something that we can look at now and see and feel and touch. So I think we're way, way far down the road, further down the road today than we were during the last administration, because we wouldn't be having this discussion today had we not been a part of the process. And that's really what's important to me, is to continue to make sure that we're a part of the process. So I think that that process has been put in motion by way of the bills that the Mayor 123 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM.
- BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 sent up a couple weeks ago. I think it was February 10th or whatever the date was, or the 17th. So I'm optimistic about this. I think we're going to be able to get the deal done. I have not heard any person in this room today or during the last few weeks suggest that they were not in favor of stadiums. We do have a lot of issues to deal with yet -- the funding of those stadiums, the sites of those stadiums. But I think that process is in motion and I'm very optimistic. It's not really a question; it's more a statement on my part. The only question I have is for you, Mr. Hankowsky. At the present Naval Hospital site, aside from the area, the acres or so that 17 are being developed for the practice facility, 18 when we look at other developments we've done in 19 Center City, when we talked about building hotel 20 because of the construction that it will jobs 21 create and the permanent jobs that it will create, 22 and the fact that we need them to continue to 23 increase our hospitality and tourism industry, and we've talked about the economic benefits to that, there's a certain synergy that we look to when we 124 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 build hotels or we build entertainment venues that we hope that other things will follow. Do you not feel that this may be a situation at the practice facility site that we can look to further development of the remaining -- remaining -- Naval Hospital site? Does this help us in that regard?
Councilman, I think it does. You're correct that the entire Navy Hospital site is a 44-acre site, and the portion going to the Eagles practice facility is approximately acres. So we have about another, 14 you know, 25, 26 acres available there. 15 And as you know, that community, that 16 immediate community, has, to be quite candid, sort 17 of suffered with the fact that the United States 18 government began the closure progress in that 19 facility in 1988 and has lived with -- I mean, 20 this is sort of ironic, I think -- abandoned 21 federal property in a way that we often struggle 22 in our neighborhoods with just abandoned property. And that one of the their number-one priorities is simply eliminating that blight, which has occurred already on the practice site. 125 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 The demolition is nearly complete. And putting a high-quality facility on the site sets the tone about what can happen with the rest of the site. We've been working closely with the Council President's office on that property across from that, the Capehart (ph.) property. And hopefully, we'll -- you know, we'll make progress on that this year so that we can begin to really speak to a lot of uncertain real estate in South Philadelphia, that its uncertainty, I believe, actually to some extent, created a chilling effect on development. When you don't know what's going to happen, you're a little more hesitant to proceed with your own plans. There is now the beginning of outlines of certainty there.
Basically approve of the site, and this just starts a whole series of events of things that could occur. 126 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you very much. I'd just like to go back a little bit to the minority participation and your report that that will be negotiated, Mr. Hankowsky, between the lease, the PAID, and the Eagles. Harking back to our favorite subject -- Kvaerner -- when that deal came to us, we were told that there would basically minority participation, and then, of course, we found out there wasn't.
So my question to you is, if you negotiate this in the lease with the Eagles, who will monitor the program? Do you have the ability to do that? Would you contract that out to someone? And where does the public go if they find that your plan is not being 127 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 implemented?
I think those are good questions, Councilwoman. I just want to be clear for the record that the place where this document will sit contractually -- and you're correct -- is the lease between PAID and the Eagles. But the -- excuse me, but that the Eagles, on the basis of our understanding, are proceeding to implement this plan, as they are proceeding with the construction. And I think they can speak to that themselves when they appear before you later during the course of the day. But my understanding, and I believe about 35 percent roughly of the awarded contracts have been MBE/WBE firms, so that they are doing it so that we don't -- one of the problems that we had with Kvaerner was the catchup problem, which, you'll recall, we sort of got to it and they had already started. So one thing I hope is that I can occasionally learn a lesson so that we wouldn't have a catchup problem here. Right now -- and I believe Mr. Roundtree can talk about the fact that they 128 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 will be reporting back to us. We would want to work with MBEC on this because this is a part of a bigger picture, you know, in terms of whether we would do the Vet and other things. And they should either contact us or MBEC -- the public question, your last question.
