COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING - COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, March 22, 2000 3:23 p.m. - - - BILL 000012 - Authorizing transfers in appropriations for FY 2000 within the Grants Revenue Fund from the Director of Finance- Provision for other Grants to the Police Department, the Department of Human Services, OESS, and the Board of Trustees of the Free Library of Philadelphia. BILL 000013 - Authorizing transfers in appropriations for FY 2000 within the General Fund from certain or all City offices, departments, boards, and commissions to certain or all City offices, departments, boards, and commissions. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN ANNA CIBOTTA VERNA COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I-N-D-E-X Administration Witnesses Robert Dubow, Budget Director . . . . . . . . Stephanie Franklin-Suber. . . . . . . . . . . Mayor's Chief of Staff Linda Seyda, Director of Personnel. . . . . . 3 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 P R O C E E D I N G S
The Committee on Appropriations will now go into their public meeting. And if we're doing that, I would suggest that Mr. McPherson read the titles of Bill No.'s and 13. 8
Bill No., an ordinance 9 authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal 10 Year 2000 within the Grants Revenue Fund Bill from 11 the Director of Finance - Provision for Other 12 Grants to the Police Department, the Department of Human Services, Office of Emergency Shelter and Services, and the Board of Trustees of the Free Library of Philadelphia. Bill No. 13, an ordinance authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 within the General Fund from certain or all City offices, departments, boards, and commissions to certain or all City offices, departments, boards, and commissions.
Councilwoman Krajewski, your meeting is now in a public meeting. I believe Bill No. 12 is to be considered first. 4 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13
No. It's to Bill 5 13, I believe. Why don't we consider Bill 12 first.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 12 be moved out of committee with a favorable recommendation and with a request for the suspension of the rules so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 12 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? 5 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 The ayes have it and the motion is carried. It is my understanding that the Administration has amendments on Bill No. 13.
Yes, we do. The amendment would add to the "from" section $3,550,000 from Director of Finance - Fringe Benefits, to bring the total of the "from" section to $7,285,562. Now, to the "to" section, we would add $700,000 for the Mayor's Office, in Personal Services, $2,850,000 to the Director of Finance Contributions, Indemnities in Taxes. And that would bring the total of the two also to $7,285,562. Thank you.
Are you adding -- you're adding another item on 2.38, Director of Finance?
Would you please explain how that will be funded?
Council President Verna, the purpose of the change 2.44 is to make it absolutely clear that under no circumstances is the Administration backing away from its commitment to the firefighters to provide financial support for those firefighters affected by hepatitis C. And the commitment was $3 million. As of today, or shortly thereafter, based on what we understand to be documented costs, we are going to make a transfer of $150,000 directly to the firefighters health and welfare fund to take care of costs that they have already -- that firefighters have already incurred and that have been documented. We have been meeting with members of the union and City officials, including Personnel and Risk Management and Law and the Mayor's Office, to work through the details of the 7 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 administration of the financial support program. In the meantime, however, to give comfort to those firefighters who have been affected by hepatitis C, we wanted to make sure that it was clear to them that we were honoring our commitment. So $2,850,000 will be put aside. We, at this point, believe we will put it in the fund for Philadelphia, as we continue to work through the specifics of the program administration, and we will have the access to the funds so that if there are firefighters who need assistance while we're working through the details and finishing up the details of the program, they will be able to draw down on the monies that are in the fund for Philadelphia. We are still discussing the mechanics of all of this, and we'd be happy to provide members of Council with more detailed information after we've had a chance to wrap up our discussions. Our next meeting is on Friday.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam 8 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 President. Thank you, Miss Suber. When was the decision made to offer this transfer ordinance amendment of $2.85 million to these contributions, indemnities and taxes?
Well, we have been meeting with the union on, I'd say, I guess, a regular basis, or at least there have been a number of meetings based on the reports to me. Frankly, after the publicity in the Daily News article the other day, we were very concerned that affected firefighters would believe that the Administration was somehow not fulling it's commitment to them, so it was important to us to make sure that we did that, and we made sure that while we continue to have the discussions on the administration of the program, that it is absolutely clear to the public and to the firefighters that we will honor the commitment that was made previously.
What was the original timeline for the $3 million to be distributed, allocated in some way -- or distributed to the appropriate entity, whether it's Local 22's health and welfare fund or a fund 9 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 for Philadelphia or some nonprofit? What was the original timeline? Since this Daily News story seems to have sped it up yesterday, what was the original timeline that the Administration had for making the appropriation?
