COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE ON FINANCE3 Room 400, City Hall6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, May 23, 20117 10:15 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO, CHAIR10 COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR.11 COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE12 COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY13 COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILLS 100754, 110206, 110244, 110297, 11034215 and 110343 - - -17 2
Good2 morning. We will now call the Committee3 on Finance to order and note that we have4 a quorum in the presence of Councilwoman5 Blondell Reynolds Brown, Councilman6 Greenlee, Councilman Kenney, Councilman7 Goode and Councilman Green.8 We'll ask the Clerk to please9 read the bills.10
Bill No. 110754, an11 ordinance amending Chapter 19-2600 of The12 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Business13 Privilege Taxes," by providing for14 exclusions and certifications for hobbies15 and other not-for-profit activities,16 under certain terms and conditions.17 Bill No. 110206, an ordinance18 amending Section 10-1001 of The19 Philadelphia Code relating to fees20 charged by the Commissioner of Records by21 providing that certain fees imposed for22 recording of deeds shall be waived with23 respect to a deed filed solely for the24 purpose of removing the name of a25 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 deceased spouse or life partner and2 re-titling the property in the name of3 the surviving spouse or life partner.4 Bill No. 110244, an ordinance5 amending Section 19-1705 of The6 Philadelphia Code to increase the amount7 of interest and penalty on any unpaid8 money or claim collectible by the9 Department of Revenue that may be waived10 by the Revenue Commissioner, under11 certain terms and conditions.12 Bill No. 110297, an ordinance13 authorizing the City Treasurer, on behalf14 of the City, to enter into an agreement15 with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for provision16 of payroll banking services to the City,17 under certain terms and conditions.18 Bill No. 110342, an ordinance19 authorizing the Director of Commerce to20 enter into an Extension of the Use and21 Lease Agreements between the City of22 Philadelphia and each of the airlines23 servicing Philadelphia International24 Airport, under certain terms and25 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 conditions.2 Bill No. 110343, an ordinance3 approving the Fiscal Year 2012 Capital4 Budget providing for expenditures for the5 capital purposes of the Philadelphia Gas6 Works (including the supplying of funds7 in connection therewith) subject to8 certain constraints and conditions, and9 acknowledging receipt of the Forecast of10 Capital Budgets for Fiscal Years 201311 through 2017.12
We are13 going to hear Bill 110297, payroll14 banking services ordinance.15 (Witness approached witness16 table.)17
Good morning.20 Good morning, Councilwoman21 Tasco and members of the Committee on22 Finance. I am Nancy Winkler, City23 Treasurer for the City of Philadelphia.24 I am here to testify in support of Bill25 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 No. 110297.2 Bill No. 110297 will authorize3 the Office of the City Treasurer, on4 behalf of the City, to enter into an5 amendment agreement with Wells Fargo6 Bank, N.A., which was formerly known as7 Wachovia Bank, N.A., pursuant to which8 Wells Fargo shall continue to provide9 payroll banking services to the City.10 Bill No. 060387, as adopted by City11 Council, required the City Treasurer to12 conduct an RFP process to select a City13 payroll depository and required that no14 contract be executed until it had been15 approved by City Council by ordinance.16 An RFP process was conducted, and City17 Council approved the ordinance contract18 in June of 2009 pursuant to Bill No.19 090352. The City and Wachovia entered20 into a contract for payroll banking21 services for an initial term of July 1,22 2009 through June 30, 2010. The23 provisions of that contract required City24 Council approval of any amendment to add25 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 additional terms. Bill No. 1001292 authorized the City Treasurer to amend3 the contract to add an additional term of4 July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011. This5 bill, Bill No. 110297, authorizes the6 Office of the City Treasurer to amend the7 contract to add an additional term of8 July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012.9 This concludes my testimony,10 and I'm happy to answer any questions you11 may have at this time.12
Thank you13 very much.14 The Chair recognizes Councilman15 Goode.16
Thank you,17 Madam Chair.18 Good morning, Ms. Winkler.19
You21 referenced several bills in your22 testimony. You did not reference Bill23 No. 100549, which was the last amendment24 to the Code, which was signed into law in25 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 2010. Are you familiar with that2 ordinance?3
I don't believe I4 am. If you could -- perhaps if you could5 refresh my memory.6
We actually7 talked about it not too long ago. Within8 that ordinance, two things are called9 for. One, that this contract be put out10 to bid every four years.11
For the16 record, when will that contract be put17 out to bid?18
It will be put19 out to bid this calendar year. The20 objective would be -- we haven't21 finalized the exact schedule, but the22 objective would be to take into account23 the amount of time it would take for an24 orderly transition of a new bank, were we25 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 to make a change, and to back up so that2 we would have sufficient time. So I3 would imagine by the end of the summer,4 this summer. We have a draft RFP we're5 working on.6
It will be put9 out to bid within the next several10 months.11
The12 ordinance also called for when there is13 any renewal contract, that it be approved14 by City Council and that an exhibit to15 that ordinance contain a fair lending16 plan. There is no fair lending plan17 attached to this ordinance.18
There is no fair19 lending plan attached to this ordinance?20
Yes.23 Therefore, if there's no fair24 lending plan attached, the bill would not25 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 be valid and the contract would not be2 valid.3 Could we have the Law4 Department come forward.5 (Witness approached witness6 table.)7
Good10 morning. Please identify yourself for11 the record.12
Francois Dutchie,13 Divisional Deputy City Solicitor for14 Finance and Contracts.15
I'm assuming16 you are familiar with Bill No. 100549.17
Let me read19 to you the last part of it. "No contract20 with a proposed recipient of City Payroll21 Deposits may be executed until it has22 been approved by Council by ordinance.23 No such contract shall be approved by24 contract unless," and there's two25 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 provisions. The second provision says,2 "The contract is for a one year term plus3 not more than three one year renewal4 terms, each at the City's sole option.5 The contract shall further provide that6 the City may not exercise its option to7 renew the contract for any one year8 renewal term unless Council has expressly9 approved such renewal by Ordinance. No10 such renewal shall be approved by Council11 unless the proposed recipient submits an12 updated fair lending plan that responds13 to the latest annual disparity study or14 studies commissioned by the City relating15 to the performance of the proposed16 recipient and the performance of any17 other bank or any other institution that18 the proposed recipient has acquired, and19 such updated plan is attached as an20 exhibit to the Ordinance approving the21 renewal."22 Is that the law?23
