COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:14 a.m. - - - BILL 020166 - An ordinance establishing a neighborhood improvement district... BILL 020431 - An ordinance establishing a neighborhood improvement district... BILL 020486 - An ordinance adopting an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of the City Avenue Special Services District... RESOLUTION 020627 - Resolution approving the Revision to the Cathedral Village Lifecare Facility "RC-6" Master Plan. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X WITNESSES: PAGE BILL 020486 DAVID L. COHEN, Executive Director, City Avenue Special Services District ... BILL 020672 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... BILL OWENS, President, Cathedral Village .... BILLS 020166-A, 020431 DUANE BUMB, Deputy Commerce Director ........ JOYCE WILKERSON, Mayor's Chief of Staff ..... 34 3 10/16/02 - RULES - BILL 020486
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Council Committee on Rules is now in session for a public hearing on a number of bills. The first bill is Bill No. 020431, an ordinance establishing a neighborhood improvement district in an area that generally includes both sides of East Passyunk Avenue from the south side of Federal Street to the east side of South Broad Street. Is there anyone here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 020486, which is an ordinance 16 adopting an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of the City Avenue Special Services District of Philadelphia and Lower Merion to extend the term of that Authority; all under certain terms and conditions. The Chair calls David L. Cohen. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good morning. My name is David L. Cohen. I'm the Executive Director of the 4 10/16/02 - RULES - BILL 020486 City Avenue Special Services District.
Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today on the extension of the term of the City Avenue Special Services District. The City Avenue Special Services District is the first bi-jurisdictional special services district in the country and represents the cooperation of Philadelphia and Lower Merion Township. The City Avenue Special Services District runs along and near both the Philadelphia and Lower Merion sides of City Avenue from the Schuylkill Expressway to Wynnewood Road. The purpose of Bill 020486 is to extend the lifespan of the district to December 21, 2022. On October 9, 2002, the Building and Planning Committee of the Lower Merion Township Board of Commissioners voted to approve a comparison ordinance to Bill 020486. Next year the District will develop and release a 20-year plan, which will include the budget and a programming plan. Councilman Nutter, along with Lower Merion Commissioners Joseph Manko and Jim Ettlelson, and Pennsylvania Representative Lita Cohen, has 5 10/16/02 - RULES - BILL 020486 played a key role in the creation and support of the City Avenue Special Services District. Pennsylvania Representatives Kathy Manderino and Louise Williams Bishop have also been supportive to the District. During its first four years of operation, the City Avenue Special Services District has achieved a number of significant accomplishments including: Over 400,000 square feet of new institutional, commercial, and retail space have been added to the district resulting in the creation of over 450 permanent jobs; Crime has dropped over 28 percent in the district; The District's community service representatives which patrol the City Avenue Special Services District by bicycle six days a week have had over 5,000 meaningful contacts with the public, helping citizens with a range of problems; Creation and operation of CART, City Avenue Regional Transit, a shuttle bus system that operates along and near City Avenue and Manayunk; The development of a streetscape plan calling for over $5.8 million in improvements; 6 10/16/02 - RULES - RESOLUTION 020672 Over $1.2 million in grants have been secured by the District. This represents 51 percent of the value of the District's revenue from assessments; The awarding of a Pennsylvania Planning Association award for special community initiative in 1999; And the awarding of a Pennsylvania Governor's award for local government excellence for building community partnerships in 2001. Once again, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify before you today. I'll be pleased to answer any questions.
Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Resolution No. 020672, which is a resolution approving the revision of the Cathedral Village Lifecare Facility RC-6 Master Plan. 7 10/16/02 - RULES - RESOLUTION 020672 Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Madam President. From the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. I am here today to testify on an amendment to the RC-6 Master Plan for Cathedral Village. This amendment is for the construction of one-story townhouse structures. These 10 additions will provide additional senior housing at 11 this location. The construction will include an 12 additional parking area with 18 parking spaces. 13 This will result in the facility containing 287 14 parking spaces total. 15 The Planning Commission considered and 16 approved this amendment to the RC-6 Master Plan of Cathedral Village at its meeting of May 22, 2002. I'd be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Seeing none. Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this bill? 8 10/16/02 - RULES - RESOLUTION 020672 Please come forward. Good morning.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Bill Owens. I'm the President of Cathedral Village, and we're seeking your approval of this project which, as you know, is creating 7 new townhouses as well as we're going to be 8 constructing a dining room which will be needed for 9 additional service for these people. The real 10 purpose of this project is to help us generate 11 additional operating revenue to help us deal with 12 the problems that we're all experiencing, the 13 shortfalls because of significant insurance rate 14 increases. We have a 148-bed skilled nursing 15 facility, and we also deal with the problems of the 16 lower reimbursement, increased drug costs, et cetera, that all healthcare people are dealing with. So the additional revenue that this project will generate will certainly help us in terms of maintaining our level and quality of care and services.
No, they're two-bedroom units. They're two-bedroom, two-bath units. 9 10/16/02 - RULES - RESOLUTION 020672 They're our largest units.
We're a full-service lifecare retirement community. And when a resident moves to our community, they pay for a resident in-care contract. They do not buy the apartment, but they sign a contract for life with us. They pay an entrance fee, depending on the size of the unit. We have eight different size units. And then they pay a monthly fee for the services we provide. And so the entrance fee on these large units is $245,000. But we maintain ownership of that property. And as the apartments turn over, then we resell them. That's the normal structure of a full-service lifecare retirement community. We offer unlimited healthcare, unlimited stays in our nursing facility, if needed. We have physicians five days a week, physician offices, as well as outpatient care for our residents.
Thank you very much. Any other questions? Councilman Nutter. 10 10/16/02 - RULES - RESOLUTION 020672
Mr. Owen, thank you very much, one, for coming in today. I'm going to put into record some support letters. But I greatly appreciate your cooperation during the course of this process and also making sure that not only your residents were aware of this proposal, but also the surrounding neighborhoods. This worked out very well in the community, and it's a testament to the relationship that Cathedral Village has, not only as a fine institution, but also opening its doors whenever there is a need for meetings for the infrequent controversy that might take place in the Roxborough community. So I just want to thank you. Given our present pay status, I probably won't ever be able to become a resident, but I certainly enjoy visiting and stopping by. With that, Mr. Chairman -- and copies are being circulated. And if we can have one given to the stenographer, there are support letters for this amendment to the RC-6 Master Plan from Edward Warwick, President of the Cathedral Village Residents Association; residents of the 700 block of Manatawna Avenue; Bob Turino, President of the Upper Roxborough Civic Association; and Robert Adams, Vice 11 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 President of the Chapel Hill Civic Association, all in support of this particular project. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any other questions for this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
We'll now move to Bill No. 020611-A, an ordinance establishing a neighborhood improvement district in the area bounded generally by the eastern side of Tulip Street, the northern side of Allegheny Avenue, the western side of Amber Street, and northern side Venango Street, to be known as Port Richmond Industrial Development Enterprise, PRIDE, Neighborhood Improvement District; designating PRIDE, Inc., a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation as a Neighborhood Improvement District Management Association for the District. Is there anyone to testify on this bill? Please identify yourself for the record. 12 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431
Good morning. My name is Duane Bumb, Deputy Director of Commerce. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on 020166-A, and I'd also like to -- this testimony is actually also relevant to 020431, which was the Passyunk Avenue bill. These bills will allow for the creation of Neighborhood Improvement Districts in the East Passyunk area and the Port Richmond industrial area. While there are already several Special Service Districts and Business Improvement Districts operating successfully within the City, Passyunk Avenue and Port Richmond Neighborhood Improvement Districts will be the first districts created under the State's recent enabling legislation entitled "Community and Economic Improvement Act." This Act authorized the creation of Neighborhood Improvement Districts within cities of the first class. All previous Special Service Districts, including the City Avenue District before you today for extension, were created under the 1945 Municipality Act. The new act creating Neighborhood Improvement Districts gives the City the authority to collect special property assessments on behalf of 13 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 the Neighborhood Improvement Management Association. This Management Association is defined within the legislation as the organization responsible for administrating the Neighborhood Improvement District. Bills 020431 and 020166-A specifically make the City responsible for the collection of all property assessment fees levied within the respective districts. This is a significant change from the previously organized Special Service Districts where each district was responsible for its own assessment and collection. I would recommend that the language in the two bills before you today be modified to allow the City to pass back to the Neighborhood Improvement Districts all the costs associated with the assessment and collection. There is some real possibility that the City can achieve some economies of scale in administering the assessment process from multiple districts. We propose seeking the services of a qualified contractor who would be willing to provide a discount for service over multiple districts. If such a contractor can be identified, we would propose offering the service to the eight existing districts as well as the two newly formed districts 14 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 being discussed today. Under this scenario, all districts participating in the City-sponsored assessment program would share the savings associated with the consolidated process. At the same time, all participating districts would still be responsible for their proportionate share associated with these activities. If the City is not allowed to pass through the costs for this service, we will have created a new financial burden for City government and will have created an inequitable situation between those existing districts who currently pay for the administration of the assessment process and the newly-created districts that are relieved of this expense. For this reason, I respectfully recommend that the language in Bills 020431 and 020611-A be amended as I've outlined. Thank for your consideration.
