Well, that answer is internally consistent with what you expect to happen on the sugar tax, 90 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. which is that it's going to be passed on to the end consumer. I'm certain the same thing will happen to the trash fee for tenants of landlords. And I'm really confused about what you're saying about the incentives we're creating, because as we have a pay-as-you-throw system, it diverts much more waste into recycling. A trash fee does not promote recycling in the least. And the more we recycle as a city, the more money we save on dumping fees; is that not correct? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: You're correct, Councilman. A fee by itself does not promote recycling. You're absolutely correct.
And doesn't a pay-as-you-throw system promote recycling, because the more trash diverted into the recycling stream, the less bags people will have to buy to put out their trash? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: You're correct on that too as well. A 91 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. pay-as-you-throw system, if people are going to buy bags or buy tags, would promote recycling. However --
So as we -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: There's a however that would go along with that, though. The however is that you still have to deal with the challenge of people who --
We can deal with short dumping. We can deal with that issue. We can deal with the issue of extra trash by charging enough for the bags to make sure that we are able to clean up lots and able to help people with bags. I mean, we as a city can deal with that issue. You're saying on the one hand, we want to promote a sound public policy of the sugar tax by diverting people from buying sugary beverages, and that will be good for the City and will raise revenue. It's inconsistent to then say, yes, we want to have a public policy promoting recycling 92 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. because that in the end saves us the most money, but we don't want to put in place a system that is the most effective system to promote recycling throughout the City. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Well, Councilman, I actually -- I could compare the sugar tax to recycling in this way. If we were --
I just did. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: If we were to turn back the hands of time, let's say three years, five years, ten years, we had a recycling rate that was under six percent in the City. People did not recycle, though it was available to them, and it appeared to be no extra cost and it was always good for our environment. So people did not necessarily recycle just because it was there. What we have done recently, though, to change the system for recycling to make it enticing to people 93 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. is to provide it in a way that it is convenient and takes away all the excuses about why not recycle as much as possible by making it single-stream, adding additional commodities and also making it weekly.
Would there be significantly more recycling if we had a pay-as-you-throw system than a trash fee system? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I'm not sure that I could say an absolute yes to that. I think that the --
You don't think that that would change behavior? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: It certainly would impact the behavior of some. It may not impact the behavior of others, and that's -- I'm trying to look at the system globally. My perspective is not one of just how I reside in my household or in my community, but I look at how I see citizens respond in total to different services that we provide, and 94 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. when it comes to recycling or to trash, the behaviors vary greatly around the City. We have citizens who deliver their trash to the curb by airmail. They throw it out of the window from the second or third story. I can't imagine why that would make sense, but I do know that it happens, and it happens every single day, and that's part of the cost and part of the process that we go through and people that we have to include in our education and enforcement efforts to try to change how those things happen.
No matter what kind of -- that's under our current system. That will exist if you have a trash fee. That will exist if you have a pay-as-you-throw system. I'm trying to get to what trash fee system would create the most recycling. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: I think what we're looking at in terms of what we're providing to citizens with our recycling being weekly, single stream and 95 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. also offering incentives, that we're going to expect the citizens to improve their recycling and increase it. And I'm not discounting what you're saying with regard to pay-as-you-throw. It certainly does offer the opportunity for increases and the incentive to increase your recycling, because no one wants to pay -- you want to reduce the amount that you put out for trash, but it also increases the incentive to put the raw materials into your waste stream and also to illegally dump. I'm sorry; not into your waste stream. Into your recycling container. The incentive to put that which is really trash into recycling, which is why when we reinvented our incentive program, we took it away from being an individual household in weight, because that did encourage people to abuse the process and the system and instead made it on a neighborhood basis and only encourage people to recycle that which is really recyclable. 96 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have basically a question. According to your testimony this morning, you're projecting a tax increase of 38 million for the Year '11 and 77 million for the Year '12; is that correct?
Excuse me, Councilman. Can you speak into the mike? We can't hear you. Thank you.
