- - - COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 11:19 a.m. - - - BILL 050451 - An Ordinance amending Title of 7 The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Finance Taxes and Collections," by 8 creating a new Chapter 19-3400, entitled "excise Tax on Outdoor 9 Advertising Transactions,' under certain terms and conditions. 10 BILL 050452 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 11 19-1200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking Tax," to provide 12 for a tax on valet parking transactions, under certain terms 13 and conditions. 14 BILL 050453 - An Ordinance amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, section 9-602, 15 entitled "Outdoor Advertising," by amending the requirements for 16 obtaining and the conditions for issuance of licenses, including the 17 applicable fees; imposing safety requirements; increasing penalties; 18 providing certain reporting requirements; amending certain 19 definitions; and making technical changes; all under certain terms and conditions. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 BILL 040767 - An Ordinance amending Section 19-2604 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to tax rates, credits and alternative tax computation for the business privilege tax, by reducing certain tax rates; all under certain terms and conditions. BILL 040789 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 19-2600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Business Privilege Taxes," to provide for an exemption from the tax on gross receipts for certain new businesses, under certain terms and conditions. BILL 050001 - An Ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six Fiscal Years 2006-2011 inclusive. BILL 050002 - An Ordinance to adopt a Fiscal 2006 Capital Budget. BILL 050003 - An Ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2006. BILL 050007 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 19-1200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking Tax," by establishing a rate of taxation on parking transactions for Fiscal Year 2006 and thereafter and making such rate contingent on certain decreases in business privilege tax rates. BILL 050008 - An Ordinance amending Section 20 19-2604 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to tax rates, credits and alternative tax computation for the business privilege tax, by reducing certain tax rates and making such reductions contingent on an increase in the parking tax. BILL 050383 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 19-1200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking Tax," by 3 increasing the rate of taxation on parking transactions for Fiscal Year 2006 and thereafter. RES. 050022 - Resolution providing for the approval by the Council of the City of Philadelphia of a Revised Five Year Financial Plan for the City of Philadelphia covering Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, an dincorporating proposed changes with respect to Fiscal Year 2005, which is to be submitted by the Mayor to the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority(the "Authority") pursuant to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement, authorized by an ordinance of this Council approved by the Mayor on January 3, 1992 (Bill No. 1563-A), by and between the City and the Authority. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO 4 Whole - 5/25/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the titles of Bill Numbers 050451, 050452 and 050453. MR. McPHERSON: Bill Number 050451, an ordinance amending Title of The 13 Philadelphia Code entitled, finance, taxes 14 and collections, by creating a new Chapter 15 19-3400 entitled, excise tax on outdoor 16 advertising transactions, under certain terms 17 and conditions. 18 Bill Number-050452, an ordinance 19 amending Chapter 19-1200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled, parking tax, to provide for a tax on valet parking transactions, under certain terms and conditions. Bill Number 050453, an ordinance 24 amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, section 9-602, entitled, outdoor advertising, 5 Whole - 5/25/05 by amending the requirements for obtaining and the conditions for issuance of licenses, including the applicable fees, imposing safety requirements, increasing penalties, providing certain reporting requirements, amending certain definitions, and making technical changes, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you very much. Who is going to be our first witness from the administration?
Good morning. Please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony Good morning, Councilwoman Verna and members of the Committee of the Whole. I am Nancy Kammerdeiner, Revenue Commissioner. And I am pleased to be with you today to present testimony regarding Bill Number 050451. This bill would amend Title 19 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled, finance, taxes and collections by adding a new chapter 6 Whole - 5/25/05 19-3400, entitled, excise tax on outdoor advertising transactions. This ordinance would impose an excise tax on the purchase, rental or licensing of any space on any building, parcel or sign support structure located in the City, for the purpose of installing, placing or maintaining outdoor advertising sign. The advertiser or advertising company that rents the space on the billboard will pay the tax. The outdoor advertising company that rents the space will collect the tax at the time the purchase price is paid, and will remit the tax to the City in accordance with regulations that will be established by the Department of Revenue. The proposed tax rate is seven percent of the purchase price of the advertising space. If we assume that the average outdoor advertising rental price is $20,000 per year per sign face, and that there are 7 Whole - 5/25/05 approximately 2800 legal sign faces in the City, then this tax, at a rate of seven percent, which I notice the same rate as the combined city and state sales taxes, would produce up to $4 million in annual tax revenue in fiscal '06 and $21 million over the life of the five-year plan. This revenue projection is assumed in the amended operating budget and five-year plan that were transmitted to City Council yesterday. To the extent that additional signs are identified and obtain the appropriate licenses and permits, this revenue would increase. The question that many would ask is whether or not the City has the authority to levy an excise tax on outdoor advertising. You will recall that the City receives its authority to levy taxes from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If the City wishes to tax something that is already taxed by the state, explicit state legislation is required in order to 8 Whole - 5/25/05 have the City tax. And that legislation will define the explicit terms and conditions of the taxing. However, the Sterling Act --
Excuse me. Those having conversations, may I ask that you do that in the corridor, please? We can't hear the witness. Please proceed.
However, the Sterling Act permits the City to tax anything that the state does not tax. So the question here is whether or not the state taxes the purchase price of the rental of outdoor advertising space. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Revenue, has determined in Sales Tax Rule 46.5b, that a billboard is a license relating to real estate, not personal property. And therefore, no state sales tax is due on the periodic charge received by the owner of the billboard from the advertiser for the placement of the advertisement on 9 Whole - 5/25/05 that billboard. Since the state does not impose a sales or excise tax on billboards, the City is not preempted from imposing such a tax. Conceptually, this proposed excise tax on outdoor advertising is similar to the vehicle rental tax and the hotel tax. It will be paid by the purchaser of the service and collected by the seller of the service for remittance to the City. As with these other taxes, there are a limited number of entities that own the outdoor advertising signs and would be responsible for collecting the tax. If this ordinance is approved, the Department of Revenue will contact the outdoor advertising sign companies to discuss procedures for implementing the tax. I would like to note one difference between the proposed outdoor advertising tax and the hotel and vehicle rental taxes that I just noted. Both of those transactions or types of transactions are subject to the state and 10 Whole - 5/25/05 the City sales taxes, in addition to those subject specific taxes. For example, the hotel rental tax is a total of percent. With 6 percent from 6 the state sales, 1 percent from City sales 7 and 7 percent from the hotel tax. 8 And similarly, the vehicle rental 9 tax transaction also is subject to the state 10 sales tax of six percent, the City sales tax 11 of one percent, and then the two percent 12 vehicle rental tax. 13 On the other hand, what we're 14 proposing now for the outdoor advertising transaction would only be subject to this seven percent excise tax. The proposed tax on the purchase of outdoor advertising space would generate much needed revenue, without inhibiting job growth or creation in Philadelphia. Your favorable consideration of this legislation would be appreciated. I would like to note one thing. The ordinance as presented to you and as is before the committee lacks an effective date. 11 Whole - 5/25/05 It could be assumed that this would be 7/1/05, but you might want to consider amending the legislation to explicitly state that. And I have some suggested language for that, if you would like to consider it. I'd be happy to answer any questions the committee might have.
Well, I think since this is an administration bill, it's the administration who should present the amendment. Do you have copies?
I only have the one, but I'd be happy to present that to you. This was noted after it was the end of -- My apologies for that.
July 1, 2005. As might be implicit within this, but so that there is no question about the effective date, it would be preferred to have an explicit effective date in the legislation.
And this 12 Whole - 5/25/05 is the amendment that the administration is offering.
Thank you. I believe copies are being made of the amendment, and we will have them circulated. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Kammerdeiner, unfortunately, I didn't -- I think your testimony just came up today.
Okay. What I thought I heard you say was that there were some estimates have been derived, and you talked about 2800 legal sign faces. Did I hear you correctly?
That information 13 Whole - 5/25/05 comes from, I believe, L & I, in terms of the number of legal sign faces.
Do we have a list of those? I mean, how do we know that to be the case?
Robert Solvibile, acting commissioner, Licenses and Inspections. Yes, we he do have a database of all the legal signs in the City of Philadelphia.
I'm not sure of the answer. We'd have to -- I'd have to get back to you on that. The 2800 number, give or take a few, is correct, as far as legal signs.
Point of information for Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. 14 Whole - 5/25/05 Councilman Nutter, could Mr. Solvibile explain how you determined legal versus illegal? What is the criteria for legal versus illegal?
Where... A legally licensed sign would be a sign that starts -- There's a zoning file, where the legal zoning is there in the zoning file. And then it's a licensed sign. That's how we would determine. We would have to get the location or the address, which is always not easy to do because the signs aren't really -- They're -- A lot of times they're on roadsides and such which is being handled, as we speak, by a survey that's being done, undertaken by private concern. But we had to get the address, go to zoning file, and then determine if the zoning file allows for outdoor advertising signs. And it's rather intense. It's not something you can do in a couple seconds. It's a lot of research involved. Sometimes the zoning files are really thick, and you 15 Whole - 5/25/05 have to keep on going through everything until you find the necessary paperwork is present to make it a legal sign. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So if there's no file, then the assumption is that everything -- anything without a file is illegal. I mean, that seems to be logical.
Or we have the wrong address, yes. Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Or no address.
It's either the wrong address which is possible or the sign is not legal because there is no zoning file. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, councilman DiCicco. So, if there's no file, it's automatically presumed that the sign is illegal, regardless of what its actual status may be.
Is it at all 16 Whole - 5/25/05 possible that we just -- the government just might not have a file?
It's possible that the file was misplaced -- and it's a huge file room -- that the file was just misplaced. If the owner comes forward with their permit that the sign was legal, we would accept that also.
Okay. Now, how many signs are there in the City -- sign faces are there in the City?
I'm not at all sure how many. I know how many are legal. I think about 5,000. I'll give an estimate of 5,000 signs. And 2800 of them we know to be legal.
So it's possible there are 2200 illegal signs out there?
Could you forward to the Chair a list of what the department believes to be the legal signs, 17 Whole - 5/25/05 the addresses of those signs, and what the file indicates as to the owner of that particular sign.
Yes. We will get you that information. Councilman, I was just handed this. We believe there's 4,411 sign faces in the City. Of that total, we estimate that 2,762 are legal. And 37 percent or 1,649 are not legal. And that's not necessarily 4,000 locations but 4,411 sign faces in the City.
This bill... Well, we're creating a sign unit which will... First of all, we're working with PennDOT. PennDOT's doing a study, using modern technology to determine the location of signs along the state highways in the City. And at that point we then on three Saturdays about a month ago in a row had... Our zoning people, working with PennDOT 18 Whole - 5/25/05 people, with the locations to find the zoning files, to determine the signs that were there, if they were legal, and if also the size of the sign was what was approved by the zoning code. Once that study is over with, we are in the process of creating a sign unit in the department which will be manned by at least four to five people which will determine -- to go out and make inspections and come back and research the zoning file, to determine what is legal and what is not legal. It's a very intense process...
Gotcha. Now, is the sign unit only going to deal with billboards or are they going to deal with the other eight million signs that are around the City that I'm sure are also illegal, on every telephone pole?
Well, billboards mainly. But if you're talking about, like the political type signs or...
Excuse me. That will also be dealt with by our business compliance unit. They'll deal with that type of sign. The sign unit will be dealing with signs that it's impossible to legalize one of them signs. You cannot attach anything the way... a pole that's electrified. So, them signs are just totally illegal, and you just remove them. There's no approval for them to be allowed in the City.
No; I understand. I'm not looking to legalize them. I'm asking you what are we going to do about them, and what do we do with the people 20 Whole - 5/25/05 who invariably advertise on them and there's a phone number? Are we going after them for illegally putting up signs or are we just going to spend all our time taking their signs down?
What we do now is, we take their signs down, and we write a code -- CVN, code violation notice, which is $75, to the people that have the signs.
Say we find ten signs. We send ten violations of $75 each to the company. And our people under prior Managing Director Gold -- Phil Goldsmith. I know I got his name wrong. I always do that. Phil Goldsmith. We were very pro-active. And we continue to be pro-active. If our people see the signs, they take them down.
Okay. Great. Let me have the Revenue Commissioner back, please.
Madam President, 21 Whole - 5/25/05 could I just have a point of information.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a point of information.
Going back to the billboards, Commissioner, we require a newsstand to go through a process to get electrification. Do we require and don't our records reveal the number of legal billboards by -- Didn't we require ordinances to electrify and light billboards?
No. That -- That would have been in the normal process when you construct a building, you know, you applied for the permits.
Well, it's a structure. It is a structure, in the sense you need a building permit to erect that; whereas, with a corner newsstands, you don't need a permit, a construction permit.
Yeah, it's a structure, but not one -- It comes prefab and it's put there; whereas, a building or a billboard's built on the site.
So there's no 8 other -- There's no other records available to really -- I mean, got a pretty good -- You got a number here about how many illegal billboards that we have. You're fairly confident that that's a good number? I mean, how did you -- You said the study hasn't been done yet. How do you know that that's a good, quality number?
We have a gentleman that has been working on signs for us for the last few years creating a database. And he's a code administrative three. Reports directly to Dave Perry, who's the chief code official, Joseph D'Orio. And he has over the last several years been going, looking at locations and trying to do research and creating a database because our first concern was to get our hand 23 Whole - 5/25/05 around where they were and then go through a process of enforcement.
So this has just been a kind of go out into the community and count 'em.
And Councilman, not just count them, but also research if they're legal or not because that's how we came up with the estimate on legal and non-legal signs.
Okay. So at this point this is kind of like, I'd say, a rough study?
It's a rough study that will... After -- We're looking forward to the PennDOT study to be completed because that will really be a big help to us. I know they haven't been there for about two weeks. They finished up the Saturday studying to see what was legal and not legal. So we're just really awaiting that 24 Whole - 5/25/05 study as the foundation of what will go from there because that will take care of all the interstate highways in the City. And then we can go forward to the other areas.
Commissioner, let me ask about these three bills. These are... Two bills are related to billboards and one to valet parking; is that right?
I will skip to the second one first. 25 Whole - 5/25/05 The valet parking bill is one that revenue has been interested in for some time, ever since the Supreme -- or excuse me -- Commonwealth Court Case that indicated that valet parking was not included under the parking tax. And we've been talking with the Law Department and others to --
-- see the best way of including valet parking under the parking tax.
Well, I have not yet presented the testimony on Bill 452 --
And I know you referenced a court case. I'm looking at the testimony. What I asked is, when was it?
Oh. When was it? I'm sorry. It was... I believe the final Whole - 5/25/05 determination on that was in 2001 or 2002.
We had actually proposed it some time ago, but I don't believe it was ever introduced in Council. And this time, because of further discussion about alternative revenue measures --
In the last two years we have talked informally with the Law Department about it, but it never made its way here.
Within the last month. It was updated from what we had before the Law Department took an earlier proposed version and updated it. And it was 27 Whole - 5/25/05 presented here, I believe, two weeks ago, to be introduced, and was actually introduced last week.
Right. So you've been talking about it for a few years. You think the bill was drafted within the past month. Has it ever been discussed in prior public hearings?
Other than a question that came up about it last week, I believe it was, in another hearing setting on the parking tax, the two percent parking tax increase bill, I don't recall any other time, at least not when I was present, that it was discussed here.
Okay. So, to your knowledge, this idea has never been presented by the administration until last week.
Two weeks ago, when the message was transmitted to Council.
Right. Well, it came up late. That's why apparently it 28 Whole - 5/25/05 didn't get introduced. But two weeks ago. Until two weeks ago this had not been discussed by the administration.
In Council. I don't know whether there were any informal discussions.
Okay. What about the billboard issues? When were those bills drafted?
In our testimony, Councilman, for our budget, Council President Verna and several members of Council asked about the... an ordinance that we had had given to the administration that we had put together last January -- this January. And you asked for it. And we delivered copies of that to Council President and members of Council, our draft of an ordinance to the administration. And the administration and some Council people have been working on an ordinance since then.
Have been working together, to my knowledge, on an ordinance 4 since then.
Since our testimony in budget. Our budget testimony. It was a question was asked -- I'm sorry?
Okay. Do you have any idea why the bills weren't presented as a part of the operating budget?
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman 30 Whole - 5/25/05 O'Neill.
Yes. Commissioner, on the list of legal billboards, could you... I know there was a request to send the names of the owners and all that to the Council President. But could you break it down by district? I'm not as interested in the names of the owners as the locations. We get awful lot of inquiries from people about billboards: Are they legal? And the quickest thing I can find out, if they're legal. And then the assumption that they're not if -- It would really help because there is a ton of research involved in this.
But if you already have the database from my district, I'd appreciate it.
We will break it down. And also, we promised, I believe -- Council President Verna asked for it at our 31 Whole - 5/25/05 budget testimony -- that we will -- when the PennDOT study is completed, we will also deliver that to Council, too. It's been asked, and we had agreed to do that as soon as it starts.
They were last in our shop on a Saturday -- about two Saturdays ago, Council President, and they have not given us a time line. They're still working on it. And they promised us that they would deliver us the documentation. We will check and get back to you and give you a time line as best they can give us.
Commissioner, for clarity, the permanent structure being the frame and the body of the billboard, not the sheet that's actually put on it; that needs a building permit. Is it that structure absent any real billboards being on it that is the permit that's lacking, when you can't find anything 32 Whole - 5/25/05 and are assuming it's illegal or is it a case where you know there's a structure but there's never been any permits taken out for the billboards that are on there? Can you just explain that a little.
Basically, it -- it -- it -- it -- Let's say it was built 9 years ago. It -- It -- We wouldn't be able 10 necessarily to find the permit, but the 11 zoning file would still exist. 12 And the date of approval would be in 13 the zoning file. So, we always go to the 14 zoning file. So, the tricky part with 15 outdoor advertising is, number one, the 16 address which, as you know, our zoning file 17 is address based. 18 And then from that we go to the 19 file, and then to research the file. 20
That's basically -- It's the zoning file is the controlling factor here.
And excuse me. I'm 33 Whole - 5/25/05 sorry. And it's assumed that there is a legally zoned -- There was a building permit that was delivered after that. But that at the time was not a permanent file that we would keep.
The sign unit you mentioned with five people in it --
Dave Perry and I thought that it was -- it would be sufficient. We are going to put a building inspector. We are going to put a business compliance inspector, an administrator and clerical, and then a field administrator or a supervisor. And we also wanted to... We're 34 Whole - 5/25/05 breaking up in two ways. Also, someone coming into the concourse or in for a new building or signs now, would deal through that unit, instead of being put in with all the other examiners and with all the other buildings. We felt it would be more efficient to have one group controlling everything. And if it isn't -- We feel it's enough to keep up with it because one inspector, you can do 10, 12 billboards a day. And there's 5,000. So it's not an overwhelming --
Anyway, keep in touch with us on that, the workload. Thank you. 35 Whole - 5/25/05
Your light was on. Commissioner, you are requesting to increase the annual license fee for non-accessory outdoor signs, from $175 per sign structure to $650 per sign face. For the record, would you please explain what the difference is between the structure and the sign face. I think that Councilman O'Neill was just asking, but I don't think that that was made clear.
They're -- They're... the pole and the -- and the supporting --
-- part for the frame. The frame is what I would consider the structure, and the actual advertisement is the face. 36 Whole - 5/25/05 Some poles will have two faces on them, you know, like on an angle or side by side going in two different directions. That is the sign face. And the structure would be the steel that holds the sign up.
What is the justification for the change from per structure to per face?
We're -- We're... Several factors went into our looking at what it would cost us to enforce with the sign unit: The cost for the employees, the equipment they would need, the transportation. Also built into this is a -- is a fund for signs that were -- they were determined illegally, they would be removed by -- If the owner of the sign does not remove them, we will remove them. So, it's just that -- what it would cost the department the expense to enforce the signs in the City of Philadelphia.
Can you tell us how you arrived at the proposed fee 37 Whole - 5/25/05 amount of $650 per face?
I'm going to ask Dave Perry to come up because he was very... He worked on that long hours...
...coming up with a price. And basically it's the amount of employees and the cost and the benefits for the employees, and everything involved with the space they would use and the transportation. And that's how we came up with that, but Dave would have a more exact answer for that.
Good morning, Madam President and members of Council. To determine the cost for the sign unit, we included salary, fringes. We also included a demolition contract, engineering consulting services. We believe a lot of our data 38 Whole - 5/25/05 collection will be done by hiring an engineering firm that can send equipment out into the field, measure the size of the signs, and using GPS software, pinpoint the location. We also included telephone expenses. We included a large budget in the Law Department to represent the City, in the event that there are illegal signs that need to be removed and we have to go to court to ask for an order to take down the signs. e So, we -- we -- included an array of costs, both direct costs in terms of personnel, plus contracts for demolition and engineering services.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. Good morning to the panel. Of the 16 or 1700 illegal signs, what portion or is there any portion of that number that 39 Whole - 5/25/05 represents the eight sheets?
Dave, they're just billboards, right? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Or is that a separate number that would be added on to the or 1700? 8
I can say the eight 9 sheets are 900 approximately. 10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But does that 11 900 -- Maybe for the purpose of everyone here 12 could someone just give a brief description 13 of what eight sheets are so we all know what 14 we're talking about? 15
Eight sheets are -- 16 is my crash course in signs. I never knew anything about signs, except to read them. It takes eight sheets to create these signs. They're more like a picture on a wall. It's attached to the side of buildings, that we see throughout the neighborhoods. They're affixed to the building. And they're usually, you know, on -- They're not on a separate structure on its own. 40 Whole - 5/25/05 They're supported by a building. And they're... It takes eight sheets of paper to create them. That's why they're called eight sheets. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: To create the entire advertisement.
Right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And sometimes they're framed out.
Yes. They're framed out. It's like a picture mounted on a wall is the way I think that best describes what an eight sheet is. And I... I know there's 900 of them. Now, Dave will give us -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, that's my question. Is the 900 added on to the 1700 illegal or is that part of the 1700?
Councilman, Dave Perry, chief code official. The number of eight sheets is part of the number that we gave you, in terms of the total number of illegal sign faces. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. So 41 Whole - 5/25/05 approximately seven... a thousand or so, depending on the numbers, 800 to a thousand of the typical structure, outdoor advertisements that are illegal.
Well, typically, 900 from is... 8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 700, but -- 9
Roughly 700 10 billboards. 11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I used 16. 12
Yes. 13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Your number 14 could be 17. 15
Yes. 16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Somewhere in that general vicinity.
It's our number. We're not suggesting at this point that it's an exact number. It's a best estimate. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. It's the best estimate you can get. Okay. A month or so ago, Commissioner Solvibile, you testified to the number of companies or billboards that were paying the 42 Whole - 5/25/05 licensing fee. And I think you said the City was collecting somewhere around $86,000 annually.
Correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Of the 28 -- Of the 2800 legal signs, does that $86,000 represent the 2800 legal signs that are being paid for or is there a portion of those legal signs that are not paying any licensing fees as well?
Back in the... When Bennett Levin was Commissioner, there was a lawsuit protesting the difference in one sign being a hundred and I believe our sign being $150. And the Bennett Levin's, I guess, policy was overturned. And it was ruled -- The courts ruled basically that the sign companies didn't have to pay anything. And some of them are now voluntarily paying a hundred dollars. So, it represents not... All the legal ones, I believe, are not paying the hundred dollars. It's voluntarily who's paying. And I think the 43 Whole - 5/25/05 number... Dave, do we have that number? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I mean, based on your numbers at a hundred dollars times 2800 --
I'm sorry. The number of sign companies actually paying the license. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Sign companies.
Sign companies. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So a hundred sign companies --
No, no, no. I'm sorry. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 86 sign companies would be paying $100.
There's 9 -- There's 80 -- There's "X" amount of legal billboards owned by about ten companies, I think. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And they're voluntarily paying.
Some are voluntarily paying the hundred dollars. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Not per sign.
Some are not. 44 Whole - 5/25/05 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But not on a per sign basis.
I... No. There's some that -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If you were paying on a per sign basis, and you testified there's 2800 hundred times a hundred, would be $280,000?
Right. Not everybody's paying. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Am I correct? Mr. Perry wants to jump right in. I can --
Dave Perry. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Turn the mike down a little bit. I can hear you better.
The reason why there's a discrepancy is that under the current licensing arrangement, the sign companies are supposed to pay by sign structure. And as we mentioned earlier, certain sign structures have multiple faces. So, 45 Whole - 5/25/05 don't get confused between numbers of faces we give you and number of sign structures. So, a portion of 855 sign structures, a portion of those... The companies that own those structures are paying a voluntary fee. Some of the sign companies are not paying that fee. But they're basing it on structure, not on sign facing. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And in your current proposal to charge $650...
Per sign face. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Per sign face. So, if it's two it will be $1300 for that one structure; is that correct?
Correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I wanted to make that clear as well. All right. And I publicly want to say thank you. I mean, you and I have been working along with the Council President's 46 Whole - 5/25/05 Office for about a year now, my legislative assistant reminded me, along with Deputy Commissioner Perry, on doing some legislation. Unfortunately, we never got introduced because the administration had its own bills that they were looking into. We're going to work over the summer to see if we can come up with something more uniform. But I wanted to publicly thank L & I for... and Revenue and Finance Department for --
Actually, I'll give all the credit to Mr. Perry. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, you're his boss. So, if you want to give him all the credit, I'm sure he'll take it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam 47 Whole - 5/25/05 President. Do we know how much money in taxes the sign companies pay on a yearly basis, say over the last three or four years?
I would have to check. I don't have that information here with me.
I don't believe it is a large number, but... because there are just a small number of firms here in this -- in this industry. But I will have to check and get something for Council on that. I don't know what that number would look like.
Isn't it common knowledge that these companies are known as being parasites and paying as little in the way of taxes as possible? Parasites in a sense of using other people's property. The investment is relatively little. It's an investment in the sign structure, but they don't own the real estate on which the sign 48 Whole - 5/25/05 structure exists. Isn't that true?
I -- I really don't know. I don't know if L & I can comment on that, but I -- I don't know whether they own or if they lease space.
-- to the panel, not necessarily you, Miss Kammerdeiner, except where Revenue is involved.
We -- We -- We -- We... I would not... I -- I do not believe we would have information if they own the location or they're renting. We -- We do not have that information.
Well, isn't it a fact that this subject has been discussed for at least 20 years? That this is not something that we just thought of last month or last year or even the last few years. Hasn't it always been a fact that these billboard companies are irresponsible? 49 Whole - 5/25/05 Isn't it a fact, for example, that for many years they were not permitted to become members of the Chamber of Commerce because it was thought they were not reputable businessmen? Isn't it true that they employ -- they pay taxes very, very little. They ignore us. They post illegal signs. But when it comes to Council, they often employ the most expensive, including counsel, that's known as the Mayor's counsel, as well as major law firms in the City?
I -- I -- I -- I -- I do not know the answer to any of them questions, Councilman.
I -- I -- I -- I -- I -- I can not answer your question -- Your statements are statements I honestly do not know if they could belong to the Chamber of Commerce or not. I have no knowledge of that.
How about their non-payment of taxes? 50 Whole - 5/25/05
I -- I have no only knowledge of that myself but Commissioner Kammerdeiner might.
Miss Kammerdeiner, how soon could you get that information for us as to how much is being paid in taxes? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of information.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a point of information.
Councilman Cohen. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is your question, Councilman Cohen, taxes on the structure of the advertising or taxes in general? Because some of these companies employ people in the City of Philadelphia as well. They have their companies set up here. So, I'm not sure if your question 51 Whole - 5/25/05 goes to... When you say these advertising companies, is it the company or is it --
For the billboards. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- or is it for the billboards?
For the billboards. That's the only thing... COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Because the billboard industry is an industry that's bad environmentally and bad financially. It's bad from every point of view, and we ought to be working to eliminate it.
In order to do a tax check, I would need to know the names of the firms. I -- I have some names, but I don't know if I have an exhaustive list. I will check with L & I to verify that we are looking at or looking for all of them, and 52 Whole - 5/25/05 give you a report, in terms of their general tax status. Depending upon how many of them there are, it may take a different amount of time. That's why I can't commit to you, but we'll do it as quickly as we can.
Thank you. I know the Commissioner is relatively new in his position. But doesn't L & I maintain lists of these billboard companies?
We have promised -- We have... I commented on that earlier, Councilman. We have a database that we've been creating over the last several years which we are going to share with Council.
But I have trouble talking about the last several years. 53 Whole - 5/25/05 When the original billboard control bill was passed by Council, I believe it was in the early 1980s, over years ago. And 5 we're covering the same subject, that these 6 companies post illegal signs, ignore the law, 7 pay practically nothing, fight everywhere in 8 courts. 9 They even fought in a case where the 10 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that a 11 sign near the Delaware River Bridge was 12 illegal. 13 We still had to go to court to get a 14 special order, asking that the City -- asking 15 for permission to get the City to remove the 16 sign. It wasn't enough to get a Supreme 17 Court decision that the sign was illegal. 18 These firms have plenty of money for 19 legal actions that frustrate the City. 20 They're parasites, and I think they ought to be eliminated. And as long as they're here, they ought to be taxed heavily, and I think the tax ought to be increased wherever there's an illegal sign posted. 54 Whole - 5/25/05 They know they've got -- My guess is that your figures are still very friendly to them when you say there's 1700 illegal signs compared to 2000 legal ones. I would gather that... I would think that the number of illegal signs vastly outweigh the number of legal signs, if you require to be legal, that they meet all the specifications, including the fees.
