COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, March 25, 2026 10:08 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT KENYATTA JOHNSON COUNCILWOMAN NINA AHMAD COUNCILWOMAN CINDY BASS COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILMAN MICHAEL DRISCOLL COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE RICHARDSON COUNCILMAN JIM HARRITY COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY M. LOZADA COUNCILMAN NICOLAS O'ROURKE COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PHILLIPS COUNCILMAN MARK SQUILLA COUNCILMAN ISAIAH THOMAS COUNCILMAN JEFFREY YOUNG, JR. BILLS: 260199, 260200, 260201, 260202, 260203, 260204, 260205, 260206, 260208, 260209 RESOLUTION: 260227 - - -
This is the public hearing and public meeting of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill Nos. 260199, 260200, 260201, 260202, 260203, 260204, 260205, 260206, 260208, 260209 and Resolution No. 260227. Ms. Loughead, can you please call the roll.
Present. Thank you very much. A quorum of the committee is present and this hearing is now officially called to order. Ms. Loughead, will you please read the titles of the bills and resolution.
Bill No. 13 260199, an Ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2027. Bill No. 260200, an Ordinance to adopt a Fiscal Year 2027 Capital Budget. Bill No. 260201, an Ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six Fiscal Years, 2027-2032 inclusive. Bill No. 260202, 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. 260203, an Ordinance amending Subcode "A" (The Philadelphia Administrative Code) of Title 4 of The Philadelphia Code (The Building, Construction and Occupancy Code), by adding and revising Zoning Board of Adjustment fees and provisions regarding hearing scheduling, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 260204, an Ordinance amending Title 3 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Air Management Code" to modify the amounts of license and permit fees, under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 2602055, 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 providing 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 a 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 prearranged ride that originates in Philadelphia; all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 260209, an Ordinance amending Title of The 5 Philadelphia Code, entitled 6 "Finances, Taxes and Collections," 7 to add a new Chapter 19-4800, 8 entitled "Retail Delivery Tax," to 9 establish a tax on orders for the 10 delivery in Philadelphia of retail 11 consumer and other tangible goods, 12 all under certain terms and 13 conditions. 14 Resolution No. 260227, 15 Providing for the approval by the 16 Council of the City of Philadelphia 17 a Revised Five Year Financial Plan 18 for the City of Philadelphia, 19 covering Fiscal Years 2027 through 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, Ms. Loughead. Today we hold the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole to consider the bills read by the Clerk that constitute proposed operating and capital spending measures for Fiscal Year 2027, a Capital Program and a Forward- looking Capital Plan for Fiscal Year 2027 through Fiscal Year 2032. Today we have scheduled testimony from the Department of Finance, Department of Revenue, the Sinking Fund, City Treasurer and the Board of Pensions. Given the overlap in these departments' responsibilities, all departments will be available for questioning following the testimony from the City's Finance Director Mr. Rob Dubow. Ms. Loughead, will you please call the first witness to testify from the Administration.
Rob Dubow, Finance Director. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
I also want to acknowledge the presence of Councilman Jeffrey Jay Young and also Councilman Nicolas O'Rourke. Good morning.
Thank you. Good morning. My name is Rob Dubow. I am joined at the table by First Deputy Cat Lamb and Deputy Director Elizabeth Hanley. We are here today to testify in support of the proposed $23 million budget for the Office of Director of Finance. We are joined by deputies throughout the office and we also have written testimony from the Treasurer's Office, Board of Pensions, Sinking Fund Commission and Revenue Department. And as you said, representatives from all those departments are here to answer questions. I'd also like to take a second to thank all the employees in all of those offices for everything they do during the course of the year, for all their dedication and hard work. And with that, we're ready to take any questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Rob. One, I just want to acknowledge your hard work and your team's hard work regarding this budget process as well as the last two budget processes that you and I have worked on with our team and also the current position that you have put our city in terms of fiscal stability. Can you talk about what the future looks like in terms of our strategy to create economic growth and increase our tax base from a financial standpoint? Also, your strategy to make sure we continue to have 100% pension obligation met and what that looks like and what that means for our city as we move forward?
Sure. Let me take that part first. So as you probably know, about 10 years ago our Pension Fund was less than 50% funded through a series of reforms that required cooperation from multiple administrations, City Council, union partners, very importantly the Pension Board. We both increased the amount that goes to the Pension Fund, increased contributions from members and from the city. So we changed the way we funded it to make sure that all of that funding was above the amount required by the state, the minimum municipal obligation. We also changed some benefit structures for non-uniformed employees so that they would have hybrid pension plans so they'd have a defined benefit portion to make sure that there was a guaranteed benefit with kind of a 401(k) and we changed the way we invested the Pension Fund in a way that we reduced our fees by maybe to about a third, saving millions of dollars a year. So all of that meant that the growth in our liabilities slowed and our assets agreed. We went from a place where we had seen negative cash flow every year to positive cash flow. That has meant that our funding percent has increased. We're now more than 67% funded. And our actuary projects that by 2033 we will be 100% funded, which means a few things: One, it shows that we're keeping our commitment to our retirees because in the end, that's our job at the Pension Fund, to make sure that our retirees get their payments. It also means that the unfunded liability, which is kind of like the mortgage we've borrowed for past years, we weren't putting enough into the fund, that goes away. That will free up hundreds of millions of dollars that we can use for a variety of investments and also to help make sure we have a fund balance.
Just go on the record, just give us the specifics of the contribution per year. And then once we make that 100% obligation that will be met, how much money will be freed up that will allow us to do more work in our General Fund?
Give me one second and I'll get you that. So the General Fund contribution in FY27 is roughly $600 million. When we go and we've paid off our unfunded liability, it could be more like 100 million for our normal cost.
Yeah. And we'll get you the exact numbers but that's the range.
And just give us an overview briefly on the other part of the question, the first line of questioning that asked regarding our plan to drop economic growth to increase our tax base. I know what some of them are that we've worked on in the past. But just go on the record and be more specific in terms of how we grow the pie, so to speak.
