COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:20 a.m. - - - BILL 030015 - An Ordinance amending Title of the 10 Philadelphia Code... BILL 030022 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 19-200 11 of the Philadelphia Code... BILL 030023 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 19-200 12 of the Philadelphia Code... 13 - - - 14 15 PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL, Chair 16 COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN 17 COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN TASCO - - - V A R A L L O, INCORPORATED LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X BILL 030015 PAGE JAMES CUORATO, Director of Commerce ........ BILLS 030022, 030023 COREY KEMP, City Treasurer .................. 90 3 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015
Good morning. Thank you all for attending our Finance hearing. We will now begin the public hearing part of it. Today we will hear Bill No. 030015, introduced by Councilman Nutter; and Bill No. 030022 and 030023, introduced by my colleague Councilman Goode. We will ask the Clerk to read the Bill 10 030015.
Bill No. 030015, an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the Philadelphia Ordinance entitled, "Contracts and Procurement," by adding a new Chapter requiring that a Bill or Resolution approving funding for certain development projects must include an economic statement, and providing for certain powers and duties of the City Controller in connection with the preparation of economic impact statements; all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you very much. We see our City representative and Director of Commerce, Jim Cuorato. You're going to testify on this Bill? 4 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015
Please identify yourself to the record and begin your testimony. Thank you.
Good morning, Councilwoman Blackwell and Members of City Council. My name is James Cuorato and I'm a City Representative and Director of Commerce. I appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony regarding Bill 030015, an Ordinance that would require that the City Controller prepare an economic impact statement, or EIS for purposes of this testimony, for certain large development projects receiving City funds. Last fall, we testified before this Committee in opposition to a similar Bill, Bill No. 21 020481. This new, revised version of the legislation addresses some of the concerns we raised in our original testimony regarding the Bill's potentially harmful impact on the timing and bottom line of the many development projects that are so 5 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 critical to our City's growth, prosperity and success. For example, Bill 030015 does not mandate an EIS at any level of City investment, but rather, requires an EIS only for projects over $50 million in which the City contributes more than percent of the funding of the project. 9 Additionally, Bill 030015 allows for 10 more flexibility than the previous legislation because it would allow for a development project to proceed if it can be documented that the City Controller is unable to provide a requested analysis and it excludes pass-through funding where the City merely serves as a conduit for the funds for a project. However, despite these constructive practical changes, the legislation remains problematic and, like Bill 020481, would be at cross-purposes with ongoing efforts to streamline the City's regulatory process to encourage growth in the Philadelphia. Specifically, the Bill is ambiguous both with regard to the definition of what constitutes a development project, and with regard to any timing constraints on the Controller's 6 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 required responsibilities under the legislation. For these reasons, I still cannot offer my support on this measure. The legislation defines, "City-funded development project," solely by outlining the total cost of a project, the percentage of the funding which is contributed by City funds and by what will be considered to be City funds. The failure to more particularly define "City-funded development project" by casting a net far and wide over every project that has City support creates a very problematic ambiguity that could lead to confusion and ultimately delay in many potential projects that may have minimal City involvement. Notably, the legislation does require that the City contribute at least 10 percent of the total funding to a project for requirement of an EIS to be applicable. This is an improvement over the previous legislation, which offered no base level of involvement by the City to trigger the same requirement. However, similar to Bill 020481, this legislation defines what constitutes City funds contributed by a City or City-related agency with a 7 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 very broad brush. According to the legislation, determinations regarding the total amount of City funding for a project shall include any amounts of funding contributed by a City or City-related agency including, in part, any in-kind contribution to the project including, but not limited to, any transfer of any interest in real estate, site improvements, environmental remediation, infrastructure improvements which benefit the project including, but not limited to, curbs, sidewalks, streets, drainage or water and sewer mains; tax incentives, tax abatements, or provides any other form of public supported financing, which in whole or in part is subject to authorization or approval by City Council. This far-reaching definition is so broad and sweeping in what would be considered to be City funding that almost any action by either the City or a City-related agency in any context could be considered assistance. In fact, under this definition, it is hard to think of anything that is not considered assistance.
While the project specific funding that requires City Council approval may be nominal, the fact that a project is generally 8 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 eligible for a tax abatement could trigger the need for an EIS. This can only contribute to the further confusion. Like its predecessor, Bill 030015 also creates unpredictability because it does not require that the Controller act within any specific time parameter, creating, in effect, a unilateral veto in the Controller over any proposed development simply by inaction. Notably, there is an effort to address this issue. Under Section 17-1102(1)(b), the legislation would allow for the legislation supporting the project to be introduced if it can be documented that an effort was made in writing to have the City Controller provide an analysis. Although this new language provides some additional flexibility, in the end it still creates a requirement that another governmental unit be involved in the preparation of a proposal for development. As you know, many real estate projects are sensitive to construction timing and must retain the maximum flexibility to address last minute project modification. A requirement that the Controller act within a certain set time frame, or 9 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 be deemed to be in support in a project would eliminate the undue leverage and give a measure of predictability to the City's development process. What may be the most problematic aspect about this legislation, however, may be the message that it sends to our business community. Each time the number of conditions on City approval of a project are increased, we increase the cost of development in the City and discourage the very investments that are so critical to our economic future. The requirement that an economic impact statement must be prepared by the City Controller prior to City Council consideration will be seen by the development community as another barrier to investing in the City. Please let me be totally clear. The Administration strongly supports Council's interest in being fully informed when considering whether to provide City financial support to major developments. Council presently has the right to request any information, including an EIS completed by the Controller or by an independent agency, prior to their approval of any project that requires Council approval. This legislation does not change 10 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 that. What this legislation does do is create, whether it is accurate or not, the perception that business is that much more difficult to do in Philadelphia. Ultimately, this new reporting requirement will be viewed by the business community as an additional risk for project delay and it will be seen as resulting in the escalating costs associated with that delay. Again, let me emphasize that the Administration supports Council's need to be fully informed when making decisions about City-funded projects. To that end, allow me to note that we currently provide economic impact reports to City Council for every tax increment financing transaction brought to you for consideration, regardless of total development cost. These reports are prepared by PIDC as part of any TIF Plan and are provided to the City Controller and to PICA for review and comment. We also provide a detailed financial analysis to Council for all major capital projects requiring City capital or bond authorization. The Administration is willing to work with this Council to provide any additional information whenever it is requested. 11 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 For the reasons I've outlined, I cannot support Bill 030015. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Cuorato. The Chair notes that the President of Council is here for purposes of a quorum. The Vice Chair of the Committee is here, Councilwoman Tasco; Councilman Ortiz; Councilman Nutter; and to my left, Councilman W. Wilson Goode. So we thank you all. In your testimony you mention that the City is available to give information. Do we create economic impact statements for major developments now?
I believe we do, Councilwoman. They may not have the formal title of an economic impact statement, but for any major capital project that we bring to City Council, and certainly for any tax increment financing project that we bring to City Council, we provide a detailed economic analysis that I believe includes all of the information that is called for in this Bill, and then some. I believe we try to provide City Council 12 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 with as much information as we possibly have so that you can make an informed decision about projects that we bring to you.
And I believe you also mentioned in your testimony that -- or did you -- that the Bill does not indicate when or how long the Controller would have the responsibility, a window for a response, as one of the issues?
That is correct, Councilwoman. For me, it is a major issue. My concern is not with the City Controller's office, either generally or in particularly. This has nothing to do with Mr. Saidel. My concern is that it sets up a time frame of uncertainty where the City Controller could, for whatever reason, not move ahead with this type of analysis in a time frame that is consistent with the goals of a project that we're trying to get approved. It basically takes that element and applies uncertainty to it. And as I noted in my testimony, this will be viewed by the business community and the real estate development community as another hurdle that has to be overcome in getting projects approved in the City of Philadelphia. And at a time when we 13 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 are working hard to try to streamline the approval process and send developers the message that you can come into Philadelphia and invest in good projects, this, I think, sends the opposite signal. It's another hurdle that has to be overcome and, frankly, that's why we're opposed to it.
Another question for me is, quote/unquote, who controls the Controller? I mean, what if there's a disagreement? Since the Controller has to approve a project, what if there's a disagreement about his economic impact statement, what happens then?
Well, I've thought that process through as well, and it really does create a situation where we could, I believe, be at somewhat of a standstill. I had suggested that the process really be kept between the Administration and City Council, such that for any major project we bring to you, we provide you with all of the information that we think you need to make an informed decision. And, in fact, I think Members of City Council have been very forthright in asking us for additional information, if they're not satisfied with what we present. 14 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 We present the information. Council makes a decision on whether to approve a project or not, but that process is within the boundaries of the Administration and City Council. To bring the City Controller into this process as an independent third party sets up a situation where, if a Controller, for whatever reason, is opposed to a project that the Administration supports, my fear is that there are no safeguards that could prevent the project from being stalled or delayed by the City Controller. And that is what concerns me.
