Hi. I'm Linda Lauff. I'm President of the Friends of Pennypack Park. Good afternoon. I represent an 124 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET all-volunteer organization of 2,000 members who care for, use, and enjoy a 1688-acre park in Northeast Philadelphia. As volunteers, we have dedicated many, many hundreds of hours each year in the park. We do monthly cleanups, plant trees, do trail work and stream bank stabilization, erosion management, recycle, educate, inform, and communicate important issues to the members in our community. We love our park. We also care about all of Philadelphia parks, whether or not they're the natural areas, ballfields, playgrounds, or recreation centers. We want our park system to be better funded for many years of decreased funding. The Friends of Pennypack Park support Mayor Nutter's proposed $3.3 million increase to the new department of Parks and Recreation. We want Philadelphia to be the greenest city in the country. Under the leadership of Michael 125 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET DeBerardinis, we hope to see this goal accomplished. Mr. DeBerardinis has the vision to lead this new department. We want to continue to see our parks and recreation centers well maintained and managed. Funding for this department is crucial in providing the necessary staff to see programs continue and for buildings to be operated effectively. Our parks and recreation centers are the gathering places in many of our communities. This is where our children go for after-school programs, summer camp, and swimming, and for adults and senior citizens to take a variety of classes, socialize, relax, or exchange ideas. As more and more people have less income due to the economic -- the current economy, our parks become their vacation destination. Our parks provide picnic sites, bicycle and walking trails, playgrounds, and a place to go fishing. 126 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET It's a place to unwind from the stresses of everyday life. One of the biggest annual efforts of the Friends of Pennypack Park is the planting of trees. Due to many environmental factors, our tree canopy has been greatly reduced, as it has in so many other parks and communities throughout the State. We have, for 11 years, continued to plant hundreds of 12 trees in our park, but our efforts need 13 more help. A much larger effort, with 14 more resources must be made if we want to 15 reach our goal of planting 5800 trees. 16 We all recognize trees increase 17 property value, reduce greenhouse gasses 18 and air temperatures, and help revitalize 19 our neighborhoods, as any homeowner who 20 lives near the Pennypack Park can tell you. In closing, an affirmative vote for the budget increase to the Department of Parks and Recreation is an investment we cannot afford to neglect. Many 127 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET volunteers from park friends groups to the average citizen want our City Council members to recognize the value of our parks. Our parks provide quality of life and a focal point for many of our neighborhoods. Just over this weekend, our Friends group received an e-mail from someone in New Jersey asking for information about the Pennypack Park because they were visiting here this summer. (Timer bell rings.)
So as you see, our park is a point of destination. Our park system is known throughout the country, and we want to share the pride we have with a well-funded department. Whether you live in or outside Philadelphia, our parks are truly treasured. I hope you recognize this value and vote for Mayor Nutter's proposed budget. (Applause.) 128 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET
Thank you very much. If we have a witness here who has written testimony and cannot stay because of the time, we will make certain that your testimony is made a part of the record. So anyone who feels that they can't stay to testify, we will make your written testimony a part of the record. Thank you.
Good afternoon. Pardon me. My name is Fatima Ali; I'm speaking on behalf of Rasheeda Ali- Campbell. She's from Love, Love & Love, Incorporated. 129 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Thank you, City Council, Council at-large, and citizens of Philadelphia for the opportunity to address you today. In Philadelphia and all across America, we are experiencing a financial crisis. Thousands of people are losing their jobs and homes every day. There are times that my generation has never seen before. However, today, we stand ready to face these challenges. Today, we are encouraged because we have a viable solution to many of our city's problems. Today, we introduce EarthShift. Philadelphia is a city with historical significance. It is only fit that we introduce a project that will have historical ramifications. We have been working on our project for more than two years. We have learned in this time that many people in the City will not listen to what we have to say. But more importantly, we have 130 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET learned that many people will listen. We have collected over 400 signatures and have many letters of support from significant figures in the City and across the State for our project. We have supporters from around the world endorsing our work. And we believe that Philadelphia is ready for the EarthShift. Philadelphia has a unique opportunity to be a leader in this country. We can show the United States our remarkable ability to become financially prosperous once more. We can become producers of one of the most innovative designs in American history. The EarthShift will bring jobs and pride to our city and change the face of homelessness forever. This home is made from recyclable materials. This home can heat and cool itself. This home can grow its own food. This home has its own running water and electricity. 131 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Our organization needs one vacant lot, just one. Please help us build our EarthShift. Please move to make this a reality in Philadelphia. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. What Councilmatic District do you live in?
Yes. She lives in Yeadon, but the rest of the family lives in Philadelphia.
Where does the rest of the family live? 132 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET
In North Philadelphia. Actually -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Germantown.
Germantown, North Philadelphia. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: North Central Philadelphia.
North Central Philadelphia. We have a lot of -- we actually have the petition still online, and people are still signing it.
Mm-hmm. I would suggest that members of your family, or whoever, deal with the District Councilperson in North Philadelphia; it would be Councilman Clarke. In Germantown --
Is Laurel Sweeney here? She's scheduled for 5:30. (No response.)
Good afternoon. My name is Don Haas. I'm the Operations Manager of the Bell Atlantic Tower, a 53-story office building in Center City. I'm here today in my capacity as the current chair of BOMA Philadelphia, the Building Owners and Manages Association. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET I would like to thank all Councilmembers for this opportunity to testify during today's hearing on Bill 5 No. 100198. BOMA fully recognizes and supports Council's difficult job of balancing a budget in this trying economic time. As building owners and operators, we too are experiencing many of the same pressures to establish a budget without unduly burdening our tenants. It's quite a balancing acts. By means of background, BOMA is a nonprofit organization whose members provide, within the City limits alone, over 51 million square feet of office space for over half a million office workers. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Center, to name a few. Our member buildings not only define the skyline and add character to the City but are a tremendous economic driver for the region. In the Greater Philadelphia region, the assessed real estate valuation of BOMA-represented office building exceeds $16 billion, translating into over $250 million in real-estate taxes. Within the City of Philadelphia alone, our members' buildings exceed billion in valuation and produce real-estate taxes of over $120 million annually. 70. million annually. This releases the City from supplying those services already included in our real-estate taxes. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET In addition, BOMA member buildings and occupants pay revenues to the City for City wage, business- privilege and use-and-occupancy taxes as well as the Center City District assessment, totaling over $1 billion annually. 3 billion each year. Our industry and tenants, as a whole, represent 70 percent of the tax base of the City of Philadelphia. In 2009, BOMA members spent in excess of $362 million in goods and services to operate and maintain Philadelphia office buildings. A vast majority of these goods and services were purchased locally and created and sustained real, local jobs. The total annual payroll for BOMA office building occupants is approaching $10 billion per year. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Philadelphia gains from the employees in BOMA-member buildings through the redistribution of income through the local community vis-a-vis the purchase of goods and services. Commercial real estate has historically been a lagging market indicator, which the larger economic impact is not necessarily reflected immediately. This is due in part to the long-term nature of lease transactions. ) We are currently in the midst of a liquidity crisis in the commercial real estate. At a time when companies are seeking to contract and gain greater efficiencies out of their workforce. 6 percent, with a sublet market as high as 15 percent. With this vacancy rate, there's an increasing pressure on the landlords to compete for transactions. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET tenants have suburban or out-of-city- market options. Needless to say, this has an impact on all values and the City's tax rolls. In the commercial space, the impact of the property tax increases may not be immediate but could have dire and long-term consequences as tenants make decisions about whether to remain in the City or to relocate to suburban or other jurisdictions, increase or downsize their workforces, with the corresponding amount of place leased. 1 million. This will directly impact our member buildings' ability to attract and retain tenants. Additionally, some of the burden will be passed onto the companies that occupy those buildings. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET that will drive employers from the City, not only affecting real-estate taxes, but also taking away employees and their considerable dollars spent in Philadelphia. The loss of intellectual capital these employees possess can also not be ignored.
