That would be13 the source of the financing, NSP. So,14 yes.15
The parcels18 are City-owned properties, so depending19 on how quickly we can move through them20 through the City. That would be the21 limiting factor.22
So the City23 is giving you all the money and all the24 land?25 137 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1
Any15 other questions from members of the16 Committee?17 (No response.)18
Thank19 you. Thank you very much.20 It is getting rather late and21 apparently we are not going to come to22 any conclusion as to where we're going23 with this bill today. What I would like24 to do is ask those who are in favor of25 138 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 this bill to please stand so we could2 recognize you.3 (Some audience members4 standing.)5
Those6 who are opposed.7 (Some audience members8 standing.)9
So10 they're opposed to the bill? You're in11 favor.12 Those in favor, please stand so13 we could count.14 You're in favor of it.15 Well, since they can't hear and16 I can't count, it's not going to matter17 at this point.18 It's getting rather late. We19 have three other bills to be considered20 today, along with our Capital Budget21 public hearings. As I said, we could22 listen to everybody in the room today and23 we are not going to resolve this issue.24 Therefore, I am requesting that the bill25 139 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 be continued to the call of the Chair.2 In the interim, I would like the3 community groups to get together. We can4 have an all-day hearing so that5 everybody's voice can be heard, at which6 time we can have City Planning and Eva7 Gladstein and whoever else would be8 interested in addressing this issue.9 Again, I want to thank you all10 for coming. It's been very important.11 However, I think it's absolutely totally12 essential that the community groups work13 together to resolve this.14 Thank you all very much.15 Our next bill will be --16
Just give17 everyone an opportunity to -- those who18 are leaving on this particular bill,19 please do so as quietly as possible. As20 soon as they've left, we will begin with21 the other four bills that are on the22 Calendar, and we will try to expedite23 them as quickly as possible.24 And please keep your discussion25 140 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 to a minimum.2 (Pause.)3
The next4 bill for consideration is Bill 110083,5 which is an Ordinance amending Section6 14-1607 of The Philadelphia Code,7 entitled "Special District Controls for8 the Center City Commercial Area," and9 Section 14-1605 of The Philadelphia Code,10 entitled "Regulated Uses," and Section11 14-305 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled12 "'C-4' Commercial and 'C-5' Commercial13 Districts," by adding to all Sections14 special provisions relating to the area15 bounded by Chestnut Street, 12th Street,16 13th Street and Sansom Street, all under17 certain terms and conditions.18 (Witness approached witness19 table.)20
Good afternoon.23 My name is Martin Gregorski. I'm a24 Zoning Planner in the Development25 141 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Planning Division of the Philadelphia2 City Planning Commission. I'm here to3 testify today on Bill No. 110083, which4 was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco5 on February 10th of this year.6 Bill No. 110083 amends three7 sections of the Philadelphia Zoning Code:8 Section 14-1607, "Special District9 Controls for the Center City Commercial10 Area," Section 14-1605, "Regulated Uses,"11 and Section 14-305, the "'C-4' and 'C-5'12 Commercial Districts," limiting changes13 to an area bounded by Chestnut Street,14 12th Street, 13th Street, and Sansom15 Street.16 The purpose of this bill is to17 amend the Zoning Code to allow for the18 reuse of the existing building located at19 1200 Chestnut Street as an upscale20 billiards hall in the existing Beneficial21 Bank building. Additionally, the22 developer proposes a rooftop addition to23 the existing structure.24 Bill No. 110083 amends Section25 142 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 14-1605 of the Code, entitled "Regulated2 Uses," by changing the definition of a3 pool room and removing it as a regulated4 use within the area bounded by Chestnut5 Street, 12th Street, 13th Street and6 Sansom Street. It further amends Section7 14-1607, entitled "Special District8 Controls for the Center City Commercial9 Area," by permitting restaurants, cafes,10 coffee shops and similar establishments11 along the south side of Chestnut Street12 between 12th Street and 13th Street which13 are accessory to the principal