Committee Hearing, April 27, 2011

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE3 Room 400, City Hall6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 27, 20117 10:50 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA10 COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE11 COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN12 COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR.13 COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN14 COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO, JR. COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO15 BILLS 110135, 110136, 110137 and 110138 RESOLUTION 11016117 - - -19 2

Good2 morning, everyone. This is a continued3 public hearing of the Committee of the4 Whole.5 I would ask Mr. McPherson to6 please read the title of the resolutions7 or bills that will be considered today.8 MR. McPHERSON: Resolution9 110161, Five Year Plan; Bill No. 110135,10 the Capital Program 2012 through 2017;11 Bill No. 110136, the Capital Budget 2012;12 Bill No. 110137, the Operating Budget for13 2012; Bill No. 110138, which adjusts the14 wage tax. And today we're taking15 testimony from the Administration on Bill16 No. 110138.17 (Witnesses approached witness18 table.)19

Good20 morning, Commissioner.21 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Good22 morning, Council President Ann Verna.23 Keith Richardson, Revenue Commissioner.24 Good morning, Council President25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 Verna and members of City Council2 Committee of the Whole. Again, my name3 is Keith J. Richardson, the Revenue4 Commissioner for the City of5 Philadelphia, Department of Revenue.6 With me today is Rob Dubow, the City's7 Finance Director. We are here today to8 testify on Bill No. 110138 amending9 Section 19-1500 of The Philadelphia Code,10 entitled "Wage and Net Profits Tax," by11 revising certain tax rates and making12 technical changes, all under certain13 terms and conditions.14 Bill No. 110138 maintains the15 wage and net profits tax rates at the16 same rates for 2012 as they were in 2011.17 The wage tax rate is 2.428 for residents,18 3.928 percent including the PICA portion19 of the wage tax and 3.4985 for20 non-residents. While last year's Five21 Year Plan projected that Pennsylvania22 gaming revenues would be used for further23 reductions in wage tax rates, the24 Commonwealth has informed the25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 Administration that gaming revenues are2 not projected to be strong enough to3 support additional wage tax relief.4 The Administration is also5 eager to reinstate the City-funded wage6 and net profits tax reductions for both7 residents and non-residents. These8 reductions would lower the tax burden for9 the broadest base of City taxpayers and10 increase the economic competitiveness of11 the City of Philadelphia. A number of12 studies have demonstrated that the City's13 wage tax rates have damaged the City's14 ability to attract businesses and that15 lowering those rates would help attract16 and retain jobs. While the17 Administration would like to restart18 those reductions as soon as possible,19 based on the General Fund's fiscal20 condition, we believe the Fiscal Year21 2014 is the first year we can reduce wage22 tax rates.23 The proposed bill would also24 change the implementation date of Section25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 19-1508 of The Philadelphia Code,2 "Refunds and Forgiveness for Poverty3 Income," to Calendar Year 2016. This4 Section provides wage tax refunds to5 those residents and non-residents who pay6 wage tax and who meet the criteria of low7 income and very low income households,8 starting with the wage tax paid in9 Calendar Year 2016. While the10 Administration applauds the goals of11 Section 19-1508, we believe the greatest12 benefit to all taxpayers, low income13 households included, will be the14 continued reduction in the wage and net15 profits tax rates.16 This concludes my testimony.17 Thank you, Council President, for the18 opportunity to address you and the19 members of City Council Committee of the20 Whole. We are available to answer any21 questions you may have at this time.22

Thank23 you very much.24 What is the cumulative value of25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 the proposed tax reductions in the Five2 Year Plan?3

The value of the4 wage tax reductions is $103 million, and5 the value of the proposed business tax6 reductions is about 41 million. So7 combined, it's 144 million.8

What9 is the value of the savings in the Five10 Year Plan by delaying the reductions for11 the Forgiveness for Poverty Income12 Program to 2017?13

It's about 5514 million.15

Thank16 you.17 The Chair recognizes Councilman18 Goode.19

Thank you,20 Madam President.21 Good morning. Just some22 questions for the record, because I think23 you know where I stand on one of these24 measures.25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 Does the federal government tax2 everyone without regard to poverty level?3 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes.4 Everyone is taxed at the federal level.5

Does the6 state government tax everyone without7 regard to the poverty level?8 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes,9 they do tax, but they do have a10 forgiveness program also.11

And what do12 you believe that those people who fall13 under the poverty level by state14 standards do with the money?15 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It16 goes back into the economy hopefully.17

So what do18 you think the people who would fall under19 the standards in the legislation that we20 pass would do with the money?21 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Go in22 the economy, save it.23

So we should24 spend it for them?25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I2 don't believe in spending for somebody3 else. Spending for myself.4

If we're not5 giving it back to them, then we're6 deciding to spend it for them.7

Well, I mean, spend8 it for them, I mean, we think that9 that -- that the tax cuts at a broader10 level are more beneficial to the economy.11

In what way?12

We think it's kind13 of a broader segment of the population14 and that it does more to stimulate the15 economy than providing the reductions to16 just one portion of the population.17

A population18 that falls under a certain poverty level.19

Right.20

And so not21 only is their money going to pay bills,22 but their bills probably still won't be23 paid afterwards?24

I'm sorry. Say25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 that again.2

Their bills3 probably still won't be paid even if they4 use all this money to pay their bills?5

That's possible.6

Thank you,7 Madam President.8 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:9 You're welcome.10 The Chair recognizes Councilman11 Green.12

Thank you.13 I have a few questions related14 to Councilman Goode's questions. So does15 the federal government have graduated16 rates with respect to taxation based on17 how much income you earn?18 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes,19 they do.20

And why do21 they do that? What's the public policy22 rationale for that?23 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I24 don't know the policy issue why they do25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 that, but --2

To have a3 progressive tax structure, so that the4 more you earn, the higher the rate is5 applied to your income, because you have6 more to give to government.7 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON:8 Right.9

And we can't10 do that in Pennsylvania under the11 Uniformity Clause of our state12 constitution. We can't have a13 progressive wage tax structure. So what14 we did to make our taxes progressive was15 give a credit, which we can do under the16 Uniformity Clause, to people who are in17 poverty of some of the taxes they would18 otherwise be paying us. Why does the19 Administration disagree with that public20 policy?21

I don't think we22 necessarily disagree with that public23 policy, but we just think given the24 choice between that and a broader-based25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 reduction, we think the broader-based2 reduction makes more sense, which is what3 the Tax Reform Commission said also.4

So the wage5 tax relief for non-residents is a better6 public policy for Philadelphians than a7 progressive tax credit for people in8 poverty in Philadelphia?9

One of the things10 that we've heard over and over again,11 particularly about the non-resident wage12 taxes, is that it has cost the City jobs,13 that it hurts our competitiveness, and we14 think improving the City's15 competitiveness is an important public16 policy goal.17

Don't you18 think that it would have less of a19 dissortative effect if the City wage tax20 rate was the same as the non-resident21 rate?22

If the City wage23 tax rate were lower, you mean?24

No; were the25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 same as the non-resident wage tax rate.2 In other words --3

No; I understand4 what you're saying, and I think the issue5 with that is, I think we're not allowed6 to do that under state law.7

That's not8 correct.9

Well, we can't10 increase the non-resident rate. We could11 lower --12

Right, but13 we could lower the resident rate to the14 point where they're equal.15

We could do that.16

And why17 would we not choose to do that and apply18 the non-resident wage tax -- we don't19 have to cut it. Why would we not choose20 to use the money for non-resident wage21 cuts to promote policy goals that will22 make Philadelphia more competitive or23 that will help people in poverty in the24 City of Philadelphia?25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381

And, again, because2 what we've seen in studies over time is3 that that non-resident rate makes us less4 competitive and hurts jobs.5

I don't6 understand. Both rates make us less7 competitive. We can agree that if we8 could eliminate the wage tax, the City of9 Philadelphia would be more competitive.10

Yeah.11

The question12 is, doesn't it distort decision-making to13 have a differential wage tax between14 suburban people who work in the City and15 Philadelphians? In other words, we're16 incentivizing people not to live here17 that work here because they'll pay less18 in taxes versus having a completely19 neutral decision, at least with respect20 to wage tax.21 So if we're going to lower wage22 tax by $100 million, if that's our23 policy, shouldn't we first apply all of24 that to the resident portion of the wage25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 tax until it is equal to the non-resident2 portion of the wage tax and then reduce3 it further? That's the first part of the4 question.5 The second part of the question6 is, alternatively, shouldn't we -- we7 could make the City more competitive by8 applying it in other areas, like with9 respect to net income tax reductions or10 other things that are going to make the11 City better able to compete with the12 suburbs for businesses, or alternatively,13 we could decide to not lower the14 non-resident wage tax, people who are15 working here, and help people in poverty16 in the City of Philadelphia. And I'd17 like to understand why the Administration18 is making the choice it is making with19 respect to the dollars rather than any20 one of those three options.21

Okay. So on the --22 I guess we've talked about versus low23 income, so I won't repeat that. What24 these analyses have shown is that the25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 non-resident rate actually has a larger2 deterrent impact than the resident wage3 tax. So we thought it was important to4 reduce that also.5 We are also proposing6 reductions in business taxes, so we have7 both of those in plan.8

I don't9 recall seeing that in any of the Tax10 Reform Commission reports, non-resident11 versus resident, broken-out studies12 separately.13

There were analyses14 that Professor Inman did that have shown15 that differential.16

That the17 non-resident wage tax --18

Has a larger19 deterrent effect.20

Is a larger21 deterrent effect?22

Yes.23

Frankly, I24 don't see how that could possibly be true25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 compared to just having a neutral wage2 tax rate that then is lowered both.3 You're creating a disincentive to be here4 if the wage tax when you live outside of5 the City is less than if you choose to6 live in the City. To me that's common7 sense.8

I think the real9 disincentive isn't that marginal10 difference. I think it's the difference11 between the overall wage tax rate and the12 rates that the suburbs have. I don't13 think --14

I would15 agree completely.16

I don't think the17 difference between the non-residential18 and the residential is really driving --19

It's the20 fact that we have a wage tax at all, is21 the point.22

The fact that we23 have a wage tax rate as high as it.24

As high as25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 it is. Okay. Great. So why not2 equalize them so that we don't have a3 dissortative effect instead of giving4 wage tax relief to people who enjoy our5 services, our police force, our public6 transportation and all the things that we7 pay for?8

Again, because both9 sides have an anti-competitive impact.10 There are studies that say the11 non-resident has a more damaging impact.12 So we think it's important to reduce both13 of them.14

Well, it's15 not saying -- you just testified that16 it's not saying that the non-resident has17 a more damaging impact. Your testimony18 was the fact that we have a wage tax at19 all is what's damaging, because somebody20 is going to make the choice at these wage21 tax rates and even at the wage tax rates22 you propose to reduce it to over the next23 five years, somebody is going to make the24 choice to put their company in the25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 suburbs instead of in the City because of2 the wage tax.3

Or not in --4

That's the5 problem with the wage tax.6

Or not in this7 region at all.8

Or not in9 this region at all.10 So as long as we have a wage11 tax, I don't understand the public policy12 rationale for not making them equal for13 residents and non-residents.14

And, I mean --15

And I guess16 it's just something we disagree on.17

Right.18

Very well.19 So moving to the legislation itself, I20 don't believe it actually lowers the wage21 tax during the course of the Five Year22 Plan.23

No, it does not.24 And one of the reasons that we took out25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 the reductions from the legislation is2 because of the unpredictability of the3 gaming revenue. The numbers kept kind of4 moving around on us. So we would rather5 do it kind of year by year as we get to6 the years in question. But we still --7

So we8 still --9

Can I finish?10

Sure.11

As the Plan shows,12 we still intend to reduce the rates in13 those years.14

Which you15 would need City Council approval for at16 that time.17

That's correct.18

So it's your19 testimony that the bill that you've20 proposed does not reduce the wage tax in21 '14 and '15?22

That's correct. We23 show that reduction in the Plan, and24 that's our intention.25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381

I2 understand. And the bill that you've3 introduced does not in fact reduce gross4 receipts or net income tax in '14 and '155 or is that already in the -- or is no6 amendment needed for that?7

There's no bill for8 that. We don't have a business tax bill9 in front of you. We just have the wage10 tax bill.11

