COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, December 4, 1997 9:45 a.m. - - - BILL 970666 - An Ordinance repealing or eliminating the City's tax on intangible personal property with respect to certain years or certain valuation dates, and amending certain terms and conditions. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JOHN F. STREET, Chair COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, Vice-Chair COUNCILWOMAN HAPPY FERNANDEZ COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center Plaza, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 BILL 970666 I N D E X BILL 970666 Ben Hayllar, Director of Finance, City of Philadelphia-------------------------------- Richard Feder, Esq., Divisional Deputy City Solicitor, Law Department------------------- 6 Ashley Andrus, Manager, Public Policy, Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce------------ 22 7 Roy Hock, Member, Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce--------------------------------- 25 8 Allen D. Black, Esq., Counsel for Allison Moore--------------------------------------- 35 9 - - - 10 Public Meeting--------------------------------- 40 11 - - - 12 13 14 15 3 BILL 970666
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is a duly advertised meeting of the Council Committee of the Whole. Today we will take testimony, hopefully have a Public Meeting, on Bill No. 7 970666. Let's not everybody run to the lottery machine. This is a bill repealing or eliminating the city's tax on intangible personal property with respect to certain years or certain valuation dates, and amending certain terms and conditions. We have in the room today at this time less than a quorum. I understand that Councilman Longstreth is on his way. And, unfortunately, we don't have the power under the Charter to deputize any member of our staff or member of the general public to help us with a quorum. So, therefore, we will be preliminarily delayed until we can get one additional member. Councilman Longstreth. (Applause.) 4 BILL 970666
We were obviously expecting you and needing you for a quorum. At this time my first witness will be the Finance Director of the City of Philadelphia, Mr. Ben Hayllar. Mr. Hayllar, thank you for being with us. Would you please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your statement. Does everyone have a copy of Mr. Hayllar's statement? I believe it was circulated to all members of Council. Is there anyone who does not have a copy of Mr. Hayllar's statement? I think they all have it. Thank you.
Thank you. My name is Ben Hayllar, Director of Finance. With me are Dean Kaplan, the Budget Director; Nancy Kammerdeiner, the Revenue Commissioner; Divisional Deputy City Solicitors Frank Paiva and Richard Feder. We are here to testify in favor of Bill 970666, which repeals sections of Chapter 5 BILL 970666 19-1100 pertaining to the city's tax on intangible personal property. Unless the President objects, I will try to summarize my testimony, which you have otherwise in writing.
I thought it might be. If you recall, last March we appeared before City Council in support of a bill that was designed to protect the city's Personal Property Tax, which had been instituted under a state law that is currently under attack by residents of Montgomery County, and is now before the State Supreme Court. We recommended, and Council approved, a Personal Property Tax under the provisions of the Sterling Act that was designed to take effect only if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would rule that the Personal Property Tax as authorized by the 1913 state legislation was unconstitutional. The ordinance that you approved last spring included a provision that would impose a one-time, 5 mill tax on all intangible personal 6 BILL 970666 property, without exemption, for state securities held on January 1, 1996. This provision was designed to protect the city from having to pay as much as $58 million in refunds, should they be ordered by the Court. Now, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not ruled on the Annenberg case, the appeal of the Personal Property Tax. The Court, in fact, could rule that the entire Personal Property Tax is constitutional or unconstitutional, or could declare only the exemption provision and not the tax itself unconstitutional. It could order refunds for one or more years, or may rule that refunds are not required. And I would report that in North Carolina, where a similar tax was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, no refunds have been paid to date. Now, since our appearance before Council in March, there have been many meetings between the Mayor, the President of Council, the 7 BILL 970666 legal community, and the banking community. At the end of these discussions it was concluded that it is in the interest of Philadelphia's economy to eliminate the Personal Property Tax. The counties surrounding Philadelphia have chosen to eliminate the Personal Property Tax, even though the State Supreme Court has not ruled. Our new Personal Property Tax law made any trust held by trustees in the corporate limits of Philadelphia subject to the tax. Therefore, with the surrounding counties giving up the tax, the banks, which represent 60 percent of the revenue that comes from the Personal Property Tax, would be encouraged to relocate their trust departments outside the city. Commerce Department data suggests that there are as many as 1500 employees working in the various bank trust departments, and perhaps another 150 employees working in trust activities in the 11 major law firms. These jobs would be at jeopardy under these conditions. With the loss of $16,447,000 in the FY '98 budget, and the $89 million over the term of 8 BILL 970666 the current five-year plan, which would result there from the elimination of this tax, we have a difficult problem. We do, however, have a strategy to deal with the loss of the revenue. For FY '98, we project strong performance in the collection of real estate taxes, the transfer tax, and the sales tax to offset approximately $5 million of the income that we had originally anticipated from the Personal Property Tax. In addition, while there have been some unexpected contingencies in the FY '98 budget, most departments are projected to remain within their target budgets for the year. By continuing the strict across-the-board controls on spending and hiring to help offset the loss of Personal Property Tax revenue, we have reduced costs while minimizing the effect on any particular department. As you know, the FY '97 year-end fund balance was about $10 million higher than had originally been projected. For future years, we will have to adjust the five-year plan that will be presented to 9 BILL 970666 City Council in January to account for the loss of Personal Property Tax revenue.