Have you prepared 15 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 amendments for these bills?
So there's no 5 prepared amendments from the Administration for these bills?
When was the decision made to come here today to make this request and to put this testimony on the record? When was the request made to be a witness in this hearing?
Six o'clock yesterday afternoon they told -- who prepared the testimony?
In consultation with the Mayor's Office and with the Revenue Commissioner.
Who did you talk to on the telephone? 16 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431
Caroline Brobeil directed you to prepare this testimony at 6:00 yesterday and to attend a meeting today?
Does the Commerce Director have an opinion on this? Does the Commerce Director know about this particular position?
He knows that I'm testifying. In fact, I have not reviewed the specific testimony with him.
I talked with him about coming here. He has not reviewed this specific testimony.
That conversation 17 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 consisted of what?
And did you tell him what you were going to do when you got here?
Did he say, "Uh-huh"? Did he say, "Okay"? Did he say, "That's a good idea"? Did he say, "I don't care"? Did he say, "I'll see you at lunch"? I mean, he must have said something. When you have a telephone conversation, usually someone responds on the other end.
And what did he say? Did he shrug his shoulders? Did he shake his head? He did something.
It was more along the lines 18 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 of "okay."
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the second hearing on these bills. Could you explain why there was no 12 communication of this recommendation at the last hearing?
I think that the problem was that no one had reviewed the State enabling legislation to fully understand that there was one cost passing through that we would like to see removed from these bills. So that didn't happen at the time of the previous hearings.
You're not aware of any conversation that took place between my legislative assistant, Mr. Fitz, and the Revenue Department and the Commerce Department back in July as it relates to this new legislation? You're not aware of that? 19 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431
I've had conversations directly with Mr. Fitz on the Passyunk bill.
But no mention of the request that's being made today?
That's right. We did not at that time understand the impact of the state legislation.
In your testimony, you state that this is a significant change from the previously organized Special Services Districts where each district was responsible for its own assessment and collection. Is that a requirement that they collect their own tax -- they make their own collections, or was that just something that they choose to do?
The previously authorized district's legislation does not require the City to make the assessment and collection. That is --
Do you know what the cost to the two districts in front of us -- what would the cost of PRIDE be and what would the cost of the Passyunk Avenue District be?
Before you answer the question, I'd like to make a request that either Mr. Fitz or Mr. Hawkins call the Mayor's Office and ask for Ms. Brobeil to attend this hearing because, obviously, Mr. Bumb is here to be the messenger, and apparently isn't aware of the policy that's been apparently discussed in the Mayor's Office as to why he's the messenger on this particular issue. So I would request that one of the staff people call down there and ask that she come or send someone else up to explain their position on this particular bill. Sorry to interrupt.
Do you have any knowledge as to what the costs would be for each of the districts independent of each other? 21 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431
Just based on my conversation with the Revenue Commissioner, the estimate is going to vary by size of district and the number of assessments. But order of magnitude might be to 6 $15,000 per district. 7
Do you happen to 8 know what the collection for the Passyunk Avenue District would be?