Okay. Now, 97 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. the problem I have with it, are you confident in raising this revenue? Because at the same time, you're saying that the Department of Revenue will be responsible for the collection of this tax, and due to the past performance of collecting revenue from property owners in this city, I have questions about whether they're able to do it, and how many additional employees would the Revenue Department need to tack on this additional responsibility?
Rob Dubow, the Finance Director. I just want to kind of address the underlying assumption. While it's clear we have a large amount of uncollected taxes and we need to bring that down, I don't think it's right to say that most of our taxes don't get collected. Our collection rate approaches 90 percent for the first year. Within three or four years, we're up to about 95 percent. So the taxes -- most 98 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. of the taxes do come in, and we assume that it will be the same for this tax.
Thank you, Mr. Dubow. I have another question and it has to do with the problem that retailers will have. According to your testimony, Dr. Schwarz, you expect to have a two-tier pricing policy with stores; in other words, if sugar drinks would be more than diet drinks. Is that true? Is that how you perceive this to be? Because what you're saying is that most people, if they want to save money and whatnot, would go to the diet drinks or the non-sugary drinks.
So we are able to tax retailers, and as has Council -- Council has pointed out and I mention in my testimony, how it's passed on by the retailer is not something we'll legislate. We can't legislate.
Yeah. Well, the retailers have a major problem with 99 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. this, because -- I know you're in pretty good shape. You probably don't go into the fast food restaurants like many other people do, but if you go into a fast food restaurant, what they do is, they give you a cup. Now, the cup, of course, you go over and you can have diet soda or regular soda or whatever. You have a selection there. You can do that. Now, what happens if they have on their board that a large drink will be, a diet drink, will be $1.75, but a regular drink will be $2.50. Well, what happens when the person goes up there? They're going to certainly say, Well, I'm going for a diet drink. I mean, that would make more sense, right? (Applause.)
See, and that's the problem retailers will have, and what they'll do, they won't make it 1.75 and 2.50. They'll make it $2 for all drinks. That's what they'll do. (Applause.) 100 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc.
See, I know what your intent is, and believe me, I think I can sympathize with you, but we can't dictate to people how and what they're going to buy and how they're going to buy it and what they're going to drink. (Applause.)
That's basically what I just wanted to bring out, that for retailers it's going to be a nightmare, and I think that one of the things we have to do is really think this thing through if we're going to do anything in the way of this tax. Thank you, Madam Chair. (Applause.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Agostini, in your testimony, you say the Administration does not propose broad-based rate 101 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. increases on any of the City's taxes. I'm assuming by that statement you mean that people who are employed in Philadelphia should not pay more taxes on their wage tax, that people who operate businesses within Philadelphia should not pay more taxes because of their gross receipts or because of their net income from that business, and you believe that's not fair. The question today is, what makes a soda tax or the trash fee fair. In my earlier line of questioning, I tried to deal with the fairness of the trash fee by saying that we at least have to have a way that compares the cost efficiency of trash collection. So my question again is, if we were to do such a comparison, if it were by property or by household or by ton, can you tell me how we match up in terms of cost efficiency with surrounding counties and with comparable cities in the United States? 102 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc.
Okay. Well, as I noticed -- you said you reviewed it before, right?
You don't have to cite it for me, but did we rank high or did we rank low?
When we looked at it, Councilmember, we ranked pretty much in the middle of all of those communities that had a trash fee.
Do you remember that the surrounding counties were less than $300? 103 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc.
We were looking at larger communities. The Streets Department has been pulling information from surrounding communities. We looked at larger communities, and our view is that based on what we saw in larger communities, we're about the same.
So on my third round of questioning, by which I hope you have the information by that time, I will ask these questions again, but I will ask them based upon your broad memory of the data. Will the revenue from the proposed trash fee improve trash collection? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The revenues that we are expecting from -- that will help support the General Fund will certainly continue to support the --
Will it improve trash collection? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: It will not improve trash collection in and of 104 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. itself. Certainly any challenge that we're presently expecting --
That was a simple honest answer. Thank you. How much of the revenue will be dedicated to new services? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Two million dollars will be dedicated to restore or new services in the first year.
So this is in fact a pension cost fee and tax? Mr. Agostini?
Okay. Your description is that these are two new initiatives that provide what new services?