So there25 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 should be a fair lending plan attached to2 the bill before it can become law?3
That's correct,4 and we will get a fair lending plan in5 place. That was my oversight.6
Thank you9 very much.10 Any other questions from11 members of the Committee?12 (No response.)13
Thank you14 very much for your testimony.15 Let me recognize that16 Councilwoman Blackwell was here. She may17 return, but I think she had to go to a18 meeting with the President.19 Next we'll have Bill 110343,20 the Capital Budget ordinance for PGW.21 (Witnesses approached witness22 table.)23
Good24 morning.25 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1
Good morning,2 Chairwoman Tasco, members of the3 Committee. My name is Janet Parrish.4 I'm the Executive Director of the5 Philadelphia Gas Commission.6
I'm William7 Gallagher. I'm the Director of Budget8 Reporting for the Philadelphia Gas Works.9
Yes. 12 Thank you for the opportunity to be here13 and present testimony in support of this14 bill on behalf of the Philadelphia Gas15 Commission. 1 was taken unanimously by the Commission2 at its April 27th meeting. 1 amount of funding included for a main2 replacement project of a very large3 30-inch diameter main. So those are some4 of the things that are a little bit5 different, otherwise I would say it's6 fairly much a vanilla budget that we're7 used to seeing year after year. 11 So the budget, just to point12 out, does continue to reflect a13 continuation of the 18-mile annual cast14 iron main elimination program. It also15 does recommend continuation of the line16 item transfer authority that Council has17 delegated to PGW and the Gas Commission18 for a number of years now where some of19 the funding, if necessary, can be shifted20 within departments or within the budget,21 subject to reporting to Council at the22 close of the fiscal year. 3 Finally, the Gas Commission has4 completed its process of updating,5 working with PGW to update its capital6 eligibility guidelines, which determine7 the thresholds at which assets are8 capitalized. 12 And in closing, let me also13 point to you to the disadvantaged14 business enterprise participation targets15 for the Fiscal '12 Capital Budget. They16 are basically on par with last year,17 which on the Capital Budget side is in18 the -- just shy of 11 percent, 11 to 1519 and a half percent range. 1 spending goals. 6 to 24 percent. So you can6 see that you have to take a mix of the7 two, Operating and Capital, to get the8 whole picture. 9
Thank you10 very much. We want to say that I believe11 it was about a year or so ago when you12 were in here and heard the questions13 about the disadvantaged equal opportunity14 program, PGW and Gas Commission moved15 quickly to look at their equal16 opportunity program and to develop a17 program that would be more inclusive. So18 we want to thank PGW and certainly thank19 the Gas Commission for your cooperation20 in moving this forward.21 Councilman Kenney has a22 question, then I'm going to come back and23 I'll ask you a question that I didn't24 tell you I was going to ask you, but I25 18 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 need an update.2
Thank you,3 Madam Chair.4 This is not related to your5 capital issue, but it's an opportunity6 since you're sitting here to perhaps get7 back to me with some information I've8 been trying to ascertain.9 Ever since the tragic death of10 Mark Keeley in the gas explosion, I have11 been making inquiries both to the12 Administration and to other legal areas13 as to how we can identify these workers14 as first responders. Mark's tragic and15 heroic death -- he did not have any16 children, he wasn't married, but I know17 that hopefully going forward, we won't18 have to deal with this. But in19 situations where your workers are working20 side by side with firefighters and police21 officers and give their life in that22 service, I think it's only appropriate23 that they be considered first responders,24 with access to benefits and other things,25 19 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 scholarships for their children and the2 like. So I'm waiting for the3 Administration to kind of give me some4 idea where they stand on it, and I would5 wonder if you internally could examine6 what would need to be done to accomplish7 that goal. Hopefully we'll never have to8 deal with it again, but it just occurred9 to me that when that young man lost his10 life, he was right there with11 firefighters and police officers, and in12 those circumstances, your folks are in13 danger as much as anyone else.14 So I would appreciate it if you15 could get back and let me know.16
We have21 been discussing on the state level the22 whole issue of DSIC. Could you just23 briefly explain what that is. It has to24 do with the state's effort to require25 20 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 that so much be spent on additional main2 lines because of the tragedy here and3 some stuff in other parts of the country4 and what impact that would have as we see5 it on ratepayers.6
Would you9 speak up a little bit. Your voice is so10 low.11
We're a14 younger Council, but some of us have15 older ears.16
Okay. Madam17 Chairwoman, you are referencing the18 latest incarnation of the so-called DSIC.19 It's actually D-S-I-C, is the acronym.20 It stands for Distribution System21 Improvement Charge, but because it's hard22 to say D-S-I-C, people tend to call it23 DSIC.24 There is presently legislation25 21 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 in the state House, House Bill 1294, if2 you want to take a look at it, sponsored3 by Representative Godshall from4 Montgomery County and a bunch of5 co-sponsors, including some from6 Philadelphia. It has been heard before7 the House Consumer Affairs Committee, and8 that's the last that I heard.9 It would actually make10 significant changes in the ratemaking11 authority of the state Public Utility12 Commission that goes beyond but includes13 the establishment of an infrastructure14 surcharge. The main purpose of that15 charge or the main argument in favor of16 it is that it would allow utilities to17 gather revenues to support additional18 capital work, capital improvement work,19 at the cheapest possible way, because20 they wouldn't have to go out and borrow21 money. As in PGW's case, there would be22 associated interest costs and debt23 service coverage requirements, et cetera.24 So the most cost-effective way if you're25 22 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 going to raise money is to charge the2 customer directly through a surcharge.3 That being said, the stated4 purpose of this, as you alluded to, is to5 create additional money to start6 accelerating the pace of cast iron main7 elimination in the State of Pennsylvania.8 The bill actually has no requirements9 that any utility do one inch more of cast10 iron main replacement, but that is the11 stated purpose, is to provide a mechanism12 where funds could be raised to support13 such an acceleration. That really is a14 matter that will be determined in the15 first instance by the state Public16 Utility Commission, whether or not it17 will mandate the regulated gas utilities18 to do additional work and how much. I19 think those matters are in discussion now20 before by the PUC with each utility,21 including PGW, on an individual basis,22 and we are participating in those23 conversations with PGW. I think the jury24 is out right now, notwithstanding the25 23 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 tragic incident with Mark Keeley, whether2 or not PGW's program would be made,3 quote/unquote, safer by requiring it to4 replace more than 18 miles a year of cast5 iron main.6 PGW, for your information, has7 had its program evaluated periodically by8 an outside consultant, most recently in9 2008, and uses a computer prioritization10 model to help it identify the most high11 risk main and target those segments for12 replacement. It also has a pretty robust13 leak detection program, because it's not14 just about getting the main out, it's15 about detecting the leaks as they occur.16 And I do know that PGW has also amplified17 its procedures in the wake of the January18 incident, although, by the way, there are19 no final reports yet in that matter and,20 of course, that will be shared with21 Council.22 So that's maybe a little bit23 more than you wanted to know, but that's24 the gist of it. We're waiting to see25 24 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 what happens on the state level with that2 legislation.3
