COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 23, 2003 1:25 p.m. - - - BILLS 020076, 020621, 030016, 030097, 030098, 020810; RESOLUTIONS 020084, 030034, 030106, 020817. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ, Co-Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY - - - 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 030115, RESOLUTION 030119 PAGE WILLIAM GAMBLE, Procurement Commissioner .... LOUIS CRUZ, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce .... 21 BILL 030016, RESOLUTION 030034 COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER ................. 27 BILL 030097, BILL 030098, RESOLUTION 030106 JAMES CUORATO, Commerce Department .......... 38 RICHARD FEDER, Law Department ............... 94 BILL 020621 COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER ................. 52 NANCY KAMMERDEINER, Revenue Commissioner ..... 74 BILL 020076, RESOLUTION 020084 COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER ................ 100 BILL 020810, RESOLUTION 020817 COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY ..................... 113 3 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT
Good afternoon. I'm Angel Ortiz. This is the Committee on Law and Government. Councilman Cohen is slightly delayed, but we have a very big Calendar to take care of, and we have present with us today Councilman Rizzo to my right, Councilman Clarke is here, Councilman Nutter. I would like the Clerk to please read the titles of the Bills on the Calendar into the record.
Bill 030115, an Ordinance 12 providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to Section 8-200(2) and 8-201 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, relating to contracts and concessions for which competitive bidding is required, as approved by Resolution of the City Council; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Resolution 030119 is a Resolution 24 proposing an amendment to Section 8-200(2) and 8-201 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, relating to 4 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT contracts and concessions for which competitive bidding is required, and providing the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia. Bill 020076 is an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to Section 8 2-102 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, relating to the redistricting of the City to revise the boundaries of the councilmanic districts after each decennial census, as approved by Resolution of the City Council; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for special election. Bill 020621, entitled an Ordinance 18 amending Title 2 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "City-County Consolidation," by abolishing the Board of Revision of Taxes and reassigning its powers, functions and duties to three newly created City agencies to be known as the Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review, the Property Assessment Oversight Board, and the Office of Property Assessment; providing for submission of 5 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT such amendment for the approval or disapproval of the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election; all under certain terms and conditions. Bill 030016, an Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the composition of the Board of Pensions and Retirement, as approved by Resolution of the City Council; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot questions to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Bill 030097, an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Contracts and Procurement," by adding a new Section 17-109, entitled "Local Bidding Preferences," providing for the establishment of a bidding preference on City 6 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT contracts for Philadelphia businesses, under certain terms and conditions. Bill 030098, an Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to establish that a bid preference can be allowed in the awarding of public contracts to Philadelphia first, and that the extent and nature of the bid preference shall be provided by ordinance. Resolution 020084, a resolution 13 proposing an amendment to Section 2-102 of the Philadelphia Home Rule charter, relating to the redistricting of the City to revise the boundaries of the councilmanic districts after each decennial census, and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia.
Resolution 030034, a Resolution 20 proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the composition of the Board of Pensions and Retirement, and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia. Resolution 030106, a Resolution 7 04/29/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030115, 030119 proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to establish that a bid preference can be allowed in awarding of public contracts to Philadelphia firms, and that the extent and nature of the bid preference shall be provided by ordinance. Bill 020810 is an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to Section 11 6-400(c) of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, relating to authorized audits by the Auditing Department of certain agencies performing services or receiving funding from the City, as approved by Resolution of the City Council; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Resolution 020817, a Resolution 22 proposing an amendment to Section 6-400 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, relating to authorization for City Controller audits of agencies receiving appropriations from, or performing 8 04/29/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030115, 030119 services for the City, and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia.
Thank you. We will hear first Councilman Darrell Clarke's Bill.
Is there anyone to testify for that from the Administration? Commissioner, you know the drill. Identify yourself for the record. I hope your statement is not very long because we heard it this morning already, right?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Law and Government Committee. My name is William F. Gamble, Procurement Commissioner. I'm here today to offer testimony for Resolution 030119, which would offer a potential Charter change in place on the ballot in 9 04/29/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030115, 030119 November, allowing the qualified electors to vote on a ballot question to amend the Home Rule Charter to exempt contracts involving expenditure of $25,000 or less from the open bid procedure as required by Section 8-202A to 2F. The Procurement Department is in agreement with this proposed amendment. We view this change as a step in the right direction. Effective this past January 2003 in order to increase the use of businesses and suppliers, the Procurement Department developed a program to provide bidding opportunities to small businesses. The Department now limits solicitation of bids of small purchases to small companies. Increasing maximum amount of smaller purchases from 13,000 to 25,000 will assist us toward our goal of increasing the number of small businesses receiving contracts. This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I will be happy to answer any questions you have regarding this testimony.
Commissioner, if I may, before I turn it over to Councilman Clarke, could you explain to me how increasing it from 10 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 $13,000 to $25,000 will assist us in getting more small business individuals and corporations to receive contracts from the City? Is making it bigger not a bigger impediment than a smaller contract? I just want for the record for you to explain that.
What we're attempting to do, Councilman, is that we realize that when the awards to small businesses and minority businesses have actually decreased over the years, so we're trying to find a way in which to increase that participation number. So we devised a program that allows small businesses to compete against small businesses under 13,000, which the Charter now requires. So we're looking to increase that to 25,000 which would -- we'll increase that amount so that way we'll increase the dollar amount that we make to these small businesses.
How many contracts right now do we have at the $13,000 level that we give out? How many $13,000 contracts? And this is with no bid contracts?
No, it's not a no bid. What it is is that it's not an advertised bid. The 11 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 process is that departments will solicit three companies to do business with, get their prices --
Without advertising, that's correct. And then they will go to the suppliers and request a quotation. Then those quotations will determine which will receive the award.
Could you give me some examples of the contracts that are included in this category?
For example, let's say that the Department wants to buy a refrigerator and it's between 500 and $1,300.
What you would do is that you will solicit from three small companies asking 12 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 them what they would charge you for that refrigerator. And then instead of opening up to everyone, we're now limiting it to small businesses only so that small businesses will compete against small businesses, which we feel equitable and fair in that when you have small businesses competing with each other, then --
There's a bidders list that we have. We require them to use that bidders list.
It's basically our bid list, the number of vendors. And also we have sent out notice to vendors to ask them to re-certify it or send us more information if they're small companies so we make sure when the department solicits from this company, they are using small companies in their solicitation.
Are most of the small companies that we're using, are most of these 13 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 companies African American, Latino? Are they minority companies?
There are some minority companies, but what we're doing is not race and gender specific. But we would assume that a lot of the small companies are minority companies, yes. But it's not just for minority companies, but it's for small businesses.
Small businesses per se, but I'd like to see if you have it available -- I would like to see how that has been distributed in terms of the companies and so on; how many Latinos, African Americans, and so on have received and have made themselves available of these contracts that have been accessible and a listing of the number of contracts that are available in that area currently and a list of the contracts under the new heading of $25,000. The list of contracts that will become available under the new $25,000 range, okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I would just like to thank 14 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 Mr. Gamble for bringing this issue to our attention at a recent forum that we had in the community meeting with small contractors. One of the issues that continued to come forward was their inability to receive small contracts interacting with larger companies on competitive bids and they just simply didn't have the wherewithal in terms of resources to submit a reasonable successful bid solicitation. And I want to thank Commissioner Gamble for working with us on this. And hopefully, we'll get this passed and give you the ability to enter into some of these no bid contracts for our small contractors out there and small businesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon. My mind is racing here, so I have a couple questions. I'm always concerned -- you know we have a problem with the Charter saying that you're supposed to come to Council with contracts beyond a year. Explain to me the possibility of loopholes here. If you want to purchase four items and the items are $100,000, I envision this contract will come back at 24,999 four 15 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 times.
What happens is this, before the use department can enter into agreement or receive the merchandise, they must send it to us to take a look at. We make sure that no one is trying to -- first of all, we do not split awards and we make sure that departments cannot use this system to procure four different times. If that happens, what we do, we will competitively bid that because we realize that that skirts around what the intent is. The intent is not to bypass the City Charter.
Commissioner, with all due respect, there's a lot of skirting around going on.
The skirting around on the issue that I mentioned when I started my remarks. In my opinion, that's skirting around. Some day when you're not the Commissioner and a new 16 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 Commissioner comes in and wants to skirt around, there's nothing there in writing, there's nothing in the ordinance that specifically says that if Public Property wants to buy 200 water coolers and they're $300 apiece, that there is the potential to buy those water coolers without a contract, without competitive bidding.
As I explained to Councilman Ortiz, what we do is that it's a bidding process. The only thing different is that we don't advertise. We don't go out and advertise in the newspapers. They have to receive at least three quotes from small companies. So it's not where a person just can go out and just arbitrarily decide they're going to buy from this company without any kind of competition.
If I may, Councilman. I think the question is, since you don't advertise and you have a list, who selects them? And are they rotated? I remember Wilson Goode when he became Mayor, because of the exclusion of minorities in the area of bonds and work with bonds and all of that area that we give huge contracts to, Mayor Goode set 17 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 up a -- put out a call for minority firms to bid on or subcontract on several different -- and demanded that minorities be included in the bond work. And then he made a list of minority firms and he put them really in a rotation basis. So that almost every minority that was certified and everything else at one point or another became part of the contracting process. I think Councilman Rizzo is saying, how do you avoid that the same or a favoritism emerges and some firms get preferential treatment from others in this venture? Because they're not publicly bid. You submit three and it could be the same three every time.
Before they can procure anything, those items must be sent to the Procurement Department for the buyer to take a look at and scrutinize. They have to show they went out and solicited from vendors on the bid list to make sure that everyone is given the opportunity in which to compete.
Commissioner, would you be open to a cap per business that after they reach a certain dollar amount somebody else has to have shot at this? Because, again, Commissioner, 18 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 I've been around this City business a long time. And you used the word "skirting around." I just don't like what I'm hearing.
Councilman, let me say this. We're not really doing anything that we aren't currently doing now. The only thing is that we're changing. Instead of opening it up to large companies competing against small companies, we're now saying that small companies will compete against small companies. They have to still go through a process, a process of making sure that the company selected is giving you the lowest cost. Again, it's still based on the lowest cost. It's not professional services. It's still a procurement item that they have to go to the lowest bidder.
So in order words, if the Public Property, the electricians need to buy circuit breakers, wires and things that they use for maintenance presently today they can go out and spend $13,000 --
No. Items like that is on the contract that we will competitively bid that. The 13,000 limit 500 to 13,000, right now it allows the departments the flexibility or allows them to 19 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 procure or to go ahead and basically do the leg work that we would have to do. From that standpoint, then they will send it to us because they've already done the leg work based on the bid list that they have and based on all of the vendors that are identified in that particular commodity. And then we in turn will look at that. And then if we find that -- if a company is not the lowest bidder, then we're not going to make that award.
