- - - 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.