To be honest, I sort of vaguely do. 285 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
Yeah, right. Is that -- do you want me to confirm that that's a right answer, or is there a follow-up question? I mean, is --
I just want to know, do you recall that you said that?
Well, the reason I'm saying that is, the answer to what happens on real-estate taxes is a function of which -- conceivably is a function of what scenario you're under. So today as, this facility is being constructed, as we speak, it is being constructed on federal property, pursuant to a lease from the Navy to PAID and PAID to the Eagles. I'm not aware, and I'm sure somebody from Law Department or Revenue will jump up here if I get this wrong, but I believe that the facts are that if you build something on federal property, the City can't tax it.
That's scenario one, 286 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 that's the scenario we're in today. Another scenario is, there's a practice facility, Eagles own it, we never buy it back, it's just sort of sitting there. In other words, PAID has ground-leased the piece of ground to a private party who constructs their own facility. I believe in that scenario, the facility is taxable. Scenario three is --
It's a scenario that's not in front of us, I just want to be clear.
It's not in front of us because either -- if I could do the other two, it might be helpful. The other two are, we build a new stadium, the practice facility becomes a part of that overall transaction, deals are paid for, and we haven't bought it back. And we could view that facility pursuant to the payment-in-lieu-of-tax statute that was passed by Harrisburg, and it could be eligible for a pilot, as an ancillary 287 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 facility to a sports and recreational facility, if I remember the verbiage in the statute. So it could be eligible for a pilot, that scenario.
The alternative scenario is the one that is a part of the subject of the legislation before us, which is a scenario whereby it would be leased to the City, leased back to PAID, PAID leases it to the Phillies -- excuse me, the Eagles. And in that scenario, I think it would -- and again, I'm not rendering a legal opinion, I'm talking about how I understand the business implications. It would be close to what we have today, which is that the City owns practice facilities -- the bubble and a couple of field -- that are provided to the team, we don't pay real-estate taxes on 'em. I don't know if there's something computed (unintelligible), so it's a part of the Vet lease. And conceivably, you could -- I'll use the terminology "negotiate," agree that there's a pilot for the team's occupancy of it, but I'm not sure it is liable for real-estate taxes, you know. 288 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
And I may not have amplified that answer in the briefing you're referencing.
That's okay. The reason I ask the question is because when I went back and took a look at the hearing from Wednesday, June 16, 1999, the zoning bill, the Council President was chairing the hearing at the time said this, and she was talking to another member. "Councilman, while we're talking about revenues, will we not also be generating revenues from this facility with property taxes?" Your response was at the time was: "Yes. This facility, because it will be used by a for-profit, it will be a ratable, which current practice facilities aren't because we, the City, have them inside the Vet, the locker room, and all of that. So there are some new revenue, plus keeping the current revenues that we will get from the practice activity in the City. That's accurate."
That's my -- I hope I'm 289 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 not being confusing, but that's the scenario where -- which was, in part -- again, if you think of June '99, the only thing on the table at the time was, they were going to build a practice facility. Somewhere out on the horizon was the contemplated discussion of stadiums. We didn't know where we would end with that. So if in the circumstance of that being a stand-alone transaction, with no other consideration, then it would be a ratable. Once you add the stadium and say, Okay, now let's look at this in the context of the 1989 statute, I think, which is the one that set up to pilot, it could be eligible under the pilot. And in the subsequent discussions, we were looking at a pilot what would echoed what would have been real-estate taxes.
Well, in looking at the statute, which I assume you're talking about Section 4706.1 and .2, there is no mention in the definition of a practice facility.
No, I think it talks generally about ancillary facilities, accessory uses. 290 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
Including accessory uses incident thereto, which shall include, but not be limited to, dining, drinking, and parking facilities. So --
I'm just trying to understand how the practice facility fits in with that definition.
And I clearly don't understand how NovaCare would fit in the definition of that statute.
There might have to be an apportionment. I don't disagree on the NovaCare. Like we do -- I think we do an apportionment of the McDonald's in the first floor 291 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 of the Children's Hospital because we have a for-profit thing inside of a nonprofit. And we -- I think the BRT figures it out and says, Okay, there's about this much real-estate taxes because you have that facility.
