COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thurs., February 10, 2000 3:15 p.m. - - - BILL NO. 000003 - An ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six years 2001 to 2006 exclusive. BILL NO. 000004 - An ordinance to adopt a Fiscal 2001 Capital Budget. BILL NO. 000005 - An ordinance to adopt an Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2001. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, I N D E X Stephanie Franklin-Suber, Chief of Staff. . . 11 Executive Director, City Planning Commission 16 Jay Beratan, Deputy Director for Aviation . . 24 Philadelphia Airport Robert Dubow, Acting Budget Director. . . . . 31 William Hankowsky, President, PIDC. . . . . . 33 Gregory Grillone, Stadium Director. . . . . . 53 Richard Dean, Deputy Director, Program Office 85 Karen Talarico, Executive Director. . . . . . 173 Friends of the Free Library Bethann Johnson, President. . . . . . . . . . 175 Friends of Walnut West Library Dwight Rice, Vice President . . . . . . . . . 177 Friends of Widener Group Kent Miller, Executive Director . . . . . . . 238 Municipal Energy Office Office of Transportation Witness. . . . . . . 245 3 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 P R O C E E D I N G S
I'm sorry to keep everyone waiting. We're simply waiting for some documents to be delivered to us, so if you'll please bear with us, we should start very shortly. Thank you. - - -
Again, I apologize for the delay. This is the Committee of the Whole, and I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the titles of Bill No.'s 003, 004, and 005.
Bill No. 003, an ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six years 2001 to 2006, exclusive. Bill No. 004, an ordinance to adopt a Fiscal 2001 Capital Budget. Bill No. 005, an ordinance to adopt an Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2001.
Councilwoman Blackwell, do you care to be recognized?
Yes, Madam President. I offer two amendments on behalf of the members of City Council, the first to Bill 4 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 003, which --
Thank you, Madam President. Are we about to take action on the matters that are being raised by Councilwoman Blackwell? If we are, I believe we need to move into a public meeting --
Thank you, 5 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 Madam President. I offer two amendments on behalf of the members of City Council, the first to Bill 4 003, to the Capital Program for Fiscal Years 2001 to 2006, and the second to Bill 004 to the Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2001.
I believe everyone has copies of the amendments. (Duly seconded.)
The amendment has been offered. All those in favor of the adoption will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The motion is carried. We will now hear from the Administration.
Madam Chair, is this a public meeting or a public hearing?
Well, then I believe Councilman Nutter had to be right and I respectfully disagree with Mr. Erekson.
Mr. Erekson? 6 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5
We have no power to act at a public hearing; we have power only to listen to testimony.
We will consult with our attorney. (President Verna consults with Mr. Erekson.)
Mr. Erekson informs me that we are in order in adopting the amendments at this time. We have done it in the past and he said that we can certainly do it now.
Madam President, I don't want to be impolite, but I have never, ever been at a public hearing, knowingly, when a motion of any sort was ever adopted. That's for a meeting purpose.
Councilman Cohen, there is no Charter requirement on this issue.
I expect, then, the requirement is steeped in the rules of the City Council and in our history. We have never -- as far as my knowledge, not even at a committee hearing do we ever adopt a resolution. 7 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5
We also move into a public meeting stance and then we go back again to a public hearing. I don't want anybody to be able to attack this legally at a later time, and I don't understand the ruling. And that's the reason I have to. . . I never remember ever adopting any past. . .
Councilman Nutter, I have seen that you've been looking through our rules. Do you see anything in there that would prohibit us from taking action at this time?
Madam Chair, I would certainly never want to compete with the likes of legal minds of either Tom Erekson or Councilman Cohen. At the same time, I believe that when I spoke earlier, it was more an instinctive reflex based on what our general practice has been and, I guess, quite honestly, what I thought I was taught at one point in time, that generally we do adopt amendments in the public meeting portion even though they may be 8 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 offered in a public hearing. So -- and, again, I apologize for cutting across Councilwoman Blackwell when she was getting ready to get started. So it was merely what generally has been our normal practice. And I guess I assumed today, based on all of our discussions, that we were going to recess from a public hearing adopt into a public meeting, adopt the amendments in the public meeting, and then return to the public hearing portion and continue with the testimony. That was my general assumption about today's activities.
Well, I guess let me say two things, Madam President -- or Madam 9 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 Chair. First, I mean certainly we do have good legal counsel here, and on the one hand, we could proceed with the counsel's advice; on the other hand, we could put forward what the intended amendments are. We will be in session next week in the course of Operating Budget, and whatever advertising opportunity there is for the public meeting, if Members want to proceed in that particular fashion, we can formally adopt them in that time period. I mean, I'm. . .
Before we could actually adopt? Could we take a short recess?
The amendments could be introduced as they are and we could go ahead with the hearing, and then next Thursday morning or any earlier or at a later time --
Let's take a 10 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 five-minute recess, please.
-- We could have a brief meeting, but it would have to be advertised.
Let's take a five-minute recess, please. (Recess taken.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, at this time, I make a motion to suspend the rules of City Council so as to permit immediate consideration of the amendments that will be proposed for the Capital Budget. (Duly seconded.)
It has been second. All in favor of a suspension of the rules will vote aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is 11 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 carried. Jannie?
Madam President, this is my day. This is the third time, and I will read it verbatim. (Laughter.)
Madam President, I offer two amendments on behalf of the Members of City Council, the first to Bill 03, to amend the Capital Program for Fiscal Years 2001 to 2006; and the second to Bill 04, to the Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2001. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. Miss Suber, I'm sorry you were kept waiting. I think we're now ready to hear your testimony.
Good afternoon, 12 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 President Verna and Members of City Council. I am Stephanie Franklin-Suber, Chief of Staff for the City of Philadelphia. With me are: Rob Dubow, our Budget Director; Barbara Kaplan, Executive Director of the City Planning Commission; and Richard Dean, Deputy Director of the Program Office. Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony in support of the proposed Capital Budget and Capital Program, as amended by City Council. The Mayor has publicly apologized to City Council for any misperception or confusion with regard to the Capital Program and the Capital Budget. There was no proposed Capital Budget other than the one that the Mayor submitted to City Council. There was, however, a draft $167 million budget that the staff of the City Planning Commission shared with its Commission members. That draft included funding for some projects in Fiscal Year 2001 that the program submitted to City Council be deferred for funding to Fiscal Year 2002. I would like to take this opportunity 13 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 to publicly apologize to City Council. As Chief of Staff, it is my responsibility to ensure that there is coordination between the Mayor's Office, the Capital Program Office, the Budget Office, and the Planning Commission in connection with the Capital Program and the Capital Budgets submitted to Council City Council. In the future, the Administration will have a closer working relationship, and we will ensure that we avoid this kind of situation. The Capital Program that has been amended is smaller than the programs that we're used to seeing. We've been forced to postpone some projects that we may have tried to fund in Fiscal Year 2001, and the simple explanation is that we are fast approaching our debt limit under the State Constitution, and because we're approaching that debt limit, we will have to reduce the amount that we can borrow to fund the capital projects. The proposed Capital Program, as amended, will be financed with general obligation debt, and it now totals, as amended: $157.4 million in FY 2001; 14 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 $129.7 million for Fiscal Year 2002; $73.77 million annually for Fiscal Year 2003, Fiscal Year 2004; $72.77 million in Fiscal Year 2005. It then drops to $26.1 million in Fiscal Year 2006, the final year of the program. The first two years of the program are still relatively consistent, even as amended with previous Capital Budgets. They averaged about $139.5 million through the years Fiscal Year 1993 through Fiscal Year 2000, but the later years of the program are substantially reduced because of our debt limit. While the program projects a reduction in capital funding, the City intends to pursue strategies that will allow it to maintain a reasonably sized Capital Program while not incurring excessive levels of debt. Moreover, the funding levels included in the Capital Program, as amended, are sufficient to maintain the investments made over the past eight years and to implement important new projects. Again, the Administration is pleased to support City Council's amendments to the FY 2001 15 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 Capital Budget and the FY 2001 through 2006 Capital Program. At this point, we would be happy to answer any questions you may have of the Administration, and Ms. Kaplan will present more detailed testimony. Representatives of all City agencies with Capital Budgets are also here to answer any questions you may have on specific projects.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam Chair, as we're probably going to be here for a little while, we had had a discussion not too long ago, and there is a two-page sheet -- not the longer piece that use 16 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 for the amendments to the Capital Budget and the Capital Program. Is it possible to have a sizeable number of copies of those available for members of the general public or other Councilmembers so that people can see what was restored by the amendments?
Anyone who is interested, we do have copies available. Thank you. Miss Kaplan, good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and Members of Council. I'm Barbara Kaplan, the Executive Director of the City Planning Commission. Unfortunately, much of my testimony, I think, has been -- kind of been precluded by the amendments that have been offered this afternoon, which add $17 million to the budget year, so that the overview that I was going to present for the Six-Year Program and even for the summary of the 17 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 budget year is no longer accurate. But I would be pleased to answer any questions Members of Council have about the overall budget. And I also wanted to point out that while most of the attention this year, as has been true in past years, has focused on the amount of City tax-supported funding that we have available, this is a budget that is many times greater than the amount of City tax-supported funding because we do have federal funds involved here, particularly for the Airport. We have some state monies available, we have federal funds and state funds for SEPTA projects, for Streets Department projects. We also have self-sustaining funds at the Airport and for the Water Department. So those other sources of funds greatly expand and enhance the capacity of the City to provide for all of our infrastructure needs. So I'd be pleased to answer questions in general and about any of the projects or departments that people have questions about.
Thank you. I had a question regarding the Airport. What are the parcels of land that the Airport is 18 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 planning to acquire during FY 2001? Will the contemplated acquisitions be through condemnation or through negotiated sales? What are they proposing to do there?
Well, there was a bill, I think, that was introduced in Council that contemplated the acquisition of land for the Airport -- all the land that was still within control of the Redevelopment Authority in the vicinity of the Airport. That bill contemplated acquiring all of that land by condemnation for use of the Airport. And that bill -- I don't whether it did not proceed in the last session of Council. I know when that bill was received at the Planning Commission, the view of the Commission was that since the Airport was undertaking a master plan study for the future of the Airport, that it was premature to move ahead with any acquisition until that study, if not complete, was a lot further along so that we would have a much firmer idea of exactly what was needed and how each parcel of land might be used. There was a particular concern on the 19 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 part of some of the Eastwick residents wanting to support the Airport but some of these parcels of lands are within 500 feet of existing single- family residences, so there was a certain about exactly what activity would happen on each parcel of land.
No, the City Council did not receive an ordinance, and I was just wondering how we would acquire the land, whether it would be through condemnation or whether it would be through negotiated sales, but I guess that's a conversation for another day.
Okay, I notice it's line number 8 on . On , OHCD, Line 74, why is the Administration proposing to use City capital dollars in support of PHA projects? Has the City done this in the past? And if so, where?
We have been doing this for the past -- well, for quite some time. I can't remember exactly how long, but probably 15 years at least. We have been using City capital 20 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 dollars in support of OHCD -- various OHCD housing developments. For example, if rental housing is developed in a particular area, we use City capital dollars to provide the site improvements, whether it's curbside, whether it's trees, lights, or sometimes new streets. And that --
That -- well, I'm getting to that. That -- that has -- we have done that in order to make the OHCD dollars go further. In more recent years, as the Housing Authority has been able to receive grants for the public housing modernization and what they call the Hope VI Program that's made it possible to tear down the high-rise towers convert to public housing, we have been using City capital dollars to provide the new streets and the infrastructure that makes that conversion possible. We did it up in North Philadelphia for the conversion of Raymond Rosen after the towers were torn down. That one large plot had to be subdivided and new city streets put in, and we also developed new housing on surrounding streets, and that was done with City capital dollars. 21 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 And we had previously allocated dollars in last year's budget and, I believe, the budget the year before, for Schuykill Falls as well for that purpose.
Thank you. , line 92, what are the planned improvements at the --
, line 92. Can you tell me what the planned improvements at 63rd and Lindbergh Boulevard sites are for?
This is a property that was purchased recently. I'm not even sure if the final papers have been signed. The bill went through in the last session of Council. For some time now, there's been a desire to move some Fleet operations and Streets Department operations from Seventh and Pattison in order to expand the Food Distribution Center and also to remove the last of the Streets Department operations from Front and Spring Garden, the former incinerator site, to other locations -- well, one, to expand the Food Distribution Center and the property at Front and Spring Garden. 22 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 Because it's on the waterfront, people felt there was a better use for it. And we've been looking for a site -- the Capital Program Office has been looking for a site probably three years to be able to accommodate these operations. And this is a property that was purchased -- as I said, it's a pretty new facility. My understanding is that it's about two or three years old and will require relatively little in the way of modification to fit it out for the functions of the City. This money will be used to make whatever improvements are necessary to make it usable for the City functions.
Well, compared to the cost of buying land, building a whole facility from scratch, it --
I would appreciate your sending me a breakdown on this, 23 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 please.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Kaplan, recently, the press talked about a $225 million air strip at the Airport that -- the article reported -- indicated that that air strip was not going to be very useful and that currently was not being useful. Do you remember the article? It was just a few days ago.
That seemed like a kind of a large sum of money to sort of -- say, after many years of planning and many years of building, wasn't going to be useful and that they had sort of just discovered it. Do you have any comment with respect to that? Do we know anything about it?
Who approved it, who was -- 24 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5
I think it would probably be more appropriate to have somebody from the Airport speak to that point. I believe somebody is here from the Airport.
I would appreciate that, Madam President. (Airport representative comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Jay Beratan. I'm the Deputy Director for Aviation at the Airport for Facilities. And in response to Councilman's question, this runway, which was a $221 million project, was planned approximately ten years ago for small aircraft, propeller-driven aircraft. The state of the art has changed in the last years to a type of aircraft called "RJ," which is a regional jet. However, the article wasn't totally factual. The runway is still very useful; it's being used today as we speak. The savings, although projected to be about 30 percent in 25 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 delays, may be closer to 15 or 20 percent at this time. It's still a huge savings, and the runway will more than pay for itself in the next five years.
Which -- whose money is the money that paid for the runway?
The $221 million is made up of various funds. We had federal grants, state grants, revenue bonds, Airport revenue bonds, as well as facility charges, passenger facility charges, which is that $3 tax that's paid on tickets as you buy tickets.
No. All the bonds are aviation bonds that are paid off by the airlines. There's no City tax dollars involved in it.
Does that mean there are no City tax dollars involved in those Airport bonds at all?
That is correct. They're Airport revenue bonds paid off by the airlines and revenue at the Airport.
What is the City's 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, involvement with the bonds?
The City sells these 4 Airport revenue bonds, which are guaranteed by the 5 airlines.
I do not believe there is a guarantee by the City, just by the airlines.
So if there is a blunder and it turns out to have been largely a waste or substantially a waste, the loss would be the airlines' and not the City's?
That is correct, although I don't believe it will turn out to be a waste.
One other question. Miss Kaplan, what happened to the budget? For example, is there -- the Planning Commission prepares a draft of the budget, is that what happens?
The Planning Commission -- you know, there's a staff as well as the 27 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Commission. And the staff meets with every department that makes a Capital Budget request, usually during the end of November, the beginning of December. We meet with your commission typically about three times on the subject of the Capital Budget, and these are public meetings the first meeting usually happens in the -- it's a -- at a regular Planning Commission meeting, as part of the agenda, we would as soon, as we get the budget request in November, give the Commission a copy of all the projects as requested, without any changes having been made by the staff, and we would review every project with the Commission at a public meeting.
That was done this year. Then we met with every department that made a budget request for at least an hour, and we reviewed their request to understand what they would do with the money if they -- if it were appropriated, how this year's projects related to their ongoing activities, what their goals were 28 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, for over the six years of the program in as much as they're able to project that. And then after that, we would typically, in December, meet with -- at the Planning Commission meeting usually toward mid to late December and review with the Commission the draft that the staff would have prepared, which is sort of our first crack at the budget, and discuss that with the Commission at a public meeting. We held up doing that this year because of the, you know, impending change of administration, feeling that a new mayor might want to take a look at that program. And so we didn't -- we didn't discuss it publicly with the Commission in December, and we did not circulate it to all the City departments for comment, which we also did with the first draft. When we found out that we were going to have -- that the budget address initially was proposed as early as January 20th, we scheduled the Planning Commission meeting for a week before that, which was January 13th, and, you know, we're still hoping to have an opportunity to review that with the Mayor. 29 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 We did get the word to -- that the 3 Commission -- that the budget message was delayed 4 till the 25th and that we should not vote on the 5 program on the 13th. But we did, on the 13th, review the whole program with the Commission 'cause it had not yet seen any first draft as they were used to having seen a first -- would have been used to seeing a first draft in December. So that's what we did on the 13th, and that was a program that had $167 million in it. We -- in between the 13th and the 18th, when the Commission did vote on the program, the Mayor did have an opportunity to review the program and indicated to the staff that he was concerned about the debt limit and wanted to be conservative and wanted to remove $27 million and defer it to the second year. So that -- and that was the budget that the Commission voted on.
The first meeting where the Commission discussed the budget. At that 30 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, point what they did was review all of the requests from all of the departments as received, without any changes.
No, there was no draft until we met with all the departments, which was -- the staff did produce a draft by mid-December, but we did not circulate it either to other departments or to the Commission until a -- until the first week in January.
The first time it was something that you could have call a draft based upon your experience in the Planning Commission, how large was that budget? What did the total of all the items --
Now, at that time, did it include basically the same items that later appeared, with the $27 million missing? Were they basically the same items? Was, for example, the Veterans Stadium in this year's budget for $40 million?
No, the Veterans Stadium was not in the budget until January. I'm sorry, the -- the budget that we had in December did not have Veterans Stadium, so it was $127 million. That was the first draft, and that was not circulated to anybody, except the Finance Department.
The first budget -- the one that you're considering a draft, the 167 million, that did include the Veterans Stadium money.
Now, when did the Veterans Stadium first appear in the budget?
