The only thing he has to make, is he either withdraws or doesn't withdraw them Councilman Cohen. Thank you.
It seems to me the point of order is that the question is backward. The Council bills are amendments, in effect, to the basic bill. The question first is, will the Mayor withdraw those three bills?
When those three bills are withdrawn, the amendment bills are --
Councilman, I would think -- Councilman, a point of legislative order. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
The point of legislative order, Councilman, is that they're not amendments. I think they're bills in theirself. They were presented as bills, so they could withdraw them bills.
Yeah, but then it 220 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 leaves an impossible thing. The Mayor's bill asks us to approve and advance a lease agreement between PAID and the Eagles that we've never seen, that hasn't even been written. Are we going to abdicate all of our authorities, Councilmembers?
Councilman, we're not abdicating any authority. That's what this is whole process is about. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
There is not going to be discussion among Councilmembers and arguments between them. If you have a question, ask the Chair.
Council President, I asked my question for those members to answer me. It's either yes or no. There's no cross talk from Councilman Cohen. He --
Councilman Nutter, have you changed your mind? Are you 221 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 willing to withdraw your bill?
Yes, Madam President. I recognize you. Councilman Mariano is requesting that you withdraw your bill.
No, yours is 0084, but friends there answered for you.
Thank you, Councilman. 222 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
Thank you for the information, Councilman Cohen. (Councilman Cohen responds off mike.)
No, because you always start something, so you're going to stay now and answer. Are there any other questions of the City Controller?
I first wanted to thank you not only for what has been the clearest statement I've heard all day long, but it's a clear voice that's been the only voice I've heard consistently over the last couple of months, giving some information about the stadium and asking that we act sensibly, in an open way. And I wanted to thank you for it.
Thank you, Councilman. 223 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
Because your material was very helpful to those of us in Council in analyzing it. I have one further question. This raises so many questions. Now, you were not controller, were you, at the time of the last major lease amendments in 1985, when I think Councilman Goode's father was the mayor?
We were going through all kinds of problems, something like this. It was very difficult, there was a lot of controversy about it, a lot of unhappiness about it, but there was one great thing that Mayor Goode kept emphasizing, and we went with him in good faith and we went out on the streets and argued with our constituents. Mayor Goode said, Yes, it's tough, we're putting in a lot of money, City money, taxpayers' money. We wish we weren't, but the day will come when there will be a rainbow. You're going to have to wait for that day 'cause it won't take place until 2001.
That's right, the luxury box on the -- 224 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
Right. The $6 million a year, he said, would come back to the City from these superboxes.
And we went out in good faith, out to the communities and told them that you've got to be patient. Some didn't want to be patient. We pleaded with them and we got general acceptance. And, you know, when we did that, do you know what many people told us? That day won't ever come. Before that day comes, there will be another agreement which will take care of that, which means that the teams won't have to pay a penny. And I have to tell you, that's a serious problem we're going to have out in the community, 'cause that was the rainbow day that $6 million coming to the City from the superboxes. But, you know, the community, not the politicians, the community was much smarter than all of us in elected office.
They knew that that 225 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 day would never come when we get that million. And that's where the bad faith is. The bad faith isn't from the City to the Phillies. You know, that's another thing I don't understand. We're told this bill is only to guarantee the City's good faith. I don't know why we have to guarantee good faith, I don't know of anything we've ever done in bad faith. And so I don't see any justification on that point for this bill. But that's -- the only reason is to prove our good faith.
So tell me, how are we ever going to deal with that 6 million that the people are going to tell us out in the community, We told you years ago that that money would never come.
Well, if, God forbid, there's no stadium financing and there's site specifications and that situation falls through, the Eagles and the Phillies are still required to hand over the luxury box income beginning in February of next year, which is not 6 million. It's between 4 and $5 million, I believe, on an 226 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 annual basis.
And I've always thought -- yeah, I've always thought that if we had to continue in Veterans Stadium, that that money would be used to pay down the debt for the capital expenditures that we did have.
And I don't want to comment on the preliminary negotiations that Mayor Rendell was involved in, but at that time, he was -- he had told me that he was going to do -- we were not going to receive that luxury-box income. And if you remember, one of my concerns was that we waited all these years and we're not being recompensed for allowing Tose, primarily, not to move to Phoenix but to stay in Philadelphia and to receive the luxury-box income as we made those capital improvements. But if we pay for the practice facility and there is no movement to some final solution for the municipal financing deal in site specifications, then we will be receiving that beginning in February of 2001, between 4 and 5 227 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 million in the luxury-box income.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Saidel.
On your testimony, you state that the City stands to gain financially in the future under the terms of the current leases. Could you explain those gains.
Well, one of the major ways under the current leases is the luxury-box income, which is the --
Well, couldn't these things be incorporated into a new lease?
It could be. 228 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
In a new stadium, yes. I mean, I only know -- I only know third-hand from the negotiation that took place under the Rendell Administration, but it was my understanding that one of the things they were looking at was that when they built the new stadiums and had new luxury-box seating arrangements with both teams, that we would no longer continue to receive luxury-box income. And that was a concern to me because that --
Well, you know, anything -- I think anything could be incorporated in the give-and-take of people from both sides that are concerned and committed to making a deal that both is beneficial to the taxpayers of Philadelphia and the people they do so ably represent as well as to the teams, to keep them here and make them successful and be the championship teams that they so justly deserve. 229 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 So any of that can happen.
Thank you. Are there any other questions of the City Controller? (No further questions.)
At this time, Council will stand in recess until 2:30. (Council stands in recess.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
Sorry to have kept all of you waiting. Our next witnesses -- I believe the Administration is finished with their testimony, and I don't believe any of the Councilmembers have any remaining questions. In view of that, I would ask Joe Banner 230 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 to come up to testify on behalf of the Eagles, and David Montgomery. (Witnesses come forward.) UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS: As you know, Mr. Banner was not feeling well, and we have just sent someone to bring him in.