Commissioner, tell me about another type of contract. Tell me if we have this. Public Property needs to buy items, maintenance items, where they have like an open contract where they can just walk in and pick up 10 boxes of circuit breakers. Tell me about that kind of contract where I know that there are various departments that have contracts with automotive parts or they have contracts with electrical supplies or refrigeration supplies, janitorial supplies where there's no limit of $13,000, there's just an open deal. What's the difference?
Well, first of all, those type of items have been advertised and been publicly -- they've been bidded. These are bid items that we 20 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 will go out and solicit an invitation to bid for those items. Public Property does not go out on their own and solicit that.
But there are contracts out there that have no dollar constraints.
No, that's not true. All of our contracts that we issue, there is a dollar limit on all of them. Keep in mind also that the limit is basically based on a guesstimate because we actually don't know what we're going to use until we actually use it. So there's a dollar cap on all of our contracts. So there is no contract that we issue that has no dollar limit on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to my colleague's comments, I just wanted to mention the fact that the reality of existing process as it relates to capping small businesses under this particular provision, the reality is that a lot of the larger companies continue to get contract renewal year after year. I 21 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 think the City of Philadelphia has been buying Ford vehicles for the last -- for as long as I've been here. So I'm more concerned if there's going to be a cap on companies continuing to get contracts with the City that we look at the larger contracts as opposed to smaller contracts. Our intent on this particular Bill was to give the small business person more of an opportunity to, hopefully, build capacity if they continue to get contacts, we assume based on their performance. I, frankly speaking, don't have a real problem with a small business continuing to do business with the City of Philadelphia and hopefully build the capacity that one day they will no longer be able to receive one of these no bid contracts and they will then have to bid along with the big boys. So that's the intent of this particular Bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Is there any other member of the Committee that has any questions? (No response.)
If not, is there any other witness on this Bill? (No response.) 22 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119
Hearing none, that will end the public discussion on the Bill and the Resolution. Please identify yourself and spell your last name so the reporter can have it.
Louis Cruz, I'm the President of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. I think this Bill is great, as Councilman Clarke mentioned. Just would like to be able to know a little bit more information on qualifications because I think that the businesses here in Philadelphia need to get the information on these types of contracts. The structure is great, but if the information isn't given that these types of contracts exist for businesses in Philadelphia to be able to qualify themselves or to be able to apply for them, then it's really not going to do any of our businesses in the City any good. So whether the information is given through the different Chambers or whether the information is posted some kind of way that we could have our businesses apply and note all the services under the codes or how the classification may be. But I think an important thing to put into that Bill 25 would be that there's sufficient advertisement for 23 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 businesses in our City to be able to apply to qualify for this.
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Currently, what we're doing is that all of our advertisements is on-line. Phila.gov that will list all of the planned activities or planned purchases under 13,000 for the entire year. And this is updated on a monthly basis. It lists the departments, the contact person, and the item that they will be procuring. So that does exist on our Website.
Doesn't the City take some extra steps to make sure that all businesses are notified of opportunities?
These opportunities, Councilman, these are small orders so we don't advertise per se, but we do list them on our Website so that we tell vendors to go to our Website and it will list all of the small order purchases that we anticipate doing for the entire month. And so, again, it will list the commodity, the person that they need to contact, and how much we think we're 24 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 going to spend, basically. But it's under $13,000 though.
But, sir, it seems to me if the City were genuinely interested in promoting the role of small business, it would go out of its way, it would not say, "We do so-and-so and it's up to small business to learn about it." It would seem to me the City would take extra steps to make sure that everyone in the City that might be interested would know about the opportunity. It's nothing personal, the criticism, but the Mayor brags about this Business Action Team. I know there's a Small Business Committee, yet we continue to hear these refrains from small business that somehow or other are left to scurry on their own, and many of them are in no position to do that. You know, a small businessman's got many problems to think about just to maintain himself and in the business of being a small businessman. So I think everything the City can do to make it easier ought to be done. And so I'm wondering what step could we can take? Do you have any suggestion, sir?
The one suggestion would be if notifications could be sent out to the different 25 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 Chambers.
And have the Chambers then accept an additional responsibility of notifying their membership? Well, that would certainly be one step.
We would be more than happy to send it to anyone. You know, we're trying to get the word out as much as we possibly can. We're looking as a first step of trying to do that. In the past, we didn't have it. So we are trying to reach out, and any suggestions you have in order for us to broaden that, it would be appreciated.
See, small LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 businessmen don't have the opportunity to be at the large campaign affairs where word seems to get booted about so you need special steps because small businessmen often can't afford the ticket price of the large campaign affairs. So I think you've got to do something to compensate for that. And we know that business generally is healthier the more we promote small business, and in every way it's going to afford the minority population and the population in generally more job opportunities if we get small business as healthy as possible. Look, I'm sure the Commissioner will be receptive to any other ideas you have. Councilman Clarke, was there anything you wish to add on that?
Is there any other witness to be heard on this matter? (No response.)
If not, the public hearing on this Bill and Resolution will be concluded. The committee will be taking action on this matter later this afternoon. 27 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030115, RES. 030119 The next Bill before this committee is -- would you read the number and title of the next Bill.
Bill No. 030016, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the composition of the Board of Pensions and Retirement. And Resolution 030034, a Resolution 12 proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the composition of the Board of Pensions and Retirement.
The first witness in that matter. Councilman Nutter, do you wish to make a statement on that? You're going to undertake the trepidations of being a witness, Councilman? We offer you no quarter, you know, once you become a witness. Councilman Nutter, the Committee is pleased to have you appear on behalf of the Bill and Resolution you've authored.
Thank you, Mr. 28 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030016, RES. 030034 Chairman. My name is Michael A. Nutter, N-U-T-T-E-R, Councilman for the 4th District. I do appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, to provide some testimony on this Resolution and the Bill. I would say off to the side, Mr. Chairman, that there are apparently a growing number of people who have expressed an interest in the opportunity to ask me questions. I will do my best to get through this as quickly as possible, but it is an unusual circumstance. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, the original Resolution and Bill as introduced would provide for two new members to the Board of Pensions to be appointed by the Council President. The primary motivation behind this was twofold: One, as we know from our recent budget hearings, our pension system, not unlike almost all pension systems across the country, have suffered as a result of a variety of circumstances, severe decline in assets which concerns all of us, as we are all public employees and we're members of this pension system. The Board of Pensions, I know, is very concerned about this issue as well. The Council has multiple responsibilities here, not only as members of the 29 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030016, RES. 030034 system, but also we are asked when the system under-performs for whatever reason to make additional contributions to maintain pensions for current retirees as well as future retirees. So Council has a clear interest in what goes on with the pension system. In addition, although we are a small part of the government in numbers, certainly as a Legislative Body we are an independent branch of the government. And in that regard, we are actually not represented directly on the Board of Pensions, unlike members of the Executive Branch of the government, as well as appropriately the four unions that represent our municipal employees, as well as the City Controller. And so it struck me at the time that Council should increase its involvement and concern about what goes on with our pension system that serves all of us. I've also had conversations with the heads of the four municipal unions, Police, Fire, DC 33, and DC 47, who expressed interest in this legislation, wanted to know the motivation behind it, which I shared exactly what I just said. They had their own concerns, which were understandable 30 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030016, RES. 030034 and quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, their concerns had not -- I had not anticipated their concerns. I've had a meeting. I've talked to every leader of the four municipal unions and I've had a meeting subsequently with their representatives just early this week. We have reached, I believe, an acceptable compromise, which I would propose in the form of an amendment to the Resolution and naturally to the Bill. The Bill 11 contains the question that would go on the ballot. And the compromise here is that the Council President would appoint one non-voting member to the Board who, other than the power to vote, shall have all rights, powers, and duties of other members of the board, including but not limited to the right to attend any Executive Session of the Board. One of the concerns, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly understand it, presently you have a nine-member board perfectly split in terms of representation between the Executive Branch and unions and then an additional member as the City Controller who often in many instances serves as a tie-breaker. The concern with the original proposal 31 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030016, RES. 030034 was that adding two new members, increasing the Board to could significantly change the dynamics 4 of the Board of Pensions as well as some of the 5 votes, quite honestly, and how matters are decided.
6 And I think the primary concern by our municipal 7 unions was that in some instances on important 8 matters, they are faced with 5 to 4 votes on issues 9 that are important to the membership, and under this 10 proposal could find themselves in a situation where 11 the vote potentially could be 7 to 4. Let me say clearly, Mr. Chairman, I have no interest in interfering with those dynamics. And I'm sensitive to our unions and the leadership and the members on the very serious issue of pensions. You've been the Chair in this Committee's hearings around the pension issue, so we know how serious this matter is. So I think in the spirit of cooperation and compromise and respecting the interests of the unions, I would like to put forward this particular amendment. A couple of the unions do have representative here, but I would also, with the Chair's permission, add to this record a letter of support for this particular amendment from Mr. 32 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030016, RES. 030034 Robert Eddis, President of the Philadelphia Lodge No. 5 Fraternal Order Police; Mr. Thomas Cronin, President of AFSCME District Council 47; and there is a correspondence from the Philadelphia Fire Fighters Union. Mr. Reilly is here. He may also be testifying. He and I have had a conversation. I don't wish to characterize his position, although I believe it is a positive one. And I've had conversations and I am anticipating a letter of support from Mr. Pete Matthews, President of District Council 33, for this same measure. So with that, Mr. Chairman, when we reach the public meeting portion, I'll formally put forward the amendments. They will be circulated during the course of --
Sure. The Resolution as introduced, very simply, added two members appointed by the Council President. The amendment would strike that and add the following language to Section 3-803 of the Home Rule Charter: One non-voting member of the Board appointed by the President of Council who other than the power to 33 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030016, RES. 030034 vote shall have all rights, powers, and duties of other members of the Board, including but not limited to the right to attend any Executive Session of the Board. The end result of that, Mr. Chairman, is that the member appointed by the Council President, while not having the right to vote, would be a full participant and would have a right at the table of the Board of Pensions and Retirement to participate in all of the sessions and meetings, receive all documents; data and information naturally would be able to report back to the Council but have a rightful seat at the Board of Pensions, which certainly is an open entity and I'm sure in its public sessions welcomes anyone to come, but we also know, Mr. Chairman, that, first, there are a variety of matters that are discussed in Executive Session to which even a present Councilmember would not be able to attend. And secondly, rather than having our participation by way of professional courtesy, I thought it important at a minimum to have our participation as a matter of right in all the discussions that take place around the Board of Pensions. 34 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030016, RES. 030034 I'm sure that there may be a variety of differences of opinion on this particular issue, but I thought as at least a start --
Well, let me ask because I'm still not clear. Does the amendment substitute in place of two voting members, it substitutes one non-voting member?
So there will only be one member added instead of two and that member would have all the rights of membership except the right to vote?
Thereby maintaining the present voting strength of the different parties that compose the Board now?
