We want to make sure that whatever organizations that get the funds, whether they're CDCs or other groups, that they are performing at a high level and that they're accountable in how they're utilizing those funds. In closing, I would like to stress the importance of commercial corridor revitalization. Neighborhood corridors provide local access to jobs, goods and services. They strengthen the surrounding residential areas, as we've heard, and they provide the community with much of its cultural identity. Strong corridors are, therefore, a critical piece of economic development for the neighborhoods and for the City and region overall. Thank you for your time.
Thank 294 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. you very much. Any questions? (No response.)
Well, thank you for yours as well. We're really grateful to have this Committee have this hearing, and also the initiative is one that will have great long-term benefits for the neighborhoods, and we really appreciate that vision that you're showing.
My name is Mary Tracy and I'm the Executive Director of SCRUB, the Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight. SCRUB works with over 80 community groups throughout the City who are interested in creating more attractive neighborhood commercial corridors. And I'd just like to start 295 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. off by saying that there are many good reasons why we need to invest in the aesthetics of neighborhood commercial corridors. We've listened to them already very eloquently by previous speakers, but I think the bottom line is that when a neighborhood is attractive and feels safe, people will want to live, work and visit. The economic vitality of a city and its neighborhoods is closely linked to visual impressions. Studies are now revealing that an attractive environment decreases stress and encourages healthier lifestyles, since residents are more likely to spend more time outdoors when they feel the neighborhood is attractive and safe. City residents are not immune to ugliness, nor are our children. Our children should be able to enjoy the same pride and pleasure of walking through a neighborhood as those who reside in the suburbs. 296 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. For the past six years, SCRUB has been providing technical support on issues connected to the visual environment, and many of our community partners rely on SCRUB for guidance and support in dealing with the plague of illegal billboards. These signs, whether nailed to the side of a building, greeting visitors at the gateway areas or towering from poles and rooftops, are a deterrent to revitalization efforts taking place. City Council has been a partner to neighborhoods dealing with the onslaught of outdoor advertising and has taken bold action in the past to support and protect its neighborhoods, laws past in 1991, which set distance requirements from people's homes, our parks, our playgrounds, our schools, and just in 2004, City Council voted to set higher license fees so that L&I could do a better job enforcing and removing finally some of these illegal signs. And I just 297 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. wanted to have this opportunity while we are talking about improving our commercial corridors and supporting the bond that will give us the money to do that, I think we really have to look at the long-term negative financial impact of billboards. In August of 2006, our City Law Department reached an agreement with billboard companies that would actually legalize over 700 billboards in the City of Philadelphia. I think, Councilwoman Blackwell, we actually went through your neighborhood. I'm sorry. I should have sent this up. We found 38 of the signs that could very possibly be legalized are in your district, and these are the signs along -- and these are the same signs that they want to be legalized now that they admitted in 1991 were indeed illegal with no permits. And the Law Department through its agreement has really lowered the bar for the requirements of gaining a license, and these new requirements 298 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. really are not even remotely connected to what the law that this City Council passed in past years starting in the '70s. And when Council heard testimony from L&I and from the Revenue Department about the cost of enforcement, they were assured that the cost of $650 a sign face was reasonable and needed to properly enforce the law. Yet, the Law Department, when it negotiated its settlement, lowered those fees to $50 a sign face and said that the billboard industry would now regulate and monitor itself, an industry that even today is doing everything it can to skirt the laws. I think that there was initial press coverage saying that it was a positive agreement because there would be removal of 900 signs, but I think what we didn't know was that 200 of these signs had already been removed by the building owners themselves. 299 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC.