Thank you4 very much, and I must say that the Gas5 Commission and PGW did make an effort to6 meet with some of the local state7 representatives to discuss this issue and8 to, at the end of the day, see what it9 would cost to ratepayers and how --10
And that all11 depends on how much replacement is12 mandated. What we looked at is for PGW,13 in their case it costs about a million14 and a half to a million point eight15 dollars for every additional mile of cast16 iron main replacement. So you can do the17 math. They're doing 18 miles a year now.18 If you double that or you did another ten19 miles, you're talking $20 million20 roughly.21
Good25 25 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 morning.2
Thank you4 for the announcement of the goals you've5 made regarding the EOP plan. Can you6 share with us if you had to make any7 internal systemic organizational changes8 regarding staff to ensure that the goals9 established are indeed achieved going10 forward?11
I'm going to ask12 Jo Ann Muniz, who is the Vice-President13 of Supply Chain at PGW, to join me. She14 can answer that more directly.15
Good morning. Jo23 Muniz, Vice-President of Supply Chain.24 We went through a Supply Chain25 26 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 initiative which ended in December of2 last year, and what we did realize is, we3 did not have enough personnel to carry4 that through. So what we did do is, we5 did hire a contracts manager. We did6 hire someone to do our analytics. We did7 reshuffle the deck a little bit. We8 integrated our Procurement and our9 Materials Management so one hand knew10 what the other one was doing. So we did11 add an additional four people to the12 staff, plus integrate, and it did make a13 big difference, because we were able to14 concentrate our efforts in specialties.15
Okay. So16 then can we assume then that those four17 persons will be involved in the look-see18 for national minority gas suppliers?19
Well, one of the23 things we did do is, we isolated a24 director to do diversity only, Ken25 27 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 Williams. He concentrates his effort2 just on diversity and communication to3 the organization. He pulls everything4 together. He centralizes the5 information. That way we have total6 concentration on that avenue alone and7 let the Supply Chain do what they do,8 purchase and get the materials in for the9 company.10
Just to add to11 that, Councilwoman, PGW did also retain12 an outside consultant to do part of the13 targeted search for DBE suppliers in the14 gas industry. I don't believe their15 report is available yet. And also PGW's16 working through the trade industry17 associations, the American Gas18 Association, to help identify, really19 comb the boondocks of who is out there.20 So that's important for you to know.21
Okay.22 With the minority gas supplier aside,23 does or is there a process in place24 whereby the local Chambers are aware of25 28 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 your need and reach for disadvantaged2 businesses, the African American Chamber,3 the Hispanic Chamber and the Asian4 American Chamber?5
Yes. We are part6 of the Chambers, and we do reach out to7 them, along with other organizations. We8 also have a vendor that we have that we9 have on retainer at this point in time to10 reach out to organizations nationally,11 not just locally.12
And what we also do14 is, we go item per item on our budgets15 and we try to identify any opportunities16 at that point in time in advance of them17 spending.18
And not to20 belabor this, we've also been meeting21 quarterly approximately with Angela22 Dowd-Burton and other folks from the OEO.23 In fact, we have a meeting coming up.24 And it's been interesting to watch,25 29 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 because PGW has been able to give OEO2 some vendors and some contacts and vice3 versa. So they are also trying to do a4 sharing.5
That's the6 beauty of sitting down to talk across7 systems, so that you can gather8 information that benefits the bottom line9 of the overall goal.10 The last question is -- and11 this may be premature because it sounds12 like these new personnels are recently in13 place. Is that accurate?14
So then is16 there some process in place where you'll17 be able to monitor progress based on the18 new investment in personnel and how that19 impacts the overall goal of increasing20 disadvantaged business participation?21
Yes. We do have a22 savings track holder and a DBE tracker.23 So what we do, as people put on or bring24 in opportunity to a minority vendor, DBE,25 30 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 what we do is we track it, the amount of2 dollars then went out, whether or not we3 used them before or whether or not4 they're new suppliers. Each individual5 is tracked, and we look at that monthly.6
Okay.7 Well, let me say thank you for hearing us8 and then -- I won't say reacting, but9 responding in such a way that honors what10 the continued mission continues to be,11 and, that is, create a stronger, level12 playing field for disadvantaged13 businesses. Thank you.14
Thank you18 very much.19 Are there any other questions20 or comments?21 (No response.)22
The next2 bill will be Bill 110342, the Use and3 Lease Agreement Extension ordinance.4 (Witnesses approached witness5 table.)6
Would you10 state your name for the record and11 present your testimony, please.12
Good morning, Madam13 Chairperson Tasco and members of the14 Committee on Finance. My name is Mark15 Gale. 17 With me today to my right is James18 Tyrrell, Deputy Director of Aviation for19 our Properties and Business Development20 area, and Tom Becker, our Assistant21 Director of Aviation for Budget and22 Central Services. 5 On March 10, 2011, a briefing6 was provided to the full City Council on7 the Airport's Capacity Enhancement8 Program. 17 The agreement gives the Airport the18 ability to set operational parameters and19 reasonable rates and charges, fund20 financial reserves in order to maintain21 creditworthiness, provide a mechanism for22 financing capital improvements and23 recover all costs associated with24 operating the Airport. 1 airlines receive a relative cost2 certainty and the ability to continue3 their operation. 6 The Airport has operated in7 this manner since 1974 when it entered8 into a 32-year-long agreement that9 expired in 2006. In 2007, the Airport10 changed that agreement to move away from11 exclusive area agreements with the12 airlines and into preferential and/or13 common-use arrangements which promote14 competition and better facility15 utilization. 4 As part of the Use and Lease5 Agreement Extension, the airlines have6 approved $250 million for Airport capital7 improvements, which will permit the8 Airport to proceed with enabling projects9 associated with the Capacity Enhancement10 Program. S. 16 Philadelphia International17 Airport is critical to the region's18 economy. The Airport contributes more19 than $14 billion annually to the local20 economy and accounts for more than21 141,000 jobs in the region. 1 growth and competition. The Capacity2 Enhancement Program will enable the3 Airport to accommodate more than 204 million additional passengers annually by5 the year 2030, which will in turn6 generate more jobs and purchases of goods7 and services in the region. During the8 2015 to 2025 period, the CEP is projected9 to preserve an economic output of more10 than $20 billion and preserve annual tax11 revenues projected to reach 100 million12 by the year 2025. 24
