Please. I'd like to see the overall aspect of the dissolution of those two companies, the merging aspect of it and the creation -- where is the new company based?
We don't have a president. I'm one of the two managing partners.
Who is the other managing partner? 90 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377
A man in Boston named Mr. Pascal (ph), Ross Pascal. But I'd be happy to lay out the entire organizational scheme for you, if you'd like to see it.
I'd like to see the aspects of the corporate structure. Are you listed, or is it a privately-held company?
And I'd like to see all of the business negotiations across the country that you're into. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just a couple few last questions, Madam Chair. Thank you. These are more transaction-related questions. But first, Mr. Shelkrot, let me ask you a Library-related question.
What's the level of briefing or information that the Library Board has received about this transaction? 91 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377
The Library Board sought information from its own counsel, that is, the Foundation Board's counsel, to understand it a little bit better. I did receive a diagram explaining this transaction. It was either early last week or the end of the week before. It has not yet been presented to the Board.
So the Board has not been briefed about this transaction; is that what you're telling me?
Not in detail. But the Board has discussed the concept of a sale lease-back that would provide $30 million. The Board does not usually get into the details of how the City makes funding available.
If you were getting $30 million from the Capital Budget, you're right, you probably wouldn't be all that concerned about it. On the other hand, it's not every day that we sell the Library, so the Board might have a little more interest in this type of transaction than getting a $30 million check from Mr. Kemp over here. 92 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377
I understand. My question is, have they had a full briefing by all the parties involved similar to the parties who are here today to sit down and take the Board step-by-step through this transaction? Has that happened?
Okay. Thank you. Ms. Davis and Mr. Kemp, let me ask a couple questions. Has the $60 million proposed to be received from this transaction, has it been included in the revenue estimates for FY '04?
In light of that, how will you spend any of these proceeds?
It has to come back to City Council to be appropriated and transferred.
So even if this were to go forward, you still have to come back here? In essence, if this transaction were approved by us at this point, you still would not be able to spend the 93 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 money even --
-- with possible approval of this side of the transaction?
We're taking advantage of where the market is, because the lower their rates are, the lower our rate will be. And the fact that we want to get it done as quickly and efficiently as we can. We've looked at it for a year. And we have other transactions that will occupy Mr. Kemp during the fall, so we wanted to get this one done because we've done our due diligence. The market is making this very attractive.
I can certainly appreciate all those issues. You've had an opportunity to work on it for about a year. We've had documents, I think, since last Thursday. And we got some amount of information in the course of a colloquy back in February where we were told that you would have more details for us and subsequent 94 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 briefings with Council, which unless we're counting last Thursday, did not happen. So we've got a transaction that's been under review and discussion for about a year, and we have a little less than a week to figure out what to do with it, and a Board that has not been briefed. With regard to the $25 million proposed to go to the schools, is that subject to -- the Revenue Commissioner was here just a little earlier talking about, at least one of my favorite topics, which is caps on real estate tax. But you told us that we couldn't do that transaction -- I'm sorry. It's not a transaction. We shouldn't do that Bill 15 because of potential impact of Act 46. What is the potential impact of Act 46 on the $25 million proposed to go to the School District?
Before any funds go to the School District, our understanding is that because we would be doing the work, it would not be subject to Act 46. But before any funds can be transferred --
What do you mean, we would be doing the work? We, whom?
Because we would be doing -- 95 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 having the work done and it would benefit the City. It's to our benefit to have the work done because we're fixing facilities for our purposes. But to the extent that it creates --
It will be used on the School District's facilities. But we have to create a mechanism that would not make it subject to Act 46. So to the extent that there would be an Act 46 problem, nothing will be transferred until we have a mechanism devised that protects it from Act 46.
The mechanism isn't in the Bill. If there is a need, we will not do anything until we have protection from Act 46.
I don't think we'd keep it. 96 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 We'd pay it off. We'd attempt to pay it off.