Okay. Fair12 enough. So I'm not sure what we're13 discussing here. In other words, you're14 saying that we need the money for the15 Cohen wage tax relief to apply it to --16 or the poverty wage tax relief to apply17 it to net income tax and gross receipts18 tax cuts because that's a better public19 policy. The gross receipts tax cuts is a20 hundred million dollars -- I'm sorry; the21 wage tax cuts is a hundred million22 dollars. If we're going to deal with it23 in the out years of the Five Year Plan,24 let's just deal with it all in the out25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 years of the Five Year Plan, because your2 budget that you're presenting this bill3 does not reduce the wage tax. So you can4 present a Five Year Plan to PICA which5 shows the revenues from the wage tax,6 because that's what we're enacting in the7 law this year.8

Well, we have two9 issues from a PICA perspective. One is,10 current law does include the low income11 tax bill. So that would give us a PICA12 problem.13 The second is, I think the14 current legislation actually has15 reductions in the out years, and so if we16 didn't do new legislation, the PICA --17 we'd have to show that level of18 reduction, which is slightly larger19 because of what we thought we were going20 to --21

I'm glad you22 said that. So what this bill actually23 does is increase the wage tax versus the24 current legislation?25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381

It really has no2 rates. It doesn't really -- I mean, it3 says "thereafter," but it doesn't really4 address the out years.5

Right.6 Okay. Well, if we pass this legislation7 as is, we're basically adding a hundred8 million to the Five Year Plan compared to9 your actual Five Year Plan in this10 legislation.11

Well, two things.12 One, it's slightly different from that,13 because the rates that are in the14 legislation are different from what we're15 assuming in the Plan. And, second, the16 Plan actually takes out that revenue17 because it assumes that that's what we're18 going to do. So it would not --19

But it's not20 in fact what the law is.21

It would not affect22 what we showed in the Plan we submitted23 to PICA.24

But it's not25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 in fact what the law is.2

That's right. I3 think in terms of a PICA perspective,4 though, we would have a problem if we5 tried to show revenue that was in excess6 of what the law was. Then they would say7 that there was a reasonableness problem.8 I think if we show revenue that we say is9 lower based on what we intend to do, I10 don't think they'd have a problem with11 that.12

I agree. So13 let's just pose a scenario that City14 Council passes this bill that you just15 testified on the way you have presented16 it to us and we don't pass the Five Year17 Plan, but we amend the bill to leave in18 the anti-poverty tax cut.19

Right.20

You don't21 have a PICA problem, because you've got22 an extra $61 million that you're not23 presenting to them. You're choosing to24 present cuts in the out years, but if we25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 pass this without passing the Five Year2 Plan, you don't have a PICA problem3 unless you create one.4

But then what we5 are saying to the business community is6 we're not doing the cuts that we told you7 we would do. So we have a different8 problem if we do that.9

You just10 testified that we're not doing them in11 this law, but we're going to do them one12 year at a time, and certainly, assuming13 I'm reelected, I'm willing to look at14 that with you.15

Right, but what I'm16 saying is, if you didn't take $55 million17 out of the Plan, we would not be able to18 have a balanced Plan that has the wage19 tax reductions that we have in here,20 because it would go out of balance. That21 would --22

That's true,23 but --24

Can I finish? That25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 would send a signal to the business2 community that we're not going to do3 those cuts.4

You've5 already sent the signal with the6 legislation you passed that you have7 presented to us which doesn't contain the8 cuts.9

No. We send the10 signal through our Five Year Plan that we11 intend to continue those cuts. That's12 the signal that we've sent.13

Okay. Thank14 you. That's all I have.15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:16 You're welcome.17 The Chair recognizes Councilman18 Goode.19

Thank you,20 Madam President.21 Just one more attempt at this.22 I want to ask an obvious question. If23 you actually believe in broad-based wage24 tax relief versus targeted tax relief for25 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 the poor, then why shift strategy in2 future years?3

Then -- I'm sorry.4 What's --5

Why shift6 strategy in future years?7

I mean, yeah, I8 guess the logical extension would be not9 to delay it but not to do it at all. I10 think that's --11

If it's the12 wrong thing to do, then you should never13 do it. If you actually believe in a14 broad-based strategy rather than a15 targeted strategy, then why shift gears?16

Right. I actually17 think that makes sense.18

So this is19 actually not a delay?20

No. We're21 proposing a delay.22

Until we23 delay it again?24

Well, we're25 27 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 proposing a delay. I think our2 preference would be not to have it at3 all, but we don't think Council would be4 comfortable with that. So that's why5 we're not proposing eliminating it. And6 I guess the hope is that by the time we7 get out to '17, we're in better financial8 shape.9

But as a10 matter of tax policy, if you believe that11 broad-based wage tax relief is a better12 strategy than targeted tax relief for the13 poor, then the question still is why14 change strategy?15

And I think it's16 because we understand it's not our17 decision unilaterally, that we have to do18 something that we'll reach agreement on19 with Council.20

So you will21 seek to delay it again in the future22 probably?23

I think that would24 probably depend on where our finances25 28 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 were.2

Okay. Thank3 you.4 Thank you, Madam President.5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:6 You're welcome.7 Mr. Dubow, if you reduce the8 general reductions from $144 million to9 $89 million, couldn't we still do the10 forgiveness program?11

We could, and we12 wouldn't advocate that for the reasons13 that we're talking about. We think that14 the general reductions are a better15 policy alternative.16

Thank17 you.18 The Chair recognizes Councilman19 Jones.20

I'm a little21 confused. The Commonwealth has informed22 the Administration that gaming revenues23 are not projected to be strong enough to24 support additional wage tax relief. Is25 29 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 that true or not true?2

Yes.3

And so what4 does that mean by way of your wage tax5 relief projections?6

That means that in7 last year's Plan, we thought that we'd be8 able to make deeper cuts in the wage tax9 rate, but because we're going to get less10 gaming money, we can't make them as deep.11

So we're12 going to put the brakes a little bit on13 that?14

Right.15

And so that16 does not -- all right. How does that17 counterbalance what we are seeing by way18 of sales tax and others? I mean, does it19 give us a net gain, net revenue neutral20 or net loss?21

So they're kind of22 two separate things. The Gaming Relief23 Act is specific money that came from24 gaming that would be used to reduce25 30 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 rates. That is going to come in a little2 lower than we anticipated. So the wage3 tax rates won't go down as much as we4 anticipated.5 On the other side, in terms of6 actual collections, wage and sales tax7 collections have been up, which is great.8 We had projected that. So they're fairly9 consistent with what we had in the Plan.10 So we are collecting more, which is what11 we had anticipated.12

Okay. So13 two different columns. We won't get the14 wage tax relief for the public, but on15 the unanticipated increase in sales and16 other --17

Not unanticipated.18 Anticipated sales in wage tax increases.19

Good job.20 Does that mean that we're developing a21 Plan B to restore services similar in22 departments like the Fire Department23 where we had rolling blackouts? Are we24 looking at hiring people based on that25 31 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 good news coming from our collections?2

Well, yeah. We3 anticipated having additional4 collections. That's why, for example,5 the Plan includes a police class, because6 we thought, Okay, now we can start to7 build the force back up, and we included8 that in the investments we put back into9 the Plan. So some of that is reflected10 in -- that's reflected in the Plan that11 we presented.12

All right.13 What has been the impact of the14 Commonwealth's projected cuts to your15 projected revenues? For example, DHS,16 major recipient, School Board. I mean,17 where is that? Have there been any early18 indications as to how that is going to19 pan out?20

Yes. There are --21 the cuts will hit a number of kind of the22 departments that we have in our health23 and opportunity area. So there's an24 effect on the Department of Human25 32 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 Services, some on Health and an effect on2 the Office of Supportive Housing.3

How much?4

I think DHS was in5 the five and a half million range.6 Supportive Housing may have been a couple7 million.8

So not as9 drastic as we first anticipated?10

It was not -- for11 the City's General Fund revenues, it was12 not as big a hit as we had feared. It13 was still a hit. I mean, it still has an14 impact on us. It has a really negative15 impact on the School District. There's16 about a $100 million hit from the state17 budget to the School District and a hit18 to local hospitals in particular. There19 were cuts that affected them.20

Well, let21 me -- and I don't want an answer today,22 but let me ask you this: We did an23 increase in real estate, which is, quote,24 "temporary," and we did not include them25 33 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 in the pro rata share of that increase,2 did we, the School Board, meaning the3 School Board?4

Right.5

We increased6 it, but we didn't increase their portion7 of it?8

That's correct.9

With the10 other counterbalancing revenues that are11 coming in a little stronger than what we12 anticipated, does that mean that is on13 the table for consideration for the14 School Board? Do not answer that.15

Okay, but I just16 want to say again, it's not that we have17 more revenue than anticipated. It's that18 revenues increased and we budgeted that19 and we've built that into our budget.20

All right.21 So I can say one of the options that I've22 heard floated about solving their problem23 is to consider the portion of the real24 estate that we increase, giving them a25 34 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 cut of that, and to whatever degree that2 is has obvious budget impacts on us.3

That's a direct hit4 to our budget, yes.5

So are there6 scenarios being put out there looking at7 those kinds of numbers and calculating8 those types of numbers to save our9 schools?10

I think the School11 District detail budget is supposed to12 come out today, so we may have a better13 sense after that comes out of what14 they're looking for.15

All right.16 Thank you, Madam President.17 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:18 You're welcome.19 The Chair recognizes Councilman20 Green.21

Thank you,22 Madam Chair.23 I received a memo through the24 President's Office yesterday which was25 35 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 from IHS, which was a response to my2 request in Council to receive any written3 material provided to you by IHS regarding4 the revenue forecast that they provided,5 and my memory of that conversation is6 that you didn't have one consultant, you7 had several consultants on revenue?8

It's slightly -- we9 had IHS, is our consultant, but we also10 then went and had a meeting with a group11 of economists down at the Fed, and that12 played an important role in shaping our13 projections.14

When you15 went down to the Fed, did you provide16 them written material in advance of that17 meeting?18

We did.19

I'd like a20 copy of that written material.21

Sure.22

Was there23 any other written material provided by24 IHS prior to April 26th, which is the25 36 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 date of this memo?2

I don't think so.3 I wasn't directly involved in the4 conversations with IHS, but I think it5 was mostly a series of conversations back6 and forth.7

So they8 provided detailed revenue projections to9 the City without ever putting them in10 writing or sending you a spreadsheet?11

I think there12 was -- it was an e-mail with the actual13 numbers, and I think that's reflected in14 there.15

And there's16 no spreadsheet attendant with that?17

I think it's a18 spreadsheet that just has those numbers.19 I don't think there's anything beyond20 that.21

And they22 didn't provide you any back-up material23 for the spreadsheet?24

Not that I'm aware25 37 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 of. I think all of the kind of back-up2 was through conversations.3

Could you4 please confirm in writing to the5 President that other than the handout at6 the Fed, there is no other written7 material provided to you by IHS?8

The handout at the9 Fed was not from IHS. We put that10 together.11

Okay.12

That was not an IHS13 document.14

Okay. Was15 IHS present at that meeting?16

They were not.17

That was18 just the City and the Fed?19

Mm-hmm.20

Can you tell21 me --22

And PICA. It's23 hosted by PICA.24

Can you tell25 38 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 me what the revenue difference is between2 the estimates provided to me yesterday3 and the City's Five Year Plan over the4 course of the Five Year Plan?5

You mean the growth6 rates or -- is that what you're saying?7

In hundreds8 of millions of dollars over the Five Year9 Plan.10

Yeah. Their11 projections were more aggressive that12 will wind up in the Plan, so they would13 produce extra revenue. And we can get14 back to you with what that would be, but15 after our conversation with the other16 economist at the Fed, we weren't17 comfortable using those projections18 because --19

I20 understand.21

So we can show you22 that so long as it's in the context of23 understanding why we used our numbers.24

Your25 39 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 meetings with the Fed, did that result in2 a written report?3

No. It's a4 conversation. There's no written report5 from that.6

And there7 was no memo made in the City that8 resulted from that meeting. It's all9 just in your heads?10

And in our Five11 Year Plan.12

And in the13 Five Year Plan.14

Yeah, which is15 important.16

So you went17 straight from that meeting and --18

Well, the meeting19 actually was either late February or20 early March. It was right around when21 the Plan --22

And you just23 kept all that information up here rather24 than reducing it to a writing after the25 40 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 meeting?2

I don't think there3 was any memo after that meeting.4

Okay. Or5 writing? I'm not being specific with6 respect to memo. I'm asking if there's7 any writing.8

No. I mean, I9 don't know what -- no, there was nothing.10

Okay. Very11 good. If you could please provide the12 Chair with answers to those questions,13 including what the revenue would be14 assuming IHS were correct rather than the15 more conservative assumptions, I would16 appreciate that.17