We thought that we would be in a position to do it earlier than has actually proven to be the case. We didn't actually set a deadline for conclusion of it, but as we got into the discussion, we found that there were a number of issues that made the discussions and the formation of the program more complicated than we had originally envisioned.
Could you elaborate on a couple of those issues as to what the problems are?
Yes. There are a number of issues that we have been discussing with the union -- number one, the scope of eligibility. So, for example, we have committed to provide financial support to active firefighters. During the course of the discussion, union representatives wanted to explore extending the coverage to spouses or dependent children and that 10 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 kind of thing. So that is an issue that is being discussed. Another issue was the scope of the costs that would be covered. When we made the commitment, the intent was to provide for financial support for prescriptions. We understood that the cost of the prescriptions was prohibitive. We have been discussing whether or not the expenses should go beyond that for out-of-pocket medical, for transplants. So that's been under discussion. Confidentiality. The administration of the program, whether it's Risk Management or whether we get independent physicians involved. When does the coverage begin, at what point in time? So there have been a number of issues that have been under discussion, and we hope at this point, based on the progress that has been made, that we would be in a position to have all of these issues resolved by the end of this month.
Reports in the press indicate that the Administration's position is that the union and/or the members themselves, 11 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 the firefighters, have not provided adequate information to the Administration or to this committee to determine either their eligibility or their state of infection.
After the last meeting with the unions, they offered -- we requested certain information and documentation, and that has -- they've been in the process of putting that together and we have been waiting for that documentation. And part of what we have heard is that on the costs and why we're prepared to transfer the 150,000 to the fund is that they are in a position to document at least those expenditures. And so, therefore, we're prepared to go ahead and transfer that money directly to the fund. And as I said previously, as they provide the documentation so that we know what -- you know, what it is we're actually paying for and who's going to benefit and to make sure that, you know, we are being responsible, then they would be in a position to draw down on the fund in the event that we end up continuing to experience delay, and then the firefighters that are affected 12 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 by the disease won't be impacted and will have access to services, even if it takes us longer to develop the program.
What type of documentation is the Administration requiring from affected firefighters in order to prove that their infection was as a result of their employment or their duties?
I don't -- excuse me one second. (Ms. Franklin-Suber confers with Linda Seyda.)
And I guess the second part of that question is, are there individual firefighters active now with the infection, with the disease, that have adequately documented for the Administration before the department that they have in fact been infected as a result of their duties? (Linda Seyda comes forward.)
Point of order, Madam President. Would the Administration be authorized to transfer that money before today? 13 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13
That's correct, we would not have be in a position to do that.
The question is, does the Administration couldn't transfer that money until today, until the appropriations bill 9 was heard today.
I didn't ask that question. I asked what documentation --
Madam Chair, I asked what the documentation was that the firefighters required to provide to prove that, in fact, that they were infected on the job? number cone one. And number two --
I understand that. 14 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13
And, number two, have any other firefighters been yet confirmed through documentation that they have been infected on the job?
I just wanted to make that on the record that they couldn't have done that until today.
There was never that dispute. I asked them when they decided -- as you can see, Madam President, in the amendment that we have been offered, it has been written in by hand a $2.8 million item, that apparently wasn't a part of the original submission. That's the only reason I raised it. 'Cause it was written in by hand, it must have been done prior to the original development of this amendment. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it just is an oversight and it was put in in the last minute, but it's been written in by hand.
Well, it's an 15 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 amendment. That's all.
Yes. I asked two questions about documentation that's being required to prove job-related infection, and whether or not there's been anyone that's infected that has sufficiently provided that documentation to prove, in fact, that they were infected as a result of their duties.
Okay. Councilman, my name is Linda Seyda. I'm the Personnel Director for the City of Philadelphia. First of all, the $3 million that the Administration committed to is to support the firefighters and their families and the treatment of hepatitis C -- not necessarily because it's work-related. We are looking -- the documentation that was requested from the Local was for those 21 firefighters who were being treated for hepatitis 22 C. There was no caveat that it be work-related. We asked for that information at a meeting that we had with them. The Local 22 has 16 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 -- the health and welfare fund has experienced, I think, some difficulty in getting the information as quickly as, quite frankly, I thought that they would be able to get it. Quite frankly, we thought it would be easier for them to put the information together as well.