We intend to propose a series of expenditure reductions, efficiency measures, and revenue initiatives to make up the remaining shortfall of the plan resulting from abandoning the Personal Property Tax. The remainder of my testimony summarizes the individual provisions of the bill. But let me say that they exempt owner-managed and family-run corporations from the retroactive one-time, 5 mill Personal Property Tax. The provisions eliminate the tax on trust accounts held by trustees located within the corporate limits of the city. One provision eliminates the new prospective tax that was to be imposed on the value of holdings as of July 1 of '97. One of the provisions amends the one-time tax to eliminate credit for Personal Property Tax paid on July '97. A final provision deletes the prospective tax on the value of holdings known as the Personal Property Tax for the Calendar Year 1998 10 BILL 970666 and every year thereafter. Finally, Section 2 of the bill allows Philadelphia to opt out of the state Personal Property Tax, just as the surrounding counties have done, if the state Supreme Court finds against Annenberg. This concludes our testimony. And we would be happy to answer any questions that Council might have.
Thank you very much. Mr. Hayllar, my discussions with the Mayor and you and representatives of the business community and others about this tax, this tax, to me, is almost like trying to get out of quick sand. The more you wiggle, the deeper you get, and at one point in time our purpose not to know another thing about it. What I would like you to do for the members of City Council is, give us a couple of bottom lines. What we are interested in doing is achieving some objectives. We don't want the banks and the law firms and those businesspeople who do 11 BILL 970666 this kind of business to be at a competitive disadvantage with their competitors in the suburbs and in other states. We understand that right now they are our competitors, they are advertising. I mean, they are using the existence of this tax, even since the time we said we were going to repeal it and the time we have gotten around to actually taking that action, it has been used and has consistently been used against us. Now, what I need to know from you is, because there have been several of these bills, to what extent has the Administration, in its consideration of recommending this final bill to us, had an opportunity to work with representatives of the business opportunity, the banking community? And are these communities on board with this bill?
Very much so. As you know, at the beginning of this fiscal year several of the banks temporarily moved their trust employees out of the city because their law departments had interpreted -- perhaps incorrectly, but they were erroring on the side of caution -- they had interpreted the then-passed law 12 BILL 970666 to mean that if they had trust activities within the corporate limits of the city at that time, their clients would be subject to the tax. They did not want to be uncompetitive with trust operations outside the city, so they actually moved their employees out. This eliminates them having to do that again or, worst-case scenario, move their employees out permanently. The banks, to the best of our knowledge, believe that this will allow them to stay within the city and keep these jobs within Philadelphia.
Now, assuming this bill is approved, is it correct that we still have, what will remain, will still be that part of the tax that we approved in the spring, which provides a possible shield against retroactive liability against the city?
That is correct. And that is the last fall-back position. We believe that there is a strong likelihood that once the ruling comes, that the exemption may well be found to be the 13 BILL 970666 unconstitutional party. So, therefore, you wouldn't necessarily have to pay the refund. We also -- the Court may very well rule that refunds are not necessary. And, as I say, we look at North Carolina. No refunds have been paid. In the event, however, that refunds are required, this provision would protect the city against a potential $58 million refund penalty.
So that we are not talking about collecting any more money; we are talking about not having to make any refunds?
