m. - - - BILL NOS. 980889, 980894, 990671, 990722, 990753, 990755, 990759, 990764, 990767, 990768, 990769, 990770, 990838, 990842, 990843, 990850, 970350, 990566 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA CLARK, Chairwoman COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED-MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO, JR. - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X BILL NO. 980894 PAUL MC CLOSKEY --------------------------- 72 BILL NO. 990671 ANDRES PEREZ, Dept. of Public Property ---- 56 LOUIS APPLEBAUM, Procurement -------------- 65 BILL NO. 990722 ANDRES PEREZ, Dept. of Public Property ---- 75 THOMAS CHAPMAN, Planning Commission ------- 76 BILL NO. 990753 ANDRES PEREZ, Dept. of Public Property ---- 79 ELIZABETH BRESSI-STOPPE ------------------- 80 BILL NO. 990755 PAUL DEEGAN, PIDC and PAID ---------------- 85 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Committee --- 89 ANDRES PEREZ, Dept. of Public Property ---- 89 BILL NO. 990759 ANDRES PEREZ, Dept. of Public Property ---- 90 BILL NO. 990764 PAUL DEEGAN, PIDC and PAID ---------------- 93 MIKE NICOLETTI, PSDC ---------------------- 94 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Committee --- 105 BILL NO. 990767 ANDRES PEREZ, Dept. of Public Property ---- 5 WILLIAM ROSADO ---------------------------- 6 BILL NO. 990768 ANDRES PEREZ, Dept. of Public Property ---- 105 BILL NO. 990769 PAUL DEEGAN, PIDC and PAID ---------------- 108 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Committee --- 109 BILL NO. 990770 ANDRES PEREZ, Dept. of Public Property ---- 112 BILL NO. 990850 ANDRES PEREZ, Dept. of Public Property -- 35, 56 ANN D'HARNONCOURT -------------------------- 35 GAIL HARRITY ------------------------------- 48 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Committee ---- 55 BILL NO. 970350 PAUL DEEGAN, PIDC and PAID ----------------- 27 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Committee ---- 33 BERNARD KOLODNER --------------------------- 33 BILL NO. 990566 JOSEPH PERRELLO, Risk Management ----------- 15 LOUIS APPLEBAUM, Procurement --------------- 16 - - - 3 CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. The Committee on Public Property and Public Works is now convened. A quorum has been established. Present at the table today are Councilman Brian O'Neill, Councilwoman Clark, the Chair; Councilwoman Blackwell; Councilwoman Miller; and Councilman Michael Nutter. That's sufficient to establish a quorum. I want to give you two pieces of housekeeping. We're going to recess the public hearing for Bill No. m. Those are the bills that deal specifically with the cable franchise, Wade Time Warner cable franchise. So any person who is in the room expecting to speak or to here testimony with respect to those two bills may consider themselves freed up and excused from tomorrow at 3:00 I don't want you to use your time badly. Thank you. We're going to table Bill No. 990838 and 980889 at the request of the Administration. For purposes of the record 980889 is an ordinance to authorize the Commission of Public Property to enter an agreement to grant the United States America an 4 Bill No. 990767 easement for road and water main purposes at Fort Mifflin. And the other one is 990838, an ordinance 4 authorizing real estate transactions necessary to permit the City of Philadelphia to acquire property needed for the airport. Those are being tabled at the request of the Administration. These bills are known as the Eastwick bills. So if you think we're going to take testimony on that today, please be advised that the Administration has pulled those bills back. They are tabled. You're perfectly welcome to stay, but if that's all you came for, you're free not to stay. The Clerk will now read the bills that are before us. We have a lengthy hearing. I don't think that shortened it by very much, but we're doing our best here.
Bill No. 990767, an Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to purchase in lieu of condemnation, or to select and appropriate, certain lots or parcels of ground within the area bounded by Jefferson Street, Fourth Street, Harlan Street, and Lawrence Street, for public recreational park purposes, under certain terms and conditions. 5 Bill No. 990767 CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Are there persons in the room who wish to be heard to speak in favor of or against Bill 5 990767? Please join the Commission at the table. For the record, would the record also show that we have been joined by Councilman Frank Rizzo at the table and in the room is Councilman Angel Ortiz. Good afternoon, Commissioner. Please proceed with your testimony. Spell your last name for benefit of the stenographer.
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Clark and Members of the Committee on Public Property. My name is Andres Perez and I'm the Commissioner of the Department of Public Property and I'm here today to testify in support of Bill No. 18 990676, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to purchase in lieu of condemnation, or select and an appropriate, certain lots or parcels of ground within the area bounded by Jefferson Street, Fourth Street, Harlan Street, and Lawrence Street for publish recreational park purposes, under certain terms and conditions. This bill will enable the City to 6 Bill No. 990767 acquire several adjacent lots at Benson Park for the restoration of the park facility at this location. This will return the use of a previously built community park. The Department of Public Property supports this measure. Accordingly, I respectfully ask that the City Council approve bill 990767, and I also ask that the rules be suspended so that the ordinance may be passed upon the second reading of Council. Thank you.
My name is William Steven Rosado. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Clark and Members of City Council. I am here representing a majority of residents in the vicinity of Benson Park. The park is located on the 1400 block of Lawrence Street between Jefferson and Harlan Street, several blocks north of Gerard Avenue. I would like to introduce for the record a copy of the petition signed by over 200 area residents calling for the restorations of the parcels originally designated as Benson Park. The park was dedicated in memory of Lawrence Benson, a dedicated community organizer and activist since 1979. Benson Park has served as a center for recreation, community meetings, and a 7 Bill No. 990767 source of pride for our community. Benson Park was conceived and develop by the area residents in corporation with Olde Kensington Redevelopment Corporation. The park features a fountain sprinkler utilized by area children to cool off on hot summer days as well as trees, benches, and a basketball court and open spaces that offer primarily passive recreation. Benson park is a vital element of our neighborhood, adding to an attractive nature and pleasant character of our community. It has maintained and drug free by the residents surrounding the park for over the past years. 15 To our dismay and belief on August the 16 26, 1998, we witnessed construction workers removing 17 the wrought iron gates and sealing the Leithgow 18 Street entrance to the park with a cinder block 19 wall. After further inquiry, we discovered that 20 Olde Kensington had retained the title to the parcels acquired for the park use and had allegedly sold the property to one of the Leithgow Street residents for their personal use. Several parcels designated as park property were sold without consulting any of the other community residents even 8 Bill No. 990767 though the property had been acquired through the city for park use. Today I represent the major stakeholders who have a considerable investment of time, energy, and commitment to this important neighborhood facility. The park is central to the harmony and well-being of our community. For this reason, we the residents of Benson Park area would like to thank City Council, the Mayor, and in particular Councilmembers Richard Mariano and Angel Ortiz for their genuine concern and attention to this important community issue. We respectfully request that City Council approve Bill 990767 and continue to assist us with the restoration of the park. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you, sir. Would the lady wish to be heard?
She is with me. This is Gloria Melendez, a committee person, and Harold Harris who is also committee person from Benson Park. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Fine. Thank you. Commissioner.
I want to provide Council 9 Bill No. 990767 with a corrected legal description which is referred to in the ordinance -- and a corrected survey which is referred to in the ordinance as Exhibit A. This constitutes a new Exhibit A with some factual corrections. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Are you also bringing the petition in, Commissioner?
I have the petitions. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. I appreciate that. The exhibit you just gave us, sir, is in lieu of the one that was originally passed, a corrected version?
Yes. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: I thank you very much. Are there other persons in the room who wish to be heard to speak in favor or against this bill? Councilman Angel Ortiz.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We have spent close to two years on this issue. This park was built in the 1970s and it was given to the community by the then-Mayor Frank Rizzo. It was built as a community passive 10 Bill No. 990767 recreation area where kids could use the sprinkler and the elderly could sit during the summertime and fall and spring. And Olde Kensington, although never disappearing as a community organization, took the parcels surrounding Benson Park for community development and development of the park and the passive use of those areas. Unbeknownst, because we never were able to find any records of any board meetings transferring the properties or selling the properties and there was no board member around to really give explanation as to such a thing, those properties were transferred and sold. Consequently and subsequently, the individuals that bought it closed off the park, shut off the sprinkler, and really caused a major, major disturbance within the neighborhood. This park is a vital link to the well-being of the neighborhood and the development of that neighborhood and the individuals who continuously come together. It is a neighborhood has been stable for over 30 years. It has home ownership and the residents have raised their kids there. I suggest that we pass this bill and give 11 Bill No. 990767 them title. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you, Councilman. I have a few questions, Commissioner.
Certainly. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Has the lot or parcel been selected? If not, when will the decision be made?
I'm sorry, Councilwoman, I didn't hear the first part. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Has the lot or parcel to be transmitted been selected? If not, when will it be made?
There is a thing already called Benson Park. There is this site that the community recognizes as Benson Park. The park is made of a collection of smaller parcels which are now owned by the Olde Kensington Redevelopment Corporation and/or at least a private citizen. So what this ordinance does is restore the original boundaries of Benson Park to the public trust with the intention of the Department of Recreation providing its jurisdictional support for it as a community neighborhood park. So the answer is yes, 12 Bill No. 990767 it's the original parcels collectively that made up Benson Park. We're using condemnation, obviously, to extinguish all interests and provide a means for a just compensation for those that may have a defensible interest. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you for your answer. I'm going to ask you a shorter question and I'm going to ask you to give me your shortest sufficient answer. This is going to be a long day, and if you ever get a chance to say "ditto" what somebody just said, you get double points to that. How is the property currently being used, those lots that you are being authorized to acquire?
In general compass references without getting into the details of the individual properties, the lower or the southeast quadrant of what is commonly known as Benson Park are the ones that were acquired and walled off. There was a masonry wall put up closing it off to the community, and in doing so, they also closed off the end of Leithgow Street at that block. So if you were to walk over there now, you would see an almost square parcel with park furniture, but the parking 13 Bill No. 990767 area and the access point and the gated area that used to be the Leithgow Street entrance is now behind a private wall and is now private property. This ordinance basically permits us to take that back. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: What's the purchase price of the proposed land to be acquired?
We haven't determined that yet, but as you know, it would be done under the rules of condemnation, just compensation. I don't know if the other representatives here have an idea of what the transactions were.
The first sale was about $400, one of the parcels. And we're talking about -- CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: $400?
Three to $400, that's correct, for each parcel. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Are there any environmental hazards that we're aware of?
Well, right now we have no 23 use of water for our park because the fire hydrant has been in that private use now. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: But, Commissioner, 14 Bill No. 990566 from our point of view, what is our exposure to environmental --
We don't believe that there are environmental issues. Part of it was a former street bed. The rest of it was made up from the row home lots that were part of the original structures. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: I thank you. Are there questions by other members of the Committee? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. Will the record please show that we've been joined at the table by Councilman Jim Kenney. Would the Clerk read the next bill 17 before us?