Right. So there are a number of things that are in the plan. There's the workforce development, including our investment at CCME to help people enter the workforce and have jobs. There's the economic mobility cabinet. There's the outreach we're doing on things like helping people pay off their student loans. There's the tax reductions which we're hoping will make us more competitive. There are the specific grants that the Commerce Department gives to small businesses. So a whole array of things that we're doing to try to make sure we grow the (inaudible).
As a city, do we take these different strategies and do a projected analysis of how much the returning investment will be in those particular categories? So I know we talked about workforce, I know we did the BIRT and wage tax cuts, which also stimulates the environment as well when it comes to the economy. Do we do an analysis overall and say these five areas are our strategies for economic growth and development and this is how much projected that we think we will make over a period of time?
We can get you something on that. We'll get you that. We'll work with Commerce to provide that.
And before I turn it over to my members, another area I'm very, very interested in is how we provide tax relief programs. I want to say I applaud the Department of Revenue for launching the 5-in-1 property tax relief application, because something I worked with you on way before I became City Council President was around Longtime Owner Occupants Program, the LOOP program. We have a variety of different programs that help individuals stay inside their homes. And so, I think we're going in the right direction with the 5-in-1 property tax relief application. How are we getting the word out and what's the status of that particular new application? And then also, do we have an app where individuals can also go on an app and say, hey, I want to sign up for LOOP, Homestead, Deferred Tax Deferment Program, etc.?
I'm going to ask the Revenue Commissioner to come up and answer those questions. And while she's coming up, I'll also say that one of the things that we have in this budget is additional money for outreach so that we can accelerate that.
And how much is in the budget for outreach? I just want to also add that for the record. (Witness approached witness table.) COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Good morning, Council President and members of City Council. My name is Kathleen McColgan, Revenue Commissioner. Thank you for recognizing the work of the department in establishing the combined real estate property tax assistance application. We were very excited to launch that last year. I think first you asked about how we were getting the word out, and that's really in combination with the communication that we do for all of our assistance programs. So the Department of Revenue has a very robust outreach team. We attend between 200 and 300 events each year in partnership with City Council, other elected officials. We have information about the combined property tax application on our website. We also have videos on YouTube that talk about the different programs that we have available to customers regarding relief programs. I think you asked about the status of the application. And I can tell you that we have had over 7000 applications completed on there. And the application walks applicants through questions to help them determine what they are entitled to. So it not only is a single application to ease the process for them, but it also makes it more clear for them to understand which programs they're entitled to and allows them to apply for all of them within that one application.
Thank you. And along that same line of questioning, I want to talk about the Homestead Exemption. And I know our City Controller did a report regarding individuals abusing that program. And so, how do we course-correct to actually address some of the abuses of the Homestead program to actually make sure that -- primarily in this case, we had a senior that we honored who was also a victim of fraud when it came to Homestead Exemption. So what are we doing to actually address that issue based on the report from the City Controller? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Yeah, it is a priority for the Department of Revenue to ensure that everyone who's eligible is enrolled in programs and at the same time that we have enforcement programs in place to ensure that those who are not eligible are removed. Through the use of improved data with our newer systems, we're able to identify those who are highly likely ineligible and reach out to them. So through our compliance team, we reach out, send notices to property owners letting them know that we need them to provide documentation to support that they are eligible for that program. For example, we'll look at property owners where the data reflects that they may own more than one property and have Homestead on more than one property or that a property may be vacant. And through that compliance effort, we have recovered or we have billed -- let me make sure I have this correct. Let me just pull up the stats real quick. So we have billed over $5.8 million and removed Homestead from over I believe it was 5000 properties and confirmed that about 3500 properties were eligible for the program. And we still have approximately 10,000 that are in process.
Thank you very much. Our Governor Josh Shapiro recently enacted the Working Pennsylvania Tax Credit. And so, one, do we know how many additional Philadelphians are now eligible for the Pennsylvania Working Tax Credit program? And also, how does the program complement -- well, not complement -- Philadelphia's Low-Income Tax Credit benefit program? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Okay. I'll see if we can get that number for you on how many are eligible. And I also wanted to just say that the department has worked to raise awareness of that as well. We send out at the beginning of each calendar year a notice to all employers in the City of Philadelphia, letting them know that they need to provide with their W2s, information on EITC, on the income-based wage tax refund as well as the new program from the state of Pennsylvania.
All right. Thank you very much. Chair recognizes Majority Leader Katherine Gilmore Richardson.
Thank you. Thank you so much, Council President. And thank you all so much for all of your work over the year. I know I went through my thank-yous yesterday. But again, thank you to Rob and Sabrina and to Jackie Dunn, Matthew Bowman, Shakina Clark, also Commissioner McColgan. Thank you for always answering the calls and the emails relative to our constituents. Rebecca Lopez Kriss, Christian Crespo and we appreciate Belinda Gonzalez, who is very helpful to our Constituent Services Director Beth and provides special assistance, and to Kristin at the Water Revenue Bureau. And then of course, the Pension Board, Fran Bielli. Got to say Ms. Carol Stukes-Baylor, thank you, Ms. Carol; Brian Coughlin and all the members of the Board for your hard work, and also Marisa Waxman and her team at PICA for their work with the city. So I had to get that out the way for the day, and I'll try to do that every day. I'm starting with the thank-yous. I hope Angela is listening. I hope Angela hears that. So at any rate, I will start with the H.O.M.E. bond. You brought this up yesterday, Rob. You brought this up. And I wanted to just get a couple questions in relative to if you are able to provide the actual interest rate and other terms of the H.O.M.E. bond now that we've issued the first 200 million, and how does it compare to the projected costs. When we authorized the bond and approve the budget in FY26 and as a result of the debt not being issued until March, what will the difference in debt service be for FY26 compared to the original projection?
Got it. And our friends from the Treasurer's Office are coming up.