Just let me clarify. The documentation that's being requested is the documentation of expenditures for medication and treatment, or documentation of work-related, or both?
The information that we asked was for treatment of hepatitis C. We are not -- we did not request any information concerning work-relatedness as it relates to this $3 million.
Okay. Is there documentation that's being sought or requested or required for individual firefighters, active or retired, for documentation of the date of and method of infection?
That would be handled through the Worker's Comp. and the Risk Management process. I assume that that's the case but I 17 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 don't have any direct knowledge of just what is happening.
Madam Chief of Staff, is there anyone here that could give me an indication as to whether or not that information is being requested by Risk Management?
No, because the focus of this financial support program is to provide, again, support for the firefighters who are affected by hepatitis C. There's no -- there's no determination of job-relatedness. That is, we are not saying it's job-related, we're not saying it's not. Even if it's not job-related, we are prepared, and made a commitment, to support these firefighters. And that's the purpose of this program, and that's why it's outside of the scope of the labor negotiations. It is a stand-alone effort and initiative, and it's --
The additional $3 million to support the costs associated with the treatment of the disease has nothing to do with work relation?
Correct. 18 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13
As a result of Workman's Compensation claims, is there a level of documentation required by individuals who are applying for Workman's Compensation based on infection of hepatitis C as a work-related injury?
I can't answer that question. I do not know, but I can get you the answer to the question. We can ask the risk manager and we can respond to you separately.
And also, has anyone yet provided, who was applying for Workman's Compensation through this injury and work-related nature that they believe happened, has anyone provided the appropriate documentation?
Councilman Kenney, we would have to have -- because you are asking Worker's Compensation-related questions, we would have to have Risk Management respond. I cannot answer that question.
And I guess Risk Management will have to respond to the following question, and that is: Considering the incidence 19 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 of hepatitis C amongst active firefighters within a certain age group and a certain cohort, those people that have been already identified as having the decision, what is the reason why the City has opposed their Worker's Compensation benefits? My understanding is that we have firefighters who are infected that have documented -- now, it's my understanding that they have documented that they were, in fact. Infected on the job, have run out of their vacation time, have run out of their sick time, and are being put to bed on evening by their fellow firefighters because they don't have the strength to get in bed themselves but don't have the ability to take off or to receive Worker's Compensation benefits because the City is opposing those benefits. And if the Risk Management people need to answer that, that would be fine.
Could you give me some indication as to the impact of what would happen if the City were to agree to approve the Worker's Compensation claims of all those people 20 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 that have already been identified as having contracted hepatitis C but have not yet been able to prove to the City's satisfaction that it was in fact work-related? What would be the financial impact of the City to give them the benefit of the doubt, to step aside, and to allow them to obtain their Workman's Compensation benefits? That's something we can have answered too, I guess?
Okay, all right. Thank you very much. I have no more questions. Thank you.
One simple question. Would -- I see the $2.850,000 and I don't see $150,000 reflected in this amendment. Where does that money come from? Or would it not be reflected in the amendment?
It's not reflected in the amendment because it will be paid out of Class 100 to the Health and Welfare Fund, so it's already in the right class, so we don't need to do an 21 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 amendment.
And with respect to the $700,000 of personal services for the Mayor, could you give me a brief explanation as to the reason for that request.
Yes. We have -- I mean, the brief explanation is that at this point, we are anticipating a potential deficit. We had a number of employees from the prior administration in the Mayor's Office that were on the budget, and the majority of the funds -- it's carry-forward budget -- have been expended to deal with those employees. We are now in the process of restructuring and shifting members of the Mayor's Office, and so we are -- we need the transfer of funds to enable us to go through the restructuring and reshaping process in forming the Mayor's Office. We've only been in office a short period of time, and so it's a part of the reconfiguration. 22 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13
In the event there were employees in the Class 100 classification who left from the old administration and there was some form of severance package, either accumulated leave or whatever, would that money have come out of Class 100?
And is that what you meant when indicated the funds being depleted by these arrangements?
Councilman Nutter want to be recognized. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. If it's on the hepatitis issue, I'll yield. My question is far afield on that.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry I forgot to ask one follow-up 23 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 question on the hep C issue. You, I understand, are developing some criteria as to the disbursement of funds from the fund for Philadelphia to either the union or directly to those firefighters infected. Could you tell me when that criteria and process will in place or when you think it might be?