As I mentioned earlier and as Ms. Tolson just mentioned, two million in additional services this year. Your line of questioning, if I recall, was about the increases in the 105 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. budget. At the time, I mentioned what the largest component of that --
And the largest component of that was for pensions. And at that moment, I believe you made the comparison or the statement that this is being raised for the purposes of covering our pension costs, and my response to you at that time was that we have very crushing pension costs and if you wanted to characterize it that way, that would be a way to characterize it.
That is where the money is going. There's no 24 need to revisit it, but I think if that's where the money is going, we should at 106 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. least be able to talk about the cost efficiency, if you want to call it a trash fee, the cost efficiency of trash collection. If you can't even do that comparatively, then I don't know why you would even try to sell us a trash fee if you can't say that our operation is cost efficient. Thank you, Madam Chair. (Applause.)
I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. I actually thought you said Councilman Rizzo. I have a couple questions regarding the Keep Philly Clean fee, the trash fee. Does our current real estate trash -- does our current real estate tax cover trash collection?
Councilmember, our current property tax covers a range of services, including sanitation. 107 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc.
Our property tax covers a range of City services, including a portion of the sanitation.
Okay. So one portion. Does that portion of sanitation mean trash collection?
And is this a temporary tax? After the recession has passed and the economy has recovered, assuming this tax is approved, will this tax be eliminated?
So it is permanent. Okay. And what is the current status of bulk trash collection and will this trash tax reinstate bulk trash collection? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: 108 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. Councilwoman, the current status is that bulk trash is not collected at the curb. As you may remember, that is one of the services that we cut in the past fiscal year. However, it is certainly one of the services that we'd like to consider for our future years under the new service fee.
And this new tax will -- in the testimony it says it will help bring back services such as street cleaning and additional vacant lot cleaning. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. We will be improving our neighborhood commercial corridor street cleaning, as well as picking up on a number of vacant lots that are serviced. In addition to that, restoring the mechanical leaf collection program.
Are you cleaning most of the commercial corridors with the cleaning services? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: 109 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. Currently, no. 3
Can we get a list of those corridors that are cleaned? Could you just get that list to the Chair? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
And just some other mechanics about this trash collection. How would you deal with neighbors dumping trash in front of another person's house? I mean, how will we deal with that? Because some families might only have one bag. I have a friend that lives in Montgomery County. They pay, but they can only put out so many bags of trash. Is that in any way incorporated, anything like that incorporated, in this particular fee? Is it going to be a limit on how many bags of trash you can actually put out? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The limit for set-out would not change. So people will not be incented to put their trash 110 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. in front of someone else's property.
-- as to how many bags a household can put out? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes.
What is that? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: The present limit is four cans or eight bags.
Oh, okay. Do people know about the limit? I had no 15 idea. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: Yes. Yes. They're in the regulations.
Okay. All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: But that's how this system is different than, say, the pay-as-you-throw, where you have that situation that your friend experiences, that people would have to take their material someplace else if 111 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. they didn't have the proper bags or tags on it.
Thank you, Madam President. I just need to get some clarity on the low-income designation. I just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. The low-income designation is solely based on the eligibility for the installment program? COMMISSIONER TOLSON: That would be the basis -- the installment program would be the basis of determining who will receive the --
Under the current -- and I know the characterization from the Administration, 112 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. one has nothing to do with the other. Under the current system on real estate taxes -- because personally I think this is a real estate tax, but we can leave that open for argument -- senior citizens who are PACENET eligible don't have to pay increases in their real estate taxes. Has any thought been given to this particular proposal for those senior citizens that are currently eligible for the PACENET/real estate program in the City of Philadelphia where they don't pay increases, increases in their real estate tax? (Witness approached witness table.) COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Excuse me. Can you repeat your question? I was walking. I couldn't hear everything.