Great. (Witnesses approached witness table.) CITY TREASURER DUNN: Good morning. Jackie Dunn, City Treasurer. I'm also joined by Matthew Bowman, the Deputy for Debt Management and Sinking Fund Executive Director. We priced the H.O.M.E. bonds last week and the total cost for that, again the majority of the bonds were taxable with a small portion of tax exempt. Taxable bonds are generally higher costs than tax exempt bonds, but the blended total interest cost was 4.88%. We had very good reception from the market and we had more demand from investors than we had bonds to sell. And so, we were able to further reduce the cost to the city from the start of pricing to when we concluded by about 6.8 million over the 20 years. So that was also a great result of us --
Okay. CITY TREASURER DUNN: -- being able to jump in and take advantage of the demand at that time. In terms of tracking interest rates over time and relative to the budget projections, we did come in below what we budgeted. We do budget debt service conservatively for obvious reasons, but I'll ask my Deputy to speak to the general comparison to what was budgeted.
Good morning. Matt Bowman, Deputy City Treasurer. So as Jackie said, we do budget slightly conservatively. Each year over the Five Year Plan, the actual debt service is about 1.6 to 1.7 million a year less than what was budgeted. And then because we delayed the borrowing until the spring, there's no doubt service incurred in Fiscal Year '26.
Understood. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you for the information. I brought that up because of your comments during the hearing yesterday, Rob. But really quickly for Revenue, I wanted to talk about a matter that's come to my attention that I think is exceedingly important relative to our ability to receive additional revenue as a city. And so, as a part of the testimony, it mentions investments in technology and utilizing more data-driven efficiencies. But I will tell you, and I don't know that they'll be happy that I'm bringing this up, but I have heard from developers who have indicated that there are significant delays with OPA finalizing lot consolidation and subdivisions. And when there is a delay in OPA finalizing the lot consolidation and subdivisions, which I'm hearing can sometimes take years, years, so the city is only collecting the taxes on the vacant unimproved lot rather than the subdivided lots and the improved lots. And so, I'm wondering if the city is missing out on collecting the full taxes that are due for all of these years due to these delays? And is there a large difference in taxes that would be collected by the city if a vacant unimproved lot was actually being taxed as if it was subdivided into an individual lot? So I'll give you an example. Let's say you had a 20-acre unimproved and vacant lot at an obviously lower assessed value than if the property was subdivided and improved into 150 individual home lots. And I'm asking because I mean, I think developers and homeowners both -- and I think I talked about this a few years ago, I think the last term -- that folks have complained about the timeline to update the ownership records in the OPA system, which is leading to significant delays relative to the city's ability to even track zoning and/or building permits or applications, them being able to obtain licensing. But at the end of the day, we're missing out on probably millions of dollars of taxes as a result of this process.
OPA is actually scheduled for April 21st. So let us get back with them and make sure that by the time we come, we have a thorough answer for that question.
Right. But even from just a Revenue perspective, because I will say that I feel Revenue does a great job when there's a change of ownership. Even when you go to phila.gov/opa, type in any address as an example, you will see one slide for homeownership on the first page. But if you scroll down and go to the taxes due, you then see the actual owner once you click on the revenue portion of that parcel. So I do think Revenue is doing a great job at showcasing the ownership information once it's processed through the system. However, my concern is relative to the city missing out on millions of dollars of revenue, as an example for all these new construction homes. I know, even for the first time in Councilmember Jones' District, in my community and my ward, we have a new development. I think it used to be Salvation Army, right, Jones, and they tore down all the old buildings, and it was a vacant parcel. And then they rebuilt a ton of new homes and townhomes and also single homes. So what is the process to ensure that we are not missing out on revenue that the city should be collecting when you go from a vacant unimproved lot to a number of additional parcels on one lot? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Thank you, Councilmember. I appreciate the question and I can only speak to the revenue process of course, but I can tell you that we work in very close partnership with OPA. We meet with them monthly to discuss any issues and improvements that we can make through interagency processes as well as systems. So when we receive a recertification within I believe it's two business days and notice goes out, to your concern about losing revenue, it's my understanding that we are not losing revenue. We can take a deeper look at that. But when the recertification comes over to us, it's backdated to the date of the first period that it should be assessed at.
Right. But as an example for some of these lots, it's taking so long for them to go through the process. So, yes, you all wouldn't necessarily miss out on income at the point that it reaches your desk. But because it hasn't gone through the other processes internally throughout city government, we are missing out on the backend. And you can't go back to folks and say, oh, we didn't collect for two years. But, hey, we're here now. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Yeah. So I just want to make sure --
But meaning, if it didn't exist, the home didn't exist. It's a brand new construction. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Yes. So we will bill based on the assessment values back to the date that the deed has been recorded.
Okay. All right. Well, I'll definitely follow up with you all because I have several examples of what's happening. We'd be happy to look at them. And I don't know that they're going to be happy that I even brought this up because it's probably a loophole that some of these folks are getting through, but I want to ensure that we are able to collect as much revenue as possible, particularly if it's new construction homes being built on unimproved lots. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Yes. Thank you.
All right. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. How's everybody doing? So I wanted to just follow up on my colleague's line of questioning, Councilwoman Gilmore Richardson, but I wanted to hone in on Revenue. Good to see you and always -- COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: You too.
-- thank you. You know, I have to say that I've worked with a few Revenue Commissioners, and it really has been a pleasure in terms of the responsiveness and just getting back to folks, so I just wanted to say that and -- COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: I appreciate that. It's been a pleasure working with your office.
-- start out with that. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Thank you.
But I did want to ask you about when we get a constituent who calls in and we understand the Revenue Department is responsible primarily for collecting revenue so we know that you take it very seriously. But when someone is not of means and is trying to negotiate pen-terest, penalty and interest, can you talk to us a little bit about the policies around those kinds of conversations and what is the standard? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Okay. Yeah, we do have a standard for our payment agreement terms and we can certainly get that to you in writing. There's a couple different payment agreement terms. When somebody has a significant delinquency and they are working with the Law Department, they will waive penalty if the payment is made in full, the principal is paid in full. But typically, interest has to be paid.