And that means that basically the change is more of permitting wider participation and discussion rather than changing 35 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030016, RES. 030034 the dynamics of the voting forces.
Exactly. You would at least have active participation in the discussion around what's going on in the pension system from a Council perspective. And whoever is appointed would then naturally have the responsibility to report all of that information back to us --
I suggest that whoever suggested that be proposed for a special auxiliary membership on the United Nations. It took a lot of skill and creativity to come up with that proposal. Sounds very interesting to me.
Are there any questions by Members of the Committee? (No response.)
Does everybody understand the effect of this amendment would be to cut the number that the President would appoint to the board from 2 to and have that person be a full 23 member except not be able to participate in voting, 24 which would maintain the present voting strength and 25 dynamics of the different partisans? 36 1 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 030016, RES. 030034
I think it sounds very good because it gives us a voice which is what we really want. I don't think Council at this stage since we have a power to vote on pensions, we have the ultimate word. I don't think we want to do more than make sure we know what's going on and participate and have an opportunity to present our point of view. And that seems to me to be the purpose of the amendment. It sounds very good to me. We'll see how it is when it comes to votes.
That's always the final test. Mr. Chairman, while I'm here -- and again this will be read into the record during the public meeting. Naturally, with this proposed amendment to the Resolution, the question as originally introduced in the Ordinance was written to comport with the Resolution. Naturally, the question that the voters would be asked to vote on would have to change as a result of the proposed amendment. The new question in Bill 030016 would read as follows: "Shall the Home Rule Charter be 37 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 amended to provide for one non-voting member of the Board appointed by the President of Council who, other than the power to vote, shall have all rights, powers, and duties of other members of the Board, including but not limited to the right to attend any Executive Session of the Board?" That makes the question in concert with the proposed amendment to the Resolution.
Those will go into the record during the public meeting.
Any questions any of the Members of the Committee have of Councilman Nutter? (No response.)
I have none. Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses to be heard on this proposal? (No response.)
If not, that concludes the public hearing on that Bill and Resolution. May we move to the next item on the 38 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 agenda?
There's a Resolution and a Bill coming up next. The Resolution is 030106, a Resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to establish that a bid preference can be allowed in the awarding of public contracts to Philadelphia firms and that the extent and nature of the bid preference shall be provided by ordinance. And with that is Bill 030097, an Ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia 13 Code, entitled "Contracts and Procurement," by 14 adding a new section 17-109, entitled "Local Bidding 15 Preferences," providing for the establishment of a 16 bidding preference on City contracts for 17 Philadelphia businesses, under certain terms and conditions.
Is there anyone here from the City Solicitor's department?
No. There's Jim Cuorato, and we have an opinion on this particular Bill.
I think it might be well to advise the Law Department they ought to be prepared to send somebody over on this matter. I 39 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 think they ought to be prepared. I suspect I will have a number of questions.
Mr. Cuorato, would you come forward, please? Identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman 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 in support of Bill No. 030097 and Bill No. 030098. Bill No. 030097 is an ordinance that would provide for local bidding preferences in City contract awards. Bill 030098 is a related Bill that would allow for an amendment to the Home Rule Charter to permit this bid preference. Whenever we award contracts to firms outside the City, the direct and indirect economic benefits of these Public Works investments are significantly reduced.
Mr. Cuorato, I 40 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 apologize for interrupting. Do you have any copies?
Yes, Councilman, I do. I'm sorry. I thought they had been distributed.
Mr. Chairman, I might note that the testimony that's being distributed also contained some language related to testimony that had just previously been given by Commissioner Gamble, so I will not repeat that. I'll just skip over that in my testimony.
All right. Let me ask you as a point of information. When you talk about City contracts, are you being precise? You mean only those contracts which carry the name City of Philadelphia? How about Philadelphia Housing Authority? How about PIDC, PAID, and every other agency which for all purposes is the same as the City of Philadelphia except the authorities were organized under a state law instead of a city ordinance but otherwise are as fully controlled by the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia as are the City agencies? What do you mean by we in the City of Philadelphia?
Mr. Chairman, I am 41 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 referring -- and I believe these ordinances refer specifically to contracts issued by the City of Philadelphia. So my understanding is they would not cover contracts by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. For some of the other departments that you mentioned, I cover those in my testimony and I can either answer the question now for you or just state it as part of my testimony.
Would someone else have for the City of Philadelphia a breakdown in volume? It's my understanding -- it may be inaccurate or accurate -- that only about half of the contracts that are let out are let out technically by the City of Philadelphia. And I think we ought to know whether or not half of the volume is being permitted to remain in the discretion of the Mayor. And then I would like to know if that's the case, how do we intend to enforce this provision or do we have some purpose in mind in limiting this just to those that deal directly with agencies defined as City of Philadelphia. Because we have had the experience in the past where authorities who are generally more free with money than City agencies go and hire the 42 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 most expensive lawyers in the City to explain why, although their work is limited to City work, they have a gilt edge covering wrapping them around and immunizing them from control of ordinary City agencies except perhaps the appointing authority who in all these cases is the Mayor. So I would like to have a full understanding as to the purpose of this amendment.
Two things. Could you possibly repeat that last phrase? What was that, a gilt edge covering wrapped around -- I'll have to check the notes of testimony on that one. That was a good one.
But you'll have to remember what I said was copyrighted.
I'll give you credit if I ever repeat it. With regard to the initial question that you had asked Mr. Cuorato first, Mr. Chairman, this is not an Administration Bill. This is a Bill that 43 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 I offered and am the sponsor of. Specifically, on of the Bill in 17-109(5), the Bill talks about award of City contracts. So this Bill is specific to this group of contracts. A, on any City contract for which the City secures competitive bids pursuant to Section 8-200(1) of the Home Rule Charter. The Commissioner shall award a 5 percent bid preference to any local business entity that submits with its bid, and then it goes on. So I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this Bill only applies to those contracts that meet the requirement under Section 8-200(1) of the Home Rule Charter which require a competitive bidding process and procedure. This Bill would only apply to those particular bids. And I think what you were getting at, which is certainly a very serious issue and we've had concerns about that on many instances, are, one, the professional services contracts which by definition are not subject to competitive bidding; and then your other question about PHA and other semi, quasi, sounds-like-government, looks-like-government, must-be-the-government, I believe that they are not subject to Section 8-200(1) of the Home Rule Charter. They may be subject to other requirements, 44 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 but they're not subject to that section and, therefore, I do not believe that those contracts by those semi, quasi-governmental units would be covered by this particular Bill.
I was either negligent or not smart enough to figure out how to get those under this provision. But for the moment, I was primarily looking at City contracts because we're looking to amend the City Charter.
All right. I understand the limitation. And what you're saying is, let's get a half of loaf if we can't by the whole loaf.
I'm very much interested. I think it's outrageous that the various authorities are not covered by the City's Ethics Board, for example. Because the authorities say they're not City agencies. And if they're not City agencies, I don't think we ought to recognize them as having any rights to deal with City problems. But that may be for another day. 45 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 With the explanation of Councilman Nutter, we'll go forward on this Bill today. But the other issue remains a very live area of questioning. Go ahead, Mr. Cuorato.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just continuing with my testimony, whenever we award contracts to firms outside the City, the direct and indirect economic benefits of these public works investments are significantly reduced. I know that you share this frustration, not just with multimillion-dollar development projects, but also with professional services, equipment, and supplies. In addition encouraging them to locate and remain in Philadelphia, creating local jobs and increasing tax revenue, these bills help offset the cost of doing business in the City. Philadelphia businesses operate at a competitive disadvantage due to the higher taxes, wages, and insurance burdens they face. By providing for a local bidding preference, these ordinances address those additional costs that often force businesses to relocate to outside the City limits to remain competitive. Businesses that make a commitment to 46 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 locating and doing business in the City of Philadelphia deserve our full support when we make purchasing decisions. It is for this reason that I have implemented a policy that, all things being equal, Philadelphia firms be given contracts for professional services by agencies or departments under my jurisdiction such as the division of aviation and PIDC. I should also note that local bidding preference is not only a commendable policy for the City of Philadelphia, it is a practice that has been implemented in cities such as Washington, D.C., Boston, Detroit, and Miami, Dade and Clark Counties. For these reasons, I would respectfully urge you to support No. 030097 and Bill No. 030098 and the accompanying Resolution. And I thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Cuorato. And I'm pleased that we have an opportunity to work together on something.
I am as well, Councilman. 47 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 Thank you.
It sounded as if something was intended that is not clear on the record, that last comment.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cuorato and I, the last time I think we were together, had a bit of an intense back-and-forth on another Bill of mine, which is the economic impact statement. He had a very strong position, which I respect. I had a very strong position, which he respects. And we did not have an opportunity most recently to work together on something. So I was just expressing the appreciation to have a recent matter to work on together.
Okay. Very good. Let me ask you one question. The issue that I raised which -- would the City have any objection to an amendment that would be proposed that would require that in any contract arranged between the City and an authority doing business on behalf of the City will be required to abide by the these kinds of provisions? It's my understanding, for example, that all the authorities in order to do their work have 48 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 to enter into contracts with the City of Philadelphia; is that correct?
Councilman, I don't know that that's the case all of the time. I can tell you that I unequivocally support the concept behind Councilman Nutter's Bills. I do, however, think there may be legal questions in taking it that next step further and having it apply to authorities. I know even with these two Bills, and I think Councilman Nutter will concur, they had to be very carefully crafted and reviewed by the Law Department to ensure that they were legal and fit within Constitutional guidelines. And even with that, the Law Department made it very clear that without an amendment to the Home Rule Charter we could not enact this legislation. So I think there are legal issues. And I, again, will defer to Councilman Nutter as the sponsor of the Bills, but I certainly would like to see -- as you characterized it, Councilman, I certainly would like to see the half of loaf, see these bills approved, and then if there are ways to take it even further, I think we can certainly look at that.
But you're not 49 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 prepared to express an opinion as to whether you think the second half would be as tasty as the first half for the City's appetite?
Apart from the Constitutional questions that may exist, that's a separate area and, of course, we would want to make sure that legally they pass muster. But my question is, assuming they pass muster, would the City as a matter of policy prefer to have the full loaf rather than the half loaf?
I would support the concept of any contracts that are within our jurisdiction to award go to Philadelphia companies.
Mr. Chairman, just a brief mention. There will be technical amendments to both the Resolution and the Bill. Most of these Charter measures that I have here today, Mr. Chairman, when they were introduced, they were written with the anticipation that the measures would possibly be on the May ballot.
Optimist. 50 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106
Yes, well, I'm the eternal optimist. But time and reality took over, and so there will be amendments to most of these to change the date from May 20th to November 4th.
Very good. Are there any other witnesses to be heard on the Bill and Resolution before us on that particular Charter change giving Philadelphia businesses a small preference to make up for the disadvantages of their location in Philadelphia? I think that's a crude but rough summary of the amendment.