Okay.18

Thank you.19

Thank20 you.21 Are there any other questions22 from members of the Committee?23 (No response.)24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:25 41 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 Seeing none, thank you.2

Thank you.3

Thank4 you very much.5 The Committee will stand in6 recess until 12:30, at which time we will7 have public testimony. Thank you.8 (Short recess.)9

Good10 afternoon, everyone. This is a continued11 public hearing of the Committee of the12 Whole.13 I would like to say that we do14 have a number of witnesses that would15 like the opportunity to testify. With16 that being said, we will allow each17 person three minutes to testify.18 Hopefully we can get to hear everybody's19 testimony. So we do have a timer here,20 and I would really appreciate it if21 everybody would abide by those rules.22 Thank you very much.23 Our first witness?24 MR. McPHERSON: Cathy Scott.25 42 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 (Witnesses approached witness2 table.)3 (Applause.)4

Good5 afternoon.6

Good afternoon,7 President Verna and members of City8 Council. 13 Thank you for the opportunity14 to provide testimony concerning the15 proposed Fiscal Year 2012 budget and the16 Five Year Plan. 22 As I have stated in prior23 budget testimony, the budget is a24 document which lays out the priorities of25 43 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 the Administration and City Council. 7 In prior years' testimony, I8 have suggested many ways to raise9 revenue. 10 In another area of the budget,11 the Administration is seeking to move the12 Department of Human Services from the13 General Fund to the Grants Revenue Fund14 to, in its own word, quote, "add more15 transparency to the City's finances," end16 quote. 24 However, this change has made25 45 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 it more difficult to track changes in the2 proposed budget. 7 This budget shows this category dropping8 approximately $387 million, or 349 percent, from Fiscal Year 2011. 94 billion. So purchased services is22 actually a larger portion of total23 Operating Budget expenditures than total24 personnel costs. 12 The failure to do a cost-benefit analysis13 to see if work can be done as cheaply and14 efficiently by City employees is15 disgracefully missing. 24 Our union City employees pay25 47 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 these and other City taxes. Many of our2 members must complete financial3 disclosure forms. Contract staff that do4 the same work do not have to complete5 these forms. 8 Contracted staff are not bound by these9 rules. This proposed budget takes the10 City further in the wrong direction when11 it plans to spend $400 million more this12 year on contracted services than on its13 own employees. So I would like to issue14 a challenge to the Administration and15 City Council. Move a portion of the16 total requested allocation from Class17 200, purchase of service money, to Class18 100, City employees. 24 But I have left the most25 48 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 egregious and insulting part of this2 Administration's proposed budget for my3 final comments. of the Five Year4 Financial Plan lists two line items. The5 first is Reserve for Wage/Health Benefit6 Increases, which shows zeroes from Fiscal7 Year 2010 through Fiscal Year 2016. 14 On of the Five Year15 Plan, the Administration says, and I16 quote, "For AFSCME District Council 3317 and District Council 47, the City seeks18 zero wage increases across the life of19 the contracts. " Later the Administration25 49 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 states, quote, "As it is, however, the2 City has avoided costs over the past3 three years, since neither wages nor4 healthcare costs have risen for5 non-uniformed employees since 2008. "12 There is no doubt about the13 position of this Mayor. By asking you to14 approve this budget, he is asking you to15 approve a Five Year Plan with no wage16 increase through Fiscal Year 2016. That17 is unprecedented and unacceptable. )20

-- nine years of21 wage freezes from 2008 through 2016 is an22 outrage.23 To make this situation worse,24 Mayor Nutter is asking you to pass a25 50 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 budget calling for nearly $12 million per2 year in lost wages for City employees.3 City Council needs to send a loud and4 clear message to the Mayor that you will5 not be a party to his irresponsible and6 contemptible behavior toward7 non-uniformed City employees.8 (Applause.)9

Our members have10 gone without raises for three years.11 They have had significant payroll12 deduction increases in their healthcare13 costs. For the Mayor to tout these facts14 as a success of his is despicable. Many15 have been denied pay step increases which16 they were promised when they were hired.17 Many have been denied their longevity18 increases. Our members have lost19 millions in wages each year since 2009.20 And this Administration needs to get21 serious about finalizing the interest22 arbitration for Local 810, who are First23 Judicial District employees.24 (Applause.)25 51 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381

Further, our union2 has worked with the City Administration3 presenting revenue-enhancing suggestions4 and saved the City hundreds of millions5 of dollars during these tough times. I6 am calling on City Council to refuse to7 pass a budget which allocates any8 workforce saving category or any9 statement of wage freezes or reductions.10 This Mayor has failed miserably11 in one of his major responsibilities as12 the Chief Executive of the City. He has13 been incapable of bargaining fair and14 reasonable contracts with his employees.15 (Applause.)16

The measure of a17 man is determined by what he does, not by18 what he says. It is time for this19 Administration to stop giving lip service20 of his respect for City employees and21 show respect for City employees by22 negotiating a contract which recognizes23 that the economy is recovering, revenues24 are picking up and this city needs25 52 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 stability in its Five Year Plan. City2 Council can send the Mayor a public3 message to get serious about negotiations4 and negotiate a fair contract. Show that5 you value City employees.6 Thank you for the opportunity7 to testify.8 (Standing ovation.)9 MR. McPHERSON: Our next10 witnesses are Lauren Bornfriend and Doris11 Gwaltney.12 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:13 Councilman Clarke, your light wasn't on.14 Did you want to be recognized?15

Yes,16 please. I just want a little clarity.17

I'm18 sorry. I can't hear you.19

I just had20 to ask Ms. Scott a question.21 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:22 Ms. Scott, can you come to the witness23 table, please.24

Sorry.25 53 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:2 Councilman Clarke.3

Thank you.4 Hi. How you doing?5

I'm good.6

I just was7 interested in one portion of your8 testimony. It kind of caught my eye.9 Actually, a lot of it did, but this in10 particular.11 With respect to the contracts12 for external activity; i.e., work or13 other contractual relationships, when we14 talked about disclosure forms and we15 talked about information on the specific16 contract employee in terms of residency17 and all of the other things that City18 workers are, is there anything -- what19 format, if I needed to go find this20 information, because it's clear that21 you've done your research, so to save the22 time in terms of me being able to access23 or any other member being able to access24 the information required for individuals25 54 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 who receive contracts outside of the City2 employees or City residents, where can I3 go to find that information? And the4 reason I ask that, because unfortunately5 to some degree we got our budget late,6 and I'm not going to suggest it was by7 design. I think it was just the issue as8 relates to federal and state government.9 So our timeframe in terms of being able10 to review information in these budget11 hearings is contracted. It's not -- the12 reality is, traditionally we try to pass13 the budget by the end of May, but we're14 essentially in May.15 So can you provide information16 on the specific nature of all of the17 contracts that have been let that18 normally -- or just give us some19 direction.20

Well, and herein I21 think lies the problem that I stated in22 my testimony. It is virtually impossible23 to get the details of contract. What24 this Administration will give you is the25 55 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 contract number, who has the contract,2 the total expenditure and whether it's3 conformed or not conformed. It will not4 give you the actual copies of the5 contract where you can go and look at the6 detail of how many employees that are7 actually performing the work, what the8 employees make, what their overall9 administrative costs are.10 We have done extensive11 Right-to-Know Requests and gotten that12 information last year to be able to13 provide the budget testimony, but we were14 only able to get it in two departments,15 which is the Department of Technology and16 the Public Health Department, which was17 why I was able to talk in more detail18 about the specifics.19 Those details do not even tell20 you who the contractor is actually21 hiring. So we couldn't, even with22 getting the contracts, be able to tell23 you whether those people are employed in24 the City of -- or live in the City of25 56 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 Philadelphia or they don't live in the2 City of Philadelphia. We know that they3 do not come under the disclosure4 information that City employees do5 because of the way the state law is6 written, and they certainly don't have7 the political activity restrictions that8 our members have, because that's in the9 Charter.10 So I don't want to not answer11 your question, but I would suggest that12 the only place that that exists is in the13 operating departments of this14 Administration.15

Individual16 operating departments?17

Yes. And they18 don't even have all the contracts online19 to be able to give you a copy of the20 contract, much less who is employed in21 the contract. So that is something that22 we would have to -- and they are not23 cooperative in providing that24 information. They will tell you that25 57 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 they don't have the information.2

Right.3 Okay. I'll follow up with you to get the4 specific departments that we have the5 least amount of information as it relates6 to contract.7

Well, there are8 certain departments that have more9 contracting out than others and that's10 what we're trying to focus on.11

Okay. All12 right. I'd like to follow up with you13 later.14

Thank you.15

Thank you,16 Madam President.17

Just18 a moment, please.19 Councilman Jones.20

Thank you,21 Madam President.22 First, let me thank you for23 your input on public policy, not just24 today but in the past four years I've25 58 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 been here. I've been able to draw upon a2 lot of the information that you put3 forward from your various departments to4 ask the questions that we asked in5 Council. As a result of that, this year6 we submitted Bill No. 110143, which calls7 for City departments to analyze8 quantitatively cost-benefit analysis of9 major contracts that are put out as to10 why we would outsource a particular11 service and/or job versus keeping it12 in-house, and not to pander to the labor,13 not to pander to the Administration but14 to on the merits of the facts of the cost15 be able to look at that before we make a16 commitment to go outside of our rank and17 file that we currently have, is it better18 to add additional employees, add19 additional helping hand to do some of the20 services.21 So this bill is before Council,22 and Councilman Clarke and President Verna23 will tell you and it is a matter of24 public record, I ask each and every25 59 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 department this question: Do you2 currently quantify your rationale for3 outsourcing a good service or type of4 service provided by the City. Some5 different varying forms of answers have6 come back, but what I hope to do with7 this bill is make it the law of the land8 which requires us to take a hard look at9 what we are doing, and not just because10 we did it last year, the year before or11 the year before that, but every year to12 see if it's in the best interest of the13 taxpayers to do it internally or from14 time to time externally.15 So I appreciate your input on16 this particular bill, and I look forward17 to working with you going forward.18

And, Councilman19 Jones, I would like to thank you for that20 bill. One suggestion that we are21 interested in talking to you about with22 that bill is not just prospectively doing23 cost-benefit analysis, but we think that24 the Administration be forced to do25 60 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 cost-benefit analysis of the existing2 contracts, because there is a lot of3 waste presently there that City employees4 can do this work, we believe, more5 effectively and cheaper.6

I look7 forward to having that discussion and8 working relationship with you.9

Thank you.10

Thank you,11 Madam President.12 (Applause. )13 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:14 Councilman Green.15

Thank you,16 Madam President.17 Good afternoon.18

Good afternoon,19 Councilman Green.20

Good to see21 you.22 I just have sort of what seems23 like an obvious and simple question, but24 apparently is lost on some people; that25 61 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 is, the cost drivers -- you're very2 familiar with the City budget, as are we3 here in Council -- the cost drivers over4 the next five years and over the next ten5 years in terms of the extra revenue6 that's going to come in, in fact over7 $350 million in revenue, increased8 revenue, between the 2.3 projected this9 year and about the 2.65 million projected10 in the Five Year Plan for, I guess it's,11 2016 at this point.12 Where is all that money going13 in the Five Year Plan?14

Well, it's15 certainly not going to wages and16 healthcare and other benefits that City17 employees would be entitled to.18 (Applause.)19

So I'll20 answer my own questions. A lot of it is21 going to healthcare for the City-exempt22 side. A lot of it is going to -- most of23 it is going to the pension system to24 pay -- because pension costs are25 62 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 increasing dramatically over the next2 five years.3 I assume that if you were4 actually able to sit down at a bargaining5 table, that wages and making our pension6 system more stable and potentially7 costing us less and healthcare and8 everything that could affect the major9 cost drivers in the City Plan would be on10 the table? You'd be willing to discuss11 anything. I'm not saying what the result12 would be, but pensions, healthcare,13 wages, everything is on the table when14 you're negotiating?15

Yes. Well, of16 course, we talk about all those things.17

That's18 right.19

And we have20 actually put forth lots of suggestions.21 As a matter of fact, I had a very22 comprehensive healthcare proposal that we23 made to the City of Philadelphia last24 year, which included a comprehensive25 63 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 wellness program, and they rejected it.2 So there is no doubt that this3 Administration has certain very limited4 perspective and goals as far as City5 employees, which, in my opinion, is to6 just make them the scapegoats and have7 them pay the price for everybody else.8