Bill No. 990566, an ordinance amending Chapter 17-100 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Procurement Contracts" by adding provisions relating to wrap-up insurance programs which cover contractors and subcontractors on certain City or City-financed public works projects; all under certain terms and conditions. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Good afternoon. 15 Bill No. 990566 Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us. Would you please introduce yourself to the record and spell your last name for benefit of the stenographer and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Clark and Members of the Committee. My name is Joseph R. Perrello, P-E-R-R-E-L-L-O, Deputy Finance Director for Risk Management. With me today at the table is Lou Applebaum, Commissioner of Procurement and Debra Lawton, Manager of the Insurance and Contract Section of the Risk Management Division. We are here today to testify in favor of 990566 which amends Chapter 17-100 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Procurement Contracts." The purpose of this bill is to acquire the creation and use of wrap-up insurance programs to cover major City-funded construction projects. Supplementing my written testimony, our testimony today is to support this ordinance based on our belief that its adoption is in the best interest of the City. It will significantly reduce insurance costs for capital projects. It will create a safe working environment for workers and the public and will enable small and 16 Bill No. 990566 disadvantaged contractors to participate in large capital projects. Our experience over the past six and a half years has proven these benefits to be true. The wrap-up at the Criminal Justice Center facility resulted in $4 million in savings to the City. The airport wrap-up, which is still currently underway, has generated an additional 9.4 million in savings. All are providing enhanced insurance coverage and reduced claims activity. Finally, the wrap-up approach that we recommend has gained acceptance throughout the region based on the use of wrap-ups by the following public entities: The New York and New Jersey Port Authorities, the Washington Convention Center, the Baltimore Regional Rail Projects, PennDOT, Interstate Construction, and the new Pittsburgh athletic stadiums, as well as the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. We ask that you adopt this ordinance. And we'll be happy to answer any questions or concerns you may have.
Good afternoon, Council. My name is Louis Applebaum, I'm the Procurement Commissioner of the City of Philadelphia. The 17 Bill No. 990566 Procurement Department has reviewed 990566 concerning the amendment to chapter 17-100 of the Philadelphia Code. The provision for adding a wrap-up insurance program to certain public works contracts would have no significant impact on the procurement process. In fact, because the owner is furnishing the insurance, the City can be assured the proper coverage is in place to protect the City's interest on large complex projects. In addition, the contractors cost for acquiring insurance can be eliminated from the bid price, potentially resulting in lower overall costs to the City. In summary, the procurement department supports the amendment to 17-100 relating to the wrap-up insurance program. We will be pleased to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: The chair recognizes Councilman Michael Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Perrello and Mr. Applebaum, just to make sure we get a couple facts on the record. First, Mr. Perrello, it's my recollection that in your testimony to Council in the last budget cycle and also as a part of the five-year plan, this was an 18 Bill No. 990566 item that was discussed, maybe not in an extended fashion, but the risk management division has been looking at this kind of program for some time; is that correct?
And you've utilized this approach on some other projects?
And it's your earlier testimony that this kind of program can lead to cost savings for the City of Philadelphia?
Is it particularly complicated to manage or put together this kind of program?
It's very simple as long as you have the resources within the City to manage the project. Through the Risk Management Division through Debra Lawton's unit and through the Safety Director Barry Scott, we have those resources available, yes.
So you have the resources you need to put together this program?
Mr. Applebaum, based on those questions, do you have anything you'd like to add?
Other than we have been involved. We know of the wrap-up insurance that was used by the City at the airport and at criminal justice center and it's been a very satisfactory exercise. So we are very pleased with it. We certainly endorse it.
Thank you. Madam Chair, during the public meeting section I wish to put forward some amendments. I've had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Perrello about them. They are technical in nature, but important nonetheless. And they have to do with clarifying Council's role in this process. There are certain projects that come to the City Council that require our approval either for financing or for the overall project. There are other projects that do not come to City Council for our approval, in which case we would not directly involved in those projects. That issue causes some conflict with regard to City charter issues and separation of powers issues between the Council and the Administration. So I 20 Bill No. 990566 have amendments to put forward today that clarify that matter. If the bill is passed with the proposed amendments, I have an opinion from the City Solicitor that clearly articulates that the bill as amended, as the proposed amendments were circulated at the table, make the bill entirely legal and raise no questions as to form or substance. So what I'd like to do, Madam Chair, with your indulgence is quickly read the proposed amendments into the record and then deal with them during the public meeting. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Go ahead.
Thank you. The proposed amendments to Bill No. 990566 would read as follows: We'd make the following changes to Section 16 17-108 of the Philadelphia Code, as it appears in Section 1 of the bill: First amendment, add a new subsection (1)(d) to read at follows: (d) Covered Public Works Project. A Public Works Project any aspect of which (including financing) requires City Council approval pursuant to a provision of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter or other applicable law. The second amendment is in subsections 2, 3 and 4. Replace each occurrence of the phrase 21 Bill No. 990566 "Public Works Project" with the phrase "Covered publish Works Project." The third amendment amends Subsection 5 to read as follows: (5) The city through the Risk Management Division, may also choose to create and manage wrap-up insurance programs for a City procured Public Work Project with Hard Construction Costs not in excess of $75 million, or for combinations of City procured City procured Public Works Projects with combined Hard Construction Costs in excess of $75 million, new material, or for a City procured Public Works Project with Hard Construction Costs in excess of $75 million that is not a covered Public Works Project. Those are the amendments, Madam Chair, which I will seek to move during the public meeting section of our hearing today. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you very much. Commissioner, I have some small questions. Is there a brief sufficient description of what a wrap-up insurance program is?
Madam Chair, a wrap-up insurance program basically is a program by which the City of Philadelphia would require that 22 Bill No. 990566 contractors bidding on major public works would make their bid excluding the cost of insurance and the City would replace that insurance with insurance that the City procured on behalf of the City and all the contractors participating in the project. This enables us to provide critical mass so we can get discounts, enhanced coverage, and get things that basically the contractors on their own would be unable to provide at the same cost that we can. Additionally, it enables small disadvantaged contractors which could not normally get those types of insurance to participate in these programs. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: That's where I was going with my question. It does benefit people who have difficulty purchasing insurance.
That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: And therefore, might be foreclosed in doing business with or for the City?
That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Can you qualify the cost of the program to the City and to a potential developer or general contractor?
I can use the examples 23 Bill No. 990566 that we used on the Criminal Justice Center and the current Fromhold facility where the total construction cost, the hard cost again, which is basically the cost of material supplies and labor was about $200 million for both the facilities here in Center City and up in the Northeast, and that generated a savings of $4 million in reduced cost of insurance. The wrap-up insurance program currently underway at the airport where we had about $300 million hard core construction is generating insurance savings to date of about $9.4 million and is projected that through the course of this construction that that number could increase to as much as $14 million. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: That's the upside of it?
Yes. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: If you had to argue against it, could the program ever be considered deterrent for some developers or general contractors?
We cannot find a downside as far as cost of the program concerned. Basically, 24 Bill No. 990566 what we do is we look at the cost to provide insurance through the normal construction methods which would have each of the contractors, both primary and subcontractors providing their own insurance. We use that cost estimate as the maximum or the cap so that the program could never exceed what it would normally cost through a traditional program. We can only go downward, meaning save on the cost of insurance based on the economies of scale and the claims and safety management that put in place. The only requirement to have a successful wrap-up is, as I mentioned earlier, that we maintain the resources within the City to manage the program. It's strictly a management tool. If it's managed properly, it can only result in savings to the City. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Are there questions by Members of the Panel? Mr. Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Perrello, this coverage that was previously purchased by the contractor, does this mirror identically to what -- there's no exposure at all, us doing it various the contractor doing it? 25 Bill No. 990566
That's correct, Councilman. Basically, we're talking about the contractors comprehensive general liability and Workers' Compensation Insurance. And basically, we tell them to quote the bid excluding those costs and we provide those two coverages. And because we are providing it for the entire job, we can buy enhanced coverage.
Does that put us into the loop for lawsuits since we're providing the insurance.
It does increase the possibility that the City would be falling into lawsuits. To date we've been able to manage those claims very, very well to the point that by both the insurance industry's estimates, for an example, the losses that were projected the airport construction to date would have been close to $10 million in projected. We've been able to get those losses to date at less than $3 million through aggressive claims management and loss prevention activities. We'd be brought into most of those lawsuits anyway as owner of the project. So it's just a matter of us being proactively involved in the handling of the Bill No. 970350 lawsuits versus us being a passive bystander. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: And under the deep pocket theory.
Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: I thank you very much. Are there other persons in the room who wish to be heard to speak in favor of or against the bill 11 before us? Seeing none, gentlemen, thank you very much.
Quite welcome. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: The Clerk will read the next bill that's before us.
Bill No. 970350, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, without consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate at 4700, 4702, 4704, and 4706 Market Street, under and subject to the terms and conditions of the 27 Bill No. 970350 Philadelphia Industrial and Commercial Development Agreement between the City, the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Paul Deegan, PIDC and I also represent PAID. I'm here to testify in support Bill No. 970350. This bill authorizes the City to convey a parcel of vacant land at 4700 to 06 Market Street to PAID. After conveyance with PAID, the property will be sold to Community Care and Development Corporation, a developer of health care facilities and also educational facilities, I might add, I think they're interested in. CCDC also owns an adjacent vacant lot which was purchased from the City on May 13, 1991. The buyer intends to use the entire lot for future non-profit development. The sales price would be based on two independent real estate appraisals obtained by PIDC, and the net proceeds will be deposited in the City's General Fund. I may also add the Council has already approved a bill to strike a street, 47th Street, which bisected this parcel. And if you notice, this has a rather early 28 Bill No. 970350 number in the sequence the bills. It's been held up because of the paper street, basically, was an impediment assembling the entire parcel. So now that that has be done and confirmed by the Board of Surveyors, I think we can go forward with this and get the lot into private hands development. I ask that the Committee consider the bill favorably and that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next regularly scheduled meeting of Council. Thank you and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Any questions? Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Certainly, we support this ordinance. As has been said, this has been around a long time, and we're process of developing the lots and we certainly can't move with these properties lingering. So we'd appreciate the Committee's support on this matter. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: We're happy to do so. There are, however, a few questions. Who is the proposed purchaser and what is the price?
The purchaser is Community 29 Bill No. 970350 Care and Development Corporation, and that's a non-profit corporation established to acquire this property. The price actually is going to be in the neighborhood of around $80,000 on a $2 per square foot basis. We have had the property appraised. We're waiting for the final appraisal. But the property that they purchased in 1991, which is right next door which would probably be the best comparable sale went for comparable number of $2 per square foot. So I think basically they'll be paying a uniform rate for the entire property. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Just for this record, would you describe the proposed site included footage, any structures and buildings and improvements there, and how it's currently used or occupied?