We'd pay the person we're borrowing it from. We would defease that part of the transaction.
All right. So let 13 me make sure -- because this is a slightly new piece 14 of information about this transaction. So the 15 $25 million is not actually being given to the 16 School District, correct? 17
We need to create a vehicle 18 that makes it not subject to Act 46. 19
The only way you'd 20 make it not subject to Act 46 is by not giving it to 21 them, right? 22
There might be legislative 23 avenues that would be available to us. And the 24 State Legislature is still in session. 25
Is there present 97 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 legislation or present lobbying around legislation regarding Act 46?
There's not present legislation pending, but we still have the rest of the session to get it in. But we will ensure that we are not subject to capture by Act 46.
Well, tell me what the effort is in Harrisburg to prevent capture by Act 46.
We've not begun specific actions yet. But the Administration recognizes that this is something that has to be considered with any transactions that we do with the School District. We're fully cognizant of the Act 46 implications.
What provision is there in the Bill that requires the $5 million to go to the Children Health and Safety Fund, the $25 million to the District and $30 million to the library?
There is no specific language that directs the spending of it. It's just a commitment the Mayor has made in his budget speech.
And with regard to 98 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 our ability to demonstrate commitment to the larger funding community, is it not enough for the City to say that it is committed to providing at least $30 million for the library renovation and expansion and find whatever mechanism it can to develop that, whether it's this transaction or a different type of financing?
It was felt that actual cash would be a stronger commitment than just the verbal say so.
But that does happen in the fund-raising world all the time, doesn't it?
Well, generally, when people make large commitments they don't necessarily write you a check that day. But once they make the commitment and announce it publicly, unless you just want to be known as a welcher, they usually follow through.
Well, this is a commitment by a political entity where there are vagaries of politics. So I believe that cash is always preferable in a situation. 99 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377
Well, I'm sure Mr. Gross knows in the world of finance, cash is king. Isn't that true, Mr. Gross?
Ms. Davis and Mr. Kemp, I would like to ask if you would forward to the Chair for our review a traditional $60 million financing with all the usual bells and whistles, or lack there of, since our traditional financing generally doesn't rise to the level of complexity or interest or novelty that the transaction in front of us does. And I'd like to see a spreadsheet and a comparison between the traditional $60 million financing through PAID with the City responsible for the debt service lined up against this particular transaction with the full 20-year debt service.
Assuming the same circumstances that we'd be issuing on a taxable basis?
Taxable and non-taxable. I'd like to see a cost comparison between them. To deal with the arbitrage issue, now you're saying that it was 24 months. I thought that 100 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 there was a three-year rule.
There is a three-year total spend down, but 85 percent of it has to be gone in months. 6
And let me try to 7 understand something here. The total renovation and 8 expansion project is 100 to $120 million, correct? 9 And let's say that the City had its $30 million 10 available today. Somebody just listening to this 11 riveting testimony here today felt overwhelmed and 12 compelled to just give us $30 million. How long 13 would it take us to raise the other 70 to 90? 14
We believe that it would 15 take three to four years to raise the rest of that 16 money. 17
And so three to four 18 years from now, you have all the money. How long 19 will the project itself take? 20
The project itself, as I 21 said earlier, would be about three-and-a-half years. 22 However, there are steps that we need to take now 23 before the project begins. There's the architect's 24 work. There's a whole series of things that need to go on during this period of time so that the project 101 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 will be ready to go, and all of those things require expenditure of money. And those preliminary costs, as we raise money, the funding that we have will pay for those preliminary costs.
I understand that. So adding all that up, what you're saying is that, if you have the City's $30 million today, we can expect a new and expanded library 1/2 years from 10 now?
The process is one where we can't do the renovations until we have the additional space with the extension. But on the other hand, there are things that can be done in the existing building right now. And so it is a process that the construction needs to start as the renovations take place.
If you had the $30 million today, what do you expect that you would 102 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 actually end up expending over the next one to three years?