All right, thank you. I'm sure there will be other questions about the $40 stadium, but that's all I have at this time on that.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Ms. Kaplan, in terms of the Defense Conversion Fund, there are three items in the Capital Budget. How much federal monies are in that fund, and what is the process of that -- the expenditures that will take place from that fund? How will they take place?
I think it's probably better to have Bill Hankowsky talk about that, 33 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, from PIDC. He's here, and can give you a detailed breakdown about the federal money and the City money and what we use the federal money for as opposed to why we need additional City dollars. (Bill Hankowsky comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Bill 8 Hankowsky, President of the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. Councilman Ortiz, we pursue various types of funding for Defense Conversion. There are certain funds available at the federal level. You're correct in asking that question. Basically they are in two places within the federal government. One is the Department of Defense, in an office known as "the Office of Economic Adjustment." That office provides planning grants to help communities plan for the conversion of a former military installation into some other use. Those grants are only permitted over -- basically they're staged over a five-year period from the point when the closure is announced. We are now in a cycle on our closed facilities -- being the Navy hospital, the Navy 34 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Yard and Base, and what most of us call "the Old Quarter Masters," the Defense Personnel Supply Center. We're at the end of that cycle. So we --
I'd be happy to get you that. I don't know it off the top of my. They basically start you kind of low and let you build it up, then they step you down. So we're at a point now where those dollars, which we use, for example, to do studies and environmental analysis and that kind of, you know, traffic study, planning of that caliber. And that's all you can use it for is planning; you can't use it physically, you can't fix a building with that money. And basically, that money is significantly lower than it had been in previous years. The second source available at the federal level --
Excuse me. Do you have a detailed paper and report in how that money was spent?
Sure, yep. And it's -- we have it because it's annually audited. You know, we're required annually to provide an audit to the federal government.
And do you have the breakdown of federal and City monies that were expended along that line?
Yeah, we can do that. The second pot that's available at the federal level is from the Federal Economic Development Administration, and they receive an allocation from Congress, so they have a pot that's set aside for Defense Conversion. So communities that have closed facilities can apply to that pot for projects 36 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, specific to -- and in that case, it is usable for physical work, to make something happen. We have aggressively applied -- and, again, I could provide you with a list of EDA grants and --
I'll tell you, I want to know how much money has come into the City from the federal government.
The contracts planning, design, construction, down the line, legal, whatever.
I would like to find out for the record once again what has been the minority participation.
And that minority 37 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, participation broken down --
Mm-hmm. I'd be pleased to that. We have that information, sure.
But you don't know off the top of your head right now how much money is coming in from the federal government?
I could try to do it but then I'll probably find out I mis --
But, I mean, we have a $5 million EDA grant this year, and in fact, it's a match in the capital -- there's match requirements for the EDA money. So that is one place why we do access the Capital Budget, to do the match requirement, to go get those dollars. 38 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, But I'd be happy to provide you all that data, we have it all.
Thank you. 5 Now, Miss Kaplan, I want to follow up on a question the President gave you in terms of PHA, and why is City money from our budget going towards PHA for their capital construction when, during the last few years, if the reports that I read in the newspapers are correct, between the Administration of Cisneros (ph) and Cuomo, we have gotten huge amounts of the money for the repairs, the maintenance, and the new building of PHA housing.
But those grants don't pay for the infrastructure costs. So, for example, when we tore down the towers at Raymond Rosen and then we took the land that was the large plot of land where the towers had been and the desire was to put regular city streets through there so that that wasn't kind of an island and it became a part of the regular city street pattern, we had to pay for those streets with City dollars. That wasn't a cost that was eligible from PHA -- from the grant that PHA got. 39 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
So our money is not going towards their capital budget?
Our money's not going to 5 the housing; it's going to infrastructure and what we call "site improvements" -- curbs, sidewalks, trees, lights. A lot of the big --
Well, when they build new housing in those sites, don't they have to build sidewalks?
The money doesn't cover all of those costs, so we have been using City capital dollars to supplement those costs that are eligible and to pay for those things that are not eligible at all, like brand-new city streets.
Well, what is the process, what do they do? Do they write a request or do they submit a proposal to the City?
They submit that request through the Office of Housing, through John Kromer's office. John Kromer's office is one of the City departments that typically makes a request for capital funds, and they include a request from the Housing Authority -- they include 40 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, the Housing Authority's needs in their requests to us. They're -- we by no means fund everything they ask for, just as we don't fund a lot of things that the other departments ask for, but they ask us for many times the amount of money that we're able to provide in the Capital Program.
So that becomes part of the CDBG budget that we revise every year?
It's the City support for the Community Development Program, but it is our dollars that we're using to supplement the federal dollars, either the regular CDBG Grant dollars or the Housing Authority grant, or sometimes we have Community Development Corporations that get their own funding through one program or another, but that program covers the cost of rehabilitation of housing or new housing but doesn't pay for site improvement, and we have come along and paid for those site improvements as well.
SEPTA seems to be having a lot of problems with its infrastructure. What is your proposal -- and they paid out $8 million in legal penalties in terms of the 41 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, lawsuit that they had with the children and so on. Is that money -- where's that money coming from? And is the City going to have to carry the cost of that penalty, or are we going to deduct -- are we going to deduct from the SEPTA budget because of their negligence?
I -- I -- I can't answer that question. I can tell you that it's not included in the Capital Program, but I can't tell you, you know, about, you know, how that money would be paid, you know, out of their Operating Budget. We do have people here from SEPTA. Perhaps they can answer that question.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Since we're close 42 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, to dealing with public housing, I had one quick question about public housing, on the site improvements, and I don't know if you can answer this or not. It's my understanding that there was a request for some infrastructure dollars for Richard Allen, and I don't see it in the budget. Can you tell me why it was not a part of that process?
Because we -- we didn't have enough money to cover everything that the Housing Authority wanted, and these were their highest priorities.
Now, it is possible, and one of the things that happens with the Office of Housing and with the Housing Authority is that a lot of these projects are complicated, they take a long time, as I know you are aware 'cause you've been involved in a number of them. So sometimes a project does not move as quickly to construction or as quickly to completion as, I think, a lot of us would have anticipated. 43 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, So very often, you know, the money in this line item, if something else is ready to go and is complete and needs, you know, new curbs, sidewalks, and trees, there is old funding that could be used -- you know there's money from past years in this line item that could be used for that purpose.
So what has been happening with this line item is, we are never able to budget anywhere near the amount that's requested. But we've also, because the pace of this has been slow, we've never been in a position where we really needed the site improvement dollars for a project and we weren't able to draw on it from existing funding. And from what I understand now, the Schuykill Falls development has been slowed down to some degree, so it may be possible that those dollars could be reallocated if, say, Richard Allen moves more quickly and requires those site improvements on an earlier schedule.
So is it possible that the call that I got from the Housing 44 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Authority that asked for the money to be put in the budget --
Yeah, well, they -- yeah, 5 I mean, but -- yeah, you know, I mean it was a question of how much money we could provide to the Housing Authority.
All right, all right. No, I was wondering 'cause I got a call, and I'm saying, if it's the Housing Authority's priorities, why would they be calling me about Richard Allen of they set the parameters?
That's what I was trying to get you to say, okay. Actually, I had another question, and it takes me back a couple of years. Around four years ago, we had a swimming pool, it was the former Wright swimming pool that had closed down around ten years ago, and there was finally a decision to actually build a new pool in its 45 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, place. And the problem was that the pool ultimately ended up costing about a million dollars, and at that time, I think the Council District's allocation was a million dollars, so we had to forego any restorations of any of our other facilities in the district. Right now, it's my understanding, in talking to the former Commissioner of Recreation, that we may want to think about, on the 26th and Master site, which is called "Athletic Center," possibly replacing that center totally or partially. And on the initial analysis of that replacement, it came back around 2.1. My concern is that if we make that decision to do that, then I will be looking at two, maybe more, years of no 17 money going to any other part of the District. What is the process, as it relates to the Planning Commission, in the Administration when we had these large-scale projects dollar-wise that triggers what we call among our colleagues as the "big-ticket items" that get funded by you guys, as opposed to our money? I mean, how does that happen?
Well, I -- we usually get 46 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, a request from the Recreation Department for those projects over and above what the Councilmatic allocation typically is. We also have had the -- there also has -- it has happened in the past where we've also gotten some state money here and there for some of those major projects. We did get some state money, I believe, for the facility in Germantown -- I can't remember the name of it -- which was an old facility that really had to be rebuilt. And we also got money for the Simon Recreation Center, I know, from the State. So I think it would be good to, you know, talk to the Recreation Department about that. They may be able to, you know, with some lead time, identify, you know, you know, be able to apply for some state money to supplement what we normally would provide in the Capital Program. But we do get requests from the Recreation Department as part of the normal budgeting progress for special projects, large projects over and above the typical Council allocation.
Well, what -- and I hear what you're saying, but my concern was that 47 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, there was actually a schedule associated with that recommendation as to what the replacement would cost, and they gave me that two-and-a-half-year schedule, and that's the Recreation Department. So what you're telling me is that they could have opted to just go to the Administration or go to some other route to fund such a big-ticket item?
They -- they might have suggested it to us in their budget request; they didn't do that. And that's not to say that they could not do that in the future, but they did not do it this year.
Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Ms. Kaplan, Ms. Suber, Mr. Dubow, and I'm sorry, I didn't get your name.
Ms. Kaplan, I'd like to go back to an issue that was raised a little while ago with regard to the Veterans Stadium dollars. Was your testimony earlier that this became an item for the Planning Commission or the staff sometime in early 2000? Is that --
We -- we got that request through the Budget Office, through the Finance Department.
I thought -- I thought I recalled your testimony earlier being that your staff has discussions with the individual departments or agencies with regard to their requests. Is that what you testified to earlier?
Okay. So is this a request of the Finance Office or was this a 49 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, request of the Recreation Department?
We did not get this from 4 the Recreation Department; we got it from the 5 Budget Office of the Finance Department.
Okay. And that's Mr. Dubow, right? Mr. Dubow, do you -- is it the normal practice that the Budget Office makes requests to the Planning Commission for any and all projects or special projects?
It's typical that during the budget process, we'll make some requests of the Planning Commission.
The request was based on the conceptual agreement reached between the Administration and the Eagles.
Okay. Now, when the departments or agencies come either to the Planning Commission or, as Mr. Dubow said, in some cases, they go to the Finance Office, I'm assuming that they come with some documents or a piece of paper or a justification where they explain -- I 50 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, thought, Miss Kaplan your, testimony earlier was, you ask them what their goals are for that particular budget year or for the program six years; is that correct? Did you testify to that earlier?
When you meet with the departments. Is it a different process when you meet with the Budget Office?
Typically, the kinds of requests get from the Budget Office are requests that we kind of understand are coming to us from the Mayor. I mean, whether that's said directly or we just -- it's not even necessary to say it directly, and that's not a new practice. I think that, you know, has been the case in the past.
Okay. Now, in the current FY '00 Budget, and the FY '00 to '05 Program, my reading of the document indicates that for Veterans Stadium, we passed a Capital Program that included $1 million for FY '01; is that correct?
In last year's budget or 51 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, in the current year's budget, that's what was contemplated for the second year of the program, which is the budget year we're now considering, yes.
So you anticipated last year when we did this budget, you estimated funding a million dollars worth of renovations in FY '01 for Veterans Stadium?
Okay. So did it surprise you at all that that number had gone up by $39 million this year?
Um, you know, I. . . what could I say? I don't -- "surprised" is probably not the right word. I guess, you know, we certainly knew. We read the newspapers, we follow what goes on in Council and in public discussions that there's been discussion about new stadiums and about the need to, you know, repair the existing facility if we did not proceed to build, you know, something new. So I think we understood that this was 52 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, beyond the kind of repairs that we were talking about in the normal course of business.
Well, when the 5 departments come in, and they come in not only for the upcoming year's budget, but they -- again, I thought your testimony was that they also talk about their program goals for the next six years. For the FY 2000 Budget, did anyone give any indication to you from -- I'm assuming at that time you were talking to the Recreation Department. Did anyone give a hint, a wink, a nod that even though maybe we're only asking for a million for the '01 year, there might be actually be $40 million worth of renovations needed at Veterans Stadium or upwards of $80 million?
No, no one talked about anything of that magnitude, but I don't think the Recreation -- in all fairness to the Recreation Department, they were not a part of the stadium discussion.
I understand that, and I'm not charging them with anything.
I'm just saying that they came in for the '00 Budget, told you what their goals were, and I'm just asking, did anybody give any indication that there might be that level of needed repair out of the facility?
Okay. Now, Veterans Stadium, as I understand it, opened in April of '71; is that right?
It's April 10, 1971. Now, it's my understanding that the cost of the stadium was $50 million. Do you have any sense of how much money the City has appropriated to Veterans Stadium over the past 19 or so years? 20
I know how much we did -- we appropriated for the last, you know, for the years of the Rendell Administration for the past eight years. I don't know prior to that.
What was that number? 54 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
I don't have a breakout, but just from my own memory, I know we put in a new field, you know, new Astroturf, we replaced all the seats. There was a lot of work done. I remember showing Council those slides because there was a lot of (unintelligible) of the concrete, all those steps that -- a lot of work like that was replaced.
Money's been appropriated to take care of those items?
That was -- all the work was done. There was the purchase of something called "Fanovision," which was kind of a high-tech, you know, display system.
A video display system, that was put in. And so those are some of the kind of the things that I -- those are some of the major 55 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, expenses.
Right. Is it 4 correct that all of the seats were replaced 5 sometime in 1997?
I don't -- I know it was within the last five years. I think they did it -- they didn't do it all at once; they did it, you know, a section at a time, but I'm pretty sure it was within the last five years.
It may have even been somewhere with the past two and a half years that all the seats been placed.
If you know the date better than I -- I know it was very recently.
And I think it's my recollection that the Astroturf was completely overhauled in anticipation of the All-Star game?
I think, yeah, before the All-Star game. Greg Grillone is here, and he can answer some of those questions in more detail for you. 56 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
You're correct, the 5 Astroturf was replaced before the 1995 season, in anticipation of the All-Star game, which was in 1996, but it also had pretty much used, you know, gone through its useful life as well. So in addition to the normal replacement cycle, we were also looking towards the All-Star game the following year.
Well, the current state of the art is that most of the fields are now warranted for eight years. So our experience has been anywhere between six and nine years, you would replace it. Some fields are as old as nine or ten years, some of them are only five, six years.
Okay. What are some of the other major renovations that have been 57 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, done to Veterans Stadium over the past ten years or so?
As Miss Kaplan 5 mentioned, we did have a major concrete restoration and waterproofing project. We replaced all the seats throughout the stadium, we replaced the sound system. We did some fire safety code improvement, such as a fire alarm system. We did repurchase the Fanovision board, which was the video board, we put new scoreboards in. We did lighting improvements, electrical upgrades, improvements to the concourses. So it was quite extensive in terms of what we did.
It's about $65 million worth of work over the past eight years; is that correct?
Okay. Now, that $65 million represents about 30 percent of the total recreation Capital Budget over that same 58 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, eight-year period. How many recreation facilities do we have?
Okay. So we have 160 facilities, Veterans Stadium is one of them, so one building out of the 100-and -- it's actually more, isn't it?
Eric Iffrig is here if you have some questions on the play facilities, if --
We don't need to get into that level of detail, thank you.
The other item I saw in past some capital budgets was waterproofing. Has there been a waterproofing project at Veterans Stadium at anytime recently?
Are we going to do some 59 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, anytime soon?
Yeah. That was part of 5 -- that was one of the major projects that we first embarked upon in the early '90s. It was waterproofing in conjunction with the restoration of the concrete surfaces.
Would that have been out of the FY '93 or '94 dollars, do you think?
Part of it was, yeah. I think some of it was either out of FY '92 as well.
Okay. So in the past eight years, the Recreation Department has had a total $207 million in capital funding, 30.9 percent of which has gone into Veterans Stadium. In FY '92, the department had $54 million of capital funding and 31.5 million of it went into Veterans Stadium, 58 percent of the Recreation Department in FY '93 went into Veterans Stadium. Based on what you've shared with us today, what other repairs are needed?
(No verbal response.) 60 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
In connection with the conceptual agreement the City of Philadelphia has reached with the Eagles and the Phillies, the Eagles and the Phillies take the position that at least $80 million worth of capital improvements are needed at Vets Stadium. The conceptual agreement also requires that the City of Philadelphia agree to those repairs.
There are a list of repairs, which I don't have that information with me, that were originally circulated to us from the Eagles and the Phillies. We have not introduced legislation in connection with the conceptual agreement today. 61 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Legislation -- in the event we proceed with the conceptual agreement, legislation would be introduced to City Council, which would amend the Vets Stadium lease and would have as an attachment the specified improvements, because there would have been agreement and we could get into the details. So in terms of the improvements, the specific improvements that would be covered, the 40 million in one year and the 40 million in the subsequent year, those are still being discussed and reviewed. So we don't have the universe today. And --
Well, I understand that, but hold on for one second. I mean, we're in a Capital Budget and Program, and there is an item for $40 million in the '01 budget and $40 million in the '02 program, and virtually every other item in this budget has some detail as to what that project is about. The gentleman has run off a list of a wide variety of very large projects, and I am assuming that there are some smaller ones that have been done that he has not mentioned. 62 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, What I am trying to figure out is, based on the litany of things that he says that we have done, just in the past eight years, notwithstanding anything that we have done in the past -- we've put $85 million since 1978 in Veterans Stadium -- I'm just trying to figure out what is left to do to the place versus the other discussion, which is naturally a stadium discussion, which I'm assuming that we'll have at some time some point in time. So if we've got 65 going in just in the last eight years, major renovations -- and the teams can make their contention, they have a right to make whatever contention they want to make -- I'm just trying to figure out what is left to do to the place that ranks in the neighborhood of a minimum of 40, upwards of $80 million in undisclosed needed renovations. I'm just trying to see what the list is, because everyone else has to justify their ability to get into this budget. If I ask for a recreation center, I know that someone wants to know how many swings, how many slides, how many mats, and everything else that goes with it or it doesn't get in the budget. 63 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 So, I mean, the gentleman knows his 3 facility out there, I'm sure, and I'd just like 4 him to tell me what $40 million worth of work is 5 needed at the place.