Right now I think it's a vacant lot. It is used for parking informally. I think at one time it was a City maintenance garage. I believe it may have been for Public Property Communications Division back in the sixties and seventies, but it's been demolished and cleared and it's now a vacant lot which I think is a community eyesore in which most of the people who surround it 30 Bill No. 970350 would like to see cleaned up and fenced and taken care of. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Will the proposed use create new jobs or maintain existing jobs; and if so, how many?
I don't have good information on that. The project is still being developed by CCDC, and they may even be forming a subsidiary to develop the parcel. So we don't have hard job numbers as we do in many projects, but we haven't committed any financing or any other public support to the project. But they would like to assemble the land so that they can go forward with the planning for the project. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: They're at the site acquisition phase?
They're in the site acquisition phase, square one. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Would you speak to any actual or potential environmental liability exposure associated with this property?
I don't think there are any to the City because the City has owned it probably for the last 60, 70 years. So I think whatever is 31 Bill No. 970350 there, the City's probably already liable for it. But I think it's generally been cleaned up. I don't think there are any hazards there, but I'm sure the buyer will undertake an environmental investigation of the site to assure himself before settlement that he's not buying something that has problems. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Are there any questions? Mr. Rizzo.
As far as you know, would the city ever sell a piece of property with a known environmental problem and transfer it with the environmental problem?
I believe the City would not. If the problem is known, I think the City has a responsibility --
I think if a property owner or a seller is aware of a problem and has been given notice that there is a problem after conducting a study or notice from the Department of Environmental Protection or the EPA, you would be obligated to disclose that to the buyer.
So if there was an 32 Bill No. 970350 underground storage tank, the City would remove the underground storage tank or transfer the responsibility of the storage tank to the purchaser?
Yes. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: We would have a duty to disclose and it would impact the price.
If there's an underground storage tank there and the buyer were going to remove it, we could give the credit at settlement for the price to removal. In most cases, I think the City has a city-wide contract for UST removal. I think we would ask the City to remove it before title passed.
Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Are there any other questions? Thank you gentlemen. Thank you very much. The Clerk will read the next bill before us.
I think we have some other people to testify. I think Mr. Chapman from the Planning Commission would like to testify. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: I'm sorry, Mr. 33 Bill No. 970350 Chapman. I wouldn't want you to think we're in a hurry or anything. I apologize.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. The the Planning Commission at it's meeting of June 5, 1997, considered Bill No. 970350 and recommends that it be approved. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you.
I'm Bernie Kolodner, Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe, Cramer & Jamieson. And I'm heeding admonition. I don't have anything to add. Mr. Deegan did a great job. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Are there persons in the room who wish to be heard to speak in favor of or against the bill before us? Seeing none, accept our thanks. Will the Clerk read the next bill before us?
Bill No. 990850, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to enter into a purchase and sale agreement 34 Bill No. 990850 with the Philadelphia Museum of Art Corporation, hereafter referred to as Museum of Art, under which, 1, the City will acquire the grounds and buildings commonly referred to as the Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company Building, located at the intersection of 25th Street, Fairmount Avenue, and Pennsylvania Avenue, and 2, the Contract dated January 19, 1968, between the Commissioners of Fairmount Park and the Museum of Art for the administration of the Philadelphia Museum of Art Building and other buildings, as amended, will be amended to include the newly acquired grounds and buildings of the Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company Building, and to make certain other changes; waiving in whole a deed restriction limiting the use of the Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company Building to commercial development and redevelopment purposes; and amending Chapter 15-200 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Fairmount Park," by adding the grounds and buildings of the Reliance Standard Like Insurance Company Building to the areas that are under the care and jurisdiction of the Fairmount Park Commission; all under certain terms and conditions. 35 Bill No. 990850 CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to City Council.
Good afternoon, Councilwoman. Once again, my name is Andres Perez, Commissioner of Public Property. I'm here today speaking in support of Bill No. 990850, a bill which authorizes the Commissioner of Public Property to acquire the Reliance Insurance building, also more specifically described in written testimony submitted to the Committee at an early time. Present with me today are members of the Art Museum staff. At this point, I'll defer to the museum director, Mrs. D'Harnoncourt to move forward with the testimony. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Good afternoon, Ms. D'Harnoncourt. Please do help the stenographer out by pronouncing and then spelling your last name for benefit of the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Ann D'Harnoncourt, D-'-H-A-R-N-O-N-C-O-U-R-T. And in fact, it can be pronounced pretty much anyway you like. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Please 36 Bill No. 990850 proceed. MS. D'Harnoncourt: Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Members of the Committee on Public Property and Public Works, I am very grateful for the opportunity to appear before City Council and to offer testimony from the Philadelphia Museum of Art in support of Ordinance No. 9990850. It is my pleasure to be here together with my colleagues, Gail Harrity, the museum's Chief operating officer; Bob Rambo, it's chief financial officer; Bob Marrone, our director of facilities and operations; and Cheryl McClenney-Brooker, our director of external affairs. I will endeavor to keep my testimony short, but I cannot but say that we are so excited at this opportunity which we have, it's fair to say been waiting for at least years or maybe 70, 19 depending on how you look at it, to acquire the 20 building and the land with it ensure the future growth and vitality of our great art museum by providing desperately needed expansion space for collections, public programs, offices, and very importantly, the museum's library and archives. Our enthusiasm is matched with confidence that this 37 Bill No. 990850 chapter in the museum's history will also hold real and profound economic and cultural benefits for its long-time partners in Philadelphia. We're very grateful, I should say, to the Members of Council and the City's Administration who have assisted us on this project which has been rather a complex one. We've benefited from discussions with Council President Verna and received invaluable guidance and support from our Chair and today also a member of our board of trustees as well as members of President Verna's staff and particularly Councilman Darrell Clarke in whose district the museum is located and the Reliance building is located. On Friday October of this year, 1999, 16 representatives of the museum and of the Reliance 17 Standard Life Insurance Company, which is a 18 subsidiary of the Delphi Financial Group, announced 19 the museum's commitment to acquire the insurance 20 company's celebrated flagship building which is an 21 art deco masterpiece. Most of you will be very 22 familiar with located across the street from the museum at 2501 Benjamin Franklin Parkway. The two buildings have a strong common history. They are both landmarks. The date to the late 1920s. The 38 Bill No. 990850 museum building, as you well know, was funded by a series of City of Philadelphia bond issues with the enthusiastic support of the City Council and the administration of those days and was designed by a team which included the Philadelphia firm of Zantzinger, Borie and Medary, who also served as architects for the Reliance building which was built as an insurance company, although at that time it was the Fidelity Mutual Assurance Company. It is now also an insurance company again. And following it's relocation, which is very important to know -- I'm now talking about the Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. In this transaction the Reliance Standard currently employs over 400 individuals. Following its relocation within the City, it plans to expand bringing the company's total number of employees to approximately 500 and contributing further to the City's tax base. Reliance is committed to continuing as a good corporate citizen it has been for a great many years in Philadelphia and growing, maintaining itself and growing in the City. And I should also say that as a company in terms of the charitable works that it does, it has supported a number of institutions in 39 Bill No. 990850 the City, including our own with very important educational programs for Title 1 schools bringing the children in closer contact with all of the arts and with very important education projects.
That is an extra bonus of the Reliance Standard Insurance Company's continuing presence in the City. The museum will first purchase the Reliance building and then if so approved sell it to the City. The purchase price for the museum to acquire the building, which is 100,000 square feet, is million. The acquisition will be made 13 possible in part by $15 million in funds raised by 14 the museum. The ordinance now for before City 15 Council would authorize the City of Philadelphia to 16 purchase the Reliance building from the museum for 17 the sum of $2 million. So that the Reliance building, like the other City-owned facilities which the museum inhabits and runs, the main museum building , the Rodin Museum, and two historic houses in Fairmount Park, Mount Pleasant and Cedar Grove, will be all part of the City-owned campus of the museum, if I may use that word. As Council aware is aware, the Philadelphia Museum of Art is a not-for-profit 40 Bill No. 990850 corporation that is under written contract to operate these facilities for the City of Philadelphia. This agreement provides that the Corporation is the City's agent in administering the Museum and providing conservation, programming, education and care for its collections and connecting them with the public we both serve. The city, in turn, has provided utilities and ongoing support for security, building operations, and capital projects. With the approval of this ordinance, Council will extend this partnership to include the Reliance building. The museum is committed to preserving, enhancing and extending the reach of our collections to an increasing and increasingly diverse audience as a source of delight, illumination, and life-long learning. And so a physical space that is consistent with the real beauty and architectural significance of the existing museum, the Reliance building will greatly enhance our ability to fully realize three facets of that mission of ours, the creation of exhibitions of informative educational programs and inspiring presentations of our celebrated permanent collections. These efforts 41 Bill No. 990850 which we hope and continue to attract visitors from around the world the museum and to Philadelphia and enhance the quality of life for residents throughout the region. And one could just say, which I think Council is very well aware of, that the impact major exhibitions of the museum in the City has been extraordinarily well demonstrated in the last decade with the Cezanne exhibition, which injected an approximately 122 million into the City's economy and helped dramatically heighten the visibility of the City of Philadelphia as a cultural destination. That could be said to be true also of the Great French Paintings from the Barnes Foundation exhibition, the Delacroix exhibition, and hopefully many to come. But it's also fair to say that the museum's central mission revolves around its permanent collections and which add to the cultural richness of Philadelphia and inspired Mayor Rendell and a number of others to say that the museum is a blockbuster all year round, and that's what we really hope to be, not only from visitors from around the world, but for all the citizens of Philadelphia. And I should say that our permanent 42 Bill No. 990850 collections are the primary teaching tool for the more than 75,000 school children who visit the museum yearly, as well as the resources for life-long learning for all our visitors. The Reliance building is really an extraordinarily important addition to our resources to serve our public and our collections and provides major impetus for future growth and an impetus we have been seeking for over years but not had the 11 resources even to dream of. By relocating some 12 administrative functions and galleries to the 13 Reliance building, we will free space in the main 14 building for expanded display of our collections and 15 exhibitions and the development of new programs and 16 services for our visitors.
17 In addition, it will provide an urgently 18 needed staging area for it the City's capital 19 projects. We are really confident that the museum's 20 planned expansion will resolve, not only in increased visitor-ship, but an improved services to those increased visitors. And the growth and attendance will in turn foster new jobs within the museum and we hope in numerous restaurants, retail businesses, transportation services, those both 43 Bill No. 990850 existing and envisioned along the Ben Franklin Parkway and in hotels and other businesses across the City. We really, at this moment, it's a thrill to be part of the presentation of this ordinance. I must say it is a thrill to be doing it, Madam Chair, while you are in the Chair and still in your 20th year in City Council. Pretty great timing, as far as I am concerned. And we express renewed thanks to the Council and the City for a very long and substantive history of thoughtful and generous and really very forward-thinking support for the museum. And we look forward to expanding on our past collaborations with this exiting new endeavor. We have been entirely out of space in the main building for about years now, hard as that may be to 18 believe. And with this new endeavor, we'll really 19 enhance our ability to reach our goals of expanding 20 our mission in Philadelphia, with Philadelphia, and with Philadelphia as the center of an international focus. So we hope that the Council will approve Ordinance No. 990805, and we will work together towards building on the cultural resources of the City in contributing to the economic well-being, the 44 Bill No. 990850 quality of life, and the education of Philadelphia's residents. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Are other persons going to speak, or are you resources? You wish to be heard, Mr. Deegan?
