And I heard you say that and then I wrote down something you said that the loan had been repaid many times. Either you said that or Mr. Knudsen said that. And I was trying to -- so what do you mean when you say that? 67 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676
Just to try clarify, when he says repaid, he means the money is set aside and the City earns the interest off that, but PGW still has the use of those funds. It hasn't actually transferred into the possession of the General Fund. That's what he's talking about when he said repaid. So it's segregated but not transferred.
That's the way we utilize it, yes. But part of the ordinance, I think, was that the ultimate repayment meant that the loan was repaid and at that point in time we would have to come back to Council for re-authorization if we needed it. This was the basic working relationship we worked out with the Finance Director, that it was a segregated account and that we initially would have repaid it in its entirety by January of 2003. And with Council's approval, we got an extension on the ultimate repayment to August of '06.
In the materials that you sent over to us with the pretty -- what is this, like magenta? It's a very pretty blue color. 68 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 On you have a question and answer section 3 here. The question is, "What happens if PGW does not complete the bond issue in December?" Your response is you've been directed by the Board as well as the PUC to provide for various services. And then it goes on, "To that end, PGW will have funded construction activities this fall and winter from its own operating funds flows. If the bonds are not sold, company will not be able to reimburse itself for these advances and will not have sufficient funds to operate the utility throughout the winter heating season." Do I read that to mean that you're using operating dollars for capital purposes?
There's a lot of segregation going on over there. You don't have to respond. That's fine. 69 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676
PGW has a segregated Capital Improvement Fund which still had, as we speak, about $34 million in proceeds from the June 2001 sale. We plan to have -- the projects that we have identified in our 2003 Capital Budget are to the tune of about $80 million for the current Fiscal Year. We expected that some of those costs would have been incurred up to about 30 to 40 million which would have exhausted the Capital Improvement Fund proceeds available. As we speak, PGW's other liquidity that it has on a short-term basis is in fact the commercial paper letter of credit and this revolving loan that the City has provided. Both of those loans are fully outstanding as we speak today, and we expect it on a daily basis will make some inroads, but they will be outstanding until the better part of the winter season is over. So what we need to do is we need to have the proceeds from the bond sell, the new money issue deposited into the Capital Improvement Fund so that at this point in time PGW can then reimburse itself for the capital expenditures it will have already paid for out of operating funds up to the point that the bond 70 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 is sold. So we're trying to reimburse ourselves for the 30 to $40 million that we'll have spent from September up to January 1st. If in fact we don't get that replenishment of the capital funds, there will be severe pressure put on us to make the January 2nd debt service payment. So that right now what we're trying to do is find out basically whether or not we can go to market, have this instrument placed and the proceeds available. Otherwise, PGW will have to go back to the drawing board and really reign in its spending at this point and take a hard look at the capital expenditures over the next four to six months so that we live within our means.
Well, I understand the need for the capital. I guess what I was trying to understand was how is it that you're able to use operating funds for capital purposes? And if that's what it is that you're doing. Now, is that what you're doing?
On a daily basis that cash being fungible from all sources, that's a true statement. We do use operating funds. But on an annual basis -- 71 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676
Well, based on legal opinion we have from counsel that, as I pointed out, we true up on an annual basis that only capital expenditures can be drawn out -- the proceeds from capital bonds being issued by PGW can only be utilized for capital purposes. So on an annual basis we true up that cost. On a contingent basis, on a daily basis -- currently right now, just as an example, PGW is currently earning probably about 1.46 percent overnight on any investment it might make. The Capital Improvement Fund is set aside in an account that earns almost four percent. So it would be imprudent at this point in time to draw money to reimburse ourselves for capital improvements when in fact I'd give away about 250 basis points and interest earnings. But going back to your point, PGW only uses capital proceeds for capital projects. On an interim basis, PGW does in fact borrow on a 72 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 intra-fund basis the capital proceeds to pay for O&M expenses. And then as we go through the year and legitimize capital spending over the course of the year, those funds are put back into the capital program proceeds account and/or they're used to pay for their capital projects as they're expended. So that PGW at the end of any fiscal year can never use operating funds over and above anything that it has drawn out of the capital fund for capital projects. There's a reconciling process that exists.
I'll be interested, and if you would request of the appropriate people, I'd like to see the legal opinion about that.