So we would take almost 40 percent of their revenues?
So they're taxing themselves to provide a service that we as a City can't provide for them and we're going to charge them for the privilege of taxing themselves? And I know you're messenger, as the Chair pointed out, Mr. Bumb. I'm not being confrontational with you. It's about 10 to $15,000 and the revenues that will be collected are around 45 to 60,000.
Just so the record is clear, Mr. Bumb, and again, I apologize if this 22 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 is going to get contentious, but is the Commerce Director, yourself, Ms. Brobeil or anyone else in the Mayor's Office aware of the composition of these two business strips? This is not the Center City District. This is not an area that has necessarily extremely high tax rateables. This is a blue collar working class business strip along with Port Richmond that are attempting to survive in the City. Does the Commerce Director or Mayor's Office have any interest in allowing these people to maintain their businesses, promote their own strip, do their own cleaning, do their own promotion so that they can remain active and viable taxpaying employers in the City? Does that enter into the discussion at all?
I'll speak for the Commerce Director who, in fact, has a history of being very supportive of --
Up until today. As a matter of fact, the September 12th letter is extremely supportive with no mention of any additional discussion on changing the legislation. So I assumed up until today he is very supportive of these blue collar working-class districts that are 23 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 attempting to survive in the City. So maybe you can bring me up to date on what his position is now.
It would be my understanding that he remains very support of the creation of these two districts as well as the retention of the eight existing districts we have within the City. We're working with other districts that are still in a formative stage. We, through commerce, provide some of the funding that helps districts do the planning for their creation. And I think we may have even on these two cases.
And it's the position of the Commerce Director today that 40 percent of the revenue that they're going generate and using that to defray costs to something that's in the best interest of these struggling neighborhood business strips?
Well, maybe we can find out from the Commerce Director what his position is on that, if he has one. Councilman Nutter.
Just one quick 24 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 question. With regard to the cost estimate, I mean, obviously you heard the testimony earlier. I have two Special Services Districts, one being extended in the district that I represent and possibly another coming on-line soon. Where did the cost estimate come from and what are those costs covering? I mean, I'm assuming at a certain level, not to over simplify, letters are going to be sent out to these respective property owners. I understand there's mail costs, staff time. I'm assuming we're not hiring extra people to do any of this. Somebody in someplace, I guess, has some experience sending out notices or bills or whatever. I'm not disputing -- I'm not weighing in for the moment about whether it's right or wrong. It probably at a certain level doesn't make much sense. But I understand that. We don't need to have that debate. Where did the estimate come from and what is that covering? What would you spend 8- to $15,000 on?
Well, I think I said 8 to 15 and smaller ones I would hope to be less. It would be for the compilation of the data on all the 25 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 property owners, the assessments, the notices given, and then the collection process to get payment. Again, that is for the current districts that are formed and operating, including City Avenue. Those are burdens that each of those districts already incurs. We would suggest here that there is some potential to everybody if the City consolidates that process, so that would be one advantage to the City stepping into --
But as you mentioned, for instance, specifically for the two that I have, the data, the compilation of the data is actually done by the City. I mean, they get a file from our very good friends over at the BRT, the one that goes in the vacuum tube and "shoop," you know that sound. So they actually do the compiling of the data. The Planning Commission provides some GIS mapping capability to make sure that you're matching things up. And, again, never take anything away from any department, time is time and time is money at a certain level, but I never got the impression, to be honest with you, that they were overwhelmed by the request. I don't know how big this district is. I mean, they're all different. 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 But some computer person who likes doing that kind of work plugs in the locations and the values and they give you a disk.
That's right. And that work is already -- these bills actually have attachments which specifically list the properties and the assessments. So that work is already done. It is only a matter of issuing the assessment notices and following through on a collection process with those, which the City heretofore hasn't done.
I understand. I mean, I don't want to act like there's nothing involved. There is something involved. But I was just intrigued by that particular figure and how someone calculated what that number would be.
It's all second- or third-hand information to me. I thought it was based on specific conversations with one of the consultants who does some of this work right now.