use of a14 pool hall or billiard hall. Lastly, the15 bill removes various height and bulk16 restrictions for properties on the south17 side of Chestnut Street between 12th18 Street and 13th Street, as indicated in19 both Sections 14-1607 and 14-305 of The20 Philadelphia Code.21 The Philadelphia City Planning22 Commission considered Bill No. 110083 at23 their meeting of February 15th of this24 year. After consideration, the25 143 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Commission recommended that Bill No.2 110083 be approved. While the3 Philadelphia City Planning Commission4 does not normally recommend piecemeal5 amendments to the Zoning Code, the6 Commission found these amendments to be7 generally consistent with the proposed8 revisions to the Zoning Code being9 prepared by the Zoning Code Commission.10 This concludes my testimony. I11 appreciate the opportunity to appear12 before you today and will be pleased to13 answer any questions you may have.14
Thank you15 very much for your testimony.16 Any questions for this witness?17 (No response.)18
Thank you19 very much for your testimony.20 Please remain close by in case21 we need some additional information.22 Mr. Patterson, Mr. Beauvais,23 Mr. Giegerich, Mr. Schultz, Mr. Soens,24 whoever is going to represent your25 144 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 testimony.2 (Witnesses approached witness3 table.)4
Please5 identify yourself for the record and6 proceed.7
Thank you. My8 name is Ronald Patterson. I'm with the9 law firm of Klehr, Harrison, Harvey and10 Branzburg, 1835 Market Street. 14 This regards the old Beneficial15 Savings Bank building at the corner of16 12th and Chestnut Street. 18 It was the headquarters for Beneficial19 Savings Bank. They vacated the building20 in 1999. It's been vacant and it's been21 a haven for vagrants and beggars since22 then. 15 The first floor would16 accommodate 17 pool tables. 19 The second floor or full floor20 is the old boardroom/office area. 22 The photos reflect that as well. 7 Under the current Zoning Code,8 the pool hall is a regulated use, as9 mentioned, since the 1970s, the10 perception at that time being that pool11 halls created a deleterious effect,12 creating secondary effects, and it's13 grouped in with the regulated uses such14 as massage parlors, go-go bars, tattoo15 parlors and pawn shops. It's definitely16 antiquated, as the Planning Commission17 would agree, and they aren't the crime18 havens that they used to be. This is not19 an arcade, by the way. So, curiously,20 the Code, which I heard under the21 proposed Code provisions, would allow22 this use. 9 We also propose a restaurant,10 and any type of restaurant on Chestnut11 Street, because of the Center City12 Special Control Overlay, requires a trip13 to the Zoning Board. There's also a14 height provision that we're seeking15 relief from, which says that no building16 on the south side of Chestnut Street can17 be taller than 50 feet. Our current18 building is at 74 feet, and the additions19 that we are proposing, which would20 encompass an elevator structure, stair21 structure and a retractable opening and22 closing glass roof, would take the23 building height to 89 feet. 4 The accoutrements I mentioned5 on the roof were reviewed and approved by6 the Historical Commission, because the7 building is historically designated. The8 roof area, the terrace and the9 retractable glass roof were all designed10 with a barrier wall on 12th Street to11 eliminate and/or attenuate sound from12 traveling beyond the property line, in13 accordance with the Health Code. 16 The ordinance would also --17 this ordinance would adjust -- allow for18 an adjustment for a reasonable19 accommodation of this use. It is not20 spot zoning, as you may hear, per21 caselaw. The Planning Commission has22 vetted this. The Law Department has23 looked at this. 1 commercial use that's surrounded by acres2 and acres of residential uses. This is3 one of the primary commercial corridors4 that's also primarily mixed use of5 residential and commercial. 8 We have neighbors on three9 corners. 18 The southeast corner, which is19 a condominium building, is zoned and20 controlled by the Tony Goldman Group, who21 is a landlord to numerous bars and22 restaurants in that area, and I'll just23 leave it at that. 2 We were proceeding to the3 Zoning Board. We couldn't reach an4 agreement with that White Building. We5 reached a detailed agreement, as I6 mentioned, with the Washington West Civic7 Association that we hope that we will8 sign -- that they will sign. 12 If you look at the agreement,13 which I did hand up, you'll see that it14 addresses all the issues concerning15 parking, loading, limiting occupancy to16 500 total with 150 on the terrace, the17 roof use, the times of operation, the18 decibel levels, the opening and closing,19 et cetera, et cetera. We've also20 submitted an equal opportunity plan that21 the City reviewed and approved. 1 I have David Schultz here, who2 is the architect on the project, Paul3 Giegerich, who is the proposed owner and4 operator, if there are any questions for5 him or them. If not --6