Mr. Banner, I understand you're not feeling well and I'm awfully sorry for the delay but perhaps we could proceed now.
No problem. Thank you. I'm counting on that meaning that the questions won't aren't so tough since I'm feeling --
I said I'm counting on that meaning that the questions won't be so tough since I'm not feeling real well. (Laughter.)
Okay, but it's your throat that's bothering you, not the 231 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 line questioning.
Good morning, Council President Verna and Members of City Council. I'm Joe Banner, Chief Operating Officer of Philadelphia Eagles. Before I start, I just want to follow up the earlier player personnel recommendations that were made here. I don't know if Michael is in here right now, but since our biggest need is a speed wide receiver, I'm not sure that Jim Roundtree is the answer to that problem. Before I begin my testimony on legislation before you this morning, I want to thank you for the time you have already spent working with us on our NovaCare complex project and the support you have expressed for our goal to get new stadiums. I am here to urge your support for Bills 80, 82, and 83. My testimony has three parts. I have shortened the statement that you have received just a bit in light of the length of the day, but I'd like to quickly run you through what many of you have seen already with respect to what the practice facility project is. 232 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 So you see right there is the picture of the NovaCare complex from the backside, where the fields are located. This is just an overview of the site, you see the fields. 5 acres, that we're using for this site. It's a 108,000 square foot building. The team's day-to-day operations will be located here as well as the NovaCare Center for Rehabilitation, and that center, as you've heard will be open to the public. This is, just quickly, the features of the field and the NovaCare complex. And you'll see there the advantages to us mainly from a football perspective. You've heard the numbers thrown around and we wanted to provide you some specifics so that you understand where those numbers came from. And we are more than happy to provide the detailed backup if anybody's interested in it for any one of these line items, if that is something that would be of benefit to Council. You see that the project is expected to 233 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. 3 million. As you heard earlier, the -- there is a cap on what the City's costs could be, so if we came in exactly on budget, there's about $360,000 that the team would be responsible for, kind of classified as an overrun. And you can see the items at the top half of that list have already been bid and, in most places, committed to. And some of the work, through the middle part of the program there, has actually already been completed. This is a chart to reflect -- you heard early testimony. We did the wage tax program here. There's only one assumption different here than what you heard from City Council, and I think you heard -- I'm sorry, from PIDC. I think you heard Bill Hankowsky indicate earlier how conservative the numbers were. million. million. And as he indicated, this does not include gross receipts tax, sales tax, use-and-occupancy taxes. You'll see in a second, I think, that the collective tax number is 234 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 significantly higher than what's been referenced. This is the -- as we see it, the benefits of the project. 3 million in tax revenues during construction, and the removal, which has already taken place, of the structures on the site that have been unappealing and undesirable to the community. I won't read through this whole list. Number 2 is the one that we think is most significant. 7 million in 2002 and grow in each subsequent year. That's taking the wage tax numbers and adding in the use-and-occupancy and other taxes that I referenced. Again, these are just the ongoing benefits we see that the project brings to the City. You heard it mentioned a couple of times and we just wanted to provide some substantiation that generally, these facilities have not been built within the City limits where the teams play and their facilities, as in their stadiums, exist. So specifically you'll see on 235 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM.
- BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 these two charts that there are twenty teams in the NFL whose facilities and practices are outside of their stadium. Seventeen of those twenty are outside of the city that they're located in. The only three, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, and Tennessee, where they are located in the same city, are brand-new stadiums, where the public paid for the entire new stadium, and in some of those instances, even paid for some or all of the practice facility. Again, that's another view of the building there. I wanted to discuss briefly the capital repairs needed to make Veterans Stadium a safe and functional environment for NFL football and major-league baseball. These repairs should not be confused with capital improvements to enhance economic opportunities or to improve amenities. It should also be understood that the $80 million represents a rough estimate of the cost of this work, as was discussed earlier. In developing independent estimates on what would be needed to begin preparing the Vet for another decade, both PIDC and the Eagles relied on 236 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 nationally recognized firms with stadium expertise. Our experts put it at more than $100 million. The $80 million figure represents a compromise, and for reasons I will discuss later, one which the teams they believe they have given up more than the City. It should be noted that when Pittsburgh and Cincinnati analyzed the similar multipurpose stadiums built at about the same time as the Vet, the projected cost of repairs for each building exceeded $100 million. And the result of that was that they proceeded to put new-stadium deals together. I turn now to my last topic, which is why the legislation before you today is important the to Eagles. The Eagles face three major challenges in our efforts to succeed in the National Football League. First, we need a grass field football stadium that will help us recruit better players and that will provide our fans with the kind of facility that most of our competitors already have. Second, we also need a better practice 237 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 facility to attract and keep better players. And, finally, we need the additional revenues if we are to offer athletes competitive salaries. And we believe these challenges are inextricably linked. A new stadium will generate new revenues, it will help us finance both the stadium itself and the practice facility, and it will also allow us to pay the athletes, who, in turn, will pay the wage tax. From the Eagles' perspective, not having a new stadium jeopardizes our ability to support a practice facility in the City and still have some chance of recruiting better players. If we were to do what almost all other NFL teams have done and build the NovaCare complex outside the City, probably as part of a larger private development, we would have significantly lower construction and operating costs. We also would not have to overcome the competitive disadvantage presented by the City's tax structure. An unacceptable result for the Eagles would be to find ourselves after November with a higher cost of a practice facility located in the 238 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 City and no prospect of a new stadium to help pay for it, an aging facility with artificial turf that players do not regard positively, and it affects our ability to compete. Very simply, because they would lower the costs of staying in the City, the NovaCare complex buy-back provision reduces but does not eliminate -- and we think this is an important point -- but does not eliminate some of the risks that -- the terrible outcome that we mentioned earlier is possible and allow us to continue to build the practice facility in Philadelphia. The same is true for the capital repair provisions.