But part of your testimony is, you believe that the practice facility clearly fits within the statute?
I believe it could fit in within the statute, as part of a overall stadium transaction.
I'm not rendering a legal opinion; I'm just talking about how you could look at it.
No, I understand. Now, the practice facility will not be open to the public, right?
Will not be open to the public. Nor is the one we have today that pays no 22 taxes, either.
You're 292 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, gentlemen and lady. Mr. Montgomery, here we go again.
You had stated earlier in your testimony that you were currently in design for your stadium. I just want to get something on the record.
What we have done, Councilman, is do the part of the design. It's called "the programmatic phase," which is a situation where our individual disciplines -- say, the ticket office, baseball operations etc. -- meet with our architects to discuss what potentially a facility would look like in their area. We're limited as to how far we can go on that because it would vary, depending upon site.
Upon the site? In terms of your more recent 293 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 discussions, do you have a sense of where you probably will ultimately end up? Or are you not that far along?
We have really not had, with this administration, discussions on site.
Our preference, as was stated to then-Mayor-elect Street, and continues to be, would be to capitalize on what we think was some of the momentum created last fall in identifying an opportunity at the sports complex. The reasons for that are that the more we looked at our fans, their indication was that there's great equity built up in that site. In fact, I think, frankly, that we have four sports teams, professional sports teams all playing within, you know, a mile or so of each other or probably a half a mile, and clearly, the access associated with that site.
Have you had discussions with the Mayor's Transition Team?
I testified -- I guess 294 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 maybe "testified" is the wrong word. I appeared, along with Joe Banner, one morning, indicating -- sort of going back over the ground of our studies as far as sites were concerned, that's correct.
And at that time, did you express your preference at this time to the sports complex?
The same thing that I just stated, that's correct, Councilman.
Okay, all right, I just wanted to get that on the record. Thank you. Mr. Banner, earlier, in Miss Franklin-Suber's testimony with respect to the Vets Stadium upgrades, there was a statement made that proposed the categories of repairs to Vets Stadium would extend its useful life to another 10 years, and that was referencing to the $80 million. In your testimony, it says if more than 80 million is needed, the teams have agreed to cap their claims at that number for the next several seasons. What's the difference between Miss Franklin-Suber's ten years and your several seasons? Is that just that several seasons means 295 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 ten years or does it mean less than ten years? Would you clarify that for me.?
And I said "a few years," and that's what I meant. And, in fact, what the deal specifically says is that it would cover through January 1st, I think, of 2003 and into the fiscal year of 2004, a period of time during which we would agree to not kind of press the issue on any capital repairs that would be needed. So from now through that period of time.
Could I ask the Chair to ask him to please speak into the microphone.
I was interested in that question and answer and couldn't get it.
I appreciate that. No, our view, and what the deal specifically says, is that this 80 million covers 296 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 a period of time and it is not the ten years. It's through January of 2003, leaving there being no need for any authorizations for any possible capital repairs to the Fiscal Year 2004. And that's the timeframe that this is intended. Now, it may cover more than that, but what we're saying is that there's not a commitment from the teams that if further capital repairs are needed or safety issues come up -- at that point, the stadium's almost 35 years old -- that the City is not relieved of the obligations it has in the lease after that period of time.
She's right back there. (Ms. Franklin-Suber returns to the witness table.)
I was referencing your earlier testimony that talked about the 297 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 $80 million in the upgrades of the Vets Stadium, and it said the proposed categories of repairs to the Vets Stadium would extend the useful life for another ten years. And then in Mr. Banner's testimony, his reference to the $80 million, he's now saying, only account for Fiscal Year 2004. And I was trying to get a sense for what the difference, you know, not only in years, 'cause I can kind of see what that is, but is there some disagreement between the Administration and the Eagles as it relates to the $80 million?
