Well, I have the names here. The composition would be helpful. 132 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
Lastly, you spoke that you're in the process of seeking to help the Board be more diverse so that it does include women of color.
Executive Committee. And which would include Asian, Latino and African American. Share with us briefly, if you're at liberty to do that, what that process is.
Generally speaking, there's a nominating committee that seeks out new members and tries to interest them in the work of the group and tries to eventually bring them on to the Executive Committee or the Board.
So there are possibly members of the current Board of Directors who may be elevated, if you will, to the Executive Committee? Because I am able to identify one woman of color, not knowing how long she's been there, who may be suitable or have earned 133 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 a bright stripes to be elevated to Executive Committee.
Yeah. I would have to read our bylaws, which I haven't done in quite some time, but there are certain positions on the Executive Committee that are guaranteed by the bylaws, such as the heads of certain subcommittees. But, generally speaking, the members of the Executive Committee can be elevated from the Board or just moved in from outside.
Okay. And then, finally, when it comes to the reports that the Committee of Seventy distributes, what is that process? How does that happen? Staff collect information, do the research, hire consultants and then pass it up the line, or does the Board drive down what actions, what reports they want to see happen?
Usually it's the staff initiating a report and doing the 134 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 work and someone -- some set of people from the Board who might be vetting it to make sure that it's fair or represents the position of the group in general.
And in the process of the prospectives and viewpoints of the BRT, what process was used?
Pretty much that process. In this case, the "Tackling True Reform," which Ellen wrote, was produced by the staff and then vetted, if I recall correctly, by the co-chairs of the Policy Committee, Marilyn Kutler, who used to be a City Solicitor, and Dave Franceski.
Councilwoman, we also have of the Committee of Seventy four separate --
Excuse me, please. Please identify yourself for the record.
I'm Ellen Mattleman Kaplan. I'm 135 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Vice-President and Policy Director of the Committee of Seventy.
We have a policy committee that has four separate subcommittees. One deals with ethics, one deals with elections, one deals with civic education, the other one deals with government reform. We have been discussing reforms at the Board of Revision of Taxes for at least six months, if not longer, and all of the recommendations that are in our testimony today came up through the government reform subcommittee. We discussed them. Then we discuss them at the Board level. We discuss them at the Executive Committee level.
So if that's been the last six months, was that before or after the Inquirer report?
Actually, the Committee of Seventy has 136 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 talked about reforming the BRT -- I think Zack found seven times over the last how many years?
Over the last several decades, actually. And we've testified here before on this issue. It was -- that's to take nothing away from the Inquirer series. I think the City would not have been galvanized to action if people hadn't really engaged in that series. So that's what moved us in the latest version.
There would be many who would agree with the fact that but for the Philadelphia Inquirer, it put up close and in your face why we as leadership, at the leadership level and us as the legislative body and the Mayor's Office, needed to fix what all of us view to be a broken, unfair system. Thank you for your testimony.
If I could, you and I have a good relationship, and if 137 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 you have names for the Board, I'd love to hear them, because we're interested in more and more good folks.
I will enthusiastically step up to that offer. The Urban League of Philadelphia and Leadership, Inc. is in the business of identifying emerging leaders who want to participate at a policy level, and I'm sure Majority Leader Councilwoman Tasco and I could both offer that up. The Urban League of Philadelphia actually is in the business of training African American emerging leaders so that they can move into positions of or be invited to positions of leadership and responsibility where they care to make a difference in the future of this city. So I will certainly take you up on that offer.
The ethics rules would probably say no, but I thank 138 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 you for the offer. Thank you, Madam President.
What is the criteria for membership on the Board of the Committee of Seventy?
I don't believe it's formally stated. Generally speaking, there are democrats and republicans. There are people who live in the City, who don't live in the City. The thing that folks have in common is they have an interest in public life in the Philadelphia area and affecting public life in Philadelphia. As Ellen said, some of them are interested in ethics and some of them are interested in elections and so forth. They all have a different interest, but they, generally 139 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 speaking, they're accomplished in their particular professional roles and interested in having an effect on public life.
And you talk about that -- you stated that you are a regional organization and you're becoming more regional. How will Philadelphia fit in that whole picture of being a regional entity? Does that dilute the participation of Philadelphians on your committee?
No, I don't think so. Probably our historic orientation is always to focus primarily on City Hall and what happens here, and to be quite frank, we're finding that it's not all that easy to move outside of Philadelphia. Culturally there's a resistance to that in the counties and in New Jersey. So it will be a gradual shift, but in the end, I hope we're providing especially Election Day service throughout the region. 140 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
Is the Committee of Seventy knowledgeable about the lawsuit going on in Montgomery County as to whether or not employees should be political or not political, and do you have a position on that? Has your Board taken a position?
We haven't taken a position on the lawsuit, no, but as I indicated, I think generally -- well, we haven't gotten to the issue in the City. I think generally there's an interest in easing the restrictions on City workers in terms of political behavior.
So if that issue was here in the City of Philadelphia, you would weigh in on that very publicly. Do you see yourself weighing in on that issue in Montgomery County in a public way as you all do in Philadelphia?
That's hard to say. I'm not sure that -- as I say, we're still a little City centric, and 141 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 whether we're ready or not to weigh in on a county on that issue, it's probably too early to say. But particularly as legislation comes our way or as Councilman Green suggested, the Mayor's Task Force on Ethics is likely to comment on that, we will be likely having a position on that that reflects what I just said.
Well, I'm interested in how you will weigh in on the political environment and the legislative environment in the counties, particularly if your Board has a number of members from outside of Philadelphia and what is their focus on good governance in their own back door, their backyards.
Right. Well, as I say, it's to have an effect, I think we're going to have to move deliberately in those areas. And because there are a number of lawyers on the Board of the Committee of Seventy, there's also a 142 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 tendency not to take a public position on a lawsuit unless we're directly involved in it. So I'm not sure whether a position on that is imminent, but in time, I hope we have a position on the major issues in the counties. And as you know, it's a little easier for Philadelphians to be accepted or for a Philadelphia group, I should say, to be accepted in some counties rather than others.
But they're all accepted in Philadelphia. All those people on your Board are from outside of Philadelphia and they're weighing in on the politics and the activities in the Philadelphia region. Why should they have any more say in Philadelphia than in the counties where they live?
Well, I agree with you. I hope to take the group in that direction. But almost to a person, I believe they work in the City and many 143 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 of them are involved in other civic activities in the City regardless of where they live.