I'm here to testify. My name is Paul Deegan, D-E-E-G-A-N. I represent Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation and the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, and I believe today I can speak on behalf of the Commerce Director also who is in support of this acquisition. First of all, I'd like to say ditto to what the Commissioner Public Property and the museum director have said, and just say briefly the PIDC's interest is that our main mission, job creation and retention, is being accomplished because Reliance Standard, the present occupants, are staying in the city. And I think there's an important part of the deal to retain them, that the City was going to help them with the building they had out-grown. Second, there's been a long-standing PIDC and City commitment to keeping this building in a productive use. In 1983 we originally acquired the property from the City which 45 Bill No. 990850 had purchased it and sold it to a developer who moved reliance standard in there. And over the last years they've grown and they've outgrown the 5 building. And thirdly, as part of that deal, we did 6 have certain deed restrictions which were placed on 7 the property which are going to be waived as part of 8 this ordinance in which the PIDC Board, if 9 necessary, will act on any resolution needed to 10 waive the other restrictions. So we wholeheartedly 11 support it from the PIDC and the Commerce point of 12 view. 13 CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you very much. 14
Thank you very much. 17 Just a few comments relative to the 18 exciting nature of this project. I've had meetings 19 with your staff over -- yesterday, as a matter of 20 fact, and have met with them in the past. I've said to them and I'll say it for the record that the Cezanne exhibit alone had more economic impact to the City over the period of time than all four sports teams combined, and we've been through this issue relative to the stadiums and we will deal with 46 Bill No. 990850 the stadiums again, I'm sure, hopefully soon, and we have every intention of trying to retain our major league sports franchises. However, I think sometimes we lose site of the fact as to what the economic impact of this wonderful cultural institution does, not only for tourism and for the dollars it creates, but the regional attitude about the City that's positive. So many times when we look at our schools and some of our other problems that we face in the City, the region looks down on us. I think this is one of those regional assets that make people feel good about living in the region. The other issue is that anytime I go into the Reading Terminal Market or anywhere else in the City I see those distinguished little pins. Are they dragons?
Griffins. I see them on many, many people walking through our terminals, walking through our restaurants. As a matter of fact, I remember one night not too long ago I think it was during Delacroix that on Monday night on Passyunk Avenue in South Philadelphia at a 47 Bill No. 990850 restaurant called Momma Marie's there was a group of six people in a virtually empty restaurant who were eating. All of them pins on, all of them were from out of town, and that particular evening on a Monday, the economic impact of the Art Museum filtered its way down into South Philadelphia on a dead Monday night. And I'm sure the waiters, waitresses, staff, and kitchen people were happy to have those customers based on the Delacroix. I'm sure if you look at that, multiply the affect for every restaurant and business in the City, the Art Museum is just something we can't do without. And this project just makes that important institution even more important. So I thank you for all your help. Thank you for keeping us up to date on what's going on, and thanks for all your continued work.
Thank you, Councilman Kenney. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you. I guess I'd like to start off by say ditto to Councilman Kenney's comments. But I do have a question in reference to the jurisdiction that the Fairmount Park Commission will have. Is the Fairmount Park 48 Bill No. 990850 Commission prepared in their budget or will they have to come to Council to be able to support this additional responsibility?
I'm Gail Harrity, the Chief Operator Officer of the museum, and we did meet with the Fairmount Park Commissioners who are not present today but they unanimously supported this project, recognizing not only the initial impact, but the ongoing responsibilities of maintaining or overseeing the properties. So I think --
But the Fairmount Park Commissioners don't provide the funds.
Maybe I should add that the museum has its own operating budget and its own capital budget, both of which come directly to this Council directly rather than through the park. So I don't think, if I'm not mistaken, that it is envisioned that it will be additional financial burden to the park, but rather it is an additional financial burden to the museum.
Also, how many additional employees do you plan with this acquisition? 49 Bill No. 990850
I think gradual -- we are in the midst of an intense planning process ourselves right now about the physical plan which would make the best use of both the existing building, the Rodin Museum, and this new building. And as that plan is developed, we will -- there will not only be a plan for the capital use of this building, the capital support of whatever is needed to change the building on the inside, but also for a program to a very large degree internally it's not foreseen that the staff would expand substantially because if there is more space needed, let's just pick one example for an American art, we have a Department of American art. It's just more space to show the collections. We're moving the library, for example, another very likely option. We have an excellent librarian with fine support staff, but over time, for sure, this will mean an expansion of staff at the museum. I think it's fair to say that we're a rather lean-sized staff relative to the size of our responsibilities, our collection, and our public already, so well for certain -- but that will be, we anticipate, really quite gradual and over time. 50 Bill No. 990850
Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Madam Director, I have two questions I'd like just for the record. If the City determines that an environmental liability exposure does exist and/or there are engineering concerns, what funds are available to remedy the problems and how much is the City willing to pay to resolve any such problems? Have you given this consideration?
Let me try to partly respond to that by explaining the following: The Capital Program Office including it's environmental unit as well as Planning Commission and their environmental team have been part of the development of this project ever since we learned of the building's availability. Phase 1 environmental studies have been done, and as a consequence of that, the owners very recently removed an underground tank. We don't have any out-of-the-ordinary concerns about the interior or exterior of the building because it's currently in use and therefore, you know, safe. However, the Phase 2 environmentals haven't been completed as I sit at this table, and none of us 51 Bill No. 990850 anticipate any out-of-the-ordinary problem. And when I say out of the ordinary, you know, vintage of building, type of construction, and so on. Those plans are going to be evolved over time, and whatever funds may be necessary in the proportions discussed to be split with the Art Museum would be sought from City Council as capital program appropriations in his future years. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. That's exactly what you would have said, right?
Yes. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Let me ask you a second question. If City Council for some reason does not appropriate sufficient funds over the next three to five years, who will pay for the 50 percent of the remaining cost for improvements and repairs not paid for by the Art Museum? Have you thought about that?
I think it's fair to say that we have thought about that and that the museum is very committed over the long term to be able to do what we need to do in the building and with the building and so that is part of why the phasing of work in the building would come into 52 Bill No. 990850 play, that we would just take as much time to do it as it took to have the funds available to do it. We would hope to be able -- the sooner we can do it, the sooner we can use it, but we do understand both the exigencies of city funding and we also are raising various substantial funds at this point of our own to support the acquisition and the later renovation. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: So you will match the expansion projects and the pace of them with having the money or at least seeing that the money is coming?
Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Well, if I would be permitted to speak as the Chair of this Committee and also as a member of the board of the Art Museum, this project brings me great personal pleasure to see such appropriate space you made available to the art museum as such reasonable cost without having to wait years and years and years because space is so compatible with the present uses of the building and with our use of the other part of the Art Museum campus, if I may use that term. It is my hope that the Committee will agree and will report it out with 53 Bill No. 990850 a favorable recommendation, which I have not heard anything contrary to that thought. Are there members of the Committee wish to be heard? There being none, I thank you. Are there persons in this room -- Commissioner?
For the record, as Commissioner of public Property, I'll summarize my previously submitted testimony, much of which is redundant to the remarks of the earlier speakers by saying that on the behalf of the Department, I ask for the Committee's support of the bill and request that the rules be waived so the bill can be enacted by December 16th. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Mr. Rizzo.
Just in follow-up, commissioner, and to Chairwoman Clark's always concern for the environment and health, has that Phase environment study identified asbestos in that building, significant asbestos.
My understanding is that it has not discovered significant asbestos. And by that I mean that it's not in the ceilings and walls. 54 Bill No. 990850 There might be pipe wrapping, plumbing related asbestos coverings. I did review the preliminary report sometime ago, and that's my best recollection. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Commissioner, would it be useful to Mr. Rizzo's understanding of this issue to put upon the record that the building was recently largely rehabbed by the previous owner, and ay asbestos problem would likely have been identified, encountered, and corrected at that stage. If that's not true, perhaps this is the place and time, but I have not been concerned about asbestos hazards.
Councilwoman, the problem that we have with asbestos removal, when you change use, many present owners of buildings are permitted to encapsulate asbestos, they don't have to remove it. But sometimes during demolition, the rules change when you have a change of use. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: But they're not going to demolish this building.
Well, no. If they have to start making substantial structural changes or modifications and they encounter asbestos, it 55 Bill No. 990850 have to be removed.
I think, in fact, we understand the concern. And if I may add and Gail Harrity has some information.
I would just add further that Criterion Labs did conduct an environmental study on asbestos for an asbestos assessment report, and 182 bulk samples were taken. Asbestos was found in samples. It is considered, however, minor, 11 relatively small, approximately $50,000 of cost to 12 deal with all of the asbestos in the building. 13
Thank you. 14 CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. 15 Are there persons now in the room who 16 wish to be heard to speak in favor of or against 17 this bill? 18 Mr. Chapman.
Good afternoon again, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. For City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. The Planning Commission at its meeting of December 2, 1999 considered Bill 990850 and recommended that it be approved. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Thank you 56 Bill No. 990761 very much for your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Will the clerk read the next bill?
Bill No. 990671, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property on behalf of the City, to enter into a lease amendment with Philadelphia Design and Distribution Center, Limited Partnership, for use by the City and affiliated agencies of certain space within the building known as Wissahickon Industrial Center, located at 4700 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, under certain terms and conditions. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Commissioner.
Good afternoon. My name is Andres Perez, Commissioner of Public Property. I'm here to speak in support the Bill No. 990671. This bill had been heard and discussed by this Committee at an earlier meeting. I believe it was November 8th or 9th. The testimony remains essentially the same. Since then, certain questions that were asked of the Department have been responded to. 57 Bill No. 990761 Unfortunately, that didn't happen until earlier this morning, and I'm prepared to try to answer any questions that the Committee or Members may have. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Now, this is in response to a question by Councilman Nutter?
Yes. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Just so that our record will reflect, could you briefly state the question and your answer and your response to where we are?