It is. And as I indicated, Mr. Chairman, at your request, a member of the Law Department who worked on this matter will be coming over. And you know we have the --
He's not here yet, but I'm sure you'll put him on at the appropriate time.
And we do have an opinion from the City Solicitor on these three 51 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 matters laying out their legality, but also indicating the kinds of hurdles that we had to get over and why we did it this way.
All right. Is there any way of extracting the opinion with respect to this particular Bill and Resolution?
It has been distributed, Mr. Chairman. If this works for you, if there were a question, I would certainly seek to go to the appropriate section of the opinion and seek to answer that question. But I'm reluctant as a non-lawyer to try to make a full argument.
Well, there are two Bills and there's one Resolution in this particular situation. So the two Bills are 030097 and 030098, and the Resolution is 030106.
All right. I think that would be sufficient at this point. 52 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621
I could just explain why there are two bills. One is the authorization for the ballot question to be on the ballot on the Charter change, and the other is the Bill which would actually implement the Charter change which is going to be the subject of the ballot question. So you're seeking to actually implement the Charter change. Would that be effective as of the date of the approval of a Charter change?
The actual ordinance 13 implementing the local bidding preference, Section 14 2, of the Bill is "This ordinance shall become effective 90 days after adoption of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter permitting local bidding preferences." So it's a 90-day lead-in time.
We're next considering Bill 21 020621. An Ordinance amending Title 2 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "City-County Consolidation," by abolishing the Board of Revision of Taxes and reassigning its powers, functions and duties to three newly created City agencies to be 53 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 known as the Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review, the Property Assessment Oversight Board, and the Office of Property Assessment.
This is a straight ordinance implementing the current provisions of the Home Rule Charter?
Michael Nutter, N-U-T-T-E R, Councilman for the 4th District. Mr. Chairman, this is a slightly unusual situation. There's one ordinance, and this involves utilization of the City-County Consolidation Act which allows City Council to legislate with regard to the Board of Revision of Taxes as well as a number of other agencies that are covered by the City-County Consolidation Act. The requirement here is that in order for City Council to be able to legislate with regard to the Board of Revision of Taxes, the voters have to approve a question giving us that authority, 54 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 and that's required under the City-County Consolidation Act as passed by the State Legislature. Once the question is approved, Council is then within its legislative right to legislate as it relates to the Board of Revision of Taxes. In this particular Bill, 020621, we've incorporated what the amendments would be to the Code as well as in the back of the Bill in a separate Section 2. We've also incorporated the actual question. So it is not a Charter change. But the City-County Consolidation Act requires us to utilize the process and procedure of Charter change with regard to at least putting a question on the ballot. It's not something we do every day, but --
The question would appear on the same ballot as that which may contain the proposed changes of the Home Rule Charter?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. So it would be a question, like all the other questions that are on the ballot. Those questions -- and you are right and you hit on the point. Those question would be asking voters for approval of actual changes to the Charter. This question is 55 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 not asking for a change to the Charter; it's asking voters to give their approval to our ability to legislate as it relates to the Board of Revision of Taxes. And at that point, the BRT would then be covered by the Philadelphia Code.
In order words, the Charter is already in shape enough to absorb this change without the voters having to specify that they're changing the Charter, but what is missing is one additional election step relating to the consolidation of County and City requirements? It comes from the fact that the City of Philadelphia geographically is the same area both for the County and for the City?
But as of now, the Board of Revision Taxes is a County position rather than a City position?
In essence, yes. Although it only covers the same area as the City. It only provides services for the City. There were a series of offices, as you well know, that did not completely make it into the City's purview under City-County Consolidation Act. And we may have the 56 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 Act handy. There are other offices. If at any time we wanted to have those offices within our purview, we would go through the same process.
Councilman Nutter, I don't know whether you know the answer or not; but if you do, I'd appreciate it. Do the paychecks, for example, received by the people who are in general but not specifically covered by the Charter but are authorized to be covered if Council ever takes the Consolidation Act, what kind of paycheck do they currently receive? Say, BRT employees, Board of Revision of Tax employees.
I believe the BRT employees are paid by the City of Philadelphia.
Even though they're technically not yet fully part of the City of Philadelphia to the same extent, at least -- I see Mr. Fader is here. Perhaps he'll be able to give us more official explanations. Thank you, though. I think you're very clear on that. 57 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of items that I need to put in the record here. This Bill comes as a result of a number of issues that have been raised over the course of the past year. You are well aware, and the entire Committee is well aware that this City Council has been involved in a process dealing with property assessments for many, many years. This is not a new issue. And there have actually been, prior to my service in Council, discussions about bringing the Board of Revision of Taxes closer to the government, not for the purpose of inappropriately influencing what they do, but ensuring that there is accountability in how the system functions and operates. We all know many of the horror stories from last summer's assessment process, which I think is not -- at least from my perspective, is not so much a comment on how the Board of Revision of Taxes functions or the Board members or the staff, but that there is a system that is slowly deteriorating and somewhat out of control. 58 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 The model for this particular legislation is primarily from Allegheny County and how they broke up administratively the different functions of their then similar Board of Revision Taxes agency. What you have right now, Mr. Chairman, is a system where everyone works for the same entity under the same roof. The taxpayers are left with, certainly, the impression, wrong as it may be, that the Board of Revision of Taxes is in the revenue-generating business, which they are not. They're in the assessment business and evaluation of property business and the appeals business. Board members are presently appointed by the Board of Judges to ensure a certain level of independence, but as you even indicated, all of the members receive their paycheck from the City of Philadelphia. They are not strangers to us. They are not foreign to us. We know many of the members well, and we have extensive contact with them. But out of last year's assessment process, the issue of how the Board functions and operates, should there been a separation, should there be greater lines of accountability between the 59 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 Board and its functioning similar to almost every other department, board, or agency of the government was raised; and I started looking at this particular issue. The Bill in front of us today comes as a result of discussions with the Board of Revision of Taxes and a variety of other people who are much more expert in this particular area than myself, although I've tried to learn as much as possible about these issues in a relatively short period of time. I have also a set of proposed amendments to this Bill which come as a result of more extensive conversations, input, advice, and suggestions actually from the Board of Revision of Taxes and specifically Chairman Glancey as well as Mr. Robert Nix. What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman -- I believe the amendments have been circulated -- is to walk through the amendments, answer any questions in general on this particular provision or on any of the amendments and then, naturally, at the time of the public meeting seek to move these amendments. If you look at of the proposed amendments, some of these amendments are purely 60 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 stylistic in nature or trying to keep a certain level of order of the listing of what -- the Board of Revision of Taxes would essentially be broken into three different entities. There would be a Property Assessment Oversight Board which would have overall responsibility for how the system functions and operates. There would be a Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review, which essentially would be your appeal side of this issue. And there would be an Office of Property Assessment, which would be the people who actually conduct the assessments and determine market values on the property.
In time, in the chronological order that an assessment would take place, could you place those three groups? Would the Office of Assessment come into the picture first to make the assessment subject to review by one of the two other boards that would examine it before an appeal, before the notice became official? And would the final Board be the Board to which a taxpayer would appeal if he or she were unhappy with the result of the assessment?
Exactly. What would 61 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 happen, Mr. Chairman, is naturally all of the entities, should this be approved by the voters, all of these entities would come into being simultaneously. But what you were asking was the order of things. The Office of Property Assessment would conduct the assessment process, send that information to the Property Assessment Oversight Board who would have to determine that the Office of Property Assessment had conducted the assessments in accordance with actually a standards ordinance that this Council would have to approve to ensure that the Office of Property Assessment actually conducted the assessment process in the proper fashion. And then there would be a certification process. Property owners would receive their notice similar to the way they do now. I believe that pretty much the same cycling would carry forward where you would receive your new assessment notice in the summer and a certain date, which is actually set by statute -- it might be the first Monday in October -- by which time you have to file your appeal. You would then file your appeal with the Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review. 62 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 So you would have the same cycling and process, but it would be done by separate entities which would be apart from each other, and you would know that you were only dealing with one entity at a time.
And currently, the three entities are all grouped together in the same agency?
Yes. And what you have in essence is the assessors making an assessment as well as setting a market value which is approved, in essence, by the same people, the Board of Revision of Taxes, who have to also hear your appeals. And so the same group of people are setting the figures and also listening to appeals all under the same roof. So it creates a certain level of confusion within the taxpaying public on the issue of how do you grade yourself under this particular circumstance?
It certainly sounds like it's a more basic, fairer approach to have different people involved. But we'll hear the testimony on it. I just wanted to make sure I understood the basic structure. 63 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621
Let me go through a description of the Bill. I'm sure there will be a variety of questions. The main aspects of Bill 020621 are as follows: The BRT would be abolished after it has made assessments in Calendar Year 2003 for the purpose of the 2004 real estate taxes. And so the current BRT would still do the assessments for this summer, would issue the notices, would certify the assessment process. Taxpayers would receive their bills, appeals would be taken, and the BRT would stay in business until the entire appeals process was completed, which would be sometime in 2004. Starting with the 2004 assessments, which would generally be the summer of 2004 made for 2005, a new system would be established involving three new entities: The property Assessment Oversight Board, the Office of Property Assessment, and the Property Assessment Appeals and Review. The Oversight Board would be composed o three members. One would be selected by the Mayor, with the advice and consent of Council. The last member would serve a four-year term. 64 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 The Oversight Board would submit a proposed Assessment Standards and Practice Ordinance 4 to Council, setting forth a recommendation for how Council should impose standards for application of assessment standards. The Assessment Office would be created within the Managing Director's Office. The Managing Director would appoint a Chief Assessment Officer to run that office who would only be removable for cause, and all the other employees of the office. The ordinance also sets forth certain minimum qualifications of the Chief Assessment Officer and other employees of the office. The Assessment Office would make all property assessments in the City starting in 2004 for application in 2005 pursuant to the Assessment Standards Ordinance set forth in an ordinance to be adopted by Council. The Assessment Office would make recommendation to the Appeals Board regarding the tax exempt status of property. It would also have certain other functions, including providing certain information to the Oversight Board and the public making recommendations to City Council, et cetera. After assessments are made by the Assessment Office, 65 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 the Oversight Board would be required to certify that such assessments were made in accordance with the ordinance establishing assessment standards adopted by City Council. The Appeals Board would be composed of seven members who would be required to have certain backgrounds and training. The members would be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of Council. They would be removable by the Mayor only for cause. The Appeals Board would provide hearings in all appeals made from the assessments and decide the appeals in accordance with the Assessment Appeals Standards and Practices Ordinance 15 adopted by Council. The Board would make a recommendation to Council regarding the contents of such an ordinance. There's a provision in here, although not presently within our system that we could also have Hearing Examiners who would be required to have certain qualifications and would be required to provide findings to the Board which would then make a decision on the appeal. Those are the basic descriptor items within the Bill. 66 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 Mr. Chairman, with regard to some of the amendments, I'll detail or, at least, highlight some of the more important ones which I think will also be of concern to some Members and possibly other members of the public. Again, to ensure a certain level of independence, the members of the Board of Appeals shall be appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of a majority of all the members of the Council. The initial members of the Board of Appeals shall consist of the seven persons who serve as members of the Board of Revision of Taxes on the date this section becomes law.
