COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, March 26, 1998 9:20 a.m. - - - Bill No. 980006 - An ordinance to authorize the creation of a loan or loans to provide funds for various capital municipal purposes. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN F. STREET COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA A. CLARK COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILWOMAN ANNA CIBOTTA VERNA COUNCILWOMAN HAPPY FERNANDEZ COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X Bill No. 980006 Dean Kaplan, Budget Director, City of Philadelphia. . . . . . . . . . . 4 Thomas Queenan, Treasurer, City of Philadelphia. . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is the recessed hearing of the Council Committee of the Whole. We would appreciate it very much if Council Members would please come to the chamber. Today we will have a public hearing on 980006. We would appreciate it if Council Members would come to the Council chamber so we can have a quorum and have a public hearing on this bill. We need a quorum of this committee before we can have a public hearing. We need at least one more Council Member and we can have a quorum. Ladies and gentlemen, a quorum is present. This is a public hearing on Bill No. 17 980006, which is an ordinance to authorize the creation of a loan or loans to provide funds for various capital municipal purposes. We have two witnesses that are at the witness table who are prepared to testify: Dean Kaplan, the Budget Director for the City of Philadelphia; and Thomas Queenan, the City Treasurer. It is my understanding that the 4 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE testimony of these witnesses has previously been circulated to all Council Members, but what we would appreciate our witnesses doing is summarizing their testimony and making yourselves available for questions from Council Members. The Chair recognizes Mr. Kaplan.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. Good morning to the President and other members of Council. As the President said, I'm Dean Kaplan, the City's Budget Director, and I will endeavor to be as brief as possible. Joining me today is City Treasurer Thomas Queenan. First Deputy City Controller David Volpe is here as well as other representatives of the Capital Program Office and the Budget Office. We are appearing before you today to offer testimony on Bill No. 98006, which proposes to authorize the creation of loan or loans to provide funds for the various capital purposes for the FY '99 capital budget. This bill was originally introduced requesting $131 million in new authorization for FY '99, and over the past several months, 5 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE representatives of my office, the City Council, the Treasurer, the Law Department, the Capital Program Office, and the Controller's Office have met to discuss the possibility of using prior year authorization to reduce the total amount that we've asked to borrow. And as a result of an agreement between all the representatives of those offices that I have mentioned, today we're proposing to amend the bill by reducing the total amount of authorization requested by $29 million, from $131 million to $102 million. Let me briefly summarize the two things we're achieving here. One of the changes is a technical correction. 7 million. Normally, at the request of Council, we would not modify this line at all. However, in this case, all of the expenses in the capital budget, all the authorization in the capital budget that's been proposed for the Capital Program Office were mistakenly coded to the Parks and Recreation category in the original bill. 6 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE And we have moved that authorization to the proper line, which is the municipal buildings line. So that's -- there is a change in Parks and Recreation, which, as I mentioned, we normally try not to do, but it's only a transfer of authorization from one place to another and will not result in any change in Parks or Recreation spending. The remaining reductions, we are able to recommend as a result of the fact that they are previous loan authorizations other authorizations which have not been used for a variety of reasons. We generally request projects based on the original estimate and not, obviously, the final cost, which, in many cases, is lower. We frequently have a lower cost of issuance. And as the Council well knows, we've reduced the cost of issuance over the last several years so we have many previous issues which had additional cost of issuance that was not used. As we testified last year, there was a multi-year issue in FY '96 in which we actually set aside future authorization for last year and this year. And also in the past, we frequently 7 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE didn't carry over all of our authorization from one year to the next, meaning that there was unused authorization in each budget year. The result of all these items is that we've been able to take a variety of prior authorization and apply it to this year so that we can lower the borrowing request of the voters and improve the record-keeping in the City. Let me close by saying that, as you know, there are a large number of projects in the capital budget for next year, which have been included at the direct request of City Council Members. Passage of this bill and the amendment will not result in the cancellation of any of these projects. And it will also not eliminate funding or authorization for any of Council's current or previous projects. As I mentioned, we've worked closely with the City Council staff to ensure that that was the case.
I can also assure Council that the revised authorization as requested will allow the Administration to implement all the projects appropriated in the FY '99 capital budget as 8 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE proposed, and it will include sufficient authorization for the additional $900,000 in Free Library projects that Council had requested of the Administration and that we discussed at the hearing last week. This summarizes my testimony and the recommended amendments to the bill. The City Treasurer also has brief testimony this morning. Thank you.
