Aye. The ayes are 17. The nays are zero. A majority of all members of Council having voted in the affirmative, the Mayor's veto is overridden. The next order of business is the consideration of the calendar. The Chief Clerk will please read the bills on the first reading calendar.
Bill Number 040640, entitled, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-2600 of The Philadelphia Code entitled, business privilege taxes, by establishing a program under which a job creation tax credit will be given to certain businesses creating new jobs in the City of Philadelphia, all under certain terms and conditions. stated - 6/21/04
And Bill Number 040328, an ordinance authorizing creation of loan or loans to provide funds for and toward various capital municipal purposes, authorizing the Mayor, City Controller and City Solicitor or a majority of them to sell bonds at public or private negotiated sale.
And Bill Number 040666, an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and planning, by amending provisions of Section 14205 concerning R-1A residential districts, all under certain terms and conditions.
And Bill Number 040598, an ordinance authorizing Director of Commerce on behalf of the City of stated - 6/21/04 Philadelphia to enter into agreements with the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development and the Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau, both for purposes of hosting the Army/Navy intercollegiate football game in certain years, under certain terms and conditions.
The Chair agrees. That completes the first reading calendar. And at this time The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell for the purpose of calling up the bills on the second reading and final passage calendar.
Thank you, Madam President. Today Bill Numbers 040367-A, 040256, 040601, 02, 03, 07, 08, 040462, 040501, 040327, 040424, 426, 427, 429, 430, 433, 434, 462, 040496, 498, 040500, 506, 520, 521, 566, 040616, 040023 will be amended. 040153, 559, 564, 565, 599, 040600, 040553, 555, 556, 558, 570, 040370, 040400, stated - 6/21/04 040552, 040606, and 040615 are being called up for second reading and final passage. I mentioned the bill that would be amended which again is 040023. All other bills are being held. Thank you.
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order, Madam President. I believe, unless I misunderstood, Bill Number 040514 was not reported. If it has been I apologize, but I don't recall hearing that.
What number? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm asking that be heard. Bill Number 040514. I'm asking that bill be heard today. I don't know if it was called out. I apologize. Thank you. I want that on...
What page is that? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: . stated - 6/21/04 Second bill from the top, . It's increasing penalties for excessive noise. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: She called it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: She called it? She said no. Thank you.
Thank you. Ask the Clerk to please read the title of Bill Number 040367-A.
An ordinance approving certain contracts and transactions arising thereunder on behalf of the Philadelphia Gas Works, subject to certain terms and conditions.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is, shall the Bill pass finally? The Clerk will please call the roll. stated - 6/21/04
Aye. The ayes are 17. The nays are zero. The majority of all members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill Number 040256.
An ordinance amending Chapter 191200 of The Philadelphia Code entitled parking tax, by establishing a rate of taxation on parking transactions for fiscal year 2005 and thereafter. stated - 6/21/04
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is, shall the bill pass finally? The Clerk will please call the roll.
Well, in general, as we are beginning to vote on our tax bill.
Thank you, Madam President. I would like to say that many of us have agonized over these bills. There are those of us who will be voting against them, albeit I believe that all in Council have agreed on the service issues like rec centers, et cetera, that we're concerned stated - 6/21/04 with, just to name one area. But we are still -- I am. I regret that we have not as a Council been able to come together unified in the area of tax reform versus getting a budget passed. I would be voting against these bills not because I don't want to be unified with my colleagues, but that I am fearful that if we do -- and as much as we want a true tax reform, that if we do, areas like NTI, housing, my special area that God has given me to do, the homeless area, could be affected. And we are afraid that if these programs are gutted, it would severely impact the quality of life in our City. (Applause and cheers.)
So again, we say that we regret we have not been able to come together as a body. I respect my colleagues but certainly report that I will be voting a no when it comes to the tax bills.
Thank you. stated - 6/21/04 The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown. (Applause and cheers.)
Thank you, Madam President. First I would like to recognize a number of organizations in these chambers that agree, as I do, with regards to our position on tax cuts. Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth; Institute for the Study of Civic Values; Pathways, Pennsylvania; Citizens for Consumer Justice; Americans for Democratic Action; Asian Americans United; ACORN; Women's Community Revitalization Project; Norris Square Neighborhood Project; the Norris Square Civic Association; and the Philadelphia Home and School Council. Madam President, the record should show that no other City in this country has cut taxes as much as Philadelphia. And stated - 6/21/04 Philadelphia should be cutting taxes. We all know that we have an onerous tax system. Philadelphia has answered the call. In fact, for the last nine years, our City has cut $671 million in taxes for residents. Our City has answered the call. I agree that tax cuts are important. This Council has demonstrated that tax cuts are important. But more importantly, as one of our local papers stated, quote, when we as a community dedicate effort, creativity and money to children's problems, things get better. The facts are that right now as we speak 7,000 children are in foster care, 1,000 children are in homeless shelters, another 1,000 children are in transitional housing. 65,000 kids in this city have no place to go after school in a structured, safe, stimulating program. So, I am of the mind set that as we move to strike a fragile balance between tax cuts and service cuts, we should not do stated - 6/21/04 this on the back of our children. (Cheers and applause.)
We should not make additional tax cuts at the expense of our children and our families. I therefore will not be supporting the budget and the current tax bill since again I state we are already actively engaged in substantial tax-cutting measures in this City. I thank you for your attention.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco. Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you, Madam President. First I'd like to say, Madam President, that I will be supporting the tax bills. (Boos from the audience.)
I am stated - 6/21/04 sorry. I said very early on I will not tolerate that, and I mean it sincerely. (Boos from the audience.)
You will respect us as we respect you. And anyone that does that will definitely be escorted out of the room. Now, please respect us as we respect you. Councilwoman Tasco.
Madam President, when I came on to City Council in 1988, Christine Murphy was the Revenue Commissioner. And her first comments in our meeting said to me that we have to do something about the taxes in this City, and particularly the business privilege taxes and the wage tax. Our City is not growing. We suffered through the '80s and certainly enjoyed some measure of success in the '90s, but we have done nothing to deal with the business privilege tax. Yes, we have taken action on the wage tax. Philadelphia has had a tax stated - 6/21/04 burden no other City has had in this country. We have been told -- and it was pointed out and documented -- that we are the -- the cost of doing business in the City is the highest in this country. So, therefore, the reason we have made an effort to cut taxes is because we had the tax burden that no other City had to, so they didn't have to cut taxes. We have people in shelters. We have children in foster care. But part of that problem, Madam President, is because we don't have any jobs in this City for these people to get. If they had jobs, they could maintain their homes and not be in shelters. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: Oh, stop it.
But jobs are moving from this City because the businesses are not coming to Philadelphia. We are not generating the level of employment that we need for people to have stated - 6/21/04 gainful employment for their families. I say we do the tax cuts for the children because if we don't we're going to still be in the same predicament if we don't cut them. You're going to still have people... (Voices shouting out.)
You're going to have people in this City, groups, fighting each other for a smaller pie, scrambling for crumbs and still cutting. And be very clear that the cuts that have been proposed in this budget came in March, long before the Tax Reform Commission issued its report. We were told that the cuts in the budget were the cuts for the cultural centers, the rec centers. All the cuts were in the budget and will remain in the budget whether this bill passes or not. So be clear and not get mixed message that have been sent out, in terms of scare tactics to the citizens of this City that all of these cuts will take stated - 6/21/04 place. We have presented a balanced budget. Will there be pain? There's going to be pain either way. But I think in the long run, if we generate an environment where businesses can come into this City and provide employment for the spouses of people who are unemployed, I think this City will be better off. And I ask my colleagues to support these bills. (Boos in the audience.). (Council President wielding gavel.)
I am not going to say it again, and I mean it. VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: Why?
Where are the sergeant-at-arms? Why aren't they back there? Where are the police? Why aren't they back there? (Boos in the audience.).
I am not going stated - 6/21/04 to tolerate Council people being booed and interrupted. VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: We've already -
I am not going to tolerate it. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President. I respect the positions of my colleagues who disagree with me on this. I just think we're looking at this whole tax reduction issue a little differently. I believe we have been cutting taxes possibly more than any other City, but it's such a small rate of reduction that it will be 50 years before we're competitive. We can't wait 50 years. Philadelphia needs to cut taxes more than any other city in the country because of how high we are with our tax rates. The reason that we don't have the stated - 6/21/04 jobs, it's no different than if you had a store across the street from me and I was charging four or five times more for the same thing you were charging. And I wonder why I didn't have any customers. They're all lined up at your store. Well, I pretty soon reduce my prices. We have to reduce our prices. And our prices are our taxes. And we just have to do that. The children... Again, it's looking at it from a different perspective, but I believe we have to do this for our children, so that they inherit a City that is vibrant, that has businesses that has jobs for them. There's no better help you can give somebody than a job. And there aren't enough now to go around in this City, and there's no prospect that there will be unless we can attract more businesses. So, I firmly support what we're doing. It's a shame that we weren't doing stated - 6/21/04 this three years ago when there was a $290 million surplus. But it should be pointed out that there are, with today's tax revenue increases and the fee increases we did in our last session, I believe over five years we'll be adding $159.2 million to the City's revenue stream over five years, starting with this year's increases. And it's almost exactly the tax reduction that we're talking about. But it is a shift. And the business privilege tax and the wage tax are our two biggest targets. And I think it's a very reasonable compromise. We didn't stick with the 290. And it's a shame that the City has been spending down that $290 million surplus to the point where we needed extra revenues this year -- VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: (Unintelligible). That's how that money's been spent.
I am stated - 6/21/04 sorry. I am sorry. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: I'm just telling the truth.
This is not a debate, sir. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: It's not a debate.
And I'm asking you to please keep your thoughts to yourself at this point. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: All right.
Thank you. So, I think that this year it should be recognized that between the new revenues that Council is voting for and the cuts Council is voting for, there's about $50 million just to shore up what would otherwise be a gaping deficit. And hopefully this budget will have a surplus, as will the five-year plan for each of the five years. Thank you. stated - 6/21/04
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.
Thank you, Madam President. I hope I can express it as eloquently as the previous speakers, but I obviously I'm voting against all these bills. (Cheers and yells.)
But I just want to say the newspapers, both newspapers and the Chamber of Commerce, are trying to do something here which probably makes a whole lot of sense to them. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to my constituents from Norris Square. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: Right.
I read in one of the newspapers that if you make $50,000 a year you get $15. That's a pizza pie and a two liter bottle of Coca-Cola. When I explain that to some of my constituents here from Norris Square, they stated - 6/21/04 say, Rick, that's greet from you; you make $98,000 a year. I'd like to make $50,000. They're afraid we're taking away things that were always there. If the Spanish kids, the white kids, black kids, Asian, whatever we can come up with, from Schmidt Recreation Center have to walk 11 blocks to McVey Recreation Center so they can go swimming in the pool. And let's not forgot. They don't get to go to Wildwood for a week or two this summer. This is basically about -(Yells and cheers.).
Please, please. This is basically about class distinction. It's the poor. We fight around here for the poor. We want businesses to come to our City. We should do away with some taxes because any taxes we cut I get a cut. I'm happy for that. I'm not paying happy taxes. But I'll certainly give my pizza and my two liter bottle of coke to make sure stated - 6/21/04 that rec center stays open. (Yells and applause.).
And I think-- I want to quote one of my colleagues who I've been at odds with, Councilman Kenney. He said at a meeting that I was in, this is a giant leap of faith. And that's exactly what it is. You either believe in supply side economics or you don't. He may; you may; everyone else may. I don't, because these are the people that sent me to City Council. And the rest of us -(Applause and yells.)
Not the editorial board from the Inquirer or the editorial board from the Daily News. As far as I know, none of them fine people actually live in the City. (Yells, screams and applause.)
I know they don't live in Norris Square or Rhawnhurst, or Juniata, or Frankford, or Castor Gardens. Maybe they live in Councilwoman stated - 6/21/04 Miller's District. They don't live in my district. They deserve to be heard. And we want business here, but not on their back, not on their back. That's what this is about. The votes are probably here to pass this, but this is far from over. So, again, I rise. I'm voting against these, and I will vote against them. And as a Council body, we should all be ashamed of ourselves for all 17 of us not getting in that room... (Applause, screams, hollering.) (Council President wielding gavel.)
Please. Please. We should lock ourselves in that room downstairs with this Mayor, and we should lock ourselves in that room, all 17 of us -- the press can come -- and work this out, not wait until July 1st or June 30th or August or September. It should be worked out now. We can seem to work out everything stated - 6/21/04 else but we can't work that out. We just got to get to get the -- Thank you. (Screams, yells, cheers.).
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam President. I had not anticipated such a furious debate about the parking tax. I'd like my comments, Madam President, to be continued for... The bulk of this debate I think is actually on the next Bill which is 040601. But I know that we're having them all in the context of all of the budget discussion. Just a couple facts for the record. First, with regard to the supply side issue, there are no supply side expectations for the FY '05 budget. That will be in front of us on the next bill. Second, the adjusted fund balance for the end of FY' 05 is a positive $6,064,000. stated - 6/21/04 Third, we heard months of discussion and debate with regard to proposed cuts to the budget that all of us care greatly about. And many of the folks in the audience were concerned about rec centers being closed, and swimming pools or other activities for children. Those proposed cuts came in the budget that was sent to us on March 18th. They did not come as a result of any of the tax reform or tax cut discussion. They were already in the budget as proposed by the Mayor. This Council once amended that budget to restore almost all of those cuts. That budget was approved. The mayor vetoed it. Council was not able to override the Mayor's veto. We now have a second budget that has been amended to restore all of those cuts. And I'd like to talk about what some of those restorations are because I know that we all care very deeply about these programs. stated - 6/21/04 In the budget before us in Bill 040601, instead of cuts to the following programs, this Council by amendment has restored the following: The Philadelphia Activities Fund, $800,000; the Art Museum, $2,000,000; recreation centers, $3,000,000; the Atwater Kent Museum, $264,000; the African American Museum, $30,000; the Mural Arts Program, $49,000; the Cultural Fund, $1,000,000; the Cultural Office, $100,000; Historic Philadelphia, $30,000; the film office, $30,000; Philadelphia's own Community College, $750,000. And while we read in the newspaper that the Montgomery County Community College is getting an additional $650,000 from their leaders, it was proposed that we cut our own Philadelphia Community College $750,000 which we're seeking to restore in this budget, if it is approved, if it is implemented. The District Attorney's office, $1,000,000; the Free Library, $1,000,000; stated - 6/21/04 and the Philadelphia Fire Department, $4,000,000. Those are the restorations that have been included in the budget before us. That is how we will provide the necessary services that people care so deeply about. Fourth, with regard to one of the tax bills, Bill Number 7, should that bill not pass or should that bill not be implemented, there will be an even greater financial deficit to the City because Bill 7, I believe, accomplishes what Mayor Street sought to accomplish by not only delaying the next wage tax cut that was supposed to happen on July 1, 2004, to January 1, 2005, but also takes away the impact of previous bills proposed by this Council and either signed or allowed to become law by the Mayor. If Bill 7 were to fail, the City budget would be impacted by an additional $18,000,000 and the unanticipated tax increase -- tax cut, rather, for July 1, 2004, would go into effect. stated - 6/21/04 So I think that Council has sought to be responsible. We've restored the cuts that people care so deeply about, and also managed our funds in a fiscally responsible fashion for the FY'05 budget which is the budget in front of us, which is the budget we'll seek to keep the City running in an appropriate fashion. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. This is a very difficult issue, and very tough decisions. And important issues are always tough to deal with. And I want to first thank yourself and Councilwoman Blackwell and Councilman O'Neill for their leadership in this issue, the hard work of Councilman Nutter and others. But even though we don't agree on this issue, for the first time in a while stated - 6/21/04 we've actually come together and had discussion, had debate, and have taken the position that we can justify or at least stand up for and defend. And I think that's important for this Council. I also want to put another face on this debate. I'm really bad on cell phones. I'm tough on them. I drop them constantly in water, in the sink, on the street. And I had to go get my cell phone replaced week before last. And as I was standing in the service line, a young man who was not waiting on me was behind the counter. And he asked me if I was a Councilman. And he said, I recognize you, and I've been following in this tax debate. And I would guess the gentleman was probably mid thirties. He lived in Councilwoman Blackwell's District. He's married, has two children. Was born and raised in Philadelphia. Loves Philadelphia. But told me that the week stated - 6/21/04 after he was waiting on us, he was moving to Orlando. I asked him why. He said that he believed that he liked where he lived. He loved his home. He loved his kids' school. But the combination of his wife and his income, he could no longer accept the taxes that were being imposed upon him in this City. Fine young man. Articulate, young, with family, a father. Family of two kids, and with a wife. He no longer lives in Philadelphia. He lives in Orlando, Florida, as a result of what he told me was the tax burden in the City. And I think he represents literally thousands and thousands of people who have made that decision. (Applause.)
Literally thousands of people who have made that decision to move with their feet, as stated - 6/21/04 opposed to staying here in our City. This City has wonderful things. It has great services. It's a great walkable, livable, affordable City in many, many ways. But when it comes to the burden that business must pay in order to retain their jobs here or to attract jobs here and the burden the taxpayers must pay to live here, I think this is something we need to do. I honestly believe that everyone who's against this bill does sincerely state their views as it relates to service levels. But I honestly believe that over the next ten years if we do not dramatically change the way we've done business, the level of people we have paying taxes is going to continue to shrink. And we are not going to have the people available to pay for the service levels that we need. And that's what this is all about. And Councilman Mariano said, it's a leap of faith. We're depending to a point stated - 6/21/04 on supply side in the third, fourth and fifth years. But I think that's something we need to do because we can know for sure that the City will continue to shrink, jobs will continue to go. And this City will become smaller and poorer and more unable to take care of its problems unless we have a stronger private sector and a larger job base to contribute to the taxes. And that's why I'm supporting these bills. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I wanted to talk a little bit about the way this particular issue is being characterized. And I'm not sure a lot of people, stated - 6/21/04 particularly the people in the general public, understand what we're debating. We're throwing numbers around, 160, $160,000,000 over five years. We actually introduced a proposal that a colleague of mine had worked on unauthorized. It was around $105,000,000 and had a balanced budget, restoration of a substantial amount of services. I understand that the Mayor threw out a number, 130, as recent as last week. But the reality is, is that we're talking about a $3,000,000,000 reduction in revenue. And I think that's getting lost in the discussion. We're talking about a $3,000,000,000 mandated reduction in revenue. This is not a $160,000,000 bill that we're voting on today. It is a $3,000,000,000 reduction in revenue. That is my major concern about this particular issue. And it's not clear to me, when I talk to people, that they understand that, stated - 6/21/04 even people in the media. So, I think that that needs to be clear, what it is we're asked to be voting -- what it is we're asked to vote for today, both in terms of the total amount, and in terms of the time line associated with these particular bills. It's not a five-year tax bill before us that calls for $160,000,000 reduction in revenue. It is... I believe it's more than ten years, and one of the other bills might be more than ten, that's a $3,000,000,000 reduction in revenue. So, I want to clear that up. The other thing I would like to talk about is... And I don't like doing this, but the prior administrations. And we talk about conditions in the City, and we reference the fact that there was this substantial surplus in the City of Philadelphia. And the reality is that there were targeted incentives, substantial targeted incentives by the prior administration, to stated - 6/21/04 the tune of $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 in some instances. They were called economic stimulus packages, and they were given out to particular businesses and particular companies and individuals to stimulate business. And in spite of that, we had a substantial surplus because we were obviously in some of the best economic times in the history of the nation. VOICE IN THE AUDIENCE: That's right.
But we did not hear from any of the tax reform people who the people are now clamoring to ask for substantial tax reforms when we made a decision to invest in neighborhoods, right? And I'm concerned that over the last five years where we have made an aggressive, an extremely aggressive investment in neighborhoods, that now all of a sudden the tax reform people are saying that we can't do that; we have to stated - 6/21/04 cut taxes. But we didn't hear those types of discussion when there was, as mentioned by one of my colleagues, a substantial... a substantial surplus in the City of Philadelphia. So, my biggest concern, or I say concerns first, is the total aggregate amount of this tax bill, the mandated time line on these tax bills, because I believe we're locking ourselves into something that could potentially create a serious fiscal problem for the City of Philadelphia, particularly if what happens in Harrisburg what is currently being proposed to lock us into these particular tax reductions, and the choice that will stand before us, to shift our focus from neighborhoods back to reducing taxes, and not necessarily taxes totally for the citizens of the City of Philadelphia. So, because of that, that time line, and particularly that $3,000,000,000 amount, I cannot support these particular stated - 6/21/04 tax bills at this time. I just think that it is not appropriate. (Yells, screams and applause.)
So I, like my colleague Councilman Mariano, would love to see us sit down and do something in a thoughtful way. And I appreciate all the work that all of the colleagues in the leadership have put into this issue. But... And I hate to keep saying that. the $3,000,000,000 Number scares me to death, Madam President. So because of that I cannot vote for these particular bills at this time. And I would hope that we would sit down and do something in a thoughtful way that would not create a long-term problem for the fiscal stability of the City of Philadelphia and its citizens. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly. Councilman stated - 6/21/04 Kelly.
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to remind everyone here, my colleagues and everyone in this room, that there's -- there was only two cities in this country who have been losing population. One was Detroit, Michigan, and the other was Philadelphia. Now, in Detroit in 1950, Detroit -(Yells from the audience.)
-- had 1,800,000 people. Today, they have less than 900,000. They've lost 900,000 people since 1950. Philadelphia, we had over 2,000,000 people in 1950. Now we have 1,500,000. We've lost 500,000. Now the problem is that Detroit is doing something unique. They are cutting taxes. Now, we have to do the same. If you look, you look over the last 20 and 30 years, you'll see that the decline, the stated - 6/21/04 population, the business growth, everything else has been going downward. Now, we have to stop it. And by stopping it, I think we're going to do a lot for not only the businesses in Philadelphia but for the very people that are here that need help, for the poor people in this City. Because with the additional tax growth that we expect -- and I think Councilwoman Tasco alluded to it -- that many of us, many of this tax growth is going to... not only is going to stabilize us in our population but is also going to allow us not only to keep a lot of these programs, but to increase the support. And that's what I want to do. I want to give some hope and confidence to everyone in this City to have them stay here, number one; and number two, possibly get more additional businesses to come in here because with additional businesses we have more jobs. More jobs is going to mean more tax stated - 6/21/04 revenue in the City of Philadelphia. And I think somewhere along the line we have to look at this. We have to look at it very hard and cold. And, yes, we are taking probably a risk, but it's a risk well worth taking. So, I am urging all of my colleagues to vote for these necessary tax cuts. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. Much of what I was considering speaking on has already been spoken. I do respect all the opinions of my colleagues, both those in favor of the tax cuts and those who are opposed. I can remember just a few years ago when Councilman Nutter and I introduced a bill that would continue with the wage tax reductions in this City. stated - 6/21/04 And I remember at the time the administration, because the administration at the time was proposing to eliminate those tax reductions that had been set in motion by the Rendell Administration, there was a huge debate, the debate that literally flowed out into the streets of this City. There was a march down Broad Street and around City Hall by a whole host of people, from the business community, to labor leaders, to church groups, and community groups, and advisory councils, and recreation people who are involved with the recreation departments. They all came together and joined in that march and that demonstration to suggest and encourage this Council to vote for a continuation of the wage tax reductions. And I can remember at the time when people sat back and were looking at that bill. And there were people in the administration who were suggesting that the stated - 6/21/04 sky would fall -- it was the doomsday thing -- if you continue with these cuts. The Cultural Activities Fund will have to be reduced. Recreation centers would be closing. Firehouses and Police Stations would be cut back. But I'm happy to say that even though when we first started out with that bill -- We had about six members of Council, I think, who were supportive of it -- at the end of the day it was pretty much unanimous. And as a result of those wage tax cuts, wage tax collections and revenues in this City have increased. And I don't even remember the date of the bill, Councilman Nutter. Was it 2000 or 2002? Seems like I've been here forever.
2002. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 2002. Thank you. And I can recall during these hearings on these bills, 1 o'clock in the morning, I think, the Managing Director who stated - 6/21/04 I have a lot of respect for -- and he knows that whenever I talk about this, I don't mean it personal -- talked about the administration's apprehension on making these cuts, because no one knows with certainty whether or not the tax cuts will create additional jobs. And you've used the word empirical evidence. He said at the time -- and I'm paraphrasing him -- there's no empirical evidence that if you cut taxes the business community will rally around that, jobs will increase, and we'll have a better economic environment. And I agree, as Councilman Kenney said, and I think Councilman Mariano referenced, it is a leap of faith. But the empirical evidence, as I said that night, still exists today, that for three decades, four decades, maybe even five decades, because we are the highest City in the nation in terms of taxes -- and even though, yes, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown mentioned in her statement stated - 6/21/04 that we have been cutting taxes, the reason we really haven't felt a positive impact that we all would like to see is because the taxes were so high to begin with that even with those incremental taxes we still rank as the highest-taxing City in this nation. So, we really need to do something dramatic. And the empirical evidence, as I said, is there that if we do not do anything and we maintain the status quo, the empirical evidence points to one direction: Continual loss of jobs. No economic growth in the area of job growth. Councilman Mariano talked about what it means to an individual taxpayer, if this package passes, are somewhere between $15 and $16 in annual savings. It's a pittance. There's no question about it. But you got to look at the other side of it. The employers and their millions of dollars in their contribution towards the wage tax what that means. They are the people who create the stated - 6/21/04 jobs. They are the people who create the jobs, who make the investments in our neighborhoods to create businesses and jobs that employ people who live in the City of Philadelphia, the majority of the jobs in the City of Philadelphia. And it's interesting... It is interesting that some of the people in the gallery were here a few years ago when we had a talk about building stadiums, and how they were demanding that this Council spend taxpayer's dollars to build those stadiums because it meant jobs for them. Well, I'm asking those same folks today to support tax reform because it will mean jobs for people who live in this City, not just people who live out of the City, to come and do a job and then leave at the end of the day. We really need to do something very dramatic, and I think now is the time to do it. The leap of faith... And I said to the Managing Director the night of that hearing, no one has a crystal ball. stated - 6/21/04 No one can say for sure that the cuts will create jobs, but for the fact that if we don't do these cuts the continuation that the decline of the job growth in the City will continue. We need to do something. We need to do it now. And the one thing that we have never taken into consideration because no one knows the supply side and whether it's going to happen or not is, as we speak, in Harrisburg this week it is very likely -it's almost a guarantee, if you can guarantee anything in politics -- that gambling legislation will pass in the House and the Senate. And we know that the City of Philadelphia will get at least two slot parlors. No one's talking about the tens of millions of dollars in revenues that those facilities will bring to the City of Philadelphia and the impact, the positive impact, it will have on our budget to make up any of the shortfall that we're talking about even if there isn't any supply side stated - 6/21/04 benefit as a result of that.
That has never been discussed in this Council during this debate. And I don't know why. I thought about it myself over the weekend. But we never talked about that. There are literally tens of millions of dollars that we are going to be generating in this City as a result of those slot parlors, notwithstanding the tens of millions of dollars we may be able to get if we sell Camp William Penn that we only use 29 days a year that's sitting up in the Pocono Mountains. We should be thinking with our business caps so that we can protect jobs that are here today and grow the economy and grow jobs for people in the neighborhoods of Philadelphia. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam stated - 6/21/04 President. I will try to be brief. I came to this Council -(Catcalls from the audience.)
Mr. Gross, please. (Catcalls from the audience.)
We're trying to conduct business. This is not a debate. (Catcalls from the audience.)
And I'm going to have to ask you to leave if you don't behave. Councilman Goode, I'm sorry.
I think you deserve a little more respect than that.
I will try to be brief. I came to this Council five years ago, and I'm in my fifth year as a legislator. And the only way to get to a stated - 6/21/04 legislative body is through politics. And so often many of us still carry politics with us, and that is part of the job. But I came here as an economic development legislator. And one of the things I did in my first term and even my second term is continue to offer tax credit legislation. I remember being at a conference not too long ago where we proposed a model how we were pumping money back into low and moderate income and economic distressed communities. From having the private sector give a million dollars a year to community based organizations to do job training and job development and business and job creation, and do economic development. And ours is usually done downtown but within neighborhoods. And while people were touting this model as a national model, one of the reasons it was a national model was because we had a high business privilege tax. stated - 6/21/04 One of the people in the audience asked me -- They said, well, how do you get this tax credit? What is this tax credit against? And I explained the fact that we had a business privilege tax where not only did we pay on net income but we pay on gross receipts. And they found that amazing. They said, well, do you still have businesses there? I said, yes, but, we also definitely have businesses there that are willing to pay that tax credit. And that's the problem here. We can pass all types of tax abatements, all types of tax credits. We can come with all types of remedies that are short-term remedies that throw good money after bad. But the bad money is the fact that our tax structure is wrong. I don't agree with much of the debate here on both sides, for many reasons. But one of the biggest reasons I don't believe the debate is stated - 6/21/04 because I believe the debate is too politicized. This is not a race, again, between Sam Katz who is for tax reform and John Street. The truth of the matter is John Street won that race. But when John Street won that race, 17 other people won their races, too. So, we have a right to decide a budget and tax policy, just as John Street did for the 19 years he was in City Council. And one of the things I'm not going to allow the Mayor to do today is to send out a message that we're taking $3,000,000,000 out of revenue over the course of this tax schedule without saying that it gets $3,000,000,000 out of 40,000,000,000 to 50,000,000,000 budgetary dollars over the same period of time. That's not just $3,000,000,000. Even closed door meetings last week, while the Mayor was saying to some of us that in stated - 6/21/04 any given year we may be taking out as much as $400,000,000 to $500,000,000 out of a given budget year. He had to admit through his Budget Director that in the same given year we would still be increasing our budget by over $1,000,000,000. This budget of $3,400,000,000 is not going to decrease with this tax reform package over the several years. This budget is still going to increase to $4,000,000,000 to $5,000,000,000. So, let's stop playing politics. Decide what we're going to do with budget and tax policy. There wasn't one person elected in November; there were 18, in terms of the Mayor and City Council. So let's just vote.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. stated - 6/21/04 (Catcalls from the audience.)
Madam President, as one of those individually elected Council members, I want to make it known so people will be sure, that my comments come from me as a legislator. My comments are based on my analysis of what is before us. Contrary to some people's belief, I don't carry water for people. I have been here for 20 years. I have a clear sense of services. I have a clear sense of budgets. I have a clear sense of how government should work. So any statements that I make in this Council are based on what Darrell Clarke, Councilman of the 5th District, thinks about the particular issue. (Applause.)
Thank you. Are there any other speeches? The title of Bill Number 040256 was read. That has to do with the parking tax. I would ask the Chief Clerk to please call the roll. stated - 6/21/04
The Bill passes, 14 to 3. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill Number 040601.
An ordinance adopting the operating budget for fiscal year 2005.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is: Shall the bill pass finally. The Clerk will please call the roll.