Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon again. First let me clarify the record. I made a mistake earlier. I said that the Small Business Loan Guarantee Fund was $5 million. In fact, it's $6 million. So I don't want to cheat myself of a million dollars. And interestingly enough, I discovered that as I went downstairs, but also when I was walking back to City Hall, someone walking down the street familiar with the project said, It's $6 million, it's not 5. So the record should show that the Small Business Loan Guarantee Fund was $6 million. The next question is, what is the cost of the Cohen wage tax credit bill within the Five-Year Plan? Within 194 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 the Plan I know it says $80 million in Fiscal Year '16, but that's in Fiscal Year '16. Under the actual Five-Year Plan, what is the cost?
Councilmember, our initial estimate that we had originally was approximately million 9 for Year 2013, which was the year that we 10 had implementation of that bill. 11
So the cost 12 in the total Five-Year Plan is actually 13 16 million this year. Can you tell me 14 over the next few years how that 15 increases? I know by the time we get to 16 fiscal year -- I mean, each year we do a new Five-Year Plan.
Councilmember, off the top of my head, I believe the numbers were 25, I think 40, 60 and then up to the 80, but what I would like to do is actually give you that schedule of estimates that the Revenue Department put together rather than guess here, but it did ramp up rather quickly. 195 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173
Off the top of your head, it's million in Fiscal 4 Year '13, around 25 million in Fiscal 5 Year '14, about 40 million in Fiscal Year 6 '15? 7
I believe so, 8 and then it got up to either 60 or 80 9 really quickly, and I think in 2016 we 10 have it at 80. But, again, I have the 11 schedule. I don't have it with me, but 12 I'd be happy to provide that to you. 13
But within 14 the Five-Year Plan, it's only 16 million? 15
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam President. Steve, you mentioned 95 percent as the goal for getting the Pension Fund 196 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 up to. I'm just curious why 95 percent versus 85 percent versus...
Councilmember, we looked at a range of funding levels from 80 in five percent increments up to the hundred and we thought that the 95 percent got us to as close to full funding as possible. We were a little concerned because we understood that the rating agencies in looking at plans that were funded at 100 percent actually viewed them to be at risk for sort of attempts to have benefit enhancements, and that would actually be sort of a negative story for us as we were moving forward. But we played with a lot of them, and 95 percent seemed to be the best in terms of getting us close to full funding as possible without then triggering this concern on the part of the rating agencies.
I'm just curious. We have 22-some thousand City 197 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 employees. After 2019, assuming we have a bunch of productivity and efficiency enhancements as a result of increased use of technology in City government, I would expect through attrition that number would go down significantly and I'm wondering if you've done any kind of analysis about at what point that 95 percent crosses the hundred percent mark and if it ever does so as a consequence of a lower number of City employees, and then just -- my understanding of the pension system is that you can't ever get that money back into the City budget if we're overfunded. It has to go to benefits.
Councilmember, on the assumptions as to when we would actually top out at something higher than 95 or 100 percent, that's something that really is going to be determined by what happens in market returns, what the system has actually experienced, how it then applies that in its five-year 198 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 smoothing average. So that's not something I feel I should guess at.
I think it's something that we would ask the actuaries to look at as part of what are the impacts of having a system that's now funded at 95 percent as opposed to the 54 percent.
Over a longer time, yeah. Okay. And the other question I had, and I don't expect to get an answer today, but I'm just wondering the difference in the cost of borrowing over time and cash flows to the City of Philadelphia of borrowing the difference between the 300 million and what's required for the pension on a yearly basis rather than borrowing it all up front. In other words, dollar cost averaging, in a sense, into the debt obligation and what the effect on cash 199 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 flows over time is. Have we looked at that possibility?
We haven't played that out, but my first reaction to that is, the amount that you don't borrow in the first year, you're still paying the eight and three-quarters on instead of the five and three-quarters, so that your costs would go up. We can run that for you so you can see exactly how much additional cost you'd have, if you'd like to see that.