Thank you. I only have one more question, Councilman. Is that okay?
Finally, how would this affect our ability to streamline projects funded through NTI or CDBG? Would this effect that whole process as well?
I believe in reading the legislation that it would affect that process. And again, it will be viewed negatively and as another bureaucratic hurdle that has to be overcome at a time when we are going to great lengths to try to 15 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 expedite projects and move ahead with projects. And certainly, both the NTI and CDBG programs, Councilwoman, which you mentioned, both I think receive a very intense level of scrutiny as it is. To bring in an independent third party analysis only adds to the timing and the confusion the process.
One thing is for sure, we're having enough problems now getting that stuff expedited. Councilman Nutter, you wanted to make a statement or ask a question?
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I didn't mean to cut across your question. The only reason I spoke up is because Mr. Cuorato knows how much I deeply respect his opinion and his views --
-- and we've had an opportunity to work together on a number of occasions. But I think there is one piece of information that needs to be clearly stated -- and the Chair is also aware that I've circulated some amendments that I think will provide greater clarity here and clear up other any confusion. 16 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 The context, the general context, and I think the most important issue that Mr. Cuorato raised in his testimony and then with the Q and A, is this belief somehow that the Controller gets either a vote or can hold up a project or has any say over a project. And I would specifically refer to of Mr. Cuorato's testimony. In the middle he talks about the requirement that an economic impact statement must be prepared by the City Controller prior to City Council consideration. From my perspective at least, it's just absolutely false. The only requirement here is that the Controller be asked to prepare a statement. If the Controller decides not to do so, the Bill provides for -- and let me say also say, Madam Chair, and to my colleagues, this second version of the Bill, in addition to the amendments, comes as a result of the testimony from the last Bill and the information supplied in the Mayor's veto message about the previous Bill. I took that seriously. I took every element of the Mayor's veto message and sought to address those issues, working in conjunction with legal staff and the Law Department. And the way that we tried to deal with that was twofold. 17 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 One, the only projects that would fall under the purview of this particular legislation are projects that meet two tests; one, that the total project cost is at least $50 million, which is not the normal project that comes through the City on a regular basis; and second, that that same project receive percent or more of its funding from the 9 City. And so there are hundreds, if not thousands, 10 of projects that will never, ever reach the level of scrutiny of this particular legislation. Secondly, while there is the requirement to include as an exhibit an economic impact statement, in Section 17-102 there are two different ways to fulfill that requirement: Either provide the economic impact statement or a letter from the Controller stating that the Controller is not going to provide one, or in the Controller's opinion, one is not needed. That's the first test. Or second, that the sponsor or an interested party detail their attempts that have been made to comply with that subsection, including a copy of a written request to the Controller to prepare an economic impact statement for the project, and any written response from the City Controller to such request. 18 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 If you make the request and the Controller never responds, that's the end of the conversation. You add the letter to the Bill and the Controller is, in essence, out of it. So there is no veto by the Controller. There is no 7 interference by the Controller and there is no 8 ability whatsoever under the legislation for the Controller to stop a project. Last I checked, that was still within the purview of City Council. And I don't even think the State has tried to interfere with our ability to vote on Bills and Resolutions. I think what's happened here is the residue from the first Bill combined with a certain distress or paranoia that something untoward is going to happen, when all the Council is doing is asking for information which, quite honestly, I think should be included as a part of the initial legislation in the first place. There aren't many $50-plus million projects that are going to pop up overnight and somehow you're not able to put an economic impact statement together before it were to come in the door. And, again, even if it were in excess of the $50 million, it still must include that the City is providing 10 percent or more of 19 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 funding.
I can deal with the amendments at the time, Madam Chair. I think also the amendments should ease some of the concern with regard to the Controller. It removes a major sentence that I'm sure is of concern on of the legislation in section 5. So it is certainly my belief that in looking at the veto message and the legal advice received from the Law Department, that between the Bill as introduced and the proposed amendments, the City and the Commerce Department and PIDC will be in a great position to move projects along and provide Council with the necessary information. And if, for whatever reason, the independent watchdog of the City chooses not to participate in the process, the City is not delayed in any way, shape, or form. But I at least want the record to be clear, that the economic impact statement, while it must be prepared by the Controller, it is not a requirement for a project to move forward. And the mere attachment of a written request to get the information would satisfy the requirement of Section 25 17-1102. 20 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 Thank you, Madam Chair.
May I ask the Bill sponsor a question? On of Mr. Cuorato's testimony. Quote, it is unclear what the requirement is for projects assisted with condemnation, eminent domain, relocation assistance or economic stimulus funding. That's a major, major --
Yes, it's in the middle of the page. That's a major issue for every development project in the City. And economic stimulus funding, as you know, could be big dollars. It's just a major, major consideration if this issue is unclear. I have that as a question. We're really, really concerned about that. My other concern is that the Controller has stated that in order for him --
Madam Chair, if I can better understand the question. What is the concern? Because I didn't understand the statement in Mr. Cuorato's testimony.
You said that a 21 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 Controller could or did not have to do a report?
He's not required to do one, no. He can not respond. That would be his answer.
Do we put him in a political situation where he's for or against a project? I don't know how we --
Well, I think the Controller can decide whether he wants to join in the fray or not. I mean, the Controller has audit responsibility and actually, I believe, has prepared these kinds of reports in the past. I would hope that the Controller would not engage in politics in the course of doing his audit responsibility. And if he felt that for some reason he could not do that, the legislation allows him to hire an independent entity with no interest in the project retained by the Controller to prepare such statement. I mean, the numbers are what the numbers are on a particular project. We're asking the Controller, as a party that should not have an interest in any of these projects, to make sure that a legitimate, credible statement, economic impact statement is prepared. 22 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015
But you're saying if he chooses. My only question is, if the Controller can prepare or not prepare, if it is -- it makes it seem arbitrary if he can do an impact statement or not do the statement. Then I don't know why we have legislation that gives him the authority to do a statement or not do a statement. I'm really, really concerned -- and I'll yield to the will of the Committee; I'll say that up front. And the Controller also said he would need more money to implement this anyway. He said that when we had run into him in different places.
Okay. So I don't know how much more money we would give him. I don't understand --
Well, that's not serious dollars. But I just don't understand how -- if he can choose to do an impact statement, if he can choose not to do it, why do we need him to perform this role, especially since he's a 23 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 Controller and already reports for various departments and on various issues anyway? I don't understand how this is going to help us. If you want an impact statement, I don't see that as something we need legislation for. We can request that from the City and get that from Commerce, get that from OHCD, get that from NTI, the Redevelopment Authority, if it's a housing project. We have the ability to do that. So my question is, I don't know how this does not create another bureaucratic level, but helps expedite projects that we invest in. That's my question.
I appreciate that, Madam Chair. I think the short answer to that is, not even in a perfect world, just in a properly functioning world, that information would be provided as a part of the legislation. It would be provided up front and in no way, shape, or form meant to or intended to slow anything down. It's just what you do in the normal course of business. If one group of people are putting a Bill together and another group of people are putting the financing together, you know up front that you need to put an economic impact statement together as you 24 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 send the Bill over. So it's not going to slow anything down. Second, the Controller does not do this work as a normal course of business. The Controller's responsibility, at least under the Charter, is to audit the departments and agencies of the government. And as you said, for what the Controller said he might need -- I mean, again, let's be honest. There's not going to be that many economic impact statements created because of the thresholds here that are in the legislation. But I believe also that the Controller has to have, legally, the flexibility to decide or not decide whether or not to create these statements. And I think we all know that we cannot require him to do so, and at least paid that much deference to the Law Department's opinion about this. Again, I want to be really clear for the record. I have no interest in trying to slow a project down. But as Mr. Cuorato said, they do provide up front the economic impact statement, and no one's ever complained that the production of those economic impact statements slowed any of the projects down. 25 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 I do probably slightly disagree with him -- although he can provide us with the documentation. I doubt that any of the economic impact statements that have been provided to us on even some of the larger projects have met all of the criteria of an economic impact statement in Bill 8 030015. And I'm not sure if we received an economic impact statement for projects like Kvaerner. I know we received some documentation certainly for the stadiums, although there were some who raised some questions about those particular reports. But I have no interest in slowing anything down. Lord knows, for some of these projects, everything should be done to speed them up. But the reality, though, is that most of the projects we're talking about wouldn't meet the threshold in the legislation in the first place because they're usually not more than $50 million.