So I think what -- I don't really want to go into all the details. I'd be happy to do that at another time, but I do want to make this Committee aware of the tremendous financial loss that this agreement is having not only from the license fees that won't be spent to help enforce its law but from the long-term negative impact these billboards will have on future development in our neighborhoods, not to mention the stigma of our neighborhoods full of unsightly billboards. You know we love to talk on that one. So I guess part of what I'm asking in addition to our strong support for this bond issue, which would enable all of these hard-working community development corporations, for which we've had the pleasure of working with many of them, I also think we need to look at the impact of this settlement agreement and if Council could somehow help us to render it invalid. 300 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Thank you for this document for my district as well.
Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Tracy? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here who would like to testify? Yes, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? (No response.)
Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Derick Dreher. I am the Director of the Rosenbach Museum and Library.
301 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. Welcome. Thank you for coming and for your testimony.
Thank you for accommodating me at the last minute, and I'd like to thank your distinguished colleagues for their patience. Like all of you, I have been sitting here since 1 o'clock this afternoon and I think I'm in a position to make some summary remarks and try to be brief. You've heard from a lot of people this afternoon who have promised you they'd be brief and have then commenced a dissertation of sorts. What I've heard is the City Council asking a lot of tough questions; in other words, doing its job, being smart, saying we refuse to throw money out the window. But I've also heard them being sensitive. I've seen them sitting here all afternoon listening to people. I've seen them paying compliments to individuals for their leadership to institutions that have reached out. In other words, they have recognized the 302 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. capacity the cultural institutions have. I've seen my colleagues in the cultural sector respond by saying, Yes, we have great needs. Our roofs are collapsing, we need better lighting, we run one-person organizations, we need your help, we need capital investment. But I've also heard them saying every single time, We have enormous capacity to reach out to our community, to our neighbors, to our schools. If you make an investment in us, it will be repaid, it will bring high dividends. And I think the take-home message there is, we've all said we want to link our capacities with one another. We want to be connective tissue. We want to create a whole that's larger than the sum of the parts. We believe the investment in these cultural corridors would do exactly that. So I'd like to thank you for your wisdom and for your patience, and I'd like to ask you to be courageous now, 303 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. go forth to your colleagues on the full City Council and recommend that this bill 4 be ratified into law. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you very much and thank you for your patience and your testimony. Thank you. If there is no one else to testify, I'd like to first deal with the Water Department. I think those amendments are easier to deal with. If there is no one else to testify, then we will leave our stated hearing and enter stated meeting. Let us have a discussion, Mr. Jannetti. Water Department first. That's simpler. After this, we will move back into our stated hearing, as others still have questions for the Commerce Director and others with regard to the 150 million bond deal. Mr. Jannetti, we wanted to ask you about the amendments to Bill Nos. 304 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. 060620 and 690. We have circulated them. They are the same amendment for both?
The amendments would allow us to do a swap on the transactions at the outset, not -- after we do the bonds, it would not allow us to do a swap after that. This is to lock in rates now before -- rates are low now, and to lock them in. And that's the purpose of the amendments.
I think part of the purpose likewise was to make sure that Council was included in any swaps that --
That's correct, Councilwoman. If we were to do a transaction, a swap, on these bonds after the bonds were issued, we would have to come back to Council to get that approval. 305 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC.
Thank you. Are there questions from members of this Committee? (No response.)
All right. Since we didn't have a formal motion, thank you, that will be it, Mr. Jannetti.
We're going to ask the Commerce Director and those joining her to come forward. We didn't have a formal motion on the record and so we will return to our City Council hearing part of this session. My colleague, Councilwoman Tasco, you have more questions?
Is there anyone else who has more questions for the Commerce Director? (No response.)
All 306 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. right. Thank you very much. We will entertain questions from the Councilwoman with regard to the bill, our final bill.
Let me just ask you a couple of questions for the record, please. In Exhibit-C you are budgeting 100 percent of the administrative fees in Year 1. Yet the program is to take three years. Why are you budgeting the $5 million in Fiscal '07? How will these funds be spent and who will oversee their expenditure?
With your permission, I actually have a full list of amendments, one of which -- the first of which is to deal with the budget issue, and I'll be happy to go through that if I could give you this. I think it might help you.