Right. And this provision, the provision in this bill that narrows that provision, that part of what will remain that will protect us against the possibility of having to give refunds, simply makes sure that we don't retroactively tax anybody that wasn't taxed at the time we were taxing?
That is also correct. That correction has been made in the legislation. So if you weren't paying the tax in 14 BILL 970666 the past, you wouldn't have it imposed on you today.
All right. And another way of putting that is, retroactive provision is revenue neutral?
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Hayllar, in the same line of questioning, you and the President were talking about a particular provision. And I just wanted to make sure I was clear that I was reading the particular provision that was under question. Can you tell me exactly what provision in the bill you were discussing?
I believe it is not in this bill; it just retains the provision from the last bill. But since you have now gotten to the hard questions, I am going to call in a lawyer to 15 BILL 970666 give you the answer, Richard Feder from the Law Department. MR. RICHARD FEDER, ESQ.: Councilman Nutter, I am Richie Feder from the Law Department. Are you asking which provision in the bill retains the one-time, 5 mill tax? Do I understand your question correctly?
No. I believe the President was asking Mr. Hayllar about protection against the possible $58 million refund question. That was the one provision. I would like to find out exactly where it is and what is it about that provision that creates that protection.
In the spring, Council passed a separate bill. It was Bill No. 970154, which enacted a one-time, 5 mill tax on holdings as of January 1, 1996.
The revenue from that tax we calculate to be roughly equal to the amount of any potential refunds, and should offset any refund liability.
And are you 16 BILL 970666 saying that those dollars were collected?
Those dollars will only be collected if and when the existing tax is declared unconstitutional. And this one-time, 5 mill tax does not go into effect until the Annenberg case is over, and only if the Annenbergs win the case.
And it goes into effect only if we are required to give refunds. If there are no refunds required, we would never consider enacting it.
Okay. And then in the testimony, starting on , I assume that after the sentence that reads, "Let me summarize the provisions of Bill 21 970666," that these numbers, the first number in parenthesis, is actually a listing of six different provisions?
In the bill. 17 BILL 970666 Now, where did this 19-1102 (1)(c) come from? Did that come as a result of the bill 4 passing in the spring? Is that an anomaly of the tax that existed before, or is that something you found in the course of trying to figure out what to do? Where does this come from?
We understand that in the passage of the bill that was presented to you in the spring, that inadvertently there was -- first, there was some confusion. That bill may have inadvertently taxed owner-managed and family-run corporations. And we don't want that to happen. So to be doubly sure, even though we are eliminating the tax, we are specifically eliminating that provision. Because they weren't taxed before. And we wouldn't want anyone to think they were going to be taxed in the future.
And then No. 2, amending 19-1102 (2), I am intrigued by this sentence. I mean, this seems to be at least part of the heart of what we are trying to get at today, which is the elimination of the tax. 18 BILL 970666 But it says, "This eliminates the uncompetitive nature of the retrospective tax if it is to be imposed." What is a retrospective?
Yes. If the retrospective tax, the one-time, 5 mill tax, is imposed, as the legislation could be interpreted, one of the criteria for imposing the tax was that the trustee was within the corporate limits of the City of Philadelphia.
Just because you are a trustee within the city, you would not necessarily -- you would not have to pay the tax under those conditions.
The basic issue was whether or not the fact that the trustee is in the city is enough of an incidence --
-- to cause the 19 BILL 970666 corpus, the whole corpus, of the trust to be taxed. What we have always understood to be true is that one of the trustees had to live in the city. Right? Or the recipients of some part of the trust?
Beneficiary. Then only that part of the trust income was taxed; right? Isn't that what that is designed to clean up?
That's my understanding. See, I hate this. Excuse me. This is a wonderful exercise considering the Personal Property Tax.
Right. I understand. No matter how difficult we might make it. Okay. 20 BILL 970666 Thank you.
Good morning. I just have two brief questions. One, I have gotten a number of inquiries from people saying, "Do we need to pay our taxes this year?" Is it correct, reading this bill, no 11 one has to pay them for '97?
That is correct, pertaining to the Personal Property Tax only.
I want to be perfectly clear. The real estate bills will be going out in a couple of weeks, and we would like those paid.
And then my other question was, do we know or does the city have 21 BILL 970666 clear evidence of whether the banks who reportedly moved some of their business out of the city over the summer, have they moved their employees back into the city?