I will read the brief response that was provided earlier this morning. It's a letter from me to Councilman Nutter dated December 7, 1999. "This is a follow-up on the questions raised at the November 9, 1999 hearing of the Committee on Public Property and Public Works regarding Bill No. 990671. Specifically, you had asked for a written plan regarding the storing and warehousing of the new electric voting machines due to your concerns regarding the adequacy of the space at 4700 Wissahickon Avenue. "Presently, the procurement process for the new machines is still in progress and, 58 Bill No. 990761 therefore, a definitive plan shall not be available until a vendor has been selected. However, the Procurement Department's Request for Proposal contain provisions which protect the City's financial exposure in tandem with te currently proposed lease at 4700 Wissahickon Avenue. They are as follows: Section 2.31 of the RFP requires the following: The successful proposer will be required to provide a warehouse located in Philadelphia at its sole cost and expense for the secure storage of the DRE voting machines continuously through the May 15, 2001 election. The successful proposer will also be required to depose of the City's existing inventory of voting machines (SHOUP and Jamestown) machines after the successful conclusion of this election." Again, referring to the may 15, 2001 election. Continuing, "Any proceeds recovered by the successful proposer for the disposal of the City's inventory above the actual cost incurred by the successful proposer for the disposal shall be required to the City. "Section 2.32, the successful proposer 59 Bill No. 990761 will transfer, at its sole cost and expense, the DRE voting machines to the City warehouse at a time designated by the City. "Commissioner Applebaum believes that the RFP's warehousing and storage requirements preserve the City's rights to permanently place the new machines at a warehouse location which best suits the City's overall requirements. The City will be free to continue under its own lease at the successful proposer's location or select another location. There will be a period of approximately one year during which the new machines are being manufactured that the City can utilize to select a permanent warehouse. "I trust this information adequately explains the City's overall plans at this time." Commissioner Applebaum is also present. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Mr. Nutter, you wish to be heard?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Perez, I have read this letter a couple times and I've listened carefully 60 Bill No. 990761 when you read it into the record again. I have to admit to you that I'm not completely clear as to what you're saying to us and how that relates to the question that was originally raised back on November 9th. My recollection of what I asked about was, we're going to get new voting machines for the 2001 primary, and that between now and then those machines, I assume, will be procured and then we will receive them. Questions were raised about the conditions out at 4700 Wissahickon Avenue, some of which may be historical and cleared up, some may be antidotal, some may be real. I believe some of the testimony last time was that, for instance, issues were raised about the security of the group and its ability to prevent water leakage. I believe I also raised questions or testimony was given with regard to the temperature in the building and that either in the winter there's very little heat or and the summer I believe there is actually no air conditioning but there are fans to try to keep the machines cool. It would seem to me that the new machines, the electronic voting machines which will probably have some computerized parts and equipment 61 Bill No. 990761 in them could potentially be even more sensitive to either weather or temperature fluctuations than the current machines that we have.
My concern is that I don't particularly want to be in a situation where we put $21 million of new electronic treatment in a warehouse that may or may not -- and you can clear the record here on that issue -- that may or may not be up to standards for the kind of equipment that we're talking about. So what I asked for was what happens in the event that building is evaluated to not up to standards? And 2, where are we going to go because it does take sometime, I'm assuming to acquire the kind of space that we're talking about, and you basically have the year 2000 to do it. I also remember Councilman Kenney raising the prospect of storing the machines in containers to further protect them because certain sensitive equipment is transported in that way. I don't get a sense from this letter that all of that is laid out and worked out and I'm deeply concerned about this.
Well, I think by clarifying that a definitive plan won't be available until 62 Bill No. 990761 there's a final selection of vendor, I don't think you're going to see the hard plan that you want. However, the provisions --
Well, maybe that's where there's some confusion. I guess I don't understand the connection between the machine vendor and the warehouse at 4700 Wissahickon Avenue. The people who own the warehouse at 4700 Wissahickon Avenue don't have anything to do with the machines. They're not building them, right?
That's correct, but there are two key milestones, a milestone in our lease at Wissahickon Avenue and a milestone in the procurement process which almost converge. And those mile stones are that the options I previously discussed under which we get out of Wissahickon if it's not suitable and acceptable --
You're talking about the two sections that you read into the record?
This section 2.31 of the RFP, whose RFP is this? Is this the warehouse RFP or is the machine RFP. 63 Bill No. 990761
Machine RFP which incorporates the storage and warehouse requirements. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Excuse me one minute. Commissioner, Procurement Commissioner, you have a thought? Do you want to join him at the table?
We have the procurement process which will deliver machines in time for the May 2001 primary.
And we have a real estate lease that allows us to get out of 4700 Wissahickon if we deem necessary April 2001. Leading up to then, there is going to be a determination made regarding the adequacy of either the vendors, the successful vendor's warehouse versus 4700 Wissahickon Avenue.
All right. I know Mr. Applebaum wants to get something in today. Let me just ask this question. If the machine vendor had 3300 machines ready tomorrow, would you store them at 4700 Wissahickon Avenue?
I'm not talking about a choice. Say there were 10 warehouses 64 Bill No. 990761 available to us. I'm asking --
I'm asking about 4700 Wissahickon Avenue and the quality and capacity of that warehouse. When we were here a couple weeks ago, I believe your testimony was you expected to store the new machines 4700 Wissahickon Avenue.
Well, why don't you -- your testimony was because I asked you why do we need so much space at 4700 Wissahickon Avenue for the new machines since they fold up and are about the size of that desk over there as compared to the current machines. Your testimony was, one, we have to accept the new machines we have to put them somewhere, and we have the SHOUPs in Jamestown and all that up at the place, so we don't how much space we're going to need, but we have to provide for space for the new machines while we make the transition.
That's correct. In the interest clarifying or follow-up on the statements 65 Bill No. 990761 that I made for the record, I do want to remind you that several times I cautioned members of the Committee because I was not privy to the details of the procurement process. And on that one issue, I was actually wrong. The procurement process as it's proceeding at this moment requires the vendor to house the machines once they're manufactured and delivered to the City. It does not presume that it's the vendor's own building but a suitable warehouse, could be owned by anybody, to receive those new machines. So they're not destined to be delivered at 4700 Wissahickon. They're destined to be delivered at a site to be determined based on the selected vendor.
And then we wil deliver them from that site out to the polling places for that election?
Louis Applebaum, Procurement Commissioner. Maybe I can help a little bit with the process. When we wrote the RFP for new voting machines, we knew that it would be a difficult logistics problem. It takes a year to 66 Bill No. 990761 manufacture the 3500 machines. We knew that the first election that we could possibly be ready for was the May primary of the year 2001. It is our plan or hopes that the manufacturer will have the machines fully manufactured by January of the year 2001. Those machines had to go somewhere. We could not take the risk of taking our old machines that are in that old warehouse and dispose of them before an election just in case. They period from January 2001 to May will be the period we'll be testing the new machines. They had to be in a specific location. So in the RFP it was clearly defined that the selected manufacturer would have to lease under their cost a warehouse in the City of Philadelphia to house those machines, house them, stage them, get them ready for that May election. At the election date or the week prior to the election, the City of Philadelphia under its existing contracts with movers will take the machines and move them to the polling locations. At the end of the election, the same movers will move them back to the temporary warehouse. Assuming that everything works, the new machines works, the counts are done, everything is positive, we can then -- the vendor then has a 67 Bill No. 990761 responsibility of taking our old machines and disposing of them at his cost also. If there's a profit, whatever, we'll get that back. At that point in time, which if everything works properly, would be let's say June 2001, we then have the option or could have the option at that point to lease on a permanent basis the new warehouse where those machines are located that was selected by manufacturer who has done a study to make sure that the warehouse is adequate. We could lease that facility that will be available to us or we could take the machines and move them to Wissahickon avenue if we so desire. But it's to our advantage, and the reason I think for this document, is to allow the City to have the option in June of 2001 to keep to warehouse or dispose of it and keep the temporary warehouse that we're presently using. The space requirements will be considerably different. I think right now we use about 184,000. Hopefully, the new requirements will be about 100,000.
Thank you, Commissioner, for that explanation. If you can provide for us through the Chair -- I don't want to burden today's record with this particular issue, 68 Bill No. 990761 but it is related to machine storage as well as transportation. I would like a complete and detailed explanation of the process that will be used by the successful vendor for securing warehouse space for the new machines as well as how you determine who transports the voting machines to and from polling places and to and from the warehouse, how do people get involved in that process, what are the details of it, as well as who do we presently use for those transportation services.
Actually, the questions that you're asking are all enclosed and contained in the RFP. It indicates that the vendor has the full responsibility and there will be minority participation particularly in the warehouse, the moving equipment to the temporary warehouse. And also the conditions that exist today, we're taking voting machines from the warehouse to the voting places, that will remain the same. So I can send you a copy of the RFP highlighting the particular issues that you're talking about.
Well, lastly, on that particular issue, if it's vendor's responsibility, then how do you ensure all of these 69 Bill No. 990761 various components as to who's participating and who's doing what. It sounds like it's not our contract, it sounds like it's the vendor's contract.
As in most procurement contracts in RFP there's minority participation requirements. And in this particular contract, the minority participation piece of it where things that did not relate to the manufacturing of the machines, because the machines will be manufactured somewhere. But in the City of Philadelphia, the moving, the storage, the transportation, we have many companies who are certified minority vendors that can do this. So when we accept the final RFP and make an award, contained in that document will be these pieces that you're talking about.
Again, if could share with the Chair, what I'd like to know is the details of what happened in the primary and general election of 1999 as it relates to transportation of voting machines this year, who did the work, how much was the contract, who got what.
That's no problem. You're talking about the November 1999 election?
Primary and general. 70 Bill No. 990761 Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Mr. Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The bill is addressing the lease for 4700 Wissahickon Avenue, but since we're here and we're discussing the RFP, don't we have, Commissioner, in Public Property a salvage organization that disposes of used City equipment.
Well, actually, Procurement Department puts out two different kinds of salvage requirements contracts, but I don't believe they're the ones that are used for the --
The Procurement Department has the responsibility for the salvaging of old City of Philadelphia equipment. We came to the conclusion that the salvage process of these old machines is going to be very costly, and therefore, we wanted to have the vendor assume the full responsibility for that. They're junk.
How do you manage a salvage operation of that magnitude to feel confident that you're getting -- you're calling it junk, but there's other cities throughout the 71 Bill No. 990761 country that are, from what I understand, in need of parts for those machines that may not be fortunate enough to moving towards that new technology. How are you manage to make sure you get your fair return?
The vendor will have the responsibility reporting to us the total cost of disposal, labor, trucks, et cetera, et cetera, and they will also report to us any revenue that they happen to gain from the sale of these surplus items.
Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Are there any other questions by Members of the Committee? Are there persons in the room who wish to be heard to speak for or against this bill before us? Seeing none, I thank you very much. The Clerk will read the next bill before us.
Bill No. 980894, an ordinance to authorize the Water Commissioner on 72 Bill No. 980894 behalf of the City to enter into an agreement with the Philadelphia Housing Authority and/or its successors of a certain property at the southwest corner of Rising Sun Avenue and Adams Avenue known as the Hill Creek Housing Project for the grant of a right-of-way to the City for drainage, sewer and water main purposes.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Committee. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Good afternoon, sir. Please introduce yourself to the record. Spell your last name for the stenographer and proceed with your testimony.