Well, as I said, Councilman -- explained earlier, we have done research for the last several years, and working with various agencies, SCRUB, and also Managing Director's Office. And we have determined that there is, in fact, roughly the numbers we've given out, 1700 signs that are illegal and... Roughly 2800 that are legally zoned in the City of Philadelphia. And that counts also, Councilman, the eight sheets that are in the communities.
And are taxes being paid on the legal signs? Do all legal signs -- Does legality include the payment of 55 Whole - 5/25/05 taxes or is that merely with respect to where the signs exist? Have they been granted legal permits?
But it has nothing to do with whether the taxes are paid.
We -- We -- We do not check if taxes are being paid, you know. We -- We -- We -- We -- We check if the license is paid but not the taxes on the... That would go to Revenue.
Well, Miss Kammerdeiner, do you check -- Could you tell us how many of the billboard signs are being paid for appropriately by taxes?
I would need to have from L & I the list of billboard companies so that we could check their tax status. And we'll do that after this session. We need to get that information from L & I, so that I can have someone check 56 Whole - 5/25/05 the tax status of the companies that operate or own the billboards.
Councilman, Dave Perry again. This new ordinance in front of you also requires that before we can renew a license for an individual sign, that there will be a check to see that all taxes are current for the company that's putting up that sign.
Permit the sign to exist for 20 more years without a payment?
What we would do then, Councilman, is have our -- have a case prepared and send it to the Law Department, and have them represent us in an equity action against the sign company. 57 Whole - 5/25/05
Has the City Solicitor's department been brought into this study as of now?
Yes, we've been working closely with them for the last several months.
The ordinance 9 specifically requires if you do not pay your license fee, as opposed to not having a zoning permit... If you do not pay your license fee, you're required to white out the sign face and not derive income from that sign. And if the sign company doesn't do it, the ordinance empowers L & I to either do it themselves or have -- hire out a contractor to basically remove the sign face.
But what has the City done before, in the face of the defiance by these sign companies?
When Commissioner Solvibile became Commissioner last year, he 58 Whole - 5/25/05 asked for a study on signs. And one of the things that we found was that the enforcement efforts have been increasing over the past several years. And when Commissioner Solvibile took office, there were 38 cases in court involving illegal signs. were in Common 9 Pleas Court, and the other 17 were in 10 Municipal Court. So, we have been upping our 11 enforcement efforts. 12 We had several major signs recently 13 removed, one that Commissioner was personally 14 responsible for having removed. There was 15 one of the largest wall wrap signs in the 16 City. It was off of Vine Street. And we 17 hired a contractor to remove the sign on our 18 behalf. 19
Well, I think 20 there's been a noticeable change in 21 enforcement since Commissioner Solvibile took office, and for the good as, well as you have a Deputy Commissioner, I believe, by the name of D'Orio.
Mr. D'Orio works for Dave Perry, and he reports to David. And he is going to lead up our sign unit. He's very, very active in signs. He's the person who we use to create the database. I also might add that we're pro-active to the point where at the Convention Center, we saw two wall wraps last week. We wrote a violation. The wall wraps were removed as of, I believe, yesterday. So, we're pro-active on these that... You know, a sign is a sign. And we're going to do what we need to do to have people have legal signs.
Well, we congratulate you in turning a department that seems to have been cooperating with the lawlessness displayed by billboard operators, into an agency that's begun to enforce the law. 60 Whole - 5/25/05 But, God, it's been years. And I guess we have to be thankful that finally there's a turnaround. Thank you, Madam President.
Incidentally, may 9 I ask you this question: You mentioned in 10 talking about working with organizations in 11 the community. Can you tell us something 12 about the groups that work in the community. 13 How do they cooperate with you? 14
I know Joe D'Orio, 15 works really closely with SCRUB. I know that 16 for a fact. And I've met Mary Tracy a few 17 times, and we've had conversations. 18 What I did was, we -- I have a staff 19 meeting every other week with my senior 20 staff. And we invited SCRUB to come and give us a presentation on -- on their feelings. So, we -- I've -- We try to outreach to both sides to determine what the problem is and enforce. You know, our -- our -- our job is 61 Whole - 5/25/05 to make sure it's legal. And if a sign is licensed, legal and zoned, then, you know, fine. We're -- We're -- We're -- We're not going to bother with that. We're -- We're really looking for the ones that are not legal to do the enforcement on.
How do you find cooperation from the community generally?
Excellent. We -- We -- We -- We very -- As you know, Councilman, Licenses and Inspections sort of intertwines with the community on a daily basis. Everything we do affects them. And we have, with all different various kinds of community groups, a great relationship.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a point of information.
Commissioner... Could I have a microphone, please? Now we're 62 Whole - 5/25/05 on. Commissioner, you just mentioned about two wall wraps. And I know you can't -- Well, maybe you can. Could you comment on the companies that installed these? Do you think they did the installations of the wall wraps in ignorance or do you think they knowingly violated the law?
I -- I honestly can not -- I -- I -- I -- I believe the Convention Center was not realizing what the law was, the last two that were removed. I really -- Once we told them that they -- they were not allowed, they complied almost instantly.
But I'm talking about the installer of the wrap. My point being is, I think you need to communicate with these various sign companies, because I imagine that was a significant investment that the Convention Center made to install. Well wraps aren't cheap. And I 63 Whole - 5/25/05 can't imagine them spending that money knowing that the signage was in jeopardy. Do the vendors -- the various contractors that do this work know that in our City that this work is illegal?
They -- They -- They -- They know they need to have a license and a permit to do what they're doing, yes. It's like any builder in the City of Philadelphia. They know they need a permit to put a building there.
So do you know the company that installed the wrap at the Convention Center? I would hope.
No, I don't. I honestly do not know the company that did it. But the Convention Center will, in fact, deal with that, and did deal with that rather effectively.
But my point being is, it seems to me that it doesn't create a lot of good will that a company would not know that wall wraps, or whatever you call them, aren't appropriate. 64 Whole - 5/25/05 They spend $10,000 to install one; then a week later have to rip it down, my point being is: Could we just -- Could we communicate with the various people that do this work via letter, your signature, and let them know that it's not appropriate to do this work in the City. And it's for their information. Because I can't imagine a legitimate contractor, especially working for the Convention Center, not saying to the people at the Convention Center, are you guys aware that this isn't legal?
I -- We -- We will -- If we have not done it in the past, we will do it, Councilman.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. 65 Whole - 5/25/05 Just one last thing on the wall wrap. What was it advertising?
Big bottle of Makers Bourbon, I believe. It's actually the first time I ever heard of the product.
Was it related at all to anything that was going on at the Center?
Oh. I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. There was several that we've taken off. At the Center it was advertising the show that was there.
So the computer people probably bought the sign and had it installed?
It's the same sign that goes up every year, yes. That's what I was told after we got involved with it, yes.
And what effect 66 Whole - 5/25/05 do you think that might force, the removal of that sign for that computer show, might have on their decision whether or not they want to come back here any more?
But don't you think in some circumstances, where it relates to people who are coming to the City to do business in our Convention Center, that we give a little leeway, especially if it's going to be up there on a temporary basis?
Well, what -- what I did was, working -- I -- I believe the gentleman's name... Tom Muldoon at the Convention Center. Him and I had a conversation. And what we're going to do is, he's going to work on having -- applying for a permit so once or twice a year that would be allowed. And that's the way to do it, to work with them so that --
How long is the sign scheduled to be up? 67 Whole - 5/25/05
And the show's like -- lasts what; ten days, two weeks?
So we're using our personnel to violate -- to cite the state owned Convention Center Authority that's allowing one of our customers to advertise for a short period of time. That's something that we should be expending our resources on?
Well, I -- it's -- it's -- it's there. And if you're enforcing signs; and, you know, if we're -- if we're an enforcement agency and we see a violation, you -- you -- you have to note the violation, no matter who or why it owns it; I mean, what entity.
Obviously, if there's 1400, 1700 illegal signs in the City, 68 Whole - 5/25/05 there's other work to do besides the Convention Center.
It's not that we were picking on them. It's just that it was there, and we saw it, and we made note, and we worked with the Convention Center manager to ensure that -- you know, that they -- that they legalize what they wanted. They only do it once a year. And I agree with you. And it's --
So why go through the whole -- why go through the whole process of having to force the sign down, especially if the time was going to run out? It wasn't up there 12 months a year. It was going to be up until the show was over.
Something that is not... You know, we can't allow it to be there for a day or a week, if it's not legal.
I can give you a 69 Whole - 5/25/05 list of things that have been allowed to exist for more than a day or week; years. All I'm saying is that I understand the vigilance of wanting to take care of illegal signs. But when it comes to our customer base at our Convention Center, our hotels and our tourism, I think we maybe ought to give them a little leeway because it's not advertising, you know, cigarettes or whiskey or whatever else is normally advertised. This is advertising a customer of ours who would bring people into Philadelphia, staying in hotels and spending money, and where our enforcement people are, you know, taking care of them first.
I agree, Councilman. That's why that Tom Muldoon -- We talked. And he will not have this problem again because it's going to go through the process of making it legal.
Well, let me just go in another direction for a second. When was the sign unit thought up, the five 70 Whole - 5/25/05 person sign unit?
When I became acting Commissioner, I talked -- met with Mr. Perry. And I came up with the idea that we should have a unit dedicated to that because it just seemed like the right thing to do. We've been working on it since it developed.
Was that encompassed in the current budget that we're deciding on now? Was that submitted? Was that part of the budget that we're considering now?
No. We were going to tie it to the ordinance. When we finally decided we were going to go forward with it between the department and the Managing Director's Office --
So there was not part of L & I's budget complement or employee 71 Whole - 5/25/05 complement as a part of the 2006 budget we're now considering?
Are these existing people or are they going to be new people?
Well, Joe D'Orio has been working on -- on -- on -- on the issue. And there's personnel from a building inspector. As you know, our building inspectors now have to be certified by state standards. And some of our employees are having a hard time passing the test. So, we're going to put one of our building -- competent, capable building inspector assigned to it, a business compliance inspector which will come from the -- Dom McVerdie's area at 990, and a supervisor over them, too, a field 72 Whole - 5/25/05 supervisor, who will actually be in the field working with Mr. D'Orio in clerical support.
So whatever they were doing before, they're not going to be doing, other than just signs.
Well, Joe D'Orio, the building inspector... Just that the building inspectors that are left will take over that building inspector's responsibility and have more work to do.
So we're moving people from areas that are investigating dangerous buildings, illegal businesses, other types of nuisance problems in the 73 Whole - 5/25/05 community, and dedicating them to nothing but billboards.
-- allotment of people, considering the burden that this department has in enforcing the current laws that we give you, that you have the ability to have less people doing the other stuff?
I think in the long run it will save us time. That's why I wanted to create it, because we still have to deal with the complaints of billboards and signs. And now, so instead of having various people, various units having to do it, it will be housed in one place, which will save the unit -- it will save business compliance that much... It will save the work that the inspector from business compliance was doing will still be done 74 Whole - 5/25/05 except it will be done in that unit.
Councilman, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I just wanted the record to be clarified. I understood you to say that L & I would not be hiring new employees?
We would not be hiring new employees. We will be taking on employees that exist.
Well, can you explain to me why, in the budget that we're presently considering, we have billboard enforcement $842,000? What is that for?
That -- That -- That will be the cost of the employees that will work for us doing billboard --
Yeah. Well, the 75 Whole - 5/25/05 cost that they were... In another area it will be -- it will be put to there. That's the -- standardly the way we've always created that in the past.
They're already on the payroll, aren't they? Well, I want to get back to the issue of complaints. Do we get more complaints about billboards than we do about crack houses or more complaints about billboards than we have about nuisance bars and businesses? Or any... I mean, billboards are our biggest complaint that we get in L & I?
No. I -- I -- I -- I -- For crack houses and -- and -- and -- and that type of... We have over -- We have roughly 50 inspectors that can handle --
I understand that, but do we get more complaints about billboards than we get about the other quality of life stuff?
Well, why are we 76 Whole - 5/25/05 setting up a separate unit?
Because it's -- it's such a difficult -- It's such a difficult product to get your hands around. And to do the research, if they're legal or not legal, it -- it -- it -- it -- And -- And -- And -- And -- And it's just a necessary thing. I think it's necessary for us to try to enforce all the codes that we have --
I don't disagree with that. And you can hate billboards, not care about billboards, or like billboards. The billboard itself, even though it may esthetically offend you, is not creating a danger to life, health and safety of the citizens of the City. You may hate them. You may think they're the worst things you've ever seen. But it's not rising to a level of a dangerous house that's next door to somebody that might fall down or that has drug addicts in it using it or they're selling drugs from there. I mean, I can't believe that we have 77 Whole - 5/25/05 that much emphasis on billboard enforcement, that we have to take people from other units that are doing critical work in the community, to deal with the billboards? I mean, certainly at some point we could come to the decision to take the illegal ones down, to have the court enforce, whatever. But I mean, the billboard standing there is not a threat to my life. It may be a threat to my esthetic sensibilities. That's fine. We can disagree. But to take people from units that are dealing with critical on the ground stuff that affects neighbors every day, and to put them in the special unit just to do this, I don't understand the whole rationale.
There's enough work and enough complaints to keep the four people busy. They're -- They're -- And it takes away from -- Councilman --
But Bob, isn't there enough work and enough complaints to keep them busy doing other stuff? I mean, we 78 Whole - 5/25/05 have everything else tied up?
Before we go on with this, if you don't mind, if someone is here from Finance, I would like them to approach the witness table so that we can clarify this issue once and for all. Are we using employees that are presently with L & I? Who's here from... Miss Reed, are you coming up? Who's coming up?
Do you mind approaching the witness stable? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: While she's coming to the witness table, I have a point of information, if I can. Issue with the wall wrap at the Convention Center. Was that complaint driven or was that something that your inspectors --
It was the administrator, Joe D'Orio, going to lunch at the... and saw it. It wasn't complaint driven. It was he went to lunch and saw it. 79 Whole - 5/25/05 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I needed to know that. I was just curious if it was complaint driven.
I'm not -- Before -- I want to stay in line here. I don't want to get out of line because I have --
Once you get out of line in here, it's tough to get back in.
I know. I know. Miss Reed, do you mind approaching the witness table, please? Miss Reed, I am sure you heard the testimony regarding who would be actually enforcing this. And it was stated we would not be having new employees. Is that true or false? 80 Whole - 5/25/05
As I understand it, a new unit is being created, but the employees are being transferred from other units.
Well, why has the Department of L & I increased their budget? And it does indicate it's for the billboards.
Maybe if you see it, you would understand what we're talking about.
It states that they were increasing the appropriations in L & I by this amount.
For the billboard enforcement, expenditures to be 81 Whole - 5/25/05 completely offset by revenue generating.
Exactly. I think the record has to be clear. Councilman Kenney.
Miss Reed, I think Mr. McPherson just took up the amendments that were introduced by the administration.
Yes. Mr. McPherson is giving me the transmittal or the letter from the Mayor of May 24th.
So we will, in fact, be hiring new employees to deal with this one issue; would we not?
We are showing in the amendments to the operating budget ordinance...
567 in personal services, 250,000 for an engineering contracting Class 200 and 25,000 for materials, supplies and equipment for the enforcement function. 82 Whole - 5/25/05
Well, these are employees who are being transferred into Class 100. I actually do not know where they are coming from. I'm not part of that discussion.
I mean, maybe the Commissioner knows whether they're hiring people or not.
Commissioner, are you able to answer this 83 Whole - 5/25/05 question?
I -- I -- The last question I did not hear, Councilwoman. We -- We -- When we planned this unit, we're talking existing people. We -- I -- We -- We -- We never gave a thought that we would hire new people to fill this function for us.
So are you suggesting, then, that we decrease L & I's budget that's being proposed to us, since you're not going to be hiring new people?
Not at all, but we -- we -- we -- That would be the cost --
That -- That -- That would be the cost for us to place them people in that unit to fulfill that function. That's...
They're already on your payroll. 84 Whole - 5/25/05
I -- I never gave that a conscious thought, that we would be hiring four additional people.
We asked for the increase based upon what it would cost us to bring them four people into that department, what it would cost us to enforce that part of the code. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Getting a step...
Are they being elevated to another position? Therefore, they're being given more compensation?
They're -- They'll -- They'll -- They'll come in at the same level of pay they're at now.
And -- And -- And Dave is just telling me, and -- and -- and a lot of that -- A good portion of that extra money would be for the demolition if we -- if we need to demolish the building to hire the engineering service. What was that, Dave, 500?
No. We're talking about personal services, Class 100.
Council president, we are in fact hiring new employees to backfill the employees who will be in the new enforcement unit.
The 86 Whole - 5/25/05 question has now been answered. Thank you.
Can I proceed with a couple, just a couple other items, relative to...
It's my understanding that law requires that any fees that the City imposes need to match the cost of the carrying out of what the fee is paying for. So that fees, for example, unlike taxes, are not instituted to make a profit but to simply cover the cost of what the City needs to spend to do its duty or do its enforcement or do its activity; is that correct?
The license that you charge or the fee you charge for the permit or the license has to cover the cost. You're not to make a profit, that's correct.
What is the cost of enforcing or the enforcement of a legal billboard? What is it that the people in the billboard unit or anywhere else in L & I need to do when a billboard is legal. People... Again, let's go back. I don't want to get into the subjective issue of whether you like them or not, but if they're in legal status, what does anyone in the billboard enforcement unit have to do with that sign that incurs a cost?
You -- You -- You still -- You have to inspect to see that it's still safe.
You have to... You have to get the paperwork and make sure that it's still the correct size, that they haven't changed the sign.
Keep in mind that a zoning permit's approved for a ten by -- I'll keep it simple -- a 10 x 10 sign. And then somebody puts a 10 x 20 sign up. We also 88 Whole - 5/25/05 need to be aware that the only thing approved is the x 10 sign. 4 So, there's still ongoing paperwork, 5 inspections, processing of paperwork dealing 6 with problems the sign company may have. 7 That's ongoing. 8
And that's 9 amounted to an increase from 170 to 650 a 10 sign face?
And you have that you're able to document that and delineate each individual service or activity that's done by employees relating to legal signs?
Dave, do you want to handle that? Yes, but we did... To answer your question, we went through and determined at the bottom line what it would cost us to enforce this ordinance.
Because we've been led to believe that these revenue enhancements are related to other services that would be put back into the budget, not 89 Whole - 5/25/05 necessarily this particular activity of L & I. And if that's the case, then I'd see the justification for the fees, if it's not going towards the L & I activity. If it's going to bring back other services that the Mayor cut out, relative to other departments, I don't see how that the fee would be legal.
Councilman, if I may add on that, the taxes are directed toward providing additional revenue that can be --
I understand that. The fees have to sustain the services that are provided. But when you say additional services that would be put back into the budget, I think that relates to the taxes.
I'm talking about fees. I want to know how the fee that 90 Whole - 5/25/05 would have been recommended to be -- to be raised here relates to... And I like to see it kind of laid out in writing... how it relates to the actual activities of your employees, as it relates to legal signs in the City. And let me say again for the record: You can like signs, you can hate them, you could care nothing about them either way. We're not talking about their appropriateness. We're talking about a legal sign that exists in the City that now L & I is saying to us, we need to raise the fee to this number because this is the services or the activity that we need to engage in in order to keep that sign safe. Do our people climb up the pole, and... What do we do when we inspect a sign?
No, not at all. Not 91 Whole - 5/25/05 at all. They would not be expected to climb up the pole.
Well, I don't expect that they would, but how do they determine that it's safe?
Well, they -- you -- you -- you observe them. Just like a dangerous building. They observe them from the outside. We don't encourage to go inside the building. We -- We -- We -- You observe and you look and see if there's failure in the structure in the steel. You -- You -- You -- You just -- Your observations as an inspector and then also keep in mind that part of this fee is going to go towards the study of the engineering studies that we get from the sign companies for each sign structure. So... But we can give you a breakdown of the costs and how we arrived at it. That's not a problem.
Is any of this money being related to the enforcement of the 92 Whole - 5/25/05 illegal signs?
And is that fair to the legal sign owner? If I have a legal sign --
It's the same companies, usually, that have legal and illegal signs, as a whole. It's... say... I don't want to say a name but whatever -- If it's company wide, they might have a hundred signs, and some are legal and some are illegal. And I think that's universal throughout.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
I have a lot of questions here because I'm just not -- I'm really confused about what we're doing here. You talked about a court case, and we lost a court case when Bennett Levin was here. Could you go over that with me again? 93 Whole - 5/25/05
Dave Perry, chief code official. The court case that we were talking about involved in 1992 the fees for all signs were in the ordinance to be $175 per sign face. I mean, for sign structure. I'm sorry. It included both accessory and non-accessory signs. The administration at that time felt that it would be a burden on small businesses, mom and pop type stores, to have them pay the $175. So they arbitrarily, and without benefit of counsel, started charging the mom and pop stores $25 for an accessory sign, but kept the fee at 175 for the billboards which are non-accessory. That two-tiered fee schedule, which did not have benefit of an ordinance, was -- was -- went to court. And it was determined that it was illegal. So, sign --
That's correct. The disparity in the rate was determined to be illegal.
Well, nothing happened for several years. And when we started crafting --
The -- The -- The... A ruling was that the disparity was illegal, not the fact that you could collect the fee.
So, what happened was, we -- we kept billing the accessory sign owners, the mom and pop stores, the $25. And then we asked the billboard installers to voluntarily pay a $100 per sign structure fee. So they began paying it on a voluntary basis, rather than through 95 Whole - 5/25/05 ordinance.
So, you couldn't ask the mom and pops, who are making, like, hand over fast from chewing gum, potato chips, a hundred dollars a year for a sign?
But you couldn't -- you didn't think you could charge them a hundred dollars? They make a hundred dollars in ten minutes.
No. The idea became that if -- if you're a legally opened business, and we had an initiative that's been going on for several years, is try to eliminate certain licenses that we feel are burdensome on -- on -- on -- on businesses. And a typical mom and pop store may have a license for their food license, a scale license. They were in the past 96 Whole - 5/25/05 required to have a license for their parking lot, a license for their sign. So in the course of a year, they're getting multiple bills for multiple things. And the complaints were that they were being over regulated. So...
Now are we talking about billboards on a mom and pop store or a sign?
Is there a difference between a sign and a billboard?
There is a difference between a... The way that the code is written, that the legal definition, there's a difference between an accessory sign and a non-accessory sign. An accessory sign relates to the activities that are occurring within the building. So, for instance, Wawa can put a 97 Whole - 5/25/05 Wawa sign up because it's a Wawa store. If Wawa decided to put up a large sign up at the corner that advertised Makers Mark Bourbon, we'd have a problem with that.
Okay. Now, to me, that's a sign it's not a billboard.
All right. So what are we -- what are we regulating here?
We are regulating non-accessory signs which are commonly known as billboards.
Well, when Wawa applies for a sign to put up on its store to advertise Wawa, is that a billboard or is it a sign?
And with this ordinance, they would no longer have to -- have to maintain a separate sign license and wouldn't have to pay the fee. 98 Whole - 5/25/05
All right. Now, let's go to the -- to the eight sheets. What's happening with them? Tell me what are you going to do about these eight sheets that are basically in neighborhoods and have come under some scrutiny in years past, relative to smoking. That's just how I look at them.
There's 900 of them in the City. We sent the owner -- And the owner's name escapes me right now, of the eight sheets -- a violation notice telling -- telling them to remove the eight sheets. They have since filed an appeal. And I believe it's going to go in front of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. And we've been working closely on this with the Law Department. And I'm not at all sure. We're trying now to decide how we'll go about having a hearing. There's some that want to have a 99 Whole - 5/25/05 series of hearings, 200 a day, 200 different locations; and there's some like myself that want to have one hearing for all the locations.
Have you done anything about removing those signs in the years past?
No. But where we're going now, we are going to... We have ordered them to remove them themself, to make them legal or remove them. They have appealed that. And as soon as we win, which we will, we will -- they'll either remove them or we will charge them for the cost to do it.
Okay. So, if 100 Whole - 5/25/05 you don't win, are they subjected to this cost? Would they be a part of the billboard legislation?
It's a sign. I -- I -- I -- I think that the eight sheets, Councilwoman... I think the eight sheets are very, very improbable that they'll be ever legalized. They would have to go to get a zoning hearing in the community. And I -- I can't fathom any community that would go and support that that sign be there. So, I -- I don't see them ever being able to legalize them, to answer your question. In our -- In our mind they were never going to be legalized because they would never get by the zoning aspects of it.
So they're on the side of a building. They are illegal. 101 Whole - 5/25/05 We haven't done anything in the years to take them down. So, what will you do to enforce their coming down, if they are still on the wall, and you have won your hearing.
If they don't take them down, we will. That's part of what we're doing.
Well, not the unit itself, but we'll go about hiring someone to do it, yes.
What about... I just want to be clear on what we are being asked to charge for. What... If I'm looking at a billboard... Those are billboards up there (Indicating). Am I paying -- Is the charge -- Is the fee on the face of the billboard? What are -- What are we asking the companies to pay for and who will make -- 102 Whole - 5/25/05 who will pay?
-- if you're on a -- along the highway on a pole in the air, and you have two faces --
If there was only one sign where the camera is, it would be 650. So, it's how many faces you have. I -- I -- I -- I -- I've never really remembered seeing a sign with three faces on it, but it's going to be -- Each face will be $650 is what --
I considered the structure the -- the -- the pole, the steel that holds the sign face up in the air. I consider that the structure.
Okay. So, does the person who own the structure is the company.
I... Yeah, they -- 104 Whole - 5/25/05 They own... I'm sure they own it, yes. Either that or the landlord owns it, and they pay rent to put the sign there. I'm not contractually sure how that works.
So when they put a advertisement on that structure, they have to pay the $650 or does the person who is advertising pay the $650?
The -- The -- The -- The company that owns the sign company, let's say it's a, b, c company...
-- sign that's there. They would charge Wawa to advertise Wawa on their -- And that's the way that would work.
Councilwoman, 105 Whole - 5/25/05 under Bill 451, the tax bill, the company that would be placing the ad would be subject to or liable for paying the outdoor advertising tax. So that there are two different bills before you --
Whoever is placing the advertisement there would be responsible for paying the tax. The tax would be collected by the person who owned the billboard or the structure but -- and then remitted to the City, but the payer would be the company that was placing the advertisement.
I think that's what much of the discussion has been about, even though the testimony has not been presented.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, 107 Whole - 5/25/05 Madam President. Good afternoon. I'd like to go back to Councilman Cohen's line of questioning, wherein the question was posed the amount of taxes that are collected. And I believe the response was, we have to wait to see what L & I provides before a judgment can be made on the level or amount of taxes collected. Is that accurate?
Well... Yes. We only know at this point the largest firms. In order to give you a clear picture of what the tax status is of all of those involved, I would like to get from L & I an updated list of the firms involved, so we can do the tax status check, and tell you whether or not the firms as a group, as an industry, are tax compliant or not, and what the total amount of tax paid by that group would be.
What in-house procedures do you have in place that allow the two departments to talk to each other on this issue, I mean from a technological standpoint. 108 Whole - 5/25/05
Well, this is a small number of firms, so we would probably just be getting a list, either an e-mail list or -- or -- or a file from L & I, so that we could then check our records.
How often does communication happen between the two departments on this issue?
Well, we're increasing that communication as L & I installs a new system. We're talking about doing some of these things on an electronic basis instead of manual. In the past it's been largely manual.
My observation is that tightening and fine tuning of the electronic communication would remove us at a different place with regards to the collection of taxes for those who are not paying up.
One of the things that we've been talking about, and I believe Bill 53 -- 453 that's before you, would actually require is that before L & I issues 109 Whole - 5/25/05 a license or a renewal, that they would be verifying the tax status of the company that was seeking that license. That's something that we haven't done on a regular ongoing basis in the past, and we would be establishing an electronic link in order to do that. There have been a couple of efforts at that in the past but nothing on a formal and ongoing basis.
Also, we have in place a business privilege license which part -- to get that license, you need to also go to Revenue to get a tax I.D. number before we'll issue it. So that, we -- You know, we -- You know, to do business you need that license. So, that's a communication we have daily.
And that is actually done -- can be done via the internet now. And both the tax I.D. number and the business privilege license are issued as a result of that one link through the internet.
So am I hearing that given the revelations that the 110 Whole - 5/25/05 Commissioner spoke of during budget hearings that the department has, in moving towards formalizing standard operating procedures around this issue.
Well, it really gives us an opportunity in Revenue to match our files with theirs. When we weren't able to have systems talk to one another, we were relegated to manual operations. As we each advance in our system capabilities, we'll be able to do more and more of these things electronically. But we do have to remember that we'll have to establish the rules --
-- about what it is that we're going to be cross checking --
-- and how that information is going to be used, in part because the revenue data is subject to business confidentiality requirements, and things like that. So, basically, what we'll be doing 111 Whole - 5/25/05 is indicating they are in compliance or, no, they're not in compliance; they need to see us, as opposed to a full detail on what the issues are, in terms of the tax.
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam President, Madam Chair.
Talking about taxes, these owners of the eight sheets, do we collect any tax from them at all?
I don't know who they are. That's one of the things we are going to be doing, in terms of doing a tax status check for you. I -- I -- I don't know.
I -- I -- I -- I would have to do some -- Dave, do you -- you --
The name of the company 112 Whole - 5/25/05 is Chesapeake Outdoor Advertising, is the name of the company.
So... And we've never gone after them for taxes? Do you ever turn the information over to revenue about this --
I can't tell you today, and actually because of confidentiality wouldn't be able to give you explicit information about a specific vendor. But to the extent that our checks will find that they are or are not in compliance, if they're not in compliance, we will pursue them.