Yeah, but you're paying that -- yes, I understand what you're saying, but you're paying that interest on a much smaller amount the whole time; is that correct?
But eight and three-quarters is on the 48 percent that we don't put in; is that correct?
Right. Yes. So whatever amount we haven't taken out, 200 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 we're paying eight and three-quarters on.
Is that compared to what the MMO is or is that compared to what?
Yes, that's compared -- that's using the MMO is how you -- is the -- yes. The answer is yes.
Okay. Thank you. I mean, if we could -- when you get an FA, if they could just look at that analysis also, I'd appreciate it.
My next question relates to the PhillyStat, because it didn't seem to me that there were a lot of efficiencies or productivity improvements in the Five-Year Plan, and I note that Baltimore in its first five or seven years was actually able to achieve $350 million of savings over that time period. I'm just wondering what the thought is about that.
I'll let the Managing Director give a more detailed 201 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 answer, but from a financial perspective, since we only had a few weeks to put this together, we didn't want to put a number in without more understanding of what we would be able to get. (Bell rung.)
We do believe that there will be savings. We just don't know -- we don't have a sense of how large they'll be. But I'll let the Managing Director respond. (Witness approached witness table.)
That's correct, and as we get additional savings, we'll certainly report that --
I'm sorry. I'm Camille Barnett. I'm Managing Director. So as we get additional savings, we will report that regularly. We just didn't count it because we don't 202 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 know what it is yet.
Do we expect savings on the order of, say, Baltimore? I think a study showed that they saved $350 million over their first seven years.
It's really too early for me to tell you what I think we'll do in terms of our savings compared to Baltimore's, but I'm expecting that we'll not only save money, but we'll use the money that we're currently investing more effectively.
Right. And so presumably we'll be able to -- perhaps the Administration's goal is not to save money in the budget, but to increase City services, and to the extent we have savings, we'll be able to provide better services to citizens, increase funding for important priorities, et cetera. Is that what we would do? Is that the Administration's intent with respect to productivity and efficiencies that result 203 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 from PhillyStat?
I think we'll do both. I think we'll have some savings and I think we'll also reprioritize some of the activities and efforts so that we put them on top priority projects.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez for a point of information.
In terms of what we're putting in, how does our $2 million investment into 3-1-1 compare to other folks as it relates to efficiencies, to other states who implemented a full-fledged 3-1-1 system?
I would have to get you comparable numbers in terms of what's invested, but we are already investing through our current call centers and our current activities in terms of customer service a substantial amount of our City budget, and the idea 204 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 for both 3-1-1 and PhillyStat is to make sure that that's spent more effectively. So I think that we'll be able to accomplish what we need to do with the amounts that are in the budget and in the Five-Year Plan, and I'm hoping we can even do better.
My time was up, Madam President. I do have just two more questions. Whatever. I can wait.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones. Councilman, your light is on, did you want to be recognized?
Very 205 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 well. Councilman Green.
I actually had a question about the method you used to put the Five-Year Plan together. It looks like you've begun the process of budgeting for outcomes. You've specifically stated some of the goals that you hope to achieve with the money that's being spent for specific priority areas in the City, and I just want to say that I really appreciate that and I'm looking forward to next year when you have more time to fully implement that. Is there any comment on the process you went through?
I just had one question. I don't know if anybody can answer it. With respect to the Cohen tax credit, can we use gaming wage tax reduction dollars and apply it to wage 206 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 tax reductions any way we want? In other words, could we apply it to the Cohen tax credit or apply it to give an additional break for low-income households in the City of Philadelphia?
My understanding is that we cannot, that it has to be used for rate reduction. Using it differently would require a change in the state law.
Okay. Is there -- okay. Economic development spending, on , you have a bunch of goals that are, I think, terrific for increasing jobs, attract more residents and jobs, implement smart City planning and sustainable development, provide assistance to business, create a tax structure that encourages job creation and growth. I'm just wondering if you've got a dollar figure for the jobs and economic development program. Are we using additional resources or is this 207 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 just existing City spending in the Commerce Department and elsewhere? I mean, do you have an economic development budget?
