I'm not asking for an organizational position. The witness is at the table. We've had a quite friendly and extensive discussion about taxes and tax policy and tax philosophy and a whole host of other issues. What I want to know is, was the Mayor wrong to sign the tax reduction bills. Yes or no. 14
In the current environment where services are under grave threat, and not just from losses of city revenues and expansions of needs in the City of Philadelphia, but also a tax cutting frenzy, you could call it, in Washington and Harrisburg, and tremendous threatened cuts from those sources --
I can't really 169 Whole - 5/19/05 control what they do in Harrisburg and Washington.
Not exactly. Let's move down the row. Ms. Ward, was the Mayor wrong to sign the bills?
Councilman, I work at Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth. We would argue that there are vast amounts of unmet needs in this city, and we would argue that it's better to invest in services and --
-- therefore, we would rather have the dollars spent on services.
Your response 170 Whole - 5/19/05 doesn't answer my question. Was the Mayor wrong to sign the tax cut bills in 2002 and 2004?
Councilman Nutter, if I may say this because that's the -- We -- We see it up at the unemployment project. We get most of the jobs people. And we certainly would question his signing of those two bills. We have seen absolutely no -- They were -- They were implemented hopefully to increase the business climate and increase the availability of jobs. We have seen absolutely, positively no reduction in people coming to our office looking for jobs; none.
Mm-hmm. Okay. All right. I do appreciate your views. Now, I expect to be voting for it, but what's your view on any number of our tax incentive programs? 171 Whole - 5/19/05 One of our colleagues has a tax increment financing bill that for development purposes will forego future tax revenues. Are they incorrect as well, as a part of policy to create jobs?
I don't believe that you can make an across-the-board assessment of those kinds of proposals. I think -- And that is --
It's less tax revenue. That's what you're concerned about, right?
And that is why -- That is one of the main reasons why we are in opposition to the Business Privilege Tax elimination, that it goes to businesses that might need financial incentive to stay and businesses that need no financial incentive to stay whatsoever. And so, therefore, these funds are spread out in a way that undoubtedly wastes major portions of the tax reduction. There may be instances in which the government makes choices about particular 172 Whole - 5/19/05 industries, that after study and investigation, and based upon the fact that those industries represent the kinds of jobs that we really want to keep, as opposed to, you know, the minimum wage jobs which this Council tried to act against last week. There may be instances in which this Council would legitimately vote for that kind of assistance, but that is a completely different issue than the issue before us now.
Councilman, let me just say that my boss has been here numerous times testifying against particular TIFs.
Because of their impact on city revenues and also their impact on the schools. I also want to point out, which I neglected to do in my testimony, that we do believe that taxes are part of the discussion around business climate and quality of life. We don't think they're the only part of the discussion right now. And we frankly 173 Whole - 5/19/05 think it's the most expensive and the riskiest approach. So, we're happy to consider taxes. We're happy to consider their impact, but the dialogue needs to be broadened to address the other types of issues that impact business decisions and the decisions individuals make about living in a city.
And also, Councilman Nutter, as I'm just shortly going to restate, when we have angry taxpayers that came -- that are at our office and that met with -- Some of them met with Councilwoman Blackwell and some who are involved in this. When they see a big tax giveaway to Comcast, and see people coming and see them coming after the little man asking them for $2,000 and $3,000 down and half of their income a month, yet you can get a tax cut to Comcast, they don't like that. The regular lay people can't make sense out of that.
Yeah. I can appreciate that. Okay. 174 Whole - 5/19/05
-- the economic theory of supply side economics has proved wrong at the federal level numerous times. We have it in place right now. It's causing huge deficits. But the federal government can continue to spend money as it wants to because it effectively prints money.
We all know that this Council cannot print money. So that if the theory doesn't work, then this Council will have to cut services.
Well, one, we haven't heard it here. No one's talked about it, I think, other than you raising it. And secondly, I think there is some significant differences between the federal government and the national economy versus the economy of the City of Philadelphia versus Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery 175 Whole - 5/19/05 Counties or other parts of Pennsylvania or other areas in the United States of America. It's a little easier to not locate in Philadelphia versus not locating in the United States of America. I mean, they really... At some point, you know, you're into an apples and oranges discussion. But I do appreciate it. I respect your views. And I really thank you very much for your testimony and your responses. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. Councilman Cohen, your light is on. Did you want to be recognized?