Councilman Nutter, I cannot give you the details today, but you will have the details before you vote on that legislation and before you vote on the Capital Budget. And the way that, you know, there are certain projects where Council has requested additional information, we will provide that information, and you will have that information, we'll make sure that you have the information.
All right. Could you also provide us any reports or studies that have been done on the physical or structural condition of Veterans Stadium. It's my understanding that there is at least one report that floating around somewhere that gives some detail about the what condition of the place is that already exists, notwithstanding whatever the teams have said or not said. I would certainly like to receive a copy of that report. If you could pass it to the Chair, I would greatly 64 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, appreciate that.
We'd be happy to 4 provide that, and as you have acknowledged, there 5 are City reports and there are reports that have been prepared by the teams.
Now, how will the Administration spend $40 million to $80 million during the 10-month period between November 3, 2000 and August 3, 2001 when, during seven of those ten months, one of the teams is playing at Veterans Stadium?
In the event that the Administration proceeds with the conceptual agreement we've reached with the Eagles and the Phillies and we submit the legislation for consideration by City Council, part of what we will discuss with City Council will be the timetable for the renovations and the repairs. So you will have the detail, you will the timetable, you will understand all of the triggering events, the construction schedule. But as of this moment, we have not introduced the legislation because we are still in negotiation, so I am not able to answer that 65 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, question for you now, but you will have all of that information.
Okay, I appreciate 5 that response. I mean, you understand that that question is driven by the documents that we received some time ago which indicate that the City will encumber these dollars during that ten-month period of time, with renovations expected to be completed by August 3rd or 1st. Now in the current 2000 Capital Budget and Program, it shows that there is money that was appropriated in FY '94 that has not been spent at Veterans Stadium. So, again, I'm trying to understand how, between November of 2000 and August of '03, when the Eagles are playing at Veterans Stadium in November and December and the Phillies start in April, and the worst of the winter is January, February, and March, how do you spend $80 million in ten months, when both teams are playing for seven of those months. It seems like an incredible timetable.
Councilman Nutter, that is a fair question. And as I said previously, we will answer that. If we proceed -- 66 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, if we proceed -- with the conceptual agreement and we --
And we complete the negotiations, we'll introduce the legislation, we'll have public hearings, and all of that will occur before you vote on the Capital Budget.
All right. Last question, Madam Chair, and you've been most accommodating. Either for Miss Kaplan or the Chief of Staff or the Budget Director, if the $40 million stays in the proposed Capital Budget and subsequently a ballot question, I'm assuming now, would potentially be approved in November as opposed to April, and if the question goes on the ballot at $157 million and subsequently magic happens and peace breaks out and there is, in fact, a stadium deal and the City has borrowed $157 million already, and then we don't need the 40 for renovations to Veterans Stadium, what happens to the $40 million, how is it used or how can it be used or how can it be reprogrammed since 67 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, it was in the budget for a particular item?
We would have the 4 authorization, but we probably wouldn't have 5 borrowed by then. So we actually would not have the money.
Well, what are you saying, you're not going to put a ballot question on in November?
No, we are, to get authorization. Without authorization, we can't spend any of the money. But getting authorization and actually needing to borrow are two different things. I think the borrowing would come later down the line.
The borrowing would come subsequent to the voter approval?
I mean, we'll know by 68 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, November.
-- just because -- 4 just because we have the authorization for 5 157 million and subsequent to that it's found out that we don't need 40 for Veterans Stadium, you're saying that you'd actually go to the market for some dollar amount less than 157 because you don't need 40 of it.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Continuing on the line of the Veterans Stadium discussion, the Chief of Staff testified that -- I believe it was the Chief of Staff who testified that there was a concern and there is an ongoing concern about the constitutional debt limit as it relates to the main Capital Budget for the City of Philadelphia and that the number is shrinking on our ability to borrow. 69 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Based on that statement, what is the rationale for placing $40 million for 2001 and $40 million for 2002 in the main Capital Budget when there are potentially other vehicles for that eventuality if we, under worst-case scenario, don't build stadiums and need to renovate the Vet? For example, it is my understanding that PICA-eligible dollars -- and there are still dollars to be borrowed through PICA -- are required to have an emergency nature to that borrowing and to the repairs that need to be done. Considering some of the, I guess, more infamous incidents at the Vet, being, I guess, the Army-Navy game, when the four cadets fell through the railing, would not that 40 million potentially be a PICA-eligible borrowing based on emergency repairs to a facility? And are there not other venues or other vehicles, such as PAID or PIDC, with which to utilize those borrowing abilities to borrow 40 million in the event we don't do stadiums and have to repair the Vet?
Councilman Kenney, you've asked an excellent question. 70 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, First of all, as the Budget Director pointed out, simply because we obtain the authorization, it doesn't mean that, number one, we borrow the money; and, number two, it does not preclude us from relying on alternative sources of funding. The conceptual agreement was reached, and as the Mayor has stated publicly, part of the rationale for reaching the conceptual agreement was to provide assurances to the Eagles to encourage them to start construction again to the practice facility. In order to take the worst-case scenario, which would be spending capital funds to renovate Vets Stadium in the event there is no new stadium, we looked at our debt capacity, which is why there is no proposal for the entire 80 million in one year, but spanning it out over two fiscal years to deal with the construction schedule pressures that the teams advised us of. It does not mean, and it was always contemplated, that simply because you have the authorization, if there were alternative ways that we could fund those renovations, we would explore them. 71 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 We anticipate that when we introduce 3 legislation authorizing the vehicle rental tax, 4 that a portion of those proceeds could be used to 5 buy back the practice facility. But to the extent that there are additional proceeds, they would go towards the Vets Stadium repairs, so we would anticipate needing less than 40 million out of capital funds. We have been communicating with PICA, simply because there are PICA dollars, and some of them are already committed to other projects. We are trying to figure out how much is available. And we were concerned about other kinds of potential emergencies, like a significant snow removal effort where we may need to use emergency funds. So we're still exploring the availability of PICA funds. It is possible that available PICA funds could be used for voting machines. We also recognize that it is possible for us to use some of our authorities like PAID, the RDA, PMA, but that's a broader question that we have to explore, not simply in connection with Vets Stadium but because we've got the debt capacity problem, so we would have to figure out 72 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 how, just from a general policy standpoint, we're 3 going to take advantage of that capacity. 4 So it is quite possible that while we 5 get the authorization to expend the 40 million that we would construct a mechanism where we would not have to use our capital dollars so that we could free up that capacity for other projects.
What was the amount of money on -- Councilman Nutter was on a line of questioning about the amount of money that was spent at Veterans Stadium, I think, over the past eight or ten years in maintenance and repairs and projects? I think it was testified to, there was a number.
Based on that, what makes us think that there would be $40 million or $80 million in two years' worth of needs? Considering that it took us 8 years to spend $65 million, could we in reality even spend $40 million a year over the next years? Despite 73 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, what we might argue about what's needed and what isn't needed, just the practical nature of design, bidding, and all the other elements that go into spending $80 million in 2 years, could we even do it?
Well, we appreciate all of that. But let me try to answer your several questions. First of all, in terms of the timetable, the conceptual agreement contemplates that we would have to comply with, in order to meet any schedule, when we finally agree on a schedule, that we would have to satisfy applicable legal requirements, and that includes the procurement process and any potential delays that may result. It would also, from the City's perspective, include whatever time delays are occasioned because we have to get voter authorization if we decide we want to spend the capital dollars. If there are alternative sources of funding, we may not have the same time constrictions. But, again, in terms of some of the details with regard to the specific improvements, 74 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, the timetable itself, all of those are still, as we speak, in discussion. I will say to you, as I said to Councilman Nutter, there is a difference of position between the City, the Eagles, and the Phillies as to the scope of repairs. I will say publicly, because the teams have said publicly, that from their perspective, when you look at other stadiums across the country and Vets Stadium, they believe that the repairs -- the necessary repairs would be in the neighborhood of $150 million. So clearly, there's a dispute and a difference of opinion, which is why the conceptual agreement contemplates that we all have to agree on what repairs would be made to Vets Stadium. It's also important to point out that when you look at the Capital Program and the amount of money that's gone into Vets Stadium, there was an agreement -- it is my understanding there was an agreement between the Administration and the teams to forego capital improvements in the last couple of years at Veterans Stadium in anticipation of doing new stadiums. And so from that standpoint, we can't argue that at least some 75 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 repairs are necessary and we felt comfortable with 3 the $80 million figure based on the information we 4 have. 5
I'm sure you can understand kind of the shock value of an $80 million number over two years, considering the fact that, I think, in the past, we've been at around a $5 million number or so. And I guess, in retrospect, coupled with the $27 million in deferments and/or cuts to the other neighborhood projects that we've discussed earlier in the beginning of this hearing, how somewhat of a controversy could evolve. In the event -- I mean, in retrospect, I guess, if the 40 million or 80 million was never in the main Capital Budget and even $10 million of those cuts were made in neighborhood projects, we might have not had the controversy we have now, especially considering all of the vehicles available to do whatever negotiated repairs to the Vet needed to be done in a worst-case scenario.
I appreciate your perspective, Councilman Kenney. As you know, it has been the Administration's that there were no 76 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, cuts. Be that as it may, this really was not a choice between neighborhood programs and Vets Stadium. Mayor Street looked at this from the standpoint of, given the information that we have, the fact that we've deferred improvements to Vets Stadium, the fact that by the time we would get to a point where we're doing no new stadiums, we would recognize that there would have to be renovations made to that stadium in order to induce both of those teams to continue to play there until 2011. And there clearly is at this point in time a disagreement as to the scope of those improvements. It is our facility, we have deferred improvements. So we would have to, one way or the other, recognize that we need to make improvements to Vets Stadium.
I guess the final comment here is that the recognition of the worst-case scenario and the ultimate need for improvements and negotiations between the team and the City as to what those improvements are could have been guaranteed or could have been made clear 77 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, to those teams that we could have done it outside of the scope of the General Capital Budget, and that's, I guess, my only comment. If all those vehicles are available -- PICA, PAID, Municipal Authority -- if all of those opportunities are available, we could have structured an understanding with those teams that in the event we get to the worst-case scenario, we have these vehicles to guarantee this 80 million or less of repairs that we all think that we need to do.
Councilman Kenney, I answered that previously, and I think the important point was that given the disappointment that everyone experienced in December that there was no legislation introduced on new stadiums, in terms of assurances, it was important to the Eagles that they saw something concrete to demonstrate the City's commitment. And the Administration believed, and continues to believe, that by seeking authorization, it does not necessarily mean that we would ultimately end up borrowing and using the capital dollars and that we certainly would have a 78 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, better opportunity, once everything was negotiated with the improvements, to explore a variety of different possible funding sources. And, again, we are not precluded from doing that simply because we're seeking the authorization.
But based on that particular position, you could then argue cogently that the $27 million, and what I will stipulate to you as deferrals, could have also been included in the original Capital Budget and then not spent in the outgoing years. So, I mean, if we're talking about $80 million over 2 years that we don't want to spend and we're probably not going to spend, what was the difference between that 80 million and the $27 million that were deferred that we would perhaps spend or perhaps not spend? I mean, to me, if I'm going to accept that comment as accurate, then I have to then say, Well, why is the $27 million in deferrals any different from the $80 million in Vets Stadium money that we may or may not spend? And we could have avoided the controversy that went on over the last couple days. That's -- I mean, you don't need to 79 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, comment. It's just my final comment. Thank you. Councilwoman, I'm sorry.
Yes. If I may -- Thank you, Madam President -- change the line of questioning to another form of entertainment, the fine arts. As the new appointed Chair of --
-- Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs, I have a particular interest in what's happening in the fine arts community. And in the Capital Budget information, $500,000 has been -- and this question may be more appropriate for Miss Kaplan. $500,000 have been designated for Avenue of the Arts North. However, there are no dollars allocated for the outgoing years. And recognizing and really acknowledging that there are vast differences between the Avenue of the Arts North and the 80 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Avenue of the Arts South, describe what that $500,000 will buy in terms of streetscape improvements.
This actually -- we have money from previous years that you cannot see here because we're only showing what we're proposing going forward, but I can get you the information about what was appropriated for this project previously. This is for streetscape improvements for Avenue of the Arts North, and obviously this is like a three-mile stretch of North Broad Street so $500,000 is not going to go very far. But we have several million dollars. I think it's at least $4 million -- and I can get you the specific information -- that we have kind of accumulated from previous appropriations and from some state money that is intended for site improvements for Avenue of the Arts North, and this $500,000 will add to that. The plan -- there is a design which has been prepared through consultants to the Streets Department, and the goal is to pick some key intersections -- I think there are four or five 81 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, key intersections that will be totally renovated and really enhanced. It's not just to fix up what's there; it's really to totally improve and enhance and upgrade what's there. And there's also a prototypical design for a typical block, so as different arts venues get developed -- say, Freedom Theater -- once the construction is completed, there is a prototypical design such that we can go back in and improve the streetscape for that block where there's a new arts facility. We probably will need to appropriate more money in the out-years. We did not get a request for that, but I think because nobody has really made an estimate of what the additional funding is, this project has not yet gone out to bid for the first phase, but I anticipate that it will go out to bid and begin construction in this construction season, this spring or early summer, and then we will have a better idea of the true costs of some these improvements, so we can add to this in next year's budget and some of the out-years. But that's -- there really is a plan to 82 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 do this, and that's the kind of strategy for how 3 we would propose to spend that money. 4
I appreciate the 5 follow-up information. From your memory, do you anticipate any uniformity between those two worlds on the opposite sides of Market Street in terms of the lighting?
There's a different design than, you know, South, but we can -- we can arrange for you to have kind of a presentation of that design at your convenience so that you get a sense of what to expect.
Sure, and I would do that in coordination with the representative from that district, Councilman Darrell Clarke.
He is on the committee, so he's been involved and we can bring you up to date.
A follow-up question. My homework tells me that the last City Plan was done in 1988. Twelve years later, the City is remarkably different in terms of population shifts and projects that have been completed and projects that are underway. 83 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Is it time to revisit that plan or revisit --
That was a plan just for 5 Center City; that was not a citywide plan.
The one in 1988 is just a Center City Plan; it is not a citywide plan. We have not done a citywide plan since 1960 --
-- in the City. And that's for several reasons. One, when the plan was done in 1960, it took quite a few years to complete a plan for the whole city. And even then, with all of the time and money that went into it, it was at such a general level that it wasn't, you know, it did not give guidance to particular neighborhood groups about what was going to happen or what needed to occur in their neighborhoods. So both because we do not have the staff resources to do it as well as the fact that it's not terribly useful to do a whole plan for the City all at one time, we have done plans for different areas of the City at, you know, as 84 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, needed and at different times. And then we have done citywide plans for different policy issues, such as industrial land, retail, vacant land, that kind of thing.
Might not the new information we'll be receiving from the census be compelling enough to warrant or merit a citywide plan? I'm asking, I don't know.
Well, that information is useful, but in and of itself, it would not be enough, you know, to develop a citywide plan. That would take a much more intensive effort. We are thinking of updating the Center City Plan. We do not really feel that a whole new plan is necessary. Certain things have happened the way they were intended to happen, other things have not. So we feel that certain aspects of the plan should be updated, as is true with other plans that we have done for other parts of the City.
Okay. And then, finally, we have not yet heard, at least put on the record, the testimony of Richard Dean, so should I reserve those questions for him, Madam 85 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, President? The testimony -- I have questions that are in response at the testimony of Richard Dean, the written testimony that we've received. Or shall I be permitted to ask those now?
Very well. Again, my homework tells me that the Capital Program Office oversees or carries out some capital projects for certain City departments but is not uniform across the board. What's the rationale for that? Is there a formula on who gets that kind of added technical service or what?
There is actually no set 86 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, formula for that. And the short answer would be, the Capital Program Office does the bricks-and-mortar work, we do facilities, and infrastructure work is still done by the Streets Department and the Water Department and the Airport.
What about the Recreation Department? Who does the capital improvements for the Rec Department?
Architecture and engineering staff that handles their own projects.
That's revealing. Does dialogue happen with the technical wizards -- 'cause that's what they are to me -- who participate in capital improvement projects for their department? Since you are the Capital Program Office, do you have dialogue, conversation, meetings with those professionals who are conducting capital improvement projects for their particular department? 87 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
So you would, 4 before the Recreation Department pursued anything, 5 the practice or protocol is that they would sit down with you first or during or --
That is correct. I review most of their -- actually all of their capital projects.
Very well, okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. My question is for Miss Kaplan. I would just like to revisit the issue of the site improvement at PHA facilities. You said that when it's a new facility I think we're speaking to, that we endeavor to take on the responsibility of the site improvements. Does that also include water and 88 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, sewer in addition to the sidewalk, curbs, and lighting?
No. The money that we 5 have been putting in I don't think is being used for water and sewer. You know, I would have to double-check that. It's my -- what we were focussing on was streets, the actual putting in of new streets, curbs, sidewalks, trees, lighting, occasionally a tot lot, that kind of thing. I can double-check, but to my knowledge, it hasn't been covering water and sewer.
I'll restrict the issue to streets, curbs, sidewalks, trees, and lighting, and not tot lots. Have we always taken on the responsibility of those site improvements?
Well, as I said, we've always -- I wouldn't say "always," but for 15, 20 years, we've supported OHCD housing developments and Community Development Corporation-sponsored developments with money from the Capital Program for site improvements. In the last few years, since the Housing Authority has been getting these grants under public housing modernization and the 89 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Hope VI Program, we have been supporting that effort with site improvements. And you can look back -- in fact, I looked myself while we were sitting here. In the current program in the Office of Housing, it's in the current program, , and we have line 84, and then we also have 84-A, B, and C, which is the way we show it. When we finally print the book and Council adopts the carryover ordinance, we show you the unspent money for that purpose and the year in which it was originally appropriated. And the project description, in fact, for the current year mentions the Hope VI Program. It says: "A major portion of this funding will support new infrastructure needed for the modernization of public housing developments to be undertaken under the Hope VI Program at Schuykill Falls, Martin Luther King, and Richard Allen."