Councilman10 DiCicco, say what you have to say and11 then --12
Sure.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.14 Good afternoon. Just for the15 record, Mr. Patterson, either you or -- I16 don't know if the architect, someone else17 will speak to it as it relates to the18 roof deck portion when you talk about the19 wall on the east side of it. For the20 record, could you explain how we got to21 that? The initial plan was for a fully22 glass enclosed roof deck on at least23 three sides, including the east side, and24 then there was an agreement as a result25 152 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 of the complaints that were coming from2 The White Building being able to --3
That is4 correct.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Could you6 just for the record explain that?7
Sure I would.8 The west side of the property, let's say,9 has a wall that's higher than the roof.10 Our retractable glass roof would cover11 all sides. And in addition, based on our12 studies and consulting with the sound13 engineer, proposed an eight-foot14 translucent barrier wall along the 12th15 Street perimeter that, in our opinion,16 would block any sound from traveling17 across 12th Street. So that was18 incorporated into the design and approved19 by the Historical Commission.20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But that21 came about as a result of meetings and22 conversations with the folks who live in23 The White Building.24
As well as the25 153 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Washington West Civic Association.2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.3
Thank you4 very much.5 Any more questions for any of6 these witnesses?7 (No response.)8
To offer10 what? What's the testimony going to be11 offered?12
Mr. Muller is a13 representative of the owners on the14 northwest and northeast corners, just to15 testify to the agreement.16
Okay.17 Thank you.18 Please identify yourself for19 the record.20
My name is Greg21 Muller from SSH Real Estate. As22 Mr. Patterson mentioned, we control the23 building at 1201 Chestnut and also own24 Girard Square, which is the northeast25 154 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 corner. We're in support of it at 12012 Chestnut. We're in the process of3 redeveloping 100 apartments. They'll be4 delivered this summer, and we're spending5 $30 million.6 To be short and sweet, our7 thought is that having a redeveloped8 amenity is better than a vacant bank9 branch, and we're having our own10 agreement to deal with some of the sticky11 issues, but we're in support of it.12
And that is the13 agreement I handed up to the Committee.14
We have it16 for the record. Thank you.17 Mr. Gallery, please identify18 yourself for the record.19
John Gallery.20 I'm the Executive Director of the21 Preservation Alliance for Greater22 Philadelphia. We're here to support this23 bill.24 I submitted a letter of25 155 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 support, which I assume members of the2 Committee have, and consequently, I'll3 just make a few brief points.4 This is a very important5 building. It is historically significant6 for three reasons. Beneficial Bank was7 an important financial institution in the8 City, a pioneer in developing9 homeownership financing. Architecturally10 it was designed by Horace Trumbauer, one11 of the great architects of Philadelphia,12 the early 20th century, and the exterior13 is a landmark in its location. But I14 think most relevant to this bill is the15 fact that the interior of the building is16 completely intact in terms of its17 original design. In fact, if the18 building had been nominated to the19 Philadelphia Register after City Council20 approved the designation of historic21 interiors, I have no doubt that the22 interior would have been designated as23 well. It's that significant and that24 complete in terms of its integrity.25 156 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Once this building became2 vacant, I became very concerned about it.3 I toured the building myself. I spoke to4 a number of developers trying to find5 