I did not bring the spreadsheet and the time schedule for that with me. I can make that available.
All right. If you could get that to the Chair, I'd greatly appreciate it. Ms. Davis and Ms. Kemp, how long do you think it will take to put together what I referred to as the alternative or the comparative transaction?
You're welcome. Are there further questions? (No response.)
Then we would like to ask on this Bill, Ann Marie Williams, Acorn, to testify. Thank you.
Hello. I'm Ann Marie Williams. I'm from the North Philadelphia 103 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 Improvement Organization area of the Acorn. I'm also a Board Member of Acorn. I've listened to all of this today and a lot of it was new to me. We are in the process of a library campaign right now, trying to work for our areas. I have a few questions here. If this Bill 030393 passes and all this money that's acquired due to it, will the libraries in the low income areas benefit from the profits of this Bill 030393?
Excuse me. Would you like to make your whole testimony? You can ask all questions you have, if that's part of your testimony now.
Okay. Well, I didn't come prepared to talk about their expansion. I was listening. Our biggest concern is that the library is getting expanded here in the main area, and we are concerned about the outer areas where the low income and moderate income people really need this money to be put into their libraries, instead of having all the cut backs. Because with the State -- Governor Rendell has put in this Bill to have a 50 104 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 percent budget cut already on our libraries. And we're listening to you asking for all this money to redo or renovate a library that is acting sufficiently at this moment, yet our libraries in these outer areas are being cut back, as far as hours, and possibly some of them could be closed due to these budget cuts. So we're just wanting to know that if with this Bill being passed, all this profit that they're getting, that would be acquired, if this is going to these areas that need it?
Thank you. And I assume you mean by "outer areas," neighborhood branches?
Okay. Thank you very much. That's your question and it's duly noted. It seems to me your question is how this affects neighborhood branches.
Right. Will this money that is acquired due to the 030393 Bill, will this money be distributed to the outer branches?
Thank you very 105 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 much. And we will let whomever respond. Mr. Shelkrot will respond. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who has questions on this Bill? We'll let Mr. Shelkrot respond.
My next question is, how will the effect of this Bill passed by the City Council on May 8th to support the library, should the State cut the budget 50 percent, how will this other Bill be affected by that? How will the May 8th Bill be affected by this new Bill? And also, when he was talking, he said, any legal way. He was willing any legal way to get this money. And our curiosity is, is he willing to see the branches reduced in order to renovate this main library? And my last question is, when the Library Board of Trustees is in the process of making the financial decisions, when and if will the community have the opportunity to have a voice in 106 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 this? Because they're the people that are most affected by all of these expansions and cuts, and passing the buck to this place and this place and this place. We want to know if they have a voice in all of this, too. Thank you.
Thank you very much. There were four questions asked. The final one, if the community has an opportunity to speak. Actually and formally, that's today. This is the public hearing. The other questions, I don't know who wants to respond. Mr. Shelkrot, we're happy to ask them, since it is our responsibility to ask them. And her questions are -- and we're happy to ask them -- how this Bill affects neighborhood branches. How this relates to the Governor's cuts, and also the issue of the legal question that Councilman Nutter asked, the way to get additional funding, how that affects the branches.
Sure. Let me answer those quickly for you. 107 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 As Council knows, knowing that the entire library system needed to be modernized, including the Central Library, the first thing we did was renovate and modernize all of the branch libraries throughout the City. That was the very first thing that we did. We held for very last, the Central Library. However, I might add that the experience in other cities is that when the Central Library is renovated and/or expanded or in some cases a new library was built, library use all over the City goes up. So it really stimulates use not just of that building, but because the Central Library is then more able to meet the needs of the branches in the communities, library use all over the City goes up. Second of all, on the Governor's cuts. As you know, those cuts have to do with the Operating Budget. This is a capital expenditure. We are cautiously encouraged by some of the things that we're hearing from Harrisburg, that the reductions will not be as drastic as were proposed, particularly in the Governor's budget. And because they are different kinds of programs operating 108 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 the catch. There isn't any direct impact. I do want you to note we're hearing some good things on that. Would I be willing to reduce our branch operations in order to do the Central Library? As I said earlier, we did the branch renovations first and I will see no need whatsoever because that will not happen. We're committed to our branches. We're committed to the communities. And the Central Library must be renovated because it's the core of the entire system. I believe that answers the questions.
