So that I want you to let me go through this, and you can comment. So that $80 million of the Kvaerner investment is going to be the cost of the materials of the ships. And that's going to ride on out of the report. That can't be characterized as an 121 RESOLUTION 970801 infrastructure investment in our port, because it is not going to remain with us. It is also my understanding that of the $187 million training money, that that training money, in addition to everything else, is a labor, the cost of labor subsidy, to build those first ships. And that that money, in effect, will roll on out of our port with the ships. Because the ships will be gone, and the $187 million will have been used to supplement the costs of the labor in building those ships. So I see 187, plus 80, as being money that clearly will not be an infrastructure investment in the Navy Yard. Is that fair to conclude? So if you add the 80 and the 187 million, you have $267 million, leaving roughly $377 million. Now, when I look at the documents -- I am looking at of the Project Summary -- I see another part of the $215 million Kvaerner investment as being $15 million of its own funds in capital improvements after two years. 122 RESOLUTION 970801 And then I see another $120 million capital improvement and purchases for the project during Years through 15. 5 So I suspect that if I add the 80, 6 the 15, and the 120, that brings me to the total of $215 million. Now, of the $215 million, 80 of it is the cost of materials to build the ships. of it 10 appears to be an infrastructure investment, which is 11 what I am going to ask you. I would like to know 12 whether or not that's going to be cranes, or just 13 what that is envisioned to be for. 14 And then under the $120 million, it 15 says, "To invest approximately 120 million in capital improvements and purchases for the project during Years 6 through 15." How much of the $215 million Kvaerner investment will actually be in infrastructure at the Navy Yard, something that will be able to be around for a long period of time in the form of a revitalized Navy Yard for the City of Philadelphia and for the region?
Okay. If I could have a minute. Let me walk back -- much of what you 123 RESOLUTION 970801 said is accurate. But I also want to provide clarity.
The addition you went through to get to 215 was right. It was 80, 15, 120. The 80 million for the material for the ships, if I could spend just a second on that. On the one hand you are absolutely right as characterizing that as not an infrastructure investment, in the sense that it is actually right. Hopefully those ships go down the river. The aspect of Kvaerner committing to buy three ships, I think, has to be placed in the context of the overall transaction. And why is it important? Because without sort of -- and it is always hard to take two years of discussions and try, in such a compressed framework, to get the full spirit of it. As the Mayor indicated this morning, when it was first discussed with Kvaerner, what do 124 RESOLUTION 970801 you think about doing something here, they went through it in what I think all of us would probably consider a fairly logical process. At one point they came and they looked at it. And they brought some engineering people, and they looked some more. And they said, yes, physically it is a yard. You can do something here. But then they began to think about, but is it a business, would it ever work. And one of the issues they were concerned about was, you know, this is a closed yard. It has never built commercial ships. So now we are going to announce to the world, ships for sale, and invest in infrastructure and build the new facilities and train workers, and then sit there and wait for an order. And shipbuilding, in this case, is not analogous to automotives. You don't build them and put them in a yard and wait for people to order the red Mustang. You only build a ship when you have an order. And so the chicken and egg problem was, how are we ever going to get an order if we 125 RESOLUTION 970801 have never built one and have no credibility. How are we going to get the workers trained if there are no ships to be worked on to do the on-the-job training? What do you think about that? And we said, well, we think you should do something to make that problem go away. And it took a while. And ultimately Kvaerner said, all right, we will take the responsibility of saying that no matter what happens, three ships will get built there out of the gate, and we'll buy them for the cost of the materials. And we will take the risk that we can sell them or not sell them, and whatever the market price is for ships at the time. And to the degree there might be a profit, yes, they have the right to it. And to the degree that there might not be, they take the risk. And what it does is, it guarantees the shipyard you can train the worker and know there is going to be a ship that's going to get built, and you can begin the process. In that sense it is a commitment to kick it off. You might characterize it better as a working capital commitment. But, you are right, it 126 RESOLUTION 970801 is not an infrastructure commitment. With regard to the training dollars, the 187 million, on the one hand, again --
If I could ask you to stay on the Kvaerner 215 million for the moment.