I know I come in on the details of this somewhat late in the game, but the difference between the previous state legislation and the legislation that affects these 27 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 two districts, could you explain the difference and is there an advantage or disadvantage to either one?
Well, we probably should have an attorney doing that, but from my layman's viewpoint, the --
The current legislation provides much greater detail on how districts are to be formed, the plans that they should have created and their administration. So sort of saying nothing more, there is much greater detail provided in the recent enabling legislation just on the guidance that is provided to these districts as they're formed. Again, the only sort of specific issue I bring to your attention is that one of those details in that is that the local government will be responsible for the assessment. It has not been specifically responsible in the past for providing that assessment and collection service.
That's right. Literally just sending an assessment tax bill out and then 28 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 following up to make sure it's paid.
Under the other state legislation and the existing districts, the legislation itself has -- the City legislation has the amount of the assessment in it? Or do they vote individually to assess themselves rather than government voting to assess it?
The state legislation, the Municipality Act of 1945, I believe, was silent on it. The legislation that would have been passed in City Council for each of the Special Service Districts created would have talked in terms of the assessment provided, allowing the assessment to be passed through to those property owners.
Do you know if in the existing districts there is mandated by legislation what the assessment should be, or do the individual districts self-assess in terms of how much?
I don't know the answer to that question. I would guess that there is a limit provided in the legislation but up to that limit they are self-assessing.
And is it in the 29 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 legislation here what the assessment will be on these two?
I mean, there's an assessment on a property-by-property basis that is an attachment --
It's a percentage in addition to what the regular real estate tax is?
Is it in line with what the other ones are, the different districts?
I don't know that. My assumption is that it is, yes, that it is not out of line with what one would expect the assessment to be.
Well, the new commercial assessments are coming out soon, coming out this week, I think.
If your assessment 30 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 is X, it's X plus percent or something like that. 3
That's right. This is a 4 special assessment above the normal City property real estate assessment.
And the Original Center City District started with that?
But it was not done -- City Council and the Administration did not decide what the assessment was, it was determined by the district itself what was needed and how much they were willing to be --
It has its own governing body that it forms, and that body determines the assessment that is approved by the district.
So now someone trying to set up a new district could either fall under the -- choose to be the Municipality Act or the new state legislation, it's an either-or now for someone rather than totally having one choice?
I would have thought that the act would supersede the old act, but you may be right.
You're not sure. 31 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431
Thank you. Mr. Bumb, the one thing I guess I was going to throw out to you, again, because of at least some of my involvement with both City Avenue and with the Main Street Special Services District is -- I mean, the Commerce Department in definitely the City Avenue District and possibly in Main Street but absolutely with City Avenue, the Commerce Department was very, very helpful in helping to establish that particular district, not only with resource support, but also financially. And I guess as this goes forward, and I think my information is in response to the question that Councilman O'Neill raised, is I think this is now the new way under the Municipality Act of how future Special Service Districts will be created. There was the original process under the Municipality Act and then that was amended, I believe, to create this new process. And I guess I'm now wondering for whatever these costs may be, but given where these districts usually are 32 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 and the nature of the relationship in many instances between these districts and the Commerce Department specifically because these are businesses and they're doing things that I think we want them to do, is this a place where Commerce as it relates to whatever these costs may be may look to help some of these districts at least as they get started with covering some of these costs so that whether it's by a start-up grant or something like that, if there's a concern about quote/unquote covering costs, this could be a value-added benefit by the Commerce Department to maintain a relationship -- I mean, we obviously have a variety of grant programs between Commerce and individual business. I mean, you're presently supporting activities up in Roxborough which is proceeding down a particular path probably leading toward creation of a Special Services District. I mean, I think they're now having neighborhood meetings about that issue. So I'm going to be right back in this same situation under a different model sometime soon. You might want to think about that.
And as you point out, we have actively supported and financially supported the 33 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 formation of, I think, all the Special Services Districts created, I think including the two in front of you today for formation. So the concept of creating Special Service Districts, we fully appreciate the value and the need for them. I guess I view this amendment here as sort of a small correction within the language and not, in fact, looking to send a signal that we don't support these bills or the predecessors or those that are coming in the future.