Thank you. Did you have a forward purchase agreement transaction over the summer?
Yes, we did. I think we closed on that transaction August 22nd of 2002.
The benefit to the company was that it took its singing fund reserve -- 73 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 actually there's two components, there's two ordinances still outstanding, the '75 bond ordinance 4 and '98. Under the '75, the earnings on the restricted account for PGW reside with the City. And then the '98 ordinance changed the language so that those funds in fact accrued back to PGW. But the combination or this forward purchase agreement was that the 1975 and 1998 ordinance we put out about $60 million of PGW sinking fund deposit. We were, on a net present value basis, given back by investment bankers $20.1 million for the transaction. This was to offset some of the margin loss we had during the 2002 fiscal period so that the $20.1 million went into project revenues to assure that PGW would maintain its bond coverage.
So what were the proceeds to PGW as a result of the forward purchase agreement?
The forward purchase agreement, PGW received 20.15 million.
And that money went directly to PGW? 74 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676
As I said, a portion of it was our money to earn and a portion was granted back by the Finance Director through the City of Philadelphia.
And how was it granted back? Was there a transfer ordinance?
Not to speak for the Finance Director, but it's my understanding that she had some unencumbered appropriation powers since it was early on in the fiscal year and there was room in the budget to make that transfer. That was done out of the grants and indemnity account.
Well, I guess what I was trying to understand was -- I think we did one of these in --
'95, I seem to recall that there was an actual transfer from the City to PGW. We received the money in and then we sent it back out. In this particular instance, you did not follow that procedure? Is there anyone from finance here?
No, but it's my understanding 75 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 that that did happen, that transfer did happen.
Again, because it was early on in the fiscal year and we had some appropriation room where we were able to make this transfer without doing the appropriation transfer, but we're probably going to have to come back --
The fiscal year was a month and a half old at that point.
Correct. It's based on the budget that was approved, the 2003, PGW revenue budget.
I don't know the exact amount. Again, I don't want to speak for the Finance Director, but the amount that was 76 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 transferred was approximately $11 million.
Councilman, if I may, just to maybe shed a little light on this.
This transaction that took place, as I pointed out, was done on a net present value back to PGW or to the City of Philadelphia. We put the $60 million in potential reserves out for -- I think it was almost years 12 because of interest rates. So that at the end of 17 13 years, this will revert back to PGW's coffers for 14 interest earnings. 15 What happened was on a net present value 16 basis, the investment banker and the transaction 17 that was just completed provided to the City of Philadelphia that $20.15 million. So it's we got an advance on earnings for the next 17 years. So it's not like the City of Philadelphia used any of their funds per say out of the General Fund. There was a deposit made into the fund, 20.15 for the proceeds of this transaction. The City through the Finance Director granted back the applicable portion of this to PGW. 77 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676
I understand that. I'm following the transaction, I'm following all the balls. What I'm trying to understand is in the previous situation exactly similar to this, the City received the money because I think, it's my understanding at least, that it is the City's money; it's not PGW's money. It should come to the City and then it should be transferred out in accordance with normal procedure and provisions of the City Charter. Sorry to be so technical about it. That didn't happen in this particular situation, and I'm trying to understand it. Is anybody from finance over here or get them over here? I mean, I'd just like to understand how the money is moving around because I have this little tendency to watch it.
Because the 1998 ordinance of which a part of this sinking fund reserve, the language was changed in the ordinance 23 so the money is no longer to accrue to the benefit to the City. It's to accrue to PGW. That was an ordinance change in 1998. 78 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676
But wasn't part of this transaction covered by the '75 ordinance?
Then the portion that was covered by the '75 ordinance, did we have a transfer ordinance for that amount? I think the answer is no, right?
I wasn't privy to the transaction, but to the best of my knowledge, no, that did not happen. I'm just assuming right now that the transaction --
I want to talk about the 1995 transaction. I'm assuming that that probably happened later in the fiscal year where appropriations transfer was needed at that time.
Beginning, middle, end? You want to grant money out from the City, you have to do a transfer ordinance.
What I will do is -- 79 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676
What I would suggest is you get somebody from finance over here to explain what finance did.
Would you like to have that today or can I do that at a later date?