That will ensure, not only continuity with our present Board members in terms of making a transition, but also allows for the present Board members to serve out their present terms. They all have certain terms of office which actually start expiring in 2004. Each initial member shall serve until his or her term as a member of the Board of Revision of Taxes would have expired had the Board been abolished pursuant to Section 2-113 and until his or her successor has been appointed and qualified. The first seven members who are 67 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 appointed to succeed an initial member, either upon the expiration of the term of an initial member or because an initial member failed to complete his or her term, shall be appointed to terms ending as follows -- and then there are a series of term dates which, again, ensure a staggered and fixed term provision -- January 1, 2009; January 1, 2010; January 1, 2011; January 1, 2012. And the term of the seventh such member shall end December 31, 2012. The Mayor is also required to forward proposed appointments to Council for its advice and consent at 30 days before the expiration of any term. Council will then be able to keep track of where things are in the process. The Board of Appeals shall retain an Executive Director and such other employees as are required to conduct the work of the Board. That helps to ensure that the Board actually has the staff that it needs to conduct its job. The Board of Appeals shall perform such administrative duties for the Board of Review as had been performed by the Board of Revision of Taxes. That provision ensures that Board of Review's duties and responsibilities stay in place. 68 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 An additional amendment is regarding the Chief Assessment Officer. Again, to ensure independence and a certain level of security in that particular position as well as lessening the subject to influence on that person, the following amendments are proposed: The Managing Director shall appoint a Chief Assessment Officer who shall direct the work of the Office of Property Assessment for a term of five years and who shall be exempt from Civil Service but who may only be removed for cause. Additionally, before the Chief Assessment Officer may be removed prior to the expiration of his or her term, the Managing Director shall provide the Chief Assessment Officer with a written statement of the reasons for removal and shall give the Chief Assessment Officer an opportunity to a hearing before the Managing Director. If the Managing Director, following such hearing, determines that the Chief Assessment Officer shall be removed from office, such decision shall be final unless the Chief Assessment Officer within seven days after being notified in writing of the Managing Director's final decision, appeal such 69 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 decision to the Property Assessment Oversight Board which shall, following a hearing, make a final decision as to whether the Chief Assessment Officer shall be removed from office. Now, that's a somewhat circuitous process, I will acknowledge. But the purpose of that process is to ensure that the Chief Assessment Officer is able to do his or her job not subject to influence by anyone, including any of us presently here or a Mayor or anyone else, and provides a certain level of security in that job such that if the Managing Director for whatever reason makes a decision to try to fire that person for cause, they have to be notified in writing, they have to have an opportunity for a hearing before the Managing Director. If the Managing Director reaffirms the decision to terminate, the person has an opportunity to then appeal to the Property Assessment Oversight Board before any final decision is made. And all of those decisions have to be detailed in writing. I would like to think that all of those parties would think very long and very hard before making such a decision.
The other significant amendments or 70 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 proposed amendments as follows: On , Section 2-209, the transfer of existing employees. That provision was written in to give a level of security to the present employees over at the Board of Revision of Taxes, many of whom are Civil Service, some of whom are not. Those persons employed by the Board of Revision of Taxes on the date the Board of Revision of Taxes ceases to exist shall become employees of the Property Assessment Oversight Board if they are regularly occupied in connection with the functions and duties transferred to that Board; the Property Assessment Appeals and Review if they are regularly occupied in connection with the functions and duties transferred to that Board; or of the Office of Property Assessment if they are regularly occupied and in connection with the functions and duties transferred to that office. What that all means is that wherever those employees work today and whatever function they're providing today, they are going to end up in one of those three entities and continue to perform the same job under the same circumstances in that particular unit. If you're an assessment person, 71 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 you go with the Assessment Board. If you're an appeals person, you go with the Appeals Board. And if you are more administrative staff working with the current Board of Revision of Taxes in an administrative capacity, more than likely you're going to go with the Property Assessment Oversight Board. Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Councilman Nutter. Does it have any impact on their pension benefits? Are they moving from the School District payroll to the City payroll or vice versa? Is there any impact on that?
There's a subsequent provision about that. Again, if a person is presently a School District employee, under this particular Bill, one, they will stay a School District employee and they will stay in that particular job classification and continue to receive that particular pay. If they're a City employee, they're going to remain a City employee in our pension system and the like. This does not change that. But there is an additional provision here now written in to the Bill. 72 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 "Similarly any School District employees who are assigned to the Board of Revision of Taxes on the date the Board of Revision of Taxes ceases to exist shall be resigned to the Property Assessment Oversight Board, the Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review, or the Office of Property Assessment, as appropriate." So what that means is if you happen to be a School District employee who is now working over at the Board of Revision of Taxes, whatever your job is presently, you will go to one of those three entities and continue to perform that service. Let me also take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to make mention of the fact that there has been some discussion in public and during School District budget hearing about the issue of the School District employees who are assigned over to the Board of Revision of Taxes. There has been a series of meetings and discussions around this issue and leadership provided on the issue by our Council President Anna Verna. It is my understanding that with regard to the School District employees assigned to the Board of Revision of Taxes that City Council will engage a -- for the purposes of a study 73 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 of this particular issue and how to best utilize these employees in their current function and also analyze the financial impact to both the School District and the City of Philadelphia on how we ultimately deal with the cost factors associated with their service, which is a dual service; they work for the School District, but they're also assisting in the collection of revenues for the School District. I understand that there are fiscal implications to the District and there is certainly fiscal implications to the City of Philadelphia. But that study will be conducted during the course of the year to try to reach some decision with regard to how these costs are covered or shared in the future. But I believe for the moment, based on that agreement for a study of this issue, that those employees of the School District will continue to work over at the Board of Revision of Taxes and maintain their School District status. Lastly, there was a need again for a date change. When this Bill was introduced, it was hoped that it might be on the May ballot. The dates have been changed to make it ready for the November election. 74 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 I'm available for any questions, Mr. Chairman.
I've got a feeling there are no questions from the Committee here.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. I do have copies of testimony here if someone would like to get them. I'm Nancy Kammerdeiner, Revenue Commissioner. I'm pleased to be with you today to present testimony regarding Bill No. 020621. As you've already heard, this Bill would abolish the Board of Revision of Taxes and replace it with several new boards and offices, subject to voter approval by referendum. On behalf of the Administration, I'm here to respectfully convey our opposition to this legislation. While I understand that many Philadelphians were dismayed by the size of their 75 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 recent assessment increases, I do not believe that this legislation represents an appropriate response to their concerns and would likely make the situation worse. Our greatest fear is that, if implemented, this Bill could profoundly politicize the tax assessment process in a manner that would lead to public mistrust of the entire assessment process. I believe it's fair to say that the BRT, particularly under its current leadership, has been largely immune to and free from outside political pressure that would affect either assessments or appeals from those assessments. Despite the recent outcry over this year's assessments, I believe that the public perception is still that the BRT'S fundamental processes are not politicized. This Bill would turn that perception on its head in two distinct but equally disturbing ways. First, Bill 020621 would create an Appeals Board whose members would be appointed by the Mayor with approval of a majority of Council. Second, the newly created Office of Property Assessment would be placed within the Managing Director's Office with the Chief Assessment Officer to be appointed by the Managing Director. 76 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 With these structural changes, the Bill 3 would dramatically increase the public perception and possibly the reality that the BRT would be subject to political pressures and persuasions in future years. I recognize that the intent behind these provisions is to create enhanced accountability, but the unintended result is the opening of a Pandora's box of political opportunity to influence assessments and appeals. The people making initial assessments and the people hearing appeals from those assessments would be directly beholden to future Mayors or Members of Council for their jobs. This dramatically enhances the potential for political intervention in the assessment process. More importantly, it destroys the degree of independence that the BRT currently enjoys from both Mayoral and Councilmanic politics and insulates both the Mayor and Members of Council from responsibility for each and every assessment decision made. I'm deeply concerned that the public will lose any remaining faith they have in the assessment process once it's clear that the people who do the assessments report to the Mayor and the 77 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 people who review the appeals of those assessments have their positions thanks to the Mayor and Members of Council. This would far overshadow the benefits from requiring that the incumbents in those offices hold certain professional qualifications. Indeed, requirements for professional qualifications currently exist for the BRT evaluators and could be added for some or all Board members without changing the organizational structure. No part of government can or should be completely isolated from politics. But the current system under which the BRT members are appointed by the Board of Judges creates a degree of separatism from executive and legislative politics that's desirable and that has proven to be effective. It is my impression that year after year, the BRT calls them as they see them. You've heard from David Glancey as he's testified here, and I've heard him as well, say that during his tenure he's never been approached by anyone in the Administration with a request to increase or limit assessments.
Do we really want to risk surrendering that element of independence from the real estate taxation process? 78 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 The current method of appointment, while less visible than the one proposed in the Bill, has been working effectively to neutralize considerations that should have no impact on the setting of assessment or the adjudication of appeals. I'm also concerned that the language of Section 2-204 of the Bill opens up the possibility of dramatically increasing the number of exempt employees carrying out the assessment function. Currently, employment at the BRT is subject to Civil Service requirements, and the number of exempt employees is limited to the Board and Executive Director. That does not count the School District employees who were referenced just a short time ago by Councilman Nutter. And a concern that I had in my original testimony that they weren't considered in this legislation has been dealt with in the proposed amendments. However, under the wording of Section 22 2-204 and also because the new Office of Property Assessment would be located in the Managing Director's Office where additional exempt positions are permitted under the City Charter, there's every 79 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 possibility that assessors or other workers in the Office of Property Assessment would be exempt employees. In the realm of taxation governance, one must view this as a giant step backward, pulling us further away from desirable independence and professionalism into the potential realm of political pressure, or at least the perception of such politicization. Next, I'd like to address the Bill's intention to separate the assessment function from the appeals function by creating two distinct entities, the Office of Property Assessment and the Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review. If we were starting from scratch and without the benefit of past experience, it would arguably make sense to separate these two functions with the goal of ensuring a measure of public confidence that the appellate function would not somehow be contaminated by being too close to the assessment function. But we do have the benefit of experience. It's my opinion, based on years of observation and interaction with the BRT, that the appellate function of the Board is not biased or otherwise compromised despite its location within the BRT. On 80 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 the contrary, for those of us who see the assessment and appeals as part science, part art, the fact that the day-to-day head of the BRT who's intimately familiar with the assessment process also sits on the seven-member Appeals Board has made it possible for the kind of sensitive give and take that results in the administration of justice. People walk away from their appeals hearings before the Board of Revision of Taxes feeling that they've gotten a fair hearing before a knowledgeable entity. That is in large measure a credit to Mr. Glancey personally, but I think it's also a credit to a governance arrangement currently in place. The current governance arrangement works. Can it work better? Yes, it can. In part by giving the BRT some additional resources to continue the modernization of thier processes and in part by continuing to shine the bright light of public scrutiny on the BRT. Instead of abolishing the existing BRT structure, this Council should consider enhancing it by requiring the BRT to develop and implement administrative regulations that establish assessment standards and public reporting requirements and by 81 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 requiring appropriate access to public records regarding assessments in order to ensure that the Website and other procedures adopted voluntarily by the current Board continue in the future. Make the current Board more accountable to the owners of the properties they access. Don't change the structure of the organization in ways that will make it inappropriately vulnerable to politicians.