Okay. And also, can you talk a little bit about payment arrangements because I know that we've had this, in my opinion, a little bit of a wacky sort of system where if you break a payment arrangement or you don't pay one time, then we won't give you another payment arrangement or -- that used to be the policy. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Over the years, we've standardized our payment agreements to make sure that everybody's getting the same treatment. And I would say if a payment agreement is broken, I mean if somebody breaks one agreement, we evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. Typically, if somebody is being denied another payment agreement, it's because they have gotten to the most serious stage of enforcement and broken multiple agreements.
So my question is if someone breaks multiple agreements but is still trying to make a payment arrangement, shouldn't we collect that so that we get whatever they're going to be bringing in? Does it hurt us or cost us if we say, well, you broke four agreements, we're not going to give you another one. But they've got a deposit that they want to put down now to get back into a payment arrangement? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: I would say the response is based on a case-by-case scenario. We try to be as flexible as we can because, yes, we do want to collect the revenue, but we do have to maintain a level of enforcement to ensure that there is compliance. So that's the balance that we walk.
Okay. Let me ask, what is our tax collection rate? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: For property tax, it is 94.9%.
How does that compare to the last couple of years? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: I'm sorry. Let me just add to that, that that's within the year that it's billed, that metric. 94.9 within the year that it's billed. And let me get some more information for you.
Sure. Or maybe you could just answer -- I'm just trying to figure out is that number going up, is it going down? I was just -- COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: I can get you the exact numbers. It's absolutely in this binder. I just have to put my fingers on it. But I can tell you that year over year for property tax it has gone up from, I believe, to 25. It 4 was in the low 94% range and then 5 went up to 94.9. Let me look at 6 this for you. 7 Okay. So for property 8 tax for Calendar Year 2024, it was 9 94.2% that was collected and the 10 percent collected for all years in 11 2024 was 96.44. And to give you a 12 comparison to Calendar Year '23, 13 the one-year collection rate for 14 property tax was 94.09 and the 15 percent collected for all years was 16 98.03. 17
18 Okay. Is there any -- because of 19 the state of the economy and 20 everything that's going on and the 21 cost, everything is high and we 22 know that some people who might 23 fall in that little 4% or 5% who 24 are not up to speed, up-to-date, have we thought about doing anything -- I can't think of the word right now, where we wipe out pen-terest, interest and penalty, if you pay within a certain time period? I forget what it's called.
Amnesty. Thank you, Councilman Jones. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: So our position on amnesty is that it undermines our ability to collect over time. And we did an analysis from the last tax amnesty that the city did and actually determined that had we maintained our enforcement, our normal enforcement and collection processes, we would have collected more than we did in that actual amnesty.
Okay. That's interesting. So then the department feels or the Administration feels that amnesty is not something that they intend to do any time coming? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: No, we don't endorse amnesty. We just think it hurts our compliance rate as well as our collection rates for the city and the school district.
All right. I would argue otherwise. I know you've done your analysis and your data says one thing. But when you talk to the -- there's always someone who's going to game the system. There's always somebody who's waiting for an amnesty program to come along to take advantage of that. But I think for some of those of lesser means who just really do want to be compliant but just don't have the amount of funds that are required of them, it could be a great incentive to try to get caught up. Especially knowing that we're doing all these other things to raise money, I still think it might be a good way to get some cash in the door right now. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: So we're happy to work with any taxpayer who may be struggling to pay any of their liabilities. And we do ask them to reach out to us as soon as possible so we can put a process in place for them.
Thank you. The Chair also recognizes the presence of Councilmember Mark Squilla -- before I call on the next member, I just have a brief question, Mr. Dubow. Are we going after individuals who own properties that are behind on their taxes? Like owners of land, they may live in New York but they own thousands of properties here and they may be back. What's our strategy to go after those individuals to recoup those dollars that are owed to the City of Philadelphia? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Yes, we do -- we are fortunate to have a legal team that's integrated in our department and they act on collections, all collections, and they have a few different methods for doing that, and one of them is consolidated actions against multi- property owners. The details of -- the one thing that I do know is difficult with a non-resident is that to actually secure a judgment against a property outside of Philadelphia, if that individual owns a property with someone else, then Law can't enforce upon that. So if the home outside is in the name of the property owner and a spouse, they can't take the same action as if it was just that property owner. But within their legal ability, Law enforces upon those as well.
Okay. Thank you very much. Councilmember Dr. Anthony Phillips.
Thank you, Council President. I want to start with an issue -- and thank you so much, Commissioner and Rob, for being here. I want to start with an issue that we're seeing more frequently in our District related to water billing. We have residents receiving large backdated water bills covering multiple prior years, often due to what is described as accounting or processing issues for many of these residents, especially seniors or those on fixed incomes. These bills are unexpected and it's simply unaffordable. What steps is the Department of Revenue taking in coordination with the Water Department to address billing errors and to ensure residents are not penalized for issues that may stem from system or administrative delays? And also, what protections are in place to prevent residents from facing enforcement actions such as liens or collections while these billing disputes are being reviewed? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Thank you for the question, Councilmember. I'm not aware of billing issues related specifically to accounting. I am aware that there are circumstances where a reading may not be obtained from a meter. It could reflect zero usage or estimated usage. We've improved our processes over the years to reflect that on the bill that goes out to the customer. There's actually a box with red language that says that your reading was estimated or zero usage and asks them to contact the meter shop. And after three consecutive bills of zero or estimated usage, we send a separate paper notice to the owner to let them know that they need to contact the meter shop. And then we also have the shared responsibility policy, which I know Councilmember Gauthier has introduced legislation to codify that, where we work with the customer to reduce the amount past one year. So 50% of the usage is waived and we'll work as always to get them into a payment agreement.
