Aye. The ayes are 17, the nays are 0. A READING, FINAL PASSAGE majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 020340.
An ordinance declaring that it is desirable for the health, safety, welfare of the people in the area served by the Children Hospital of Philadelphia, the Children's Hospital Foundation and the Children's Seashore House of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia to participate with such institutions in such renovations, improvement, and expansion project to such institutions, buildings, and facilities primarily at their campus located at 34th Street and Civic Center Boulevard.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally? The Clerk will please call the roll.
Aye. The ayes are 16, with one abstention, 16 to 1. The abstention is from Councilman O'Neill. The nays are 0. A majority of all Members of Council having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The Clerk will please read the Title of Bill No. 020348.
An ordinance amending and restating the ordinance approved July 12, 1968, as last amended effective January 1, 1999, relating to pension benefits for employees working on behalf of the Philadelphia Gas Works by revising the Philadelphia Gas Works Pension Plan to incorporate amendments thereto clarifying the operation thereof and add certain provisions as required by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally? READING, FINAL PASSAGE The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.
Council President, I would like to make a motion to table this bill. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 020348 be tabled. All in favor -- roll call vote, please.
No. The motion fails. We have 9 no's, 8 yeses, so the motion fails.
Madam President, I would like to discuss the bill if it's on the floor.
Thank you, Madam READING, FINAL PASSAGE President. I voted to table the bill because I think it's being rushed through. I've read the letter from the Mayor. I read letter from union Counsel. I've spoken with some people from the Gas Works and some people from the union. I admit I don't know all the answers, but in an atmosphere where workers are worried about pension raids being made and therefore workers are very concerned whenever management moves forward with some initiative of making a pension change. The pension fund at PGW, from what I understand, is very solid. And I'm very fearful that an effort is being made to take money away. I hope I'm wrong. But I think the union is entitled to have the time to study the issue to find out what the facts are. They say they've been unable to get the information. Even the Mayor's letter said that they have to act by August 31st. While Council is in recess, there are always enough Councilmembers in the area and the President has the authority at any time to call a meeting together, a special meeting. We only need 9 members to be present to approve this if the two parties can come to an agreement in the meantime. I READING, FINAL PASSAGE just think it's terribly unfair to tell workers you've got to meet a deadline quickly before they have an opportunity to fully understand the issue. There may be finally no disagreement between the union and the management, but on the surface, there is good reason to believe that the conditions of the union are justified. They are concerned that the benefits go to management employees and not to union employees and they're concerned that there may be a raid on treasury and that money that's needed in the long run for pensions may be jeopardizing by withdrawing it from the pension fund. Let's get the facts. We have plenty of time, more than two months before there's any deadline of any kind for tax purposes. And this Council is always ready to meet in an emergency situation. For that reason, I'm urging my colleagues to vote no on this bill. That's the reason I voted to permit the tabling, in order to allow more time. We hope there will be an agreement, but we certainly are against workers being pushed around and told this is going to happen and if you don't agree today, you're going to find yourself outvoted in City Council. Therefore, I READING, FINAL PASSAGE urge my colleagues vote no on this bill. (Applause.)
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.
Thank you, Madam President. I have to agree with my young colleague Councilman Cohen that, again, this is probably a chance a golden parachute for some people in management who if there's a problem with PGW, it's not these guys sitting out over here because on the first look at it, who wouldn't want their pension moved from 10 years to 5 years. So it's something they need to look at. What's happening, in my opinion, is there is some new management people there and if they're doing a good job or a bad job is up for everyone to decide. But let's not move their gold pension, their golden parachute up now so they can get out and say, These guys are left holding the bags, because it's usually on the backs of the working man, like Councilman Cohen said, that they destroy this company and companies like it. So I'm voting no along with my younger colleague Councilman Cohen. READING, FINAL PASSAGE And, Councilman, keep up the good work. If you keep doing the good work like that, you could probably be a successful Councilperson. Thank you . (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam President. This pension bill is not a raid on the pension. It is a bill to codify the IRS issues relative to the pension bill. It provides investment of five years as we have done with the City. It impacts every employee. It's not a negative impact. It is a plus impact. It covers all employees, union, non-union, as our vestment in the City covers everybody and all levels, all classes of pay rage, and it is not a bill that is anti-union bill. And I ask my colleagues to vote on this bill so that we can file with the Federal Government our plan so that we can get a codification of our IRS status. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill. READING, FINAL PASSAGE
Yes, Madam Chair. I'll be brief because Councilman Cohen really laid it out. And I want to thank him. I usually agree with him on zoning and labor issues, and I hope more as time goes on because I know he's going to be around here a long time. I'd like to be here with him. But as a republican, I'd like to make it clear that this is a labor issue and I think it's important that we vote in favor of the union either to table it or just nix it and start over again in September. Thank you. (Applause.)