So that we know where the 80 million comes from, that's the cost of materials for the three ships.
We know that the labor to build the three ships will be paid out of the 187 million; right? What about the difference between 80 and 215 million dollars as it relates to Kvaerner's infrastructure investment in the Navy Yard?
The 15 million in the last two years, the five-year transition period, is for capital. There has been no specific identification as to what it is. I think when you had been asking, is it cranes, it is not as if there is a budget that says, it is for two more cranes or one more welding machine. 127 RESOLUTION 970801
Is it something that can stay, or has to stay, or something that --
It stays. It is an asset of the yard. And from Kvaerner's perspective, as we get this thing up and we are going along, maybe there is a gap. Maybe we should have gotten one more of something, a robotic welder, or maybe we are missing something that would have made a difference. And as we have done this, as this is being built out the first couple of years, we will take that last and sort of fill the gap. 15 But, yes, it is for capital that is in the yard.
That is correct. The 120 million -- and, you are right, there is a distinction. So you are right to note the distinction. 128 RESOLUTION 970801 It could be for capital improvements that, I think the term, are depreciable under GAP as a capital asset, as a standard to differentiate it from paying for -- for example, they can't spend it on -- when you say the word "purchases," it specifically excludes the cost to operate the yard or to do normal maintenance, repair. That's their obligation as the tenant, to just do what you are supposed to do to run a business. So they don't get credit against the 120 for those normal operating expenses, what I think we would all normally characterize as the normal working capital requirements. Those are Kvaerner's expenses, for them to fill. And they don't get credit for this. To the degree they do spend in Years 6 to 15 on additional capital improvements, replace a crane, buy a new one, expand the building yet again, or something like that --
The purchases part is to deal with what I would call non-capital softer 129 RESOLUTION 970801 issues. And I am not a total accounting expert. They want to -- I will give you an example. They are building container ships and oil tankers. And they decide, you know, there is a market for cruise ships. Let's develop a medium-sized cruise ships, and let's invest $5 million on the design cost to create that spec, to market that spec, to induce people to order another kind of ship from this yard. That would be an eligible cost, to procure the design services to do that. It is not -- I don't believe it is a capital depreciable asset. I mean, you have drawings and a spec, and you go out and market it. So it is to cover, I will use the term softer -- with the understanding of what I am trying to convey with that -- costs that aren't capital, in the hard sense it is something you can keep.
It is an investment, I think it is fair to say, to the degree it creates further business opportunity, activity in the 130 RESOLUTION 970801 facility. But it is not an infrastructure investment.
I wanted to now move to the other $429 million. I really am trying to figure out how much of all of this money is going to be for improvements in the yard, improvements that will be there, that we will have, that, you know, for the foreseeable future will make our yard a working yard.
And my understanding now is that of the 215 million, there is possibly 15 million, and maybe some part of 120 million, that might go in the activities of the yard, but it is not an infrastructure improvement in the yard.
All right. Now, if we can turn to the 429. 131 RESOLUTION 970801 187 million of it is the cost of labor to build the ships.
The vast majority is on-the-job. And that's the point I wanted to make. We may not agree to interpret it the same way, but I at least wanted to have the opportunity to give this perspective. The fact that we are paying a worker to learn how to do robotic welding, while he is in fact doing robotic welding, and it has the benefit of it is producing a piece of steel that's going to be on a ship and go away, the training aspect of making this yard competitive, Kvaerner anticipates that sort of the first ship that would go out might take over 500,000 person hours to produce. It is just that much activity that will be required to kind of learn how to do it the 132 RESOLUTION 970801 first time. That, in fact, to be competitive, it should be below 300,000 hours. So there is a gap between the capabilities of the work force, the first couple of ships they do, and what is the competitive productivity that would allow that ship to be priced in the market normally. And, so, I would view the 187 million, totally agreeing that the vast majority is on-the-job training, but it is being invested in that work force. So the net end result is that it provides a work force that can produce ships on a productivity man hour, person hour basis that are competitive. And, in that sense, it is not a piece of infrastructure in a capital sense, but we would then have human infrastructure that -- and unless you have both of the pieces, human infrastructure and capital infrastructure, you don't have a competitive shipyard.