Are there25 36 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 any questions?2 Councilwoman Brown.3
This is8 unrelated but related to the bill before9 us today. Can you simply give us an10 update, a summary statement, if you will,11 on the first outreach you engaged in for12 awareness to disadvantaged businesses13 about this enormous economic opportunity14 coming to the Airport region.15
Gladly,16 Councilwoman. Last month, the Airport,17 in conjunction with moving forward with18 the Airport's Capacity Enhancement19 Program and knowing that there is going20 to be a lot of work at the Airport, many21 contracts, we held what I considered to22 be the first of several outreach23 opportunities or forums that we hold in24 connection with that work that's coming25 37 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 forward at the Airport, whether it be on2 a professional service side,3 architectural and engineering or in the4 upcoming stages on construction work,5 working with the Office of Economic6 Opportunity to make sure that we maximize7 opportunities for diversity and inclusion8 in these programs.9 That forum was extremely well10 received. We had over 350 registered11 attendees, over 200 firms. I think the12 number was 208 firms that actually13 attended the forum, 75 percent of which14 were registered DBE certified firms that15 were there. So we believe obviously from16 the turnout and from the comments and the17 feedback that we got, the folks18 appreciated the opportunity to come and19 learn more about opportunities at the20 Airport, and for those reasons, as long21 as it was just the right thing to do, we22 expect to have many more of those in the23 coming days.24
Thank you25 38 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 for that information. Know that I got2 the information, wanted to be there, but3 it conflicted with demands here at this4 table. So we'll continue to pay5 attention that way. Keep us informed6 about those efforts and give us the7 numbers, because numbers ultimately8 matter. The fact that 300 registered and9 208 actually attended, then I will be10 curious to know how many were Philly11 residents, because ultimately we want to12 do all we can to get Philadelphia-based13 companies opportunity for all the reasons14 that we hear about all the time, so they15 can feed their families, et cetera. So16 keep us informed of those future efforts,17 and that's all for now on this topic.18 Thank you.19
Thank you,20 Councilwoman, and we very much appreciate21 your support in that area.22
Thank you25 39 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 for your testimony. I just have a couple2 of quick questions about this.3 Does this at all relate to4 concessions in the Airport?5
The agreement that6 governs the concessions at the Airport is7 a separate contract, which is still in8 place and expires in June of 2013.9
Okay. Does10 this at all relate to approval of new11 concessions, old concessions, extension12 thereof in any way?13
Does this at15 all relate to any agreements with the16 Parking Authority or the FAA over parking17 or any of the parking lots that are on18 City-owned property at the Airport?19
No, sir. This20 extension is just to keep the agreement21 that we have in place running and keep22 the existing framework in place.23
So obviously24 I didn't -- I mean, I heard what you25 40 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 said, that it's with airlines, but what2 does that mean? Does that mean it's3 terminal leases essentially?4
And that's6 all it is, where they can park their7 planes, what it costs for them to take8 off and land?9
What their lending10 fees are, what their space rentals are.11 We essentially operate as the landlord12 for those things, yes.13
So it14 doesn't deal with concessions and it15 doesn't deal with the parking at the16 Airport at all?17
The concessions --18 or the Parking Authority are signatory to19 this agreement.20
Any other24 questions?25 41 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 (No response.)2
Next we11 will have Bill No. 110206, fee waiver12 ordinance for estate properties.13 (Witness approached witness14 table.)15 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Good16 morning, Councilwoman Tasco and members17 of the Finance Committee. My name is18 Joan Decker. I serve as the Records19 Commissioner, and I'm here today to20 testify on behalf of Bill No. 110206,21 which was introduced by Councilman Kenney22 on March 17th, 2011.23 I will just summarize the24 testimony, if that's okay.25 42 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 We are fully in support of this2 bill, but we are requesting two changes3 to it, and that would be to enable us to4 require some documentation to be filed by5 those who are requesting the fee waiver6 just to prove eligibility for the fee7 waiver, and we're also asking for an8 effective date of 60 days after the bill9 becomes law, and this is to enable us10 some time to change the fee tables,11 provide for some reporting within the12 system and tracking capability, and also13 to provide information about the14 eligibility rules so that they are very15 clear to those who need to file this fee16 waiver and also it's very clear to the17 staff and can be applied consistently.18 Anyway, thank you for the19 opportunity to testify today on behalf of20 this bill, and I'm happy to answer any21 questions you may have. And I also have22 copies of proposed amendments to the23 bill.24
We have25 43 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 them.2
Thank you3 very much.4 The Chair recognizes Councilman5 Kenney.6
Thank you,7 Madam Chair.8 I just want to give a little9 background on this bill and how it came10 about. I was walking out the northeast11 entrance to City Hall one afternoon and12 saw an elderly woman on the sidewalk with13 a big folder full of paper, looking14 somewhat bewildered as to what was going15 on. So I engaged her and asked her what16 her problem was, and she said that her17 husband had just passed away about a18 month ago and she was trying to get the19 deed changed into her name and had to get20 the gas changed and the water changed.21 And so I took her back upstairs and sat22 her with Ms. Moore on my staff, and23 through the course of her working through24 these problems, it came clear that you25 44 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 had to pay a fee of almost $200 to get2 your spouse's name off the deed. Now, I3 know that that particular individual, her4 capability of paying that really was5 difficult, to pay almost $200 to have6 something done that's administratively7 done. So what we decided to do was to8 ask the Administration -- and you guys9 gratefully have agreed to do it -- to10 allow a person who has lost their spouse11 or their civil partner to be able to file12 for this fee waiver and to save the13 accompanying fee.14 So we want to thank you for15 agreeing to do that. And the amendments16 were basically technical in nature and17 didn't change the aspect of the bill. So18 thank you.19 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Thank20 you. Thank you very much. We recognize21 the need for this. Thank you very much.22