Yes. I've had a kind of mental merry-go-round on the question of tax 176 Whole - 5/19/05 reductions. First it seemed to me to be very fair that we get rid of the gross receipts tax. But then I learned we're not only getting rid of the gross receipts tax; we're getting rid of the net profits tax. Now, everybody was angry about having to tax gross receipts because maybe the owner lost money which happened in many cases. But it seemed just wrong that somehow in a bill that was spoken of generally as righting what many of us thought was wrong, taxing the gross receipts, there was a clause in it that ultimately exempted totally from taxation business taxes. Then came the bill itself, and that seemed kind of tough. And by that time I got straightened out enough so that I believe I did not vote for this bill when it came up. And maybe mine would have been a 12th vote that could have passed the bill 24 because it lost 11 to 5. I think my memory of that may be a bit vague, and I'm not 177 Whole - 5/19/05 certain. But then comes this very seductive approach. We'll make it simpler. We'll cut less of taxes. Now, that sounded good to me because by that time I understood that chasing older people, of whom I am one, from living in the row houses of Philadelphia might not be the right thing to do, and that really they had a right to live, since I felt they had produced a great deal during their lifetime. And Philadelphia ought to treat them better than just chasing them out of their home or telling them they got to, at an older age, get into mortgage games. And this was a seductive idea. This was an idea that was going to cut the amount of taxes. And then suddenly Councilman Nutter before us spoke about the message that sent. What is the message sent by this amendment? The message sent by this amendment is, look how reasonable we are; we're going to cut taxes less; we'll give the Mayor a little more money to spend. 178 Whole - 5/19/05 We're not going to be able to restore all services, of course; and people will have to suffer, except those that don't need the services. And I think that's a wrong message. I think it's not an honest message to send to people when you're taking an action that's going to hurt them. And anything that cuts further services is going to be harmful. So, therefore, I have to conclude that this amendment sends the wrong message because it sends a message opposite the facts. It sends a message, look how good we are; we're restoring income; when, in fact, we are not doing that at all; we're still cutting the budget. So, I'm going to be voting against this amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to do it. I think if anybody's to stand up for the people of Philadelphia, I know one thing, and that is, it won't be the business community, not a community that gets behind 179 Whole - 5/19/05 the Tax Reform Committee that tells older Americans after that most of them have retired, that you may face eviction from your home or you may have to finance something through undertaking a mortgage and you don't know how you're going to ever pay for it. So, I'm going to fight for a City Council and for action in City Council as long as I'm ever a member of it to provide the services needed. And who ought to pay for the services? The people that profit from them, people of Philadelphia. And that's a simple question to answer because it's the business community that profits from them. Now, if there's any unfairness in the tax, like taxing gross profits, I'm always ready to listen to that. But I'm surely not ready to listen to that as a cover for getting rid of all business taxation. I don't think taxes ought to be eliminated in such a way as to put the burden on ordinary older people who have very little ability to meet any current taxes, let alone 180 Whole - 5/19/05 the new taxes. I'm very much impressed. I don't know your name.
But you testified very effectively. In my judgment, in fact, I'm very proud of this panel. I don't know where it came from because in Philadelphia we haven't had that ability before. But I think we now have for the first time people able in the field, people who are citizens of Philadelphia, to represent us in our thinking and to give us in Council the other point of view. So that in addition to the business point of view, which is a valid point of view, we have to have the other equally valid point of view, the viewpoint of the residents. And for that I say to this panel, thank you very much for your efforts. It made the issue much clearer in my mind and I think to all Philadelphians. Thank you, Madam. 181 Whole - 5/19/05
You're welcome, sir. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Do we have... Thank you. Thank you very much.
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? It's Bill Number 040767.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question, from a logistics point, I guess. Where, other than physically here in the Council chambers... 182 Whole - 5/19/05 Where are we in the process?
In the process, if there's no one to testify on any of the bills before the committee --
So, all the bills in front of us presently in the Committee of the Whole?
Okay. So, let me at least say I did circulate some amendments to 767.