For the most part, Councilman, it's basically utilizing and targeting existing resources that we have to accomplish this. These are what we call in the group, when we sat down and made these, stretch goals, but the Mayor is very committed to trying to achieve these, and we think that -- one of our values is smarter, faster, better, and we hope that through smarter, better investments that we can achieve these goals. Everything doesn't require additional resources.
I would suggest that our marketing tourism dollars probably need to be significantly increased. Our recruitment dollars for attracting new companies or retaining the companies we have probably have to be increased. And to the extent that 208 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 there's a specific plan that goes along with this other than these few pages, I'd like to see it. And also I'd like to work with you to try to find dollars to put towards jobs and economic development, because I think many of the assumptions over the Five-Year Plan and then as you go further require this to be successful, and I think it merits additional resources. I don't have a question there, unless you'd like to comment. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm trying to sneak in two questions again. Assuming that we proceed with the $4.5 billion bond, would that limit our ability to go out to the bond market for another type of bond? 209 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 Say, for instance, we wanted to do a $20, $25 million bond for acquisition or for loan guarantees for employees of the City of Philadelphia for purchase of new homes. I mean, something creative. Would that limit our ability or would we be capped?
I'll give you, I guess, two answers. One is, because this borrowing will actually lower our long-term obligations, we would actually -- if we were looking at any kind of cap on long-term obligations as a percent of total obligations, which is kind of how we measure how much we can borrow, this would put us in better shape. On the other hand, after you've gone to the market with four and a half billion dollars of Philadelphia paper, there probably will be -- it will quench the appetite for Philadelphia paper. So there may be less demand for new issues from us after that.
The only other 210 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 point I would add to that, Councilman, is that this borrowing will not adversely affect our debt limit, if that was another area that you were getting to, because this would not be considered a direct borrowing that would apply to the debt limit.
In responding to Rob's issue as it relates to quenching the thirst for the Philadelphia paper, do you think that it can conceivably be an ongoing quenching of the thirst or two or three years down the line where it seems like that is a good investment maybe?
I don't even think it's that long. I just think that if you are doing this, there's probably like a month or so window around it where you want to probably let the markets rest a little from Philadelphia. I don't think it's two years or even a year, but there may be a month or two months where we probably want to stay away from the 211 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 market.
Okay. Following up on my earlier question and, Clay, you took advantage of the bell to not answer. The bell was for us to ask the question, not for you guys to respond. You can take all the time you want. Am I right, Madam President?
A little clarity on the commercial corridor. You talked about, I think, you're reviewing -- I don't know who made the statement -- reviewing the commitments to commercial corridors. I know we had several -- Councilman Goode was talking about the Loan Fund Guarantee. I believe there was some corridor management component and there was a streetscape component. Could you clarify what's being reviewed, and if in fact it's being reviewed, is there some analysis being done to possibly reallocate or take that 212 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 commitment off the table or recommit it to other locations or slow down the process of commitment?
A couple of points. One is that in the current Plan, there haven't been any changes in the funding streams that were initially identified when the program was created. That was the one point I was trying to make. The second point is that I can't tell you how the analysis that is currently being undertaken will generate recommendations from those people who are undertaking the analysis about how we might want to better allocate it. What I can tell you is that there will be a clear focus on those commercial corridors and the programs to make sure that to the extent that we continue them even in their current form or in a different form, that we're getting the best use out of them. And that is what the analysis is going to undertake and the review is 213 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 going to undertake, how we utilize those current --
It sounded like you were getting ready to give me a different answer, but then you kind of --
No. What I'm trying to say is that we haven't changed the programs currently in the current funding cycle. So it's status quo.
Because we apparently did not commit all of our bond dollars that were generated. I don't think we --
I don't know that we've committed them or not, but we haven't changed the funding of those programs. But we will review to make 214 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 sure that the investments that we may want to make in the future are being made with the highest return and that that analysis --
That's where you confuse me. So what does that mean? Does that mean the investment that we already committed to --
We borrowed the money, but as you pointed out, we haven't allocated it all. So there's still allocations to be made. That's the kind of investment I'm talking about. I'm sorry for the confusion.