Could you23 just explain to me the process for having24 a deed -- this process to go through?25 45 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 Does the person have -- do you issue a2 new deed or do they have to go to someone3 and ask them to do a new deed? I want to4 know that.5 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Yes.6
What's the7 process?8 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Yes. The9 Records Department does not prepare10 deeds, so the filer would have to have a11 deed prepared. But I do want to state12 that many spouses, there is language in13 the deed, which is Tenants in Entirety,14 and that means that the full ownership15 will go to the deceased spouse upon the16 passage of the other spouse. So there17 technically isn't a need to file a new18 deed. However, if that person needs to19 do that for other reasons, they do need20 to have a new deed prepared.21 The Records Department -- that22 would represent a conflict for us, to23 prepare deeds and also to record them,24 because that would open the door for25 46 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 whatever. It's just something that would2 not appear to be good in all cases.3 So we do not prepare the deed.4 The individual would have to have the5 deed prepared for them and then bring it6 into the Department to be recorded.7
But I8 believe the preponderance of this9 particular situation is Tenants of the10 Entirety, not necessarily different11 circumstances which require the deed.12 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Right.13 The benefit of filing a deed, though,14 from your perspective of the changes, we15 do push out changes in ownership, the16 names, to other City agencies, so there17 is a benefit in doing that.18
Thank you.19 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Having a20 deed filed, so that is on the record in21 just the one person's name.22
Any other23 questions?24 Councilwoman Brown.25 47 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1
Thank you2 for that description of the process. So3 how does the process differ in a divorce4 situation, or does it?5 COMMISSIONER DECKER: It's6 still the same. The same process occurs.7 The individual would have to have a deed8 prepared and then bring it into the9 Department to have it recorded.10
Thank you11 very much.12 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Okay.13
So if the16 lady's husband, the title went directly17 to her as in this case with Councilman18 Kenney, it was a deed in the entirety?19
Tenants in22 the Entirety. Automatically the house or23 the property goes to her?24 COMMISSIONER DECKER: That's25 48 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 correct.2
She goes3 to your office and files to remove his4 name. So now we have income guidelines?5 COMMISSIONER DECKER: We have6 no income guideline. We will just really7 request that a copy, certified copy, of8 the marriage license and a certified copy9 of the death certificate of either the10 surviving spouse or the life partner be11 presented to the Department, and we'll12 require an affidavit form that will be13 recorded with the document.14
All right.15 And that's when the fee is waived?16 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Yes.17 That's correct.18
Thank you19 very much.20 COMMISSIONER DECKER: Thank21 you.22
Next we23 will have Bill 110244, Mr. )2 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Good3 morning. Keith J. 6 Good morning, Councilwoman7 Tasco and members of City Council8 Committee on Finance. Again, my name is9 Keith J. Richardson. I'm the Revenue10 Commissioner for the City of Philadelphia11 Department of Revenue. I'm here today to12 testify in support of Bill No. 21 This bill proposes to increase22 the amount the Revenue Commissioner could23 waive up to 15,000 in interest or 35,00024 in penalty or both. 5 This bill will provide a long overdue6 increase in the Revenue Commissioner's7 authority that has been eroded over time8 by inflation. It also will eliminate9 duplication of work by reducing the10 number of cases on which the Department11 of Revenue must consult with the Law12 Department's Tax Unit. While the two13 departments are creating a closer worker14 relationship, in the vast majority of15 cases, there is no benefit to requiring a16 second review. 1 balances of interest and/or penalty2 charges upon any unpaid City or School3 District money collectible by the4 Department of Revenue. This power5 delegated to the Revenue Commissioner is6 limited only to abating the amount of7 interest and penalty reflected on the8 first billing sent to the taxpayer and9 the taxpayer must file the petition for10 waiver within 60 days of the date noted11 on the first bill. 1 cases that end up in additional tax2 assessments involve three years worth of3 unpaid or underpaid tax liability. 7 Taxpayers receiving the first billing8 notice from our department with more than9 10,000 outstanding balance of interest10 and penalty have no choice but to pay in11 full or file a petition with the Tax12 Review Board. 7 We also would ask for a suspension of the8 rules. 11
Just out of18 curiosity, how did you pick the 50,000,19 and could you describe the public policy20 rationale not to give you discretion with21 approval without having to go to Law and22 slow things up? And then I guess,23 finally -- and if you don't remember all24 these questions, I'll get back to it --25 54 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 how long does it take to get the2 settlement back that could have been done3 in Revenue from Law typically when you4 have to refer things out because it's5 over the limit?6 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'll7 go to your first question hopefully8 first. With regards to the $50,000 that9 we agreed upon, we thought right now as10 we were transitioning in the Tax Unit to11 Revenue, we would take increment steps on12 what the Revenue Commissioner's authority13 would be. Again, after my $50,00014 authority, it can go to the corporate15 chair in the Law Department who has, I16 think, over to a quarter of a million.17 Anything above that will go to the City18 Solicitor for write-off process.19
And how many20 cases fall into this 10,000 to 50,00021 category that you'll be able to address22 more --23 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I can24 get back to you with the amount on cases.25 55 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 We're still looking at that right now,2 but, again, for customer services and for3 our purposes, it will stop a lot of going4 back and forth with the Tax Unit to look5 at a case and be more about results and6 efficiency.7
I was just8 curious if you looked at any data in9 order to figure out what a good number10 would be for you to have authority over11 in terms of the --12 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's13 probably several hundred to a thousand or14 more cases. Just alone in the Water15 Department, I have 48,000 cases that we16 look at. So it's a good number. And,17 again, at the state level, I had an18 authority of about $50,000 for write-off,19 and we right now just think that's a good20 stepping stone.21