Actually, I'd like to have it right now. And while we're waiting for that, as City Treasurer and for what you might be aware of, can you tell me about any other transactions that have taken place over the last couple years that may or may not have required Council approval? Are you aware of any?
Are you aware of any other transactions or transfers of funds that may have required Council approval for which such approval was not requested?
Did you have any pension obligation bond transactions recently?
We had a DECO transaction, Detachable Call Option where we sold the call options -- 80 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676
It was a detachable call option. It was the 1999 pension bonds which had a call option in 2004. We sold that call option for a premium payment of approximately $6 million. What we gave up was our right to call those bonds in 2004. And that happened in July.
Do you know if any notice or any other information was sent over to City Council about that transaction?
There was a briefing of the Finance Committee on that transaction.
Do you remember who was there? 81 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676
Yes, Councilwoman Blackwell, and I think Charles McPherson was present.
Well, the Councilwoman is the Chair of the Committee, and Mr. McPherson works on the Council President's staff. I don't remember anything about a briefing about that particular matter. To the best of my recollection, I think I was here almost all summer. I have a very exciting summer life.
Let me say to my colleague that all meetings, all briefings to which we are invited, we the invite the entire committee. It makes it easier.
I'm sure the Chair does. This is no issue with the Chair or about meetings or anything else. Any other transactions this past summer? During the course of the past year? Aviation fund? Enterprise bonds? Water Department?
There was an airport Swaption 82 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 done.
The airport signed a swap agreement with J.P. Morgan. In that swap agreement, we received an up-front payment of roughly 6.5 million. That was, again, to take advantage of the current low interest rate environment. Again, we briefed the Finance Chair on that transaction.
What happened to $6 million in savings from the pension obligation bond and the $6 million in savings from the aviation fund?
Again, the $6 million on the pension bond, that's an approximate number. It could be a little bit more than that. Currently, that investment is sitting in a CD to mature in April. At that point in time, it will be used to offset the City's payment to the pension fund.
Why was it placed in a CD. 83 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676
At the current time, we got a higher interest return on the CD than what we were getting in money markets for our daily cash investments.
And what happened to the $6 million from the aviation fund savings?
That went into the aviation's operating account. I can't attest to what they used the monies for.
Any other transactions you want to tell us about today?
Because there aren't anymore or because you don't want to tell me?
I was just checking. Want to see if you're paying attention. Let me ask this question. Somewhere between the treasurer and the Finance Director, is there a particular policy with regard to whether or not you need our approval to actually engage in a 84 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 particular transaction? Is there a policy related to sharing information about these transactions and how they take place in a complete written explanation as to what the transaction is, what the savings are, where you anticipate the money going if you know about it, whether or not you have to get our approval or not? Is there a standard practice or policy?
There's nothing written, but what we have developed internally, if we -- if bond counsel in our Law Department deems that we do not have to get Council approval for a transaction, we do provide information to the Finance Chair and allow for any other representatives of City Council to be present. But we do run those briefings through the Finance Chair's office.
Thanks. Is anyone coming over from Finance to help you out?
While we're waiting, Councilman Kenney, do you have any questions?
Well, a number of 85 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 the questions that Councilman Nutter touched on. It had to do with the allocation or the expenditure that the City apparently made on the research of a potential sale or other disposition. And I know that Mr. Knudsen and others have indicated that they had very little or any knowledge of it. I know press reports have indicated upwards of a million dollars in fees for Lehman Brothers to do this work of non-existent or apparently nonexistent documents that can't be shared with the Board of Directors of this $3 billion company called the City of Philadelphia. So I guess we wait until the Finance Department person comes. Maybe they know where this document is or what its disposition or how much we paid. It is very, very unsettling and disturbing to see and hear at a public hearing that basically the Appropriations Committee of Council is a meaningless body that probably should be eliminated the way we're going. I am just fascinated that over the summer while we're not in session there's this continuing activity going on outside the government. I mean, it just flabbergasts me that we're in this situation. It's 86 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 amazing. I think we need to wait for Finance. As a mater of fact, I'm very glad that representatives from the City Controller's Office are here for the next hearing. Maybe they can learn about creative accounting in government and look into some of this stuff themselves. But this is just unbelievable to me sitting here listening to this line of questioning and getting very little, if any, answers and a lot of misdirection, frankly. So I'll wait for the Finance Department.