Good morning. I'm Thomas Queenan. I'm City Treasurer. And I'm here in support of Bill No. 980006. As mentioned earlier, I have provided written testimony on this particular bill, but I will just summarize it briefly by stating that the request for authorization from City Council is to have this -- to have a ballot question placed on the May 19, 1998 primary election day ballot. At the end of my testimony, it was attached, a sample of the question that will appear on that particular ballot. We require authorization of City 9 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Council in order for this ballot to be placed on -- or in order for this question to be placed on the ballot. It's important that the affirmative vote is evidenced by a two thirds vote of City Council.
Pardon me, just one other item. It's important that this bill be approved affirmatively by Council no longer than April 16th in order to facilitate having the question placed on the absentee ballot as well as having it printed for the ballot for May 19th. So to that end, we respectfully request a suspension of the rules as it relates to this particular bill. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. Good morning. There are some projects and specifically one in the Lawndale area of my 10 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE district. We wanted to do the tennis courts, and we needed $80,000; we only had $$50,000. And we were told there was no money. Why couldn't some of the unexpenditured money have been appropriated for that project? And if it can be, how would we go about getting it?
It's important to clarify that this ordinance only applies to authorization to borrow, not to actual planned expenditures. So that we have not actually borrowed in most cases. We actually haven't -- we're not we're not talking about cash that's available; we're talking about authorization which was not used in previous years. However, as you know, we will be entering a new fiscal year in July, and we should be able -- I don't see why we couldn't sit down and talk to your office about the Lawndale project. I know that you've requested a break-out of the spending in your district. And, hopefully, we can talk about that in the next couple days and find a way to --
But aren't you 11 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE saying that you're reducing the amount that you want to authorize in the bond proposal for '99, $29 million less because you have excess money from prior years?
Yeah, it reflects the fact that there have been projects over many years. In fact, if you look at the list, it goes back to the early 1960s where we, in some cases, have borrowed money and eventually usually borrow less than we authorize. And this has been an issue for a long time in that a number of people, in particularly the Controller's Office, has rightly pointed out that we have authorized far more borrowing than we may actually have the capacity to do. And so the goal is to do two things. First of all take, it's to take the amount of authorized projects that either came in under budget or, for various reasons, may not get billed or were additional authorizations, as I mentioned, for some of the cost of issuance, and reduce that number. It tends to make borrowers very nervous that we have the ability to borrow more money, we 12 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE have authorization to borrow more money than we can actually afford to pay for. So there is a difference between this authorization and what we might actually be able to fund with the debt service we've budgeted for FY '99 in the five-year plan. So they are two kind of things.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. . . who can't find his microphone. We need this borrowing so that we can replace this sound system. Now three of them can't find the microphone. How many Council employees does it take to find one microphone? (Laughter.)
I thank the staff very much. I would like to pursue a question raised by Councilwoman Tasco further. You're saying that this bill will authorize the City to borrow up to a certain amount, and you've reduced the amount you originally wanted to because you 13 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE are eliminating -- you are incorporating prior authorization. You've decided you're going to use all of the prior authorizations? Does this wipe them clean?
No, it does not. What we are proposing is to use about half of the outstanding prior authorization because, as I mentioned, there are a number of projects, particularly in the Recreation area and in the Library area where there are projects requested by Members of Council, and we would not use that authorization. So it's about half of what's outstanding. About 30 million was used -- is proposed to be used and about 30 million would remain.
This is an amendment that was requested by the Controller's Office in 14 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE conjunction with our staff in order to eliminate a certain level of confusion that exists when we have these prior authorizations piling up and piling up, and then we go out and we put another bond question on, and we get additional authorization. And so that authorization is there, and it can be used, and there's no sense in just keeping piling it up. And what the Controller's Office -- and, frankly speaking, Mr. McPherson and Mr. Certo concluded that it was a good idea and that we really ought to reduce the amount of authorization that we put on the ballot and take advantage of that which we already have.
My next question would be: So why don't we take the full 60 million, using, you know, approximate figures given by the City Budget Officer? Why don't we clean up this whole backlog and reduce by an additional 30 the amount of authorization?