Thank you23 very much.24 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON:25 56 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 You're welcome.2
Next we3 have -- you might as well stay. I4 believe you're on this one -- Bill5 110297 -- I'm sorry; 100754. I'm sorry.6 Councilman Green would like to7 make a comment, please.8 (Witness approached witness9 table.)10
Thank you,11 Madam Chairman. I wanted to take a12 moment to explain the purpose of this13 bill and respond to the testimony we're14 about to hear.15 As people may recall, the City16 got a black eye in the local and national17 press last year over the so-called18 blogger tax. That is, we all know that19 there is no special tax for bloggers, but20 there was a great deal of confusion in21 the public about this issue.22 The purpose of this legislation23 is to make clear that people who are24 engaged in hobby or not-for-profit25 57 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 activity - blogging, knitting, gardening,2 whatever it might be - are not subject to3 the business privilege tax or BPT, do not4 have to file a return and do not need to5 get a business privilege license, which6 can cost $50 a year or $300 for a7 lifetime.8 In defining what is a hobby or9 other not-for-profit activity, we used10 the same approach that applies under11 federal tax law. Following introduction,12 we worked with the Revenue Department on13 an amendment that spells out many of the14 factors considered under federal law, and15 I thank the Revenue Department for their16 input and cooperation on this.17 The Administration has raised a18 concern about the final section of the19 bill, which provides a mechanism for20 people engaged in hobby or not-for-profit21 activity to respond to an enforcement22 action by the Revenue Department by at23 least initially filling out a24 certification in a form determined by the25 58 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 Department. This form is entirely up to2 the Department to create.3 The bill further provides that4 if the total amount of receipts is less5 than $3,000, the certification shall be6 presumptive proof of no business income.7 A presumption, of course, is not8 conclusive and can be rebutted. Nothing9 in the bill would prevent the Revenue10 Department from pursuing additional11 enforcement action against someone the12 Department thought was actually engaged13 in the business activity. And we note14 that claiming a deduction on your federal15 tax returns would probably be pretty16 conclusive evidence of that and the form17 could require certification that they did18 not claim a deduction on their federal19 tax return.20 We've proposed an amendment to21 the bill to address the specific concerns22 of the Revenue Department; namely, people23 who take a deduction on their federal24 taxes and then claim that such activity25 59 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 was a hobby or not-for-profit. Our2 amendment makes clear that the Revenue3 Department may require as part of the4 certification that people provide5 documentation for not having taken a6 business loss deduction on their federal7 taxes. What the Administration is8 proposing in its amendment is, we think,9 more confusing to taxpayers.10 In summary, to require a11 hobbyist with incidental income to get a12 $50 or $300 license, fill out a business13 tax return and pay nominal tax makes14 absolutely no sense. This bill makes15 clear that the City is not nickel and16 diming bloggers or anyone else who is17 pursuing a hobby or other not-for-profit18 activity. I encourage the Committee19 members to support this bill, and I'm20 happy to answer any questions about it.21 Thank you.22
Thank you.23 Would you identify yourself for24 the record, please.25 60 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1
Good morning,2 Councilwoman Tasco and members of the3 Committee on Finance. My name is Tilahun4 Afessa and I'm the Director of Policy,5 Planning and Outreach for the Department6 of Revenue. I am here today to testify7 in support of the general purpose of Bill8 No. 100754, although we recommend some9 amendments to the bill.10 Bill No. 100754 proposes to11 amend Chapter 19-2600 of The Philadelphia12 Code, entitled "Business Privilege13 Taxes," by clarifying that income from a14 hobby is not included as taxable business15 income under the Code.16 The Philadelphia Code defines17 Business as "carrying on or exercising18 for gain or profit" any business within19 the City of Philadelphia and provides20 specific exclusions from the definition21 of Business for certain activities. Bill22 No. 100754 proposes to make explicit that23 the definition of Business does not24 include any hobby or other not-for-profit25 61 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 activity as defined under the Code of2 Federal Regulations, so that it would be3 clear that persons engaged in such4 activities would not be required to5 procure or maintain a business privilege6 license and to file a business privilege7 tax return.8 Although the bill references9 the relevant provision of the Code of10 Federal Regulations, we recommend that11 the bill be amended to spell out the nine12 relevant, non-exclusive factors set forth13 in this particular section of the Code of14 Federal Regulation that must be15 considered to determine whether an16 activity is genuinely a hobby.17 The bill, as introduced, also18 provides that in response to an19 enforcement action, an individual that20 earns less than $3,000 can simply certify21 that the money was earned in a hobby22 activity and that the Department must23 accept that certification as presumptive24 proof of no business income. We believe25 62 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 this provision does not serve any2 purpose, as small earners may claim the3 hobby exemption even when they are4 engaged in true business activity. Such5 an exemption undermines the use of6 objective standards set forth under the7 federal regulations. It also has the8 potential to confuse taxpayers by making9 them believe that if they earn below this10 threshold, they are not required to11 obtain a business privilege license and12 to file a business privilege tax return13 regardless of the source of their income.14 This will create unnecessary problems for15 the taxpayers as well as for the16 Department.17 We have a draft amendment at18 hand that will eliminate this particular19 language from the bill, with no effect to20 its true intent, which is to exclude from21 the definition of Business activities22 carried primarily as a hobby. This23 amendment has been shared with the bill24 sponsor and that I am prepared to offer25 63 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 it now.2 If, however, this Committee is3 determined to maintain language providing4 special treatment for small earners in5 the bill, we have an alternative6 amendment that proposes to change the7 presumptive proof language to a general8 presumption language our department can9 overcome by any basic evidence. This has10 also been provided to the sponsor, and I11 am prepared to offer that now as well.12 Thank you again for giving me13 the opportunity to testify today. I am14 ready to answer any questions you may15 have regarding this bill and regarding16 our recommendations to make amendments to17 the bill.18
