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.