I guess my 90 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, question is, and maybe you're not the one to answer this, but when PHA makes application for Hope VI grants and other grants, why isn't the infrastructure items included in that grant? And the reason I'm asking you this is, two, three years ago, just about the time I first got into Council, I was visited by a private developer who was interested in acquiring a piece of real estate in South Philadelphia, an unused, vacant piece of land, for the purpose of developing that land into a homeownership, for-sale housing development. And the one item that was the breaking point for him to even make a profit or not do the project was the infrastructure. If the City were willing at the time to put in the street system, the sewer, water and curbs and sidewalks -- not even counting lighting -- the project would have moved forward, we would have been able to sell houses at market rate and get the revenues, the real-estate taxes, etc., and take a vacant piece of land and put it to use. When did we stop doing that? And I'm just a little confused as to why, if PHA is 91 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 getting money from the federal government, the 3 state agencies, or wherever they're getting money 4 from, why don't they make that a part of the 5 budget request?
Well, some are -- it's my understanding -- and you can get more information directly from the Housing Authority, but some items are not considered eligible items under HUD funding. And in other cases, they have made a great big application to do everything they wanted to do and they only get a portion of those funds. So the way we make the funds go further, to try to accomplish, you know, major redo of some of these housing developments is by providing the City supplement in terms of the site improvements.
And streets and sidewalks and lighting are not a part of what their fund is --
As I said, in some cases, in conversations we've had with the Housing Authority, they say, This isn't an eligible item. In other cases -- and it depends on the program. In other cases, they just didn't get enough money 92 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, to pay for it and to be able to do what they needed to do with the housing development.
I guess that's 5 where I'm confused. If you're going to develop a -- put a development in, a new development that's going to have X-number of units and you know you're going to have sidewalks and lighting, how would they say that we didn't have enough money to do it in the first place? I mean, wouldn't you scale the project down so that you can afford to do it and include the streets and sidewalks and curbs?
Well, I don't have the answer to the question. I can only surmise that, you know, when you tear down these high-rise projects, you have, say, 600 units on a site, you tear it down, you can't get all those units obviously back on that site if you're putting them in at a low-rise scale. And then you have to go buy other lands or other houses to rehabilitate to make up the numbers. I'm assuming that the issue is that the Housing Authority does not want to reduce, you know, if they had 600 units, they do not want to wind up with only 250 units because 93 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, they have a waiting list of people for public housing.
Well, I may 5 disagree with you there. On site, when they take the high-rises down, they actually do look to reduce the density.
Yeah, and then, you know, what HUD sometimes thinks the cost of building a new unit is or rehabbing a new unit is not necessarily what we're able to produce a new unit for. You know, we could have a more, you know, specific discussion with the Housing Authority about that. I'm kind of answering for them.
Right, and I think 94 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, that I need to go to the Housing Authority for those answers. But could you tell me when we ceased providing sidewalks, curbs, and streets for private development?
Well, we never did it absolutely free; we always charged them a portion of the assessment and --
When did we stop charging them a portion of the assessment; do you know that?
Well, I think we still have the law on the books, but the problem is, is that we have so little money to provide to do that, that as a practical matter --
Well, and that's where I'm going with the first line of questioning.
-- the developer could be sitting here waiting for five years to get his half of the street for months.
And that's my line of questioning. If we're putting it into public housing development --
And I'm not suggesting it's the wrong thing to do, shouldn't that be part of the overall budget request so that we can get some private development going and give them some relief to get for-sale housing done in the City of Philadelphia and get the rentals and real-estate taxes and the other things out of there?
Well, a lot of -- I mean, with the development that we do have, the developers are paying for it themselves rather than --
Well, I know, but they're far and few in between because, you know, they're in the business of making money.
And I understand 96 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, --
And I'm not interrogating and I'm not being critical.
Well, I don't disagree with you, either. I think that's certainly an issue, you know, that ought to be up for discussion in terms of, you know, particularly we're concerned about population loss, we have a census coming up.
You know, the concern about, you know, what incentives we can try to provide in order to encourage the non-subsidized families to, you know, to be retained in the City. I think it's certainly an issue, and we've certainly done a lot of work looking at this and I think it's certainly an issue that bears more discussion. I think the policy of the City in 97 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, recent years has been such that we have not allocated dollars that way.
Right. And I 5 think that answers -- that's the answer I was looking for. It's basically a policy decision. In addition to some of the requirements from the Hope VI grants and other things. Thank you. No further questions, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I'm looking at the Capital Program and I see a number of dollars going to PIDC and to the Defense Conversion Fund and to the Defense Conversion Development Fund, and the dollars seem to be fairly substantial. And when I get to the Neighborhood Industrial Improvements Section, I see $100,000. Now, how many projects can you do with $100,000? 98 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, If our focus is going to be on neighborhood economic development, how does -- does some of that PIDC money go into the neighborhood, or is it only designed to focus on larger projects downtown?
I think I got the beginning of the question, Councilwoman. You referenced the number of 100,000. I just missed where that number was.
Oh, I'm sorry, you're looking at he the neighborhood districts.
I'm sorry. And that's the portion of your question I missed.
We only have $100,000 in that category, which, over the four years, five years, will total just $400,000. And 99 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, if you look at the other categories, such as the Defense Conversion Development Fund and the -- if you look at the Library Reuse Plan or all of the other areas in the Department of Commerce, those dollars seem to be quite substantial, but the neighborhood site dollars are fairly low. And if you only have $100,000 a year beginning in 2002, I mean, what do you plan to do? I mean, how can you do anything with those few dollars?
Right. I think I can answer half your question, but not both halves 'cause I'm not sure I'm totally conversant on the neighborhood commercial corridors. We don't implement that program.
Oh, the industrial district one? Oh, I'm sorry, 40, okay. Yeah, let me try to be responsive, Councilwoman. First, I think I can accurately say that none of the PIDC line items in the Capital Budget relate to anything in Center City. We -- meaning PIDC -- don't use City capital dollars in 100 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Center City. The various projects that we have here are throughout the City. So, for example, Meeting House Road, which is maybe the one you mentioned, deals specifically with extending a road, the result of which will be that we have transactions in our pipeline for two companies to develop brand-new buildings who will situate on that road once it's built, and I think one building's about 400 thousand square feet and another building's about 200,000 square feet. So these are kind of -- and they're blue-collar kind of jobs. I mean, that's the kind of projects that they're supporting. The Defense Conversion dollars relate to utilization at the Naval Business Center or at the Defense Personnel Supply Center. So if, for example, we had (unintelligible), this year we're going to be acquiring that 80-acre site in South Philadelphia. The Industrial Corridor Program really relates to an effort we have underway, and I would generally characterize it as a pilot program or as a demonstration program in the Port Richmond 101 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 section of Kensington, Philadelphia. We were 3 lucky enough about two years ago to receive from 4 the Pew Charitable Trusts a grant that we applied 5 for to do a program that we called "the Urban Industry Initiative," which is focused at small manufacturers, people that might have ten or fifteen employees, you know, a tool shop or a small fabrication operation, a sector that we have not been able to provide the kind of technical assistance in response to just because of lack of capacity. So we utilized the Pew money to put a staff in place and kind of intensely go after about 300 small manufacturers in that corridor of lower northwest Philadelphia, or some people might call them "the River Wards." And that program has had a fair amount of success. We were, in fact, in calendar 1999, able to get the Pew Charitable Trusts to give us another grant to continue the program. We were also able to obtain a grant from the First Union Foundation. So we have -- this represents site improvements in that corridor based on working with the industries in the neighborhood to kind of 102 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 improve -- in some cases, it's access or street 3 lighting to make those areas work better, but it's 4 a small component against a bigger budget that 5 doesn't jump into capital. But I would be happy to provide with you information about that program. So it's an overall effort that's actually, over the years, been kind of multi-million dollars but actually using -- I take some pride in this -- sort of using limited City resources and really significantly leveraging those with foundation and state and other resources.
Last year, we had a half million dollars in that same neighborhood industrial districts line, and the whole program was really inspired by the work that PIDC began with the Pew Grant. There's also in this year's program -- line 42, on -- $800,000 specifically for -- in the Port Richmond industrial area for parking lot development. This 103 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, is to answer requests from 50 businesses in that area that identified that as their main need to support continued industrial expansion in that area. And that also came out of the contact work that was done by PIDC.
So the items listed in this program are items that are attached to programs that are going forward.
Okay. Let's just go back. There may be an error and I'm -- and during this last day or so in trying to recapture it.
You had, beginning in the year 2002, a million dollars. And at the end of the time, it would be $4 million.
On the amended sheet that we received -- 104 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
No, versus nothing. It's now 5 million? I'm only checking. It could be a typo.
Yeah, I see what you're saying. It was deferred, we requested it would be -- and so I think we should have taken off the ending year if we slid it forward. I think you're right. Good catch.
Now, is the first year going to be $1,450,000? 105 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Right. And then it should -- at the end, it should add back to the number that was in here as the total.
Yeah, so like the last year should be 550 to get you back to 4. You're right.
The other thing -- and it's not my district, but I'll ask the same question. Same thing on , under the Byberry Reuse Plan.
I'm just checking to see if that was a typo. Again, added under that, it was in Year 2, now you move it back to Year 1.
And then you still have Year 2. So now from 2 million, it goes from 2.5 million.
I'm sorry, I -- 106 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
I apologize. At least 4 I haven't had the opportunity to see these red 5 sheets. I think you're right again. It should still add at the end of 2 million.
Yeah. I mean, we had like an hour to put back this into the computer.
And one other one 107 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, that I had brought to Councilman DiCicco's attention. It's , Item 28. It went back to Year 1 but it adds up to more than the 950, on 5 . That's just subject to check. I mean, you know, whatever negotiations you did find, but in case it was an error because you added 1.4 million and I think I --
Yeah, you're correct. It should be corrected to add up to the same net total at the end.
I just have one other question of the Chief of Staff. The question may have been answered, but I did not hear it.
Thank you. (Ms. Franklin-Suber returns to the witness table.)
Miss Suber, did you answer the question that I believe Councilman Kenney asked relative to our ability to move the 40 million out of the Capital Budget and you borrowed the money through another authority, as 108 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, we have done in other situations?
I believe I did 4 answer that question. I -- my response was that 5 we are seeking capital authorization, authorization to use capital dollars, because at this point, we have not explored all of the possibilities. It is quite possible that in the event we get to this scenario -- I mean all of this is worst-case scenario. In the event there are no 12 new stadiums and we then need to make repairs to Veterans Stadium, it may very well be possible that we can use some portion of the proceeds from the vehicle rental tax. That's number one. Number two, there are available PICA dollars. The Budget Office is working with PICA to identify the funds that are unspent but also available. Some of the funds are unspent, but they are earmarked for particular projects. It is also possible that we would be able to use another authority, whether it's PAID or PMA, but we have that general issue in connection with the Capital Program as we go into the out-years because of our debt limit capacity. 109 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, So it's not simply in connection with these renovations. There may be a whole series of other projects because we will, you know, have less borrowing capacity in the out-years of the program. We're going to have to look at it from a broader policy perspective in terms of which authorities we may be able to rely on to help us fund different kinds of projects. So all of that is a possibility.
We have about $288 million left. At the end of Fiscal 2000, we'll be at, I think 288.2 million.
What determines the debt limit? And is that the trigger -- whatever triggers the debt limit, does that change?
It's based on a calculation. I think it's 10 years -- it's 13.5 percent of the 10-year average assessed value of property in the City adjusted for the amount of debt that's outstanding. So what can make it change is if we pay off debt or if our assessed 110 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, values go up or down.
Has there been any 4 history of the assessed value going up? 5
Yes, yes. And actually, they are starting to go up a little. So when we look at how much will be available over the course of this Capital Program, we assumed assessment growth and we assumed that we're paying off debt.
Would the assessment growth be triggered by the increase in the number of new construction, a large amount of new can construction?
A fair amount of new construction of new hotels and things of that nature? So is it likely that we would reach at any point our debt limit where we couldn't borrow?
Oh, yeah. We -- actually looking over the course of this program, by the time we get to 2006, we project that we will be down to only about $26 million, $27 million in capacity left. 111 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Based on a combination of 5 assessed value and the outstanding debt that we have.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to get back to the questions on Veterans Stadium so I don't know if the stadium manager or Chief of Staff will be able to respond. We throw the words "repair" and "renovations" around when we talk about Veterans Stadium very loosely. I would like to know when we first signed this lease with the Phillies and the Eagles.
The original lease was signed in 1966. It was subsequently amended.
Several times for the Phillies, the Eagles. I think one was in 112 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 1985, one was in 1986. We can give you all of that detailed information and copies of all of the leases and their amendments.
The document that we presently have is obviously a legal document to the Year 2011; is that right?
That's correct. That's the original 1966 lease with all of the subsequent amendments.
In brief, could you just describe what that legal document requires the City of Philadelphia to do for the Phillies and the Eagles in the area of this $40 million? I'd like to know, are we bound to spend $40 million, a possible $80 million, based on that legal document, that lease?
Let me answer your question this way, Councilman Rizzo.
The Eagles and the Phillies would take that position.
The Eagles and the 113 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Phillies would take that position. Because we are not necessarily in agreement with the teams on what the City's obligations are and the extent of those obligations with regard to renovations and repair at Vets Stadium, I am -- I am -- I am not going to say to you that. . . The City has an obligation to make certain repairs and renovations to Vets Stadium, and there is -- there is disagreement between the City and the teams as to what the obligations are. And so instead of getting into a dispute, we have agreed conceptually with the teams that renovations need to be made, that we will sit down and we will agree on what those renovations are. And so that everyone understands the commitment, we would amend the lease to specify the improvements that are going to be made. And so City Council would then get a complete public hearing on what exactly those improvements and renovations would entail.
I understand that there's some concern about what would be said here today which could possibly be used against the City -- this is my thought. 114 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, But I'm asking you this question. Your interpretation -- and if you feel as though this is something that we need to discuss off the record, we can do that. In your interpretation, and if you can answer this, I'd appreciate it, based on the document, the legal document that you have right now, do you feel as though you have to spend 80 -- possibly $80 million to meet that contractual agreement?
Councilman Rizzo, I'd be happy to sit down and talk to you about what we believe our obligations are under the lease and submit any information to you and have a discussion with you privately. We've reached voluntarily a conceptual agreement with the Eagles and the Phillies, and we've reached agreement on a dollar amount.
Councilman 115 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Cohen?
It isn't a satisfactory answer to say to Councilman, in my judgment, "I'll send you the material," because I would like to see that material when Councilman Rizzo gets it, and I would like to have it presented at a hearing so that we can examine it and question you right then and there.
The purpose of a hearing like this is so that in addition to each of us asking our own questions, we can benefit from hearing the questions raised by other Councilmembers.
Please permit me to finish. 116 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, The purpose of a hearing -- I'm very interested in the whole series of questions that Councilman Rizzo is asking, and I do not appreciate having those questions shunted aside so that when an answer is given, if ever, that I won't hear them. I want to hear them, they help my thinking, his questions, everybody's questions in Council. So that it isn't enough to say -- and the reason I raise it is you've been doing that all afternoon, shutting off areas of questioning by the method of saying "I'll send you that information, I do not have it here, I'll give it to you later." That information belongs at a public hearing, stated publicly, so that all the members of the Council can learn from the information that's being presented. We ought not to have a series of separate private conferences. So I'm just urging you to understand that when you answer Councilman Rizzo's or any Councilmember's questions, you're helping all of us get a full understanding of the facts. That's all. And I don't mean it in any 117 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 disrespectful way. I'm just saying that the 3 concept of a public hearing is to enable all of us 4 to hear and learn from each other, accept what we 5 believe and discard what we don't believe, but we ought to be entitled to hear it all.
Thank you. Excuse me, I just wanted to make that procedural point.
Can I respond? Councilman Cohen, you are absolutely correct, but the other purpose of a public hearing is to make sure that you get accurate information. And as you know, there are very many times during a public hearing where a Member of Council asks a very specific question; if we do not have the information readily available, we will provide it to you. And also, this is absolutely the same information I've provided to you. And what I'm referring to -- so there's no misunderstanding -- was the binder that included every copy of the original leases, plus the amendments. Those are the documents which govern the City's obligations 118 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, under the Vets Stadium leases with both the Eagles and the Phillies. I have already provided that information to you. And what I was saying was that I would be happy to provide that information to Councilman Cohen as well as any other Member of Council. To the extent that there is a disagreement between the City and the various teams as to our obligations and whether or not we've fulfilled them, I think I have a responsibility to make sure that I don't say anything on the public record that could then later be used to expose the City or jeopardize the City in terms of any potential legal action. The conceptual agreement was a voluntary arrangement, the parties came together in good faith, and we agreed to -- since there was disagreement over the nature and the scope of the improvement and the City's obligations and the team's obligations, we came together in a spirit of cooperation, reached agreement -- not on the number -- and are in the process now of discussing the specific improvements. So, therefore, I don't have a lot of 119 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 the information that you're requesting because 3 negotiations are still underway. We have not 4 submitted legislation to Council. When we submit 5 -- if we are able to resolve outstanding issues and we then introduce legislation to Council, there will be a public hearing as well on all of those issues, whether it's the specific improvements, the timetable, what -- you know, any other questions that you would like to answer at that time. So to the extent I'm not being responsive, it's because I do not have the information to share with you today, but you will have it.
I'm sorry, Councilman Rizzo is still asking questions.