I think that all of this is -- it goes to fairness and in terms of what issues that you take on, how you take them on and is it just a certain group or certain environment in Philadelphia that you want to weigh in on, and there are other environments that you don't weigh in on. And so the fairness of it raises a problem for me. The likelihood of Gerry Sizemore, who is a committee person and a community activist for the last 40 years in Philadelphia, what is the likelihood of her coming on your Board? She's not a lawyer. She's a housewife. She's a mother, grandmother who is raising her grandson, but very involved in my community in terms of recreation, church and has the pulse of what people think in my ward. What is the likelihood of her 144 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 being on your Board to give her opinion on what people think in the community?
Right. I'd love to talk to her about it, and I'll give you a call and you can get us together.
Madam President, two quick follow-ups, which were a segue from Councilwoman Tasco's question. I've served on boards for the last years in my career and in many 18 instances, there are financial duties, 19 financial obligations in terms of raising 20 money and/or dues. Are there any 21 financial dues for the Committee of 22 Seventy for its Executive Committee or 23 Directors? 24
There is a 25 minimum obligation of $2,500, which the 145 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 individual needs to either donate or raise.
That's what I'm accustomed to, having served on many boards. Compensation, is there compensation for the Executive Committee or Board of Directors?
Lastly, a comment and something to think about. This past Saturday my colleagues Councilman Bill Green, Councilwoman Marian Tasco and Councilman Brian O'Neill and I were asked to speak before the Philadelphia Bar Association, and one of the questions that was raised was the issue of regionalism, and the last time I heard regionalism discussed in a comprehensive way was in 1996 when I 146 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 actually ran for office and lost. And so I put that up as food for thought, because the only one issue where I've ever seen any possibility of us thinking regionally is around arts and culture. But recognizing and now hearing that your Board has a regional focus, that may or may not present a possibility for us to think more for discussion and dialogue about opportunities to think and act regionally since we know there are many in the suburbs who benefit enormously from Philadelphia's rich cluster of arts and cultural institutions, and to the extent that there could be mutual -- not obligation, but weight for all of us to carry keeping that real, that then I think moves the needle and puts the discussion back on this thing called regionalism.
Yeah, I agree with you. Certainly the whole regional movement had a little bit more momentum before the economic crisis, and I hope 147 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 that it's possible for us in the sort of political and government world or in other worlds to try to get that momentum moving again.
Councilwoman, something you might be interested in, the Committee of Seventy is partnering with an organization called Avencia to produce a website that will talk about redistricting efforts throughout the Greater Philadelphia region, and it's a website that will allow you to put in your address and to see the different areas in the region and what might be the implications for redistricting after the 2010 census. I'd be happy to send you that website, because I think it's really fascinating and something that will become more and more of interest to you folks when you head into the redistricting process.
I will look forward to that. I ask that you forward that to the Chair. Thank you 148 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 very much. Thank you, Madam President.
We're hoping that it can make sure that everyone gets paid during the whole redistricting fight in a year or two.
Did the Committee of Seventy just issue a report calling for the elimination of some of our row offices in Philadelphia?
Since you are a regional organization, have you decided that all of the row offices in the surrounding areas should be eliminated also since they are all county offices and as the same as Philadelphia?
That position hasn't been taken yet, although it's 149 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 definitely worth a close look elsewhere. The issue began in Philadelphia when Mayor Nutter raised it as a possibility. That was followed by our report, and I think a report from PICA is in the works on the same subject.
And that's all well and good, but at the same time, why should Philadelphia be any different from the surrounding counties who have the same row offices that we have that are mandated by the state?
I'd love to do it. As with any group with limited resource, including this body, we have to pick our shots, and the --
But why are you picking Philadelphia and you're a regional organization? All of the shots are at us, and that is unfair.
I mean, you know, you put your -- not you. The organization sets itself up as a good 150 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 government organization, but they're only taking shots at Philadelphia. Where are the shots in the surrounding counties, particularly with all these members who live outside of the City in their counties? Let them also look. As you look at Philadelphia in comparison to what you're asking us to do, what are you asking them to do?
I will certainly take that message on back to the Board and hopefully --
But I have to raise those issues, because they trouble us all, especially me. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? 151 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 (No response.)
Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel consists of representatives from the Philadelphia Bar Association, the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors, the Building Industry Association, the Housing Association of Delaware Valley and the Southeast Chapter of the Assessors Association of Pennsylvania. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
My name is Sayde 152 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Joy Ladov. I am the Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association and I am delighted to be before City Council today to offer support for what will hopefully be the newest and best entity that the City of Philadelphia can offer in lieu of the BRT. We received a letter from Councilman Green at the end of last week advising us that it is the hope that -- it is his hope that the Philadelphia Bar Association will participate in the nominating process for individuals to the committee. We would be absolutely delighted to do so. And we feel as a Bar Association that we are in a particularly unique position to be able to offer insight and guidance. We have a tremendous real property section 21 comprised of lawyers throughout the City who are familiar with both residential and commercial real estate from the top to bottom, from the inside to out. So we are excited about this. 153 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 We are honored to be a part of this process, and we look forward to working with Council to make this the best committee ever. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Al Perry. I'm the President of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors. We're a trade organization of over 2,000 members. We strongly support Bill No. 090706, and we applaud those members of City Council who authored and sponsored the legislation. We too received a letter from Councilman Green, and we thank Councilman Green for our inclusion and the other members of City Council for our inclusion as well on the opportunity to be on the nominating panel for this new Board of Property Tax Assessment Appeals. We 154 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 welcome that challenge and that opportunity. We agree that the new agency should include individuals whose profession and areas of expertise is real estate. We would like to consider and -- we'd like City Council to consider an amendment that would also broaden the credentials to include two realtor representatives, one with commercial and one with residential influence. We have the tools and expertise to assist in that process as well. We deal with day to day the flaws in our current and existing system, and we applaud members of City Council for addressing that. And we thank City Council for including in the dialogues to create a new fair and equitable real property tax system. Thank you for your continued support in the matter.
Thank you. You've been extremely patient, and we appreciate it. 155 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you. I don't have any questions. I thank you for coming to testify and your support for the bill, and, yes, thank you for your patience. But I do want to note for the record as we were sitting around trying to figure out a way to take the Board of Judges out of it but have a fair process of appointing the Board of Appeals, Councilwoman Tasco suggested we use the procedure, which I think she mentioned was used in the School District or used to be used in the School District, where there's a nominating panel. And so it was her idea to come up with a nominating panel, and everybody had suggestions, and we're glad you're willing to participate. Thank you.