And let me add something that's not in the printed testimony, and that's to say that I think that a measure of this nature could and should be considered by the Tax Reform Commission as they look at the various issues relating to future taxation in Philadelphia. They could take a look at what's happening elsewhere, what's been successful, what hasn't been, as they do their reviews of tax rates and appropriate areas for taxation. And so I would suggest that this matter be deferred at this time to have some additional input from the Commission as they go about their deliberations. This completes my testimony, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much, Commissioner. 82 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 We're told that the system proposed is built on the structure of the one in Allegheny County. Does the City have any experience with that?
The Board of Revision may, but from Revenue, we have not had any direct experience with that.
Just a couple things, Mr. Chairman. First, Ms. Kammerdeiner, thank you very much for your testimony. I do hear your concerns, and I know you to be an experienced and nowhere-near-naive person. Your testimony on talks about the people making initial assessments and the people hearing appeals from those assessments would be directly beholden to future Mayors or Members of Council for their jobs. Who are the people accountable to at the moment? I mean, they are on our payroll and the Board of Revision of Taxes comes here for budget hearings every year. How would their status change as a result of this?
As I said further on 83 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 in the testimony, I see a potentially -- particularly in that Office of Property Assessment, for an increased number of exempt employees where they would serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
And I knew you would say that, so hold it right there. One, we don't appoint anybody on the executive branch of the government, so you can take us out of that part of the process. Two, are you saying that whoever is the Managing Director at the time at the direction of the Mayor is going to hire a whole bunch of people in that office; is that what your concern is?
The reason I included Council in it as well, the Boards would be approved -- I'm trying to think of which Board it is by name. The Appeals Board would be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of Council. And in the case of the Oversight Board, one would be appointed by the Mayor, one by the President of City Council, and the 84 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 third with the approval of City Council -- by the Mayor with the approval of City Council. So there would be some direct role and relationship there between the appointment and the approval of Council.
Are you aware of any department, board, or commission in the City of Philadelphia that this City Council, the last City Council, inappropriately influenced in the function of their business, forced the Administration to hire people, ran roughshod over what that organization was legislatively or statutorily composed for?
And on , again, you say you're deeply concern that the public will lose any remaining faith they have in the assessment process once it is clear that the people who do the assessments report to the Mayor and the people who review the appeals have their assessments have their positions thanks to the Mayor and Members of City Council. Commissioner, are you aware of any person over at the Board of Revision of Taxes who has received their job as a result of input, influence, or request by me? 85 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621
Lastly, this is from your testimony, "No part of the government can and should be completely isolated from politics, but the current system under which BRT members are appointed by the Board of Judges creates a degree of separation from executive and legislative politics that is desirable and has proven to be effective." Again, I certainly believe in a level of independence which is one why -- I mean, the Mayor would nominate, the Council would advise and consent, and then we provide for terms of office and removal only for cause. I mean, that's a fairly high standard in the government. And I think you really have to screw up badly -- which is in an appropriate term for this record -- or do something illegal to get removed.
I don't think you enjoy the same level of either independence or protection yourself, do you?
No, I serve at the 86 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 pleasure of my appointing authority.
And you've done an excellent job and you actually survived transition from one Administration to the next without, to my knowledge, any complaint from anybody, right?
I think a couple of the things that I've mentioned in here you are dealing with in your amendments.
Let me ask you one last question. Councilman DiCicco and I were talking about this. Ultimately, though, in terms of independence, accountability, who's doing what with whom, how the system is functioning and operating, I mean, isn't this the kind of decision that the taxpayers should have an opportunity to decide for themselves what kind of system they want and how they want things to operate and function? I mean, it's a question on the ballot. Aren't our citizens smart enough to figure out all the vagaries here?
It's difficult to answer that simply because they get such a very 87 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 short question on the ballot, and I'm not sure that most voters when they actually go to the polls know enough about the background and the issues relating to any of the questions. I'm not just commenting on this one when I say that. And so it can be difficult for individual citizens to become well enough informed to make a very good judgement about an issue like that.
Well, we all have our duties and responsibilities. We're having a duly advertised public hearing. The bills were introduced early this year. The voters knew enough to send a Charter Commission that had extensive hearings and 64 different items. They figured that one out pretty quickly and sent it down in flames, I think, 4 to 1. I mean, I think sometimes all of us find ourselves in a situation where we can possibly underestimate where the voters are and what they're thinking about and what's important to them. This is a serious pocketbook issue here.
The measure went down to defeat 6 to 1. It showed how much the people --
A few more people figured it out than I had thought. 88 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621
I'm not saying it's impossible. We just need to be sure they have enough information about the measure to be sure that they can make the kind of informed judgment you are referencing.
I understand. I appreciate that. Thank you very much, Commissioner. I do appreciate your testimony and I appreciate your comment that we had sought to address some of the concerns you had even by the amendments. Thank you.
Any other questions by Members of the Committee? (No response.)
I had one question. I note that no where in your statement did you state that this would be more expensive to the taxpayer.
It's very difficult to tell whether there would be more employees required under this structure than the existing number of employees. If that would be the case, then it could be more expensive. It's difficult for me to tell from what is here. It appears that the 89 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 existing employees would transfer and that additional staff wouldn't be required, but we didn't comment on it because we weren't certain.
I'm sorry, Commissioner, I didn't hear the first part. You think that there would be a need for more staff?
It was a question. I said we really couldn't tell from what was here whether there would be need for more staff than just transferring the existing staff, and we hadn't commented on any additional cost because we couldn't tell if there would be any.
Well, I appreciate your response, but the Bill is not a budget Bill. The Bill is an organization Bill, and all staffing decisions are made as a function of the budget process and putting in the necessary requests.
Okay. I mean, no 22 one's getting anything more or less generally than what they have today. If any of these entities believe that they need more money, then God bless them when they have a conversation with Rob Dubow 90 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 and Ms. Davis about trying to get an increase to their staff. I wish them well.
We really weren't treating it as a budget Bill and that's why it wasn't addressed in the testimony.
Commissioner, I've never had more criticism as a Member of City Council with respect with the way the City operated than I had this past season with respect to the property tax increases proposed. When I explain that the Board members were named by the judges, people looked astounded, what the judges have to do with naming members of a board. People wanted to know how this could happen without Council being fully involved. I know efforts by Councilmembers, including myself, to try to get information met with no success. I think it was very clear that the people of Philadelphia were very unhappy with the action taken and with response to questions raised by citizens. They were very unhappy with the responses they were getting. It seems to me that this seems to be an effort to move in the direction of objectivity of putting responsibility where it 91 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 belongs. I don't shy from responsibility where I have a responsibility, but to be held responsible by citizens and taxpayers for something that nobody even knows about the process, such as the current method, seems to me to be not a very responsible way of having government operate. So it seems to me that this system which, as far as I know, has been criticized for many years has suddenly found new support by the Administration and you believe that this is the best of all methods, the one that we now have?
I'm not saying it's necessarily the best of all methods, but I would question whether the one that's been proposed would really in the long run provide a better product.
Well, we may not know that finally until we get a number of years of experience, of course. But on the surface, it would certainly seem to give the appearance of forms of objectivity. Mayors and Councilmembers are elected by the public. If we do a bad job, the public has a quick answer; every four years they go to the polls and vote on us. They don't know how to do it to the judges. I can be hardly accused of wanting to be 92 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 unfair to the judges since I have a son who is one of them. I'm not trying to hurt the group of which he's a part. But it just seems to me that political responsibility has to lie with those of us who are politicians in the sense that we get elected by the people and are expected to carry out sometimes duties that are not only onerous but maybe unpleasant, such as raising taxes. I don't sense in your statements anything of solid substance and objection to this proposal to assist and which badly seems to need change. I do agree with you, present members of the Board have tried to use their system in as fair a way as they could, but I think the difficulty has been that they don't have what's necessary to work with. And I believe that this amendment gives a structure where people fit in well, where the public can be assured that if the assessor was originally misguided for some reason or unfair to them, they have another objective group unconnected with the first group that is reviewing it. And finally, there's still the third group which is going to act as judges. I think that's a pretty fair system, as we view political systems in the United States. 93 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 Don't you think that's fair to have different independent groups considering whether an assessment is appropriate?
In many instances, that is the most appropriate way to go. At the Board of Revision of Taxes, they have actually divided their duties into two different segments and two different portions of the office actually perform those functions. One feeds into the another. So I think even within the same organization you have much of the same kind of separation, even though the final authority, the top person, the Chairman of the Board, is responsible for both. So you have some degree of separation even within the current system.
I think it's good to have this kind of exchange. But I do feel that the voters are going to have to be the ones that make the ultimate decision. Is there any other question by any Member of the Committee. (No response.)
If not, is there any additional witness on the subject? 94 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621
No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you might want to have the Law Department back up to talk about --
Would you please go to the speakers' panel? Would you both introduce yourself and spell your last names for the reporter.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard Feder, F-E-D-E-R. I'm the Chief Deputy City Solicitor for Legislation and Appeals. And with me on my left is Craig Gottlieb, G-O-T-T-L-I-E-B. He's a Deputy City Solicitor, and he's worked with me on the particular ordinance that you're interesting in.
Mr. Feder, I asked that someone from Law Department, I'm pleased it's you, were here to explain a Bill and Resolution 22 proposing a Home Rule Charter change that we had completed testimony on. I'm going to open the record for purpose of including this testimony. Would you state the Bill and Resolution, 95 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 Mr. Shapiro?
Bills No. 030097 and 030098 and Resolution 030106 dealing with local preferences for bidders and contractors.
They are bills relating to the City of Philadelphia awarding of contracts giving some form of a preference to Philadelphia businesses to make up basically for the disadvantage of additional costs that may be involved in doing business in the City of Philadelphia. I raise the question as to its applicability to the agencies that do business on behalf of the City of Philadelphia. Although, they may be operating under laws that were passed by the Commonwealth, and wanted to know whether the law could be applicable to them. I was told that probably not, that this would only cover the direct City of Philadelphia agencies. I then raised the question of whether or not these agencies who are organized under state laws entered into contracts with the City of Philadelphia and whether such contracts could contain contractual provisions requiring those agencies as a condition of the contract with the 96 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 City of Philadelphia to obey specifically the provisions, say, if this Home Rule Charter amendment were adopted. I was told that the Director of Commerce, that he personally would support such an action but did not know whether or not it would be effective. And so I wanted to get the view of the Law Department on that. Do you have an opinion as to that? Has anybody raised that issue with the Law Department before?