Any other comments from Members of the Committee? Seeing none, I would ask the Clerk to please call the roll.
Aye. The vote is 10-7. A majority of all Council having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 020355.
An ordinance dissolving the St. James Court Tax Increment Financing District.
Thank you, Madam President. Just a point of clarification. Is the first TIF bill not to go to the Committee of the Whole?
I'm sorry. We still have session going on, please. Councilman Goode.
As point of information, Madam President, I wanted to know if this the first TIFF bill not to go to Committee of Whole; and if so, why?
Councilman, I'm very sorry. Let's just wait a moment until the READING, FINAL PASSAGE group walks out. Maybe we'll be able to hear you. Between the noise outside and noise inside, it's making it very difficult.
As a point of information, I wanted to know if this is the first TIF bill not to Committee of the Whole; and if so, why?
This went to the Committee on Finance because it was actually dissolving the St. James Court Tax TIF. It wasn't to approve, it was dissolving.
I understand. I just want to know why a TIF bill did not go to Committee of the Whole. I'm concerned about just setting precedent on TIFF bills, period.
Because there was a committee hearing scheduled and, as I said, this was not approval but dissolving and we thought it should be given -- in fact, I think the sponsor had asked that it be scheduled as promptly possible. So we put it before the Finance Committee who already had bills listed for a public hearing.
But for the record, as a matter of not setting a bad precedent, I ask if READING, FINAL PASSAGE there are going to be further TIF bills that are not setting up TIF districts but actually taking revenue from the entire City to give to individual developers that they definitely go before the Committee of the Whole.
Madam President, I'm asking that as a matter precedent, all future TIF bills, whether it is to dissolve or whatever go to the Committee of the Whole because we're actually taking revenue from the entire City to give to individual developers in specific districts. I just want to make sure we don't set a pad precedent here and to send all TIF bills -- I'd like us not to have TIF bills period to go to developers rather than for broader development. Thank you.
We'll certainly give that every consideration. Thank you. This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally? Councilwoman Brown.
Point of order. So READING, FINAL PASSAGE what that mean, you will give that every consideration? Does that mean that this will be the first and last time that there will be TIF bills that go to Finance and not come before the Committee of the Whole?
I just said I would take it under advisement. If there is a time that it would necessitate us to put a bill before a committee and it's an urgency, I think I have the prerogative at that time to list the bill before a committee that could certainly deal with the finances. This was simply dissolving -- I mean, I don't know big deal is here of dissolving a -
I have always supported TIF with much reservation. And I don't need a reason not support TIFs in the future. My hope and expectation -
And I think this conversation is out of order. It's really not relevant to the bill whatsoever. A bill had a public hearing -
If that be the READING, FINAL PASSAGE case, I will not be supporting this bill.
The issue that was raised in the NTI resolution was a matter of whether it was assigned to the appropriate committee. That's why I'm raising this point as well. I think that whenever we set legislative precedent, we're setting legislative precedent.
And I think I explained my position on why it was introduced before the finance committee.
Excuse me, Madam President. Point of order. If it is a matter that has revenue implications for the entire City, as an at-large member of Council, I don't want to see revenue taken from the entire City given to individual developers for specific districts, particularly when most of that development has taken place in only a couple of districts. And I don't want to see the precedent set when it's a City-wide READING, FINAL PASSAGE matter that it not go to the Committee of the Whole.
Aye. The ayes are 16. The nays are 1. The record will reflect that Councilwoman Brown voted in the negative. Thank you. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 020361.
An ordinance declaring that it is desirable for the health, safety, and welfare of the people in the are served by Temple University Hospital in the vicinity of 3401 North Broad Street.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question READING, FINAL PASSAGE now is shall the bill pass finally? The Clerk will please call the roll.