Is that it? Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
It does need to be fully restated and echoed and underscored and put 129 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 in capital letters that there are several Members of Council that fully support the building of the practice facility and ultimately the stadiums. The challenge is coming up with a good and fair deal at the end. So with that, I have a follow-up. I need to bring closure on a question and answer that was provided by Mr. Roundtree. You indicated that you had been in discussions with the building trades and that they have agreed to submit a plan, correct?
No, I said that we had been in discussion with the Eagles and their construction managers, and the Eagles have agreed to submit a minority and women business plan.
With that and given the scale of this project, was there any drop-dead deadline on when you would receive the plan?
When the -- 130 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
When the construction was supposed to start, but the two dates that we had had slipped, so we're in the process of re-energizing those conversations.
Secondly, given the scale of the project, again, what are the total number of jobs that are going to be created with the building of the practice facility, for the record?
Yes. We estimate, Councilwoman, understanding that based on the construction costs that there be somewhere around 73 direct jobs on the site. These are -- we do these in person-years of sort of employment.
I'm sorry. Person- years of employment. So at some points, there may be more people than that but, you know, you need electricians for two weeks and then they leave, or 131 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 whatever the light trades are.
And approximately 52 related to the materials that are going to be involved here.
Well, those -- obviously in the construction industry, I mean, obviously, in a sense, every project's new jobs because when there's not construction, these people don't work. So these are new construction jobs for the project. We think the wage taxes from that activity is about $210,000 during this construction -- the period of construction for the facility. And then there's a few jobs new to the facility, driven mostly by the NovaCare facility, which we don't have today, which is estimated at 10 to 20 positions in that space. And then the Eagles project that they would probably increase their staff somewhere around to 30 positions 24 over time in their new offices. 25
Thank you. 132 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 And then, finally, the City is committing 30 million, million already on the 4 books. Who would handle the cost overruns, for 5 the record? 6
Our commitment to the 7 Eagles is capped so that it's -- it's their responsibility.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski.
Thank you. Mr. Hankowsky, with the $80 million cap in expenditures to the stadium.
Would that also be in addition to the 8 to 10 million that we've already spent on the stadium?
The maintenance, the 8 10 that we spend on -- 133 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
Yes, it would be in addition to that, but it wouldn't -- 'cause we spend whatever we spend for the utility bills and the --
Right. I mean, there's an operating budget, I guess, in the Recreation Department for Vets Stadium, and there's a staff we have there and they, you know, clean the facility after an event or whatever those functions are.
In that vein, Mr. Hankowsky, how would we ever spend $80 million over two years or three years to improve the Vets 134 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 Stadium? We would have to put out RFPs, and you know the time that that takes. How would we do that?
I think, actually, the representatives from the Capital Budget Office are here and I think have thought about that question, if that's all right with the Council President.
I'm sorry, Councilwoman, were you still in questioning?
Isn't that these figure higher now? Wouldn't that increase if we go on --
I seem to have a problem. My question is, would the $80 million capital expenditure be in addition to the 8 to 10 135 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 million the City spends each year for routine maintenance? Now, wouldn't this put the dollar figure -- run it up for keeping the Vet operational for the next years to like -- 6 anywhere to $160 million? It seems high. 7
Rob Dubow. 8 I think, if I understand what you're 9 talking about, there are two issues. One's the 10 operating expenditures for each year.
Those costs would not be affected by these 80 million, these are separate expenditures. These aren't capital items as opposed to operating items. So this would be like replacing seating as opposed to cleaning up after a game.
So the City still would be given them anywhere between 8 and 10 million.
We don't give it to them; we actually -- we own the stadiums so we do that 136 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 maintenance.