Thank you very much. Are there further questions with regard to this Bill? (No response.)
Acorn also has a statement. Mr. Shelkrot, would you make sure you see this, as well?
Thank you very much. 109 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 The next Bill is the Municipal Authority's Bill, Bill No. 030335. Would the Clerk please read the title of that Bill? While he's reading that, we will ask those who are ready to testify on this Bill to please come forward. Mr. Corey Kemp and Public Property, Ken Sipos. Thank you. Will the Clerk please read the title of the Bill?
Bill No. 030335, an Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property of the City of Philadelphia, on behalf of the City, and in cooperation with the Philadelphia Municipal Authority to undertake a project to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Philadelphia authorizing and approving; (1) the project, (2) entering into execution and delivery of the lease between the City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Municipal Authority, (3) the issuance by the Philadelphia Municipal Authority of bonds in one or more series to pay the cost of the project, (4) the assignment 110 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 of the lease by the Philadelphia Municipal Authority to a trustee, and (5) the obligation of the City of Philadelphia to pay rent under the lease when due; authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into the lease with the Philadelphia Municipal Authority; authorizing the Director of Finance and other officers of the City of Philadelphia to take such other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to accomplish the intent and purpose of this Ordinance; covenanting that the City of Philadelphia will make necessary appropriations in each of the City's fiscal years to provide for rental payments due under the lease; and covenanting that the City of Philadelphia will make rental payments due under the lease; all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony.
Good morning, Chairwoman Blackwell and Members of the Committee on Finance. I'm Corey Kemp, City Treasurer for the City of Philadelphia. With me is Ken Sipos from the 111 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 Department of Public Property, and also Vince Ginnetti, who's here to answer questions as needed. I'm here to testify on behalf of Bill No. 030335. Council Bill 030335 will authorize the Philadelphia Municipal Authority, at the direction of the City, to refinance the Philadelphia Municipal Authority's 1991 A bonds, 1993 A bonds, 1993 B bonds, 1993 C bonds and 1993 D bonds, in the amount not to exceed $255 million. The Philadelphia Municipal Authority on behalf of the City seeks to refinance approximately $240 million of outstanding debt to achieve a net present value savings of approximately $27 million. This is 11.2 percent present value savings. The industry standards for refinancing is 3 percent present value savings. Council Bill 030335 also authorizes the City to enter into a lease agreement between the City and the Philadelphia Municipal Authority which obligates the City to pay lease payment, which amount shall be sufficient to pay debt service due on the 2003 bonds. Passage of Bill 030335 will give the Philadelphia Municipal Authority authorization to 112 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 take advantage of the current economic conditions by refunding the 1991 A bonds, the 1993 A Series, Series B, Series C, and Series D bonds of the Authority. This proposed refunding will reduce the lease payment made to the Philadelphia Municipal Authority on an annual basis relative to these bonds. This concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions you may have on this matter. I would also like to request the suspension of Rules on this Ordinance.
Good morning, Chairwoman Blackwell and Members of the Committee on Finance. I'm testifying on behalf of Andres Perez, Commissioner of Public Property. I'm here to testify in support of Bill No. 030335. This Bill will enable the City to take advantage of lower rates of interest available at the present time. The Department of Public Property supports this measure, and accordingly, I respectfully ask that the City Council Committee on Finance approve Bill No. 030335. I also ask that 113 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 the Rules be suspended so that the Ordinance may be passed upon the second reading of Council. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much. Any other testimony? Thank you. I have one question. Does the Authority affect the City's debt capacity in any way? If not, what prevents us from using the Philadelphia Municipal Authority in more transactions to issue debt? If it does affect our debt capacity, then why are we not considering selling municipal structures the same way you're proposing to do with the Free Library?