Thank22 you, Madam Chair.23 Good morning, sir. In your24 testimony, at the bottom of the first25 64 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 page, you say that the bill has the2 potential to confuse taxpayers by making3 them believe if they're below the4 threshold, and further as you say there.5 But as I see in the bill, it says a6 person exclusively engaged in a hobby or7 other non-profit activity. It says it8 right there.9 So why is that -- I guess I10 don't understand why that would confuse11 anybody. Under Returns, at the end of12 the bill, 19-2606, Returns, it says, A13 person exclusively engaged in a hobby or14 other non-profit activity shall not be15 required. Why would that be confusing to16 somebody who -- if you're not engaged in17 a hobby or non-profit activity, why would18 you think you would not be eligible for19 the license?20
What is confusing21 is the last sentence, which is only22 (unintelligible).23
Is only24 what? I'm sorry.25 65 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1
The last sentence2 in that particular paragraph, and if you3 read the whole paragraph, the message4 says that if your income or your gross5 receipt is less than $3,000, the City has6 to accept any certification by the person7 who is making $3,000 or less as proof8 that the taxpayer is not engaged in9 business. So that is -- from enforcement10 point of view, I believe that is11 confusing.12
But it13 says to the extent the person's total14 receipts derived from hobby or other15 non-profit activity are less than 3,000.16
Yeah, but that17 certification is if the person says that,18 that is -- I'm engaged in a hobby. I19 don't have any other way of disproving20 because of the language of this21 particular section.22
But there23 are amendments being put in by the24 sponsor to outline those nine points that25 66 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 you talk about in your testimony. So2 that is in there, right?3
If I'm not -- you4 can correct me on this. If I'm not5 mistaken, I can't even look at the nine6 factors if the person who makes $3,000 or7 less says so. That is basically what it8 is. The certification is that I am9 engaged in a hobby or activities which10 are not business and this is what I'm11 filing for the federal government and12 that's it. I can't go and look at the13 nine factors, which are objective factors14 given by the federal regulation, which15 applies to everybody. And I cannot go to16 those factors and look at them, based on17 our reading of it. If it's not the case,18 then we can clarify that by our19 regulation, but that's how our reading of20 this particular section.21
I think22 Councilman Green might have an answer to23 this all.24
Well, I25 67 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 think there's two fundamental problems2 here. First of all, you're conflating3 the issue of the certification and the4 $3,000. The certification doesn't have5 to have any dollar number on it. The6 certification under your amendments would7 only be received from people with under8 $3,000.9 What we're saying is, in the10 bill as proposed, the certification can11 be filled out by anybody upon receipt of12 a request for payment from you, whether13 they have $100,000 or $3,000 or $1. It14 is what -- then if they're under 3,000 --15 so that's the way we've proposed it.16 There's a certification form potentially17 for everybody. It is your form. You can18 put it together. Obviously they can't19 certify they didn't pay federal taxes if20 you put that on the form, and we think21 that that fully addresses your concern,22 because obviously if someone claims a23 business deduction or business income on24 their federal taxes, they can't so25 68 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 certify or they'd be subject to perjury2 and all sorts of other penalties and3 problems. Also, it's only a presumption.4 It is not something that you can't rebut,5 but it does shift the burden of proof to6 the Revenue Department from the taxpayer7 if it's under 3,000.8 Three thousand is not on the9 form. The certification goes to10 everybody as we've proposed it. Your11 amendments doesn't have the certification12 go to everybody.13 So those two issues are not14 linked and you're linking them15 unnecessarily in your amendments, and I16 think that's creating confusion. But we17 have -- as you expressed it, you want it18 to be, is exactly how we think the bill19 reads. You have -- everybody does a20 certification, not just under 3,000, is21 what we're proposing. And then if it's22 under 3,000, the burden of proof to show23 that it's business income is on the24 Revenue Department, not the taxpayer.25 69 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 That's what this bill says.2
If it is exactly3 the way you've explained it, we4 understand that part of it, but we've5 read this particular section. It doesn't6 read that way. The last --7
That's8 exactly what it reads. You're confusing9 certification with the 3,000. They're10 not at all linked in this bill.11
The whole idea is,12 I mean, if this particular section is not13 there, we're using the same criteria,14 people are making less than $3,000. As15 long as they're engaged in a hobby or16 recreation or sport or whatever the17 federal regulation says which is not18 business, that's fine. There's no19 problem. We don't even ask any20 certification.21
We22 completely agree. All we're doing is23 shifting the burden of proof if it's24 under 3,000 from the taxpayer to the25 70 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 Revenue Department, and I think that that2 makes some sense. It's not conclusive.3 It's presumptive.4
Okay. So if that5 is the case, then by regulation we make6 sure based on this understanding of7 today's testimony, we can spell that out8 in our regulation, and as long as we can9 make it clear --10
It's not11 just based on today's testimony. It's12 actually how the bill reads. The13 amendments created separate things for14 the certification and the 3,000. It's15 one certification form that has no dollar16 amount on it, if you want to put it out17 that way, so the taxpayers can't be18 confused. It's just if it's under 3,000,19 for you to go after them, the burden of20 proof shifts to you instead of them, so21 that we -- you'll think about it before22 you go pursue $8.23
Okay. I think we24 will do the same thing for everybody. I25 71 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 don't think we have any problem accepting2 individuals' certification that they are3 engaged in a hobby unless we believe that4 the particular activity doesn't lend5 itself to be considered a hobby or6 recreation or business. But as we say,7 if you want the $3,000 or less provision8 included in it, as long as, of course,9 the presumption passes to us, we'll do10 that, and actually we have a clarifying11 amendment which will make it sufficiently12 clear if --13
Your14 amendment doesn't clarify. It conflates15 the issues of the certification and the16 $3,000.17
Could I18 make a suggestion? That you all kind of19 get together on this.20
That's fine.25 72 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 We'll work it out based on --2
Are you8 all right? You know you can always amend9 it later. You still have time. I think10 what you might want to do is talk to11 Sophie and you all kind of walk through12 this, since she's been sort of like the13 point person on working with you on it,14 and so that you are clear on what we're15 passing here today. I think that would16 be helpful. If you find any problem with17 it, I'm sure the Councilman would be open18 to suggestions. Whether he accepts them19 or not is another thing, but he would be20 open to some further discussion. All21 right? Is that okay?22
