Only because of the Councilwoman, aye. MR. McPHERSON: Council President Verna.
396 Whole - 5/25/05 Councilwoman Miller, I know your light was on. However, it was not debatable.
I wasn't going to debate it. I was just going to support it.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a reference back to the earlier discussion regarding Bill 050003, with regard to an additional set of amendments. The members, I believe, are very familiar with this set of proposed amendments. I think there are primarily two major differences between this set of amendments and the previous larger set, not 397 Whole - 5/25/05 the amendment that was just the subject of the motion to table. One of the primary issues here is that in this set of amendments which are not dependent upon additional new tax revenues in order to have a balanced budget, seeks to restore fully the funding for the Fire Department, and a host of other organizations and agencies; of course, the Art Museum and the Atwater Kent Museum, Recreation Department, and many others. And so, I would ask that there be consideration of this set of amendments to Bill 050003, as a part of our budget discussion. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
I move the adoption of the amendment. UNIDENTIFED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, as presented by Councilman Nutter. All in favor will indicate by saying 398 Whole - 5/25/05 aye. Should we have a roll call?
Yes. I'm sorry. I can't hear you. Your microphone's not on.
I was asking if you could explain or either one more time. It appears that a number of members were busy doing other things. And I'm not sure that everyone understands what we're voting on.
Councilman Nutter just presented his set of amendments.
Okay. And the set of amendments to the operating budget.
Councilman, it's a proposed set of amendments to the operating department. It was the subject of a little bit of discussion earlier. This proposed set 399 Whole - 5/25/05 of amendments are very familiar to the members. It's been a topic of discussion for some time. I think the two important features are the previous large set of full amendments, not to be confused with the most recently addressed amendment. It seeks to make a series of reductions in certain areas, and of course restorations in others, the more prominent of which would be a full $6.8 million restoration to the Philadelphia Fire Department, insuring that all of the proposed cuts would be restored, and of course full funding restoration for the Art Museum and Atwater Kent Museum, Recreation Department, and a number of other departments, which is not dependent upon additional or new tax revenue sources. That's the explanation. I think it had been moved and seconded already.
Very well. We are now going to call the roll for the approval or disapproval of the 400 Whole - 5/25/05 adoption of Councilman Nutter's amendments.
I'd like to ask Councilman Nutter: Does this represent an agreement with the Mayor or does it represent both the agreement with the Mayor plus our recommendations in the areas where there is no agreement? What's different about this set of amendments from the other set of amendments? Just so we know what we're voting on.
I understand. All right. Thank you Councilman. I think there are two primary distinctions between the first large set of amendments and the second, and this set now in front of you. First, this set of amendments proposes to make a number of strategic cuts in a variety of places throughout the budget, 401 Whole - 5/25/05 as well as restore funding to many of the proposed areas to be cut, whether it's full funding, $6.8 million to the Fire Department, or funding for the library service, to get rid of the proposed express branch system, Art Museum and Atwater Kent and a variety of others. Secondly, this proposed set of amendments to the budget is not dependent upon any of the recently proposed... In the past two weeks, the administration proposed three new tax revenue measures which the first set of amendments are dependent upon those measures passing, in order for that budget to be in balance. So, the difference is full funding for the Fire Department, Art Museum, and significant funding for the libraries, as well as the... It's not contingent on the passage of the three tax measures which I assume will come up a little later. That's the difference.
Does that mean this budget as presented in this amendment is 402 Whole - 5/25/05 a balanced budget.
And it's the Council's product, as required by the Home Rule Charter, that Council pass a budget? Does it meet that test?
Does it meet the test that the Home Rule Charter requires to us meet to pass a budget? I'm asking what is not a trap question. To me it seems to meet that issue. In the Home Rule Charter we seem to have a duty to deal with the budget.
And you're presenting this as our answer to meeting the test.
Thank you. I just want to make sure I wasn't walking into a trap; that's all. Just had to hesitate for a moment.
Well, I just will say a lot of time and discussion has been spent on these amendments, with all members of Council. And I think that they offer an alternative to us having to in a week's notice raise taxes where there has been a real discussion about what all those taxes might mean to the people, that those taxes would have had... And without having to raise any taxes, we may have come up with a nice recommendation which has not been... you know no self interest in. So I'm fortunate that we find ourselves here in City Council trying to pass a budget. The alternatives have been 404 Whole - 5/25/05 offered, but because of political intrigue and infighting, we can't get something done without trying to raise taxes. So, I support these amendments.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode. COUNCIMLAN GOODE: Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to ask the sponsor of the amendment why he's eliminating a hundred percent of the economic stimulus funding.