Can I ask one more question -- someone else's light's on -- and I'll be finished. How many... How many companies own billboards in the City who have licenses to do billboards?
We have an inventory of nine -- nine companies that are doing business as billboard advertisers.
Okay. And how 113 Whole - 5/25/05 many of these eight sheets do we have? How many of those?
Yes. 900 eight sheets in the City of Philadelphia, and that's give or take one or two. It's not meant to be an exact count. We estimate that to be the number.
So how many -- Out of the nine billboard owners, how many billboards do we have up?
There's roughly... Out of the nine there's roughly, as we testified earlier, roughly 4700 in the City of Philadelphia.
Is that how you calculated the $4 million that's in the revenue estimate?
We -- We calculated based upon the number of legal signs in the City that --
We -- We have a sign face estimate here that we -- we didn't bring a lot of copies of it. It was meant to serve as a cheat sheet for us, which we're willing, if you want to make copies of, we're willing to share with everybody.
You're 115 Whole - 5/25/05 welcome. Councilman Cohen, you're next.
Before, Commissioner, you stated in response to a question that if something's not legal, we tell them to stop doing it or we'll take care of it. They either get rid of it or we do; is that right.
Yes. Well, tell me: Is that the direction you followed with billboard companies? Because there's a Supreme Court decision involving signs near or on Conrail property down in... It's visible from FDR Park in South Philly. It's in South Philly, where the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled two years ago -- maybe a little less or a little more than that -- that the signs were clearly illegal. 116 Whole - 5/25/05 And the City has done nothing about causing the signs to come down, saying you can not do it because the other side has filed a suit in equity, permitting the other side, meaning the billboard companies, to relitigate the whole issue, while the billboard companies are making signs desecrating that whole site.
I -- I -- I would have to defer to the Law Department. I know that --
The enforcement unit of the Law Department has been working on that. What I'm saying -- To answer that question that you quoted me on --
-- was going forward, you know, with this bill, and -- and the revenues generated by it. We will be able to enforce, if the sign companies won't. There's an enforcement piece in there for us to be able to -- 117 Whole - 5/25/05
Right now there's -- there's no revenue that we have that we can remove signs with. And -- and the preferred route, quite frankly, in my case would be to use enforcement powers of the City to have the owners do it themselves.
Well, sure. But if they don't do it, then we have to do it.
And can't we bill 23 them? Can't we hire a company to do it?
Bill them and 118 Whole - 5/25/05 demand that if they don't pay it once, all their signs will be declared illegal?
I don't know. That's a legal question that I can't answer. Well, I don't know.
Well, I think you want to consider it, because I think such a provision, if there's any question as to its legality, such a question -- such a question ought to be considered by the Law Department now and inserted into this bill. Give yourself some power.
Yes. We -- we -- we -- we have worked closely with the Law Department in creating this bill, and -- and we have gone the direction that we -- we -- we -- we -- we've been advised by them and this bill is the best that Mr. Perry, myself, and the Law Department has been able to come up with to put together. And we feel it will be a very effective bill in letting us deal with the enforcement of signs in the City of Philadelphia. 119 Whole - 5/25/05
Would you find out from whoever you speak with in the Law Department what this bill would do for those signs near the Conrail property or on the Conrail property? Because if it doesn't authorize the City immediately to take them down, there's something very much wrong with this bill. Then this bill is a huge coverup, aimed at making it look as if we're doing something as we make it clear that we don't intend to do anything at all. And that's frankly, Commissioner, for years the billboard industry has 16 roamed freely, not paying if it didn't want 17 to pay, confident that nobody would touch it. 18 And nobody has. And if they had a problem, 19 they knew what attorneys to hire. Attorneys 20 with influence, as well as legal skills. So, I urge that you check with the Law Department on that question. Why don't they move immediately against those signs near the Conrail property or on the Conrail property? They're eight faces there, which 120 Whole - 5/25/05 the Supreme Court has said is clearly illegal.
Thank you, Councilman. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. I know there are a number of other witnesses that are here to testify on these bills. I want to go back to Councilman Kenney's question about the wall wrap at the Convention Center. What was the reason it was removed? Why was it removed?
It -- It -- It -- It was -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Technical legal reason for removing it?
It was not legal, period. I mean, that's the bottom line. It wasn't legal. 121 Whole - 5/25/05 What Mr. Muldoon discussed is the process that we'll go through when the show comes back next year, to allow the sign to be legal. And I... And I think that that's the way we should do it, is not -- just because it's there and illegal doesn't mean it can't become illegal. We're not against... I mean, I'm neutral on signs. I mean, I just want them to be legal and properly zoned. And that's really where we're coming from as an enforcement agency. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: As I board member of the Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority, one of the big issues in the short time that I've been there... Well, it's actually a couple years, I guess... is always about our customers who are coming, and let them believe when they leave here that they feel as though they were welcome here. That's a big issue for us. And my concern was that, would not that wall wrap have been considered an accessory sign, since they were advertising 122 Whole - 5/25/05 the show that was going on inside the building? So, again, I don't want to beat this horse to death any more than it's been, but I think that's something that... I mean, this wasn't something that had something -- it was, like, advertising something that had nothing to do with anything. It was -- It was a sign welcoming the conventioneers or the business people who are coming to this computer show inside the building.
I'm -- I'm going to let Dave answer that, but I want to make this one statement so you understand. We did not deal with the person having the show or that group. We dealt strictly with Tom. And it was in a very... a very... We worked to arrive at a solution versus enforcement. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I understand that.
And for his purposes, he asked for the violation. 123 Whole - 5/25/05 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just thought it was accessory use.
Okay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's the point I was making --
I'll let Dave answer that question. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- that it was accessory. And I don't see the difference between that sign or when the Academy of Music hangs a banner outside its building, advertising a future concert or some event that's taking place inside their building. I mean, I'm not getting into the issue of billboards, but it's accessory. There's an opera that's going to be performed in the Academy of Music, oftentimes they will put a banner on the front of the building. And I don't think we want to remove that banner. I don't think that that's the kind of enforcement we're looking to do. So, you don't even have to answer. I just want 124 Whole - 5/25/05 to make that as an observation. The only other question I have is, I think when you were here last time, Commissioner, when we were doing the budget, I asked you about the numbers that you see on these billboards occasionally. There's a six, seven digit number across. Is it safe to assume -- And I may have asked you this before, but I don't recall the answer -- that if the billboard does not have a sign that it is illegal, is an illegal sign?
Not at all. That numbering system is really what the billboard company does themselves to track their own billboards. It's not a -- a -- a issue -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Wouldn't it make sense for those companies to want to have a number on it so they can track it, as opposed to not having a number?
This new ordinance 23 will require them TO HAVE a sticker attached. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'll ask the question of the industry when they come up, 125 Whole - 5/25/05 as to why some of theme do not have numbers on them. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon. Let me ask you a question. I need some clarification on a particular issue, as it relates to billboards. If a billboard, a, gets properly zoned, and then there needs to be a change in the billboard, a structural change in the billboard, or the current advertisement needs to be restructured or taken down completely, or there's some damage to the billboard, does that billboard company have to go back and get rezoned? Do they have to go back and get an administrative authorization? What's the policy on that?
For maintenance, no. 25 For replacement, let's say the pole, the main 126 Whole - 5/25/05 pole, yes. They would have to start at the beginning and have it go back and have a... If you're there on a variance, which probably most of them are, you would have to start from the beginning and get -- get -- you know -- you know, have a zoning hearing. And the public would have a right to testify. But for normal maintenance, like painting and such or... you know, no. But for major, yes.
Let me understand. So, they go; they get properly zoned for the placement of the billboard, standard, whatever. And it becomes damaged or there's some problems associated with the existing billboard or standard or support mechanisms, and they need to alter that. You're saying that they have to go back and get -- go through the entire process again.
What's the standard? I mean, what's the threshold, as 127 Whole - 5/25/05 it relates to alterations?
If -- If -- If... When we issue a zoning permit for a sign, we -- we -- we give out that zoning permit for an exact size of the sign face. Say it's x 8 20. 9 The company wants to make that sign 10 larger than 10 x 20. They would need to go back through the zoning process. If the sign is in the location in which they can have that permit as a matter of right, then the permit's issued over the counter. There are many signs, though, that are in locations in which the sign itself is non-conforming. They try to make that sign larger, then they will have to go apply for the permit and go through the Zoning Board process. Now, the zoning code which is not addressed under this ordinance today, has specific requirements, in terms of if you demolish or substantially alter an existing 128 Whole - 5/25/05 sign, whether or not that sign would be declared to be demolished at that point and would have to go through the process all over general.
So even if the replacement billboard or sign is the same size, same dimension, you still would need to get... go through the process again and get zoning for that location.
If it was just the sign face itself, the plywood type material that forms the face of the sign, that type of material can be replaced without going through the zoning process. But if it's the main support pole that has deteriorated, and that pole needs to be replaced, then the whole sign has to come down, and --
Even if it were the same size -- Even if the replacement were the same size, same dimension, even the same advertisement, they would still have to go to zoning.
That's correct. That 129 Whole - 5/25/05 provision is in the zoning code. It's not in the licensing bill. But you're correct. If -- If the -- If the sign pole needed to be replaced, then the entire sign structure would be re-reviewed for conformance with current zoning requirements.
All right. Are there those type of regulations in any other structure? I mean, if I had a building, and I got the building zoned for a particular use, and for some reason I had to take that building down and rebuild that building, same configuration, would I have to get zoning again?
When it comes to a building, you're allowed to demolish and replace a certain square footage of the building without having to conform to the zoning code all over again.
That's a good question, but -- And it is a good question. The signs 130 Whole - 5/25/05 themselves are -- You can't quite easily measure the floor area of the sign. It -- It -- It -- It's -- It's a harder animal to wrap your arms around, in terms of how much are you replacing without it being considered to be a new sign. With a building, you got square footage of the building to deal with. And the zoning code does allow a certain amount of replacement without you having to conform all over again.
So you're saying if we can't determine the dimensions of the existing sign, and then to authorize the replacement with the same dimensions... I mean, measurements are measurements, be it a building or billboard. I would think that the --
Well, it's the pole that holds the sign up that the zoning code says if you replace that pole in effect you are basically putting up a brand new sign. I mean, that's the zoning code.
That's the way it's 131 Whole - 5/25/05 in the zoning code which, you know, is --
So, Councilman DiCicco, I guess this is something that could be discussed during the summer months, too. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes.
I think that's ridiculous. All right. At this point the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Kammerdeiner. Commissioner Kammerdeiner, I'm not sure if this really is a question for you or for the Budget Director. Is the Budget Director still here?
Yes. Do 132 Whole - 5/25/05 you want her at the witness table?
Miss Reed, would you please approach the witness table?
Yes. I'm sorry. Microphone's not on. I can't hear you.
Councilman Nutter, while the Budget Director comes forward, I have one question on the numbers. Please. Thank you. You said that there are nine owners, correct?
Thank you for the one page of it that spells out the details more clearly. 4700 billboards. Thank you, Councilman DiCicco. About 2800 are legal.
Should one assume, then, that the balance of those 133 Whole - 5/25/05 boards which are illegal are owned by non-registered billboard owners?
You're welcome. Again the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Reed, I know this is obviously not your testimony, but I think you... assume you are familiar with it. There are revenue estimates with regard to the valet parking tax. And what I'm trying to understand is... And if you went over this already, you'll just tell me and I'll move on. When the car is taken by the valet person and they park it wherever they park it which is hopefully not out on the street... 134 Whole - 5/25/05 The issue here is that when the car comes in the lot, there's no parking tax paid on it.
Commissioner, you're to be commended. I've never seen anyone step up to answer a question that they weren't asked directly. I'll give you credit for that. You may regret it later, but go ahead.
I may very well. But as a result of the court case that I referenced earlier, the transaction for the parking from the valet. You leave your car with a valet. The parking tax does not apply to that. However, if the valet parking operator has an agreement with a parking facility, a garage, an open lot, and they have some rate that they pay to that parking facility for the parking of the cars that they are picking up at the valet station.
The parking tax 135 Whole - 5/25/05 applies to the activity at the parking facility.
And only that portion of the charge. And generally speaking, that's a much reduced rate. It could be $5 instead of the $15 you would have paid if you parked your car at that parking lot.
And so the issue here, then, is that you're only getting... The parking tax on percent of $5, as 14 opposed to 15 percent of $15? 15
That's what I'm saying. You pull up. It's $15... It's 15; it's 18; it's 12. It's whatever it is.
Depending on what street you're on and what place you go to.
And you as the person parking that vehicle would not have 136 Whole - 5/25/05 been paying a parking tax on the transaction.
But if you park your car in a lot, and whatever your deal is with them, which is going to be some flat amount or percentage amount of whatever the person paid when they dropped the car off --
-- the parking lot operator is then responsible for 15 percent of whatever their take is?
If you are parking your vehicle at a parking facility, a lot, whether it's an indoor or outdoor lot...
...you as the person parking that vehicle are liable for the parking tax. It should be assessed by the parking owner, the operator of that parking lot.
Right. It's 15 137 Whole - 5/25/05 percent of $24 for two hours or whatever it is.
Correct. The parking lot owner collects it from you, holds it in trust and remits it to City.
The same situation does not currently apply with the parking operation if you are parking your car through a valet. If you park your car with a valet and the charge is $15, you pay $15, not $15 plus 15 percent for a parking tax. If this proposal is approved, then the parking transaction with the valet would also be subject to the 15 percent parking tax.
Right. I got that. Let's -- Let's try to work with my example. Let's say I take my car, and I'm going to some... event at Zanzibar Blue.
And there are valet people outside. I give them the key. They give me the ticket. I pay the $15.
That valet company has an agreement with some parking lot, whether it's the Hyatt building or somebody around the corner, some legitimate lot for which they've made arrangements to pay $5 per car that comes in because maybe otherwise that lot operator is not seeing that vehicle. The lot operator pays... gets the $5.
And the lot operator should also be charging 15 percent parking tax on that $5, and then remitting that parking tax to --
The lot operator may not charge 15 percent on the five, but they're responsible, aren't they, for 15 percent of the five to pay to the City?
They're responsible for paying the parking tax on the 139 Whole - 5/25/05 transaction fee that they have collected.
However, they do it, whether they assume it within the charge --
-- and have calculated it within the total charge that they charge the customer or they have it as an ad-on --
But it's not... If they have done it properly, they would have charged that of the person parking the car there, because the tax itself, if you read the code, says that this tax is on the 140 Whole - 5/25/05 person who parks the car, the person who leaves the car there.
Not the person who is responsible for it and manages the parking facility. It's a tax on the person who leaves the motor vehicle there for parking or storage.
It is not a tax on the operator of the facility. It is a tax on the person who leaves the motor vehicle for parking or storage.
So you're saying that when the person pulls up with my vehicle at the lot, when they took it from Broad Street, they should hand the person $5.75?
If the base fee 141 Whole - 5/25/05 is $5, then, yes. The parking tax would be calculated on top of that $5. What I think you find in most lots when you look at the signs, and if they've properly posted, they would indicate a parking fee plus the tax that equals the amount that they tell you they're charging per hour.
Most of them have done it in a way that rounds it to a number that is easier to deal with, in terms of payment.
And were they -- And when they took my car, were they supposed to take $15 plus 15 percent?
If you're talking about the valet, right now that is not covered by the tax.
In a new provision they would be required to charge 142 Whole - 5/25/05 you the $15 plus percent for the parking tax. And under this. And then when they take it to the lot, do they then pay the five seventy-five.
It depends on 7 what their arrangement is with the -- 8
-- parking garage 10 operator. 11 But it is possible that they would 12 have paid a fee to the parking garage 13 operator that should have included the tax. 14 There is a provision within the -- within the 15 ordinance that they are not entitled to a refund if they have done so.
Well, I think what I'm raising with you -- And it sounds like there's some amount of double paying of the parking tax between these two transactions. From the time the vehicle is picked up on South Broad Street, there seems to be a parking tax. And from the time the vehicle goes from South Broad Street to, say, Spruce 143 Whole - 5/25/05 Street, it sounds like there's another parking tax. All on the same transaction. Is that true?
Actually paid by two different people on two different dollar amounts.
That was creatively evasive. Isn't it true that there are essentially two parking taxes being paid on the same vehicle, as it moves from one place to the other?
To the extent that the parking fee that the valet operator pays to the parking facility operator is incorporated in the fee that they charge the valet patron, yes.
How about if we get a shorter answer? Aren't there two parking taxes essentially being paid on the same transaction.
There are two different transactions. That's why I can't answer that question -- 144 Whole - 5/25/05
Two different transactions on the same vehicle moving from one place to the other.
Right. Okay. You're in essence double billing. Now, how many vehicles are valeted every day in Philadelphia?
I -- I do not have an estimate on that. I don't have numbers on that.
We used information that had been gathered during the court case, to identify the relationship between the number of vehicles that were parked -- or excuse me -- not the number of vehicles. The cost of parking the vehicle 145 Whole - 5/25/05 with the valet service, and the amount that was paid to the parking facility, and then applied that to revenue of some significant parking operators who have valet operations, as well as a parking facility. We used a substantial number of large operators and their tax information and aggregated that in order to make this estimate.
Okay. But again, I mean, the short answer here is, you don't know how many cars are valeted every day in the City.
Okay. And the 2.2 million in revenue that you anticipate being generated in FY'06, how many cars would that represent being valeted every day?
I don't have it on the basis of cars because the fees maybe different from one operation to another. And the tax is a percentage of that transaction fee that's charged. And that's why we used the gross 146 Whole - 5/25/05 receipts of large operators as an indicator of what the fee relationship would be and how much tax would be generated.
All right. Well, why don't we do it this way: If, for argument's sake, we could agree that the average valet rate was $15, how many cars would have to be valeted to reach $2.2 million in revenue?
The question was per day. The answer you gave, I assume, represents a year.
Now, as it stands at the moment, with the three bills in front of us, what is the... And as you've put the budget together, incorporating these revenue figures, what's the response from PICA, with regard to this new budget?
We had not discussed the new budget with PICA yet. We are waiting for Council's decision before we have a final proposal to take to them.
PICA has some concerns about some information that we have, but we feel that we can address all of their concerns.
They have some concerns, but... I didn't hear the last part.
But we feel that we have addressed them, so that we are satisfied with our conclusion, that our five-year plan and '06 are in good shape.
Okay. So you're satisfied with your own conclusions, but you don't know that PICA is.
No. We need to meet with them and fully present our information.
Well, we hope to meet with them as soon after Council decides on the budget as possible.
Councilman Nutter, are you finished with your questioning at this point?
For this part, 149 Whole - 5/25/05 Madam Chair. I assume we're going to have other components of the budget --
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Before I ask a question, I wanted to... In reply to Councilman Nutter, you indicate that tax is going to be different for different garages?
The tax would be the same. What I indicated was that the fees may be different. And since the tax is a percentage of the fee that is charged, the actual amount would be different at each facility, depending upon the transaction cost. The percentage would be the same.
Seems to me to be vastly unfair to have this different kind of tax.
No, it's not a different tax. The answer that I gave him was that I couldn't calculate the number of 150 Whole - 5/25/05 vehicles that this represented, simply because the taxes on the cost of the transaction. And at one place your -- your transaction fee might be $1- and in another place it might be $15 because of the cost of the services being provided. The tax itself would be percent 9 of -- 10
Would each 15 facility have to have the same rate for every customer?
No. The tax would be 15 percent of whatever the rate was that they charged.
But they could charge different rates. How could they charge different rates for the same service?
The service may be slightly different at each place. That's... Right now the valet parkers who 151 Whole - 5/25/05 are on the street have different fees. You see their signs. And they may have different fees. Different parking garages have different fees, based on the --
The same garage should have whatever the posted fees are, and the parking tax is percent of whatever 11 those posted fees are. 12
And the posted 13 fee will be the same for everybody that 14 uses -- 15
At an individual garage, they may have different rates for different times of day. They could have different rates if you come in... I see postings for early bird specials. If you 152 Whole - 5/25/05 come in by a certain hour --
Well, everybody who comes in for an early bird special --
-- has the same rate. And will anybody that comes in at presumably the same time have the same rate or can the garage operator have a separate deal with the person providing the --
That would be covered, I believe, by the L & I regulations. Let me check with them.
I'm told that they have to post their fees. And they would be allowed to have different fees, but they would need to post what those fees are. And there might be different circumstances for different ones coming into the garage, and those fees would need to be posted.
Well, I just think that we've got to be very careful to have a very fair equal to everybody tax.
The tax -- The 153 Whole - 5/25/05 tax itself is percent of the charge for the transaction. So the tax is uniform. What may differ is the amount of fee that's charged. But the tax is the same percentage no matter what the transaction cost is.
All right. I'm 9 not sure what that means. 10 But I think we're in trouble if 11 people legitimately can say that different 12 folks are getting the benefit of lower rates 13 or lower charges, even if the rate is the 14 same. So, I'd want to be very careful with 15 respect to that. I can't identify yet the circumstance, but it sounded to me as if there are all kind of special arrangements that can be made, whereby the fee to a certain group of people could be less than the fee for the same service by the same garage would be to other people. So I'd want to be very careful in that. Now, secondly, somewhere in the bill 25 there is a section referring to the 154 Whole - 5/25/05 permission to have art on billboards. And the word used there is primarily. I think... Could you read me that section?
Which ordinance 6 are you referring to? Are you referring to the L & I ordinance on the 453?
I'm not sure which bill it is, but it's one of the two bills. Makes a provision that if something is primarily art...
Artwork, such as a painting or a mural that is a permanent, i.e., lasting the life of the building, end of brackets, original, created specifically for the site, and is not primarily intended to advertise a product or service.
Now, what does that mean? What would such a sculpture or 155 Whole - 5/25/05 piece of art be? For what reason is that section in the contract? In the ordinance? What does that give whoever is interested in --
It's a definition of artwork. It's meant... H is a definition, Councilman. The definitions in this section 9 for the following -- following definitions apply. So what we're saying, the definition of artwork -- on site public art, rather, is what I just read. That's under definitions, and...
That's to prevent to -- Like in the neighborhoods we have mural arts, beautiful artwork that's done by the community.
All right. Now, I would strongly urge the 156 Whole - 5/25/05 removal of the word primarily because you're going to find yourself constantly in battle, because efforts will be made to advertise businesses or activities that will be appropriate for a billboard, if there were any such thing as appropriateness for a billboard. It might be appropriate for a billboard in Las Vegas, say, and the owners of the billboards will want to seek the benefits of having it classified as primarily art.
Okay. Very good. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. 157 Whole - 5/25/05 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Councilman Nutter and I were discussing this. So, he's on the phone. And maybe we'll do it together. I think I heard, and the Council President pointed out, that, Miss Kammerdeiner, that you mentioned that this valet parking tax would be a double tax?
No. 10 Councilman Nutter was indicating that he thought it might be because some of the valet parking operators have agreements with parking facilities and pay the parking facility for putting the car there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right.
And that transaction would be subject to the parking tax. And I said that there were two separate transactions paid by the person who was parking the vehicle. One is paid by the patron of the valet parking operation, and the other is paid by the valet operator to the parking. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I need to see 158 Whole - 5/25/05 if I can simplify this because my understanding -- at least I believe the intent was -- I take my car to Bob Solvibile. I'm a customer, and I bring my car to Bob Solvibile, who's a valet operator. And they're all supposed to be having contracts with garages.
Exactly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That was under the valet bill we did a few years ago.
Exactly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So assuming that is accurate, I pay Bob $15. He then takes the garage -- the car, my car, to Councilman Nutter's garage. And he has a deal with the Councilman to park -- to charge -- be charged $5 for the purpose of parking that car. Councilman Nutter is going to pay 15 percent on the $5 that he collected from the valet operator. I thought the intent was for the City to collect 15 percent on the $10 that 159 Whole - 5/25/05 the valet operator has collected as his or her profit. Isn't that -- Because if you do it the other way, you're going to be charging 6 percent on the $15 and then 15 percent on the 7 $5. I don't believe that was the intent. 8
As currently 11 drafted, the bill would not provide for a 12 credit for that. It is certainly possible to 13 have that amended -- 14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It is double 15 taxation.
-- if you do not want that provision. There's a provision says there's no 23 credit for other tax that may be -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I certainly am a supporter of the valet parking tax, but not 160 Whole - 5/25/05 under those conditions. I think that is not a fair way of doing it.
There is a specific provision within the bill that could be amended, if you chose. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I see our Managing Director is here.
I was going so suggest that perhaps he can address this issue because it's just very troublesome.
Good afternoon. My name is Pedro Ramos. I'm Managing Director. I guess what I'd like to... I'd like to concur with the general principle that Council members are describing, that the intention isn't to have any double tax. And if we could -- If you would indulge us a few minutes, what I'd like to suggest is that we -- is that we invite the Revenue Commissioner back in a few minutes so that we can come back to you, and -- 161 Whole - 5/25/05 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You're clear of what -- I think I'm speaking for a majority of us, that we don't have a problem with the percent -- 6
I hear you. 7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- on the $10 8 or whatever that balance is, but it's not 9 fair to do it both times. It's... 10
I'm saying, rather than 11 try to work through it up here, if you would 12 give the administration a few minutes, we'll 13 go back and caucus and come back. 14
While Mr. Ramos and the Revenue Commissioner there... Miss Reed was up earlier. I'd like to better understand. She gave a number of 400 cars a day. I mean, this is purely on the revenue side. Commissioner, the assumption here is that it's 15 percent of something results in 162 Whole - 5/25/05 $2.2 million in revenue, correct.
Okay. So, the base there, then, is you need a little more than about $14.6 million in revenue, of which you're taking percent, that then generates 8 $2.2 million to the City. 9
Okay. In order 13 to generate the 14.6 or so million dollars in 14 base revenue at $15 a car is somewhere in the 15 neighborhood of 900,000 plus vehicles annually, divided by 365 is 2,670 some odd cars being valeted a day. Do you want to -- As you go back and talk about the other issue, do you want to --
Our numbers are derived from the gross receipts of a number 163 Whole - 5/25/05 of businesses. We were looking at it from that standpoint, as opposed to the number of cars. And I really can't comment directly.
I understand that. I'm dealing with your revenue figure of $2.2 million.
In order for you to generate that, that's percent of some 11 number, close to $15 million. 12
At 15 bucks a 14 car, which is what you're dealing with. 15
Not necessarily, because in some of the larger hotels you may have a valet fee of $25 or $30 overnight. So your numbers are not necessarily 15.
I understand that. Why don't we at least work on what's the base -- what's the overall revenue you need from which you're going to take 15 percent to generate $2.2 million in revenue. We can at least figure that out. 164 Whole - 5/25/05
I think I understand your question, but I think we came from a different perspective, in trying to come up with our revenue estimate. And so, I will see how we can factor back to the type of thing you're referring to.
Okay. But however many different perspectives we come from, at the end of the day, you have to be able to explain how you generate $2.2 million in revenue. And that's got to come from some number of vehicles being valeted a year, a day, a week, whatever the measurement is going to be. So it all starts with the $2.2 million, right?
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee, on any one of the three bills in front of us? Seeing none, I do not have a list of 165 Whole - 5/25/05 witnesses who would like to testify, but I understand that there is a panel. Good afternoon. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna, and members of the City Council. My name is George Caulker. I'm President of Clear Channel Outdoor of Philadelphia. Thank you for allowing us to testify today. I am here to urge you to vote no 15 against the proposed outdoor advertising tax and increased permit fees. This tax is blatantly unfair and discriminatory because it targets one segment of an industry, and it is unconstitutional. How is it fair for me to send a salesperson into a client with a proposal that includes a tax, when a newspaper rep is going in with a proposal that does not include a tax? Our rates have been determined in a 166 Whole - 5/25/05 competitive open market. We don't operate in a vacuum. We can't raise our rates by seven percent without losing business to our competition, and that will surely damage our businesses. Would you tax a Chinese restaurant but not an Italian restaurant? It is blatantly unfair, and our employees feel they are being singled out. Add taxes in general are a bad idea. Advertising is the fuel that drives the economic engine. Add taxes are shortsighted because they discourage advertising which will stifle the economy. These bills are especially unfair because they are a last-minute attempt to solve a budget crisis that was not created by us, yet punishes our industry. We have not even had time to mount an appropriate defense. The permit fees are unfair because they go beyond the amount necessary for proper enforcement of our industry. Even worse, both bills contain 167 Whole - 5/25/05 language that creates an incredible hardship for our industry, by creating onerous and expensive reporting procedures that further cripple our businesses. For instance, how do I handle existing contracts? Contracts that call for some signs in Philadelphia and some in the suburbs? The burdens are tremendous. These bills are so bad for our industry, we would have no choice but to fight them in court. In fact, these bills won't solve the budget crisis, as they'll be tied up in court for years to come. Why attack an industry that has been a good corporate citizen? We already pay our fair share of taxes. In fact, in 1998 we voluntarily moved back into the City, thereby increasing the City wage tax revenues for the City. I doubt we would make the same decision today. And that is the message we'll be sending to others in the business. And is it fair to leave -- to have the law-abiding companies assume the burden 168 Whole - 5/25/05 of policing the activity of those that are not compliant? We have some of our employees here today. And I would like them to stand and be recognized. (A number of people stand.)
These are your constituents, including members of IBEW, sheet metal workers, and District painters 11 and tradesmen. 12 This bill would not only affect the 13 jobs of these people, but those that work for 14 us, our suppliers, our clients, primarily 15 small businesses, and ultimately the 16 consumer. 17 Beyond paying taxes and creating 18 jobs, we support the community in many other 19 ways, especially through public service 20 advertising. 21 We support many worthy causes such as the Philadelphia Food Bank, Ronald McDonald House, March of Dimes, and the Philadelphia Police and Fire Departments. In fact, I was at a press conference for our 169 Whole - 5/25/05 latest Fire Department campaign when I was notified about these bills. We also have Dorothy Johnson Spite of Mothers in Charge here to talk about the importance of her campaigns. Members of Council, there has to be a better way to handle this. Councilman DiCicco has suggested forming a task force that would work through the summer, to bring the industry and the City together and solve these problems in a way that does not destroy our industry. We could generate revenue that a scaffolding or wall wrap program that would include a revenue share for the City. We could agree on permit fees and regulations, including an inspection program and enforcement guidelines that are fair to everybody. We know the sign business better than anyone. We know what works in other jurisdictions. And we could accomplish our collective goals by working together, without destroying a valuable, viable industry. 170 Whole - 5/25/05 I urge you to vote no, to table these bills so that we have time to work together to find a better solution. Thank you.
My name is David Neff, President of Neff & Associates. We're an advertising and public relations firm, headquartered in Old City, Philadelphia. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
Of course, the reason I'm here is to urge City Council to vote against this taxing. Aside from some of the things that George Caulker has already pointed out, some of the issues that I wanted to point out include the following: 171 Whole - 5/25/05 I felt the tax was very arbitrary and discriminatory against outdoor companies. Now, my firm, we are an advertising agency, so we buy television, outdoor, radio, newspaper, magazines, and we recommend that media to our clients. If this would go through, it would discourage business from doing business within the City of Philadelphia and really sends the wrong message. The PR ramifications of something like this going through are great. This legislation would give Philadelphia yet another black eye in the national press, at a time when we could really use more positive news from our City and its government. If outdoor companies would be affected and would not have enough resources to maintain the cleanliness of their structures, the outdoor companies would be burdened with these taxes. Therefore, they would have less resources in order to maintain their structures. So, I know the Mayor and City 172 Whole - 5/25/05 Council have done great -- have made great strides in improving the look and feel of the City. And City Council and the Mayor's administration have brought new vitality into Center City. So, we're on a roll. And let's continue it. And I think if this would go through, this would, you know, go against some of the major principles that clearly City Council and the Mayor are in favor of. There would be lots of -- These -- If these rules would go through, it would penalize small and mid size retailers that advertise in the outdoor medium. These retailers, because of some of the things that City Council and the Mayor's administration have moved forward with, these retailers are keeping their shops open. They're risking their businesses. And they are promoting anti-blight because where there was once unoccupied storefronts, for example, on Chestnut Street, you know, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and beyond, 173 Whole - 5/25/05 there are now high-end retailers moving into those areas. I personally -- I mean, I live at 18th and Chestnut, so I live and work in the City. And I've seen the transformation that has taken place over the last five years, and it's actually quite remarkable. For example, Smith Brothers just moved into a building that was unoccupied for the last ten years. Smith Brothers is a high-end retailer of jeans and other designers clothes. These retailers are generally putting their money where their mouth is, and their in favor of taking advantage of a lot of the opportunities that City Council and the Mayor's administration have given them. So, they're already having a hard enough time, these small to mid size retailers in Philadelphia. They're, you know, constantly fighting off the big box retailers. The last thing they need is for their plans to advertise their business to be 174 Whole - 5/25/05 burdened, which this would do. In addition, this would handicap Philadelphia. And this is a very important point. If this would go through, this would handicap Philadelphia in competing for national outdoor buys. So what happens a lot with larger corporations that want to roll out new product introductions or branding campaigns, the advertising agencies that handle these accounts would -- they would be asked to recommend to their clients what markets they're going to roll this campaign out into. S. markets. If Philadelphia's outdoor advertising is taxed, this could eliminate Philadelphia from a mix of a major outdoor buy that would go down. This also potentially could trickle down to other media in the market. So not only would outdoor be affected, but large advertising agencies headquartered in other areas might skip Philadelphia altogether with television, radio, outdoor, of course and 175 Whole - 5/25/05 print.
This also would discourage, again, as I mentioned before, with a lot of the things that City Council has moved forward with, and the Mayor's administration has moved forward with. Everyone's been very successful in getting developers, real estate trusts and other financial institutions to invest in Center City. You guys have done an unbelievable job with that. This... If this would go through, this would further discourage developers in those real estate trusts into either getting more involved in the City of Philadelphia or consider coming to the City. So the ramifications and the PR ramifications of this go way beyond just advertising. This also could negatively affect the current residential and retail growth of Center City. And as we all know, perception is reality. This also could have a devastating 176 Whole - 5/25/05 impact on many worthy non-profit organizations. Clear Channel, the company that George represents, as well as all the other major outdoor companies in this marketplace, are very generous consistently throughout the year in donating space on their billboards to promote non -- you know, very worthy non-profit organizations and causes. And lastly, this could unfairly impact media recommendations to advertisers from respective agencies, and encourage regional advertisers to use agencies outside of our region. You know, when my media department is making a recommendation to a client on what to recommend, we don't want this tax to impact our recommendation to our client, and therefore not recommend outdoor or recommend less outdoor, in favor of recommending television, radio, newspapers and magazines. That concludes my personal comments. We have another representative. And if it's okay with you, I would like to read his, you 177 Whole - 5/25/05 know, his little outline as well. Okay? So I'm now speaking for Scott Franks. Scott Franks is the Chairman of Tierney Communications which is one of the City's largest advertising public relations agencies. As Chairman of the Philadelphia Council of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, which is made up of over 60 agencies in the greater Philadelphia region, our agencies to a large degree rely on the vitality of our local business market. Most of our clients are here, and the advertising that they're doing is here. Scott worries about a new tax on outdoor advertising, from a couple of perspectives. When a tax is imposed, it's naive to believe that there will be no impact on those businesses that are contracting for the advertising that will appear on the billboards, and that there will not be a trickle down effect on the consumers that are seeking what's advertised. In other words, prices will go up 178 Whole - 5/25/05 for advertisers and prices will go up for consumers. The most adverse impact will be the small business person. Already saddled with an exorbitant business privilege tax, small business will now find one of their most relied -- one of their most relied on mediums billboards costing more. The move -- The move to increased taxes sends yet another signal that we are not friendly to those businesses. And the aforementioned pass-along cost doesn't sound good to anybody. Now let's talk about the impact on the outdoor companies themselves. As an advertising agency, we continuously monitor the price of media, to gauge what's best for our clients. , print and outdoor; and how much should we be spending if one medium, outdoor, spikes in cost? We may very well recommend against it. This could very likely have a 179 Whole - 5/25/05 devastating impact on all the local outdoor companies and their employees. If this tax does not serve business, does not serve the consumer, does not serve the many billboard company jobs in this market, and does nothing for ad agencies like ours, what does it serve? Who does it serve? I respectfully urge you to think about the negative ramifications of this tax. Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Madam President, honorable Council members. My name Jim Cade. I am a resident of the City of Philadelphia. I'm also a business owner in the City of Philadelphia for the past 33 years. I am President of the Lancaster Avenue Business Association West which comprises the businesses located between 52nd and 63rd Street on Lancaster Avenue. 180 Whole - 5/25/05 I'm also a board member of the Lancaster Avenue Redevelopment Corporation, a CDC located on Lancaster Avenue, dedicated to the revitalization of the Lancaster Avenue corridor and commercial strip. My purpose for coming here today is because I read an article Sunday concerning the billboards. It made me aware of interest in the billboards. On my property and on six other properties along this business corridor, there are billboard signs located. We're the property owners that the billboard signs are located on. All of these properties are privately owned properties. And I, as well as the other business owners, should be considered mom and pop operations. What happens and what has been of benefit and why we should look at some of these billboards not as blight but as economic engines in the City, we receive rental commission from the billboard companies, passed on to the businesses, that 181 Whole - 5/25/05 assist our businesses and in maintaining our properties that we would not have access to otherwise. These are benign incomes that do not take any space from us, from our normal business operations, but that allows us to paint the buildings, to clean the properties. These are revenues that we wouldn't have. The money that comes from these rentals is taxed as income by the City. We pay taxes on this income. The businesses along Lancaster Avenue corridor... There are four main businesses that advertise with these signs located in this corridor that promote the businesses within the corridor. One promotes a very large shopping center that was just constructed at 56t and Lancaster Avenue, with private development money, no tax incentives added to this. This was private development. We have a sign billboard that the owner contracted and he uses to promote this, which promotes jobs that were created in this 182 Whole - 5/25/05 shopping area. There are signs that direct us to where we can get food. There's one that says there's a certain eatery seven blocks further down the Avenue. Somebody driving down the Avenue that wants to know, what can we eat that's seven blocks on the left? They're prepared to make a turn into that property and consummate a transaction, of whether it be food or whatever. I find billboards to be informational. I find them to be cute sometimes. We laugh at them, some of the things that they put up. They're accessible to anybody, to anybody to advertise, at a rate that a small business can afford. I can afford to put up a billboard sign for a month. I can not afford to advertise in the newspaper for one day of what it would cost me to advertise on a billboard for a whole month. This increase of knowledge on my business to my potential customers helps to 183 Whole - 5/25/05 increase my business, which increases tax revenues to the City, that are based on the profits of my business, that are based on the profit -- that are based on the wages that are paid to my employees. That's why these signs actually generate business. And I would suggest to enhance revenue, that some of these illegal signs we talk about, they be made legal, and that they be collected -- the fees be collected on.
And it's really not fair to those who pay; and then we have these illegal signs up and we have people not paying.
Let me just ask you a question. You keep talking about the billboards in your shopping center there. Is this actually a billboard or is it an advertisement that's painted onto your property?
No. These are actually billboards located along the corridor that 184 Whole - 5/25/05 direct potential customers to businesses located on the corridor. No, they are not affixed to the buildings. They are not accessory. They are actually operated by the billboard companies. But it gives business on the corridor access to advertisement that they might not normally have. There's one gigantic sign that advertises a 40 percent discount on groceries at this particular shopping center. The average person might not know that if they didn't have that outdoor sign informing that. That's a help to somebody that's trying to cut down on their grocery bill. There's one that directs you where you can go to a Kentucky Fried Chicken three blocks up the street. So as I'm driving up the street, I just don't see, oh, let me turn and create a traffic problem. I expect that this is going to be there, so I can turn into there without causing a traffic -- I know what's coming up. These are things that help. There's 185 Whole - 5/25/05 a business that actually has a four-faced sign located on their property. Two of these sign faces, they advertise the two businesses located on this property. They paid to have their businesses advertised. This increases their business activity which increases the tax revenues that they pay the City. I think that a lot of misconceptions of what billboards actually do. The only thing billboards were meant to do is to advertise and encourage business and commerce in the City. And I think that if we had more billboards located legally, where they should be located, in an appropriate place -- And they would only be in a commercial property or commercial corridors, because if it's not visible and if it's not desirable, the billboard company is not going to put it up anyway. So, if it's not a need for it, it wouldn't be desirable. One of the other things I noticed in this article is the blaring of the alcohol 186 Whole - 5/25/05 beverage ads. Now, one thing I would like to make clear about these alcohol beverage ads that I find offensive is the fact that they don't need to be there. But they're not controlled by the billboard companies. They're controlled, as all other facets of the liquor industry, by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, which would be no problem to have them prohibit outdoor advising alcoholic beverages. I mean, it's a very simple solution. It's a simple solution when they ban cigarette advertising. There's no more Marlboro Man signs as you cross the Expressway that used to be there that was a famous sign. They're gone because they were a problem. But I think we need to focus these and the other things that people say constitute neighborhood blight to the appropriate agencies. And instead of looking up at the billboard signs, we need to look at street 187 Whole - 5/25/05 level, at the short dumping that causes blight or the abandoned cars that cause blight, of the graffiti that causes blight, of the vandalism that causes blight. These are the things that should be focused on to eliminate blight, not an economic benefit to the City as billboards are, that a lot of people may not even realize as an economic benefit. And I think that any time that we try and suppress a business that has made investments into the City, such as the billboard companies, and tell them we don't want them here, we want to get rid of them, that's not a good message to business. I would like to see Philadelphia as a place to do business, being a businessperson. I have no other interest in the billboard industry, except for the fact that it assists business. And that's what it's about. Most of our taxes are based on revenue. I pay a business privilege tax for the privilege of doing business in the City. 188 Whole - 5/25/05 I pay a use and occupancy tax to occupy the property where I conduct this business. I pay a property tax to own the property where I conduct the business that I pay a use and occupancy tax to use.
I pay a wage tax for the money that I earn. Most of our taxation is based on commerce. And if we don't find ways to increase commerce in the City, that's why we have tax problems. If we increase our commerce, if we become a business oriented City, friendly to business, and do away with these nuisance taxes, then we will increase our revenues, our tax revenues, and we won't have to try and find ways to closing income gaps. If we didn't waste money in the City, illegal... If we didn't waste money in the City for paying lawsuits, for paying legal representation, if we better managed our employees so that we don't have these situations occur, we could save a lot of money. How much money is wasted each year 189 Whole - 5/25/05 in legal costs and lawsuits and damage claims that should be eliminated, that should never even occur? We need to really focus as citizens and as politicians what needs to be done to encourage and create a better business atmosphere. And we need to focus on what is really blight. Because a person doesn't like a billboard, could that be considered blight? Suppose a person doesn't like the color your house is painted. Does that make your house blight? I just think we need to stop looking up, and look street level for blight. We need to understand just exactly what the billboard industry does for the City. I've looked at... The billboard on my property has been there since I've been there, since 1986, for 19 years. And I'm saying many public service announcements, the drunk driving announcements, the insurance fraud, people that have been lost, missing persons. Everything's been advertised free 190 Whole - 5/25/05 of cost by these billboard companies. I can't think of another entity that's more community concerned and more accessible than what these billboard companies have given us, against things that affect our daily lives, at no cost. What will we do without these? How will we get the public messages out? How will the Ad Council run their ads, their public service ads: Stay in school, education, all of these things. And I'm saying years of this as I 14 walk out of my door every day and face this 15 billboard sign. 16 And I don't think that it's just -- 17 I just don't think it's fair, you know, to 18 single out this industry. 19 Suppose somebody singled out my 20 industry that I repair cars, and that I have to pay an extra amount because I repair cars, and the person walking doesn't think that car is necessary. Why should I be penalized a seven percent tax to try and increase my business 191 Whole - 5/25/05 in the City of Philadelphia? And that's what an excise tax amounts to. So, I think we just need to look at this in a different direction. And this is why I felt compelled to come to Council and give a point of view of a businessperson, a community person, that actually benefits from the sign, from the revenue that's generated, and from the help that it gives my business to increase business through affordable advertising. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak before Council. And I hope that some of the things I've said will be considered by Council as they address this bill.
We certainly applaud you for coming in to express your views. Thank you so much.
Are there any questions or comments to members of the committee? (No response.) 192 Whole - 5/25/05
Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on the three bills before us? Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Dorothy Johnson Spite, Executive Director of Mothers in Charge.
My name is Mike Gillespie, Jr., with the Philadelphia Ad Club.
Good afternoon, Council. Mothers in Charge is a group of mothers, grandmothers, aunts and sisters who work in the City of Philadelphia, to make a difference as it relates to violence. Most of the mothers and grandmothers and sisters have lost sons and daughters and loved ones to violence. 193 Whole - 5/25/05 We partner with individuals and communities and community organizations, as well as corporations, to affect change, as it relates to violence in our City. We have knocked on the door of many corporations in the City, and have been turned a deaf ear, in terms of helping us to support our initiative of saving lives. But back in May -- I'm sorry. Back in January of '04, with the support of the Police Commissioner, we convened a meeting with Clear Channel. And we asked them to support our initiative of stopping violence in the City of Philadelphia. And one of the ways we thought we could do that was to erect billboards around the City of loved ones of our members who had lost loved ones to violence and the murder was unsolved. My son, years old, Khalid Jaabar 22 Johnson, was shot seven times over a parking 23 space. The person that killed Khalid is 24 serving a life sentence in prison, but there are many mothers in our organization who 194 Whole - 5/25/05 don't know the person who claimed the life of their loved one. So we wanted to put billboards up of the victims of these horrendous murders, in hopes of getting the people that were responsible for the murder off the street. This is a picture of the first billboard that we erected in the City of Philadelphia, in May of '04. This billboard is of Darren Griffin, His mother, Dr. Pat Griffin, is a member of Mothers in Charge. Clear Channel came to the table and agreed to support Mothers in Charge and our initiatives. These billboards are placed around the City of Philadelphia in hopes of getting the people off the street that are responsible for these murders. Today there's over a hundred -- close to 150 murders this year already in the City of Philadelphia. We're trying to address that issue so that we will all be safe. 195 Whole - 5/25/05 Clear Channel helped us with that initiative by donating billboard space in the City of Philadelphia. As of to date we've placed about 47, 48 billboards around the City of Philadelphia, to address the issue of unsolved murders, and to get the murderers off the streets, and to make the City safe for everyone. I'm going to ask Sheree to tell a little story about one of the mothers who came into our office.
Several months ago a mother and her son came into our office. We were sitting around a table. And he said he visited the area at 52nd and Willows where a billboard was of Vincent Jackson. He said he walked past that billboard several times, and all he could see was those glaring eyes looking at him. So he decided right then because of that that he would try to tell what he knew concerning Vincent Jackson's murder. The billboard worked. And it 196 Whole - 5/25/05 helped. He came in and gave some information. The information that was received was given to the Police Department. They are now investigating. And we understand that there's an arrest soon to be made. We know that the billboard campaign works. We need the billboard campaign. Here's another picture. This lady and her daughter were murdered at 42nd and Aspen. The murderer has not been caught, but we know when these people see this billboard, that their heart -- somebody will come forward with some information concerning this billboard. We ask that it not be a tax on the people who help us get these billboards out to help save a life.
We know that no one is safe until all are safe. We really appreciate Clear Channel and their support for community organizations trying to address the issue of violence. And we do need to continue this initiative with these billboards, in order to make the streets of 197 Whole - 5/25/05 Philadelphia safe. So we ask that you do not input the tax on this organization.
Again, my name is Mike Gillespie, and I'm here representing the Philadelphia Ad Club. It's hard to follow such an important and impassioned case as was just made, but I'd like to sort of circle back to the business end of things, and take a minute and talk a little bit about the Philadelphia ad community as national -- on a national platform. Philadelphia is a major player in the ad world. It's one of the largest markets in the country. It encompasses three states and 18 counties. And the County of Philadelphia is really the epicenter, the cultural center of the ad community. To tax outdoor would do irreparable damage to the ad community in Philadelphia, and our position on the national platform as 198 Whole - 5/25/05 an ad community. It would be unfair to the small and the medium and the large size advertisers who use this as a key component of their media mix, but it would also do damage to small organizations, non-profits, as we've just heard. I think one of the things that we haven't heard yet is about how organizations like Clear Channel work with neighborhoods in neighborhood beautification projects. One of the things that I know as a resident of Philadelphia, I live in the Pennsport neighborhood. And we attend the -- My wife and I attend the meetings regularly. Organizations like Clear Channel are interested in helping our community by providing neighborhood beautification programs, and so forth. And so, this kind of tax, which would be passed onto the consumer, would be extremely unfair, would undermine community advancement efforts that the City is making, but more importantly, I think, will undermine 199 Whole - 5/25/05 Philadelphia as an ad community, and undermine our position really as a national leader on the advertising stage. So I would ask Council to considerate at least tabling this until a sensible solution can be reached. It was clear from today's testimony that there are more questions than answers about outdoor -- how outdoor should be billed, how it's taxed, what kind of structures constitute a billboard or a sign. I think that until there is some more answers, I think it makes sense to table this before irreparable damage is done to a key sector of this community's business landscape. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on any of the three bills? Please approach the witness table. Please identify yourselves for the record.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna. My name is Mary Tracy. And 200 Whole - 5/25/05 to the other Council members who are still here, my greetings. And thank you for allowing me to speak, as well as some folks from the community that are joining me. I do have something that I'd like to pass up to Council members or to pass around. I think it would be helpful to take a look at what we're really talking about here. Also some copies of testimony. The map that we put together yesterday that we're passing around shows what we perceive as the billboards in Philadelphia in a way I think that really illustrates the problems that neighborhoods have with this proliferation of billboards. The map actually shows in colors the various economic levels of our City neighborhoods, starting with the gray area at the bottom which is zero to $12,000; moving onto the light gray, which is 12,000 to 25,000, the medium gray 25,000 to 38, and a deep gray -- or green -- I'm sorry -- 38,000 to 50,000, and the deepest green is the neighborhood with the most money, and 50,000 201 Whole - 5/25/05 to 62,000. And the little red dots. There are light red and dark red dots. Each one indicates three billboard structures. Do you have that?
Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I don't think you had sufficient copies.
Oh, you can't copy them green. No. Sorry. I'll be glad to furnish them later. I wasn't quite sure how many people and copies we needed.
Well, I think people can't follow your testimony if they don't have the map, so I would suggest that in your testimony you could talk about 202 Whole - 5/25/05 the locations, rather than pointing out the map.
Yes. You know what? I think I gave my map away. Councilwoman Tasco, can I get that back? I gave you my last copy. I apologize. You know we're a non-profit; we're trying to save costs here. Anyway, I mean, the point of this is -- and I'll send everyone a letter so you'll have a copy of this. But the point is is that the real proliferation of these outdoor advertising signs are in our poorest neighborhoods. And the illegal ones are greater in our poorest neighborhoods. When you look at the light green in the center, that's the $12,000 to $25,000 income level of those neighborhoods, and they are inundated with billboards. And there are very few neighborhoods in the City that don't have some, but as you go into the darker green areas there are very few. 203 Whole - 5/25/05 So are billboards a problem in Philadelphia? Absolutely. And I represent SCRUB. Stands for the Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight. SCRUB was formed here in the City Council room in 1990 because so many people came together with this problem of the proliferation of signs. And we asked our City Council members to help us regulate it better. And this Council did. They unanimously voted on controls that would eliminate illegal billboards, that would stop the proliferation, that would protect our neighborhoods, particularly our playgrounds, our parks, our schools, our residences, all these places where people live and work and don't want to be looking hours a day, 7 20 days a week at advertising messages. 21 The gentleman that just spoke before 22 talked about, you know, let's take a look at 23 eye level when we're looking at blight. 24 Well, that's exactly what we do. And in these neighborhoods where we have the 204 Whole - 5/25/05 proliferation of wall racks, you have billboards right at the eye level of the people who live there. Just last week we were before a school, and there was a billboard on a corner store that had a huge picture of vodka. And as those children played in that yard, that's what they looked at. As they walked down the street on their way home, that's what they looked at, up on a pole. As they turned the corner to go to their home, another one. These were at eye level, and they glamorize alcohol and they uglify a neighborhood. I have just a few comments on the advertising testimony, because I think it's really important to put things in perspective. Mr. Caulker from Clear Channel very elegantly pointed out what a growth industry advertising is. And I don't think any of us could deny that because, as you ride down the streets and through the highways, you just see more and more of them. 205 Whole - 5/25/05 And you see the signs that were this big (Indicating) growing, to have be twice -- double, triple the size and even proliferating, having two or three on a sign where there was once one. And why is that happening? Is it legal? Are they allowed to just change their signs or put up new signs? Absolutely not. But Philadelphia, while we passed great laws, setting landmark examples to the rest of the nation, we have not come through with any of the enforcement. And why? Because we haven't provided the resources. I think it's very clear that when City Council wants to really accomplish something, we need to figure out how we're going to pay for it. And who should pay for it? Should I, a taxpayer? Should neighbors, neighborhoods pay for this? I don't think so. The real cost of regulating this industry needs to be taken by the very people who are making money. And are they making money. Since 206 Whole - 5/25/05 this billboard law was passed years ago... 3 I've got the wrong one. 8 billion 8 industry. 9 It is a robust industry, and just 10 last year increased by six percent. The 11 monthly rental rates in Philadelphia can 12 range from $800 to over $25,000. 13 Yet, Philadelphia charged no 14 billboard license fees from 1991 to 2000. And in the year 2000 we received $200 in revenue. Finally L & I said, we have to do something here.
And they brought in each and every billboard company and said, would you please pay a hundred dollars a sign structure of at least the licensed signs? And they very generously agreed to do that, bringing in, I think we said, $88,000 this year, which is as much as one billboard will generate in a few months. 207 Whole - 5/25/05 So I think this is an industry that has been a cash cow and provided, you know, opportunities for growth because of the City's lax enforcement. I think that this proposed ordinance, 453, is reasonable and necessary. Philadelphia has accepted the responsibility for the control of outdoor advertising. Unlike the rest of the state, the state takes care of that. And they actually have a budget of 500,000. And they just go in take down sign if it's illegal, it doesn't pass the test. In Philadelphia, when neighborhood groups say, what about that sign that's, you know, towering over the school? Is that legal? And we look it up, and we say, no, well then, why don't they take it down? No, no. The billboard industry never takes down a sign. They try to get a variance. And when they don't get the variance, then they go to court to try to appeal that decision. 208 Whole - 5/25/05 And when they lose in the first court, they'll appeal to the second court, all the time bringing in revenue from those illegal billboards. Is it fair to penalize the legal billboards for all the illegal ones? Well, I think it's better to charge the billboard industry that has not done a good job of monitoring itself than to charge the citizens of the City of Philadelphia because we have other things we need to pay for. And I would strongly urge this City Council to vote in favor of this ordinance. As citizens in the neighborhood, we really expect our government to be able to enforce the laws. We see laws. We get involved in it. And when there's no teeth in the enforcement, it really makes us feel very badly about our government here. And we wonder: Why in Philadelphia can they not enforce a simple law? In Gladwynne you don't see billboards. No where in lower Merion will 209 Whole - 5/25/05 you see them. In Abington. In Delaware County I think they're starting to crop up. But you know, I mean, I think it's just not fair. It's not fair because we live in the City that we have to just put up with illegal behavior. And it is. When you have 900 billboards that -- You know, we caught someone just I think it was a year and a half ago put up more sheets, 11 just packed them up inside of buildings. 12 And the people in that neighborhood 13 say, well, we thought they were allowed to do 14 that. You mean that's illegal? 15 I mean, they're shocked. Anybody 16 who finds out that some of these -- so many of these billboards are illegal are absolutely shocked, because you look at something so large, and you wonder, why they can get away with that. And then when we go to L & I and say, well, take it down; and they turn to us and say, well, we don't have a budget for that, well, I mean, I don't think it does much for their morale, it doesn't incent them 210 Whole - 5/25/05 to enforce the law because at the end of the day, what do they do? And I think it only encourages further illegal behavior. Whether you like billboards or you don't, in 1991 Philadelphia City Council passed a law to regulate them. And we really need your help to bring them into compliance. And it will only be by charging them their fair share of taxes. Well, the taxes won't do this. I apologize. But a fair share of licensing fees. And I don't have a lot to say about the tax, except I think there's one thing we should keep in mind about this excise tax. And it's made me think about what Philadelphia was a hundred years ago. We were an industrial giant. And we had factories galore, and we could tax those kind of businesses. Now those businesses have all gone overseas. And what we do sell is our citizen's eye space. And we give it for free.
211 Whole - 5/25/05 Well, I think we need to look at these transactions as something that we're selling. It's the fifth largest market. And there certainly are roads that taxpayers pay for are the reasons why there's such a value in these billboards because millions of cars go by. So, as the billboard industry sells what they don't own, our field of vision 11 hours a day, 7 days a week, then I think that 12 Nike or, you know, Ford or Subaru or Coca- 13 Cola or whatever these corporations are, that 14 want to tell us about their product, why not 15 pay a transaction fee? 16 Because maybe instead of getting 17 free billboard space, this money will go to 18 keep our libraries open, and will keep our 19 art museums open. 20 And this is a very real 21 contribution, and we would appreciate maybe 22 taking a look at that. 23 At that I'll turn over... 24
Thank you. Councilwoman Tasco, I believe you 212 Whole - 5/25/05 indicated you wanted to be recognized at this time.
The billboards that you're talking about, could you distinguish whether they are the large ones we see on the highway? And does -- Or are you talking about them in addition to the eight sheets or most others?
Well, not through this. We really can't. One of the things, though, Councilwoman, that... We did a survey of Mantua and Tacony. And one of the things that we learned that, for the most part, the illegal billboards in our what we would refer to as our inner City areas, are the eight sheets. And they are the ones that are sort of like a checkerboard in the neighborhood. The ones we found in Tacony, they had very few eight sheets right in the middle of the neighborhood. Their billboards were more along the major arteries and the major roadways. 213 Whole - 5/25/05 Nevertheless, there was a lot of them that are illegal as well. So, I would be glad to, you know, to get some information to you on that. But by this -- you know, this particular -- our -- I guess our -- our intent in putting this together was really to -- just to show what we all suspected, is that those communities that are least able to really defend themselves --
Well, they are the other small wall signs that are put up that are basically illegal. City doesn't collect any taxes.
And when we passed a law in 1991 to regulate it, what -- I don't have the bill here. What did it require? I mean, it seemed this morning like when we had the testimony from L & I, well, you know, we really can't do anything about it. 214 Whole - 5/25/05 I mean, they can put them up, and we don't have any authority to do anything. And if you know who the company is, we have laws in place to control them. The fact that they didn't, you know, here we are today saying, we need this revenue to hire four people to regulate 900 billboards, when they had the mechanism to do it before.