What I'm saying is that often times you may not pick up on the meter read until years later, right, or months, whatever that may be, and there's a delay in the processing for the bill. And sometimes people get the bill and you're like, oh, it's still their bill, you know, per se. And in addition to that, there are water main breaks that happen which disrupt people's water service and then residents have been telling me that they're not often times given a credit back for the disruption to their water service. Is that something that we're working through as well? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: So for the cases that you mentioned where there was no notice to the property owner of the meter reading, then reflecting either zero or estimated usage, I would like to look at that on an individual case-by-case basis. If you could share that property with me so that we can analyze it, I would appreciate that. Because like I said, we've put these processes in place to improve our communication, but also we do work very closely with PWD to address issues like this and have met with them recently and are in the process of discussing in addition to what we're already doing, how we can reach property owners earlier and engage with them to get them to act to replace a meter.
Okay. And then the question about the water main break. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: I'm sorry?
The water main break. So people receiving -- COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: That I would have to defer to PWD on talking about the water main breaks.
And then just real quickly, can you provide an update on Oepal and how it's actually improving timelines for businesses, particularly for permitting approvals, tax clearance and overall process efficiency? This was something that you all say is supposed to be happening in this year's budget. You also talked about it in last year's budget. So I'm just trying to figure out what's the hold-up with Oepal.
Hi, there. Catherine Lamb, First Deputy for Finance. So I think you're talking about the Opal Project, which is --
It's going to be a gem. It is the project to replace our core financials and purchasing systems, so it's actually not replacing any of the revenue systems directly so it won't impact anything dealing with revenue billing and noticing. What it will do is replace the core systems that we use to do our accounting as well as to contract and pay our vendors.
So the question is it was supposed to be done last year and it's not done yet. What's the hold-up?
Yep. So our original go-live date or most recent go-live date was July of this year. Recently we've decided to extend the schedule for 10 months as we are leading up to the 11 go-live date. We didn't feel like 12 we were ready. And the worst thing you can do is go live with a system that touches every department and not be ready.
Got you. All right. Thank you. I just -- can I get one more question?
So our office has identified multiple vacant properties in the district, that by chance were still receiving tax abatements through nonprofit or religious status, despite not operating as active institutions for years. What proactive steps is the Department of Revenue taking working with the Office of Property Assessment and the Law Department to identify and address situations where properties may be improperly receiving tax benefits? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: I just want to make sure I caught your question. Your focus is on properties that are receiving tax benefits to which they're not entitled?
Yes. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Okay. So that is a -- we have a tax benefit review unit within our compliance team that utilizes data to identify properties that we reflect are high likelihood of being ineligible for the properties. We send notice to them, we give them the opportunity to explain to us why the data may reflect something that is inaccurate and why they're entitled to the programs, but we have removed through that program over 5500 properties that we've identified were not eligible and we have confirmed about 3500 of them and have about 10,000 still in the queue being processed.
So that's what I'm saying. How are you -- we know there's a lot. And so, how are you coming up with a time frame to get to all of them to complete the process? Because what happens is that I'll identify a property but then it's been a nuisance in the neighborhood for years by that point and now you want to get on it. But then your team could have been on it a while ago. So how are you getting that list smaller? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Well, over the -- I think the list is getting -- there's significant work for us to still do, but I do think that the list is getting smaller because we have this program in place and we're giving the property owner due process and sending them a notice and giving them the opportunity to reach out to us. But over the years, the last few years with our new tax system and improved integrated data and data warehouse, we've been better able to identify those. So over time, I do anticipate that that number will go down.
Yeah. I just think there should be a timeline on that altogether, because it's not okay that this has been -- you have piles. I understand what you're saying, that you want to give due process, you deserve due process. But there should be a situation where by July or by August we're going to clear all these up. We're going to make sure that a letter is sent, no 10 response, we're going to move forward, right. That's the due process. So I just don't think there's a clear system where you're trying to make sure that these numbers are going to go down, which is going to cause problems later. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, Dr. Phillips. Point of information, Councilmember Quetcy Lozada.
I just want to ask a question based on what he just said, right. Because we were under the impression that once a property that has been tax delinquent hits a $10,000 tax delinquent mark, it was supposed to trigger something and it was supposed to start a process. Does that not happen? Is that not real? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Delinquency collection processes?
Yes. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: We do have tiered collection processes based on the delinquency. But the Councilmember was referring to properties that are receiving assistance programs that they may not be entitled to.
Briefly. So for folks who are listening, the point of the matter is that by basically you all not being able to get on top of these properties, there are vacant lots in the City of Philadelphia that exist that no one can buy and reuse for great purpose because you have all these lots that are just basically there. And so, your delay is causing neighborhood issues. So that's what I'm saying. I feel like it needs to be a solid process that you can communicate on how you can, you know -- COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Are you referring now to the Sheriff's sale process for vacant properties?
Yeah, that part too. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: So we are happy to have resumed Sheriff sales and it has generated revenue in customers who have come into compliance before the actual sale, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in revenue. I believe we collected over $50 million since Sheriff sales resumed. Our goal is to bring the property into compliance and certainly not to sell an owner-occupied home. Our law department goes to great lengths to do outreach to reach the owner, to try to bring them into compliance. And up until the day of a sale will actually -- if a property owner comes forward and proves that it's owner- occupied, we'll put them into an open agreement for vacant properties. I think that if there's particular properties that you have concern about, we could certainly work with your office on that. But the strategy for Sheriff sales is to collect the revenue, so we work in priority of the highest dollar potential for collection.
