Madam Chair, I will have an amendment for the public meeting once we get through the rollover amendments for both the capital program and the capital budget, to reflect the $7 million being put back in.
We'll do that at the public meeting. Very well. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
This $1 million that's going in here for the Managing Director's Office, who will determine how the hundred thousand dollars per district will be spent?
Is this the first time you've appropriated a hundred thousand dollars for each district?
No. This is an appropriation that -- combination that has gone forward between the improvements to existing facilities in recreation and a million dollars in the Managing Director's budget.
So we can call the Managing Director and say, we have a hundred thousand dollars over there. And can we use some of it to do X, Y and Z, or does it have to be for any facility?
Linda Howard, Deputy Budget Director. Councilwoman, traditionally, ever since we started allocating money per Councilmanic District, we've always budgeted a certain -- the bulk of the amount in recreation. When this -- When this started, I think the allocation was 1.2 million per district. We always budgeted a million dollars in recreation and 200,000 in the Managing Director's Office, the purpose category being a bit broader than recreation, so that Council people had some discretion to fund projects other than recreation projects.
Well, why do they give us such a hard time about putting up a fence if we have a hundred thousand dollars? That's not your issue. Okay. They act like, you know, you're asking for the world, to get something out of the Managing Director. Okay. Thank you. 315 Whole - 5/25/05
You're welcome. Are there any other questions or comments on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, seeing none, we will now refer to Bill 9 Number 050003. Councilman Cohen, that is the ordinance adopting the operating budget for '06. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Yes. Madam President, I offer one amendment to Bill Number 050003.
I would suggest you do that at our public meeting.
Madam President, I'd like to take the opportunity to get some 316 Whole - 5/25/05 clarification on the Mayor's May 24th letter about the $5.6 million that it cost the taxpayers of the City of Philadelphia to patrol the state highways here in the County of Philadelphia. As you know, we're the only county in the Commonwealth that provides that service and pays for it. There's some confusion whether or not that letter that the Mayor wrote... I'd like to get some clarification whether we're going to get the $5.6 million in fiscal year '06 or are we going to get the state troopers to come in here and patrol the roadway. Could you please clarify what that means.
Diane Reed, Budget Director. The Mayor has indicated that to make sure that we have a way of acknowledging the obligation that we understand that the state will provide this service, that we have added 5.6 -- a line of 5.6 million to the revenue side to pay for this, as a way of recognizing that we expect that the state will support 317 Whole - 5/25/05 this operation.
So we are confident that the state will pay the tab for those -- Is this with confidence or is this speculation? I mean, what -- Again, I think we had this conversation once before. What is the source?
We have repeated assurances from various senior officials at the state that because Philadelphia is the only county that is not patrolled, that this service will be provided by the state -- or supported by the state. Excuse me.
Supported financially, meaning a check for 5.6 million annually starting in fiscal year '06?
It will be determined exactly how this will occur. The Mayor has indicated that he would like to see it shown as a revenue expectation for '06, and that is 318 Whole - 5/25/05 what the budget reflects.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Yeah. I want to go back to this hundred thousand dollars per district in the Managing Director's Office. Since I didn't know too much about that, I should have a lot of money in that budget from my district. Can somebody know about that?
Do ya'll kind of accumulate the money in little pockets for the District Council person? $100,000 per district? I know you just got there, but I'm sure that --
You know me well enough 319 Whole - 5/25/05 to know that I'm not going to speculate or if I don't know, I'm not going to talk about it. We're going to get Miss Howard to clarify.
Miss Linda Howard, Deputy Budget Director. Councilwoman, the reason you don't -- We don't really... identify --
No, no, that's not true. We identify it by line numbers, and you can -- you can tell from your list of projects where the money is budgeted. It just -- It's not transparent to you, but it's always been there. The Managing Director does not -- He's not allowed to spend it. It's designated for the Councilmanic District in our budget information system, infamous. So, there's -- there's really not an issue.
Is it on the sheet that you all give us? 320 Whole - 5/25/05
Yes. Yes. That list that CPO prepares that we -- when we meet with you and we go over all your projects, that includes all the money. And we could show you on that sheet where it -- it's budgeted in recreation, and where it's budgeted in the Managing Director's Office.
We're now back to the operating budget. So, Miss Reed, you are going to present the administration's amendments?