I'm getting a sense that, while there might not be final action on the budget...
...I would at least like to put that bill in its proper form, regardless of how...
We were contemplating your introducing your amendments.
And we 183 Whole - 5/19/05 would move on that today.
If we don't have any other witnesses regarding the bills before us -- this is the Committee of the Whole -- then I am concluding the public hearing. (Public hearing concluded at 4:53 p.m.) 184 Whole - 5/19/05 - - - COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, May 19, 2005, 4:53 p.m. - - - Bill 050236 - An ordinance dissolving the 1600 North Broad Tax Increment Financing District and creating the Avenue North Tax Increment Financing District, being the approximately three acre site at 1600 through 36 North Broad Street, generally bounded by Cecil B. Moore Avenue on the north, Broad Street on the east, Oxford Street on the south and Carlisle Street on the west. Bill 050190 - An ordinance dissolving the Networks Tax Increment Financing District, being the area generally bounded by 16th Street on the west, Spring Garden Street on the north, Hamilton Street on the south and 15th Street on the east. BILL 040767 - An Ordinance amending Section 18 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. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 185 Whole - 5/19/05 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 16 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 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 186 Whole - 5/19/05 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 COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS-BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO 187 Whole - 5/19/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. And the Chair will recognize Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to make the big assumption that after this public meeting we're going back into a public hearing, to then recess that to a date certain. I mean --
-- and then I think Councilman Clarke's got a matter of his --
If we're in the public meeting, your stuff needs to be reported out, right? 188 Whole - 5/19/05
Right? You need yours reported out in the Committee of the Whole.
We will be reporting those bills out. Right now we're dealing with --
-- the tax bills. And I am recognizing you because I am told that you have an amendment --
Correct. Thank you, Madam Chair. The amendment was circulated yesterday; and some of the discussion this afternoon, I think, addresses those issues. What this amendment seeks to do, in what I would at least characterize as a fiscally responsible fashion... And I would ask solely for support to amend a bill to get 189 Whole - 5/19/05 it in the form that the sponsor wishes to have it. I acknowledge to my colleagues that that is not an indication as to what may happen in its final form. But this amendment seeks to do two things. One, it changes the proposed decreasing rates for the net income portion of the Business Privilege Tax, so as to lessen the fiscal impact of those proposed cuts. Secondly, the bill lays out on 3, I believe, the new section 5, that while there is a schedule of proposed cuts through 2017 which would drive both the gross receipts tax rate and the net income portion rate to zero percentage, and obviously the elimination of both of those components, this amendment only ensures the tax cuts for the first five years. And so, in 2010 or during that budget cycle, Council would then have to take additional action if it wished to see further cuts in the Business Privilege Tax. 190 Whole - 5/19/05 Otherwise, at that point the rates in 2010 would stay in place until action was taken by the Council. So I would only ask in this preliminary stage, if the bill could at least be amended, to be in the form that I think best addresses the issue. That would be my request to my colleagues, to at least have it in its proper form, and notwithstanding how the members may subsequently vote when we come to that point in the budget process. With that, Madam Chair, if there are no questions, I would move the adoption of the proposed amendments to Bill 040767. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the motion was made and seconded that the amendment proposed by Councilman Nutter be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. 191 Whole - 5/19/05 (Chorus of "ayes.")
Point of order. My light is on. I have a right to speak.
I don't see your light's on; and it just came on, Councilman Cohen.
I can't -- I can't know what you're thinking of if I don't see your name.
Well, it was on there (Indicating); and there's something defective here.
Up till now I've always supported the right of a sponsor to put a bill in the form he or she wants it to 192 Whole - 5/19/05 be in, with respect to final passage. But under these circumstances, as I said earlier, I think the amendment sends a deceptive approach. The bill talks for the first five or six years of tax reductions, that amount to, from the city's point of view, an insignificant amount, $600,000 in a budget of nearly $3.5 billion. But the bill also sets forth a goal that can -- that would be present for Council and many people to assume will follow after the six years, and that is to multiply by more than ten times the amount of the tax cut, to something like $6.5 million a year from the lower figure of $600,000. Now, I think that's wrong to have as a guide because what will probably happen six years from now, as our memories dim, we'll all believe that this formula was approved by the Council because it would be in the amendment and in the bill as passed. Therefore, I think that that provision is wrong. It sends a wrong 193 Whole - 5/19/05 message. Therefore, I'm in between two things. I'm in between --
-- having a bill 6 that has a larger amount or a lesser amount.