I don't believe I've looked into that issue specifically. I can definitively answer some of your questions, and let me discuss the other part. As written, this Ordinance and Charter change would not cover those agencies. As written, this Ordinance and Charter change would only provide for a local preference on City contracts, competitively bid contracts which are directly let by the City; it would not cover any of the agencies that you're talking about. Could we amend the Charter or could we provide for that? I think the answer to that would largely depend on each individual authority's 97 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 enabling legislation. For example, there may be out there some supervening state law which requires, say, the RDA -- and I'm just using that as an example -- which may require that the RDA competitively bid all its contracts. If there is a state law out there that says the RDA must competitively bid its contracts, then nothing that we could do could override that state law. If, however, there is no preexisting state law that imposing that requirement, then I would think that the City could in a voluntary contractual arrangement, the way you've described, Mr. Chairman, could insist upon that as part of a condition of doing business with the City.
Well, what brought this matter directly to my attention was that a number of years ago the City imposed an ethics requirement upon those of us who hold City offices. Then a number of the authorities hired, I believe, some of the most expensive and, therefore, in the opinion of most people, the best lawyers in town. And although they spend all their time on City business, they were not City employees, were not bound by the City ethics decision. Do you recollect 98 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 that, Mr. Feder? I think you were probably working for the City at time.
I actually do not recollect it, but that may be because I am not one of the more expensive lawyers that you're referring to. My services are much cheaper than that. I don't recall it, Mr. Chairman.
Well, how would we get an opinion from the City Solicitor with respect to all of the authorities whose business solely deals with work involving the City of Philadelphia, like PHA, like PAID, like PCDC, like all the agencies that the Mayor usually controls through the power of appointment to the Boards, sometimes with City Council approval of nominees, sometimes without that? Could we get the Law Department to issue an opinion and indicate where that might be possible.
We could certainly look into that. Yes, we could look into that and we will get you an opinion on that.
I would very much 99 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 appreciate it if it were preferable you could consider this as a request by me for such an opinion. Secondly, with respect to the current Bill and Resolution before us introduced by Councilman Nutter relating to the revisions in what now constitutes the Board of Revision of Taxes. It's been explained to us that what we're doing is consolidating something which we have the power to consolidate. Would that be the opinion of the City Solicitor's Office? Is this action legally permissible for us to take?
Yes, Councilman. I think you could make an argument that there might be a way to do it by Charter change, but we think there's also a good argument that you could do it the way that Councilman Nutter's proposal would do it, by City-County Consolidation amendment.
I have no other questions. Any Member of the committee here? (No response.)
All right. Thank you very much for your courtesy and attending so 100 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 promptly.
Is any other witness to be heard on the Board of Revision of Taxes proposal for change? (No response.)
If not, that concludes testimony on that Bill. Is there anything else before this committee this afternoon? Councilman Nutter, you have a Bill on redistricting?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my name is Michael A. Nutter, N-U-T-T-E-R. I'm here to testify with regard to Resolution 020084 and the companion Bill 22 whose number I don't know or remember.
020076. Mr. Chairman, this is a proposed changed to the method 101 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 of redistricting and actually, I believe, Mr. Chairman, creates for the first time an actual process and procedure that Council would follow in conducting the redistricting process. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the City Charter is silent on the issue of how Council should conduct redistricting. And the Charter simply says that it shall be the mandatory duty of the Council to redistrict the City within six months after the publication by United States Census Bureau of the population at each decennial census. It further tells us that it must consist of a ward or contiguous wards or divisions of wards containing as nearly as possible the population factor obtained by dividing the City's population at the proceeding decennial census by 10. There's also a provision that says that at the expiration of the six-month period, if Council shall have failed to redistrict the City as herein required, the Councilmen shall not receive any further salaries until the Council shall have passed and the Mayor shall have approved a redistricting ordinance as herein required or until such ordinance shall have become law without the 102 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 Mayor's approval. Mr. Chairman, your experience is longer than mine, but in my relatively short time, I have experienced two redistricting processes. One when a class of seven new Councilmembers came in in 1972 and now most recently in 2002. In both of those instances, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this City Council had not conducted the redistricting process within the six-month period. And when I arrived in City Council in 1992, Council was presently not being paid, having not redistricted from the 1990 census within the required time period. And then after the most recent census, this Council went without pay for four and a half months as a result of a protracted multi-Bill process, resulting in acrimony and contention for the balance of 2001 and virtually all of 2002, and we actually did not finish the redistricting process until a final Bill was introduced in December 2002, which was actually signed by the Mayor on February 12, 2003, six days before petitions began to circulate for the 2003 election. This Bill, Mr. Chairman and Members of 103 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 the Committee, does at least three things: One, it removes the no-pay provision from the City Charter. And so Councilmembers in the future -- and none of this will affect of the current Mayor to the best of my knowledge and ability because there should be a different person in office by the time the next redistricting process takes place. So from my perspective, at least, this Bill has nothing to do with current Mayor Street. It removes the withholding of the salary provision from the Bill. It also ensures, in accordance with what I believe the Charter was designed to do when it says, "It shall mandatory duty of the Council," this Bill 15 ensures that the redistricting process is within the Council's purview and authority and removes the Mayor from direct involvement in the redistricting process because the redistricting would be accomplished by a plan through a Resolution as opposed to an Ordinance. My office has conducted a survey, Mr. Chairman, of the 10 largest cities in the United States of America and their redistricting processes. I believe the chart has been distributed. And what you will find on the two points that I raised, Mr. 104 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 Chairman, or at least the three points that I raised, both a process, the issue of the Mayor's role, and the impact of what happens if you don't pass a redistricting Bill within a required time period.
First, in most other cities in the United States of America, these top cities, they 9 accomplish redistricting either through a commission 10 or an ordinance of the Council but over which, with the exception of one city, the Mayor has no veto. And so when you look at New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, San Antonio, Dallas, and Detroit, almost all of those cities have a commission made up of a variety of people normally appointed by the Council, either a majority of them or a significant number. In only one other City does the Mayor have veto power, that is in Los Angeles. Our research indicates that that veto has never been exercised in modern times. There is only one city in the United States, one city of the top 10 cities in the United States of America that has a penalty directly to the Members of Council for not passing a redistricting Bill within a set time period. That would be the City of Philadelphia. No 105 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 other City in the top in the country has such a provision, with the exception of us. Let me do an overview of the Bill and then walk through it and be prepared to answer any questions. Under this proposed Charter change, there would be a Council Redistricting Committee and the development of a Redistricting Plan actually modeled after a process that our Council President Verna sought to establish in the last redistricting endeavor. Within 30 days after publication of the decennial census by the Census Bureau, the Council President must convene a Council Redistricting Committee. This committee consists of the Council President, the Majority Leader, the Majority Whip, the Minority Leader, and one At-Large Member appointed by the Council President. Of course, there is no prohibition if any of the members of the four leadership posts happen to be a member At-Large. That does not affect the requirement to have at least one member At-Large appointed by the Council President. The Redistricting Committee is charged with developing a proposed Redistricting Plan. In 106 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 performing this task, the Committee shall seek suggestions from all Members of Council and make all technical assistance and computer services available to any Member of Council. Also, at least one public hearing is required to solicit comments from the public. After that, the Committee prepares a proposed Redistricting Plan in the form of a written report which must include a proposed Redistricting Resolution with a listing of the wards and divisions for each proposed new district, a map depicting the proposed new districts, and any other data or material that will assist Council in reviewing and evaluating the proposed Plan. The proposed Plan is transmitted to each Member of Council and filed with the Chief Clerk. Upon its filing with the Chief Clerk, the proposed Redistricting Resolution will be deemed as having been introduced and referred automatically to the Committee of the Whole. Then there is a separate process for the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole process involves an approval or disapproval of the redistricting Resolution. After introduction and referral, the Committee of the Whole must hold a 107 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 public hearing on the proposed redistricting Resolution for which a 15-day notice is required. The Committee reports the Resolution out of Committee with a recommendation to either adopt or reject the plan. No amendments can be made in Committee. The Committee report is read at a Council meeting and a Resolution must lay over for at least five days. The full Council then votes to approve or disapprove the Resolution. No floor amendments can be made. If approved by two-thirds vote of the full Council, the Redistricting Plan automatically becomes law.
If disapproved, the Redistricting Committee reconvenes and prepares a revised Redistricting Plan and Resolution similar to the process that was already laid out. Councilmembers may make recommendations which must be considered by the Redistricting Committee in the form of a Resolution. Such Resolution requires a two-thirds vote of Council and must contain the same information that is required for the Redistricting Plan and report. That naturally goes back to the Redistricting Plan Committee. The Redistricting Plan Committee in sending out its report must be 108 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 signed by at least three members of the Redistricting Committee as a recommendation to the full Council. That in shorter version, Mr. Chairman, are the provisions of the proposed Charter change creating a new process which has a start and an end to the redistricting process, but becomes a Council process because, at least from my perspective, redistricting is a legislative matter as it is conducted by, again, at least all of the rest of the top 10 cities in the country, as it is conducted by the General Assembly and as it is conducted on behalf of the Congress. In normal circumstances, the Executive is not involved in the redistricting process because generally the Executive is not affected by a redistricting process. It is a legislative process and purview, at least by my belief. Mr. Chairman, I'd be certainly prepared to respond to any questions that members may have.
Thank you. First, I just have a few comments. When the Home Rule Charter was created late in the '40s and put into effect in the early 109 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 '50s, it was a document aimed at correcting what appeared to be excesses by former Councilmembers or Council bodies. So that Council was a villain and that's the reason we went in the direction of having a working government controlled largely by the Mayor. That's the foundation of a strong Mayor form of government. And as so often happens, it seems to me happened in this case, the over-correction was made because it was assumed the Mayor would always be a non-political soul while the Councilmembers were just going to be political beings who could not be trusted, even in your own sight of the electorate, you still couldn't be trusted. Therefore, this very arbitrary provision was inserted which punished Councilmembers, even though it could be the Mayor who would be the main source of the problem in redistricting. So the Mayor free, under our Home Rule Charter, to have the penalty of non-payment of salary, creating all kinds of problems for Councilmembers, not limited to their lack of funds in the current period when they were not paid, but which could extend to their tax liability into the future. The Mayor was free to continue to veto until finally Council was forced to 110 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 capitulate or otherwise found a way of agreement. I think any change would be better than the current change because, in my opinion, the main difficulty in this situation occurred in this recent period of time was that of the Mayor as use of the veto to create a situation in which he maintained his salary. At least fairness would have required the Mayor to have voluntarily abstained from accepting his salary during the same period he was opposing it upon the Councilmembers. But that did not happen. Therefore, I think the recommendations you're making are aimed at, at least, correcting that unfairness. It also sets forth a procedure. I have one question about the procedure. Does successful redistricting require at some point the approval two-thirds of Members of City Council?