The first item on here is about the budget. Councilwoman Tasco, may I 307 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. address that issue specifically? The first item on the sheet that's being distributed to you talks about a change in the budget, asking that the whole budget be included, asks for an amendment so that the whole budget is included. We are withdrawing that request. So the first item on the sheet that you have is to be stricken. We are not asking for the amendment. We're going back to the original proposal, which is that the first year budget is the $112.5 million. There was some confusion, and I just want to address it. I'm sorry, because I gathered there was some concern about this, and I just want to address it by saying that we had received a question from Council staff indicating that there was some objection to a bifurcated budget, and that's why we were proposing that change. We're now withdrawing that change and going back to the original, because as I understand it, the members of this Committee prefer the original 308 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. version.
So how much of the administrative fees will be in that budget?
So that covers? No; the $5 million, that will be spent in one year or the three years?
If I may, Councilwoman. The $5 million is for the issuance cost on the bonds and for the issuance on the bonds.
So that's the administrative fee? 309 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC.
If a Debt Reserve Fund is required on this transaction, what happens to the fund when the bonds are paid off? Is there a Debt Reserve Fund?
The ordinance 11 calls for a Debt Reserve Fund, but I don't believe that we really will do that. But if they were, if we did have a Debt Reserve Fund, it would be used to pay off the last payment of the bonds.
Okay. All right. One other question. I see you have in the ordinance the Committee to oversee the cultural appropriation. Had you ever thought about or given thought to the Cultural Fund administering and overseeing the program because they have the apparatus already in place?
We've actually 310 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. been using a number of wonderful resources. Another facet of our arts and culture community is that we do have wonderful resources. We have been really privileged to have a great deal of assistance, for example, from the William Penn Foundation, the Pew Foundation, the Non-Profit Finance Fund, and those folks will continue to advise us as we go through. The Cultural Fund, because it focuses on operating funds, not capital, just didn't seem as appropriate a resource, but the folks at those foundations and the Non-Profit Finance Fund deal with capital projects for cultural institutions on a regular basis and they have already been very helpful to us and have pledged to help us through the whole process.
They will continue to be resources to the 311 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. Committee.
Now, there are two portions to this bill that I'm talking about. First you have the $60 million that's going to the various categories, and the other is the $5 million that's going to the cultural organizations. Which group will your resources advise you on?
The groups that I've mentioned have already given us a great deal of advice, but I would point out that the --
On both. But the $60 million portion is, as I mentioned earlier, primarily for City-owned assets and facilities and infrastructure. So all of -- most of those projects are projects that we are already very familiar with and we have a lot of resources within the Administration that have provided information and knowledge about those. 312 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC.
You have listed here the Avenue of the Arts, the Ben Franklin Parkway, the Centennial District, the Historic District, El Centro de Oro and other emerging corridors. In those categories, how many are City-owned facilities?
I can't give you an exact number, but I would say probably close to 85 or 90 percent of --
I can tell you just because we've looked at all of the capital projects that we could identify with the help of those two foundations and the Non-Profit Finance Fund. There are probably 70, 75 capital projects that we know of that are out there, and we've looked at that whole list. The $60 million pool is to cover primarily the 313 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. City-owned infrastructure and projects.
That's what I'm asking. What are those City-owned projects?
Well, we don't have a final list, but I would say that there are probably a dozen of those that we could consider.
A dozen City-owned facilities that you would provide the $60 million to?
I'm guessing the number of projects, but I think it's somewhere around there.
It is in 314 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. Fairmount Park.
The Independence Park, the President's House, for example, the Mall. Those are among the projects we could consider. And then there are some that are not City-owned, but that --
Will you present the list to us when you submit the budget to us?