The unintended consequences from this proposed tax structure will have a tremendous effect on a wide variety of industries. The potential negative impact to BOMA-member buildings and overall decreased occupancy of office space in the City will cost jobs in all facets of the real-estate industry, including those of the trades and construction fields as well as every other building service, including janitorial staff, security personnel, management staff, parking attendants, and physical-plant operations. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET exploring other avenues of revenue generation and, equally important, correcting the structural issues which gave rise to the current dilemma. We respectfully submit the need to close the budget gap not be made at the expense of those already contributing at the highest level and providing the necessary long-term economic stimulus vehicle. We value our contributions to our great city. Our long-term profitability is tied directly to the economic stability of our city, including a predictable and fair tax structure. Please provide us the tools to support that growth. Thank you.
Thank you, Council President Verna and members of City Council, thank you for opportunity to 141 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET testify. And thank you for the continuing support of City Council. I'm testifying on behalf of the Utility Emergency Services Fund. We provide the emergency financial assistance to low-income families whose utility service has either been shut off or is about to be shut off. Each grant is matched dollar- for-dollar by PECO, PGW, or the Philadelphia Water Department. This year, we are assisting over 5,000 families. We're year-round. We're the last resort, especially when LIHEAP and Crisis are closed. Over the last five years, over 90 percent of the families we served did not return for additional UESF assistance. I enclose a map that shows the families we served in City of Philadelphia over the last five years on . This year, PGW is projecting 30,000 terminations. PECO is projecting 142 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET 82,000 terminations this year. During the three-week period preceding this year's opening of LIHEAP, UESF provided financial assistance at the unprecedented level of over three quarters of a million dollars in three weeks. There was a time in our recent past when this level of assistance would have been provided almost over the course of an entire year. As of today, about five weeks since the end of the winter moratorium, we are just about out of funds. The City's Office of Housing and Community Development is proposing to cut $200,000 in Fiscal Year 2011, which would be used entirely for grants to low-income families. These families, about 500, will either get their utilities terminated or will not be able to have their utilities restored. And the City will lose the opportunity to leverage the $200,000 into $400,000 of assistance. 143 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET UESF is an essential part of the safety-net structure. When one safety net is reduce substantially, it is felt across all of the others. The cost of cutting $200,000 not only impacts upon the utility security of low-income families; it also deeply affects other crucial areas such as children's health, education, homelessness, and housing abandonment. We see some families may pay their utility bills, but at the expense of their not paying rent or mortgage. Families will decrease their food purchases to pay for heat. And some families will cut back both on food and heat, wreaking havoc on the health of children. On behalf of the 500 families who would be without utility assistance this coming year, I ask that the $200,000 is restored. The $200,000 will be leveraged into $400,000, problems will be prevented before they occur, and 144 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Philadelphia communities will have long-term and measurable, positive impacts, both socially and financially. In closing, I also want to express UESF's support for the City's Office of Supportive Housing and the many programs they direct to address homelessness. UESF has been fortunate to participate in OSH's homeless-prevention and rapid rehousing program and has helped in the prevention of homelessness of over 250 families through the provision of housing stabilization services. OSH has prevented the homelessness of a great many more families, also preventing larger problems before they occur. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. (Applause.)
Did I understand you to say that 200,000 was cut from the budget?
At OHCD's preliminary CD hearing, the budget for UESF was cut by $200,000 in their opening budget. That was based upon the CDBG allocation from the previous year.
Thank you. Our next witness is Toni McIlwaine and Harriette Saunders. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. MS. McILWAINE: Good afternoon. My name is Toni McIlwaine, and I just wanted to come and speak to Council in reference to homelessness and just to 146 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET share a little story. I come from a place of poverty most of my life. And because of a lot of different things that happened in my life, I wound up getting married, and that started the chain of homelessness for me. I remember being in a shelter over in Jersey, living there with my son, and attending school in Philadelphia. And the things that my children had to endure on top of abuse, because I come from a place of so much abuse, he had to come to school, but I remember my child and taking him to the bathroom, and we didn't have anyplace to sleep but in a car, and I had to take him to the bathroom to wash him up, because that's what we do. And he was screaming, "Well, Mom, Mom, why do we have to go there to wash up?" And my husband did have a job at that time, but because the places are so high for decent housing, we wound up 147 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET going to a place where we became evicted over and over again. And so, a couple months ago -- a woman of the most God and I attended a church across the street, and I'm always there, praying all the time. And so, I noticed that God had brought in a lot of homeless people. And at that particular time, he minister to me, myself, I was homeless too, because homelessness comes on all different categories. Because of abuse, I have moved from place to place. I'm in a place for one month, and then I'm in a place for two months and then three months and then a year. And my children say, "Well, we moving again?" Because of the abuse and the mental state that we were in, it caused us the (indiscernible) of homelessness. But when I was there, in the church, I met a beautiful young lady who came in, and she's sitting next to me. And I begin to talk and we begin to pray, 148 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET and the women of faith begin to pray with her. And she started crying. And so I said, "Well, how long have you been out here?" And she told me she had been out here for at least 30 years, in the system. And she was eating out of trashcans, in and out of mental institutions. And I was saying to myself, "Lord, God, how can we have and live in a society where our people can be out on the streets that long length of time?" And so, I didn't chose this position; God chose to put me in this place because I have no education of the world. So by me going through what I have done for almost 30 years, God has put a burden on my back. And so, I really hear the cry of the homeless people. Just like I said, it comes on different categories, but I had the privilege of meeting this young lady here. And so, the lord has blessed me 149 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET to have her walk with me, and I began to show her and help her get her ID, help her comb her hair, and just help her establish herself. And so, the lord is blessing me in that way. So I just wanted to come and just share the story and to just cry out to see what we can do on the levels of homelessness. And not only that, reform the shelters because I'm going to the place where she at, and those places are filthy. And so, I'm asking and crying out so maybe we can get together or form a group where we can go in and do surveys on the shelters to improve those shelters. Thank you for listening to me.
Identify yourself for the record. 150 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET
Hi. My name is Harriette Saunders, and I just want to say that I thank God because he brought me from a long ways. And I was, like I said, homeless for over 30 years, sleeping here and there, in cars, on the streets, and subways, and eating out the trash. And he, you know, he blessed me and spared my life. I could have got killed on the streets, and he blessed me to meet her. And, you know, there's a lot of people out there, going through the same things. They're dirty, they smell, and they need a place to eat and sleep and stay just like I do, and I'm no 18 better than they are. And God is good to all of us. He spared my life from a long ways. If it wasn't for him putting this lady in my life and, you know, cleaning me up and everything, I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for God. And now I sleep on the indoors, 151 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET and, you know, I'm able to, you know, get myself back together again, you know, and go do the things I used to do.
Is Nurit Shein here? (No response.) (Witness comes forward.)