Mr. Hankowsky, maybe this helps me. Of the $429 million, 187 of it 133 RESOLUTION 970801 is the labor/training?
Is that the 242 that is referenced on in the Project Summary, "In order to develop this shipbuilding facility, KPI will make significant improvements to the project site totaling $242 million"?
I think that statement is a bit confusing, at best. Because this $242 million is a part of the government investing.
So it sounds here like, it sounds like -- KPI is defined as who?
Kvaerner. Kvaerner Philadelphia isn't making that -- Kvaerner Philadelphia, pursuant to some contract, is making the investment. But it is really the investment of 134 RESOLUTION 970801 public dollars?
Yes, if it was inarticulately said. But that's right. They spend the dollars, and in that sense they make it.
I understand that. And I would like to have it clear that Kvaerner isn't making $242 million worth of site improvements on the Navy Yard site. It is our government, and the people's money, who is making the $242 million --
-- through this Kvaerner subsidy. And, I mean, as far as I can tell, the real Kvaerner infrastructure investment is the $15 million in the last two years of the first five-year term.
And it appears to me that the total investment in the site is 242, plus the 15. And that's, basically, government money.
Yes. That's basically our money. And I am trying to understand this transaction. And I am bearing in mind, you know, Germany maybe did $600 million, and just brought them in to do the site. I mean, I don't know about all of that. But I am just trying to understand this transaction. It seems to me fundamentally what we have agreed to do is take city, state, federal, and Delaware River Port Authority money, and agreed to bring our site -- make that investment in our site. Kvaerner agrees to come in and supervise a work force that we substantially pay for, and build these ships, and then Kvaerner agrees to buy them at the cost of materials. And whether or not it can make a lot of money off of them or a little bit of money off of them, that's up to Kvaerner. But what we have is a Navy Yard that now has the capacity to build ships with the number one shipbuilder in the world. 136 RESOLUTION 970801
Is that a fair, fair recitation of what this thing is all about?
And the expectation is that if we bring the number one shipbuilder in the world, and put it in a business down at our Navy Yard, invest the 242 plus Kvaerner's 15, to be able to show we can build ships at a competitive cost at our Navy Yard, then Kvaerner will want to stay in business here and continue to build ships and continue to hire people and do all of the things necessary in order for us to have an operating, competitive shipbuilding yard facility in this country down at our Navy Yard.
Yes. That's right. And if, again, even to say it another way, same point, but just another way, in the world today -- and Mr. Stamatakis talked a little bit about the nature of the shipbuilding in the world -- in the world today there is excess shipbuilding capacity. What does that mean? That means there are a lot of closed shipyards that sit there analogous to ours, old 137 RESOLUTION 970801 ones, not up to date, not improved. In fact, there are a few that the U.S. government closed. There is one in Long Beach. There is one in Charleston. There is one in Mare Island, near San Francisco, all part of this base closure process. What are the value of those shipyards in the market today? Zero. Even if we invest and make them state-of-the-art, 242 million to make them technologic, and yet a work force that was totally productive and sophisticated after five years of training, it just gets you in the game. And then you have to compete. So, basically, to say it another way, Kvaerner is saying, "We think we, Kvaerner, and you with this facility, with these two investments, a capital investment and a human infrastructure/training investment, you can get in the game. And we are prepared to be in the game. "And we will make sure you get started in the game by buying the first three ships. And we will produce designs for Philadelphia, ship models that we are going to go 138 RESOLUTION 970801 after. "And we will provide, we will do the working capital and run the business, from the standpoint you have made it a business. Today it isn't a business; it is a piece of ground and some workers who have a skill set, but not enough."