The 215 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez for a point of information.
It has been a practice -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that we have corridor activities. Then we got NTI money and we shifted corridor activities to some NTIs where there was layover, and then we got ReStore Corridor money. The ReStore money -- and so then there's some overlay of where certain things get picked up. So my question to you is, when you're going to revisit this stuff, can we revisit what was initially carried by our corridor expenses in terms of our Commerce versus some of the additional expenses that have been shifted to these different initiatives based on administrative priorities? I can give you a perfect case example, if you want.
In the case of the American Street Corridor, in the past there was money allocated to the 216 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 corridor, Kensington and those places. When NTI came in, some of the maintenance and operations of those was shifted to NTI and now there's this, okay, what are we going to do with some of the services that initially started from Commerce and then have been kind of moved along.
Your description describes basically why we're taking a look at the programs in total. One of the things that we found when we came in is that there have been a dispersal of responsibilities for various activities associated with the programs you describe, and one of the things that the professionals in the Commerce Department have done is to take a very good look at that. Our plan is to try to consolidate those efforts to make sure that they're coherent. Which you just described, they're probably not at this point. And so that's our focus, is to try to make it a coherent program. We're 217 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 not changing the funding. We're not necessarily cutting it at this point. We want to make sure that it's coherent philosophy and that when we make investments, investments of unexpended proceeds, that those investments are made for the highest return. So the long answer to your question is, yes, we will take a look at all of those things to try to make sure that we end up with a coherent application of all of those dollars that we borrowed and utilized.
Thank you. I wasn't going to say anything, but you said it several times. If I didn't know you guys, I would say that you're implying that there wasn't a coherent strategy associated with the prior commitment, because I know that 218 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 there were a number of business associations and community groups involved in the process.
I think -- I would not characterize it as a coherent strategy as much as a lack of --
I didn't say strategy. What I meant was that the coherent application of the programs and the execution and maybe --
But my question is, are you implying that that wasn't done --
No. I didn't imply about the coherence of the strategy. I think what at least in the review of the program, as I understand it to date, what we have found is that there has been an incoherence in terms of the execution, and the confusion that the Councilwoman just described seems to be existing in many areas. So what we'd 219 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 like to try to do is to take a look at the program, try to bring in a coherent execution, and maybe take a look at the strategies and what we're trying to accomplish, but, more importantly, try to give those people who are trying to access those programs a coherence that they can understand what it is that they need to do to either secure funds, to execute funds and to get things done.
I'm trying to do this in a way that we're working under the spirit of cooperation. In terms of the coherence of the program, is it that the new Administration didn't understand the process and what the intent was in terms of distributing the funding, making it available? What exactly do you mean?
I wouldn't say we didn't understand. I think what we want to do is evaluate the application of the strategy. The review, we'll certainly necessarily take a look at the 220 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 strategic objectives, see if they're being met, see if they're still consistent with this Administration's review. In this Plan we haven't made any judgments about those strategic objectives at this point. We've been basically neutral from that perspective. But operationally what we have seen is what Councilwoman Sanchez has described, which is some confusion and incoherence in terms of the execution of that. And so what we're trying to do is to evaluate the programs, as well as the execution of those programs, to make sure that we can bring a level of coherence to make them actually work, whatever strategy, be it the strategy that was described before or if we take a change in the strategic direction, there's a strategy that we promote.
You do know that there were a number of people that were involved in the process that are no 221 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 longer here, so that could have contributed to the fact that it's, to some degree, incoherent in terms of the application, because those people who were primarily responsible are no longer in that capacity. I mean, will you acknowledge that? I just know a lot of people worked very hard on this process unrelated to us.
If they were here, maybe they would have a better sense of how this should be applied.