someone interested, but the response that6 I always got was, there's not enough7 usable space in the building to make a8 financially feasible deal. So we're9 grateful that a developer has come along10 that can use this space, but we also11 understood the need to add something on12 the roof. We reviewed the proposed13 designs very carefully, testified in14 support of the rooftop additions at the15 Historical Commission.16 I'm also aware of the work the17 developer has done with the community,18 and we think that there's been a really19 sincere and extensive effort to resolve20 differences of opinion.21 I am an amateur pool player22 myself. I've played pool in most of the23 major cities in the United States and in24 some in Europe. Philadelphia does not25 157 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 have a first-class pool facility in the2 vicinity of Center City. Every other3 major city in the country probably does.4 This would be a great asset to5 Philadelphia, and I hope that the6 Committee will report the bill out7 favorably and Council will support it.8 Thank you.9
I'd like to add a12 footnote, directed mainly to Councilman13 DiCicco on the last hearing that you had.14 You may remember several years ago you15 introduced a bill for conservation16 districts. A conservation district would17 be an ideal, permanent and relatively18 quick solution to the Point Breeze19 problem. If residents of the20 neighborhood would be interested in21 pursuing that, the Preservation Alliance22 would be willing to provide technical23 assistance to the community to do that.24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,25 158 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 but I will pass that on to Council2 President, since it's her district. But3 thank you for that offer.4
Thank you5 very much for your testimony. It's6 always nice having you on board with the7 project. We appreciate it.8 I don't really need anything9 else.10
Thank you.13 Any other questions for these14 witnesses?15 (No response.)16
Seeing17 none, Mr. Adamondo, please. Is Mr.18 Adamondo here?19
Mr. Adamondo20 can't make it and Mr. Muller was21 testifying on his behalf.22
Fine.23 Is there anyone else to testify24 on this bill?25 159 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Please come forward.2 (Witnesses approached witness3 table.)4
My name is John8 Kaskey. 10 I'm also a resident of The White11 Building. 14 I think that this proposal or15 this proposed ordinance unfortunately16 constitutes a blatant case of17 unconstitutional spot zoning. 20 It would be hands-down the biggest bar in21 Center Philadelphia. It would contain a22 roof deck that would allow for music on23 the rooftop 50 feet away from people's24 bedroom windows. 1 here from where you're sitting to the2 back of the room, it's no more than that3 far away. 9 This project requires three10 variances in the Zoning Board of11 Adjustment certificate. That's the12 applicant's burden of proof on each one13 of those items, to prove that it meets14 the standard for the variance and for the15 certificate. The applicant was never16 seated before the Zoning Board of17 Adjustment to obtain any of the needed18 variances or the certificate. 13 I've handed out a map to you,14 and if you look at the two maps, it will15 be really evident really quickly how this16 project violates everything. 3 If you then go ahead and you4 look at the bigger map or the map of the5 City of Philadelphia, this map slots in a6 that little section called Center City7 District. So in all of Philadelphia,8 except for that little dot here now,9 which is going to be in Center City, you10 can't have a billiard hall within 50 feet11 of any residence -- or 500 feet, excuse12 me, of any residence, church, et cetera,13 with the exception of this one little14 spot, this one little island that15 Mr. Patterson previously said doesn't16 exist. This changes the residents'17 rights vis-a-vis the rest of the City of18 Philadelphia. Everyone else in the City19 has the right to appeal, to protest20 against the issuance of a variance,21 except on this one little spot, and22 that's what this ordinance is designed to23 do. 1 of proof on this project from the2 applicant to the residents and force the3 residents to go before a judge and have4 an injunction issued to have this project5 or this ordinance overturned. It is6 completely unfair in terms of its7 treatment of residents. 1 removed and the requirement to obtain a2 Zoning Board of Adjustment certificate3 would have been removed. That's not the4 case, and it's not the case because I5 don't think that any -- I don't believe6 Councilman DiCicco believes that City7 Council would support that. 1 obtained them, that nothing has been done2 there. And I'll note that the residents3 of the building, who have been against4 this project since day one because of the5 scope of the project and because of the6 roof deck, have on numerous occasions7 offered the developer the opportunity to8 enter into an agreement which would allow9 the creation of a billiards hall in the10 interior space, not on the roof, and with11 limited size restrictions so that at 2:0012 in the morning when the place empties13 out, you don't have 500 to 800 drunks on14 the sidewalk waking everybody up. 22