If we knew that new stadiums would be approved this fall and would open in three years, I'm sure the teams would strongly favor a modest repair program, but if do not have new stadiums, in fairness to the teams, our players and our fans, we need to begin preparing the Vet for another decade of use. And although it may not be possible to complete $80 million of repairs at the Vet by the fall of 2001, we believe every effort should be made to reach this goal. If it turns out that 239 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 less than $80 million is needed, then less than 80 million will be spent. If more than $80 million is needed, the teams have agreed to a cap. There are claims at that number for the next several years. I know that many of you -- perhaps all of you -- are concerned about the November trigger date for both the NovaCare complex buy-back and the capital repair ordinances. I can assure you that this date is not chosen arbitrarily from the team's perspective. It represents the latest date at which we can have a deal and reasonably expect to be able to open our new stadiums in time for the 2003 season. Given the size of these capital projects, each lost season will cost each team in the City tens of millions of dollars in a combination of higher borrowing and construction costs. We recognize that deciding to build a new stadium is an issue of enormous consequence in any city, in particular in a city like Philadelphia that faces other, and frankly more serious, problems and issues. For a private business of our size, stadiums are huge projects, 240 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 even larger than they are for the City in a relative sense, requiring enormous commitments of time and money. Last year, the Eagles spent almost $10 million planning a stadium project that we believe most elected in the City wanted us to complete. Despite good will all around, the project did not go forward, and a good bit of that money has been lost. If you have to have any hope of opening stadiums by 2003, both teams will have to put capital at risk almost immediately. We also recognize that your approval of these ordinances does not commit the City to approving stadium deals in the fall. In our view, the ordinances before you frame in a fair and responsible fashion the alternatives that the teams and the City face. Perhaps most important, the ordinances frame the alternatives in a way that provides incentives for each of us to get to the result that I believe we all want to achieve. On that basis, I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.
Thank you, 241 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 Mr. Banner. (Applause.)
Thank you very much, Council President, and good afternoon to Council President Verna and Members of Council. My name is David P. Montgomery. I'm the President of the Phillies, and I'm pleased to be here today to offer testimony in favor of Bills No. 80, 82, and 83. While, of course, we're not here today to discuss the details of a new baseball ballpark, nor a football stadium in Philadelphia, passage of these package of ordinances will set the stage, we believe, for a healthy dialogue about the need for new world-class stadia in Philadelphia for negotiations between the City, the Phillies, and the Eagles for such stadia, and we hope for the introduction and passage of an ordinance package that will allow both teams to proceed with new stadium construction later this year. At the outset, I want to thank all Members of Council for their consistent courtesy 242 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 and consideration to the Philadelphia Phillies. We appreciate the time you've spent talking to us throughout last year about the exciting possibilities of a new ballpark. When it was not possible to accomplish that goal, we certainly appreciated your letter confirming the commitment of Council President Verna and most of the Members of Council to prompt consideration of any legislation necessary to create new stadia in Philadelphia. We appreciate your willingness to listen to us over the past couple of weeks and at this time on the hearing on this package of legislation. We believe that the Phillies in this city have a very special relationship. When we open our season in April, it will be our 118th consecutive year that the name Philadelphia and Phillies have been tied all. We're proud of the fact that that's the longest streak in all of professional sports, and at this time, meaning one team name with -- a specific team name with a city, and surely, that's a streak that we intend to continue on into the future. As Council has acknowledged in the 243 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 resolution adopted unanimously in September of '99 and in Council's letter to the Eagles add Phillies this past November 16th, consideration of this legislation to allow for the development of new football stadium and a baseball ballpark are a top priority for the City government. You've heard from the Eagles' testimony that we believe it's necessary to address the issues that are subject to this package of ordinances that are before you in order to set the stage for a full stadium discussion. We believe that that discussion will take place over the next couple of months, and that discussion will include consideration of the issues previously identified by Council in both its resolution and its letter. Bill No. 82 is the ordinance package in front of Council, that ordinance which most directly affects the Phillies. That bill 20 authorizes the execution of amendments to the leases between the City, the Phillies, and the Eagles. The major substantive matter addressed in those amendments is that the City commits to making up to $80 million in capital repairs and in renovations to Veterans Stadium in Fiscal Years 244 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 '01 and '02 in the event the ordinance is forming the basis of the deals between the City and the team for a new baseball ballpark and a new football stadium are not approved by this Council on or before November 3, 2000. Everybody in this room, we believe, hopes that the contingency addressed in those lease amendments never comes to pass and that the City never has to put anywhere near $80 million into Veterans Stadium. We're all committed to working towards our shared goal of two new world-class stadia in Philadelphia. That would avoid the need to address the really serious repair and renovation needs that exist in Veterans Stadium, which, this year, will be 30 years old, and a multipurpose stadium that's definitely showing its age.
Given those serious repair and renovation needs, and given the willingness of the teams to cap at 80 million their existing contractual rights to immediate repairs and renovations to the stadium, and given the climate in which all parties are committed to a prompt and expeditious consideration of new ballpark 245 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 legislation, the Phillies believe that passage of the legislation now before this Council would represent a fair and appropriate expression of good faith by the City and both teams that will set the table for productive discussions on new ballpark legislation in the coming months. Thanks again for your consideration. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have and am joined by David L. Cohen, counsel to the Phillies. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions on behalf of any of the members of the committee? Councilman Cohen?
