That's happened since we raised this issue an hour ago?
There was some misunderstanding between Lee Fisher and the City as to what specifically was required for this hearing, whether or not it would be a draft, whether or not it would be a final report, whether or not it be signed. And we did have a discussion with them after this point came up this morning. They will be able to provide a signed report to us this week.
Do you anticipate that the signed report will be different than the report we have presently, dated May 22nd?
Not materially. 181 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 What does that mean?
I would say in no 4 material aspects. There won't be anything major in terms of changes. There may be some comments that we receive from the City Treasurer's Office and the Finance Department, but I would not expect, at least at this point in time, that there would be any major changes.
Okay. That's good. Let's talk about the report. I had a chance to take a little look at it the other day. On page -- what is this considered -- II75. The report says, public property is integral to overall airport operations from the standpoints of both finances and customer service. Transferring responsibility for parking operations at the airport from the Parking Authority to the City could result in savings in direct and indirect administrative expenses through the consolidation of functions and other efficiencies. The report goes on further to say -- on page II83, Given the provisions of the current management agreement that the fine level of staffing and current labor agreements, transfer of operating 182 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 responsibility for airport parking from the Authority to City will not in itself allow the parking operator's contractual services expenses to be reduced. With direct day-to-day responsibility for parking operations, the City might be able to realize operational efficiencies, such as by adjusting cashier, customer aide, supervisory and other staffing levels. However, for purposes of this report, the direct expenses for contractual services were assumed to increase from the FY 2003 level with inflation and increases in originating passengers. Then it further goes on to say, that beginning in FY 2000, following an agreement among the Authority, the City and the Federal Aviation Administration, the Authority has allocated its administrative expenses to airport parking in proportion to direct operating expenses, subject to a maximum allocation of 28 percent to the airport. So now, does this mean that the City reached an agreement with the Parking Authority and FAA about these administrative expenses out in the airport in FY 2000? Is that what that means?
That's correct. The 183 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 initiating action for that matter started in 1994 as a result of an audit by the Inspector General's Office of the United States Department of Transportation. They questioned the methodology whereby central administrative costs of the Authority were allocated to the airport, at that time, I think, based on proportion of total expenses -- I'm sorry, total revenues. The matter was, I guess, negotiated over a multi-year period, and actually multi-director period, and ultimately a proposal was made, I believe, at the end of the tenure of Dennis Bouey in late 1998, whereby the allocation method was switched from airport proportion of revenues to the airport's proportion of expenses. And on top of that --
The Authority's direct expenses out of the airport through airport operations?
I thought I heard 184 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 you saying earlier that you were concerned that their administrative expenses were covering all kinds of costs related to the Parking Authority for downtown operations and a wide variety of other places. Didn't you say that earlier in the testimony?
I don't think I said exactly those things. The idea, though, is that it's --
-- an apportionment of a central cost that's based on a formula.
I thought the agreement was cost directly out of the airport. That's what your consultant's report says.
Proportional to the expenses of the airport relative to the total expenses of the Parking Authority. It's still really just a mathematical formula whereby $1.7 million is extracted from our gross proceeds before we get them --
-- to pay for PPA 185 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 administrative costs. It's not based on actual expenses. It's based on a mathematical formula that enables them to calculate those expenses.
Well, you have to tell me -- beginning in FY 2000, following an agreement among the Authority, the City and the Federal Aviation Administration, the Authority has allocated its administrative expenses to airport parking in proportion to direct operating expenses subject to a maximum allocation of 28 percent to the airport. What does that mean?
It means we have both the direct operating expenses and then on top of that we have an apportionment of overall PPA administrative expenses that is calculated based on that percentage of the whole. Again, Mr. Anastasi might be able to say it better than that.
It was certainly an improvement over the previous calculation method. It did reduce the annual allocation number by about 1.2 million in the first full year that it took effect, but it was certainly step in the right 186 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 direction. But it was not --
Well, we question whether that expense should be charged to the airport at all. It was a step in the right direction, if not an ultimate solution. It resulted in an increase in our net revenues and it was satisfactory to the FAA after what had been at that point, I think, a five-year or six-year protracted negotiation in which various alternative solutions were offered. I also think that the cost allocation method, if I'm not mistaken, was repetitively criticized in the City Controller's annual audits that it was not a proper allocation of costs, administrative costs. And this proposed compromise was acceptable to the Controller's Office. Again, it was not the ideal solution, but it was certainly an improvement.