Thank you23 for your testimony.24 Sir, identify yourself, please,25 166 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 for the record.2
My name is Andrew3 Gowa. I'm a lawyer. 9 I don't want to be repetitive10 of Mr. 13 The Condominium Association has14 tried to negotiate an arrangement and an15 agreement with the developer. We've been16 trying to do that since Mr. DiCicco sent17 my client a draft of that agreement, I18 believe, on February 24th. We carefully19 considered, met with the client, my20 client, and marked up that agreement and21 sent it to Mr. Patterson. It was another22 two weeks before Mr. Patterson returned23 it. 1 yesterday with Mr. Patterson and the2 principal of the developer,3 Mr. 5 What my clients or in6 particular the Association wants is the7 ability to have peaceful enjoyment of8 their residential units. 1 With the greatest respect for2 the City, the City passed a noise3 ordinance some years ago. 7 However, technology has changed. I8 learned in this process over the last9 four or so weeks that there are many10 different measurements, and when you talk11 about noise being a certain dB level,12 there are at least three different dB13 measurements. 18 There is no one scale. There's the L Sub19 1 scale, the L Sub E scale, the L Sub 6020 scale and the LEQ scale. There may be21 others, but I'm just a poor lawyer, not22 an engineer. 1 cetera. What we have asked of the2 developer is that we establish, with a3 mutually agreeable expert before the4 ordinance is passed, what the appropriate5 levels are, what the appropriate6 standards of measurement are, what kind7 of person will be retained as a mutual8 expert. For example, in our draft of9 this proviso agreement, we specified that10 the expert must be a member of INCE,11 which is the preeminent trade or12 professional association. 14 That was rejected. 20 The major thrust of my clients'21 concern, while it is concern with a great22 number of things, as Mr. 1 people are let out, is what's going on on2 the roof, because it is, despite what3 everybody tells you from the developer's4 side, it is open, except probably in the5 extreme winter. And noise travels. We6 have no doubts that the developer would7 do certain things to attenuate the noise,8 but I believe Mr. Patterson testified a9 few minutes ago that the steps they're10 taking will, quote, block any sound going11 across the street. Pretty bold12 representation. 19 There have been other issues20 where the developer's proposed agreement21 has been somewhat helpful. 2 I would point out some other3 things. At one time, I was a developer4 too and I learned some things about5 drawings and renderings. If you look in6 the package that I just got a couple7 minutes ago that Mr. Patterson handed out8 that shows the rendering of the roof -- I9 think it's probably around six pages10 in -- it looks very benign. First of11 all, a large part of the roof is closed,12 it's retracted, it's pulled out. And,13 second of all, you see all these nice14 comfortable chairs with tables in front15 of it. 12 I do support what Mr. 18 And as Mr. 21 It is still there. He hasn't pursued it,22 but it is there. 1 I would point out that it is2 perhaps disconcerting the speed with3 which things have progressed with Bill4 110083. It was introduced on the 10th of5 February. Five days later, without6 notice to the community, the Planning7 Commission heard it. The Historic8 Commission, without notice, heard it. We9 did not get -- "we," the community and10 the condo association and its members --11 did not get the proposed proviso from the12 developer until Councilman DiCicco was13 good enough to supply it on February14 24th. We turned it around as quickly as15 we could. It's a rather long, difficult16 type of agreement, and returned it on the17 11th of March, and I didn't get it back18 marked up from Mr. 20 For some reason, things seem to21 be steamrolling downhill without the kind22 of deliberate and due process that City23 Council prides itself in.
1 restriction and bulk restriction that2 applies to this area was enacted by City3 Council, there were voluminous, careful4 and detailed findings of fact and5 background, and now without any6 explanation, without any research,7 without any due diligence as to why those8 bulk and height restrictions should not9 apply to one little spot on the map, as10 Mr. Kaskey calls it, is a little11 puzzling. 17 That's what the ordinance says now. And18 added to that, except in this one block19 in the City of Philadelphia. you have the same pool tables, you don't2 have a pool room. We have tried acidulously to5 heed the wise advice of Councilman6 DiCicco to try to work with the7 developer. I speak for myself, who was8 on the telephone yesterday with9 Mr. Patterson and the developer. That10 effort does not seem to be receiving any11 kind of reception from the developer,12 other than telling me, I've been at this13 for months and I've had it. It's, I14 think, a bit -- I don't want to use the15 word "arrogant," but I think it's a bit16 heavy-handed. And I am struck by the17 fact that the developer himself,18 Mr. 1 terrace, thanks to the active support of2 the project from the City, including the3 Mayor. 4
This is5 clearly not a court of law or you would6 not be able to put that into the record.7 So it is in the record now, and we8 understand that's your assertion.9 However, as a lawyer, you know that that10 probably would not be accepted, what11 Mr. Giegerich went around and said to12 someone else. We at least agree on that13 point?14
All along we've been19 told by the developer that there'll be no20 promoters, there're not going to be21 people from the outside coming in and22 promoting all sorts of big, splashy23 events that are going to further disturb24 the neighborhood. When it came time to25 177 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 putting that in writing, he wouldn't do2 it.3 We insisted that there be4 survivability and enforcement by the5 homeowners. Again, with all due6 deference, the City is not rolling in the7 riches right now and has trouble8 enforcing many provisions. So the9 neighbors really want that right of10 survivability so that it passes to the11 next owner, if the current developer12 sells it, and the right to go to court13 and stop it.14 I believe there are perfectly15 adequate safeguards in place if the16 applicant and developer went the route of17 the ZBA, which is spelled out clearly in18 the ordinance. I think it's, as19 Mr. Kaskey said, inappropriate for City20 Council to willy-nilly change zoning21 ordinances for one person on one half of22 one street in the entire City.23 I would be glad to answer any24 questions that Council and the Rules25 178 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Committee has.2
Thank you3 for your testimony.4 Councilman DiCicco.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.6 Good afternoon, gentlemen. I7 know Mr. Patterson would like to respond,8 I'm sure, to some of the comments --9
I just want10 to say, before you make your statement, I11 don't want -- the purpose of this hearing12 is that you hear people for the record13 and to hear the concerns and to hear both14 sides, but I'm not going to enter into a15 legal debate in the midst of this hearing16 when I have three more bills that I'm17 hearing. So if there's going to be a18 legal debate somewhere down the road, it19 should be in another room in this20 building, not in here.21 So if Mr. Patterson -- we've22 given in the past on other issues the23 ability to kind of improve the record or24 whatever he wants to do with the record,25 179 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 the things that you've been saying, but2 I'm not -- I know lawyers and I love you3 all, but this could go back and forth4 forever. So if you want to -- I'm sorry.5 Councilman DiCicco.6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I agree7 with you, Councilman. I just think that8 there are some comments that have been9 made that need to be clarified for the10 record, not to create a legal debate11 here. I agree. And sometimes it turns12 out that way even though we try not to13 make that happen.14 But you mentioned, sir, that15 this agreement was introduced or gotten16 to you a couple of weeks ago. You're a17 new attorney representing some of the18 residents in The White Building. Is that19 accurate?20
And the Condominium21 Association.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And23 there's been reference made that the bill24 was introduced on February 10th and it25 180 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 kind of seems like this is on a fast2 track. Well, if memory serves me right,3 I think I've been discussing this project4 with Mr. Patterson and the developer and5 the community, who I met in The White6 Building to have a discussion, and7 correct me if I'm wrong, it's almost one8 year ago that the discussion on this9 project began. You may not -- you were10 not here. I understand that. But I11 think it's disingenuous for anyone to12 suggest that this is on a fast track,13 when it's almost 12 months that we've14 been working on this project. And there15 have been a number of give and takes, if16 you will, from both sides.17 The roof deck that was18 referenced -- and I made mention of this19 earlier -- was a fully glass enclosed20 roof deck at one point. There is now an21 opaque wall on the eastern side of it.22 That is the result of the developer23 agreeing to put something up that would24 protect or camouflage the tenants who are25 181 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 