I'm sorry. COUNCIMLAN GOODE: I'd like to ask the sponsor of the amendment why he's eliminating a hundred percent of the economic stimulus funding.
Councilman, I'm asking you in your amendments, you eliminate a hundred percent of the economic stimulus money. Why is that?
Councilman, I think one of the issues that has arisen in the course of this process is what actually 405 Whole - 5/25/05 happens with that money. And as much as I support economic development, I think that there is some requirement by this body to at least put in place a process that would either require additional information from the administration as to what those projects are and not have a complete carte blanche as to what to do; and second -- COUNCIMLAN GOODE: I can tell you exactly what --
-- should there be -- COUNCIMLAN GOODE: -- looking for.
-- should there -- should there be a response back from the administration, there very well could be a restoration of those dollars or they could be placed somewhat similar to... I think it's the water fund, in another part in the budget, and utilize those dollars through a series of transfer ordinances. COUNCIMLAN GOODE: Councilman, I can tell you exactly what those dollars are spent 406 Whole - 5/25/05 for, having worked for the Commerce Department for several years, and having examined how the dollars are spent. Usually two primary purposes. One is to acquire land, but the larger purpose is to write down interest. More important... On projects, which some projects would not go if we did not have the flexible dollars. The truth of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of economic development dollars come from state or federal government, with whatever regulations the state and federal government give us. These are only dollars we have at our disposal where we can flexibly decide what we're going to do, to help make a deal go.
Thank you, Madam President. 407 Whole - 5/25/05 I don't know; I've done my share of complaining in a very short period of time of how the administration doesn't send us stuff in a timely manner. But to get a 30-page document and want me to vote on this stuff in a matter of minutes is very difficult for a freshman like myself around here. Some of you have been around here for a while might be a whole lot or definitely a whole lot better at this than I am at this point of my term here. I understand that the budget -- that the operating budget that we're considering before Councilman Nutter's amendment is a budget that we've had discussions with the administration. We've proposed. They've counter proposed. We've proposed. They counter proposed. And it was my understanding up to this moment that there was an atmosphere of reaching an agreement, and that we're very close to reaching an agreement. Then, all of a sudden, he's got the 408 Whole - 5/25/05 right to do. This and we all do. But I find it kind of difficult to see a 30document. And in the document there's something on that I find, you know, kind of slick, because I can't find a nicer word. But I don't mean it in a derogatory or an offensive way when I say slick. But it says there in the middle of the page, transfer between and among department respecting grants... respecting grants of $250,000 or greater shall not be made, except with the prior approval of the Council by resolution or ordinance. So, in the middle of all this stuff here, the question that Councilman Goode asked about, when it comes to stimulus dollars, there's a statement in the middle of this that changes the whole way we do business around here. So, you'd have to go -- You would have to go to in the middle to find that there's something here that would change the whole outlook on how we do business at 409 Whole - 5/25/05 this time. I understand the interest of... for I suspect this might be his interest on changing how we do things between the legislative and the executive branch. But I find it quite... you know, quite interesting to find this in the middle of all the budget recommendations made by the good Councilman from West Philadelphia. I have no intentions whatsoever in voting for this. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I think it's important that I make a brief statement, as it relates to the amendment that is being offered by my colleague, Councilman Nutter, because a number of times there's been reference made that this amendment would fully restore the 410 Whole - 5/25/05 $6.8 million to the Fire Department. As everyone --
Councilman, just a minute, please. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam president. As everyone on this Council knows, that although we have all been interested in the Fire Department cuts that have been proposed a year ago, I believe, this month, that I have been pretty much out in the forefront from last May. In fact, I believe I introduced the appropriations transfer ordinance last year that moved the 6.8 back into the Fire Department. But for the temporary restraining order that was issued by Judge Cariefiello on behalf of Local 22, we had no guarantees then, nor do we have any guarantees now, if this amendment were adopted, that the administration would spend that $6.8 million. Traditionally, past history has proven to us again, as a result of the 411 Whole - 5/25/05 transfer ordinance that we took up last May, when we put the extra million dollars into the library, which was never spent because the administration refused to spend it. I certainly would want to have the full $6.8 million. I've been fighting about that for the last months. I've been to 9 every single rally in my district which is 10 affected by about 11... up to 15 proposed 11 cuts. 12 So I'd be a fool to say I would not want that money restored. The problem is there are no guarantees that any portion of that $6.8 million would be restored. What I have is the Mayor's word, and it's in writing, that at least as of today, $3.4 million of the $6.8 will be restored, and there's ongoing discussions that may lead to additional increases to that restoration. So, the spin may be out there somewhere that I'm not supporting the firefighters, not looking to fully support. I'm sure my would-be opponent or somebody will use that, the hearings tonight, against 412 Whole - 5/25/05 me. But I'm comfortable, knowing that we're getting some of the money back, with the understanding that we may get additional money going forward. One other point I'd like to make is, the $6.8 million that's being appropriated, being suggested in this amendment does not take into consideration the EMS units. At least the 3.4 is just for the Fire Department, and we do get, I think, the 2.2...