You're telling me 120 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, that you have a lease for Veterans Stadium between the Eagles and the Phillies, and that lease is so poorly done that you cannot tell me today the answers to the questions? Let me get right to it. I've been cautioned -- and I'm going to say this publicly -- by the lawyers that if I ask you some specific questions and you answer them, it could jeopardize a possible lawsuit that the Phillies or Eagles could place against the City. Is that a fair question?
I think it's a fair statement. I've said there's disagreement.
So then you'd prefer to continue this conversation in private, off the record?
Fair enough. Pardon me? (Councilmembers address each other off mike.)
No, I was asked by the lawyers publicly private not to go into this area because if, in fact -- and I'm just honoring 121 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, that request -- that if she admitted something that would be damaging to the City of Philadelphia, it would be hurtful in a court of law.
You're welcome. I have taken down a note, which is not exact, on the statement you made earlier in response to another Councilmember -- and it's a paraphrase and you can correct me if I don't get it all correctly, which I know you will that -- you wanted to keep the teams playing until 2011 at Veterans Stadium. Do you remember making a statement somewhat close to that? 122 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Yes. I believe I was speaking in the context of in the event there are no new stadiums. If there are no new stadiums, we would want to keep both of the teams in Philadelphia at Vets Stadium under the terms and conditions of the existing leases.
So by the lease, at least, they have an obligation to play in Philadelphia until 2011; is that correct?
Okay. Now, in the Eagles lease, in Article 9, Section 901, on of their lease, after the (1), (2), and (3), there's a section that reads in this manner: 123 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, "Subject as aforesaid, insofar as the (unintelligible) premises, and the parking lot are concerned, Landlord shall, subject to other provisions of this lease, at all times, while this lease continues in effect, at Landlord's risk and expense, keep the same in good and suitable state and condition for the uses intended to be made of the same, making all such repairs to restorations and replacements of the structures, other improvements, and equipment thereof and therein, as may be required from time to time." Do you recall ever reading that particular section of the Eagles lease?
Thank you. The gentleman who is responsible for Veterans Stadium, I only got your first name. It's Greg?
Greg Grillone. 124 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Okay, I'm sorry. 4 You and I had some discussion earlier 5 about various repairs and renovations and other projects at Veterans Stadium. You recall --
Just quickly, did both teams play full seasons at Veterans Stadium last year?
They played all their games, their home games at Vets Stadium last year?
All right. And we've put a fair amount of capital dollars in Veterans Stadium at least over the past right years, right?
We've made major 125 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, renovations to major systems at Veterans Stadium; is that correct?
It might depend on how he answers the next question. (Laughter.)
Madam Chair, notwithstanding whatever happens after he answers this next question -- (Laughter.)
-- we should at least acknowledge that his honesty is greatly appreciated. Mr. Grillone, I've read into the record a part of the lease that talks about the team staying in Philadelphia. Is it your opinion that the stadium is in good and suitable state and condition for the uses intended to be made of the stadium? You are the manager of the stadium, right? 126 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Wait a minute. That same question is very difficult. You better listen. Ask the question again.
As the manager of the stadium, you've testified that there has been upwards of $65 million in various improvements -- the seats, the lights, various systems, the sound system, Fanovision, Astroturf, concrete, and various other improvements to Veterans Stadium just in the past eight years. The lease requirement for both teams is that, at the landlord's risk and expense, keep the same in good and suitable state and condition for the uses intended to be made of the same. Now, is it correct that the teams played their seasons in Philadelphia last year at Veterans Stadium?
To your knowledge, do the teams intend to play their seasons at 127 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Veterans Stadium this year?
Is the stadium in 5 good and suitable state and condition for the uses intended of Veterans Stadium?
Councilman Nutter, that calls for a legal conclusion, and so Mr. Grillone is not qualified to answer that question.
No, I think -- not to have a big argument about it, but he is the manager of the stadium.
And he must have some opinion about the condition of the stadium that the teams played in last year and the teams intend to plan in this year. Does he have any particular opinion about the condition of Veterans Stadium?
You are asking him to give you an opinion based on language in the lease that is subject to legal dispute now. What 128 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, constitutes suitability --
They have not yet filed suit against us. Have they threatened to file suit against us? Yes.
Well, Madam Chief of Staff, in your previous capacity, you know that people every day think about filing suit against the City of Philadelphia. Is Veterans Stadium suitable for football players to play games and baseball players to play games? Do we -- and if not --
And I express that 129 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, opinion as former City Solicitor.
Well, then you're 4 going to force me to ask for the current City 5 Solicitor to come over, which I will not.
Well, I do think you have the appropriate person because when I was City Solicitor, I do recall reading that section 9 and I'm familiar with the leases and I'm also familiar with the extent of the disagreement and the history and all of the issues involved.
Oh, I understand. And people can disagree about whatever they want to disagree about. We have a lease, it requires the teams to play in Philadelphia until 2011.
We have a requirement to keep the place in good and suitable state and condition.
I hope you're 130 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, not going to ask that --
I want to ask for 4 clarification, because we have the former City 5 Solicitor and we have had -- this is not the first time that this issue has come up before the Councilpeople, Councilpersons who are here. In meetings with Ed Rendell, the former mayor, as late as December, we were assured by Mr. Rendell at that point that this was an ironclad contract, that we didn't have to worry about the Eagles or the Phillies not playing here. And as of recently, we have been informed that we do have a contract that is formidable, to say the least. And the issue is and the rationale, the basis of why $40 million is in the Capital Budget. And before this Council approves a Capital Budget that is going to go forward out of this committee --
-- there has to be a point in which that rationale and that $40 million is presented. The Phillies are going to play. So 131 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, obviously, spring training in April, the Phillies will be there. We will not have spent any of that $40 million before then. So if the stadium is not suitable to be played, then the Phillies are not going to open the season in April at Vets Stadium. The Phillies will be there, opening day is set, I'll be there, and I think most of us will be there. So the question that Mr. Nutter asked is, is it suitable for the opening of the season? I think the answer is yes. It's a "yes" or "no" answer. Or if it is not, then we have to employ a whole lot of money to make it suitable for the Phillies.
All right. Councilman Rizzo, I believe you did yield to Councilman Nutter.
Okay. 132 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Just to quote a executive of the Recreation Department, Veterans Stadium about two years ago was referred to -- and everybody knows when we shop for a used car what a cream puff is. It was referred to as "a 30-year-old cream puff." Anybody ever hear that description? No? Okay. But I would be interested in those documents that you have, the amendments to the lease, 'cause I'm very concerned that that lease that we presently have is not being interpreted as the way it is written because we're confusing it and I think I hear maintenance versus renovations, and I don't know if maintenance and renovations include crystal chandeliers, but it sounds like that lease really needs to be interpreted so that we know exactly where we're heading.
You're welcome. Okay, for the second go-around, the Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz. 133 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Have there been any engineering reports done to rationalize the $40 million, or was it a conversation in which the Eagles said 150, and we said 80, and that was it?
I believe, in response to questions raised earlier, I pointed out that engineering studies have been done by the City, engineering studies have been done by the teams. And the engineering studies done by the teams form the basis for the list of repairs initially presented to the Administration by the Eagles. We did not accept that list of repairs and that dollar amount, which was $150 million, because we have different engineering studies. And so we reached a conceptual agreement and a process which requires the repairs be identified, agreed to by both teams and the City, and presented to City Council in connection with any proposed amendment to the lease so that everyone knows what the repairs are.
Councilwoman Tasco asked you a question before that I believe you didn't answer. She was following up a question 134 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, that Councilman Kenney asked.
And the question 5 was, how are you going to spend $40 million in one year? Since we have here a total of $64 million spent over an 8-year period or starting in '93, actually --
Councilman Ortiz, I answered the question. One of the issues that is currently being negotiated is the nature of the repairs and the timetable for the repairs. The Eagles and the Phillies have a construction schedule, and in the event we introduce legislation and we have a public hearing on the proposed amendments, the nature of the improvements and the timetable, they will present the construction plan, the timetable, and how all of the repairs will be done. They have a construction schedule and they are quite confident that the repairs can be done. But all of that is being negotiated as we speak, so I am not trying to not respond to your question. Those are still issues that are being negotiated. And there will be -- in the 135 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, event legislation is introduced, there will be a public hearing, and we will provide you with all of that information, including the specifics of the timetable, what repairs will be made, and how they will be made.
I have a copy of a report and I wonder if you're acquainted with it. It was done by the engineering firm of Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott. And they -- after they did their analysis of Vets Stadium, they say that at most -- and they put three priorities, they put three categories up. The first priority is conditions considered, which I believe would hold to what Mr. Nutter was talking about in terms of the contract. First priority is conditions considered to be safety hazards to the users, teams, or the general public and that should be repaired. The second priority, conditions that are not yet safety hazards, but if not addressed, may become hazard. These are three questions that perhaps should be answered before we set numbers of millions of dollars that we are going commit from 136 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, the people's purse. And the third priority, conditions that should be addressed but are not threats to lives, safety, or the building operations. They answered those three questions. And over a four-year period -- actually, a five-year period, after a five-year period, they estimated that the total cost in terms of repairs to meet those three conditions was $23 million.
Okay. That's a huge disparity, a huge disparity in terms of expenditures, and that's over a five-year period. Now here we want to spend $80 million in a 2-year period, without answering those three main questions to the satisfaction of this Council because we have to approve this.
Councilman Ortiz, as I've said previously, before Council votes on the budget, you will have the responses to the questions, you will the information that you have requested. We will put it into context. That report was prepared in a certain context, and we'd 137 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, be happy to get into all of that information. We're not trying to hide anything. I'd be happy to share the information with you, but I am not prepared to do that today, and we do not have a final agreement with the Eagles and the Phillies. So it may very well be that all of this at some point becomes moot.
So, Miss Suber, what you are saying, if I understand what you're saying is, if in fact we do not have that information at the time we vote for the budget, are you going to ask that we delete the monies?
We have not yet reached an agreement so, therefore, we have not introduced legislation. We plan on introducing legislation.
Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Don't you believe that -- how could you enter into an agreement that this Council may not agree with? Are we party to the agreement or are we not party to the 138 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, agreement? Don't we have to approve the agreement before you agree to it?
You don't have to 5 approve all of the conceptual agreement. The short answer is no. There's legislation that relates to the conceptual agreement, and we've talked about that in the various briefings we've had for City Council. We are still in the process of negotiating all of those details. The documents have not been finalized, and it could very well be that we're in a position to introduce that legislation next week.
It might be less than that because it is a cap, those numbers are a cap. What was agreed to was not a flat 40 million; it was up to 40 million, up to 80 million. So it could very well be during the course of negotiations that it's less than that.
Thank you. 139 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Councilwoman Miller?
This question is for the Capital Projects Office. You know, as a Councilperson that did secure state funding for a project two years ago, and in the Five-Year Plan you talk about the reduction of the duration of project implementation, I've had several discussions with Recreation, I've had several discussions with PIDC regarding the lack of speed in this project. And I have a couple questions. But what I would like someone to do is explain -- re-explain that whole process of securing the State funds when you also have City dollars for a project. I see in a book, you're talking that you reduce the time from design to construction to 538 days, and it's been more than 730 days, and we -- I don't even know whether we actually have the application back from the State and the funds here in the City of Philadelphia. So if you could -- 'cause I know other Councilpeople have secured State funding too for 140 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, some of the City projects, but there seems to be a big tie-up.
Well, let me just say that 5 the Capital Program Office doesn't implement the projects either for PIDC or the Recreation Department. If you have a specific project, maybe we could have the appropriate person from one of those departments answer the question.
Well, yes, I'd like that, but the capital project says that it has reduced the duration of project implementation, which kind of tells me that someone from your office is monitoring the implementation of these projects. And if that's not so, then I could be corrected.
Richard Dean is here from the Capital Projects Office, but what I'm saying is, that office doesn't have a responsibility for Recreation.
No, for Recreation Department projects or for PIDC projects. Those projects are carried out by the Recreation 141 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Department or different departments. It depends which PIDC project it is, who carries it out. So if you have a specific project in mind, we could get the right person here to answer the question.
Well, this project is the project you talked about earlier -- I couldn't think of the name -- the Lonnie Young Recreation Center.
It's a 2.7 million project, we've secured funding for that two years ago, and we are still -- it's just going out to design bid. I just need to be real clear again on the project 'cause I have a couple other projects that other State representatives will be involved in and State Senator bringing money in, and we have a level of expectation, and maybe it's unrealistic, maybe my level is unrealistic, but we really need to know how this works.
There's someone from Recreation here and he's coming up to the table now. 142 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, (Recreation Department witness comes forward.)
Good evening. My name is 5 Eric Iffrig, with the Recreation Department.
The question is about Lonnie Young, and the project is -- the application is in to the State. The contract with the State is under review by the Law Department and Risk Management.
Well, I know it's in the State right now, but why did it take two years to get to the State? Isn't it PIDC that -- you fill the application out and send it to PIDC; is that not correct?
No. Actually, PIDC is the agent for the City in filing the application.
I can't speak for all projects. We've had two so far -- well, actually one. Eventually, a second contract (unintelligible). 143 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Well, I guess the bottom line to my question is that in the Five-Year Plan, the Capital Projects Office specifically addresses the issue of the reduction of time to implement. Why would these types of projects not fall under the strategy of doing these projects in an expedient manner? Two years seems to be a long time to me 'cause the other question becomes, Well, who's going to pay for the cost overruns? 'cause we're just in the design stage and we have other projects coming up. So I just need information around this whole process. And I know it's Recreation and PIDC.
Right. We supply the information for the application for the grant. The grant award is made before the application is even made. Now, the Recreation Department -- and I am not that familiar with the process, with the State Redevelopment Assisted Grants. We follow the lead of PIDC and try supply the information that they need. 144 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, I can't speak to why it's taken that long at all. We've tried to supply what it is that we believe that we're supposed to in order to move the project forward. To implement the project, we have to have the funding in place, and that means a contract. And we expect that that's imminent.
We expect that the contract -- and, therefore, the improved funding -- is imminent.
We have a follow-up question from Councilwoman Tasco, but Councilwoman Miller, it's still your turn.
I'd just like to piggyback on that question. I guess the question is, if we are notified by our state legislator that they are applying for funding -- and I have Dorothy Emanuel -- for funds for a project, when they notify the City, who picks up the banner to apply for these funds from the State to get them in the hopper? 145 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Councilwoman, I believe these questions are directed at what's known as "the State Redevelopment Capital Assistance Program." This is a program run by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The only projects that are eligible to apply are projects where the Commonwealth invites the invitation -- invites the application. In other words, though you may be in the State Capital Budget, you cannot apply until the State decides they're going to fund you, and then they invite an application to be sent. We send those applications in very rapidly because what we try to do is get the money under contract.
So we will get a specific letter directed to us. Generally, in 146 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, some cases, it comes through the Governor, signed by the governor; in other cases, from the Secretary of the Budget Office, Robert Bittenbender (ph.), and then we prepare the application and submit it. Generally, what often happens in these projects is that -- and the State has very proscribed rules for this program. There is a handbook, there is a whole set of rules and regulations. In most instances, a project cannot meet all of the requirement at that point in time. For example, they may not have all of their matching funds in place, they may not have the project in full construction documents, they may not have a final cost estimate, etc., etc. Often what happens then is that the Commonwealth will enter into a contract and create a set of special conditions saying, You can't -- Okay, we'll put the money under contract but you can't get the money until you have met the conditions. The program is administered where it is a reimbursement, so actually, you actually advance 147 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 the dollars. They only pay for actual hard 3 construction, so all of the soft costs -- design 4 is the major soft cost -- must be absorbed either 5 by the City if it's, for example, a recreation project, or by an organization if it's a nonprofit group. So there's a fair amount of effort that has to go underway before you can actually get a check out of the State and make that happen. I don't -- I'd be happy to find out the specifics of the one Councilwoman Miller's raising in terms of exactly where it is mechanically, but that's the process. And I believe that one is under contract between us and the State, but there were special conditions, and I think the Recreation Department's being doing the design such that we can --
When all the conditions are met, what is the holdup with the application? We had the approval from the Governor, we worked out what needed to be worked out a little over two years ago, and we're still 148 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, waiting and the people in the neighborhood are still waiting for this particular project to even start. We haven't even broken ground.
I mean -- so that's why I would appreciate it if you would get back to me.
With detailed information as to why this is taking so long.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh, one other question. Who will pay for cost overruns due to the delay of this project? I know it was 2.7 million two years ago, and now that it's two years later, I'm sure the cost have increased. Who carries that, the City? I don't have to take it out of my capital money, do I?
We'll try not to ask you for it, Councilwoman, at this point. 149 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
We'll try not to ask you 4 for it, Councilwoman. At this point, our expected 5 budget for this project is 2.8, plus the cost of design which, again, is a soft cost outside the direct grant reimbursable, and we expect to carry that. We believe that we can manage the job within the available budget. And, also, it's not just the last two years it's been that this project is not happening; it's been more than fifteen years that it's been --
It's been twenty years exactly that this project been talked about.
And then we finally get the money. You know, first there was no money. Then we got the money and still, two years later, we're still trying to get this thing started.
Well, this is the last piece of it. We are going to get the money. We do have to have the contract -- that's the fiscal 150 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, control with the City, that we do have to have the contract in place and with the State. And we're almost there with that. And, again, we're moving forward with the design program.
All right, thank you. I'll look forward to the information too thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Council President Verna, I request permission to be excused for a short period of time. I will make myself available if there are any other questions that are appropriate for me, but I do have an urgent matter to attend to.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Oh, they are for her? Well, do you mind if I go on to the next Councilperson? 151 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Does anybody 4 who is on the list to be heard have any questions 5 of Miss Suber or do you have questions of the other members of the Administration?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I must say, I must find out how to hone my procedural skills.
My light's been on for three hours, and every once in a while, I see it goes out.
Well, this board had been like a Christmas tree, and I'm trying to take everybody as their lights go on, Councilman. Councilman Clarke?
Yes, as I was getting ready to say, I must hone my procedural skills and find out a way to talk without waiting for your light to be acknowledged, Councilwoman, 152 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, I've been waiting for quite long time. (Laughter.)
