COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE City Hall, Room 400 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, April 21, 2026 10:00 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT KENYATTA JOHNSON COUNCILWOMAN RUE LANDAU COUNCILWOMAN NINA AHMAD COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE-RICHARDSON COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY M. LOZADA COUNCILWOMAN CINDY BASS COUNCILMAN MICHAEL DRISCOLL COUNCILMAN CURTIS J. JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN NICOLAS O'ROURKE COUNCILMAN JEFFREY YOUNG, JR. COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PHILLIPS HELEN LOUGHEAD, The Clerk P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. Good morning, everyone. I see Donovan West over there. Good morning, sir. This is the public hearing and public meeting of the Committee of the Whole, regarding Bills No. 10 260199, 260200, 260201, 260202, 260203, 260204, 260205, 260206, 260208, 260209, and Resolution No. 13 260227. Ms. Loughead, would you please call the roll and take attendance?
Present. A full house today. Thank you, Ms. Loughead. A quorum of the committee is present, and this hearing is now called to order. Ms. Loughead, will you please read the title of the bills and resolutions?
Bill No. 13 260199, an ordinance adopting the operating budget for Fiscal Year 2027. Bill No. 260200, an ordinance to adopt to Fiscal Year 2027 capital budget. Bill No. 260201, an ordinance to adopt a capital program for the six fiscal years 2027 through 2030, inclusive. Bill No. 262202, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-2400 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled Hotel Room Rental Tax, by providing for an additional excise tax on hotel room rentals, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 26203, an ordinance amending sub-code A, the Philadelphia Administrative Code of Title IV of the Philadelphia Code, the Building, Construction, and Occupancy Code, by adding and revising zoning board adjustment fees and provisions regarding hearing scheduling, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 260204, an ordinance amending Title III of the Philadelphia Code, entitled Error Management Code, to modify the amounts of license and permit fees under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 260205, an ordinance amending Section 19-1806 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled Authorization of Realty Use and Occupancy Tax, to clarify the imposition of the tax on the use or occupancy of real estate with respect to cell towers, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 260206, an ordinance amending Chapter 6-600 of the Philadelphia Code, Asbestos, by adding and revising provisions related to various fees, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 260208, an ordinance amending Chapter 19-1800 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled School Tax Authorization, to add a new Section 19-1808, entitled Authorization of Rideshare Use Tax, to authorize the Board of the School District of Philadelphia to levy a tax upon the use by a passenger of a transportation network company for a pre-arranged ride that originates in Philadelphia, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 260209, an ordinance amending Title of the 5 Philadelphia Code, entitled Finance 6 Taxes and Collections, to add a new 7 chapter, 19-4800, entitled Retail 8 Delivery Tax, to establish a tax on 9 orders for the delivery in 10 Philadelphia of retail consumer and 11 other tangible goods, all under 12 certain terms and conditions. 13 And Resolution No. 260227, 14 providing for the approval by the 15 Council of the City of Philadelphia 16 of a revised five-year financial 17 plan for the City of Philadelphia, 18 covering fiscal years 2027 through 19 2031 and incorporating revisions with respect to Fiscal Year 2026, which is to be submitted by the mayor to the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, pursuant to an intergovernmental cooperation agreement by and between the city and the authority.
Thank you very much. Today, we hold the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole to consider bills read by the clerk that constitute proposed operating capital spending measures for Fiscal Year 2027, a capital program and a forward-looking capital plan for Fiscal Year 2027 through Fiscal Year 2032. This morning we have scheduled testimony from the administration on the proposed revenue adjustments and the Office of Property Assessment. Ms. Loughead, will you please call the first panel to testify from the administration?
Rob, just state for the record your name and please begin your testimony, sir.
Great. Thanks. Good morning, Council President Johnson, members of the Committee. My name is Rob Dubow. I'm a finance director. I am joined by Revenue Commissioner Kathleen McColgan, Executive Director of the Office of Homeless Services, Cheryl Hill, Streets Commissioner Kristen Del Rossi, and Chief Education Officer Dr. Debora Carrera, and other administration officials. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the various revenue measures included in the proposed FY27 budget and FY27 to FY31 five-year plan. Our proposed budget and five-year plan include 642 million in crucial new operating investments, over five years to pursue Mayor's vision to make Philadelphia the safest, cleanest, and greenest big city in the nation, with access to economic opportunity for all. The proposal builds on the progress of the last two years, and dedicates new resources to address urgent needs facing Philadelphia. As always, the administration remains committed to fiscal responsibility and long-term stability as we maintain stability through significant challenges in this uncertain federal and economic environment. At the expiration of federal COVID relief funding, potential federal regulatory changes, high legacy costs, including a balloon payment in FY29, careful planning is essential. As part of the budget process, every department prepared and percent cut scenarios, and more than $200 million in low service impact cuts were incorporated into the plan. Even with those reductions, by FY29, our reserves reached the bottom of our target range. Because of these constraints, any new or expanded key service investments require new recurring revenue sources. The proposals before you are targeted to specific funds and dedicated to funding for those key services. Parker administration does not take lightly proposals to raise taxes or fees, but the revenue generated through these proposed changes will allow us to continue the progress made over the last two years and support efforts to end street homelessness, keep our streets safe, sustain key city services, and avoid devastating cuts to our schools. With that, I'm going to turn over -- turn it over to the people who joined me at the table to give more specifics on the services we will be funding and we'll start with Cheryl Hill.
Good morning. Cheryl Hill, executive director of the Office of Homeless Services. As a key investment in homeless services, the plan includes 110 million over five years to add 1,000 shelter beds with wraparound services, expand hours and services at the Hub of Hope, and increase encampment resolution capacity. To support this investment, we propose a two-percentage point increase to the hotel room rental tax, beginning August 1st, 2026, generating approximately million 4 annually. Even with this increase, 5 Philadelphia's rate remains aligned 6 with other major cities. In 7 addition, the administration 8 continues to have discussions with 9 the hospitality industry about the 10 proposal. 11
Good 12 morning, everyone. Streets 13 Commissioner, Kristen Del Rossi. 14 To improve our streets, the plan 15 proposes a $0.25 retail delivery 16 tax on certain taxable retail goods 17 delivered in Philadelphia. 18 Essential medicine are exempt. 19 This revenue will support 20 the One Philly Pothole Squad and strengthen our ability to deliver proactive and reactive street condition repairs.
Good morning, Council. My name is Dr. Debora Carrera. I'm the Chief Education Officer. As a key investment in quality education, the plan includes two proposals generating more than 50 million annually for the school district: a $1 transportation network company tax on rideshare trips, beginning January 2027, and a modernization of the use and occupancy tax for cell towers by basing it on bandwidth rather than square footage. With this revenue and the district's own efficiencies, approximately 340 school-based positions can be retained, avoiding harmful cuts that would otherwise be necessary. It is also our hope that if the city approves this new revenue, the commonwealth will continue building on the progress made in Harrisburg so our schools have the foundation they need to succeed.
And the attached to the testimony, our administrations -- oh, thank you. The administration's proposed amendments to certain bills for the rideshare tax, the amendments propose raising the tax to a dollar and changing implementation date to January 1st. And for the ZBA fees, there are some technical amendments. We're requesting counsel adopt those amendments. We're available for any questions regarding the proposals. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes -- well, let me go back to a question I was asked regarding the rideshare tax from Councilmember Jim Harrity some time ago. He asked: is there a way for us to look at trying to find ways where to -- the fees will impact the actual rider? And at that time, under the administration said they will look into it. Has any progress made in regards to what that may look like?
Yeah. So I think we are open to changes that comply with the Uniformity Act. But that does give a kind of a fairly large constraint on what we can do.
And I didn't mean -- I didn't -- I didn't mean to say driver; I meant to say --
Okay. And also, I had another question regarding when we look at the hotel tax, right, and we know sometime the market can be volatile, it can go up; it can go down. How is that taken into consideration in terms of the usage of our hotels?
Yeah. And when we looked at that rate, the additional percent, and looked at what it would mean for a room of $200, it's a percent -- $4 change. So we didn't think that was going to have a major impact. We've also seen that there are other places that are looking at their hotel tax, Chicago just announced proposal to raise theirs to 19 percent, which would be higher than what we're proposing.
And I think there was data that talked about when we look at -- there is a claim that 1 percent of low-income residents relied on rideshare for community -- for commuting. And so what way does that data come from? Or could you provide that data to members of Council just for us to review?
Yes. It comes from the Census Bureau, and we will definitely provide that to you.
Less than percent of workers making under $50,000 used rideshare to commute.
And just in general, in the event that this is moved forward, is there any consideration for exemptions for seniors and those who have disabilities?
So I think we're open to anything that's consistent with uniformity clause, so long as it doesn't eat into revenue by too much.
Okay. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Katherine Gilmore Richardson.
Thank you, Council President. I'll reserve the balance of my questions for OPA. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Dr. Anthony Phillips.
Thank you, Council President. I have a -- the question regarding for the ZBA fee amendment. The Zoning Board of Adjustment application fee is proposed to increase from $300 to $811, which is -- which is 170 percent increase. So that's a significant jump, particularly for homeowners and small applicants who are already navigating the complex process. I want to know what cost analysis determine this increase and justifies it, and where does the revenue generate from these -- where will this new revenue that's coming in will, where will it go?
Yep. So that's a -- these are fees that had not been increased in a while, and as you know, fees -- the fees cannot exceed the cost of the service, so we did an analysis of those costs. We also are exempting one and two building properties. So we did take into account that affordability for the smaller developments.
And based on how much additional revenue is the city projected to receive as a result of this, into the general fund? I mean -- I mean, that's a -- that was a huge jump.
It's about $500,000 annually, about two-and-a-half million over our five-year plan.
Okay. Can we count -- you said, is it 500? Say it again.
Yes, 500,000 annually, about two-and-a-half million over the five-year plan.
And that's different from what was -- what was the previous revenue?
Oh, she's back. I don't want to -- as you're coming, I just want to quickly ask, are we expect to see improvements in service timelines, in communication to applicants, in return for this increased cost?
Can we get on record in terms of it later on and now, like what that will look like?
Okay. And then my next question was just around the rideshare tax. I'm just curious about it. I'm all about children and kids, but I just want to understand what does the track -- what does the track record rideshare taxes in other cities tell us about long-term revenue stability. After implementation, do -- did those cities see revenue remain stable over time or did they see a decline in usage?
Yeah, I can tell you the -- what's happened here with the state tax, the 1.4 million, other than in the pandemic, it's been relatively stable with some growth.
Okay. And were there -- were there conversations with the rideshare companies prior to this decision being made?
So just recent. Okay. So I'm just trying to make sure that we can work it out, where if this does -- if this tax does go through, it could go -- the companies would take on the tax as a -- as support as opposed to the riders. But like you said, the uniformity clause may not allow that; is that correct?
No. 15 Uniformity clause doesn't allow us to do, you know, different rates for different types.
But in terms of the rideshare company deciding to assume those costs on behalf of their customers, the uniformity clause doesn't have anything to do with that.
Right. And so they're choosing not to do that, and now it's going to impact the customers. Right? And I think that right now as a dollar, I just want to make sure, are we going -- are you going to be advocating in years to come anytime soon for it to go up above a dollar?
We have no 13 plans to do that. Our projections are for it to stay at the dollar.
The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jeffrey J. Young.
Thank you, Mr. President. I just -- it's a point of information when it was just mentioned that the rideshare companies are choosing to pass that on to the rider, but the legislation itself specifically states that the transportation network companies are acting as the board of -- agent for the Board of Education and shall collect the tax from the passenger. So the legislation says that they have to collect the tax from the passenger. So --
Yeah. They can then decide how they want to pass that on. Right? They can decide whether they're going to increase their feed account for that or whether they're just going to basically hold their riders harmless. That's a decision they can make.
Are you saying, Rob, legally you can't say that the rideshare company has to take on this particular tax --
-- as opposed -- okay. I just want to make sure that that was clear to folks.
Yes. Good morning. Sabrina Maynard, budget director. So the current estimate in the current year for ZBA fees is just under about 300,000. So we're really behind in collecting the cost of providing this service. So that's what we're bringing in now, about 300,000. And I should add that with the increase, we will actually still be behind the rates of the surrounding counties. So we will still be comparatively low, even with the increase.
Yeah. That's incredibly helpful to understand. I -- I'm just more -- you know, more concerned about whether or not we're going to see for sure the revenue that we expect. How confident are you that we're going to get that revenue? Because if it's for the children, we got to make sure we have that revenue, right?
Yeah. So, you know, based on where ridership is, we are -- we are fairly confident of receiving that revenue.
Okay. And why does -- why do -- why do you believe comparisons to cities like Chicago and New York are appropriate when our residents have different earning levels, right, comparison to those cities?
How did you come up with that number based off of that? Based of what, like, our city is different in that capacity. Is that why is a dollar compared to New York's 2.75?
Yes. They're higher. We did look -- we wanted to look at cities that had the tax, and you're right, we are lower. The amount of the tax was based on the amount of revenue that we wanted to generate, and that was based on saving those school district positions.
And seconds, I just want to say, 8 you exhausted all -- I just want it 9 to be on the record. You exhausted 10 all options. There was no other way to get to that $50 million this year?
Right. So we looked -- you know, looking at our financial position, we looked at the cuts we could make to save money without impacting our services. So we went through all of that before we proposed any increases in taxes.
Okay. Thank you, Councilor. No 23 further questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Curtis Jones.
Thank you, Mr. President. We just left a school, Lankenau, up in the 21st --
Member Jones, could you speak in the microphone, sir.
We just left a school, a press conference, Member Thomas, Member Gauthier, Nina Ahmad, where students and parents were concerned about what we are getting for what we are paying. And the question becomes, if we raise you an additional 48 million annually based on Uber rideshare, and then extra money by way of the hotel tax; and that those numbers are projected to make them on balance within three years; is that correct?
So the question I have and the parents that we just left is how much of the school closures would save money in that regard to help reduce that deficit? What is the projected number for everything? If they got everything they wanted, closed every school in some of our districts, what would that save them?
So again, Dr. Debora Carrera. That is a great question, Councilmember.
You do. And I want to say that these are two buckets, right? When we're talking about the facilities master plan, and we're talking about the plan that the school district has presented, and we're talking about how the school district has presented the needs to provide our students with quality with better, this is -- this is different, right? The rideshare tax is talking about saving 300, 400 positions.
The specific question is how much would all these closures save?
So I would defer to the school district to answer that question.
You know, Dr. Dubow, you know I'm a fan of yours.
I'm trying to understand, you are the Chief Educational Officer for the City of Philadelphia, and there's a school facilities plan for the closure of schools on the table. You represent the administration. I know the school board is an independent body, right? You have the Chairman Streeter, you have Dr. Watlington. Right? But I also know that when we start off this process in the beginning, like there were conversations with everybody at the table. So I would think that you at least come in and would know those numbers. So I'm just being up front. Just for the simple fact that it would be under your purview as a part of overall what we are trying to accomplish, because the support for keeping the 340 positions moving forward is also tied up into the overall plan as it relates to school closures. I know you may say it's different, but I think members of the body feel like it's also -- we're asking to do one thing on one end, but at the same time address a school facilities plan that had dire effects in some areas. And so I just think when a member asked that question, I would just think that, at least on the numbers side, because from what I understand about the school facilities plan, some of it is going to academic performance, modernization of schools. But we also know from being around this body for a while, some of it is economically driven, meaning in some cases, you're shutting down a school projected wise because you're spending so much on overhead for a small footprint of educating students. And that's a dollars and cents decision that's being made. Not distinctive members specifically saying there is a number out there, somebody calculated a number and there will be some savings, because that's the same conversation with the general assembly folks, on the house side in Harrisburg, as well as on the state side. They say you have a structural deficit that you must address, and I know there's going to be savings that's going to come out of it. And so I just would think that we will have those numbers as the head education person, or at least they -- I'll put it this way, out of respect, they should be providing you all that data so you can just have on your own as the Chief Education officer for the city, but I'm going to digress to the time back to Member Jones.
No, well said, Mr. President. So the math has to math. We -- you have to make it make sense to us that why on one hand we are going to tax people and then take away from people educational opportunities for their kids. We -- I can't knock on the door, say, I'm taxing you and I'm closing your school because of some nebulous number that we don't know. So one of the cries from the kids was slow it down. And, you know, they're rushing this thing to help us. We -- they want us to make a whole decision on half information, which I'm just -- as one independent elected official, just not prepared to do that. I support fully funding our schools. I support fully educating our kids that those two things can be true at the same time. But what you're not going to do, what I'm not going to do is raise taxes on one hand, cut services on the other, and tell them that makes sense. So --
Can I -- can I respond? May I respond to that, Council President?
One second. The Chair recognizes the Majority Leader Gilmore- Richardson.
No, Council President. I'm raising a question of privilege for this hearing. My question of privilege relates to the request -- the immediate request of the presence of the School District of Philadelphia to respond to the questions that the members of Council have during this important hearing relative to tax bills that relate to figures and dollars that we need answered as the Council deliberates Bill No. 260208. So I raise a question of privilege for the district to appear in this hearing immediately. Thank you.
So I just want to say this very clearly, and I know that I respect this body. And I'm going to be very quick. The district is underfunded. And that's really important to continue to say, and I'm going to continue to say that. The district is owed a billion, $1 billion. And I need people to understand that because when we're asking the district, right, to make cuts, and they're making those cuts, they're making central office cuts, they're making cuts to contracts, we understand. Like if we were owed what we should have received, even in three years, right, the -- this was a three-year decision, that was -- the courts found that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is underfunding this state, but the District of Philadelphia, $1 billion. We would have had $3 billion already, Councilman. Could you imagine what we could have done with $3 billion? The district has presented this plan, and they've said from the onset, and I hear you Councilwoman, they've said from the onset, this is not a budget plan. This is a plan about giving kids what they need. I have been -- and you know my -- I've been an assistant superintendent, I've been -- I've manage schools across the city of Philadelphia. I've been to Southwest, I've been to Comegys, I've been to Bartram, I've been to Rush, I've been to Central. I have seen it all for years and it's not equitable. It is not fair. Our children need the best, because you can have a brand-new building. Amen. If you have a brand-new building, that is wonderful. But I was at Elkin Elementary. I was at Elkin Elementary, where it was hot the other day. And so my point today is that we cannot forget. We are thankful for our legislators, but we have a $1 billion deficit. And we have to do all that we can. And I hear you, the district has said this is not a budget plan; it's about more preschool. It's about more arts. It's about more music. It is about sciences, advanced placement classes. And I know that is not an easy decision and it is difficult, but we cannot forget that we are severely chronically underfunded.
Just real quick, there's a point of information.
Real brief. I just want to say that just the point of information is everyone agrees that we have to find a way to get to the funding for our district. It's about how do we find that way collectively, right? We care about the children, we care about our schools, but it's collectively. You all had time to deliberate this, but all of us have not had the time to deliberate this to collectively. And we just don't want to go in blindly supporting something without truly understanding the ramifications of that. So that's why we're asking these questions. And if you don't mind, we just want to get to the numbers of how we get to that point, right? And we want to be supportive of you and the mayor, but I think we could find a way to get everything done in a cohesive way.
Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to echo the sentiments of my colleague, because it's really quite infuriating that all these decisions are made without including us. And I want to make sure everyone knows the viewing public and the public in general that City Council was not consulted in any way before these decisions were made. We were not -- it was not discussed, you did not talk to the community, you did not talk to parents, you did not talk to students. And so now here it comes, I'm in trouble, here's my bill and fix it. And it just shouldn't work that way. I understand there's not a funding request for the school district that I haven't supported since I've been in Philadelphia City Council, but this is ridiculous to some degree. When we talk about the other things that are in here, it doesn't make sense that we're talking about, you know, using these funds to pay parking tickets and, you know, we're going to charge for the rideshare tax, and saying that the rideshare company has the option of basically turning over the money to the -- to the City of Philadelphia. Because from the legislation, as it was pointed out from Councilmember Young, as it reads, the Rideshare Company is being required to tax the passenger. So it's not that they could ever say, well, you know, we're not going to tax them. This is legislation that we're requiring them to put a tax on the passenger. So, I'm sorry, Councilmember Jones, but I know --
The Chair -- in terms of time, back to Member Jones.
I'm going to wind it down, Mr. President. What I would suggest is the school board, the superintendent, the administration should read the room. This is DOA. And, you know, a lot of people -- all of us want to support the kids, but not at the chagrin of the kids. And so -- and it's not just in this chamber. We had a lot of state reps, a lot of state senators that are fed up to hear with the math not adding up. And so I know Thursday they want to quickly approve the final, final, final. I wouldn't do that. That would be drawing a line in the sand that I think they -- by not reading the room, will regret. So take it back to them. I like Member Bass have been a constant vote for extra school funding. We -- there's not a tax bill that I ever voted for, but this may be the first. If there is not equity, balance, and reciprocity to our children, I'm not doing it. All right?
So I'll just say that I will definitely take the concerns back to the administration.
I just want to add one more thing, and we will definitely take that concern back. That the solution to the district's funding requires both local and state funding. The local funding on its own is not going to math out because we don't have enough ability to do that. But if we don't do our part, it will be harder to get the state.
So we want to do our part. We've always done our part, but we have partners at the state level that need to be held accountable. We're like the custodial parent and, you know, they're asking for increased child support, what we getting for it? And so that's where we are.
There's a point of information, Councilman Lozada.
I'm just trying to figure out this perception that City Council doesn't want to support children or that we are going to be the reason for 292 people to lose their jobs is absurd. Lawsuits have stated time and time again that the state legislature failed to fund the schools. So where's the public outcry? What -- who's holding the state legislature accountable? All of those billion dollars, where is the -- where is the conversations at? Because they're up right now. They're in communities asking people to support them, but we -- and we talk about, you know, this intergovernmental approach, but where are we -- when have we been brought to the table together to try to figure this out? Not once. Now, so where's the accountability and why is it all falling on Council people? Why are we the ones that are put on blast about not supporting children? No 12 one in this -- on this floor has ever said that we don't support teachers, that we don't support children, that we don't support climate staff. We recognize the importance of that. We know this is about children, but we also represent people that are struggling in their communities who cannot afford to pay another tax.
We've never -- to be clear, we've never said that Council doesn't support children, and we never would. What we are saying is that the district needs more support, both from the city and the state. And that part of that solution has to be more funding from the city to move the state.
The Chair recognizes Councilmember Katherine Gilmore-Richardson.
Thank you very much, Council President. I'm back to my question of privilege on behalf of the body relative to the question of us being able to perform the official duties of our positions as it relates to Mason's manual legislative procedure, Chapter 21, Questions of Privilege. I have requested an immediate response from the witnesses here relative to ensuring that the school district representatives come to the hearing today. I am aware that they are scheduled to be before us tomorrow. I'm aware also that the district is scheduled to take a vote on this proposed final plan on Thursday. It is not okay for us to deliberate in this fashion, in this forum, in this body without the district sitting at this table to respond to the questions that you all are unable to answer. You all are precluding us from doing the performance of our official duties. And so therefore, I respectfully raise the question of privilege again to this body and to the witnesses to please give us an official response relative to the School District of Philadelphia, financial officers, whoever can come to respond to the questions of these members today. When will they be here? Today?
Yes. We've contacted them. They're coming. As soon as we know when they'll be here, we will let you know the timing. But they will be here.
Yes, sir. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jones.
The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cindy Bass.
Thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, we're still in the -- in the same spot because so much of this really just doesn't make sense. And so I'm curious as to a couple of questions that I have. Originally the charge, the request for the charge, the tax on Uber and Lyft rides was $0.20. The change, I think it was like a week later, went to a dollar, which is like, you know, an $0.80 increase. What happened, and why did that change occur? Because I still don't have an understanding as to how that happened.
Sure. So we had had conversations with the district and understood that they had financial challenges. What changed in that week was we got information about what the cuts would look like -- what the cuts would look like, those 340 positions.
So you made a decision to tax or to request tax without asking that question before? We didn't have that --
So they were still developing that. We did -- they didn't -- they were putting that together.
We had -- we had ongoing conversations, but they have to go through their process too. And the timing worked out that they were finished putting that information together just after we finished our budget.
Yeah. That sounds odd. We didn't ask, you know, like the idea that they knew -- everyone knows where the mayor's budget address is. The school district certainly knows the date of the budget address, and the idea that they didn't find it, you know, important enough or, you know, just moving to that date to make sure we have a drop that date, even if you got to work nights, even if you got to work weekends. But what is the amount? And we have to have it by X date. The idea that we change the numbers, I hope you understand undermines consumer confidence. It undermines the confidence in government because it looks like we're all over the place.
Yeah. And I would say once we heard the level of cuts, we knew that wasn't acceptable and we wanted to do something to address it.
Does -- did the administration look at the fact that there was no input from the community and no input from City Council with these requests? Is that -- is that a factor?
Do you want to talk about the process they used, the legislative plan?
So can you ask the question again? You're saying that there was no input from the community on the facilities master plan?
Well, let me move it -- you know, move fast forward, because I know there were a series of community meetings, but there was no input on the decision making to apply this tax or to close these -- potentially close these schools. So there was no input on that as decisions were being made?
So the district, as you said, right, they conducted a pretty two years of getting information and input from families. From surveys, they received about 13,000 survey responses. They had about 40 plus different meetings in the communities, and they also had about -- I know there was a facilities plan project team of which I was one of members from this body as well. I'm just -- I'm just trying to walk us through the process.
I understand. But when it was time to make a decision about what schools were going to stay open and what schools were going to close, because a lot of these schools -- school closures really just don't make sense. And we know that the reason for the closures, the reason that the population and a lot of these schools has diminished is because of action taken by the school district in which special admit schools were changed in terms of how you get into these schools. So you had a special admit school, let's say with -- as an example, like Parkway, let's say it had 500 students, and then the following year it had 250 students based on the changes the district made. So there has been no attempt to go back and correct their changes before you make these drastic decisions.
So I will share that you are correct. And when the district --
Let me finish. Let me finish, Councilwoman. Let me finish. You're correct in that there were changes made, and I -- I don't -- I want to make sure I get the year right, whether it was 2021 or 2022. That is correct. However, after that, Dr. Watlington and his team worked very closely with the principals on rectifying that. So those special admit principals were at the table the following years to help develop the criterias for their schools. What I want to share, just quickly again, is that our build -- there is a 65 percent utilization rate. That means that we have buildings that are underutilized. Some of them have a percent 6 utilization rate. And when we 7 think about fiscal management, 8 that's not fiscally responsible to 9 operate a facility that is 10 underutilized. And the key is -- 11 and I think what gets lost in this 12 -- 13
So 14 let me -- let me pause you right 15 there. And I know my -- the bell 16 has rung. But when you shift 17 educational options, if you look at 18 a map of the city of Philadelphia 19 and sort of slice it right down 20 Broad Street, most of the 21 educational options that are alive 22 and thriving and actually 23 overpopulated are in the northeast 24 and -- or -- basically, east of Broad Street, for the most part. And so when you look at where the closures are, they have been mostly west of Broad Street. So what you are doing is really taking away options for a whole section -- a whole -- almost half of the city, when you close schools in our neighborhoods, rather than -- where these schools are overpopulated, rather than providing transportation and moving them into some of these spaces. You have schools on the east side that are having classrooms and closets, from what I hear. I mean, this is just really quite unacceptable, some of the learning conditions, because of the overpopulation. This is fixable, is my point. This is fixable. And I don't understand why we're not having those kinds of conversations. But, Mr. President, I'll respect the bell.
Well, thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.
I had questions for OPA, but I think this conversation is more important. I will cede the time to my colleagues.
Okay. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nicholas O'Rourke.
Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning to all who are here this morning. Thanks for being with us. I want to ground us in what this moment requires. The needs in our community, in our city are urgent: housing, schools, infrastructure. And I agree that meeting those needs requires real recurring revenue. But we also have to be honest about how we raise that revenue and who we're asking to carry the weight of that revenue raising. Because for many Philadelphians, the cost of living is already too high; it has been too high. And when we talk about new taxes on rides, deliveries, and everyday transactions, people are going to feel that. I just been thinking about this all week and I guess since all the news broke, I -- it's important I think for me to say that as a -- as a -- as a progressive, however you define that, I am against as a principal, regressive taxes. However, the school's needs money. I think everyone agrees on that point. So I sit back and I consider the administration's argument. This is a billion-dollar corporation or companies that we're talking about. And they could -- and they -- I would even emphasize they should actually absorb the cost. They do not have to pass it on to the riders. That is an -- is an important thing to say. But what we also know because of history and because of what they have said to me directly, is that they are not going to absorb it; they are going to pass it on. I have to appreciate my colleague, Member Young, who lifted the point earlier, which I -- it was beyond me, but I'm glad he made that point: If the legislation, if a tax literally says, you got to pass it on the riders, that flies in the face of the argument in the first place, and that's got to be rectified. But then, I consider that if we know that they won't -- they won't absorb the cost, they're going to pass it on. If we know that, then where else can we get the $50.4 million that we're looking for? My progressive decarceral mind looks at the billion-dollar police budget that you continue to hold deep respect for. You can -- I think you can continue to hold deep respect for Commissioner Bethel and for Chief of Staff Healy and for President Poplar, and not pretend that the police budget is somehow untouchable or outside the purview of this body's appropriation powers. It is not. We could get it from there, but we won't. And we know that it's not going to come out of there. So I'm left to kind of figure out how we navigate this moment. Candidly, it's real hard to separate this from last year's decisions on the business income and receipts tax. The city moved forward with BIRT cuts that primarily benefit large corporations and while raising taxes for our small businesses. Now a year later, we're considering revenue measures that fall more directly on working people. I support investing in our schools, addressing homelessness, maintaining city services. We owe quality services to our citizens. Everyone deserves housing and we know the schools need money. And also, I want to make sure that we're building a tax structure that reflects our values. One that is fair and that doesn't deepen the inequities that we're actively trying to solve. So my questions are about how the administration weighed those tradeoffs and whether more equitable options were fully on the table. Last year, Minority Leader Kendra Brooks and I introduced a proposal to explore a local wealth tax focused on ultra-high net worth individuals. Can you walk us through whether the administration evaluated more progressive revenue options like that this budget cycle? And if not, what has prevented the administration from more seriously pursuing revenue strategies that more directly target billionaires and large corporations who we agree ought to pay that tax?
I can answer it in like one sentence: Uniformity clause. Uniformity clause prevents us from doing what you would want to do with wealth tax.
Okay. I heard the bell. I'm going to get two more on, if you don't mind, Mr. President. On the proposed $1 rideshare tax, can you clarify how this interacts with the existing state-imposed fee on rideshare trips? And does this stack on top of the current state fee? And if so, what does that mean for the total cost per ride for consumers? And relatedly, have there been any conversations with state partners about adjusting how existing rideshare revenue is allocated? Right now, a portion of that funding is split with the Philadelphia Parking Authority, has the administration explored directing a larger share or all of that existing revenue to the school district of Philadelphia, instead of creating a new tax burden with this regressive tax?
On the proposed $1 rideshare tax, can you clarify how this interacts with the existing state-imposed fee on rideshare trips?
So it is on top of that tax, kind of like our local sales tax is on top of the state sales tax.
And so what does that mean for the total cost per ride for consumers?
Combined, it -- depending on the cost of the ride, but an average ride is about $19. So it would be about 6 percent of the ride with those two combined.
Okay. And the second part was relatedly, have there been any conversations with state partners about adjusting how existing rideshare revenue is allocated? Right now, a portion of that funding is split between PPA. Has the administration explored a -- directing a larger share or all of that existing revenue to the School District of Philadelphia, instead of it creating this particular new tax?
And we have not had those conversations. One of the reasons that the local option appealed to us is, one, we control it locally, and two, that none of it would go to the Parking Authority.
So my time has been expired. I have other things I would like to ask, but I just want to emphasize again what Member Young lifted up. If it is in the text of the -- of the -- of what's being proposed here, that is a non-starter. I think it needs to be -- that you need to start there and fix that. It is -- it is hard for me, who was prepared to come in today to, as a progressive, bolster the argument the administration is making that billion-dollar corporations ought to pay and not pass this on, even though I know they're not going to do that. I will -- I will -- I will ride for that particular point. But if your legislation is saying that the riders are supposed to be the ones that bear the brunt, it undercuts the whole argument. You've got to fix that. That is -- I think that is a non-starter.
I was just saying that companies still collect it, and then they have a choice about what they can do with their pricing.
There's a point -- there's a point of information. And I want to be clear, these are points of information, is not an opinion. So these are points of information. Go ahead, sir.
Thank you, Mr. President. But the legislation says that it could -- they have to collect it from the passenger. So I'm not understanding what you are thinking that it can be anything other than that.
They can make a pricing decision, right, about how they build in that dollar.
But they still have to collect it from the passenger. Whether they build it in some way, they still have to collect it from the passenger.
And then -- you're right. And then they make a decision about how they allocate that dollar.
They cannot. They do not have -- they do not have the ability to make that decision based on what the words of the legislation says.
They can do that. If you want, we can get you something in writing from law, explaining how that would work.
Please. Because of the legislation clearly just says, you know, we -- as we look at it, right? It clearly says, "The TNC shall collect the tax as agent for the Board of Education from the passenger at the time of the charge for the ride and shall remit the tax to the revenue commissioner." So please explain any other, like, interpretation of that.
Well, then they make the decision about how they do their pricing after that. They have a decision about to make. And they're clearly making decision that they're not going to offset that cost to the riders, and they're going to pass it on.
Thank you very much. Councilmember Dr. Nina Ahmad, Councilmember Jim Harrity, then Member Brooks.
I'm going to follow up on what you said. Thank you, Council President. I'm following up on the point Councilmember Cindy Bass made about full engagement in this process. Dr. Carrera said that this -- once this enrollment issue was unearthed due to the problems created by the district, principals were asked to respond to it. I know for a fact in Lankenau, we'll talk about one school, they asked for permission to have multiple sections of the allowed amount, 33 students, they were not given that. They were -- they had asked for use of tier or tier 2, which would criteria to create desirability. They were not given that. And they asked for a name change that would have branded them in a specific way; they were not given that. So all I'm saying is you asked these principles to do things, they told you they wanted to do these things, and the school district didn't allow that, and now they're being penalized for what they were not allowed to do. So how -- so that's one point that I wanted to address that Councilmember Bass brought up. So it's incorrect when you say that the principals did not respond. What I'm saying is if you really are concerned about this problem of low enrollment, give these schools a defined time to say a five-year time period to do these things. Show us. If you don't show us, then you're gone. Right? But you haven't given those options. You haven't clarified what they have to do, what permission they have to do, and then they fail. That's a different matter. But you have -- the school district has not laid out clear guidelines as to how they address the enrollment problem. In Lankenau, it is nothing else. They don't have a problem with their building; they don't have anything. They have a curriculum that is land-based curriculum that is based on it being a forest, and you're trying to shove that into a farm land. That curriculum will not exist over there because the land in the other school doesn't allow itself to be used in that manner. So if you are thinking, Oh, we're going to merge this and we're still going to have the environmental curriculum, it'll not work. So I don't know what standards, what data, what you are doing to come to these points because it makes zero sense. Zero sense to take the only environmental school in the entire school district, one of two in the entire state, and you're trying to say, we're going to shove it into another school. That is not happening. That is just so irresponsible to have stewards of tomorrow, our environmental stewards of tomorrow, cut off at the knees, because we don't know why. Because you haven't explained why. And I want to understand -- and I know Councilmember Katherine Gilmore-Richardson asked them to be here. I want to understand how they came to this. Each school, they should have done a score for the each school to say what are they losing? What is the deficit in each school? And how we -- can we address it? They were not given any options to address these things. You're just saying done. So I cannot understand how you're asking for new taxes to help the school district when they're not operating in good faith. Simple as that. Everything we've seen this far, they are not operating in good faith. We don't know what is the motivation for doing this, we cannot understand the motivation. We are going school by school by school, and we do not understand the motivation because there has been no 19 corrective action done. This is how things proceed. You have a problem, you've had a plan, you try to correct it, doesn't work, then you make this plan. But that has not happened in the school district. So we cannot just take one superintendent who wants to have a different vision, suddenly lay it on top. This happened before to the school district.
So this is highly responsible to come to us, to put this tax on poor people, on elderly, on the sick, to say, now you pay more because we don't have a clear plan of how we're going to use the money, because we're still going to cry no money, no money, no 14 money. And then we're not going to correct it. So you guys have a responsibility before you come to us to say, how are -- the numbers that we wanted, how are you allocating this? What are the corrective measures? What worked, what didn't work? How much timeframe was involved in that? I cannot fathom how you can get in front of us and ask us to do these things. And our constituents are telling us they're going to be deeply penalized by everything you have said today without a rationale, without a way forward. Thank you, Council President. There's really no -- I cannot understand this whole process at all.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jim Harrity, then Councilmember Brooks, then Councilmember Rue Landau.
Thank you, Council President. Good morning. Rob, I've been sitting here with the Beatles song stuck in my head all morning. One for you, for me. I'm the tax man. You 22 know -- 23
Excuse me, point of information. What's the name of that song again?
It's a Beatles song. Yeah. The Tax Man. Yeah. I'm not going to be known as the tax man. I'm really --
I'm really kind of appalled that the way it's being played here is that if you're not for this tax, you're not for children and you're not for teachers. I'm a union guy; everybody knows that. I'm a 100 percent for teachers all the time. We don't treat our teachers right. But throwing bad money after bad money and keep on piling on, as my colleague said, another poor tax, just like the soda tax. So I like that Councilman Phillips was asking and my colleagues are all asking the -- around the same questions, too. Yeah. How do we know the projections are the projections and we're going to get this money? Because I remember the soda tax was supposed to pay for all this stuff too, but we're putting $49 million out of the general fund every year. And when I asked about it, you told me that that's the way it was always supposed to be. We knew we were going to have to put up money. So that's where I -- comes into just piling more and more on my neighbors. I can't do it. At numbers; 30,000 residents in Philadelphia are driving for either Uber, Lyft, or some kind of food delivery service, right? Data shows that the driver's pay is cut 4.5 percent in cities that imposed the rideshare tax. 80,000 trips last year were to or from Kensington, where I live. Sixty percent of all Uber rides, and 61 percent of all Lyft rides in Philadelphia originate from low-income areas. All right. Have we considered the impacts this will have on low-income neighborhoods, both in increasing cost and reducing driver pay as a result? It's like a double whammy for the people in my neighborhood and other neighborhoods around this city, because not only are the drivers going to get less pay and less work out of this because people are going to find other options, but also the people that still use the ride are going to get taxed. Again, I'm for the kids, I'm for the thing, but I don't -- how are we supposed to -- how am I supposed to look at my neighbors in the face and tell them I'm going to hit them with another tax? Since I've gotten here, I've -- man, I voted for just about everything that has come down to when it came to the school board, because, you know, that's the right thing to do for the kids, right? But when is enough enough and when are we actually going to fix something? Fix it. Like, can you answer any of that?
Yeah, I can answer -- I can answer a lot of that. And I'll also ask Dr. Carrera to answer the question about progress being made at the school district. So I can go back to the commuting question. We looked at census data, less than 1 percent of people who earn less than $40,000 use rideshare to commute. When we looked at patterns of who used rideshare, that usage went up with income so that, you know, the higher income you had, the more people were using rideshare. So I understand your concerns. And it was stuff that we looked at. Two, in terms of the school district, and they will be here in a few minutes. They have been making real progress, and we really want them to be able to build on that progress. And we're concerned that if they have to make the cuts they were going to make, that process would start to reverse. And I'll ask Dr. Carrera to fill in more of that information.
Yeah. Thank you so much Councilman for your -- for your question. And we thank you for all the support that you have provided and all council members here throughout the years. We know you care about the kids. We know you care about the teachers. We know you care about the administrators. And I want to make sure that that goes on the record. The 340 positions, these were -- these were positions that were purchased with COVID dollars, and those positions were used to support students in really underperforming schools. The money is gone, as we know. And the school has made progress because in many of these schools, there have been math interventionists, there have been reading coaches, there are schools that have coaches that are working with teachers. These are all practices that work; that move the needle for instruction. That -- and we've seen that. The district has made progress in reading; they've made progress in graduation rates. So these positions are what we are talking about today, and that is why the rideshare tax is being proposed to support these dollars that were used -- COVID dollars, they're not -- they're gone. And we want to make sure that the progress that the district has been making continues.
So if we close these schools, we are not going to see any teachers lost from the schools that are closed. What happens to those teachers? Where do they go? What happens to the principals of those schools?
Thank you. That is an excellent question. Thank you so much, Councilmember. Every year, the school district -- every year, the city of Philadelphia has a 2000 teacher shortage. I'm going to say it again. Every year, the city of Philadelphia has a 2000 charters, school districts. And you might say, well, how does that happen? Why is that happening? Philadelphia, Pennsylvania used to be the state where Virginia, other states would come here to get teachers. The decline has been so dramatic because we're seeing many people do not want to go into this profession. So the answer to your question is, as the Superintendent has said, resources are spread thin, because we have, again, over 200 plus buildings, we don't have the enrollment. So you -- now what's going to happen, as the Superintendent said that teachers are not going to lose their job. But there are schools that have vacancies. There are schools that have math teacher vacancies, science teacher vacancies. So this is going to help fill those vacancies --
Numbers are numbers. I just want to know, now you just said it, if we're short 2000 teachers, where were we firing 300 or getting rid of 300 and something teachers? We're already short. Like, I -- numbers are numbers. And do you understand? It doesn't add up. Like I'm not a -- I'm a fairly simple man.
And if it doesn't add up for me, I know it's not adding up for my neighbors. But numbers -- remember you're saying we're short 2000 teachers --
-- but if we don't do the rideshare thing, we're going to lose 340 teachers, right? Like where -- well, if we're short the 2000 teachers, how are we losing 340 teachers?
So let me explain that. So those teachers, when we're saying that they would be cut, that means that they would be moved to other buildings. So I'll say it again --
With or without the tax? Is that -- that's what you just said. No 5 matter what.
-- 2000 vacant, 300 and something that we want to get rid of --
There would be no layoffs. There would be 340 fewer positions in the district.
I think the point also is -- that I want to make clear, right?
No, don't be sorry. Chair recognizes Councilmember Isaiah Thomas, for a point of information.
And I'm already last in the order, so it's no big deal. I want to be very clear, you're saying that no 8 matter if we vote for the tax or not, nobody will be laid off?
Whether we enact the tax or not, nobody will be laid off?
Nobody will be laid off. But there would be 340 fewer positions, so there would be less going on in classrooms.
And can I add to that? Can I add to that? There will be a disruption --
So -- one second. Member Harrity? Member Harrity, the floor is yours, sir. And then Ms. Debora Carrera.
That was all I was to -- Council President, I got what I wanted there. There would never going to be any job loss here we are short of teachers as it is, we need all the teachers that we can get, and can't afford to lose not one of them. And we're not going to lose not one, but because we're short, we need to make up those jobs. The money is there. I'm sorry.
So I just want to -- I just want to make this very clear. Those 340 positions are in schools right now, making progress and supporting children. Let's say for example, Mr. Chuck at Elkin Elementary, climate staff teacher. He has been there for nine years, right? His position would be cut. That means he would go to another school, but they would not have that position in their school anymore. So the important thing that we have to understand --
Member 15 Harrity, we going to do this 16 you-all, right? Now, first and 17 foremost, I'm going to point the 18 individuals to speak, right? So we can do this in decency and everybody can have the opportunity to express themselves. And if you have a point of information, I'll point at you and you can give your point of information regarding the issue. If it's an opinion, you will wait until your time on which you are called, because you do have other members who have been waiting patiently also to participate in this round. And so with that being said, member Carrera, please respond to Member Harrity.
Right. So if I'm a -- if I'm a principal, and I was given five teachers to reduce class size through these dollars, and now I have classes at kids 15 each, you take three teachers away, 16 they're going to get -- they're 17 going to go to another school. 18 But I'm still going to 19 have those vacancies in the sense 20 that now I'm going to have classes with 30 something children. So the goal of these COVID dollars was to support the schools that need the help the most. That is very important. I don't want that to get lost here. And so, climate staff, teachers, reading coaches, those positions are gone. Our kids are going to regress. And that is -- that's -- that is going to be the unfortunate truth that our kids are going to go backwards because they've made a lot of progress with the support that they've had.
I want to take a moment of personal privilege to point back to Member Harrity. Now, Member Harrity your brief response, sir, to your line of questioning.
Yeah. Look, I -- the numbers just don't add up for me, Council President. Like I said, I'm not --
You know, I don't think anybody's going to consider me a rocket scientist. But math, simple math, is math. And if we're short 2,000 teachers and they said that we would have to lay off 300 and something teachers, where does that come in at when you're already short 2,000 teachers? Teachers are not going anywhere. They're already saying that it's a choice. Your choice was when you decided to shut those schools 13 down, 20 schools in the beginning, 14 whatever it was, that was when you 15 made the decision that people would 16 be moved around, right? So telling 17 us that people are going to be 18 moved around if we don't apply this tax, for me, just doesn't add up. Council President, I will wait till second round or when the school board gets here to ask some more questions of them. I didn't even get to the fact that we're going to let people get away without paying their tickets, when other people are paying tickets every day. It's one of the biggest complaints we get in my office. Thank you, Council President.
You are welcome, Member Harrity. Chair recognizes Councilmember Kendra Brooks then Councilmember Rue Landau, then dear Member Young.
Thank you, Council President. I just want to channel some of my members' energy around education. My questions -- I did not come directly to education questions. However, just in -- just a little history. Historically, the district has given false data to close schools in the past. I'm really excited to see the energy in this current Council body around school closures, because when I was a parent fighting for schools, we didn't have that same energy. So I really would like to applaud my colleagues for stepping up in this moment, because this is crucial to communities across the city. And it's very important that we shouldn't get this information or have to ask these questions right now. A lot of this data should have been presented school by school. If it was schools 13 stated to be closed, we should have 14 had detailed information about the 15 why. 16 And those conversations 17 should have been held at individual 18 school communities, so the 19 communities, the teachers, and the 20 elected officials understand exactly what's going on. And we don't have to play these shenanigans right here in a budget hearing. So that's my thought on that. But my questions. I want to talk about the tax system in Philadelphia that I have been fighting for. Since I came into Council, I have advocated for a wealth tax. 04 percent tax on stocks and bonds that would generate over $2 million a year, according to Penn Policy Center. Last year, along with Councilmember O'Rourke, we introduced the People's Tax Plan. We felt it was important to put an initiative -- I'm sorry, an alternative vision out for the city. The plan was called for a wealth tax and expanded wage tax fund and doubling the BIRT exemption. I have concerns about the decade plus tax cuts that were put into law during the last budget season. This is part of why I did not vote on the budget last year. So as we sit here today, I find it surprising that we are looking for new taxes. Many of them that would fall on the backs of working people. I worry our tax system is moving in the wrong direction; eliminating small businesses. BIRT exemption made our overall tax system even more regressive. We are seeing increases in energy bills and the cost of living, yet we are continuing to cut tax on the most profitable corporations in this city. And I want to state this clearly; I am for more funding for the school district. That has been my lifelong fight. I've been fighting for school funding since my daughter, who is now 35 years old, has been in this public school system. And I'm still here today, just in a different capacity doing the same. So I really pushed back on the fact that if I don't support this Uber tax, that I don't support schools when all of my children have benefited from public schools, including myself and now my grandchildren. That is not fair to us to do that. Anyway, organizations like Lift Every Voice have demanded an immediate $75 million to stop layoffs. And I think we need to find the funding, but I'm skeptical of the way this administration has proposed to do it. So with that, I want to ask a few questions. I'm going to just get all my questions in sequence and then you can respond. So I want to ask the question, has the -- in -- the administration looked into the possibility of the wealth tax? I heard it what you said to Councilmember O'Rourke but according to our attorneys it does not fall into the uniformity clause. And we could debate that later on, but from our information, that's not what we understand. And why would a tax on rideshare and delivery service be preferred over a tax that would target the wealthiest amongst us? And what taxes -- what other taxes did administration look at when trying to figure out how to support the school district? And my next question was similar to Councilmember Harrity. I'm wondering how the proposed rideshare tax would affect Uber and Lyft drivers?
In other cities, we've seen labor unions like SEIU partner with you Uber to give their workers a voice on the job. And I was surprised that this conversation around taxes, we haven't focused on the drivers at all. What is the city doing to ensure that Uber and Lyft drivers have better working conditions? And have you had discussions with labor advocates about how to improve driver working conditions and pay as Councilmember Harrity suggested? And those are my questions.
I think the first question was about -- actually can you go back to the first question?
The first question was about what other taxes did you look at when considering how to support the school district and why would the tax on rideshare and delivery services be preferred over a tax that -- over a tax that would target the wealthiest amongst us in the city?
Yeah. So we did not want to do a broad-based tax. We didn't want to do an increase in property tax or the wage tax. We wanted to do taxes that we could target at the services we could provide. And since there was -- the rideshare tax already went to the school district, we went to that tax. We can't target the wealthy in our taxes; we are not allowed to under the uniformity clause. And we did look at rideshare usage and did see that it went up with income. But we can't target the wealthy in our tax system.
The other question -- so those are the only taxes that you looked at when it came to funding the school district, the ones you just mentioned?
Okay. And my other question was around, did we -- did you -- what did you do to ensure that the Uber and Lyft drivers have better working conditions in the discussion? Or have they had conversations with the labor advocates around improving driver working conditions and pay, considering that they're also going to be impacted by the increase in fare this passed off to driver -- I mean, to the community?
O'Rourke, there's a point of information, correct?
Yes, sir. Isn't it true that you can target specific industries with taxes?
Just state your name for the record, and please begin.
Good morning. Kathleen McColgan, revenue commissioner. We do have per legal guidance. We have the ability to tax BIRT by NAICS codes; industry codes. However, that is not something that -- those codes merely reflect the industry and does not make any distinction between a large business versus a small business. So for example, that industry code would capture a small corner store as well as a large grocery chain.
Thank you very much, sir. Councilmember Rue Landau then Councilmember Jeffrey J. Young.
Yeah. To my colleague's point, this body has often identified specific taxes towards industries, whether it was tobacco, whether it was the beverage industry. You just cannot separate the big from the little. And I don't know if we fully explored all of the possibilities of places that we might be able to levy a fare tax onto people. And I just urge us to keep all of our options open before we double down on our kids, double down on closures, and double down on a poor people's tax towards rideshare. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you very much, sir. Councilmember Rue Landau. Then Councilmember --
Thank you. Thank you, thank you. I want to take a first -- just one second to kind of comment on a lot of what is being said here. I agree, we have done some very creative taxes in the past. And I just want to -- most importantly, what's happening here, what I've seen happening since the times the school district comes and talks to us, especially this year, is a sheer lack of communication, honesty, working with us as members, and working with community people when it comes forward to what they're trying to do. And what happens is we start distrusting. We are severely concerned about what's happening, and then we start hearing different answers. And I've got to tell you, without building that trust and that understanding and giving us real numbers and real facts, we are automatically going to be against what you're talking about, because we don't think you're telling us the truth. So I got to tell you that that's what's happening here. We have taxed many things in the past. Though it is -- it is not as simple to say every element of the -- of Council Members Brooks' and O'Rourke's wealth tax are all impossible to do based on the uniformity clause. I don't believe that is true. And I do think we can be creative, and we can come up with this money. So I'm going to start with some broad questions and get into more specific. But I do want to lean into what Councilmember Lozada was asking about whether or not the city is continuing to push the state on the $1 billion that is owed to us. We are -- we have a Commonwealth Court decision from 2023 that said -- says that the school district of Philadelphia must be equitably funded. It's clear as day. You get -- you just -- they worked two decades on this -- on this campaign to get this court ruling that tells them exactly what we should do. And they backtrack by saying, oh, we're going to create a commission and come up with a formula and do the best that we can. The state owes us this money; they must pay, and then we will have all the money that we need to make our children, and our teachers thrive.
Yeah. Thank you so much, Councilmember. Yes, to what you're just saying. So we are working with the state. We brought partners together to talk about the adequacy funding. We've thanked legislators. Again, we got $135 million last year, 135 million -- this year. And it's $1 billion, right? And so we are working to -- as the mayor has said, when we go to Harrisburg, we also have to show what we're doing as the city because it's important. I worked at the state, I've been at the General Assembly. I worked for the -- I was the executive deputy secretary for the Secretary of Education. We need to show that we are also doing our part as a city to provide those -- that local revenue within the limitations, as you've heard Rob Dubow talk about. So I know the district has just walked in and I'm sure that people want to hear from them as well. But Council President, can I make a point of clarification? Thank you.
So I just want to make sure that the positions that we're talking about, the 340, they would be transferred to other buildings. But that would impact the schools that they're in because they have been serving those schools; working with the children and making the progress.
So just for clarity, those 340 positions, they would just be transferred somewhere else, and they wouldn't actually be in the current schools that they're in?
Right. And I -- but I don't want to lose that point because that is a big issue.
I think the way it's being conveyed is that in the event that this funding isn't approved, that 340 positions will be totally eliminated. That's different from being transferred. So those people will still have a job, they just will have it somewhere else, and they just won't be in the current positions that they're in. Is that what I hear you saying?
That's accurate. But that school would now have fewer positions. So they would have fewer teachers, fewer counselors, fewer climate staff.
Just so I can understand clarity, why would the 340 people being moved under your recommendation be more important than the staff at Parkway, Lankenau, MCS, Robeson, and all the other schools that's been moved in the past? So if I'm understanding correctly, you're telling us that we need to do this so those 340 staff members don't get moved. But in your same Facilities Plan, you're going to move the staff at Lankenau, you're going to move the staff at Parkway West, you're going to move the staff at Parkway Northwest. You're going to move the staff at Robeson; you're going to move the staff at Overbrook Elementary School. If I add up all the staff in those schools, that equal more staff than the 340 you're mentioning. So please explain to me, why would we care that you're moving 340 staff members when your buck -- your Facilities Plan moves more than 340 staff members point of information, I just don't understand it. Can you please explain?
When I was here the last time I talked about how I moved Kensington Capa into a new facility. And I'm not sure if you remember that. When I was at Cumberland and Coral, we moved from Cumberland and Coral, an entire school to Front and Berks, a brand -- we moved into a new building, right? My entire staff moved with me. I moved, my teachers moved, my climate staff moved, my counselors moved, my students moved. The Superintendent has said repeatedly that next year, '26, '27, is a year of transition and planning. These are the pieces of information and the work that has to be done, because we don't want to disrupt children. That is not the -- that is -- we want to give children what they deserve and what they need. And when you're talking about resources being spread thin, a kid cannot have Algebra if there's no math teacher in their school. They cannot -- they can't use a lab if there isn't a lab.
You're testifying for me. You did not answer any of my questions. You just proved my point. I agree with everything you're saying. So why does the 340 you are talking about matter more than the 400 that I'm talking about? I agree with everything you're saying. So why are we moving any of them?
How can you testify here today -- a point of information. I'm trying to get clarity. How can you testify here today that the problem that you have and you need this tax is that we can't disrupt 340 staff members, but simultaneously ask us to approve a Facilities Plan that disrupts more than 340 staff members? I'm just trying to get a point of clarity.
So he's a point of clarification, Councilman, and I appreciate you and I honor you today, and you know that. You move the 340 adults that are now in schools, those kids will not have that math interventionist. They're not going to have that reading coach.
Those teachers from Lankenau, the counselors can go to the school -- they can go to Saul High School.
So can the 340. Every point you make about Lankenau, Robeson, Warrington, Overbrook Elementary. I'm making the same point --
I got to stop, Council President, because I'm not getting my point of information clear. So I'll move on. Thank you, sir.
Point of information, Councilmember Jim Harrity. Point of information, sir.
Since they brought it up. Point of information, right? Farming and environmental do not go together. Do you -- environmental people protest farming people sometimes. Do you understand? Methane, all kinds of other things. It's not always the same. And it's not interchangeable. The environment is the environment. Farming and small animal husbandry is something completely different. And that's what Saul is. So you're talking to putting at Saul, which is a farming school directed for small animal husbandry and avenues of that sort, and then throw environmental kids in there that are supposed to be studying something else, and the effects of the farm animals and the farming are going to affect their environmental studies. But again, I'm not a rocket scientist. Thank you.
I appreciate my colleagues. I'm -- I feel I'm not getting to the questions I want to get to, because I've got to say that I'm feeling the tone and the tenor today. And I know the school district just came. So I do want to ask a couple of large, big picture questions, which are; one, Uber and Lyft and other rideshare companies and package delivery companies are multi-billion-dollar corporations. Did you have any conversations with these entities about whether or not they would perhaps donate some money to our school district of Philadelphia? Did you have any conversations with them to ask whether or not when it starts to rain a little bit, that they wouldn't do surge pricing that would make somebody's ride three times the amount that it is? Would you -- did you have any conversations with them that when you had a ride that might take a little longer because you've got a wheelchair that they don't add some sort of fee on -- you know, some sort of a surge pricing onto that as well? The question is, did you go to the billionaires and ask for a little bit of support here before this happened? And my second question is going to be whether or not -- because we've talked to a lot of constituents in this process and a lot of colleagues. Is there a thought that we can offset just now some of this funding with the fund balance that we have which is millions of dollars?
Yeah. So let me do that second part first. So you know we have to do five-year plans to be balanced in each year of the plan, for the reasons I was talking about in my testimony. By the end of the plan, our fund balance is only in the 40 -- it's like 46 million. So we don't really have room in our fund balance to -- for this. In terms of -- we've had some conversations with Uber. The issue with their contributing money is that's not recurring and predictable money, which is what the district needs.
Okay. So just one more, by the way don't we have a fund balance of this year at 391 million now?
We do, but like you said, we have to do -- we have to do a five-year plan so that projects out for the five years --
Excuse me, Rob, real quick. Just a quick point of information. We're going to be pointing all day. MALE VOICE 1: I'm sorry.
Quick point of information. The fund balance is only that number if we approve the budget as is. As of today, the fund balance is over a billion dollars. Thank you, Council President.
This is a -- it's a good tag team day we're doing here today. I appreciate that. I also wanted to know whether or not there was any considerations for -- I'm kind of torn about this, I've got to say. There's a whole transit community that is looking for support for transit as well. And there's ways in which there's -- they've been fully left out of this conversation. And I -- have there been conversations and considerations for any other place that funding could go? And would you share your list of potential revenue generators, of which rideshare was on that list; would you share the entire list with Council?
So the first part about transit in our five -- proposed budget and five-year plan there's almost $900 million for SEPTA including our annual subsidy, zero fare, the SEPTA Key program. So there's a -- there's a substantial commitment to mass transit in the five-year plan already. On the list of proposed -- the list of options, we can get you something.
Thank you very much. I'm going to -- I'm going to do this; I'm going to stick in this round. And - but at the inquiry, Majority Leader Gilmore-Richardson. I'm going to as for the chairperson of the school district -- sorry it's the Chair of the Board of Education, Mr. Chairman Reginald Streater, to please approach the table. As well as the Superintendent of the School District of Philadelphia, Dr. Tony Watlington. I'm going to still stay in queue during this round. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Jeffrey J. Young, then Councilmember Jamie Gauthier, then Member Thomas. And I just want to -- just kind of put it into context. We kind of spared this conversation for you to also be here is based upon some numbers that we requested after questioning -- the questioning of Councilmember Curtis Jones Jr. regarding how much savings will the district save as it relates to the shutting downs of the schools that are proposed? What's the dollar amount, just for the record.
Thank you, Mr. President. So I didn't expect these witnesses to be here, but I'm going to ask questions based on that anyway. So we are asked to support a rideshare tax that is equal to roughly one percent of the school district's budget. Can you tell us what has the school district done internally to try to come up with this one percent before asking taxpayers to pay that additional one percent?
Thank you for being here and apologies for not being in a suit. I was expecting to be here tomorrow and took time from my day to day because the Council President himself asked me to be here, and I respect you. We have a really great working relationship. So if my answers aren't as full as they will be tomorrow, I will do the best that I can with what I have in my head. That being said, before Dr. Watlington answers this question. We have a $300 million budget shortfall. The Board of Education and Dr. Watlington have presented for the last five years a pie chart that clearly shows a deficit, a looming deficit, that was coming and signaled the type of changes that would have needed to be made as well. From my understanding, the Clayton Center, which is the organization -- the part of the organization that services and -- our schools is half the size it should be for a district this size. It's my understanding Dr. Watlington is implementing a hiring freeze as well. And Dr. Watlington it's my understanding, you will obviously add me to the bone to that. There's already been some work internally to try to save as it relates to not renting out spaces and spaces instead of using spaces in the district for things like professional development and things like that. So that's the problem we're having. And then I heard, when I came in, Councilmember Rue Landau talk about the $1.2 billion of being -- of being historically underfunded as well. So again, we are pushing a boulder up a hill with no shoes on, sliding as we can, trying to get this thing up the hill. And any amount of money that can help us to protect the positions and things like that will be helpful -- be helpful for the school district of Philadelphia. But Dr. Watlington, the time yours.
Thank you, President Streater. Good afternoon, Mr. President, members of council. And Councilmember Young, we've taken several steps to address the $300 million structural deficit. On the one hand, we are making significant cuts to the tune of 130 positions in the central office. It is starting there because we want to do everything we can to protect the classroom. I will say to you, No. 2, we're taking a look at all of our contracts in the school district to cut where we can. Three, we're taking steps like we no longer use the Pennsylvania Convention Center for principal meetings; we've made Strawberry Mansion High School our professional development center. We are curtailing staff travel, including the Superintendent. And instead of sending four teachers to a reading conference, we may just send one, or we may send nobody and just bring professional developers to the school district. We're also looking at every opportunity for efficiencies that we can find in the budget. I do want to note that when we had the COVID dollars from 2020, 4 when the pandemic hit 2021 through 5 20 -- through September 2024, we 6 didn't have to make cuts because we 7 had a much higher funding level. 8 The reason we've got to 9 make cuts now, and this is 10 completely separate from the 11 Facilities Plan. There are two 12 separate issues on the table as I 13 see it. The structural deficit -- 14
We 15 don't see it that way. So I just 16 want to put -- make that make that 17 clear. We don't see it as two 18 separate -- two separate things 19 because the pot of money is still coming from the same place.
But that's actually not accurate. You have a capital budget, and you have an operating budget, right? A percentage of our operating budget can be used to bar up -- to borrow as it relates to our -- as it relates to debt service. They are two different issues. One issue is 70, 80 years of deferred maintenance, and the other is of reoccurring things that we have to do to support student learning outside of our buildings. They are different topics; they are different situations.
So thank you for that. So the City Controller mentioned that the transfer of the percentage from the millage shift and plus some increased revenue from the state made up for the COVID losses, right? This is from the City Controller. Can you explain to us if this is -- is the City Controller accurate here in this assessment, in this statement? Or is there something that she's missing when this was issued back in August?
Councilmember Young, I think it is accurate and appropriate to say that changes in the millage rate helped to offset some of the funding that we no longer have. Just -- I would just note for the record that this district received approximately $1.8 billion from the period 2021 to September 2024. Once all those "once in a lifetime opportunity," COVID 16 dollars, are gone, we are unable to 17 completely make up that revenue 18 shortfall. 19
Can I add briefly that the Board of Education with the use of the COVID dollars often had to come here to City Council and defend our being tight fisted with the -- with the fund balance and things like that. Because we knew this day was going to come and we strategically used our resources in a way and had to tell the babies no 8 when we wanted to say yes, because we knew at one point we're going to be here when those funds run out and have to answer these questions. While also trying to communicate as every year coming before City Council at our meetings as well, there is a huge structural deficit issue coming as well. That's not included -- that's not the same as the facilities issue as well. So I just want to also put that on the record that the Board of Education has been good stewards of public dollars. We tried to support learning and sometimes we've gone against our own willingness to kind of not go into the fund balance to do things such as -- that made sense, that matter, that have been requested by City Council. Well, I'm happy to go into that list as well if needed.
So over the past couple of years so the school district has dipped into the -- its fund balance in order to kind of maintain itself, it seems like. So that deficit -- knowing that you'll have this type of structural deficit, what did you do internally to try to avoid having this $300 million deficit?
This is -- I'm happy to answer that question. So there was a -- there was a strategy within the strategy. The Board of Education, Superintendent, Dr. Watlington and Dr. Hite invested in student learning because there was a nationwide strategy to not just use the funds for capital investments, of which we actually did use those funds to build facilities, add drinking water, clean drinkable water in our facilities and things of that nature. But the board also doubled down on student achievement. And the strategy was, had the last election gone a little differently, that perhaps those funds, those COVID funds, that we -- that we would have got from the federal government would have been reoccurring. But as we all know, elections have consequences. And we decide -- we thought that strategy would have been a more prudent strategy, not just for Harrisburg, but also for the federal government. And we can show you right now with data. I know it's not the gains we want to have, but it's about student achievement. And we believe that in addition to all of the things we're talking about here today, it's important for our babies to know how to fish. We want to protect legacies. I know the facilities issue is in the room. We want to protect. I'm from Germantown, my high school closed. What I'm most appreciative of is the education that I had that allowed me to be at work today as an attorney and come here because I have the ability to do so to come and testify before you. That's what we're trying to protect here. We're trying to balance all the interest, but at some point, we are -- we are at our knees, and we have to do something about it, because if we don't do it, somebody is going to do it to us.
Member Chairman -- I would like a point of information, Mr. Thomas.
Again -- I'm just confused again, and I just need clarity. So I'm listening to Councilmember Young's questions. I listen to the Chairman's and the Superintendent's answer. Earlier today, Mr. Dubow told us that the reason that we didn't -- we seen that big jump from cents to a dollar was 14 because they didn't know how bad 15 the deficit was. That's what we 16 were told earlier today. 17 And now the board 18 President just told us for the past 19 five years he has been making noise 20 about this issue. The board President just said he knew this day would come. I'm confused; I need clarity. How is it that they knew this day would come, and they've been asking for this and screaming about this for five years, but we were just told earlier today that the other side said they didn't know how bad the deficit is? So listening to the response to questions earlier compared to the response to Councilmember Young's questions there, I'm just confused and I'm asking for clarity. Did we know this five years ago, or did we just find out?
Knowing that there's a deficit isn't the same as knowing exactly what the board and the district is prepared to do in order to cover the deficit.
No, I understand what you're saying. You saying you knew.
No, no. 13 What I'm saying is I knew that we were going to have a deficit.
But I didn't know that Dr. Watlington was going to be in the kitchen cooking it in a way to try to figure out a way to cover the deficit in the way that he did.
But that doesn't answer my -- that that doesn't give me my clarity. We were told earlier today that they just found out about this problem, which is why it went from cents 9 to a dollar. That was the response 10 to a question earlier today. 11
12 So we're going to ask for a 13 response from Mr. Dubow. 14
What I said 17 was, we knew that they had a big 18 deficit. What we didn't know is 19 how they were going to address it. 20 And when we found out how they were going to address it, that's when we shifted our proposal.
And may I just add, Mr. President, Mr. Chairman, that -- I'll say two things. It's no secret that the school district of Philadelphia, I think everybody in this room knows there's been issues with deficits and structural deficits going back to the days of Dr. Arlene Ackerman and Paul Vallas when he was the CEO, I think we all know that. What Mr. Dubow was saying, I can absolutely support and tell you is true. As we've looked at this deficit, we decided, I decided; the team, that we have two recommendations to make to President Streater. Number one, continue to kick the dead can down the road and leave a deficit for the next superintendent and the next superintendent and the next Board of Education and the next Board of Education. Or separate and apart from the Facilities Plan, that's a separate issue, deal with our structural deficit and develop a plan to pay it down and to once and for all eliminate it by fiscal year 29 30. Mr. Dubow did not know that we would go that aggressive in terms of our thinking and how we would -- as we worked on the budget, to eventually bring to President Streater and his board members a plan to eliminate our structural deficit by '29-'30.
Thank you, Mr. President. And a point of information is statements, not questions.
I shall have statements and not questions. Statement; you got to read the room. When you walked -- when this day started, you had nine votes for Uber Tax. I -- the way my Council math works, you might be at six, maybe. All right? And it's heavily weighted on statements like; this is our last and final offer. We're closing these schools. And the math is not mathing that when you say you're closing the school, what is the savings that will get you closer to the $300,000. And we asked that question, and it was not answered. All right? And if that savings is not really savings but designed so that you have better professional development locations, I think 404 North Broad is pretty high. It's not bad. There are others that are there that we could kind of squeeze staff into. I just don't see why we are fixing things that aren't broke. The -- you got performing schools, they're under-enrolled because we put in a system that keeps students out of seats. You got neighborhood schools where the climate is so good. And you know, I tell -- and I'm going to end on this. I know what schools are hot and which ones are not based on the number of parents that want to get into a school. And then the number of parents, Please, Councilman, get me out -- my kid out of here. And these schools I never get a problem from. And so that's a statement, it's not a question. But read the room. And that's not just here, that's at the state level. I can assure you that's at the state level as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you very much. Member Harrity, point of information and then we relinquish the time back to Member Young to wrap up.
Mine is a point of inquiry. So because -- well, we --
We were told earlier that -- well, we know COVID money was for onetime capital expenses, but we were told earlier the doctor said that they used the COVID money for the teachers, and that's why we're going to be 340 short. Why would we use one-time dollars in order to pay for something that we knew wasn't going to be recurring? I know you just said the administration you thought was going to be the same, but that's like - that's a 50/50 gamble there, right?
If I could respond briefly. COVID was one of the most devastating times in our history of our country as it relates to our children and public education. We decided that it was important not to be derelict in our duty, to ensure that our children would not have the losses that other cities have lost. And we've got notoriety nationwide to ensure that they can still rewrite, do math, and be protected in serviced in the way that they could. That is what -- that is -- that is why we did it that way. So imagine if we only spent money on builders. And I think that's the problem with this whole conversation. We're focusing so much on the facilities; we focused on people. And when you focus on people -- and that's what this Facilities Plan are really trying to do, when you focus on people and allocating them in the way that services the mission, why you exist, amazing things happen to our children. Again, I went to Germantown High School, it is closed. Closed. But the one thing that I could take with me, I can't take that building with me, but I could take the fact that I have the ability to be an attorney, to be an amazing bartender that I was able to be before I became an attorney. To protect and provide for my four babies at home. That's what we're trying to do here. So it was a strategy and it actually worked. And elections have consequences, and we know that. But we were on the track to -- for the first time ever, potentially have reoccurring funds from our federal government to move up our half percent. What we were get -- what we get from the federal government up to us to 5 percent. That is a game changer. So that's why we did it. We want to invest in our babies and our children. For too long in this city, we've invested in things that don't service our mission. We just have. And this Board of Education through goals and guardrails is seeking to do that. And the Facilities Plan is connected to that, connected to the strategic plan that seeks to do what we are designed to do; educate the babies so they can fish for themselves so they don't grow up and say, I like that school there, but I can't get out the neighborhood or do anything because I don't have the skills to do it.
Member Young, wrap us up with this final question. I have to call on the next person, sir.
Thank you. I'm just want to also want to get a little bit more clarity on the school-based positions that are proposed to be cut if this $50 million isn't received by the district. So we've heard testimony to say that, well, no, there will be no jobs lost, but those school-based professionals will have to be transferred elsewhere. And so if that's the case, if they -- why do they have to be transferred elsewhere if, you know, they're still going to be employees of the district?
Here -- thank you, Councilmember Young. Here's the answer. In a large city like Philadelphia where you have 200,000 public school children in the district-operated and the charter public schools, and you have really small schools and you have really large schools and you have super under-enrolled schools and super over-enrolled schools, you got to balance how you use those limited resources and positions. So if I'm in a school where I've got a very, very low population of students, but I'm funded at a level of positions that's higher than we can afford to do, at some point you've got to right size, and it's not personal at all. So --
So we got to do that regardless then. It doesn't matter if you get the money or not; you'll have to right size at -- regardless.
And so our plan to try to keep as many people in the house who's in the house, because we don't want lots of layoffs, we devise what I think is a really strategic plan to project all the vacancies out. And if we can't afford to continue to fund some schools at a certain level because the pot is only this big, we're cutting -- we cut the positions; it makes sense to cut. And we're transferring them to where we know we will have vacancies next school year. It's just simple math. It's not personal. And we broke down how these positions break out by the 10 council districts, so Council can be aware. A historically underfunded school district where we have a structural deficit that's not caused by the Board of Education or the administration. It's caused by three things. Number one, this is a historically underfunded school district, and you've had structural deficits for decades, and we're going to eliminate it. Number two, it's driven by; we no longer have COVID money. Number three, it's driven by increases and personnel costs in terms of raises. Four, it's driven by charter school payment increases. And number five, it's also driven by, finally, the increases in healthcare costs. This is not a mismanagement issue, it is just -- it's just economics.
And I just want to say that you have the -- out of -- you have a top municipal budget in the country, right? When you take into cities, districts, you have a top 6 municipal budget. And so I just 7 ask that we think a little bit 8 differently when it comes to how we 9 allocate $5 billion worth of 10 resources when you have a 11 population of 200,000 to serve. 12
13 Point of information from Member 14 Dr. Nina Ahmad. 15
16 Thank you, Council President. I 17 have a point of clarification I 18 need from all of you here in terms 19 of how much thought went into 20 putting this closure plan together, which is part of your -- the entire plan. So -- and I'll -- you know, I'm a scientist. I like to disaggregate my data and talk about specifics. Talking about Lankenau; February -- January 22, Lankenau 4 was going to be merged with 5 Roxborough. And then February 26th 6 it was going to go to Saul. So you 7 had how much time to come up with 8 this plan that you had done that 9 option. And then quickly within a 10 month you switch to another option; 11 point number one. 12 Point No. 2, as my 13 colleague Jim Harrity pointed out, 14 Saul focuses on production 15 agriculture, including 16 horticulture, animal management, 17 and agricultural mechanics. 18 Lankenau does not. And the way 19 Saul is set up, the land is set up, 20 does not allow to do what Lankenau does. You cannot take it and put it in there. So this is not a sound educational planning. Merging Lankenau into Saul would not preserve Lankenau; it would erase what makes Lankenau distinct. And for us -- for you not to point that out, that you are willing to erase Lankenau, you can say that it's not important. We're going to erase their curriculum. We don't need the only environmental school in the district. Say that then. But do not say that you're going to be able to preserve this when you had given one month thought of moving from one school to another. I want to understand what is your thought pattern; how did you get to this, and what is the data that supports you saying that, oh, Lankenau will be fine in the Saul space because we have land that is bisected by Henry Avenue and we have all -- built environment on both sides. And you're telling me we're going to be replicating what acres does with 400 acres surrounding it in this new space. Please give me that information.
I -- 6 thank you, Councilmember Ahmad. I 7 would answer that by saying three 8 things. One, as we said before, 9 the reason why we're doing some 10 school mergers at the high school 11 level is that we can no longer 12 continue to afford some of the 13 measures that Paul Vallas put in 14 place years ago with the smaller 15 high school model. We just can't 16 staff it and drive improved 17 performance. We can't afford to do it.
I need to just interject here. Which means you're saying you're not going to keep the Lankenau Environmental Science curriculum because you cannot do it. That's all.
And the second thing I'll say, we are absolutely committed to supporting Lankenau and its students on the Saul campus by doing the following. A; the district will retain ownership. I've recommended to President Streater and his board that the district maintain ownership of the Lankenau property for use both by Lankenau as well as other students across the district. As a science center inside of the school district. You would say, well, why don't you just leave Lankenau there if you're going to keep the property? It's again, we can drive faster and better resources into our high schools if we address small schools. I've discontinued from our vocabulary the term small boutique high schools, because I understand that's offensive to some. But I do stand by; we can no longer afford to operate the small high schools and to -- and to continue to drive the kind of improvements that we're beginning to see in academics.
So just another point of information. Right next to Lankenau, which they use is the Schuylkill Science Center, the Environmental Science Center. There is no need for a new environmental center because we already have one. So why would you use your precious resources to build a new center when we already have ability to use that, No. 1. Number two, you have not allowed Lankenau to actually fix the problem so that they will not be a drain on your resources. So that if you were to increase the enrollment, that would obviate the problem you're mentioning. So if we can fill that gap and you've given them five years to do that, to prove that they're able to get that, get the enrollment up. If you have three classes of 35 -- 33 each in each of these divisions, if you allowed different levels of specification for the schools, we would be able to turn that around. But you -- at no point has there been an actual -- this is before you came; I made this point already. At no point has there been a clear thought-out plan that didn't pivot in one month to tell these schools that are under the gun that you have X amount of time to do X amount of things, and this is how we're going to do it, or else we are going to have to move on. And there's nothing wrong with small boutique schools, by the way. They actually are s safer, they teach the children better, so I don't know where this thought has come that we have to all merge into these massive schools. Who asked for that? Did you -- do you think there's actual relevance for that in our -- Philadelphia? So I'm just telling you what you've done makes no sense. When you look at it from a data perspective. In one month, you shifted everything, from Roxborough to Saul. How much thought went to that? How did you account for all of these things that Lankenau does in one month in Saul? And you're going to put aside land? You're going to recreate what they do? Because the amount -- the Schuylkill that runs through that is a polluted Schuylkill. Whereas the Schuylkill that runs through Lankenau allows you to do water preservation and all kinds of activities that they do that you will not be able to do in Saul. So I am -- either you're saying there's no environmental school or you're saying, you know, it doesn't really matter because we're just going to subsume this into an agricultural-based school and that you should just be honest about it.
Councilmember Ahmad in that spirit of transparency, I do want to say that data does not show that just because kids are in smaller schools, they perform better. I can -- and I won't embarrass any school in public. But I can tell you some of the small schools that we're referencing are -- I don't think any of us -- I certainly am not pleased with some of the performance levels. But to your point about the Schuylkill Center and the Lankenau property, not only would Saul students -- I mean, excuse me Lankenau students have access to use it, although they would not be located on that campus. So with other students across the city. Relative to small school phenomenon, it's no different than a university. If you're at some small universities and you've got lots of resources, it's one thing. If you're at a small university that can barely afford to keep the doors open, I'm not sure that's where I want my child to be.
So I'll just wrap it up by saying, show your work. You didn't show your work for that. What you did --
-- in that one month to switch. That's all I'm asking. Show your work and tell us the truth. Thank you. Thank you for your indulgence.
You're still in the queue, so that's a very informative point of information. Chair recognizes Councilmember Jamie Gauthier, then Councilmember Isaiah Thomas.
Thank you, Council President. Good afternoon, Dr. Watlington and Board President Streater. I appreciate you all coming into this hearing. I appreciate the Majority Leader for making this happen. At different points you all have expressed, Dr. Watlington, board President Streater, Chief Education Officer Carrera, that you believe that these are two different conversations. That we are having a conversation about the Uber tax and that the Facilities Plan is somewhere over here. And I think the tenor of this room has been what it's been all morning, because neither Council nor our communities view it that way. You are asking us to do something that is difficult. You are asking us to do something that at this moment feels very unpopular. And that's fine. We are legislators. We are expected to do hard things and to engage in hard conversations. The problem is that you're asking us to engage in this difficult conversation and decision with you while simultaneously telling us that you are not going to listen to us or our communities. That is the problem with this entire conversation, because that's not what partnership is. That's not what partnership looks like. I appreciate some of the changes that you revealed yesterday in your amendments to the Facilities Plan. I appreciate that you are recommending a hundred plus million dollars for the 3rd District over what was there before, and that you are scrapping the recommendation to give our facilities over to developers, including the Robeson property. I appreciate those changes, but if we're being honest, those were massive deficiencies with the original version of your plan. And so, though I appreciate those changes, for me, the changes don't go far enough. I have talked to you for months, Dr. Watlington. I have talked to you for months about pulling Robeson off the closure list. After months of advocacy, you looked me in my face on more than one occasion, and you said, not only to me, but to other elected officials that represent that area, that you think we can revise that recommendation. And you knew full well that what we were asking for in a revision was to not look up at your slide presentation to the press yesterday and see close Robeson still on that sheet. None of us were asking for that. Our community was not asking for that, and you knew it. That's not partnership. And so for me, this is about so many things that are disappointing and traumatic to our community. One, Robeson as a school has made enormous leaps and bounds since the last time that they were put on the closure list because these processes tend to traumatize the same black and brown communities over and over again. But they pulled themselves up and they worked really hard to become a better school academically as was noted by yourself, by the governor, and by many others. The other thing that's traumatic about this is you all saying that we're going to reserve the land for school district use. We're maybe going to build a STEM-focused school there, but we can't go that extra step of saying that that new school will be Robeson High. We can't go that extra step of pulling Robeson off the closure list. That kind of attitude is carrying out the same legacy of erasing black people in University City that has happened in my district for decades and it's not fair. Especially since you cannot tell me why you did not -- I talked to you all yesterday evening about this. You could not identify a concrete reason why we couldn't keep Robeson open, especially if we were keeping the land for school facility purposes. So to us, it feels like you're not listening. But at the same time, you're not listening, you're coming in here and asking us to do something hard for you. How dare you do that. How dare you. How dare you rush this plan to a Thursday vote when you haven't even taken the time to fully engage our communities but then come in here and ask us to do something hard for you.
That is why the tenor of this conversation in the room today is what it is, because partnership doesn't look like that. And so my questions are, why can you not remove Robeson from the closure list? Why can you not do a co-location that is temporary while we build a new facility as opposed to a merger that would completely wipe out the legacy of that school? That's my first question. And I want to know -- I don't -- I'm not looking for -- I'm looking for actual cost since the cost seems to be an issue to you. Secondly, I also put forward other alternative recommendations that would keep Blankenburg the last public high school in Mill Creek without an admissions criteria in the district. I recommended that it be co-located with Parkway West. Why would you rush a plan to the school board on Thursday without even giving full consideration to that idea, without even coming out to West Philly to really talk to our communities about that idea? Please speak to those two questions because to me, having that conversation while you're asking us to do something hard is what partnership looks like.
Thank you, Member -- Councilmember Gauthier. In terms of the notion about it being a rushed plan, I would just remind the Council that I came aboard just over four years ago, getting ready to start year five. Shortly into my tenure, I was questioned in front of this Council with board President Streater about when can we expect a Facilities Plan on our desks? I think the district was admonished for not moving fast enough. Over the past four years -- I can send to Mr. President to the Council, a list of all the engagement sessions with members of council, with communities with the district learning networks, et cetera. And I think it would show robust engagement; best in class engagement for a district this size. Number two, the immediate problem we're experiencing at Robeson is that the building has a poor business building score. I cannot, in a good fiduciary sense, recommend to go in and renovate that building. It's not good business sense. It's not good use of the public tax dollar. Some buildings it's not a good use to go in and renovate and upgrade. They're better off being replaced. Number three --
I don't think that the community has definitively objected to that. We want to build a new facility. I'm not sure what's prohibitive about what you just said.
Sure. And because we originally recommended to move the students at Robeson to William Sayre as a way to increase the sizes of the high school so we can push more resources in so that they can have advanced placement courses, have the resources for band and orchestra, and maybe even some athletics equipment and things that kids in the suburbs get that our kids quite frankly don't have in these schools. I want to be really clear about that. No matter how good we say these schools are, I'm telling you they're missing a lot of stuff, in addition to having a poor building score. We modified that recommendation to -- because there was such strong opposition, and we thought, hey, Motivation is another opportunity. There's no pride in authorship. We don't have a problem making adjustments as the community and our elected officials inform us. So Motivation --
Was it -- let just pause you for a second. Was it your understanding that my community was asking for Robeson to be disappeared into Motivation as opposed to Sayre? Is it really your understanding that the community was asking for the school -- was just choosing between the schools that Robeson should disappear into? Or was it your understanding that the community wants Robeson to still be in our community?
It was my understanding and continues to be my understanding that Councilmember Jamie Gauthier and her -- and her constituents prefer that there be no changes and that the Paul Robeson High School not be merged anywhere at this time.
Correct. Thank you. So please speak to the rest of my questions. You stated yesterday evening that we cannot -- we must do a merger for Robeson. We cannot do a temporary co-location that would keep the school alive while building a new facility and then bringing them back. Why can we not? What are the real numbers and the real barriers associated with that?
One of the challenges we're experiencing in the school district, and quite frankly in the city, is that this whole -- the real root problem here is district-wide, the school district of Philadelphia has a 65 percent building occupancy or utilization rate. 35 percent of our footprint is sitting empty. It's not a good financial management or an investment.
-- why does a merger as opposed to a co-location in the -- in the same building solve that problem? So how does it solve that problem?
So to your point, Councilmember Gauthier, we could have two choices for a school. We could take two high schools and merge them together and have one school; one principal, one set of faculty. Or we could have two separate schools in the same building. New York --
New York City has a lot of that. Other cities do it. And we could have one principal, one set of faculty for school A, one principal, one set of faculty for school B. The reason I'm not recommending to President Streater and his board to do that for Robeson is because the size of Robeson and the size of Motivation High School are small; number one. Neither school is growing in enrollment, and neither school has a high wait list. If we're going to make this school district solvent, we've got to provide choice where there's high demand. And it's my job to recommend those really hard decisions that I don't really want to do. But if we have a larger school merged together, I can push more resources in to include teachers, to include advanced placement courses, elective courses, career technical education. And we just can't do it when we have so many small, small schools.
We are dealing with monumental decisions that will impact communities and people for a long time. And so before you say that you are going to wipe out a school that the community has begged you to keep around, I think you need to come to the table with real cost, with real barriers to why we can't do a co-location as opposed to a merger. You all are asking us to consider a tax that, you know, granted would generate $48 million, but would be passed on to consumers. And we should consider that. But I don't think it's fair for you to want us to dialogue with you in good faith about what you need from a financial perspective when you won't dialogue with us in good faith. That's not okay. It's not okay for you to rush this plan to a vote on Thursday when you didn't even come out and really talk to our communities about the recommendations on the table. It's not okay. It's not partnership. And that's why the conversation has gone the way it has today. Thank you.