What happens if Council is so split that it's just impossible to get two-thirds over a continuing period of time? Is there a safety clause which says that after the third or fourth or fifth time or whatever time chosen, if Council is still split that there may be 111 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 some other method other than the two-thirds requirement? Or does the old redistricting just continue in effect?
Redistricting would continue, but we are also faced, of course, Mr. Chairman, with the prospect of if we don't conduct the redistricting certainly by the election, there are remedies provided at law to ensure that the redistricting is conducted properly under various State statutes. Certainly, anyone could take this matter to court. The ultimate result there would actually be the courts would determine what the redistricting boundaries would be, and would seem to me, unless Council had completely lost its collective mind, we would certainly not want the courts -- no disrespect to the courts. Since we've demonstrated the ability to go without pay for four and a half months, I think the jury is come in on that one.
Right. Well, at least they'd actually do something. So the ultimate remedy in this particular situation is that there is 112 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 a requirement under the Charter to conduct the redistricting by a certain date. The taxpayers would have the same remedy as they have for any other violation of the City Charter. In this particular provision, Mr. Chairman, the section 7 reads, "It shall be the manditory duty of the Council to redistrict the City in accordance with the procedure set forth in this section within the calendar year that follows the calendar year of publication of the United States Census." At that point, if we have violated that particular provision of the Charter, any taxpayer or Councilmembers could seek redress in the courts because you then have a violation of the Home Rule Charter.
Very good. If there are no questions by Members of the Committee, is there any other witness who wishes to be heard on the subject? Any questions? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 113 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020810, RES. 020817
That concludes the public testimony on the Bill and Resolution. Are any other matters before the committee?
The Committee will stand in recess for two minutes so a determination is made on the best method of handling the proposal by Councilman Kenney. (Brief recess.)
The Law and Government Committee now is now in Session again for the purpose of hearing Bill No. --
They both cover the same matter because it's a Home Rule Charter amendment?
Councilman Kenney, would you be good enough to give us an explanation of the Bill and Resolution?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This Bill is an ordinance providing for 114 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020810, RES. 020817 the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia an amendment to Section 6-400 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to authorized audits by the Auditing Department, which is the City Controller, of certain agencies performing services or receiving funding from the City as approved by Resolution of the City Council, and it also fixes the date of the special election for such purpose proscribing the form of ballot question to be voted on and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for this special election. We had previously had scheduled a hearing for this. It was, I think, the day of or the day after one of our many snowstorms this winter; and for that reason, the Controller was not able to appear. The Controller is not here today, but has sent a letter which we will give to the stenographer for the record which indicates his support for the measure. And let me read one pertinent paragraph from the Controller's response which I think is one of the reasons -- I know it's one of the reasons why I've decided this ballot question or this Charter change to be considered by 115 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020810, RES. 020817 the voters. It says, "The framers of our Charter could not have imagined the degree to which ordinary municipal functions had been shifted over time from government to quasi-government. The proposed legislation seeks to bring needed scrutiny to this reality." As a mater of fact, as many of us know, over time we've had many quasi-governmental agencies throughout the City performing functions that were formerly formed by City departments. And because of the lack of approval or the lack of authority for the Controller to audit certain quasi-governmental agencies like PIDC, PHA, and other organizations that had been set up through the course of time to facilitate government or to move the functions of government from a department to a quasi-government agency, the Controller has been rebuffed in his attempts at trying to audit those agencies. We felt that it would be appropriate since tax dollars are being used and being transferred on a regular basis to these quasi-governmental agencies that the Controller have the ability to make sure that the taxpayers' dollars are being spent in appropriate fashion. It just allows the Controller to shed some 116 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020810, RES. 020817 light and to do some auditing for these agencies so that we could make sure the taxpayer is being treated fairly and these agencies are performing the functions that they say they're performing for the dollars that are being sent over there. So there are a number of minor amendments which were worked on by Mr. Shapiro and tech staff, also with the City Solicitor's Office. And those amendments have been circulated to the Members of the Committee. Basically, the amendments tighten up some of the language, make it clear which specific quasi-governmental agencies are intended to be -- have the potential of being audited by the City Controller. So that's basically all I have to say. I'm hoping that the Committee -- I'm not a Member of the Committee -- that the Committee will support this attempt to bring more scrutiny and more accountability to these agencies on the part of the taxpayers.
Thank you, Councilman Kenney. Are there any questions? (No response.)
Seems like an idea 117 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020810, RES. 020817 that should have been done many years ago.
I think it's a very good idea and that's why I would sponsor the Bill.
Any questions from any Members of the Committee of Councilman Kenney or any comments? (No response.)
If not, the hearing will be closed on that Bill and accompanying Resolution. Does that complete the business of the Committee today of the public hearing part of the Committee?
Then I will adjourn the public hearing. - - - 118 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Law and Government, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 020076, 020621, 030016, 030097, 030098, 020810; RESOLUTIONS 020084, 030034, 030106, 020817. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY - - - 119 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING
And we will go into public meeting session of the Law and Government Committee to consider the various bills. This would be the time for the various amendments that have been announced as being ready for proposal to be given at the time the Bill and Resolution is called up, or the Bill, whichever may pertain.
The Committee has a quorum, Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Clarke, Councilman Ortiz, Councilman Goode, Councilman Nutter. We will now consider the bills.
Mr. Chairman, there's a proposed amendment to Bill 020076. It is a technical amendment that requires the dates to be changed in the Bill which contains the ballot question. This is regarding the redistricting Bill. This Bill had dates in it that were incorrect. So in Section 1, it actually reads November 5, 2002. That needs to be changed to November 4, 2003.
That proves the deliberative process works in this Council; it took us year. 120 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING
But with no penalty, Councilman. In Section 2 the sentence after the question, the proposed amendment is contained in Resolution 020084 approved by Council on -- we don't have that date yet, but the 2002 should be stricken, replaced by 2003. And in Section 4, the date presently reads November 5, 2002. That should be replaced by November 4, 2003. I move the adoption of that amendment.
If not, all in favor of proposed amendment will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The amendment is ordered. The Chair entertain a motion with respect to Bill No. 020076, as amended.
Thank you, Mr. 121 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING Chairman. I move that Bill 020076, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
The Bill, as amended, has been moved and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.)
The ayes have it, and Bill No. 020076, as amended is adopted together with the recommendation for suspension of the Rules to permit first reading at the next Session of City Council. Is there an accompanying Resolution on that Bill?
Yes, there is, Mr. Chairman. It's 020084, and I would move that this Resolution be reported out of the Committee with a 122 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING favorable recommendation.
Moved and seconded. All in favor, please say aye. (Aye.)
Next Bill to be considered is 030115, which relates to contracts and concessions.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, there's an amendment being offered. This Bill had the primary date of 2003 in it, and we need to in Section 1 of this Bill delete May 20, 2003, replace it with November 4, 2003. And in Section 4, delete May 20, 2003 and replace it with November 4, 2003. I move the adoption of these two amendments. (Duly seconded.)
Is there any 123 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING discussion? (No response.)
Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. (Aye.)
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 030115, 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.)
A motion has been made to adopt a Bill, as amended, and it's seconded. All in favor, please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and the Bill, as amended, will be reported out with a 124 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING request suspension of Rules for first reading next meeting.
The Resolution has been moved and adopted. All in favor, please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and the Resolution will reported out with a favorable recommendation.
Mr. Chairman, amendments were put forward and circulated during the public hearing and they are now available in the 125 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING public meeting. I move the adoption of the amendments to Bill 020621. (Duly seconded.)
The amendments have been moved and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.)
Mr. Chairman, I move Bill 020621, 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 permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
If not, all in favor, please say aye. 126 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the Bill is reported, as amended, as approved, together with the request for suspension of the rules for first reading at the next Session of City Council.
Mr. Chairman, there were amendments proposed during the public hearing and they've been circulated during the hearing and the public meeting to Bill 030016. I move the adoption of the amendments, as circulated, to Bill 15 030016. (Duly seconded.)
The ayes have it, and the Bill is so amended. 127 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 030016, as amended, be reported out of this recommendation 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.)
The Bill, as amended, will be reported out favorable together with a request for suspension of the Rules. All those in favor of the Bill, as amended, please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and the Bill, as amended, is report out together with the suspension of Rules for first reading at the next Session of City Council.
Mr. Chairman, there was amendment offered in the public hearing and it has been circulated in our public meeting to Resolution No. 030034. I move the adoption of the amendment to Resolution 030034. 128 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING (Duly seconded.)
The amendment has been seconded following being made. Any discussion? (No response.)
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution No. 030034, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
The Resolution, as amended, has moved and seconded. Those in favor, please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and the Resolution, as amended, has been adopted 129 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING together with the request for suspension of the rules to permit first reading at the next Council Session.
Mr. Chairman, there are no amendments to this particular Bill which is a part of the bid preference package. I move that Bill 030097 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
If not, all those in favor of the Bill please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the Bill is reported out Committee with a favorable recommendation, together with the request for suspension of Rules.
Mr. Chairman, there were amendments circulated for Bill 030098, and I 130 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING move the adoption of the amendments to Bill 030098, as circulated. (Duly seconded.)
The motion has been made to adopt amendments to the Bill. The motion has been seconded. Any discussion? (No response.)
Mr. Chairman, I move that 030098, 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.)
If not, all those in 131 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING favor of the Bill, please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and Bill, as amended, is reported out favorable together with the request for suspension of the Rules to permit first reading at the next Session of Council.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution 030106 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation.
The motion has been made to report out the Resolution. Has it be seconded. (Duly seconded.)
The ayes have it, and the Resolution is adopted. 132 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING
Councilman Nutter will offer the amendment on behalf of Councilman Kenney.
Mr. Chairman, there were amendments circulated on Bill 020810 during the public hearing. I move the adoption of the amendments to Bill 020810.
If not, all in favor of the amendment, please say aye. (Aye.)
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 020810, as amended, be reported out of this Committee be reported out of this Committee 133 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING 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.
The Bill, as amended, is up for discussion. Any discussion? (No response.)
The ayes have it, and the Bill, as amended, has been reported out favorably together with a request for a suspension of the Rules.
There were amendments circulated for Resolution 020817. Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the amendments to Resolution 020817. (Duly seconded.)
Is there any 134 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING discussion on the amendment that's proposed to the Resolution? (No response.)
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution No. 020817, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
The ayes have it and the Resolution, as amended, has been adopted. That concludes the business before the 135 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING Committee. And the public meeting is therefore terminated. The Chair thanks all the members for their cooperation during this slow and extensive hearing full of amendments and bills, and we appreciate everybody's cooperate. Thank you very much.
The session is adjourned. (Council adjourned at 4:20 p.m.) - - - 136 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 April 23, 2003, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public