Councilwoman, the leases under the Philadelphia Municipal Authority do not affect the City's debt incurrent capacity. But I'm not sure structure-wise what determines what authority we use for each individual transaction.
We've looked at other conduit financing entities, but we came up with PAID as being the best one for the library deal. But we are actively looking at all different options for the 114 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 City for different transactions.
We're asking you to approve a refinancing transaction that will save the City approximately $2.6 million a year in lease payments to the Philadelphia Municipal Authority.
We're currently making lease payments to the Philadelphia Municipal Authority to pay for buildings such as the Criminal Justice Center. We're making lease payments to pay the debt service on bonds issued in 1991 and 1993, and those bonds were for the Philadelphia Industrial Correctional Center, the Criminal Justice Center at 12th and Filbert, and also the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility.
And so you're asking us to do what, refinance those bonds?
So we get a savings of $27 million over how long a period?
It'll be a present value savings of $27 million, but it will be an annual savings of approximately $2.6 million from now until year 2018, so approximately years. 8
And $2.6 million is 14 the difference that you need from the $4 million 15 that's in the budget for the debt service on the library. And you're short. So you're picking up this $2.6 million here, right? Right? Right. I'm a little slow. I'm on this Committee, I don't know how. But I'm really kind of slow at this stuff. I just asked this question back here, and this just popped up. So do I get the $2.6 million, Janice Davis, for the 9th Councilmanic District? Can I get some money out of this? What's going to happen with this money? What do you do with the savings? 116 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 Where does this $2.6 million go, into the General Fund?
Yes. That will be $2.6 million less that we would have to pay out.
So what are you going to do with $2.6 million? Is it accounted for in the Five-Year Plan?
I just sent Rob a teletubby to find out if it is, in fact, accounted for. But if it's not, it goes in the General Fund and it's just going to be reallocated to other needs that might arise.
Mr. Kemp, the $27 million in savings, is that captured in the FY '04 Five-Year Plan?
No. The $27 million is a 117 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 present value savings. That's if we were to receive all of the savings today, it would be worth $27 million. But we will not be receiving $27 million.
Thank you very much. Any questions, further questions? (No response.)
Then we will go to the airport. We will ask the Clerk to read the titles of both airport Bills; Bill No. 030373 and 030377.
Bill No. 030373, an Ordinance constituting the Fifth Supplemental Ordinance to the Amended and Restated General Airport Revenue Bond Ordinance; authorizing the Mayor, the City Controller and the City Solicitor or a majority of them, to issue one or more series airport revenue bonds of the City of Philadelphia and to take certain actions with respect to Qualified Swap Agreements, Exchange Agreements and similar instruments; determining the sufficiency of pledged Amounts Available for Debt Service; convenanting the payment of interest and principal; 118 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 authorizing the Bond Committee to take certain action with regard to the terms and conditions of the Airport Revenue Bonds and related agreements; authorizing the Bond Committee to elect to include all revenues, rates, rents, tolls or other charges generated by or allocable to the Overseas Terminal and the Outside Terminal Area as Project Revenues; authorizing the Director of Finance of the City to take certain actions with regard to the sale of such Airport Revenue Bonds and the City's continuing disclosure obligation; and specifying applicability of sections of The First Class City Revenue Bond Act and the Amended and Restated General Airport Revenue Bond Ordinance. Bill 030377, an Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property and Director of Commerce, on behalf of the City, to exercise the City's option under a Lease Agreement to enter into an agreement to acquire all rights, title and interest of the Philadelphia Parking Authority in and to all buildings, computers, peripherals structures, improvements, facilities, fixtures, equipment, leasehold improvements, constructions in process, machinery, gates, signs, signals, fencing, 119 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 garages, connecting bridges, elevated ramps, toll plazas and all other accessories now erected or constructed by the Authority at the Philadelphia International Airport on land owned by the City and leased to the Authority; and authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property and Director of Finance to take all other actions and enter into all other agreements necessary to complete the acquisition; all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you very much. The Chair notes that in addition to Charles Isdell, Corey Kemp and Ken Sipos, we also have Joe Egan who will be testifying on these airport Bills. We thank you all for your patience. Now, let me see if I have a few questions for you. With respect to the administrative expense allocation that was in the briefing packet, would this be eliminated completely should you take over parking operations?