Well, if it wasn't what you wanted, then why did you agree to it?
I would have to let my predecessor answer that question. I did not agree to it myself personally. 187 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377
You were around, though, right? I mean, you must have had a conversation with someone about it at some point in time, right?
Not really, no. Maybe Mr. Anastasi could shed light on the actual agreement.
Well, I think the reason why the City agreed to it was because it was an improvement in our finances. Before this new allocation method was devised, we were paying $2.8 million of the Parking Authority's overall $7 million administrative expense. And when the basis was changed to comply with the FAA's request, we ended up being charged $1.7 million only out of the total administrative cost pool of $7 million. So it was an improvement, from our perspective.
This issue about the City having this unique standing of not being in full control or management or operation of parking facilities. In the other major cities or cities that we compete with for air traffic, do they manage their parking facilities directly? Do they have an authority? Do they have private entities managing them? 188 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 What was the last City that you flew into, Mr. Isdell?
I believe it's done through a contract with a private contractor.
So, does that qualify as being in control of their facilities or are they contracting it out?
The City is in control of the Streets Department and the Recreation Department and the Police Department. That's what we're control of. So even when you talk about control, you're not talking about airport employees being in control, right?
Well, as I said earlier, 189 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 there's a possibility that we would bring some of the tasks under Civil Service. That remains to be seen. But assuming that we would leave the present contractual arrangement in place, we would be one step closer to control than we are today. Again, we would probably look at contracting most of the tasks that are currently contracted out. I believe that's the way it is done at most major airports in the US. But we would have the option in the administration, in the writing of that contract to take back that work if we thought it was a better way to do things.
Now, when you flew into Logan, was thier operation of their parking garages prominent in your mind? I mean, you're obviously an airport-type person, so I bet you think about a lot of things when you're flying. Is that what's on the minds of most people when they're flying into all these cities, who runs the garages?
To be honest with you, I got picked up at the airport, so I didn't have the use of the -- it wasn't a good example to use my trip to Logan. But I believe that the parking facilities are much more important to the citizens in the community that the airport serves. 190 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 Frequently -- as I'm sure you do when you fly into a different city, you either rent a car --
I don't get many calls from my constituents about what's going on at the airport. Now, they do talk about the CLIP Program. If you have any money for that, they would like to talk about that. But they really don't call me that much about what's going on about at the airport. You know, you get on a plane, you fly, you get off, you have a good time, you come back. That's pretty much it. We're not intimately involved in the travel plans.
We're known as a strong origination destination airport, which means that two-thirds of our passengers or more originate in this area. There are airports that are less intensely origination airports. They might actually have smaller parking facilities because a lot of their traffic is just connecting traffic. As a strong origination airport, our parking facilities have a big impact on the citizens of this community who use our airport, more than they do on visitors.
I asked you this the other day. Hopefully, you've looked into this. How 191 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 many garages does the City actually manage itself, similar to our running of the Streets Department, the Police Department, the Recreation Department? Do we actually run any garages ourselves?
You're going to just be a pioneer out there and deal with the parking garages out at the airport.
I believe that with the experience that I've had and the members of my staff have had over the last years or so in the 14 interaction between our facility and the parking 15 facilities covers everything from maintenance to snow removal to maintenance of elevators. We've actually taken over the maintenance of the elevators in the garages as a way to ensure that the elevators work on a regular basis. I believe that we have that capability. It certainly would be a pioneering effort on our part, and we take it on with a great deal of sobriety and seriousness.
I'm sure. Your testimony in this case is that you will consider allowing Central Parking Corporation to continue 192 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 operating the facilities through the end of its current contract. How long is the total of that contract and how much time is left? And what does it mean when you say you will consider; does that mean that you may or may not?
The current contract is in a first option year of two option years, and that first option year expires October 31st, 2003.
Yes. So they're in the first of the two. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we've been advised that if the Parking Authority wished to terminate the contract October 31st of this year, they would have had to give notice already to do so. So we assume legally that we will inherit that contract through October 31st of next year.
Do you anticipate a long-term contract? Even if you keep Central in 193 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 place for however long the term is, then it would come up for bid. Do you anticipate a long-term contract?