Right. In here you're supposed to give us "no later than 90 days prior to each fiscal year of 315 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. the program, the Mayor and the Director of Finance shall submit to the Council for its approval by ordinance an annual budget setting forth proposed program expenditures for the upcoming year by budgetary category," and I'm sure we will ask for --
That provision is intended to guide us as we present a budget to you for next year for the remainder of the program.
So you float the bond, you get the $112 million. Who determines who gets the $60 million? What entity determines the distribution of the $60 million?
We have already gathered a lot of information about it, but the projects --
Who in the 316 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. Administration?
My office has done that in conjunction with the Managing Director's Office, the Finance Director and the Capital Projects Office. And what we are planning to do is to refine the information we have within the criteria that we have established for reviewing all of these projects, which include -- and I think that is in your material somewhere -- leadership capacity, financial capacity, planning, general eligibility, which is their 501(c)(3) status being in the City, and organizational existence, which means that they need to be a non-profit that has been in existence for at least three years.
So how will you go about deciding on the final distribution of the $60 million?
We will review all of the projects that we have identified within those corridors on that 317 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. basis, on the basis of those criteria, and then assess which ones are ready to proceed and which ones have the demonstrated capacity to complete the project, and we will do that through an interagency committee made up of the Managing Director, the Finance Director, the Mayor's Office and myself.
But you said that was for the $5 million. I'm talking about the $60 million.
No. The $60 million is that interagency committee of the four components I just mentioned, the Managing Director, the Finance Director, the Mayor's Office and Commerce Director. And it is the -- it's that other committee for the 5 million which includes Councilwoman Blackwell and Councilwoman Reynolds Brown, the Chairman of the Finance Committee and the Chairman of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Committee.
But I'm 318 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. back to the $60 million in terms of what City-owned facilities? Will they be given a priority?
Are you saying that other non-City-owned facilities can qualify for this money?
So it's to your discretion of this interagency committee to select the projects, and they could end up not being City-owned structures, right?
So there's nothing in here to say that these have to be City-owned structures?
It's to the discretion of the Administration to determine who will get the money?
It is intended to be decided on the basis of the criteria I just mentioned and also with respect to 319 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. those projects as to whether they are ready to proceed and able to complete. Once we get all of that information measured in those terms, we will make a decision as to what projects to fund.
All right. I would like to know how many of the projects that you've looked at are City-owned and what they are, if you could submit that information to the Chair.
I'd like to know what list of projects you're 320 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. contemplating.
I can give you some examples, if you're interested. I have a list with me of examples of the projects that we have considered.
Let me hear it, but you can still submit it. You want to outline them?
On the Avenue of the Arts, we're looking at the Freedom Theatre, Philadelphia Theatre Company and the Avenue Arts North Streetscaping Project. On the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, we're looking at the Art Museum, the Parkway Streetscaping Project and a Water Works Enhancement Project. In the Centennial District, we're looking at the Please Touch Museum, the Zoo, the Mann, the Dell and the 5K Loop Project. The Historic District, the African-American Museum, Independence Mall and the 321 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. President's House, Civil War Museum and the National Museum of Jewish-American History. And in the El Centro de Oro and other emerging corridors, we're looking at Taller Puertoricano. That gives you an example.
Is Independence Mall owned by the federal government?
It is City-owned. It is managed by the Independence National Historical Park.
So could you give that list to the Chair of this Committee?
Thank you. I understand Dell East is supposed to get funding as well. I understand Dell East is included.
The Dell is on my list that I just gave, but I wanted to be clear that this is not a final list. This is the list of the projects that we 322 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. are looking at seriously at this point. It doesn't constitute the full 65 million.
Any questions from other members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you. Councilwoman Tasco, you have more questions?
I think so. We might be here all night. Let's go to this $112 million budget. In the acquisition pool under the Commercial Corridors, you had $4 million and you increased it $2 million, taking away 2 of the $4 million acquisition pool for non-profit entities. Would you explain that to me?