And is it fair to say that the non-compete here is to say to Kvaerner, "Oh, yes, we will make the infrastructure, the government will make the infrastructure investment here in order to help us form a joint partnership, to go into business and build some ships, which we will be responsible for building, and we will buy at the cost of materials." And the people who negotiated this deal said, "We will do that. But you can't go into business anyplace else in this country."
"If you are going to be in business, if we are going to do this, this is where you are going to do it."
"You are going to do it here in America, and only here." 139 RESOLUTION 970801
I am starting to understand it a little bit. I mean, I can understand this. But, Mr. Hankowsky, it didn't come out this way. It really didn't come out this way. And it would have been very helpful to everybody, at least for me, if it had been explained in a different way. Because what happened to us here is, it came out different. We thought, I thought -- I have to tell you, I thought -- Kvaerner was coming in and making this big investment in our facilities, and it really isn't. And maybe it is totally unreasonable to think that Kvaerner or anyone else is going to come in and make this kind of investment down at our Navy Yard. And maybe this is the only reasonable way it could have ever happened. I don't know. I mean, we weren't there. None of us was involved in any of this. But if this was the only reasonable way that we would be able to have an opportunity to 140 RESOLUTION 970801 get back in this business, then so be it. It is very important for us to be competitive, both in this country and in this region. And certainly if it can be here, that's just fine. But I will tell you, it just didn't come out that way. And I think that's unfortunate. Because how we communicate what it is we are doing and what is being proposed is very, very important. Because there are a lot of people who I think completely misunderstand. I think this really is a project that's looking very much to the future, very much to the future. And, in all fairness, you know, I don't think, along Councilwoman Tasco's lines and Councilwoman Clark's, I don't see a whole lot in this for the existing work force. I think what we may have down there is a Cracker Jack, topnotch, first-class work force that can build ships to compete with anybody anywhere. I don't see it for displaced naval workers. And maybe we can. And I think every 141 RESOLUTION 970801 member of this Council would love to think that a way will be figured out to get some of those workers back on the job down there. But I got to tell you, I have a hard time envisioning at this point how that happens, given what we are now piecing together as being the overall vision for what that work force is going to be like, and how it will be trained, and the kind of expectations that Kvaerner and anyone else is going to have of it. That does it for me. Is there anything else you would like to add at this time?
No. 15 I mean, to be candid, I probably regret that it hasn't been clearer sooner. Maybe I am -- as they said, the forest from the trees, sometimes it is hard to step back. But one other story to just recite for context, which is, again, I think, just in the spirit of, again, confirming this theory. The German government, when East Germany consolidated with West Germany, faced the fact that there was more than one shipyard in East Germany that were not state-of-the-art and had work 142 RESOLUTION 970801 forces, and would never be able to compete in the world marketplace. And how did they compete before that? Well, because the East German Communist government just ordered their ships from them. It was a state-owned monopoly, and they only bought their ships from their own company. And in addition to getting Kvaerner to take over one yard, they asked a German shipbuilder to take over another yard, and provided an equivalent amount of government money, like $500 million. "Here. Go fix this yard and make it competitive." That German shipbuilder went bankrupt, and that yard was never reopened, trying to do it. So this is a very competitive, difficult environment to be in. And the Council President is right. Unless the government at every level, federal, state, local, and regional, is prepared to make significant comments, you can't even play. And that is the nature of this transaction.