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes the following Council members in this order: Councilwoman Miller.
Good morning. Mr. Hayllar, I have a question concerning the information you provided about North Carolina.
I am not really clear. Was the refund required to be paid or did North Carolina just decide to hold off paying? How did the Courts rule?
To the best of my knowledge, there was no refund required and, therefore, they have not paid.
Incidentally, if we are required to pay a refund, there is a strong argument to be made that since this is a state tax, the state would be responsible for the refund. But, again, we want to hold this last safety position of the 5 mill, one-time tax in case it is necessary. But there is also the argument to be made that the state would be responsible for a refund.
Is there anyone else that has any questions? If not, gentlemen, thank you very much. At this time the Chair recognizes Ashley Andrus and Roy Hock of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. I would ask if representatives from the Administration would not go far. We may need you.
My name is Ashley Andrus. I am Manager of Public Policy for the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. And with me today is Roy Hock, he is a former Board member of the Chamber and is a long-standing active members in terms of initiatives designed to make Philadelphia a better place to live and to work. Thanks again for this opportunity this morning to speak in support of Bill 970666. I will summarize the main points of my testimony. Basically, the Chamber's position is that this tax, as it is currently written, is an obstacle to our future growth and expansion, especially, as Mr. Hayllar pointed out, if the State Constitution -- or if the state tax is held unconstitutional, then Philadelphia would be the only municipality to impose such a tax. And, really, we cannot afford to, in this competitive marketplace, impose such a tax, main points being lost jobs and lost residents. As Mr. Hayllar pointed out, with the 24 BILL 970666 trust impacts of this tax, the banking industry, the legal industry could be seeing thousands of jobs move out to the suburbs. There was a period of intermediate job loss because of this. Again, those jobs are back in the city, with the commitment of the city to repeal the tax. We are pleased about that. But recent statistics and newspaper articles have highlighted our job loss over the last decade. And though the city, I think, in the last 12 months did gain some jobs, its growth versus that in the suburbs was much less. The same holds true for residents. I think you saw the piece in the Inquirer last week indicating that Philadelphia, of all major cities, was the biggest loser in terms of population. And Roy, I think, will speak a little bit more on that in terms of the residential impact. And as we are making great strides to attract residents -- and Council has played a large role; for example, with tax abatement issues and things like that -- I think this tax neutralizes those incentives. 25 BILL 970666 And, finally, we question what the revenue impact would be. With the eroding tax base, how much revenue would actually be collected from this because of the job and the residential flight. So, again, I would just like to thank the members that worked with us over the summer, especially, Mr. President, your efforts and the efforts of the Administration. Those that testified before us, for their efforts as well, and would just reiterate a lot of what Mr. Hayllar said. And we would urge you to support this bill for repeal.
My name is Roy Hock. I a resident of the city, have been a resident here some 40 years, formerly CEO, President, and Chairman of a company called Technitrol, a manufacturing firm who has had a plant in this city, up until just recently, since its inception some 50 years ago. I speak as an individual more than anything because, now being retired, I own stock in the company that I worked for for almost 40 years. And that's a good chunk of my retirement income. BILL 970666 It pays a dividend of approximately .7 percent. Which isn't high, but I have enough stock that it gives me a relatively good revenue. And when I looked at that original bill -- and I don't understand all of what went on with this new bill that you are talking about -- but it sounds like it still has the potential to have a comeback in order to pay refunds of that half percent. But if it did come to a half percent, it turns out, then, that on the basis of the stock values over the period that I understand it would be paid on, starting in January 1 of '96, for a year and a half, it would roughly take some 47 percent of my dividends, as a catch-up, along with a school tax of 4-point-plus percent, plus a state tax of 2.8 percent. So overall it is about a 55 percent tax on dividends on my particular situation. Now, let me bring to your mind that the average dividend in the market is about 2 percent on the value of the stock, or less than 2 percent now. So that anyone having dividends being paid on stock, suddenly having to pay a half 27 BILL 970666 percent, it would consume some percent of their dividends for that catch-up. Going forward, you are talking about a .15 percent tax. Again, that becomes, on dividends of 2 percent, roughly 8 percent tax, along with the city tax -- school tax, rather, and the state tax. It is a disincentive for anyone to stay in the city and pay these taxes. In my case, the going-forward tax, because of the very low dividend paid on the stock I have, comes to about percent. 13 So I take that 20 percent, then the 5 14 percent of school tax and the 2.8 percent of state 15 tax, and I have a dividend tax of 28 percent before 16 my federal tax. That's pretty high. And it can be 17 avoided. 18 I have been in the process of doing 19 some estate planning, retirement planning, and I 20 wanted to set up a trust. I didn't choose to use a trust company --
I am trying to 28 BILL 970666 follow you, but I am not following you. I want to understand what you are saying.