Thank you very much. Before I call on the next member, Rob, I just want to add an additional question regarding the rideshare tax. And so, it's my understanding I know yesterday we talked about a portion will go toward helping school-related union employees transpasses or assistance with transportation, right. But also, I just got an understanding, got additional information that there's also 3 million set aside for individuals who may have outstanding parking debt, like some type of agreement with PPA to help individuals, which wasn't discussed yesterday. So could you just give us an idea? Because it falls in the line of what Councilmember Bass talked about in terms of amnesty, right, and helping individuals. And so, I was thinking how can we address this issue with individuals who are back on parking tickets and so forth? They might just need a little help to get their lives together. And from my understanding once I asked the question, I said, well, part of this rideshare tax history that was put aside for helping individuals who may have debt regarding parking tickets, which is new information to me, could you elaborate on that please?
Yep. So there is a three-year program funded through the tax, $3 million a year, under which PPA would go through an application process to make sure people are eligible on an income basis. If they were eligible, PPA would waive fines and penalties and would give them a grant to pay their parking tickets. It's really important, because some of the people have lost access to their vehicles because of the unpaid tickets, so it would help them pay that off, have access to their car again, be able to drive to work, for example. And the other benefit for the District is that money that goes to the PPA eventually flows through to the District.
Gotchu. Okay. Yeah, I was getting ready to ask that question, what does that have to do with the schools. However, PPA pays a portion of the revenue they bring in to the School District?
Yes. Once they get over threshold, everything goes to the District.
Okay. Great information for us to have. Probably good to let members know that is an extra added benefit for their constituents in the event that this is supported by the body. And so, don't be shy about how you are touting the benefits of said rideshare tax in the event that the body supports because I had no 17 idea. I was pushing for an amnesty program to support individuals who are back on their parking tickets. And now, I got a response and said, well, this is something that is already being proposed so it's probably good information for us to know. Thank you very much. Chair recognizes Councilmember Kendra Brooks.
Thank you, Council President. Last year the Administration came to Council and said that we needed to end the small business BIRT tax exemption for companies making under $100,000. We were told by the City Solicitor that --
No. Could you talk into the microphone with that Nicetown voice?
We were told by the City Solicitor that we had to do this to settle a lawsuit and that there would be an imminent announcement about how the lawsuit was wrapped up. There was no announcement and the Administration did not follow up with Council about the status of the lawsuit. I want to get on the record exactly what is the status of the lawsuit. And if there wasn't a settlement, can you detail the Council what it was?
We're going to ask Francis Beckley to come and respond to that question. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. My name is Francis Beckley and I'm Revenue chief counsel. We settled the first set of those lawsuits with five plaintiffs. However, the same law firm immediately filed a new lawsuit and that lawsuit is in progress. So I think I'd be delighted to brief anybody from City Council, either individually or as a group, on the progress of that, but it is not appropriate to discuss it publicly.
There is another set or there's another identical lawsuit that is ongoing and it is not appropriate to discuss ongoing litigation in public.
But we have attorney-client privilege with you. We're happy to brief you if you'd like that.
Okay. Thank you. We'll reach out to get that. My next question is, how much money will businesses who make under $100,000 a year be paying this year after the city gave up or whatever is happening with the court to preserve this exemption?
The total net increase was in the high 30 millions, but that includes all businesses. I don't know if you have a breakout for under 100,000. Because every business was able to take advantage. It wasn't just small businesses that took advantage of the 100,000 exemption. It was every business. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: So I do have some numbers here on an example of a business that would earn $100,000 in gross receipts and have $60,000 in net income. And their total tax bill --
She said do we have a total for businesses under 100,000. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Oh, I'm not sure. I can get back to you on that. Sorry.
All right. My next question: Every budget document that we have seen this year has noted economic uncertainty amid the ongoing federal turmoil. We heard yesterday directly from the Administration about these challenges. At the same time, those documents continue to tout tax cuts as investments that the city is making. I'm having a hard time reconciling that we have committed tax cuts until FY2039 but are right back here looking at new taxes on rideshare and delivery services. Has there been any discussion about pausing the BIRT tax cuts given the Administration's desire for new income? Do we think the tax increases on rideshare and delivery services are regressive taxes and has there been any discussion about how to apply those taxes with a non-passthrough provision to Uber and rideshare?
So let me take -- a few questions there. One was have we considered pausing the BIRT reductions. We have not. We do think that that's an important investment that helps grow our economy. On whether we think that rideshare and delivery tax are regressive, the survey analysis we've shown, and we can get this to you, shows that for both as income goes up, usage goes up, so we don't think that they're regressive. And then I missed -- there's one other question.
About a non-passthrough provision. Have we had discussions about how to apply the taxes on Uber and rideshare as a non-passthrough provision? Meaning, the cost goes to Uber and Lyft as opposed to the consumer.
I think that's another thing discussed in a briefing, not in a public session, on how that would work in the legislation. So we have talked about it, but I think that's something we would want to brief you on rather than talk about it --
So last year I introduced a part of the People's Tax Plan, a bill to expand wage tax refund. I was disappointed to learn that the Finance Department spoke to other Councilmembers about this bill 13 without first contacting my office to express their concerns. How many people have received a refund for the city wage tax refund program? And how much does that represent? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: I'll get the exact numbers for you, but I know that they have grown year over year. And for the last fiscal year, there were over 4000 people who had received a refund. So in 2023, we had 1687. In 2024, 3933. And then in 2025, 5744.
And is there any reason why our staff, we weren't briefed on this prior and other Councilmembers had the opportunity to hear on this? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: I'm sorry. I'd be happy to brief you. I'm not familiar with the conversations that you're referring to.
Okay. Could I ask one more on the record, Council President, or that's it?
So one of the things I'm interested in hearing about is eliminating the Class 500 funds. I don't think this decision was made with much input from Council. I want to understand why these funds were eliminated. I raised this because those class funds are often how Councilmembers are able to do direct funding to organizations. By taking this class funding out, we are eliminating Council's influence on the budget and consolidating even more power to the Administration. What is the reason for this class fund refund -- I mean, why they were eliminated?
Thank you for the record, sir. They haven't been eliminated.
Okay. So last year, the city set aside $91 million in federal funding reserve, which is less than one week of the total operating costs for the city. Where did last year reserves go? I also want to better understand what this money could be spent on if we didn't use it last year?
Got it. So the beginning amount in last year's budget was 95 million. We spent 4 million on food assistance when SNAP, I guess, didn't flow during the budget strike, at the budget impasse. So that's an example of how it could be used. So there was 91 million remaining at the end of the year. Since that hadn't been used, it fell to our fund balance. We're asking in this year's budget to re-establish it.
Okay. And we had a constituent call about a problem with communications between Revenue, OPA and the public. An example, the excess value of a constituent's home increases, which raised the amount of property taxes owed. This higher amount of property tax was not communicated to the constituent or the mortgage company. So when the property taxes came due, the amount the constituent had to pay, which was much higher than the mortgage company had deducted. OPA said that communicating this to the constituent and the mortgage was Revenue's job. And Revenue said that that was not the proper communication from OPA to them. Can you let us know how this process should work and what kind of communication happens between the departments and the public around issues like these? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Okay. I'm happy to respond to that. I think I just need to clarify what you said at the beginning of your question. Was it a recertification?
It was the value of a constituent's -- the housing value increased and it raised the amount of property taxes owed. But it wasn't communicated to the constituent or the mortgage company about this increase, so a portion of it wasn't paid. So a later bill came to the constituent, unbeknownst to the mortgage company or the constituent. Revenue and OPA both pointed fingers at each other. But this bill to the house owner is still holding the bill. What is the communication process between those two departments so people aren't stuck holding a bill 12 that they had no idea? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Okay. I can speak to Revenue's billing process. And also, again, just reiterate that we work very closely with OPA. So I'll be happy to look at that specific property and see what happened. But for our billing process for Revenue is we send out about 350,000 bills annually based on assessment values in early December and we make those values viewable online at the same time on December 1st. Those who have a lender, we work very close with them and we provide them with billing files, letting them know what the amount is that's due on the property. If the property has an appeal that's pending and the property owner is entitled to pay the prior amount based on that year's appeal, we also can make that information available to the lender. So we work very closely with them and I'm not sure for this specific property where there was a breakdown. But I'd be happy to look at it and make sure that -- I do think that it's an outlier because of our billing processes.
So we should have someone in my office reach out to your office -- COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Yes, please.
-- to coordinate this specific issue directly? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Yes.
Thank you so much. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Thank you.
Thank you very much. The next order goes as follows: Councilmember Nina Ahmad, Councilmember Jamie Gauthier, Councilmember Jim Harrity.
Thank you, Council President. Good morning, everyone. It's still morning. Thank you for being here. The proposed budget included a new hotel tax increase to fund the 1000 additional shelter beds. What is the projected annual revenue from this increase? And what sort of risk modeling was done if there's a reduction in hotel occupancy? And we just saw a couple of days ago that FIFA is canceling thousands of hotel rooms. So I just wondered how this is all playing out and what we actually are going to get from this.
So we are projecting that we will receive $20,000 annually in the -- million. 20,000 wouldn't be 13 that helpful. 14
In the first 17 year it's not starting until 18 August, so we're projecting 18 19 million in the first year from the 20 tax.
So when we are faced with scenarios of organizations like FIFA, who had booked a lot of rooms, canceling so many of them and we don't know exactly why, the reporting didn't say, I wonder how that impacts your model?
So in this case since we're not starting the tax until after those events, it shouldn't affect our projection --
So I meant not for this. So in cases like that, because it's not a given, right, we can have some kind of calamity and there goes people coming to our city.
Right. And like with any tax, we'll have years where it generates more or generates less and over time, it kind of typically averages out.
So I see we are finding creative ways to increase our budget. But what is the growth projection that actually shows us new revenue coming? Could you please speak to sources of new revenue instead of us taxing our way out of this?
Right. So for each of our taxes, we have projected growth rates. So for the wage tax, I think we're basically between 3% and 5% each year. For property tax, we're also around 3% a year. For the sales tax, we're in the 4% to 5% range. So each of our taxes assume that there will be continuing growth in the economy that will lead to increased revenues.
And the work that's being done in the workforce development, it was mentioned earlier, do we have a sense of a projection of all this investment we are making in those spaces where that will show up in increased revenue?
Yeah. So that's one of the things that the Council President asked about in his first questions. And then we said, we'd get together something that shows what we project for each of our initiatives.
Yeah. Because we -- I already got calls about your hotel tax and all of this. So I just want to be able to tell their constituents to say, what is our growth projection, how are we really driving new revenue instead of keep taxing everybody who are already participating in this economy. And so, we would love to get those numbers. And then is there a sunset for this of any kind or is this a forever tax?
Because that means that we are going to start relying on this. Does that allow us to then wiggle out of new revenue or creating opportunities? I just feel Philadelphia doesn't project to the world we are growing, we are exciting, come here, invest in us. But what we project is we're going to tax you to death.
So we have segregated this revenue in the hotel tax that can only be used for the homeless services, so it's not something that we'll use in other places.
So if homelessness goes down, then the need for it goes down. Then do you exit out of that?
All right. Let's remember that, because we're going to work for making sure nobody in Philadelphia is unhoused. So hopefully there'll be no need for this. Thank you very much, Council President.
Thank you. Councilmember Jamie Gauthier and then Councilmember Jim Harrity.
Thank you, Council President. Good morning to all of you.
Thank you for the work you do every day. And I want to echo my colleague's sentiment that I also really enjoy working with you, Commissioner McColgan. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Thank you. I appreciate that. It's been a pleasure.