At this time I am going to reluctantly ask Councilmembers to allow us 143 RESOLUTION 970801 to recess this hearing until tomorrow morning. There are two other scheduled hearings that need to go on because they have been previously scheduled, and people are here. And we knew they were going to be here. And it is unfair, I think, to disappoint them at this time. This, we can do tomorrow. Those, I don't think we can. Councilwoman Tasco says she has one little, itty-bitty question. Councilman Nutter never has an itty-bitty question.
On -- this is just a question about the tax impact -- on the Summary, it says, "Of the 96.7 million in taxes generated by the project, approximately 29 million, or 30 percent, of the total will accrue to the city. 6.1 million, or 7 percent, will accrue to the School District," which is a very small amount for over a 20-year period. 144 RESOLUTION 970801 But "61.1 million, or 63 percent of the total, will be used to fund the debt service on the TIF loan." I mean, isn't that a kind of high cost of doing business?
No. I think the answer is, it is not. I am not denying it is expensive. But that is based on borrowing the 30 million that will go into the project, at an estimated rate of a little over 8 percent, and then paying the principal and interest. It is like a mortgage over the term of the debt service for that note. And that's what that figure includes. So it is like when you buy a home, and you take a $100,000 mortgage. And they are forced to give you the freedom of disclosure. And they say this mortgage is actually going to cost you $350,000 over 20 years, when you look at the interest. And that's the analogy. On the School District comment, I don't want to ignore it. As you might recall, we had a fair amount of discussion about the TIF 145 RESOLUTION 970801 revenues at the Navy base in relationship to the district back in the spring, when the TIF district was, in fact, established. And one of the kind of unfortunate aspects of the TIF process is what taxes you can TIF and whose are they. And the district, as you know, has certain dedicated Real Estate and U & O taxes. So we actually provided in the June TIF district structure that the percentage of U & O that would be TIFed would decline by percentages in five-year increments. So that at least over time, more dollars would go to the district. And we also provided that, to the degree the Business Privilege Tax is throwing off money, we would also begin to slowly give, quote, unquote, begin to give the district a portion of its real estate taxes. So there was an attempt in June, when we did the whole district, to try to mitigate -- the numbers would look even worse if you all, if we hadn't collectively, changed that plan in June.
Okay. Thank you very much. 146 RESOLUTION 970801 I would like to make it clear that this committee is going to stand in recess until 8:30 in the morning. I think we are now going to have the Council Committee on Labor and Civil Service. We are going to do QST at 8:30 in the morning. QST will be done. We already told PGW. We will do them at 8:30 in the morning. So the Council Committee of the Whole will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 8:30. VOICE: The public hasn't had a chance to say anything. I am one guy.
Can we have him right now. I am sorry. I apologize. And you know what, and I have your name, too. And that is absolutely my fault. I saw all these other names. And these other names are more the city professional witness. 147 RESOLUTION 970801 Your name is here. You have done precisely what it is you were supposed to do. You have also done right to interrupt us, and I appreciate it. And I would not want you to have to come back. And I offer my sincere apologies and offer you an opportunity to testify now on this deal. Is there anyone else from the general public here? Okay. Well, then, I want to get the general public right now. And I apologize to other people who have to wait, but it is unfair to the general public. I did not know you were here. I only have Mr. Satilli's name. Yes, sir.
My name is Vincent Satilli. I live in Manayunk. And the reason I appear before you today, Council President Street, is that I am for jobs, as all Philadelphians are. But I worry about one thing. We gave $37 million, the State of 148 RESOLUTION 970801 Pennsylvania gave $37 million, to the CoreStates Bank to create jobs in the Philadelphia area. CoreStates is leaving, merging with First Union, and leaving us with a net loss of $7,000, without refunding the $37 million to the people in the State of Pennsylvania. My concern as a citizen is, my tax money is going to be used to support the Kvaerner shipyard deal. And it is a great thing for Philadelphia, and I support it. But what I worry about is, what's going to prevent the same thing happening to my tax money?
Excuse me. Mr. Hankowsky, we can hear you here. And I know you are very anxious to talk to these reporters. But if you could do it at another place, it would be very helpful. Please, sir, continue.