It would certainly make sense that this would be a long-term contract, yes.
Well, what we anticipated was a single year with three one-year options.
I love it. At least you tell the truth right up front. You consider that to be a long-term contract, one year with three one-year renewals?
My feeling about the contract is there are a whole lot of balls in the air and we're not sure, again, whether this would be a concession contract. I think if it's a concession contract, in the end we would probably structure it in a way that would require some investment, and that would require it to be a longer term contract. If it's treated pretty much the way it is today as just an operating contract, then I think it's fairer for me to say one plus three, as I did the second time.
I think it's going 194 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 to be whatever gets you not to have to come over here. If you maintain a contracted out situation, what is it in the contract that will allow you, in accordance with your consultant's report, to adjust cashier, customer aide, supervisory or other staffing levels? If you had this opportunity, the City would actually tell the contracting company how many people to have on staff and what their work hours should be and how many bodies and all that? That's what you plan to do?
I do think that there are companies that specialize in parking operations. And I also think, as we said, one of the reasons we need them is I believe that we may actually have no 20 option and that we, in fact, will inherit the contract for another 15 to 18 months.
One of those entities is called the Parking Authority. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
We would have the 195 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 opportunity during that period to evaluate what the best follow-up contract, what form that should take and what term and what controls we would have over the operation.
All right. Just hang in there just a little while longer, Mr. Isdell. It will be over soon. of the Bill, "Allows the borrowing of an amount not to exceed $325 million, exclusive of cost of issuance, underwriter's discount, original issue discount, funding of deposit to the Sinking Fund reserve account and similar items. And in the event the bonds are issued with such items, the Bond Committee is hereby authorized to increase the aggregate principal amount of the bond so issued by the amount of such items." Does that, in fact, mean that you could end up with an issuance of more than $325 million?
Well, actually, when we put 196 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 the 325 in, we were contemplating doing a new money piece of it for some projects at the airport. But since then, we decided not to do that. So based on our current projections, the $292 million will be our ceiling at this point, based on current interest rates.
And you went through all of that with Councilman O'Neill. Let me just ask about Exhibit F in the document. Now, the one other thing I found somewhat interesting about this report, it has this disclaimer down at the bottom on all the pages that says, "This preliminary draft report is subject to change and is intended for discussion purposes only. It is not to be made available to parties other than those to whom it has been issued directly and should not be relied upon for securing financing or making investment decisions." It's on every page.
That's the standard draft language, which would be removed from the final version of the report.
But you sent it to us in order to convince us to do the transaction. The report is not done, although we've found out 197 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 within the last hour that it will done soon. So am I to believe what's in the report now, or should I wait until I get the final version?
I would reiterate what Mr. Anastasi said, that the final version will not be materially different from what you have in front of you.
Okay. Now, you said that the primary reason you wanted to do this was to save on the administrative costs, which you said will go to zero because you'll have no 13 administrative costs, which should be quite fascinating, because all of those activities are going to absorbed by current staff. That's your testimony, right?
Again, at least the way I understand this, there are two levels of administrative cost involved here. There's actual administrative cost and then there's this administrative allocation of -- it's an allocation of centralized cost for everything from human resources to I don't know what else. That's the area we feel we do not need to hire additional people. 198 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377
How is it that your folks -- I assume that they're working hard like the rest of us. They're putting in their 40 hours, at least, a week. They're doing whatever it is they are doing presently. How are they going to do all this other work which they're presently not doing? You won't have to hire anybody else to do anything with this, even pick up a major new responsibility that you presently don't have? No cost?
Again, our understanding of the existing arrangement is that there's only a small number of Parking Authority staff that actually works at the airport.
The administrative cost that you're referring to, the reason we're optimistic that we can eliminate them entirely or almost entirely, is because I think they represent costs similar to -- for example, the City has a central services cost allocation plan that's allocated to all different City agencies for the costs related to central personnel and central Public Property and all the downtown departments. 199 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 This is a similar allocation. And again, from our perspective, it's kind of a double hit on our budget because we're paying a portion of the Parking Authority's central expenses the same way we do a portion of the City's central expenses.