So you're24 going to accept this amendment?25 73 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1
You have4 an amendment right here. Didn't you pass5 this out?6
So I9 suggest that you all have further10 discussion about that, and if there's any11 other -- there's a problem, that we12 know -- because I don't really want to13 give up any money that we can collect,14 because we need the dollars -- we need15 the revenue in the City of Philadelphia.16
We also would like17 to submit our amendment in case -- this18 is what we proposed anyway in our hearing19 and --20
Okay.24 Thank you very much.25 74 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 Is there any other testimony on2 this bill?3 (No response.)4
Okay.5 That concludes our hearing. We will now6 go into our public meeting, and the Chair7 recognizes Councilman Green for the8 amendment to Bill 100754.9
Madam Chair,10 I move an amendment to Bill 100754 --11 (Duly seconded.)12
It has15 been moved and seconded that we accept16 the amendment to Bill 100754.17 All in favor will say aye.18 (Aye.)19
Thank you,25 75 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 Madam Chair. I move that Bill 100754 be2 recommended by this Committee, with a3 suspension of the rules so it can be read4 at our next reading of Council.5 (Duly seconded.)6
It's been7 moved and seconded Bill 100754, as8 amended, be reported out of Committee9 with a favorable recommendation and that10 the rules of Council be suspended so this11 bill can be heard at Council's next12 session.13 All in favor will say aye.14 (Aye.)15
There19 being none, the motion is carried.20 The Chair recognizes Councilman21 Kenney for Bill 110206.22
Thank you,23 Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 11020624 be amended accordingly as was circulated25 76 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 earlier in the hearing.2 (Duly seconded.)3
It has4 been moved and seconded that the5 amendment to Bill 110206 be adopted as6 presented.7 All in favor will say aye.8 (Aye.)9
There13 being none, the amendment is adopted.14 The Chair recognizes Councilman15 Kenney.16
Thank you,17 Madam Chair. I move that Bill 110206, as18 amended, be reported out of this19 Committee with a favorable recommendation20 and a request made for rules suspension21 to allow first reading at our next22 Council session.23 (Duly seconded.)24
It has25 77 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 been moved and seconded that Bill 110206,2 as amended, be reported out of Committee3 with a favorable recommendation and that4 the rules of Council be suspended so that5 this bill can be heard at Council's next6 session.7 All in favor will say aye.8 (Aye.)9
There10 being no opposition, the motion is11 carried.12 The Chair recognizes Councilman13 Kenney.14
Thank you,15 Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 11024416 be reported out of this Committee with a17 favorable recommendation and a rules18 suspension request for reading at our19 next Council session.20 (Duly seconded.)21
It has22 been moved that Bill 110244 be reported23 out of Committee with a favorable24 recommendation and that the rules of25 78 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 Council be suspended so this bill can be2 heard at Council's next session.3 All in favor will say aye.4 (Aye.)5
There9 being none, the motion is carried.10 The Chair recognizes11 Councilwoman Blackwell for Bill No.12 110342, report out of Committee with a13 favorable recommendation.14
Thank15 you, Madam Chairman. I move that Bill16 No. 110342 be reported out of Committee17 with a favorable recommendation and also18 for a suspension of the rules so that it19 may be considered at our next session of20 Council.21 (Duly seconded.)22
It has23 been moved and seconded that Bill 11034224 be reported out of Committee with a25 79 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 favorable recommendation and that the2 rules of Council be suspended so that3 this bill can be heard at Council's next4 session.5 All in favor will say aye.6 (Aye.)7
There11 being none, this motion is carried.12 The Chair recognizes13 Councilwoman Blackwell for Bill 110343.14
Thank15 you, Madam Chairman. I move that Bill16 No. 110343 be reported out of Committee17 with a favorable recommendation and also18 a suspension of the rules so that it may19 be considered at our next session of20 Council.21 (Duly seconded.)22
It has23 been moved and seconded that Bill 11034324 be reported out of Committee with a25 80 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 favorable recommendation and that the2 rules of Council be suspended so this3 bill can be heard at Council's next4 session.5 All in favor will say aye.6 (Aye.)7
There11 being none, this motion is carried.12 Hold on a moment, please.13 COUNCILWOMAN TASCO:14 Councilwoman Blackwell.15
Madam16 Chair, I would like to be recorded as17 voting aye on all bills in the event18 because I stepped out for a few moments.19
Thank you.23 Don't go yet. We still have one more.24 (Pause.)25 81 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1
We believe2 that Bill 110297, the amendment is being3 worked on by the Law Department. Do you4 have any idea how long it's going to5 take?6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I7 thought he was going to be back pretty8 immediately.9
What we10 can do is recess this until June the 6th11 and bring it back, and it will give you12 time to work on it and work with the13 sponsor.14
Could I15 just put something on the record, please?16
I guess I18 just don't understand why this wasn't19 ready today. I mean, in all fairness, I20 mean, every time the issue comes up21 before the Finance Committee, members,22 particularly Councilman Goode, raise this23 question, and I just want to put on24 record it's just kind of frustrating that25 82 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 we have witnesses look at us like, Geez,2 you know, is that what you want?3 I just put that on record. The4 reason I think it should be continued,5 they should have been ready at 10 o'clock6 today, not trying to scramble at 11:30.7 Just my opinion.8 Thank you, Madam Chair.9
Thank you.10 The Chair recognizes Councilman11 Green.12
I'm sorry.13 My light is on from before, but I would14 agree with Councilman Greenlee. It seems15 to me that we can't -- we couldn't pass16 it with a suspension anyway because it17 has to be amended to include that18 material or it would not be legal. So19 there's no time pressure here, because20 without it being amended on the floor of21 Council, even if we were to pass it22 today, it would not be a legal bill23 without that attachment.24
So we hope25 83 5/23/11 - FINANCE - BILL 100754, ETC.1 that the Law Department understands and2 reads the legislation that we pass and be3 prepared to present with the sponsor of4 the bill to move things forward.5 So you've heard the will of the6 Committee. I hope that you all are7 ready.8 This Committee will stand in9 recess until June the 6th at 1:00 p.m.10 Thank you.11 (Committee on Finance recessed12 at 11:30 a.m.)13 - - -14 15 84 CERTIFICATE2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the3 proceedings, evidence and objections are4 contained fully and accurately in the5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on May 23, 2011, and that7 this is a true and correct transcript of same.8 --------------------13 MICHELE L. MURPHY14 RPR-Notary Public15 (The foregoing certification of this19 transcript does not apply to any reproduction20 of the same by any means, unless under the21 direct control and/or supervision of the22 certifying reporter.)23