We are sure of your intentions. That was not our question. We know that that is not your intention. That you would only want to expedite projects. The Chair notes the presence of Councilman DiCicco and Kenney. 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015
Madam Chair, I do want to ask if the Sergeant-at-Arms -- I know all of our colleagues have a copy of the proposed amendments, but I think Mr. Cuorato does not. But there may be questions. I didn't mean to short circuit anything.
Thank you. Councilman Ortiz has his hand up. And then, Councilman, before we do amendments, we'll ask that you explain what you want to do, but we'll entertain questions. Thank you. Councilman Ortiz.
Mr. Cuorato, do you have a problem submitting economic impact statements about projects?
I do not, Councilman. I do not have a problem with the Administration submitting an economic impact statement. I do have a problem with this legislation requiring that the City Controller prepare the economic impact statement.
Before anything is approved, before anything goes to a vote, you don't have a problem of submitting an economic impact 27 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 statement with the project that is being put forward?
Councilman, I have no 5 problem whatsoever with that. It is my job in bringing development into this City that requires City Council approval to convince you that the project is worthy of your approval. And as part of that process, we, the Administration are open to any requests for information, no matter how detailed or specific they might be. It's our job to provide that information to you so that you can make an informed decision on projects that we bring you. I view that as my job.
So the only problem that you have with the legislation, then, would be the timeliness of when the economic statement is submitted to Council by the Controller?
No. I have a problem with the Controller being involved in this process, period.
Well, do you have a problem with Council going out and trying to get an independent viewpoint as to what the economic impact is of certain projects from the Administration? 28 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015
No. I mean, from my standpoint, City Council can do whatever it wants.
Well, if we do that, would that hold up the project a little bit longer? If we have the Controller, who many view as independent, and you give him a time line -- and I would imagine that, from your testimony, it's the open-ended aspect that more or less would be sort of like a pocket veto of the Controller. But if you give the Controller a certain time line so that it will be timely and we would have -- it's like going to a doctor and getting one opinion, and you don't like that doctor's opinion, so you go to another one; to be able to make a very educated decision as to where it is that we're going to spend City taxpayers' money when it's a project of this magnitude. Because I believe that we haven't had information given to us in many of the projects that we had. And when information has been given to us, it has been given to us at such a late date that we haven't had the time or the wherewithal to be able to analyze it in any sort of way to be able to give a responsible judgment on it. And then we're asked 29 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 to vote on it without really knowing what's in it. The stadium is a case in point. We were given materials at midnight. In fact, the papers were still warm from the copy machine. And then we were asked to vote on it, and many of us did. And I think a lot of us are now looking back at that vote and wishing that we'd given it more thought. So I don't see where it is that this legislation does what you say it does, which is delay and put road blocks to investment in the City. I don't see the rationale for your position on that.
Okay. Councilman, if I may respond. Let me just outline two scenarios for you. I bring a major development to City Council which, under these guidelines, would require City Council approval. Without this legislation, I am in control of the process. I prepare an economic analysis for you. I present it to you as part of my efforts to win your approval of this project. You come back to me and say, "I have questions. I need more information. Can you clarify this?" I control that process. I provide you with the information that you need. That is entirely within my control. 30 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 I can keep a project moving. I know what my deadlines are, and I provide that information. The other scenario, which this legislation would set up, is a situation where a request is made for the City Controller -- and, again, I know Councilman Nutter referred to possible paranoia on my part, which I'm trying not to be. But let's assume a City Controller, for whatever reason --
Thank you, Councilman. A City Controller, for whatever reason, does not support a project that the Administration does support. This scenario gives the Controller the ability to hold up and delay that project.
Again, we're going to an issue of timeliness. And what you're objecting to -- once again, I am saying to that, that is easily repairable. If you say that there's a certain amount of time, at that point, the Controller waives that right that he has. It is an issue of not just giving an open-ended situation. You just don't want the Controller involved or any 31 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 other agency outside of your office involved in giving an opinion about an economic impact statement.
I have two problems. Number one, I don't believe a City Controller should be involved, period, as I've already stated.
I believe it's my job to convince you that these projects are worthwhile. And number two, bringing in a third party takes control of the process out of our hands and puts it in a situation where it can be delayed by a third party for whatever reason. The Controller could decide he doesn't like a project and, in accordance with this Bill, could write back to me and say, this is a very complex project. It's going to take four months to do an economic analysis, and that's my response. Four months may not work for me. It may kill a project. And yet that's the situation I'm being presented with.
I think we're getting to the point of timeliness again. How do you then structure legislation so that you avoid that type of 32 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 situation?
Thank you. Councilman Kenney. I'm sorry, Councilman Ortiz. Did I cut you off?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Jim, in, say, the last four to eight years, how many projects -- and I know you don't have all the numbers at your fingertips right now -- but in your estimation, how many projects would have fit into this particular piece of legislation? I know the stadiums would have; Kvaener would have. Any other? I mean, it can't be that many. Since those are the ones that jump out, they may be the only ones in, perhaps, the last four to eight years.
Penns Landing, but that was a TIF and we do a pretty detailed submission of information anyway.
So we're talking no 25 more than 7 to 10? 33 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015
You are correct, Councilman. I'm not disputing the fact that there are not a large number of projects this would affect. And I would like to say in response to Councilman Nutter's comment earlier that the problem we had with the earlier Bill where it was so broad, that aspect of it has been narrowed.
But let me attack this from another angle, as far as being able to promote projects and to get things done in a timely fashion and to have the City open to these kinds of Public Works projects. I think one of the problems is, is that the public resists public investment into things like stadiums and other types of things because they never can understand the relationship to their neighborhood, to their life, to their employment possibilities. I think in many ways if we had this kind of road map, this kind of information in the public domain prior to us voting on issues, it may get more public support and be less of a drain on us responding to our constituents who have concerns about these public investments, in ultimately 34 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 privately-owned stadiums, for example. And if we had this kind of information that people in the minority community could share, people in the non-minority community could share, employment -- not only goals and things that are set, but how it's going to impact their situation economically, tax-wise, otherwise, may make it easier for us in the future to do public projects of that size without all of the lack of information, the suspicion and the fear. And I think in some ways, even though you may view it from your perspective as being a hinderance, in the long run, in the macro sense, it may be a facilitator of public financing for public projects because people will be relatively assured from a non-involved party that this, in fact, is a good thing for them and for their tax dollars to be used for. So I'd like you to maybe look at it from that perspective, that the more information we share with the public, the less suspicious they are, the more cooperative they may be in helping us vote for projects like this. It's just a thought.
Thank you. 35 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 The Chair notes the presence of Councilman David Cohen. Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following up on Councilman Kenney's questions. When we've done projects that require the TIF, in effect, we do an economic impact statement because we show the number of jobs that are created because that is what goes towards -- maybe not paying down the TIF -- but the life of the TIF. And we talk about over a 10-year or 20-year period, whatever the life of the TIF is, that the revenues that are generated via the various taxes that we are foregoing, so we are doing some sort of an economic impact statement on certain types of projects anyway. Is that correct so far?
That's correct, Councilman. And again following up on Councilman Kenney's statements. I know Councilman Cohen is an example, and a few other Members of Council, we talked about doing some other types of legislation, like tax exemptions or tax abatement Bills. We went 36 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 through the public process. We had public hearings. And you, myself, and other folks who were supporting those Bills had to go through lots and lots of time and testimony to try to explain why it was important to do these abatements, not necessarily because it was going to line the pockets of the rich or give a tax break. I can remember some of the comments coming out of a few of the Members of Council like, why would we do an abatement for somebody to move into a luxury condominium or apartment in Center City? Why are we giving the rich a tax break? And we would try to explain in our best way of explaining what that benefit was to the City by bringing new residents in, the economic impact, wage taxes, the sales taxes, and stuff like that. So I think we wind up getting to that point anyway, and I suspect that the intent of the legislation is to do that up front. I think that's the intent of the legislation. We wind up going down that path anyway. I don't see that it was a burden to any of the developers. Now, I could be wrong. And I think that's what Jimmy was asking you, if there's a way you can give us an example of who may not have come to town to develop had this Bill in place at the 37 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 time. You know what my position is. I want to get things done as well. I think most of us feel the same way. It is true that when people hear of certain types of legislation or certain types of development that there's public investment in, they immediately think that we're giving some rich developer monies that they normally should not be getting in the first place, that that money should be spent somewhere else. I think you and I had a conversation a while ago -- I would love to be able to get my hands on, if possible, a break-out of all of the jobs that were created in the building trades, as an example, because of the TIFs, because of the 10-year tax abatement and the 10-year exemptions, and their wage taxes, their sales taxes and all the other things that we're benefiting by so that the public understands that we're just not giving breaks to one or two individuals. We all benefit as result of that. And maybe this is not the best process for that today, but I think there's some sort a combination of what you would like to see and what's in here to come together. I think it would be a 38 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 wonderful document for the public to review.