Let me ask this. So you had that issue and then you had the airlines, who naturally are pushing you to try to make things as cost efficient as possible out there. They're going through what they're going through, trying to get money from the Feds, in bankruptcy, out of bankruptcy. But now they're chasing after us for every dime that might be available, and I understand that. So the second reason here is that you want to try to help the airlines in order to reduce their -- what do you call it, fees and charges?
So in your document, in Exhibit F, you have the year 2000, net parking revenues were $21 million. Year 2001, net parking revenues, $23 million. Now, was there a reduction in rates and charges in 2001, since you made more money than you did in 2000? 200 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377
The parking operation is in a cost center at the airport. It's called the Outside Terminal Area Cost Center. It's the principal source of revenue in the outside terminal area. The deal with the airlines is, any net revenue in the Outside Terminal Area Cost Center is split 50/50 between the airlines and the City's Aviation Fund. So as parking revenues increased like it did from the year 2000 to 2001 by $2 million, that represented a reduction in the airline's rates and charges of a million dollars, or 50 percent of the increase.
So 2001 seems to represent a high point for net parking revenues; is that right?
Now, in your Exhibit F, you have 2002, which I'm assuming that a big impact on net parking revenues actually was 9/11. 201 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 Would that be right?
And then 2003, whatever happened in 2003, you had -- it looks like 100,000 fewer in plane passengers. And you also in 2002 close to an eight-and-a-half-million-dollar increase in debt service payments; is that correct?
Which seems to have affected your bottom line by eight-and-a-half-million dollars. What caused such a significant increase in your debt service?
The debt service for the new garages that were being constructed kicked in during that Fiscal Year.
So you had your revenues down. And then you have, according to your document, net parking revenues going back up to $23 million in FY '04, for which I can only see one reason, which is the accrued net revenues at transfer, which is letter C, and that's the 202 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 estimated net parking revenues from the Parking Authority for April through June 2003. Can you explain that? Not only are they going to turn the garages over to you, but they're going to give you $8 million? That's an incredible deal.
One of the things I would like to do before I answer that specifically, is get back to Lee Fisher Associates to make sure that I have the explanation correct.
Well, I think it's a number of things. I know for sure that it's the reduction in the administrative costs, which would be about $1.7 million. But I think there's other things. I could take a look at this schedule --
Yeah. I can take a look at this exhibit closer with them just make sure I give you an answer which is correct. We could provide that to you.
Okay. Well, then just answer this. This will be my last question. 203 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 For the Fiscal Years '05 through '09 -- and part of the premise here is you want to increase the amount of revenues generated. That's a good goal. And you want to help the airlines reduce their rates and charges by increasing the bottom line, right?
For the five-year period, from FY '05 to FY '09, your exhibit shows that the net parking revenues never reach the high point of 2001, which was $23 million, where they go from $16 million in '05; $17 million in '06; $18 million in '07, $19 million in '08, and $20 million in 2009, which are all less than the net parking revenues of the years before.
Well, I think the main reason for that is because we have two new garages now. And those two new garages cost us annually, I'd say $6 to $10 million.
Well, you're going to have that cost whether you're in charge of the 204 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 garages or whether the Parking Authority is in charge of the garages.
That it makes it more important for us to reduce other costs that we have some type of control over. We don't have control over that debt service. Those garages have been built, and that debt service, unfortunately or not, is in the rate base. So we have to recover as much as we can from other sources.
But the revenues are lower than what they had been in previous years, and this exhibit assumes that you're in control of the garages, right?
Correct. And if we operate based on information we have currently for the Fiscal Period 2003, which ended on March 31st, we've been told that our net revenues will be 205 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 approximately $10 million. They went from $23 million in Fiscal 2001, which you correctly identified as the high point, down to $16.8 million in Fiscal 2002, the last year for which we have audited statements, and they're projected to go down to $10 million in Fiscal 2003. And despite repeated requests, we do not have a budget from the Parking Authority for Fiscal 2004, which we're two months into right now. So these numbers in the report you refer to are significantly more robust than what we're looking at if we leave the status quo.
Councilman, I would like to say one other thing regarding that bump that you see in Fiscal 2004, which is $23 million. As we talked about before, the Parking Authority's Fiscal Year ends March 31st. If we were to take over the parking operation, there would be the revenues that we would get from the Parking Authority from April 1st through September 30, 2003. And that's significant because there is no debt service payment during that period of time. So most of the revenues for the period April, May and June would come right to the City and be recorded as Fiscal 2004 revenue, which I believe explains that bump in 2004 net 206 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 revenue to $23 million.