All right. Is there a question that I can answer that would help you?
No; I am against the bill. I am against any Personal Property Tax. I am for the bill to repeal, as long as it doesn't have a provision that might come to play. I am for having no Personal Property Tax in the city at all, in no way, shape, or form; that's my position.
Okay. I think I now understand you. Somewhere along the line you lost me a little bit. And I didn't want to allow you to continue, and then I not follow you. I don't know about any other Council members, but I wanted to make sure. So your fundamental problem is with the retroactive provision which might --
Or going forward. Or 29 BILL 970666 going forward, if there is a tax.
I don't have the provisions. I don't have the access to the bill. I just came here today to speak.
Oh, okay. All right. So then that's the reason why I was misunderstanding you. Because the bill eliminates the Personal Property Tax going forward, and only in the event that there are refunds ordered is there any provision at all for any collection of a tax. And it is a retroactive provision, and the tax has already been collected. And it is my understanding from Mr. Hayllar that that retroactive tax has been designed in such a way so that it is revenue neutral, and we won't be trying to collect any revenue that we haven't already collected and spent. 30 BILL 970666
Well, then, I don't need to speak to the bill. If you are saying I am home free, that's fine.
Well, it sounds to me like you are home free. Now, I don't want to be --
I didn't hear that in the questions and the answers. It confused me.
No. 16 There is no effort here to collect any additional Personal Property Tax. After this bill passes, it is my understanding that all the Personal Property Tax that the city will ever collect has already been collected. Any Personal Property Tax you paid has already been paid, and nobody is talking about getting any more money from you or anyone else on a Personal Property Tax. But we aren't talking about giving 31 BILL 970666 you any back, either.
And that's the kicker here. The only kicker here is, we are trying to protect ourselves against having to refund to you and others like you $58 million. And we are going to be looking to the state to help or to do it. And if not the state, then we have this tax that was retroactive that we think might keep us from having to give you any refunds. We don't want to have to give any money back. We don't want to collect any more money. We are prepared not to collect any more money in the interest of the competitive nature of the city versus the suburbs, and all of those arguments that have been made and reinforced by the testimony of the Chamber and the Finance Director. But we don't want to have to give you anything back. And that's where we are.
You are not going 32 BILL 970666 to have to pay any more.
I thank you. We have reached a meeting of the minds. This is wonderful. Thank you very much for being with us.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Chamber of Commerce for all their work and effort in both articulating the views of this particular segment of our economy, and our industry, and keeping government's feet to the fire to make sure that this got done. In addition to the potential loss of trust funds and businesses who hold trust accounts, my major concern -- and one of the reasons why I opposed this, or supported this repeal as early as July of this year -- was the concern over the loss of residents. 33 BILL 970666 Not only the residents who had money in trust accounts, but the residents who work in the trust departments. You have an individual who is working in a trust department, living in Mt. Airy or Mayfair or South Philadelphia, whose business, whose company, moves to Montgomery County, or any other surrounding county, and has an opportunity to consider an almost 5 percent raise by simply moving out of that neighborhood and into that suburb. Not only are we losing all those dollars and all those taxes, but we are losing the contribution of those families to our communities. And I don't believe that this government or any government would move expeditiously unless the business community articulated themselves well and kept our feet to the fire. And I would like you to take back to your Board and to your President our thanks for continuing to expose this issue and to take corrective measures.
Thank you very much, Councilman. 34 BILL 970666 And, again, thanks to all of you, who, without your cooperation, this would not have worked. So thanks to you.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Fernandez.