Councilman, I don't have any problem with your sentiments or those expressed by Councilman Kenney. I believe that information should be provided. I think as Councilman Kenney pointed out, if we're able to clearly articulate the merits and the benefits of projects, that serves us all well and serves Council well also. My problem is taking that information providing process out of my hands and putting it into the hands of another party of which we have no control. I've said it in my testimony. I've said it in response to a question. I will say it one more time with emphasis. This will be viewed as another bureaucratic obstacle by the real estate development and investment community. That is not something we can afford to do.
Thank you. I'll have another question, Councilman Nutter, if I might ask him another question when we get to the amendment part. But for this part, for 39 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 general discussion, let me call on Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Cuorato, what is the real estate development investment community? Could you identify it? And could you name some projects that they're involved in, how this economic impact statement would prevent them from moving ahead or act as a disincentive? I don't understand that. See, a lot of people think that the current impact statement is a campaign impact statement that's considered. This would give the Administration a clear signal whereby they could publicly come out and indicate, so that nobody can have any question why they're doing it. What is the economic impact. Rather than have all of these rumors about campaign influence and campaign contributors. It seems this Bill is completely in the interest of the community. And why would a real estate developer be concerned at all to have this kind of information? If they want a free pass to the City's money supply or to the City's ability to raise money, I don't think they ought to have it because I don't think they have a good intent in mind. But if they're prepared to make a case, then 40 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 I think they have something they can talk about. I would think the real estate investment community would want to show from the beginning on the purpose of why they're seeking this assistance from the City. So I'm having great difficulty in understanding why you and the Administration would be opposed to it. My understanding is, at a state level every Bill must contain an economic impact statement. And it doesn't create any problems at all. It makes people think clearly before they ask and that's important. I'd like your comments on that.
I'll be glad to provide you with a list of developers who do business and are large investors in the City. And I can tell you that I deal with developers on a daily basis. I routinely hear about the difficulties of doing projects in the City of Philadelphia because of bureaucracy and regulatory approvals. And that goes beyond City Council. That's the different commissions and licenses and all the different approvals that are required.
And they may be right 41 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 with respect to that because we have a lot of nonsensical rules that they have to follow.
But what I'm saying is, for any development project for which we are seeking approval, we, the Administration, should submit to you the information that you require. And then when it comes time for a public hearing, the two people sitting at this table should be myself and the developer to answer any questions about a project. We should be able to give you all the information you need. There's no need for an independent analysis by the City Controller as part of this process. All of the information that you need can and should be provided by the Administration and the developer.
Well, I think, Mr. Cuorato, respectfully -- because I have a great deal of admiration for the way you've conducted the business -- I think you've got to do more than supply for what we need. We're not as experienced in the field as you are. We want to know how you've analyzed the matter. What are the considerations you've given to it? You're much better at developing the strength of an economic impact 42 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 statement than we are, because we're not experts. We're working in all the fields simultaneously. But we need to have from you something that indicates that your department has considered many different factors, you fit it into the current situation that exists and you find a conclusion after consideration of many factors, which you explain to us what the factors. We'll then have confidence in your judgment. And that's what we're looking for. We look for you to help guide us in our thinking, because none of us are experts in this field. We deal with it. We may easily miss a very important consideration. But we ought to be able to have the assurance that everything was thought of that had to be thought of with respect to the economic development's interest and the City's interest in that form of economic development. You're the expert in the field. You ought to tell us how you've analyzed it and what your considerations were and why you came to this conclusion. Then those who charge improper motivations or inappropriate considerations, whether illegal or not, won't have any argument. It will show the City means business. 43 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 The real estate developers, I think, will have much greater respect for the City. As it is now, I think they think we can skip over a lot of hurdles, that they're unimportant, that all they've got to do is get to you and get to the Mayor or get to Council, get to somebody who is going to carry their water for them without even knowing all the facts. We want to change that. We're not saying that that's the way it is now, but we'd like to have the assurance that you've given your expertise to every aspect of this, whatever the project is. That's the reason this seems to me to be a very good Bill. It's not perfect. We'll probably want to change it from time to time, but it's going to be a very useful tool for us and give us confidence in our judgment. When the community asks us why we did that, did you do that because so and so is a friend of the Mayor's or the head of PIDC or something like that, we'll be able to say, no. Here are the considerations that went into it. This is why we did it, because we were convinced for the following reasons, that it was a good thing. So I think it's a good Bill all around and I don't think it will cause any delay, because I'm sure before you 44 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 move ahead on the project you give thought to all of these considerations. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You are welcome. Are there further questions from Members of the Committee? Councilman Nutter.
Madam Chair, you said you had a question for me, I think, before Councilman Cohen.
My question was on your amendments. Councilman Goode has a question.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm trying not to take sides in this issue for several reasons. I will eventually have to vote on it one way or the other, but not necessarily today. I want to ask a couple questions just for clarification because I believe that, in coming to City Council, one of the things I tried to do in one of my first Resolutions is tried to establish public benefit criteria of economic 45 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 development projects. Knowing and understanding the need for more information, I have a few questions I want to pose to you, Mr. Cuorato, just to be fair in defense in some of my colleagues' positions. How long have you been with the City's Commerce Department on and off?
Well, my quick guess is no. Has Council ever severely altered a project over $50 million?
And then my third question is, why do you think that is?
I don't want to get into a 46 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 debate over NTI because I am not the NTI expert in the Administration. I know that that was a long process that did undergo quite a bit of revision during the process. I don't know if you would categorize that as --
I would not, because it is essentially a demolition project and it's still a demolition project. My question is, why do you think large scale projects have never been defeated in City Council and have never been severely altered?
I would hope that the answer is we've made a strong case that the projects are good for the City of Philadelphia, that they create jobs and strengthen our economic base and our arguments have been convincing and City Council has gone along with that position.
So you don't give any latitude to the fact that it might be a lack of information or lack of things being examined within the project or being presented to Council? Because in the end, my feeling is that whether we do it through economic impact statements done by the Controller or by some independent entity by the 47 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 Administration, what I hear my colleagues saying is that we need to define public benefit criteria, as I suggested that we do through a Resolution early on, that Council needs a way of examining economic development projects that is essentially consistent, so we consistently can make decisions and we consistently can make our case to the taxpayers about public investment. But my feeling has always been, particularly from having been on the other side, that essentially the case that has always been made has been very simple, is that the economic development projects create jobs. But there are more variables to be considered while examining an economic development project than whether it creates jobs or doesn't create jobs, particularly in light of the fact that we have absolutely no authority after the projects are done to actually track or monitor job creation.
I guess the question I'm asking is, it could be possible that, as been suggested, to have more information leads to less 48 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 questions as opposed to more questions?
If the issue is information or the lack there of, I'm certain that we are able to deal with that. And I say, we, meaning the Administration. Once again, getting back to this Bill, my problem is the injection of a third party into the process which can set up a mechanism for delay or obstruction of a project that we're anxious to move forward with.
And I might absolutely agree with that position, but I felt the need just because from having worked in the Commerce Department and from having focused on economic development here, from having dealt with the issue of public benefit criteria for economic development projects, I have raised concerns over the last few years about the fact that, at times, we actually received briefings for TIF projects that were basically one page long. It's just a series of sentences. They were actually summaries, as opposed to analyses. So I'm not getting into a debate about whether it should be the Controller or whether it should be an independent entity or whether it should 49 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 come from the Administration, but how we standardize criteria in terms of what we're examining in terms of public benefit. And I guess my question is, don't you believe that it's possible that Council has not rejected any projects or severely altered any projects simply because the only public benefit criteria was job creation and that we would benefit in terms of a better investment of public dollars in economic development projects, particularly large scale economic development projects, if we examine more public benefit criteria, other than just job creation?
I think it's a follow-up on Councilman Goode's position. We've sat here many times -- Mr. Cuorato, you know that -- and the information has not been forthcoming. And then at the last minute we're asked, you've got to do this because the 50 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 deadline is yesterday. And you've got to pass this because if you don't do it now, it will just go out the window; it will not be done. That was the arguments on the stadiums. It took a year actually to sign the contracts after we approved the legislation on that midnight night of December. And we provide a certain amount of information about the economics and benefits of certain things. And I think we prove in terms of the stadium that, other than the feel good aspect of it, it's not going to be an economic development machine as such. So I can't go along with that aspect that you just say, we're going to do it and you've got to trust us to do it, because that relationship really hasn't been established. We have had and we approved projects in this Body here over the years, even before you got here to the position, that really have been with very little information as to their economic impact and how the City taxpayers were going to benefit from it, other than the Administration said, "we need it now." I think this legislation is needed.