Yeah. I'm sorry, Councilman. I missed -- I may have missed the central point of your argument. The concern is about the about the schedule, and...
Right. Right. There's another seven in a schedule which cannot go into effect unless Council takes action.
Yes, but it sets 194 Whole - 5/19/05 a schedule. If we pass the bill with this provision in it, it indicates that we've approved that schedule.
And therefore, it sends what could easily be a misleading position. Therefore, despite the fact that it's going to cut less from city taxes than the original bill...
And that's a good plus. It sends a deceiving message to people that, look how reasonable the business community is. It's cutting less than it intended to cut.
And that, too, is a deceiving message, because right now what's endangering the citizens of Philadelphia is the failure of services.
This body has a responsibility to set rates, and we can change those rates in any way that we choose to over time. We did the same thing last year. We changed the rates in the schedules in the tax bills that we did. We changed the rates in the schedule for your low income wage tax bill.
We're putting in the rate -- We're indicating we think after five years the rate should be multiplied by 10 or 11 times.
It continues to go down, yes. I mean, that's the direction that it's going. I mean, it's got to go down if you're going toward ultimate elimination. 196 Whole - 5/19/05 But that schedule is not guaranteed.
After five years, this Council has to decide, do you continue with the cuts or do you leave in place the rate of 2010. That's the only issue. But you're giving an indication by a schedule as to what you could do, but there's no guarantee that that's going to happen. We'll revisit it in five years. And we've been doing five-year budgeting. We make adjustments along the way. There's no guarantee as to what the rate is going to be in 2011 because the bill 18 doesn't allow for the rate to change in 2011 without Council action.
What's the purpose of the schedule, if you're not going to apply it? 197 Whole - 5/19/05
The purpose of the schedule is to give an indication as to how you hope to reach the ultimate goal, but it can be changed. We've done schedules before.
Under the schedule, wouldn't the amount of the cut be multiplied by ten times or a very high number, if not ten? It could be eight or nine or twelve. Doesn't it jump dramatically from $600,000 to $6.5 million?
After the first five or six years in the schedule which you say is not a matter of law.
And can be 198 Whole - 5/19/05 rejected or accepted. Doesn't that number increase the amount of the cut ten-fold or nearly so?
I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as ten-fold, but there are certainly substantial increases in the amount of the cut after year 2010. But that is then the responsibility of this body because it can't change after 2010 without action by this City Council. No matter what the schedule says, no 13 matter what the rates are, this body has to make those decisions. Otherwise, the rate stays the same.
Yes, except we're setting an example to the Council in year 2005, decided that the guide should be ten-time increase in the amount of the cut.
Yeah. And then in 2010 we may decide something else. I mean, we passed the --
I mean, we 199 Whole - 5/19/05 passed the wage tax bill last summer that had a 12-year schedule in it.
But if Councilman Nutter is here, not as the Mayor or the Council President --
Your low income wage tax bill had -- had a -- I don't know -- a ten schedule on it. I mean, that's what we do. We establish schedules. We adjust to what goes on in the marketplace, and then if we need to make a change we do. Last year we changed the wage tax cut system from a fiscal year to a calendar year, and generated more revenue for the City for the first time ever.
Why don't you put in as a guide that the full revenues should be restored to the city at the end of the five years?
To the city, that you not take the money away from city services.
Councilman, the services in our budget bill, whenever we get to that, are going to be restored in the first -- I don't understand how you restore the revenue. From where?
You're going to increase your revenues. We've had the discussion. Revenues have increased every year since we've been in a ten-year tax reduction program. I'm not making the argument that the cuts have led to more revenue. My argument was, the cuts have not led to less revenue. I'm not making the first point that you were making with the folks. I've never said that. But no one can sit at that table and say, including our own Budget Director, that the cuts have led to less revenue. I have 201 Whole - 5/19/05 not made the argument that they have increased the revenue. That's for economists to make. I'm just trying to deal with the actual numbers. We have a schedule. It's years. 7 You only get the first 5. And if City 8 Council doesn't do anything else, there are 9 no more tax cuts; that's it. 10
If City Council 11 does nothing, the new rates you're using as a 12 guide after the five years would go into effect.