Well, there's a defect in my light apparently 'cause it goes off without any notice and then i goes back on again.
Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to go back to an earlier question, Miss Kaplan and Mr. Iffrig, and I might need the acting Commissioner of Recreation 'cause it's kind of specific to your response. (Recreation Department witness comes forward.)
Miss Kaplan, earlier when I had asked the question about the centers, the athletic rec centers and the pools and the whole scenario, you mentioned that it's kind of at the request of the Recreation Department to determine if we should be, quote/unquote, one of the big-ticket items and not out of our $1.2 million Councilmatic budget. 153 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, I'd like to get a sense from the people who make that decision on how they make that decision to in fact ask the Planning Commission that that's what they'd like to see. Can you all speak to that? Is it a policy decision or is there a guideline associated with the need? I mean, can you kind of give me a sense of how that happens?
The other things to consider are, again, the City's financial state, the ability to fund the Capital Budget. We have done some other jobs. We are in a position almost to --
I'm sorry. We are almost in position with C.B. Moore already, thanks to some of the recent funding. So --
May I ask the witness to speak up? 154 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Okay. We'll work with City Council on trying to develop these projects. I know we had done a preliminary study for this. As far as working in the budget, we expect, you know, to work with the Administration and with City Council on putting the necessary projects in the budget.
Yeah, but my question was: In the past, we had to put our entire allocation for that fiscal year to do a swimming pool, and I don't want that to have to happen again.
And the question was, how do we get above our baseline 1 million and 1.2 to get into the Capital Budget when it's a $2 million project? I mean, how does that happen, what triggers that specifically?
That I really couldn't say, but we have done projects by funding them incrementally over a series of years. 155 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Obviously, if there are projects that we want to include in the Capital Budget and they would eat up your whole allocation, we will work with you, you know, to work that out.
So if in the event that we decide we need to do a major upgrade of athletics or replace athletic, then we'll figure out a way to get what's needed and not necessarily --
Well, I don't think he knows -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
It's not necessarily entirely eating up your whole allocation.
I said it in a long way, but yes. 156 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Okay, thank you. Mr. Iffrig, I guess this could be for you. The Robinhood Dell, could you tell me how much money is currently in the budget?
Currently, we have, up to the FY 2000 budget, 550,000 available.
It is in design for a major project for a major drainage renovation project replacement throughout the seating area, stage area, emergency lighting, and new electrical service. And if the bids come well, we hope to do replacement seating.
Okay. And the funding over the three -- and the reason I ask you 157 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, this is, let me tell you. I got this book from the Friends of the Dell, and some anonymous recreation staffers called for a $4 million upgrade of the facility, and I'm just trying to get a sense for how this has been responded to and what your, you know --
I've seen that pamphlet before. I don't know if it's the $4 million version, but the critical needs identified in that booklet are the ones that the Recreation Department recognizes and is designing improvement contracts to remedy.
It will be right around the budget. We're not sure whether or not, for instance, we'll be able to afford the seating replacement in this immediate program, but the items that I mentioned -- the seating area, drainage, stage replacement, emergency audience lighting, and new power service -- will be covered within it.
So do you think that the 500,000 will be able to appropriately 158 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, respond to this in terms of the most critical issues?
It's very close, it's very 5 close. We don't have the very final estimates to be very sure of it.
Okay. Was there an official response to this? And I'm assuming that you got it.
Not an official response. I believe I got it the same way you did, which is, it was just passed on.
Okay. Would it be possible if you could give an official response? Because some of the issues on here seem somewhat critical, and if you were to take them all into account, it would probably be more than the $500,000, and I was just interested to see, seeing that there's no additional dollars put into the budget for the Dell in out-years, I'd like to get a sense for how we can adequately respond to the 159 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, people that submitted this document.
Okay. The only problem is, I'm not sure if that's the same version I got.
Let me pass this to him, please so he can see it. I want to make sure you have the right document.
And we do know, yes, who the Friends are they and how to respond to them.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. 160 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Thank you, Madam President. Miss Kaplan, first, with respect to Robin Hood Dell, was that in the budget originally for this coming year, for 2001?
Does anybody know any reason why it was not put back? 'Cause it surely --
Maybe we 161 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, could find out why it was put in and for what purpose?
I think our theory was that 5 the existing funds were enough to cover the needs at the Dell.
And when was that your theory? When you say that was your theory, it wasn't your theory when it originally went into the budget?
Well, it was in January, when we looked to having to cut it to 140.
Was there any reason why Council chose not to put in the money for the Robin Hood Dell? Does anybody know?
It was not on any Councilperson's list, District Councilperson's list.
Mr. Dubow, 162 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, you say there is ample money in the budget to address the needs of the Dell?
I think there's about 5 $500,000 in the existing funding. Yes, and we think that's ample. And I think that's part of what Mr. Iffrig is going to address in his response.
I'm just trying to understand the gentleman's answer. Your response was, "We believe that that is adequate." Did you just say that?
To handle the repairs that we think are necessary at the Dell. 163 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
I believe it's our understanding that the Dell needs upwards of $4.5 million worth of repairs.
Well, I think that's what the response to Councilman Clarke asked for is going to address (sic) .
Well, if it's estimated that the cost of the repairs at this point is $4.5 million, how can you sit there and say that a half million dollars is adequate?
Again, what we're going to do is a detailed response to that report and that will lay out our theory.
Mr. Dubow, I mean, know it's late in the evening and maybe your need to have some refreshment or something. I mean, what do you mean by we're going to give you our theory on why a half a million dollars covers $4.5 million of needed repairs? I mean, look, I was born and raised Catholic, so I know about the fishes and loaves. But I mean -- (Laughter.)
-- that doesn't 164 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, work in a budgeting environment. I mean, what are you talking about? I mean, you either need it or you don't need it. But now, I mean, if you're trying to stretch or if you don't want to allocate the appropriate resources, then that's a different answer.
I think what we said here is that the work that we have under design now are the major critical items, and the $4.5 million- plus program includes probably items that we hadn't considered -- new concession areas. Again, not critical areas.
Well, it depends on whether you want to use those areas, right, as to whether or not they're critical or not, or it depends on who the users are and what their level entertainment and enjoyment is. Now, do you have a layout in the plan over there for the $40 million at Veterans Stadium?
So you have no 25 documents on what the needs are at Vets Stadium 165 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 for $40 million, you do have a project plan on $4.5 million at the Dell, but that's going to suffer and be excluded while you are going to put the 40 million for Vets Stadium and you have not one document that you can share with us today -- not you individually, the Administration -- that you can share with us today to explain what that expenditure is for, but a neighborhood facility over on Ridge Avenue, near 33rd Street that has a clear need and has documented expenses that need to be covered, and you believe that you can come in here and tell us that there is a theory that a half a million dollars can cover $4.5 million of need. Now, is that the testimony for tonight on this issue?
I didn't ask you about the stadium; I asked you about the Dell.
The project that we're trying to do to address the critical needs within the funding that we have available now.
The funding you 166 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, have available now.
If you had 5 $4.5 million now, you'd have something to do with it over there, right?
To Miss Kaplan, I'd like to go over to that Planning Commission again, 'cause I'm puzzled. When was the last public meeting of the Planning Commission? Meaning, which was advertised that the public could come to?
And was the budget 167 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, put before the Planning Commission for discussion at that date?
It was not discussed. It was in there, but nobody asked any questions about it.
And no one discussed -- well, did somebody -- it had to be voted in, right?
About a $40 million 168 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 item in the Capital Budget?
What was -- how was it raised at the meeting? Did somebody say, "I move the adoption of an amendment"?
No. The staff made a presentation of the program, giving an overview of the program. And then the staff pointed out and reviewed every single project that was different from the draft program that the Commission had seen previously, when they met on January 13th.
How did it get in the budget the first time? 169 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
I believe I discussed earlier that in the beginning of January, we were asked by the Budget Office to add the $80 million into the program, $40 million in each of the first two years.
And when did that take place? That's what I'm trying to find out. When was it actually amended into the budget?
The staff added it into the draft that we were working with, I think, the last Friday -- the Friday of the first week in January. That's when we found out about it. And then --
Well, it's not a question of amending it. It's not an official document until the Commission votes.
So it's just, you know, it's a draft or it's whatever the staff comes up 170 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, with. It has no official status. So we had a draft from the middle of the December, which we did not send to the Commission, we did not send to the departments 'cause we were waiting for a new administration, and it had $127 million. On the Friday of the end of the first week in January, we received information from the Budget Office that the new administration wanted to add in $40 million in the budget year, and not to take anything out. That was the instruction that we got. And then I believe the following Monday, after a conversation I had with the Budget Director, we put the second $40 million in the second year. And we sent that budget as a draft to our Commission on the 11th of January for a meeting on the 13th so that they could have it for a couple of days to see it and then come to the meeting on the 13th.
Would you know historically when $80 million was added to the Capital Program? Ever previously has any amount like that ever been added previously? 171 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
I do recall in -- I believe it was the first or second year of the Rendell Administration that some very large sum of money like that -- I don't recall -- was added for prison facilities.
Mm-hmm. And was that discussed, or did that also go in this easily?
I -- I mean, it was described what it was, but I -- you know, I think that typically, when a mayor says they would like something in the program, the Commission, who is appointed by the Mayor, will respect the Mayor's instructions.
They'd better. Thank you. Miss -- she hasn't come back yet Franklin-Suber, right?
Is there anybody there that could discuss what the conceptual agreement is? (Laughter.)
And why it's always 172 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, necessary -- is she coming back? She'll be back here?
No, I'm going to talk about it when she's here. The other questions all relate probably to Miss Suber.
Well, while we're waiting for Miss Suber to return, we do have a witness list, and perhaps we could hear the witnesses at this time. Is Miss Judith Robinson here to testify? (No response.)
Miss Karen Talarico. Miss Kaplan, you might as well stay at the table because I'm sure we're going to be here a while.
And we have 173 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, if anyone else that wants to testify, if they would approach the witness table, anyone from the community, we'll be glad to hear them at this time. Good evening. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good evening, Council President Verna. I am Karen Talarico. I am from the Friends of the Free Library, I'm the Executive Director there. And I want to thank you for allowing me to speak for a little bit this evening, I have brought two other members of the Friends with me, so I will be very brief. Actually, my intent was to come here and tell you how shocked and horrified the Friends were when they saw the Capital Budget for the Library had been so dreadfully cut, and I was going to plead for the money to be returned, so I'm very happy to say that the budget -- the news about the budget and the amendment to the budget was really good news for the Friends. And I would just like to say briefly what it means to the Library to have that money restored. It means that the Library can go ahead 174 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, with the capital projects for the branch libraries. There were four branches that haven't been completed as part of the Changing Lives Campaign, and they will now be able to go ahead, which is really terrific news for those neighborhoods. It also means that needed ADA improvements to both the Central Library and the branch libraries will be able to go forward, the ADA facilities. That's so important because we invite and encourage people to use our public libraries. They are public buildings, and yet some of them aren't accessible to people with handicaps. In fact, the Central Library doesn't have a restroom that's equipped for handicapped people. And we're very glad too that the money has been restored to start looking at the renovations to the Central Library building downtown. It's a beautiful building architecturally, sitting on the Parkway, it's gorgeous, but inside, it's so cramped. There is not room for the collections, there is not room 25 for modern technology, and something really needs 175 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 to be done with that building, so we're glad that the Library will have the opportunity to take a first look at what can be done there. And I just want to say again thank you very much for the Council's pledge to the City to give them first-class libraries right in their neighborhoods. It's so important to the children of our city particularly and to the quality of life here in Philadelphia, and it's much more important to those children than stadiums. Thank you.
Thank you. And I want to thank you for your patience in waiting. Good evening. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good evening. I'm Bethann Johnson, and I'm President of the Friends of Walnut West Library. And I, too, was originally going to plead until at the Town meeting last night, we learned the good news. So I'm here to thank our Councilwoman Blackwell and the Mayor and everybody else that helped to get the money into the Capital 176 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Budget. Schools are mandatory for children, but libraries are not. But the child that learns to take the initiative to go to the library is the child who's learning to become a partner in his or her education, and this partnership is the first step of learning for the rest of their lives. But please help us to follow our communities' wishes and the Planning Commission's recommendations to renovate and restore our Carnegie Library building. That building is an icon to many longtime residents of West Philadelphia. So much so, I didn't even know when I first started addressing the issue. But last night, at the meeting, when people learned that the money was there for that library, it brought cheers. And I'm very concerned that there -- that there is a desire to tear that building down and put something new up. In our community, we had petitions with 2,500 names and the other thing done is, we have a building funds and we've raised $16,000.
How wonderful. 177 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Good evening, Madam President. My name is Dwight Rice, and I'm Vice President of the Friends of Widener Group.
Mr. Rice, pull the microphone closer to you, please.
The last time we were here in Council, I was here with the chess group the Widener Knights night Chess Club, which we were up here with Councilman Nutter and (unintelligible) and I never thought that the day I would be here representing the library, representing those kids that represented that library and never thought I was going to be here to plead for money, which now that the 150,000 was given back, I'm grateful. But I just wanted to say that stadiums are to the economics to a city as libraries are to the schools, and they do play an important part in 178 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, the development of children growing up. And it's important that we take care of our libraries. It's not a maybe we'll have money next year, maybe we'll have money the following years; it's a continuing process of restoring, building, and supplying these libraries. And while I'm at it, can I ask for a part of that $40 million? (Laughter.)
But that's all that I had to say. I had a big statement to present tonight. And with the amended budget, it just sort of blew it partially out of the water. But I'd still like to have a part of that $40 million, just 1.6 million to build a new library for Widener.
Thank you. Thank you all very much. The Chair would like to recognize -- just be seated a minute, please. The Chair would like to recognize Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I want to thank all of the 179 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Library representatives here. Certainly Elliot and Karen, and ma'am, I'm sorry, I wasn't in my seat when the lady was testifying.
Miss Johnson. Mr. Rice, I want to especially thank you. You were very kind here in saying that you were last here when you brought the Widener Knights, the chess team, to come and play. What you didn't share on the record is that you brought the young people in, they played chess with many of the Councilmembers, and I appreciate the fact that you did not mention that you had a number of 10-, 11-, and 12-year-olds play me in a game of chess and that all of them beat me. (Laughter.)
And at one point, the young people were actually asking for the opportunity to play me. (Laughter.)
Yes. So we recognize the Widener Knights. And thank you 180 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, again for what you do.
Thank you, Madam President. I would certainly like to thank you for coming last night to the Town Meeting and for your commitment to Walnut West Branch and even for collecting money to try to do your part and the neighborhood's part to try to have the library reopen. I just want to say thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
I just wanted to say that I think it's awfully important that folks from the Library were here today and that they were here the other day, Tuesday, when the hearings were called. I think it was extremely important that they rallied round when the cuts were made to the Library. In my judgment, the cuts were no 181 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, accident; they were intentionally inflected. And had nobody said anything, the cuts would still be there. Nobody could have made those kind of cuts accidentally. And it indicated that if the people in Philadelphia had permitted it, the decision would have been made clearly that stadiums were important and libraries weren't. And I think that episode of cutting of the important things in life was a disgrace that occurred in Philadelphia and ought never to occur again. And I want to thank you and all the other representatives of the Friends of the Library and other community groups who rallied so quickly and saw to it that this was restored. And so our thanks to you, and convey them, please, to everybody else in the City.
Thank you. Thank you again for your patience and all your support.
It is my understanding that Miss Suber is on her way up. We'll make another phone all. 182 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Are there any other community witnesses that would like to be heard?
Miss Kaplan, I believe Councilman Cohen would like you to approach the witness table. (Ms. Kaplan returns to the witness table.)
Ms. Kaplan, would you be the one or would there be somebody else to ask, how much money does the City owe on capital projects?
I don't know the answer to that question. Maybe the Budget Director, Rob Dubow, knows the answer or he can get it for you.
All right, could he come forward. (Rob Dubow returns to the witness table.) 183 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
I'd actually have to look in the (unintelligible) for you. I'll have to look it up, the total amount due.
Do you have any idea as to how large it is or how small?
Yeah, but I'll have look it up to give you an exact answer. I'll look it up in our financial report.
All right. Do you know, how much money has been authorized in the loans which has not yet been spent? How much authorization is there? If we did not issue another loan, what would we have on hand?
We have 288 million in available capacity left, but I'm not sure that's your question. Is your question how much loan authorization we have that's unused?
How much loan authorization is there a out there that has not been used? 184 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Well, then why in 5 the world would we need any more loan authorization?
Because the 288 adjusted for increases in assessment value and repayments of debt has to last us forever.
Would you repeat that again? Why do we need any additional loan authorization at the present time?
We have to -- every time we have new projects, we have to get authorization for them. So that that's kind of capacity to authorize, but we don't have specific authorization for these projects. We can't spend the money until we have authorization.
And what would be required for authorization of these projects?
It has to be approved by voters. City Council has to approve it and it has to be approved by the voters.
Well, don't the voters approve, then, in very general terms? 185 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
The 288 is not -- is unused capacity, but we have not -- we've not gone to the voters to ask them to approve it for even generic types of projects.
Well, is that -- my question is, Chief of Staff, perhaps you can answer the question. My question is, how much of authorized approved loan money exists?
Oh, already approved by the voters, that's what you're saying?
That's not been used, okay. I was answering a different question, okay. We'll have to get back to you with that exact number.
You'll have 186 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, to. . . ?
I don't know the answer offhand right now, so I'll have to get you, we'll get you that information.
Some other day. It will probably -- usually we get back to you within a couple days with answers to these questions.
Our normal practice, when questions come out of hearings, is we try to get back to Council within 24-48 hours. So we will get the information to you as quickly as possible.
Well, the reason is -- it goes back to the original discourse I made as to the purpose of asking questions and getting answers, that it's not just for the purpose of 187 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, getting the immediate answer, but the purpose is to tie it into all of the other discussion that's already taken place.
