COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 28, 1999 10:33 a.m. - - - BILL 990199 - Authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to lease to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development for further sublease to Philcom Ltd. a certain parcel of ground or a portion thereof located at 5210 Umbria Street, under certain terms and conditions. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA A. CLARK, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 I N D E X Joseph James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deputy Commissioner Department of Public Property Leonard Stevens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . President of Philcom 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 3 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning. The Committee on Public Property and Public Works is now in session. My only reason for rushing is that I'm in a hurry. (Laughter.)
I can name you ten others, but they don't count. The truth is, I'm in a hurry. Would the record reflect that a quorum is present. In the room today is Council President Anna Verna; Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell; myself, the Chair of this committee, Augusta Clark; Councilman Michael Nutter; and Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller. Will the secretary to this committee please read Bill No. 990199.
An ordinance Authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to lease to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development for further sublease to Philcom Ltd. a certain parcel of ground or a portion thereof located at 5210 Umbria Street, under certain terms and conditions. 4 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199
Thank you. Are there persons present who wish to be heard to in favor of or against this bill?
Good morning, sir. Would you introduce yourself to the record, spell name for benefit of the stenographer, and proceed with your testimony.
Yes, I will. Good morning, Chairwoman, and good morning, committee members. My name is Joseph James. J-O-S-E-P-H, J-A-M-E-S.
Thank you. Proceed with your testimony, but before you do, let the record reflect that we have been joined at the table by Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you. Good morning, Councilwoman Clark, and members of the committee. I am Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public Property. It is a pleasure to appear before the committee today to briefly 5 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 review the substantive provisions of a lease by the City and Philcom Limited, a/k/a Bank Towers. Bill No. 990199 was introduced on April 7, 1999. Representatives from the Department have engaged in continuous discussions with representatives from Philcom Limited concerning leasing of City property, as permitted by the bill. Through the lease negotiation process, we have sought terms for a lease that will best serve the needs of the citizen of the City and facilitate the efforts of the City to construct new 800-megahertz digital radio network. Generally, these terms include compensation in the form of rent with future increases, allocation of rent-free tower space for the City, thus permitting the City to remove one of its obsolete towers at Philcom's expense, and consideration for the City's public-broadcast and independent television stations. The terms to which Philcom Limited has committed itself are acceptable to the Department. Therefore, I respectfully ask that Council approve Bill No. 990199. I also ask the committee to suspend the rules of Council to allow 6 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 this bill to be reported out of committee and to have its first reading at the next Council session. I am now available to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much. I have a few questions, but first I call on Councilmember Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Mr. James. Is it my understanding that the discussions are fully underway and that the City is, in fact, fully supporting this particular proposal to have a new tower go up on the tower owner's property and that this issue before us today is for the purpose of a guide wire and anchor to be placed on a piece of City-owned property?
That is correct, Councilman Nutter. The City is very supportive of this proposal, and it will allow us to move forward our public safety radio system. And it is, in fact, a viable solution that allows the private builder to build on their property and to anchor right next 7 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 to their existing anchor on City property.
And the discussions that are underway, the City has already come to agreement on financial terms with regard to this lease, but that the City will also benefit from having a tower that we presently utilize for communication services. Those services will be relocated to this tower to be built. Other public agencies or quasi-governmental systems will have their communications systems on this tower if they choose, at no cost to those governmental agencies. Is that also correct?
That is also correct that our current tower at Port Royal and Horner, we have our existing 450 system. We also have American Red Cross, National Weather Service, and the School District located on there. And provisions of the lease allow for all of those tenants to move to the new tower at no cost to them or to the City.
And if we choose to have the present 450 tower taken down, it will be done at this tower operator's expense?
At the sole expense of the 8 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 tower operator.
Okay. And lastly, because of the FCC regulations with regard to the movement into HD TV (high-definition television) and the requirement that all stations have digital tower capacity, there are many stations in our area that are not able to build their own tower; is that correct?
And that two of most well-known public television stations, WHYY and WYBE, they will have the opportunity, subsequent to reasonable lease negotiations with them, to locate on this particular tower; is that right?