Thank you very much. 51 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 Councilman Nutter.
We're going into election cycle where all kinds of issues are going to be discussed. Everybody is aware of the fact of this very important election six, seven, eight months down the road, but it's going to be a heavy campaign time. One of the issues is going to be, as Governor Rendell has suggested, well, is it a fact that the Mayor of the City is his own worst enemy? Because he seems to not be very communicative. That's the general consideration of everybody. Everybody wants a Mayor like Rendell seemed to be -- I'm not saying he was -- but I said he seemed to be open, ready to schmooze with anybody, ready to discuss any issue at any time. I think this legislation is important to define a Democratic Administration of openness. A Democratic Administration ought to want to make it 52 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 known to people, we have nothing to hide, everything is on the table. If it's the beginning of a project and we haven't had time to study the whole thing, we're going to say that. We're going to tell you how much we've studied, what there is yet to study, and what our conclusions are thus far, and we'll keep you advised as we go along. We've gone far enough to recommend this. But it's still got a hearing process and we're going to continue to study and we'll let Council know. I think that if the Administration continues its reclusive policy of shutting out everybody else and saying, "Trust the Mayor, he's got all the wisdom in the world," I'll tell you maybe it works in other parts of the world, but it's not going to work in the United States because we happen not to believe in that philosophy. By the "we" in this case, I don't mean just the City Council, I mean everybody. Everybody is concerned about openness. Everybody wants to feel the government is open to them. " That's not the way it ought to work. And that's not the way it's going to work, if this Council has anything to do with it. I think just the opposition of the Administration to this Bill hurts us, hurts everybody in Philadelphia to have the Administration compel its spokespeople to come here and say, "Trust us. Don't worry about economic impact. We will take care of that. " And so, Mr. Cuorato, I think you've got a very important issue here. I don't want to blame you because I know you may not be in a position to make the decision. But we're going to fight any such concept because we think it's bad government. I think it's wrong to tell the people of Philadelphia, the City of Philadelphia makes important investments without being in a position to explain fully the economic impact. We don't think the people are important enough or are in a position to know what's good for them. We're going to make the decision for them, and they've got to take it. We're not going to take it. The people of 54 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 Philadelphia aren't going to take it. And I wish this Democratic Administration would speak like a Democratic Administration -- I mean capital D's, not small D's -- like a Democratic Party that's open to the people. We have that responsibility. And this Bill is aimed at showing that we meet our obligations as a Democratic Party. This is a Democratic City Administration, but it's being challenged. It's being tested. I think that's a good procedure to have, challenge and testing. I'm all for the two-party system. Maybe it ought to be three or four or five parties that I don't know. But certainly, we've got to at least have two parties. And no Mayor can take the position, I have all the information and what I do has to be accepted without question. That's what Mayor Street is apparently asking us to do when he says, "Don't be concerned about economic impact. Take my judgment. " That's the reason this is so important and why I certainly hope this Council is going to be ready to make this a major issue in this Philadelphia.
55 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 We know you may not be able to even respond to that statement because of the reclusive aspect. Everybody is talking about it in Philadelphia. The newspaper articles are talking about it. Columnists are talking about it. The City Administration ought not to hide from that charge. It ought to face it and it ought to make it clear that the charge is untrue and that this City Administration wants everybody to be an informed citizen and have an opinion based upon the revelation of facts, facts that the City Administration places before us, and permits us to challenge them. When we challenge those facts and we prove unsuccessful in our ability to find fault with that, then you've got the best case you want and you give the people of full confidence. If there's anything you want to say in reply to my comments, feel free to do so, but you don't have to, because I am convinced that the way the City Administration operates today, it is a one-person operation. And that's bad. That's not good for the City of Philadelphia to be so viewed. We ought to be able to put all the facts out before everybody and have everybody convinced it's a good 56 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 thing. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, with all due respect, and if I may, I would like to respond.
Start with the whole issue. I think this is a good time to raise it.
The Mayor appointed me to this position and charged me with heading up our economic development efforts in Philadelphia, and I take my job very seriously. The Mayor has given me broad responsibility to bring new businesses into the City, to get projects moving forward, to create jobs. There are no restrictions on my activities. There is no one who has compelled me to testify regarding any legislation. In my position as Director of Commerce, I feel very strongly about the position that I am taking today. I have communicated that position with the Mayor and was basically encouraged to express my position. And I am representing the 57 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 Administration in my position as Director of Commerce, and I will tell you I feel very strongly about the views that I've expressed today with respect to this legislation. If I can just also comment on what I sense is a common thread that I've heard from Councilman Ortiz, Councilman Cohen, and Councilman Goode that has to do with the provision of information, and I say this with all due respect to Councilman Nutter who is the Bill's sponsor and with whom I've worked on a number of projects, and I think we've had a good working relationship. If there is criticism of the way information is supplied to Council for economic development projects, then we should listen to that and we should respond. If there are questions now about the amount of information that is provided as we go forward for economic development projects that we bring to you, we should address that now. And this gets back to Councilman Goode's point. And I'm fine with that. If the issue is information coming too late for Council to have a chance to fully consider it, then we should take steps to remedy that. And as the head of the economic development in the City, 58 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 it's my job to do that. However, having said all of that, this Bill will not address those issues. This Bill will add another layer of bureaucracy to a system that is already too complicated and already too time consuming. This Bill brings in a third party over whom we do not have control. It sets no timing parameters and it gives the City Controller the ability to stop a project that we may want very much to support. That's where I have the problem here today.
Mr. Cuorato, I don't mean to interrupt you, but your last statement for me may have, at a minimum, touched a little bit of a nerve. That statement would almost leave the impression that your rejection of the third party, which is the Controller who, last I checked, is actually a part of the government, over whom you don't have control, might lead one to think that you would rather deal with Council, who you believe you may have some control over. I mean, what are you saying here?
Councilman, let me clarify. The issue with a third party is both 59 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 timing --
It's not some unknown entity pulled out of the sky. It's the City Controller of Philadelphia. He's listed in the City Charter. There is a clear role and responsibility. He has the ability, I think, under the Charter to stop any payments to anyone for anything; is that true?
We're not talking about some munchkin, some minimized entity that's just kind of hanging out, out there. It's a fairly serious, weighty, important job. Do you think the Controller -- I'm not speaking of the current one. Do you think anyone in that position -- although I think our Controller has been in office at least three terms now -- do you think he doesn't take his job seriously? Does he ever willy-nilly by happenstance, woken up one morning and said, "You know, I'm not going to pay any bills today. I think I'm not going to do my job or my responsibility. I think I'm not going to audit anybody for the next couple months." I mean, what are you talking about?
This legislation gives the 60 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 City Controller the right to hold up a project, and that's not right.
You are wrong. And we're are just going to argue about that for a long period of time. You are absolutely wrong. If you would read the section and not have it already embedded in your mind as to what it says, it says there's a need for a request. If the Controller never responds, you know as well as I do -- if you read 17-1102(1)(B), the person makes the request. If the Controller never responds, you add the letter that you made the request to the legislation, end of discussion. Now, that's what it says. You may not believe that's what it says. You may not read it that way, but that's what the words say.
Councilman, respectfully, when is never? You said the City Controller never responds --
Mr. Cuorato, read the legislation. 61 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015
It says, you make the request. And if there is a response, you attach it. But you have met your obligation under 17-1102(1)(A). You have met the obligation. It says, either you do A or you do B. Now, that's what it says. What does it say? Why don't you read it into the record? Tell me what it says. And you tell me why you're confused. It says, "A Bill or Resolution that authorizes or approves funding for a City-funded development project" -- and I'm going to now read from the amended version, because you have the amendments -- "must include as an exhibit either: A, an economic impact statement prepared in accordance with Subsection 2; or the City Controller's statement as to why an economic impact statement was not prepared or why in the City Controller's opinion an economic impact statement is not needed; or B, a statement from the sponsor or interested party" -- that could be you -- "detailing the attempts that have been made to comply with Subsection A, including a copy of a written request 62 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 to the City Controller to prepare an economic impact statement for the project and any written response from the City Controller to such request." If you have no response, you don't even have to deal with that part of the question.
Yes, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I apologize for raising my voice, but you know me long enough to know that if somebody is going to put an inappropriate or incorrect statement on the record related to anything that I'm working on, I'm going to resist it at every turn.