Yes. I mean, as I started my testimony earlier today, the City and the teams have a different view as to the scope of the repairs and rehabilitation and so forth that is required of Vets Stadium. I stated that publicly. But what you have here in the proposed agreement is a compromise. I mean, it was an attempt on the part of the City and the teams to come together in good faith, and instead of continuing to argue about it and potentially end up in litigation, we reached a compromise and said, These are the categories of repairs that we 298 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 can agree need to be made, and the City is willing to invest up to $80 million. The Eagles took the position specifically, and I think it was in Joe Banner's testimony and we're aware of that position, that it could be more than $100 million.
But the compromise means that we don't have to address that issue. It means we've agreed to categories, we're going to go through a process where the scope of work becomes more detailed, but it's by agreement and it's by cooperation, as compared to acrimony. So the 80 million is a cap. And it may very well be that as we go through the process and we flesh out the details of the scope of work, that it could be less than $80 million.
Okay. When you made reference to your earlier testimony, at that time, I wasn't aware of Mr. Banner's testimony and I wasn't aware that there was that wide a gap, as it relates to the fiscal years, what you're talking, 2000 -- I mean, sorry, 2011 and he's saying 2004. And that's a substantial gap. 299 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 And I'm just wondering in all reality, would we at some point come to a compromise as it relates to what we think should be done with the Vet? I'm just a little concerned about that gap. I didn't realize it was that broad.
Councilman Clarke, can I take a shot at this? Because I think I can get this --
-- having listened to this whole string. I'm David L. Cohen, I'm counsel to the Phillies. I think that the difference of opinion between the Phillies and the City the Chief of Staff has just referred to totally accurately. And that's what I think what both Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Banner meant when they said that the teams have given up something in a significant way in the up to $80 million deal that has been brought to City Council. I think your question has focused on some timing issues. That is the notion that the Phillies and Eagles have said that this up to $80 million is to be expended at Fiscal Years '01 300 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 and '02. And Mr. Banner's statement that under the amended lease that's in front of Council, that the teams can't ask for anything more until January of '03, to be payable starting in Fiscal Year '04. And the Chief of Staff's testimony which seemed to imply that the $80 million was going to take us till 2010 or 2011, not just to 2004. I think the answer to that is that Mr. Banner has accurately characterized the lease terms in the sense that the teams do have the right and would expect, and I believe that the City administration believes and the Council should expect that there would be additional capital repairs, starting in Fiscal Year '04 through the end of the life of the stadium. The Chief of Staff's testimony was an accurate characterization of the types of repairs that are going to be made at the stadium. That is, the type of repairs to extend the useful life until 2010 or 2011, the end of the lease. For example -- I'll give you a couple of examples. A comprehensive waterproofing of the stadium -- 301 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
But before you -- you said the types of repairs, but you attached a dollar-figure to it. That's why I'm a little --
And included in that, if you look at Exhibit A, would be, for example, waterproofing, which would have an eight- or nine-year warranty associated with it. So it is a repair that would extend the useful life of the stadium till 2010 or 2011. Replacement of sewage pumps would extend the life of the stadium to 2010 or 2011. So they are the kinds of repairs that would extend the life of the stadium till 2010 or 2011, but that's not to say that there wouldn't be other repairs that might be necessary in 2004, 2005, 2006 beyond the $80 million that was being expended in 2001 and 2002.
So would I be right in assuming that the $80 million in Miss Franklin-Suber's testimony speak to the big-ticket items, and hopefully, we wouldn't be in a position where in 2004, we're looking at an additional 80 or $100 million. When you say "extended life" traditionally when you do these capital repairs, 302 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 you do things that are of necessity, the major tickets -- the heating system, you know, those things like that.
I think you could you say that the things expended in 2001 and 2002, you would not have to return to them in 2004 and 2005. But I don't think that anybody knows what the capital needs in what will then be a 34-, 35-, 36-year-old multipurpose stadium would be in terms of the cost of them. There may be other significant capital improvements that need to be made in the later years of the lease term that are not included in Exhibit A that's attached to the lease amendment in front of you.
So what does "useful life" mean? I guess that's the question I'm asking. "Useful life," that term, what does that mean?
I think in this context, useful life would mean the ability of the system -- of whatever the system is being replaced. A system -- when you replace a system or make a repair, it has a useful life. That is the number of years that it is expected to last. 303 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
So you're only talking about the useful life of the system that you put in there, not the useful life of the Vet.