I just wanted to clarify the whole issue about the designation of low income, but as you know, currently senior citizens in the 113 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. City of Philadelphia now are eligible for the real estate freeze, real estate tax freeze, if they're eligible for PACENET. The question is, has any thought been given to this particular program -- because my personal characterization, that this is a real estate tax increase -- to looking at those seniors that qualify for PACENET being able to, in addition to freezing their real estate tax, not have the burden of increasing the tax for trash collection or basically being a part of that? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Good morning. Keith --
Because if they don't have to pay -- sorry to cut you off. But if we feel that that person is worthy of having the ability to freeze any increases in real estate tax, as long as they live and own that home, I think it's reasonable to expect that that person also should not have to pay for an increase in this part of the real estate 114 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. tax increase. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Good morning. Keith J. Richardson, the Revenue Commissioner. In regard to your question, yes, we believe -- first of all, it's about 18,000 people in the program currently. Anyone who potentially may get this fee, if it's approved, when they get their real estate bill, there will be application also for them to apply. So the Revenue Department will look at the application to verify if someone is qualified to receive it or not.
But not the increase for the trash fee? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: For the fee also, yes.
So a senior citizen who qualifies for PACENET will not have to pay this trash fee? Ms. Tolson, are you agreeing 115 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. with that? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Again, it's -- COMMISSIONER TOLSON: He's going to clarify.
No. I just want to make sure that Ms. Tolson is agreeing with that. COMMISSIONER TOLSON: No. I think he wants to clarify what he said.
Oh, you didn't agree with that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Again, it's based on income eligibility.
Changing on me. Say it again now. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's based on income eligibility for the program.
So it's not based on PACENET? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No. 24 It would be based on eligibility.
So a senior 116 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. citizen that collects PACENET will have to pay a trash fee? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This is very possible if they don't qualify, yes.
When you say it's very possible... COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If they don't qualify for the income eligibility or don't apply for the senior citizen program with us, they may have to pay the additional fee instead of the hundred-dollar credit.
Since you're not going to answer the question, will they have to pay the trash fee or not? That's a simple question. If they qualify for PACENET, which allows a person not to pay any increase of real estate tax, will they also have to pay a trash fee? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes.
All right. You keep saying maybe. Yes or no. 117 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: They will have to pay.
Excuse me. Councilman, can I just piggyback on that a minute?
I was distracted. You mentioned about people on PACE --
-- and PACENET. Do we have any indication how many of our constituents are on PACENET? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't have the information for you, but I can get that information.
Would you, please. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, ma'am.
Thank 118 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. you. Councilman.
Thank you. In my follow-up to that, in terms of the billing, will that bill be inserted into the real estate tax bill, the bill for trash? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right now the proposal is to be on the real estate bill, but we're discussing that right now.
On the real estate bill? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Or in the bill, yes, as a separate --
So you're asking a senior when they get the bill on real estate, there's a form that says you don't have to pay PACENET, and then they have a confusing message, but you do have to pay this increase. It's on the same bill.
We're still looking at a couple of options for how we would 119 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. do it. Having it on the bill is one of those. It's the one that we've kind of looked at the most, but there are still issues like the one you're raising that we have to figure out. So it may be that we have --
That's a real easy one. Only 18,000 people. Well, actually less than that, because a lot of those people --
-- don't actually live in properties that will be eligible for the trash fee. So I think we should just eliminate those people.
But other options include having a separate bill that's included at the same time as your 120 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. property bill instead of having a separate line, or just billing separately, and we have to figure out which one of those works best.
What will be the fee -- because in the testimony, Ms. Tolson's testimony, it says a fee for a residential property. What will be the fee for commercial residential properties; i.e., income-producing properties?
We think that will be 300. We're looking at it, but we think that will be 300.
Why would a person who has a property that has multiple units in the building who is making revenue pay the same fee as --
Right. The way it's set up now, it's per property, but it may make sense to have it per residence. I think you and I have talked about that. So that is something that we should talk about, and if we need to 121 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. change it to make it per residence, that's something we would be open to.
I know my time is up, but you said we've talked about it and I brought it up to you a couple weeks ago. At what point during this debate on this issue are we going to talk about the unfairness of charging a person who has a single-family home that does not produce revenue the same as a person who has multiple units and is an income-producing property?
Then when are you going to do something about it? Because we've talked about it for two, three weeks, and my concern is that if there's going to be an additional cost associated with income-producing properties, I think that should be reflected in the single-family cost, and it makes this whole notion that a senior citizen who is qualified for PACENET 122 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. should have to pay anything.