Two. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: ...to do the EMS. So, no matter how you cut it, we're still going to be short, whether we did this amendment or the other amendment. My suggestion is that we continue to work with the administration to get the additional money into the Fire Department. Thank you, Madam President.
And a commitment has been made that that money 413 Whole - 5/25/05 definitely will be spent. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It was in the letter that was sent up by the administration.
Thank you. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Does anyone else want to be recognized on this matter?
Just a quick response, Madam Chair. I do appreciate my colleague who represents the entire City. And I feel bad that I don't know exactly where he lives, so I could return the compliment of the Councilman from a particular neighborhood. But Councilman Ramos, I would only 414 Whole - 5/25/05 suggest that the document that was circulated has been the topic of discussion, whether official or unofficial, for at least about a week, possibly more. And the only reason that I felt comfortable in circulating the document is because I know that members had seen it before. So, I do appreciate your concern with regard to timeliness. But I think we would all agree that regardless of our position about the proposed amendments, I don't think that timeliness of circulation is necessarily the issue at hand. I think all members have had this document in some form, and even including the City administration, for at least a week. And the particular provision that you referenced on , I think, only represents a situation where the Council or some of the Council may want to have more involvement in what goes on, with regard to grants and transfers of dollars between departments, the opportunity to know about 415 Whole - 5/25/05 them, either by approval through resolution 3 or ordinance. It is what we do. And so, it is, from my perspective, at least, a normal part of the process, where you have a fully independent legislative body that works with the City administration but does not necessarily work for the City administration, and all of us doing our jobs to the best of our ability, on behalf of our constituents. So... But I do appreciate greatly your comments. Thank you so much.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. As it relates... I would like to ask Councilman Nutter. In Section 14, as it relates to the general provisos, my understanding of the history of those is that these are things that the Council had agreed to in prior budgets, to make it easier or to make it easier for the administration to handle some of the dollars that are in the 416 Whole - 5/25/05 budget. So these were not Charter granted -- not Charter granted rights to the Mayor, but certainly these were agreements made by Council and allowed by Council, to streamline certain sections of the government. So, this is not something that I guess the Mayor's Office has by virtue of the Charter, but these provisos are operational agreements that have occurred as a result of budget after budget, and added to the end of the budgets, in an effort to make the business of government a little more streamlined. It doesn't mean that we should not be involved in the decision making process on how the monies that we appropriate through this budgets are spent. And I think it's clear -- it should be clear for the record that these are not Charter powers of the Mayor, but simply stuff that the -- simply powers that the Council has over the years agreed to allow him to have. 417 Whole - 5/25/05 Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Madam President. I, too, am concerned about the... Obviously, I'm not a new member of Council. I'd love to be a younger member of Council. Having said that, I'm concerned about all of these changes. Many of them deal with the Office of Housing and Community Development, and the community development block grant application. And I find it -- I think it unwise that we should consider voting on so many detailed changes, and expect at a cursory glance that would allow to us make these decisions. So I think if Councilman Ramos and certainly ask my colleagues to consider the same. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilman Nutter, I believe you made a motion for the adoption of your 418 Whole - 5/25/05 resolution.
We are doing a roll call. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. 19 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman 419 Whole - 5/25/05 Krajewski.
The motion 420 Whole - 5/25/05 fails. And the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the... I think we are adopting the amendment.
Madam President, I move that Bill Number 050003, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; also, a recommendation for the suspension of the rules so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council.