Thank you, Madam President. I'd asked the question of the City, and the Chief of Staff suggested I ask it of the teams. Let's assume this scenario for a moment, that November 3rd comes and we all weep together 246 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 and nothing has been worked out and we've adopted the bills that make November 3rd a trigger date for the $80 million. Am I right, that's the trigger date?
For putting 80 million? And let's suppose, despite miracles of miracles, somehow the City for the first time in the history of mankind learns how to spend $80 million in that short period of time and we surmount all obstacles. Does that mean that the question of new stadiums is dead, and the teams agree that they will not be asking for new stadiums until at least the end of their current lease, in the year 2011?
I'd be happy to go first, Councilman. The Phillies' position is very simple. We believe that we have to pursue vigorously and have continued -- actually, we've been pursuing for the better part of almost a decade now the opportunity for a new baseball ballpark. We believe it gives us the opportunity to give to our fans and to our franchise what's happening now, I 247 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 guess, since 1989, there have been new ballparks that will be constructed between 1989 and the year 2002, as far as baseball facilities are concerned. So we're anxious to continue to have that dialogue for quite some time. I will tell you, as far as the date is concerned, frankly, we've already -- when we had substantial discussions with the previous administration originally, we were talking about a potential opening in April of 2002. Some of the events that occurred during the last year, some of which was the process that the State frankly made that slide to the fact that we're currently pursuing an opening in April of 2003. In order to do that, frankly, November 3rd is a late date. We are currently now spending design dollars out of our pocket on the assumption, as I said earlier, based on the representation of you and many of the members Council, that new stadiums in Philadelphia are a priority. So we continue to do that, we continue to fervently hope that we can work things out by November 3. And if not, we will continue to 248 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 pursue new stadiums.
Thank you. My question's been answered. You will continue to pursue it until you get it. I think that's a worthy goal. We would like to do that. We would like to make it unnecessary to do that by clearing out the obstacles that these bills present to all of us, because we're wasting energy, we're spending all of this energy in providing if we fail, when we ought to be spending time trying to succeed.
The only thing I want to add about the turn of expenditure of time and energy is, I think we're at a crux of making a decision about Veterans Stadium, Councilman. We have been at this process for a while, and I think, as the Controller testified, the Phillies actually have been more active maybe even than our co-tenant, the Eagles, as far as capital repairs historically at Veterans Stadium. In the early '90s, we did step forward and were instrumental in doing some of the work at that time. We have recently take place the approach -- our franchise has, I don't want to 249 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 speak for the Eagles -- that it would be improper for the Phillies to be asking the City to do two things, which is to sink dollars into Veterans Stadium that we believe are necessary, and yet at the same time have us for the opportunity to be in a new stadium. We felt that way in 1997, which is basically when, if you will look back, Fiscal Year '97 is the last year that there were what I would call "substantial proactive repairs" to Veterans Stadium. So what we have done is, we've said, We're going to sit on the sidelines, to use a football term, and put our energy into pursuing a new stadium. Unfortunately, if we continue to allow Veterans Stadium to be our home -- originally, remember, we thought we were going to be in a new one in '02, so our last season, in essence, would be 2001. Now we know we're going to be in the Vet through '02. And forget November 3, but shortly, if another date slides by, that's going to be our home a year longer etc. And what you cannot do then is ignore the tough decision that the City has, frankly, of when to sink substantial dollars into the 250 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 facility.
Mr. Montgomery you're a businessman. Would you -- would you --
Yes, you are. Would you invest millions of dollars in something where you were told, "We're not telling you what the details are, trust me"?
Would you sign your name just, you know, on "I'm a nice, honest person." You know, sign your name in advance to agree to things that you know nothing about at the moment?
We'll let you know along the way, you know, what your obligations are. And then the person says, Suppose we would 251 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 like to change those obligations? Well, maybe we'll permit you to, but maybe we won't 'cause you've already signed off. You'd never put yourself in that position, would you?
Well, actually, ironically, Councilman, maybe we have, because I think our discussions about the types of repairs that would take place at Veterans Stadium if we couldn't come up with a new deal have not been firm enough on either side. In other words, we have come up with a number that we think covers those needs, but we haven't sat down and priced out individual aspects of that. And, frankly, that's a part of the discussion you had this morning with the Administration. And so we have gone with the Administration, trusted that their goal is to work with us to try to get the new stadiums. In the meantime, we've agreed on types of items that would be considered as far as renovations and repairs to Veterans Stadium, but we have not done that with any specificity.
But you have known 252 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 all the time that Council had to vote on a package, on something, before stadiums could come about, didn't you?
We certainly know that any lease amendment to the stadium has to come before City Council.
Any lease amendment -- my understanding is -- I'll look to my counsel, but my understanding is that any lease amendment would require Councilmatic approval.
Right, in any action toward the stadium or a practice field for the Eagles.
Okay. Well, I'll use Mr. Banner, if I may, as a witness on the practice field.
Yeah, but even -- and let me just amplify Dave's answer a little bit on your initial question. You know, would you sign such an agreement? 253 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 I just think it's important to remember that maybe I would, and that's, obviously a decision for you to make. But if you're asking us, maybe I would -- if I had an unlimited exposure and the result of signing it capped my exposure, and the deal was written in a manner that as things went along, the City retains the right to approve whether something qualifies as a capital repair, and if it turns out that less than the cap is required, I'm protected in that I don't have to spend up to the cap, so -- and I'm also getting this payment and this process spread out over a period of years. So I'm just suggesting if you're asking us, maybe I would if I got those series of things in return.