Mr. President, in light of the confusion that Mr. Hock seemed to have, I think it would be very important for the Chamber, and hopefully the press covering this event today, and any other ways, to inform citizens about what this bill really means. You know, as you put it succinctly, no more taxes will be collected going forward. And we are also protecting against, hopefully, any retroactive refunds. But the message to taxpayers would be: There will be no more Personal Property Tax collected. But I think for someone to come and testify and not really be able to understand this technical language of the bill, that major message has to get through. 35 BILL 970666
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that has anything to offer? Is there anyone else to testify? Yes, sir. I think we have Allen Black. Are you Mr. Black?
I am sorry. ALLEN D. BLACK, ESQ.: No problem. My name is Allen Black. I am a lawyer who practices here in the city, and I represent a taxpayer by the name of Allison Moore, who filed a lawsuit back in July of 1997 challenging the validity of the various Personal Property Taxes. I am here to speak in support of this bill, and simply to add to the reasons that have been given. That not only is this the right thing to do with respect to the banks and the business community and the legal community, and with respect to the economics of the city; it is the right thing to do for all the taxpayers of the city, as well, 36 BILL 970666 for the hundreds or thousands of people in the city who have been paying this tax for years, and who would be left, as things now stand without this bill, as being the only taxpayers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who were required to pay a tax like this. It just wouldn't be fair to those people, to the taxpayers of Philadelphia, to single them out as the targets of these taxes.
Mr. Black, I have to tell you, on the basis of that rationale, we would have to immediately repeal the wage tax.
Which I don't think we are getting ready to do right today.
It would not be relevant for me to comment on that topic. Although I am sure that --
I feel compelled to mention that. We agree that it is a problem. The big problem is the fact that we recently have become the only county collecting the tax. Other counties 37 BILL 970666 have repealed the tax. I would point out to you, however, that in the City of Philadelphia, in our county, we are going to repeal the tax without increasing the rates of any other taxes. Whereas, in some other counties, when the Personal Property Tax was repealed, at least in one county, I think the real estate tax rate was increased by 29 percent. We are not going to do that here. As you heard Mr. Hayllar say, we are going to figure out a way to survive the loss of the revenue, both now and in the future, and still try to provide quality service to our people. But we appreciate your sentiment.
Well, my client, and I am sure all the other taxpayers, are pleased with that. One last point that I would like to make is that, part of the relief that my client has been seeking in the suit that was filed back in July '97 was the abolition of these taxes on a going-forward basis. So that, I must say, we are delighted 38 BILL 970666 to see this bill doing that. It grants part of the relief that, you know, we have been seeking in the lawsuit, and we are delighted. And, as I say, I am sure that all the other taxpayers in the City of Philadelphia who have been paying this tax over the years are also delighted. I'd like to just put a copy of the Complaint in that lawsuit in the record. If anybody on the Council would like to look at it, as you consider this matter before the bill comes --
Mr. Black, not only don't we want to look at it, we do not want to look at it, and we don't want it in the record, because all it will end up doing is increasing our costs. Please don't ask us to put it in the record. Because if we have to put it in the record, then, you know, the stenographer will have to put it in the record, then we will have to get copies of it and distribute it to everybody.
Fair enough. I am sure that Council is aware of it, and certainly the Law Department is. Fair enough. 39 BILL 970666
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on Bill No. 970666? Seeing no one, this brings us to the end of our Public Hearing. (Public Hearing adjourned.) - - - 40 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING of the COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Thursday, December 4 1997 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee of the Whole, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL 970666 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JOHN F. STREET, Chair COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, Vice-Chair COUNCILWOMAN HAPPY FERNANDEZ COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - 41 PUBLIC MEETING
We will now go into our Public Meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna.
Thank you. I move that Bill No. 970666 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our Council session today. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. Bill No. 970666 will be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. Thank you very much. We appreciate it very much if Council members would go, as quickly as possible, to the Caucus Room so we can have our caucus and reconvene 42 PUBLIC MEETING for our Council session. If there are those of you who are here for the regularly scheduled o'clock a.m. 5 Council session, what you have been observing is a 6 meeting of the Council Committee of the Whole. 7 We will have a caucus, which 8 hopefully will be a brief caucus, and then we will 9 come back and have our Council session. 10 We know that we have some special guests with us who are here from the League of Cities. We appreciate your being here. We would like to more formally recognize you at our regular Council session. So thank you very much for being with us. (Public Meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m.) - - - 43 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, December 4, 1997, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE _____________________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD, RPR