It says "its useful life," okay. I think that's a tricky way of saying that.
All right, okay. I think I'm in the ballpark. I think all the testimony is roughly in the ballpark, but I think what I'm saying is basically accurate.
All right. That statement is misleading. I mean, we're talking about the Vet. I mean, it talks about it's useful life.
In referencing the Vet, one would think that we're talking about the Vet and the useful life of the Vet. 304 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
I don't -- I think we may be splitting hairs at this point, but I think the type of --
That's right. The types of repairs being made with the $80 million are the types of repairs necessary to extend the useful life of the Vet to 2010 or 2011. They may not be all of the repairs that have to made over the rest of the life of the stadium for the useful life of the Vet to be extended to that period of time.
All right. I guess, you know, Miss Franklin-Suber and any references to that, it would be helpful to me if there was a little more clarity in the definition of the useful life and the useful life of the systems as opposed to the useful life of the Vet. That's all. All right, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got a better sense of what they mean now.
You're 305 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 welcome. Is Councilman Mariano in the room?
Mr. Banner, I was going -- there's two questions that I wanted to ask you. I'm not trying to be facetious here. I bet you thought you had a deal when Rendell was mayor, huh? Did you? When you went home for Christmas, did you think this deal is done, I could see it happening?
When you had the ground-breaking ceremony the other day, what was there, six or eight Councilpeople there?
And that would be every indication that you're within three of getting at least a practice since they show -- I mean, I didn't show up to see the new free agent 'cause I didn't know he was going to be there. 306 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 And when I sit on the stage, he was still taller than me and Councilman DiCicco together.
I think so too. The question I want to ask you, you know, Philadelphia Eagles is a business, correct?
I mean, you have a fiduciary responsibility. Is there shareholders in the Eagles?
Two limited partners. Your responsibility to those limited partners is to get the best deal you can, and you're doing that by dealing with the one main force in City government. I mean, everyone around here has egos, and we're Councilpeople, and that and 50 cents gets you a cup of coffee at the stop-and-go in my neighborhood. But you deal with the executive branch basically?
Right. And understand, from our business's perspective, although we understand there are entities within the government, we view the City government as one thing with parts.
Right. And I mean, I don't want to speak for you and you can correct me if you're wrong, but I would think you don't want to disrespect the legislative branch but it's easier to deal with one Indian, one chief than little medieval Indian chiefs basically. 15
We not only respect you, we understand that nothing can happen without having both something that the Mayor is comfortable and his staff and City Council is comfortable with.
You may have noticed that very many of these members' last 308 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 names end in a vowel. Therefore, we are Italian, and respect's very big with us. So don't think that, you know, it's something we're just doing to you and Mr. Montgomery been getting off pretty easy 'cause, frankly, I really don't have any idea what the Phillies are doing. I personally think the Eagles -- and by the way, the thought that you may want me to be a field goal kicker is not true so I have no angle here. But I think you guys have been good corporate citizens. And this guy sitting here told me one time and he called me, David L. Cohen. I was in Council for about three weeks, and he said, Rick, there's something going on in your district that you need to know about. And some people are punishing a business, and I won't mention their name 'cause it's not important or germane to the conversation. He said, These people are good corporate citizens. He said, You will learn in your short time or your long time, and I hope you're here for a long time, that people that are good corporate citizens deserve sort of to be rewarded. 309 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 Now I don't want to give you the whole bank. And it's obvious what I'm doing. These are my union brothers sitting up here, the guys standing out in the hallway. I would like if you built ten stadiums, but I know that's not something we can do. I personally -- this is my personal opinion. I think you have done nothing wrong. You may have been confused by signals that other administrations and current administrations are sending, and actually who's the boss. It's like having seventeen 14-year-olds in a room and they're all trying to side on who's -- I'm trying to say this not vulgarly, I know what I want to say, but I'm not going to say it -- who's the toughest person in the room. " And that distresses me and it distresses these people. Tommy's not sitting up there because he's wants to sit here and hear me oratate (sic) all day 'cause I know him, right, Tom? You're