And we could9 agree that if we don't, through working10 with our unions and negotiating, resolve11 healthcare and pension issues, we're12 going to stay in the situation we're in,13 with no money available for services or14 workers or other things for the next 1015 or 20 years.16

Well, I think that17 there -- there is obviously a reason to18 discuss benefits. There is no doubt19 about that. But I think there are also20 very clear places where the City could21 instantly save money. Like, for example,22 I have given examples of where just in23 the Health Department if they brought24 contracts back in, they could save $1225 64 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 million. Well, $12 million certainly2 funds our contract for five years and3 so -- but there is no understanding on4 the part of this Administration that5 other people have good ideas for how to6 raise revenue and how to save money. I7 mean, we hear constantly the City talking8 about keeping business in the City, and9 we support that, but there's a difference10 in the wage tax that our members pay11 versus what non-residents pay. Why12 wouldn't they care about contractors not13 living in the City of Philadelphia and14 paying that differential in wage tax?15 That's money that they would have right16 there. Real estate tax, all the things17 that I was going through, because when18 you do a cost-benefit analysis, as19 Councilman Jones was talking about, you20 have to consider all of those things,21 that people live in the City, they pay22 taxes, they pay real estate tax, they pay23 a higher wage tax. All of that is money24 that the City raises, and this25 65 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 Administration seems to be tone deaf in2 listening to any of those ideas or3 suggestions.4

Thank you5 for your testimony.6 (Applause.)7

The8 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.9

Thank10 you, Madam President.11 I have read her statement and,12 frankly, we are all elected from the13 citizens of this city, and I agree with14 her statements, especially that we15 transfer money back to our City employees16 as opposed to contract services. And I17 would hope that --18 (Applause.)19

-- as20 we review this budget, all in this is21 common-sense issues that protect the22 residents of our city. And certainly23 we're happy to support the citizens of24 our city and its leadership, and25 66 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 certainly we thank Cathy Scott and all of2 them for being here.3 Thank you.4 (Applause.)5

Thank6 you very much.7 (Witnesses approached witness8 table.)9

Good10 afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for11 the record and proceed with your12 testimony.13

I am Lauren14 Bornfriend, the Executive Director of the15 Philadelphia Parks Alliance.16 Good afternoon, President17 Verna, members of City Council and fellow18 citizens. I am the Executive Director of19 the Philadelphia Parks Alliance, and I am20 here today with Doris Gwaltney, who is a21 Board member of the Parks Alliance and22 the President of Carroll Park Neighbors.23 With the leadership of24 Councilmembers Clarke and Reynolds Brown,25 67 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 City Council, the Administration and2 advocates, we have made a great deal of3 progress over the last several years in4 reforming Philadelphia's Parks and5 Recreation by creating transparency,6 accountability, strong governance,7 visionary leadership and legislation8 addressing the protection and use of9 parkland. Unfortunately, at the same10 time, after decades of budget cuts to our11 Parks and Recreation, funding has fallen12 even further behind.13 In spite of proposed and14 short-lived budget increases, the15 combined operating budget for Parks and16 Recreation has been cut by $7 million17 since Fiscal Year 2008. Seven million18 dollars is an enormous loss for a19 department that was lagging behind other20 City departments and had already been cut21 to the bone.22 In fact, in 1985, the Park23 budget alone of $12.6 million was more24 than it is today, and that doesn't25 68 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 account for inflation. That's 1985.2 We understand that recent3 economic challenges have delayed4 increases, but we also know that5 strategic investments in Philadelphia's6 Parks and Recreation, especially at this7 challenging time, will pay dividends for8 years to come. Commissioner DiBerardinis9 and his team have done an excellent job10 in leveraging foundation, corporate and11 institutional investment, but there is12 only so long and so much that private13 funders will contribute if the City14 doesn't do its part. These funders are15 not willing to subsidize municipal16 funding. They are, however, extremely17 interested in dynamic public-private18 partnerships that show returns.19 The unique role that healthy,20 vibrant parks and recreation play in the21 creation of a sustainable 21st century22 city is now at the center of economic,23 political and policy discussions taking24 place across the United States and25 69 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 abroad. Parks are recognized as2 essentially tools for community and3 economic development; cultural and4 environmental revitalization; healthy,5 fit citizens; retention and attraction of6 residents, businesses and tourists;7 protection of land and water; youth8 development; crime prevention; education9 and, of course, quality of life.10 The base of citizens and11 organizations in Philadelphia who are12 clear about why Parks and Recreation13 matter is growing fast. We are14 organized, and we will continue to take15 action to improve, protect and revitalize16 these extraordinary assets.17 On behalf of the Philadelphia18 Parks Alliance and our many supporters19 and partners, we ask you to invest in our20 Parks and Recreation. Please do not cut21 one more cent from their budget, and22 begin to work with us now to reinstate23 budget increases in Fiscal Year 2013.24 The Parks Alliance pledges to stand with25 70 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 you, the Administration, department2 leaders and stakeholders to leverage3 opportunities to fully fund our Parks and4 Recreation so that every park and5 facility in every neighborhood of our6 city is safe, clean and well maintained.7 Thank you.8

Thank9 you very much.10 (Applause.)11

Good12 afternoon.13

Thank you,14 President Verna and members of Council.15 I am Doris Gwaltney, President of Carroll16 Park Neighbors Advisory Council and Board17 member of PPA.18 Parks and recreation centers19 define neighborhoods. In the past, the20 neighborhoods surrounding Center City21 were not given the attention they22 deserved. Now, more than ever, under the23 present leadership, we need to -- it is24 important for us to take this opportunity25 71 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 to ensure that the City continues to2 support and fully fund the Department of3 Parks and Recreation.4 Park revitalization projects in5 various neighborhoods around the City on6 their way -- are on their way toward7 helping Philadelphia become a world-class8 city. After 12 years and a half million9 dollars in public and private funding,10 the master plan for Carroll Park was11 finished. My park and a handful of12 Philadelphia green parks are now enjoying13 the gratitude of countless visitors to14 our revitalized parks. It would not be15 economically -- it does not make economic16 sense to allow these parks to fall back17 into abuse and neglect when prudent18 attention and timely maintenance would be19 acceptable and wise.20 Needless to say, every21 neighborhood in Philadelphia needs and22 deserves a Carroll Park. We, park and23 recreation volunteers, are doing our part24 to provide clean, safe places for our25 72 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 neighborhood residents to spend leisure2 time. We work long hours to plan and3 implement programs that engage adults and4 give children a reason to come by and5 participate in interesting and rewarding6 activities in an environment that7 encourages healthy attitudes,8 sportsmanship and exercise. Fully9 staffed recreation centers and clean,10 well-maintained parks are just as11 important to our neighborhoods as the Art12 Museum is to the City of Philadelphia.13 Thank you.14

Thank15 you very much.16 (Applause.)17

Thank18 you.19 Our next witness?20 MR. McPHERSON: James White.21 (Witness approached witness22 table.)23

Good24 afternoon.25 73 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381

Good afternoon,2 Madam President, esteemed members of City3 Council. Thank you for the opportunity4 to testify before you this afternoon. My5 name is James White and I am the Policy6 Coordinator of the Philadelphia7 Association of Community Development8 Corporations. 14 We realize that the City15 Council and Administration are facing a16 very difficult time, and the more17 information you have about what works and18 what does not, the better. The City of19 Philadelphia must cope with an expected20 14 million plus cut to their federal and21 state housing and community development22 funding allocations, such as the federal23 CDBG and state Housing and Redevelopment24 Assistance, HRA. The City uses federal25 74 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 CDBG funding to address critical housing2 and community economic development needs,3 including neighborhood economic4 development, housing counseling,5 foreclosure prevention, home repairs,6 development of new affordable homes, and7 vacant land stabilization. 12 In March, the Governor's13 proposed FY 2012 budget cut the14 Commonwealth's Department of Community15 Economic Development's total budget by 3216 percent, or 114 million, and consolidated17 a number of key programs. 24 We are here to help, to help25 75 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 the most vulnerable Philadelphians and to2 do our part to strengthen our3 neighborhoods. We need the City to step4 in and help fill crucial funding gaps in5 proven successful housing and community6 development programs. 16 First, housing has a double17 bottom line, its home and economic18 growth. Housing is an economic engine19 that helps those most in need. For20 example, the Archdiocese of21 Philadelphia's Office of Community22 Development received 739,000 in CDBG23 funds to rehabilitate vacant properties24 and to create new affordable homes for25 76 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 ownership in the City's St. Hugh2 neighborhood. 23 million4 in additional local, state and private5 investment. 10 The City's only dedicated11 source of funding to expand housing12 opportunities is the Philadelphia Housing13 Trust Fund. Since its creation in 2005,14 the Trust Fund has provided support for15 more than 5,200 families and individuals16 through development of new affordable17 homes, repair of existing homes, and18 assisted families to stay in their homes19 through foreclosure and homelessness20 prevention programs. In addition, the21 Trust Fund has leveraged more than 14022 million in non-City funds, created23 hundreds of jobs and expanded the City's24 tax base, and saved the City millions25 77 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 annually in emergency services as well as2 revitalized neighborhoods. 11 We are working toward passage12 of a state authorizing legislation, HB13 639, that would authorize Philadelphia to14 implement the $30 increase in its15 mortgage and deed fees, unanimously16 approved by City Council in December17 2009, and dedicate those sources to the18 Philadelphia Housing Trust Fund. 24 Support for housing counseling25 78 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 programs to help ensure first-time home2 buyers are ready for homeownership, keep3 homeowners who are facing foreclosure in4 their home and assist renters is also5 crucial. The advice they provide also6 helps to stabilize and revitalize7 Philadelphia's neighborhoods. 12 Additionally, given the long13 timeframe required to bring a new housing14 development to fruition and a reduction15 in funding available to sustain the16 operations of CDCs that engage in17 affordable housing development, we18 believe that it is essential for the City19 to explore how they can best ensure the20 viability of productive non-profit21 housing developers in the City. 24 Two, another bright idea,25 79 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 vacant land stabilization and reuse2 revitalization in neighborhoods.

Our3 members are actively engaged in4 implementing strategies to address5 abandoned and blighted properties in6 their neighborhoods. CDCs are working7 with local residents, the City of8 Philadelphia and other partners to9 transform these public eyesores into10 community assets and clear the way for11 new investments that will strengthen our12 neighborhoods. Between 2008 and 2011,13 the City has invested funds to stabilize14 vacant lots in neighborhoods as part of15 the vacant land management system. 23 Since 1996, PHS has partnered24 with New Kensington CDC to clean and25 80 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 green open spaces, organized volunteer2 greening projects and tree plantings, and3 stabilized and maintained more than 1,1004 vacant lots. Additionally, New5 Kensington CDC transformed vacant lots6 along Frankford Avenue into clean and7 green open spaces, laying the groundwork8 to create an arts corridor that is9 attracting new businesses and jobs to the10 community. New Kensington CDC also11 developed a garden center to provide12 gardening materials and educate13 neighborhood residents at Frankford14 Avenue and Berks Street as part of the15 Philadelphia Land Care Program. 24 As our 2010 report documents,25 81 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 there are significant financial costs to2 the City and its owners resulting from3 the large number of vacant properties in4 our neighborhoods. 11 Three, the right ingredients,12 jobs and strong neighborhood commercial13 corridors. The City invests in economic14 development projects that have created15 new jobs in neighborhoods. 4 million. 18 HACE's Main Street Program is part of a19 larger economic development initiative,20 and HACE continues to partner to21 revitalize the Fairhill and St. 16

Thank17 you.18 The Chair recognizes Councilman19 Jones.20

I want to21 thank you for that testimony, and I22 actually drew a lot of good public policy23 ideas out of it. I have a quick24 question.25 84 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 In light of the cuts of CDBG2 from the federal level, you helped me3 craft a bill that would require five4 percent of the total allotment of CDBG5 allocations go to mixed-use projects. In6 that new reality of our CDBG budget, how7 do you think we should proceed as a body8 looking at this pilot program?9

Well, first of all,10 I want to thank you for partnering with11 us. It was a great idea, and I think the12 pilot has just gotten started. I think13 there were four programs that were14 awarded funding.15

Yes.16

And given the track17 record of the candidates who received18 funding, I would suspect that the program19 will be a success on its launch. I think20 programs like that that generate jobs,21 create economic opportunities for22 residents and revitalize our blighted and23 abandoned properties are programs we24 continue to support, continue to move25 85 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 forward.2 It was clearly innovative,3 Councilman, I must say. I was4 overwhelmed by the fact that you sought5 and passionately moved this forward, so6 I'd like to see stuff like that7 continued.8

I guess what9 I'm trying to do is work with you and the10 Administration to analyze the impact of11 this cut from the federal government to12 see if -- I don't want to rob from Peter13 to pay for Paul, and to see if indeed14 some type of adjustment or maybe even15 possibly a suspension of it for a brief16 period of time to look at the recovery of17 our CDBG allocation. Five percent is18 five percent of a hundred or five percent19 of 50. It's still five percent. But the20 question becomes, does it impede other21 worthwhile projects and what is the value22 of that project as opposed to a mixed-use23 project.24 So I'm going to rely on your25 86 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 area of expertise to guide my decision2 and hopefully guide the rest of this body3 on that matter.4

Well, we look5 forward to working with you. I think we6 have to see what the pilot yields, what7 fruit we get from the tree, and then8 weigh that fruit against how we move it9 forward. But, true, five percent is10 going to be five percent.11

Right.12

Let's see what five13 percent does. I think it will have a14 mighty yield.15

Thank you so16 much.17 Thank you, Madam President.18

The19 Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.20

Thank you,21 Madam President.22 I just wanted to say, I would23 like to thank you and all of the members24 of the PACDC and participating groups for25 87 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 the wonderful work you have done over the2 years. Your advocacy, I got to tell you,3 as you know, we will need it more than4 ever given some of the unfortunate5 changes proposed both on the state level6 and on the City level. And I was7 particularly interested in your testimony8 today because you talked about creative9 ways of not just getting involved in10 affordable housing but also in other11 types of entrepreneurial and job12 opportunities, because we have to be very13 diverse in today's world.14 So I just wanted to commend you15 and thank you for your support, and16 hopefully we'll be getting a vote very17 shortly within the next week on the most18 recent endeavor that we're engaged in on19 the expansion of the Trust Fund20 opportunities.21

Yes, sir. Well,22 thank you, sir, and we seek to partner23 with the Council and particularly24 Councilman whenever possible on these25 88 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 new, innovative ways. I was equally2 impressed with your conference last week3 at the CCP. I think as we're beginning4 to look at how to pull ourselves out of5 this, I think we'll find our spirit and6 our dedication to trying new and7 innovative ways to show leadership and8 especially in neighborhood economic9 development. Any time we can create jobs10 and educate our residents to have better11 lives and be more entrepreneurial, I12 think we're always in a better situation.13 I'm excited because I've heard14 that it looks very good on the third15 consideration on our Trust Fund bill. So16 it should be moving out of the House, and17 we plan to be in Harrisburg within the18 coming week when it moves into the19 Senate.20

Great.21 Thank you.22

So we'll continue23 to work for that.24

Thank you.25 89 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 Thank you, Madam President.2

Thank3 you.4 The Chair recognizes5 Councilwoman Blackwell.6

Thank7 you, Madam President.8 I likewise wanted to say a9 special thank you to James White, because10 he does such a great job of being a11 liaison between the Housing Trust Board12 and PACDC and City Council. He's always13 there, always available and tries to view14 all issues from all sides. So we thank15 you for your leadership.16

Thank you.17

Thank18 you very much.19 The Chair recognizes Councilman20 Rizzo.21

Similarly,22 Mr. White, I want to thank you and the23 organization for your guidance on the24 significant piece of legislation that was25 90 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 passed by this Council on the zoning2 variance criteria. Your input made that3 a better piece of legislation, and I4 appreciate that.5

Thank you, sir.6

Thank you,7 Madam President.8

Thank9 you very much. We truly appreciate the10 work that you do.11

Thank you, Madam12 President.13

Thank14 you so much.15 Our next witness?16 MR. McPHERSON: Louise Carpino.17 (Witness approached witness18 table.)19 (Applause.)20

Good21 afternoon. Please identify yourself for22 the record and proceed with your23 testimony.24

My name is Louise25 91 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 Carpino and I am the President of AFSCME2 Local 810. 14 Our members are on the front15 lines every day doing work for the16 citizens of Philadelphia. Some of this17 work includes supervision of adult and18 juvenile offenders with mental health19 problems, drug/alcohol problems,20 educational deficiencies, housing21 problems, financial problems, employment22 problems, contagious/life-threatening23 health problems, and you can go on and24 on. 9 These are services that our10 members provide daily. These valuable11 services have never been fully understood12 nor utilized, resulting in our veteran13 officers being paid substandard wages in14 comparison to other counties in15 Pennsylvania and in comparison to16 comparable agencies in the City. This17 has caused a shortage of veteran officers18 because of the high turnover. Our19 officers quit the FJD to go to20 probation/parole in New Jersey,21 probation/parole in Philadelphia's22 surrounding counties, the Pennsylvania23 state parole, federal probation, the24 Mayor's Office of Reentry, the25 94 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 Philadelphia Inspector General's Office2 and various police departments. 18 Now, I have -- there's three of19 our veteran officers are here today to20 discuss the type of work they do just to21 give people an idea, because I don't22 think the probation is clearly23 understood. It's a combination of --24 it's not social work. It's not police25 95 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 work. It's everything all together. )6 MR. McGEE: Good afternoon. My7 name is James McGee and I'm employed by8 the Philadelphia Adult Probation and9 Parole Department as a probation officer10 in the Moderate Supervision Unit. Our11 unit is responsible for supervising those12 offenders who have been sentenced by the13 court with the condition of electronic14 monitoring. The basis of Moderate15 Supervision is to provide a structured16 alternative to incarceration. 20 Basically how electronic21 monitoring works, the defender has a22 transmitter device attached to their23 ankle. This device sends a signal24 through the home base unit to indicate25 96 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 you are home. The home unit is plugged2 into a power source and a phone line so3 it can call a computer at the Probation4 Department. As long as you are home, the5 unit indicates to the computer everything6 is okay. If an offender leaves their7 home unauthorized, the home unit will8 signal the computer and the probation9 officer will get a report that indicates10 the times you left and returned to your11 home. 14 Electronic monitoring is a very15 restrictive, intensive type of16 supervision. When an offender requests17 time out, it must be verified and18 authorized by the probation officer. The19 most common request for time out are20 employment, counseling and doctors'21 appointments. The idea is to maintain22 frequent contact with the offenders23 either in the office or in the field. By24 doing this, we can quickly gain a good25 97 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 idea of needs of the offender, such as2 job training, education or drug3 counseling. 9 I currently supervise a10 caseload of 70 offenders. They range11 from career criminals to first-time12 offenders, and their charges vary from13 sexual assault to retail theft. These14 are people in our communities and15 neighborhoods, and public safety is16 always an issue when dealing with17 offenders. )24

Thank25 98 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 you.2 The next witness. Who is your3 next witness?4

Jeanette Palmer.5

I'm6 sorry. Councilman Jones, you want to be7 recognized?8

Yes.9 One of the things in questions10 that -- we had the Deputy Mayor for11 Public Safety come on. We had the12 District Attorney come on. We had the13 First Judicial plaza come on, and all of14 them kind of touted success for the15 reduction of people that are actually16 housed in our municipal jails up on State17 Road. How does that affect your18 membership by way of probation/parole?19 If they're not in jail and they're being20 supervised, does that have an impact on21 the workload of your unit?22

You mean if23 they're let out early?24

Yes.25 99 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381

And they're on2 probation?3

Yes.4

Well, of course,5 it would increase the workload.6

I mean, I7 know it's a rhetorical, simple question,8 but I wanted to emphasize that. The9 point being that all of them are claiming10 a piece of the success. Success has many11 fathers and mothers, but what I have not12 heard is what the unintentional13 consequences on your unit and division of14 labor are. So I'm assuming if they're15 not in jail, then they're being16 supervised, it impacts you. Is that17 correct?18

Well, I mean,19 it's a complicated question. What's been20 going on for the last 20 years is that21 the criminal justice system is an -- it22 acts in concert, and the funding has23 always been increasing for the Police and24 the Prisons and it's either remained25 100 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 stable or, in some instances, decreased2 for the Courts and the District Attorney.3 So you've got the police making -- more4 police making more arrests. They're5 filtering through the system. A lot of6 that -- you know, what happened as a7 result of that was two-thirds of the8 cases were getting thrown out for time9 because of the 180-day rule. So you're10 jamming up the DA when the police make11 more arrests. You're jamming up12 Probation, because 70 percent of the13 cases that the judges adjudicate they14 send to county probation.15 So you've got all these people16 on probation. You have less probation17 officers. The people are not -- you can18 only -- you have to triage and19 prioritize, so you do the best you can.20 So without the proper supervision and21 rehabilitation, they reoffend. Depending22 on the nature of the new arrest, a23 detainer can drop on them when they're24 rearrested and they go up on State Road,25 101 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 and with a detainer status, they can't2 make bail. So a large portion of those3 people sitting up there are people that4 were on probation, they couldn't properly5 be supervised because there's not enough6 probation officers, that get rearrested7 and are sitting on detainers and can't8 make bail. And then there's the9 indeterminable delays with scheduling the10 violation hearing -- first, settling the11 new arrest, scheduling the violation12 hearing.13 But, yes, as you say, if they14 let more people out like early release,15 they'll be on probation and, of course,16 that would increase our caseload.17

There's an18 adage that for every action, there's an19 equal and opposite reaction, and to20 affect one part of the criminal justice21 system usually impacts the others, and I22 just wanted to get on the record how it23 impacted you.24

Yes. And that's25 102 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 why we feel at this point in time that2 it's so important -- well, it has always3 been important. I, frankly, don't4 understand why it was never utilized.5 Maybe it takes an economic crisis for6 something like this to come to the7 forefront. But the uneven funding of the8 whole system by front-loading it and9 back-loading it with the Police and the10 Prisons has really like -- the Police are11 spinning their wheels arresting the same12 people over and over again, and, you13 know, the jails are just -- they don't14 even have time to rehabilitate anyone.15 So it feels like things are16 moving in the right direction with the17 Criminal Justice Advisory Board and18 everyone realizing, like you said, the --19

I think20 there is an evolution of thought when it21 comes to criminal justice that we're22 moving towards preventive and maintenance23 of individuals in that system as opposed24 to strict punishment in that respect, and25 103 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 I think one of the models that a number2 of us have drawn upon is the Red Hook3 model --4

That's wonderful,5 yes.6

-- out of7 Brooklyn, New York, which I hope with the8 leadership of the Courts we start to9 evolve to. Because there should be the10 anticipation of some type of punishment11 or corrective action when someone12 offends. Does that mean hard jail time13 or does that mean rehab? Does it mean14 community service? Does it mean15 restorative justice, or does it mean all16 of the above, is the revolution of17 thought that I hope we get to.18

Yeah. I mean,19 I'm so glad it's moving that direction,20 and I think there also should be more of21 a focus on the addiction aspect as a22 public health issue as opposed to just a23 crime.24

And I won't25 104 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 delay it any longer. We are learning2 more about the anatomy of a crime, the3 anatomy of a perpetrator, the anatomy of4 an offender.5 A couple of things. If we know6 what is a common denominator, the7 District Attorney said yesterday that a8 person who -- a young person who does not9 go to school and is a hooky artist and10 cannot read by a certain level is11 predicted to be involved in the criminal12 justice system at some point in their13 life. If we know that, then truancy, if14 we know that, then literacy takes on a15 greater priority to prevent that. And,16 similarly, if in adults the majority of17 crimes there is some type of substance18 abuse, whether it's alcohol, pills or19 narcotics --20

And/or mental21 health.22

-- or mental23 health, then we can begin to take24 corrective actions and cost-effective25 105 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 corrective actions. It's not just2 somebody accused us of wanting to start3 hug-a-thug programs. That's not it. It4 is what is effective, what is cost5 effective and what is in the best6 interest of all, and I think we're7 evolving to that.8

Well, these9 individuals, they're not just living in a10 vacuum. They've got children -- you11 know, when they're sentenced -- I don't12 know if people know that either. When13 you're sentenced in Philadelphia and like14 you owe child support, let's say you get15 a year or two years, the whole time that16 you're sentenced and in jail, the clock17 stops on that child support and you never18 owe that again. It doesn't build up19 while you're sitting there and then when20 you come out, you have to make up for it.21 So it affects -- that kind of22 stuff affects families really bad, too.23 So, I mean, I'm really glad that --24 yesterday I got a glimmer of hope that25 106 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 there is light at the end of the tunnel2 and that people were actually starting to3 see, because probation isn't really4 that -- people don't really know what5 goes on.6

I just want7 to cite that a lot of that evolution of8 thought came from this body; in9 particular, Councilwoman Miller, who took10 some extraordinary steps to deal with11 some of the issues, whether it was the12 ex-offender or returning citizen, as they13 like to say, but those kinds of14 evolutions of thought have been prodded15 by a lot of the public hearings that this16 body has had, and we hope to continue17 that moving forward.18 Thank you, Madam President.19

Thank you.20

Thank21 you.22 Ms. Palmer, please identify23 yourself for the record.24

Good afternoon,25 107 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 President Verna and City Council members.2 My name is Probation Officer Jeanette3 Palmer. I am a female officer. I4 supervise female sex offenders and5 habitual prostitutes. And forgive me, I6 didn't write anything. I just wanted to7 passionately plead to you from my heart8 who we are, probation and parole9 officers, what we do.10 I have been working for the11 City of Philadelphia for almost 24 years.12 I am one of the unique people who have13 had the opportunity to work in several14 other categories that Ms. Carpino has15 told you about today. I started out as a16 court administrative officer and finally17 was brave enough to take the test after18 being with the agency for some time and19 became a probation officer.20 As a probation officer, we wear21 many hats, many, many hats. We are22 counselors, we're therapists, we're23 social workers. We have the opportunity24 that many of the people who work for the25 108 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 City do not have. We meet the judge. We2 meet the family member. We meet the3 attorney, the defense attorney, as well4 as the state's attorney. So our hands5 are in everything. It's not uncommon to6 find us here on Saturday. It's not7 uncommon to find many of us here until 88 and 9 and 10 o'clock at night working for9 not only the citizens of Philadelphia but10 for probation and parolees.11 Officer McGee talked about the12 electronic monitoring. We really care13 about our probationers and, more14 importantly, we care about the safety of15 the City. We care about ensuring that16 families are reunited. We work with DHS.17 We work with Family Court. We work with18 every entity to provide safety for this19 city. And we just would like you to know20 that we value our jobs, again, working21 with probably, as many people tell me,22 the worst of the worst, prostitutes.23 There's no redemptive value in their24 lives. They have children by multiple25 109 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 people, mostly men. They tend to have a2 high degree of communicable diseases, and3 they really are not socialized well, but4 with our agency, the things that they put5 in place, we have really transitioned6 numerous women's lives. They're reunited7 with their families. They're reunited --8 they're better people.9 And so we're passionate about10 what we do. We don't make a lot of11 money, but we do care. And we have a12 very good success rate. So we're asking13 you today to hear our petition, hear that14 we're serious about our jobs, we're15 serious about our education. We have16 people at Master's levels, doctorate17 levels. We have attorneys that work with18 our agency, and we're committed to19 keeping out city safe.20 Thank you.21

Thank22 you very much.23 (Applause.)24

Our25 110 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 next witness?2

Jennifer3 Frascella.4

Good5 afternoon.6

Good afternoon.7 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:8 Please identify yourself for the record.9

My name is10 Jennifer Frascella. I have been an adult11 probation and parole officer for the last12 13 years. I have worked in many13 positions and I've seen many changes and14 transitions to different strategies of15 supervision within our department. The16 current state of probation and parole17 supervision in Philadelphia is currently18 the most disturbing and disheartening to19 me.20 I currently supervise 400-plus21 individuals, some with multiple active22 cases, which have been deemed low risk23 for committing a future violent offense.24 This is based on a concept created by25 111 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 researchers at the University of2 Pennsylvania. This concept may seem to3 be a good idea in theory, but it neglects4 many of the most important factors in5 recidivism risk. This low-risk group of6 offenders makes up the majority of the7 current offender population that we8 supervise in our department. Most of our9 offenders are drug addicts, drug dealers,10 individuals with severe mental health11 problems, social and anger issues and12 everything in between. These offenders13 are no longer receiving the type of14 supervision that many so badly need and15 crave to have any hint of successful16 transition back into society.17 They are mandated to report in18 person once every six months. This makes19 it impossible to monitor drug use or try20 to implement a successful form of21 treatment. Most of these individuals22 receive the bare minimum of our attention23 and are pushed through to simply get24 through a probation and parole period25 112 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 with little support or supervision. I2 truly believe that this is a horrible3 disservice to the individuals on4 probation and parole as well as to our5 community.6 This lack of supervision has7 also affected the relationships that we8 have with the families and friends of9 these individuals, who are desperate to10 get help for their loved ones. We have11 our hands tied, and our Administration is12 forcing us to strictly abide by the13 current supervision model. It has14 everything to do with officer shortages15 and very little resources.16 I certainly do not place any17 blame on my Administration. It is doing18 the best that it can with the little19 money that it has to work with at this20 time. I believe that it is sad and21 irresponsible to let this continue. We22 work very hard just to be able to get the23 bare minimum of work done each day, and24 this is no longer acceptable to us.25 113 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 We do not receive praises or2 accolades. We do not receive overtime or3 any other type of compensation for our4 work. We do this job because we want to5 help people make better choices in their6 lives and, most importantly, to keep our7 communities safe.8 There are very few officers9 like myself remaining in the department.10 Most officers burn out quickly and leave11 the criminal justice field altogether.12 At this point, there's simply no13 incentive to stay. Please help us to14 correct this very unfortunate situation.15 (Applause.)16 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:17 Excuse me. Excuse me. Did I understand18 you to say that you supervise 400 --19

Yes.20

--21 parolees?22 And how frequently do you see23 them?24

The current --25 114 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 this particular supervision model is2 called "low risk" and it comprises about3 60 percent plus of all the individuals on4 probation and parole at this time. And5 the way the model states that we need to6 see them is, we need to have a contact7 once every three months, which rotates8 between a phone contact and an in-office.9 So we literally only see them once every10 six months, regardless of the charge.11

Has12 that always been the policy?13

It has not.14 This is only within the last two, two and15 a half years.16

Thank17 you. Thank you.18 Our next witness?19 MR. McPHERSON: Todd Baylson.20 (Witness approached witness21 table.)22

Good afternoon.23

Good24 afternoon.25 115 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381

My name is Todd2 Baylson. I work for the Pennsylvania3 Horticultural Society. Council President4 Verna, honorable City Council members,5 friends, colleagues and fellow citizens,6 it's a pleasure to be here today to speak7 on behalf of the Pennsylvania8 Horticultural Society in support of the9 budget and work of the Philadelphia10 Department of Parks and Recreation.11 For those of you who don't12 know, the Pennsylvania Horticultural13 Society has been in existence since 1827.14 We produce the annual Philadelphia15 International Flower Show, which welcomed16 more than 260,000 people to the17 Pennsylvania Convention Center last18 March, and since 1973, we have been19 working on greening Philadelphia through20 our Philadelphia Green program. With the21 help of citizens, elected officials and22 City government, we work to build23 community through horticulture.24 Today we certainly understand25 116 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 the challenges and constraints on all2 levels of government and specifically our3 challenges here in Philadelphia. We face4 these financial challenges ourselves, and5 we are not at all opposed to more nimble6 and innovative budget and operational7 thinking. To switch things up a little8 bit, though, I'd encourage you to think9 briefly about your and your fellow10 citizens' key priorities for the future11 through a quick exercise.12 What pops into your mind when13 you envision phrases like "cities of the14 future," "neighborhoods of choice," or15 "great neighborhoods"? I'd also ask you16 to think about what my peers in our 20's17 and 30's, the young adults, might see in18 their minds when asked those same19 questions.20 Rather than recount the many21 statistics and detailed studies that22 highlight the importance of greening and23 trees to successful neighborhoods, I'd24 ask you to think about where you want to25 117 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 live and what it is like. Chances are,2 there's a great park nearby, and that is3 what we owe the residents of the City of4 Philadelphia.5 These types of places are what6 we need to strive to be to be a7 successful city and to have Philadelphia8 realize its great potential. I bet that9 all of those neighborhoods include great10 public spaces, gorgeous accessible parks,11 well-cared-for trees and outdoor play12 areas so that young children can learn13 the importance of nature and grow to14 respect it.15 Thank you very much for the16 opportunity, and know that PHS remains17 eager to help the City in any way we can.18

Thank19 you very much. We do appreciate your20 coming in to testify.21 Our next witness?22 MR. McPHERSON: Francis23 Pileggi.24

Is25 118 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 Mr. Pileggi here?2 (No response.)3 MR. McPHERSON: Thomas4 Giancristoforo.5 (Witness approached witness6 table.)7

Good8 afternoon. Welcome. Please identify9 yourself for the record and proceed with10 your testimony.11

Thank you,12 President Verna and Councilmembers. 14 Good afternoon, members of City15 Council and President Verna. My name is16 David Schreiber. 3 Although called the4 Philadelphia International Airport,5 Tinicum Township is host to over6 two-thirds of the total area of the7 Airport. 23 Last week, Airport CEO24 presented to you the 2012 fiscal year25 120 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 budget for the Philadelphia International2 Airport. 4 This is the plan that will further expand5 the Airport into Tinicum in various ways6 and is touted as the means by which the7 Airport and the FAA will deal with the8 delays and congestion at PHL. First, let9 me say that there is serious doubt among10 many that this plan will address the11 congestion and delays affecting the12 Airport. Second, there is serious doubt13 even among the airlines at Philadelphia14 International that this plan is15 necessary. When Airport officials16 provide facts and figures regarding the17 CEP, it makes it seem as if the Capacity18 Enhancement Plan is nothing but19 wonderful. 24 While debate over the necessity25 121 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 of a Capacity Enhancement Plan is too2 vast and expansive to give it justice in3 this forum, Tinicum Township would urge4 City Council to undertake a more thorough5 review of the issue before approving any6 funds towards such a project. This is7 especially true since we learned just8 this past December at a public hearing of9 City Council's joint Committee on10 Legislative Oversight and Transportation11 and Public Utilities that those in charge12 of the Airport never even bothered to13 keep City Council informed of their plans14 over a ten-year period. 20 At last week's budget hearing,21 Councilman Kenney made reference to a22 visit he and Councilman Jones were to23 make to Tinicum Township. Unfortunately,24 Mr. Jones was called away for an25 122 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 emergency. However, his Chief of Staff2 and another of his representatives did3 visit us with Councilman Kenney and met4 with residents and saw the neighborhood5 elementary school that would be affected6 by the CEP. 9 The Township has stated10 publicly on many occasions that we11 recognize the vital role the12 International Airport plays in the13 economy of the region and respect all of14 the hard-working people in the Delaware15 Valley that earn their living by working16 at or for the Airport. 24 While he did not mention it in25 123 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 last week's testimony, Mr. Gale testified2 in December 2010 that the ten-year3 planning process and seven-year4 environmental review of the CEP included5 20 public meetings and four public6 hearings between August 2003 and October7 2008. While this might be technically8 true, his statements might be interpreted9 to mean that there was meaningful10 dialogue with the public and that the11 public input was considered. 19 Mr. Gale further stated that 2920 potential Airport configurations were21 reviewed and analyzed during this22 process. 2 At no time did either PHL or the FAA seek3 input from the public or, more4 importantly, Tinicum Township and5 Delaware County on a potential6 configuration. In fact, the Township had7 requested several times, all to no avail,8 from the Deputy Mayor of Transportation9 the opportunity to review the 2910 proposals. 12 The testimony provided by13 Airport officials last week might lead14 one to believe that Tinicum Township had15 ample opportunity for input, but nothing16 could be further from the truth. 23 The environmental impact24 statement put out by the FAA for this25 125 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 project contains a virtual laundry list2 of negative impacts that Tinicum3 Township, Delaware County and the4 Interboro School District would be faced5 with.