It's not a small correction to the available -- the money's available for them to do the work they need to do in this district. That's not a small correction.
Some of the districts that operate right now actually handle that service. They don't contract it out, they actually within their own small staffing they send out letters or they knock on doors to do that. That can be cost effective as well.
Thank you. Any questions? Administration. Please identify yourself for the record. 34 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431
My name is Joyce Wilkerson, I'm Chief of Staff for Mayor Street.
Please proceed with any testimony you have relative to this amendment or this proposed amendment.
I am up here because I understand there was some question about how the Administration arrived at its policy.
And I'm prepared to respond to that. The Administration reviewed the bills and had concerns about having the Revenue Department actually undertake the collection aspect of the Special Services Districts. It would involve reprogramming the City's computer and setting up a different collection mechanism than the one we currently utilize. It was thought to be cost prohibitive. We asked what other structures are available, and some of the other districts, specifically the Center City District, has contract relationships that enable it to undertake the collection. We didn't want to come up here and testify against the Special Services Districts 35 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 because we are supportive of them, but wanted to investigate whether or not the City might be able to negotiate some kind of arrangement that would provide an efficient collection mechanism for all the Special Services Districts created. Currently, some do it themselves, as Duane has testified. Some contract, subcontract with Lockhead and other parties. And some just do it themselves. But there may be a more efficient arrangement that all of them could utilize and that was the basis for our taking the position we did.
Mr. Bumb testified that he received this information and request to testify at 6 o'clock yesterday evening. Generally, we try to at least keep a 24- to 48-hour window of discussion. Mr. Bumb said that 6 o'clock yesterday he received this information to testify, prepared testimony, talked with the Commerce Director cursory this morning. And whether he knew about it or not, he said okay, but I don't know if he necessarily expressed an opinion. And now we're sitting here being asked to amend a bill with that kind of time frame. We just don't understand why -- how much does the Administration estimate the cost of this 36 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 assessment and collection is going to be?
I don't know how much it would cost to reprogram. It would be a matter of having to reprogram the Revenue Department's collection. We discussed this as an Administration on Friday and reviewed the issues. I don't have a final figure. If you would like a figure, we could explore the cost with a software company to find out how much it would cost to set up the appropriate programs. All the different Special Service Districts have their own plans, they have different rates of collection, and we would have to work with parties to figure out what it would take to program all the various Service Districts' programs.
I don't want the record to be misleading that somehow the comparison of the Center City District to the East Passyunk Avenue or the Port Richmond District are equal comparisons. The revenue available to those districts are substantial and that the cost assumed by these struggling districts attempting to remain viable employers in the City would be a major hit to the revenue available to them to be able to do what they've intended to do in the first place. 37 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431
Well, I think we don't know until we actually find out what it would cost to set up an efficient collection system for them. It may be that there is a way of doing it, but we don't know until we explore that more fully.
Thank you. Good morning. My information from David Fitz, my legislative assistant, is that conversations with the Revenue Department back in July, the Revenue Department indicated that there would be some adjustment that they would have to make in terms of the billing, but it was nothing of any major problem and that they would probably send the assessment for the district immediately thereafter sending the original real estate bill 18 out. So they didn't make it sound to us -- and David is in the room; he can correct me if I'm wrong -- that it was anything that was a major significant increase in the administrative costs. And this is our second meeting on this bill. For the Administration to send something up at this late stage when we have a couple folks, three fellows from the Passyunk Avenue District and no one is here 38 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 is from the Port Richmond District because they didn't assume there would be any change to the original discussion and first hearing that we had. I think it's really counter-productive. I think it's sending a wrong message to, not only these districts, but future districts, especially the smaller ones where they're probably going to generate revenue under a hundred thousand dollars a year. And no one has the exact number, but even if it's 10,000, it's 10 percent of their budget that's going to go back to the City for administrative costs when in effect what they're attempting to do, as Councilman Kenney said, is not only sustain their businesses but increase business. The City will reap the rewards out of their efforts. And really, what did the City do for them? Nothing but give them the authority to tax themselves. We will as a City see an increase in sales taxes and other kinds of things that are desperately needed as a result of their undertaking this measure. I just don't see any benefit in doing this. Center City District and some of the other ones are huge. They're generating millions of dollars a year. And I would understand -- I think they understand that there's a certain 39 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 requirement on their part. But for a little neighborhood commercial district to have to pay an additional tax for taxing themselves in the first place, I think that's counter-productive. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just don't see the sense in it.
