in no way mean an increase in the property tax rate in FY 76 or FY 77 for the purpose of this Bond Issuance.

In a letter the Committee received from Bond Counselors James Hudson and Roswell Dikeman dated September 17, 1975, they state: "We have interpreted Section 481 to mean that the sinking fund provision and thus the availability of the Federal payment to make up deficits, does not apply unless the Council act provides for the annual levy of a special tax. Sub (a) reads that only if there is a levy of a special tax is where a sinking fund to deposit the special levy along with other revenues of the District. Thus the Federal payment provisions in Sub (c) would not be applicable unless a sinking fund were established. Such provision immeasurably strengthens the general security of the bond and its marketability through the availability of the Federal payment, thus reducing interest cost.

"Under the $50 million refunding Bond issue, it is anticipated that savings would result to the District as opposed to creating a need for any additional revenues via a special tax. The draft bond act in referencing the special tax provides that the tax is authorized and to be levied in an amount which together with other revenues of the District of Columbia will be sufficient to pay principal and interest. Presumably, if other District revenues are sufficient, there is no need to levy the special tax."

SEC. 6 establishes that the bonds may be issued in one or more series, but that no issue of the bonds can be advertised for sale unless the Mayor has filed two days prior to the first publication of the notice of sale excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays, with the Secretary of the Council, the Mayor's certificate; the notice of sale; and the official statement.

The Committee voted to approve.

In favor: Mr. Barry, Mr. Dixon, Mrs. Shackleton, and Mr. Wilson.

Opposed: None.

Committee Reasoning.-The Committee strongly supported this section. It does not appear in the Mayor's Bill 1-163. It is, however, an important section of Bill 1-162 introduced by Chairman Tucker. Sections 461 and 463 of the charter (PL 93-198) provide the Mayor with the authority to market and publish all notices relating to the sale of bonds, provided the Mayor has received Council authorization pursuant to section 462. It is the Committee's feeling that although the Mayor has the day-to-day responsibility in this process, the Council shall be informed of all the Mayor's steps.

SEC. 7 establishes that the Council will, by resolution, determine the principal payment agent(s) and place (s) for the bonds.

The Committee voted to approve.

In favor: Mr. Barry, Mr. Dixon, Mrs. Shackleton, and Mr. Wilson.

Opposed: None.

Committee Reasoning.-Corporation Counsel, in a memorandum dated June 27, 1975, to Comer S. Coppie, stated:

"Under Section 465 of the District Charter (87 Stat. 805) the City Council may authorize by act an issuance of general obligation bonds. The statute provides as follows: 'Such bonds and the interest thereon may be payable at such place or places within or without the District as the Council may determine.' (Emphasis added.)

"Section 412(a) of the Charter authorizes the Council to discharge its powers and duties by passing acts and adopting resolutions. That section provides in part that: Resolutions shall be used to express simple determinations, decisions or directions of the Council of a special or temporary character.' (Emphasis added.)

"In my view Congress intended under Section 465, where it employed the phrase 'as the Council may determine,' that the final decision concerning the place where bonds and interest thereon shall be paid should be reflected in a resolution rather than an act of the Council. Such a decision is clearly of 'a special or temporary character' related to the particular bond issuance to be authorized by passage of an act."

It seemed to the Committee to clarify the situation clearly. It would be to the Council's best interest to clearly establish its power to act by resolution in this area by incorporating sec. 7 in this bill. This was also an important section of Chairman Tucker's initial Bill 1-162.

SEC. 8 provides that the act shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of PL 93-198.

The Committee voted to approve.

In favor: Mr. Barry, Mr. Dixon, Mrs. Shackleton, and Mr. Wilson.

Opposed: None.

COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MEMORANDUM

To: Robert Williams, Executive Secretary.

From: Marion Barry, Chairperson, Revenue and Finance Committee. Date: September 24, 1975.

Subject: Refunding Bond Authorization Act.

The attached bill was voted out of the Finance and Revenue Committee on September 18, 1975. The vote on final approval of the bill was 4-0, with Council Members Barry, Dixon, Shackleton and Wilson voting "yes.

It is my intention to have this on the agenda of the Committee of the Whole working session September 29th and available for first reading on October 7th.

(13)