Councilwoman, could we read the testimony for the record, please?
I'm sorry. I guess I'm rushing along. I guess we've been here 120 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 too long. It would be nice to have you testify before I ask a question about it. I apologize. Please do. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Blackwell and Members of the Committee on Finance. I am Corey Kemp, City Treasurer for the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to testify on behalf of Bill 9 No. 030373 and 030377. With me today is Charles Isdell, Director of Aviation for the Philadelphia International Airport. Also with me is Ken Sipos from the Department of Public Property. Council Bill No. 030373 will authorize the City to issue Airport Revenue Bonds in one or more series under the First Class City Revenue Bond Act of 1972 in the amount not to exceed $325 million. The proceeds of the bonds shall be utilized to acquire all of the Philadelphia Parking Authority's rights, title and interest in certain parking garages, lots and other facilities and the related improvements and equipment located at or adjacent to the airport pursuant to Section 7 of the Lease Agreement, dated as of October 1, 1974, between the City and the Philadelphia Parking Authority. 121 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 From an economic standpoint, it makes sense to proceed with any contemplated financing transactions in the very near future while interest rates are at historically low levels. Council Bill 030377 will authorize the Commissioner of Public Property and the Director of Commerce to enter into an agreement with the Parking Authority to purchase the garages and surface lots from the Parking Authority pursuant to the terms of the City's Lease Agreement with the Parking Authority. This concludes my testimony. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have on this matter. I would also like to request a suspension of Rules for these Ordinances. And I would like to just introduce Francois Dutchie for a proposed amendment to Bill 030373.
Thank you. The Chair also notes that Councilman Cohen is here. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last part of what Mr. Kemp said. 122 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377
I would like to introduce Francois Dutchie for a proposed amendment to Ordinance 030373.
Would you like to have the Public Property testimony first?
Madam Chair, Members of the Committee on Finance, my name is Ken Sipos from the Department of Public Property. I'm here representing Andres Perez, Commissioner of Public Property, to testify in support of Bill 030377, an Ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property and the Director of Commerce on behalf of the City of Philadelphia to exercise the City's option under the lease agreement and enter into an agreement to acquire all right, title and interest of the Philadelphia Parking Authority in and to all buildings, computers, peripherals, structures, improvements, et cetera, constructed by the Authority on land owned by the City of Philadelphia and leased to the Authority. The Bill will enable the City, through its Division of Aviation, to take advantage of the City's option under the lease to acquire the parking 123 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 facilities at the airport. The proximity of the parking will enable the airport to enhance control of ingress and egress to the airport patrons. The Department of Public Property supports this measure, and accordingly I respectfully ask that the City Council Committee on Finance approve Bill No. 030377. I also ask that the rules be suspended so that the Ordinance may be passed upon the second reading of Council. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much. Mr. Egan, would you like to testify now or wait until these rounds of questions are --
We still need to read into the record the amendment for the Ordinance, then also hear from Charles Isdell.