Well, I was waiting until the stated meeting to discuss the amendment, but since we are in general only discussing the Bill, then we'll allow it for our public hearing. But that's my question. "A statement from the sponsor or interested party," could an interested party, for example, be Acorn? Who's an interested party?
Well, suppose it is Acorn? 63 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015
Well, I support Acorn, Councilman. Give me a break now. Let me ask my question. I support Acorn. I was in an hour-long meeting with Acorn last night. My question is, would the interested party be a City agency --
-- or a Councilperson? Councilman Cohen, don't assume somebody is on the other side of something because they ask a question, now.
Madam Chair, in B, that sentence, "a statement from the sponsor," naturally, 99 times out of a 100, a sponsor is a Councilmember. Or the interested party, as we know, we get legislation that comes over to us that is sponsored by the Administration. It comes to the President. More often times than not you introduce it as majority leader. That would be the interested party. That's a government entity. Most of these projects, naturally, are either Commerce Department driven or they are PIDC driven, maybe Redevelopment Authority, maybe Public Property. But on our blue 64 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 backs, on our legislation, it will usually say, interested party, and that's who that would be. It is a government entity.
Thanks. If the Controller decides that he doesn't want to reply to the Mayor or to the Bill sponsor, even if the Bill 8 is going on a track -- and you said the time frame does not effect the passage of a Bill. What if the Controller -- I don't know how -- but what if the Controller then gets a letter from Councilman Cohen asking for this and the Controller decides, I don't want to respond, then how do we view that? Will not that be viewed in a political context, as everything is these days? How do we view that?
I'm trying to be less political, actually. But at least from a legislative standpoint -- and I think it goes right to the heart of Mr. Cuorato's concern. The requirement of one, under 17-1102, is that the Bill or the Resolution 22 must include as an exhibit and then it says, either. In the scenario that you laid out, the request having been made, regardless of what the Controller does or doesn't do, fulfills that requirement. A 65 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 request was made. If a Controller refuses to accept delivery of the letter, if the Controller never responds, if the Controller says, "I got your letter and I'll be glad to talk to you the 1st of never," that's the end of that conversation. The request was made. That's what I was trying to convey to Mr. Cuorato. And, again, I apologize for my rather excited nature. But I try as best as possible, and sometimes I don't succeed, to be clear. And I think what, again, happens here is Mr. Cuorato, as a part of his job, has to look at every possible scenario; both the real, the potential and even at times playing things out to an illogical conclusion. I understand that. But we're legislators. We write words on a piece of paper and words have meaning. And because of that concern and because of the veto message, I wrote that provision in so that the Controller will not be able to hold up a project, regardless of what the Controller's view is or view is not. Again, the Controller is an independent third party. The Controller is also elected. Now, if the Controller decides that in the course of 66 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 doing his or -- at some future point in time -- her job, that these requests are coming in for -- as Councilman Goode pointed out again -- $50 million plus projects, which are not the norm around here, the Controller continues to refuse to respond to requests for economic impact statements on these kinds of projects -- and I'm not saying anything about Controller Saidel -- I think members of the general public, if not this City Council, will start to wonder about whether the Controller is doing his or her job.
If we ask the Controller now for any information on a project, he gives it. I mean, a Controller has never --
And that was actually going to be one of my questions to Mr. Cuorato.
We have a point of information. Councilman Goode.
Mr. Cuorato, I hate to ask this question, but I have to. For the record, isn't part of your concern with this Bill 25 the fact that the Controller being involved in the 67 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 process precludes finalizing negotiation on a project?
Councilman, could you give me the last part of that question?
Isn't part of your concern with the Controller being involved in this process the fact that the Controller having to be involved in this process actually precludes finalizing negotiation on a project?
It creates an uncertainty and an unpredictability about the process. When we're negotiating with a developer for a major transaction --
Because to a certain extent, public benefit and economic impact are actually negotiated and are very fluid. They don't become objective until actually the project has finalized negotiation.
And are taken into consideration by us as we're negotiating the transaction. 68 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015
It gets back again to the timing and the unpredictability of the issue. When we're negotiating a major transaction with a developer, there may be a hundred issues that we have to address. And as we're narrowing these down, we always have our eye on economic benefits to the City, jobs, increase to the tax base, positive impact on the surrounding community. These are all factors that we take into consideration. As we're negotiating the transaction, we may be more willing to give up on certain items if there is an impact that we see that might necessarily be quantified. And a lot of times, those will come towards the very end of the process.
For example, you can't determine cost per job. While you may know how many jobs, you can't determine cost per job until you know how much money you're going to give them.
And so that is 69 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 something that is actually set in stone after the deal is final, but it cannot be even an independent analysis about what the cost per job could be because a cost per job could be anything up until the point where you decide how much you're going to give the developer.
Madam Chair, if I may, just one last response to the last comment by my friend Councilman Nutter.
The language in the Bill 16 talks about a written request from the sponsor to the City Controller to prepare an EIS, and any written response from the City Controller to such request.
17-1102(B), the language that you just read into the record.
The uncertainty comes from 70 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 us writing to the Controller, and in the Councilman's words, if the Controller never responds, end of story. And my question back to the Councilman was, when is never? So if I come back in two weeks and say, I've gotten no response from the City Controller. Is that acceptable? Who knows? In some people's eyes, two weeks may be a long time. In some people's eyes, two weeks may be no time at all. The Controller may be at a busy time of the year. If I come back in 30 days and I haven't heard anything from the Controller, does that constitute compliance with this Ordinance? Nobody knows. Is 30 days enough time? Is 30 days unreasonable? If I come back in 90 days and I haven't heard anything from the Controller, is that a reasonable time? There are no time frames given in this Bill. It sets up a total situation of unpredictability.
So let me ask you a question, Mr. Cuorato. What's a reasonable time frame for you?
I was addressing your specific citing of this provision of the Bill. And I'll answer your question, but I don't want my 71 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 answer to the question to be interpreted as my support for injecting the City Controller into this process.
I understand you're opposed to that. You've raised the issue a number of times. And then I'm going to tell you why there's nothing there. You've raised the issue a number of times that there's no time frame. My problem initially with putting it in is that whatever was put in there was going to be objected to by you guys. So that's why I want to know what is an acceptable time frame from your perspective?
Well, once we establish a time frame, and I certainly would argue for a short a time frame as possible.
I have to leave the Chamber for Council business. If any vote comes on amendments or any of the Bills on the calendar today, I would like to be recorded as voting aye, but I hope to get back before the vote. Thank you.
For any time frame that would be inserted, I certainly would argue for as short a time frame as possible. But even at that, let me just -- and again, you pointed out, 72 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 Councilman, as part of my job, I have to look at every possible scenario. So I write to the Controller requesting an economic impact statement. In three weeks, the Controller writes back to me and says, "This is a very complex project you've presented to us and it's going to take an independent analyst to do this. And we will go through the process of selecting someone and we'll do the analysis and we'll be back to you in 90 days." I could lose a deal.
See, that's my problem with your whole conclusion there. That's the answer. You made a request. You got a letter back. All we're saying is, attach that to the Bill. That's the end of that discussion. What we do with it is an entirely separate story. Because the Council may decide that that response is not adequate for our purposes in making a decision and go on ahead with the project. That's the whole issue, Mr. Cuorato.
But it puts me on the defensive of having to come here and say to you --
You are not on the defensive. You got a response from the City 73 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 Controller. I think our response is, "Mr. Controller, a request was made of you. We have a big project in front of us. A request was made of you in a timely fashion to get an economic impact statement. You sent us this garbage letter back that it's going to take you 90 days. It's not acceptable." But you have met your requirement under the Bill. It's not your problem at that point.
The City Controller holds up a copy of this Bill and says, "City Council wants me to do an economic impact analysis. If you want me to do an economic impact analysis, it's going to take me 90 days to do it." Then I'm on the defensive because I've got to come here and say to you --
And you're going to say, that doesn't meet our time table.
But I'm on the defensive because I then have to come here and convince you that I can't wait 90 days. And I would much prefer a scenario where I've given you all the information you asked for --
Why don't you do the 74 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 EIS up front?
Why don't you do the EIS up front and include it with the Bill? You are arguing against logic here. If you send us over a Bill -- you don't draft these Bills overnight. There's a lot of time and attention put into deals, certainly a $50 million deal. Why don't you just save yourself all the aggravation and send over the economic impact statement attached? You've done your work up front. You are not going to walk in here next Thursday with a $50 million deal; isn't that true? Don't they take time?
Okay. Then why wouldn't you make the request at the earliest time that you think that you're going to be working on a project, get your economic impact statement up front and attach it to the Bill? You've added no time to the project. You've created no delay here in City Council -- you're shaking your head. What does that mean?