When I get the answer and we're not in a hearing, that answer will not serve the same kind of purpose that an answer would right now. And that's the reason there is the interest in promptness. That may be the reason why the Administration is not anxious to answer a lot of questions, you know, on the stadium, because you may feel it's not in your interest to answer those questions, you know, in the midst of a discussion. But let me ask you, I've sat here mystified, bewildered but admired the intensity with which you can say "conceptual agreement." It's not a plain, ordinary agreement; this is some special agreement, and it's "a conceptual agreement." Well, I've lived a long time, as everybody knows, and I never before heard those two words brought together like that with the essence of dignity and meaning and substance. 188 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, What is a conceptual agreement and what is this particular -- if there is such a thing as a particular conceptual agreement between the sports teams and the Mayor? 'Cause apparently, it was not the former mayor. May I first ask Miss Kaplan? I think you said earlier that you never heard anything about the $80 million from the former mayor, Mayor Rendell, right? So I assume that the $80 million is the proprietary object of this mayor, Mayor Street, right. Then I go back to you. What is this conceptual agreement? And is it something that the Eagles and the Phillies or one of them is allowed to know about, but we who are supposed to make decisions on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, or at least participate together with the Mayor, are not permitted to know, but the Eagles may know? Tell me, what is this conceptual agreement, what's the nature of it, and can't we -- can't you just tell us what it says? Is it in writing?
Councilman Cohen, 189 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, it is in writing and it was distributed to all Members of Council with a briefing binding on January 21st. We had a briefing with City Council -- we had two briefings with City Council, and we gave Councilmembers copies of the conceptual agreement. Basically what it is, it's an agreement in principle, which has to then be reduced to final documents. And that's why I keep saying that we've reached an agreement in principle, that was reduced to writing, it was circulated to all members of Councilman.
And that's the conceptual agreement that you're talking about?
It didn't seem at all as powerful as what it seemed today. (Laughter.)
Well, Councilman 190 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Cohen, I agree with you, which is why don't have it reduced to a final agreement and we have not introduced legislation. You know, it was an agreement in principle, and now it's being negotiated, legislation is being drafted. As a matter of fact, we circulated draft ordinances to Councilmembers in the briefing binder. And so, again, there is no effort or attempt on my part to not respond to your questions. The team of lawyers is negotiating right now the details of the conceptual agreement. And, as a matter of fact, we are meeting with the Eagles on some of the outstanding issues tomorrow morning at 5 a.m. So I just don't have the answers to some of the questions that you're posing. By the same token, we do believe very strongly that Council is entitled to all of the information that has been requested, and you will have it before you vote on the budget. We'll make sure that you have it.
Well, will we have it in time to have meaningful debates and 191 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, discussions and interrogations of Administration officials as to what does this mean and what does that mean and how are the citizens obligated by the agreement?
Yeah, yeah, that's true. Only today, I feel my conscience is clear.
Yeah. Well, we may do that. We have been in this hall as late as 2 a.m.?
How long, if you know -- were you there when the agreement was being --
Yes, sir. 192 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
How long did it 5 figure out the answer to Councilman Nutter's question of the money? How long did they debate the $80 million? And were there documents there that indicated what the $80 million was going to be required for, even though everybody knew it would never be used?
I don't recall -- I -- Council -- Council -- well, let's see. . . Candidate Street, he was a candidate in December. At the time, he was --
The Mayor-elect, excuse me. Mayor-elect Street had his first discussions with the Eagles regarding the issues that are covered in the conceptual agreement before he became mayor late in December. I was still, at that point, the City Solicitor. The conceptual agreement, however, was not finalized until he became mayor at the early 193 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, part of January. When the conceptual agreement was reached, it was publicly announced, briefing of Members of Council, discussion of how we arrived at the $80 million for purposes of the conceptual agreement. As I testified earlier, the objective was to persuade the Eagles, who, at that time, made public statements, which appeared in the newspapers, that they were going to move the practice facility, leave Philadelphia, and go to Delaware County. And so in order to persuade them to stay in Philadelphia, to continue building the practice facility, to continue working with the Administration and City Council to at least resolve the issue of new stadiums one way or the other, up or down, just start the process and see whether or not this is something we're going to do, we reached a conceptual agreement, because the Eagles in particular needed certain assurances after a year or two years of proceeding down a certain road and then not completing the process. So we -- the conceptual agreement itself was negotiated over a pretty short window of time. The Eagles then started construction again the 194 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 practice facility. 3 Now we are in the process of drafting 4 the legislation, putting the final documents, 5 negotiating the final documents. And when all of the package is complete, it will be introduced as a legislative package for City Council. We had planned on doing that today. There were issues that arose in connection with the negotiations that are not resolved. And so instead of bringing an incomplete package to Council, we did not introduce any legislation today.
You know what seems so training about this story? I know you're saying it in good faith, but it really strains belief that in a situation in which lawyers, good lawyers have worked at the City Solicitor for years, and which we've been assured that the lease is iron-bound, that there's absolutely no way in which the Eagles can leave before 2011, that they've got to be here. The Mayor himself earlier this week said at a meeting down with us in the Mayor's Office that the City was fully in compliance with the lease, that there was absolutely no question 195 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, but that we were meeting all of the obligations of the lease 'cause the City was under instruction to do it, and I know did it to the very best of their ability, and I have no question whatever that the Eagles have absolutely no grounds whatever on which they can base their hope realistically of winning anything. I cannot believe that City officials who have experience took seriously these threats of the Eagles. And I believe these threats were absolutely no justification whatever for any action by the City entering into agreements, renewing new agreements. That's common in the business world. And if this were done on that basis, it might be an honest agreement. We have one agreement, but both parties have the full power to negotiate and enter into another agreement. But to attempt to establish a basis in Philadelphia, after all the years we spent negotiating with the Eagles and doing everything possible that could be done realistically, you know, to be good landlords, I cannot believe seriously -- I just cannot believe that anybody 196 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 with your ability and with the Mayor's ability, 3 both as lawyers, really believe what I regard as 4 errant nonsense any theory that we are not meeting 5 our obligations as landlords. And I can't imagine what you're meaning when you indicate you have to give them assurances. Assurances of what?
I've heard words of good faith, I've never seen anything in what we have done to indicate anything other than good faith in the City.
Councilman Cohen, let me explain, because there are several issues that you have identified. And I do think it is important that I'm clear in terms of what I'm conveying to you. I did not say, and certainly didn't mean to convey, that the reason that we entered into the conceptual agreement which relates to the practice facility, the Eagles practice facility, that that was done under threat of litigation. As far as the City of Philadelphia is concerned, the Eagles and the Phillies have 197 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, obligations under the existing lease documents to play in Vets Stadium until 2011. The City of Philadelphia takes the position that we are in compliance with our obligations under the lease. That doesn't mean that the teams agree with us. So we put those differences aside. We have deferred renovation to Vets Stadium. Everyone focused for the last year or two on new stadiums. The conceptual agreement related to the practice facility, whether or not the Eagles were going to stop construction on a facility which would contain all of their administrative offices, but also a sports medicine facility that would benefit not the teams only, but also the broader community, create construction jobs, create permanent jobs, create wage taxes for the City, whether or not they were going to take that facility, stop construction, and move to Delaware County because they were frustrated, and I'm just speaking based on what the Eagles shared. They were frustrated with the fact that they were not able to complete the new stadium process. The conceptual agreement was an effort to bring all of the parties back to the table, 198 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 resolve the issue of the practice facility, and 3 create now an opportunity for everyone to start 4 the process for discussing new stadiums again and 5 see it to its completion, whether it's two new stadiums or no new stadiums or one new stadium, wherever we end up. And if there are no new stadiums, we're going to stand by our position that the Eagles and the Phillies have an obligation to play at Vets Stadium until 2011. And simply because we take the position that we are in compliance with the terms and conditions to the lease, it doesn't mean that there aren't improvement, repairs, and renovations that need to be made to Vets Stadium.
But how can you say we deferred improvements when we've spent $65 million in the last eight years?
I'm talking about the deferrals that occurred by agreement between the City, the teams over the past couple of years during the new stadium discussion. I am repeating for you, Councilman Cohen, what was shared with me in discussions that I personally was involved in with the teams and 199 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, what I understand to be the case.
You know, my answer 4 has to be -- and again, you know, there's no 5 disrespect -- would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge? That's the only answer I can give to that tale because it just -- it makes to me no logical sense whatever. The Eagles have concocted a story, and that story has been amplified to develop the threat that we're going to lose the Eagles. Everybody in Council has made it clear that we hope to arrive at amicable agreements that will be in everybody's interest, and it just doesn't seem to be right to be trying to do this 40 million in the Capital Budget this coming year and the next year and raising the specter of threats when we have as ironclad a lease as lawyers have ever been able to make. And it happens just the year before. And this is what I regard as the bad faith by the Eagles to the citizens of Philadelphia. We were told when this last lease was signed that maybe it wasn't as good as it ought to be for the City of Philadelphia, but down 200 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, the road, beginning in 2001 or 2002, there was going to a million rainbow down the road. We're 4 going to get it from the superboxes. 5
And we were asked to be patient. You know, we didn't do as well as we would have wanted to do in negotiating from the point of view of the City of Philadelphia, but there will be some return. And just as that return is due in comes another plan from the sports teams to take away that source of revenue. The amount of revenue is equal to maybe double the amount that would be coming from the superboxes. You know, that money would be double what comes from the wage tax.
And to separate a practice facility from a stadium, to say that a team divides itself in half, I think that would show very bad faith by the Eagles if they dared to do it. I think their threats to do it show bad faith, and I think Philadelphia's been very tolerant with them. 201 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, And that's the reason I have these questions to raise with you and why we're so concerned when the infrastructure of Philadelphia needs so much -- the schools, the recreation facilities, the police stations, the fire stations, all of that need so much help. To take out these huge hunks of capital out of the budgets, and it seems to me that the story this administration was telling us was an effort to frighten us, to get all of these fine people that testified, those three and others like them, to get them all upset and say, Do whatever you have to do, do anything in order to get us our libraries in the condition, you know, they need to be in and the recreation centers. And that those two $40 million slices were put in those budgets, in my opinion, as a threat so that people would say, you know, Solve that problem, get the new stadiums, issue the bonds. And I think that's poor governmental policy. And I think -- I had to say that because I feel that deeply, and I don't feel the people of Philadelphia are being treated right. And I think the City Administration ought to 202 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 change its negotiating posture and do it in a way 3 that respects Philadelphians. 4
Councilman Cohen, 5 the Administration, Mayor Street in particular -- and I think he has demonstrated that in just the short amount of time he has been in office -- cares deeply for the citizens of Philadelphia. And if we believed that there was a deal in place now that was acceptable to the Administration, we would be talking about it. There are issues that remain unresolved, that have not been resolved to the satisfaction of the Administration. And the fact that the $40 million was put in the Capital Budget for two fiscal years was certainly not intended on the part of the Administration to be a threat to City Council. The intent, as I said before, was to give the Eagles the assurances they needed, that if this doomsday scenario occurs and there are no new stadiums and you're playing at Vet Stadium until the year 2011, recognizing that there are going to be some improvements to be made -- it's our facility, it's our facility -- we will make improvements that we all agree on, that Members of 203 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, City Council -- I mean, in terms of just from a purely legal standpoint, there was really no need for the Administration to even bring these improvements to City Council by way of lease amendment. We could take the position, yes, that it's part of our responsibility, but it was important to Mayor Street that City Council understand what exactly the conceptual agreement and all of the underlying agreements involved were. And so we are not simply writing a blank check and saying, You get $80 million and we'll do anything you want us to do. There are going to be lists of improvements, everyone is going to understand what they are, everyone is going to understand what the timetable is, because that is the position that we have taken in the negotiations and that Members of Council should understand. So we are trying to be responsive and to provide you with information. We can't control what the teams may say publicly, but there is certainly no intent on the part of this administration to do anything other than that 204 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 which it considers to be in the best interests of 3 the City, working in collaboration and in 4 cooperation with City Council. 5
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Good evening, Mrs. Franklin-Suber. My question is not related to stadium renovations.
'Cause I realize there are no real renovations; there are only conceptual renovations. (Laughter.)
And so I want to actually refer to the conceptual agreement. My understanding of the conceptual agreement, not as it is being further defined but as it is already defined, says that if this Council does not do a new stadium deal by November 3rd, that we will buy out the practice facility 205 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, for $23 million and that we will renovate Vets Stadium at the cost of up to $80 million.
The source of that $23 million conceptually will come from PAID. The source of the $80 million conceptually come from the Capital Budget. Whose decision was it that the $23 million would come from PAID and the $80 million would come from the Capital Budget, as opposed to $103 coming from PAID or some other variation of the two? Whose decision was it, whose recommendation was it, and who's authorized to make those types of decisions?
The conceptual agreement was ultimately approved -- the Mayor made the final decision in terms of what --
Well, I would probably say it was a combination. I mean, I can 206 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, tell you the members of the, quote/unquote, negotiating team included myself, a couple of members of the Law Department, Bill Hankowsky, a couple of members of PIDC, the Eagles, some discussion with the Phillies. We also consulted with public financial management, represents the City's financial advisor in thinking about alternative ways to fund and finance these commitments.
And in the end, in terms of the determining those financing sources, who is authorized to make those types of decisions? Is it only the Mayor?
Is he the only one authorized to make those types of decisions?
Well, Bill 20 Hankowsky's authorized to make decisions on behalf of PIDC. It's a separate legal entity.
Is he authorized to make decisions on behalf of the City of Philadelphia related to the Capital Budget?
The Mayor proposed 207 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, a Capital Budget; the Capital Budget has to be approved by City Council.
So only the Mayor 5 was authorized to decide that $23 million would come through PAID and $80 million would come from the Capital Budget?
The Mayor was authorized to reach the conceptual agreement. The conceptual agreement contemplates a legislative package that requires City Council approval.
Let me ask another question. In determining that there needed to be a conceptual agreement, it's been said that there needed to be some measure of good faith, some extension of good faith. Is it the position of the Administration that allowing the Eagles to draw down $7 million in grants from the Economic Stimulus Program is not a measure of good faith?
That is a measure of good faith. That agreement had been reached with the prior administration, and there was a grant agreement already in place, an interim grant agreement. So the City had already made the commitment to the $7 million Economic Stimulus 208 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Fund.
The $7 million in 4 grants from the Economic Stimulus Program is from 5 the previous administration, so this administration needs to put something on the table to show good faith?
The Mayor still is authorized, though, to decide whether the Eagles can draw down the $7 million in grant or not, is he not?
So it was still a determination that the $7 million in grants in Economic Stimulus Fund was not enough, that something else needed to be put on the table?
You're 209 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, welcome. Are any other questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Point of order. Is this going to be the only time? Are we going to have another hearing? Because there's a lot of information we have to get and study, and I'd like to feel certain that we're going to be able to have at least another opportunity to question.
Councilman, we always have the ability to call back any of the departments before we vote on the budget.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Franklin-Suber, I took down a part of one of your statements in response, I think, to Councilman Cohen with regard to the teams had been 210 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, proceeding down a road for about a year or two but have become frustrated about the lack of a stadium deal, I guess, last year. And then the Eagles, because they're in need of a practice facility and had started decided to then stop and then shop around the surrounding counties for a new location. Was there a legislative package or documents that were ready for introduction and review in Calendar Year 1999 for this City Council to make any decision with regard to new stadium facilities?
The short answer to your question is, no, there was no final legislative package that was ever introduced to City Council. There were documents drafted, there was legislation drafted. And I was not directly involved in the process, but it is my understanding that at least in terms of the Eagles transaction. They had reached, you know, I guess about 95 percent completion. So were there finally documents final documents that had been executed and signed and final legislation actually introduced to City 211 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Council? No. But they had neared the end of the negotiating process and were close to finalizing the transaction. That's my understanding.
Well, why is it that the teams -- I recall some late meetings in December, and I know the Council President had a few visits from people. Why were the teams insisting that City Council take up the issue of new stadiums as late as December 2, 1999 if there were no legislative package ready for introduction, review, and a public hearing?
Councilman Nutter, I was not involved at that point, but Bill 15 Hankowsky was. So maybe he can answer your question.
Councilman Nutter, I just want to make sure I got the question right before I respond to it. Your question is, why were the teams pressing for introduction as late as December if the package wasn't done?
Is that -- do I 212 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, correctly understand the question?
Okay. The -- and you're right that there were various efforts in, I guess, the beginning sort of mid-November through Erial December. In fact, up until, I guess, whatever it was the last mechanical time you could have introduced --
People were asking that we give consideration to legislation as late as December 2nd.
Although legislation never came, to the best of my knowledge. The President can --
No, it never came. 213 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
There was insistence that this Council take up that particular issue. There is a public impression left that has never been addressed that somehow, this City Council was potentially negligent in its duty and responsibility to address this particular issue. Now, I would like for you, Mr. Hankowsky, to clear the record tonight as to whether or not there was a piece of legislation with a blue back ready for introduction that this Council could have taken up at that time.
No, there wasn't a package. That's the simplest answer. And maybe to amplify it --
So why was there this pressing need by the various teams that we do something?
I understand. 214 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
As Stephanie said, we were probably about 95 percent there, in a document production, create-the-package sense. There, as you know, were some very valid and serious concerns raised at least on one plane by residents about issues of traffic and circulation and how things were going to get done, issues like scheduling, because that scenario would have -- I'm not saying that in any way, as you know, Mayor Street has been very clear that he has not agreed on any site selection scenario and wants to look at that very closely. But, again, from a historical perspective, that scenario the November-December scenario, assumed the development of two stadiums in South Philadelphia, so there would have been four facilities. And so there were issues related, for example, to event scheduling. We have enough trouble today with three facilities in event scheduling issues. Now all of a sudden, it's -- and since I was attempting to draft event scheduling rules, the adding of another facility was not arithmetical, it was geometric in its complexity. 215 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
And so there was an 4 effect, if I could characterize this, I guess a 5 parallel effort. On the one hand, there were a group people working on documents and issues and trying to resolve them and put them into place. And parallel to that was the request by the teams that if we can get all of this done, will you take it, will you introduce it? So you were -- and at the point when it became clear that that was not going to happen, we simply, to be candid, stopped. So we didn't go to closure because it wasn't clear that the product would be a product that a new mayor or a new -- to some extent, a new Council, would want to entertain, that there was no benefit.