Yes. I think they've been distributed. You have a marked-up copy of Bill 050003 which are the amendments.
I have it. I have it. 321 Whole - 5/25/05 Miss Reed, could you very quickly go over the amendments for the record.
The first change is in section 2.11 which is a $469,000 increase in materials and supplies. This is for fuel which will be used for the condo trash crews that we're putting in place, which also some of the expenses are reflected in the next line, 2.12 which are the vehicles. This is a $2.3 million increase for compactors, dumpsters, and a bulk truck. On at line 2.15, there is a change to personal services, an increase of nine hundred and fifty-four thousand for the crew, and of nine hundred thousand for the disposal contract. There is an increase at line 2.16 in the Fire Department of 3.4 million in personal services, which is an increase of about 17 million over the full five year plan. At line 2.19 there is $100,000 increase in contributions, indemnities and 322 Whole - 5/25/05 taxes for the recreation activities fund. At line 2.21, to the Recreation Department for the Art Museum, there's a $250,000 increase in contributions, indemnities and taxes, an increase or restoration to $2 million for the Art Museum. At line 2.22, also in recreation, to the Board of Trustees of the Atwater Kent, there are two changes of 14,000 to the... for one position and personal services, and an additional 6,000 in purchase of services for insurance. In line 2.32, there is a $567,000 increase in personal services for the enforcement crew that we were discussing earlier at another hearing, and also $250,000 in purchase of services for an engineering contract and $25,000 in material, supplies and equipment for hand-held equipment. At line 2.37 to the Department of Records we have an increase of $660,000 in purchase of services, for mapping and police accident reporting. This is offset by $600,000 in increased fees for recording at 323 Whole - 5/25/05 $10 apiece, so that the net change for this is $60,000. There is also... No. That's all. At 2.53 for contributions, indemnities and taxes, there's a hundred thousand dollars increase for the cultural fund. At 2.58, there is a $3.5 million increase in personal services for the Free Library for increased services, the restoration of full day service, Saturday service, and the three regional libraries, 37 positions. At 2.65, to the Register of Wills there's a $240,000 increase for personal services for systems, which is offset by a like amount of new fees, for a revenue neutral effect on the budget. In 2.66 to the District Attorney, there's an $87,000 restoration in purchase of services for the victims' support and confidential investigations services. At 2.67 to the Sheriff, there's $115,000 purchase of services increase which is the amount required for the Sheriff to 324 Whole - 5/25/05 complete the systems work required by the state. At 2.69, there is a $2.272 million personal services increase. And this is offset by a million and a half of civil fee increases. And the net change to the budget is $772,000. And the last change is in the Water Department, line 4.1 which is a transfer of $125 million from purchase of services to personal services. And those are the extent of changes to the -- to Bill 050003, the operating budget.
Thank you. Councilman Kenney, your light is on. Did you want to be recognized?
Thank you, Madam President. This question is for either the 325 Whole - 5/25/05 Managing Director or the City Solicitor. Can you tell me how much money was spent in opposing the condo trash ordinance up through the Commonwealth Court, I guess, and even pleadings to the Supreme Court? And if you know, how much Council spent in our activity relative to that case.
Councilman, Romulo Diaz, acting City Solicitor. I don't have those dollar figures before me. We had, in connection with the City's representation, that was done by outside Council. That was a relatively small contract, but I don't have that dollar figure, in terms of dollars invoiced and paid to date, but I can provide that to you for the record.
Well, in terms of the 326 Whole - 5/25/05 Class 200 dollars that are available to the Law Department. It was also... If I may, it was also a joint effort by the City Law Department. So, we did not have any additional expenses from that part of the legal representation. But in terms of the total dollars spent, I don't have that. I can provide that to you real quickly for the record.
I'd appreciate it. I don't know what Council spent on it. Don't know either?
The real point of my question is, with the Streets Department increase, why are we doing this the hard way? It seems to me that the condo associations now get mostly twice a week trash pickup from a private contractor, private hauler. Why are we going through the effort 327 Whole - 5/25/05 of acquiring new trucks, hiring new people, and doing something that's going to cost us more money than it costs the private associations to do it now? Why aren't we sitting at the table and negotiating a reimbursement for their trash pickup, as opposed to playing this game with buying new trucks and retrofitting and all the other stuff we're going to do? I mean, I even envision that we pick up the trash, like, in a sloppy way so that they're unhappy, I mean, just to be spiteful. Could we just figure out why we can't write a check or figure out how we can reimburse these groups for the trash pickup that they have now twice a week, and save the taxpayers some money, as opposed to buying equipment and trucks and everything else?