Sure. The original that we submitted was an error. We had looked at a total of $8 million for acquisition. In the original that we 323 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. submitted to you, there was 4, which would be, if you will, a City and PAID fund to acquire properties directly, and the other would be for community development corporations and non-profits. It was actually an error. We had always intended for it to be 6 and 2. The reason we have less for the non-profit CDCs is that we are strongly considering that we would make that a grant to another non-profit organization to manage so that it could be -- the funds could be moved more efficiently and also so they could be leveraged, and we've had preliminary conversations with foundations and others to talk about being able to leverage that money. So while there will be million from this pool for non-profit acquisition, we're anticipating in fact it will go up to or more million with match from other resources.
Let me go back to the Cultural Fund corridors. You 324 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. have $60 million on this sheet and it's been reported that 30 million of that was going to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Have you talked about how you divide the other 30 million?
We have looked at possible figures based on the size of the capital project, the amount of fundraising they've been able to do, their capacity to raise additional money. We have looked at all of those things. That's why I think it's very important to allow this program to go forward on the basis of the criteria that I mentioned to you. And I believe in your packages -- I didn't keep one, so I don't have a copy, but I think there's a list of criteria in there that is actually more detailed than the ones that I mentioned to you. And we intend to have a very careful analysis done and have a process that is fair and treats everyone fairly and equally and comes up with an analysis of the projects that are out there. 325 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. Clearly, as I said before, we can't do it all. We know that there are a lot of projects that we will not be able to fund, but the ones that come up the highest in terms of those criteria are the ones that we will fund. The amount that we will give each one, that we will propose giving each one, will depend on those factors that I mentioned before, how much fundraising they've done, what the size of the project is, how much public benefit we think that it supplies, how it relates to the neighborhood and the City as a whole, how much it strengthens the City as a whole, how much economic impact we think it will have.
While Council Lady Blackwell -- Jannie -- this would be Councilwoman Tasco and that's Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell. That's for me.
We'll get nametags. 326 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC.
And this may have very well been covered. Time frame for the assessment and decisions around the 60 million, has that been determined, talked about, looked at, considered? Where is that in the framework of this roll-out?
We have actually thought about the timetable. We hope to close the bonds in December, to start the process of considering the cultural corridor projects at the beginning of the year. At the same time, we'll be sending out letters -- we'll ask for letters of interest from the smaller organizations for the $5 million and start that process, and we hope to make all of the award letters by June.
June '07. So what I'm hearing is two tracks of activity, correct?
A track for the 60 million and a track for the 5? 327 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC.
Councilman Clarke magnified this issue with regards to the vendors and employment piece of this, so I want to use his line of thinking for the 60 million, and that is to say, as neatly as I can, that we know that Dell East for a lot of reasons may not be able to raise the kind of substantial dollars that a Philadelphia Free Library can raise. So some formula, some criteria, some consideration that lends itself to a level playing field for Dell East stacked up against the Philadelphia Free Library should be factored in to the criteria that you've outlined.
It absolutely is. It's part of the financial capacity that I mentioned. We'll be looking at not only their financial capacity in terms of their 990 and their ability to fundraise but obviously their ability to carry out the project and get it done in a timely 328 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. fashion.
Wait a minute. But that's a City-owned structure. They don't do 990's. We fund them through the City budget.
Well, I'm giving the answer for all of the category, all of the projects in the $60 million category. We'll be looking at all of those.
Well, you just added the Dell today, because it's not in here. It's not in your sample list, and it's sort of like an after-thought because we raised it. And the problem is with the Dell, we'll come back and you'll say, Oh, well, that comes under the City capital projects and we don't have any money for the City capital projects, and that's a City-owned structure. So to the Dell, you say, Oh, well, that's City Recreation Department, that goes under the capital program, so 329 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. let them fund it. That's what's going to happen.
I'm not sure I'm following this. Do they do no 8 fundraising?
