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.