The community concerns were not the only thing. 216 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
I was using that as example of an issue that we were still working through.
But there were other parts of that package that were not ready to be introduced.
Right, right. I mean, I was -- without getting into -- I guess just occasionally history's important. But, I mean, you know, there was an issue with regard to certain real estate properties. I was at a point where there was a, you know, I was scheduled to -- you know, I had an agreement that I was going to proffer to a property owner about, you know, proceeding on a property. When it became clear we weren't going to introduce, I simply cancelled the meeting, so we didn't go that next step. So we -- it wasn't as if whatever was the judgment of the dialogue between the Administration and Council was the only issue. We didn't finish a package that was ready to go, 217 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, which I think is --
The long and the 4 short of it and to fast-forward to December 2nd or 5 December 3rd, when the stories then evolved that would leave one with the impression that Council refuses to take up stadium issue, the reality is that there was never anything ready for Council to take up in the first place because the parties had not reached full agreement, you still had documents, you had outstanding real-estate issues, you had not addressed the concerns of the community. And so, therefore, it was not a failure to act by this body.
I'm just asking you to clear the record. It's not a failure to act -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I understand. It 218 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, was a lack of completion by the direct parties who had nothing to bring here for us to look at in the first place; isn't that correct?
Okay. Now, let's talk about -- there's been much discussion -- the word so far for the FY 2001 Budget has been the much-discussed term "deferral." And today we heard that there was an agreement between the City and the teams to agreed-upon deferred capital items to be done at Vets Stadium because everyone at some point in time in the last year or so wanted to focus on new stadiums rather than improvement at Vets Stadium. I believe that was, again, in the testimony of Miss Franklin-Suber; is that correct?
That is correct. 219 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
I testified that 5 that was my understanding. I was not involved --
-- in those discussions or in the new-stadium negotiations.
I mean, again, I'm not -- I'm trying to be responsive but I'm not sure I'm exactly in tune to the question. I mean, the teams obviously were pursuing new venues.
You know, and I'm not an expert in every issue at the Vets Stadium but, you know, there's issues about, you know, the 220 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, zippers on the tarp and things that come up.
You mean the new 4 tarp? I'm sorry, you're not talking about the 5 Astroturf, you're talking about the --
So the new issues come up and -- and the teams simply weren't pursuing any long-term permanent solution that might have a life cycle of 2010 because they assumed that they might not ever be there through 2010.
Well, what were some of these items that we didn't do at Vets Stadium? What were some of these deferred items that someone might have been talking about in '98 or '99 or into 2000 that they just said, Well, we don't need to talk about that because we really 221 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, want to talk about new stadiums. What things didn't we do?
Well, again, I don't 5 think it's a question -- because I don't -- again, I don't want to -- 'cause I'm -- I'm not an expert, to be candid -- to characterize whether we're, you know -- and where we are today. I think the more question was, if you're a tenant at the Vet and you're assuming you're there at least through the end of your lease, do you raise the issue of, Okay, let's begin to think about programming the next cycle of waterproofing or programming the next cycle, you know, is the -- you know, Greg I think earlier testified that the fields last five to nine years. So do you now say, Okay, well, we're kind of in that -- we're kind of getting to that zone, so should we begin to think about a Capital Budget that says we're going to be putting it back? You might live with it an extra year if you thought the new one was going to open in a year.
If you thought it's never going to open, you say, Well, we better get 222 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, one in there 'cause we're going to need it for the seven years left.
So what's wrong with the place now? (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
'Cause we don't think we're ever going there and we think we have new venues.
But now, 223 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, apparently, they've become the subject of complaint, that something's wrong with the place or that we've somehow been negligent to the place, when the earlier testimony that this was by agreement between the teams and the City that they wouldn't pursue certain things or expect certain things either because they were anticipating getting a new stadium or something else. Now as a part of this discussion, you want a practice facility -- which is their right to want to have a practice facility, but if somehow we don't do a new stadium, we have to pay for it and take care of a whole host of items which they now claim are detrimental to their situation -- when they, in fact, apparently, according to the testimony, agreed to the deferral of some of these items. I mean, you can't have it both ways.
Let me just make one statement, and it may be not adequate or responsive or complete. I'm not sure I would necessarily categorize the team's position at the moment as "You haven't done these things and we're mad 224 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, about it and do 'em." I think that the way people have looked at this is that if new stadiums can be figured out and receive the necessary legislative and other approvals in Calendar 2000, then we're probably in a mode of Okay, let's just make sure there's no hazardous condition at the Vet, you know, the railings are safe and everything, because we're going to get out of it. So don't make any significant investment. If that doesn't happen, the simple development cycle of stadiums, it takes about a year to design 'em and about two years to build 'em, and as we all know, it takes a long time to figure out how to get the transactions put together. If that doesn't happen in 2000, you begin to say, Well, wait a minute, how much term is left on the lease? We may end up living out our life at the Vet. And so if we live out our life at the Vet under the current lease, what would that world need to look like for the Vet to be an acceptable -- as best it could be, given what it is? I mean, you know, there are certain things you can do with it and certain things you 225 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2 can't. I mean, the column are where the columns 3 are. 4
Right. Is that 5 where the $150 million kind of list comes from?
It's been said on the record here that one of the teams believes that there might be in the neighborhood of $150 million worth of repairs that need to be made to Veterans Stadium. Is that as you look out over the next ten years?
Yeah, because if you're looking out both in a life cycle sense, so again, not -- and I use -- "deferred" has become a word with much meaning over the course of today.
But, in other words, where you would say, Let's postpone something because we're going somewhere else.
And so, you know, That boiler will last another year, let's not get a new boiler. But if we're staying here, the boiler's not going to last ten more years so we better 226 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, schedule fixing it. So there's a set of activities that are of that ilk.
And then you might also say, Well, since we're here, is there's any way to improve the economics of being here by spending some other money to, I don't know, have a new scoreboard that you could sell better advertising 'cause it can do, you know, neat things in 3-D off the Internet or something.
So you think -- I'll use the terminology "enhancements," not just maintenance of the current plan because, well, maybe there's ways we can -- 'cause we're going to have to live here and see if we can create the best economic world out of it.
Right. Let me understand this and we can move on. I mean, who decides what things are needed at Veterans Stadium? Do we decide, do the teams decide, is there a joint decision-making process? What's the 227 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, nature of our obligation to figure out the condition of our facility to meet up to the test of the lease?
Generally speaking or under the conceptual agreement?
No, I want to talk about the signed agreement, not a conceptual one.
I want to talk about the signed agreement, Article 9, "Maintenance, Repair and Replacements." The signed agreement, not the conceptual one. Who decides what needs to be done at that place?
Councilman, it's a collaborative process. I mean, we use the information that we generate internally from our staff and from our experience and we also listen to the wishes and the needs of the tenants and what they think they need and conditions that they might be aware of that perhaps we're not aware of. So we put that data together and we try to reach a consensus. And then we go into the -- 228 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, we, the Recreation -- Veterans Stadium is part of Recreation -- puts together, you know, our wish list, if you will. And then that gets put into to the processes, as Miss Kaplan explained, where all of the department come to them, and then they look at those lists and formulate a recommended budget.
Well, your wish list last year anticipated that you would only get a million dollars this year, right?
Right. And that was within the context of what Mr. Hankowsky talked about, where everybody was in a mode where we were thinking new stadiums.
Well, what are the specific areas, elements, items, or components of Veterans Stadium by way of the lease that we are responsible for as a landlord? I've read about the seats, I've read about the playing field, I've read about snow removal, I've read about housekeeping issues, the responsibilities of the landlord the responsibilities of the tenant.
With the exception of what's called "the exclusive use areas," I mean, 229 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, the City of Philadelphia is responsible for the structure there, the super structure, and the major systems. Things that may be indigenous to them playing their games would fall under the category that they be responsible for.
Educationally or -- I have an MBA from Temple. I came out of Temple and started in City government, worked in the Managing Director's Office under a very astute list of managing directors. In 1984, I went down to the stadium as Assistant Stadium Manager and I became Stadium Director in 1992.
In your professional capacity and as the manager of Veterans Stadium, what's your evaluation of the condition of the stadium?
I think the condition of the stadium is good -- for a stadium that's 30 years old and has experienced the use and the wear 230 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, and tear that it has over the life of its existence. I think it's a good stadium.
As well as the 5 capital improvements that we've made.
I understand that. And there are many things in this government that are perfect. Do you spend much time in City Hall?
Mr. Hankowsky, please explain that that's not the kind of question that he's really required to answer. (Laughter.)
Ms. Franklin-Suber, this may be last question for the night, which I'm sure will make a lot of people happy. In the conceptual agreement, what happens if the City reaches agreement with the Phillies for a new stadium but does not reach an agreement with the Eagles by November 3rd? Do the Phillies get a new stadium and he Eagles get to stay at the Vet with the $80 million improvements?
Yes, and we would 231 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, buy back the practice facility.
I understand. I 4 thought that there were provisions in both teams' 5 leases -- I've only heard about this, I've not seen the specific citation -- that whatever one team had by way of accommodations, the other team had to have.
The concept is parity, and that's also why in terms of the improvements to Vets Stadium, there would be an amendment to the Phillies' lease, an amendment to the Eagles' lease, and each of the team would consent so that each of them would understand that if we proceeded with one new stadium and not the other, that there would be one team at Vets Stadium. And from our standpoint, parity doesn't mean new stadium, new stadium. They would have consented to the arrangement, and from our standpoint, it would constitute parity.
So your statement is that the City would take the position that there is parity between a 30-year-old Veterans Stadium, which, up to that time has had 232 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, $85 million in capital improvements, plus potentially another 80, and that that would be comparable or have parity with an upwards of $400 million brand-new stadium?
The concept in the lease is that you can't -- generally speaking, you can't do something to the detriment of the other party. It doesn't mean that they have to have the exact same thing. And if you look at -- they both started with a 1966 lease. Both leases were subsequently amended. They are not identical today in terms of the way that they occupy Veterans Stadium. So our position will be that in terms of our obligations to both teams under the leases, that we would have satisfied that. The concept is generally referred to as "parity," but it doesn't mean that you have to treat them equally; it means that you can't hurt one. So if one of them gets a new stadium, one of them has to have a place to stay and vice versa. They both take the same risk.
Okay. Could you -- not for this evening, but could you detail for us 233 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, under the lease terms for both teams what are the circumstances under which they can leave?
I am not in a 5 position to do that this evening. I don't have the lease documents in front of me.
I ask that you not do it this evening. I ask that you forward to the Chair --
-- after looking through the lease documents, tell us by way of article and section what would allow and what are the circumstances under which a team could leave.
Lastly, in one part of the lease, there is a section called "Practice Facilities." It says no later than August 1, 1985, the Landlord shall provide at its sole cost and expense at least one natural-turf football field suitable for training and practice of a professional football team at a site that's convenient and that's practicable to the stadium. It's my understanding that that particular section may have been amended over some 234 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, time, and I guess we now have at least one open field and then we have the bubble. And what else do we have down there in terms of practice facilities?
Okay. And so are we in compliance on that particular issue with our lease?
But I guess according to the lease terms, there's no 14 obligation that even if provide such practice facilities, that they have to use them?
Which is why we were subject to the threat of "We'll build it somewhere outside of the City," and then we'd be left with these open fields down there?
Okay, all right. Thank you very much. 235 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
This has to do with the Managing Director's Office. On of the Capital Program, there are several capital items that have to do with Public Property, Streets, as well as the Fire Department. Why are they listed under the Managing Director's Office?
The Municipal Energy Office that is actually going to carry out these projects -- the green lights, lighting upgrades and the energy building upgrades on the next -- is located within the Managing Director's Office, but they carry out the energy projects for 236 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, a whole variety of departments 'cause they are the energy expert in the City.
The lighting upgrade at City Hall, item number 1, under 76, on --
-- that's energy lighting or has something to do with conservation?
That is to upgrade the lighting while at the same time reducing energy consumption. You know, it's a modern fixture that provides the output and reduces energy consumption.
It's inside lighting, it's interior lighting. The Streets Department wouldn't --
Interior lighting. 237 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Well, the decision was 5 made, I guess, fairly early in the Rendell Administration that it would be advantageous to have a Municipal Energy Office that would -- I think the way they actually started out was by doing energy audits on the largest City facilities, you know, starting with the largest facilities where they thought the payback in terms of cost savings through more efficient use of energy would be the greatest. And then gradually, they worked their way to smaller City buildings. And we've gradually, over the last eight years and are now continuing into the future, have been making various kinds of energy improvements either in lighting or in the power systems, the fuel systems, a whole variety of things to reduce energy consumption.
Does this take care of -- does this dollar amount take care of the actual work?
Or is this -- 238 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Why couldn't they 5 do the energy audit in the analysis and then, of course, the Property Department replace the lighting?
I can't answer that question. It was decided that it would be better to have it under the Energy Office 'cause they would do the audit, they would, you know, know what fixtures to purchase. We have someone here who can to answer that question. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Kent Miller, I'm the Executive Director of the Municipal Energy Office. Our work in reducing energy for lighting involves several steps. We first do an audit of the facility, and we look at the lighting and see if it's energy-efficient by current standards. And if it is, then we ask for capital dollars to replace the lighting. We have private contractors that do this. Sometimes it involves just replacing a bulb, but usually it's replacing 239 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, the ballast and the bulbs and the fixtures.
So it doesn't have 4 to go -- none of this money goes through the 5 Procurement Department?
Oh, yes. After we've identified a project and it's funded in the Capital Program, then we put it out to bid.
So why wouldn't Public Property perform this function?
Well, perhaps they did before the Municipal Energy Office was created. I'm not sure who handled it then. But the Energy Office was created, I believe, in 1993, with the idea of championing the cause of energy cost reduction. And so we're the ones who look for opportunities to reduce the City's utility budget.
Does -- so your efforts are directed to the City buildings property?
All right, nothing on the Streets. Do you advise the Streets Department about street lighting and -- 240 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Well, the City street lighting is -- the technology used for city street-lighting is the most efficient and cost-effective technology available. But we did recommend that the Streets Department use a new technology for traffic signals, and we received about $3 million in 1995 or 1996 to replace all of the red traffic signal lights. There are about 28,000 of them, and we estimated we're saving about $800,000 a year through using that technology.
So I'm just trying to trying to figure out, was this office created to give somebody something to do?
It seems to me that the rationale could work for each department. I mean, the Property Department can certainly look at energy-saving measures, the Streets Department, I believe they order traffic lights, could look at energy-saving measures.
So I mean -- 241 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
So those functions 4 no longer exist in the Streets Department? 5
Well, we work with the engineers and the technical people in the various departments, trying to identify new energy-saving technologies, but it is not their primary mission to reduce energy. And many cities throughout the country and many states have established energy offices whose primary purpose is to reduce the city's energy bill, in addition to investing in -- to identifying new opportunities to save energy and competing for capital dollars in the Capital Program. To implement those, we also work in trying to reduce our energy cost through the purchase of our energy supplies. So there are other things we do, too.
Four people -- five people are authorized and we have four positions filled.
What is your budget? 242 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 2
Could one person 5 possibly be an advisor to the various departments -- Streets, Public Property -- in working with them to develop an energy-saving program rather than set up a new department?
Well, the department already exists and has existed for some time.
And the report, you'll see that we have, we believe, a good track record for reducing energy costs. Could we do this more efficiently than we're now doing it? I think we're a pretty small staff for the amount of work that we accomplish. And I think our savings are a testimony to that. The work that the MEO has done is saving the City about $7 million this year.
I guess my point is, if you do an assessment of, say, street lights, and you, through your research and evaluation, determine that if the Streets Department bought a different kind of street 243 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, light, they could save some money, then why are you purchasing the light and why not the Streets Department? I mean, your role could be advisory as opposed to us now having yet another department buying capital products that's done by other departments.
I think the answer to that relates to the way in which projects are funded in the Capital Program. As I understand it, each year, far more projects are proposed by the departments for the capital programs than are funded. There just isn't enough money to go around. It's not -- it's probably unlikely that the line departments would give priority to energy-saving measures. They would have other needs that they would rather see funded.
But we're still spending the money. Whether you do it or the department does it, the money is still being spent.
Well, remember we have to -- well, we have to prioritize -- each department that makes an application has to priority-rank 244 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, their projects because there isn't enough money to go around, and it's likely that the other departments would not give a high priority to the -- their energy-saving projects because the departments don't pay the energy bills. The energy bills are paid from a separate account, and the departments don't realize any savings to their budget from the energy cost reductions. So they would have no 11 real reason to champion those projects.
I have a question relative to SEPTA, and it comes from the Public Property Department. (Witnesses come forward.)
I have a very simple question. The dollars that are being requested for transit facilities, such as a light-rail paratransit vehicle acquisition, the money that's provided by the City, is that matching money for the federal money? TRANSPORTATION WITNESS: Yes, I'm Chris 245 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, (unintelligible), from the City's Office of Transportation. Yes, that is matched. Typically, the City provides only 1/30th of the share of capital projects. A typical project is either 80 percent federal, and 2/3 percent State, and 3 and 1/3 City. Some projects are funded 97 percent by the State and the remaining 3 percent by the City.
Let me just add that I think in the budget year, the transit projects carried out through SEPTA are about $162 million. Of that $162 million, the City has only contributed $5 million, 'cause all the rest is federal or state money or money from SEPTA. So it's a very high leverage.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you all very much. I would like to remind the 246 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, Commissioners that are here to please submit their testimony 48 hours before public meeting -- a pubic hearing. This committee will stand in recess until Monday, February 14, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. (Adjourned at 7:48 p.m.) - - - 247 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 Thursday, February 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO.'S 003, 004, 005 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter