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?