I think I would be able to answer that question after we sit down and meet with the union maybe on Friday. I don't know. I think we have to talk through a process that we think will work. I am assuming that the union would provide reasonable documentation. We would need to talk with them about whether or not, for example, to draw down on the monies. It would -- it should be kind of a joint process. And, also, whether or not the money would then be disbursed to the union or to the individuals. So these are some of the questions that we have to work through but we don't think it's going to be a problem.
Do we know when approximately? Can you give us a ballpark as to when the date is we may be able to see it or when 24 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 the Council President's office may be able to see the specific process and criteria for that spend-down?
As I said before, our goal is to have everything formulated by the end of the month, so that would include the process for drawing down fund for Philadelphia. It may be that the program could be jointly administered through the fund for Philadelphia, or we may come up with some other approach. But we think that all of the mechanics will be completed by the end of this month, and we'll provide that information.
The Friday meeting that you referenced, was that a long-standing meeting or was that something that had just been scheduled?
I believe it was -- there have been a number of meetings. We were waiting for the documentation. I believe the meeting was scheduled after we got concerned about the publicity. We wanted to make sure that if -- You know, as I said before, we have been involved in discussions with the union. The 25 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13 discussions have been over legitimate issues, and I think that everyone has approached them in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation. We want to put the program together and make it work. Now, we had an article that implied that the Administration was not meeting its commitment. In our communications with the union, it's my understanding from the President that while the discussions may have been taking longer than had been anticipated -- we agree with that, given the number of issues that have come up, but that we're proceeding. We just felt that in light of the publicity, we don't want anyone to get concerned -- especially the firefighters and the families that are affected. They're not in the room with us. We want them to understand that we are standing by our commitment. We're going to put this program in place. And to the extent that we might have had a meeting and were expected to schedule it in the following week, it made sense to do it as quickly as possible.
Thank you. 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, Thank you, Madam President.
You're 4 welcome. 5 Councilman Cohen, is your questioning 6 regarding hepatitis C? 7
I just wanted the 12 Chief of Staff and the Personnel Director and 13 others from the City to understand that Councilman Kenney speaks for many of us on this issue, and we think those questions are extremely important, that when the City asks people to put their lives at stake, that the City ought to be able to respond very quickly, and there ought not to be a basis, you know, for the (unintelligible). And I take his questions to mean he feels it urgent that this matter be dealt with properly, and I think he has very, very strong support. We all feel that that ought to happen. We think the delay that occurred was, you know, regrettable. But at this stage, I think it's a 27 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, good thing that you acted so responsibly. And I want thank the press -- I rarely every thank them, but I think it was very important that they brought this point up and that it was tended to so promptly. (Applause.)
Thank you. 12 The Chair now recognizes Councilman 13 Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is primarily a Mr. Dubow question. I'm just going to miss the opportunity to ask you these questions, Mr. Dubow.
Actually, I had planned to. There was discussion earlier in the operating budget call-back with L&I and the Managing Director about the fencing program -- or, 28 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, quite honestly, the lack thereof at the moment. And it was a financial issue. We're in the process of considering transfer ordinance for FY 2000, and I think we've seen through this process that things happen in the course of the year. The Administration, based on just the earlier questions, has been very responsive on a very serious issue, and the issue I raise pales in comparison to that particular issue. And I'll say that at the outset. But for many people out in the community, the fencing program -- or not having a fencing program is a somewhat serious issue, so I do need to ask you a couple of questions. I had asked the Managing Director and the representative from L&I about the City's fiscal situation, and I'm looking at the Five-Year Plan. Is it correct that the estimate presently, or at the time of the Five-Year Plan was put together, it's estimated that the fund balance will be in excess of $150 million; is that correct?
And in the course 29 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, of that discussion, it was estimated that it would cost approximately $1 million to do about 500 fences, if anybody decided that that was a good number. It could be a smaller number, but the general estimate was that it would cost about $1 million. Now, what I'd like to explore with you is the possibility of addressing this particular issue at this time in an FY 2000 budget transfer, given the fact that we're showing, at least in the documents and on paper, a $150 million surplus, and we're essentially talking about something that's around about, close to $1 million, and see whether we might be able to wrap all of this up through this transfer ordinance and provide some additional funding to L&I to address this particular problem in the City, and do it by way of some level of a combination and agreement. There is, I think, a number of things we're all trying to get done in the FY 2000 transfer ordinance, and I'd like to explore that with you.