Well, $800,000 is not a lot of money in a $3 billion budget. We could have included it in the NTI legislation, if you created this blight. And we could have had it done in a year's time. It would have been gone. Even if it was a short period of time to do that... to do it. And so, you know, it's just very hard to believe that in a week's time we got to deal with an issue that we have been trying to deal with through the years, in trying to come up with a process to charge 215 Whole - 5/25/05 whatever fees might be necessary, but you just can't seem to do it in one week. Usually when we have an issue like this, there's a process. You've got to bring the people in from the industry. You sit down and talk about it. And you come up with some legislation that -- that you may or may not agree with. When we did lead paint, everybody didn't agree with lead paint. The homeowners association didn't, with all these groups. But they got together and came up with something and did something about it. Here we have a week. We have this group over here, the billboard owners, saying well, look, you know, this is going to cause us some problems. And these eight sheets seem to be the problem to me.
No, they're just not the eight sheets. The other problem, Councilwoman Tasco -- and I agree: the City should have done this years ago.
I mean, the political will wasn't there. You know how that goes. But, you know... And I think basically it's one of those -- It's such a difficult industry to regulate. You really don't have any idea until you actually try to figure it out. When someone calls and says, what about that sign across the street from me? And it can take you... You know, you -- L & I will -- You have to go down there. You have to look it up. They can't find the record. The addresses are mixed up. We did a survey of all the railroads and found about 350 billboards along railroad properties. And we could only get seven permits found at L & I. So, I mean, maybe they're there somewhere. I don't know. But that's pretty pathetic. And I think that, you know, that's probably what L & I is saying, you know. They have so many issues pulling them, for them to really get the job done here. 217 Whole - 5/25/05 This is what it's going to take. And for them to say, if you don't take that sign down or we will, they have to be able to do that or the billboard company will just say, yeah, right. And I think that this is not an issue that we need a lot of discussion on any more. We've been waiting years for this. 10 We have community groups that are 11 trying to restore their commercial corridors, 12 and they are hitting roadblocks because these 13 buildings have illegal billboards attached to 14 them. And instead of just saying, well, you're trying to restore your commercial corridor. We'll work with you. We'll take the sign down. Oh, no. They then finally try to get a permit which they can't because it could be across the from a park or across from a playground or, you know, in a C-2 commercial. They're not allowed. So then they try to get variance. And, you know, then we're off to the races, with years of litigation on one sign. 218 Whole - 5/25/05 So, I mean, how do you stop this? Is this the way to run a country, to run a City? I think it flies in the face of the law.
If that is the impediment to getting the sign down, of passing this bill, is it going to create a better scenario? If you go, what changes? That you have somebody to enforce the law. Or if you go to L & I and say, well, this is an illegal billboard. Take it down. And then they get -- Then you still back in the process again. Doesn't take you out of the process.
No. I'll tell you, that's a good question. And I think what's different now, that instead of going to the courts and saying, we want you to order to take that billboard down, they go to the courts and say, we want an order to take the billboard down. And then if the billboard company wants to go to the courts to try to legalize 219 Whole - 5/25/05 it, they still can. And they can put it back up if it happens.
But what changes? We're not changing the law here. You're only changing the fact that you've got somebody to enforce the law.
So what's wrong -- What's wrong with L & I saying to the billboard, we're taking -- you have to take the billboard down?
Well, I mean, also you have to remember that one of the things happened with this law is that... I mean, it got thrown out in court in 1991. So, they haven't had any real enforcement law since 1991 because it was thrown out, and they never went back to fix it. Today, here before this Council, 14 years later, we're trying to fix it.
They figured out -- There's so many signs -- so many signs out 220 Whole - 5/25/05 there.
Well, there's so many signs out there. We have... I don't know what it was... 2,000, whatever, signs. And it's going to cost us $1.2 million, 1.5. I don't know what the thing is. Let's divide that up. That comes to 650 a sign face. That's what we need to run this program effectively. And that's what we want, a program that will be run effectively, that when, you know, Mary Jones who lives in Mt. Airy calls up about a sign, L & I can get right on it. When someone wants to know the list of illegal billboards in a neighborhood, they can get that information. There's just too many... I mean, it really is in the billboard industry's best interests not to have a good enforcement component. And there are plenty of signs that are legal, and we're not talking about them.
What is going 221 Whole - 5/25/05 to be the enforcement mechanism if the bill 3 was struck down that we passed in '91?
What will be the enforcement mechanism if we don't have... Only thing we're doing here is raising -- charging an excise fee and a billboard fee.
Well, we're really talking two different things here. The excise fee is really saying, you know what? We need to start getting some tax revenue from an industry that is making billions. So... And frankly, they're not paying their fair share in that way. The other part is the one that we're the most concerned about. And that's really between you and the revenue group. What we are really concerned about is the enforcement component. We really believe that the industry should be paying permit fees and license fees that actually cover the cost of proper enforcement. That is not happening now, and it 222 Whole - 5/25/05 hasn't happened in the history of the City of Philadelphia. And we have the laws. Now we want L & I to have the resources to actually enforce them.
So now... Because, you know, we just got this bill last week because I really haven't read it. Now, you're saying that with the $650 face fee, right, the illegal signs, eight sheets in the community, they're going to have to begin paying $650 per sign.
No; I don't think they're ever going to pay that because I know they're not going to be able to get a zoning variance because there's no hardship on this property.
So then... Maybe then if the -- I think if the billboard owner -- Frank Notario, I think is his name that owns Chesapeake. If he knows, hey, the City's really going to take these down and then charge me, maybe he'll finally take them 223 Whole - 5/25/05 down. I mean, you're looking at a guy who's had these billboards out there for decades. So, what's -- why would he possibly think that suddenly the City's going to actually do what they say? They have never had before. But this bill will enable the City to do what it says it's going to do.
And that would be a welcome change for many citizens in this City.
Well, first of all, it provides important financial resources.
To have the kind of staffing that you need at L & I to be able to do the work. That's an essential piece of 224 Whole - 5/25/05 it. You can't have one person, you know... Think of how big our City is, and how many buildings and structures --
Will L & I have the ability to go and take the sign down?
Well, they are, because a part of the money that -- Part of this money is not just for staffing. Part of the money that they have put in this budget will be to hire some companies that can do that.
That's not what the letter says to me. Says they have put $550,000 in here for staff, 657 -- Doesn't say anything about any companies.
Isn't it, like, a demolition or something? Did those L & I guys leave?
They're going to put $567,000 in Class 100 which is staff, plus the $250,000 for Mr. Solvibile.
Well, he's got 225 Whole - 5/25/05 250,000 in Class 200. What's the $250,000 for?
Councilwoman, we have a breakdown here of the different costs that we used to arrive at the figure. And basically for salary it's $367,047. For fringe benefits on top of that, it's $173,980. For demolition contracts it's $400,000. For engineering studies that we may need to do is $150,000. Personal computers is $21,000. Software licenses is $50,000. Telephone 2,000. Automobile expense would be 4,000. Indirect cost is $1,282,619. Indirect cost rates per fiscal year '03 -- It's how we arrived at the figures is the numbers I just gave you there. There's an estimated legal sign faces, what we arrived this at, is 2,762. And the license fee per sign face is 650.
Now, Miss Tracy seems to think this bill -- and I really haven't read it; I just saw it this 226 Whole - 5/25/05 morning -- that it's going to take care of all of the -- basically, the illegal signs, and specifically for me the eight sheets that are in the communities, and that you all are going to have the ability to get rid of all those eight sheets right away if they are not legalized by the owner. And is this true? And what will be different now in dealing with these illegal signs, and particularly the eight sheets, that you couldn't do before this?
Well, with the -- As Miss Tracy said, the department never had a fund to remove any kind of a sign at all. We could write violations, go to court, but we never had the monies in our budget to physically hire a contractor to remove signs. Our first choice will be, even with this new ordinance, to force the owners to comply. As to the eight sheets --
Violations, court 227 Whole - 5/25/05 activities, court orders.
We -- We -- We have done it. We were successful in about 35 to 40 cases of having signs removed. We have been doing that. We -- We will be able, with the sign unit that we're going to create, be more aggressive in what we're doing. We had one person doing it before. Now we'll have -- he'll be there with three or four other people to assist him in this activity, which will increase it. As to the eight sheets that are in the communities, we have issued a violation notice. I stated this earlier. You might not have been in the room, Councilwoman, that we sent to -- Is Chesapeake... Is that the -- the Chesapeake and to their -- and to the owner and to their legal counsel a violation notice ordering them to remove all 900 signs. They have filed an appeal. And we 228 Whole - 5/25/05 believe it's going to be heard in front of the Zoning Board. It's for the choice that the Law Department recommended we put the appeal. And there will be zoning hearings or a zoning hearing -- it has to be determined over a period of time -- on the eight sheets where they will state. Initially we've asked them to prove to us the ones that are legal, to give us the paperwork on the signs that they claim are legal. We have not seen any of that paperwork yet. It has not come to us. As of yesterday, I know we had not received it. The zoning hearings, where the appeal -- they're appealing our violation notice in front of the Zoning Board. And at that point the Zoning Board will tell them, they're not legal. And we'll be able to have -- order them to remove them. that's where we're going. That's the direction that we're going in, is the removal of all 900 or to put it in a better way, all 229 Whole - 5/25/05 illegal eight sheet signs in the City of Philadelphia which we believe most of them are, in fact, illegal.
So if they get a ruling from the Zoning Board, then they go back to Commonwealth Court?
Our next step, I'm not sure, Councilwoman. Probably it will be a court action or the owner will comply on his own or their own. I'm not sure who owns Chesapeake.
So you need $850,000 to do this, but you've already sent out violation notice to the owner. And they have appealed, and you have to go through the Zoning Board. So if you lose, what happens to this pot of money?
I -- I -- I would -- I would -- If we lost, if the Zoning Board -- I would ask the Law Department to appeal the decision of the Zoning Board at a higher court level.
So we're really no better off than we are now. 230 Whole - 5/25/05
We will be no 4 better off than we are now, under the circumstances of how the process works. But we're not changing the process.
Well, there's a legal process that we must follow, no matter what the ordinance says.
And we'll have to follow that legal process, even under this bill.
Exactly. I believe in my heart of hearts that within a year all illegal eight sheets will not be in the City of Philadelphia.
Councilwoman, if I could just interject here, I think one of the things that could change, though, is that before the City didn't have the resources to go in and take the signs down themselves. I mean, the state just says, 30 days take it down or we will. And they take it down. The City doesn't have those resources, so they try to coerce the owner to take them 231 Whole - 5/25/05 down. And then you get back into courts again. And the City doesn't have to go in the courts to take a sign down. They can send a letter and then just take it down. So, this would really enable them to do that.
We could have taken the billboards down with NTI dollars.
But they didn't allocate them for that. I mean, we asked about that, but --
Well, it was for blight, but it was for buildings -- I mean, we have so much blight, it's hard to pick your place. And billboards weren't at that point. I mean, I would have loved it if they had.
What we were told about that, it was that each Council member had some... some, I guess, control over what kind of NTI dollars were being spent. 232 Whole - 5/25/05 And if that Council member wanted to take them down, then maybe; but I don't know if that's true or not.
You didn't know about that? So, I don't know. I don't think there were as many dollars in there as we...
That's a new piece. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: (Indicating)
I'm here for the duration. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I mean, before you got out and have to come right back. I don't want to go out of turn, but...
That's all right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any consideration or discussion that possibly using either the anti-grafitti folks, Tom Comway's people and/or the CLIP program, to remove these signs, since they're 233 Whole - 5/25/05 out there. And part of their job is to remove blight, clean vacant lots and things of that nature, to assist. If not do it all, at least to assist?
I agree. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because you're connected. I mean, L & I and the CLIP program are kind of like one and the same, aren't they?
We staff them with three individuals that are inspectors. I have, in my own thought processes, thought that we could -- with the eight sheets, we could white over them, you know, whitewash them. I remember prior Commissioner Levin -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My concern -- Not to interrupt you. If you put whitewash on them, they will become canvasses for graffiti.
I understand that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We have the problem with the Jersey barriers; same things. 234 Whole - 5/25/05
I -- I -- I understand that. I -- I -- I -- But to answer your question, yes. My -- We -- I was -- We would discuss with Tommy Comway and -- and -- and the CLIP people -- We -- We -- We -- We will use them to help identify... COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just a suggestion. Thank you, Madam President.
Commissioner, you know all of the locations of the illegal billboards?
We believe so, yes. We have 900 locations that we've identified as... When we sent the violation notice to Chesapeake, we attached each location where -- where -- where the signs were at each location.
-- to determine if someone had put a deck up and it was done illegally, you could certainly see every billboard that was erected, and determine whether it was done legally or illegally.
We will, going forward in the future, once we have all identified where the legal ones are, be able to see, using the aerial shots, we're going to buy a package that will compare one year to the next year. So if it was, let's say, no 16 billboard here in '05, and then the aerial shot they take for '06 shows a billboard, we'll be able to check our records to see if it was legal, and it will make enforcement somewhat -- much easier.
But if it exists in '05, you're still able to ascertain whether it was erected illegally or legally.
If it -- If we -- If it will give us the correct address. It's -- 236 Whole - 5/25/05 With the aerial shot, the address of the sign itself might not be quite accurate. You still need to research what the addresses is and go back to the Zoning Code.
Understood. Councilman DiCicco wanted to be recognized. Now Councilman Kenney.
I just heard the tail end of that. Are you saying that we're going to fly aerial reconnaissance?
I -- I'm going to call it the wrong name. I'm going to call it Pictionary. And it's not Pictionary. It's pitometry. And right now on my computer at my desk I can zero in on your address, if I knew it --
-- and I could see your house from the sides, the front... Well, it's a row home, I believe. So, from the back, from the front, and the top roof.
There's no 25 billboard on my roof. 237 Whole - 5/25/05
If there is, Councilman, I promise you a violation notice.
Not up there. I looked. I checked it out already. No Kenney for Council signs on the roof. But how do we get that done? I mean, we're going to -- or is it done already?
It's done already. It's on our desktop. You're welcome to come over to my office. I'll give you a demonstration of it. I don't know how to get it on your computer.
I thought we were sending up airplanes to take pictures of the billboards.
Well, like the Sanborns. You know the Sanborns that give you the lay of the land?
They -- They -- they started heading in that direction. It might have something to do with that company. It's a really great, great product. And it gives you such a clear view. from our -- From L & I purposes, it gives you a clear view of the land and what's there. It's really a tremendous tool.
Does it help with, like, drug houses and crack houses and stuff like that?
It really showed, Councilman, we did a great job with NTI because you can go street by street and not see any holes in roofs any more.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam 239 Whole - 5/25/05 President, every time I think I'm finished, something else pops up. But these eight sheets, for the most part they're illegal, right?
We believe so, yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And we're going to wind up, if we haven't already started the process, wind up in court or in front of the ZBA to legalize these or argue the point whether these things should be legal in the first place.
We -- We think -- The owner appealed our violation notice. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Here's my point. Here's my point. On those that you deem to be illegal... If I were running an illegal business, L & I would show up and put a cease and desist order, shut me down. Why do we wait all this time? Why don't we just go and take down the damn signs in the first place, let the owner of the sign sue us, and see how far they go. I'm not talking billboards. I'm talking about these eight sheets that are illegal. Why are we -- 240 Whole - 5/25/05 Why is the burden on us to prove that what they are doing is illegal? We should be in the other position, as far as -- excuse me. Same thing with political posters. I don't know why we allow them to stay up. Tear them all down because these are the same people want to enact laws in this town, but they want to put posters up. Take them all down and let them come and complain to us. Just... We got -- We have the CLIP program. We have Tom Conway's people out there anyway. Take them down. Go take them down.
I'm going to get in trouble, but I've been in trouble my whole life. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: A former mayor who I didn't agree with, whose son is a Councilman today by the name of Rizzo always said, don't tell me what you can't do. Get it done and we'll worry about it later. Go take them down.
Well, I 241 Whole - 5/25/05 unfortunately agree with you 100, just do it. Councilman, I agree with you just do it, but the Law Department would get very upset with me if -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, the Law Department... They have -- Look; they're going to fight the case no matter what, is my point. If we remove the blight, I'd rather fight the case about trying to put them back up than keeping them up during this time that we've been fighting for how many years to take them down. Now, I am a advertising advocate; everyone knows. I am in favor of wall wraps in appropriate locations. So I'm not here defending -- I'm here on the other side saying that we should just go take them down and tell the Law Department to figure out how to defend us for the action that we took in taking it down, as opposed to the other way around. And we could end this conversation. I'm not yelling at you. (Applause.0 242 Whole - 5/25/05 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's frustrating that we've been here for two hours. Even Councilman Mariano is applauding for that one. Just go take them down.
Supreme Court said they're illegal. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I mean, the big stuff is expensive: Billboards, cranes. This is stuff that somebody can go by with a scraper, get behind that frame and pop it off.
Actually, Councilman, please, not that. Everybody... They're actually bolted into the wall. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Then get a screw gun --
They have to be removed properly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: --and unscrew it.
They have to be removed properly, not just pried out. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Oh, listen, they don't have to be removed properly. Just 243 Whole - 5/25/05 rip them off. Get a screw -- I'll tell you what: There's a great organization that Mr. Ferrick is always complimenting, called Citizens Alliance for Better Neighborhoods. I am sure they can get them to donate screw guns to L & I and go take them down.
We're going to have to continue on. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna, Members of Council. I am Cecily Peterson Mangum. I am director of the Avenue Project, Mt. Airy, USA. Mt. Airy USA profit community development corporation, with programs in housing counseling, real estate development, summer youth programs and commercial corridor revitalization. As director of the Avenue Project, I coordinate programs and business recruit and development. I work with merchants along Germantown Avenue and the Mt. Airy Business Association. 244 Whole - 5/25/05 We have over illegal billboards in our community, and they are blighting influences. Additionally, several of these illegal billboards are along our main street which is Germantown Avenue. These billboards are hurting our commercial corridor revitalization efforts. They have a deleterious use effect in our business recruitment efforts, lending to perceptions of blight, decay and apathy. It is difficult to appreciate the beauty of our main street and our architectural gems, when they are blocked by these signs advertising alcohol, cigarettes and predatory lenders, advertisers that prey on urban communities. While fighting drugs and crime in our communities is always a priority and at the forefront of our agendas, illegal billboards lead to perceptions of crime and unsafe neighborhoods. These negative images instill fear, create stress among residents, businesses and visitors and leads to flight and abandonment. 245 Whole - 5/25/05 The esthetics of a commercial corridor and neighborhood are important. Esthetically and visually pleasing communities result in the decreased flight of businesses and residents, increased revenues and tax collections, and prevent the decaying forces of drugs and crime from taking up residents in our community. In closing, Mt. Airy USA fully supports the City's efforts to generate needed revenues for enforcement of its billboard laws. We believe the City's law enforcement agencies should be given the financial resources to enforce these quality of life laws. We need to raise the bar in the enforcement of these laws. It is demoralizing to witness these companies circumvent the law, while others dutifully adhere to laws, for fear of penalty. There needs to be responsible advertising that is sensitive to our communities and at appropriate locations, as 246 Whole - 5/25/05 Councilman DiCicco said. Thank you for this opportunity to address Council.
Thank you for coming in to testify. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
How you doing? My name's Greg Spearman. I'm with the 18th District Community Town watch, and doing a number of things in West Philadelphia, as far as community and economic development. I'd like to thank you, Council President Verna, and all the rest of the Council members here, for allowing me to speak before you. First I want to say, Mothers in Charge, I always want to be on the same side as Mothers in Charge. And I wouldn't have any problem with 900 signs, with all of their portraits up on them. I wouldn't have no problem throughout our community because I know that they would serve a purpose. 247 Whole - 5/25/05 But as these here gentlemen came up previously and spoke to us about the different signage, all they talked about was the good things that they brought to the community, as from their perspective. But even the gentleman that lives on 18th Street, I think if he went down his building and asked the residents in his building would they want this type of signage on their block, we all know what the answer would be. Councilman DiCicco, he spoke very well and straight to the point. We're going to court anyway. Let's get the signs off. I think this is common sense legislation, as Council member Tasco spoke about how does it impact the removal or where in the process, through this here new legislation, would affect the removal of these signs. If it's not there, let's figure out how to get it there because, as we all know, everything is a factor, and to the development and the quality of life issues in a community. 248 Whole - 5/25/05 And when we look up and see these malt liquor signs, these cognac signs, and, you know, all type of signage that's not conducive to the type of community that any of us will want to live in, if we have to sit there and bear it. It contributes to the atmosphere and the mind set inside that community. And I think that is the purpose of the map that Miss Tracy took and presented to you. And as you look at it, you will see that it's targeted. It's targeted for the poor and the minority communities throughout -- throughout our City. I think, as I spoke already, Councilman DiCicco, he hit it right on the nail head. I think we need to move forward, show these -- show this industry that we're serious about the quality of life in our community, because I could speak from my community. I'm fighting all the time trying to keep positive and good residents in my community all the time because all of these 249 Whole - 5/25/05 type of businesses or business ventures try to exploit our community, come in, from predatory lending on down to take-out stores. You know, they try to come in. They try to capitalize off us. And each one of them contributes because the more professional residents of our community, we -- we -- we don't want to live around this type of behavior. And as we look every day, we go out to work every day. We're a working class people. And we want to continue to keep our communities in a clean, productive and safe atmosphere. And these here signs contribute nothing to our communities, minus Mothers in Charge. I'm totally surprised to see them here today. And I commend them on all their efforts. But minus that, I know of nothing they do for our communities. And I'd like to thank you for letting me speak.
Thank you very much for coming in to testify. Do we have any other witnesses to 250 Whole - 5/25/05 testify on these three bills? I would just like to make an announcement. I think we have one more speaker to testify. After the speaker testifies on the three bills that we have been having testimony on, we're going to recess for an hour so that the L & I public hearing can be conducted. And then we will back immediately thereafter, because I don't think we have even touched the surface of what we have to do today. So, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Jean Gavin, and I'm a resident of the Fox Chase area. And in order to get rid of two billboards on Rhawn Street by the two blocks from -- that were next to the CSX Railroad and on the railroad property, I had to have PennDOT -- Actually, I think they paid to have them taken down while they worked on the Rhawn Street Bridge. And immediately after that bridge 251 Whole - 5/25/05 was or almost finished, the billboard people were putting up new station things to hold more billboards. And I called the police, and the police said they could do nothing. So, I called Mary Tracy. And with her advice, we kept those billboards down. But do you know that those stands are still there? And they have an extra one on one side? They still intend to put up big billboards there. They definitely have to be controlled, because if you have to go to PennDOT to get them down to begin with, something is very wrong in this community.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? Councilman Cohen.
Often the top shows the way. And that's a problem here. The problem is that everybody knows that the billboard industry has enjoyed a very special 252 Whole - 5/25/05 position in Philadelphia for many, many years. And when the Mayor of the City has the same law firm on his side as the billboard industry, you understand it's got to be a pretty powerful influence. And when the largest law firms, the most expensive ones, are available to the billboard industry whenever they seek to delay, you know they're going to have a good measure of success. Now, it seems to me you changed the City, you make sure it's clean and admirable for all the people to enjoy from the top. The Mayor ought to make clear that the billboard industry is being held to the same standards as every other business, that it doesn't have any right to be free of taxation or controls, that when the court's say you're illegal, you're illegal and you ought to come down. But you can tell from the testimony it's not the fault of the people testifying here. The people testifying here today from 253 Whole - 5/25/05 the administration are not the people who can make final decisions. Everybody in government can read the signs. If the Mayor wanted to take an action, he would have taken those signs down that I talked about before that are on the property of Conrail. He would have done so many different things. So we're asking again for the Mayor to show the leadership and to make clear that billboards have to conform to the law. And those that have not paid their fees should never be given the right to begin paying now. Before they should be considered for anything, they should have to pay from the beginning on, plus penalties. And we ought to make it clear that a billboard has to be in full compliance with the law. To me, a billboard -- no billboard could ever be in compliance with sound environmental principles because I don't believe they ought to exist. But as long as there's a law that permits them, at least require them to meet those requirements. 254 Whole - 5/25/05 And I want to thank your group and all those who have come here to fight for environmental, as well as good taxation principles.
Could I say one last thing. Councilman Cohen, I think your description of the industry was right on point. It was very accurate. And I'd like to thank you for it.
I would like to add, in the morning Inquirer it said that Mayor Street had made an agreement with Council on how we're going to tax in order to save the libraries and the fire houses. And in Fox Chase, we have great big billboards right across from the library and across from the church school. And they treat Rockwell Avenue like it's the back of a train station, as something to be not respected. Billboards must come down, and the community must have a say. They went up without our say. They should come down with our say. 255 Whole - 5/25/05
Thank you. Thank you all very much for coming in to testify. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilwoman Blackwell.
That's quite all right. I certainly wanted to thank the witnesses for coming. A special thank you to Mr. Greg Spearman, who is a gentleman, who's led the Stop and Go Project for some how many days now?
All right. I know it's been more than 800 days. So over two-and-a-half years at 55th and Larchwood. We thank him for his involvement in his community. Thank you.
Thank you. The Committee of the Whole will stand in recess. We will now have the public hearing of the Committee on L & I. Immediately after the Committee of L & I's public hearing, we will resume our 256 Whole - 5/25/05 public hearing on the tax bills. Thank you all very much. (Recess at 3:20 p.m.) (Reconvene at 4:50 p.m.)
This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole, concerning Bill Numbers 050451, 050452 and 050453. It is my understanding that before we recessed, the administration was going to be proposing amendments. Would you please approach the witness table.
Excuse me, Mr. Ramos. Do you mind waiting until everyone has a copy of the amendment.
Good afternoon, President Verna. My name is Pedro Ramos, Managing Director, accompany by Nancy Kammerdeiner, Revenue Commissioner. 257 Whole - 5/25/05 Earlier in the day questions were raised about whether -- concerning Bill 4 Number 050452, and the manner in which we were seeking to close the loophole on the taxation of valet parking. There was concern about the potential for double taxation. We stated before the break that in principle we were not seeking a double taxation; we were seeking to close a loophole. So, the amendment that we have distributed, President Verna, amends Section 14 19-1202, subsection 1, paragraph b, by striking the last sentence that was there in italics and inserting new language that would provide that pursuant to regulations to be issued by the Revenue Department, a valet parking operator will be entitled to a credit against amounts remitted to the department in an amount equal to any parking tax paid by the valet parking operator to the operator of a parking facility on account of the parking of any vehicle with respect to which the valet parking operator collected and remitted 258 Whole - 5/25/05 a parking tax under the section. In other words, what we're providing for is a mechanism for the valet operator to take the credit for any portion of the parking amount that they paid for that is attributable to the tax. I believe that this clarifies the intention of the bill, consistent with the comments we heard from Council and our intention in this bill. Our revenue projections were based on -- and the Commissioners here with me, were based on the closing of the loophole so it does not impact our projection.
Are there any questions from members of the committee on this issue or the amendment? (No response.)
All right. So, just so the record is clear, and notwithstanding what happened in the 259 Whole - 5/25/05 discussion earlier, can you walk us through, by way of example, similar to the discussion that we had earlier -- And I'm sorry; I was... If you went through this, I was distracted a little while ago, so just tell me that you went through it and I won't torture you.
Yeah, just from the time the person shows up with their car, they pay their money. Who's collecting what from whom? And just walk through that part.
I show up at the valet. I pay the valet base price plus the tax. The valet has some kind of arrangement with the parking operator, goes, pays the parking operator. The portion of that payment from the valet to the parking lot operator that is attributable to a tax, that is now something that the valet operator can claim a credit for.
Okay. So, I mean, what presently happens is, the little 260 Whole - 5/25/05 boards are out, and it just says the name of the company. And it will usually say a dollar amount, $15, $12, $10, whatever the case may be.
In restaurants, you'll see something that says, you know, $17, $15, $20, whatever the amount. Hotels, as you know, will have valet service --
But for, I think, the bulk of us, if you're coming in from... whether it's Wynnefield or Wynnewood, and go into a restaurant on Broad Street, Walnut Street, wherever you're going, it's usually... It's either on the dollar or on the 50 cents. So it's $12, $15, $18 or $12.50, $15.50, $18.50. Is your expectation that when the person comes up to get your keys and 261 Whole - 5/25/05 hands you a ticket, is it $15 plus percent or is it just $15 and the operator then has to figure out, the real price is 13 something plus 15 percent which added up to the $15? 6
I trust that anybody 7 that's in business, retail or parking or 8 otherwise, can figure out a price structure 9 for themselves that takes the tax into 10 account. 11
But I'm confident that that's what they'll do. 262 Whole - 5/25/05
For the customer dropping off their car, the price, whatever the price is, that's the end of their relationship at that point. They don't owe anybody anything, other than what the person asked them for when they handed over the keys.
I would suspect that the operator, like, you know, will say -- will have a sign that says, this is the amount plus the tax. And they'll probably round it off to something --
Change, right. And then they take the car to the lot, and whatever that arrangement is. But if they've already collected technically the 15 percent, then there's no additional 15 on whatever the price is when the valet person hands it off to the parking lot operator.
If the valet operator is paying a parking operator, as I assume they 263 Whole - 5/25/05 are, and the parking operator is paying that tax, then the valet can show that they've incurred that tax in paying the parking operator.