So my name is Danita Bates, and I'm a parent, youth, mental-health, and senior-citizen 152 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET advocate and a community activist of North Philadelphia. I want to speak on numerous of things. I know it's short of time, but first, I want to elaborate on the selling of the basketball courts by the City for $1. I was told by a state representative and by Councilman Clarke that the basketball courts were unoccupied, which was untrue. And our concerns were as a community and the concern and of all parents, we were not involved of the situation until it was almost too late. But the basketball courts are being occupied. I myself started the community youth marching bands for all the community youth at 1600 Susquehannah Avenue, and that's where we practice that. And the kids also use the basketball courts. We also want revitalization for the basketball courts and the tennis 153 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET courts that were over there at one time, a playground, trees and benches for our seniors, so at the end of the day, the seniors, the community, and the youth are profiting from these situations and issues that's going on with the basketball courts. So we do want to oppose the project of the basketball courts being sold, and we just want them revitalized and a rehabilitation and resources going back into the schools in North Philadelphia instead of them being shut down, and we just want them rehabilitated for the whole community. We want the community, along with the senior citizens and the youth, to prosper from any projects that goes on in those areas. Right now, the kids are limited to having block parties or having any activities going on in the community because of all the developments that are being developed in our areas of North Philadelphia. And it's not -- none of 154 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET the monies are going back to the community, nor the schools, nor our seniors, nor our youth. So those are main concerns that we have. Us, as a community, we want revitalization so that at the end of the day, the youth are happy, the community is happy, and so is the seniors. So I fight and fight and fight. I'm going to fight, I'm going to keep going as far as I have to go to make sure instead of them being torn down, we want revitalization.
Randy Hoffer. MR HOFFER: Yes. (Witnesses come forward.) 155 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET
You have a panel? MR HOFFER: We're all the same.
Oh, good. Thank you for your patience. Who's going first?
I am. My name is Bruce Rush, and I'm from the Marketing Store, Incorporated. I'm here to talk about the proposed soda tax.
I'm not in favor of it; I'm here to indicate reasons that think it's not a good move on the part of the City. What I've seen in the media accounts has portrayed it one as obviously a source of raising revenue that the City needs, but also presentations relative to that it can have some impact on the health of children and the citizens. Particularly on that second point, I want to take a moment to talk 156 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET about how there is little evidence that such taxes change consumer behavior. In fact, what I've given you is -- I'm going to cite from a study that was recently -- a particular result of that was published. A recent study from a trio of researchers hailing from Yale, Emory, and Bates found that a 1 percent tax increase on junk foods resulted in a decrease in the BMI of only 0.003. So obviously, very little came from that. The researchers calculated that a 58 percent tax on soda, which is roughly what cigarettes are taxed, could reduce the mean BMI in the United States by 0.16 points. So the argument that it will have some impact on consumer behavior looks negligible at best. Secondly, relative to the economic impact, you certainly want any tax that there's going to be to be felt evenly by all citizens. But, in fact, 157 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET that would not necessarily -- common sense says that that would not necessarily be the way it would be with the soda tax because people who live potentially at the edge of the City near places where they can go, where the tax is not being imposed, potentially have an unfair value advantage of purchasing it at lower prices than people who don't have the ability to get out to areas where that's the case. So then the burden falls on people who are the least likely and able to go beyond that and, you know, and avoid that kind of tax on a product. Similarly, eventually, if the sales from that -- from those products, decreases enough, it clearly would have on impact on the ability of retailers and the manufacturers of those kind of products to continue to provide employment in the City, and that clearly is not going to be good in the overall sense for tax collections from a wage 158 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET point of view. Those are my thoughts relative to the issues on the soda tax.
Good afternoon. MR HOFFER: My name is Randy Hoffer. I'm from the Aramingo Business Association.
Randy Hoffer, Aramingo Business Association. Last time I was here, we were actually enacting the business improvement district; just to let you know, things are going well. Thank you very much. Okay. Aramingo Avenue has seen significant development since 2005 as Target, Applebee's, Forman Mills, and, 159 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET most recently, Lowe's Chick Fill-A, and Sonic have moved into the area. It is now home to additional big-box stores, fast-food establishments, and area supermarkets. The Aramingo Business Association has helped extend bus routes to serve new stores, improve safety, and cooperation with the police, and has successfully organized a business improvement district for the area. I am here, speaking today on behalf of the Aramingo Business Association and the 150 businesses that it represent. We're very concerned about the effect of the proposed sugar- sweetened beverage tax, and it will have an effect on these businesses along the Aramingo corridor. Beverage sales represent a sizeable portion of overall sales for grocery stores, and most of the convenience consumption sales for large-box stores such as Home Depot and 160 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Lowe's. These stores cater to local residents, of whom 60 percent have an annual income of less than $24,000, as well as commuters that come to the corridor, looking for competitive prices. As it has been proposed, the sugar-sweetened beverage tax will represent an increase that would, in some cases, more than double the price of sweetened beverages. This would result in unacceptable increases to the prices of meals served at local restaurants and diners that strive to provide affordable meal options for local residents, shoppers, and employees of the nearby businesses. We urge City Council to consider our opposition to the passage of this tax. It is our opinion that this would set into motion a series of unintended and unwanted effects, further weakening taxpaying businesses in the City that are trying to flourish in an already highly competitive tristate 161 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET environment. In closing, just thank you for your attention and allowing the Aramingo Business Association to state its opposition to the proposed sugar- sweetened beverage tax (Applause.)
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of City Council. My name is Patricia Codina, and I am the Commercial Corridor Manager for the Kensington and Allegheny Business Association. The Kensington and Allegheny Business Association is an organization of local business owners and managers working together to create a business environment that will better support local businesses and attract more customers to the corridor. The association's goal also 162 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET includes supporting and retaining businesses along the corridor as well encouraging economic growth and development. I am testifying today on behalf of the Kensington and Allegheny Business Association, which represents 75 neighborhood merchants. The sugar-sweetened beverage tax, as it has been proposed, would have a devastating effect on our small businesses. Beverage sales represent a high percentage of our merchant sales overall. A tax increase of this magnitude would literally double the price of a two-liter beverage, and, in some cases, force retailers to charge more in taxes than the product actually costs. This excessive increase to the consumer's price would cause small businesses to lose a considerable portion of their profit margin and overall revenue. 163 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Additionally, this tax could cause beverage manufacturers to stop investing in the City due to the significant drop in sale volume. There is also a potential loss of vital jobs, and this would disproportionately affect small businesses. Small retailers that currently get their beverages delivered directly from the manufacturer could now experience less service and higher products costs; therefore, paying more for the same goods. Additional costs will force retailers to further increase prices to the consumer, without realizing any revenue gain in their profit margins. Small businesses along the corridor are struggling and have been hit hard by the recent economic crisis. For businesses that are now trying to stay afloat, a tax increase of this proportion would have tangible and devastating 164 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET effects. Businesses closings along the corridor would cause increased blighted conditions as well as reduce the amount of tax revenue generated by the City. Finally, the businesses understand the City's need to increase revenue in order to cover wide shortfalls in the budget, but this tax puts an undue burden on small businesses to carry the brunt of the responsibility. We hope the City will look more carefully at the negative effects that the sugar-sweetened beverage tax would have not only Kensington and Allegheny, but on small businesses throughout the City. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this very important issue. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Any questions or comments? Yes, sir? 165 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET
Just one final point. Since the (indiscernible) corridor and the Aramingo corridor are side-by-side, we did attach the petitions. There are retailers for 7 the Aramingo corridor, which includes 8 most of the big-box stores. Target would 9 have been there, but they had some 10 corporate struggles to sign the petition. 11 And we have 41 of the small 12 independent merchants along the 13 Kensington Avenue attached for your 14 convenience. 15
We 16 have it. Thank you. 17 Our next witnesses? 18
Constance Neylor. 19 (Witness comes forward.) 20 (Applause.) 21
Good afternoon. 166 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Let me see. How's this. Can you hear me?