Your expert should be able to tell you about the City facilities in your program and what they do and what they don't do. They don't do fundraising. It is a City Recreation facility.
I guess I'm done. For the lawyer, I'd like for you for the record to come forward. I had a question about the amendments and what some of the markings meant. 330 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC.
I actually was going to go through the whole two sheets, if you would like, or Mr. Dutchie can do that.
I'm sorry, Councilwoman. For the record, my name is Francois Dutchie. I'm head of the Financing Contracts Division of the City's Law Department. Did you have a specific question?
Yes. In the amendments, certain portions on B-4 of the ordinance there and on B-3 there are, around the streetscape enhancement and capital improvements, there are certain, I guess, markings and I'd like to know what that means.
It's really just a functioning of the black lining procedure. It's substantively meaningless. It's just putting in quotations --
That it's being 331 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. eliminated.
It's just putting it in brackets to indicate that it's being -- that symbol that's in there is being eliminated.
Thank you very much. With regard to all these changes, it's really, really unconscionable to get four different copies of changes in one afternoon. Having said that, we will --
Is the Zoo on your list? 332 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC.
Having said that, we will call on you to go through the proposed amendments to the Cultural and Commercial Corridors ordinance, so if we ever get to stated meeting, we can vote. However, with regard to the amendments to the Economic Opportunity Plan, we assume that we are in agreement that this is Exhibit-D and that you've taken away the first supplement to the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative Economic Plan and listed it as City of Philadelphia Cultural and Commercial Corridor Program; is that correct?
Yes, we have it. And we also assume that on of this same amendment document that the numbers have been changed from 333 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. goals of 35 and percent to 43 and percent; is that correct?
Then 6 that takes us through that document. Now 7 we'll call on you to explain the other three-page document listed "Proposed Amendments to the Cultural and Commercial Corridors Ordinance."
As I said earlier, that No. 1 item is eliminated. We're withdrawing it. That's the budget change, and we're going back to that original budget. The second item on the Proposed Amendments sheet that you have is just making some grammatical changes in the language for Section 8(b).
Let's hold up and make sure we're all looking at the same document. As my colleague mentioned, it's just easier to look at the -- let me make sure I have the same bill copy. So we are on the most recent document, thick document. This is a document we all receive. So this is a document we're referring to. So we should turn to . We're on . Is that where we are?
Unfortunately, I gave you all the copies. The Clerk picked up all the copies, so I don't have a copy to refer to. Thank you. I appreciate it.
So we 335 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. are on , No. 8(b)?
Okay. I don't know if we still have a summary. It's changed a few times.
Yes. And that's this three-page document I was referring to, correct?
We're reading from a two-page summary and we're showing you what changes have been made to that summary.
It's a twodocument that's entitled Proposed Amendments to the Cultural and Commercial Corridors Ordinance.
So we're on two documents. 336 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC.
We have the amendment, Exhibit-D. Now we're dealing with the thick bill copy and the three-page paper that says "Proposed Amendments to the Cultural and Commercial Corridors Ordinance"; am I correct? Since we have reviewed Exhibit-D, we should be able to put the Economic Opportunity Plan aside; is that correct?
So now we're working with these two documents, a full bill and a three-page document. Are we all on the same page? Great. All right. So now in the thick document, the complete bill, we turn to , No. 8.
Well, I've just gone to your three-page Proposed 337 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. Amendments. So the second item is Exhibit-A of the ordinance.
I have no idea what you're talking about. If this says from the thick document, No. B --
Madam Chair, she seems to be looking at this document, the three-page document.
Ms. Naidoff, I think the Chair would prefer you work from this document rather than from the summary list. You can use the summary to direct you to this document, but it's easier for us to go through this document to look at the amendments.
So we're on No. 8, . Or do you turn to where you have 8(c)?
The section at 338 10/17/06 - FINANCE - BILL 051089, ETC. the bottom of , is that what you're looking at, 8(b)?