I understand. Lastly, was it mentioned earlier you would need to come back at some point in time for some subsequent approval by us, do you need a transfer ordinance or any other legislation related to this particular transaction?
I believe that would not be the case. Because, as we said, in the Fiscal 2004 Sinking Fund Aviation Budget, there is significant debt service appropriations in order to start making the debt service payments on the new General Airport Revenue Bonds.
Well, I understand that. But that goes back to Councilman O'Neill's question. What are you not doing, going forward?
I don't believe there were specific projects identified that we would need the additional debt service for. I think it was really for new borrowings. That's the way it was put in the testimony, but I don't have it in front of me.
With no explanation as to what those borrowings were for? 207 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377
I think it was general funds that we put in. As a matter of fact, we've done that in the past, as well, to include some new funds in debt service for new borrowings in the event that something like this does materialize.
You'll be getting a sharper eye on your situation next time you come over here.
Was it testified to at that time? Did you tell us at the time that that's what you're anticipating doing? And where did you actually get the debt service money from?
It's an appropriation within the Sinking Fund's debt service budget for aviation.
No, there's no transfer. There's a direct airport budget within the Sinking 208 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 Fund, a special airport budget, just like there is a special Water Department budget within the Sinking Fund. And the funds were appropriated in the Aviations portion of that Sinking Fund budget.
No mention specifically of this particular transaction when you're over here in probably February or March?
I do not believe so. I was not present at the Sinking Fund Commissioner's budget testimony.
Thank you. We will take a 10-minute recess for our stenographer, before we lose her, and then we'll try to finish up. Thank you. (Brief recess.)
We're ready to resume. The Chair would like to announce that our Finance Hearing on PGW, which is Bill No. 23 030244, will be continued until June 3rd at 10:00. So all the folks who are here for PGW need not stay. June 3rd at 10:00 I don't know whether you're happy 209 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 or sad. There may be a correction on the date for PGW, so we'll announce that date at the end of this hearing, as soon as we're clear. We have two days of hearings, CDBG on the 2nd, and all the Condemnation Bills on the 3rd. Either way, I don't know how we will get through. But at any rate, we will announce the date shortly. Are there any other questions with regard to the airport Bill? It's been so long, I forgot what we were talking about. Thank you very much. I'm sorry. I didn't call on Joe Egan.
Certainly. You're always welcome to testify. It appears that it is the wishes of the majority of this body that we end up holding this, anyway. Mr. Egan, please come forward. Welcome, and thank you for your patience.
Thank you. The 210 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 pleasure is mine. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Joseph Egan. I'm the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Parking Authority. First of all, to make it simple, obviously, we're opposed to this change in governance at the airport. And without getting into a long statement -- and I'll paraphrase Charlie Isdell. He said, this is big business. This is the sale of a business. And I think if anyone looks at a business -- and I sold my business a few years ago -- you have to look at due diligence. How do you protect that asset if you're buying it? And I've looked at this situation. In fact, I spent quite a bit of last night. When you go through a whole statement, you see all the numbers that float before you. I kind of sympathize with you all when you do look at those numbers. The issue that I saw on this process is that, even though it's a good time to finance at a low interest rate bond, it's the worst time to purchase an asset. I don't know of any timing in history that the airline industry -- because of terrorism, because of 211 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 a worldwide turn-down in the economy. I think the impact of those kind of issues in terms of revenue generation -- and that's the integrity of revenue. When you buy something, what's that flow of revenue? From a pure business decision, that's an important part. The second part of that is, how do you execute this? What's the management team that will drive this process? What's the experience? We started there in 1970. Under an ideal world -- there's no question what Charlie Isdell said was right. Airport parking should be with the airport. But we didn't make that decision as a City in 1970. So 30 years of institutional memory, 30 years of an intellectual asset, that's what is in place today. And I think it's foolish to give up that. I also think you have to look at the track record to execute these projects and to think about you're not going to have a learning curve is naive. I've been in the sale of businesses. I've been involved in venture capital. There is always a learning curve. The next day and everything is fine; it doesn't work that way. That's just good 212 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 common sense. The other is, I think right now when we do this, we're really saying, we're ready to raise rates. And 50 percent of the people that come into that terminal come in for less than an hour. That's 4 percent, I think, or our total revenue, the total dollars are. When you start thinking about raising rents and you don't have the insulation, the Parking Authority and the airport that we have today. Because we are a regional airport, I guarantee you we're going to have a lot of people at our door because of those raising of rates. Thank you very much for hearing me. I appreciate being here and being before you again. My special hello to Councilman Cohen, who I have known for a long time and respect. It's nice to be back in front of you, Councilman.