Well, because you don't want to play it so close to the vest, that if you want authorization sufficient to take care of whatever emergency needs you might have. 15 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE I mean, for example, and this is all hypothetical. I mean, suppose we had we did a field house on the Von Collin Field. Some people will remember this, it was the subject of some reporting. We originally thought that that development little project was going to cost about $275,000. But as a result of a miscalculation of where water lines were, another hundred or $150,000 worth of authorizations was needed. So don't want to play it so close to the vest that if going into a recreation center or going into some other project, you find that you need significantly more authorization to spend than was originally anticipated, and you don't have any right to spend that money. So over the years, we try to be -- we try to make sure we have additional -- we have the kind of authorization that you need so that you don't run into that kind of problem. The Controller's Office and our staff rightly agree that we don't want to carry this to a ridiculous extreme. And so what we've tried to do is narrow the amount of outstanding authorization without interfering with any 16 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE existing developments or proposals that give us the capacity to fund and spend for all of our current needs but not just have this authorization floating around out there. And so I think what we had is an agreement among the Finance Department, the Controller's Office, and our staff that we'll reduce it by this amount because this will give us the flexibility that we need in order to make sure we have the authorization that we want and that we might need, including any emergency that might develop without having this -- just having it out there, you know, in a disorganized way, so that you don't really know all of what you have.
Well, is this authorization to spend or authorization to issue bonds that we're dealing with?
I mean, say with the bill we're talking about, I thought it was an authorization to issue bonds.
We are authorizing the issuance of bonds, but what we are doing is, 17 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE at the same time, we're reducing the amount of authorization that we have to spend because we're using other authorization that currently exists.
Oh, I understand that, but in the Von Collin -- and the reason I raise this is according to the newspaper reports, it's possible you may not be in City Council too much longer or at least not beyond next term. And you're the only one, I think, in City Council that's ever understood this. And as you try to reopen this issue, we've got to know what this means. Like we discovered there was a large number, about $30 million somewhere which the Mayor had available as a result of the sale of port property that occurred during the general budget hearings. And suddenly, he's decided to use this. When we authorize this, does it mean that to get this money, there will have to be an issuance of bonds?
Or does it authorize the City -- and I understand that it can be negotiated, but you don't always have to, you 18 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE know, have bidding for it. Or does it mean that the Mayor's automatically authorized to just borrow this amount of money from whatever source he wants at any time in his discretion, as necessary?
I'll try to answer that question for you briefly. Again, my name is Thomas Queenan, City Treasurer. This authorization or this ordinance 11 that is before this body is a ordinance that is permitting us to place a question on the ballot. When the citizens -- if that authorization -- if this ordinance is approved by Council, we can place the on the ballot. Then we have to rely upon the citizens of the City of Philadelphia to approve the question. And if they approve the question, it's an approval for the City of Philadelphia to borrow against that authorization. This is not a question or an ordinance 22 for the actual issuance of the bonds that would be issued against that authorization. We would have to return back to City Council with another ordinance requesting your approval to issue bonds 19 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE against an authorization that was approved by the citizens of the City of Philadelphia. And before they can approve that authorization, we have to approve to have the question placed on the ballot.
Is the issuance of bonds the only way the money can be used that's involved in this ordinance? Or could the Mayor, for example, make a private loan? You know, we have bankers come in and negotiate, because the bill talks in terms of negotiated private loans. Wouldn't that be possible, once we authorize this and then the voters approve it? I'm just trying to find out what is it we are doing as a result of --
Well, you are absolutely right. Again, there are certain ways that you can issue bonds. You can do privately placed, you can do publicly offered. But, again, in either case, we would have to return to City Council with another ordinance requesting approval to do such a thing. In regards to other sources of monies 20 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE not related to bonds, I'll turn that over to Dean Kaplan.
Yeah, as I was discussing with Councilwoman Tasco, the cash portion of the budget, what we're actually spending on projects as they get billed is somewhat separate from the authorization. Under the City's accounting procedures and rules, we would not be able to begin any of projects that are in the FY '99 budget on July 1st unless we had authorization from the voters to borrow money. That doesn't mean that we will run out on July 1st, as you know, and borrow the money. We, obviously -- because the timing of projects changes, some projects go ahead right away and some take longer, there is some remaining cash. And, as you know, we are planning to borrow in the fall. So we are at a point where cash -- we do need to go out and borrow. But the cash pool is available for any authorized projects that have been authorized by this Council and in the borrowings, the previous borrowings in the capital budget. 21 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE So the answer is --
Well, what I'd like to know specifically, the Mayor decides tomorrow that there's a certain project that needs to be done. It's his best judgment that it needs to be done.