I'd like to go back to a couple other questions. In your book you state that Black & Veatch stated, and it's on , that PGW will receive 15 million per year in permanent base rate increase on a levelized basis over the 2006 through 2008 period. That's a very strong "will." I mean, don't you have to go to the PUC to get that? Do they know something that we don't know?
Black & Veatch was hired to perform a feasibility study for the bond per the ordinance and the Finance Director needs 87 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 that as a precursor to coming to Council for approval for the funding. Black & Veatch, as its assumed here and the report was made I think available to Council was one of their assumptions that in 2006 as a result of some cost increases that PGW had incurred prior to that was not on target to repay ultimately all of its short-term debt by 2006. So one of the assumptions that they made as an alternate scenario was that they wanted to assure everyone that, based on the 2001 report, PGW was on target to get out of short-term debt by 2006. And what they assumed was -- and maybe the language is a little less clear. Their assumption was there would be a $15 million effusion in three components and/or, which would be go to PUC for rates, come up with other revenue enhancements in the intervening time to provide that, or identify cost savings all to the tune of about $15 million. So you're absolutely correct, if in fact the only thing that we do other than cut costs and try to get another revenue enhancement, again, it's only their assumption of what they have in place that we would have to go to the PUC and request the base rate increase for a component of that, not all 88 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 of it.
So the assumption is that you will have to get a rate increase of 5 million a year? 6
No, it's an assumption 7 that we will be provided some source of funding 8 either through rates, through revenue enhancements 9 or cost savings. It's not directly a rate increase. 10
So let's go back to 11 cost savings which we've been hearing years and 12 years and years about cost savings. What are you 13 doing to cut costs, and how can you share that 14 information with this Council? And the areas where 15 you want to cut and the dollars associated with that cut. Because it seems that historically the route to take is to go and raise the rates. And then with the high rates we already have, the public can't continue to bear the financial burden of PGW. And PGW has to find a way to generate funds to keep it running without raising the ratepayers. They can't continue to pay these high rates.
I fully agree with your position. This management is committed not to raise rates, and we're going to do everything we can not 89 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 to. In fact, we'd like to at some point actually reduce rates if that's a possibility. I think the issue that we talked about earlier of reducing costs, we have reduced personnel costs substantially over the last two and a half to three years.
But you've already increased salaries, so what is the --
The increases in salaries have been substantially less than -- the reductions in personnel have more than offset any increases in salaries. Increases in salary have been a very small part of that overall savings. And basically the policy has been, what increases there have been, remember 1300 of our 1700 employees are in the union. They have had no increases across the board for two years and they'll have a 2 percent in the third year. That's what we negotiated. What they do have are progression increases. If they're in their position long enough, they have longevity and so forth. And that's about a half a million dollars a year for the union. For management, many management have not had an increase since April of 1999. Those 90 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 increases that we have put in place reflect changes of responsibilities. We have consolidated positions. Put, essentially, one person into two people's position, given them some amount of an increase but essentially saved on the position that we eliminated. That has been our general practice over the last several years. We have looked at these refinancings as a major benefit. We are looking at our collections from our customers. We have a substantial number of customers, as I indicated earlier, who do not pay their bill. That was possible because the computer system didn't track them well. One of the issues that we have, and Councilwoman Blackwell and I have been in conversation over this, we have our credit and collection effort and the computer in place to track people now very successfully. It was so successful that we ended up actually turning over 30,000 customers off this year. One of the problems in service right now is that a lot of these people want to get back on for the winter. Be that as it may, we didn't have that possibility over a two, two and a half year period. We have it now. So what we're trying to do is change an attitude toward PGW 91 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 which is from an attitude of entitlement by some large sector of our customers to a responsibility for payment. We'd like to move as many people as we can into the CRP Program. By and large we know that there's a large population of people who are low income who will not come into the CRP Program. We've got to create enticements for that so that we start to address some of these issues on a systematic basis. The other problem that we have is a very small percentage of our overall costs, if you put labor aside, a very small percentage, about $40 million is what we use to essentially operate the company on a day-to-day basis. We committed three years ago to reduce that number by million, 18 that and labor together. So we put a hundred 19 million and this 40 together. Out of $140 million 20 three years ago or two and a half years ago, we 21 committed to take out 25 million, which was about 20 22 percent, a little bit less, 15 percent. We were 23 successful in doing that. 24 The only problem this year was that we 25 turned around at the end of the year and because of 92 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 the deterioration in the financial markets, our pension costs were substantially more than they had been in the last four or five years. So we took a little bit of a hit there. But we are doing everything we can to drive the costs out of PGW and be more efficient. There's no question that productivity has gone up substantially there. Our field forces are doing many more jobs a day than they did two years ago, three years ago.