here because you want to see the Eagles have a 10-and-6 season next year, correct? If you could, right? I mean, that would be nice. 310 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 But we're a first-class city. I mean, we go to conventions. I went to Chicago, to the Democratic Convention. A. and there'll be a convention. You know, I want to brag about the Phillies and the Eagles. You know, I love when Thacher Longstreth tells me stories about how good the Phillies were and the Eagles were. I remember the '80s, and I understand all this. And, again, I want Tommy to work. I don't want him sitting around up there in Lawncrest 'cause then he gets in trouble. When he's working, it's good, and when they're working, they pay taxes. When them football players are working, they're going to pay taxes -- they pat a lot more taxes than Tommy pays up there in Lawncrest, and they should. Do I wish they would move to Lawncrest? Sure, don't you, Tom? Don't you wish Donovan McNab lived in Lawncrest? You got a house for him, $35,000, correct? That's it, and that's what we're trying to do here. I can't speak for any of my other colleagues, but I will tell you, I will bet that the majority of City Council, and it only takes 311 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 nine votes to get something through Council, regardless of the egos and people that don't like it, and signs and threats and -- believe me, I understand other Councilmen's agendas, especially District Councilpeople. The Council President herself, she has to be concerned about, she's a District Councilperson. She's got to be concerned about where the stadiums are going. But the Eagles have never changed. When I met Jeffrey Lurie four years ago, the story was the same. When I met Todd Bishop and the people from LoJack, the story was the same. I just don't understand. Councilman Nutter spoke about it before.
He said, you know, we talked about parity and we couldn't split it up. I went out on a limb in December and said, Let's do the stadium for the Eagles, they know where they want to be. You know, it may not be that simple. I feel for you. I mean, there's no 22 angle here. To come down here and sit through this dental surgery without anesthesia, you should get a medal for this, but I understand -- what did you tell Nutter you were getting, $17 million a 312 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 year for doing this? Or something like that, right?
But that's where we're at here. We're going to be here all night 'cause certain people here are going to want to take this process out til it annoys us. But I'm going to tell you, I'm going to stay here until the cows come home if we have to, 'cause we're going to have to find out today, today that we could build a stadium for the Eagles and the Phillies. Hopefully the Phillies, through David Cohen's help, will come up with some sites and we'll get that, but that's another thing. We're only here today, like Stephanie said, talking about a practice facility. But I'll tell you, if I owned the Philadelphia Eagles and I saw six City Councilpeople standing there with hard hats and silver shovels, I would think that's a really good sign that this practice facility is on its way. I don't know how much more you people can take, I really don't. I mean, there's always backroom 313 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 negotiations and there's things that's going to happen but, you know, I commend you. And that's really the only thing I wanted to say. Just hang in there 'cause this will get through. And you know, we could hang around as long as anybody else can. Good luck, Mr. Banner.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Banner and David, we will stipulate that you guys are good corporate citizens.
But what we're trying to ascertain here in essence is, what is going to be the liability or the risk that the taxpayers are assuming in terms of any agreement? Because we have to establish a record. And, David, you were -- David Cohen was very clear, as usual, in terms of really defining 314 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 what we mean by $80 million and what that covers in terms of the current agreement that we have in front of us. So I thank David for the explanation to Councilman Clarke, because I think he put it into great perspective and a clear one. But what we have here, and Mr. Banner, you stated in essence that you have a difficult situation, let's say, because the issue is, we have a problem with these datelines that we're putting in front of us in which to achieve a stadium agreement.
Excuse me, Councilman Ortiz, we have a point of order on the floor.
We sit here all day and we talk about datelines. I'm sorry, if you would yield for me. 315 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 When's that game, that first game you want to be in that new stadium? So we can get this over with, so everybody doesn't ask the same question. And who's it against, by the way? Is it in August, is it an exhibition game in 2003? Who are we playing? Do you know who's going to be the starting quarterback, Mr. Banner? Can you tell me the defensive backs? 'Cause I want to know. Will Troy Vincent be playing? Come on, Councilman, come on, you're wasting all our time. It's the same question your allies asked for the last six hours here, you know?