The new rates will not go into effect. If we do nothing, that's the end of the cutting the tax cut program. It's over at that point. That's what the amendment says. Unless we take action in 2010, the schedule is meaningless. Those rates cannot go into effect. The rates stay the same as they were in 2010.
Well, then, if that's your intent, why don't you leave it at that, without introducing this guide that 202 Whole - 5/19/05 you're suggesting the new Council follow by increasing the amount of the cut?
And I guess I would only say to you, Councilman, I think it's important to at least try to give an indication as to where we ultimately think things should go, to send the right message to a variety of people, not only here in the city but in the region and across the country that Philadelphia is trying to grow this city and create -- help create --
Yeah, but not at the cost of city services. Not at the cost of throwing seniors out of their homes or compelling them to take mortgages.
Councilman, I don't know why you keep saying that. We don't have any real estate tax bills in front of us. We have not increased the real estate tax. We have not touched real estate tax rates since 1991. There's never been a millage increase since '91.
Do you deny the fact that the intent of the -- that the Tax 203 Whole - 5/19/05 Reform Commission found that the new revenue is largely going to come to increased real estate taxation that will make up for the loss in the business taxes?
I would disagree with your premise, Councilman. The Tax Reform Commission said that if all other measures fail, the city could look at real estate tax rates to make up any shortfalls. That's what they said. You could look at it.
We don't have any tax bills in front of us. And the real estate transfer tax is going through the roof. Why? Because we're in a hot real estate market. Real estate revenues are up over estimates. Why? Not because of any action that we took with regard to rates. We haven't touched the rates. We are in a hot real estate market because people have finally figured out that property values are generally lower here than 204 Whole - 5/19/05 in most other places.
But when this figures for Philadelphia forward are asked from the floor, of anybody, is that a good sign when real estate taxes go up? They say absolutely. It shows the city is thriving. When people are paying more, of course there's going to be more tax on them. And therefore, people are going to have to move.
Councilman, this is a distinction between terminologies. You have tax rates and you have tax revenues. The rates have not changed. They haven't changed in 14 years.
Councilman, you can't legitimately say that. There's no real estate tax bill in front of us. And they're not going to change. The rates are going to be the same. And you know that.
Well, I don't think this debate's going to get anywhere. 205 Whole - 5/19/05 So I'm going to be voting no --
-- and urge my colleagues to vote no on this. I think it's shameful for a City Council to be taking an action which the proponents of this measure say will increase real estate taxes. We know our people are now complaining already about the real estate taxes.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment submitted by Councilman Nutter be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The record will reflect that Councilman Cohen was the only nay, for the record. All right. We will now consider Bill Number -- Oh, I'm sorry. The bill has been amended, and I would like to note that all of the bills regarding the tax bills and also Councilman Clarke's bills, all bills that were before the Committee of the Whole today, will be continued... All of the bills before the Committee of the Whole, namely, if you want me to do it this way... Bill Number 040767, 040789, 050001, 050002, 050003, 050007, 050008, 050383 and Resolution Number 050022, the hearing will be continued until Wednesday, May the 25th at 11:00 a.m. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill Number 050236.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I believe this amendment was circulated. It is listed as Exhibit A. I would like to make a motion to 207 Whole - 5/19/05 offer an amendment to Bill Number 050236. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
I'm sorry. Move the adoption. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, I move that Bill Number 050236 be reported out of committee, as amended, with a 208 Whole - 5/19/05 favorable recommendation and no rule suspension. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill Number 050236 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it, and the bill will be reported out with a favorable recommendation. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke --
Madam President, I move that Bill Number 050190 be reported 209 Whole - 5/19/05 out of committee with a favorable recommendation.
Do I hear a second? UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill Number 050190 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it, and the motion carries. That concludes our public meeting of the Committee of the Whole. We will now continue our Council session. (Public meeting concluded at 5:12 p.m.) 210 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing and public meeting of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on May 19, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)