Yes, ma'am. My name is Paul McCloskey, M-C-C-L-O-S-K-E-Y. In regard to Bill No. 980894, this bill authorizes the Water Department to accept the grant of a right-of-way for drainage, sewer, and water main purposes from the Philadelphia Housing Authority to the City. There is existing City 30-foot wide right-of-way on the east side of Rising Sun Avenue from the creek to an existing right-of-way approximately 861 feet north of Olney Avenue within the property of the Hill Creek housing project. This right-of-way was 73 Bill No. 980894 granted to the City by the United States Government by an agreement dated September 26, 1936. The United States Government gave the housing project to the City, the Philadelphia Housing Authority later on. The city accepted ownership and maintenance of utility, streets, and appurtenances for the housing project by an ordinance approved by the Mayor on March 14, 1958, which placed a number of streets and right-of-ways on City Plan. Unfortunately, the subject right-of-way which houses the main drain of the housing project in the general area was not included in the ordinance and the City Plan placement. This ordinance before you will correct this oversight. A few years ago the community experienced severe flooding. The main storm sewer located in the right-of-way was enlarged and an enlarged outlet structure was constructed at the creek. The new enlarged sewer and outlet and working area of the building was beyond the limits of the existing right-of-way. In order to aid the community, Philadelphia Housing Authority allowed the City to encroach on their property. This ordinance will legalize the encroachment by 74 Bill No. 980894 expanding the width of the right-of-way to 45 feet with a 95 feet flair at the outlet of the creek. We recommend that this bill be favorably reported out of Committee. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Excuse me, one minute. I apologize. Are there questions from Members of the committee? No questions? Thank you. Are there persons in the room who wish to be heard to speak in favor of or against this bill?
Thank you very much, and have a happy holiday. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. The Clerk will read the next bill before us.
Bill No. 990722, an ordinance authorizing the selection and appropriation, or the purchase in lieu of condemnation, of all those certain lots or parcels of ground with the improvements thereon, situate at 1467 and 1469 North 52nd Street, for public library purposes, under certain terms and conditions. 75 Bill No. 990722 CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Commissioner Perez.
Again, good afternoon. My name is Andres Perez, Commissioner of the Department of Public Property, and I'm here to speak on behalf of Bill No. 990722. The bill authorizes the selection and appropriation for the purchase in lieu of condemnation of all those certain lots or parcels of ground with improvements thereon situated at 1467 and 1469 North 52nd Street for public library purposes, under certain terms and conditions. Bill 13 No. 990722 will enable the City to acquire two adjacent lots at the George's Library for facility upgrading at this location. This will alleviate the use of an ADA challenged building at 1465 North 52nd Street and allow the systems upgrade of the library facility. The Department of Public Property supports the measure, and I respectfully ask the City Council approve Bill No. 990722 and I also ask the rules be suspended so the ordinance may be passed upon the second reading at Council. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Chapman.
Madam. Chair, Members of 76 Bill No. 990722 the Committee, the City Planning Commission at its meeting of November 4, 1999, reviewed Bill No. 4 990722 and recommended that it be approved. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Mr. Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just state for the record that I appreciate Commissioner Perez's work and the work of the Planning Commission and other City agencies in trying to help the George Institute Library at 52nd Street. This is a long awaited project. I know that the Chair, because of her experience and background in library services, will be pleased when the work is completed that we have made to George Institute Library that much better. So thank you, gentlemen, for your support. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. I do have some questions with respect to it, just for purposes of building the public record. The square footage of this proposed lot acquisition?
I regret to say that I don't have those details available. To the best of my knowledge, they're two row home sized lots 77 Bill No. 990722 immediately to the rear of the building, and I would make gross guess that the combined surface area is probably under 3,000 square feet. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: The purchase price?
There is no purchase price. We're using condemnation. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Any actual or potential environmental liability exposure?
To the best of our knowledge, we don't think there are. Again, these are former row home lots. The most signature exposure may be a small underground oil tank which is relatively easy to remove. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Sufficient only for residential?
Yes. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: It wouldn't be the kind of hazards you might have in industrial use?
That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. I have no further questions. Are there questions?
Not a question, Madam Chair, but just to put on the record when you asked about the purchase price, I can state rather 78 Bill No. 990722 strenuously for the record that there have been numerous meetings with the owners of these properties. A number of attempts to try to have a rational, reasonable discussion about straight purchase by the City. The owner has been an obstructionist, has been reluctant and has left these tax delinquent dilapidated properties to rot on 52nd street and has been completely uncooperative with the City of Philadelphia in trying to provide additional library space at this location. We certainly would have certainly liked to over a year or so ago to negotiate a deal. It was not possible, and I therefore ask the City agencies to proceed with condemnation. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you very much. Are there persons in the room who wish to be heard to speak in favor of or against this bill? There being none, we thank you very much. Are you asking for a suspension of the rules?
Yes, Councilwoman. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Will the Clerk read the next bill.
Bill No. 990753, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public 79 Bill No. 990753 Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into a lease agreement with the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development for further sublease to the University of Sciences in Philadelphia, a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation, for certain premises bounded by 43rd Street on the west, Woodland Avenue on the north, 45th Street on the east, and Kingsessing Avenue on the South, under certain terms and conditions. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Good afternoon Commissioner.
Again, Commissioner Perez for the Department of Public Property here to speak in support of Bill No. 990753. Summary of my testimony is that we're facilitating the continued leasing of the existing premises generally referred to as Clark Park, under certain terms and conditions. This is an existing relationship and the Department supports the continuation of it. I don't have more details available, but if you would introduce yourself and also speak to the record.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Elizabeth Bressi-Stoppe. That's B-R-E-S-S-I hyphen 80 Bill No. 990753 S-T-O-P-P-E. I'm vice president for executive affairs, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. I'd like to speak in support of this ordinance, obviously. The university has been leasing from City of Philadelphia for a period of about 35 years now since, I believe, 1964, somewhere around the early sixties. A parcel of Clark Park which is directly across the street from our campus and also contained on that piece of property is a building that we have been leasing, as I said, on a month-to-month basis for the last 30-some years. We have been using that facility as classroom and office space for the university and also making it available on request to members of the community who wish to use it for meetings or any other functions. We did some repairs to that building about 10 or 15 ago. We put some new seating in. However, as you can imagine, getting the heavy use that it does, it's in need of some serious repair again. The university is very much interesting in upgrading this facility. We have looked at some preliminary plans for improving the facilities so that it would have more flexibility for our use and the community's use. The cost of the renovation would 81 Bill No. 990753 be in excess of a half million dollars. We are certainly more than willing to invest that money in this property, however, we believe that it would be wise for us to have more of an assurance that we will be able to continue the arrangement so we have requested -- CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: You don't like a month-to-month for 35 years?
No, we would a long-term lease. What we are requesting here is a 29-year lease on the property. We have met with members of the Community who frequently use the building to explain our plans to them and we have the full support of the community members for this arrangement and also have the support of Councilwoman Blackwell for this arrangement. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Commissioner, how do you feel about 29-year lease?
For the purposes that it's required, it's becoming more commonplace. There are non-profits seeking outside funding and fund-raising for standing facilities that may be on our land or may be facilities leased from us. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Are you asking for a 82 Bill No. 990753 recommendation as to whether to grant or not grant the 29-year lease? Would your recommendation yea or nay?
For points of clarification, the lease itself would actually be granted to Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development and the university would be the sub-tenant. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: But the ultimate user would be you for the purpose which you just said, and this record needs to be clear as to that.
The present lease, Commissioner, do we have any financial participation in utilities or any water that the new lease would be assumed by the tenant.
We are responsible for all utilities and we also do pay a monthly rent on the building.
But presently, there's no taxes on that facility? 83 Bill No. 990753
Presently there are no 6 out-of-pocket costs to the Department.
Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: You wanted to tell us something?
I wanted to also add that as part of our lease arrangement previously and going forward, the university also is responsible for maintaining the section of Clark Park in which this building is located, cleaning all landscaping and debris removing and that will continue as part of this lease. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Are there persons in the room who wish to be heard to speak for or against this bill before us?
May I have a moment to confer with her? I may need to make some corrections here. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: You may. 84 Bill No. 990753
The pink copy of the ordinance, Section 1 where the boudaries of the parcel are described, the compass directions are incorrect. And if I may correct them for the record, the boundaries should read bounded by 43rd Street on the east, Woodland Avenue on the south, 45th Street on the west, and Kingsessing Avenue on the north. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you, sir. Will this description be a problem with respect to change in title.
It is the same parcel, the same perimeter, yes. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: These corrections could be seen as correcting scrivener's errors.
There is no material change. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: All right, thank you very much.
Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: The Clerk will read the next bill before us. 85 Bill No. 990755
Bill No. 990755, an ordinance authorizing the commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, hereafter referred to as PAID, with out consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate at 1602-44 North American Street, under and subject to the terms and conditions of the Philadelphia Industrial and Commercial Development Agreement between the City, the PAID, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Good afternoon, Mr. Deegan.
My name is Paul Deegan again. I represent PIDC and PAID. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Mr. Deegan, what's your briefest description of what these two pages say?
Well, I have submitted these, so if they can be incorporated into the record. There's a vacate lot on American Street. 86 Bill No. 990755 The City took it in a Sheriff's sale. The buildings have been demolished, it's been cleaned up, we have companies interested in it. We've had appraisals done. It's worth around $60,000 and we're asking for authorization to take the property from the City and sell it to a company Drexel Foods which is interested in relocating to American Street. Is that brief enough? CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Brief enough. Will it bring new jobs?
Yes, it will. They have 13 existing jobs and they expect to creat 15 new jobs. 14 So that would be a total of 30 jobs. 15 CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: So they're protecting 15 and creating 15 new ones?
Creating 15 new jobs. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Are there any other interested buyers?
We've had interest from time to time. We have a program had a program of trying to assemble parcels in the American Street corridor so that we can attract new companies or room for expansion for existing companies. We've been successful in some cases. We haven't found a 87 Bill No. 990755 company that's the right fit for this lot until Drexel Foods come along. But we have a brand new building just to the north of this, Asia Foods, which constructed a brand new facility and they relocated from an obsolete buildings at American and Lehigh and moved south into the more industrial portion of the corridor. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Has the deal with Drexel Foods been completed with the exception of the passage of this bill and the signing and closing of the sale? If not, what else needs to be done?
It isn't completed. They looked at the site, they said they're interested. They're considering the financing programs that are made available through PIDC and the Commerce Department and the State. But, to me, it's never done until the settlement table. I would say that they're a typical company. They probably have other options lined up. They're looking at other properties. But they are interested in this immediate area, so I think there's a pretty good chance that they'll buy this site if they don't buy an existing building in the American Street corridor. I think we're number on the list for 88 1 Bill No. 990755 the company, but I don't think we're the only property on the list. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: The neighbors pretty happy about it? Is there any neighborhood resistance?