If we're going to make that change, we should amend the bill before it's voted on.
Well, all right. Maybe you want to have that understanding that there will be changes if you want to get it voted out. I mean, you know.
Not that it's going to pass at all, but I'm just suggesting that. I'm just saying that the improvements need to be discussed early on and not at the last minute and ask us to vote it out without having the benefit of a conversation leading up to that.
123 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to clarify something for the record. Can you tell me in last year's Five Year Plan what the estimated pension expense was going to be for FY2011? In the finally submitted to PICA Five Year Plan rather than the proposed budget. I can help you with that.
I think the point you're getting to is that it's virtually unchanged from that number.
And in the newly proposed Five Year Plan, what is the pension obligation payment?
It's roughly the 124 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. same.
Right. That number did not change from what was introduced to PICA.
Right. So there's a $3 million difference between the Five Year Plan's projection for next year's pension payment. There was a suggestion or implication, I would say, that the increase in cost and fees is related to $130 million in increased pension payments over this year. That's not true, is it?
Take a step back. We had a Plan that was balanced last year that included that increase in pension costs. What's throwing the Plan out of balance is a number of things, including weakness in wage tax revenue, weakness in sales tax revenue, snow costs. There are a whole bunch of things that added 125 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. together to create a deficit that required us to make these proposals to bring ourselves back into balance.
Sure, but it had nothing to do with pensions, because it's exactly what you projected it would be; isn't that correct?
Okay. I just wanted to make that clear for the record. And what was the sales tax -- at the time we knew what the pension cost was going to be, what was the purpose of the approval of the sales tax at the state level?
There were two points -- well, in the state legislation, the sales tax is dedicated to repaying the deferral of the pension payment.
Right. I just wanted to clarify that. So could you go through actually what the costs are, what the 126 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. difference -- why we have to spend more money this year? What is the extra revenue needed for, going to be spent for, since we know it's not for pensions?
Well, there are two ways to look at it. One is what caused the deficit, which were the things I talked about, which is the falloff in wage tax, falloff in sales tax, increase in snow costs, a whole bunch of other costs. But if you're asking what's driving our budget, the single biggest cost that's driving our budget is the pension cost. It's a cost that was under $200 million at the beginning of last decade and it's going to be $600 million at the end of this Plan.
I understand that, but the pension cost remains the same through the Five Year Plan as projected last year. We're raising $600 million in new taxes. The pension costs are the same.
Well, by 2015, the 127 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. sales tax is gone and the pension cost is $600 million.
I think there are two different issues. One is, you're asking what caused the deficit that we're trying to close. I've answered that. If your other question is, what's it paying for and kind of what's the driving cost in our Plan, pensions is the biggest driver.
It is, but there's no difference in pension costs over the next four years from last year's Plan.
That's why I'm saying that the things that caused the deficit were all the other things I listed.
Okay. And it's also not causing the need for additional revenue at least over the next four years, because it's exactly the same as it was last year. Even though it's a 128 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. big piece of our budget, it has not changed.
And we're not raising revenue for that because we're spending exactly what we thought we were going to have to spend in all four of the next years.
Right. It's not creating our deficit. On the other hand, if it wasn't going up to over $600 million, we wouldn't have the kind of issues we have.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. I have a couple questions related to the sweet tax, the sugar tax. 129 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. Hi. Good afternoon, Dr. Schwarz.
Have any other cities implemented this type of sugar tax? I think I did hear on the news that it was Philadelphia and New York. Are there any more?
There are a number of cities and there are a number of states which tax sugar-sweetened beverages.
Other than New York, are there any others closest to us?
New York actually doesn't at the moment tax other than sales tax.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez for a point of information. 130 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc.
Wasn't New York voted down yesterday overwhelmingly?
Chicago has had a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages now for more than a decade.
My district is actually close to -- my district has a borderline of Montgomery County, part of my district anyway, and Montgomery County will not have a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Have you done any analysis to estimate how supermarkets in the City, especially those closest to neighboring jurisdictions, what type of impact that will have on the particular supermarket, this tax?