The cost to transfer regulation to the PUC has been in the millions. Have you a final bottom-line number of how much it cost for that transaction?
I think we supplied to the Commission for our expenses so far to date something over the last two and a half years of about $10 million for all of the mandated programs. What I think in that analysis one has to include are some of the what we'll call opportunity costs, the benefits of having that group oversee us at the present time. I mean, we faced -- because of the service problems that we were facing last year, we were facing a penalty of almost a million and a half per year in terms of being forced to out-source our 93 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 phone center if we didn't get it under control. So there's a bit of a carrot and stick with the PUC. We were able to address that problem. We did not incur that penalty, so that was a kind of a benefit that our being with the PUC sort of forced on us. But to answer your question directly, the major expenditure that we're facing right now is not the PUC; it the legislature. The legislature mandated that we would offer choice to our customers starting in September of next year. That initiative is going to cost us something on the order of 5 to $6 million. That's the major component of the number that we gave.
This is the choice for them to choose a gas supplier?
That's correct. So the computer systems, the training, the education of our customer base, all of that we're estimating at about $6 million. And that program is underway and is successful. We now have a pilot program in place for our commercial and industrial customers who choose their own gas supplier. And that is up and running right now and we'll get the benefit of this over the next year. 94 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676
Francois Dutchie from the Law Department is here to respond to your question about the appropriation transfer.
My name is Francois Dutchie. I'm the Divisional Deputy City Solicitor for Financing Contracts with the Law Department.
Sure. It's F-R-A-N-C-O-I-S, and the last name D-U-T-C-H-I-E.
With regard to the issue that's been raised about the transfer that was done in the recent forward purchase agreement, the Law 95 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 Department believes that one or more of the amendments to the '75 ordinance contained a specific provision to authorize the Finance Director to make such transfers. We are having someone --
I'm afraid I don't have that information in front of me at the moment. We are having someone in our office look into that right now, and we would like to get a memo to the Committee within the next hour or two.
Well, I do appreciate that. I figure anytime you ask a question of the Finance Department and they send someone from the Law Department over, it must be a pretty serious matter. So your testimony is you believe you had the authority to do what you did although you're not clear at the moment as to what that authority was, and you think within the next hour you'll figure that out and then you'll send me a memo about it; is that the deal?
Basically that's correct. It is the recollection of someone in the Law 96 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 Department that there is an amendment that contains this authorization, and we are attempting to find that and get that to you as quickly as we can.
And do you believe that this -- because the earlier testimony which you may not have had the benefit of because I know you guys are not sitting over in the Law Department listening to this testimony, the previous testimony was that part of this transaction was actually covered by the 1975 ordinance which does require that the money come to the City and then a subsequent granting of those dollars and a portion covered is by the '98 ordinance to which you're referring to, the unknown --
No, no. The amendment that I'm referring to is to the '75 ordinance, not the '98 ordinance.
Completely amends the '75 ordinance and gives the authority, that's what you're saying?
But we're not clear at the moment what the language is?
And so you're going to have a memo over to the chair when?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps you have the ability to answer this, perhaps you don't, Mr. Dutchie, but I'm wondering whether or not you feel or in your opinion there would be any harm incurred if this transfer of dollars went through the Appropriations Committee of City Council as opposed to directly from the Finance Director to the Gas Works. Do you see any major problem with having that issue come before the Appropriations Committee?