Of course, if you have -- and I don't imagine that this would ever happen, but if you have folks that are not operating legal parking --
-- then obviously the valet operator would not be able to show that they've paid that tax.
I understand. So the bottom line is, even though there might be two entities handling the vehicle in the one transaction, the total amount of tax paid should not be more than 15 percent on that transaction.
Okay. Thanks. 264 Whole - 5/25/05 Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm not supporting this request for an increase in these taxes, but wouldn't it be easier just to require the licensed valet parking operator to issue a receipt with a register, like other businesses do, that we track for sales tax or for anything else? I mean, it seems that if they're required to have a register, and they have a little box where they hand out the tickets, they had a register, they had to give the receipt to the customer and keep the register receipt on the register, would that not be 15 percent of whatever that was? Then you wouldn't have to get involved with the $5 or whatever they charge in the lot, and all that stuff back and forth.
Well, I think where the tax is being assessed at the valet, and 265 Whole - 5/25/05 you're not... And it's on -- the burden ends up on the valet service to show that they're -- you know, what portion of their payment to the parking lot operators is a tax, if what you're... I think you're making another suggestion which is also that it's really about enforcement, and the ability to audit the valet operators. How do you know that the right amount is being reported if you kept -- you know, if you required some way of --
Like any other retail business, they have to issue a receipt. They have a register. Here's the 15 bucks. Here's your receipt. And they've got a register tape that I can audit.
There are requirements along those lines for a parking facility. And Revenue has not yet drawn up regulations for valet parking operation. And we certainly will take a look at what you're suggesting as part of the documentation that's required there. I know the parking facility 266 Whole - 5/25/05 operators are complaining about some of the things with the maintenance of the records on the tickets. And so, we do need to look at the whole question of how we do this, so that it's fair to them, as well as providing the kind of audit trail you suggested.
One of the other places you can raise revenue is -- I mean, I know that many clubs and bars charge cover charges. And there's a bill that we passed -- it's not enforced -- that requires those places to issue a receipt for those cover charge. Whether it's $10 to get in or $5, whatever it is to get in, they are required to issue the patron a receipt. I'm sure they don't do it because we don't enforce it. But you talk about a ton of cash that's being made on Delaware Avenue or on South Street or Manyunk or wherever else they have these places. I mean, you could start to find the untaxed cash sources now. 267 Whole - 5/25/05
Councilman, I think what the Commissioner is saying -- and I think what we're all saying -- and I just... It's not an opinion. But in checking with another one of my colleagues behind me, we think that this is an issue can be looked at and dealt with through regulation within the Department of Revenue. And we're going to be doing regulations anyway with respect to valet operators.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee of the witnesses? (No response.)
And Commissioner, earlier you did submit another amendment about the effective date; did you 268 Whole - 5/25/05 not?
Yes. Yes, I did. And so that it was clear about what the effective date would be for this legislation. That had been omitted from the ordinance as originally presented.
Do we have anyone else to testify on the three bills that have been before us? Councilman Nutter, your light is on.
Sorry about that. The earlier discussion also revolved around the calculation regarding --
Excuse me. Councilman, did you want a witness at the table?
Whoever we are requesting, come up to the witness table.
Just throw them 269 Whole - 5/25/05 out there. Maybe somebody will take them; maybe not; I don't know. The issue revolved around in the testimony or in one of these -- one of the documents $2.2 million in revenue. And I had asked a question as to how many cars that might represent or what amount of money would have to be generated to result in the City receiving $2.2 million in revenue. And there was fair amount of back and for the about that. Have you been able to make some calculation in that regard?
We grossed the revenue up to indicate that it would be about $14 million worth of revenue that would come into the parking -- valet parking operator to generate that tax. And if you divide that by 365 days, it comes out to $38,356 per day. And we looked at it as an average.
$38,356. And we divided that by 16. The reason we used that is, we were looking at an average valet parking price of $20, taking off four for the amount that would be paid to the parking operators. So, we were only looking at the residual difference between the price to the person parking and the price of the parking in the parking facility.
And that results in 2400 cars per day that would be parked through a valet, in order to generate this much revenue. We looked at that in another way. And that is, if you had operators -- 19
Now, earlier there was some figures put out. There was a number of 400.
That didn't take 271 Whole - 5/25/05 all of the calculations into account and was done very quickly.
Correct. But you can also look at this on a per operator basis. There are at least ten large hotels that have valet parking operations, have events, and have a lot of people coming through with valet parking. You have all of the on-street parking here in Center City and in Manyunk and in other areas of the City. You have clubs that occasionally have valet parking. If you even had 20 operators who had 120 cars they parked per day somewhere in the 272 Whole - 5/25/05 City, you would come to this 2400 cars per day. And on days when you have a lot of special events, a lot of activity, it would put this number up. And so, we don't think that's too unreasonable as an average daily number, in terms of cars that would be parked by a valet service somewhere in the City.
And Councilman, if I may add, as you said, to continue to put this in context, as the Commissioner said earlier, the administration's revenue projection was based on Revenue Department's projection which --
On revenue Department's projection, which used its own methodology.
They didn't use the methodology that you're describing now by car --
-- but at your request 273 Whole - 5/25/05 have, for purposes of illustration, the Commissioner's gone back and modeled.
Will you be able to report to us in a year or so what the actual result of this exercise is?
I'd be very interested to know, you know, after about a year, six, nine months of performance what the actual is.
-- to see whether or not this does yield the revenue we thought it would.
Thank you. 274 Whole - 5/25/05 Are there any other questions or comments of the witnesses? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on the three bills that we've been considering? If not, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the bills that will be before us for public hearing. MR. McPHERSON: Bill Number 040767, an ordinance amending Section 19-2604 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to tax rates, credits and alternative tax computation for the business privilege tax, by reducing certain tax rates; all under certain terms and conditions. Bill Number 040789, an ordinance 22 amending Chapter 19-2600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Business Privilege Taxes," to provide for an exemption from the tax on gross receipts for certain new businesses, 275 Whole - 5/25/05 under certain terms and conditions. Bill Number 050001, an ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six Fiscal Years 2006-2011 inclusive. Bill Number 050002, an ordinance to adopt a Fiscal 2006 Capital Budget. Bill Number 050003, an ordinance 9 adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2006. Bill Number 050007, an ordinance 12 amending Chapter 19-1200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking Tax," by establishing a rate of taxation on parking transactions for Fiscal Year 2006 and thereafter and making such rate contingent on certain decreases in business privilege tax rates. Bill Number 050008, an ordinance 19 amending Section 19-2604 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to tax rates, credits and alternative tax computation for the business privilege tax, by reducing certain tax rates and making such reductions contingent on an increase in the parking tax. Bill Number 050383, an ordinance 276 Whole - 5/25/05 amending Chapter 19-1200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking Tax," by increasing the rate of taxation on parking transactions for Fiscal Year 2006 and thereafter. Resolution Number 050022, resolution 7 providing for the approval by the Council of the City of Philadelphia of a Revised Five Year Financial Plan for the City of Philadelphia covering Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, and incorporating proposed changes with respect to Fiscal Year 2005, which is to be submitted by the Mayor to the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority (the "Authority") pursuant to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement, authorized by an ordinance of this Council approved by the Mayor on January 3, 1992 (Bill No. 1563-A), by and between the City and the Authority.
Madam President, on Resolution Number 050022, is that not contingent on amendments that may or may not 277 Whole - 5/25/05 be made to the budget that we're considering? And isn't that something that would have to come back to us from the Mayor when adjustments are made, potential adjustments made to the operating budget?
The amendments based on discussions we've had relative to potential amendments coming from the administration to the operating capital budgets?
But not changes to any other changes -- Not changes to the five year plan, based on any other amendments that may pass as a result of our deliberations here. My question, I guess, is, if are there any amendments that are successful today that have not been recommended by the 278 Whole - 5/25/05 administration, would that delay our action on the resolution?
Okay. I think we've had extensive public hearings on just about all of the bills, with the exception of, I think, Councilman Clarke's bills. Is Councilman Clarke here? Is Councilman Clarke in the room? Councilman Clarke, I just indicated that we've had extensive public hearings on just about all of the bills, with the extension of yours. What is your desire, sir?
Thank you, Madam President. Are you talking about the parking and the gross receipts? 279 Whole - 5/25/05
Yeah. Those two bills, when introduced, were, although not introduced at the same time, were in my mind companion bills. I thought that the abatement on gross receipts was a good proposal. I thought it would possibly stimulate new businesses. There were some estimates given to me by the Revenue Department because it would incorporate businesses that would -- would open in the City of Philadelphia regardless of whether or not this bill would still affect that particular revenue. So subsequently I introduced a two percent parking tax bill that I estimated would be more than pay for any lost revenue. Unfortunately, it's not been in the 280 Whole - 5/25/05 position in my mind, to garner the appropriate votes for the parking tax, the two percent parking tax. So as a result of that, I will have to hold bills because I don't want to run the bill unless I can...
Very well. Do we have anyone that would like to testify on the bills that were just read? (No response.)
Miss Reed, you have your hand up. I can't hear you.
Council President, the whole list or just the two bills from Council Clarke's?
No. Now, the two -- the two that are being held. 281 Whole - 5/25/05 Councilman Clarke's bills are being held. We are now going to consider all of the other bills. And we'll take them in order. MR. McPHERSON: Bill Number 050001 which is the capital.
We have a number of people that want to be recognized. We have a number of Council members whose lights are on. Did they want to be recognized specifically for...
What were the bills that Councilman Clarke wanted to hold?
You're welcome. So I think we will take these in order. The first bill that we will be 282 Whole - 5/25/05 considering will be Number 040767. Councilwoman Tasco, your light is on.
I'm sorry, sir. Doesn't everybody have a copy of the public hearing? So, we're going to take them in sequence.
What is the point of this bill? What does this bill do?
This bill 21 was introduced by Councilman Nutter relating to tax rates, credits and alternative tax computation for the business privilege tax, by reducing certain tax rates, all under certain terms and conditions. 283 Whole - 5/25/05 And I am being reminded that last week Councilman Nutter did have the bill 4 amended. So, if we don't have any... Councilman Nutter, your light is on. Did you want to be recognized?
I only put my light on, Madam Chair, when Councilman Cohen asked the nature of the bill. We're still in the public hearing.
And then, I've been in two other conversations. So, is that question still out there?
No. I think he... Councilman Cohen, do you know what the bill is?
Yes. I wanted to know: Is this the bill that Councilman 284 Whole - 5/25/05 Nutter said he was going to reduce the amount of tax reduction involved?
Yes. Yes, councilman. We... You and I had a wonderful --
Yes. We had a wonderful exchange last week about this bill.
It's the one that was up before us and lost on 11 to 5 vote?
Councilman, last 17 week when we were in the Committee of the 18 Whole, this is the business privilege tax 19 bill that was originally introduced last 20 September. 21 There were amendments last week that 22 changed some of the schedules in the bill, 23 and reduced the five-year cost of the bill. 24 It also eliminated the guaranteed 12-year 25 schedule of reductions and made them only 285 Whole - 5/25/05 five years of reductions and significantly lowered the cost of the bill. We made amendments in the Committee of the Whole last week on this particular bill. So it's already been amended. And at some point, if -- whenever we get to the public meeting, it would, along with all these other bills, be in a position for action by the body.
But the impact of 12 the -- Tell me if I'm right or wrong. The 13 impact of this bill would lessen the tax revenue the City would receive.
The effect of this bill would be to lessen the amount of revenues the City could expect from the present schedule of business taxes.
Councilman Nutter actually circulated what the bill would, quote unquote, cost over a five year period before we had to revisit it. But I think the question that Councilman Cohen is asking can be answered in a different way also, about whether there will be less business tax revenue as a result of this bill. And I don't think that answer is yes. I believe that answer is no. 18
All right. Is there any other discussion on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now refer to Bill Number 050001, and that is the capital budget. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Cohen, Bill Number 050001 is the ordinance that 287 Whole - 5/25/05 Council would be -- if Council approved, would be approving the capital program for the fiscal years 2006 through 2011.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Ramos. Your light is on, sir.
Okay. Any questions or discussions. You have amendments to offer on the capital?
Madam President, we're being handed now proposed amendments to Bill 050001. 288 Whole - 5/25/05 Where are these amendments emanating from? Are these amendments that have been generated by Council in our discussions or are these the Mayor's amendments?
Okay. I want to make sure that we're clear because, I mean, there's been a lot of discussion over -- a lot of discussion over the past number of months relative to changes in the budget, capital and operating. And we're being handed this stuff without any kind of authorship on it. And I want to make sure Council members are clear as to where these are coming from and where they're not. So I want to make it clear that these are the Mayor's proposed amendments to the capital budget. I assumed earlier when we received this marked-up copy of the operating budget, these are also the Mayor's proposed amendments to the operating budget.
I would like to have the Chair make that clear, that whatever the sergeant-at-arms is distributing, you know, is coming from the second floor, not from the fourth.
And I think it was stated by Miss Reed that she is circulating the amendments now, and you also have testimony.
My name is Diane Reed, and I'm the Budget Director of the City of Philadelphia. I appear before you --
Excuse me. 290 Whole - 5/25/05 Do you have copies of your testimony?
Give it to the Councilman, please. Do all Council members have a copy of Miss Reed's testimony? Please proceed.
I appear before you today to offer testimony on Bills Number 050001 and 050002 which propose to establish the City's fiscal year 2006 to '11 capital program and capital budget and the fiscal '06 capital budget. Today we propose modifications to add additional appropriations necessary to carry forward all unobligated funding from the fiscal '05 appropriations, and we ask 291 Whole - 5/25/05 that you treat these bills as companion bills. In this proposed amendment, all unobligated general obligation PICA and revenue bond capital appropriations have been carried forward from prior years, with few exceptions. These exceptions fall mainly into four categories: One, unspent appropriations for which projects have been completed under budget; two, aviation projects that were either funded with other sources or completed; three, water payroll costs which do not carry forward; and four, state and federal grant appropriations which did not materialize. There are a large number of projects that have been included in the carry forward budget at the direct request of City Council members. I can assure the members of Council that all the remaining funding for these projects have been included in the carry forward amendment proposed today. 292 Whole - 5/25/05 This recommendation does not include the lapsing of any unencumbered funding for projects of this nature, whether or not those projects have been completed. Other than the addition of the carry forward appropriations, there is one other proposed modification to Bill Number 050002 as introduced. The requested modification is to add a general obligation appropriation of $1 million in fiscal '06 for improvements to existing facilities. I would be happy to answer any specific questions that Council may have related to the recommended capital budget and program as presented. Thank you.
Miss Reed, is the $7 million that Council approved in '05 being carried over to '06?
Can you tell us what page it's on, so that we could... 293 Whole - 5/25/05
It's in the ITEF section. It's line number 66-A of the program and of the budget. It's a similar line in recreation, 66-A.
Pages aren't numbered. It's very difficult to find it.
You have to go to recreation and then find the line number. Sorry.
The Mayor has indicated that if we were to do the budget as he submitted, and approved the taxes which he also submitted, that he would be committed to spending the money. I would like to know from you, is that also your understanding?
My understanding is that one million of this would be used to fund a capital eligible group of employees who would work on recreation related projects out of the seven million. And it would have to be determined the fate of the other six million.
That 294 Whole - 5/25/05 wasn't my question. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a point of information.
Madam Chair, do I understand we're talking about line 66-A?
I don't know what line we're talking about because they're not numbered. Pages aren't numbered, and I can't find it.
No. I understand that. But this is in ITEF, various facilities? (Unidentified speaker, microphone off, not reportable.)
66-A is $11 million. In FY'05. I'm just trying to understand what does that represent. And the discussion that you just had with Miss Reed about a million 295 Whole - 5/25/05 dollars and a commitment to spend it, I found it difficult to follow that.
There's $7 million in that which was proposed by Council as an increase.
Yes. And we are proposing that one million of that would be used -- of this carry forward amount would be used to fund capital eligible projects.
Four of that is the previously offered amount by the administration, four million.
Miss Reed, I 296 Whole - 5/25/05 have to admit that I literally have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, I just, you know, maybe have reached the maturity level that I could say that publicly. But I just -- I have no idea what you're talking about.
Four million of this was budgeted for Councilmanic districts in '05, and the other seven is the amount that Council added.
Okay. And is that four million different than the four million in the line above, in line 66?
Okay. So then you said the administration offered four, Council added seven. And of the eleven, you're now saying a million of that is going to some capital eligible pay for employees to do what?
Okay. So now I'll get back to the original question, which 297 Whole - 5/25/05 is: What happens to the other ten million?
Well, four of that was the amount that was previously budgeted, and the balance is really six, which really needs to be determined.
Well, then, what do you mean it needs to be determined?
This is the money that was under discussion since, I guess, last year's budget was passed. Right now there is no plan on how to spend this money. The administration would need to work with Council on it to determine how to spend that money, if it's to be spent, the six million.
Why wouldn't you just divide it up, the way you have in the past? I don't understand it. What do you mean you don't know what you're going to do with it?
The Mayor had not 298 Whole - 5/25/05 intended that this money would be spent originally from '05. So, it will need to be determined what will happen with the six million. We also have at line --
At line 61, they're under 10 the Managing Director's in the Managing 11 Director's section, there is a million dollars added for Councilmanic districts, both in the program and in the budget.
Let me ask this question: If the 11 stays where it is right now, and this gets approved, what happens to it?
Well, four of it has already been budgeted to projects. Of the seven that has not been budgeted, one would be used for capital eligible recreation projects, using a special team.
And then, what are you going to do with the other six? 299 Whole - 5/25/05
That will not be spent or there would be a determination at some point.
And what are the projects that are funded with the four million dollars? Is this FY'05 money or is this carryover from FY'04?
And is the carrying over because we were not allowed to spend it or it wasn't authorized for spending or it just hasn't been designated for anything?
Okay. And it's been designated for projects already throughout the City?
Well, of the $4 million, how much is designated for projects?
That would be up to each individual Council person. We do not have 300 Whole - 5/25/05 that information with us, but we can get it back to you.
I think the question is, why hasn't any of the $4 million been spent?
It's possible that some of that has been designated. We just don't have it.
Why isn't it reflected in what's been presented to us?
It's probably because the loan authorization bill did not pass in the spring, but rather in the fall. And none of it was available for spending until January -- December, January '04, '05. These carry forward numbers are as of the end of March. So they didn't all get designated within a three-month period.
Do we have assurances from the administration that whatever we put into the budget will be spent? And I'm talking about both capital 301 Whole - 5/25/05 and operating.
On the operating side, yes. On the capital side, there is still a $6 million amount that will have to be determined. The goal really is, in moving the Council appropriation, is to keep it at the same proportionate level to the overall spending limit for the capital budget each year, rather than having it take a larger share, if it increases in the amount proposed by Council.
Should we have gotten something like nine million in '04?
In '04 Councilmanic -- the ten Councilmanic districts were budgeted for 1.2 million.
Okay. Is there any other conversation and questions, suggestions regarding the capital budget? Yes. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Back to the 302 Whole - 5/25/05 improvement to existing facilities. Improvement to existing facilities, line 66. Is that $4 million programed out through 2006?
The improvement to existing facilities, line 66, ITEF.
Are you looking at the program. So, this is '06. And the proposed for the out years.
Now, what is 303 Whole - 5/25/05 that four million? Where is that from? That's money you said hasn't been spent.
And the four million we were speaking of was a different line item. There just happened to be two lines under four million, that have a $4 million component in them. Each line represents a separate budget year.
Councilwoman, the $11 million was never spent. Correct?
Some of the four million 304 Whole - 5/25/05 of it may have been spent.
Four million of the 10 eleven million, some of that may have been 11 spent. That is the loan -- is referenced -- with reference to the loan authorization that I mentioned earlier.
Well, what about improvement to existing facilities '04, seven million 850. What is that?
All of the line items in the ITEF section are City Council projects.
And that's money that was appropriated but not spent.
Okay. 305 Whole - 5/25/05 MISS REED: Each of them is a different year. '05, '04, '03, '02, and so forth.
Okay. So, let's go back to the million because I 7 don't understand the 11 million. Maybe a 8 little thick. 9 It was $11 million. Where does $4 10 million come in? Is that the four million in 11 line 66?
No, no. This is a line item that has its own characteristics, one of which was four million which was what was in the budget from the administration, an additional seven that Council added. Out of that seven --
-- the administration is now proposing to use one million for special capital eligible projects.
Okay. So the four million was proposed by the administration. 306 Whole - 5/25/05
Okay. All right. All right. Okay. So it's $11 million, none of which has been --
Some of the four may have been spent. As we said, the loan authorization was late. So, there have only been three months in which any money could have been spent.
And they are for projects that are approved by the Council, District Council members.
Okay. There are any projects -- any of this money used for any facilities determined by the administration?
Is there any discussion on the capital program? (No response.)
Seeing no 20 one, we will then consider Bill Number 050002, and that is an ordinance regarding the capital budget. Ms. Reed. We're still in the hearing.
Yes. The amendment is in the Managing Director's line which is a million dollars. Line 51, Managing Director's Office, capital projects various. That has been increased from two million two twenty-five to three million two twenty-five which is a hundred thousand dollars per Councilmanic District.
Both of them, same line in both the program and the budget, 406.
Is the amendment in a separate form or is it within the big document that's been handed out.
It's within both big documents on line 51 of the Managing Director's Office capital projects various.
Their pages are not numbered. Read the page through the Managing Director.
The amount is three million two twenty-five. It previously had been two million two twenty-five. That is the one -- That is the one amendment that can be, you know, clearly identified by changing the amount. The amount of the proposed amendment is $1 million. It has been changed from two million two hundred twenty-five thousand to three million two hundred twenty-five thousand which provides a hundred thousand per Councilmanic district.
Citywide facilities, line 51, says three million two 310 Whole - 5/25/05 hundred twenty-five.
Correct. And in our previous submission, that was two million two hundred twenty-five.
(Indicating.) Yes. The amendment is a million dollar. The change is $1 million.
So when you submitted the first budget to us, it had how much in it?
I'm trying to tell you, that's the same thing here on this sheet.
Not at line 51. You should have... My version has three million, two hundred twenty-five thousand. So, I hope you have the same as mine.
It would 311 Whole - 5/25/05 probably be helpful if you had the strikethrough or something.
All right. All right. I'm not hearing you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm not hearing you.
I think maybe part of the issue is... It's just a suggestion for the future. Even with this kind of document, it might be helpful if -- Normally in an amendment situation we see the strikeout. So if you had reprinted the 2.225 and then replaced it with the 3.225, that may have --
Okay. It may have been helpful. Thank you. Madam Chair, can I just... Just so we wrap up on the $11 million, and the whole floor discussion and the seven, if this bill 24 moves forward with the $7 million in it, I'm assuming the effect of that is four million 312 Whole - 5/25/05 is guaranteed, a million of the is supposed to go to pay for employees to do capital improvements, and in essence we have authorized $6 million in capital improvements under a category of improvements to existing facilities, for which there is no commitment at the moment from the administration to spend those dollars. Is that the end result of the situation?
Madam Chair, I will have an amendment for the public meeting once we get through the rollover amendments for both the capital program and the capital budget, to reflect the $7 million being put back in.
We'll do that at the public meeting. Very well. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
This $1 million that's going in here for the Managing Director's Office, who will determine how the hundred thousand dollars per district will be spent?
Is this the first time you've appropriated a hundred thousand dollars for each district?
No. This is an appropriation that -- combination that has gone forward between the improvements to existing facilities in recreation and a million dollars in the Managing Director's budget.
So we can call the Managing Director and say, we have a hundred thousand dollars over there. And can we use some of it to do X, Y and Z, or does it have to be for any facility?
Linda Howard, Deputy Budget Director. Councilwoman, traditionally, ever since we started allocating money per Councilmanic District, we've always budgeted a certain -- the bulk of the amount in recreation. When this -- When this started, I think the allocation was 1.2 million per district. We always budgeted a million dollars in recreation and 200,000 in the Managing Director's Office, the purpose category being a bit broader than recreation, so that Council people had some discretion to fund projects other than recreation projects.
Well, why do they give us such a hard time about putting up a fence if we have a hundred thousand dollars? That's not your issue. Okay. They act like, you know, you're asking for the world, to get something out of the Managing Director. Okay. Thank you. 315 Whole - 5/25/05
You're welcome. Are there any other questions or comments on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, seeing none, we will now refer to Bill 9 Number 050003. Councilman Cohen, that is the ordinance adopting the operating budget for '06. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Yes. Madam President, I offer one amendment to Bill Number 050003.
I would suggest you do that at our public meeting.
Madam President, I'd like to take the opportunity to get some 316 Whole - 5/25/05 clarification on the Mayor's May 24th letter about the $5.6 million that it cost the taxpayers of the City of Philadelphia to patrol the state highways here in the County of Philadelphia. As you know, we're the only county in the Commonwealth that provides that service and pays for it. There's some confusion whether or not that letter that the Mayor wrote... I'd like to get some clarification whether we're going to get the $5.6 million in fiscal year '06 or are we going to get the state troopers to come in here and patrol the roadway. Could you please clarify what that means.
Diane Reed, Budget Director. The Mayor has indicated that to make sure that we have a way of acknowledging the obligation that we understand that the state will provide this service, that we have added 5.6 -- a line of 5.6 million to the revenue side to pay for this, as a way of recognizing that we expect that the state will support 317 Whole - 5/25/05 this operation.
So we are confident that the state will pay the tab for those -- Is this with confidence or is this speculation? I mean, what -- Again, I think we had this conversation once before. What is the source?
We have repeated assurances from various senior officials at the state that because Philadelphia is the only county that is not patrolled, that this service will be provided by the state -- or supported by the state. Excuse me.
Supported financially, meaning a check for 5.6 million annually starting in fiscal year '06?
It will be determined exactly how this will occur. The Mayor has indicated that he would like to see it shown as a revenue expectation for '06, and that is 318 Whole - 5/25/05 what the budget reflects.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Yeah. I want to go back to this hundred thousand dollars per district in the Managing Director's Office. Since I didn't know too much about that, I should have a lot of money in that budget from my district. Can somebody know about that?
Do ya'll kind of accumulate the money in little pockets for the District Council person? $100,000 per district? I know you just got there, but I'm sure that --
You know me well enough 319 Whole - 5/25/05 to know that I'm not going to speculate or if I don't know, I'm not going to talk about it. We're going to get Miss Howard to clarify.
Miss Linda Howard, Deputy Budget Director. Councilwoman, the reason you don't -- We don't really... identify --
No, no, that's not true. We identify it by line numbers, and you can -- you can tell from your list of projects where the money is budgeted. It just -- It's not transparent to you, but it's always been there. The Managing Director does not -- He's not allowed to spend it. It's designated for the Councilmanic District in our budget information system, infamous. So, there's -- there's really not an issue.
Is it on the sheet that you all give us? 320 Whole - 5/25/05
Yes. Yes. That list that CPO prepares that we -- when we meet with you and we go over all your projects, that includes all the money. And we could show you on that sheet where it -- it's budgeted in recreation, and where it's budgeted in the Managing Director's Office.
We're now back to the operating budget. So, Miss Reed, you are going to present the administration's amendments?
Yes. I think they've been distributed. You have a marked-up copy of Bill 050003 which are the amendments.
I have it. I have it. 321 Whole - 5/25/05 Miss Reed, could you very quickly go over the amendments for the record.
The first change is in section 2.11 which is a $469,000 increase in materials and supplies. This is for fuel which will be used for the condo trash crews that we're putting in place, which also some of the expenses are reflected in the next line, 2.12 which are the vehicles. This is a $2.3 million increase for compactors, dumpsters, and a bulk truck. On at line 2.15, there is a change to personal services, an increase of nine hundred and fifty-four thousand for the crew, and of nine hundred thousand for the disposal contract. There is an increase at line 2.16 in the Fire Department of 3.4 million in personal services, which is an increase of about 17 million over the full five year plan. At line 2.19 there is $100,000 increase in contributions, indemnities and 322 Whole - 5/25/05 taxes for the recreation activities fund. At line 2.21, to the Recreation Department for the Art Museum, there's a $250,000 increase in contributions, indemnities and taxes, an increase or restoration to $2 million for the Art Museum. At line 2.22, also in recreation, to the Board of Trustees of the Atwater Kent, there are two changes of 14,000 to the... for one position and personal services, and an additional 6,000 in purchase of services for insurance. In line 2.32, there is a $567,000 increase in personal services for the enforcement crew that we were discussing earlier at another hearing, and also $250,000 in purchase of services for an engineering contract and $25,000 in material, supplies and equipment for hand-held equipment. At line 2.37 to the Department of Records we have an increase of $660,000 in purchase of services, for mapping and police accident reporting. This is offset by $600,000 in increased fees for recording at 323 Whole - 5/25/05 $10 apiece, so that the net change for this is $60,000. There is also... No. That's all. At 2.53 for contributions, indemnities and taxes, there's a hundred thousand dollars increase for the cultural fund. At 2.58, there is a $3.5 million increase in personal services for the Free Library for increased services, the restoration of full day service, Saturday service, and the three regional libraries, 37 positions. At 2.65, to the Register of Wills there's a $240,000 increase for personal services for systems, which is offset by a like amount of new fees, for a revenue neutral effect on the budget. In 2.66 to the District Attorney, there's an $87,000 restoration in purchase of services for the victims' support and confidential investigations services. At 2.67 to the Sheriff, there's $115,000 purchase of services increase which is the amount required for the Sheriff to 324 Whole - 5/25/05 complete the systems work required by the state. At 2.69, there is a $2.272 million personal services increase. And this is offset by a million and a half of civil fee increases. And the net change to the budget is $772,000. And the last change is in the Water Department, line 4.1 which is a transfer of $125 million from purchase of services to personal services. And those are the extent of changes to the -- to Bill 050003, the operating budget.