So we've tried to estimate, based on information that we 131 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. have, what proportion of consumption is from sugar-sweetened beverages purchased in supermarkets, and then we've tried to figure out how supermarkets, based on what you've heard from colleagues here, will pass on to price for consumers, and I don't know the answer to either one. I know approximately the proportion of sugar-sweetened beverages that are consumed from -- purchased outside of supermarkets. I don't know how supermarket retailers will pass the cost on to consumers. We know, for instance, that sales tax differs between Philadelphia and the suburbs. We know that there are differences in costs for lots of different things actually between Philadelphia and the suburbs because of that, and I think the question is, what will consumers do and how will that impact what retailers do.
Have you thought about how you encourage retailers 132 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. to pass the tax on -- to discourage them from passing the tax on to all beverages?
The only thing that I can do is education and working with retailers to understand the impact they may have on obesity and passing it on.
With the Healthy Corner Store Initiative, does Philadelphia have or will Philadelphia continue with this initiative whether this tax is passed or not?
Philadelphia is hopeful that we will have some money over the next two years from the federal government to at least start. The amount that we expect from the federal government is less than we have asked for from the tax beginning in '12.
Okay. Thank you. 133 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Agostini, do you have the information yet? (Applause.)
Okay. Let me move on to other questions, then. What does the average homeowner pay in property taxes in Philadelphia?
Let's say, for instance, the average homeowner in Olney pays less than a thousand dollars, as does the average homeowner in Cedar Park, Penrose, Pennsport, Ogontz, Morton, Summerdale, West Poplar, Elmwood, Bridesburg, Whitman, Juniata, Wharton, Southwest Germantown, Paschall, Southwest 134 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. Center City, Cobbs Creek, Andorra, Feltonville, Richmond, East Germantown, Wister, Logan, and I have a couple more pages that I won't read in terms of neighborhoods around the City.
Let's say they pay about a thousand dollars in their tax bill. Three hundred dollars represents a 30 percent increase. Is that fair?
That's an opinion. I'm not going to express an opinion on that.
Does anyone from the Administration have an opinion on that?
I believe that we made a proposal, a series of 135 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. proposals, where we believe that the alternatives, making very deep reductions in the service base, would be so damaging to the fabric of the City and so damaging to our ability to provide services to the City, in the aftermath of what has been the most difficult economic crisis since the 1930's --
Excuse me, Mr. Agostini. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like to note we would like to see what the Draconian cuts would look like. I understand in testimony last week we were told we'd have it by the end of last week. I don't 136 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. want to beat a dead horse. I don't want Mr. Agostini to get mad at me, but it's hard to engage in this discussion about a revenue measure and receive that response without knowing what the actual impact would be of cuts by department, and I just ask the President to please try to get us that information as soon as possible.
Mr. Agostini, when do you anticipate that we will receive that information?
I saw a draft of that I believe yesterday. So my hope is to get that over sometime today or tomorrow.
Thank you, sir. 137 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc. In reviewing the budgets, after two very difficult budget years where we took out about 2.4 billion over six years, we thought it was very, very difficult to again go back and make reductions in services, and while we appreciate and understand the concerns that have been expressed here and that you, sir, have expressed with respect to both of these, in your case most notably the trash fee, we feel that in order to preserve the base of services, in order to preserve what we're doing, it's important to have revenue coming into the system. Unfortunately, it's either on the expenditure side or on the revenue side, and we believe that this is the best way to preserve that level of service. So with respect to the perspective of the Administration, yes, that's our opinion, and unfortunately there are a lot of difficult choices that are before us with whether we pursue this set of actions or not. 138 3/17/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100118, etc.
Councilmember, I believe that there are probably ways that we can tweak this, given some of the suggestions that have been made here on the Council floor by Councilmember Clarke and others, that we could probably make it a more fair levy, but we'll need some time to do that.
Would a ten percent property tax increase be more fair?
If we have a sense that on the assessment basis that we can make that work rather than have the impact on a sort of flat fee for everybody, yes, it's conceivable. If we structure it properly, it would be more fair.