Going back to the point 75 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 that Councilman Goode makes, I can't ask the Controller three months before a deal might be done or an Ordinance might be introduced in Council to do an economic impact analysis when, in fact, we may be in negotiating terms right up until time when legislation is going to be introduced, and then we have to go back and do the whole thing over again.
Because if I try to start the process too early and the transaction ends up not looking like what it did when I asked the Controller to do the economic impact analysis, then we're being redundant and we're going to do the same work over again.
We're going to ask the Controller, "Well, we asked you 90 days ago to do an economic impact analysis for a project, and by the way, the project has completely changed because of the transaction we've negotiated, so now we're going to ask you to do it again. And, oh, by the way, it's going to take another 90 days." There's too 76 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 much uncertainty associated with bringing a third party into this. If on the other hand you put the onus on me to give you all the information that you need, I'll give it you.
But just remember that this conversation started with your complaint that there wasn't a defined time period. Now you're saying that even you are finding it difficult to put a defined time period to it; isn't that your statement now?
And I asked you a question, so give me an answer. What's the time frame you'd like on the tail end of that sentence?
I was responding to a very specific statement you made in defense of this provision that said, we write to the City Controller. If the City Controller never responds, then end of story.
And you said, how long. And I said, tell me what time frame you'd like. I'm still waiting for an answer. 77 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015
But, Councilman, it can't just be a time frame, because then I'll give you a time frame and then I'm going to take you right to the next phrase, which is written response from the City Controller. So I'll give you a time frame, but then you and I are going to debate what a written response from the City Controller has to say.
Why are we going to debate that? I don't care what it says.
If there's no response whatsoever or if the City Controller comes back and says, "This is a complex project. It's going to take 90 days." I come back to you. Is that a written response that means end of story? No. 16 Maybe it is and maybe it's not.
As far as I'm concerned, it is, if it fills a requirement of Section 1. A request was made. A response was given.
To you it does. Other Members of Council may say, "Let's wait 90 days."
Well, suppose the Bill never existed and somebody asked the same question and you came back with the same answer and under your scenario it was unacceptable? What do you mean, you lose a project?
Because I can control the timing of any information that I provide to you. You call me up and say, I want to know how many Philadelphia residents are going to be employed on this job. I'll get you the information in hours. 12 I can control that. I can control that. If a third 13 party is doing the analysis, I can't control it. 14
What happens if you 17 bring the Bill to us and we decide we're going to do 18 an impact study? What does it do to your deal? 19 Because we have to right to do that, too, once the 20 Bill is introduced. 21
If the issue is the 23 timing of the project and whether or not you lose 24 the deal, once you bring it here we could decide, well, we need an impact study and we can go out and 79 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 get a third party. It doesn't take 90 days; it takes six months.
Councilwoman, you're absolutely right. Council can do an economic impact analysis on anything that we bring to you. My problem is legislating that the City Controller has to do this.
And he's going to do an audit of the project at the end of the project.
You know the City Controller has the responsibility as to how government money is spent in the City of Philadelphia. Why do you oppose him? That's what he's there for. And if he calls attention to something, we ought to pay attention to it. Then the decision is ours. Why do feel you ought to have the right to go ahead with the project even if the City Controller says, "This is a huge waste of money; the project has no merit"? Is that what you're saying, you don't want to be interfered with? You want to control the flow of information to us? 80 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 You have no right to control that flow of information to us. We want it from everybody, not just from the proponents of a project. We want to hear from the opponents of a project so we can make a sound decision. You sound just like the Mayor. No 8 wonder you don't have to talk to the Mayor. You're following his view. You want to have the absolute right. You're not going to get it from this Council because it would violate the Home Rule Charter. It would violate the best interests of the citizens of the City. Why do you feel you ought to have the right to control the flow of information to the Council?
I think we need another office because we need somebody to control the Controller and then we're there.
That's right. The Controller could be out of control, and we need somebody to control the Controller, since we're creating new jobs and responsibilities. Councilman Nutter. 81 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015
Madam Chair, I know that you have some questions for me on the amendments, and I also saw your note and I've made what I think might be a potential response to that. I just need to ask Mr. Cuorato, I think, maybe two questions. One, the developers that you mentioned earlier that do projects in the City, do they conduct their own feasibility studies or economic impact statements before they spend their money?
Forget about the City. I'm in the development business. I want to build a big building. Does the president of the organization or the CEO or the chairman just say, "Hey, today we're going to build XYZ building. It's going to cost ABC amount of money. Start work tomorrow." Is that what they do?
Forget about the City. I'm just talking about business people, how they spend their money. Does the chief financial 82 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 officer, does the investment officer, does the comptroller of the company, does a clerk in the mail room, does somebody say, "What's it going to cost and what's it going to do for us and what's the cost benefit analysis and what's the return on investment and what is this going to mean for the company?" Is that what they do when they're trying to figure out how to spend their money?
So do you think that the City Controller would inappropriately or unnecessarily seek to not provide an economic impact statement, if asked?
That's a fair response. Under the framework that we've laid out in some of the discussion that we've had here, do you feel we have a need for a City Controller?
As it relates to this Bill, or is that a general overall philosophical question?
It's not a 83 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030015 philosophical question. It's a public policy question.
As it relates to this Bill, I believe the City Controller has no role --
Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair, you had some questions for me on the proposed amendments?
I think we've explored my questions in this wonderful, positive discussion. Do we have more questions about this Bill?
I do want to put the amendments forward and I want to seek to incorporate what you had given me.
All right. Do you want to do that in the stated meeting part after 84 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILLS 030022, 0300023 we discuss the next two Bills?
All right. We will now have the Clerk read the titles of the next two Bills introduced by Councilman Goode, Bill Nos. 030022, 030023. After the titles of the Bills are read, Councilman Goode will make opening statements and then we'll ask you for your testimony.
Bill No. 030002, an Ordinance amending Chapter 19-200 of the Philadelphia Code entitled, "City Funds - Deposits, Investments, Disbursements," by prohibiting the City Treasurer from depositing funds in banks and institutions that have failed to submit statements of community reinvestment goals for low and moderate income neighborhoods in the City of Philadelphia, under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 030023, an Ordinance 24 amending Chapter 19-200 of the Philadelphia Code entitled, "City Funds - Deposits, Investments, 85 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILLS 030022, 0300023 Disbursements," by revising the list of City depositories because of non-compliance with certain provisions of that Chapter, under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try to move very quickly, although I do have some ground to cover. For Members of the Committee, there is a red folder here that actually contains the reinvestment statements that have been offered by the banks that offer them. Also, the package with the binder clip on it is actually related to these two Bills. I just wanted to start by saying that when I came to City Council a few years ago, one of the first things that I did within my first month of being sworn in was issue a report, the Greater Philadelphia Capital Access report, which was focused on small business lending within the region. The report showed that 90 percent of the lending was concentrated in middle and upper income neighborhoods, that only 10 percent of lending 86 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILLS 030022, 0300023 resources were available to low and moderate income neighborhoods. In September of that year, I met with Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition's Committee on Community and Economic Development and began to work with some of the banking members of that community on a solution to that. That solution was never really forthcoming by members of that committee. After that, I actually met with members of the banking community to try to forward how we would resolve this problem and address the issue of disparity in lending between low and moderate income neighborhoods and middle and upper income neighborhoods in separate meetings. Still, no real proposal was forthcoming. I've offered additional reinvestment legislation, including the forming of a commission where members of the banking community sit. And this past fall, we actually held hearings on the state of community reinvestment within the City, with particular attention still paid to small business lending. And we found that, since my initial policy legislative work a couple of years 87 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILLS 030022, 0300023 ago, actually, that disparity had actually widened. At that point we found within testimony at that hearing that the banking community wanted to be represented by the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition. They chose to be represented by the Federal Reserve Bank, which I felt was inappropriate. In the last week or so, they chose to be represented by the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce in trying to not only oppose these two Bills through those entities, but also escape their individual policy positions. We actually have had no direct response from any member of the banking community. I've met with several over the last week or two, over the last several months, before the hearings in the fall. No bank, First Union, PNC, Citizens, Commerce, United Bank or any other bank has opposed these Bills directly. In fact, I'm very proud of what they have done in actually issuing their reinvestment statement. Because of the statements they have issued -- and you'll find the full statements in the red package and summaries of the statements within the package with the binder on it. Because members of this Council passed a Fair 88 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILLS 030022, 0300023 Lending Law, co-introduced by all members of Council, passed by all Members of Council, signed by the Mayor, we have a commitment this year for those five banks mentioned before of 1,377 small business loans, 3,056 home improvement loans, home mortgages, other refinances and community development 8 investments. I think for the $361 million we have 9 invested in those banks, deposit in those banks on a 10 daily basis, it's only right that they tell us what 11 they're going to do in low and moderate income 12 communities. 13 So on one hand, I salute those five 14 banks for their reinvestment statements.