That's right. But I mean -- yes. Although we're obligated to do these capital repairs, so it's not like a new type of expense.
You're welcome. Mr. Hankowsky, I don't know you answered my question.
What is the likelihood that we could ever spend $40 million in renovations of the Vets Stadium in one year?
Right. I asked if the Council President wouldn't mind, the Capital Program Office has actually been looking at that question, and I think perhaps might be able to give you a more fuller response, if that's all 137 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 right.
Council President, my name is Charles Newman, Director of the Capital Program Office. As Mr. Hankowsky said, we have put together a preliminary plan that will enable us to complete design of the facility in the fall -- of the capital repairs to the facility in the fall and enable the construction documents to be bid so that we could begin construction on January 1st of 2001. The -- it is a challenging task to complete this work within the timeframe that --
I'm sorry, I don't want to be rude or interrupt you. We were given a laundry list of all of the repairs and categories that would take place. I don't know what list you're referring to at this moment because it has not been shared with us.
I am referring to Schedule A of the proposed lease amendment, which has a list of --
Do we have a 138 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 Schedule A? Please proceed. Please proceed.
Oh. Which contains a, as you mentioned, a series of categories of work. It is not a detailed description of the scope of work. That would -- the first thing that needs to be done is to begin work with the teams' architectural engineers to flesh out the precise scope of work for the project in each of those categories.
We have the categories, but how do you do the bid work without knowing the amount of money that you're. . .
Okay, let me just take a step back and walk you through the process. I just alluded to the first step, which is the architects and engineers and the City working with the teams to develop a program for the work. That's the first step, and we expect that in order to expedite this project, that that will have to start during the month of March. We would then complete that by the end of May or into June, and the architects would commence the design process. Now, this introduces the concept of 139 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 fast-tracking, where you're doing multiple tasks at one time. But we're anticipating the completion of design in October of 2000, followed immediately with the bidding of the work and the awarding of contracts in December.
Council President Verna, we actually have a proposed construction timeline which might make Council's review and understanding of the description we've just put on the record a little easier. It is a timeline that is based on what is actually in the proposed lease amendments. That's the third amendment to the Eagles lease and the sixth amendment to the Phillies lese.
Since all of this is going to be done prior to the trigger date, is that what I understand being said?
Yes. And the lease amendments also provide for the possibility of extending the timetable.
I'm sorry. I was distracted, I didn't hear your response.
What we've distributed is a proposed construction timeline. 140 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 It is a challenge, it is going to be a tight timeline, but what it provides is for -- we think it provides for us an opportunity to meet the deadline, but the documents that we've negotiated also provide for the parties to reach the mutual future agreement that we would extend the deadline if it becomes necessary because part of the process requires extensive coordination between the City and the teams in terms of design, in terms of the plans, in terms of the scheduling, and phasing in of the work. So what we have submitted in Schedule A are the categories of capital repairs, restorations, replacements to Vets Stadium that we have agreed to. What we would expect to do then, after that, is to have Ewing Cole,, for example, develop a more detailed scope of work based on those categories after doing the building assessment, and that is reflected in the construction timeline that you see.
Councilwoman Krajewski, are you finished with your questioning?
Yes. Thank 141 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes -- oh, I'm sorry. Councilman Nutter?
I was hearing -- I was in a conversation, but I was hearing in the other ear about a construction schedule that --
I believe copies are being made. We did not see it but we should be receiving them momentarily.
Is it a part of the big book that we got two weeks ago?
This construction schedule, was it a part of the big book document that we got a couple weeks ago?
No. This is a document that was prepared to help us explain and walk you through the schedule. Really, what it 142 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 is, this is what we contemplate in the third amendment to the Eagles lease and the sixth amendment to the Phillies lease. And the only thing it does is outline the steps that we would envision taking in this process. And I am sharing it with Members of Council so that they can follow more clearly the proposed timetable for completing the work by the deadline.
I understand it's being copied, and I'll look at it when I get it, but did I also hear you talk about starting this in March?