The operating budget amendment reflects an estimate of the -- from the Streets Department on a -- you know, a -- a -- a -- a reasonable approach to collecting trash. Obviously, as you know, by adopting 328 Whole - 5/25/05 the amended budget and appropriating the funds, it doesn't lock us in to a particular way of doing it. We -- But we did think it was important to -- to assume that we would be proceeding -- our numbers are not based on something cute like piling all the trash bags up in front of the Society Hill Towers or anything like that.
It's not out of the realm of possibility, if we want to --
If somebody wanted to prove a point. All I'm saying is, why are we having discussions with the people now? I understand you're asking for reconsideration. That's a highly, as you know, a highly unlikely occurrence with the Supreme Court, once they've denied to hear it.
As you're saying, Councilman, we're proceeding on both tracks, on the legal track asking for reconsideration, but as you've observed in this budget, also budgeting for... as if we 329 Whole - 5/25/05 were undertaking that obligation, which we would take seriously, you know, in our provision of City services.
If I could, Councilman, just respond very briefly to your earlier point about the cost, I think what you see in the budget amendment relative to the condo trash costs that would be incurred in the fiscal year '06, you see a significant sum of money. So, I don't... I think it's important to keep in context, given the costs to the City, apart from any principles related to governance, that there is a real cost. And the litigation costs are, I think, quite reasonable and moderate, with respect to that potential liability. But I agree with the Managing Director. Prudence demands that we include that, even as we are pursuing the legal track. And we will see what the Supreme Court says, with regard to the reconsideration petition that was filed last 330 Whole - 5/25/05 week.
Well, my only suggestion is that we try to work out a deal to reimburse them for their current pickup now, as opposed to trying to do it the hard way.
We're going to have to reach out to the -- reach out to the stakeholders and get some of the feedback. For example, if we were to... If we were to take a certain approach with... And buy particular types of trucks, part of what, you know, we might be looking to the condo owners to do is to -- we'll come to Council and try to provide some standardization on what's put -- you know, how that gets put out for our collection, whether types of containers, whether compactors, and also look at the other alternatives.
But we don't have to buy -- I don't think we have to buy one truck.
If we simply 331 Whole - 5/25/05 allow the private haulers to pick up what they're picking up now and reimburse the association, I would bet that in the larger buildings, that the condo association's trash budget, if reimbursed by the City, would probably be used to beautify and improve the area surrounding it. I'll bet you they wouldn't be writing smaller checks to each individual member, but they would probably do plantings and improvements, and other things, to make the whole area even better.
We tried to budget prudently. We haven't locked ourselves into any means of doing it. I would say that any time you deal with a public service -- and I'll get myself in trouble, maybe, by referring to education. But, you know, with schools, we provide -- You know, you get -- You know, you get the public school option, and at some level of service. And if you want something different, then we don't pay for the -- we don't pay for the private school. But we try 332 Whole - 5/25/05 to -- You know, we'd like to provide.
But see, that example is not accurate because in that circumstance you'd be paying more money for the private school and for the extra -- for the extra amenities of the education beyond what the public school's offering. What we're saying -- What I'm saying is that they're picking it up now twice a week. It's costing less than it would for the City to do it. Why would we go a route that costs more?
That's all I would like to have for the record. Thank you.
And Councilman, I thought that when Council was considering that bill, that was the route that we thought that the City administration was going.
You can make this process more difficult, if you choose, and more expensive, if you choose. And we 333 Whole - 5/25/05 had that extensive testimony and conversation back when we considered the bill. And we made that clear to the administration back then, that it was not going to cost what they were -- what they were saying in -- I think they were up to $8 million at one point in their testimony. It was nowhere near going to cost that, but that was an effort to scare off people over the issue of cost.
I mean, the ordinance, I believe, spoke of providing for regular trash collection, I think was the key phrase. I don't remember. But we're... You know, we're... If -- If -- You know, if -- if -- if life is that we have to proceed with condo trash pickup, we're going to do it as best we can and as cost effectively as we can. For purposes of budget, we tried to take, you know, a responsible --
And my only suggestion is, I would just consider you guys writing a check as opposed to buying trucks. 334 Whole - 5/25/05
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. On that same note -- and Councilman Kenney or you, Madam President -- I thought we had a number that was somewhere around a political, political one or two.