You know how it seems to me and, I think, to some of my colleagues, at least? The City Council -- you've spent a lot of time with the City Administration going over things. You come to us at a last time and we -- City Council has a history with both ball teams. I don't think we've ever said no, we've never reduced an appropriation for repairs 254 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 to Vets Stadium for whichever party was ready to invoke them. We've been cooperative, we've made -- many times we've said publicly that there's no 5 opposition in City Council to the concept of a stadium. Please tell us some facts so we could begin considering it. And month after month after month, nothing has come through. We still know no 10 details. Then you come with legislation, which includes a package, which says, Sign off in advance, approve the Eagles' paid lease, without knowing a thing about the lease. We understand -- I think maybe it hasn't even been negotiated yet. But if it exists, we know nothing about it or about its terms. How do we discharge our duties? We have a responsibility. We have been elected by the people of Philadelphia to do the duties of City Council. And David L. Cohen, when he was Chief of Staff, he would rip us limb from limb were he in our position of being asked to do something, which he knows we cannot do and still live up to our oath. We've been asking for the information in amendments that are presented here 255 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 today. We asked just for time to have enough time do our legislative duties properly. Yet, we're being treated as if you have to worry about our good faith. We think the Council has always dealt with the sports teams at a much higher level than just good faith, and we just don't understand why you put us and ask us to put ourselves in a totally impossible position legislatively. You ask us, in effect, to abdicate our responsibilities and to turn them over to somebody else. And, sir, I have to tell you, we cannot do it. And if we did it, I think we all ought to be thrown out of office. I don't know how anybody could make clear that you're dealing with people who want to achieve the same goals you want to achieve. And yet, you act towards us as if we don't want to do that, as if we're your worst opponents. And we don't think you ought to put us in that position. We think that this energy ought to go into pursuing the goal of achieving what you want -- the stadiums and the practice field, not to develop legislation just in case we failed. 256 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 You've been here during the day, you've heard everybody. And Jonathon Saidel, the Controller, said that in his whole legal history, he's never known of any kind of legislation like this. None of us have ever known it. All of this energy going into what happens if we fail, when we ought to be putting our energy into making it succeed. That's really not a question; it's a rhetorical statement. Frankly, I just don't understand why we're here in this posture today when we ought to be working on the deals necessary to produce what your main goal is and our main goal is. Thank you, Madam President. For now, I'll yield the floor to anyone who wants questions.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. There was discussion earlier about the November 3, 2000 date and the passing of that date, and if Council has not taken action on stadium deals, we'd know parameters are 257 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 of what happens after that. You may recall that I had a discussion with the Mayor's Chief of Staff, Miss Franklin-Suber, about that deadline and the discussion about trying to get a deal to us by some particular date certain that is reasonable for the teams to have time to negotiate a deal and then reasonable for the Council to be able to review that deal and, quite honestly, avoid virtually everything that we're discussing here today. From your perspectives, as the team representatives and probably the people who will have to negotiate a deal, do you either find it unreasonable or objectionable that there should be some particular date within reason that a stadium deal should come to City Council?
You know, from the Eagles' perspective, I would want to not interject ourselves into an arrangement between the Mayor's Office and the City Council. But I will say this: I personally would handle the negotiation of the deal from the Eagles' perspective. I have nothing more important to do, and I am available anytime, and 258 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 as fast as anybody is ready, to get to work on that very process and complete it as quickly as it can possibly be completed.
Councilman, we too are anxious to move forward with such negotiations as soon as possible. But I also would agree with Joe in that the matter, I believe, that you were questioning the Administration on, which is the proper timeframe for Council and the Administration to have those deliberations, frankly, is really, in our minds, not our issue.
So if a date were established that was reasonable, I take from your responses that you would have no direct or personal objection to it.
From our perspective, we would want it to be realistic enough to achieve this November 3rd date and to keep the 2003 opening on track. And beyond that, we would be willing to put every effort into working and meeting any deadline that existed between us and the Mayor's Office and City Council or any other parameters that were collectively established. 259 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
Now, I think the only thing that I would add is that having spent quite a bit of time on this, I urge us all not to underestimate the complexity of the subject.
Well, I understand that, but therein lies the reason for the question, because if it's complex for you in the negotiation, then the natural result is that it's also complex for us. And I think, again, as everyone tries to achieve the same goal, we want reason on all the sides -- a reasonable amount of time for you to negotiate, a reasonable amount of time for us to review. But I think your answers are: one, you don't necessarily want to be in the middle of that; but, two, if there was a reasonable amount of time, it doesn't do anything to your feelings about what it may be.
Thank you. An issue was raised earlier that -- this is a practice facility question with regard to our current lease obligations, the Eagles are obligated to play at Veterans Stadium until 2010 260 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 or maybe at the beginning of 2011. You are not obligated to practice at the current practice facility, which, I think, is two open fields and a bubble. We have a requirement, I believe, in our lease to provide you with practice facilities, you have no particular obligation to utilize them. Is that correct?
And, again, in the worst-case no one ever want to go near it but since we're here and trying to plan for contingencies, if there are no stadiums deals done November 3rd, which I would like to avoid, and the City obligates itself to buy the practice facility, the question has been raised, will the team utilize -- and not only utilize but commit to utilize -- a now brand-new facility at a total cost of $30 million, of which we will actually have paid everything?
I think that there's kind of two separate answers here, and I'll kind of give the one that sounds better first and then the tougher one second.
All right, I'll 261 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 take that.