10 During the December 201011 hearing, several witnesses provided much12 doomsday testimony to the effect that if13 this Capacity Enhancement Program did not14 move forward, the City of Philadelphia's15 prosperity would be condemned to a bleak16 future. The joint committee heard much17 of this testimony from members of various18 groups such as the PHL Advisory Board,19 the Philadelphia Convention and Visitors20 Bureau and the Greater Philadelphia21 Tourism and Marketing Corporation. 9 Why? Because the amount of traffic10 demands more than one. 13 Does New York miss out on conventions,14 vacationers, visitors or major events15 because of this? Certainly not. 18 Much of Boston's traffic is19 serviced by an airport in New Hampshire,20 without any loss of the events scheduled21 there. 7 Philadelphia is surrounded by8 many regional assets that can serve the9 City and its neighbors in substantial10 ways. To assert that the only feasible11 way to grow the region is to grow only12 one airport is both shortsighted and13 wrong. Proponents of the Airport14 Expansion Program consistently state that15 travelers will only want to come to PHL16 and that airlines will only want to fly17 into and out of PHL. This may be true if18 only PHL is marketed and promoted. 24 What is needed is a25 128 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 comprehensive regional approach to the2 issues at PHL. We heard much from many3 contingents about growing the economy of4 the region. 7 One final point I would like to8 make is that the main residents at the9 Airport, the largest passenger and10 freight airlines, are not at all11 convinced that this Capacity Plan is12 needed. 5 Further, none of the major6 carriers at the Airport can justify the7 passenger and plane operations growth8 that the CEP is based upon. 17 Thank you for your time this18 afternoon, and we remain open to19 discussions with you and officials on20 constructive ways to further the economy21 of the region. 23

Thank24 you very much. We appreciate your25 130 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 attendance.2 (Applause.)3 MR. McPHERSON: Our next4 witness is Patrick Barr.5 (No response.)6

Is7 Patrick Barr here?8

No, ma'am.9 MR. McPHERSON: Nick10 Miccarelli?11

No, sir.12 MR. McPHERSON: Jack Whelan?13

No.14 MR. McPHERSON: John McBlain?15

No.16 MR. McPHERSON: Sam Auslander?17

18 MR. )21 MR. McCANN: Good afternoon,22 President Verna, members of Philadelphia23 City Council. 5 I'd ask for just a little6 latitude on the time. This is an issue7 that, as the Township Manager mentioned8 in his reciting of President9 Giancristoforo's remarks, there are a lot10 of issues with this that we certainly11 would not be able to accurately have12 enough time to decipher through all of13 them, but I would ask for a little14 latitude, especially in the fact that we15 had a long list of people who have16 graciously deferred some of their time to17 me. 20 I want to start out by21 recognizing that I see Councilman Jones22 here and wanted to thank him for sending23 Mrs. Bricklin and Mr. Spivey down. When24 we found out that you had an emergency, I25 132 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 want to let you know that myself and2 several of our other members said some3 prayers for your family, and I also want4 to let you know that the people that you5 sent down did an exceptional job of6 representing your office. They were7 absolutely wonderful people, and it was a8 great time that we had. 17 And like Philadelphia, we have a lot of18 history in our own community. In fact,19 we're very proud of the notion that20 Tinicum Township is actually the21 birthplace of Pennsylvania. It was the22 first permanent settlement in23 Pennsylvania in 1643 as the colony of New24 Sweden. 2 Sadly, part of that culture3 today is the Airport, which we're proud4 about. However, we are not proud at the5 way that we've been treated. 10 During that time, Councilman11 Goode and Councilwoman Reynolds Brown had12 indicated some concerns on the13 disadvantaged business enterprise14 contracts at the Airport, and I certainly15 believe diversity inclusion are16 important, and that's something that17 Councilwoman Reynolds Brown has18 encouraged be mentioned in the City19 Council hearings. 3 And just so you understand4 where I'm going with this, what the5 Councilman indicated was a contractor6 would say they have a target of maybe 307 percent for DBE money and the end result8 would actually be something maybe around9 12 or 15 percent, and he was indicating10 he wanted proof of what that contractor's11 track record was and, for lack of a12 better phrase, not just the lip service13 that comes forward on a proposal. " In fact, in22 the December 2nd, 2010 testimony before23 the Legislative Committee on24 Transportation and Public Utilities, the25 135 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 Airport CEO had four and a half pages of2 prepared testimony. 19 The GAO conducted a study. And20 I have a copy here. 23 The GAO furnished a study that24 was released in December of 2009. It's25 136 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 GAO Report 1020. 12 On , you'll also see,13 FAA regional offices have some latitude14 in determining which projects to fund,15 and the FAA's funding and support of16 regional airport planning itself may vary17 within the agency and by project. 14 So for the public record of15 their admissions to the GAO, they do16 their own planning. 3 And I'm also not foolish in4 understanding the responsibilities that5 members of Philadelphia City Council6 have. 14 But we're always readily available, as15 are our Township officials and Delaware16 County officials, with being able to17 speak with members of Philadelphia City18 Council, especially because we do share19 another common bond. 7 On October 7th, 2010, Mayor Michael8 Nutter created a 19-member Airport9 Advisory Board, 19 people. There's not a10 single person from Tinicum Township on11 that Advisory Board. Nineteen folks at12 the table, two-thirds of the Airport is13 located in our town and then you're going14 to say in that same press conference15 where you're announcing we're going to16 work as a city and as a region.

I don't17 understand how anybody applying any level18 of common sense could think that that's a19 regional input when our town, right,20 wrong or indifferent, is absolutely the21 most impacted, positively and negatively,22 by the Airport. 15 I also want to touch briefly on16 environmental issues. 2 Now, I think it's important3 that Council understands, especially as4 it relates to a budget proceeding, that5 this process is supposed to take a long6 period of time, and Councilman Kenney's7 questions were very, very accurate in the8 sense that he was concerned as to whether9 or not they would be able to even10 complete this project because the11 required environmental permits have not12 been obtained. 25 142 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 But I also want to talk about2 something that the Airport CEO mentioned3 in his testimony on April 12th. He4 indicated the Airport is committed to5 providing green initiatives, and one of6 the things that he looked at as an7 accomplishment, he actually mentioned8 that the Airport was looking at acquiring9 three electric service vans to be used at10 the Airport. Quite frankly, I believe in11 trying to be positive and not be12 adversarial, but sometimes our hands seem13 to be forced by the way that we've been14 treated. And to me, to mention a15 highlight about green initiatives talking16 about the purchase of three electric17 service vans at the same testimony that18 you're advocating filling in 25 acres of19 the Delaware River and destroying over20 100 acres of wetlands is absolutely21 incredulous. 23 But I also want to talk to City24 Council today about some of the specifics25 143 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 with those acres. I brought along with2 me today a copy of the FAA's Record of3 Decision. 7 In the FAA's Record of8 Decision, there is an Attachment G in the9 back. Now, during the testimony on April10 12th when Councilman Kenney was speaking11 with the Airport CEO, he indicated about12 the environmental concerns, and the13 Airport CEO stated that they had to do14 what they call wetlands mitigation. In15 layman's terms, Madam President, pursuant16 to current law, when you have an acre of17 wetlands disturbed or destroyed, you have18 to replace it with at least one acre of19 wetlands. 21 Again, the over 100 acres that22 are slated to be taken or disturbed in23 this are predominantly located within the24 boundaries of Tinicum Township, Delaware25 144 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 County. On Attachment G, when the2 Airport CEO indicated in his testimony3 that they're doing wetlands mitigation,4 he didn't get into specifics, and I can5 prove to you why. Attachment G of this6 Record of Decision lists 20 different7 locations of where the proposed wetlands8 mitigation is going to be. In other9 words, for the over 100 acres they're10 taking in Delaware County, we're going to11 do at least that much or more wetlands12 mitigation. Nineteen of those 2013 locations are outside of Tinicum14 Township, all located within the City of15 Philadelphia, including areas like Tacony16 and Port Richmond that are nowhere near17 Philadelphia International Airport. 22 So I would say to you again, if23 you wonder why you see elected officials24 from Delaware County being upset, if you25 145 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 wonder why you see residents from Tinicum2 Township coming in here and being upset,3 I mean, what else would you expect us to4 be? Nineteen people in October you put5 on an Airport Advisory Board. You don't6 put one person from Tinicum, again, where7 two-thirds of the Airport lies. You're8 proposing a plan that you've been doing9 without any real input from us. You're10 talking about taking over 100 acres of11 wetlands from our community and12 disrupting and pillaging it and then13 you're going to give us less than half a14 an acre in return.

I mean, it's really15 very disturbing to me, especially16 because -- Councilman Kenney, Councilman17 Jones, Councilwoman Reynolds Brown, I18 have actually a renewed faith by the way19 that we've been treated by those three20 respective Council folks, and that's not21 to say that others wouldn't be that way,22 but I haven't had the pleasure of having23 dealings with them as I have with these24 three. They're open-minded. They're25 146 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 understanding. 4 I don't want you to think that5 this is something where we want to be6 adversarial. We recognize not only the7 importance of this Airport for8 Pennsylvania, but I would take it a step9 further and say we're all residents of10 the Delaware Valley region and we're all11 Americans. Nobody is boarding a plane at12 PHL and taking off and landing right back13 at PHL again. PHL is tied into the14 national airspace system. So we're all15 in this together. Whether you're flying16 to Los Angeles or Beijing or anywhere in17 between, we're all in this together and18 we need the airspace system and the19 Airport to function properly. But to20 exclude folks, I mean, to me, it doesn't21 make any sense, especially because we22 also had testimony December 2nd before23 Philadelphia City Council's Legislative24 Committee that 50 percent of the people25 147 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 that use Philadelphia International2 Airport are New Jersey residents. 6 I mean, it is apparent to me,7 if I can speak candid, it's apparent to8 me as it relates to the Airport CEO and9 the Deputy Mayor of Transportation, the10 only time the region really matters is11 when they determine how much money they12 can take from the residents of the13 suburban Pennsylvania counties as well as14 New Jersey and Delaware and Northern15 Maryland, because we haven't been treated16 with any kind of fairness or input,17 despite the fact that I think we've been18 very reasonable. And I think if Madam19 President or any members of City Council20 would consult with Councilman Kenney or21 Councilman Jones or their staff members,22 you'll understand what we're talking23 about. We had a wonderful time hosting24 them in our town at a luncheon and a bus25 148 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 tour, showing them some of the finer2 points of our community. 7

Thank8 you, and I would really appreciate it if9 I could have copies of whatever reports10 you have that you referred to.11 MR. McCANN: Yes.12

If13 you would mail them to me, I'd appreciate14 it.15 MR. McCANN: I will be happy to16 do that.17

Thank18 you.19 The Chair recognizes Councilman20 Jones.21

11 If it's a regional airport, which it is,12 if it's a regional asset, which it is, if13 it's a national asset, it should be14 inclusive. This body talks about15 inclusion all the time, and it calls for16 that and the good spirit to our brothers17 and sisters in Tinicum Township. 3 MR. McCANN: Has it improved at4 all? No. Have they reached out? 10 I'll give you an example of11 what the problems that we encounter. At12 the April 12th proceeding, the Airport13 CEO was asked about that, and he14 indicated in his testimony that we tried15 to reach out to Tinicum Township16 officials, but they refused to meet with17 us, and that's how he ended it. Well, I18 can tell you that is not the contents of19 the letter that was sent there. The20 reason why the Township officials refused21 to meet is because the Township said they22 absolutely will not budge on the 7223 residential properties that are slated to24 be acquired as part of this expansion25 151 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 project. 5 He indicated in the letter --6 and I'm sure the Township Manager would7 be happy to provide a copy. 10 He indicated that if the City11 would take the acquisition of the12 residential homes off of the plan, then13 the Township would be more than willing14 to sit down. 16 One other thing, if you would17 allow me, Councilman Jones, there was one18 other point that I wanted to indicate19 about some of the problems that we20 encounter. We actually end up having to21 spend so much of our time drawing22 attention sometimes to what's not being23 said versus the devil being in the24 details of this plan. You'll listen a25 152 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 lot of times to generalities about delays2 and problems and reasons and3 justification for expansion. We've never4 argued about improvements. 8 But as a specific example, at9 the December 2nd, 2010 hearing, the10 Airport CEO offered testimony that11 Philadelphia was the fourth most delayed12 airport in the country. He specifically13 mentioned that. Now, in the research14 that I've been able to do, which I'm15 becoming an aviation expert through all16 of this, I can tell you, but the research17 that I've been able to do, I have to look18 at the fact that the Airport CEO was19 offering that testimony based on figures20 provided by the National Air Traffic21 Controller's Association. The Air22 Traffic Controller's union of the FAA23 does the publication of the airports and24 they look at delays by arrivals and25 153 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 departures and they rank them. 4 So when the Airport CEO5 testified at this Council Chambers in6 December of 2010, again, he cited PHL was7 the fourth most delayed airport in the8 country, and that was based on the Air9 Traffic Controller's data. However, the10 Air Traffic Controller data is published11 over a nine-month period. 15 The new figures that were released for16 airport delays ended in December,17 December 31st. So that information18 wasn't available to him. 14

I appreciate15 your input.16 Madam President, we may want to17 ask the Aviation Director to address some18 of these concerns and provide it to you19 as Chair.20

I'd21 be very happy to do that.22 I just have one question. In23 the previous witness's testimony, it was24 said that in meetings between Mayor25 155 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 Nutter and the Tinicum Township Board of2 Commissioners, it was revealing to find3 out that there are many aspects of the4 plan that His Honor is not aware of5 himself.6 Did anything transpire after7 that? Did the Mayor indicate what8 direction he was going to be suggesting9 that the City go in connection with this10 issue?11

Yes. What was12 suggested the last time we had gotten13 together was to -- well, previous to --14 let me give you some background as well15 as take a step back.16 During that meeting, it had17 been mentioned that our engineers, our18 Township engineers, were asked to take a19 look at the footprint of the Airport and20 the reconfiguration that has been21 suggested to see if perhaps a different22 footprint could be arranged so that we23 wouldn't have to sacrifice 72 residential24 homes with approximately 150 or so25 156 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 residents there, including school2 children that go to the "Blue Ribbon"3 school in Tinicum, and to get those4 engineers together to see what they might5 be able to work out collectively. So the6 Mayor had suggested that that take place7 as soon as possible.8 We have reached out to the9 Mayor's Office subsequent to that10 meeting, and that meeting was held a week11 ago Monday. So we have reached out to12 the Mayor's Office as well as the13 Aviation Director's Office -- I think14 he's called CEO now -- to get them15 together as soon as possible so that can16 take place.17 The Mayor is a gentleman and we18 respect his opinion, and he had19 confirmed -- he had committed to us that20 he would work with us going forward to21 arrive at a solution that everybody can22 live with. So we're still working23 towards that end, but we haven't really24 gotten anywhere at this point.25 157 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381

Well,2 apparently the Airport officials have3 been doing a great job in keeping this a4 secret.5

It was6 revealing to us. I mean, it was7 eye-opening to us when we came here in8 December.9

I10 just cannot believe it.11 (Applause.)12 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:13 However, we will definitely be in touch14 with the Administration. I just don't15 understand. When you were in here I16 believe previously, you were upset and17 concerned, and justifiably so, that the18 Airport Advisory Committee out of 1419 members did not have anyone from Tinicum.20 MR. McCANN: Nineteen, Madam21 President.22

I'm23 sorry; what did I say, nine?24 MR. McCANN: Fourteen. It's25 158 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 19.2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:3 Fourteen? I'm sorry. Nineteen. I stand4 corrected.5 If you will, I would appreciate6 your forwarding to my attention a copy of7 the reports that you talked about today.8 MR. McCANN: Yes, I will. And9 if it's okay too, I'll take the liberty10 of submitting with that a 15-page11 petition that our organization submitted12 to U.S. Department of Transportation13 Secretary LaHood outlining some other14 concerns from a federal requirements15 standpoint. So it will be the Record of16 Decision, the GAO report and our17 organization's petition.18

Very19 well. Thank you so much for coming in.20 We do appreciate it.21

Thank you,22 Madam President.23 MR. McCANN: Thank you.24

Thank25 159 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 you.2 (Applause.)3

Our4 next witness?5 MR. McPHERSON: Delores Waldek.6 (Witness approached witness7 table.)8

Good afternoon,9 President Verna and present Council. I10 am also a proud member of RAAED. My name11 is Delores Waldek and I live at 40912 Manhattan Street, which is one of the 7213 homes slated for demolition. 25 160 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 I hear Mr. Gale boast of a four2 percent enplanement increase in September3 2009 through February 2010. Also being4 hailed are the statistics involving the5 international flights' cargo carriers,6 tenant airlines making PHL the ninth7 busiest airport in the United States and8 eleventh worldwide in terms of takeoff9 and landings. And here is additional10 good news for PHL that was not mentioned11 by Mr. Gale. 17 I also heard talk of the18 benefits that passengers will experience19 with the amenities that include pet and20 power ports, moving sidewalks, a large21 14-lane passenger security screening22 area, companion care restroom facility,23 4,000 square foot concession space,24 state-of-the-art check baggage inspection25 161 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 system, and an art and exhibit program,2 to name a few. Also to be commended are3 the efforts concerning children with4 autism and their special needs. I do5 truly applaud these insights. 9 However, when it comes to the10 concerns of the citizens of Tinicum, the11 Interboro School District and Delaware12 County, our amenities and quality of life13 seem to be expendable. The rhetoric of14 including the region in this master plan15 needs to be exposed for the fallacy it16 is. And here are a few items to be17 addressed: Of course, the 19-member18 Airport Advisory Board, the mitigations19 of over 80 acres of wetlands. Mr. Gale20 claims that regional businesses will21 benefit from this CEP. 3 Mr. 8 Also to be addressed, further9 victimizing the region through additional10 loss of tax base revenue, threatening11 municipal services and the possible12 closing of our Tinicum "Blue Ribbon"13 school. 19 Other concerns we have are20 shared by the EPA in regards to the21 incinerator ash landfill presently under22 the runway being disturbed during23 construction and contaminating the24 aquifer. 4 Mr. Gale, you say that this5 expansion project is needed to meet the6 traveler's demand 20, 30, 40 years in the7 future. Not barring any unusual delays8 associated with construction, permits,9 mitigation, et cetera, the future10 timeframe you mention will be consumed in11 half by the very practice imposed to12 improve it, not to mention those pesky13 cost overruns. 19 I/we are not against the20 Philadelphia Airport. 5 In that decision, Philadelphia had the6 right of power of eminent domain, and as7 a result, there are more parking lots,8 hotels and displaced citizens gearing up9 to be victimized once again. 13 And one other thought. If you14 remember last time, December 2nd, we had15 representation from our elected16 officials, which are absent today. 8

Thank9 you very much.10

You're welcome.11 (Applause.)12

Our13 next witness?14 MR. McPHERSON: Patrick15 McCarthy.16 (No response.)17

Is18 Mr. McCarthy here?19 (No response.)20 MR. McPHERSON: David21 Schreiber. Oh, okay.22 Glenn Waldek.23 (Witness approached witness24 table with guitar.)25 166 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381

Good afternoon.2

I3 think you called and you were told that4 you would not be permitted to do this.5

No. I did call6 and inquire. I never received a return7 call. This is an expression of my8 testimony, and I would --9 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:10 Please, sit down. Do whatever it is11 you're going to do.12

I'm going to13 testify, Madam President.14

Well,15 please sit down, identify yourself and go16 on with your testimony.17

Well, I'd prefer18 to stand with my guitar, thank you.19 My name is Glenn Waldek and I20 reside at 409 Manhattan Street, at least21 for the time being, and I wrote this song22 25 years ago when I moved into that23 neighborhood at the end of the street. I24 was eating mulberries from the tree25 167 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 and --2

You have to3 sit or you have to leave.4

I have to sit or I5 have to leave? Okay. Well, could I6 bother you for a chair without arms,7 then, please? I'm just trying to express8 my First Amendment rights here.9

Sir, the10 other ones are all stuck together.11

Oh, they're stuck12 together?13 Okay. I hope this doesn't take14 into my three minutes. Yes, sir.15

All16 right. Please. It's okay, do whatever.17

All right. What a18 mood-setter.19 Here we go.20 (Witness singing and playing21 guitar.)22

Well, my hometown23 is surrounded by questionable health.24 The industrial highway, that speaks for25 168 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 itself. Oil refineries foul up the air,2 and there's so many people. Who'd want3 to live there? That's a good question.4 But at the end of the street is5 my heart's desire. Call it swamp, call6 it marsh, call it a quagmire. But it's7 home for the turtles and the fish and the8 birds. It needs constant protection from9 expanding suburbs. Don't let it fall10 prey to the developer's plot, because11 they'll drain it and fill it and pave the12 whole lot.13 Give them an inch and they'll14 pour the whole yard.15 Well, now, Interstate 95 runs16 north and south, with eight lanes of17 highway to sort it all out. The18 Schuylkill Expressway won't run east or19 west during rush hour traffic, with the20 drivers all stressed.21 But I know a spot where the22 road doesn't go, but to keep it that way,23 you've got to stay on your toes. And24 that's why I'm changing this place where25 169 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 I dwell. My family's from here. My2 heart knows it well. And there's a small3 piece of heaven blessed from above, just4 outside the City of Brotherly Love.5 I can feel the love here today,6 baby. I can feel the love.7 Well, the Airport is noisy with8 folks on the go, the taxi, the tarmac,9 every minute or so. You can't hear10 yourself think. You can't talk on the11 phone. It will rattle your windows clear12 down to your bones.13 But in the still of the evening14 when that hustle is all gone, you can15 savor the sweet sound of the spring16 peeper's song. You can backstroke with a17 muskrat. You can sly with a fox. You18 can hunt with a horned owl, take it over19 the top. You can migrate with the egret,20 the heron and the geese. It's an audio21 oasis. It's a cultural feast.22 And that's why I've chosen this23 place where I dwell. My family's from24 here. My heart knows it well. And25 170 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 there's a small piece of heaven blessed2 from above, just outside the City of3 Brotherly Love.4 Thank you.5

Thank6 you. Thank you very much.7 (Applause.)8

Our9 next witness?10 MR. McPHERSON: Walter11 Kalesnik.12 (Witness approached witness13 table.)14

Good15 afternoon, sir.16

Thank you.17 Thank you for giving us the opportunity18 to speak. I am Walter Kalesnik. I'm19 from Tinicum Township, Lester, Delaware20 County. I have very few comments, but21 the biggest thing I want to say is like22 I've lived in that neighborhood for 6423 years and they're going to take it down.24 They're going to take 72 homes down, and25 171 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 what they're going to do with that space2 is make a parking lot. It makes3 absolutely no sense at all to me. I4 would compare it to this room as the5 whole plan and they would take one desk6 out and make a parking lot over there.7 It's ludicrous.8 They would destroy the whole9 fabric of the Township, because 72 homes10 is a lot of homes, and the ones that came11 down to visit saw the neighborhood and12 believe it's a nice neighborhood.13 We've put up with the Airport14 for quite a few years, you know, and15 we've learned to live with it, but we16 don't want to leave, and that's what this17 would do, it would force us to move out.18 Thank you.19

Thank20 you. We do appreciate your coming in and21 expressing your feelings, and I'm sure22 that several of us will be looking into23 this. Thank you very much.24

Good. Thank25 172 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 you.2 (Applause.)3

Do we4 have anyone else that would like to5 testify? Please approach the witness6 table.7 (Witness approached witness8 table.)9

Good10 afternoon.11

12 Last but not least, right? My name is13 Leslie Benoliel. I'm the Executive14 Director of Entrepreneur Works. 17 First of all, good afternoon,18 President Verna and distinguished members19 of Council, ladies. 6 Entrepreneur Works is a partner7 of the Urban Affairs Coalition. 18 Last year, more than 30019 entrepreneurs benefited from our loans20 and business support services. 6 I am here today to share with7 you why I believe that assisting small8 businesses is essential to stimulating9 our city's economy. 16 Micro enterprises are essential17 for creating jobs here in Philadelphia18 and for expanding economic opportunities19 in our neighborhoods. 25 175 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381 The statistics bear this out year after2 year. 14 Micro enterprises are the15 smallest of small businesses, and those16 are businesses with five or fewer17 employees. 22 Nearly one in seven, 1423 percent, of all employees in Philadelphia24 works for a micro enterprise. 8 They are the daycare centers,9 home repair contractors, graphic10 designers, fruit and vegetable vendors,11 barber shops, bakeries, landscapers,12 neighborhood grocery stores and much13 more. 9 We know this is a wise10 investment and a worthy strategic use of11 our scarce resources. It must remain a12 top priority. We urge you to support13 this investment for small and micro14 businesses and even ask that you would15 consider increasing this investment. 25 178 4/27/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101381

Thank2 you. Thank you very much.3 Did you want to add something4 to what you said?5

No.6

No.7

No.8 I'm talking to the gentleman.9 Thank you very much. We10 appreciate your coming in.11 This Committee will stand in12 recess until Tuesday, May the 3rd at 2:0013 p.m.14 Thank you all very much.15 (Committee of the Whole16 adjourned at 3:00 p.m.)17 - - -18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 179 CERTIFICATE2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the3 proceedings, evidence and objections are4 contained fully and accurately in the5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on April 27, 2011, and that7 this is a true and correct transcript of same.8 9 10 11 12 --------------------13 MICHELE L. MURPHY14 RPR-Notary Public15 16 17 18 (The foregoing certification of this19 transcript does not apply to any reproduction20 of the same by any means, unless under the21 direct control and/or supervision of the22 certifying reporter.)23 24 25