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?