One of the things that we looked at, and we can talk about some more because we may have to come back either way on the implementation side, depending on how we do it, is certainly the growth of the number of... you know, the growth in the condo market.
Right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right. That's what I was going to get to.
Well, I think that is an issue that should be looked at sooner or later because you look at some 335 Whole - 5/25/05 of the condos along the Parkway, it's my understanding that they have trash pick-ups at least four times a week. So I don't think the City's going to be able to do that. Okay. Councilman DiCicco, you're finished? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes.
On behalf of the administration, we're requesting that 050007, 050008 be held.
Very well. Thank you. Councilman Cohen, is your aide explaining them to you? 7 and 8 are being held. Miss Reed, again, I would ask you for the record, is the Mayor prepared to spend the money in the operating budget as he submitted it, if we approve it, and approve his taxes? Are we being given a guarantee 336 Whole - 5/25/05 that the money will be spent?
We have a guarantee, a commitment, and a solemn oath...
Madam President, just a point of information. Why don't we just get a letter to that effect, Madam President? Then it's memorialized.
Okay. I 337 Whole - 5/25/05 believe that will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting.
This will conclude the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. m. - - - BILL 050451 - An Ordinance amending Title of 7 The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Finance Taxes and Collections," by 8 creating a new Chapter 19-3400, entitled "excise Tax on Outdoor 9 Advertising Transactions,' under certain terms and conditions. 10 BILL 050452 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 11 19-1200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking Tax," to provide 12 for a tax on valet parking transactions, under certain terms 13 and conditions. 14 BILL 050453 - An Ordinance amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, section 9-602, 15 entitled "Outdoor Advertising," by amending the requirements for 16 obtaining and the conditions for issuance of licenses, including the 17 applicable fees; imposing safety requirements; increasing penalties; 18 providing certain reporting requirements; amending certain 19 definitions; and making technical changes; all under certain terms and conditions. 2670 339 Whole - 5/25/05 BILL 040767 - An Ordinance amending Section 19-2604 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to tax rates, credits and alternative tax computation for the business privilege tax, by reducing certain tax rates; all under certain terms and conditions. BILL 040789 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 19-2600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Business Privilege Taxes," to provide for an exemption from the tax on gross receipts for certain new businesses, under certain terms and conditions. BILL 050001 - An Ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six Fiscal Years 2006-2011 inclusive. BILL 050002 - An Ordinance to adopt a Fiscal 2006 Capital Budget. BILL 050003 - An Ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2006. BILL 050007 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 19-1200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking Tax," by establishing a rate of taxation on parking transactions for Fiscal Year 2006 and thereafter and making such rate contingent on certain decreases in business privilege tax rates. BILL 050008 - An Ordinance amending Section 20 19-2604 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to tax rates, credits and alternative tax computation for the business privilege tax, by reducing certain tax rates and making such reductions contingent on an increase in the parking tax. BILL 050383 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 19-1200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking Tax," by 340 Whole - 5/25/05 increasing the rate of taxation on parking transactions for Fiscal Year 2006 and thereafter. RES. 050022 - Resolution providing for the approval by the Council of the City of Philadelphia of a Revised Five Year Financial Plan for the City of Philadelphia covering Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, and incorporating proposed changes with respect to Fiscal Year 2005, which is to be submitted by the Mayor to the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority(the "Authority") pursuant to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement, authorized by an ordinance of this Council approved by the Mayor on January 3, 1992 (Bill No. 1563-A), by and between the City and the Authority. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO 341 Whole - 5/25/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. And the first bill that we will be considering will be Bill Number 040767. The Chair recognizes the sponsor of the bill, Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. From your previous comments, there has been extensive public testimony and discussion about this bill. I would just encourage my colleagues, this is the only bill at the moment that is available to us to put forward any additional, although responsible, tax reduction or some might call a part of the tax reform plan. It is fiscally responsible but also continues to send, I believe, the right message, that Philadelphia is open for business, it's looking to grow jobs, and is 342 Whole - 5/25/05 seeking to keep things moving in the right direction and sending the right message, especially with a first time ever opportunity -- not opportunity; we've had other opportunities -- but certainly a first time ever reduction in the excessively high net income portion of the business privilege tax. So, I would ask for support for this measure, at a minimum, to be r from this committee so that the full body can take up this matter at the subsequent Council session. So, I move the adoption. I'm sorry. I move -- Been a long day. I move that Bill 17 040767 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation.