Okay, thank you. Again, my name is Constance Neylor, and I'm here to ask for your support of programs that increase affordable and supportive housing and reduce homelessness. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I'd also like to thank Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell for her always continual leadership in the homeless community. Do not cut these life-saving programs. If the shelters were cut by even 10 percent, that would mean over 800 people could be denied beds over the next year and end up on the street. It is critical that funding is maintained for the Office of Supportive Housing, the Health Departments, and the Philadelphia Housing Trust Fund. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET housing too well. I spent two years in the City's shelter system after I was struggling with depression and couldn't pay my rent. My friends and family couldn't help me, and I ended up in a City shelter with only $27 in my pocket. I'm lucky now to be a client of Traveler's Aid, where I live, in their Chestnut Manor supportive housing program, with case management. I believe in trying to make our community a better place, so I volunteer. I am currently on the boards of the Homeless Advocacy Project and the Health Care for the Homeless Advisory Board. I am also a proud Vote For Homes Coalition member, and we have done our part to register over 13,800 voters in the shelters, jails over the last ten years. Through my work with these great organizations and my experience, I know that homelessness results in a huge personal cost for men, women, and children who live in unsafe conditions. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET In the end, the taxpayers have to pick up the tab for emergency services such as hospitalizations and incarceration, things that could be easily prevented with less costly intervention such as housing and treatment programs As someone with an autoimmune disease and multiple chronic illnesses, it was so challenging for me to take care of my health needs while living in the shelter. Because I am disabled, it is important for me to make my schedule so that I can see my doctors and have my own space to take care of myself Today, I am testifying on behalf of 13,511 women men and children who stayed at least one night in a Philadelphia shelter in Fiscal Year 2009 and needed an affordable place to call home permanently The consequences for not finding housing are drastic. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET death of homeless persons is about 50 years, the age at which Americans commonly died in 1900. Today, non-homeless American can expect to live to age 78. Last year, 87 individuals were remembered on Homeless Memorial Day. This number includes not only those who die in shelters and on the street, but also people who were formerly homeless, and their deaths were likely compounded by their experience of homelessness. I know we can do better than this. We have been taking steps to understand why so many people died while homeless. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET everyone. This team of public and private sector-participants, including the Medical Examiner's Office, is investigating why people are dying on the streets and in our shelters and seeks to prevent such deaths in the future. Please continue to fund the work of the Homeless Death Review Team so that we can ensure system improvements for The Department of Behavioral Health and the Office of Supportive Housing. We must make sure that no one dies unnoticed. We have solutions, but we need your help to make it work so that people are no longer dying while homeless. Please consider the following budget items that increase affordable and supportive housing, reduce homeless, and make this a better city for everyone. First, restore the 3 million in promised funding to the Philadelphia Housing Trust Fund. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Trust Fund's success, it is the only item to be cut one hundred percent.
) -- only money available to the City for foreclosure-prevention assistance. Second, continue to support the Public Housing Authority Office of Supportive Housing partnership that has allowed homeless individuals to move off the streets and out of shelters and into stable, subsidized housing Third, finish the inclusionary housing bill that will create more affordable and supportive housing units. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET for the Health Department's Homeless Death Review Team I'd like to thank you for your time and leadership to protect housing and other essential services in Philadelphia
You have all been extremely patient, and I appreciate it.
Charlie Lim, John Yoo, Wan Woo, and Wan Yim. (Witnesses come forward.)
I understand that some are questioning just how we get our list together. 173 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET As you call in, your name is added to the list. It's not that we don't we go over -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible, off-mic.)
We were next on the list. I think you might have gotten over us for some reason. I just want to make sure we're still on the list.
I'm sorry. You have to wait. We called you. We have people who --
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. 174 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET
Good afternoon. Councilmembers. My name is Charlie Lim. I'm President of the Korean-American Grocers Association. We have around 600 members in the Philadelphia city who has small mom-and-pop store, convenience store, or deli store. Since the recession started two years ago, we lost over to 30 percent 11 of the gross sales in the past year, 12 which means we lost about 10 to 15 13 percent of net profit. 14 I understand the City applied 15 the sugar-sweetened taxes on beverage. It's going to hurt our business a lot, which means someone has to close the store and someone has to cross the street to getting in the Montgomery County or Delaware County, who's living nearby the border, which means you chasing out other people to some other county. And on behalf of that, we're going to lose small business. We already been losing 15 to 30 percent of the gross 175 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET sales in the past two years. It is not good for small business owners. You losing a small business owner, which means you losing revenue from the City. We have to make a win/win program. You need to make the -- collect the -- increase the revenue. And on the other hand, the small business owner has to stay in the business, pay the taxes. If you apply this sugar- sweetened beverage taxes, it's going to hurt our businesses. That's -- it's not my opinion; it is our members' opinion. So please reconsider that matter. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is John Yoo. I'm the chairman of the Korean-American Grocery Association. In 1991 to 2000, I was the president of the Korean-American Grocery Association. We had a research from the 176 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET homicide, research from the -- what's that, the Inquirer writer, name is Jennifer Hung, and I. We did research. We have 31 (indiscernible) case from the store. And most of them, like or 24, 7 I'm not exactly remember, that's the 8 plant (indiscernible), but eight case is 9 just a shooting because they say 10 miscommunication. 11 Miscommunication mean it's 12 between customer and owner because I'm 13 not the, you know, good English. Like we 14 are immigration peoples. So many of our 15 member cannot speak English real well. 16 So it's got a problem to the running the 17 businesses. 18 But the eight cases just from 19 (indiscernible). Like for one case, just 20 the customer want one pack of cigarettes. 21 The customer asking for the plastic bag, 22 but he didn't give it to them. That's 23 for the 52nd and Jefferson. And that's why the customer shot, the owner got killed on there. 177 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET So I really -- we really don't want to make, you know, miscommunication or argue with the customer and the store owner. You know, we want to live, we want freedom; that's why we came here. But we got every ten years, around 30 owners of the grocery, the people got killed. So you should, you know, consideration for that. Life is very important for everyone, you know. We understand the City need the money. So we going to have for something, but the increase for the beverage, you know, making, like, plastic bag tax, that's really chance to argue with the customers. Argue with the customers means we have a chance get killed, die. So that's the more important than any other (indiscernible). Thank you.
Thank you. MR WOO: My name is Wan Woo, and I'm the Vice President of the KAGRO. 178 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET And I have (indiscernible), but if this taxes goes on, I mean my business customers going to be staying from the City. And plus, this is going to be (indiscernible) customers are not going to be (indiscernible) for our businesses (indiscernible), and they will lose jobs from the companies. You know, companies that going to be less revenue for your city too. Plus, this going to be more advantage to the out in the suburbs, to areas and people stay out of the City limits and they probably get more money than the chance of you collecting more revenue for the City. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. You've been very patient. Mr. Lord? (Applause.) (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, 179 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Madam President.
I apologize for the confusion. We heard our name called, but we thought we'd be called again before we were asked to come up, so that was some confusion there. My name is Bill Lord, and I'm the Executive Director of the Tenet Union Representative Network, which, as you may know, or TURN, which is the tenant advocacy and service organization here in Philadelphia. We have a number of programs that are funded through the City, including the Home and Hopper Program, (indiscernible), the Shelter-Plus Care Program, the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program, the Housing Assistance Program. All these programs are ways we provide services to tenants as well as to advocate for them. We also do tenants' 180 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET rights counseling, which means tenants' rights classes. We do individual counseling, we provide organizing assistance for buildings. So in serving thousands of tenants each year, we get an idea of what the need is out there, and we're here to say that there's a tremendous need for homeless people to prevent homelessness and to support tenants in the City of Philadelphia. And we say that because we believe that housing is a human right and that the City has an obligation to make sure that the housing needs of its citizens are met. And before I go on to exactly what we mean, I'm going to turn it over Albert Seawright, our lead organizer, to tell you a little bit about what is needed.
