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?