Committee Hearing, February 10, 2000

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.

That's very interesting. I --

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.

Point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.

Well, I'm not finished.

Do you want to yield for one second, please?

Yes, yes.

I'm just trying to understand the gentleman's answer. Your response was, "We believe that that is adequate." Did you just say that?

Yes.

Adequate for what?

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.

All right, good.

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?

I don't.

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'm not testifying on the stadium 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.

That's all I can speak to. 4

If you had 5 $4.5 million now, you'd have something to do with it over there, right?

If there was $4.5 million at the Dell, yes.

Thank you. I yield back to the Councilman.

Councilman Cohen?

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?

All our meetings advertised.

When was the last one related to the budget?

Related to the budget? On the 18th of January.

And was the budget 167 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, put before the Planning Commission for discussion at that date?

Yes. 5

And was the $40 million discussed?

It was not discussed. It was in there, but nobody asked any questions about it.

And nobody raised any issues about it.

No. 13

And no one discussed -- well, did somebody -- it had to be voted in, right?

It was voted, it was --

It had to be voted at that meeting.

Yes.

On January the 18th?

Right.

And there was no 23 discussion?

No. 25

About a $40 million 168 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, 5 item in the Capital Budget?

(No verbal response.)

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.

And this was a difference, this $40 million?

No, the 40 million was there on the 13th as well.

At the meeting on the 13th?

It was there on both occasions.

What do you mean "it was there"?

It was in the budget.

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?

Well, the staff added it into the --

The staff 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 --

The staff can't amend the budget, right?

Well, it's not a question of amending it. It's not an official document until the Commission votes.

I see.

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?

No. 21

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?

Yes. 5

Nice try. (Laughter.)

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.

I need a brief break.

Oh, okay. (Ms. Talarico comes forward.)

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

So we're trying to do our part.

That's 5 wonderful.

Thank you for hearing me.

Thank you. Good evening.

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.

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.)

That's right. You were the number-one target.

Yes. So we recognize the Widener Knights. And thank you 180 2/10/00 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - 003, 4, again for what you do.

And thank you for having us 4 here. 5

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.

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.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.

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. Thank you again for your patience and all your support.

Thank you.

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?

Could I ask Miss 5 Kaplan to come back to the stand?

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?

You mean, what's the outstanding --

What's the outstanding debt in the City?

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?

I don't want to make a guess.

Well, would it be as much as several billion dollars?

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

Yeah, yeah 288. It's 288 million.

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

Yes, in general categories. That is correct.

You mean this 5 $288 million is frozen?

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?

Yeah.

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.

Say that again.

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. . . ?

Back to you. 4

Get back to me, all 5 right.

I don't know the answer offhand right now, so I'll have to get you, we'll get you that information.

You'll get it back to me shortly.

Yes.

Or on some other day?

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.

Right.

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.

It was that very vague outline?

Very vague outline? That's the conceptual agreement.

And that's the conceptual agreement that you're talking about?

It was a press conference issue --

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?

Yes.

(Inaudible, off mike.) (Laughter.)

Yeah, yeah, that's true. Only today, I feel my conscience is clear.

(Inaudible, off mike.)

Yeah. Well, we may do that. We have been in this hall as late as 2 a.m.?

3 a.m., it was 3 a.m., it was 3.

So that is the sole agreement?

Yes, sir.

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

-- agreed to? 3

Yes, sir. 4

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 --

He was the Mayor-elect in December.

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?

Let me explain.

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

Right.

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.

Yeah, and I think you're --

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

I have no further questions.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.

Good evening, Mrs. Franklin-Suber. My question is not related to stadium renovations.

Thank you.