Madam 156 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Chair, one question. Thank you both very much. In conferring and commiserating with the sponsor of the bill, Councilmembers were careful to be as inclusive as possible of professionals who live and breathe this issue all the time, and the sponsor of the bill could be most accurate, but I thought we actually included a representative from your industry. Did we not, Councilman Bill 13 Green? Did we not include a representative from the industry of realtors in the compensation of this bill?
I may be able to provide some clarity. I think I understand. No, we are definitely included and appreciate being included in the nominating panel, and when reviewing the credentials of the people who would be nominated, we thought that those credentials could also include realtors 157 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 who have commercial and residential expertise as well. Just a suggestion for an amendment.
Are there any other questions or comments of the witnesses before us? (No response.)
Thank you, Madam President. MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel consists of Ken Metzner, Daryl LaFontaine and William Kilroy. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good 158 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 afternoon. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. I am Reverend Ken Metzner, a resident of the 500 block of Kimball Street. I am an ordained interfaith minister and the Executive Director of a not-for-profit dance company and movement arts center on South 9th Street, as well as a recovering corporate attorney. I am here today, however, solely in my capacity as an aggrieved taxpayer. I am one of the 15,000 property owners who about eight weeks ago received a notice of proposed tax increase from the BRT, a notice that nearly tripled the taxes on our home from $1,470 to $4,865. Receipt of that notice set me off on a course not only of neighborhood activism, something in which I had never engaged, but also one of intense research that has laid bare for me the BRT's well-documented history of lawlessness. 159 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 This disturbing history, coupled with the BRT's reckless issuance of these latest property assessments, compel me as a minister, as a lawyer and as a citizen to speak out. Before I do that, however, I must say that I am inspired by Councilman DiCicco's earlier comment today when he noted the absence of any Board member of the BRT. I would like to note for the record the absence of the vast majority of City Council members. In fact, as I look around the room, I see present only Councilwoman Brown, Councilman O'Neill, Councilman Rizzo, Councilwoman Tasco, Councilwoman Quinones-Sanchez and Councilman Green, other than, of course, yourself, Madam President. The proposed legislation, I hope, will begin to create the environment for the radical changes that are necessary to address the current and long-lived illegal system of property assessments. As an attorney, I do not 160 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 lightly use the label "illegal," yet I come before you today and say illegal quite deliberately, because, in my opinion, there is no doubt that the acts and omissions of the BRT over the course of many years constitute a pervasive pattern of unlawful conduct that has been tolerated, if not actively supported, by other City government departments and bodies. Much journalistic ink has been spilled in the last six months decrying the broken, unfair and inaccurate BRT system of property assessments, but little attention has been focused on its undeniable illegality, the historic root of the unlawful practices and the possible reasons why such a system has been tolerated. I submit to you that exploration of those issues as part of a process that is complementary to the consideration of remedial legislation like the pending bill is critical. Why? So that we do not continue to make the 161 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 same mistakes that have been made in the past. I certainly am not advocating an exercise in finger-pointing, polarizing attacks or witch hunts, but rather a balanced exploration aimed at identifying and understanding important lessons to be learned for Philadelphia's future, our future. For far too long, the BRT has been permitted to illegally mismanage a key resource of our city, its real property base. The BRT's dereliction of its duties has directly contributed to the decline of our communities, whether it's the spread of abandoned lots and urban blight, the decline in our schools in terms of insufficient funding, and our overall economy in terms of insufficient property tax revenues, flight by young families with children and, of course, the migration of businesses and jobs. It is imperative, therefore, that we acknowledge and understand the 162 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 profound roots of these destructive practices, our respective roles in their perpetuation and our collective responsibility for their remediation. Members of Council have heard from various sources over many years how the BRT's assessment practices are unlawful. I would like to take just a few moments to highlight for the public's benefit some of the reasons why that is demonstrably so.
At the most basic operational level, the BRT routinely ignores requirements imposed under Pennsylvania statutes. I have outlined in my written testimony at least eight serious derelictions and violations of state statutes. I will not repeat them now. I respectively refer Council to my written testimony. S. Constitutions. The Pennsylvania Constitution's uniformity clause requires that property taxes be applied uniformly upon similar types of property, with each member of the same group of taxpayers bearing an equal tax burden. With respect to our block of Kimball Street, for example, the BRT systematically undervalues properties similar to our home, thereby penalizing us as compared to our neighbors. That, of course, is impermissible under the uniformity clause. The BRT's uniformity problems, however, are much bigger than those in evidence on Kimball Street. They are citywide. These statistics that the courts have said determine uniformity as measured in Philadelphia, whether calculated by independent experts or by Pennsylvania's State Tax Equalization Board, clearly show that the BRT's assessments are non-uniform across 164 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Philadelphia and are, therefore, unconstitutional. It is clear that City Council and other government leaders are aware of this. What is less talked about, however, are what this means in terms of practicality. The lack of uniformity means that vast portions of Philadelphia are paying a far greater share of property taxes than is permitted under the law. This is particularly true for the poorest areas of the City, such as Olney, Mayfair, Kingsessing and Girard Estates, just to name a few. The regressive nature of our property tax system has been known to the BRT and to City leaders for years. 5 percent of the City's property owners to new upward assessments that, of course, are plagued with the same gross legal deficiencies that afflict its prior assessments. Clearly, the BRT has come to believe that it is above the law. It is, therefore, appropriate to implement the measures called for in the pending bill. As I see, however, there are at least three limitations we need to be mindful of with regard to the legislation. First, that it is merely a first step in the process of addressing the issues. Much work remains to be done. 166 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Two, that it does nothing to help the thousands of people who today are victims of the ongoing illegal assessment practices of the BRT. And, three, that it does not speak to the question of redress for the devastation that the decades of illegal assessment and tax practices have visited on our city, in particular on the poorest areas. I submit that we cannot and must not ignore the extensive past and ongoing violations of the law. Though a discussion of those matters is beyond the scope of today's testimony, I urge City Council, the Mayor and my fellow citizens to give much-needed attention to the subject of appropriate remedial measures. I would like to speak today briefly, however, to the first limitation; namely, that the legislation is but one part of the necessary fix. Mere structural change, even of the magnitude called for in this bill, is 167 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 no guarantee that the underlying practices that created the unacceptable environment and the culture that supported it will evolve. To ensure that they do, we must get to the root of the problem by asking and courageously exploring the answers to some very tough questions, chief among which is how and why did we get here, and what can we do to ensure that we don't end up here again. This question is particularly important in light of Philadelphia's history. Nearly 30 years ago we were in a practically identical situation when court involvement became necessary to force the BRT into addressing what were then widespread inequities in the property assessment practices. Of course I'm referring to the litigation known as Coleman versus Green.
