The ayes are 11, the nays are 6. (Applause, whistles, cheers.)
Okay. The Mayor's veto is sustained. (Applause.)
Council will now proceed under special order. I'm sorry, Councilman. I didn't realize your light was on. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to call for special Special Meeting - 7/1/04 consideration of Bill 040023-A at this time. I know that a special meeting under the rules of Council that we're only supposed to deal with those issues that have been advertised, but also under those same rules, by a two-thirds vote it's appropriate that we can vote on a bill. Since the business privilege tax cut bill was just defeated, I'm calling for consideration of Bill 23-A which eliminates the gross receipts tax by 2010, eliminates of net income tax by 2016. Copies of the bill have been placed on the desks of members of Council. This bill costs zero dollars next year, zero dollars the year after, and only $6 million a year after that. So I move consideration of Bill 23-A. And I understand it takes a two-thirds vote to consider it.
Yes. Under the rules, to consider matters not specified in the call at this special Special Meeting - 7/1/04 meeting requires two-thirds vote. Therefore, the Chief Clerk will please call the roll on the motion. Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco for a point of information.
Is this motion to consider all bills or just this bill?
No. Just the one bill, Bill Number 040023-A. This is on the motion to consider the bill at this time.
Aye. The ayes are 17. The nays are zero. This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is, shall the bill pass finally? Is that the motion? Oh, I'm sorry. You didn't read the title.
Bill Number 040023-A, an ordinance amending Section 19-2604 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to tax rates, credits and alternate tax computation for the business privilege tax, by reducing the tax, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is, shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the call.
Councilman Special Meeting - 7/1/04 Cohen, did you want to be recognized?
I would like the sponsor of the bill to outline briefly the provisions of the bill.
Thank you, Councilman Cohen. This bill was actually introduced on January 22nd, along with the other Tax Reform Commission bills. This bill originally just eliminated the gross receipts tax within the first five years. It was amended in the Finance Committee to eliminate the net income tax by the year 2016. It was then further amended on June 21st to really smooth out the schedule and eliminate the gross receipts by 2010. The impact on the five-year plan is $85 million, which is significantly less than the other Tax Reform Commission bills. And as I mentioned before, the impact on the first three years of this Special Meeting - 7/1/04 bill is zero, zero and six. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll.
A majority of all Council members having voted in the Special Meeting - 7/1/04 affirmative, the bill passes. Oh, I'm sorry. What did you say?
The ayes are eight? Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. The motion fails. The motion fails. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for the introduction of bills and resolutions at this special meeting of Council. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL MEMBER: Second.
Okay. Again, it would require a two-thirds vote. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll. Councilman O'Neill, your light is on.
Madam Special Meeting - 7/1/04 President, at the appropriate time, I'd like to call for special consideration, two-thirds of the body, on Bill Number 040598. It's the last bill on the calendar, and it deals with authorizing the City's agreement with the Army-Navy game.
I don't believe we have to have a two-thirds vote. I believe we have to have a majority to suspend our rules.
I believe... Councilman Nutter, your light is on. Did you want to...
Councilman Clarke had a point of order. I've got a question about the issue that was just raised, and I have a bill that I wish to introduce.
Right. Well, but now we're moving into bills -- Why don't we take care of all the special Special Meeting - 7/1/04 business?
I don't believe that we're doing that because if in fact we did we would be unbalancing the budget.
My understanding is the line item veto is to balance the budget.
Right. MR. McPHERSON: Correct. And since the override of the BPT failed, by overriding that you would be unbalancing the budget.
I think we can get an explanation from the top of the thing in that fashion. I would like to get an answer to Councilman Clarke's question. It's pertinent to the veto message that we Special Meeting - 7/1/04 received.
Madam President, I'm happy to wait until we finish this -- until we deal with the other veto, if it helps us to maintain clarity. I'm happy to wait and defer until after we finish this, and then I'll -- So I will withdraw my motion, and I will restate my motion shortly.
Rather than just a private conversation there, I would like either Mr. McPherson or Mr. Auerbach to convey to all of the members exactly why we're not considering it. Mr. McPherson. MR. McPHERSON: When Council attempted to override the business privilege tax and that failed, then that would preclude Council from attempting to override the line item veto on Bill 601 because to the extent that you overrode the veto, you would then be unbalancing the budget.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I appreciate the technical explanation. The issue that I was raising is, at least in my relatively short period of time, we have not had a line item veto of a budget. We haven't had a hole host of things in the past two months, as compared to the last 20 years. Councilman Clarke raised the issue. I had planned to raise the issue. If a decision was made somewhere not to bring the item up, notwithstanding whatever the explanation is in the message from the Mayor, I'd at least like it on the record as to why we're not calling it up, and what the implications were. And it was just basically being ignored. Now, if a decision had been made somewhere else to do that, that's fine. But I think some of the rest of us, at least, deserve to have it on the record as Special Meeting - 7/1/04 to why it's being ignored.
I fully understand. And if you're satisfied with Mr. McPherson -- Are you satisfied with Mr. McPherson's explanation?
I appreciate the explanation. I understand the explanation. I just want the record clear as to what we're doing with it. If the answer is nothing, then we should say that.
In this particular matter because we've never had one of these situations.
So we're doing nothing. Okay. At this time the Chair again recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Madam President, I am not sure where we are. I Special Meeting - 7/1/04 thought we were continuing with the operating budget amendment? I agreed to withdraw my motion until we finished dealing with this issue.
With the override. So then we are not overriding --
I did not understand the import of Mr. McPherson's statement. I've been grappling with it, and I'm amazed that so many of my colleagues seem to understand it. But I Special Meeting - 7/1/04 must admit, I don't understand it. So I'd like to know, what's the impact? What is McPherson suggesting that the Council do?
Mr. McPherson, would you please approach? Councilman Cohen wants to know what the impact is.
What is it you urge us to do and why? MR. McPHERSON: When the Mayor vetoed the business privilege tax bill, that also meant then, because the parking tax was contingent upon the passage of both the wage tax reduction and the business privilege tax reduction, that by not being able to override that veto, there was a $4 million hole in the City's fiscal 2005 operating budget. A $4 million hole. Excuse me. And then the Mayor on Bill 601, because of his veto, reduced the Police Department and personal services by that $4 million. Since we were unsuccessful in Special Meeting - 7/1/04 overriding the Mayor's veto on the business privilege tax which meant then the continued loss of the parking tax, by trying to override the reduction in Bill 601, if we were successful, we would be unbalancing the budget.
So your advice is that we not take any action at all? MR. McPHERSON: Yes.
To maintain the balance of the budget. MR. McPHERSON: Yes.
Very good. MR. McPHERSON: And actually, the City Controller was over there with his concern, to make sure that we take no action because he has to certify that it is a balanced budget at some point today. And if we took action, he would have difficulty being able to do that.
Madam President, Special Meeting - 7/1/04 do we have any information as to the impact of the $4 million reduction in the Police Department?
Do we? No. No. None was supplied. We distributed whatever we got from the Mayor this morning.
No; I understand that. Has there been any information... I mean, we have had a fair amount of time between the delivery of the message. Is there any information come to the Council in any of the half a dozen people from the administration who are in the chamber at any point in time? Has anyone deigned to share any information with us as to what the implication is of the $4 million reduction being made by the Mayor?
You're asking if there's someone from the administration in the chamber that can explain it?
I'm asking if any of the people who have been in the Special Meeting - 7/1/04 chamber from the administration have shared any information with the Council, with the President, any of the staff, or anybody else as to what the implication is -
No, we have not been informed by anyone. The only information we received this morning at 10 of 10:00 was the letter from the Mayor. Councilman Cohen. I'm sorry, Councilman. You'll have to talk into your microphone.
Re-read the Mayor's letter. It is as if -- It is as if he believes that he does, in fact, have the power to maintain the parking tax, even though he's vetoed the bill.
No. I don't Special Meeting - 7/1/04 read it that way.
Councilman, I read the message there. There's a slightly confusing component to it, but I don't think that that is the case. I think the Mayor recognizes that which is why he's proposing to cut the budget by $4 million because he knows he has a gap by losing the parking tax revenues. We've got -- I mean, I saw just a few minutes ago... The Budget Director is here. Can somebody ask him the question?
Is Mr. Dubow or someone from Finance here? I believe Mr. Dubow is in the corridor. I'm asking that he come in. Mr. Dubow is in the corridor. We're getting him.
That's fine. I'll read about it in the paper tomorrow. That's where we usually get the bulk of the Special Meeting - 7/1/04 information. Thank you, Madam President. That's fine.
Okay. You're welcome. All right. With that issue being behind us, the Chair again recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Madam President, I move that the rules of Council be suspended so that a majority of Council will be sufficient to permit the introduction of bills and resolutions during this special session.
All right. Okay. As I indicated before, this is a special order of business, so you are making a motion. And it would require, under our rules... Would you please reiterate what your motion is?
Absolutely. I move that the rules of Council be suspended so that a majority of Council will be sufficient to permit the Special Meeting - 7/1/04 introduction of bills and resolutions at this special session.
Would the sponsor of the motion state what the extreme urgency is that a special meeting be turned into a regular ordinary meeting?
Well, I don't know that this will ever be considered an ordinary meeting, Councilman. (Laughter.)
Having said that, there are several bills and resolutions that other members wanted to introduce that would not be permitted because this is a special session. There are approximately three that I'm aware of, issues, that concern the Council that various members would like introduced. Special Meeting - 7/1/04
Thank you, Madam President. If I could ask the majority leader with regard to the motion, as I was listening to it, it sounded like the motion was to allow for a majority.
What provision in the rules are we trying to amend? And if that's the case, it sounds like we're actually making an amendment to our rules, as opposed to just suspending them.
Well, we are only suspending them for this meeting.
Right, but the motion sounds like it's changing something from two-thirds to a majority.
For this session, to allow for introduction only.
I don't think you can amend the rules in the same session. You can suspend the rules.
Well, we said suspend the rules. We said suspend. We didn't say amend. Only a suspension for today.