I think practically, it's very hard to picture a scenario in which we build this facility, it's been bought back, have the opportunity to stay there, and we instead choose to build it again and relocate it. I think that's a very unlikely practical outcome. But it is one that we feel is crucial for us to maintain the option of having. And there are three basic reasons why we believe that, and they relate a little bit to my opening statement and how we see these things as interrelated and our goals and succeeding in our business. Number one, the ability of us to recruit free agents in a scenario in which we are, at that point, committed probably for ten more years to play in Veterans Stadium and located within the City and thus dealing with some challenges -- namely the tax structure and recruiting free agents or keeping them -- there's a scenario that would at best be challenging and one that we may or may not in that scenario feel is something that we could overcome and, therefore, one we think that we need to at least 262 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 keep our options open. Number two is, we will be in a very difficult financial situation if we are remaining at Veterans Stadium with our current lease and locating a practice facility within the City. Because even in the instance where the facility has been bought back, there's a significant difference in the cost for us going forward within the City as opposed to being outside the City. And our situation in that scenario would be difficult enough that we at least need to retain the right to evaluate those economics at that point as to whether or not we could afford to do that. Lastly, and this is partially what brought us to this point with the Administration, in an interest to keep this as simple as possible and not get into a long list of issues about which we probably would have a hard time agreeing at this time, since this is a scenario we hope never happens, as you saw in our opening presentation, we believe that in the first year alone, this throws out $4.7 million of tax revenues to the City. If we were to be in a scenario where we 263 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 were obligated to stay there and the buy-back, as Bill Hankowsky testified earlier, cost $1.9 million, and the City guaranteed that it was keeping $4.7 million in tax revenues, we will actually have created a very significant incentive for people to not do a stadium. It would be a huge mathematical advantage at that point to maintaining the training-facility tax revenues for 10 years and incurring the $1.9 million buy-back. And I don't think that that's a wise position for us to put ourselves in, and I think it would be an unfair situation to ask us to create for ourselves.
Let me ask you a couple questions on the three items. Number one, as I took it down, you talked about the need to recruit free agents and, I guess, attract other players who may not be free agents, I guess, right out of the draft. And then you also talked about the tax challenges here in Philadelphia. With regard to the recruitment, I guess now might be the moment to publicly, I guess, commend you on -- what is it, John Runyon (ph.)? 264 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
A very large person, human being. When you say "keep the option open," I mean, if you're still playing at the Vet, you keep your option open to not play at the practice facility, the NovaCare facility here in Philadelphia. What would you do and what does it really get you? I mean, you get to play in a new practice facility in another county but still play in the same old Veterans Stadium, with $80 million in repairs? I mean, how does that help you?
Well, right now, when we recruit a player or we try to retain a player, we basically have three challenges. And I'm not trying to be negative; I'm just dealing with the realities of the situation. One is the stadium we play in; two is where we practice; and three are the taxes. You mentioned John Runyon. We were bidding against Tennessee. In Tennessee, there is no City tax and there is no state income tax. So we started out by having to offer him 7 percent more than Tennessee just for it to be the same deal. 265 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 So our belief is that if we have a new stadium --
Yes. We he ended up having to offer him percent more -- 7 just to 7 be even and 10 percent to convince him he should 8 leave where he was. 9 But the point is, it's a challenge and, 10 in fact, it's expensive when you're at a 11 $30 million contract, as that was, and you have to 12 offer 7 percent more just to be tied. That's over 13 $2 million, just on that one player's contract. 14 So our view is that if we have a new 15 stadium and we have a practice facility in the 16 City and the only challenge then left to overcome 17 is tax situation, that we've got enough ammunition in reciting to overcome it. Our fear is -- and we haven't made a final decision. I'm telling you, I think the practical outcome is that it's very unlikely we do this twice, but our fear is that where we have both a stadium problem still and a tax problem, and we still have two of three challenges we have now, that it could be extremely difficult to 266 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 recruit or even retain our own players who will be becoming free agents. And at that point, in weighing all the pros and cons, it's unlikely, but not impossible, to say, Look, we're just not going to be able to keep our players or recruit players if we don't build this thing someplace else. And at that point, when we're facing that decision, I think we need a way kind of the ramifications of the three points that I've made and decide at that point what we should do.
Well, okay. But I mean, at that point, you've solved two of three issues. You're now completely out of the City, so they'd only pay wage tax for the games that are actually played at Vets Stadium, you rent a new facility in some other county, but you're still at Vets Stadium.
Right. And I think even in the scenario where this was never a problem and we passed a stadium deal last fall, and this is, obviously very subjective, but we felt like if we eliminated two of those three problems, we had enough ammunition to succeed. So if the two we 267 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 eliminated are the tax problem and the practice facility but not the stadium, it's not as good as three out of three, but we believe we can -- as long as we've knocked out two of those three. In scenario where there's no new stadium and we're absolutely required to keep the training facility in the City, we still have two of those three problems as opposed to eliminating two of those three problems. And that would be a concern.
All right. On number two, you talked about the cost of operations in the City. And, again, is that -- are you talking about the actual operating and maintenance costs of the facility in that there is a large difference between the operating and maintenance costs of the facility in Philadelphia versus in another county, or is it kind of a larger macro-issue of all of the other taxes issues of having your corporate office here in Philadelphia and what we charge basically -- or what you pay as a business person to do business here versus somewhere else? Is that the issue?
It's both. We think that 268 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 the operation and maintenance of the facility would be somewhat higher, and I guess it's an open issue. But if there was a real-estate tax, it would be a use-and-occupancy tax and, obviously, be business-related taxes. And we do believe that there would be at this point an unquantifiable difference in the operating and maintenance cost of the facility itself.
Do you have a sense today of what the operating and maintenance costs would be for the facility here in Philadelphia? I'm assuming you must. I mean, you're under construction.
You mean if we just went forward with the building here, what would the operating and maintenance be?
I mean, we've created an estimate just off what other teams in the league's O and M tend to be, and we've got a range, but I will tell you, our best guess is somewhere in the $400,000 range. I mean, I think when we get into the actual equipment we use and quality of HVAC and stuff, we'll have it better, but that's kind 269 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 of a rough number we're using at the moment. And that does not include capital repairs; that's just the O and M.