There has been none. The American Street area is basically -- it's totally industrial street. There are homes on Third Street and on Second Street and on some of the smaller streets which back up to American street. But generally, I think the neighbors were happy to see the older building that was once on the site demolished and the site cleared. And generally, we've had the support of the neighbors and American Street Business Association in trying to clean up American Street, get rid of the delinquent, abandoned industrial buildings, create vacant lots, and try to get some new companies there. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: My standard question about exposure to environmental liability.
The property was taken by sheriff's sale by the City. As far as we know, there aren't any -- when Licenses and Inspections demolished the building first, then a lien was 89 Bill No. 990755 placed on the property by the city, and then it was taken in sheriff's sale. So normally when L & I does the demolition, they make sure that any hazards or underground tanks are removed. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Are there questions? Mr. Chapman.
Good afternoon again, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. For the City Planning Commission, Thomas Chapman. The Planning Commission at its meeting of November 18, 1999, reviewed Bill No. 990755 and recommended that it be approved. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Are there persons in the room who wish to be heard to speak in favor of or against this bill?
For the record again, as Commissioner of Public Property, we support the bill 19 and ask the Committee to suspend the rules. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you, sir. So noted. The Clerk will read the next bill before us.
Bill No. 990759, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public 90 Bill No. 990759 Property, on behalf of the City, to enter into a lease agreement with Center in the Park, a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation, formerly known as Center for Older Adults, Northwest, Inc., for the Vernon Park Library Building, located in Vernon Park in the Germantown area, all under certain terms and conditions. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Please, sir.
For the record, Commissioner Andres Perez, Department of Public Property speaking in support Bill No. 990759. In summary this bill permits us to extend through amendment the existing lease with the current organization and, again, for the purposes of providing them a long-term closed-ended commitment which facilitates their fund-raising for the improvements that they deem are necessary for this building. And again, we ask the Committee to look favorably on this bill and suspend the rules. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Any questions? No questions? Why would it be beneficial to enter into the proposed lease for 30 years as opposed to a shorter length of time? 91 Bill No. 990759
Generally speaking, the third party funding sources, foundations, banks and others where they're putting substantial money into physical improvements, they take the net present value approach to the intended use of their funds in the facility and they don't really like to see arrangements, in this case a lease arrangement, where the beneficiary, the prime beneficiary, the Center in the Park, the older senior citizens group, would be, for lack of a better word, bumped out before the benefit of their contribution is used. I'm really using my own words here based on my prior experience with fund-raising. But organizations that have come to us that are in our facilities generally are doing this solely to give comfort to fund sources. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: What's the current rental rate? What's the proposed rental rate? And does the lease agreement change over the 30-year term?
It is currently, I believe, a dollar a year. That is not intended to change throughout the term. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Mr. 92 Bill No. 990764 Rizzo.
I don't believe we pay these utilities, but I'll be glad to look at that and let you know.
If you believe we don't, that's good enough for me. Thanks. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of or guess this bill? Seeing none, the Clerk will read the next bill.
Bill No. 990764, an ordinance authorizing th Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, hereafter referred to as PAID, without consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate at 5751 North Broad Street, under and subject to the terms and conditions of the Philadelphia Industrial and Commercial Development Agreement between the City, the PAID, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation.
Good afternoon, Madam 93 Bill No. 990764 Chairperson, Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Deegan, and I represent Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation and Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development. This bill 6 authorizes the City to convey a vacant two-story office building located at 5751 North Broad Street through the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development. After conveyance to PAID, the property will be sold for fair market value to Philadelphia Suburban Development Corporation. They're located at 700 Packer Avenue. PSDC intends to renovate this building for day care programs and uses of a general educational or academic nature to be operated in conjunction with community-based non-profit organizations. The and buyer is currently developing similar centers in the 6200 block and 4900 block North Broad Street. The property has been appraised at $275,000 by two independent real estate appraisers, and the net proceeds of the sale will be deposited in the City's general fund. I ask the Committee to consider the bill favorably and that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next regularly scheduled meeting of Council. There is a representative from 94 Bill No. 990764 Philadelphia Suburban Development Corporation who is here, and I think he has met with the Community, Broad and Olney neighbors and also the District Councilwoman. I think he would like to just put a few remarks on the record. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Good afternoon, sir. Please join us at the table, tell us your name, spell your last name for the stenographer and proceed with your testimony.
Madam Chairwoman, my name is Mark Nicoletti, N-I-C-O-L-E-T-T-I. I'm the vice president of the Philadelphia Suburban Development Corporation. They're located at 700 Packer Avenue, Philadelphia. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: And your testimony with respect to Bill No. 990764,?
Well, I have to say that I'm very excited by this building, Madam Chairwoman. I work for a company that father started about 40 years ago and our plans for this building are consistent with what we've been successful doing for years, and that is to take an older building, that people seem to not understand what to do with and invest money into converting it into space for 95 Bill No. 990764 organizations that work in that neighborhood where the building is located. We've had meetings with the Councilwoman and the community group in that neighborhood. They seem excited about our plans. And with the help of your committee and Mr. Deegan, his efforts, hopefully we're going to be able to move forward with this project. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Mr. Rizzo.
Mr. Nicoletti, if you acquire this building and the intended use doesn't come together, what would be the alternative to that? Are there, Mr. Deegan, restrictions in the deal that if that doesn't come together what happens?
Well, the property is owned C2 commercial, so there would be a wide variety of uses. But I think we can work out some sort of deed restriction or agreement with the community organization to specify just the list of uses to be permitted in the property.
In other words, I'd like some guarantees that if this happens that the 96 Bill No. 990764 intended use happens, and not some other use.
That's true. I think we're putting on record what the use will be, and we can also incorporate that into the deed, either the deed from the City to PIDC or from PIDC's deed to the developer giving a list of uses that are permitted and not permitted.
Councilman Rizzo, let me respond by saying this: This is a building that is available. It's for sale. Our company is prepared to pay the market price for the building, just as maybe other buildings on the block might be available for sale. Inherent to our plans are marketing strategies that we've been successful right now. And even though I can't bring you a list of tenants, it's kind of hard to secure leases on a building that you don't have an option on. I can illustrate for you organizations that we're working with right now building facilities in education, in day care that are anxious to do other projects with us. And this is a viable location for things like that. We bear a lot of risk because this is a cash sale. We're not asking for any public money. We're going to purchase this property for almost $300,000, 97 Bill No. 990764 and it goes on the tax roles that day. And when you own a piece of real estate, that's just where the cost begin. We're going to have to go in immediately and start to do things to bring this building back to life. So I guess it weighs on our track record that we really wouldn't find it prudent not to have plan that isn't consistent with what the neighborhood wants and isn't viable or we'd lose money. I see your concern, what happens if our plan fails. That's the risk if we buy your building or the building next door, but it also goes to our track record. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: I have some specific questions that might answer your concern, Mr. Rizzo. Mr. Nicoletti, will you describe the day care services that will be provided and identify the target beneficiaries?
Okay. Right now I use as a model, Madam Chair, the programs that we're working on right now. These are day care centers that provide extended hours which has become very popular because the targeted population, which are mothers that are involved with welfare-to-work programs that are able to get and secure positions 98 Bill No. 990764 that are after hours, late night jobs, and so forth, are frustrated trying to get day care providers that are open after o'clock. And we have two or three 5 organizations that we've than working with now that 6 are expanding that provided those type of services. With respect to other types of academic programs we're going to try to target for this building, there are job training programs that we're working on, one I'm very excited about in Councilwoman Miller's district which is a computer training company that wants to do more work. We're going to be starting something in her district for training programs for adults. These are funded through the Private Industry Council. These are established organizations looking for a home. Broad and Olney is a great spot because of all the public transportation that's up there. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: How many days a week will these services be provided and approximately how many people will be cared for on a daily basis?
The building will be open, I would assume, during normal business hours. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: What are normal day care business hours? 99 Bill No. 990764
Monday through Friday. The day care centers I've been involved with are open typically on Monday though Friday, but some of them do provide services on the weekend. If there's any other office space in the building, and I'm guessing now, I would assume that that space is going to be open Monday through Friday. But this will not be a high traffic building that would compromise the quality of life for the people that live in that neighborhood at night. This will not be a high-traffic building after hours. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: How are the community residents who are in support of the proposed use, how do they feel? Do they have any concerns?
I think the greatest reservation they have they share what Councilman Rizzo, and that is, any reservations about will this project succeed. I mean, so many economic development projects rely on so many variables. We are a for-profit company that does not rely on public funding and we've reduced a lot of those variables under that type of scenario. I think we assured them enough that once we make a commitment to buy this building write that first check to 100 Bill No. 990764 purchase it, that there's all but very limited probability it won't succeed.
I think the other side of the coin, I'm concerned if it's too successful, that you have a demand for office space and then all of a sudden day care doesn't fit into the realm of things. What assurance do we have that this facility will eventually have a day care facility in it, that someone doesn't want space? How do we go forward knowing that there will be day care for a very long time in this building and that a person who wants to expand doesn't have the ability to bump the day care operation out of this?
That's a tough question. Right now there's a tremendous demand for day care. And times change. I don't know 10 years from now what the needs -- I would assume that this is something that's a staple in a community. It's like the dry cleaner and it's like the gas station. Day care, I'm going to assume, is going to be something in demand for a long time.
Could you explain to me your financial situation? What compensation do you get for placing day care into this facility? 101 Bill No. 990764 Tell me about that.
Councilman Rizzo, it's capitalism at its purest and simplest way to describe it. We buy a building, we investment money in renovating it, and we lease it, and we collect rent and we pay mortgage off with the rent.
But there's no 13 guarantee that if someone wants to pay more per square foot than the day care operation that they're history?
Well, that goes to the course of your professionalism in the business that you do. Our company for years has catered to small social service organizations. We rely on that. That's our bread and butter. And if tomorrow -- perfect example, we have a day care center in Germantown on Chelten Avenue that's operated by Resource Human Development, it's a head start day care center. They needed an extension for another year and we had two other day care companies that 102 Bill No. 990764 would have taken that space for more rent, but that would have jeopardized our relationship with that tenant and that would have sounded like a siren to our community of tenants that we're not responsible landlords.
I understand that. I appreciate hearing that from you, that you have a good reputation. But what can PIDC do to assure to me and, hopefully, the rest of the committee that -- how can you lock that in somehow?