Thank you, Madam Chair. What is the need to take down a tower that is already owned by the City of Philadelphia 9 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 that is relatively new? It's not that old, it's a bottom section of a tower that was designed when it was first installed to be made taller if necessary and also potentially draw revenue from the City of Philadelphia to have outside carriers install antennas on that particular tower. I don't particularly think that the 800-megahertz radio system is in any jeopardy without this tower. Certainly this kind of softens the blow here but there's no connection between an 800-meg City system and this tower.
Well, excuse me, Councilman, there is a direct correlation between this tower and our 800-megahertz system and our existing tower at Port Royal and Horner. As you mentioned, the tower that we currently have our 450 system on is a 300-foot stainless steel tower. For us to allow us to put an 800-megahertz system on that particular tower would have to increase the height by an additional 300 feet at a sizeable expense to the City, as well as ground on the bottom of the tower that we would have to build out to allow the accommodation of our equipment. 10 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 This lease that we are entering in has a very attractive provision in it that allows us to place our 800 system on a brand new tower at a elevation that's acceptable for the coverage that we need along with all of the ground space that we need to put all of our equipment shelters and our tenants. And it also allows to us run parallel systems as we are testing out our 800-megahertz system. It doesn't delay the scheduling so that we can bring up our 800 system, maintain our 450 system, which our police will be using during the time of our first phase, and allow us to operate the system. And, in fact, the provision allows us to take down the tower at Port Royal and Horner at the sole expense of the private entity at a time that's acceptable to the City. And if, in fact, the City -- it's at the City's discretion to exercise that right. But at some point in time, that tower will become no longer of any importance, it will no longer be a part of our system. And as we've seen in that particular area, there is a multitude of private entities who are already attracting all 11 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 of the local carriers who are looking for a tower space today. So the City would really not be in a position to compete with the private entities for tower space for cellular providers and PCS providers.
Does that tower have a value? Rather than take it down, could it be sold?
It's possible that it could be sold. I think it's possible that in our lease negotiations that if there's any salvage value of the tower once it's removed --
No, I'm not talking about salvage; I'm talking about selling it to a person who would be interested to continue its operation as a communications tower.
Well, as I just mentioned, there are -- a number of private entities already have existing towers that are directly near and across from the existing City tower that already have a multitude of carriers and they're probably more attractive to the private sector than our City tower would be. 12 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199
Is the answer, though, that Public Property will protect the City's interests, and if there's a greater value in keeping it, we will keep it; if there's a greater value in renting it, we will rent it; if there's a greater value in taking it down and selling its parts for salvage; we'll do that.
The City will certainly exercise all of its due diligence to do the most appropriate thing for the City's interests.
Have you identified the actual -- in the bill at least --
If I missed it, I apologize. The actual size of the parcel for the anchor location, has that been identified? I think it wasn't clear to me exactly how much land we're talking about.
Well, I apologize for that, that we don't have the actual lease ready at this particular point in time. But you will see the lease which has a site plan and it does have a survey that shows you -- it's a very small parcel 13 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 of land. And even the private entities here today could probably describe to you better how much land we're actually talking about.
My last question. Has the Streets Department signed off on this? Is there anything in this lease agreement that would interfere with any operational activities at the site where there's planned expansion? My question is, is the Streets Department signed off on this?
Madam Chair, if I could just add one item for the record.
And I appreciate your pointing out that any discussion about the current City tower and what happens with it is at the sole discretion of the City. The City will make that decision as to whether or not they want to keep that tower there, but if they decide not 14 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 to, it's left to the proposed tower builder to dispose of it. The only other thing I would add to the record on that is, certainly this issue of towers has come up at the community level, and when the proposed tower builder met with various community groups and organizations, virtually any that are in the area, all of them have raised the issue of if ever there are opportunities to lessen the number of towers in the 21st Ward area, they would like us to at least pursue that as an option. And so I believe most of the discussion about keeping this tower or not has been risen at the community level asking that if there is an opportunity to lessen the number of towers in the area, they'd certainly like the City to pursue that. But we will do, and I think you've established for the record, Public Property will always do what's in the City's best interests. Thank you.