And are you anticipating, under any scenario, that you're going to take care of capital costs at this particular facility?
No. I think we view that in the package of so-called things to be negotiated, if in fact the buy-back took place -- and I don't think that we've -- we have some preferences and some ideas, but I don't think we've eliminated anything from being something that is on the table that, therefore, we could be obligated to pay for.
Okay. The last scenario, the kind of financial incentive scenario, I mean, I think if -- maybe you've heard it more times than you care to and, you know, the proof will be when we actually have public hearings on the actual stadium deals. I mean, I heard what you said about the $4.7 million in taxes and that it's only going to cost us 1.9 on the buy-back over 30 years. 270 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 I mean, one, it ends up for us actually being a $57 million facility, not a $23 million buy-back over that time -- $1.9 million times 30 years. Plus what you may have left out of that equation is that we have to pay debt service on the $80 million going into Vets Stadium. I'm not sure what that number is, off the top of my head, but maybe a good financial person up at the table might be able to tell us what the debt service is on the $80 million. I mean, it's not just the 1.9; it's also the debt on the 80, the total of which may actually be more than 4.7. I don't necessarily know that any of us would look at this as any particular financial incentive not to do stadiums. I mean, again, I think you've heard it from everyone that we definitely want to put something together. We'd just like to see a deal. The number now seems to be $5.8 million in debt service on the $80 million, that's actually a loser for us.
'Cause 5.8 and 1.9, I think that gets you up in the $7 million range 271 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 for which -- I mean, even the government is not so stupid that we negotiate deals that we do something that gets us $4 million but costs us $7 million. I mean, even we don't do stuff like that.
I mean, I think -- first of all, I think you can make the case of how you kind of disconnect the parts of the deal, but if you want to connect all the parts of the deal, then I think you have to put the car rental tax back into the equation. And I think you would, unfortunately, even though we disagree dramatically with the Controller's numbers, have to put back the suite flip. And I think when you're done with that, that $5.8 million to not do a stadium deal would be compared to probably 10 to $12 million. I mean 5.8 versus 10 or $12 million. So you have a cost of 5.8 or maybe 10 or $12 million in revenues to not do a stadium deal.
Well, based on that particular provision, I can say to you here publicly that I have no interest whatsoever in the financial incentive as it relates to those particular numbers to not do a stadium deal -- a 272 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 deal, obviously, we have not yet seen. I mean, one day, all of the components will come in and we may have differences of opinion about the various aspects of a deal that come to us. But on that particular -- on this point, number three, I would just have no interest in getting into that kind of a discussion. Let me also ask 'cause you said it kind of fast and some people may not have heard it and you might want to explain it. You talked about the suite flip, and I don't think that term or that phrase has necessarily been used today. Would you care to explain what that is.
Well, I think earlier it was referenced that after the 2000 season, so in 2001 is what we reference to a flip and who keeps or controls the revenues from the suites -- I speak just from the Eagles' perspective -- that we currently control. And currently, we receive and retain 100 percent of those revenues and have 100 percent of the obligations to the expenses and ticket purchase and so on and so forth. In 2001, the City receives a 70 percent of -- and I think the difference of opinion is, 273 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 what is it that they receive 70 percent of.
Well, what are the revenues that are generated by the sky boxes?
You know, I don't know that off the top of my head. I think the gross revenues . . . I could be wrong on this, okay? But I'm going to tell you that I think the gross revenues last year were in the $6 million range.
Right, okay. So from the time they were built until 2001, the lease is that you get 100 percent of that revenue, and then I believe it's February '01, there's a, as you said earlier, a flip, and a split in the percentage -- 70 percent to the City, 30 percent to the team.
And just so I don't leave anybody with a false impression, you know, we think there's clear established precedent as well as very clear language that that 70 percent is of 274 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 a net. And to be honest with you, we think that the suite flip is worth nothing to the City. I mean, we literally believe the answer to that is zero, and we believe that the most liberal interpretation is just a bit over $1 million.
Okay. There's been a lot of discussion -- I mean, part of what is obviously driving a great amount of today's discussion, the need to keep the Eagles practice facility and corporate offices in Philadelphia is -- the big issue has been the wage tax. There are other taxes, naturally, that the team pays -- that the organization pays. Now, what is the actual figure on the wage tax? We've -- we've -- the question has been asked on a couple of occasions, and we usually get a range, and we've never been able to get a clear answer as to whether or not those numbers are being given by our Revenue Department, who, I think, maybe can't give us an exact figure, or they're coming from the team, which, naturally, would know because you actually pay the tab.
You mean as in, what have we been paying? 275 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
I would not know that. I mean, I'll tell you what we -- how we calculated these numbers and if that gives you any comfort with the validity of them. Right now, we have an average of the number of duty days that the players are paying their City wage tax on. And, of course, we know what our payroll is -- not just of players, but of everybody. And we have used that number of duty days to calculate it. So I can't see why the numbers -- and I don't know if PIDC's numbers came from us or not, I don't think they did, but if they did, I can't see why there would be any variation from what the actual payments have been. I mean, the payroll -- the cap has been lower so it, especially in the last year, has increased quite a bit. But we've just taken the duty days that we're actually withholding from our players and projected that onto what we expect the salary cap and the rest of the organization's salary to be to calculate the City wage tax number.
Okay. How are the 276 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 players paid? Do they get a weekly check, every two week, a month, a quarter, half a year, a year?