Good morning, Councilwoman. My name is Francois Dutchie. I'm with the Finance and Contracts Division of the Law Department. We have a technical amendment to make to Bill 030373. I have copies of the amendment for Council. 124 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 We have a technical amendment to the Ordinance which appears at the top of the third page. The amendment simply --
It should be the top of the third page of Section 3. You'll see it in the proposed amendment. And what this amendment simply does is take out a reference to Exhibit B, which was to be included with the original Ordinance. Exhibit B contains an unsigned certificate from the Finance Director, which is required under the first Class City Revenue Bond Act. That certificate will not be ready until just prior to passage of the Bill. So we had to take it out as an exhibit to the Bill.
You have a question, Councilman, with regard to the amendment?
Yes, sir. Councilman Nutter. 125 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377
Thank you, Madam Chair. Why would you delete this if it's something pertinent that's to the First Class City's Act? Why would you take this exhibit out? Are you now saying that it doesn't have to be attached to the Bill?
It never had to be attached to the Bill. The Law Department had the policy of attaching them to the Bill because it made it simpler.
It's a certificate that's required by the First Class City Revenue Bond Act. The Finance Director has to certify that there are sufficient funds from the project, in this case, revenues from the parking operations at the airport to pay debt service on the bonds. It includes a feasibility study which she relies on to make that certification. 126 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377
It requires that the certificate be filed with City Council prior to passage. It does not have to be attached as an exhibit to the Bill.
Well, how are you going to file it with us prior to passage?
It will be prepared and signed and filed with the Clerk of City Council before this Bill is passed.
Which may result in City Council seeing it or not seeing it?
Well, the filing with the Chief Clerk is simply technical. Obviously, you will get a copy of it, as well.
I don't understand why you wouldn't want it attached to the Bill.
It's not signed yet. The feasibility study has not been completed, and the certificate has not been signed by the Director of 127 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 Finance at this point.
We're talking about the feasibility study that is being conducted by Lee Fisher and Associates.
Are you talking about this document, Appendix 2, which has a date down the bottom, June, blank, 2003, that document?
Yes, sir. That is the draft document. That is not the final document.
I can save that question for later. If your study is not done yet, why is this in front of us?
There's a whole matter in front of us. If your study is not done yet --
The final numbers are not in on the study. The study has been going on for several weeks. We just don't have the final numbers yet. Those numbers will be available before this Bill is ready for passage.
But it won't be 128 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 attached to the Bill. It will get filed in the Chief Clerk's office, amongst the million other 4 documents in the Chief Clerk's office. But it will 5 not be a part of this legislation, which you would 6 then be asking us to vote on. 7
Copies will be made 8 available to the Committee, to the entire Council.
But you're saying in the past you've always attached the document. It's been your practice to have these documents as an attachment to such a Bill?
There are a lot of things about this that are not ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll wait until my turn comes.
You're welcome. 129 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 Councilman Cohen, you wanted to follow up?
Maybe there won't be any certification at all. And if not, then the Bill 6 will fail. That certification seems to be a very crucial element in the law and in the Ordinance.
Why don't we hold up all action on the Bill? Why doesn't the Administration withdraw the Bill until such time as everything is ready? The provision in the law exists for the purpose of safeguarding the situation. If the situation cannot be safeguarded now, why should we take away the safeguard? Why don't we instead hold up the Bill until everything is in order and then present it? Then we can examine the certification, see if it's the kind of certification required by the Act or whether it's something short of it. If it's a certification required by the Act, then obviously it strengthens the likelihood of passage of the Bill. If it's a safeguard that's not really a safeguard, but just purports to be one, then, of 130 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 course, it will do damage to the Bill. But we've got to know that before we act on the Bill, don't we? Isn't that the purpose of the safeguard in the first place?
That's absolutely correct, Councilman. And you will know that before the Bill 8 is passed.
How will we know it? Maybe the Clerk will know it. When would we get it? How do you assure us that we're going to get it in time for this Council to study it? For me, for example, to hear the comments of any other Councilmember on the subject or for them to hear my comments? How do we get Council consideration of the certification?
We anticipate that this will be prepared and ready for Council's review at least a week prior to a vote on passage of the Bill.