Normally, when we can restrict the use of a property, it's through different financing that we provide to companies. In this case, we aren't providing any financing. I think because normally when a buyer is willing the pay the market value for a property, you have to reduce the market value if you start imposing restrictions. I don't know think we can require that a specific use be anywhere. I think the market has to determine that. I would only say that this is a three-story very presentable looking building at Broad and Olney, but there's been almost zero demand for it from the private market. There's been no office interest, not even a Rite Aid interest 103 Bill No. 990764 that I'm aware of or a drug store interest, which is unusual in any neighborhood of the City. It was a property that was occupied by the City and SEPTA for years. SEPTA had some transportation facilities in there. They did a clean-up of those facilities when they and moved out, but I think the advantages of putting this billing back to productive use for the developer who has a track record and can take people around the City and show things that he's built and that are working well and is willing to pay market value, I think given the history of the building and the long-term vacancy since the City stopped using it, I think it's something we should take the chance on. We can't guarantee anything, though.
Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Are there other questions by other Members of the Committee?
I'd like to make a comment. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: One comment by Councilwoman Miller.
Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say that I 104 Bill No. 990764 think the proposed use is a good use at Broad and Olney. There are lots of people that travel through that particular part of Broad Street going both north and south, and a day care facility there will be greatly appreciated. Lots of people come, park their cars near the Broad and Olney subway station, near the Fern Rock Station. When I think about the fact that I was a young mother traveling with a child, a location like Broad and Olney for day care would be very excellent and very useful. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Are there persons in the room who wish to be heard to speak in favor of or against?
Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you. Once the Councilperson and the Committee agree on the project, certainly Mr. Nicoletti has done some work in my district and his work is excellent. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Mr. Chapman.
Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. The Planning Commission at its 105 Bill No. 990768 meeting of November 18, 1999, considered Bill No. 3 990764 and recommended that it be approved. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Are there persons who wish to be heard to speak in favor of or against this bill? There are no hands. Thank you very much. The Clerk will read the next to the last bill.
Bill No. 990768, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into an agreement of lease with the African American Museum in Philadelphia for use by the African American Museum in Philadelphia of the premises located at 701-709 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Commissioner.
Again, good afternoon, Chairwoman Clark and Members of the Committee. My name is Andres Perez, Commissioner of the Department of Public Property. I'm here speak on behalf of Bill No. 990768. This ordinance authorizes the Commissioner of Public Property on behalf of the City to enter into an agreement of lease with the 106 Bill No. 990768 African-American Museum for use by the African-American Museum in Philadelphia of the premises located 701-709 Arch Street. The bill will permit the City to execute a 29-year term lease for certain property located at 701 Arch Street. The African-American Museum will continue to be responsible for the maintenance of as well improvements to this space. The Department of Public Property supports the measure and accordingly ask that the City Council approve this bill and also ask that the rules be suspended so the ordinance may be passed upon second reading of Council. Thank you, and I'm available for questions. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Would you tell me how the African American Museum plans to use the additional land?
This is not actually additional land. We're formalizing what's been a less than formal relationship for many years. The building and land are owned by the City and have been for sometime. There's been a change of leadership at the Board of Directors level of the museum group and their preference is delineate role relationships with Public Property, again, with an 107 Bill No. 990769 interest in looking at outside fund-raising possibilities to improve, not only the building and building operations, but also their museum activity. And of course I'm very favorably in support of that in lieu of the existing undefined relationship. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Are there questions from Members of the Committee with respect to the clarification of the document? Thank you very much. Is there anybody who wish to be heard to speak in favor of or against this bill? Thank you, Commissioner. We'll report it out with a favorable recommendation. The Clerk will read the next to the last one, honest.
Bill No. 990769, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, hereafter referred to as PAID, without consideration, a deed conveying fee simple title to a certain tract of City-owned land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situate at 1307-09 South Broad Street, under and subject to the terms and conditions of the 108 Bill No. 990769 Philadelphia Industrial and Commercial Development Agreement between the City, the PAID, and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Good afternoon, Mr. Deegan.
My name is Paul Deegan. I represent the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation and Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development. This bill authorizes the City to convey an 8,800 square foot City-owned parking lot at 1307-09 South Broad Street to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development. After conveyance to PAID, the property will be sold for fair market value to Ms. Mary DeStefano, the owner of Victor's Cafe, a restaurant located at 1305 Dickinson Street. Ms. DeStefano intends to use the lot for parking for restaurant patrons. The property was acquired in 1964 for parking purposes. The lot is one of many small parking lots developed by the City in the sixties and seventies. Generally, these lots have not been maintained and have become maintenance and security 109 Bill No. 990769 liabilities for the City. This lot has also been declared surplus by the City's Department of Public Property. Sales price of the property will be in the neighborhood of $70,000. I haven't gotten the final appraisals in yet, but it looks like it's going to be about $70,0000 based on two independent real estate appraisals. And the net proceeds from the sale will be deposited in the City's General Fund. I ask that the Committee consider the bill favorably and that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next meeting of Council. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. Mr. Chapman.
Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, once again, for the City Planning Commission my name is Thomas Chapman. The Planning Commission at its meeting of November 18, 1999, considered Bill No. 990769 and recommended that it be approved. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Are there questions? 110 Bill No. 990769 Comments? Thank you.
Can I say one thing, Madam Chair, not to take up your time, but I think that's the last bit of testimony I'll be giving before the Public Property Committee chaired by Councilwoman Augusta Clark. I'd like to thank you and your staff and the other Members of the Committee. It's been a pleasure coming over here. You've always been very fair and you've asked good questions and protected the interest of the City. And I hope that you're not going t disappear. I hope I will continue to see you in some prominent position in public life and helping the City of Philadelphia grow as you have for the last years. 16 CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you so much. 17
I personally appreciate it. 18 It's always been great coming over here. 19 CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: I can't tell how it 20 warms my heart to hear you say those nice words. I thank you. Even when we keep you this late.
This isn't too bad. I think w've had some nighttime sessions, too, haven't we? CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: We've had some 111 Bill No. 990769 nighttime sessions, we surely have. Thank you again. Your words are very kind.
Madam Chair, I'd also like to echo Mr. Deegan's comments. I think I complimented you at the last hearing that we had, not knowing whether I'd be able to attend this hearing. And again, I would like to thank you for the way that you've conducted these hearings and tell to you personally I've always appreciated the way that I've been treated by you and this Committee over the years. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you. I greatly appreciate those kind words. We have tried to make this job efficient and fun. Sometimes we haven't been so successful, but we were always trying. And you guys come here prepared and ready, and I appreciate having had the opportunity to work with you and for you and I wish you Godspeed. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: This my absolute last one. Scout's honor.
Bill No. 990770, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into a sublease agreement with the 112 Bill No. 990770 Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development for use by the City and affiliated agencies of office space located at 1401 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, under certain terms and conditions. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Commissioner.
Good afternoon. Again, commissioner Andres Perez, Department of Public Property here to speak in support of Bill No. 11 990770. This ordinance authorizes the Commissioner of Public Property to enter into a sublease agreement with the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development for use by the City and affiliated agencies of office space located at 1401 Arch Street, under certain terms and conditions. The bill will permit the City to enter into a sublease with a 10-year term for certain property located 1401 Arch Street, 7th floor to coincide with the current District Attorney's lease at 1425 Arch Street. As a result, the District Attorney's Office will not have to relocate or renegotiate in order to remain on the premises if the building is sold. The department of Public Property supports the measure and respectfully ask that the Committee approve this 113 Bill No. 990770 bill and also ask that the rules be suspended so that the ordinance may be passed upon the second reading at Council. Thank you and I'm available for questions. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Thank you very much. Are there questions of this witness? Thank you, Commissioner.
Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: The chair calls on Councilwoman Blackwell.
Madam Chair, I move that we recess the public hearing and enter into the public meeting and we will recess until tomorrow, December 8 at 3:00 p.m. and meanwhile that we enter into our public hearing. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: All in favor that this Committee be recessed until Wednesday December 8 at 3:00 p.m. say aye. Opposes, nay. It is so ordered that this committee hearing is recessed until 3:00 tomorrow which is Wednesday, December 8, 1999. - - - 114 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS - - - Tuesday, December 7, 1999 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Public Property and Public Works, held in Room 401, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL NOS. 980889, 980894, 990671, 990722, 990753, 990755, 990759, 990764, 990767, 990768, 990769, 990770, 990838, 990842, 990843, 990850, 990350, 990566 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA CLARK, Chairwoman COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED-MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO, JR. - - - 115 Public Meeting CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Now the public meeting open. I'm going to take a prerogative of the Chair and ask Councilwoman Blackwell if she will call up the bill on the Reliance building.
Madam Chairwoman, I move that Bill 990850 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a move for suspension of the rules so that it may be heard at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990850 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first consideration at the next stated meeting of Council. All in favor say aye. Opposes, nay. So ordered. Thank you very much. Now, Members of my Committee, with your permission, could we do a consent or does anybody insist that each bill be heard separately?
I've got one bill 116 Public Meeting that needs to be amended. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Let's do the amendments first.
Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: Pull up those bills that need to be amended. We'll amend them and then we'll do them all by consent, recognizing that the museum bill has been done. The Chair recognizes Councilman Michael Nutter.
Madam Chair, I move the adoption of the amendments as read into the record in the public hearing on Bill No. 990566. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: All in favor? Opposes? Then Bill No. 990566 has been amended.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 990566, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.) 117 Public Meeting CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: All in favor? Then Bill No. 990566, as amended, will be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, with a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first consideration at the next stated meeting of Council. All in favor? Opposed? So ordered. Another amendment, Mr. Nutter? Is there anything else that needs to be amended?
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 990767 be amended to incorporate in a new description of parcel, document dated December 3, 1999, as handed up to the committee during the public hearing. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: All in favor? Opposes? Then Bill No. 990767 has been amended by substituting a new and corrected document to correct scrivener's error in its previous form.
Madam Chair, I move 118 Public Meeting that Bill 990767, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: All in favor? Opposes, nay. There are no option votes, therefore, 990767, as amended, is reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the Rules are suspended so as to permit consideration at the next stated session of Council. All in favor? Opposed? So ordered.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 990753 be amended to incorporate the amendments as read into the record by Public Property Commissioner Perez during the public hearing. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: All in favor say aye. Opposes, nay. 119 Public Meeting Then Bill No. 990753 has been amended.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 990753, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: All in favor? Opposes? Then Bill No. 990753, as amended, is reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation with the recommendation that Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first consideration at our next stated meeting of Council. All in favor? Opposes, nay. So ordered.
Madam Chair, I move that Bills 980894, 990671, 990722, 990755, 990759, 990764, 990768, 990769, 990770, and 990350 all be reported out this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first 120 Public Meeting reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRWOMAN CLARK: All in favor, say aye. Opposes, nay. It is so ordered. Those bills which have been read will be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules have been suspended so as to permit first reading at our next stated meeting of Council. I thank you all for your patience. Remember that this Committee has been recessed until tomorrow, Wednesday, December 8 at 3:00 p.m. at this room. I thank you again for your patience. (Council adjourned at 3:55 p.m.) - - - 121 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of December 7, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public