Yes. I'm Albert Seawright, TURN's lead organizer and a counselor. 181 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET I would like to first thank members who are over there that came out to join us this afternoon. It is important to fully fund the City's shelter and homeless programs because, for many Philadelphians, entering a shelter is the start of accessing stable housing. Tenants sometimes tell me, "I came from a shelter and I do not want to go back in the shelter." When the City's shelters and homeless programs are inadequate, some individuals and families are forced to move into substandard and unsafe housing. Once low-income individuals and families fall into the trap of going between substantial housing and the shelters, it is difficult to escape. There is not enough decent private and public low-income rental housing to serve Philadelphia's population. Many people that are trying to get into public housing sit on long 182 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET waiting lists for years. We are working directly with these individuals to rapidly place them into affordable housing. Our goal at TURN is to 48 hours to house them once 7 they come into our program and support 8 them to become stable in this housing. 9 We are finding that the lack of 10 decent and affordable housing prevents 11 this from being a smooth transition. 12 When people enter a shelter system that 13 is adequately funded and they are 14 transitioned into decent and affordable 15 housing, they come to expect and work to 16 maintain decent housing rather than 17 accepting substandard and unsafe housing. 18 Let us improve the quality for 19 the City's most needy families and 20 individuals by fully funding the shelter 21 and homeless systems in the City. 22
Okay, if I might add 23 to that, I think whatever people 24 understand is the cause of the City's crisis to be, whether it be the financial 183 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET crisis or the predatory lending or whatever else, it's clear that it is not the fault of homeless or low-income people or people that are low-income tenants. And yet, they're, in a lot of ways, required to bare the burden of this crisis through unemployment, foreclosures, evictions. A lot of properties where the landlords are foreclosed upon, the tenants find that the properties are no 13 longer maintained, the new owners are not stepping in, they don't want to put the money in, the banks don't want to fund the situation. So they're in a situation where they don't have adequate housing. A lot of substandard housing is the result of this housing crisis going on right now, not to mention an increase in domestic violence, which we are very concerned about because of the tensions that are in households as a result of unemployment or housing insecurity. Our request is basically 184 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET several, and that is that -- and most of these don't cost money. The first is that we do restore the money to the Housing Trust Fund, because that's been an important vehicle for helping people in the City of Philadelphia, and we really need it. It's very little, it's a drop in the bucket, but it's an essential drop for a lot of folks. We need continuing funding for OSH, Office of Supportive Housing, and for OHCD. Those programs are vital, they are too small, but they are vital to the folks in of City of Philadelphia. We would also like City Council to consider restoration of the rental suitability ordinance, which was something that was passed a couple years ago and has been suspended ever since and requires landlords to make sure the properties are in good shape before they rent 'em out. And that's even more important now in this crisis. 185 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET We support the notion of lead paint inspections before people move into properties because we think that solving the problem after children get sick is already too late. We support domestic violence legislation to make sure landlords don't discriminate against private-housing tenants. And we want housing code enforcement to be improved. We think there's a need for more inspectors, and there's a need for abatement. We need to make sure that City has the money to fix properties and then bill landlord, lien the properties to make sure they get the money back. And then we need rent stabilization. The bottom line is, we need to make sure that, in this city, people can afford housing and have rents that are at an affordable level for everybody. So that's what we're asking 186 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET for, and we think that housing is such a fundamental human need that it's important for these things to be met. And thanks for the time. And we have written testimony for you as well.
Do we have a representative here from Canada Dry? Do you want to approach the witness table, please. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. You've been extremely patient. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the City Council. My name is Joe Szarzynski, and I represent Canada Dry, Delaware Valley. And I am here in opposition of the sugar tax. There's many reasons why I'm in 187 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET opposition and the members of my group are. If we look at soft drinks, basic soft drinks, they're drank for enjoyment, refreshment. When do we drink soft drinks? At picnics, barbecues, fun times graduations. It's a enjoyable consumption of product. To single out one item, sugar drinks, and also to single out people who live, shop, work, and travel and visit Philadelphia is not correct. If you look at the basic economics, let's take a 20-ounce bottle sold in Philadelphia in the City limits, it's $1.59. If you add the sugar tax to it, it's $1.99. That's not right. That's an economic disadvantage to the people who are visiting, having lunch, and drinking sugar drinks in Philadelphia. Let's take a 12-pack, 12-ounce case. If it's on sale in Philadelphia, it's $2.99; with the sugar tax, it's an additional 2.88. That item costs 5.97. 188 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET If you leave the City limits, you can still buy that package for 2.99. Again, an economic disadvantage. Two-liter. If a two-liter's on sale for 99 cents in the City limits, an additional $1.36 will be placed on that item, and the consumer will be paying $2.34. Also, the economic disadvantage is to the people that we sell to and deliver our products. They are the mom-and-pop stores of Philadelphia. If you travel the streets of Philadelphia, these mom-and-pop stores are the fabric of our city. A lot of these are independent owners who start their day at 5 a.m. and end their day at 9 p.m. They put long hours in, and they bring revenue to the City. Putting a request for them to track a tax is a burden on them. Not only do they not have the equipment, as our Korean business partners voiced their opinion, it's hard to get that across to 189 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET the people that they sell products to. So I just I plead with the members of Council, please do not put the people who live, work, visit at an economic disadvantage of buying sugar drinks in Philadelphia. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Julio Espinal Ramos from the Dominican Grocery Store Owner Association, and I'm the vice president. So I'm here right now today regarding about the taxes.
It does feel like night, doesn't it? (Laughter.)
Almost. This is about the taxes on the soda. So that's effect to us so much. Also about the grocery store owner because we, right now, around more 190 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET than 500 grocery store owner, but the Dominican grocery story owner, and that's going to affect to us about the increasing of the taxes on soda. That affect also by the employees that we have because that's going to push the employees to close some store because they're supposed to -- that affects us so much. So please let's not and see what we can do it to just tax don't pass. Thank you.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your patience.
Hi. Stewart, you have a book here. Please be as brief as possible.
Council President Verna, members of City Council, my name is Stewart Weintraub, and I appear before you today on behalf of the 191 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Philly Jobs, Not Taxes Coalition, which represents 600 businesses and community organizations and the thousands of Philadelphia jobs its members represent. We urge you not to pass City Council Bill No. 100188, known as the sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Many of you know me from my prior appearances before this honorable council, but for those of you who do not, I would like to take a moment to give you a little bit of my background. I've been practicing state and local tax law for almost 40 years. I began career at the City's Law Department and departing after ten years as the Deputy City Solicitor Chief of Tax Litigation. After leaving the Law Department, my practice has specialized in representing businesses and individuals in state and local tax law. For more than years, I have 25 served, and continue to serve, as chair 192 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET and co-chair of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce's State and Local Tax Committee. And it's in that capacity that I've appeared before this Council many times in the past. I am a past chair of the Philadelphia Bar Association Tax Section 9 State and Local Tax Committee. And I am currently the chair of the American Bar Association's State and Local Tax Committee. During the administration of Mayor William Green, I served as the chief counsel to the Tax Reform Committee, which he convened during the late 1980s. I was appointed to serve upon the Southeastern Regional Tax Reform Committee, which proposed local tax reform to the General Assembly. During the administration of Mayor Edward Rendell, I was appointed to serve as the Tax Reform Commission chaired by former Councilmember Happy Fernandez. 193 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET And during 2003, I was appointed to serve as a member of the Tax Reform Commission created pursuant to the Home Rule Charter. I urge you to reject the sugar-sweetened beverage tax for two reasons. First, if enacted, the sugar-sweetened beverage tax would violate the Sterling Act, the First-Class Cities Business Tax Reform Act, and the uniformity clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Second, it is simply bad tax policy, which will ultimately cost the City jobs and reduce the City's tax collections from the other taxes collected by it. First, let's look at these legal issues. I am aware that a colleague, Joseph C. Bright, Esquire, already appeared before this Council and presented testimony that passage of the 194 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET sugar-sweetened beverage tax would be illegal, and I will not repeat his testimony. For your convenience, I've attached to my written testimony a copy of Mr. Bright's testimony. My purpose today is to expand upon his testimony. We start with a truism. The City, acting through this council, has no 11 inherent power to tax. The City's power to tax is limited to the power granted to it by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In other words, unless a City tax can be traced to some authorization granted to it by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it is invalid. The Sterling Act grants the City the power to impose privilege taxes, like the sugar-sweetened beverage tax. (Timer bell rings.)