I have to 15 note for the record that through the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, through the Pennsylvania Bankers Association, through Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition, they still behind the scenes are trying to shelf their responsibility of telling us on an annual basis how they will reinvest in our communities. Interestingly enough, the vehicle they're trying to use is Act 55, which is a law that was passed on the state level to actually take action against legislation authored by Councilwoman Tasco in her 89 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILLS 030022, 0300023 fight against predatory lending. And while they claim that they can preempt any legislation that we offer in this Council, I believe that the City and the City Solicitor can defend its actions and decide what they do with City depositories. We decide, as a matter of Home Rule, who we deposit our money in. This Council decides, as a matter of Home Rule, who is authorized to receive those deposits, not only by the last Charter, but by the Charter before it. Even by the 1919 Charter, that power is invested in this Council to decide who is authorized. So those statements, I will just say that I look forward to the testimony. I plan on moving, taking action on the first Bill today, 030022. I'm planning on amending the second Bill because, actually, there's a technical mistake in it. The way the Bill reads now, it actually lists the five banks that we want to keep as City depositories because of their commitments. We actually need to make that technical amendment to show the banks that we would actually be striking from the list of City depositories in order to keep those five. I want to keep that Bill in Committee after amending it, not 90 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILLS 030022, 0300023 only to deal with some of the technical issues involved and to make sure that we are legally amending it by holding another hearing on it, but also, I don't think we should take the responsibility of axing City depositories lightly. So I want this Committee, I want this full Council to do it and to do it for the right reasons, decide which ones we will ax. And finally, I would note for the record that the actual list of City depositories actually needs a lot of cleaning up anyway, because there are banks that are defunct, have merged and so forth. So I will be taking action on 22, but I will actually seek to amend and keep it in Committee. 16 Thank you, Madam Chair. 17
Thank you, 18 Councilman. 19 Please identify yourself for the record. 20 Good morning. 21
First, I'd like to make note that there is an error in my written testimony. 91 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILLS 030022, 0300023
Good Morning, Chairwoman Blackwell. I'm Corey Kemp, the City Treasurer. I want to make note that there is an error in my written testimony. It speaks to the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development instead of the Finance Committee. I apologize for that oversight. Like I said before, I am Corey Kemp, City Treasurer. With me is Joseph Faraldo, Deputy City Treasurer. We are here to provide information relative to Bill No. 030022, which requires the City Treasurer on July 1st of each year to certify to the President of Council whether or not each bank on the list of City depositories have provided the City with an annual statement of community reinvestment goals. Bill No. 030022 also requires the City Treasurer to withdraw all funds from any bank or institution that has not complied with this requirement. The following banks have provided information pertaining to their annual statements of community reinvestment goals: Citizens Bank, whose goals include 800 residential mortgage loans, 200 home improvement 92 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILLS 030022, 0300023 loans, 300 small business loans and community development loans. Commerce Bank, whose goals include 150 residential loans, 50 home improvement loans, 80 small business loans and $3 million of grants in community investments. First Union, whose goals include 1,290 residential mortgage and home improvement loans and 579 small business loans. PNC, whose goals include 500 residential mortgage and home improvement loans, 400 small business loans and $1,500,000 of grant funding in community development investments. United Bank, whose goals include small business loans, 66 consumer loans, 500 student loans, 500 credit card approvals and 30 loans to disabled individuals. Mellon Bank, HSBC, and Republic First Bank also provided information in response to their community reinvestment goals. We are also here to provide information relative to Bill No. 030023. To be considered as a City depository, a bank or financial institution must be insured by a federal corporation, have been 93 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILLS 030022, 0300023 established for a minimum of five years, have been profitable for at least two years and have a minimum of $100 million in assets. Banks or institutions designated by City Council as depositories of City funds shall deposit with a Federal Reserve Bank or another commercial bank, secure these as described in Chapter 19-201, Section 4A as collateral for such deposits. The process to change depositories could prove to be difficult and take considerable time. A new depository to handle the corresponding City funds will have to be selected and the proper procedures put in place to make a smooth transition. This change could also require the task of setting up accounts, making sure that our computer systems are compatible, and the involvement of other departments within the City government. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today. I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee has for me at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Kemp. Questions from Members of the Committee? 94 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILLS 030022, 0300023 Councilman Goode.
Mr. Kemp, very quickly. Which banks do you view as being in compliance with the Fair Lending Law?
Citizens Bank, Commerce Bank, First Union National Bank, PNC, United. And I also included Mellon, HSBC and Republic First Bank because they did reply to the request for information.
If we were to limit the list of City depositories to those eight, would that provide any problems in terms of our depository relationships in terms of where our money is deposited at this point?
If we limit it to the five that I've talked about that actually presented numerical goals, would that present any particular problems?
It would only because Mellon Bank has our pension payroll account, which obviously we use to pay our pensioners on a monthly 95 3/26/03 - FINANCE - BILLS 030022, 0300023 basis. So we would have to make some changes to that.
For the record, can we ask them again for numerical goals?
Thank you very much. Are there further questions from Members of the Committee with regard to either of these two Bills? (No response.)
Thank you very much. We will then close our public hearing and enter into stated meeting. - - - COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 96 PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE - - - March 26, 2003 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Finance, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 030015, 030022, 030023. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN TASCO - - - 97 03/26/03 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING
The Chair would like to recognize Councilman Nutter with regard to amendments to Bill No. 030015.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the proposed amendments have been circulated with regard to 030015. There is one additional amendment that I wish to put forward at the Chair's recommendation with regard to some of the discussion around the term, "interested party." We put on the record what the legislative intention was, but I think the Chair's note on that, what I would suggest is that I could in that -- on , Section 17-1102(B), right after the phrase, "interested party," Madam Chair, I could put in parentheses or suggest in parentheses, "which may be the City, a City" --
Excuse me one moment. We're going to write exactly what you say. You want the words, "which may be"?
Yes. I was going to insert it right after "interested party" and then put in parentheses so that it's defining the 98 03/26/03 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING interested party. "(Which may be the City, a City-related agency or Member of City Council)" and then the sentence would continue, detailing the attempts.
All right. And I believe the other amendments have been circulated?
The other amendments have been circulated and they are printed and I'll tremendously quickly go through. On , 17-1102, in one, that sentence could have been read to be construed that a member could not introduce a Bill or Resolution on a particular matter. Obviously, that actually doesn't make any sense, and I would not be seeking to prevent any member from introducing anything. So the word "no" is deleted and the word "a" to start that sentence is added. The other significant amendment is on , number 5. It strikes the first sentence which reads, "It shall be the duty of the City Controller upon receiving a written request from the Mayor or a Member of Council to provide an economic impact statement or other statement required by Subsection 1A." That addresses a concern raised by 99 03/26/03 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING the Law Department as to Council's legal authority to require action by the City Controller. They have a very long and detailed legal explanation about the separation between the two entities, but suffice to say, I want to address that particular issue. And then all of the other amendments are listed in the Bill, but those were the significant ones.
Madam Chair, I would move the adoption of the amendments as printed, and as read into the record, the additional one regarding better defining "interested parties" to Bill 030015. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment as read and also circulated for Bill No. 030015 be approved. All in favor? (Aye.)
The ayes have it. And so the amendment is reported out of this stated meeting. 100 03/26/03 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion for Bill No. 030015, as amended.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 030015 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)
The ayes have it. And therefore, Bill No. 030015, as amended, has been reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and also a recommendation for suspension of the Rules so as to be considered at our next Session of Council. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Goode with regard to Bill 030022. 101 03/26/03 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 030022 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended as to permit first reading at our next Council Session. (Duly seconded.)
It has moved and seconded that Bill No. 030022 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and also a recommendation for a suspension of the Rules so as to be considered at our next Session of Council. All in favor? (Aye.)
Councilman Goode, we would like to recognize you with a statement with regard to Bill No. 030023.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to Bill 030023, I circulated amendments to all Members of the Committee and I move for the approval of the amendment. (Duly seconded.) 102 03/26/03 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING
It has been moved and seconded that amendment to Bill No. 030023 be approved. All in favor? (Aye.)
Therefore, the amendment to Bill No. 030023 has been approved. Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to hold that Bill as amended in Committee for further hearings.
All right. Thank you very much. This will end our Finance hearing. We thank all Members of the Committee as well as all those who testified and who are here. Thank you. (Council adjourned at 12:20 p.m.) 103 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 March 26, 2003, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public