And so I am concerned about my tax money being spent in that way. I am willing to make the investment. But what is going to be the return on my investment? And I am concerned with that, as I am 149 RESOLUTION 970801 sure many citizens in Philadelphia are. I am concerned about what the Chairman of the Delaware River Port Authority indicated, was a large part of the work appears to be outsourcing. And as an old union man, that means to me contracting out. I wonder if there is going to be a provision, whether Council can assure --
I can answer that for you. When he says outsourcing, he means that Kvaerner itself won't make a lot of the parts, do a lot of the work on the site. It will have a contract with somebody, someplace. But that's all union work.
Yes, it is all union. I am pretty sure of that. I can tell you all these union people wouldn't have been here today if that had not been covered. I mean, I could almost risk my life on that, that they are not talking about outsourcing in a way that's not going to protect the interests 150 RESOLUTION 970801 of the union worker. I can tell you that no Councilmember here would be interested in supporting that. And I think the Mayor tried to make that point when he said these are all good. The jobs that get created, both on the site and the other jobs, are good union, living-wage kinds of jobs. I think that's good for everybody.
My last point, Councilman, is provisions. Will there be provisions, can there be provisions, ensured or made for for folks, for poor people? A lot of people have been kicked off Welfare recently, and they could use the training for the kind of unionized jobs at the shipyard. Will Kvaerner consider poor people? And that finishes my comments. Everyone here is for, and I am not against.
And I will answer the question for you. Because we covered that turf. Right? The jobs that are going to be created at the Navy Yard, and the training that's going to 151 RESOLUTION 970801 require it, fundamentally, is not work for people who have been put off of the Welfare rolls as a result of this Welfare and all. It really isn't. And it would be unfair, and I am certainly not going to try to fool anybody about any of it. I think that was part of what Councilwoman Tasco was saying. We don't want to fool anybody about any of this. These jobs are not the kind of jobs that those people, for the most part, are going to qualify for. There may be some. I am not going to rule it out; there may be some. But in the main, it's not for that. And I tell you, when we first heard $187 million of training, there were some people who said, "Wow, this could be great. Maybe we could get some former Welfare recipients," this, that, and the other. It is really not for those people. Maybe some can. And I don't want to rule it out. Nobody here is saying it can't happen. But in the main, this is a very different kind of work force that it is proposed to be assembled at that Navy Yard. 152 RESOLUTION 970801 It is a work force that's going to be as high tech as any work force that exists in the country. Because the competition -- I agree with a lot of it. The competition is serious in this area. And this country -- not this city or this region; this country -- isn't competing. And I think it is going to be a very high-tech work force out there. It is probably not going to be composed -- I am talking about the people now making the ships -- of a lot of the folks that we sometimes worry about. Not that they aren't good jobs and it isn't worth doing. But I appreciate your comment.
Is there anyone else here from the general public? Yes, sir. Please come up, identify yourself for the record, and proceed with your statement. And we will try to get our next hearing underway briefly. But under no circumstances did we want to disrespect the public in this process. And I appreciate your patience. 153 RESOLUTION 970801 Good afternoon, Mr. President. I want to say, first of all, good afternoon to you and to the Council.
Sir, I need you to identify yourself for the record. MR. RONALD WILLIAMS, SR.: My name is Ronald Williams, Sr. I am the President and CEO of Aerospace Technologies, LLC, located in Southern New Jersey. I want to thank you, first of all, for these hearings and for the wording that has been cleared up on a lot of these matters involving the Kvaerner deal this day. But, Mr. President, I still have a concern. And my concern is even heightened by some of the language here this morning, in regard to involvement and inclusivity of small, minority, and women-owned businesses in the dealings and in the sharing of the money that's going to be involved with Kvaerner and the shipyard. I am all for the deal. I think it is going to be a very good thing for the Delaware Valley and for its people. But we also have people here that are 154 RESOLUTION 970801 in small business, that are in high-tech businesses, that do have viable professional services that they can offer, but have not been touched, have not been called, have not been asked, have not been entered. And my concern is, even after hearing that there are no provisions for small or minority businesses to be involved in this process, what is going to happen? And how will it be addressed, if it at all will be addressed?