Okay. I mean, I have a couple of responses to that. The first is that while we end this year with $150 million, we end 30 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, the whole Five-Year Plan with about $5 million. So over the course of the plan, we don't have a whole lot of room. That said, typically, at the end of the fiscal year, we'll look at where our appropriations compared to where we thought they would be, and one of the things usually do is give extra funding to L&I for demolition; it's typically in the range of 2 to $3 million. And it's likely that we'll be in that situation again this year.
Well, I understand that and I appreciate that. I mean, the problem is that it's March, that probably won't happen until June, and they continue to claim that they don't have any funding for this. If you're going to do a transfer ordinance later on, why don't you allow them to make some expenditures presently out of their current funding and make up the shortfall through what you now articulated you anticipate doing in a transfer ordinance anyway?
The other concern is that -- their testimony was that if they actually had 31 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, extra funding, their priority is demolition.
Okay, I understand 4 that but -- I mean, that's their problem. I mean, 5 we all have our various priorities and we all have 6 our needs. And in the government, you know, we 7 don't all get to do what we want to do just the 8 way we want to do it all of the time. I mean, you 9 know, this recent process here has probably been 10 one of the best examples of that. I mean, that's 11 really not the way it works. 12 I mean, we're talking about a million 13 dollars. And a $2.8 billion budget, and you've got a $150 million surplus.
I'm going to go back to the other part of the answer, which is that in the long term, the way they're going to handle this is through the blight program. In the short term, the Administration's priority is demolition.
Mr. Dubow, I can't talk to Miss Parker about the long term -- or Miss Smith or Mr. Jones or anybody else. The long term started when you demolished the house next door to them last year.
Yeah. I think L&I said 32 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, they were going to look into Miss Parker's situation.
I mean, she becomes 5 a symbol for a whole host of other people. I 6 would not insult you or the other folks at the 7 table just to talk about one other person. As Bob 8 Solvibile testified, there are hundreds of people 9 out there in this particular situation. 10 I am talking about trying to rather 11 immediately solve a rather narrow problem and get 12 us through the time to the big program and all the 13 ramifications thereof. We don't get to live in the future. We need to do something now. And if you're telling me that you're going to come back and reconcile with L&I anyway, then you either authorize them to spend some funding, which you're going to make up later on, or we can give it to them now, with a designated purpose and some level of agreement, you know, in the spirit of cooperation and peace and happiness that we're trying to engender around here.
I mean, we can authorize them to spend some of the money on fencing now and then take a look at the issue, you know, as we go 33 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, forward.
I think we'd have to talk 6 to them and see what they think is an appropriate 7 level. 8
How about some 9 discussion with the Councilmembers about the 10 issues that get raised out of the neighborhoods 11 and what we have to deal with? 12
I think that would be a 13 good course to take, to include the Councilmembers in that discussion.
No, actually, it was. Okay, we'll, I think, just deal with this in the committee process.
Thank you. 34 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I need to ask one 4 simple question, which seems not to get a simple 5 answer. We've been building surpluses of an 6 increasing size, and suddenly, when Mayor Rendell 7 ends his term in December of Fiscal Year 200, 8 we're told that we're operating at a deficit and 9 we're going to be -- and we have an operating 10 deficit now. 11 Did Mayor Rendell arrange that or is 12 there some -- what's explanation for the sudden 13 stoppage in the accumulation of surpluses and the development of what some people call a "systemic deficit," whatever that means?
In the plan and in our written response, what we discussed was that that surplus was built up over a number of years, with the anticipation that there were a series of costs that we would have to incur that would wind up eating into the surplus. And one of the best examples is the annualized costs of the labor agreements that we've already entered into. I mean, we're just feeling this year the full impact of those years of increases. 35 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, Another example is the crime bill cops each year.
The crime bill cops, who 6 were funded by the federal government at declining 7 percentages over the years. Each year, we fund a 8 higher and higher percent of those costs, so the 9 General Fund eats more of that. 10 There are a whole series of those, and 11 I think we laid out in one of the responses for 12 you that made it clear to us as we were going 13 forward that this wasn't actually going to happen. And, actually, if you look at even last year's plan --
Couldn't steps have been taken in advance to plan for this, to avoid it?