Thank you. Let me put a few questions on, and I'll expect your 15 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 briefest answer.
Describe the material terms of the lease. You can't do that yet because the lease has not yet been signed?
The lease has not been -- well, not fully been completed and executed.
Right, all right. How high will the tower be and what danger does it danger does it pose to people and buildings if it blows over?
If I understand your question, you're asking, how high will the tower be?
And how will we protect the safety of the people who are constructing it or the people in the community?
The, tower as I understand it, the total height is 1500 feet. As far as the 16 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 safety issues, I think the safety issues are something that the tower developer or the builder can answer better than I can.
Well, you have satisfied yourself that every reasonable safeguard has been put in place?
I am very comfortable that every safeguard that is commonly used in the industry is being put in place to build this tower.
Were other locations considered, and why was this site preferable to others?
I believe that there have been a number of sites that have been looked at for the construction of a tower in the area generally known as "Tower Farm Area." I believe that what makes this site most attractive and most appealing to most folks is that it's going right next to an existing tower that the current private entity already has, so it's not going any further out in the community than where their current tower exists today.
What about actual 17 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 or potential environmental liability exposure and claims? Has the City been held harmless in writing?
In the lease, there will be provisions that will protect the City's interests against any kind of claims. And as far as I understand it today, to my personal knowledge, there are no environmental issues at the present time.
To your knowledge, is there any unanswered community opposition to the project?
All right. I always worry about those little disclaimers.
Just a minute, I hear you. 18 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 Is there a brief explanation for what role does this lease play in connection with the 800-megahertz telecommunications system? Your briefest answer.
In the briefest answer, it's as secure a site for us to allow us to allow us to build the first phase of the project on a brand new tower. It will allow us to turn up that new system and test it out without having to interrupt our current 450 existing system.
So you won't turn off current system until the proposed system is up, operational, and debugged?
Thank you. Deputy Commissioner, have the FCC licenses been approved, issued -- whatever language is used? How do you know that the 800-megahertz system in the antenna farm? Have all of the propagation studies and all of the FCC approvals, are they in place today to put those 19 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 transmitters and receivers at the height on that tower?
We have all of the approvals the City is required by the FCC for their licenses. We have also done all of the propagation studies, and we've also had our potential vendor work with the new entity at the tower site to confirm that the elevations will not cause an interference issue that we will allow to be able to transmit at whatever height that we need to be on the tower without any restrictions. The lease allows us to be at whatever elevations that allows us to get the optimum coverage that we need.
Another issue that the community has expressed concern in -- aviation lighting. What is the situation with that and how is that going to blend in? Has there been some discussion about how and when those strobe lights will operate? And I assume there will be many of them on that 1500-foot-tall tower?
Mm-hmm. To the best of my knowledge, Councilman, I do not know how they actually will operate and the frequency and at 20 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 what heights they will be at; that is something we will have to see in the actual construction of the tower plan. But it's my understanding that the party that is entering the lease has done those studies to make sure that there will be no 8 interference with flight plans and it will have the proper lighting and that it will meet all of the FCC requirements for both safety and all of the FAA requirements as far as lighting.
I appreciate that. Are there any other questions by other members of the committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, are there other persons in the room who wish to be heard to speak in favor of or against Bill No. 21 990199? (No response.)
I understand that the tower operator and builder is present in the room. If you're coming, sir, come through these 21 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 center gates. Thank you, Mr. James.