Reverend Dr. Moore, we certainly want to recognize you and ask you if you would like to make a statement?
My name is William B. Moore, and I'm Deputy Director of the Philadelphia Parking Authority, and I support the statements of our Director, Joe Egan. 213 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377
It is true that both gentleman are dear friends over years standing. Let me ask you for the record one question, were you consulted before this Bill was presented to City Council,? Were you consulted by anybody in the City Administration with respect to the Parking Authority views?
You're welcome. Are there any other questions? (No response.)
Thank you both. We're longstanding friends of all who are here. This will end our scheduled hearing. 214 05/27/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030373, 030377 - - - 215 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE - - - May 27, 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 030251, 030335, 030373, 030377, 030397. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL, Chair COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL - - - 216 05/27/03 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now enter into the stated meeting part of our day. The Chair would recognize Councilman O'Neill with regard to a motion on the School Tax Authorization with reporting it out of Committee with a rules suspension.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 030251 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended to allow first reading at next Session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 030251 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and furthermore that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. All in favor? (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and so this Bill is reported out. 217 05/27/03 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING The Chair will note for the record that Councilwoman Tasco votes no on this. The next is the Philadelphia Municipal Authority's Bill. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion and also for a suspension with regard to Bill No. 030335.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 030335 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 that Bill No. 030335 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and furthermore that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session of Council. All in favor? (Aye.)
Opposed? 218 05/27/03 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING (No response.)
The ayes have it, and so that Bill is likewise reported out. The next is Bill 030373. There has been an amendment. I will entertain a motion for approval of the amendment or adoption of the amendment. Councilman DiCicco.
I move for the adoption of the amendment to Bill 030373.
Is this the amendment that we discussed earlier which seeks to --
I think it was a technical amendment that was passed out.
-- delete the requirement on the certification letter; is that what this amendment is about?
Yes. It is the one amendment passed out today. 219 05/27/03 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING
What is the pleasure of the Committee? There is a motion on the floor to adopt the amendment? Is there a second? If I am in order I will second the motion for adoption of the amendment. All in favor? (Aye.)
There is a role call on the floor. Councilman DiCicco.
Councilman Nutter. 220 05/27/03 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING
The ayes are two. The nays are four. And so the amendment fails. The Chair will now recognize Councilman DiCicco with a motion with regard to Bill 030373.
I move for the adoption of Bill 030373 with a suspension.
I'll second it. It has been moved and seconded that Bill 18 No. 030373 be reported out of Committee with a suspension of the rules so that it may be considered at our next Session of Council. All in favor? (Aye.)
All right. 221 05/27/03 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING Obviously, that vote is two to four, and that Bill 3 fails. Next is Bill No. 030377. The Chair will ask Councilman DiCicco for a motion with regard to Bill No. 030377, that it be reported out of Committee.
I move that Bill 9 030377 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended.
I will second. It has been moved and seconded that Bill 17 Bo. 030377 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended, so as to permit first reading at our Session of Council. All in favor? (Aye.)
The ayes are 222 05/27/03 - FINANCE - PUBLIC MEETING two. The nays are four. And the bill fails.
The next Bill 4 is Bill No. 030397, which is the library Bill, and that bill is being held until June 2nd at 10:00 a.m. If we have to change it, we will announce at that day because that is our Committee of Finance and the Whole on Community Development Block Grants. So that's 6/2 at 10:00 a.m. We also had a Finance hearing scheduled for 2:00 on PGW's Capital Budget. That hearing will be postponed until May 28th, which is tomorrow, at 2:00. So ends our Finance hearing. We thank you all for your patience. I thank Members of the Committee. (Council adjourned at 3:03 p.m.) - - - 223 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 May 27, 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