Well, that was what building up of the surplus was, and that was one of the ways we planned for it. And the other way is, we, you know, look at our expenditures all the time and try to manage them and hold them down. And we look at, you know, economic development strategies to try 36 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, to bring more businesses into the City to increase our taxes. So, really, I mean, everything we do with budget is trying to combat that deficit.
Okay. Are 9 there any other questions from Members of 10 Council? 11 (No further questions.) 12
Seeing none, 13 the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski for a motion on Bill No. 13.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 13 be reported out with --
I'm sorry, the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam President. While the Administration has put forward some amendments -- and we're in the public meeting right now; is that correct?
Given the 37 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, discussion about the fencing issue, I would like to put forward an amendment to this appropriations bill to deal with that particular issue. And I would put forward an amendment that increases the line item 2.39, Director of Finance - Fringe Benefits, Personal Services, Employee Benefits, to increase it from the dollar amount of $3,550,000 to $4.550,000, and that the total of that line would be $4.550,000, which would increase the "from" section to $8,285,562. And further, that the "to" section 13 would be amended with a new section, 2.32, Department of L&I - Purchase of services, $1 million. And the total line of $1 million and the total "to" section would then read $8,285,562.
That's an amendment -- to be spent for the fencing program. Madam Chair, this is a proposed amendment to deal with the issue of the lack of a fencing program to go into L&I's budget, with the understanding that that's what these dollars are for. As Mr. Dubow testified earlier, they plan -- 38 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 2
It's a $1 million 5 figure, based on the testimony in the Operating 6 Budget earlier today. 7
Do I 8 understand that we have two amendments, Madam 9 Chair? 10
Yes. I was proposing to amend the Administration's amendment.
All those in favor of Councilman Nutter's amendment?
No, you move to accept the Administration's amendment.
I'm sorry. It was not written, Madam Chair. It was based on -- the Administration put forward an amendment in the "from" section for Section 2.39, that the Director of Finance be $3,550,000. What I propose is that that be amended to be $4.550,000, and that in the "to" section, 39 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, there would be a new Section 2.32, which is Department of L&I - Purchase of Services, which is where the $1 million would go. That naturally increases the "to" and "from" amounts to $8,285,562.
Madam Chair 8 since still in appropriations I understand that 9 members of the appropriations can vote on the 10 amendments that's correct? 11 (Councilmembers confer off the record.) 12
Would you like to take 13 a roll-call vote, then I can go down with the members on the committee? Councilman Nutter will offer his amendment.
Thank you. Madam Chair, I move that the -- in the "from" section of Bill No. 13, Line Item No. 20 2.39, Director of Finance - Fringe Benefits, Personal Services-Employee Benefits, that it be increased by $1 million, and that the total for that line item is $1 million and, therefore, the corresponding section in the "to" section of the bill, a new category, Line Item No. 2.32, 40 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, Department of Licenses and Inspections- Purchase of Services, $1 million, the total of which for that line would be $1 million. (Duly seconded.)
The nays are 4 and the ayes are 3, so it does not carry. 41 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, 13
Therefore, the amendment fails. Now we'll go on with the second amendment. All those in favor of the second administration by the Administration?
Okay. Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 13 be amended in Section 13 2.39, Director of Finance - Fringe Benefits - Personal Services, Employee Benefits, in the amount of $3,550,000, which in -- the total for that line is $3,550,000. And the total in the "from" section is $7,285,562. And a corresponding change in the "to" section of the bill -- I'm sorry. The corresponding change in the "to" section of the bill, Line Item No. 2.2, Office of the Mayor - Personal Services, $700,000. The total of that line is $700,000. And a new line item, 2.38, Director of Finance - Contributions, Indemnities, and Taxes, 42 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, the amount is $2,850,000. The total of that line is $2,850,000. The total of the "to" section 4 shall read $7,285,562. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor? 7 All those in favor? 8 Those opposed? 9 Therefore the amendment passes. 10
Those are the 11 amendments. Now we want to move the bill as 12 amended? 13
Madam Chairwoman, I move that Bill 13 be voted out of committee -- as amended, be voted out of committee with a favorable recommendation and with a suspension of the rules so as to permit first reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 13 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. 43 3/22/00 APPROPRIATIONS - BILLS 000012, All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. (Adjourned at 4:17 p.m.) - - - 44 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, March 22, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS BILL NO.'S 000012, 000013 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter