Councilman Longstreth. 10/24/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE
Aye. The ayes are 16, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. The next bill to be called for consideration is Bill No. 020558.
An ordinance establishing a 10/24/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE parking regulation on 13th Street, east side, Shunk Street to Oregon Avenue.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now shall the bill pass finally? The Clerk will please call the roll.
Aye. 10/24/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE
Aye. The ayes are 16, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, this bill passes. The last bill to be called for consideration today is Bill No. 020486.
An ordinance adopting an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of the City Avenue Special Services District of Philadelphia and Lower Merion to extend the term of that authority, all under certain terms and conditions. 10/24/02 - STATED - 2ND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE
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.
Aye. The ayes are 16, the nays are 0. A majority of all Members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. That concludes the Calendar for today. Are there speeches on the part of the minority? (No response.) Are there speeches on the part of the majority? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. Today, I introduced a resolution in Bridges, and I'd like us to take a moment to stand in his memory. And for those that don't remember, Ken Bridges was a victim of the senseless and vicious acts of the Washington sniper.
Everyone will stand for a moment of silence, please. (Moment of silence.)
At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I wanted to say thank you for the information that we received this morning and commend your leadership as well as express appreciation to our technical staff as well as Mayor Street's office and the Budget Bureau for the work that went into the fiscal analysis of the entire Board of Revision of Taxes assessment file, the analysis of that particular file, and most importantly -- and hopefully, we might be able to adopt this model on a going-forward basis. The most important thing out of this analysis -- and we'll debate about the numbers and financial impact, but the one thing we don't have to do is debate the because we know from those meetings that both the Administration representatives and the Council representatives, the technical support and financial people, were able to reach agreement on what the actual numbers are and what the fiscal impact is. And so I think that we can have a credible, legitimate, substantive discussion about the property tax issue and any of the many variations of addressing that issue as represented by bills on our Calendar, but not end up stuck in a debate about whose numbers are right or whose numbers are wrong because the work that was done, the result is everyone knows what the numbers are, everyone agrees what the numbers are. And now it is left to us in the City Council and Mayor Street and the Administration to ultimately make some decisions about public policy and the fiscal impact, whether it's on the City or the School District. And I would refer back to comments made at the end of a session a couple weeks ago by Councilwoman Tasco who talked about -- and I will not be able to re-say what she said, but the spirit of it was that -
Nor with the passion and the fervor that Tasco said it. (Laughter.)
Mine will be rather dry. That it really now is time for both the City Council and the City Administration to start working on this particular issue to see if we can legitimately and substantively have meetings, have discussions, have negotiations and work on something that the 18 elected officials who have the most impact on this City can come to an agreement to respond to what many of us perceive as outrageous increases that many of our constituents have received while at the same time ensuring that the City can provide high quality of service and that the School District can conduct its operations without disruption. I do believe that there is an answer out there. I believe ultimately that the figures in this document will help us make a good and proper decision for all parties involved. And I certainly extend my hand personally to the Administration in the greatest spirit of friendship and cooperation to can, in fact, in a relatively quick period of time provide some tax relief to our constituents while also respecting the concerns of the School District and the general City operations. And so again, Madam President, I thank you for getting this analysis. And I think that we have our work cut out for us, but that process needs to start as soon as possible. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. Are there any other speeches on the part of the majority. Seeing none, the Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Yes, Madam President. Following up on Councilman Nutter's remarks, I would just ask my colleagues to remember I haven't looked at the data yet that we received this morning, but there's a fiscal impact, no question. But the more people you want to help, the greater the fiscal impact. And we all have to recognize that and not let the fiscal impact be the driving force, but how many people we're going to help. If we go out and help people in the neighborhoods, there's more of a fiscal impact than if we decide to just help Center City. And I think we have to really -- if we're going to do something, do it broadly. It was just announced the other day that this year the increase in Social Security payments, I believe, are going to be 1.2 percent. And that's pretty much -- it's lower than it's been in a while, but it's been hovering at a very low number for a while. And when we're throwing around percentages, let's keep in mind that a lot of people aren't seeing much more than or percent a year, if they're seeing anything at all in their paychecks or their governmental checks. So I just want to leave that on the record. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other speeches? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
As a further follow-up, I wanted to know if anyone looked at the report we got this morning through the President as to the number of appeals and different financial groups, has the appeal period expired as yet?
So that now it would be too late to use that particular method?
I believe it has expired for the residential owners. Certainly not for the commercial.
Is there an analysis from the appeals from the point of view of how much a person seeking to appeal had their appraisal raised? I think that will give us another important fact as to how deep the pain is and where we feel it because most people suffering high increases would be at a level that would have the ability to understand the rights of appeal and make those appeals. I'm concerned, in thinking about it, that we haven't as yet -- and, therefore, I welcome Councilman Nutter's remarks. We haven't as yet really begun to analyze the situation. We think of well-off taxpayers, but they can be taxpayers who bought a home for $100,000. They could be taxpayers who bought a home for a million and a half. I have to reconcile with what Councilman DiCicco's been telling us for quite some time that people of City and, therefore, we have to give them huge tax rebates and we passed bills to do that. And at the same time, we find that the wealthiest parts of Philadelphia are the hottest areas of real estate desire. I find that to be inconsistent. I'm not blaming you for it. I'm just saying as we begin to think about it, I find a lot of inconsistencies in the situation. And although first a believer in a cap, I don't think the same cap would be appropriate for somebody who bought a home in Center City for a million and a half that a few years ago sold for a fifth of the price. I don't think that cap would be the same as the cap for somebody who bought 100,000 or 150,000. I don't think you can group sort of affluent people. There's too much variation. I'm fearful that if we don't have high percentage increases and the very high levels that the City losses that money forever. And I wonder whether it's fair to put the burden on the lower income person. These are very difficult questions and I'm delighted that Councilman Nutter puts the blame and responsibility where it belongs, that's on us, the City Council, on the Mayor, and on the Board of think we have our work cut out for us and it won't be easy. Thank you, Madam, for permitting me these general remarks.
Thank you, Councilman. Councilman DiCicco, your light is on. Did you want to be recognized?
I was not sure if Councilman Cohen was asking me for any specifics. I will just make a brief comment that I think that the reason behind the introduction of the bills that I did, Bills 020490 and 020491, speaks to the very heart of what we're debating for the last few weeks and what the discussions are morning, that there is an issue of fairness and equity and that the system, the system at the BRT, with all due respect for the folks who work there, needs some refinement. One of the reasons we find ourselves in the position we are in today is that speaking about folks who may be purchasing a home today at a million dollars, that's okay if you're going in. Going in knowing that you're buying a home for million dollars and knowing what the taxes are is one thing. But when you're a to live in a neighborhood that over 10, 15, 20-year period property values began to increase, to get socked with a hundred, 200, 300 percent increase in one fell swoop is, I think, counter-productive, whether they're affluent or low income. It's not fair. And I think my bills speak to the issue of fairness which is the reason I asked for a temporary freeze by way of those bills to sort through all of these issues. And I think by this time next week, I will be able to demonstrate additional flaws in the system at the BRT that I think will allow us to reconsider whether -- at the time to consider whether we want to do the freeze bills or not. Notwithstanding, and I even recognize the impact of the freeze bill on the budget both for the City and the School District. It's not my intention in any way to take away money that is necessary to run the schools or the City, but it's just to give us an opportunity to step back and go through all of the materials that we have by virtue of the hearings and additional questions that are coming up as a result of the financial reports that have been given to us this morning. you, Madam President.
Thank you. Are there any other speeches on the part of the majority? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco for a motion to adjourn.
I move that Council stands adjourned until Thursday, October 31st at 10:00 a.m. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Council stand adjourned until Thursday, October 31st. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. (Council adjourned at 11:15 a.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of October 24, 2002, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: STATED MEETING ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public