Spell your last name for benefit of the stenographer, and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. I'm Leonard Stevens, S-T-E-V-E-N-S, the President of Philcom, the company that is proposing to erect this new tower in the antenna farm. I'm probably the only thing one still standing or living that built a tower in the farm. We call it "the farm" because it's a term that has grown over the years as a kind of a way to describe the cluster of eight towers that you see blinking away on the side of the hill there in Roxborough and that we can see from the expressway when we cruise up or down that part of the 22 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 expressway. But I was one of the founders of Channel back in the late '60s, mid-'60s, and I 5 was there when the tower was built, helped to 6 design it. And when we sold Channel 17 in the 7 '70s, we did not sell that tower, and that is how 8 we come to still own one of those eight towers in 9 the farm. 10 It is -- the new tower that we propose 11 to build is right there next to it, 100 feet away, 12 basically occupying the same footprint, which is 13 one of the virtues of this project. It doesn't 14 expand the farm, it doesn't provide any negative 15 downside to adding another tower right there in 16 the middle of the cluster. And to the best of my 17 knowledge, going through several Zoning Board hearings and addressing personally with my associates, the various civic groups in the 21st Ward, we are unopposed by anyone other than a competitive company that is hoping to build a similar tower. If I may just go back to a couple of questions that Mr. James was unable to address. In terms of the lighting, the lighting is governed 23 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 by the Federal Aviation Administration. It will not have strobe lights; it will have just another set of red alternate fixed and blinking red lights. That's a good thing, by the way, because we find that strobe lights are kind of obnoxious to people. In terms of the safety aspects of the tower, all of the towers there are built under federal guidelines which are promulgated by the Electronics Industries Association, adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. And the standard for these towers continues to get tougher and tougher, as they, you know, develop new knowledge about the way the wind blows and the technology of erecting towers. So the current standard, just for the record, is called RS-220-F, as in "Frank," and the tower will be built under that standard. All of the capacity for the tower will be packed into an enormous, beefy brute of a tower. It will look like the others, but if you get up closer to it, you'll see that the steel is this thick instead of this thick (demonstrating). And the guide are more than an inch in diameter 24 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 instead of less than an inch in diameter, as the present towers are -- not so much because of the new standard, although that contributes to the safety requirements of the RS-220-F, but rather because of the capacity requirements of the new tower. And we've assured the City that this tower will be able to handle all --
Thank you. Mr. Rizzo's insisting on a brief question for which I really have to insist that you have a brief answer.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. The question that I have is a reference to collocation on your tower. Are there any restrictions in your leases that would prohibit collocation? Can competitors locate on your tower?
In other words, if someone wanted to eliminate building another tower 25 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199 and locate on your tower because Channel 6 is on there, Channel 10 would be able to locate.
Collocation, by definition, means competitors occupying the same structure.
That's what direct testimony is. However, thank you very much.
To God's ear and Frank Rizzo's ear and the stenographer's.
Everyone on the tower will be competitors. 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - 990199
Well, time is finite. Are there others here who wish to be heard to speak for or against this? (No response.)
Madam President, I move that we close our public hearing and move into a public meeting. (Duly seconded.)
This meeting is now closed. - - - 27 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - Pub. Meeting
We are now in public meeting. Mr. Nutter, it's your bill.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990199 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.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990199 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation --
Just a minute. And that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading of this bill at the next hearing. All in favor, say aye. Opposes?
I'll tell it to 28 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - Pub. Meeting you off the record.
I thought we had a sidebar that you said that we were going to hold this until the lease was drawn.
And I just had that discussion with the prime sponsor of the bill 14 who assures me that he will not call the bill up until the lease is in place and to his satisfaction, but we've positioned it so that if it happens today, we can go tomorrow.
Madam Chair, if I can further augment. The lease will come over to us in a signed form, with a transmittal letter either from the Commissioner of the Department of Public Property or the Mayor. And I can establish certainly for this record that no vote will be taken on this bill until there is a fully-executed 29 4/28/99 PUB. PROP. & PUB. WORKS - Pub. Meeting lease by the City and Philcom to the City's satisfaction. That lease will be circulated to all the members for when the bill is ready for a vote.
Are there any other questions? Any other unreadiness? (No response.)
Then Bill No. 13 990199 has been reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and with a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next stated session of Council. I thank you. This now ends the deliberation of this Council. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, ladies. (Adjourned at 10:29 a.m.) - - - 30 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, April 28, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY & PUBLIC WORKS BILL NO. 990199 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter