Okay, the larger answer to your question is that we will get through this year by meeting all of our covenants. The specifics on your question, I will have to get back to you in writing on. It's more complicated than I can deal with at the table.
I think I have one more question here. Let's get back to the possible $20 million rate increase, possible.
Worse-case scenario. Is the PFMC Board aware of this worse-case scenario?
No. We have presented the budget to the board, the board has a Finance 59 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 Committee meeting on Thursday of this week to review it. And it is, you know, highlighted, has been highlighted for them. The 2002, it not uncommon in the City's five-year plan for us to say there is a plugged number that we must fill with additional cuts and, the City has been able to do this. I believe that presenting a realistic five-year revenue plan, a five-year budget plan without hoking it up with unrealistic expectations of future sales, as has been done in the past, is the way to go. And we know that in 2002, we've got to find a structural way to fill the hole. We may be able to do it through increased sales. We may be able to do it -- I believe we can do it through cuts. The board --
That's not structural. Obviously, we need more customers. I mean, more customers is the answer and we do, fortunately, have a lot of development going on that can assist us in that. It's a challenge. But rather than 60 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 having unrealistic point-of-sale estimates that fill are hole that aren't realistic, I think it's much better to say, in 2002, we've got to be able to fill this. And we will do it.
By the way, Councilwoman, I don't believe -- and I don't want to have to come before the Commission and ask for a rate hike in 2002; the challenge is to avoid it. But if we have a rate hike once every ten years, that's pretty good. Certainly, the utilities around us would not be able to brag of that kind of an accomplishment. We want to do better, however.
I think that pushes it over. Many of us do not support a rate increase, and it doesn't help us to say that it's better that once every ten years -- and that ten years will come in 2002, and we're for it, that pushes us someplace else. We still have people on -- my colleague talked about us paying the freight for people who don't pay. I have found that in everything, we have great citizens in this city. And in 61 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 anything, you're going to get a minority of people who try to abuse the system. But for the most part, those who don't pay can't. I mean, I have a woman whose bill we pay who gets $95 every other week, and she's at the end of her pregnancy term. What do you do, what do you do? I mean, she gets $95 every week and has a family, and they have to eat too. So we do have some real hardship cases in this city. And given unemployment, and we're doing a lot in West Philadelphia to give you more customers. But I think that I always want to give a balanced perspective that most Philadelphians who don't pay are not deadbeats and not trying to use the system but certainly are people who are unemployed or underemployed and who just can't. And we work very, very hard with PGW and that clientele. I always want to make it straight so that the record reflects a balanced perspective 'cause we do not buy in one moment that we have a lot of deadbeats who just want to cheat the whole universe and don't want to pay their way. The other thing is, the Chair would 62 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 like to request, in addition to the information that Councilwoman Tasco asked for, the Chair would like to request that you conduct a study along with the other utilities to see what you can do to unify this AMR stuff, the issues you mentioned vans, etc., to save money. And that is one way that you can attribute that and those savings to this 204 hole that might exist.
That might be one way that you can do that, and we would certainly ask that you do that and make that part of that possible hole. And with that, let me defer to Councilman Nutter who has a question.
The discussion with Councilwoman Tasco that I understand you were talking about a potential $20 million rate hike? 63 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 Is that the discussion that I was just hearing?
Yeah. In the five-year projections in the year 2002, there is a $20 million hole, which we believe will be filled, as we project in City five-year projections in the out-years, that we will be able to fill that with increased cuts in cost, increased sales in terms of new customers; or as the absolute last resort, which at least one member of Council has just told me she doesn't want to hear about and is probably correct, a rate increase. But I think it is much better to say we've got a hole in 2002, we've got -- our challenge is to fill it.
I understand. Now, would I find anything about that in any of the documents that we were given yesterday or anything handed out today?
Do you have the Stone and Webster independent engineering report?
Yes. I got it 64 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 yesterday.
I believe it is, yes. It's in the executive summary. When we submit the year 2000 budget and future projections to the Gas Commission at the end of this month, I think it will be more detailed.
Okay. Let me go back to a couple of your responses to Councilwoman Tasco. And in the course of a couple of your answers, you used some terms that I wrote down. First you talked about capitalizing labor costs, and I didn't particularly understand that, I've never heard of that, and I didn't know that you could capitalize labor costs.
Yes. If an individual's job assignment is on a capital project --
Yeah. Then their salary can be paid out of the capital account as opposed 65 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 to operating. Personally, I'm not wildly happy about doing that because you're consuming expensive dollars to do it, but I understand why it was done in very warm winters.
To relieve pressure on the operating budget of the Gas Works so that the covenants required could be met.
The individuals are not there now. My belief is, it started several years ago. There is nothing in terms of accounting that suggests that this was improper. I tend to be on this issue to be more conservative. There's nothing improper about it. The problem was --
Well, you know, 66 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 today and as yesterday, I haven't accused you of doing anything improper; I'm just asking the question. When was this done, how many people were there and what did it cost?
I don't have the specifics. I know it is part of the projected number, that people were moved into capital --
Prior to you getting here, we're trying to determine where at the end of this fiscal year, if we have exceeded the authorization, which we will have, for a number of capital year programs, how much we will have done it for. Some of this we can curtail; some of this we cannot. But we know we have to come back to the commissioned and Council to amend those authorizations.
No. Because some of it -- it's right now, a lot of it is projection. And those projections can be changed. 67 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86
Okay. And in response to another question, either from Councilwoman Tasco other maybe from the Chair, you -- with regard to, I think, some of the social programs, you said that these were not what the owners of the company want.
The people of the City of Philadelphia, and they are represented very much by this Councilman.
And there is a sizeable group on this Council that very much support those social programs. They are the owners. And that's what we do.
But your statement was that this is not what the owners of company want. I think you were saying that they didn't want these social programs.
Oh, no, exactly the opposite. I believe that a majority of the 68 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 owners, as reflected by elected representatives in City Council, support those social programs. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Okay, all right. Let me just go through a bit of housekeeping items. You're wearing a number of different hats these days. And you are still presently the Finance Director for the City of Philadelphia?
And you are also the interim president and CEO of PGW?
And due to the nature of your position as finance director, you're automatically the Chair of the Pension Board; is that right?
And are you still the head of the search committee for a permanent CEO and president of PGW?
I am. I'm also the 69 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 acting chief financial officer for the Gas Works, in effect.
That is part of the work I am doing over there. There is no chief financial officer, and I've assumed those duties.
Okay. Now, before you took on your PGW responsibilities, if PGW was doing a financing, what was the role of the finance director in that financing?
To be honest with you, it was probably minimal. Financings are handled by the City treasurer. The finance director, by law, must sign off on certain documents, but I don't think I ever appeared before Council concerning any PGW financing matter. I could be wrong but I don't believe I did.
The City treasurer's under the finance director on the flow chart? 70 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86
Okay. And so, again, I'm sorry, what do you do? You would sign off on --
I sign certain documents as required by law in any financing. Now, to tell you the truth, I couldn't tell you which ones the director of finance signs on behalf of revenue bonds for the Gas Works.
Well, the reason I raise this, and I know you to be certainly a competent person, so that's certainly not the issue. I guess I'm increasingly becoming concerned about the ever-tightening circle and the loop and the chain in the flow of documents and who looks at what and who signs off on with. And under any normal circumstance and anyone -- any rational person trying to construct an operation, normally some of these jobs are held by different people, I assume, for a variety of reasons. One, not even the most talented person can only do so much. Two, as we've seen in the previous PGW experience, where only a couple of people were 71 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 looking at a couple of things, there was a fairly serious implosion of accountability or lack thereof over there. I guess I'm now trying to figure out if -- and this is not a new issue. I raised this with you once before.
You are the finance director, the treasurer works for you, who technically signs the documents, but then that person reports to you. You're the interim president and CEO of PGW, the acting chief financial officer of PGW. You are also on the board that technically manages the person who would be in the president's position.
And you're the head of the search committee for, I assume, your successor, although we can't believe everything we read in the newspaper, but I thought I read a story that indicated that there might be some permanency to your present temporary position. I mean, there's just a lot of boxes being filled by one individual. And I guess I'm a 72 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 little perplexed at this point in time as to how we just ensure that things are handled in the right fashion, more than one person is seeing what needs to be seen and, I mean, kind of the back and forth of being on the board that manages the person that's -- I mean, you're literally almost managing yourself at some level.
Having a CEO, acting or permanent, on the board of a company is not at all unusual.
I understand that. We've been through that testimony before, all right.
Yeah. And there are -- is a fully -- the board is filled, and there is an active board. So I am not supervising myself. I am concerned about the number of roles I am playing and my ability to fulfill those obligations as well as I would want to and can do with so many roles to play. It is of concern.
In terms of documents that pertain to the director of finance and PGW, they are reviewed by the budget director who signs 73 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 those documents. I don't sign the same -- two sides of a contract.
Yes. There are certain statutory things that the City director of finance does.
And those are reviewed and signed by the deputy director, Dean Kaplan, just so that there won't be the same signature on two sides of the page, in effect.
You know, look, when you add it all up and take a look at it, and as I was sitting here listening to the other testimony and I'm thinking about the different roles that you're playing, two things occur: one, it's a lot of work for one person.
And, two, you begin to create an environment in which, even for 74 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 yourself, the potential conflicts may start to arise, depending on what position you're in on that particular day versus what else is going on in the other roles that you are filling in different parts of the government. And I'm just wondering if at some point in time, maybe it hasn't happened yet, but if at some point in time, if you are functioning solely in one role, you would have a particular view on something that would be different based on you also being on the other side of that table or that transaction. I'm just asking the question.
Hypothetically, that's quite possible. One way to resolve the problem is to do what we have done, and that is to include a large number of people so that there is no chance that I make a decision that is adverse to the other interests that I serve. Mr. McPherson is very committed to and involved in the Gas Works management, sits at the board meeting. He is an active participant. The Gas Commission is an active participant -- not intrusive but an active participant in what goes 75 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 on. I've used Mr. Kaplan and others, including both PGW's corporate counsel and the City's law department to try to avoid those problems. But I recognize the problem. I would like, and I make no bones about it now, I would like to move over to PGW on a more permanent basis. It certainly resolves that problem, but that may not happen. And until that issue is resolved, this is the world we live in.
Well, okay. Well, what is the status of the search committee effort I guess? And a number of months ago, you indicated that you were not a candidate for that particular position.
First question first is the search committee. The search committee is composed of the board and other members appointed by the Mayor had three questions to answer. The first recognition was that you would not get a pool of candidates for the chief executive officer that you would want to have as 76 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 long as there are uncertainties as to whether the company was going to be sold, whether the company could have outside management --
Are there uncertainties about the potential sale of the company?
There was at the time. And the second issue was whether outside management, in the UGI fashion, could not come and take over senior management. There was a third rather potent issue in any candidates mind: who's the next mayor going to be? The search committee resolved the first issue with a study that they reviewed on the value of PGW and what they could expect out of it. And we determined that you could not sell the Gas Works, maintain the $18 million a year payment to the City at the level of employment that the Gas Works has and the social programs and sell the company. The prospective sale would probably result in savings being obtained by reducing the workforce at the Gas Works and using employees 77 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 that the buyer already had. They had their own customer service unit, they don't need all of ours. So there's a concern about the level of employment. The second issue of outside management was examined most intensely, and there is an RFP that is going out -- it will be circulated to the people involved this week -- seeking outside management, an RFP for firms to manage the assets and gas supply of the company. We believe there may be advantage to the company in doing that. Until these issues are resolved, it was the feeling of the majority of the people on the committee -- and incidently, at the initial meeting, I wasn't one of them -- that you were not going to get a pool of CEO candidates that you would have if all these other issues were resolved. What changed between the time I said I wasn't interested to today? A lot of things. There are a lot of issues that are outstanding that just need management. I have a District Attorney's investigation that is ongoing and is serious. There is a State Ethics Commission 78 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 investigation. We have Y2K remediation issues that we are either going to have right or have wrong, and we'll find out on January 1. There's a host of management issues internally. And most importantly, once you've done something for six months, you get an emotional commitment to what you're doing. I didn't particularly want to be there. But once you're there, once you're working with it, once you can see the opportunity, you make an emotional commitment. I would prefer to stay there. It may not happen, but that is a big change.
Well, I mean, you consider yourself a qualified candidate, right?
Why wouldn't anyone else consider themselves to be a qualified candidate and want to come here under these uncertain times? I mean, we're not going to know who the mayor's going to be.
Well, I mean, you 79 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 know, you might want to stick to finance, I'll stick to politics. I think we're not going to know who the mayor's going to be till around about, you know, probably 9, o'clock, on 6 November 2nd. 7 But, you know, people come and take 8 opportunities for a variety of reasons. 9 Obviously, you have an interest. There may be 10 other people who have an interest. And I mean, your indication back at that time was, the search committee was going to get up and running, expect it to have some recommendations. I think your testimony was, by the end of the first quarter of this year, and I guess it's -- I'm just interested to know what happened. I have to say, I didn't realize -- you know, maybe I missed that briefing. I didn't know that there was still this wild-eyed interest regarding a potential sale of the Gas Company. I think it's something that people talk about, kind of like the weather and don't do anything about. I mean, no one's seriously thinking about selling PGW in its current condition. I thought we had resolved that one a couple years 80 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 ago. I think it just comes up because people like to talk about it. But, I mean. . .
Well, I think we now have -- I think, to everyone's satisfaction, we have empirically examined the issue and we don't believe that it's in the interest of City to do that.
So we don't have to study that one again until maybe another three years or so.
Till somebody else brings it up, you're right. The issue of management of gas supply and assets is a very real one, and that's large in the industry. And that is an RFP that goes out. And, hopefully, we'd have a recommendation to the City by the fall.
Well, I guess lastly on this topic, I will say that -- I mean, this continues to amaze and some what baffle me that this entity is handled and dealt with unlike any other entity that's a part of or associated with the City of Philadelphia. I think the recent past history for the last enormous search was that 81 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 the company went without a CEO or president -- what was that, six years?
Yeah, more than a few years. Then we go on a national search and bring in a bunch of people. You know, they seem wonderful at the start; things didn't work out too well at the end. Then we go back into another search mode, then we try to figure out whether to sell the company again 'cause that's the currents discussion. And now we're thinking about either going the management route, which we've kind of gone out of flavor. I guess it's kind of "been there, done that." And we're going to sit on this mayoral watch to try to then figure out who might want to come here, depending on who the mayor is. I mean, I just can't imagine any other part of this government being treated in this particular fashion and being left to virtually 82 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 kind of flounder around with no clear leadership running the place, given its importance in the City. It wouldn't happen with the police department, fire department, recreation, you know, I'm almost kind of surprised that it's taken so long at least for the announcement -- and I know she hasn't left yet -- to fill the soon-to be-created vacancy at Licenses and Inspections. And I just don't know why this seems to happen at PGW unlike any other place. I mean, I think if Kumar Kischand (ph.) came in and announced his resignation, I don't think anybody would be sitting around thinking about, you know, getting a water commissioner in six years or, you know, having some management team go over there and try to run the Water Department. I mean, it just would not happen. So I don't know why it happens at PGW.
I mean, we pay a fairly decent salary. You know, we still do like the credit card thing and the car thing and all that other stuff, right? 83 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86
Maybe that's why people don't want to come here. Okay do you have a response to that?
Yeah. I mean, I think since you are not speaking about this moment in time but have gone back over six years, yeah, it's a crime the way this organization has been treated.
I can't explain why it happened. I can tell you that whether I'm interim, acting, or indentured president of PGW, that the direction it receives now is firm, clear, and effective. I don't mind patting myself on the back because there's not a whole lot of other people to do it for me. But right now, it is running as well --
If people are patting you on the back, you might want to find out what's in their hand but, you know. . .
Yeah. It is an eminently manageable operation. It has got good people who 84 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 are not only career employees, they are the sons and daughters, nephews and nieces of PGW employees. It is a very unique operation. All the problem that PGW has had, it has not been with the delivery of gas. It's done its job. It's been with customer service, financial management direction issues. It's not been the delivery of gas. It's a good operation.
Well, Mr. Hayllar, I'm glad they're delivering gas well, but customer service is kind of important.
And I tend to kind of want to pay attention to the financials as well.
So, I mean, it is at a minimum a serious three-legged stool. If you're not doing good customer service, you're probably not going to keep your customers happy. And if your financials are screwed up, we know what that leads to. So I mean, I'm pleased as punch that they're delivering the gas well, but that's not 85 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 the sum total of what goes on there.
It's true, and there's also a fourth leg, and that's knowing right from wrong.
Since Councilman Nutter brought this issue up and since I was a member of the search committee, I'd just like to have for the record a list of some questions answered about the process. We answered the first two questions about the sale of the company, decided not to sell. The other issue around management was answered. No, no management of the company but management of maybe the gas, but we never really came to a conclusion on what we would do about the search. I don't think that question was ever answered. And I'm also puzzled by the fact that that meeting of the gas -- of the search committee happened on April 19th, but on April 14th, the 86 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 PFMC board passed a resolution making you the CEO. So I'd like to know just what happened. And it was not revealed to the search committee on the 19th that that happened.
Well, I think this is probably better answered by the chairman of the board.
But you were chairman of the search committee. And did you know that at the time of the meeting on the 19th that the board -- since you're also a member of the board, that the board had made that move?
But did you reveal it at the time of the search committee meeting?
I frankly don't remember 'cause I don't remember the sequence as well as you do. I mean, I think everybody knew what was 87 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 happening. I was asked by the mayor and I was asked by the board.
I didn't know. I'm on the search committee, and I didn't know, sir. And I don't believe it was discussed --
I believe I told you in a meeting in your office with Mr. Nutter. I believe I told you personally.
I believe everybody every member of the search committee knew that, and I had a meeting with your office with Mr. Miller, and I did tell you this. And I apologize for the fact that the person who should have called you didn't.
Now, what is the problem with moving along with a search simultaneously with the course of the mayor's election? It takes approximately a couple of 88 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 months to hire a search firm.
And then two candidates for mayor can participate in the process, and we could have a CEO by January. We presume and make assumptions that people don't want to come here. We haven't asked that question. We haven't gone out to see who would come with the credentials and the qualifications that I laid out to the search committee. I believe, having been chair of the commission since 1992 and having gone through this process before, that we should get someone with those credentials.
At a meeting of the search committee that was held at Public Financial Management's conference room, which I don't believe you attended, 'cause I believe you attended two of those meetings and there were probably 15 of them, it was at least an hour and 90 minute discussion of where we were with this. And it was the consensus of the people in the room, and a consensus I did not lead, that there was not going to be much hope of getting a 89 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 well-qualified pool of applicants until these other issues were resolved. And I can refer you to those members of the search committee who were not on the board who were there, who can --
But you resolved that issue on April 19th that you're not going to sell, that you're not going to have a management coming in. What is wrong with moving along with the search process? Do we wait until the year 2000, November 2000, to begin a search? At what point do we begin to bring in management for PGW? Do you plan to stay beyond November of 2000?
But would you want to stay beyond the year -- November 2000?
I have no way of answering that. This could be a disaster. It's not starting off all that well. It could be a disaster. Right now, the board and the mayor have asked me to do this. I have made an emotional commitment to this company -- that's not what I 90 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 intended to have happen, but that's what's happened. It happens. If it doesn't happen, the future will at the.
Thank you. Are there any other questions with regards to Bills 990285 and 286? (No further questions at this time.)
Before we conclude our remarks, I'd like to make a motion for a suspension of the rules so that we -- I'm sorry I'd like to request a suspension of the rules so we may meet our financing schedule.
I'd like to say that we will probably have some more questions. We just got this material yesterday. We got a very thick Stone and Webster report. We only got 91 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 the documentation yesterday afternoon at 3 o'clock. We'd like to have further review of that so it gives us time if there are other questions to be asked that they could clarify for us. So I would request that we don't have a suspension of the rules.
It won't get done. I think we were at the end of the calendar in order to not have to make the January 1st payment. The refinancing will not have an effect if we don't work on this calendar. I would point it that throughout this process, that Council has been represented on the working group from day one. These documents that were available were made available to Council's technical staff consistently. If we don't adhere to the schedule, it won't happen.
It's very difficult when Council doesn't have the material in a timely fashion, and especially given everybody's schedules and everybody's running for election etc. etc. Councilwoman Tasco?
Well, I'd just 92 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 like to know why we didn't get the materials earlier. While the technical staff may have been informed, we are Councilmembers and we have staff and we are entitled to receive material and documentation in a timely fashion in order to make a decision in a timely fashion. The same thing's happened with us at the Commission.
Yes. It's a very complicated issue. When President Verna first mentioned this issue to me, she said it was a very complicated issue and you really need to keep in mind that given everybody's schedule, that it's important that we get our information as quickly as possible.
This is -- the process we used this year was no different than the process that has been used in the past.
But it doesn't make it right, Madam Chair. I mean, precedent is not an issue here because. Because we didn't get it in the past earlier didn't make it right. We'd like to get the material in a timely fashion so we can review it. 93 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86
I certainly agree and certainly, I wasn't Chair of the committee in the past. The President's out of the room, and she was Chair of this committee, and so, obviously, she can't reply to that now, but I don't think that's a good answer, Mr. Hayllar, that helps you get where you need to know.
Perhaps you can help me. We include Council staff at all fo the working groups. They have all of the materials when they are available to the working group. The Stone and Webster report was finalized just a few days ago, though drafts of it were circulated, including to Council's technical staff. What would you have us do in terms of keeping you better informed so that we don't have this problem? We thought, and we were instructed, that those individuals would be able to make the evaluations and consult Council on that. Apparently, that's not happened. I can't get the Stone and Webster report to you any quicker than it's done. I believe that is the one element you that you have not had. We introduced the legislation, I 94 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 believe, in late April so it's been there.
Legislation has been introduced, but no information was made available. I specifically called even last week about more information, and it was not available. My office called, I called PGW last week. So the Councilwoman's correct in saying we didn't get it until yesterday. Now we were told we would get information and it was being prepared, that sort of thing. But certainly, the rule in the past has been 48 hours. And even in this instance it was not adhered to. Now if the question is that the report wasn't ready, that's one thing. When information is available and where you have so many you issues involved, you really should get it to us as soon as possible. If I had had it, I would have submitted it to my colleagues on this committee.
We believed, perhaps incorrectly, that Mr. McPherson was the technical staff to Council and that providing this information to him and Mr. Erickson allowed this information to get to Council. I don't know what more we can do when we've done that. 95 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86
We will take this issue up with the President. We'll reach her and then maybe we will let you know before -- we have two other resolutions on the calendar today.
And we will deal with this issue before the committee hearing is ended.
Certainly, Madam Chair, as it relates to the Philadelphia Gas Commission, 'cause we're an integral part of this whole process, the Gas Commission should certainly have the material in plenty of time to analyze it because in the end, we are held responsible and accountable for all the financial stuff related to PGW. And we would like to have the material.
We certainly agree, and the Gas Commission, the representatives on Council certainly speak for us. I mean, we go to them and certainly, we expect them to represent us on the Commission. That is why they are in fact appointed. And if they don't have information, then they can't represent us. And we always assume that they are -- I assume that the 96 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 president of the Gas Commission would have had this stuff for months and months ago by virtue of her title. It's very, very important that we have -- we have a commission and that we have a committee that does work to represent the people. We take it very, very seriously. When you say that in 2002, you may need a gas increase, you know, that puts up a red flag with many of us. And you can't talk about something so extreme and then not make sure that we understand how our actions today affect that term and make sure that we don't have information we need. Asking for information is not -- is not an issue that we should even have a debate about. You know, we need the information as quickly as possible. And more especially, when you have an issue that is as complicated as this and where it has so many important ramifications, even given the State issue, and certainly I'm disappointed to hear that the president of the Gas Commission says she can't get information. I think that's absolutely unconscionable.
I don't believe that's 97 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 true. I have always made information available to her whenever she had asked. That is just not true, nor is it fair.
Let me just clarify. The problem exists with the Gas Commission as it exists with this committee -- getting information in a timely fashion, where we can review the material and study it and make informed decisions. That has been an ongoing -- not just with you, but with prior administrations in trying to get material to the Commission in time. We are asked to make decisions, we are asked to approve initiatives. And when we don't approve them, then we're called obstructionists. And if we don't do it because we don't have the time to get to do it.
So let us note for the record, as we said, we will take this under advisement while we hear the testimony of the other two resolutions.
I'd like to ask one question. If you don't get to the market June 98 5/11/99 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Bill 990285, 86 1st, what's wrong with July 1st?
We will not get the debt service savings and will have trouble making the covenant at the end of the year. This is a budgeted item, we need the $2 million. That's $2 million that we have to find somewhere else. I can't tell you that we can do it between now and August.
Thank you very much. We will ask the clerk to come forward to read the title of the next resolution. I will assume that the testimony is separate for the two resolutions. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It's separately stated in one document.