Are there authorized funds for this? 143 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
If we begin in March, what we'll have to do is use money that's in Veterans Stadium projects. We have funding in existing projects that we would use for this.
But that funding was allocated for specific projects at Vets Stadium, wasn't it?
Isn't that a little bit of robbing Peter to pay Paul for something else, that we don't want to do anyway? I mean, doesn't this give further rise to the complaint that we've been hearing that either agreed-upon deferrals were made over the past few years because people were starting to turn their attention towards stadiums, and the complaints by at least one of the teams, rather vociferously, about the condition of the Vet? And now we're going to take more money away from Veterans Stadium that's been allocated for various repairs that I'm sure are needed? I mean, we all, I think, generally agree that Vets Stadium needs some infusion of 144 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 capital right now. I mean, it's not like we're going to have new stadiums next week. But I mean, this $40 million sitting in the '01 Capital Budget, which has not been authorized, nor have the voters approved, so I don't understand how we're going to start design work on a project that we actually apparently hope never really happens, with no authorization.
While they're deliberating their response, let me take one moment to introduce guests here today. Some Members of Council went to court when Judge Smith argued a case initiated by the State Human Relations Commission on educational plans and ways to remedy racial disparities in school. As you know, the court ultimately said that certain things had to be done. With us visiting today are two monitors who are visiting people and schools and dealing with the whole issue of the monitoring of that 145 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 court order. And they are Dr. Frank (unintelligible), President of Urban Superintendents Association of America, and Dr. James P. Dixon, Court Master. Would you please stand and be welcomed. (Applause.) (Greg Grillone comes forward.)
Greg Grillone, Director for Veterans Stadium. In response to this question about the money being available to start the assessment of this review in our present capital budget appropriation, we do have some monies in there that were set aside for costs for A and E costs.
For A and E costs, architectural and engineering costs, in theory.
We had general categories, one of which was structural, which, in 146 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 fact, in concept would overlap some of the categories that are listed in Schedule A. So we could we -- do have some money to begin this process.
I mean, I probably -- technically, you have money going back to FY '94. As laid out in the capital budget, you have unspent dollars for Veterans Stadium for FY '94, FY '95, FY '96, FY '97, FY '98 and FY '99. It's in this current year's capital budget.
I believe that's true, but specifically addressing your question about how we begin a process, we look at and formulate plans and do we have authorization, or do we have money to do that. I do believe in the current capital budget appropriation, there is a portion of that money that was initially designated for architectural and engineering costs, so therefore, we could start the project with that money.
You could spend architectural and engineering dollars previously allocated for a different project for projects for which you don't have funding authorization for? I would love to talk to the Recreation Department 147 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 about that because they always tell me that I can't get a rec center done until money is appropriated.
A significant portion of that money was set aside for structural -- in the structural category in terms of the actual construction.
Is that the same structural that's work now in Schedule A?
Some of it may be. I think said earlier that there may be some overlap.
Well, yeah. I mean, until the details are formulated, I think in general, it's fair to say that there's probably some overlap. But obviously, the level at which we're talking about in Schedule A of $80 million is certainly a lot more than was initially contemplated.
The architectural and engineering work that you proposed, is that for the full 80 million and for the 10-month period referenced in the document?
No. That A and E money 148 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 was in the FY --
No, that wasn't my question. The work that you do in architect and design work, is that for projects to be carried out with the full $80 million over the 10-month period of time, I believe, from November of 2000 to August of 2012? Is that what your design is for, $80 million for ten months of projects?
The money you plan to spend for architectural and design work to deal with the list that is being copied somewhere, is that for work to be carried out for the ten-month period of time, as referenced in the documents to spend $80 million?
The '01 budget only has $40 million and you still have to come back in two budgets, the 02 budget, to get the other 40 149 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 million, which is fairly far away, not through the '01 budget. The voters haven't approved -- they certainly have not approved the '02 and the voters are nowhere near dealing with the two other authorizations. So I'm trying to understand how you do this.