But what draws that power, if the privilege extends outside the limits of the City. If the City is taxing something the Commonwealth 195 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET is already taxing, or if the City is taxing something who the State -- taxing someone who the State is licensing. Mr. Bright already addressed the Sterling Act issues as part of his testimony; and, again, I will not repeat them here. During 1984, effective for the City fiscal year 1985, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted a First-Class City Business Tax Reform Act, authorizing the City to impose the business-privilege tax. And pursuant to that authority, this council imposed the business- privilege tax Prior to enactment of the business-privilege tax, the City imposed, pursuant to the authority given it by the Sterling Act, the Mercantile License Tax. When the First-Class City Business Transform Act was enacted, it contained a provision which prohibited the City from imposing a business-privilege tax if imposing another tax based upon gross receipts for the privilege of doing 196 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET business in the City Imposition of the sugar- sweetened beverage tax should trigger the First-Class City Business Tax Reform Act preclusion from imposing another business-privilege tax while the existing business-privilege tax is being imposed. The third legal issue is the uniformity clause. The uniformity clause that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires that all taxes should be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected under general laws. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that for a tax to satisfy this constitutional uniformity requirement, the test to be applied is one of reasonableness. Is there a reasonable basis for treating one class of taxpayers differently from another? And I cite the case for you. (Timer bell rings.) 197 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET
What is the reasonable basis for singling out sugar-sweetened beverages for taxation. The apparent and stated reason is to fight obesity. However, there are two defects to the argument that the City can single out sugar-sweetened beverages to taxation because they contribute towards obesity. First, if fighting obesity is the reasonable basis, what is the reasonable basis for not including as part of the tax basis other sugar- sweetened food products -- candy, ice cream, donuts, et cetera, each of which has a higher concentration of sugar than the sugar-sweetened beverages. Second, if fighting obesity is a reasonable basis for enacting this tax, why is only approximately 30 percent of the estimated revenue to be derived from the sugar-sweetened beverage tax being dedicated to programs to fighting obesity? 198 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET With approximately 70 percent the revenue to be derived from the sugar-sweetened beverage tax being added to the General Fund to be used for general revenue purposes, what is the reasonable basis for subjecting sugar- sweetened beverages to tax and not other businesses contributing to the General Fund. Now, the policy issues, and this I'll be very brief with. Imposition of the sugar- sweetened beverage tax is bad tax policy. As described earlier and by prior witnesses, imposition of the business privilege tax the City imposed -- prior to the imposition of the business- privilege tax, the City imposed a mercantile license. The mercantile license tax was a gross-receipts tax. A gross-receipts tax falls most heavily upon a small business and high-volume, low-margin businesses Small businesses, neighborhood 199 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET food stores, convenience stores all employing neighborhood residents will be hardest hit by the sugar-sweetened beverage tax. We've heard that from the preceding witnesses that appeared before me here at City Council. (Timer bell rings.) Using the two-litre bottle, which we've already heard about as an example, the sugar-sweetened beverage tax, as the tax is being presently being considered by Council, imposes a tax at the rate which exceeds the cost of the product. A two-liter bottle is 67.63 ounces. At two cents an ounce, the tax imposed upon the privilege of selling that two-liter bottle would be $1.35. A two-liter bottle can be purchased for 99 cents. For a two-liter bottle, that tax equals 135 percent of the cost of the bottle. Surely the store owner cannot sell a 99-cent two-liter bottle for 200 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET $2.34. And just as surely, the store owner cannot absorb a $1.35 tax liability. The tax liability is many time greater than the profit from the sale of the product The only alternative is for the store owner to increase the cost to all products that is being sold in the store. However, if the store owner cannot pass the cost through to the consumer, the store owner must incur the cost. For the store owner incurring the cost to maintain profitability, the owner must reduce other expenses, possibly through layoffs Either way, the store owner's profit is reduced. This is a store owner who is already paying a 6.45 percent of net income and 1.1415 mills of gross receipts taxed to the City through the existing business-privilege tax. What does this mean to the City's tax revenue? If the store owner lays off employees, that would cause a 201 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET reduction in the wage tax collected by the store --
Thank you. You know, you've been very patient and I think I've been extremely patient and so have they.
It's in the written testimony and will be made a part of the record.
Thank you very much, and I'll be available for any questions that the Councilmembers may have. (Applause.)
Our next witnesses? 202 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET
-- and members of the Council and friends. , which is a public/ private partnership that coordinates the work of several agencies providing round-the-clock outreach services to one of the City's most vulnerable populations -- those living on the street or in other places not fit for human habitation. I want to thank Council and the Administration for their steadfast support for programs serving Philadelphia's most vulnerable citizens. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET of the Department of Public Health and specifically the Homeless Death Review, I'd also like to note that the Homeless Death Review is simply the clearest and most heartbreaking demonstration of what happens when we fail to serve those most at risk. Started in January of 2009, the Homeless Death Review is a program of the Medical Examiner's Office in collaboration with the Department of Behavioral Health and Office of Supportive Housing. And it's the nation's first such team charged with review of deaths of persons who are homeless at the time of death and currently residing in Philadelphia. And, unfortunately, our outreach workers are often witness to such deaths. Sadly, the ongoing neglect that characterizes the lives of people living with homelessness may result in untimely, violent, and premature death. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET general population is 78, the average person experiencing homelessness can expect to live only until age 50, or about the life expectancy in the year 1900. The Homeless Death Review aims to change that. The Death Review Team provides a critical and unprecedented opportunity for each of the systems that may have touched or, in some cases, unfortunately, failed to reach these individuals to review the circumstance surrounding their deaths. Its goal is identifying the gaps that exist and the types of solutions that are needed to prevent more deaths in the future. Inadequate funding of the Health Department could cause an interruption in this groundbreaking process that is currently generating new knowledge to decrease preventible deaths in Philadelphia. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET triumphs, and Philadelphia boasts one of the lowest rates of street homelessness of large cities around the country, street homelessness endures. We cannot feel that there is a level of homelessness that is simply an acceptable and an inevitable part of urban life because we are better than that. The Homeless Death Review is but one innovative piece of a matrix of services, programs, planning, and evaluation that comprises the homeless system. And, as you know, the system of housing and services that provides pathways out of homelessness is operating above capacity and taxed heavily each day merely to find places for people to sleep. Beyond the 43 people who sadly died while homeless in 2009, there are countless stories of people whose lives still hang in the balance. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET cancer and has no appropriate housing while he undergoes chemotherapy. On the other side, there is the hope that comes with the availability of adequate resources, like the man who recently was able to obtain permanent supportive housing and called the outreach worker on the phone to tell him the moment he arrived in this apartment. And this is a person who had lived on the street, isolated for more than 11 years. In addition to continued support for the Homeless Death Review, our plea to you today is to preserve housing and services for people experiencing homelessness in Philadelphia and to think systematically to address and prevent homelessness because none of us is home until all of us are home. Thank you.