So could you venture a guess as to what the strategy was in the first 98 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 place to rather than send it through what would be normally -- I guess the concern is, and it's my continuing concern, frankly, that without public scrutiny of these public dollars -- they're public dollars, and public dollars should be dispensed and appropriated and dealt with in a public way. If the Councilmembers themselves aren't aware of what's going on, the public certainly isn't. And if this stuff is done and these kinds of actions are taken over the summer during the course of some belief that you have a right to do it or a legal right to do it doesn't make it right, doesn't it make it correct, and doesn't make it a kind of action that engenders a great amount of confidence in the openness of the government on behalf of its taxpayers and citizens. I can't see -- I can't imagine a reason why this very simple short public hearing of the Appropriations Committee couldn't have taken place and had this transfer accomplished in the same way in an above-board, open way that everyone would know about it. I mean, it's just my opinion, but I was elected to exercise that opinion and I just think these kind of actions are just really in the worst interest of an open government 99 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 that the people can understand. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I have two last questions. They'll be quick. I'm sorry.
Mr. Dutchie, when you do the research, when you find the particular provision -- and you're saying that it was in the 1998 General Gas Works revenue bond ordinance?
No, that's not what I said. I said that we believe that there are a number of amendments to the '75 ordinance. We believe that in one of those amendments the authorization that I spoke of exists. I'm not saying --
When you track that down, what I'd like you to put in the memo that you're going to send over to the Chair, I'd like you to identify the particular provision. I'd like you to go back to when we actually had the hearing on that particular bill which resulted in that 100 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 particular amendment, and I'd like you to tell us whether it was identified in that particular amendment that we were making a material change in authorization on behalf of the Director of Finance to engage in this type of transaction and transfer of funds as compared to what had been the practice under ordinance in previous situations.
Okay. But I'd like to know whether we were actually told that that's what was going on in that particular ordinance. The second question is -- and I know you're not from Finance, but you're representing Finance. What's the account code for the unencumbered appropriation?
I mean, you need an account code to make the transfer I'm assuming, right?
I mean, I might have some items that I'd like to get done, so I'd really like to have account code for unencumbered appropriation line item.
Well, I'll get that account code and include it in Mr. Dutchie's memo to you.
You might want to talk to your counsel about that. But if you want to send it over, I'd love to have it. I mean, I've never had access to $3 billion. Thank you very much. I'll look forward to getting the information through the Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one additional addendum to Councilman Nutter's request. I would like to hear from bond counsel on this in an official way. I would like to know what bond counsel's opinion on these actions is, whether or not they in fact concur with the supposed position of the Law Department which will be forth coming. I would like to know 102 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 what bond counsel thinks of this because I tend to think they may have a different attitude about --
Just to note, we spoke with bond counsel this morning on that, and she was in agreement that this was appropriate.
Thank you very much. Are there anymore questions? (No response.)
This will then end the stated hearing part of our Finance Committee. 103 11/13/02 - FINANCE - BILL 020675, 020676 - - - 104 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE - - - Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Finance, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 020665, 020670, 020674, 020677. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL, Chair COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN TASCO COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER - - - 105 11/13/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING
We will enter into our stated meeting. Bill No. 020606 is being held. We will ask the Vice Chair of the Committee to give us a motion with a suspension of the rules to report Bill No. 020665 out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation for suspension of the rules. Councilman Nutter, would you give us a motion with regard to Bill No. 020665 with a rules suspension.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that Bill 020665 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 020665 be reported out of Committee with a suspension of the rules and with a favorable recommendation. All in favor? (Aye.) 106 11/13/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING
The ayes have it. That bill is passed. We will now entertain a motion with regard to Bill No. 020670 and 020674. Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 020670 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 020670 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and with a suspension of the rules so to be heard at our next Session of Council. All in favor? (Aye.)
And so it is 107 11/13/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING passed. Councilman Kenney, we'll entertain a motion with regard to Bill No. 020674.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 020674 be reported out of this Committee favorably, and a request made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 020674 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and with a suspension of the rules. All in favor? (Aye.)
The ayes have it and so it is passed. Councilman Nutter, would you give me a motion with regard to Bill No. 020677.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 020677 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, a further recommendation 108 11/13/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 020677 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and 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? (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and so the bill is passed. At the request of the majority Members of Council, Bill Nos. 020675 and 020676 will be held pending receipt of documents requested. Thank you very much. That will end our hearing. Those who are here for Committee of the Whole on tax bills, we welcome you to stay. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you to everyone. 109 11/13/02 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING (Council adjourned at 2:17 p.m.) - - - 110 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of November 13, 2002, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public