He doesn't want to go to a bond issue. It involves $5 million, and it's more that is cash-available. Can he use an authorization already granted in the form this bill calls for to go out and negotiate a loan for 5,000, he's not going on the bond issue, say a 10-year loan or a 5-year loan or whatever, can he do that? That's what I'm trying to find out. What power is it we are giving to the executive in the City if we pass this?
My understanding of the City Charter is no, the Mayor cannot do that. Any 22 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE type of a borrowing or loan or request for funds from outside parties would have to be approved by City Council.
In addition, there are two sides to that. First of all, this authorization will only allow us to go to the voters and get them to authorize issuing the bonds in the future. Council has two other bites of that apple. One is that we would have to return to you to get a specific in terms of borrowing. You would have to approve the borrowing of whatever form it was in. And more importantly, on the short term, if he decided to do a project tomorrow for $5 million that had not been approved in a capital budget -- that's appropriation of this money -- we would have to return to you. Now, in some cases, you know, there are appropriations for projects where, you know, they've been moving along and, those are available. Obviously, we could do those. We probably have authorization for most of those already. But if the Mayor suddenly decided, as 23 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE you're theorizing, tomorrow he wanted to do a completely new thing, we would -- in most cases that I can think of, we'd probably have to come back here and get a capital budget amendment as well. So we'd have to come in at least two more times probably to do that.
You said "in most cases." Can you think of any cases where you would not have to come back to City Council?
I can't think of any because in almost all those cases, there would be some sort of bond issue or --
Right or some type of contract that that person would have to enter into, and I don't believe that that person has the authority to enter into a contract like that. I also cannot think of any other situation where we would not have to come back to City Council to ask for approval to borrow money to fund that sort of hypothetical project.
This is a follow-up to question I raised in the general budget hearings as to how do we determine what funding is 24 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE available to a mayor at a given time for him to use without coming back to this body for authorization? Because finding that $30 million that had been lying around since 1990 was a bit disturbing because I've wondered and still wonder and haven't gotten an answer, are there any other hidden pools of money around that could be used? But I have no further questions on -- oh, one other question. On the material you submitted to us, you have a whole list of numbers and items. But there's a heading marked "Line," and I assume that would be a reference back to the line in the capital budget or capital program, and that's left blank. It would be very helpful to us if that line were filled in with the appropriate number so that we could refer back to the budget material. Would it be possible to do that?
I think in many of these cases, the loan number is there because the loan was authorized but we may not have appropriated it in a specific capital budget, but let me investigate that and respond to you directly. I'm 25 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE not sure there is a line number for all the projects. In other words, in some cases, for example, we put money in the loan authorization. A good example would be --
You could fill in the lines where they do exist and where they don't exist perhaps by an asterisk, or in some other fashion you could perhaps explain what that makes specific reference to so that we'll have a better understanding of what the money's being used for.
Thank you. Mr. President, let me ask you, are you in general agreement with the testimony they have PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE given?
Yeah. As a matter or fact, Mr. McPherson was sitting here telling me that there is not a line for many of these projects because they really go back. Some of this authorization goes back to the sixties. I mean, this is really a lot of bookkeeping. I mean, this is some housekeeping that the Controller's Office and our staff needs to be done. Why would be carrying unused authorization that goes back to the sixties? And they're really trying to clean it up and bring it up, but we don't want to create a problem for ourselves when it comes to our ability to finance the existing program. But, you know, to have unused capital authorization that goes back to the sixties and seventies really is inappropriate.
Well, we would think so, but I still wonder, are there any other areas in addition to these that reflect hidden authorizations that they may or may at any time suddenly produce?
Authorization is not 27 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE our problem. Our problem is money to spend and what is spent.
Because in most cases, we sometimes move authorization around in order to be able to complete existing projects, but most of that is voted on right here. We just -- the Controller's Office and our staff didn't think it made sense to keep going for additional authorization when we have authorization that we can use as a basis for spending the amount of money that we know we're going to need in order to be able to implement the existing program. This is not money. It isn't money. The money is another whole different question.
Are there any other questions? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna.
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Kaplan, I would like you to make 28 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE crystal-clear for the record that the passage of this ordinance will not result in the cancellation of past or future projects in any Councilman's district.