But, Councilman, you know that answer, you know that answer. So why ask the question that you know an answer for? You're insulting our intelligence. You're insulting this executive from an NFL team's intelligence, asking the same questions, okay? 316 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 Give us a break, will you? (Applause.)
Point of information, Councilman. I want to know when that game is.
When's that game? You might want to go with me. When's that game? In August?
Do we know the starting lineup for the Eagles? It's been dealt with. 317 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
I'm not done asking, Councilman. I got a couple of other points I need to know. I need to know everything. I need to know who the starting lineup is. And you know?
Thank you, Councilman. Maybe I'll catch up with you some day. (Applause.)
I need the Phillies too. Who will the Phillies be playing in August 2003? (Applause.)
How can you come here and not -- you know, I mean, it's amazing. We're going to ask these same questions and keep 318 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 asking them. And you know what? Every minute we waste, construction costs goes up. The guy that owns this team is starting to look somewhere else. Now you may be willing, Councilman Ortiz, to play chicken with the Philadelphia Eagles. I'm not, I'm not. Because Councilman DiCicco said they could be the Delaware Devils some day.
Please direct your comments to the Chair, Councilman.
Can I question Councilman Ortiz, Madam Chairwoman? Your expertise is professional football. 319 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85
Are you willing to be interrogated by Councilman Mariano?
How many downs or professional football did you play? I didn't play any, okay? How many professional football teams did you own? I never owned any. I don't even own a car that the City don't let me have, okay? Come on now. You guys do this and do this and do this. And you know what, Councilman, it gets real old for those of us that want to come here every day and get something accomplished. These people are here because they want to be here for their work. (President Verna taps gavel.)
Councilman, are 320 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 you asking questions of the --
Yeah, I'm interrogating Councilman Ortiz who asks the same stupid questions that everybody else has been asking. (Applause.)
Like he's an expert on owning an NFL football team. I wanted to know, since he never played a down in the NFL, I never did. Since he doesn't own a professional sports franchise, how can he sit here and ask Mr. Banner questions, the same questions. (Audience members address Councilman Mariano.)
You're right, you're right, you're right. That's what this is about.
Oh, go 321 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 ahead.
Councilman Ortiz never answered my question about his expertise in owning a professional sports franchise.
I don't think we interrogate each other. If you have a point of order and you want to ask a question of the people at the witness table.
Yeah, I have a point. My point is, they're wasting our time, Council President. They're wasting the time of these people. These guys are getting paid, I'm getting paid, they're not.
No, they need to be here, this is their livelihood. We need to build these stadiums. (Applause.)
While everybody's jockeying around, while everybody's playing 322 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 around.
You know, it's amazing. All of the people. (President Verna taps gavel.)
Excuse me, Council President. You can expel me from the building, please do. But what happens is, all the people that are for everybody's rights play games with the working people, the people that want to build the stadium. Listen, see this guy over here, Huey, my new legislative guy? Huey did studies on all of this, and we got every professional sports stadium that was built in the last ten years. You know what the norm is? Eighty-five percent public contribution. You know what these guys are giving? Sixty-six percent. One stadium was done without any public contribution. And that's for the record, down somewhere in South Carolina, where they have no unions, no city wage taxes, and no state taxes. 323 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 But if that's how we want to live, Councilman, move to South Carolina and root for the Panthers or something. Come on, you're wasting our -- you're -- you're -- that's what they wonder. They wonder here why we do these things 'cause we're going to waste this guy's time. It's a waste of time. Thank you, Madam President. (Applause.)
Councilman Ortiz, do you still want to be recognized?
Oh, yes, yes. I have more stupid questions to ask. Mr. Banner, the NFL has a TV contract, and it's shared among the teams. What is the size of the current contract that it has with the different TV stations?
Point of information. Didn't somebody else ask that question? Can't the stenographer read that back?
Mr. Mariano, 324 3/1/00 WHOLE COMM. - BILLS 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 please.
It's "Councilman Mariano," Madam President. Thank you.
Mr. Banner, that question has not been asked. But go ahead, could you tell me --
It has not been asked, Mr. Banner. (President Verna taps gavel.)