Thank you. I have a very brief question. You mention that a central focus of the Administration in FY09 will be the reform of the Department of L&I. Over the next year, L&I will establish customer service 222 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 standards, measure customer service performance and satisfaction, and reduce customer in-person interaction with departmental personnel by offering more online service options while streamlining available services. While I certainly agree that this needs to occur, I would like you to explain why you are cutting L&I in the current budget by $93,000 and are holding them at that reduction rate for every year of the Five-Year Plan. I believe that's on Pages 95 to 99.
We're going to have to get back to you on the reason for the reduction, Councilwoman, but the broader question with respect to L&I is that we do hope to increase the customer service using some of the things you described, be it technology. Certainly with a focus on customer service and our results that the Managing Director has talked about with respect to our strategic objectives, we would hope to 223 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 improve the delivery of services, not only in L&I, but in all the departments. But with respect to the specific reason for the cut or the reduction in their obligations, we're going to have to get back to you on that.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. We're back to Councilman Green's question about gaming revenue from the state and how it affects wage tax rates. Mr. Dubow, you answered fairly quickly. Can you give me a slower explanation of how gaming revenues apply to wage tax rates?
My understanding is that the gaming revenues have to be used to reduce rates and that to use them differently would require a change in state law. 224 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173
The latest estimate that we got from the state is approximately $94 million.
That is the state's estimate based on where they see gaming revenues coming in this year. They make a certification in April of the exact amount.
So that's how much we get regardless? Based upon the revenue coming, that's our cut?
And the Administration made a decision within the Five-Year Plan to slow wage tax reductions; is that correct?
And are we allowed to slow other wage tax 225 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 reductions?
And so the difference -- so we will receive $94.7 million regardless?
And if we slow wage tax reductions, that means that essentially we keep that extra money out of the $94.7 million?
No. The 94.7 million has to be applied to wage tax reduction. That money comes in from the state and we have to be able to show them that we've used it for reduction. What we keep, if you want to put it that way, is the City money that before we had put into wage tax reduction and that now we're not. It's not the state money that we get to keep.
Point of information. 226 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173
Let me take a shot at it first. The new question is, is Councilman Green not correct that there's probably a way that we could use gaming revenue to shift the burden among wage tax payers to be a more progressive tax?
We could not use state money to do that. If what you're saying is we could say we're taking this state money and using it to reduce taxes, then we want to take our City money and use it differently? That's a different question, and that is obviously something we could do, but we couldn't use the state dollars to do that. It's an important distinction, because we would get in trouble with the state if we're saying that we're using their money in a way that's not allowed by the state law.
To my new colleague, the first question you asked should never be "can we." That should be 227 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 at least the third or fourth question. Thank you, Mr. Dubow.
Thank you, Madam President. Rob, how much is the City of Philadelphia reducing its wage taxes over the next five years in raw dollars?
Three hundred seventy-five million. And without that reduction, what would our wage tax be?
Our rate would then stay at 4.219 for residents, 3.7242 for non-residents.
And after 228 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 the wage tax money that we get from the state, how much wage tax reduction are we getting from the state over the five years?
Ninety-four a year. There's a little bit of increase, but they're only minor increases each year.
What will the wage tax be at the end of five years assuming the City has no wage tax reduction at all?
By the City. So we only apply state funds to wage tax reduction.
I'd have to get back to you on that. I do think -- I 229 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 mean, if we said we're not doing any more wage tax reduction, we're only using your money, we would see a change in the state law pretty quickly.
But I will get back to you. I don't have that information. (Mr. McPherson approached witness table.)
Dollar, but I did want to know what the rate would be reduced to.
Okay. What's the cumulative rate reduction of state and city? Do you know that?
If we did both, the resident rate would get down to roughly 3.5, a little over that, and the 230 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 non-resident rate would get down to about 3.1 percent.