Our 207 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET next witnesses?
Mr. Grace, are these other gentlemen with you that are sitting in the same row with you?
Once again, I sit before you, and I'm here to tell you that we are firmly opposed to any type of soda tax. This tax is impractical and will succeed in only cutting jobs, not 208 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET cutting obesity rates. The tax will hurt hardworking middle-class families and the working poor of this city. The Mayor shows an alarming lack of understanding of the economic consequences of this tax and challenged our position that the tax will cost my membership jobs. What's so hard to understand? The cost of sugar drinks will double in cost, people will stop buying the products, City stores will stop stocking it, the soda companies will move less product, the Teamster drivers and industry support personnel will lose their jobs. Beverage-industry statistics show that when soda prices rise 10 percent, sales drop 8 to 9 percent. Reductions in soda sales mean job losses from bottling-plant workers to Teamster delivery drivers. Our best estimate at this time is potentially as many as 2,000 lost 209 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET regional jobs if this tax is passed. These job losses will not be limited to Teamster members alone. Supermarket employees, convenience store workers, and small-business owners who sell soda in their stores or restaurants will also be adversely affected if this onerous tax is passed into law. There are thousands of family- sustaining, middle-class Philadelphia jobs in beverage production, supply, distribution, sales, retailing, which depend on a healthy beverage industry. The loss of any of these jobs will only further erode the City's tax base. Teamsters Local Union 830 represents 2,200 Philadelphia members in the soft drink and beverage industry. These hardworking, taxpaying City residents do not deserve to have their jobs in place jeopardy because of a misguided attempt to plug the City's budget gap solely by taxing the product they produce and deliver. 210 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET The soda tax is also discriminatory. Taxing one product in one industry to the exclusion of numerous items containing similar sugar-based ingredients is simply unfair. The tax would not be imposed on snack items such as ice cream, candy, Popsicles, donuts, or other high-sugar foods. Instead, this tax would unjustly target and burden the beverage industry alone. Mayor Nutter proposes to use only million of the 77 million raised 14 annually through this tax for public 15 health education and services. 16 Let's be honest here. This 17 initiative is not about health; it is 18 about the deficit reduction and raising 19 taxes on Philadelphians who are already 20 burdened with among the highest taxation rates in the country. If Mayor Nutter is serious about improving citizens' overall health, then only a broad education program aimed at targeting eating behaviors and 211 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET promoting fitness and a healthy diet can effectively combat the country's obesity epidemic. Any food or drink consumed without moderation will cause weight gain. Madam President, I've been here to testify before you now three times. I've also met with you individually a separate time. I've also met with several of the City Council. I am here on behalf of my members who every day ask me whether or not they are going to continue to work in the City of Philadelphia. I am also here on behalf of the of every one of the business owners who are simply just trying to make a living and pay the taxes that they already pay in the City of Philadelphia. I respectfully ask the members of City Council to vote against the sugar drinks tax. It will be an additional financial burden on families already struggling to make ends meet. It does 212 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET not work for Philadelphia or for Philadelphia's workers. Thank you.
Why don't you both come up to the witness table, please.
My name is John Generose and I'm currently the Health and Safety Manager at the Philadelphia Pepsi plant and reside in the Mt. Airy section 213 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET of the City. I'm here to talk about the soda tax. And I ultimately believe that taxing businesses that provide good jobs to the citizens of Philadelphia is a bad idea because it will decrease the number of employees who contribute to City wage tax and employees at my workplace as well and other manufacturing retail outlets within the City. It will have a direct impact on future manufacturing as well as retail ventures within the City as operating in the immediate suburbs provides less costly but accessible options. I wanted to let you know that the tax -- if a tax is placed on the beverage we manufacture, deliver, and sell in Philadelphia, it could potentially drive consumers to the suburbs to do their grocery-shopping as well as purchase other goods and -- excuse me. It will drive consumers to the suburbs to do their grocery-shopping 214 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET due to tax increases, as they've discussed before. Eventually, this tax will only burden the citizens of Philadelphia, who cannot forward an additional tax. These citizens do not have the means or accessibility to do their shopping outside of City limits I ask, as a resident of the City and an employee of Pepsi, that you vote no on the beverage tax and respectfully request that the Mayor find another way to balance the City's budget Thank you.
Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Steve Bennett. I work for Pepsi also in the Mt. Airy section of Philadelphia. And I'm here to speak against the proposed beverage tax. Ultimately, I believe taxing businesses who provide good jobs for 215 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET citizens of Philadelphia is a bad idea. If this tax is passed, it will result in less demands, less workload, and eventually loss of job and employment of taxpaying citizens of Philadelphia. I ask that you vote no on this beverage tax and respectfully request the Mayor find another way to balance the City's budget.
Very 216 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET well. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and members of Council. My name is Keima Sheriff, and I am here today to represent two organizations, actually. " And the other organization that I'm representing is Cookman Alternative Learning Community; that's housed out of Cookman United Methodist Church in North Philadelphia. And so, I'm just here to tell you a little bit of a story. First, I want to explain the power of the coalition. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET UAC is a coalition of over 90 programs that provide services, assistance, and support to families and individuals thought Southeastern Pennsylvania. Everything we do is about helping individuals, families, and businesses in building a healthy community. By providing these services and others that assist these families and these individuals, we improve the lives of over 85,000 individuals in Southeastern Pennsylvania. We are a part of the coalition because we believe in the power of the coalition. Everything we do is about giving these families, these businesses, these individuals a hand moving up the economic ladder. It's about upward economic mobility; it's not about handouts. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET the City budget is sustained or increased. So now I want to talk to you a little bit about what we are supporting in the budget. We know that before you are several revenue-enhancement ideas, and we're not taking a stand on what should or shouldn't happen. All we're asking is that if you do levy in any of these enhancements, that you think about using the funding to continue to support social-service and education programs because, unfortunately, we are the ones who get cut the most whenever we have to think about budget cuts And then I want to talk to you a little bit about what we do at Cookman. I serve as the executive director there. And just rather than giving you stale data, I want to talk to you about Maria. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET in North Philadelphia and refused to leave. And even in her solitude, she ended up having two children, and decided, after her second one was born, that she needed a high school diploma. So she came to us and told us that she needed help. And she came at a very, very low reading level. So we had a lot of work we had to do And in addition to that, Maria was living in an abusive home, and so, she struggled because her family was not supporting her education or her desire to do more for her life and for the life of her two sons And so, we worked really hard for this child, got her reading levels up so that she could graduate; and not only graduate, but we were able to get her enrolled in Delaware Community College. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET with her boys and go to school. And now, she's finished her first year at Delaware County Community College. And she wanted to be here today, but unfortunately, she couldn't because we're running late, and she had to be home to pick up -- when her sons were dropped off from daycare But that's why we do what we do -- for the students like Maria, who, in her words, "Miss Keima, I don't know why you guys decide to do what you do. " And I told her it's not that you don't deserve us; it's that we forgot that we deserve all of you, because you're still a part of this community. You may be lost, you may be forgotten, but we remember you. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET not remembered, the kids who have lost their spirit to learn. And when you look in their eyes, you see true death, you see that they have lost all hope. Those are the kids that we work with And so, we continue to ask the City Council, when you're thinking about your budget and you're thinking about what to cut, to not cut alternative education, to not cut academic programs that for these kids are their last hope. And so I thank you for your time
Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next witness?
I was called 222 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET earlier today, at 3:30.