I want to say thank you to our Majority Leader for bringing the district here today, but I'm going to save my questions for the district for tomorrow. But I do think that the district put some important facts on the plate that we need to consider. I want to go back to our conversation about taxes. I personally last year asked for the Mayor, the admin, to increase the percentage of the mileage tax last year because I knew that the funding issue was a problem. I have receipts. I don't got time, so I'm not giving up all my receipts. I'm a 100 percent sure that I knew this problem existed last year. I'm a 100 percent sure that the Council President staff, along with other members of the City Council, knew this problem existed last year. So I have a simple question, and I'm asking that you tell me if it's A or B. Somebody dropped the ball. Did the school district not tell the admin that this fiscal problem existed last year? Or did the school district tell the admin, and the admin decide not to address it? Which one happened last year?
I'm sorry, I want to speak to the admin side. Because you testified that you guys didn't know about this deficit. And I'm a 100 percent sure I sat in this very same seat last year and talked about this deficit. And I even remember sitting in that seat going back and forth with my colleague, Rue Landau, around H.O.M.E because I said, we shouldn't do H.O.M.E because we needed the money for schools. So if I knew the problem existed last year, how are you-all going to sit here and tell us you-all didn't know the problem existed last year.
So we never said the problem didn't exist. What I testified this morning was --
So if you knew the problem exists, why you weren't putting money in last year?
No. 15 If you knew the problem existed, why you weren't putting money in last year?
So what we talked about last year, we did talk about this very problem last year. We did not say at any point last year there wasn't a projected deficit because there was.
What I said last year was that we need the state to step up. This isn't something we can do by ourselves.
We knew the state wasn't going to step up. I knew the state wasn't going to step up. I haven't been here that long. You-all have been here longer than me. If I knew the state wasn't going to step up, and I said we need to put the money in last year, why didn't we put the money in last year?
-- and we had to sue them. Let me move on to my questions because you playing with me and I'm not in the mood to be played with. Extended Day; why would we -- if I own a house and I can't keep my basic house repaired, why would I add a porch to a house that I can't keep repaired? If we knew we didn't have the funding to make sure that schools were funded the way that they needed to be, why would we add Extended Day? Why would we make school all year round if we can't pay for school from eight to three?
I'm asking money questions. I'll -- don't talk to the school district tomorrow.
Thank you, Councilman Thomas. Extended Day/Extended Year is part of the Accelerate Philly plan. And it is in written --
I'm very -- I'm very familiar what plan is a part of. I'm asking a very specific question; if we knew we didn't have the money to keep the lights on, why we spending money on vacation?
Extended Day/Extended Year is supporting the school district of Philadelphia by providing opportunities for students to get academic and enrichment opportunities to support Accelerate Philly plans.
So why would we add -- why would we add these things that happen after three o'clock if we can't pay for everything up until three o'clock? Next question -- MS CARRERA: We would -- we would add these things because we know that out of school time helps decrease --
You want to pay for out of school time, you can't pay for in-school time. Next question, Mr. Dubow, if we didn't do H.O.M.E last year, will we be have -- will we have enough money right now for schools? Yes or no? Matter of fact, let me change that question. If we did H.O.M.E at 400 million last year, instead of 800 million, will we have money for schools; yes or no?
If -- next question, the fund balance right now is set, according to your words, to be at 400 million at the end of the five-year plan. Why would we ask for -- why would we ask -- oh, go ahead. I'm sorry.
Member Thomas, point of information from Member Catherine Gilmore- Richardson.
I have a -- I have a point of inquiry, Council President, to drill down on Councilmember Thomas's question for Mr. Dubow. If you could notate for the record, how much would have been saved if H.O.M.E was at 400 million versus 800 million? What is the quantifiable amount relative to the debt service?
30 -- the debt service difference from the 800 million borrowing to the 400 million would have been how much per year?
About $30 million difference in what we would show in the budget, yes.
150 million over the five-year plan, right?
No. Because the second bond issue comes later. So it would be less over the five- year plan.
I'm just trying to get a number based on his question.
Yeah. So I think the second didn't start till 28. So it would be about 90 million more over the plan.
90 million. Thank you very much, Council President.
So like I said, it wasn't true -- oh, go ahead. I'm sorry.
Well, no, 90 million more would not give us enough to fund the school district.
Let's do this. Time out. Chair recognizes Councilmember Dr. Anthony Phillips.
Council President, thank you. I -- this is -- Mr. Dubow, this is why I think it's important that once an idea is shared, that you all would like to see that it immediately, whether or not you wanted to get out to public or not, there should be conversations with the stakeholders that you want to see, you know, support it. And with all of the data, all of the ideas that you all have come up with in the plan, that way we can provide a level of deliberation. So the question is that I have -- because I say this because even with my own team, I have an idea, right? Emmanuel, some other folks are like -- other stakeholders I work with. They're like, that's a good idea, but you should talk to this person. And we end up changing our idea and it becomes better as a result. You know, I don't just jump out. I'm talking to you, Mr. Dubow, because you're the mayor's, like, chief advisor when it comes to finances. And so my question is, did -- at one point, did we ever say, let's talk to Council, then also let's talk to the rideshare services. And maybe we came up with -- said maybe the rideshare services could have said, you know what, if you do this tax, this is what we're going to do. We're not going to -- we're going to give over to the residents, but maybe what we can offer is a certain amount of money back to the city of Philadelphia, if you all work with us. That -- did that option ever come up as an idea to kind of work with the corporations to get to give the money to us as opposed to the tax?
Yeah. So we've met with them and we have said to them, if there are other ideas, we're happy to hear them. But those ideas have to have recurring predictable revenue.
Right. And that -- do you know that just -- the city of Philadelphia receives money, revenue, from the sports teams recurring. So that agreement could have been made. I just -- I just wanted to ask, like, did you offer that as an idea, like, recurring revenue that they could just donate so we can support our schools as opposed to doing it through district tax?
We did have that -- we've had that conversation with them, yes.
We're still talk -- we still have -- we have ongoing conversations.
Closing out real quick. We -- if the -- with the school's deficit the way it is, why will -- and I looked into this issue a couple years ago before we came into 2026, because we knew a lot of people were coming. So I examined the hotel tax. I worked with folks that did a study, and it was presented to us that it wasn't worth it. If the school's deficit is the way it is, why would we -- if we're going to ask Harrisburg for anything, why would we not ask them to increase the cigarette tax where the revenue goes directly to the schools instead of increasing the hotel tax, which could hurt hospitality and have a big -- and could have a negative impact on our entire industry? Why would we go -- why would we not ask them for that?
Because the hotel tax generates more revenue than the cigarette tax. So a smaller increase in that tax --
But the industry says that you-all are not correct. The industry says that your estimates are too high, and the industry feels like an increase in the hotel tax, not only is the a hundred plus million at your asset for over five years, not realistic. The industry says it could kill tourism. That's what the industry says, not me.
Yeah. I know it's a -- I understand what you're saying. It's a -- for a $200 room, it's a $4 increase per night.
Okay. So I guess the industry is lying too. Everybody is lying, right? And I don't -- I don't know, everybody there is telling the truth, everybody else is lying. I just want to close out with this, Council President, because I heard the bell. I've been on my best behavior all budget. I've been on my best behavior all budget. And I'm here today and I'm upset. And it's not personal, but I -- myself, Councilmember Gauthier, Councilmember Ahmad, Councilmember O'Rourke, Councilmember Jones, and I'm sure other council members experienced this too. We started off our day with special needs kids. I had to stand next to a young lady who is blind. She's blind. She goes to a school where she's very comfortable and everything works for her. And you telling me about 340 staff, what about the deaf children at Lankenau? What about the blind children at Lankenau? So my energy isn't personal to you-all. It's not personal, but come on, you-all, like, this isn't right. You-all asking us to do some of the most ridiculous stuff I've ever heard anybody ask me to do and then go in front of black kids and tell them kids, you can't go to this school no more. That hurt. That's tears. So I get it. Yeah, you going to be mad, oh, Isaiah did this. Isaiah did that. I don't care. Them kids is going to be adults pretty soon. And I could tell you that man -- that young man looked me in the face. He said he's going to run for office. He's the one who is going to decide on my pension. Like, I -- you-all not taking this serious enough. And that's why -- that's what my colleagues is saying that's why we're so upset. It isn't about you-all. It isn't even about the teachers; I love the teachers, I really do. But come on you-all come to Lankenau with me, look at them deaf kids and them blind kids tell their parents to their face, you got to go to Saul. I get it. And I said this at the press conference, maybe you could take the environment on the outside and put it Saul, but you can't do that with the environment on the inside. And if you've been there, you would know that. That's it. I'm done for the day.
Thank you, Member Thomas. Councilmember Rue Landau. And we have a hard stop at 1:00.
Okay. Thank you. Thanks for being here. I think I want to start by just taking a minute of reading the room trying to understand a little bit more school district of where you guys are coming from. I will be honest how I feel, how you come from -- come to this space. You seem annoyed with us. You seemed like we are just, kind of, pestering and that this is -- that -- this is not the conversation you want to have or the place to be. But I want to say that -- I'm going to go back to my first comment, which was that all of the work that could have happened before now, those are the courageous conversations that need to happen. Getting in front of the community, working with the council people. When I hear that you've come up with a solution for certain parts of the 3rd District, this all could have been front-ended. So you're hearing clearly that we're upset, and we see that you've come to this space to be frustrated. But there is -- there's a lot of work that could have happened up until now. I believe that Superintendent Watlington, when you had a one-on-one conversation with each one of us, I recall you saying that you have -- that you all made the choice to eliminate the deficit this year because you keep going out to Harrisburg, and in Harrisburg, they don't look kindly to the city of Philadelphia saying, we don't want to give you more money because you keep holding this deficit. And that's your reason for getting out -- rid of the deficit all at once in this one year, is because you believe that Harrisburg will give us more money. What evidence do you have that Harrisburg will give us more money if we eliminate the deficit in one year? Rip the band aid off.
Before the Superintendent speaks, I want to address the energy in the room 24 piece. Please don't take my energy as being disrespectful to this space. I welcome you to board meetings often, and we have conversations there. My energy is at the fact that we have to have this conversation in the first place all of us. I think we have been put into a cauldron as a city fighting over scarce resources, and we're all fighting for the babies. And I think we all agree on the what and the why. We are disagreeing on the how. So please, if anybody felt that my demeanor, not wearing a suit today, I would have worn a suit. I was prepared to speak tomorrow, but I wanted to address that Councilmember Landau, that this is really important work. And I think the energy that we're bringing is that we're also trying to be zealous advocates for our babies. But Dr. Watlington, please add. Your time.
I want to say three things. You know, I'm trying to be very succinct. You know, Council President likes to get to the point. To show you how bad historic underfunding has been in the school district of Philadelphia, I want the Council to think about this. Congress appropriated the COVID money for two reasons. Going back to Councilmember Harrity's comment or question, Congress said, we're going to get this money out to the 50 states and 15,000 public school districts. Number one, to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 learning loss. That was number one. Congress said, number two; school districts may also use these dollars to address air quality issues to mitigate future airborne illness, COVID-19, and future pandemics. So that's why some districts were able to build schools and do some other things. It was around air quality. In my last district, we actually provided retention bonuses to teachers. Here in Philadelphia, because the district is so underfunded, this district, even though people think the budget is so big, had to not only try to deal with learning loss. Dr. Bill Hite had to take as much of that COVID money and fill the holes that funding is just not providing. Here is the best example. While most districts would not spend COVID money on positions, this school district hired 127 assistant principals with COVID-19 money. You let me recommend to President Streeter to cut 127 assistant principals and every member of this council would be not happy. That just shows that here the money had to go to plug a lot of holes. The reason why I think we can get more money is not because I'm pollyannish or somehow naive. In 2023, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the way we fund schools is unconstitutional in this Commonwealth. The General Assembly has started on a path as well as the city to get more revenue. It's just going to take time to get to adequate funding. Our best estimate right now is that it'll take a decade at the price -- at the rate we're going. Our kids can't wait a decade. So I would say that first. Second, I don't disagree that we can do some -- take some measures here in Philadelphia to help ourselves and then go to Harrisburg, the appropriate elected officials and others and make the case that we're doing our part; you do your part. I don't have any magic wand or a crystal ball, but I do think it puts the city in a stronger footing when we say we don't have 35 percent of our school buildings sitting empty and asking for more money.
And if I could be brief. I think one of the elephants in the room that the board is constantly worried about and guarding against, there's a statute that is still viable in this -- in our -- in our state, where we can lose local control again if we're seen as being financially in trouble. So the Board of Education understands we will -- we will guard -- we will guard that to our -- to our graves because we understand the impact that about years had on our city of Philadelphia. And we're starting to put things back that were taken away and rebuilding public education. So I think there -- that's one of the elephants in the room 10 we're not talking about. It's not just about getting more resources, it's not getting things taken away and done to us. Again, that's part of the analysis too.
16 Appreciate that. I don't think 17 that was a little bit of a direct 18 answer to my question that you said 19 -- 20
You have to be brief and you're going to have them all day tomorrow. We all will have them all day tomorrow.
So I'm just being frank; they stopped what they were doing to come temporarily, but we will have them all day tomorrow as well. So can you be brief and wrap it up and then Majority Leader.
The question was why do we have to eliminate the full deficit this year? I understand how we got there --
And I understand how this mark would look bad for potentially losing local control. I'm asking that specific question.
We are not proposing to President Streater and his board -- I want to say this on the record. We are not proposing to pay down and eliminate this deficit in one year. This is a four-year plan. We will -- we are recommending that President Streater and his board take these austerity measures to the tune of $225 million in fiscal year 26-27. And that we continue to trim our budget over the next four years such that by fiscal year 30, we will once and for all eliminate the structural deficit in the school district of Philadelphia.
So the significant amount this year, the largest amount this year --
The longer you kick the can down the road, the more interest, the more you pay.
I'll end with this. I've been a lawyer for a long time. When a judge orders that someone has to be evicted, they have to leave their home. When a judge orders that someone committed a crime, they go to jail. When a judge orders they have to pay someone a certain amount of money, you have to pay that amount of money. We got to figure out a way to get this money from the state. The judge ordered it in 2023. We must be adequately funded. They owe us money. Let's go get it. End of discussion. Thank you.
I wish it was that simple though. Being frank, and I come from that body. You have a strongly controlled Republican senate and that no matter how much my good friend and appropriation chairman, Jordan Harris does, or my little sister the speaker Joanna McClinton do, at the end of the day, unless we take control of that Senate, right? I mean, it's good to say it, but I come from that body. But we will fight and we will advocate for that additional funding because it is our constitutional responsibility -- their constitutional responsibility. But I'm also approaching this pragmatically, I understand the reality of what that environment is. We are on the front line in the city of Philadelphia fighting for these babies. Because most of them up there can care less, to be quite frank with you, unless you're from City of Philadelphia and the surrounding area. And some folks may be in the counties, to be quite frank with you. But I'm going to turn it over to Majority Leader Gilmore- Richardson to wrap us up. We're going to have a brief -- we are not going to do an hour-long lunch today because the public is here. And I expect all this energy that's here will also be here to listen to what these public individuals who took their time out of their schedule to come down here to say. Majority Leader, take us home.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Council President. And first a thank you to Rob Dubow and to Dr. Deb Carrera and the additional representatives from the administration. As well as our school board Chair Reginald Streater and Dr. Watlington and your team at the school district. I requested your presence here today at this hearing to respond to a financial question that was posed by Councilmember Curtis Jones relative to the school district budget that the administration was unable to respond to. And I felt that it was unfair for us to have this debate in the public forum without having that information as requested. And so I requested you all to be here. I appreciate you coming. I understand that you're going to be with us tomorrow, but I wanted to ensure we could have a full conversation today since we were unable to get the financial question answered from the administration. And I did mention the CFO, so I didn't say anybody specific. I just want to be clear that I didn't ask for anyone specific outside of the CFO who could answer the financial question. I wanted to put that on the record. I also wanted to state for the record, and this data comes from the district quarterly school manager report, that from fiscal year to fiscal 8 year 26, City Council has increased 9 our contribution to the School 10 District of Philadelphia by 11 $513,602,000 since -- over FY 21 to 12 FY 26. I wanted to put that on the 13 record because that is an important 14 figure to state for the auspices of 15 this conversation. 16 I'll end with this 17 question because of the timeframe 18 we have this week. We are meeting 19 with you all tomorrow. I 20 understand that you all are 21 scheduled to vote on the Facilities Plan at the Thursday meeting. I am formally and officially requesting of you board Chair Streater and also Dr. Watlington in the presence of the officials from the administration that you commit to us on record to move the facilities vote to either the 4/23, April 23rd, action meeting or the May 28th action meeting of the school board and the school District of Philadelphia. Are we able to receive that commitment as we continue to deliberate the facts and the figures of this plan, as well as the other information that has been presented that we have been unable to give full and complete answers to?
Yes. The dates are -- you have an upcoming action meeting on April 23rd as well as May 28th.
And the request is that you not vote on the Facilities Plan this Thursday but commit to moving that vote to either the 4/23 action meeting or the 5/28 action meeting to allow City Council the opportunity to deliberate on all of the information that has been presented, as well as continue to get the answers to the questions that we have that were presented today around the tax bills. And that would be Bill 260202, 260203, 260204, 260205, 260206, 260208, and 260209.
Today I'm not prepared or even empowered to even answer that question. We are a board as well, so I'll have -- obviously I noticed questions you want to come up tomorrow and I'll be ready to respond tomorrow.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Council President.
So for the record, tomorrow you'll report back as is the two dates requested will be either approved or not approved based upon your discussion with your board members, correct?
As the board president of the Philadelphia Board of Education, I will testify tomorrow and respond and answer that question.
Okay. All right. Thank you very much. We will have a -- we will be back at 1:35 from a brief break. (Lunch recess.)
Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon, everyone. AUDIENCE: Good afternoon.
We are now doing public testimony. We are here today to hear from you about the city's proposed revenue measures to ensure that there's an opportunity for all of you to be heard. Certain ground rules have been established as follows. Your testimony should be about the city's proposed revenue adjustments. Once your name is called, you'll have the opportunity to speak. In order to be fair to all those wishing to speak, we want to make sure that you stay within your time limit. Your limit will be a minute, right? We have a very, very extremely long public comment for this afternoon. We have a hard stop at 4:00, and if you need to come back tomorrow, if your name isn't called, because we have a second session for public comment, that will actually happen. So I'm going to make sure we stick to the one-minute limit. And please be mindful and respect the bell because we want as many people as possible to have their public comment for the record today. Ms. Loughead, please call the first person for public comment, please.
Julio Rodriguez, Garrett Johnson, Barbara Shelly and Latasha Wells can also make their way to the podium.
And we are going to do this also to make sure we continue to keep this process going. If a person's name is called and they are not here, we're going to go on to the next individual to keep the flow. Please state your name for the record, and please begin. Yes, ma'am. How you doing?
Like that button, too. Pretty sharp. Please state your name for the record and begin.
Okay. Hello. My name is Barb Shelly. I live in the 5th Council District, and I am a member of Arch Street United Methodist Church in the 1st District. I'm here with POWER Interfaith. I just want to speak on behalf of some of the younger adults that have made a home at our church. They are young adults with a passion for service and social justice. They are nurses, teachers, artists, the future of our city, and yet, almost to a one, they question whether they have a future in this city because of the affordability issue. I do understand there's many pieces to the affordability puzzle, but you are the ones who get to decide who benefits from the city's tax policies and who gets hurt. Long term, if taxes are the best, you can do this year to preserve essential jobs in the schools, then so be it. But taxes on Uber and Lyft rides and retail deliveries seem like a desperate, inadequate patch on a tear that will continue to widen without a bigger fix. So I joined with POWER Interfaith in calling for a tax structure that makes lives better for ordinary people and doesn't impose additional burdens on them. Thank you.
Well, thank you, ma'am. Go ahead, sir. Just state your name for the record and please begin.
Good afternoon. My name is Jerrett Johnson. I am a lead transit organizer for fiscal advocacy and member of Transit Forward Philadelphia. On behalf of Transit Forward Philadelphia, we want to see you support the transportation -- the package delivery tax. This is important to me because it'll allocate funds for public transportation without impacting schools. It'll invest the freedom and mobility, looking out for other students -- and the city should invest in mobility and transit -- making transit more affordable. And as a matter of fact, we have members that -- for Transit Forward Philadelphia that use public transportation. And I know someone who has teenager in high school, and she can't use her student pass beyond 8:00 p.m. or on the weekends. And it's also hard for her because she has to shell out money just so that she can get a ride. Doing this will make it easier for that woman and her child. And like I said, it's also looking out for your friends, neighbors, and coworkers who use public transportation that are on low income and who work for the city. Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir. State your name for the record and please begin.
Good afternoon, members of Council. My name is Latasha Wells, and I'm here today deeply concerned -- as a deeply concerned community member and professional who witnessed the daily challenges of our unhoused population right here in Philadelphia. I'm standing before you to express my full and unwavering support for Mayor's Parker's proposal on hotel tax. This isn't just about a policy or a percentage; it's about a necessary investment in dignity and safety of our neighbors. In my line of work, I see that human face homelessness every day. We aren't just talking about statistics; we're just talk -- we are talking about families, veterans, and individuals who are often one crisis away from losing everything. Currently, our shelters are stretched thin, and our resources for transition services are at a breaking point. When we fail to provide adequate support, the cost is felt by everyone in our public spaces, in our healthcare systems, and mostly important, in our lives of -- in the lives of those left in the cold. The beauty of this specific tax is sustainably by leveraging the tourism in a -- in a hospitality sector, we can generate an -- we can generate a dedicated, consistent stream of revenue that goes directly toward expanding home shelter capacity, ensuring no one has to be turned away on a freezing night. Wraparound services, providing the mental health and addiction resources that are vital for long-term stability. Rapid rehousing, helping people move from a cot of -- a cot to a front door of their own. If this bill -- if this passes into a bill, the benefit will be visible. We will see cleaner, safer streets, but more importantly, we will see a Philadelphia that takes care of its own. It sends a message that we welcome visitors to our hotels. We use their growth to enter. I'm sorry. Okay. Well, thank you.
Next, we have RK Williams, Peter Han, Mimi Lijima, David Tatgenhorst.
Christopher, could you pull the microphone up a little closer to you, sir?
Okay. My name is Christopher RK Williams. I'm one of the Philadelphia residents from the North Philadelphia district for District 5. I've lived there all my life, and a business owner. I come before this government today to see -- excuse me, one second. I know I got a minute. These taxes that you're putting on, these tax cuts you all are taking off, in my neighborhood, the neighborhood I grew up in, North Philly; I'm watching schools close down. Everything you-all doing is going to the people who are hurt here. Now, I'm a business owner at the same time, even though I had to deal with homelessness, whatever, and even though I had to overturn a case, the guys that I employ they are transients, they can't even open -- they can't even fund a room, and you-all going to make more taxes where they can't -- they can't -- like, it's 7.25 an hour. And what I'm saying is the fact that if you all going to do this and you all going to have all these taxes, make it affordable for the people who has -- who are working. You-all making these big corporations get over on it. No, stop that. If they're going to tax them, tax them to help us. Taxes them to help little people. Every day I walk around here in my own city, the one that we all say you-all love, and I'm one of you-all business -- I'm a small business owner, and I can't afford most of the stuff I can because you-all taxes is too high and I can't even keep the people employed that are trying to do for self. And, like, what you-all doing? That's my question. What are you-all doing? And I'm just part of the community. Thank you for your services.
Good afternoon, Council members. My name is Peter Han. I live in Germantown, Council District No. 8. I speak as a part of POWER Interfaith, but also, I've been working closely with API PA. In the first year -- in the past year, I've had many, many firsts. I received a phone call from an unhoused and undocumented friend, a mother with a U.S. born daughter, from a homeless shelter. They didn't know where to go, what to do, because they were getting threats that they were going to call ICE on them. My friends and I also housed unhoused friends, rotating house by house weekly. And I know your job is not easy, and I wish I had more time to tell you other things. I know that in the federal budget, we've seen the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top, increasing 42 percent of budget in military. We always seem to have enough money to borrow to kill people, but not enough to feed people or house people. I think there's some choice happening here, especially when we cut taxes from wages, big businesses, more taxes for Uber, which is for everyday Philadelphians.
Good afternoon. My name's David Tatgenhorst. I'm a pastor, retired. I live in Jamie Gauthier's district proudly, and see her running a lot. She's good. And we're glad the city's considering new taxes. We're just worried, as in POWER, that they fall so much on poor and working people, and we have to figure out alternatives. A public bank would be a really good alternative. It's a real possibility that we keep our money -- that -- in ways that we can use it for ourselves rather than have it go to big banks outside of Philadelphia. We think that instead of -- I mean, we're cutting down BIRT. There are ways that we can be continuing to tax a corporate class and have money coming more from wealthy people and less from poor and working people. Thank you.
Hi. My name is Mimi Lijima, and I live in West Philly, Council District 3. I am with POWER Interfaith and here to talk about taxes. Most West Philly houses are big Victorians, too big for our small family. So when we bought into Penn Alexander Catchment, we got a multi-family. We kept the first floor as a rental, and we live in a separate apartment on the upper floors. Our house was the ugliest house on the block. It needed tons of work. Our rental helped with renovation costs and helped us afford a good school in a pricey area. Our neighborhood's popularity, however, resulted in our property tax more than doubling in 2025; it shot up 114 percent. Our house was lumped together with surrounding rental properties. We were grouped with investors who care most about making money, and they chop up their buildings into many units to generate as much revenue as possible. But the city didn't care that our rental income is much smaller, and the city didn't care that our property is our family home. We've -- we keep the rent below market rate so that our tenants can save for a house -- the house of their own. It's really hard to save. We raise the rent only after they leave. And in our 22 years as homeowners and landlords, we've never raised the rent on a tenant. However, the bigger property taxes may change things. Right now, I am worried about the couple who have been living with us for the last four years. Last year, the wife lost her job and has serious health issues. I want to look out for my tenants, but the city is making it hard. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. President, esteemed Council. Brianna January with DoorDash in respectful opposition to the proposed retail delivery tax. DoorDash is proud of our work and impact in Philadelphia, but we're concerned that the proposed delivery tax will hurt all aspects of the DoorDash community in the city; consumers, small businesses, and our drivers. In 2024, we worked with thousands of local merchants, 85 percent of whom were small businesses, delivering thousands of everyday essentials to Philly households, about 70 percent of which went directly to residents in low-income neighborhoods. Additionally, we partner with several local city nonprofits to reduce food waste and help feed the city's most vulnerable residents. Council, the proposed delivery tax hurts all of this. Increased prices will make everyday essentials less affordable for the city's most vulnerable residents. And thousands of small businesses on our platform will also suffer with fewer and smaller orders and, ultimately, less business. Lastly, fewer and smaller deliveries mean decreased earning potential for drivers, and consumer behavior shows that tips are the first to be cut. I'll leave you with this. Just last week, a poll was released on this very proposal. The findings were telling: 85 percent of Philly voters say a delivery tax will harm their communities. Sixty-seven percent oppose the delivery tax. And three-fifths said that they would not support policymakers that approve of a delivery tax. Council, these are your voters, your friends, your neighbors. They know that this is not right for Philly. DoorDash stands ready to work with the Council for other proposals, and we look forward to our continued collaboration. Thank you.
Next, we have Mai Miksic, Hope Ledford, Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, Rosa Parks- Green, Angeline Jefferson, and Ed Grose.
Good afternoon. My name is Mai Miksic. I'm the Deputy Director of Policy for Children First. I'm here to read the testimony of Dr. James Parrott. He is an economist who focuses on the rideshare industry. He wanted to be here today, but could not, so I'm reading his testimony. For the past eight years, I have worked with several state and local governments across the country, analyzing rideshare and gig economy services. Based on my analysis, the rideshare industry, and my understanding of the economics of the industry and the performance of its leading companies, I think there is merit in the mayor's proposed $1 rideshare tax. The pure economics do not suggest an adverse effect on passengers. Over 50 jurisdictions across the country impose a sales tax on rideshare services. In Washington, D.C., it is a 7.25 percent rate, and in New York City, it is an 8.875 percent rate. The significant market power wielded by the two major rideshare companies in Philadelphia means that they determine what they charge passengers. In recent years, algorithmic pricing, also called upfront pricing models, determine what they charge passengers and matches them with the lowest-paid drivers in their area. That means it has nothing to do with time or distance. Upfront pricing was introduced in 2022, and since then, passenger fares have continued to rise. Driver pay has continued to fall, and Uber and Lyft profits have soared. For 2025, Uber's revenues increased by percent, 6 with net profits rising 32 percent. 7 All right. He would be 8 happy to meet with every single one 9 of the Council members to answer 10 your technical questions about how 11 Uber and Lyft opaque pricing 12 actually harms every rider in this 13 city. 14
Good 17 afternoon. My name is Hope 18 Ledford, director of Civic Innovation Policy at Chamber Progress. I'm here in respectful opposition to the rideshare and delivery taxes. Both would impose regressive new costs on Philadelphians who already have the least affordable options. First, the rideshare tax hit short, necessary trips the hardest, like rides to work, to school, or to a medical appointment. For seniors, people with disabilities, and working families, rideshare is often not a luxury; it is how they get to where they need to go. The delivery tax would also impose a new per-order delivery tax on another service that families rely on every day. Its exemptions are much narrower than they appear. A single non-exempt item, like dish soap or paper towels, can trigger the tax for your entire order. Forty-four percent of voters have personally relied on delivery because of a disability, injury, sickness, or mobility issue, and 50 percent know someone who regularly does. Philadelphia can and should focus on funding schools and infrastructure, but not by taxing access, mobility, and hurting affordability. I respectfully urge you to oppose both taxes.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Go ahead, sir.
Thank you, Council members, for having me. My name is Dan Urevick- Ackelsberg. I'm an attorney at the Public Interest Law Center and litigated the school funding case that everyone talks so much about. I'm here in support of Bills 260208 and 260205, which provide, as you know, an estimated $50 million in recurring revenue for the district, which it needs because we are facing an imminent crisis. The district -- we didn't win that case because the district is spending too much. We won because they're spending too little. Many members of this body fought for years to ensure that when the district did have resources to invest, it concentrated them in the communities that have suffered the most from systemic disinvestment. And that investment over the years is what is now at risk. The schools that are going to be hardest hit by these cuts are places like McDaniel, Rhodes, Munoz-Marin, Elkin. They're going to lose reading specialists in the middle of a citywide literacy crisis. They're going to lose counselors and climate staff in the long tail of a -- the gun violence crisis of a century. I know that you all face tough decisions. The children of this city, however, don't have a giant monopolistic corporation's ability to flood this building with lobbyists or to blanket our phones with attack ads. But what the children of this city do have is all of you, who can be counted on to stand up for their dignity, their future, and their potential. Thank you very much.
You didn't hear Isaiah Thomas earlier speaking on behalf of the kids of Lankenau?
We Good. Mr. Grose, state your name for the record, Ed, and please begin. Good to see you, sir.
Good to see you too. Ed Grose, last name spelled G-R-O-S-E. I'm with the Greater Philadelphia Hotel Association. Good afternoon, Council President Johnson, Majority Leader Gilmore- Richardson, and all members of the City -- of City Council. My name is Ed Grose. I'm the President and CEO of the Greater Philadelphia Hotel Association. The Greater Philadelphia Hotel Association, alongside the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Visit Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Association, and the PHLCVB, stands in full support of Mayor Parker's goal to end street homelessness in Philadelphia. While the objective of adding 1,000 beds with wraparound services is vital, funding the city initiative through a targeted tax on the hospitality sector alone jeopardizes our city's economic competitiveness and puts thousands of local jobs and existing tax revenues at risk. The hospitality and tourism industry is a primary economic engine for Philadelphia, generating $13.4 billion in economic impact. Hotels are already one of the city's most heavily taxed industries. Beyond standard property, wage, net profits, and business income and receipts taxes, we are responsible for use and occupancy tax, net profit, sugar-sweetened beverage, and liquor-by-the-drink taxes. This is in addition to an array of specific municipal fees, ranging from commercial trash and valet parking permits to specialized fire damper inspections. If this proposed tax increase is enacted, Philadelphia's total hotel tax will rise from 16.25 percent to 18.25 percent. This would make Philadelphia the most expensive major city for travelers on the East Coast, surpassing Baltimore at 17.39, Boston at 16.85, Washington, D.C. at 15.9 percent, and New York City at 14.76 percent. Philadelphia is currently in high -- in a high-stakes environment for attracting national and international events and conventions. This tax would -- I got cut off just when I was getting started. Okay. This tax would make Philadelphia less competitive in relation to other peer cities and could trigger cancellation causes in existing convention agreements that are tied to changes in financial terms. Hospitality supports more than 76,000 local jobs, accounting for percent of all employment by city residents. I would also like to point out that 80 percent of our team members are Philadelphia residents. A targeted tax increase on the hospitality industry places thousands of workers across every zip code in Philadelphia at risk.
Please summarize, Mr. Grose. Just summarize the ending. You are past your time.
Okay. I'll summarize the ending. To summarize, we support the mayor fully in her efforts, and we -- matter of fact, we applaud her for tackling such a difficult problem when it would be easier just to ignore it. We're on her side on this one, with the exception of how to pay for it because we feel other industries and other entities benefit from the very problem that we have in the hospitality industry.
Thank you. Good afternoon, City Council. My name is Rosa Parks-Green, and I'm here with Children First as a proud board member and advocate for children. I'm testifying in support of the mayor's proposal to raise $50.4 million. Today, the district faces a $300 million structural deficit following the end of federal pandemic relief funds. This shortfall has serious consequences. The district is forced to cut 340 school-based positions, leave central office roles unfilled, and reduce critical contracts. It is projected that schools across this district could lose up to 149 teachers, 120 climate staff, and potentially counselors. These students cannot afford to do more with less. These roles are essential to student success. The Mayor's proposal will bring $50.4 million in reoccurring funding to schools and preserve the 340 positions that would otherwise be cut. This investment directly benefits students and families in every single district. I urge you to support new revenue solutions, including the rideshare bill, and oppose any reductions to school funding. All students deserve safe, supportive, and well- resourced learning environments. Please act now.
21 Thank you very much. Please state 22 your name and begin. 23
Yes. Angeline Jefferson, President Johnson, and esteemed members of the City Council. I am testifying on behalf of Lyft in opposition to the proposed rideshare tax ordinance. We recognize the seriousness of the school district's funding deficit, and we share this Council's commitment to Philadelphia students. But this ordinance, a $1 per ride tax on all trips originating in Philadelphia, on top of the existing 1.4 percent excise fee riders already pay is not the right solution. It will impose real hardship on Philadelphians, riders, drivers, and the broader local community without resolving the deficit claims to address. This measure has been characterized as a progressive tax, suggesting the wealthy will bear most of the burden. We strongly disagree. This tax falls hardest on those who can least afford it. An estimated 61 percent of rideshare rides in Philadelphia begin or end in low-income areas. Ninety-four percent of Lyft drivers hold other jobs or are enrolled as students. These riders and drivers depend on every dollar of earnings and depend on consistent ride volume to earn. When a tax-driven fare causes riders to reduce their trips, drivers absorb those losses directly. This ordinance would reduce earning opportunities for the very constituents this Council aims to support, and it will not solve the underlying problem. The revenue that this tax would generate falls far short of what is needed to make a meaningful dent in the school district's budget gap. Relying on one industry with a per-ride tax is not a sustainable or equitable funding strategy. It shifts the burden onto everyday rider, while the underlying fiscal challenge remains unsolved, we respectfully but strongly urge Council to vote no on this ordinance. Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective and contribute to this important discussion.
Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Loughead, please call the next panel.
Frangi Pozo. Donna Cooper, Priyanka Reyes Kaura, Matt Collier, Barbara Shelly and Heidi Ramirez.
How are you doing, Donna? Always good to see you. Just state your name for the record, and go ahead and please begin, or whoever wants to begin. Please state their name for the record and please begin.
Hi. My name is Frangi. I'm a resident of the 8th District, future parent, community member, and Lyft/Uber rider. I'm in support of the rideshare and sale tower taxes, as they are both an investment in the 1000 -- 98000 Philly school students across the district. The reality is federal funds are no longer available, yet kids still need their counselors, their teachers, and their climate staff. I'm hearing from parents across the district already being given the news of the teachers that are going to be cut, the climate staff as well as their counselors, and how their kids are worried about what does that mean for their favorite teacher. Some kids show up, and they go to their teachers from past grades because they're so excited of the support they offered them, and they want support for their future peers as well. So I'm in favor of this bill because this is currently our only option that I'm seeing.
Hi. My name is Donna Cooper. I'm a resident in Councilman Young's district. Rideshare companies are projected to make a billion dollar in rideshare trips in Philadelphia alone this year. In fact, it may be over that. Last year, they ended with $898 million in revenue from rides that originated in Philly. I support both of the taxes because they tax billion- dollar corporations. And let me say that again; they tax corporations that are currently valued at 140 billion for Uber and billion for Lyft. The CEOs and the owners of these rides share companies are among the wealthiest 0.01 percent of all Americans. They can afford to pay for the future of our children. This council has been a champion for kids and low-income families, and it's why I hold this council in great respect. Uber and Lyft are implementing a six figure, twisted PR campaign, trying to argue this is a regressive tax. The real regressive policy is cutting school counselors from low-income schools to spare billion-dollar corporations from paying taxes. Change the narrative, support this tax, and demand that Uber and Lyft stop bilking Philadelphians by agreeing to pay a -- the dollar per ride on the billion they make off of Philadelphians. Thank you.
Hi. I'm Priyanka Reyes Kaura with Children First and a proud resident of District 2. I'm here today to urge City Council to pass the mayor's proposed rideshare tax as the bare minimum new revenue that our public schools need this year. Philadelphia students have already endured enough disruption. They've lived recently through a global pandemic that upended their learning and their well-being. With the help of federal relief funding, they're finally beginning to recover. Attendance in our district is improving, academic progress is rising, and schools are regaining stability. But that progress is now at risk. Our students are on the brink of another wave of disruption, with school closures, relocations, and uncertainty. And at the moment when they need consistency the most, we are preparing to take it away. City Council, you have the power and the responsibility to prevent that. For decades, the School District of Philadelphia has been chronically underfunded. As the education policy director at Children First, I spend a lot of time in Harrisburg advocating for the state to pay their fair share. And we've secured millions in the last two years for the schools. But the state is not the only entity responsible for funding our schools. The City Council, you must also help the city do its part. Three hundred forty school-based staff positions are at risk of being cut. And these are not abstract numbers. These are the teachers, counselors, and climate staff who our kids see every day. They build relationships with our kids. These are the people who ensure that mental health -- mental well-being, and stable learning can occur. Thank you.
Hi. My name is Matt Collier. I am a professional macro-economist, and I'm here to voice support for the ride hailing tax in Mayor Parker's budget proposal. So as mentioned before, a lot of cities across the country, globally really, but across the country, most relevantly, have proposed or have adopted similar versions of a policy like this. So there's enough economic literature out there to study the effects -- the effects that matter most to Philadelphia. And I read that, so you don't have to, and the results, or the questions that be most pertinent, are, how much does ride volume actually reduce when any kind of per ride, small per ride tax, like a dollar, is implemented in the city? And the results there are, there is some variation in coefficients across each study, but generally what we're looking at is a minor reduction in some small, short trips, discretionary trips, off peak hours; there is some reduction there, but, in general, that is something we consider pretty inelastic because what happens is comparatively --
I'm usually allergic to jargon, but there's no 2 way around in elasticity here.
So what we're talking about is not proportional reduction in demand for a price increase. There's not a million ways, or an infinite number of ways, that a city can generate revenue in that kind of fashion. And this is a policy that can, it has been tested throughout the country. And that's why I'm here to voice my support.
Thank you very much. State your name for the record and please begin.
Good afternoon. My name is Bianca Reyes, and I am the proud principal of Julia de Burgos Elementary School in North Philadelphia in the 7th Council District.
We'll see you tonight. We'll be at -- there 5:00 at budget town hall.
I'm here today not only for my own school community, but in solidarity with my principal colleagues, other school leaders, teachers, and all School District of Philadelphia personnel because we are all facing the same challenges, and we are all part of the village that is supposed to care for and protect our children. At Julia de Burgos, we believe that a child's ZIP code should never determine their destiny. We serve a student body that is 85 percent Latino, with 36.6 percent of our students receiving special education services and 35 percent receiving English language support. Our students need resources, opportunity, and caring adults around them. Instead, next year, we're losing an ESL teacher, three general ED teachers, and two climate staff members. These are not extras; these are essentials. One cut means 66 sixth-grade students split into two classrooms, 33 children in each room. How can students get the attention they deserve? How can teachers prepare them for high school and to imagine any future that they deserve? We are also losing climate staff, the people who help keep children safe, build relationships, and de-escalate conflict daily. In a community impacted by poverty, trauma, and the opioid crisis, we need more support, not less. This is why I support Mayor Cherelle Parker's proposed $1 rideshare tax to restore positions and create lasting revenue for public education. Do not ask our children to dream big while funding them small. Thank you.
Next, we have Arthur Steinberg, Elena Lin, Sarah Bradley, Shirlee Howe, Jonathan Hoffmeier, and Margaret Durkin.
Hello, Mr. Steinberg. Just say your name for the record and please begin.
Good afternoon, Council President Johnson and members of the Committee of the Whole. My name is Arthur Steinberg. I'm the President of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill 2 No. 260208, with amendments in Bill 3 No. 26025. PFT does represent more than 14,000 educators who work in the School District of Philadelphia. I'm going to try and keep to the minutes, so I'm going to skip through parts of it. Mayor Parker's proposed $1 rideshare tax and adjusted U&O tax on telecom corporations are fair, reasonable, and necessary to raise $50.4 million towards addressing the School District's $300 million structural deficit and saving 340 school-based positions, which will be cut if these tax bills aren't passed. I admit, I am amazed to be testifying before you on these bills today. It's incredible that amid a severe educator staff shortage in the School District, we're talking today about cutting positions, not adding positions. Our schools have been seriously short staffed for years, and yet we are here today begging to save the jobs of -- jobs of 340 teachers, counselors, climate staff, and more. Before I go on, I would be remiss if I did not thank Council for their fierce advocacy for education over the years, including the advocacy for stopping the school closures right now.
We thank you and appreciate that. It is imperative the Council act immediately to pass these bills, save 340 school-based positions, and keep district educators assured that their positions and school locations will be intact next year. I'm afraid, if we do not, we'll exacerbate the teacher shortage and incentivize educators to leave the system and kids, which will then, of course, affect the funding we receive. Our kids are more than worth this. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Please begin. Say your name, and please begin.
Hello. My name is Elena Lin. I am a constituent of Councilperson Cindy Bass in the 8th District. I am also a proud parent at Lingelbach, which is a K-8 school in Germantown. I have a 3rd grader and a rising kindergartner who will join next fall. I'm also an educator who was inspired by my own dedicated public-school teachers. I was raised by a low-income single mom in unstable housing, and my life was saved by public schools and other public services. I am here to support the rideshare and cell phone tower tax. I recognize the burden that these taxes could put on the lives of Philly residents who need to supplement our inadequate public transit system. But removing caring adults from schools burdens the very same people. I feel strongly that Philly must invest in our young people by providing stable schools. We heard from a representative from Lyft today who expressed concern about the low-income residents in Philadelphia. So I would welcome and encourage them to absorb the tax, as they can afford to do. We, in District 8, stand to lose a number of teachers and support staff, and Lingelbach could be considered lucky to only face one teacher being moved. But the story of this one teacher shows how important every single caring adult is. He is our beloved first grade teacher, the only black male teacher in the entire school of a majority black school. His own children attend our school, and as one parent said, this is her only --
But that's a shame in itself, just to highlight like that for the record.
Yes. It's her son's only chance to be taught by a black male teacher. So I just want to say we should not see these taxes as costs. Investing in our schools and providing students with stable schools, caring adults who are there year after year, that is how young people learn, and we know this. Also, this sends the message to our kids that we care about them. When they attend schools where they lose their teachers and their buildings are inadequate, they receive the message that their community does not care for them. So, please, I urge Council to show our young people that we do care by passing this tax and searching for more funding. Their future is our future. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Jonathan Hoffmeier. I'm here to speak to support Bill 260208 and identify investments directly to what's happening in our schools. The proposed rideshare tax is a smart local solution that asks those who benefit from our city's infrastructure to help invest in the future of our students. This is not just about closing a budget gap; it's about protecting opportunities, programs, and communities. But funding alone is not enough if we turn around and approve a facilities plan that repurposes the very schools that we're trying to support. When we approve to fund schools, we should not be closing successful schools and supportive programs that work. So the question becomes, why invest in education with one hand and dismantle with the other? If we pass this tax, we must also commit to keeping schools like Lankenau on Robeson open because real investment means stability, it means consistency, it means believing that our students deserve both resources and a place to learn, grow, and lead. We should be aligning policy with purpose. Fund our schools and protect our schools. Thank you.
Hello. My name is Sarah Bradley. I'm a student at CCP, a mother, and a full-time worker. I'm here to speak on the taxes. I believe that we pay enough, but if we're going to push package delivery and other taxes, we need to make sure the money goes back to the city, to our students, to a tuition drop, Zero Fare program. I'm tired of us paying taxes, and it never going back to the people who need it most. The city -- the city needs help funding our schools, transportation, and safety. I plead with you today, if you're truly going to tax, to be bringing it back to the community. I'm all with it. But please listen to what we are saying and what we are asking for with these taxes so that we can keep pushing for a city and a better future. Thank you.
Hi. I'm Shirlee Howe. I work at Children First, and I also live at 309 Bryn Mawr Ave, Bala Cynwyd, three blocks from the City Avenue corridor. I'm here today in support of the rideshare fee, Bill No. 260208. I represent a community inextricably linked to the success of the city of Philadelphia, where rideshare services are widely used. Let us do our share to support the Philadelphia Public Schools, where our friends and neighbors send their children. They deserve the very best, and it's our obligation to help deliver it. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Margaret Durkin. I'm the Mid-Atlantic Executive Director for TechNet, a Tech Trade Association. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity today to share our concerns on the dollar rideshare tax and the $0.25 delivery fee. I submitted written remarks for the records, and similar to prior speakers, we are concerned both about the rideshare tax as well as the delivery fee. Due to its unintended consequences of driving up prices for consumers, we believe that the rideshare tax will prevent people from using rideshares to get to work, the doctor, or other places, usually inaccessible without a TNC. On delivery, we are concerned about mixed baskets, specifically if an exempt item is mixed with a non-exempt item and how that tax will work. Our neighbors in states such as Maryland, New York State, and New York City, as well as Virginia, have rejected similar delivery proposals. Happy to take any questions, and thank you.
Next, we have Miles Owen, Jigar Mehta, Rachel Garnic, Steven Broski, Alexander Malone and Eden McDougall.
State your name for the record, and please begin.
Good afternoon. My name is Miles Owen. I'm a resident of Brewerytown and District 5, a regular user of our roads and transit systems, and I work as a city and infrastructure planner. I'm here today on behalf of Transit Forward Philadelphia to speak in support of the package delivery fee for two reasons. First, speaking to my background as a city planner. Since 2019, the numbers of packages delivered throughout the United States has increased from 15.6 to 24.6 billion. Assuming the size of this increase of nearly 10 billion packages throughout the US is the same in Philadelphia, that means the number of package deliveries in Philly has increased by over 60 percent in just a few years. This means thousands more heavy trucks on our roads every day, which destroy pavement and cause congestion when double parked in our neighborhoods. Requiring these companies to pay just a little more for the damage they cause makes sense to me. And secondly, speaking less about the direct impacts on our road's infrastructure and more as somebody who loves shopping at local Philadelphia businesses, each package delivered was not purchased in person at a small business here in Philly. This fee won't reverse the massive increase in e-commerce, but it will create a small incentive to support our local businesses over billionaires and massive multinational corporations. Thank you.
Thank you, Council President Johnson and City Council. My name is Jigar Mehta. I'm talking on behalf of the rideshare tax. My biggest concern about the rideshare tax, I think it should go up to a thousand per delivery if it's a robot. That is what I'm worried about. That is what I lose sleep over because this is the direction it's going. We're going to -- we are already seeing it. We're already seeing, in our city, they're testing in our city. There's going to be robots that are going to be driving people around. We don't have to worry about Uber taxes anymore. No one is going to have a job. So I would strongly encourage that there's an amendment to say, like, whatever the tax needs to be for the current situation, but let's make sure we add a robot tax for a thousand dollars per delivery, whatever it needs to be. And another thing, I do want to thank City Council because on March 25th, the Law Department thanked all of you for eliminating the BIRT exemption. That BIRT exemption raised taxes on Philadelphians across the board; individuals and sole proprietors. What they didn't say is that, before you made that decision, in good faith, City Council was working with lawyers, the two top lawyers in our city at Stradley Ronon and Ballard Spahr, to find a solution. And by November 20th, we found a solution to exempt individuals and sole proprietors, thank you, Councilman Driscoll, for introducing that bill. Also, I want to make sure we thank the city council members, City Councilmember Squilla, City Councilmember Brooks for their policy expertise. I want to thank City Council Members -- apologies, Harrity, Lozada, O'Neill, O'Rourke, Phillips, Young, for sponsoring the bill. We have nine votes. Also want to thank Councilmember Gilmore-Richardson. She may not know it, it's because of her connections. A lot of the people that are engaged in this entire process is because of her connections. I want to thank Councilman -- Member Gauthier, and especially Councilmember Thomas, who at the point when no one else was raising the alarms, he was. So overall in good faith, I want to say everybody in city council worked to find a solution before they voted to eliminate the exemption. And it's important to make that fact. And on the same day that you were thanked by the Law Department for getting rid of the exemption for the 100,000 BIRT exemption, they also said this law was constitutional publicly. Publicly they stated it was constitutional. So thank you City Council. What we're asking now is in good faith the work was done and now in faith we -- we're asking for action to bring a vote. Thank you, sir.
Good afternoon. My name is Rachel Garnick. I'm here representing Teach Plus Pennsylvania in support of the bills. I'm also a proud resident of District 1. I am a former 1st Grade teacher, so I'm here today to testify from that perspective. I have sat on the floor with 1st Graders learning to read. I watched the moment happen when things clicked for them. And I see what happens when a child doesn't get there in time. Research tells us that a child who can't read proficiently by 3rd Grade is four times more likely to drop out of school. And right now 83 percent of Philadelphia 4th Graders are not reading proficiently. That is a crisis of literacy and their teachers are the single most powerful factor in changing that. And Philadelphia is about to lay off 340 of those teachers. A $1 rideshare fee and a cell phone tower fee would generate $48 million annually, go directly to Philly Public Schools and save those 340 positions. Uber and Lyft can afford it. Philly asks less than New York. We're asking less than Chicago, we're asking less than DC. So please vote yes on both bills, ideally before May and before budgets are finalized and pink slips go out. Our students cannot wait and our teachers deserve protection. Thank you.
Okay. My name's Eden MacDougall. I'm a District 2 resident, and I teach in District 8. I ride SEPTA every day and I also cycle frequently. I support increasing funding for SEPTA in general and also specific initiatives like Zero Fare. I have a friend in Baltimore who struggles financially, and on top of having to pay rent and bills, they also have to pay for the bus to get to work and it makes it really hard for them because there's no reduced fare or zero fare for low income people in Baltimore. So we're really lucky to have this program in Philadelphia. We should preserve it and make it permanent, which can be done with funds from the package delivery tax. We should also keep funding Vision Zero. I don't want to get hit biking home because someone just really, really, really needed to park in the bike lane. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of City Council. My name is Alex Malone. I live in the 2nd district. I'm here on behalf of Fiscal Advocacy as the transit committee co-chair. We at Fiscal Advocacy urge you to fully fund and expand the Zero Fare transit program, which benefits Philadelphians living below the poverty line. For residents with the least financial stability, even the cost of a daily fair can be a barrier to basic mobility that many take for granted. Zero Fare removes that barrier. It allows people to get to work, attend to medical appointments, access groceries, and stay connected to their communities without having to choose between transit costs and other basic needs. Investing in Zero Fare is an investment in low income Philadelphians. It puts money back into the pockets of residents who are struggling the most, reducing financial pressure and expanding access to economic opportunity while simultaneously supporting SEPTA. We also recognize that funding this program requires dedicated revenue. To accomplish this, Fiscal Square supports the mayor's proposed funding plan, including measures such as a package delivery tax, as a practical way to sustainably fund this program going forward. However, we do oppose the use of those funds for the paying of parking tickets, which would be a gross misallocation of very limited funds. City Council has the opportunity here and now to sustainably support a program that is already working to support both our people and our transit system simultaneously. We at Fiscal Advocacy urge you to make Zero Fare permanently funded program and to expand it to serve every eligible Philadelphian living below the poverty line. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Stephen Bronskill. I'm the coalition manager for Transit Forward Philly. Thank you, Council President, Council, all the incredible advocates, and community leaders speaking up for their communities and schools today. I want to talk about the incredible opportunity we have through the package delivery tax and the funds for transportation projects here in Philadelphia. As some of my colleagues have shared, we have a remarkable opportunity through the Mayor's proposed budget to fund Zero Fare this year and into the future. This is a moment -- we talk with a lot of transit riders at SEPTA platforms. We are a very big diverse community. We may not all look the same or travel the same, but we all have somewhere to go. If you make minimum wage here in Philly, in Pennsylvania, you make 7.25 an hour. If you're tapping SEPTA both ways, that's 5.80. It's 48 minutes on the job. If you are a transit rider who has a physical disability, use the wheelchair, an access ride, it can cost almost $12 round trip to the grocery store or to the doctor. If you're a student, and thank you Councilmember Landau for speaking up on this, if you're trying to get to an afterschool activity, a summer program or work on the weekends, your student fare card doesn't go far enough. We believe that we have an incredible opportunity to invest in these programs, programs that even Dallas has. We can't let Dallas beat us at anything. Philly deserves great schools, it deserves great transit. We can fund those through this budget. Thank you for your time.
Next we have Allegra Dingle, Janice Tosto, Kevin Burgess, Zaina Cahill, Vidula Joshi, and Larry Bomback.
Okay. Hi, my name is Allegra Dingle, and I'm a transit advocate here on behalf of Transit Forward Philadelphia. I recognize the majority of the discussion today has been related to the rideshare tax, but I would like to share my thoughts on the package delivery tax funding, public transportation. I am personally so privileged to be surrounded by transit by way of the trolley, the MFL, and the bus. But there are so many residents in southwest Philadelphia who I represent that still must rely on cars because transit is either inaccessible, unreliable, or too expensive for them. A fully funded transit system would make mass transit a more attractive option for Philadelphians and funding raised with a package delivery tax should expand transit access equity. The package delivery tax would truly benefit seniors and low income riders. The recipients of programs like Zero Fare at the Transit Access Fund, Student Fare, and other transit equity initiatives. Equity starts with getting where you need to go. Thank you.
My -- good afternoon. My name is Vadula Joshi, and I'm a resident of Council District 3. I'm also a former corporate employee of Lyft, a company that is lobbying against the new rideshare tax proposals that have the potential to be hugely beneficial for Philadelphians. I support the rideshare and retail tax proposals. Philly desperately needs improvements to local infrastructure, public services, and quality of life to get it to a minimal level of respectability. It's frankly embarrassing that in the richest country in the world, in one of the biggest cities in the country, we have to close public schools due to lack of funding. Our streets are crumbling and our transit is sparse. I commend Mayor Parker for taking action to put more money towards our severely underfunded schools and fix our crumbling infrastructure. However, as written, the tax proposals allow the large tech companies to pass the cost of the tax down to already struggling consumers. I urge you to ensure that this tax is progressive, meaning the mega rich corporations themselves are on the hook for it. As a former tech employee, I've seen firsthand how rich these companies who essentially operate in an oligopoly truly are. The fact that they fight tooth and nail when asked to minimally contribute to the communities that enrich them is frankly embarrassing. I want to live in a city that's healthy and safe. I want our kids in schools and our infrastructure fixed. The city budget needs to include deep investments in the most marginalized communities in Philadelphia, and we do that by making sure the rich pay their fair share. The tech companies need us more than we need them. I urge you to have the political courage to act in favor of working Philadelphians. Thank you.
Hi. My name is Kevin Burgess, and I'm a resident of South Philly and I'm here to speak in support of the rideshare fee. It's important to remember why we're here. Harrisburg has underfunded Philly public schools for years, and while there's been progress, the district is still owed almost $1 billion. So now we find ourselves once again in a make or break moment for Philly public schools and the 898,000 students they serve. If the district's deficit is not addressed, 340 teachers, counselors, and support staff will lose their jobs directly harming Philly kids' education. Let us also remember rideshare companies earn billions each year. They can afford to cover the cost of the fee. Furthermore, we've heard from the rideshare companies about how the proposed fee would allegedly hurt drivers. However, I think it's -- it is these very companies that have actively fought efforts to increase driver pay and extend drivers' labor protections. So their concerns now can't help but ring false to my ears. As the council debates this policy, let's remember what this is really about. Stepping up for Philly's kids that have -- that are already asked to learn with -- learn with less than they deserve. In conclusion, our kids are worth it. Rideshare companies can afford it. Please support this proposed investment. Thank you for your time.
Good afternoon. My name is Zaina Cahill. I live in Council District 1, and I am a Lyft and Uber rider, an education advocate and the parent of a child soon to enter into the school district of Philadelphia. I'm speaking in support of the rideshare fee and cell phone tower tax, and I'm here today to urge City Council to support the mayor's proposal to provide $50.4 million for the school district of Philadelphia to prevent cuts to permanently assign school staff in the 2026 and 2027 school year. This funding would help protect 340 teachers, counselors, climate staff, and other school- based positions that students and families rely on every single day. The rideshare fee is an investment in Philadelphia's 198,000 public school students. rideshare companies have the option to absorb this $1 per ride cost rather than pass this fee onto their consumers, with Lyft and Uber collectively valued at over $65 billion. They can afford to pay this fee and contribute to the funding of education for the communities that they serve. Philadelphia is asking less than comparable major cities who have already passed these fees like New York, Chicago, and DC. The revenue is legally designated for the school district, and the fund raised from the fee will go directly to Philly Public Schools, not the general fund, immediately benefiting our city students. We're counting on City Council. If Council fails to pass this measure, 340 school staff will lose their jobs and Philly students and their families will lose out on critical education resources. I urge you to oppose any reductions to school funding and support new revenue solutions, including the proposed rideshare fee to ensure schools have the resources they need. Our students deserve safe, supportive, and well-resourced learning environments. Thank you.
Good afternoon. Larry Bomback -- Good afternoon. My name is Larry Bomback. I'm a CFO, a small business owner, and a parent of two children in Philadelphia public schools. I'm also an Uber One member and I fully support the proposed Uber tax because it's a practical, fair way to invest in our city's future. Uber is a convenience, public education is a necessity. Families in my Northern Liberty's neighborhood leave for the suburbs when their kids reach school age because they don't believe Philadelphia prioritizes basic school conditions. And when they leave, we lose tax revenue and local spending. Uber is a convenience, public education is a necessity. Uber has the scale and pricing power to absorb a modest local tax. And if it made good on its threats and chose to leave the city, I'm sure another entrant would step up, fill the void and pay the tax because there are simply too many people in this city that want to use the service. Uber is a convenience, public education is a necessity. Thanks to Philadelphia's affordable and acceptable -- and accessible public transportation system, there are always other options to get from point A to point B. If we do not vote yes on Mayor Parker's proposal, we have effectively chosen to continue subsidizing a $200 billion company based in San Francisco over our own Philadelphia kids. I urge you to support this measure.
Next we have Madeline Johnson, Sarin Talk, Lillian Dunn, Margaret Di Santo, Jean Stewart, and Stacy Holland.
Madeline Johns -- okay. Hello. My name is Madeline Johns, and I'm here with Transit Forward Philadelphia advocating for a taxation -- for the taxation of package delivery in Philadelphia to go towards funding public transportation initiatives and expanding the current SEPTA student program. Being a university student, I am -- I utilize public transportation to advance myself academically and professionally. I travel around the city to attend class field trips, lectures at other universities, and for social activities. I enjoy being a college student in Philadelphia, a city that is rich in history and community opportunities for students. I try to spend Sundays -- weekend exploring new -- exploring something new in the city, a new neighborhood, museum or restaurant. To do this and to attend my internship and classes during the week, I utilized SEPTA's public transportation system. As a university student, I have access to the SEPTA UPass program, which allows me to travel around the city for free with up to 240 rides per month. School student -- school students in grade 7 through 12 should have the same ability to access opportunities in Philadelphia. As an intern with Transit Forward Philadelphia, I have been working to research connects and advocate for universal student affairs to make public transportation more accessible and equitable for all Philadelphia students. The current SEPTA student fare program limits students' mobility and places financial burdens on their families to transport their children around the city. Middle and high school students in Philadelphia deserve the freedom of mobility and access to opportunities that will help build their futures. Unfortunately, the current SEPTA student fare program does not go far enough for students. Students who live less than 1.5 miles from their school, who have jobs after school, enrichment activities on the weekend, or programs over the summer, are unable to use their SEPTA student passes to reach them. I am asking you to consider using the taxation of package delivery in Philadelphia to fund public transportation and expand the student fare program in Philadelphia so that students have mobility to access growth and community opportunities in their city. Thank you for your time.
Good afternoon, City Council President and members of Council. My name is Margaret Di Santo. I'm a 3rd District resident and a advocate for children and families with Children First. I also serve as a committee person in the third ward in 6th Division. I am the education chair of the Cobbs Creek Community Educational Environmental Center. My children are proud graduates of the Philadelphia School District. I currently have grandchildren in the Philadelphia School District. I am here today with a clear ask to support at minimum the mayor's proposed 50.4 million investment in the school district of Philadelphia to prevent harmful cuts in 2026 and 2027 school year. Let's be clear, we're at a moment of urgency, and our response must match the reality. For years, our schools have been underfunded and our children have suffered and carried the burden of the disinvestment. A court has already provided information about what families have long known. Our schools have not been funded adequately or appropriately. The Commonwealth has begun to respond. The city must do its part. The city is the decision- maker and their choices will determine whether our schools stabilize or continue to struggle. Thank you.
Hello. I'm Janine Stewart, a mental health therapist in private practice here in Center City. I'm so glad that Mayor Parker is attempting to fund the Philadelphia schools with the rideshare tax. Educating our youth is an ethical duty we all share as adults. However, a regressive tax, like the $1 rideshare tax, if it's paid by the people, not the companies such as Uber and Lyft or the new version of the BIRT Tax passed last summer is not the answer. These regressive tax measures are poised to cause a mass exodus of single owner LLCs and sole proprietors fleeing the city ultimately depleting the tax base. I am one of those sole proprietors. Due to the removal of the exemption on the first 100K on the BIRT, my total tax bill was at least 8K more -- $8,0000 more than anticipated this year. This is a devastating blow that eats into funds for rent, vacations, food, leaving me vulnerable to burnout. And everyone else in my field the same. Looking at future tax bills consistently 60 percent higher than they were last year, I am seriously considering moving my practice outside of Philly. I don't know how I'll afford to stay in my home. Financial pressure among Philadelphians is at a fever pitch. The clients I see who already struggle with depression, anxiety, and the impacts of trauma often tell me they feel increasingly demoralized amid rising costs. But it's more than that. Clients and therapists feel demoralized by the decisions of our leaders, from the president to the CEOs to our state and local leaders, which often indicate that those in power aren't willing to address the crucial issue of our day, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Many therapists I've spoken to describe the BIRT tax change as heartbreaking, crushing, and absurd. Others aren't sure how they'll stay. Under very tight budgets with health insurance premiums having already increased and prices having risen nine percent cumulatively over the past three years, rent money is extremely tight. People must not be priced out of the city they work tirelessly to support, nor should the food truck drivers or the Uber and Lyft drivers who make everyday run more smoothly. The burden of funding the schools and the city's infrastructure must be shouldered by the corporations that make a profit, not by the individuals whose livelihoods will be destroyed by getting gouged.
Thank you very much. Please state your name, please begin.
I'm Lillian Dunn. I'm a licensed clinical social worker. I'm a therapist in private practice. Like Janine, I'm here to support the rideshare tax if being paid by the corporations, not by the riders, instead of burdening working people like the BIRT does after the exemption elimination. The removal of the BIRT exemption is disproportionately impacting mental health practitioners in private practice. About half of our field of mental health practitioners in this city are private practitioners making under $100,000 in sole proprietors. Private practice psychotherapists like me offer an essential service to our city's economy. We stabilize working people, prevent crises from worsening and keep people in their jobs and in their families. And today about percent of adult 13 Americans suffer from some sort of 14 mental illness. Recent research 15 has shown that untreated mental 16 illness among Americans, namely 17 workers, cost the U.S. economy 18 about $282 billion a year. 19 The BIRT tax exemption 20 removal has raised the taxes on my small business by a factor of six. BIRT has made me and every colleague of mine in a similar position I've spoken to seriously consider moving our businesses out of the city. And where we go, our local expertise goes. Our ability to see people in-person where they live and work, refer them to local networks for the kinds of proactive care that prevents mental health crises from happening or worsening. Look around, it's 2026, you do not want to lose half of the mental health field in this city due to a misguided tax exemption removal. Reform BIRT and keep mental health workers in this city to keep Philadelphia thriving. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Just state your name for the record, Stacy.
Yes. My name is Dr. Stacy Holland. Thank you so much to Council President and members of Council for allowing me to testify today. I am the executive director of Elevate 215, which is dedicated to improving the quality of schools throughout Philadelphia. But I'm here today to implore you to support the rideshare and cell phone tower tax, which would protect 340 school- based jobs, and more importantly add reoccurring revenue to our SDP system, which educates over 198,000 children. Today, Elevate has invested millions in almost 31K to 12 schools, and we can attest that the staff are the magic. They lead academic progress, which is about consistency. The staff provide relationships. The staff are trustworthy. Parents, kids and each other -- they depend on each other. We have to make sure that that staff is supported and that they are protected because they are the heart of our school community and they are the reason why our children can thrive. Reoccurring revenue would allow SDP to keep the necessary staff and therefore provide consistency. Underfunding is not abstract. It means schools are struggling to provide students with individualized attention, mental health supports and academic intervention. The conversation before us is the right one simply because it is the truth. If we want different outcomes for students, we have to be willing to make different choices. I am here to ask you, implore you to improve the rideshare tax and cell phone tax and continue this conversation, the focus and urgency with the students for the students because they deserve it. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Ms. Loughead, please call the next panel.
Next we have Sue Hoffman, Kate Fox, April Brown, Dr. Robin Cooper, Bianca Reyes, and Dr. Toni Damon.
State your name for the record and please begin your testimony.
Hello, my name is Sue Hoffman. I'm a member of POWER Interfaith in Congregation Mishkan Shalom in Manayunk Council District 4, but many of our congregants live in Mount Airy in Germantown and Councilmember Cindy Bass's District 8. I'm speaking today because the budget is a moral document and we at POWER are glad to see the city tap new funding sources because we're going to need them. But we're concerned that those new taxes and along with existing taxes shouldn't fall primarily on everyday Philadelphians, especially the lowest income Philadelphians who are renters. There's an affordability crisis in our city, which I know and Katherine Gilmore-Richardson knows. When I used to run the Women in Nontraditional Careers program at Philadelphia Works, we saw that women wanted to go to training, wanted to better their lives and get into the building trades, but they couldn't afford lunch, they couldn't afford transportation, they couldn't afford childcare. We don't want new taxes that make the affordability crisis worse. And POWER's affordability report shows that low income renters already bear the biggest burden from sales tax and from landlords passing through property taxes. I urged City Council to create a long-term tax plan that makes sure our city is funded but in a moral and fair way. Taxes shouldn't go up for Philadelphians who are already struggling. Those who can afford it should pay their fair share. POWER Interfaith looks forward to shaping that future with you.
Good afternoon. My name is April Brown. I am the proud principal of Finletter Elementary School, located in the Olney section of Philadelphia. I am here today to speak not just about numbers on the spreadsheet, but about the real impact of the budget cuts on children, families, and educators, and ultimately about the district's equity promise to cultivate prosperity and liberation for our students and staff. The school district's equity statement explicitly commits to prioritizing historically marginalized populations by removing barriers and increasing access. Yet the proposed budget reductions for Finletter, which includes losing five teachers, a counselor, and two climate staff do the exact opposite. These cuts don't remove barriers, they build them. Finletter serves one of the highest concentration of students with complex needs in Philadelphia, including 10 autistic support classrooms. According to the Office of Specialized Services, we are legally and morally bound to provide a free and appropriate public education. However, when we strip a school of its staff, we are not increasing inclusion, we are isolating our most vulnerable populations and our learners. We are placing students and educators in an impossible environment where the shared culture of social responsibility the district's claim to value is sacrificed for a bottom line. True organizational accountability means that when the district promises to build trusting relationships, it must protect the very people who form those bonds. Each educator lost is a broken bridge for a child who relies on consistency to feel safe and to learn. When we reduce staff in high needs buildings, class sizes swell and individualized attention vanishes. We are asking fewer adults to meet greater needs. That is not equity and is certainly not liberation. It is the continued marginalization of a community that has already been told to do more with less for fall too long. Our students deserve safe, supportive, and well-resourced classrooms. They deserve the prosperity the district has put in writing. I urge city council and the district leadership to continue to move beyond the rhetoric of equity and into the practice of it. Protect the resources that our students depend on. If you are committed to removing barriers, start by removing the threat of these budget cuts. Pass the rideshare tax. Thank you for your time and your accountability to the students and families of Philadelphia. Please don't just publish equity statements, fund them.
Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Toni Damon, and I am the principal of Middle Years Alternative, also known as MYA. I am here today representing staff, students, families, and my colleagues, many of which who could not be here to speak for themselves. As someone born, raised, and educated here in Philadelphia, returning home to serve and educate the next generation was an easy decision. What is not easy is doing this work without the funding and support our school's need and deserve. For many years, large corporations have been allowed to operate in our city while avoiding their fair share of taxes. Meanwhile, educators, students, and families were left advocating for basic resources required to provide quality education so that our young people could one day fill these very jobs these companies promise to bring. Instead, we continue to see repeated budget cuts. The data is clear what happens when young people are not adequately prepared for their future. Since I've joined the District in 2012, we have experienced cycles of closures and funding reductions, and now here we are again in 2026 seeing the same thing. At MYA alone, we have lost a special education teacher, a climate manager, and two climate staff members, critical positions that district -- that directly support safe and effective learning environments. We now have an opportunity before us, a rideshare tax that could restore essential positions, not only at MYA, but across the school citywide. This should be a straightforward decision. Instead, these companies are choosing to avoid responsibility, shifting the burden onto working class drivers and riders while our schools fight for survival. I urge you not only allow large corporations to dictate the future of our children, do not accept cuts that will have lasting consequences on their lives and opportunities. Please pass the rideshare tax. Hold these companies accountable and most importantly, invest in our schools. Thank you.
Good afternoon, all. I am asking for you to support Number 260208 --
Please state your name for the record. We know who you are, but you have to state your name for the record. Thank you.
Sorry. I am Dr. Robin Cooper, President and Principal Officer of Teamsters Local 502 Commonwealth Association of School Administrators. I am asking for support for Bill No. 11 260208 for rideshare, and 260205 for cell phone tower tax. We talk about the village and I'm looking at the village that's all around. A lot of folks in this room have always supported public education and I sincerely thank you for it. I'm just urging you to please support this tax because our time is not done. You know, we often talk about public education and what we're doing, and we are working as a village. We are a part of that village. You are a part of that village. So when folks say increase attendance, we did. They said reduce suspensions, we did. They said make the school safer, we did. But we did that with money. We did that with the necessary resources. We did that because the city stepped up. We did that because the state stepped up. I have a real problem with the Billionaire Boys Club where they could just put out a bully and threaten a newspaper and say, we'll just pass this tax on to the riders. So that's done as a distraction. I have a further problem when we hide from the bullying as opposed to addressing it head on. This tax does not have to be given to any rider anywhere, ever. So we take and we talk about public education, we cannot cave to the Billionaires Boys Club because they are saying, hey, you know, we're going to just pass it. I think our children are important. I think that we are doing the job. I think we all are part of the community, the village, and we know what we can do when we all come together. Dr. Martin Luther King said, the time is always right to do what's right. Supporting the rideshare tax, supporting the cell tower tax is the right thing to do. And all we ask is, what will we be remembered for when we go into the history books? Will we have protected our most vulnerable population? And that's our students. I am speaking as a former public school student of Philadelphia. All I know is Philadelphia. If I could sit here, so can someone else. Please support the rideshare tax. Thank you so much for your time.
Next we have Tisha Dunn, Christie Parfitt, Dr. Ismail Alraham Lamar, Keith Arrington, Brian Johnson, Michael Roth, and Nichole Willoughby.
Good afternoon, everyone. I am Tisha Dunn, the proud principal of S. Weir Mitchell School, a K to 8 school located in southwest Philadelphia. Due to this budget cut, we have lost seven teachers. Our K to 4 grades used to have two teacher -- well, they currently have two teachers per grade. With this budget cut next year, we will have one teacher per grade for K to 4, the most fundamental years. And that means going from an average of to scholars per class to an average of 27. Our middle school program that we work so hard to develop with Ford's expert teachers in Math, ELA, Science and Social Studies will be reduced to two teachers that will be requiring one teacher to know Math and Science and administer and implement a curriculum for both topics. We've worked so hard to develop our teachers. If I had mentioned my school is the home of the heroes, meaning we have respect, engage, and be responsible, rise to the challenge and own our actions. With these budget cuts, we are now in need of heroes. We are in the midst of a crisis that's starting to feel like we are entering into the Marvel's end game where we are fighting for our future, a fight that we cannot fight by ourselves. Our Mayor stated that her office is working to bring back jobs and opportunities to this city. Our scholars deserve to be competitors. We deserve, in Philadelphia, to raise our own children to become Philadelphia's future. City Council, you are the heroes that we need. You are our Ironman, our Spider-Man, our Hulk, our Captain Marvel, and we are asking you to assemble. We start -- we support this rideshare tax where we could start $1. We are worth $1. This rideshare tax can reshape our reality of our need for better school; $1, one snap.
Good afternoon. My name is Christie Parfitt. I'm the proud principal of Jay Cooke Elementary School in the Logan section of Philadelphia. Throughout my time as the principal at Cooke, I have seen the dedication and hard work of the staff, scholars, and community members. Since the pandemic, Cooke has demonstrated remarkable resilience with recent data highlighting a strong upward trajectory in both school culture and academic growth. The study improvement in our data is a direct result of having the right tools, a reliable team, and a clear plan of action. The investment in resources for our school has paved the way for our team to effectively make an impact in the school community. As the 26-27 school year approaches, there is great concern that losing vital resources will stall the progress that we have worked so hard to achieve. As a result of the budget cuts, Jay Cooke is seeing a decrease in about $1.4 million alone at our school. This equates to one assistant principal, five teachers, one climate liaison, and five student climate staff. The budget cuts not only reduce our staff significantly, it reduces the access our scholars have and deserve. Across the city, there are several schools grappling with severe budget cuts and shortfalls that have forced the elimination of essential staff roles and academic programs. Backing a dedicated tax on rideshare services offers a practical and sustainable solution to provide immediate relief to these struggling schools. This targeted funding ensures that the burden of municipal deficits does not fall on the shoulders of the students. It allows schools to maintain important resources, programming and staffing levels necessary for a safe, high quality learning environment. Supporting such a measure is a direct investment in the long-term stability of the community and the success of the next generation.
Thank you. Next. State your name for the record, please.
Good afternoon, City Councilmembers. My name is Nichole Willoughby, and I serve as Principal and Learning Network Aide at Potter-Thomas School. Budget cuts aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet. They're the faces of the people who make our school function. Potter-Thomas is losing five critical positions, a reading interventionist, a Math interventionist. They're the very people who help struggling students catch up to grade level. An ESOL teacher leaving our English language learners without the specialized support that they deserve. A kindergarten teacher, forcing our most vulnerable learners into overcrowding classrooms. A dean of students who is essential for maintaining positive school culture. Without these roles, class size increases, targeted interventions disappear. Our English language learners lose essential language support and our youngest students, our most vulnerable students, our kindergartners lose the strong start that they deserve. The rideshare tax is a necessary intervention. It provides a clear, sustainable path to restoring these five positions and ensuring that my students aren't defined by what they've lost, but by what they can achieve. Thank you.
Hi. Hi. My name is Michael Roth, a proud principal of Olney High School. We're going to be losing members 10 of our staff this year. I could 11 talk about what that's going to do 12 to our progress, but I want to tell 13 you something else instead. This 14 morning I received a call from a 15 parent. Last school year, two of 16 our Olney students were killed in 17 separate shootings. This morning I received a call from the mother of one of those young men. She called me because one of our counselors, unbeknownst to me, had reached out to this parent earlier this year. Counselor Donahue informed the parents that since their son would've graduated this year, the Olney High School team wanted to recognize their son at our graduation ceremony and present a member of his family with his diploma. The young man's mom called just to go over some of the details with me and tell me how grateful she was that the school thought of this honor. The parent and I also talked for a bit reflecting on her son and talked about some of her son's Olney friends. I could tell that this conversation in the moment to talk about her lost son meant a lot. I could also hear in her voice how the chance to have her son recognized that the Olney graduation was extremely important and came as a pleasant surprise to her. This invite and thoughtful action was initiated by Counselor Donahue. Counselor Donahue is one of the staff members losing her position to these budget cuts, along with another counselor who is from the neighborhood and served Olney for years. We're also 8 losing an assistant principal, a 9 climate manager, and two climate 10 staff members who grew up in the Olney neighborhood and want to serve their community. We'll be losing 11 teachers, eight of whom have been with us all four years of the turnaround. I won't say the end, but please pass this rideshare tax. We need the funds to keep our schools moving in the right direction. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Brian Johnson, Principal of John Bartram High School. Very thankful, Mike, that I haven't had to go through something like that recently. The last two years, we have not lost any students at our school due to their staff at the school, which is a huge thing as a comprehensive high school in southwest Philadelphia, District 2. Our school serves as a true anchor for our students and families. We're facing a loss of two teachers, one administrator, and two climate staff. In addition, three additional climate staff. Rather than lose the positions, I had to reduce their hours from seven hours down to six hours. These are not just positions. They're trusted adults who know our students, support our families, and help maintain a safe, stable learning environment. I've seen this before. As a principal of Tilden Middle School, during a period of significant staff reductions, I watched the social and emotional health of students suffer as trusted adults disappeared almost overnight. We cannot allow that to happen again. The proposed $1 rideshare tax will allow us to keep all the positions, maintain full hours for our staff. It will preserve the relationships and consistency our students rely on every single day. I urge you to protect this investment in our school community. Our students in southwest Philadelphia deserve stability, support, and opportunity. Thank you.
And Bahir Hayes. And if there's anyone else here to testify whose name I have not called, please come to the podium now.
Good afternoon, council members. I'm Principal Hayes from Bryant Elementary School. I stand before you as a proud leader of Bryant, a school rooted in community that has carried more than a share. Bryant is a place where a child was abducted. A place where -- a place that felt the lasting impact of MOVE bombings. A place where just recently a thousand man march moved through the community in response to violence. Our students come to us with some of the highest aces scores and mental health needs in the city. We're located in the top 10 litter zone surrounded by environmental stressors that show up in our classrooms every day. And yet, despite all of that, we are making progress. Not by chance, but because we had the resources to invest in safety and support and the student success. That's why I'm here today in support of the Uber rideshare tax because it represents sustainable local investment in schools like Bryant. With COVID relief funding, Bryant was able to exit state intervention within three years, the earliest possible timeline. Last year, we achieved green status across three years of data: ELA, Math, attendance and suspensions. The progress is not abstract. That progress is people, it's teachers, it's climate staff, it's counselors, it's consistent caring adults showing up every day for our children. And funding streams like the rideshare tax ensure we can sustain those people because when we lose even one teacher, the impact is not temporary, it's a lifelong -- it's lifelong for a child. And when we lose climate staff, we lose the very foundation that keeps our school safe, stable, and supportive. There's a difference between rising to meet a challenge and being forced to operate in a constant state of secrecy -- scarcity. That's not strength, that's burnout. And when burnout sets in, it doesn't just affect staff; it affects students, it affects relationships. It affects the very community we are trying to build and protect. Our students feel that, our families feel that. The Uber rideshare tax helps us change that reality because quite frankly, right now, schools are like a boat taking on water. These funds help us plug those holes. They keep the boat afloat, but it's our staff, our teachers, our climate teams, and our counselors who actually move the boat forward. Without the funding, we're just trying to stay above water. With it, we can build momentum. And we've already shown that's possible when we were already -- we were properly resourced. So this is just not about maintaining, it's about continuing progress for Bryant, for our students, and for our community. Thank you.
Good afternoon, council members. My name is KaTiedra Argro, and I come before you today as a Philadelphia taxpayer, but as a proud product of the school district of Philadelphia and someone who has dedicated my life to it. I'm a proud graduate of Hartranft Elementary, and I'm the proud principal and alum of the Philadelphia High School for Girls, where I have now -- I now have the honor of leading the institution where I once went. For years, I have 14 served in every role, whether it 15 was a middle magnet, charter 16 sector, central office, 17 comprehensive high school at Martin 18 Luther King, John Barry Elementary, 19 which is a neighborhood school. 20 And so across every single one of those experiences, one truth remains constant: our schools need adequate funding to provide what our students are entitled to, not just what we can afford. As a vested educator in any school, in any part of the city, we need your support with the rideshare tax. How can we talk about enrichment, innovation, and opportunity when we are still struggling to fund what is required? For years, the narrative around the school District of Philadelphia has not reflected the brilliance, resilience, and potential of our students or our staff. As city leaders and educators, we have worked tirelessly to change the narrative through intentional climate and culture initiatives, through relationship building, through creating welcoming and affirming environments for our students. We are redefining what it means to attend a Philadelphia public school. But the very positions and supports that drive this transformation: counselors, climate staff, are some of the ones being cut. You cannot change a narrative without investing in the people doing the work. The students of 2026, carrying more than any generation before them. Post pandemic learning gaps, increased mental health, a demand for real world skills, they need more. We are asked -- we are being asked to do more. If we are serious about closing gaps, supporting the whole child, we must ensure that every student has access to these supports. The proposed rideshare tax is not just a policy decision, it is investment in our students. As a high school principal, we have to provide electives 23.5 credits that requires staff and instruction that sparks these students' passion and connection. These classes make sure that every student wants to come to school, we need for them to want to come. If we want to increase graduation rates, decrease dropout rates, then we must invest in the system that make those outcomes possible. Mayor Parker says, one Philly a united city. Dr. Walton speaks of becoming the fastest growing urban school district. Those visions cannot become reality without meaningful investment in our schools. I say this with urgency and with love for this city, we cannot afford to fall short for our students. If you want to be a part of strengthening Philadelphia's future, if you want to stand for equity opportunity and progress, then I urge you to vote yes. Thank you.
Thank you. How do I -- how do I do this? SERGEANT AT ARMS: Go ahead. State your name for the record.
Good afternoon. Sorry. It's my first, I've never done this before. Good afternoon, council members. My name is Galina Novakova, and I am a Philadelphia resident and a rideshare driver as well as a rider. I am here to oppose the Bill 260208 with the proposed $1 rideshare tax. Let me be clear. Philadelphia schools deserve funding. I am a parent myself. I'm a single parent myself. Our children deserve safe schools, teachers, counselors, and resources. But placing another tax on rideshare trips is the wrong way to do it. This tax will hurt every day working people first, not corporations. It will hit seniors going to appointments, workers commuting late at night, families in neighborhoods with limited transit access. Teenagers that go to school in the mornings because it's not safe for them to ride SEPTA. College students and residents who rely on rideshare when SEPTA is delayed, unsafe, or unavailable. The very same residents that use these schools, their children go to these schools. As a driver and a rider, I can also tell you that this affects us, too. When ride -- when rides become more expensive, customer tip less, ride less, or stop using the service altogether; that means fewer trips and less income for drivers that are already struggling with gas, maintenance, insurance, and rising living costs. Many drivers like me are already seeing fewer requests and unstable earnings. We are trying to survive. We should not be a collateral damage in a budget solution. Philadelphia already taxes residents heavily. Instead of taxing transportation access, the city should examine waste mismanagement, existing revenue streams, and fair alternatives that do not burden working class people. Please support schools, but do it without punishing working class people, especially when gas, food, rent, and everything else is expensive. Thank you for your time and have a good day.
Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any further witnesses here to testify whose name has not been called? Seeing none, the Chair now recognizes Councilmember Thomas for a motion that the public hearing and meeting on the bills and resolutions before the committee today stand in recess until Wednesday, April 22nd at 10:00 a.m., in Room 400, City Hall.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we stand in recess. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Second.
It has been moved and properly seconded that the public hearing and meeting on the bills and resolution before the committee today stand in recess until Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 400, City Hall. All those in favor of the motion will indicate by stating aye. COUNCILMEMBERS: Aye.
Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. This committee will stand in recess until Wednesday, April 22nd at 10:00 a.m. which -- at which time we will reconvene in Room 400, City Hall. Thank you. (Committee of the Whole meeting concluded at 3:30 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me of the above case, and this copy is a correct transcript of the same. _______________ Samanda J. Rios