Thank you. Councilman Kenney, your light is on. Did you want to be recognized?
Thank you, Madam President. This question is for either the 325 Whole - 5/25/05 Managing Director or the City Solicitor. Can you tell me how much money was spent in opposing the condo trash ordinance up through the Commonwealth Court, I guess, and even pleadings to the Supreme Court? And if you know, how much Council spent in our activity relative to that case.
Councilman, Romulo Diaz, acting City Solicitor. I don't have those dollar figures before me. We had, in connection with the City's representation, that was done by outside Council. That was a relatively small contract, but I don't have that dollar figure, in terms of dollars invoiced and paid to date, but I can provide that to you for the record.
Well, in terms of the 326 Whole - 5/25/05 Class 200 dollars that are available to the Law Department. It was also... If I may, it was also a joint effort by the City Law Department. So, we did not have any additional expenses from that part of the legal representation. But in terms of the total dollars spent, I don't have that. I can provide that to you real quickly for the record.
I'd appreciate it. I don't know what Council spent on it. Don't know either?
The real point of my question is, with the Streets Department increase, why are we doing this the hard way? It seems to me that the condo associations now get mostly twice a week trash pickup from a private contractor, private hauler. Why are we going through the effort 327 Whole - 5/25/05 of acquiring new trucks, hiring new people, and doing something that's going to cost us more money than it costs the private associations to do it now? Why aren't we sitting at the table and negotiating a reimbursement for their trash pickup, as opposed to playing this game with buying new trucks and retrofitting and all the other stuff we're going to do? I mean, I even envision that we pick up the trash, like, in a sloppy way so that they're unhappy, I mean, just to be spiteful. Could we just figure out why we can't write a check or figure out how we can reimburse these groups for the trash pickup that they have now twice a week, and save the taxpayers some money, as opposed to buying equipment and trucks and everything else?
The operating budget amendment reflects an estimate of the -- from the Streets Department on a -- you know, a -- a -- a -- a reasonable approach to collecting trash. Obviously, as you know, by adopting 328 Whole - 5/25/05 the amended budget and appropriating the funds, it doesn't lock us in to a particular way of doing it. We -- But we did think it was important to -- to assume that we would be proceeding -- our numbers are not based on something cute like piling all the trash bags up in front of the Society Hill Towers or anything like that.
It's not out of the realm of possibility, if we want to --
If somebody wanted to prove a point. All I'm saying is, why are we having discussions with the people now? I understand you're asking for reconsideration. That's a highly, as you know, a highly unlikely occurrence with the Supreme Court, once they've denied to hear it.
As you're saying, Councilman, we're proceeding on both tracks, on the legal track asking for reconsideration, but as you've observed in this budget, also budgeting for... as if we 329 Whole - 5/25/05 were undertaking that obligation, which we would take seriously, you know, in our provision of City services.
If I could, Councilman, just respond very briefly to your earlier point about the cost, I think what you see in the budget amendment relative to the condo trash costs that would be incurred in the fiscal year '06, you see a significant sum of money. So, I don't... I think it's important to keep in context, given the costs to the City, apart from any principles related to governance, that there is a real cost. And the litigation costs are, I think, quite reasonable and moderate, with respect to that potential liability. But I agree with the Managing Director. Prudence demands that we include that, even as we are pursuing the legal track. And we will see what the Supreme Court says, with regard to the reconsideration petition that was filed last 330 Whole - 5/25/05 week.
Well, my only suggestion is that we try to work out a deal to reimburse them for their current pickup now, as opposed to trying to do it the hard way.
We're going to have to reach out to the -- reach out to the stakeholders and get some of the feedback. For example, if we were to... If we were to take a certain approach with... And buy particular types of trucks, part of what, you know, we might be looking to the condo owners to do is to -- we'll come to Council and try to provide some standardization on what's put -- you know, how that gets put out for our collection, whether types of containers, whether compactors, and also look at the other alternatives.
But we don't have to buy -- I don't think we have to buy one truck.
If we simply 331 Whole - 5/25/05 allow the private haulers to pick up what they're picking up now and reimburse the association, I would bet that in the larger buildings, that the condo association's trash budget, if reimbursed by the City, would probably be used to beautify and improve the area surrounding it. I'll bet you they wouldn't be writing smaller checks to each individual member, but they would probably do plantings and improvements, and other things, to make the whole area even better.
We tried to budget prudently. We haven't locked ourselves into any means of doing it. I would say that any time you deal with a public service -- and I'll get myself in trouble, maybe, by referring to education. But, you know, with schools, we provide -- You know, you get -- You know, you get the public school option, and at some level of service. And if you want something different, then we don't pay for the -- we don't pay for the private school. But we try 332 Whole - 5/25/05 to -- You know, we'd like to provide.
But see, that example is not accurate because in that circumstance you'd be paying more money for the private school and for the extra -- for the extra amenities of the education beyond what the public school's offering. What we're saying -- What I'm saying is that they're picking it up now twice a week. It's costing less than it would for the City to do it. Why would we go a route that costs more?
That's all I would like to have for the record. Thank you.
And Councilman, I thought that when Council was considering that bill, that was the route that we thought that the City administration was going.
You can make this process more difficult, if you choose, and more expensive, if you choose. And we 333 Whole - 5/25/05 had that extensive testimony and conversation back when we considered the bill. And we made that clear to the administration back then, that it was not going to cost what they were -- what they were saying in -- I think they were up to $8 million at one point in their testimony. It was nowhere near going to cost that, but that was an effort to scare off people over the issue of cost.
I mean, the ordinance, I believe, spoke of providing for regular trash collection, I think was the key phrase. I don't remember. But we're... You know, we're... If -- If -- You know, if -- if -- if life is that we have to proceed with condo trash pickup, we're going to do it as best we can and as cost effectively as we can. For purposes of budget, we tried to take, you know, a responsible --
And my only suggestion is, I would just consider you guys writing a check as opposed to buying trucks. 334 Whole - 5/25/05
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. On that same note -- and Councilman Kenney or you, Madam President -- I thought we had a number that was somewhere around a political, political one or two.
One of the things that we looked at, and we can talk about some more because we may have to come back either way on the implementation side, depending on how we do it, is certainly the growth of the number of... you know, the growth in the condo market.
Right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right. That's what I was going to get to.
Well, I think that is an issue that should be looked at sooner or later because you look at some 335 Whole - 5/25/05 of the condos along the Parkway, it's my understanding that they have trash pick-ups at least four times a week. So I don't think the City's going to be able to do that. Okay. Councilman DiCicco, you're finished? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes.
On behalf of the administration, we're requesting that 050007, 050008 be held.
Very well. Thank you. Councilman Cohen, is your aide explaining them to you? 7 and 8 are being held. Miss Reed, again, I would ask you for the record, is the Mayor prepared to spend the money in the operating budget as he submitted it, if we approve it, and approve his taxes? Are we being given a guarantee 336 Whole - 5/25/05 that the money will be spent?
We have a guarantee, a commitment, and a solemn oath...
Madam President, just a point of information. Why don't we just get a letter to that effect, Madam President? Then it's memorialized.
Okay. I 337 Whole - 5/25/05 believe that will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting.
This will conclude the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. m. - - - BILL 050451 - An Ordinance amending Title of 7 The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Finance Taxes and Collections," by 8 creating a new Chapter 19-3400, entitled "excise Tax on Outdoor 9 Advertising Transactions,' under certain terms and conditions. 10 BILL 050452 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 11 19-1200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking Tax," to provide 12 for a tax on valet parking transactions, under certain terms 13 and conditions. 14 BILL 050453 - An Ordinance amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, section 9-602, 15 entitled "Outdoor Advertising," by amending the requirements for 16 obtaining and the conditions for issuance of licenses, including the 17 applicable fees; imposing safety requirements; increasing penalties; 18 providing certain reporting requirements; amending certain 19 definitions; and making technical changes; all under certain terms and conditions. 2670 339 Whole - 5/25/05 BILL 040767 - An Ordinance amending Section 19-2604 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to tax rates, credits and alternative tax computation for the business privilege tax, by reducing certain tax rates; all under certain terms and conditions. BILL 040789 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 19-2600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Business Privilege Taxes," to provide for an exemption from the tax on gross receipts for certain new businesses, under certain terms and conditions. BILL 050001 - An Ordinance to adopt a Capital Program for the six Fiscal Years 2006-2011 inclusive. BILL 050002 - An Ordinance to adopt a Fiscal 2006 Capital Budget. BILL 050003 - An Ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2006. BILL 050007 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 19-1200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking Tax," by establishing a rate of taxation on parking transactions for Fiscal Year 2006 and thereafter and making such rate contingent on certain decreases in business privilege tax rates. BILL 050008 - An Ordinance amending Section 20 19-2604 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to tax rates, credits and alternative tax computation for the business privilege tax, by reducing certain tax rates and making such reductions contingent on an increase in the parking tax. BILL 050383 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 19-1200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking Tax," by 340 Whole - 5/25/05 increasing the rate of taxation on parking transactions for Fiscal Year 2006 and thereafter. RES. 050022 - Resolution providing for the approval by the Council of the City of Philadelphia of a Revised Five Year Financial Plan for the City of Philadelphia covering Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, and incorporating proposed changes with respect to Fiscal Year 2005, which is to be submitted by the Mayor to the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority(the "Authority") pursuant to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement, authorized by an ordinance of this Council approved by the Mayor on January 3, 1992 (Bill No. 1563-A), by and between the City and the Authority. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO 341 Whole - 5/25/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. And the first bill that we will be considering will be Bill Number 040767. The Chair recognizes the sponsor of the bill, Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. From your previous comments, there has been extensive public testimony and discussion about this bill. I would just encourage my colleagues, this is the only bill at the moment that is available to us to put forward any additional, although responsible, tax reduction or some might call a part of the tax reform plan. It is fiscally responsible but also continues to send, I believe, the right message, that Philadelphia is open for business, it's looking to grow jobs, and is 342 Whole - 5/25/05 seeking to keep things moving in the right direction and sending the right message, especially with a first time ever opportunity -- not opportunity; we've had other opportunities -- but certainly a first time ever reduction in the excessively high net income portion of the business privilege tax. So, I would ask for support for this measure, at a minimum, to be r from this committee so that the full body can take up this matter at the subsequent Council session. So, I move the adoption. I'm sorry. I move -- Been a long day. I move that Bill 17 040767 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation.
It was amended. As amended, so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second. 343 Whole - 5/25/05
It has been moved and seconded that Bill Number 040767 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation as amended, and that the rules of Council be suspended, so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
On this matter I would like to speak in opposition to it. My daughter was... Marie's somewhere in the room, wearing a sign, I think, saying tax cuts don't grow opportunities. Tax revenue does. At some point we've got to have enough revenue to run the City. And I think at this point it would be a misguided action to take any more cuts in taxes. So I will be voting against Councilman Nutter's bill, although I appreciate the very strong work he's done in support of the bill. But I think this is the wrong time 344 Whole - 5/25/05 to cut taxes when we need so much in the form of services. People stay in Philadelphia and love Philadelphia because of services it provides. And people are important, not just business people but residential people. And people from businesses don't want to come to a City that's lost too many jobs. So, for all of those reasons, I think at this time it would be a mistake to cut taxes beyond what we've done. And therefore, I will be respectfully opposed to Councilman Nutter's bill, in the interests of the City.
Madam Chair, thank you very much. Just a couple brief comments. And I respect and appreciate Councilman Cohen's comments. I think, as we heard through the 345 Whole - 5/25/05 extensive hearings, and as articulated most recently by Councilman Goode, we know for a fact, based on information from the City administration, that the continuing cuts in the rate of tax on the business privilege tax and also on the wage tax have not led to a lower tax revenue collected on these taxes. That's first. And the information comes from the City's own budget documents. We have extensive back and forth with our own Budget Director last week. Second, this is not just about what, quote unquote, business people get. Who works for these businesses but Philadelphians in many, many instances. And Philadelphians, while they desperately need in some cases or personally enjoy the services that the City provides, I also believe that what Philadelphians want is a growing, thriving City where they can get a job. A sense of dependency on the system, I believe, ultimately is not the kind of 346 Whole - 5/25/05 public policy that we wish to promote. And I know that there is this motion that cutting the taxes in this City somehow leads to an instant transference of dollars into the pockets of a variety of business people. And while business may grow, and the last I checked we're still in the United States of America, and there is a bit of a capitalistic system here, what I'm really more interested in, is whether it's a big business or a small business or a medium sized business downtown, my good colleague knows that there are many, many, many smaller businesses throughout Philadelphia. The small business outnumbers big business by a significant margin. And those small businesses hire local neighborhood people. They have problems. Those businesses also have problems with the onerous tax system and tax rates here in Philadelphia. When those businesses grow, our neighborhoods grow. When those businesses 347 Whole - 5/25/05 grow, our neighbors get jobs. And when they have jobs, they can take care of their families and get all the service that they need, and will continue to enjoy the services here in Philadelphia. There is no direct connection between the lowering of tax rates and less tax revenue. That point, I think, has been proven by the facts and the data and information laid on this record. So, I do appreciate the Councilman's perspective. I know he cares about this City and our neighborhoods and people getting jobs. His record is crystal clear on that particular point. We do, though, have a slight difference of opinion as to what the ultimate result of these kinds of actions are. And I would only ask, on behalf of the citizens of this City, and working age people, and some who are not working age today but who might want to have a job in this town, that we support efforts to help grow business and grow this economy so that 348 Whole - 5/25/05 Philadelphia can continue to be a premiere City in the United States. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. Your light is on.
Does anyone else want to be recognized on this bill? Yes, Councilman Cohen.
Just briefly. I think there's been no proof of any showing that tax cutting produces the revenue. We don't know what the cause is. Might well be that business was better in the Clinton years than in the Bush years, and that's the reason why we have the increases in revenue, despite the tax cutting that went on. But be that as it may, I have no 23 objection to cutting the taxes on the... on the small business people. That's why I introduced in this Council, pass the bill on 349 Whole - 5/25/05 small businesses. But the Tax Reform Committee, of which you were a leader, objected to that and said, there was no indication that the cut of taxes on the working people would have any increase -- would result in any increase of revenue. So, I just respectfully submit again, you can't have it both ways. If you believe that there ought to be cuts limited to the... what I call residential businesses, businesses... the mom and pop variety, that give meaning to residential living. That's one thing. But your bill gives the tax cut to all businesses, including the major bills, and serves sort of to justify the $36 million giveaway of the state money for Comcast. And that's the reason I say, let's set a new classification of residential businesses, meaning small businesses, with well defined boundaries that make residential living in Philadelphia worthwhile. But let's not cut taxes for the giants that don't need 350 Whole - 5/25/05 it. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. Do we have any other comment from members of the committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, it was moved and seconded that the bill 10 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call the roll. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
No. 20 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
Aye. 351 Whole - 5/25/05 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Kenney.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Council President Verna. 352 Whole - 5/25/05
Aye. Bill passes nine to eight. The bill is reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, by a vote of nine to eight. The next bill to be considered is Bill Number 050001. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the amendment to -- proposed amendment that's circulated to Bill 15 Number 050001 be adopted.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill Number 050001 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and a suspension of the rules.
We're doing the amendment first, the adoption of the 353 Whole - 5/25/05 amendment. Right?
I believe Councilman Nutter and the Budget Director, Diane Reed -- Is this the bill in which she -- the Budget Director had to tell us what the meaning was because it wasn't in the bill itself?
I think so, Councilman. I think it was the same thing. She told us that there was an amendment to the Managing Director's line, I believe, of a million dollars. Is the budget or the program the program? The program?
Yeah. There was 354 Whole - 5/25/05 a million -- I believe it was the same million dollar adjustment on line item 51 or something. It was one of the bills the Budget Director talked about.
Would you care to state how you're going to vote on it, Councilman. I thought your criticism with sound.
I appreciate that. I'm going to vote in favor of the amendment.
I will recognize you again. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the proposed amendment 355 Whole - 5/25/05 to Bill Number 050001, as passed out today, the amendment we received be adopted. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments as presented be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Councilman Cohen is voting no. All other members are voting in the affirmative. And the amendment is adopted. Councilman O'Neill.
I would offer an amendment to the amended capital program.
No. I'm going to circulate it now. It's very simple. I 356 Whole - 5/25/05 didn't want to confuse it with the other until it was passed.
Thank you, Madam President. Does everyone have a copy of the amendment? (No response.)
Yes or no. 12 Councilman O'Neill, you're being recognized.
Thank you, Madam President. The amendment is in number one, section one, and it adds $7 million to the capital program in the Recreation Department. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
Councilman Nutter, if you're saying something, I can't hear you.
No. I'm just -- I'm really not saying anything. 357 Whole - 5/25/05
Move the adoption, Madam President. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments -- Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I just wanted to ask our budget -- (Councilman Cohen said something away from the microphone, not reportable.)
Yes, there is. Councilman Clarke, you're being recognized.
Thank you. 358 Whole - 5/25/05 Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I would just like to ask our budget guru, also known as Mr. McPherson, does this amendment simply increase the amount of the amount of money in the capital budget? It has no effect whatsoever on any other aspects of this particular bill? MR. McPHERSON: It conforms to what the administration amendments that were just passed do. And what this does is, it then conforms an additional $7 million of CN money to the Recreation Department to improvement to existing facilities.
So that takes us up from the proposed -- Is it five or 600,000? MR. McPHERSON: Well, if you go into the amended, this takes us up to a million two.
Of five or six 359 Whole - 5/25/05 or whatever. MR. McPHERSON: Yes.
All right. It has been moved and seconded that Councilman O'Neill's amendment be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Madam President. (Councilman Cohen made remarks, away from the microphone, not reportable.)
The stenographer could not hear you. Councilman, what's that? The stenographer could not hear you.
I said, I have not changed my objection to this grant of potential money to District Council members, to the exclusion of the at large, but this represents an entirely different issue in today's world. But I'm serving notice that hereafter I expect to be voting against any grants which separates Council members into a superior and an inferior class. We've all got to be treated the same way. At this point, the question's on a different matter entirely.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell again, regarding Bill Number 050001.
Madam President, I move that Bill Number 050001 as amended be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and also a recommendation for a suspension of the rules 361 Whole - 5/25/05 so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill Number 050001 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it, and the motion passes. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell, regarding Bill Number 050002.
Madam President, I move that the proposed amendment as circulated be adopted to Bill Number 050002.
Second. (Councilwoman Krajewski said something away from the microphone, not reportable.)
No. This is the capital. It's Bill Number 050002. It has been moved and seconded that the amendments to Bill Number 050002 be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Madam President, just like on the previous bill, I 363 Whole - 5/25/05 have an amendment to the amended capital budget, reflecting the additional $7 million in the recreation budget. It's being circulated.
Councilman Cohen, you have a question or comment? Your light is on.
Thank you. Madam President, I just wanted to ask Mr. McPherson the same question as I asked on the last capital bill. MR. McPHERSON: The answer is yes because this amendment then makes the capital budget consistent with the capital program, as we just amended it.
A motion was made. Was it seconded? UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second. 364 Whole - 5/25/05
It was moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. Councilman Cohen.
Your light was still on. that's why I recognized you. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Clarification. Does this amendment increase the capital budget that has been submitted by the administration?
(Microphone not on, not reportable.) ...process so that the Planning Commission would have notice. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And what, if any, impact does this have on the five year plan? MR. McPHERSON: Nothing. It's capital. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So it doesn't have any impact on it.
Okay. All those in favor of the amendment will indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. The Chair again recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell, regarding Bill Number 050002.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill Number 050002, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and a recommendation that the rules be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill Number 050002 be reported out of committee with a 366 Whole - 5/25/05 favorable recommendation as amended; also, a recommendation the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell regarding Bill Number 050003.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the amendment to Bill 19 Number 050003 be adopted. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments as provided earlier to the operating budget be adopted. 367 Whole - 5/25/05 All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. A vote's been cast. Councilman Nutter.
Yes, Madam Chair. These are -- This is the set of amendments that was put forward by Miss Reed that we walked through. Is that what we're talking about here? Madam Chair?
There were another set of amendments to the operating budget that had been discussed over some period of time, prior to the most recent set of proposed amendments, that had a variety of different schedules, proposed cuts and restorations. Now, it was indicated to me that there would at least be some opportunity for discussion of these proposed changes to the 368 Whole - 5/25/05 FY'06 operating budget prior to the time of taking up the other amendments that had been discussed at the witness table by Miss Reed. So I would at least... I mean, before we... These proposed amendments are very different in nature from each other.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a point of order. COUNCIMLAN GOODE: Thank you, Madam President. I believe there's a motion on the floor that was made and seconded.
There was. However... COUNCIMLAN GOODE: So we are reconsidering the matter.
I am told by our counselor that the issue is being debated. So, Councilman Nutter -- COUNCIMLAN GOODE: I don't mind the issue being debated, as long as we know what we're considering. We're considering the 369 Whole - 5/25/05 amendments as presented. There was a motion, and it was seconded. I don't mind a debate, but we're not considering a second set of amendments. We're debating the amendments that were just presented.
In the event that the Chair rules that there's only one set of amendments that are going to be voted on, will the Chair let us know that? It's my understanding -- It was my understanding that we'd be potentially voting on a second set of amendments. If the Chair rules that we are not, could you let us know? Because I would like to vote no on these amendments, if we're having no opportunity for a second set. I am being told by... In fact, Mr. Auerbach, why don't you explain it, please?
Sure. There's now a motion on the floor to amend the operating 370 Whole - 5/25/05 budget. It's been seconded. There's now a debate on that motion. The debate should continue. There should then be a vote on the motion to amend the operating budget. That way, if the amendment -- if that motion passes, then another motion would be in order to make different amendments to the operating budget. But there is a motion pending on the floor at the moment.
Well, I would only raise two issues in the course of this discussion. One is, will there be an opportunity in the course of this public meeting to consider any other amendments to Bill 050003?
One more point of information. Is it the Chair's ruling that the last set of amendments that are voted on, if passed, are the ones that finally amend the bill?
If the first set of amendments passes, the second motion really should be to undo the first set of amendments and substitute a second set of amendments.
So, if those amendments pass, they would be the germane.
So we have to consider the first set of amendments.
Okay. The second issue I raise is, I just want to make 372 Whole - 5/25/05 sure that I have clarity on this particular set of amendments, specifically related to restorations.
Thanks. What is the amount that is proposed to be restored to the Fire Department?
Councilman, I think we're all getting rather tired. Who are you asking the question of?
There's an amendment on the floor. I'd like to understand how much is being restored to the Fire Department.
Okay. So, I would suggest Miss Reed come to the witness table, since she submitted the Mayor's proposed amendments. (Councilman Goode speaking, away from the microphone, not reportable.) 373 Whole - 5/25/05
Moved from the public hearing to the public meeting. (Councilman Goode speaking, away from the microphone, not reportable.)
Point of information. Does the Chair rule that a Council member in a public meeting is not able to ask a question of a person who is sponsoring the amendment? I recognize Councilman Goode's position, relative to additional testimony from the administration. But is it appropriate or out of order for a Council member to ask the introducer of the amendment questions relative to the amendment?
I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. 374 Whole - 5/25/05 I think if the Councilman is asking a question -- and I know that Councilwoman Blackwell is the sponsor of the bill, but the sponsor of the amendments were the administration's, I would suggest that Miss Reed come up to the table and respond, please. COUNCIMLAN GOODE: I object, Madam President.
It's to the discretion of the Chair, I'm being told, and...
Where's that? I'm new on this Council. Can you show me where that discretion lies in our rules?
I don't have a copy of the rules with me, but there is a provision on regulation of committees, that the Chair of a committee controls the conduct of the hearing, sets rules and procedure for the conduct of the hearing. 375 Whole - 5/25/05
I have a motion, it's been seconded, we go back into a public meeting all over again? We can do that, then, every Thursday, if we...
We are in the public meeting. We are in the public meeting, and the Chair has ruled that a question has been asked, and that someone may approach the table to answer the question. That's in the discretion of the Chair.
If there's an amendment, it can only be presented at the public meeting.
At what point do you have a discussion on the amendments, if you have a question?
It can only be at the public meeting. 376 Whole - 5/25/05
-- about the amendment, in the public meeting. COUNCIMLAN GOODE: It's discussion. It's not testimony. It's not question and answer.
But if the person who presented the amendment has -- COUNCIMLAN GOODE: Councilman Nutter did not ask the sponsor to explain the amendment.
-- person answering the question -- asking the question.
Councilman Kenney asked was it appropriate for Councilman Nutter to direct his questions to the sponsor of the amendment. And it is appropriate. As the sponsor of the amendment --
-- thing to do. COUNCIMLAN GOODE: We moved to a vote. And I'm not against debate or discussion. I'm against further hearing on this issue.
You're against... COUNCIMLAN GOODE: Further hearing.
We can debate and discuss all night until tomorrow, but when 378 Whole - 5/25/05 we're considering one amendment I don't think we should take any more testimony on that amendment.
Madam Chair, I understand the distinction being raised. If I can then at least ask the sponsor of the amendment, our majority leader, the question on the amendment, there is some information that I'm trying to ascertain about the amendment.
Madam President, since it is an administration amendment, if my colleague has a series of questions, I would suggest that he direct them to the administration.
Okay. Which I'd be pleased to do. If it's esteemed by the Chair to be okay.
All right. Councilman Nutter, please ask your question.
Point of order. Was this question asked in the public hearing? I believe this question was already asked and answered during the public 379 Whole - 5/25/05 hearing. $3.4 billion or... Is that it?
I don't believe I heard the question being asked or the answer. I know I didn't ask.
Councilman Ramos, I think there were two figures being bandered about. There were two figures being bandered about, so I think Councilman Nutter does have the right to ask the question and get an answer.
Mr. Managing Director, what is the amount to be restored to the Fire Department?
Councilman Nutter, Pedro 380 Whole - 5/25/05 Ramos, Managing Director. At line 2.16, under personal services, as pointed out by my colleague, Diane Reed, reflects a difference of $3.4 million.
And what was the amount that was originally proposed or how much was originally proposed to be cut?
Didn't the good Councilman have the opportunity to ask this in public hearings? We just heard the same answer that was given earlier, an hour ago. Is the intention of the Councilman to proceed with the same line of questioning and make us go into a public hearing all over again? If it's at your discretion, Madam President, I suggest that you use your discretion to limit the time and the repetition of the same questions that we heard the good Councilman from West Philadelphia ask.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenny. 381 Whole - 5/25/05
I am getting in line. I want to get in line. I have a question for Mr. Ramos.
Madam President, the Council can always do what it wishes to, and all that's needed is a motion to suspend the rules, to permit the questioning of this witness during this hearing. If there's an aye vote, Councilman Nutter can do it. If the membership votes no, that's the end of Councilman Nutter's questioning. So I'd like to suggest to Councilman Nutter he make that motion and we can settle this.
Councilman Cohen, I think a ruling was made. I think a ruling was made. I said that Councilman Nutter could ask his questions, and I am 382 Whole - 5/25/05 asking that he proceed. Thank you. Try to be as brief as possible.
Thank you. Councilman Ramos, let me assure you we will not, at least on my part, be going into a full-blown hearing. I only have two questions. Mr. Managing Director, the $3.4 million, that amount does not represent a full restoration of proposed cuts to the Fire Department, does it?
Okay. And can you tell us, for the amount that's being restored, which sounds like it's about half, can you tell us at this point, as we are at budget time, can you tell us which services will be restored as a result of this proposed restoration of about 50 percent of the proposed cut?
So it is unknown at this time as to which services will be restored.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Based on that response to that question, I'll be voting no on this amendment. I think it's appropriate that we be given the information as to which services would be restored. I think it's important for all of us to know fully, before we vote on any restoration, what's going back. So that's my comment. I'm not asking any question, but unless we have an opportunity to know where 384 Whole - 5/25/05 these service put-backs will go, I can not vote in favor of it. Thank you.
Madam majority leader, would you make your motion to adopt the amendments, please, for the second time?
All right. I move that the amendments to Bill Number 050003 be adopted. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments as proposed by the administration on Bill 21 Number 050003 be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Those opposed? 385 Whole - 5/25/05 (Chorus of "nos.")
Roll call, please. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
No. 12 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Miller. 386 Whole - 5/25/05
The amendment is adopted. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. 387 Whole - 5/25/05 I move that Bill Number 050003, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and also that the rules of Council --
I'm sorry. Excuse me. I'm just being told that Councilman Kelly wants to be recognized.
Yes. Madam Chair, I'd like to offer one amendment to Bill Number 050003.
It's being circulated now, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I would just like to offer this amendment. And what this amendment does is, it restores the revenue or the appropriations to two facilities which provide City services to the communities of North Philadelphia and Northeast Philadelphia. And they are known as mini City Halls. I think that it totals about $418,000 for the complete operation. And I 388 Whole - 5/25/05 think that we're speaking of a budget of $3.4 billion. It's not too much to ask for. While I think we have been discussing the restoration to the Art Museum, the Atwater Kent Museum, the free libraries, the Recreation Departments, and Is most of the funding for the Fire Department, I think this has been an omission. And I want to correct this omission by amending the bill to include the appropriations which will enable both of these facilities. Now, it's my understanding that the lease has expired in North Philadelphia location, but this will enable -- this will enable and give the proper funding to whenever they decide to reopen that office at a new location, they will be able to do so. And it will also continue the operation at the Northeast facility in their present location. So, therefore, I am asking an additional $418,000 which will increase the public properties space rentals and come out 389 Whole - 5/25/05 of the Director of Finance fringe benefits.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Krajewski.