And if the project is more than what has been appropriated, we will have --
Mr. President, I don't know if the amendments were read for the record or if the --
No, we'll read them at the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
I just need to be clear on what I'm doing here this morning. The authorization is not the -- what happens to these projects, Mr. Kaplan, that you 29 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE have on this list? These projects were authorized sometime ago, but the money was never borrowed to fund the programs, the projects?
In some cases, yes, and in some cases, no. Let me give you a couple of quick examples. For example, in FY '97, Council authorized Loan 199, which is pretty recent. And we've asked you to allow us to use $2.3 million of that authorization for next year's capital budget. Among the reasons we're doing that, for example, you'll recall that that year we had decided to take down the cost of issuing the bonds we had normally budgeted at 4 percent. The Controller and Council requested us to reduce that. Since we were usually paying less anyhow, they thought that was too much. They asked us to take down that amount to no more than 3 percent. So that right there created about $1,200,000 in additional authorization that we've kind of jointly agreed not to use for that purpose. And that's not even a project. Another example in that year would be 30 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE that about a half million dollars of the payroll that the Streets Department charges for the Streets Department capital projects and resurfacing to the capital budget wasn't spent just because of the timing of payroll and when they hired people and how many people they ended up needing. Obviously, they tend to budget fairly conservative on that. So we're not going to spend -- we can't go back and spend that on payroll from two years ago. We now have half a million dollars in authorization which we can't really do anything else with. When you look into the detail that we provide, you'll see that there are subway projects from the 1960s. I'm not sure anyone knows exactly what they are. Some of them are $92.97, some of them are significant amounts. But in many of these cases, we've completed these projects. If you go into the detail, you'll see there's a Loan 169 for the Frankford El for $426,000. That's a project that was completed approximately 20 years ago. The remaining authorization for that project was still out 31 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE there. We didn't need all of the money and all of the authorization that we had approved by Council at that time, and we can reprogram that. That's the major -- that's the largest single category that we had. And what's happened is that now each year at the end of the year, we selectively carry forward authorizations so we can use it the next year if we need it. We didn't always do that in the past, so we do have this kind of large backlog. As I told Councilwoman Verna and earlier the Council President, this will not have an effect on any of the project that Council Members have requested. And it won't eliminate funding or cancel any of those. However, there are -- there is a fairly large amount of authorization which we just really don't need, going back or 30 years, which we 20 can apply to next year's loan. And to follow up on what the Council President said and what Councilman Cohen asked, I mean, I think that this is something on a smaller scale that we'll probably continue to do in future years to the extent that particularly the 32 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Controller and Council staff agree with us, that that makes sense. And we carefully go through the list to make sure that the projects that we're moving authorization for are not going to affect things that are currently requested by Members of Council and others. I'm not sure I completely answered your question. (Laughter.)
Any other questions? Councilwoman Tasco, are you finished?
Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to ask any questions of the witnesses? (No further questions at this time.)
Seeing no one, is there anyone else in the room who would like to testify on this bill? Is there anyone else in the room who is here for the purpose of testifying on the bill that's in front of the Council Committee of the Whole? 33 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (No response.)
Seeing no one, this brings us to the end of our public hearing. - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. Mr. Kaplan, do you have a set of amendments that you wish for us to consider at this time?
Yes, we have submitted a marked-up copy of the bill to Mr. McPherson. And also, I believe, each Council Member has an 8-and-a-half-by-11 version of the amendment. We're suggesting -- we're proposing to amend the measure by reducing the total amount of authorization requested by $29,229,000, from $131,339,000 to $102,110,000. And the proposed reduction is distributed among the purpose categories as follows: Transit - from $4,846,000 to $3,635,000. Streets and Sanitation - from $19,143,000 to $15,382,000. 34 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Municipal Buildings - from $29,335,000 to $18,294,000. Parks and Recreation and Museums - from $36,321,000 to $28,638,000. And, finally, Economic and Community Development - from $41,694,000 to $36,161,000.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendments be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. All opposed, say nay. The eyes have it. The amendments are adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill No. 980006.
Are we suspending the rules? 35 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980006 be reported out of committee as amended, and that we suspend the rules so as to personality first reading at our next session of Council.
All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye. All those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. Bill No. 980006 will be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at our next session of Council. Thank you very much. This brings us to an end of our business for today. (Adjourned at 10:11 a.m.) - - - 36 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, March 26, 1998 were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON THE WHOLE Bill No. 980006 - An ordinance to authorize the creation of a loan or loans to provide funds for various capital municipal purposes. __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, RPR