It has 421 Whole - 5/25/05 been moved and seconded that Bill Number 050003 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; also, a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will please say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
I don't think we have to have a roll call vote on it. Councilman Kenney is voting no. 16 Councilman O'Neill?
No. This is for reporting it out. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell. 422 Whole - 5/25/05
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
Aye. 423 Whole - 5/25/05 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Ramos.
Very well. 16 The motion carries. Do we do the resolution now? All right. We are now going to consider the revenue bills. Bill Number 050451. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. And I would remind you that there is an amendment that was submitted. At the public hearing, the... 050451. They're the tax bills. 424 Whole - 5/25/05 Do we have copies for the Council people, please?
Just a minute, Councilwoman. All right. Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the proposed amendment to Bill Number 050451 that's being distributed be adopted.
Do I hear a second? UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Those opposed? 425 Whole - 5/25/05 (No response.)
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The Chair again recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill Number 050451, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; and also recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council.
Madam President, I have an additional amendment to this bill, which I'd like to circulate. It's basically a sunset provision for one year which I would like to speak on.
Okay. Councilman O'Neill, I believe the amendments have been circulated, if you care to discuss it. 426 Whole - 5/25/05
Yes. Thank you. I move the adoption, please. I don't believe I...
Yes, I do. Thank you. I actually have this similar amendment on each of the three bills that were introduced last week and heard today, to sunset them after one year which would require reauthorization next year. The reasons are several. One, first and foremost, is that the budget as reported out of committee, I believe, has a surplus of $29 million in it. These bills themselves are $7.1 million of that $29 million surplus. And I 427 Whole - 5/25/05 don't have any recollection of us ever passing new tax bills to increase the surplus in a given year. The other reason is that this administration hasn't had a good record with surpluses. I won't go any further than that. If people want to talk more about it, there was, I believe, a $300 million surplus that they started with. And it sort of gives us another bite at the apple. If this tax were collected this year, fine. There's an additional issue, I understand, from discussions with members who have talked to the billboard community, that they would like to find another way to pay the same amount of money, other than these two bills that are before us. And this would give us an opportunity for that to occur during the year, and then take the place of this excise tax and the additional permit fees. I think it protects us. It protects the budget. It doesn't change anything in 428 Whole - 5/25/05 the budget. I think it's a legitimate concern that someone may have about the five year plan. But I don't think, when we are talking about the amount of surpluses that are going through the five year plan right now, that it's an issue that is anything but just an issue. It's not an unsolvable issue. So, it's $7.1 million. We're not raising money to restore cuts. We're raising money to add additional surplus. Coming back next year, with a chance to reauthorize these bills or similar measures, if there are other measures that are involved with the billboards --
I would like a few moments but would like to announce my opposition to the amendment, but I vote aye on the bill, whatever happens to the amendment and aye on the other bill.
So the sunsetting of the bill would, I believe, give us many more opportunities. And lastly, in this past year we had some indications that certain monies were being spent. They weren't spent. I know we don't have direct control over that, but we always try to find leverage. And I think having... I believe that having a sunset provision on these additional revenues within the surplus would give us more leverage next year, should something go awry, as it did last year. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I just would like to comment on the proposed amendment by my colleague, Councilman O'Neill. As I reported in a couple of 430 Whole - 5/25/05 briefings yesterday, that I expressed my willingness to the administration, to the Mayor, and to the advertising industry to work with the task force over the summer months, to hopefully come to some reasonable accommodation for both the industry and accommodate the administration in raising the funds that we think we can and should be raising from the advertising industry. As recent as of about 3 o'clock this afternoon, Mr. Leonard Ross, who represents Clear Channel, one of the big advertising companies in the City, said that they had a meeting with the Mayor. He concurred and confirmed that there will be a task force that is going to be created. We're going to work over the summer, and we would hope -- we're hopeful and we're pretty optimistic that we will have a comprehensive bill to present to Council in September or early October that will be both acceptable to the administration and the advertising industry. I can't say with certainty that that 431 Whole - 5/25/05 will happen, but my understanding is that every effort will be made to accomplish that. So I think, in addition to some of the other questions or concerns I have, based on my conversations with Charley McPherson and others, that this may, in effect, not be appropriate because it may interfere with the five year plan, and PICA would not accept this anyway. I just wanted, again, for a point of information for my colleagues, that there is a task force that will be working going forward. And hopefully by September we'll have some resolution to that issue with the advertising industry, and this may not be necessary after all. I guess what I'd be asking is that my colleague, Councilman O'Neill, table this amendment, in lieu of the fact that there is a task force that will be working on this over the summer months. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's in the form of a motion, by the way. Make a motion 432 Whole - 5/25/05 that he table it. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second. (Conversation back and forth among Council persons, away from the microphone, not reportable.)