Some lessons apparently take a very long time to learn. We might discover through a diligent inquiry that the current 168 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 problems are merely a function of not having adequate technology to collect, manage and analyze critical data. I recently heard that many City departments are using computer technology that is 7 to 20 years old. If that is so, do we 8 now have sufficient resources dedicated 9 to the acquisition, maintenance and 10 updating of the necessary systems and 11 software? 12 We might also discover through 13 this process that the illegal practices 14 result merely from poor training and 15 supervision. If so, what is being done to address that now? Are we, for example, asking current BRT employees or qualified outside consultants to identify the training and tools that they believe are essential to carrying out their jobs? Or we might discover through this process that this illegal and broken system evolved the way it did and has endured because certain influential interests have benefited from it. As 169 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 uncomfortable a line of inquiry as that may appear to be, it is an important one to consider for the sake of thoroughness and the restoration of integrity. And if the inquiry is handled in an appropriate, non-partisan way, its findings should be of great service to the community. In conclusion, this course-correcting legislation is an important development in the right direction and much work remains to be done. To sweep the most critical issues under the rug or even to permit them to be lost in the haze of pending legislation would squander an opportunity to learn from this experience and to begin to consider appropriate remediation for decades of unlawful assessment practices. May this be but the first step in the necessary healing process for our city. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 170 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Are there any questions from members of the Committee of this witness? (No response.)
Councilwoman Verna, ladies and gentlemen of the Council and all in attendance, I must disclose I am an employee, civil servant of BRT. I am a Property Evaluator II, but please know I am not here in an official capacity. I am here as a student of politics, as per my degree with Temple University, and I am here as a taxpayer of the City of Philadelphia. Our concern for the proposed --
Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt you. I believe the stenographer would like you to repeat your name. She didn't hear you.
William Joseph Kilroy. I'm here to express my concerns 171 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 for the proposed referendum which is designed to give more power to the executive branch of the government over the presently independent City tax agency. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in conjunction with the City Charter, has created a check and balance system designed to protect the taxpayers of this first class city from any one branch of government getting control over the property tax agency and, may I add, independent tax agency. I'm afraid that if the executive branch of the government's power is increased, the burden of property taxes, in conjunction with the highest wage tax and sales tax in the state, will result in further erosion of our tax-paying population. The newspaper suggested that the present tax agency is broken and dysfunctional. If this is the truth, then I ask, why does the County of Philadelphia have the lowest property tax base out of the five-county area? The 172 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 property tax agency is the only entity that truly provides tax relief. Do the people understand that placing the property assessors under the Finance Department gives direct control to the Mayor's Office? Do the people understand this? Do the citizens understand the repercussions of giving executive and legislative power of appointment over the seven-member Board, which is presently appointed by a majority of judges of the Court of Common Pleas for a term of six years? Can we rely on our newspapers and academics to educate our citizens on their options or do we take advantage of lack of civic knowledge, as we did when we dissolved the Fairmount Park Commission, a commission which was greatly responsible for creating and maintaining the largest municipal park in the country, providing quality of air, providing quality of water and providing quality of life, which is now in jeopardy of shrinking, as 173 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 illustrated by a bill which was submitted to Council for residential development of the parkland the very same week the Park Commission was dissolved. I suggest that we think hard and long before we open Pandora's box, which once opened is not easily closed. I say please, Council, be aware of conflict politics, which is designed to grab and consolidate power. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee of the witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you again for your patience. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel consists of Rene Goodwin and Jeff Rush. (Witnesses approached witness table.) 174 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Jeff Rush. I'm President of Queen Village Neighbors Association. I'm also a long-term resident and business owner in the City of Philadelphia. I want to thank the author of the bill and members of the Committee who support the legislation. I want to say that the neighborhood groups have been meeting individually and collectively now since late summer and have expressed concerns, grave concerns, about the inherent inequities with the current system of assessments and appeals. In mid October, the following two-part resolution was endorsed by representatives from several 1st District neighborhoods. The communities of Queen Village, Pennsport, East Passyunk Crossing, Washington Square West and 175 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 River's Edge strongly supports legislation to reform or otherwise dismantle the BRT and looks forward to public hearings in City Council in order to participate in deliberations as to how best to put years of abuse and miscalculation by the current failed process of determining market values for tax purposes behind us. None of our civics, Councilman Green, got an invitation to participate in the process, but we're looking forward to hearing from you. We'll wait for our letter. You have undertaken this task, and we appreciate and support your efforts to effect a total restructuring of the system. This is a vital first step in reforming the property tax assessment and appeals process. On October 23rd, the Mayor's Task Force presented its recommendations for future tax policy to Mayor Nutter. The Task Force has proposed shifting a 176 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 greater portion of taxes to property owners. However, they acknowledge this shift will result in a precipitous and roll and tax increase on the City's middle class. As evidenced in public hearings sponsored by Mayor Nutter earlier this year, middle-class taxpayers citywide accept the need to pay their fair share of the tax load, but by no 11 means have written the City a blank check. To address the ballooning tax load, the tax Task Force recommended a state homestead tax reduction, built-in caps and other means to buffer or lessen the burden of these new taxes. This is most assuredly a step in the right direction, but the reality is, according to the tax Task Force report and testimony given by Paul Levy here today, the necessary technology to ensure fair and accurate assessments will not be in place before 2012. I want to say that Councilman 177 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 DiCicco alluded to the unfairness of continued assessments or continuing to make assessments given the fact that these assessments are based on bad data. The second part of that resolution that I mentioned in the beginning was, further, on behalf of the residents of the aforementioned communities, the respective Boards of these associations call on City officials to rescind all planned and actual tax increases for 2010 and immediately enact a moratorium on new real estate tax assessments by the BRT or its successor unless or until the process for determining market values has been made demonstratively fair, accurate and removed from political contamination. We strongly urge City Council to immediately apply this just and correct remedy in order to limit the damage done by decades of unprofessional and unfair tax assessments by the very agency you seek today to abolish. 178 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Thank you.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Rene Goodwin. I am a lifetime resident of Pennsport and a member of the Pennsport Civic Association. I always value the opportunity to come here before you and before the members of Council. I value that and take it not for granted. The bill that is being considered today has taken a great deal of work on the part of many to, one, bring focus to the issues and inadequacies of the current system and also to craft the legislation in an attempt to improve the process and the structure. I would like to bring attention to a few issues for your consideration. That the process must be fair 179 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 and accurate is something on which all would seem to agree, but how best to achieve that is indeed a challenge. To be accurate, there must be adequate resources in place. At startup, the resources may have to be augmented until the process is securely and effectively in place. To do otherwise would allow the same inequities to continue only under the guise of improvement. Fairness is another matter. To me, fairness means that homeowners may pay their fair share, but not so much that they are forced to be moved from their homes. This is not a statement made for the sake of drama. It is the situation that I, like many others, find myself in. For if the proposed assessment figures I have seen are instituted, my husband and I can no 22 longer live in our home. When we purchased our home, we did as all home buyers do. We had to qualify according to loan-to-value ratio 180 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 and income-to-debt ratio. It took much financial planning and sacrifice for us to purchase our home and do the huge amount of repairs required on an old house. Because we wanted to stay in the neighborhood in which I grew up, we now have debts we will most likely not pay off in our lifetime, but we'll do our best. There is not a lender on the planet that would have approved us for an 80 percent loan based on the proposed market value. If the proposed figures are applied, we'll be gone long before the end of the debt or long before the end of our lives. Is this fair? Fairness also means that some sort of consideration should be given to those who invested their lives and their life savings in a home and in a community. If a newbie comes in and buys a newly constructed home, they are given incentives, and that's okay, while those of us who have maintained the community 181 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 and paid their fair share all along are penalized with an increase in taxes that may well be unaffordable. Don't penalize those of us who have been the bedrock of this city. The uniformity clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution says, in essence, that like things must be taxed alike. Where that becomes a challenge is in those neighborhoods, particularly along the waterfront, that were built during the colonial era. During that time, builders did not build tracked homes. Instead, someone purchased a piece of land and built a house on it. Then someone else built another home, a totally different home on the land they purchased. As time passed, the often times mostly wooden houses needed to be demolished as they were no longer structurally sound and left behind lots of vacant lots. So here comes the dilemma: On some blocks in my neighborhood and others 182 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 you have a vast disparity in the age and type of structure. On my block, for example, the oldest house dates back to the late 18th century and the newest is not yet completed. Of 29 single-family homes on my block, 12, or nearly 50 percent, are tax abated. One cannot assume that all properties in these kinds of settings have the same value. They must be individually and carefully appraised based on many features, and it must be done by skilled personnel.
Section 2-202, Paragraph 2, which addresses the compensation of the Board of Appeals, states that at least one of the remaining members shall be a homeowner and/or commercial property owner within the City of Philadelphia. 6 percent came from single-family properties. This 183 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 clearly indicates to me there needs to be inclusion of homeowners on the Board. The education of the public will need to be a major component in the new system. More than information on a website will be necessary. As an example, Section 2-205, which deals with the powers and duties of a Chief Assessment Officer, Paragraph 2, Subsection (d)(ii) reads, "Set standards for property assessments that shall include, at a minimum, an acceptable limit on the deviation of the Common Level Ratio from the Pre-Determined Ratio, an acceptable limit on the Coefficient of Dispersion, and an acceptable range from the Price-Related Differential," et cetera. My point, I realize that no one would absolutely ever consider that as part of an informational process, but clearly, this has to be presented in a way that people understand. I suspect that even someone who has a Master's in 184 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 English may not fully understand what that's saying. Why not provide training or briefing sessions to staff of civic associations to help explain the new process, particularly as it relates to appeals. There are also a number of housing agencies and housing counseling programs as well who I'm sure would be willing to do the job. And, finally, there are the intangibles, those things that are most difficult to quantify, things like struggling to keep and maintain your home, not looking at it as merely an investment but is where you live your life, where you moved when you got married, where your children grew up, where you stayed when the neighborhood was struggling as much as you were, but it was, after all, your home. Don't underestimate the value of a person's life commitment to a community. " They want to place more burden on things that don't move, like real estate. Maybe real estate can't move, but homeowners can, and if you don't do this carefully and with respect, they'll have to. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you very much for coming in and testifying, and we do appreciate your patience, as the President said. I do want to note that Councilwoman Sanchez and I agree with your statements with respect to the Tax Reform Commission report and a bunch of other things, and we on City Council are going to try to do what we did with this bill and work collaboratively and come up with -- produce tax reforms that 186 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 will eliminate the disincentive to doing business and living in the City of Philadelphia, as our tax laws currently do. So we are working on that, and I just want to let you know that that report will land with a thud, as far as I'm concerned, here in City Council.
Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: Our last panel consists of Helen Gym, Joshua Vincent and Christine Balka. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
My name is Helen Gym, G-Y-M, Philadelphia public school parent, and I'm here with Michael Churchill from Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, who will go right after me. 187 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 First of all, I want to thank City Council for holding these hearings and I also want to thank City Council and the Mayor for their recognition and efforts to reform the Bureau of Revision of Taxes. I'm here to testify about something that isn't quite in this current legislation, and it's about the role of the 80 or some School District employees of the Bureau of Revision of Taxes who are on the School District payroll. As you know, this issue and use of School District money is not a new one. Every year this issue has come up about whether the School District should be funding the BRT employees. But what makes things different this year is, not only has the District made itself clear, but the SRC, the Mayor, parent and advocacy groups and community members have also made it clear that the time of this system is now over, and that the need is paramount to take the BRT 188 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 employees off the School District payroll immediately and ensure that the full amount of the four and a half million dollars is fully used for children and educational needs. And there are a couple of reasons why this is essential at this time. Number one, the School District this year must close a $200 million shortfall and has made clear that they intend to take 4 million of that money out of discretionary school budgets, which is a very serious concern. That is money that is used for teachers and librarians, for field trips, for books and supplies. So there has never been a more obvious time when the cost of these employees are a direct sacrifice to our children. Four and a half million dollars for these employees would cover the amount that would be eliminated from the School District for the discretionary spending that will come out of schools. The second reason why it's 189 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 important to consider this issue is that we would ask this Council to investigate whether there is any other school district in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that actually does this practice. We were encouraged to hear Councilwoman Tasco say that she believes that Philadelphia should be treated like other counties, and we would like to see that happen as well. We would like to see the School District treated like other counties and that the City perhaps operate like every other county in this Commonwealth that does not require the School District to pay any sort of fee or any sort of amount or put any employees on its payroll for property tax assessments, which is the function of government. The third reason why we encourage City Council to take a strong stand on this issue is because we strongly believe that school funds are for kids. It's beyond whatever the 190 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 politics are, but it's also that we have 84 petitions that hopefully are in your mailboxes from average people all over the City who, in the last hours, sent 6 in their concerns about why they want 7 this money put back onto the School 8 District, and many of them are 9 Philadelphia public school parents. The 10 vast majority of them are parents. A 11 number of them are teachers. Some of 12 them are librarians. And the concern is 13 clear. m. for children in dangerous 21 neighborhoods. 22 Another person wrote in, It is 23 unbelievable that our schools have 24 suffered with inadequate books, teachers, too large classrooms, rundown facilities 191 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 and all the other evils of public education, while other individuals have received remuneration for doing unprofessional jobs. School funds should not be used for anything else except directly for our students and schools that desperately need any funding they can get. Another person wrote, Who is progressive reform and who wants the machine?
We will find out, and we hope and pray that this money is used to better our children's schools. Whether or not you agree with the entire tenor of the statements, the feeling from Philadelphia -- for those of us who are deeply concerned, and I know that City Council is deeply concerned about public school education -- is that this system needs to end and, frankly, that this money needs to go to our children and can be used best for our kids. To the statement made by 192 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Mr. Dubow that there should be fees that are charged, again, our concern is is that the State of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has done an extraordinary job in the last two years under a new education funding formula to dramatically boost the amount of money that goes into public schools. What we need to see is the City do the same. And, unfortunately, what we see is that the City in its loss around property tax funding has actually gone backwards on its ability to improve the funding for the public schools. I don't think it's intentional by any group in here, but the fact of the matter is is that the City's money is declining in terms of investment and the state has dramatically spiked its investment, and what we don't want to see is that local funding or things like this become any sort of barrier to the appropriate funding of our public schools. And what we need to see is that the City becomes a leader and recognizes 193 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 the fact that the money that we use for our schools needs to go to our children and that other issues can be put aside. They're complicated, I understand that, but that this is an essential issue. Again, these are the dozens of petitions that people have sent just in the last hours to your offices about 10 this issue. And if there are any 11 questions, we're happy to answer. 12
13 Excuse me. Councilman Green, did you 14 want to be recognized now? 15
Yes, Madam 16 President. Thank you. 17 I want to thank you, Helen, for 18 your passion and hard work in this area. 19 I just want to note for the record that 20 the Administration has said that they 21 intend fully to get $4.2 million from the 22 School District one way or the other 23 whether or not these are City employees. 24 And although Helen alluded to it, I just wanted to make that clear for 194 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 the record that that was Rob Dubow's testimony earlier today. But I appreciate your hard work in this area. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. My comments go to the same point mentioned by Councilman Bill Green. Rob Dubow did stipulate that, and I need to ask, did you have the opportunity to be here when the Director of Human Resources spoke to the process they need to follow internally so that they do what we don't want them to do, and, that is, to rush to the goal? All of us agree that the goal is what it should be, but they have an internal process that they want to honor. Were you privy to that testimony?
I did hear some of that. So I would like Mike Churchill to address the concern around Rob Dubow's 195 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 comments about whether there will be the requirement that the School District pay for that service. But I do want to add that we too at the School District and as parents are very anxious about what the School District is saying about closing the shortfall by taking out $4 million from our public schools before the current year ends. So this is something that is impending, it's not clear, there's not a whole lot of clarity around it. We certainly want to talk to the Council Education Committee about it, and we will be actively doing that, but please understand also that this is something that is very clear and urgent for public school children, families, teachers and principals at the schools, that this is also impending and so it is very difficult for the schools to be told to wait and see. And I think that in terms of what happens to our children needs to kind of let that -- I understand that there are complications around the 196 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 overall system of it, and I respect Council's need to make sure that that's done really well, but I sort of feel that in terms of the school needs, that perhaps that could be addressed through the City and not have the School District and our kids pay for the longevity.
Good afternoon. My name is Michael Churchill. I'm at the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia. I'm delighted to be here. I just want to address a narrow piece of this problem, which is to make it clear that the state statutes under which the assessment process is conducted requires that the cost of the assessment process be borne by the county and not by the school districts. And this is uniform across the state. As Helen Gym said earlier, there is not a single other school district in the State of Pennsylvania that pays for the assessment process. The state statute says that in 197 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 November the County Board of Assessment and the Board of Revision of Taxes in the first class counties shall provide the assessment list to the School District. It doesn't say, and shall demand a fee. They shall get the assessment list. Furthermore, the statute says all salaries necessary for the proper expenses of the Board shall be paid out of the treasury of the county, not from the School District's. There is, frankly -- it would be an ultravirus for the School District to pay a fee for getting something that the statute says they shall get free. So I don't think, frankly, that his proposal earlier today, that if we don't get payment for the employees, we will get a fee for the service, somehow or other can possibly hold up. I think what is important for City Council, which is going to be faced with the problem of finding the expenditures for this money process, 198 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 nevertheless establish clearly that this will be a city-county function, not a School District function as you go forward. Frankly, many of the advocates in the City concerned with School District spending for this rather than for instructional practices have decided that this is a very excellent process that City Council is going through to devise a new system and are willing to give the process time. But I don't think you should expect that they are going to say and just turn or roll over and say, Well, we don't care if you put this in a different form, we will continue to pay for it. So it's really important, I think, that Council set the proper terms for compliance with the state law so that we don't have to have the foolish expenditures for litigation that would otherwise ensue.
Point of information. 199 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of points. Bensalem School District reimburses its county for the collection of taxes and fees. I'm certain there are others in the State of Pennsylvania. Secondly, the arrangement -- and I'm not arguing the merits of it one way or not, but you're putting your opinion on the record and I just want to correct the record. This is a voluntary arrangement with the School District. Under the City Charter we are allowed to work together. Shared service arrangements are specifically authorized, and essentially that is the arrangement. It's completely voluntary, and I'd like -- I love the passion you have for the schools, but, I mean, the money that's coming from the state isn't making it into the classroom, 200 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 and that's far more money than $4 million. Let's put our energy there. Finally, which libraries would you like us to close to pay for this? Thank you.
Well, let me, if I may, address those, at least two of the concerns. The Bensalem situation which you described is for the collection of taxes, is a completely different subject under the state statutes. Tax collection is a different matter from tax assessment. They're not done by the same bodies. And consequently, that doesn't change the facts as I understand them, which is that assessment is not to be paid for. Secondly, you raised the issue of the voluntary agreement. Unfortunately, I don't believe -- when you read that section in the Charter that allows for cooperation, it describes a number of services for which that can -- those agreements can be made. Tax 201 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 assessment is not amongst that list, and, frankly, I think the question would be whether in fact it would be proper for the School District to enter into a voluntary agreement to pay for something that the law says they get free.
Point of information. Thank you. Just for the record once again, if the City enters into a new arrangement with the School District, it can certainly be for tax collection. I mean, the agreement can be characterized however the City and the School District would like. So I certainly hope that your litigation and energy and advocacy for the kids is not wasted on this issue, because there are so many more important issues facing the School District than this, and all the City has to do is get reimbursed for tax collection, is what you just testified for, rather than the assessment function. And that's 202 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 functionally what we're doing now, the services we provide with respect to the legal department collecting the taxes and all the collections, judgments, going to court, all that stuff, sending out the bills. So we can be reimbursed for collections. So let's not waste a lot of energy on this. Thank you.
Well, in response, I guess I would ask that City Council consider in addition to your asking to what extent we need to see things as a priority, that the City of Philadelphia needs to see improvement in its local funding as a priority, and right now it's not. It's just frankly not. School District funding for the City of Philadelphia is at its lowest point since the Street Administration, and that's a disappointment. I think that has a lot to do with some amount about the -- with the situation around the recession, but, frankly, we feel also that City 203 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Council -- and what we don't want the BRT to become and the insistence upon getting its money for the BRT no matter what and through whatever channels and through whatever kinds of technical ways that you can get around what we believe to be responsible school funds is, we don't want the BRT to become another example of the City evading its responsibilities to not only maintain funding levels for schools, but to, frankly, come up and map out a more progressive and expansive and deeper investment in our public schools. So part of the frustration is that it's hard because every single example that we want to talk about is sort of like, Well, maybe you don't need to spend your time on that. So it's like tax abatements. Do we need to spend a lot of time on that. It's the Parking Authority. Do we really need to spend a lot of time on that. It's the red light camera money. Do we really need to spend a lot of time on that. It's property tax 204 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 assessment. How much money can we get at fair assessment. That obviously is a top priority. People recognize it, but not necessarily through the school funding end. And we are saying that the BRT at some point, it can't be all the time telling us over and over and over again, Find something else. Could you find something else that might be a better use of your time. And, frankly, I don't think it's fair to pose which libraries will you close versus the School District money that goes there. I don't know that that's a clear choice that's happening. However, I do feel that there is a clear impending thing that is happening to schools around the $4 million that the School District may be seeking from each and every individual school, divided over all the schools. That's a very serious issue. That's something that a lot of schools are going to feel. That's something that's going to happen directly 205 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 to our children's classrooms. And I know that City Council, this Council as much as any other, if not more, has really been very vocal and active and supportive of public schools. That is just phenomenal for us, and I think it's so important that what we need to hear is just some amount of acknowledgment and recognition of concern around public school funding, a need to seriously invest in long-term strategies, and that we don't parcel off, Well, this is yours, but this is not yours, this is okay to talk about, this is not okay for you guys to talk about, and that we need to see something. So I still think, frankly, that -- and maybe once these petitions are in your office, that you'll feel a little more clearly. This is not so much of an abstract issue for people. I think that a lot of parents really -- it's not something like they don't really care about. I was shocked that this many 206 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 petitions came across our desk within hours of asking people to write in to their Councilpeople to do it. So I do hope you'll take a look at it. I hope you'll take a look at the zip codes, that they come from all around the City. I hope you'll take a look at the comments, and that really people aren't talking about anything disparaging about any City agency or any kind of thing, and very little has anything to do with Council.
It's really about saying 14 somebody needs to stand up and say this 15 has got to be a school funding priority. 16 And I know you said it in many different 17 contexts, but I think this is one of the 18 very few examples where people can be 19 super concrete, like I will sacrifice 20 this for the children of this city. And 21 that's a very powerful statement that 22 we're sort of waiting to hear. 23
Let me just add 24 one other point. I agree entirely with you, Councilman Green, that in the end 207 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 it's the question of what the overall mix is. There's plenty of opportunities for City Council and School District to divide the overall cost and sharing, and this Council and the School District have worked well together on many of those items. But I think it's worthwhile remembering that historically this was never a School District expense. It was one that actually was borne by the City of Philadelphia until they ran into a problem of how are we going to make sure that these particular employees, set of employees, could continue to operate safe from some of the strictures of the civil service requirements. And consequently, the School District took on those expenses at the request of the City. And now that those reasons for preserving those jobs apart from the Civil Service Code is going to disappear. It seems to me that the whole question of whether that particular piece of the expenditure should be continued to be borne by the 208 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 School District needs to be reconsidered, and it provides an opportunity for -- as you're considering all of the pieces of the expenditure pie to say, should that now go back as being and letting the School District do what they did originally, which is recapture those funds and use them for instructional purposes instead of for the purposes that the City asked the School District to absorb for it.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have tremendous respect for you, Mr. Churchill, and I just -- facts are important, as you know as an attorney, and so I don't want our record to be inaccurate. Basically, with respect to the BRT and how the School District started paying for it, this actually dates back to the '20s, '30s or '40s. It pre-dates 209 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 the new Charter. It pre-dates the time that there were political activity restrictions. And that historical fact has made it possible for them to continue political activity, but it was not put in place for the nefarious reasons that you suggest, as a matter of fact. Also, state allocation to schools was 171 million short of planned. The School Finance Director, Mike Masch, said that the property tax is up, and that allows the school to have a balanced budget for the first time in seven years. Four million dollars is one-seventh of one percent of the school budget, and when asked by Chairman Archie at a recent SRC meeting whether or not this $4 million impacted the education of kids at all, he said that there was no impact. "None" was his answer. So just all that should be on the record. And I agree with Helen, and I look forward to working with you on all the other things you mentioned, and I 210 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 don't want this one issue to stand in the way of what will hopefully be a very productive relationship, fighting for schools, for kids, for more funding from the City. So thank you again.
Well, thank you. Again, I want to make it clear, I didn't use the word "nefarious." I don't think that that would be the appropriate word to describe what I said. It seemed to be perfectly proper that that could have been done to manage the personnel problem that previously existed. My understanding of the history is slightly different than yours as to when those provisions were first made, and I'll have to review them and we'll confer about it. On the one matter, though, I must say, again, as much as I respect Mr. Masch, I didn't hear anyone who understood how what he said could be possible, nor did I hear -- and there isn't, I think, an advocate in the City 211 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 that believes that if they got $4 million back in this process, that it would not indeed be able to improve the instructional practices. And, frankly, it's one of those matters that I hope that we will have an opportunity to talk to them further about.
And I hope you know that also should the $4 million go back into our schools, we would certainly fight to ensure that that money wouldn't be taken out of discretionary spending, could be used to buy 50 librarians for schools that no longer have one, reduce class size by a third in first-grade classrooms across the City, that there are concrete numbers that we can use with the 4 million. You know that we'll be all over the School District to make sure that that happens. So I do hope, though, that $4 million isn't seen as some kind of puff thing, because we fought around the School District for far less, because we 212 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 thought it was important, because it makes a statement beyond the amount of money and because money does make a difference no matter what the amount is, and it adds up over time. Dr. Ackerman was also here in Council testifying last spring that the total amount of money that she had devoted toward 2014 would be $70 million over the next five years. So $4 million in that context is a huge amount of money, and it's not to say that in the context of a $3 billion budget, people want to -- it's hard to decide what becomes a priority, but I do think that if you take a look at some of the petitions that do come across, that people do feel like it's an important issue, and maybe it's perhaps as important an issue for its symbolism as it is about the actual dollars of it, but it's still something that resonates with a lot of people. So thank you very much, 213 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Councilman, and you're absolutely right, there will be a lot of collaboration with Council.
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam President. I'm Joshua Vincent. I represent Henry George Foundation. We're based in 413 South 10th Street. I'm speaking in favor of the bill. And this bill reminds me of the French Revolution when the leaders proclaimed it the year zero. And that's what we need. We need an absolute restart. When we think about the overassessment and, therefore, the over high tax bills that poor and working-class neighborhoods have had to pay for decades, it's outrageous. We've had tax bill by ambush. Councilman DiCicco just left. I remember in 2003 District and District 2 were heavily hammered by 214 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 assessments that came out of nowhere, even in declining neighborhoods. We've been working with localities and states with implementation of laws and practices that establish alternative forms of real property taxation, specifically land value taxation. We've been doing it since 1926. And you have my prepared testimony, so I'm just going to hit for consideration to the Council and others my core points and some core principles. It's inevitable that the City of Philadelphia like the School District will become more reliant on the real property tax in the near future. So in order to fix the systemic problems that face our schools, social services and infrastructure, reliable property valuations are a mandatory tool to ensure fairness, transparency and stability of revenue. The property tax provides that, and this legislation is necessary. I've been speaking in front of 215 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Council for about ten years on this subject and I always go back and encourage people to look to the State of Maryland as a mechanism for appeals. There's a three-tier system of property tax appeals, and I hope that that can be incorporated into the final form. We would also suggest a few more additions to the bill that we think would help transparency and fairness, number one being a Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. The Commonwealth of Maryland provides both in statute and administratively a Taxpayers' Bill of Rights so that they know how to go through the appeals process. And when you do bring in this year zero of full valuation -- and short time is possible -- taxpayers will need that resource. I would make the length of sales and property tax information available to ten years instead of five years, which we saw in the bill, simply 216 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 because when you go to sites like Zillow or Property Shark or when you look at the Case-Shiller House Index, they look at trends that go back ten years, and we think that that would be important. It would help the taxpayer. Finally, when it comes to the appeals end of this, we would urge a stronger residential homeowner presence on the Board of Appeals. An overreliance on non-residential stakeholders and Board members may lead to the common tendency of undervaluation of non-residential properties and misallocation of land values into building values for the purposes of commercial depreciation. That's a trend that is battled all across the country. Finally under assessments, an independent Board, not beholden to the revenue process, is long overdue and welcomed. We'll have greater transparency and fairness. It will make Philadelphia also one of the few counties 217 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 in the Commonwealth that follows the law, possibly avoiding the inevitably of expensive legal action by aggrieved taxpayers. Modern assessment techniques make annual valuation, indeed even real-time valuation, a reality with far less monetary outlay than in years before. Clark County, Nevada and Washoe County, Nevada update their assessment base on a daily basis. If they can do it, we can do it. Coupled with an efficient appeals process, the tendency of non-residential property values to decline after revaluation can be ameliorated by an honest assessment process, as well as honest valuation of land in the land allocation between land and buildings.
Again, this is a very progressive, very forthright piece of legislation and the Council is to be congratulated for starting the year zero. 218 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Thank you.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you. My name is Sheila Simmons. I'm the Education Director for Public Citizens for Children and Youth. My colleague, Christine Balka, had to step out, so I'm going to provide the testimony. PCCY works to improve the lives and life chances of children in the Philadelphia area by improving their access to quality education, healthcare, childcare, child welfare and juvenile justice services, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on Bill 21 No. 090706 today. PCCY urges City Council to support this and all attempts to professionalize the City's property tax system. Greater accountability and 219 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 confidence in the system are essential pre-conditions for moving to an Actual Value Initiative, which PCCY favors, for its ability to generate much-needed tax revenue to support the services - health centers, recreational opportunities, libraries, schools that children and families increasingly rely on. While we favor this bill, we believe it should explicitly remove 80 BRT employees from the School District of Philadelphia's payroll. These employees cost the School District more than $4 million a year. At a time when the District is forced to scale back educational programs that are in great demand, including space in alternative schools, a reengagement center for high school dropouts and school-based behavioral health programs, at a time when we are delaying the implementation of our key components of the School District's strategic plan and at a time when the School District faces a $180 220 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 million projected deficit, the loss of this $4 million is very concerning. As the School District strives to meet its ambitious goals for 2014 and the City works to realize the goals the Mayor outlined when he took office, these employees are in limbo, accountable to neither the District nor the City for working to improve the lives of children and families here. Rather, their presence on the School District payroll is an anachronistic reminder of the City that you, the Mayor and voters have expressed a desire to leave behind, not an inspiration for the kind of city we want to create for our children and the future. PCCY urges you to support the proposed bill, while amending it to remove BRT employees from the School District's payroll. Thank you. And I'm happy to say, I was not here earlier for Mr. Dubow's comments about the $4 221 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 million, but I did just hear the exchange, and I have worked closely with Helen Gym and with Mr. Churchill, and I do support their view that the assessments is a cost that should not be borne by the School District but instead by the county.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions of the witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you again. MR. McPHERSON: I would like to identify that written testimony has been submitted by the Board of Revision of Taxes Chairwoman Charlesretta Meade and by the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce President Robert Wonderling, and I have no other individuals to testify.
Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? 222 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 (No response.)
Seeing no one, I thank everyone for their patience, and the Committee will stand in recess until the call of the Chair. Thank you very much. (Committee of the Whole adjourned at 2:50 p.m.) - - - 223 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on October 27, 2009, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)