So to eliminate the City reductions, we'd be at about 3.8 resident and -- top of the head figures -- and 3.5 non-resident, something like that? I mean, just taking a percentage, add 3 whatever it is to 470 and --
But I guess our point is, if we lowered the wage tax reduction of the City even more or lowered it in the last three years, lowered it at an even less frequent rate than the Administration is suggesting, we would have the money to have a more progressive wage tax and still get close to 3.2. We might be at 3.3, but we don't achieve -- we could achieve the important goal of having, at least in my view, of having a more progressive wage tax by slowing the decrease in the wage tax a little bit further to pay for the Cohen 231 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 tax cut.
I don't want to sound like I'm playing with words here, but it probably depends on how you define "more progressive" and how you would get there, because if you're looking at the Cohen bill --
Well, let me just finish my answer, please. If you look at the Cohen bill, yeah, within the period of the Five-Year Plan, you could do that, but soon after that, within a couple years, you'd be talking about $80 million a year, and then I think you would be talking about being a lot harder to get down to the wage tax rates you're talking about and have a progressive tax structure.
Okay. Well, could you get back to us in order to do the -- could you get back to us with the information about what the rate of 232 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 decrease would have to slow to for wage tax in order to enact the Cohen wage tax reduction?
Thank you. On of the Plan, you discuss the proposed parking tax increase, which will take the tax from 13 percent to 20 percent of gross parking 14 tax receipts. You state that this will 15 generate $16 million in FY09. The revenue estimates contained in the Mayor's Operating Summary projects an increase in parking tax revenues of $17.7 million. What is the additional $1.7 million increase attributed to?
We project two and a half percent growth each year in the base parking tax, and that gets us the additional revenue.
The 233 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 Administration has stated that the funds generated by the rate increase will be used for capital pay-as-you-go street resurfacing in the amount of $10 million, $2 million for Fairmount Park and a million dollars for new tree planting. These funds could be used for any other purpose since this is not a dedicated funding source, correct?
Correct. That is correct, but we show the increased appropriations in the Plan, so we show that we're using -- that we're spending those funds.
Well, would the Administration consider amending this bill to dedicate these funds to the stated purposes?
Okay. I see that the pay-as-you-go funding for the Streets Department resurfacing has been included in the Capital Budget. 234 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 However, what I don't see in the Streets Department's General Fund budget is a Class 800 payment to the Capital Project Fund in the amount of $10 million. May I ask why?
And then the Finance Department shifts it over to the Capital Budget. That's where we typically do our grants to other funds, out of Finance. But, I mean, if there's an issue with that, we're happy to switch it -- if there's an issue with that, we're happy to switch it to Streets.
Do you have a legal opinion that you can do that?
That we can do that? No. We didn't ask the Law Department for an opinion, but, I mean, again, if you'd rather we put it in 235 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 Streets, we'll do that.
I would just like to make a statement, if I may. I would like to make an announcement concerning public participation in these budget hearings. This year, as every year, Council has scheduled several days of public testimony on the budget and related measures. For example, public testimony on the tax bills is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon, public testimony on the Operating Budget is scheduled for April the 16th, and public testimony is scheduled on the School District for April 29th. And as we do every year on 236 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 days when public testimony is scheduled, we will permit all interested persons to testify, and we will remain in these Chambers, as we have done so many times, for as long as is necessary to give all interested persons the opportunity to testify. I know that some interest has been expressed in permitting public testimony not just after completion of the Administration's testimony on the Operating Budget, but also following the testimony of each department and agency. Unfortunately, it is not practical for us to schedule public testimony on each of the many days scheduled by the Administration's testimony on the budget. However, I would like to announce that we would be pleased to receive written testimony from any and all interested members of the public at any time. Anyone who wishes to submit written testimony should provide a copy to Sharon Ortiz of our staff, who will see to it 237 2/26/08 - WHOLE - RES. 080173 that a copy is placed on record and that copies are promptly distributed to all Councilmembers. Thank you. That's an issue that I've been asked about at least three times today, and I thought we should make a public statement on it. If there are no further questions, thank you, gentlemen. We really appreciate your testimony, and this public hearing will be continued until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 27th at 10:00 a.m. Thank you very much. (Committee of the Whole adjourned at 3:25 p.m.) - - - 238 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on February 26, 2008, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)