It is being addressed. I have to tell you the Mayor testified that it is being addressed. He has offered a potential amendment to the resolution that really provides a mechanism whereby this whole project will be subject to the same kind of goals for minority and small business and MBE/WBE kind of participation similar to one of our more successful economic development projects in the city. The Mayor is very concerned about it. The Councilmembers have raised the question. This is a different process here. And, you know, if this were just a local process, if this was just the city, and only the Mayor and City 155 RESOLUTION 970801 Council were involved, we would be able to be really, really specific about everything. It is not that way. It is the state, it is the region, it is Delaware River Port Authority. But I will tell you that the Mayor is committed to work, you know, with Kvaerner in making sure that this project is inclusive of all of the various segments of the community, including small businesses, disadvantaged businesses, minority businesses, female-owned businesses. And hopefully you won't be disappointed. But it is something that is very important to the Mayor and to the Council. And it is being worked on aggressively.
Well, Your Honor, I appreciate that. And I thank you very much for taking that time. But I must tell you that my concerns stem from the fact that I am only one small businessperson here doing business in the Delaware Valley. And I myself have taken the steps initially to go through the process step by step, to 156 RESOLUTION 970801 talk to members of Council and members in the government and even, in fact, in the structure of Kvaerner itself, and have been able to get nowhere. And all I want to do is be able to have the same expectation and ability to be able to make a way and to be a part of this dream as everybody else wants to. We need to be a part of this and to be able to address this, so that our families, as well, can realize the greatness and be a part of this that's going to take this Delaware Valley. And that's all that we are asking.
We appreciate your testimony. We hear you. And I will tell you that we are committed to working on behalf of businesses like yours. And hopefully you won't be disappointed.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the general public? Sir, please identify yourself and 157 RESOLUTION 970801 come forward. We would like to hear you, but we also want to make sure that the committee that's waiting to go into session has an opportunity to have its hearing. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Leon Norris, and I am representing ITTI, welding training facility here in Philadelphia. And I am more or less echoing Mr. Williams' request. I, as well as my CEO, Mr. Jessie Turner, we have made several attempts to be part of this history-making event that's going to go on down here at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, the former Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. We are a welding training facility. And we have been here in Philadelphia since 1992, March, and we are located in the Frankford Arsenal area. And we have trained welders for the City of Philadelphia, such as the Philadelphia Water Department, fleet management, and the bridge maintenance people from the Streets Department. And this is all through the 158 RESOLUTION 970801 partnership of Community College of Philadelphia. And we are looking to be part of this, the training aspect, that's going to be going on down there. And, basically, I just wanted to make known for the records that here you have a minority training facility here in the city, in your backyard, that is capable of providing welding training, and as well as the other colleges that are involved in this. I am talking about the shipyard colleges. As they would have to staff up and get the equipment up to snuff, we, as well. We are capable of doing the same. So, in essence, what I am saying is that, whatever you can do would be greatly, greatly appreciated on behalf of the Philadelphia citizens here. And I just guess, basically, I wanted to say thank you. And I hope this deal goes through. And we support you very much.
Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Is there any other member of the 159 RESOLUTION 970801 general public here? If not, this committee, the Council Committee of the Whole, will stand in recess until 8:30 in the morning. I believe that we will now have a hearing by the Council Committee on Labor and Civil Service, chaired by Councilman Mariano. Thank you very much for being with us. (Public Hearing adjourned at 1:45 p.m.) - - - 160 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 Wednesday, December 10, 1997, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE _____________________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD, RPR