I think it's a problem. These are the first of the two Special Service Districts to propose that the City undertake collection on their behalf. We probably have over 10 Special Service Districts now. If this becomes the rule rather than the exception, we're into a whole different scope of problem. These will not be the only two Special Service Districts where the City is expected to do the collection activity. I think it makes sense to try to put together a program that works for everybody that is cost-efficient for the collection agencies and does not drag the City into a whole different collection regimen than it currently has. I fully expect there to be additional amendments to the Special Service Districts now if the City is going to become their agent for the purpose of collection.
I can agree with 40 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 you, but I just think that this will send the wrong message out for any other commercial corridors who are considering establishing a district, to impose an additional tax on them in addition to the tax that they're putting on themselves. I just think it's a bad message.
The public match that's involved in these, is there a public match in the other bills, the other districts? This says, "Revenue assessment public match." Is public match public money? What does that refer to?
Eight. I have the Port Richmond bill, second line down.
There's a chart on , the left column of the chart says, "Annual revenue," it says "Assessment 46,000 plus, public 41 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 match 23,000 plus." I wanted to know what the public match referred to and who pays it.
I don't know the answer to that question. We can find out for you.
If I recall, because this has been a while since we first started talking about this, I think that is a budget that was put together by PRIDE in the hopes of being able to attract some public dollars to it. But I don't think it's a requirement from the City or any other government entity to match it. I think that that's what their assessment in order to accommodate their mission, what their goal would be.
Okay. I'll point out, in the second paragraph on that same page, "This proposal to collect a percent assessment 18 would require a 50 percent match to cover the annual 19 costs," et cetera, et cetera. And so -- 20
I think the public match could be anything, it could be City, it could be State, it could be the businesses themselves or corporate sponsors or something else. I think, again, this was for PRIDE's purposes of doing a budget. No City dollars that ever in my 42 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431 conversation was ever anticipated.
I think that when you look at a lot of the Special Service Districts, some of them really are drawing on a thin base. You questioned whether or not in every instance a Special Service District is the appropriate tool. But the Administration does support them and I think that it does make sense if in fact they're having a struggle with the burden of collection to try to come up with something, try to come up with a structure for collecting for all the special service districts, not just for the one or two that are on the Calendar today. Historically, they have been launched as independent entities. They do their own collection. I'm thinking of we have just a number of them across neighborhoods in the City.
It seems to me that the estimated cost of collection could be a lot lower. I mean, there's some way of getting that number down. I don't know if it's by the government doing it or some other method. It just seems extraordinarily high for such a small easy-to-figure-out equation. Thank you. 43 10/16/02 - RULES - BILLS 020166-A, 020431
Seeing none, thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, that will conclude our public hearing. - - - 44 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Thursday, October 16, 2002 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 020166-A, 020431, 020486. RESOLUTION 020627. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ - - - 45 10/16/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We will convene a public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion on Bill 020166-A.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 020166-A be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and the further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
None opposed. Bill No. 020166-A will be reported out of this Committee favorably. A request will be made for rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion on Bill 020431. 46 10/16/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 020431 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020431 reported out of this Committee favorably. A request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill 0202486.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 020486 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.) 47 10/16/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020486 reported out of this Committee favorably. A request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion to approve the Resolution 13 020627.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolution No. 020672 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Resolution No. 020627 reported out of 48 10/16/02 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Committee favorably. And also the Rules Committee will be meeting again tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. Thank you very much for your participation. And I apologize to the business people of Passyunk Avenue for that embarrassment. Thank you. (Council adjourned at 11:00 a.m.) - - - 49 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of October 16, 2002, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public