Thank you, Madam President. Since the mini City Hall that Councilman Kelly's referring to happens to be --
-- happens to be in the 6th district, it's been there for the last, oh, I would say at least 16 years, since Mayor Goode was in office. And 17 I worked with him in order to get the mini 18 City Hall exactly where it is. 19 I feel that the show is not over. I 20 have been in contact with the administration for some time. And I think I advised Councilman Kelly the same issue that, please, I am working on it. I have represented the people in the 6th District for the last 25 years. 390 Whole - 5/25/05 I don't know a time since I've been here that I allowed the people that I represent down. And there would be no way that I would let this pass. But I tried to tell the Councilman that I am on it, but he didn't... he won't listen. And I'm still telling you, Councilman, I have been on this, and so is Councilman Mariano. We've been here. We've been here, Councilman. I know what the 6th District wants. And there is no way that I'm going to allow them to not do that.
Madam President, if I may, the Councilman is correct. She does a great job in her District, but I'd like to remind her that this not only includes her district --
-- but it includes many, many communities throughout the Northeast, as well as the communities in 391 Whole - 5/25/05 North Philadelphia.
It's the boundary. I found it where it is, and I made sure that it was located in the 6th District.
Madam President, this amendment just gives the appropriations --
My motion is to table the amendment. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be tabled. 392 Whole - 5/25/05 And the Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano. I think your light's been on, too, for some time.
Thank you, Madam President. And to follow what Councilwoman Krajewski said, Councilman Kelly is a great at-large Councilman from Northeast Philadelphia. And he's doing in his mind what he thinks is right. But Councilwoman Krajewski is absolutely right. The Democratic caucus of the District Council people of Northeast Philadelphia... She represents it. My district's across the street. We have been working with the Mayor quietly behind the scenes, out of the glare of the newspapers and news media, to keep this thing open. Councilman Kelly's intentions are well meaning, but this is a time when you have to go with the District Council people on this one. We are going to restore this, and we're going to do it behind the scenes, 393 Whole - 5/25/05 out of the glare of the media. And if it closes, it will be opened up. And I think the same thing is going to go for the one in Germantown. I can't speak for that, but we have been assured -- And whatever it's become a political football, it's not our political football. We are just grabbing the ball and making sure our constituents get what they need. And same as Councilman Kelly. It's just the approach of it.
The motion was made to table. It was seconded. It is not debatable. It is not debatable. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Yes. 394 Whole - 5/25/05 MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
Only because of Councilwoman Krajewski, no -- I'm saying yes. (Laughter.)
You see what this administration does to me? (Laughter.)
Strokes over nothing, over a contrived crisis. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Krajewski. 395 Whole - 5/25/05
Only because of the Councilwoman, aye. MR. McPHERSON: Council President Verna.
396 Whole - 5/25/05 Councilwoman Miller, I know your light was on. However, it was not debatable.
I wasn't going to debate it. I was just going to support it.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a reference back to the earlier discussion regarding Bill 050003, with regard to an additional set of amendments. The members, I believe, are very familiar with this set of proposed amendments. I think there are primarily two major differences between this set of amendments and the previous larger set, not 397 Whole - 5/25/05 the amendment that was just the subject of the motion to table. One of the primary issues here is that in this set of amendments which are not dependent upon additional new tax revenues in order to have a balanced budget, seeks to restore fully the funding for the Fire Department, and a host of other organizations and agencies; of course, the Art Museum and the Atwater Kent Museum, Recreation Department, and many others. And so, I would ask that there be consideration of this set of amendments to Bill 050003, as a part of our budget discussion. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
I move the adoption of the amendment. UNIDENTIFED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted, as presented by Councilman Nutter. All in favor will indicate by saying 398 Whole - 5/25/05 aye. Should we have a roll call?
Yes. I'm sorry. I can't hear you. Your microphone's not on.
I was asking if you could explain or either one more time. It appears that a number of members were busy doing other things. And I'm not sure that everyone understands what we're voting on.
Councilman Nutter just presented his set of amendments.
Okay. And the set of amendments to the operating budget.
Councilman, it's a proposed set of amendments to the operating department. It was the subject of a little bit of discussion earlier. This proposed set 399 Whole - 5/25/05 of amendments are very familiar to the members. It's been a topic of discussion for some time. I think the two important features are the previous large set of full amendments, not to be confused with the most recently addressed amendment. It seeks to make a series of reductions in certain areas, and of course restorations in others, the more prominent of which would be a full $6.8 million restoration to the Philadelphia Fire Department, insuring that all of the proposed cuts would be restored, and of course full funding restoration for the Art Museum and Atwater Kent Museum, Recreation Department, and a number of other departments, which is not dependent upon additional or new tax revenue sources. That's the explanation. I think it had been moved and seconded already.
Very well. We are now going to call the roll for the approval or disapproval of the 400 Whole - 5/25/05 adoption of Councilman Nutter's amendments.
I'd like to ask Councilman Nutter: Does this represent an agreement with the Mayor or does it represent both the agreement with the Mayor plus our recommendations in the areas where there is no agreement? What's different about this set of amendments from the other set of amendments? Just so we know what we're voting on.
I understand. All right. Thank you Councilman. I think there are two primary distinctions between the first large set of amendments and the second, and this set now in front of you. First, this set of amendments proposes to make a number of strategic cuts in a variety of places throughout the budget, 401 Whole - 5/25/05 as well as restore funding to many of the proposed areas to be cut, whether it's full funding, $6.8 million to the Fire Department, or funding for the library service, to get rid of the proposed express branch system, Art Museum and Atwater Kent and a variety of others. Secondly, this proposed set of amendments to the budget is not dependent upon any of the recently proposed... In the past two weeks, the administration proposed three new tax revenue measures which the first set of amendments are dependent upon those measures passing, in order for that budget to be in balance. So, the difference is full funding for the Fire Department, Art Museum, and significant funding for the libraries, as well as the... It's not contingent on the passage of the three tax measures which I assume will come up a little later. That's the difference.
Does that mean this budget as presented in this amendment is 402 Whole - 5/25/05 a balanced budget.
And it's the Council's product, as required by the Home Rule Charter, that Council pass a budget? Does it meet that test?
Does it meet the test that the Home Rule Charter requires to us meet to pass a budget? I'm asking what is not a trap question. To me it seems to meet that issue. In the Home Rule Charter we seem to have a duty to deal with the budget.
And you're presenting this as our answer to meeting the test.
Thank you. I just want to make sure I wasn't walking into a trap; that's all. Just had to hesitate for a moment.
Well, I just will say a lot of time and discussion has been spent on these amendments, with all members of Council. And I think that they offer an alternative to us having to in a week's notice raise taxes where there has been a real discussion about what all those taxes might mean to the people, that those taxes would have had... And without having to raise any taxes, we may have come up with a nice recommendation which has not been... you know no self interest in. So I'm fortunate that we find ourselves here in City Council trying to pass a budget. The alternatives have been 404 Whole - 5/25/05 offered, but because of political intrigue and infighting, we can't get something done without trying to raise taxes. So, I support these amendments.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode. COUNCIMLAN GOODE: Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to ask the sponsor of the amendment why he's eliminating a hundred percent of the economic stimulus funding.
I'm sorry. COUNCIMLAN GOODE: I'd like to ask the sponsor of the amendment why he's eliminating a hundred percent of the economic stimulus funding.
Councilman, I'm asking you in your amendments, you eliminate a hundred percent of the economic stimulus money. Why is that?
Councilman, I think one of the issues that has arisen in the course of this process is what actually 405 Whole - 5/25/05 happens with that money. And as much as I support economic development, I think that there is some requirement by this body to at least put in place a process that would either require additional information from the administration as to what those projects are and not have a complete carte blanche as to what to do; and second -- COUNCIMLAN GOODE: I can tell you exactly what --
-- should there be -- COUNCIMLAN GOODE: -- looking for.
-- should there -- should there be a response back from the administration, there very well could be a restoration of those dollars or they could be placed somewhat similar to... I think it's the water fund, in another part in the budget, and utilize those dollars through a series of transfer ordinances. COUNCIMLAN GOODE: Councilman, I can tell you exactly what those dollars are spent 406 Whole - 5/25/05 for, having worked for the Commerce Department for several years, and having examined how the dollars are spent. Usually two primary purposes. One is to acquire land, but the larger purpose is to write down interest. More important... On projects, which some projects would not go if we did not have the flexible dollars. The truth of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of economic development dollars come from state or federal government, with whatever regulations the state and federal government give us. These are only dollars we have at our disposal where we can flexibly decide what we're going to do, to help make a deal go.
Thank you, Madam President. 407 Whole - 5/25/05 I don't know; I've done my share of complaining in a very short period of time of how the administration doesn't send us stuff in a timely manner. But to get a 30-page document and want me to vote on this stuff in a matter of minutes is very difficult for a freshman like myself around here. Some of you have been around here for a while might be a whole lot or definitely a whole lot better at this than I am at this point of my term here. I understand that the budget -- that the operating budget that we're considering before Councilman Nutter's amendment is a budget that we've had discussions with the administration. We've proposed. They've counter proposed. We've proposed. They counter proposed. And it was my understanding up to this moment that there was an atmosphere of reaching an agreement, and that we're very close to reaching an agreement. Then, all of a sudden, he's got the 408 Whole - 5/25/05 right to do. This and we all do. But I find it kind of difficult to see a 30document. And in the document there's something on that I find, you know, kind of slick, because I can't find a nicer word. But I don't mean it in a derogatory or an offensive way when I say slick. But it says there in the middle of the page, transfer between and among department respecting grants... respecting grants of $250,000 or greater shall not be made, except with the prior approval of the Council by resolution or ordinance. So, in the middle of all this stuff here, the question that Councilman Goode asked about, when it comes to stimulus dollars, there's a statement in the middle of this that changes the whole way we do business around here. So, you'd have to go -- You would have to go to in the middle to find that there's something here that would change the whole outlook on how we do business at 409 Whole - 5/25/05 this time. I understand the interest of... for I suspect this might be his interest on changing how we do things between the legislative and the executive branch. But I find it quite... you know, quite interesting to find this in the middle of all the budget recommendations made by the good Councilman from West Philadelphia. I have no intentions whatsoever in voting for this. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I think it's important that I make a brief statement, as it relates to the amendment that is being offered by my colleague, Councilman Nutter, because a number of times there's been reference made that this amendment would fully restore the 410 Whole - 5/25/05 $6.8 million to the Fire Department. As everyone --
Councilman, just a minute, please. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam president. As everyone on this Council knows, that although we have all been interested in the Fire Department cuts that have been proposed a year ago, I believe, this month, that I have been pretty much out in the forefront from last May. In fact, I believe I introduced the appropriations transfer ordinance last year that moved the 6.8 back into the Fire Department. But for the temporary restraining order that was issued by Judge Cariefiello on behalf of Local 22, we had no guarantees then, nor do we have any guarantees now, if this amendment were adopted, that the administration would spend that $6.8 million. Traditionally, past history has proven to us again, as a result of the 411 Whole - 5/25/05 transfer ordinance that we took up last May, when we put the extra million dollars into the library, which was never spent because the administration refused to spend it. I certainly would want to have the full $6.8 million. I've been fighting about that for the last months. I've been to 9 every single rally in my district which is 10 affected by about 11... up to 15 proposed 11 cuts. 12 So I'd be a fool to say I would not want that money restored. The problem is there are no guarantees that any portion of that $6.8 million would be restored. What I have is the Mayor's word, and it's in writing, that at least as of today, $3.4 million of the $6.8 will be restored, and there's ongoing discussions that may lead to additional increases to that restoration. So, the spin may be out there somewhere that I'm not supporting the firefighters, not looking to fully support. I'm sure my would-be opponent or somebody will use that, the hearings tonight, against 412 Whole - 5/25/05 me. But I'm comfortable, knowing that we're getting some of the money back, with the understanding that we may get additional money going forward. One other point I'd like to make is, the $6.8 million that's being appropriated, being suggested in this amendment does not take into consideration the EMS units. At least the 3.4 is just for the Fire Department, and we do get, I think, the 2.2...
Two. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: ...to do the EMS. So, no matter how you cut it, we're still going to be short, whether we did this amendment or the other amendment. My suggestion is that we continue to work with the administration to get the additional money into the Fire Department. Thank you, Madam President.
And a commitment has been made that that money 413 Whole - 5/25/05 definitely will be spent. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It was in the letter that was sent up by the administration.
Thank you. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Does anyone else want to be recognized on this matter?
Just a quick response, Madam Chair. I do appreciate my colleague who represents the entire City. And I feel bad that I don't know exactly where he lives, so I could return the compliment of the Councilman from a particular neighborhood. But Councilman Ramos, I would only 414 Whole - 5/25/05 suggest that the document that was circulated has been the topic of discussion, whether official or unofficial, for at least about a week, possibly more. And the only reason that I felt comfortable in circulating the document is because I know that members had seen it before. So, I do appreciate your concern with regard to timeliness. But I think we would all agree that regardless of our position about the proposed amendments, I don't think that timeliness of circulation is necessarily the issue at hand. I think all members have had this document in some form, and even including the City administration, for at least a week. And the particular provision that you referenced on , I think, only represents a situation where the Council or some of the Council may want to have more involvement in what goes on, with regard to grants and transfers of dollars between departments, the opportunity to know about 415 Whole - 5/25/05 them, either by approval through resolution 3 or ordinance. It is what we do. And so, it is, from my perspective, at least, a normal part of the process, where you have a fully independent legislative body that works with the City administration but does not necessarily work for the City administration, and all of us doing our jobs to the best of our ability, on behalf of our constituents. So... But I do appreciate greatly your comments. Thank you so much.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. As it relates... I would like to ask Councilman Nutter. In Section 14, as it relates to the general provisos, my understanding of the history of those is that these are things that the Council had agreed to in prior budgets, to make it easier or to make it easier for the administration to handle some of the dollars that are in the 416 Whole - 5/25/05 budget. So these were not Charter granted -- not Charter granted rights to the Mayor, but certainly these were agreements made by Council and allowed by Council, to streamline certain sections of the government. So, this is not something that I guess the Mayor's Office has by virtue of the Charter, but these provisos are operational agreements that have occurred as a result of budget after budget, and added to the end of the budgets, in an effort to make the business of government a little more streamlined. It doesn't mean that we should not be involved in the decision making process on how the monies that we appropriate through this budgets are spent. And I think it's clear -- it should be clear for the record that these are not Charter powers of the Mayor, but simply stuff that the -- simply powers that the Council has over the years agreed to allow him to have. 417 Whole - 5/25/05 Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Madam President. I, too, am concerned about the... Obviously, I'm not a new member of Council. I'd love to be a younger member of Council. Having said that, I'm concerned about all of these changes. Many of them deal with the Office of Housing and Community Development, and the community development block grant application. And I find it -- I think it unwise that we should consider voting on so many detailed changes, and expect at a cursory glance that would allow to us make these decisions. So I think if Councilman Ramos and certainly ask my colleagues to consider the same. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilman Nutter, I believe you made a motion for the adoption of your 418 Whole - 5/25/05 resolution.
We are doing a roll call. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. 19 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman 419 Whole - 5/25/05 Krajewski.
The motion 420 Whole - 5/25/05 fails. And the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the... I think we are adopting the amendment.
Madam President, I move that Bill Number 050003, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; also, a recommendation for the suspension of the rules so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council.
It has 421 Whole - 5/25/05 been moved and seconded that Bill Number 050003 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; also, a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will please say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
I don't think we have to have a roll call vote on it. Councilman Kenney is voting no. 16 Councilman O'Neill?
No. This is for reporting it out. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell. 422 Whole - 5/25/05
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
Aye. 423 Whole - 5/25/05 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Ramos.
Very well. 16 The motion carries. Do we do the resolution now? All right. We are now going to consider the revenue bills. Bill Number 050451. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. And I would remind you that there is an amendment that was submitted. At the public hearing, the... 050451. They're the tax bills. 424 Whole - 5/25/05 Do we have copies for the Council people, please?
Just a minute, Councilwoman. All right. Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the proposed amendment to Bill Number 050451 that's being distributed be adopted.
Do I hear a second? UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Those opposed? 425 Whole - 5/25/05 (No response.)
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The Chair again recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill Number 050451, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; and also recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council.
Madam President, I have an additional amendment to this bill, which I'd like to circulate. It's basically a sunset provision for one year which I would like to speak on.
Okay. Councilman O'Neill, I believe the amendments have been circulated, if you care to discuss it. 426 Whole - 5/25/05
Yes. Thank you. I move the adoption, please. I don't believe I...
Yes, I do. Thank you. I actually have this similar amendment on each of the three bills that were introduced last week and heard today, to sunset them after one year which would require reauthorization next year. The reasons are several. One, first and foremost, is that the budget as reported out of committee, I believe, has a surplus of $29 million in it. These bills themselves are $7.1 million of that $29 million surplus. And I 427 Whole - 5/25/05 don't have any recollection of us ever passing new tax bills to increase the surplus in a given year. The other reason is that this administration hasn't had a good record with surpluses. I won't go any further than that. If people want to talk more about it, there was, I believe, a $300 million surplus that they started with. And it sort of gives us another bite at the apple. If this tax were collected this year, fine. There's an additional issue, I understand, from discussions with members who have talked to the billboard community, that they would like to find another way to pay the same amount of money, other than these two bills that are before us. And this would give us an opportunity for that to occur during the year, and then take the place of this excise tax and the additional permit fees. I think it protects us. It protects the budget. It doesn't change anything in 428 Whole - 5/25/05 the budget. I think it's a legitimate concern that someone may have about the five year plan. But I don't think, when we are talking about the amount of surpluses that are going through the five year plan right now, that it's an issue that is anything but just an issue. It's not an unsolvable issue. So, it's $7.1 million. We're not raising money to restore cuts. We're raising money to add additional surplus. Coming back next year, with a chance to reauthorize these bills or similar measures, if there are other measures that are involved with the billboards --
I would like a few moments but would like to announce my opposition to the amendment, but I vote aye on the bill, whatever happens to the amendment and aye on the other bill.
So the sunsetting of the bill would, I believe, give us many more opportunities. And lastly, in this past year we had some indications that certain monies were being spent. They weren't spent. I know we don't have direct control over that, but we always try to find leverage. And I think having... I believe that having a sunset provision on these additional revenues within the surplus would give us more leverage next year, should something go awry, as it did last year. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I just would like to comment on the proposed amendment by my colleague, Councilman O'Neill. As I reported in a couple of 430 Whole - 5/25/05 briefings yesterday, that I expressed my willingness to the administration, to the Mayor, and to the advertising industry to work with the task force over the summer months, to hopefully come to some reasonable accommodation for both the industry and accommodate the administration in raising the funds that we think we can and should be raising from the advertising industry. As recent as of about 3 o'clock this afternoon, Mr. Leonard Ross, who represents Clear Channel, one of the big advertising companies in the City, said that they had a meeting with the Mayor. He concurred and confirmed that there will be a task force that is going to be created. We're going to work over the summer, and we would hope -- we're hopeful and we're pretty optimistic that we will have a comprehensive bill to present to Council in September or early October that will be both acceptable to the administration and the advertising industry. I can't say with certainty that that 431 Whole - 5/25/05 will happen, but my understanding is that every effort will be made to accomplish that. So I think, in addition to some of the other questions or concerns I have, based on my conversations with Charley McPherson and others, that this may, in effect, not be appropriate because it may interfere with the five year plan, and PICA would not accept this anyway. I just wanted, again, for a point of information for my colleagues, that there is a task force that will be working going forward. And hopefully by September we'll have some resolution to that issue with the advertising industry, and this may not be necessary after all. I guess what I'd be asking is that my colleague, Councilman O'Neill, table this amendment, in lieu of the fact that there is a task force that will be working on this over the summer months. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's in the form of a motion, by the way. Make a motion 432 Whole - 5/25/05 that he table it. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second. (Conversation back and forth among Council persons, away from the microphone, not reportable.)
If that were the only reason, Councilman, I mentioned I would do that because we did have that conversation yesterday. And I was sort of adding that to what I had already thought the sunset was a good idea. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But I wanted to just bring you up to date as of today.
Well, I thought there was going to be no debate on this. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No, there's not a debate. I'm just clearing up the air.
Okay. There's been a motion to table. It's been seconded.
I only had one -- Based on what Councilman DiCicco said -- and I did get my point of information in before the motion to table -- the bill is scheduled to go into effect July 1, 2005. So I assume that this is the... Is this the excise or is this the...
So, what happens during the time that the task force is doing its work, if the excise tax is going to be collected in any event after July 1, 2005? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are you asking me, Councilman?
I guess, yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I suspect, based on my conversation as of late this afternoon, that the industry will go forward and pay that tax, knowing that there is going 434 Whole - 5/25/05 to be some resolution that we'll either have to repeal the bill or amend it. I guess it would be a repeal. And then maybe create a whole new bill. The indication I got was that they were willing to go forward with the excise tax, with the understanding that every effort will be made over the summer months to come up with a comprehensive bill that will address the issue on a uniformity in collecting of fines -- fees and licensing for the advertising industry.
Well, all right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's my understanding.
Well, it's awful magnanimous of them; that's for sure.
Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And if I could just say, they estimate that the revenues would probably, cumulatively, across the industry, would probably be about a million dollars, if it took us to the end of 435 Whole - 5/25/05 September. I guess in their mind, cumulatively, it's not all that much money.
Madam President, Councilman DiCicco referred the five year plan. I had referred to that in my remarks. If Mr. McPherson could just go over if all three taxes were only implemented for one year, what the balance is, how the balances would show, and in the five year plan what the effect would be on the 7.1 in each year.
Councilman Goode, I know what you're going to say. Let's end the night, please. MR. McPHERSON: In the proposed five year plan, as presented by the Mayor, with these three revenue initiatives in it, the fund balance is at 29.2. That would stay the same in '06, based on your amendment. The revenue -- The fund balance estimate in '07 is 14.2. Assuming that the revenue... three revenue items were not 436 Whole - 5/25/05 reauthorized, that would be down to about $7 million. The '08 because of the cumulative effect, he was projecting a $10 million -- approximately ten -- the administration is recommending approximately a $10 million surplus. It would be... With the cumulative effect, it would be about a $4 million deficit, because you would lose it in both years. In '09 they are projecting an 82. You would take away approximately 61 if we -- or if we didn't authorize it. So, it 16 would be down to about $61 million surplus. 17 And in FY'10 it would be 18 approximately... They have seven -- they 19 have 80 minus 28. It would be approximately 20 a $52 million surplus. 21
The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode. 437 Whole - 5/25/05 COUNCIMLAN GOODE: Thank you, Madam President.
And then after that we're going to go by the rules. Yes, sir. COUNCIMLAN GOODE: Thank you, Madam President. I'd just like to note for the record those fund balances do not take into account new labor contracts. MR. McPHERSON: That is correct.
And so as, of '08, '09, '10, essentially, unless the economy grows significantly, we have a huge problem to deal with. And so, we're not as rich as you may think we are, in terms of the next couple of years' surpluses.
You're absolutely correct. Thank you. Okay. There's been a motion, and it has been seconded, to table. Yes is to table; no is to not to. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman 438 Whole - 5/25/05 Blackwell.
Yes. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
No. 25 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman O'Neill. 439 Whole - 5/25/05
Okay. The motion fails. I'm sorry. The motion carried to table. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell regarding Bill Number 050451.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill Number 050451, as amended, be reported out of committee with a 440 Whole - 5/25/05 favorable recommendation and recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill 10 050451...
I move to table. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
Okay. Let's have a roll call, please, to table the bill. Yes is to table the bill, the motion to report it out, as amended, and to suspend the rules. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
No. 441 Whole - 5/25/05 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Cohen.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. 6 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
No. 25 MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman 442 Whole - 5/25/05 Reynolds Brown.
No. 11 MR. McPHERSON: 7 to 10. It fails. There's 7 yeses -- There's 7 to table, 10 not to. So, the motion fails.
Okay. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. A motion was made and seconded that Bill Number 050451 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; also, a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.") 443 Whole - 5/25/05
Roll call. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
We're voting on the bill, as amended, with a suspension.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
No. 24 MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Krajewski. 444 Whole - 5/25/05
Okay. The motion carries. 445 Whole - 5/25/05 Bill Number 050451 will be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, also with a suspension of the rules. The Chair now recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell, regarding Bill Number 050452. Councilman DiCicco, your light is on. Did you want to be recognized? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Was it circulated? I have an amendment to this bill 13 that would close the loophole that was being discussed earlier. I think Councilman Nutter and several others had some issues on the double taxation issue. It's been distributed. Oh, I'm sorry. Jannie, you were doing that?
Okay. The amendment to this bill has been circulated. Does everyone have a copy? MR. McPHERSON: We're making more copies.
Everyone has a copy of the amendment now. 446 Whole - 5/25/05
You don't have a copy? Make certain that Councilman -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Kelly, would you share your copy with Councilman Rizzo?
Councilman Rizzo does not have a copy. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's a conspiracy.
Councilman DiCicco, did you make a motion? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes, I did, Madam President.
Okay. It has been moved and seconded that the amendment that has been circulated be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The Chair 447 Whole - 5/25/05 recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Madam President, I have another amendment, proposed amendment, for this bill. I'd like to circulate it.
Move the adoption. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill. I believe everyone now has a copy of the amendment. Thank you. Councilman O'Neill.
Madam President, I'll be brief. Just about everything I would say on this bill was covered in the last, and I deleted from my comments on this bill any reference to billboards and settlements or discussions or task forces, dealing with billboards. This is a valet parking tax, and they don't apply. 448 Whole - 5/25/05
Move to adopt the amendment. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
Okay. All in favor of the adoption of Councilman O'Neill's amendment will please say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
I guess we better have a roll call. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
No. 25 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. 449 Whole - 5/25/05 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. 3 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
No. 25 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Rizzo. 450 Whole - 5/25/05
No. 8 MR. McPHERSON: The amendment fails, 6 to 11.
Okay. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Madam President, I move that Bill Number 050452, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill Number 050452 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; and the 451 Whole - 5/25/05 rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Roll call. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
No. 452 Whole - 5/25/05 MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Krajewski.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: 12 to 5, it passes. 453 Whole - 5/25/05
Okay. Therefore, Bill Number 050452 has been reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; also, a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. Councilman O'Neill.
So, as I said, the Bill Number 050452 has been reported out with a favorable recommendation. as amended, with a suspension. We are now going to consider Bill 19 Number 050453. And the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill Number 050453 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and a recommendation that the 454 Whole - 5/25/05 rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council of Council.
Does everyone have copy of the amendment? Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President. Again, the same remarks from the first bill repeated on the second, with the deletion of any reference to working out the billboard matter, now that I know there's a task force.
Move the 455 Whole - 5/25/05 adoption. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
Okay. All those in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Roll call. MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
No. 19 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. 21 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Kenney. 456 Whole - 5/25/05
Aye. 457 Whole - 5/25/05 MR. McPHERSON: to 10. It fails. 3
Okay. The 4 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. 5
Madam 6 President, I move that Bill Number 050453 be 7 reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill Number 050453 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; also, a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Should I ask if anybody's opposed? (Chorus of "nos.")
Roll call. 458 Whole - 5/25/05 MR. McPHERSON: Councilwoman Blackwell.
Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye. MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Goode.
Aye. 459 Whole - 5/25/05 MR. McPHERSON: Councilman Nutter.
Councilman Goode. COUNCIMLAN GOODE: Madam President, are we going to be voting on the five year plan resolution?
We will be. 460 Whole - 5/25/05 COUNCIMLAN GOODE: I'm asking: Are we going to be voting on the five year resolution?
I think we have to go back. We're having a discussion on that at this moment, please. We're just going to have a breather. Mr. McPherson is getting some information for us. (Brief pause.)
All right. We are now going to be considering Resolution 14 Number 050022. And I understand that everyone has received a copy of the technical amendments to Exhibit A. Everyone has a copy. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. We introduced the amendments to Resolution 050022. These are technical amendments to Exhibit A that will conform to the actions of the five year plan that this 461 Whole - 5/25/05 committee has taken, with regards to both the operating and capital budget, as well as revenue measures. And we move for the adoption of the amendment. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments to Resolution Number 050022 be adopted. All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
I'm sorry. Just one quick question. This is the document? MR. McPHERSON: Yes.
This document incorporates, then, the amendments that were made in Bill 03 which is the operating budget, the changes that were made, and then reflects them all the way through the document. 462 Whole - 5/25/05 MR. McPHERSON: Yes.
Okay. Great. And assumes... I'm sorry. And assumes in this document the revenues from the three new tax measures, two for the billboard, one for the valet parking?
All in favor of the adoption of the amendments will please indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it. The motion carries, and the amendments are adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. 463 Whole - 5/25/05
Thank you, Madam President. We move that Resolution 050022 as amended be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; and also a recommendation that --
We don't need a suspension. MR. McPHERSON: It's a resolution.
Do I hear a second? UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that Resolution 20 Number 050022 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended. All in favor will please say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Those opposed? 464 Whole - 5/25/05 (No response.)
The ayes have it, and the motion carries. Thank you all very much, and have a very good evening. (Public meeting concluded at 8:20 p.m.) 465 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing and meeting of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on May 25, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)