It was amended. As amended, so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second. 343 Whole - 5/25/05
It has been moved and seconded that Bill Number 040767 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation as amended, and that the rules of Council be suspended, so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
On this matter I would like to speak in opposition to it. My daughter was... Marie's somewhere in the room, wearing a sign, I think, saying tax cuts don't grow opportunities. Tax revenue does. At some point we've got to have enough revenue to run the City. And I think at this point it would be a misguided action to take any more cuts in taxes. So I will be voting against Councilman Nutter's bill, although I appreciate the very strong work he's done in support of the bill. But I think this is the wrong time 344 Whole - 5/25/05 to cut taxes when we need so much in the form of services. People stay in Philadelphia and love Philadelphia because of services it provides. And people are important, not just business people but residential people. And people from businesses don't want to come to a City that's lost too many jobs. So, for all of those reasons, I think at this time it would be a mistake to cut taxes beyond what we've done. And therefore, I will be respectfully opposed to Councilman Nutter's bill, in the interests of the City.
Madam Chair, thank you very much. Just a couple brief comments. And I respect and appreciate Councilman Cohen's comments. I think, as we heard through the 345 Whole - 5/25/05 extensive hearings, and as articulated most recently by Councilman Goode, we know for a fact, based on information from the City administration, that the continuing cuts in the rate of tax on the business privilege tax and also on the wage tax have not led to a lower tax revenue collected on these taxes. That's first. And the information comes from the City's own budget documents. We have extensive back and forth with our own Budget Director last week. Second, this is not just about what, quote unquote, business people get. Who works for these businesses but Philadelphians in many, many instances. And Philadelphians, while they desperately need in some cases or personally enjoy the services that the City provides, I also believe that what Philadelphians want is a growing, thriving City where they can get a job. A sense of dependency on the system, I believe, ultimately is not the kind of 346 Whole - 5/25/05 public policy that we wish to promote. And I know that there is this motion that cutting the taxes in this City somehow leads to an instant transference of dollars into the pockets of a variety of business people. And while business may grow, and the last I checked we're still in the United States of America, and there is a bit of a capitalistic system here, what I'm really more interested in, is whether it's a big business or a small business or a medium sized business downtown, my good colleague knows that there are many, many, many smaller businesses throughout Philadelphia. The small business outnumbers big business by a significant margin. And those small businesses hire local neighborhood people. They have problems. Those businesses also have problems with the onerous tax system and tax rates here in Philadelphia. When those businesses grow, our neighborhoods grow. When those businesses 347 Whole - 5/25/05 grow, our neighbors get jobs. And when they have jobs, they can take care of their families and get all the service that they need, and will continue to enjoy the services here in Philadelphia. There is no direct connection between the lowering of tax rates and less tax revenue. That point, I think, has been proven by the facts and the data and information laid on this record. So, I do appreciate the Councilman's perspective. I know he cares about this City and our neighborhoods and people getting jobs. His record is crystal clear on that particular point. We do, though, have a slight difference of opinion as to what the ultimate result of these kinds of actions are. And I would only ask, on behalf of the citizens of this City, and working age people, and some who are not working age today but who might want to have a job in this town, that we support efforts to help grow business and grow this economy so that 348 Whole - 5/25/05 Philadelphia can continue to be a premiere City in the United States. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. Your light is on.
Does anyone else want to be recognized on this bill? Yes, Councilman Cohen.