Last November, based on direct feedback from my constituent services team, from many, many calls from our constituents I introduced a legislative package that strengthens water equity by expanding eligibility for TAP, protecting residents from extremely expensive water bills caused by long-term meter failures and calling on the Administration to explore ways to give rental tenants more control over their water bills. Water rates are rising. Effective September 1, 2025, PWD increased typical residential bills by 9.4% to about $89.42 per month. In 2026, another 5.5% increase is scheduled, raising typical bills further to $94.31 a month. At the same time, we can't forget that nearly half of renters are cost- burdened, meaning that they make the impossible choice every month between paying their rent, affording their utility bills and putting food on the table. Yet, unlike other utilities, the city doesn't allow tenants to put the water bills in their own names. Meaning, they are ineligible for assistance programs. I remember during the H.O.M.E. debate hearing the Administration often express a desire to not pit the have-nots against the have-a-littles. So my question for the Administration today is, do you support expanding eligibility for the TAP program to help Philadelphians afford their water bills? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Thank you for the question. I also appreciate working with your office and appreciate the legislation and what it's attempting to do, because we do think that the TAP program is very important. It provides protections to many residents and tenants and also relief in form of forgiveness. So we value that program and we do our best to enroll as many people as we can. I also would like to just highlight that we have an ongoing auto-enrollment effort through data-sharing, and we've increased those that are enrolled in TAP to just over 68,000, and also have an additional over 20,000 enrolled in the Senior Citizen Discount. So while I appreciate the protections and the intention to expand them, I just want to highlight that our analysis reflects that expanding it per the legislation could cost $23.5 million, and we're also of course working to fund the services of PWD so that they can maintain operations and sustain clean drinking water for every resident. So that additional funding would be part of the next rate case and would further increase rates to those that are not enrolled or eligible for TAP. And then one other thing I just wanted to comment on is we do actually allow customers to become tenants -- I'm sorry, tenants to become customers. And once they become a customer, they are entitled to the same programs as owner-occupants.
I'd love to talk with your office more about that offline. Just a couple more questions. The Mayor's budget address talked specifically about residents who are locked out of existing programs, people making just too much to qualify but not enough to stay afloat. Under the current TAP cut-off, a family of four earning $49,500 gets help. A family earning $51,000 gets nothing. My bill is about that gap. How does your opposition of the bill fit with what the Mayor says she's trying to do about not pitting the have-nots against the have-a-littles? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Yeah. I'm just trying to make sure that I communicate the impact of the bill so that all of the facts are on record. And also -- I'm sorry, oh, also I wanted to just mention that outside of TAP, we do have other payment agreements and we can get you the terms of those payment agreements that those who are ineligible for TAP are entitled to. We also have long-term payment agreements for those who qualify as well. So I'm happy to go over all of that with you in your office.
Thank you. I have questions about your projection. So you stated that expanding TAP eligibility will cost $23 million. Our office has not been able to find a published methodology for those figures. So what income and uses assumptions does that estimate rely on and is it modeled on the current TAP participant population or on the households between 150% and 200% of the federal poverty level who would be newly eligible? Additionally, the bill 20 requires that discounts be based on each customer's actual income, which means every discount is individualized, not uniform. Does the $23 million estimate reflect that structure or does it apply a single average discount to all newly eligible households? Because if it's the latter, the methodology does not match how the program actually works. So I'm trying to dig into your estimate, which you all are saying makes it infeasible to do this expansion. And I just want to understand what you're basing that on. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Yes, I'll be happy to get that information for you. I believe the fiscal note was published last Friday, but it wouldn't contain I don't think all of the details that you're requesting. So we will have to get back to you on that.
Okay. I also want to know what enrollment figures you're using for that $23 million estimate? We know that with the majority of city programs we see typically low enrollment rates. And so, does your $23 million figure assume that everyone at the expanded incomes here would enroll or what usage are you actually basing that on? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Yeah. I think that that's an important question and I know that you raised that in our recent conversation, and our team is working to get a response to you on that.
Okay. Lastly, Bill 251021 requires Rate Board authorization before any eligibility expansion takes effect. So that puts this expansion or would put this expansion through exactly the regulatory process that the Administration says it supports. And it means that nothing would change before September 2027 at the earliest. The FY27 plan confirms that PWD is already preparing for that rate proceeding. And so, if we are including that language in the bill, can you explain your objection? COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: I would -- regarding the rate proceeding, I would prefer that PWD respond to that. It's more appropriate for them to respond to.
Okay. Thank you. I look forward to following up with your office and with PWD about all of the above. I think it's really important before we object to giving more relief to our constituents that we know are struggling every single day, particularly under this federal administration, that we have really good and really accurate information before we say no to them. COMMISSIONER McCOLGAN: Understood. Thank you.
Thank you, Council President. Good morning, everyone. It's still morning. Man, the revenue and tax really go slow. It's only 11:30. Got to make some light of this situation. I'm going to ask my questions for the sake of time just to get them out there. That way we can work from there, have a couple different lines and see how far I get through. Have you considered how the rideshare tax will impact those with disabilities who may rely on rideshare as a more accessible option than public transportation? Other cities have taxed wheelchair- accessible rideshares at a lower rate than all other trips. Also, many healthcare workers or nightshift workers rely on rideshare services during off-hours when the public transit is not running. Additionally, many rely on rideshare late into the night when taking public transportation may pose safety risk. Have we considered limiting the time of day that we are levying this tax? I know there was a little discrepancy yesterday when I mentioned the numbers for Chicago, but I now have my research here and I actually wasn't all wrong. That is the rate that they do after the peak time. So New York and Chicago both limit the tax to rides taken between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Just trying to think out of the box here on trying to get -- I understand you guys are saying this is what we have to do. But I'd also like to make sure that we're looking into everything and trying to give breaks to the people that really do need breaks, like our disabled population.
So we'll look into each of those issues and are happy to work with you on them. We'll say to the extent we do things like limit the time, it will reduce the amount of revenue we're collecting. So we have to just be mindful of --
Yeah, I mean, if you look at the times they're saying, 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., that's pretty much -- after that time, it's not going to be as much money anyway. But I get --
-- this is about money so that's how we do it. All right. You'll get back to me with those. I've got some questions now about the pension and retirement. Can you talk about the 45 million payment being distributed to retirees through the pension adjustment fund. On average, how much will each retiree receive? And can you explain how this was distributed amongst members of each plan? So is this for all our city?