Our players get paid -- during the season they get one-seventeenth of their salary each of the seventeen weeks. In addition to their salaries, they get paid small amounts of money for off-season workout programs while they're in town. But they would, between the beginning of September and early December, with weeks of season, each week they receive -- 13 I'm sorry, every other week, they get paid. And 14 it represents really two-seventeenths of their 15 earnings. 16 So if you've made -- I don't mean to 17 blow anybody away with these numbers, but if you made $1.7 million, you'd get a $200,000 check every two weeks during the season.
Mr. Banner, let me assure you that if I made $1.7 million, I would not be sitting here; I'd probably be sitting where you are sitting, and I can assure you that that's not the case.
Well, if you were sitting 277 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 here, I promise you that you wouldn't be making 1.7 either. (Laughter.)
All right, that's fair. All right, okay, that's fair. For the average person who kind of looks at all of this, on the day of the ground-breaking, and we talked about Mr. Runyon and don't mean to make any kind of public example of him, but it's the most recent example. On the same day of the ground-breaking, there was much discussion about the practice facility and moving forward and everybody went back to work, which I'm certainly please about, it was essentially the same day that this process was moving forward, and the team is essentially saying, If you don't do a stadium, we need you to buy our practice facility, and we cannot finance such an entity without the revenues that are generated by a new stadium. And on that same day, the player shows up, and I think everybody knows it's a $30-some million, a 6-year contract, and a $9.5 million signing bonus. And so for the average person, you look at that and -- I mean, 278 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 the numbers by themselves are astounding but -- I mean, they kind of match up in some way. It's million, 30 million, a $30 million facility, 5 30 million for a player. 6 How do you do that for the individual 7 but you can't finance a piece of real estate? 8
Well, we'll finance the 9 real estate, you just pay the player. 10
Well, no, maybe 11 I'll do his food bill or something. 12
The salary cap in the NFL 13 is a percentage of gross revenues, and it not only 14 has a maximum, it has a minimum. So we are 15 literally required to spend a certain amount of 16 money on players. And we just consider it a cost 17 of doing business. 18 It is in the context of what we need to 19 spend. And I'm not even dealing with to compete 20 for the moment, I'm just dealing with by league 21 rules what we need to spend on players, plus the 22 operation of our business, to be able to honestly 23 tell you in a scenario in which there is no new stadium and there's a practice facility, that, you know, we would be, to say the least, in tight 279 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 quarters to try to maintain our ability to do those kind of deals just to meet the minimum. And then, of course, our goal really is to not just be meeting the minimum but to be actually competing with the better teams in the league. But I fully appreciate your point and the perception that is created by that, and it was not planned to go that way.
I understand. But, I mean, what's the answer? Is it just a different source of funding?
And one can only go to one thing and can't go to something else?
Yeah, because of the reality that we have a minimum amount of dollars that we can spend on players, as ruled by our league, and a greater amount we need to compete but a minimum we have to spend, we can't very well take, you know, money out of that number and say, Well, we're going to use this for debt service instead and ask the League and the union or whoever to give us a waiver on the minimum requirements we have on players' salaries. 280 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 And the reality is, that minimum we would not be competitive in the League, and that would then have effects on all our other revenue streams.
Probably for the moment, one of the last questions. There was a hearing back in June of last year about the practice facility. It was a zoning bill that allowed all of this to go forward. And there were questions that were asked in that hearing, but then there was a briefing in the Mayor's Office not too long ago. And is Mr. Hankowsky still here?
Yes, he's right behind you. (Mr. Hankowsky returns to witness table.)
Councilman Nutter, once you've finished your question of Mr. Hankowsky, can we move on.
No question, yes. 281 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 Thank you, thank you, Madam President.
You haven't asked a question yet. As I was coming over, I didn't --
No, I'm only kidding. (Councilman Rizzo addresses Councilman Nutter off mike.)
Yes, yes. Councilman Rizzo wants a yield on an earlier question.
Mr. Banner, before we move on to a different subject, I'd like to go back hopefully to this fine training facility. I'd like to know about the duty days. When do the players come back in the summer to begin what we call summer camp?
It varies, depending upon 282 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 the beginning of our season. It's usually at the very end of July, somewhere around the 25th of July is when they come to training camp.
Well, since you have this beautiful -- since you will have, hopefully, this beautiful new facility, isn't training camp normally outside of the City?
Lehigh University. Would you consider or could you tell us why, with this beautiful training facility, you'd want to go to Lehigh University to train?
Well, let me just give you two. From our perspective, there are certain needs. For example, we need living quarters and dormitory space immediately adjacent to it. But I should also make you aware that a fundamental part of the Packer Park Association deal that we made was to, in fact, promise that we would not have this training camp at this facility. It brings in a tremendous number of people and cars and congestion, and it was a request of the community group that we not put it there, and it was one 283 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 that we agreed to. We would have preferred to retain the option of doing that, not necessarily the obligation, but the option of doing that. But in light of the community's feelings, we felt it was a reasonable request that we agreed to not put it there.
So if it's something that if the community accepted training camp at that facility, it's something that you would do?
Well, as I said, there's still some other logistical problems. I mean, the players literally now stay in dormitories, which have meeting halls in them and are adjacent to the areas in which we practice and have meetings early in the morning, late at night, treatment centers, weight rooms, etc. So there would still be some logistical challenges from our perspective to be able to practice there.
You're not going to have weight rooms at the new training facility?
We would, but we do not have, for example, a dormitory that would be in proximity. 284 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
Okay, that's fair enough. The community in that -- if that agreement was already made with the community, then that's appropriate. Thank you, Councilman Nutter.
Thank you. Mr. Hankowsky, a couple weeks ago, we were in the Mayor's office for one of a number of briefings, and I had asked you a question about the issue of property taxes related to the practice facility. My recollection was that you said because PAID will own the land or the area, that there was no payment of property taxes at this particular transaction. Do you remember that meeting or that discussion?