Just briefly. I think there's been no proof of any showing that tax cutting produces the revenue. We don't know what the cause is. Might well be that business was better in the Clinton years than in the Bush years, and that's the reason why we have the increases in revenue, despite the tax cutting that went on. But be that as it may, I have no 23 objection to cutting the taxes on the... on the small business people. That's why I introduced in this Council, pass the bill on 349 Whole - 5/25/05 small businesses. But the Tax Reform Committee, of which you were a leader, objected to that and said, there was no indication that the cut of taxes on the working people would have any increase -- would result in any increase of revenue. So, I just respectfully submit again, you can't have it both ways. If you believe that there ought to be cuts limited to the... what I call residential businesses, businesses... the mom and pop variety, that give meaning to residential living. That's one thing. But your bill gives the tax cut to all businesses, including the major bills, and serves sort of to justify the $36 million giveaway of the state money for Comcast. And that's the reason I say, let's set a new classification of residential businesses, meaning small businesses, with well defined boundaries that make residential living in Philadelphia worthwhile. But let's not cut taxes for the giants that don't need 350 Whole - 5/25/05 it. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. Do we have any other comment from members of the committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, it was moved and seconded that the bill 10 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call the roll. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
No. 20 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
Aye. 351 Whole - 5/25/05 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Kenney.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Council President Verna. 352 Whole - 5/25/05
Aye. Bill passes nine to eight. The bill is reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, by a vote of nine to eight. The next bill to be considered is Bill Number 050001. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the amendment to -- proposed amendment that's circulated to Bill 15 Number 050001 be adopted.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill Number 050001 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and a suspension of the rules.
We're doing the amendment first, the adoption of the 353 Whole - 5/25/05 amendment. Right?
I believe Councilman Nutter and the Budget Director, Diane Reed -- Is this the bill in which she -- the Budget Director had to tell us what the meaning was because it wasn't in the bill itself?
I think so, Councilman. I think it was the same thing. She told us that there was an amendment to the Managing Director's line, I believe, of a million dollars. Is the budget or the program the program? The program?
Yeah. There was 354 Whole - 5/25/05 a million -- I believe it was the same million dollar adjustment on line item 51 or something. It was one of the bills the Budget Director talked about.
Would you care to state how you're going to vote on it, Councilman. I thought your criticism with sound.
I appreciate that. I'm going to vote in favor of the amendment.
I will recognize you again. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the proposed amendment 355 Whole - 5/25/05 to Bill Number 050001, as passed out today, the amendment we received be adopted. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments as presented be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Councilman Cohen is voting no. All other members are voting in the affirmative. And the amendment is adopted. Councilman O'Neill.
I would offer an amendment to the amended capital program.
No. I'm going to circulate it now. It's very simple. I 356 Whole - 5/25/05 didn't want to confuse it with the other until it was passed.
Thank you, Madam President. Does everyone have a copy of the amendment? (No response.)
Yes or no. 12 Councilman O'Neill, you're being recognized.
Thank you, Madam President. The amendment is in number one, section one, and it adds $7 million to the capital program in the Recreation Department. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
Councilman Nutter, if you're saying something, I can't hear you.
No. I'm just -- I'm really not saying anything. 357 Whole - 5/25/05
Move the adoption, Madam President. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments -- Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I just wanted to ask our budget -- (Councilman Cohen said something away from the microphone, not reportable.)
Yes, there is. Councilman Clarke, you're being recognized.
Thank you. 358 Whole - 5/25/05 Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I would just like to ask our budget guru, also known as Mr. McPherson, does this amendment simply increase the amount of the amount of money in the capital budget? It has no effect whatsoever on any other aspects of this particular bill? MR. McPHERSON: It conforms to what the administration amendments that were just passed do. And what this does is, it then conforms an additional $7 million of CN money to the Recreation Department to improvement to existing facilities.
So that takes us up from the proposed -- Is it five or 600,000? MR. McPHERSON: Well, if you go into the amended, this takes us up to a million two.
Of five or six 359 Whole - 5/25/05 or whatever. MR. McPHERSON: Yes.
All right. It has been moved and seconded that Councilman O'Neill's amendment be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Madam President. (Councilman Cohen made remarks, away from the microphone, not reportable.)
The stenographer could not hear you. Councilman, what's that? The stenographer could not hear you.
I said, I have not changed my objection to this grant of potential money to District Council members, to the exclusion of the at large, but this represents an entirely different issue in today's world. But I'm serving notice that hereafter I expect to be voting against any grants which separates Council members into a superior and an inferior class. We've all got to be treated the same way. At this point, the question's on a different matter entirely.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell again, regarding Bill Number 050001.
Madam President, I move that Bill Number 050001 as amended be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and also a recommendation for a suspension of the rules 361 Whole - 5/25/05 so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill Number 050001 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it, and the motion passes. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell, regarding Bill Number 050002.
Madam President, I move that the proposed amendment as circulated be adopted to Bill Number 050002.
Second. (Councilwoman Krajewski said something away from the microphone, not reportable.)