If that were the only reason, Councilman, I mentioned I would do that because we did have that conversation yesterday. And I was sort of adding that to what I had already thought the sunset was a good idea. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But I wanted to just bring you up to date as of today.
Well, I thought there was going to be no debate on this. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No, there's not a debate. I'm just clearing up the air.
Okay. There's been a motion to table. It's been seconded.
I only had one -- Based on what Councilman DiCicco said -- and I did get my point of information in before the motion to table -- the bill is scheduled to go into effect July 1, 2005. So I assume that this is the... Is this the excise or is this the...
So, what happens during the time that the task force is doing its work, if the excise tax is going to be collected in any event after July 1, 2005? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are you asking me, Councilman?
I guess, yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I suspect, based on my conversation as of late this afternoon, that the industry will go forward and pay that tax, knowing that there is going 434 Whole - 5/25/05 to be some resolution that we'll either have to repeal the bill or amend it. I guess it would be a repeal. And then maybe create a whole new bill. The indication I got was that they were willing to go forward with the excise tax, with the understanding that every effort will be made over the summer months to come up with a comprehensive bill that will address the issue on a uniformity in collecting of fines -- fees and licensing for the advertising industry.
Well, all right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's my understanding.
Well, it's awful magnanimous of them; that's for sure.
Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And if I could just say, they estimate that the revenues would probably, cumulatively, across the industry, would probably be about a million dollars, if it took us to the end of 435 Whole - 5/25/05 September. I guess in their mind, cumulatively, it's not all that much money.
Madam President, Councilman DiCicco referred the five year plan. I had referred to that in my remarks. If Mr. McPherson could just go over if all three taxes were only implemented for one year, what the balance is, how the balances would show, and in the five year plan what the effect would be on the 7.1 in each year.
Councilman Goode, I know what you're going to say. Let's end the night, please. MR. McPHERSON: In the proposed five year plan, as presented by the Mayor, with these three revenue initiatives in it, the fund balance is at 29.2. That would stay the same in '06, based on your amendment. The revenue -- The fund balance estimate in '07 is 14.2. Assuming that the revenue... three revenue items were not 436 Whole - 5/25/05 reauthorized, that would be down to about $7 million. The '08 because of the cumulative effect, he was projecting a $10 million -- approximately ten -- the administration is recommending approximately a $10 million surplus. It would be... With the cumulative effect, it would be about a $4 million deficit, because you would lose it in both years. In '09 they are projecting an 82. You would take away approximately 61 if we -- or if we didn't authorize it. So, it 16 would be down to about $61 million surplus. 17 And in FY'10 it would be 18 approximately... They have seven -- they 19 have 80 minus 28. It would be approximately 20 a $52 million surplus. 21
The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode. 437 Whole - 5/25/05 COUNCIMLAN GOODE: Thank you, Madam President.
And then after that we're going to go by the rules. Yes, sir. COUNCIMLAN GOODE: Thank you, Madam President. I'd just like to note for the record those fund balances do not take into account new labor contracts. MR. McPHERSON: That is correct.
And so as, of '08, '09, '10, essentially, unless the economy grows significantly, we have a huge problem to deal with. And so, we're not as rich as you may think we are, in terms of the next couple of years' surpluses.
You're absolutely correct. Thank you. Okay. There's been a motion, and it has been seconded, to table. Yes is to table; no is to not to. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman 438 Whole - 5/25/05 Blackwell.
Yes. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
No. 25 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman O'Neill. 439 Whole - 5/25/05
Okay. The motion fails. I'm sorry. The motion carried to table. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell regarding Bill Number 050451.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill Number 050451, as amended, be reported out of committee with a 440 Whole - 5/25/05 favorable recommendation and recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill 10 050451...
I move to table. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
Okay. Let's have a roll call, please, to table the bill. Yes is to table the bill, the motion to report it out, as amended, and to suspend the rules. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
No. 441 Whole - 5/25/05 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Cohen.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. 6 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.