In order to proceed from where we are, which is Schedule A, which is a set of fairly generalized needs that the stadium would have to extend its useful life --
-- a couple things have to happen. One is to take that to further detail, and I'm going to use examples, not real examples, but examples to illustrate. So if we're looking at, say, the question of where the waterproofing is necessary because you see cracking and separation of cement, that's clearly a category of stadium renovation. You know, where you go out and say, Let's identify exactly where all this is 150 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 and create a working document of about what we have to get done in conjunction with that development and how you do it. So that, for example, areas where waterproofing might be done that are -- that the public doesn't utilize, what one might call "the back of the house," you could do those during baseball season next year. Whereas, if you're going to waterproof the stands, you want to be doing that when people aren't in them, when you don't have to rope them off. So what's also being looked at is using the program document and working with the teams to develop a schedule. The schedule may have instances where you might say to a contractor, We're going to have to stage waterproofing. We just can't you give you six months to do it, we can give three months, and you have to use two-week periods.
And we would have to do some of that thinking, whether we were repairing the Vet in the next three to five year or whether we were spending 80. 151 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 And it's very much a jigsaw of the schedule, and with the type of activity that you want to execute, you don't want to go back to the same place twice, so that, for example, when you're waterproofing, you could fix electrical and do the same "back-of-the-house" work that you schedule out and say, Here's the first 40. So maybe you're not doing all of the waterproof work, then you do the next part with the next money. You find some logical way to execute the project through with the teams, with the stadium management as to what's the most efficient and cost-effective way to do it. And for that exercise, you would work to fund it from the revenues that Mr. Grillone indicated in this period of time before November 3rd so you know what's the plan of tack for November 3rd. And obviously, all of this deals with, you know, up to 80 million, making sure we have an understanding of what's involved and price it in more detail.
Again, so that you understand, I am not disputing that there are work needs at Veterans Stadium. I was just somewhat 152 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 surprised at the ability, I guess, to do architectural and design work on a project for which the actual costs have not yet been identified, for which you have no authorization. And if Mr. Grillone is going to redirect funds that were previously allocated to other projects at Veterans Stadium, I guess that that should be clear, but I never -- have we done this before?
I apologize if I wasn't clear. All I was trying to address is your question about how we could begin this, for lack of better word, "engineering assessment" to begin to formulate how we would spend the $40 million. All I merely was trying to say is that in our current provision, there is a portion of funds set aside in the general category of A and E.
What do you think the costs of A and E are on a 40 to $80 million project?
We have done a really preliminary estimate of what we think the fees would be. And in terms of actual expenditures 153 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 before the November the 3rd date, we are looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of actual expenditures of 2 million, maybe a little less, in order to move the project forward between March and November.
If you do that and we subsequently end up with stadium deals by November 3rd, is that essentially $2 million that have gone to waste?
No. The teams have agreed that that would count towards any public contribution that we may make to new-stadium development.
This is -- but that is pertinent to the stadium deals, for which we have none; is that correct?
And that comes out of, apparently, stadium negotiations, which we are, by your earlier testimony, we are intimately going to be involved with. 154 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
And were we involved in that particular discussion or meeting or decision?
No. But we thought it was important to make sure that if the contingency plan was not implemented and we had expended taxpayer dollars, that we had a mechanism to recover those dollars, so we thought that that action was in the interest of the taxpayers and that you wouldn't have any objection to that.
Okay. Well, I appreciate the answer, but in the spirit of good will and full involvement and cooperation, I mean, that only leads you to wonder if there will be other meetings and discussions and issues that the Administration might think are good things and brilliant ideas, but just choose not to involve City Council in that particular discussion. I mean, you can understand my concern based on the discussion we've just had about that, right?
Actually, I don't, Councilman Nutter, because I think that in looking 155 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 at this, again, the idea here is that we are putting in place a contingency plan.