Why don't you approach witness table, please. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon, President Verna and members of City Council. My name is Catherine Scott and I am President of AFSCME District Council 47. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony concerning the proposed Fiscal Year 2010 budget and Five-Year Plan. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Philadelphia. On the revenue side, it comes down to who pays and how much do they pay. Philadelphia's taxing policies presently requires individuals to foot most of the bill. Businesses pay very little; some pay no taxes. 25 billion. I asked City Council and the Administration to define what success is, querying, how do you know if wage and business tax reductions are working? At last year's community meetings, most groups identified the ten-year tax abatement as another tax ripe for elimination or reduction. Why isn't the ten-year abatement being examined? 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET in yesterday's paper is Exhibit A for why the ten-year abatement needs to be revisited as the condo niche market expands in Philadelphia. As large universities expand, their real-estate tax-exempt status places a greater burden on individual homeowners who are concerned about their property tax increasing. If Temple Hospital can pay up to $10,000 per week to scab nurses, why can't it make a payment in lieu of taxes arrangement with the City to make up for its failure to pay real-estate taxes on its properties. I would like to support Mayor Nutter's budget premise concerning expenditures for City services that cannot be cut any further. It is reckless to believe that because a position is vacant that it does not need to be filled. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET provides details and specific positions to be eliminated,m I would like to examine three departments slated for cuts. First, the Police Department, where two graduate chemists, the laboratory director and accounting supervisor and nine criminal investigative research analyst trainee positions are on the chopping block, for a total estimated savings of wages and benefits of $721,072. Critical research and analysis which provide investigatory leads result in the apprehension of criminal suspects or identifying criminal enterprises. Criminal database management and providing centralized telecommunications for the safety of the public or officers is being compromised by not funding these positions. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET backlogs. Criminals may be freed, perpetrators of cold-case crimes will remain free. DNA analysis is expected by juries. A professional director for the lab is absolutely necessary for technical expertise in maintenance of standards. As there is more emphasis on efficiencies to bring cases to trial, thus reducing the court backlog, incarceration costs, and other criminal-justice system costs, why would the City jeopardize a major component of that system being hampered to save less than $725,000. Second, the Prisons, where six social workers, three social-work supervisors, one accountant, and one industry shop supervisor are proposed for elimination for a total estimated savings of $753,192. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET over 39,961 admissions and 39,654 discharges in 2009. All inmates who have money at the prison must be issued checks upon discharge. The prison has historically been understaffed when it comes to social workers and social-work supervisors, whose work is an intricate part of American Correctional Association accreditation. Persistently-high caseloads increase the length of stay of inmates, contributing to increased prison costs. Industry shops are a vital part of training and rehabilitating inmates and reducing prison costs by having services such as laundry done by inmates. These job eliminations are counterproductive if the City wants to continue its focus on reducing criminal- justice system costs. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET positions are targeted for elimination at a saving $2,173,724.
These two combined departments have been the hardest hit in cutbacks over the past two decades. And the recreation centers and park systems show it. Recreation centers are badly in need of repair and caretaking. Well-maintained recreation centers send a message to the community that it is valued. Those centers reduce the acceptability of gang activity, which supports the City's and the union's very successful efforts over the last two years to reduce violence at recreation centers. Volunteers are an important asset of recreating centers. Reducing volunteer opportunities decreases the number of improvement projects. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET emphasis on our Park and Recreation Department. It's time to make that commitment a reality, not the time to hamstring the vital services these departments provide, especially to children and civilians. Finally, in reviewing the budget, I see that even though it is down over 50 probation officers in Adult Probation alone, the First Judicial District is showing no vacancies. Most probation officers have over 450 offenders on their caseloads. With Probation and Parole saving millions in lieu of incarceration, it is shortsighted for the City not to invest money in diverting offenders from incarceration into rehabilitative services. Last year's City Council and the Administration chose to kick the can down the road by going to the State legislature to lower its minimum municipal obligation pension payment and raise the sales tax. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET The inconsistent positions taken on pension last year were mind-boggling. The city employee pension plan funded at 53 percent was declared a catastrophe and needed a total revamping. However, the transport workers union pension plan, funded at 50 percent, was just fine. Same issue, different rules. And to make matters worse, the City did not make its full payment to the plan. It is these types of situational ethics which anger people. So, again, this year, the question presents itself: What are fair tax policies? Will this be the year that business tax rates and real-estate abatement are really evaluated? Or will it be the individual taxpayer who will do the heavy lifting again? Will the large nonprofits with huge endowments be expected to pay their fair share? We think that's not too much to ask. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Services has proposed changes to the business-privilege tax, which would exempt small businesses with sales in the City of less than $500,000 from paying the gross receipts portion of the BPT. ) These businesses would pay the net income portion of the tax. 003 percent Since about 84 percent of all business-privilege taxpayers have receipts less than $500,000 per year as of 2007 figures and paid less than $8 million, the remaining 16 percent of the businesses paid $83 million in BPT in 2007. By returning to the 1996 rate, with the exemption, small businesses would be protected, the richer businesses would pay an additional $75 million. This could significantly close any revenue gap. 10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Thank you. Your testimony has been very informative. We appreciate it. Thank you. We were supposed to recess at 4 o'clock. Are you all here to testify? Nobody's here to testify. Very well then. We will stand in recess until a quarter of 6. (Short break taken.) (Proceedings resume at 6:05 p.m.)
This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. Lauren Sweeney?
Miss Sweeney, do you want to approach the witness table. (Witness comes forward.)
Good 233 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET evening.
Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Laurel Sweeney. I live at 6136 the North 7th in Philadelphia. As I 30-year resident of Olney and a community garden coordinator for eight years in Fisher Park, I will attest to the direct correlation of investment to return. I refer not only to how -- I'm sorry -- to how the degree to which positive change occurs directly depends on organizational effort, but also how money spent on healthy activities and greening goals yields higher market values and certainly a higher quality of life. In 1997, at a low point in history for the area surrounding Fisher Park, the Philadelphia Inquirer released 234 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET a study that described the least and most connected communities in Philadelphia. In terms of neighborhoods involvement, Olney was numbered among the lowest. Out of need and fueled by the circumstances outlined in that article, a group of residents comprised mostly of block captains banded together to address general safety concerns but mostly focused their efforts to change the perception of the park They wanted citizens to actually rejoice in its existence as a safe and health extension of their own property and not to fear it anymore. It worked Partnerships were formed with Councilwoman Tasco's Office; the Fairmount Park Commission and the Recreation Department, then separate entities; the Philadelphia Parks Alliance; and the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society The recipe of residents with 235 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET energy and interest and City agencies with human and financial resources cooked up into a jambalaya of regular cleanups, tree and plant advice and car, new gardens, and environmental-education opportunities for school kids. Today the park is teeming with activity and a lot of very happy people. There are young families walking to and from the park from every direction. Dog ownership is up, but very few are pitbulls anymore. In 2005, the median price of a home within walking distance of the park was $116,900; and in 2010, $137,500. Another statistic but about how green space impacts on attention in children. The study was done to examine children's ability to pay attention in class after play periods in asphalt- dominated and vegetation-dominated playgrounds. Kathleen Bago studied 500 children 14 schools that showed that the 236 5.4.10 PUBLIC TESTIMONY RE 2011 BUDGET higher level of vegetation in the schoolyard, the more highly the children rated the environment as restorative. These children had better attention scores in the classroom after playing in that environment. Don't our children need a leg up in this tumultuous city? Please keep the dollars towards the parks, recreation, and trees. This is the most efficient expenditure toward lowering obesity, crime, and depression, increasing home value and attention in children. Thank you very much.
Thank you, thank you. We appreciate your coming in to testify.