in The White Building from looking2 into -- on the upper floors of The White3 Building, from being able to see across4 and for patrons to look into their5 window, the windows of the tenants in The6 White Building. And there are other7 things as well.8 I just want the record to be9 clear. People may think this is fast10 tracked, but there comes a time when you11 do these types of bills -- and I've been12 doing this for a little bit more than 1513 years -- when you reach an impasse, and14 it seems to me in those cases -- and15 there have been a few of them -- that16 when the bill gets introduced and you17 have a first reading, it seems that that18 really gets people to understand that19 something is going to happen and maybe we20 all need to start to look at this a21 little bit more closely and see if we can22 work out and peel away some of those23 issues. You may not get to all of them.24 That's very rare that you get to all25 182 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 those issues, but peel away some of those2 issues. Because if I didn't do this3 bill, the discussions that have been4 going on for the last six months over the5 same issues, important issues to some,6 maybe not important issues to others,7 would be the same -- we'd be in the same8 spot today that we were in six months9 ago, and that to me doesn't do anyone any10 good.11 We need to get development in12 the City. That is an empty, vacant13 building. I know the problems with the14 homeless and all the other things that15 are there. We want an operator in there16 that's going to not only create jobs, but17 start to maybe add some viability to the18 1100 and 1200 block of Chestnut Street.19 And there are going to be obviously20 people who have differences of opinions21 there.22 Do you, sir -- you called my23 office a couple of weeks ago on a Friday24 afternoon, I believe it was?25 183 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1
I did call your2 office and I did speak with you.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And you4 spoke with me, and you talked to me about5 your concern again for how this process6 was moving too quickly and that a lot of7 things were being rubber stamped, to8 quote you. Things were being rubber9 stamped at the Historical Commission, at10 L&I, in my office, and that you were11 going to go nuclear with the media to let12 the media know that I was pretty much13 ignoring the folks who live in The White14 Building.15
That's not an16 accurate assessment, but I'll respond in17 a moment, though.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's19 close. It's close. It's close. You20 were going to go nuclear --21
It's not close --22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Here's how23 it works --24
One at a2 time, please.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I say4 something, then you respond. I'm not5 done.6 You did that. I don't take it7 as a threat, but you did say that.8 Do you own a unit in that9 building?10
No. The woman I11 live with owns the unit.12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Did you13 not tell me that you may be forced to14 sell her unit in a depressed real estate15 market?16
No, that's not17 what I said.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You didn't19 tell me that?20
That's not --21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me ask22 you another question.23
I'm happy to24 answer the questions --25 185 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me ask2 you one more question and then you can3 answer.4
If you want to ask5 me and you want me to answer, I'm happy6 to do so.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. You8 answer me. Answer me.9
What I said to10 you, Councilman -- and let me be clear,11 and let me just take one step back for12 your lead-in here. The issue here is,13 you do not -- and I will bet any amount14 of money on this -- do not inject15 yourself into every Zoning Board dispute.16 When a developer comes forward and he17 needs to get a variance and if there are18 neighbors who actually are against the19 project, you don't come forward and20 introduce a special ordinance every time21 that happens. You don't sit there and22 not let the Zoning Board of Adjustment23 hear cases.24 You have chosen to do that here25 186 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 and you have chosen to do it in one or2 two other occasions. For what reason, I3 don't know. I suspect at some point4 along the way we'll find that out.5 In answer to your question to6 me --7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Could you8 be more specific about that last9 statement, somewhere along the way you10 will find that out?11
I imagine that if12 the bill passes, that we will be in13 litigation over this issue and I will be14 taking depositions of people.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Sounds16 good to me. I look forward to that.17
Okay. Moving18 forward, in answer to your question, I19 said to you that I objected to this20 project that would put that roof deck 5021 feet away. You said to me, sir, that you22 were going forward with this because I23 would object to any use or any proposed24 variance in that building, and I told you25 187 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 specifically that was not the case. I2 told you that people would support,3 including myself and the owner of the4 unit, of a proposal that would put a5 billiard hall in the interior of that6 building, but to build a rooftop deck on7 that building, to increase the capacity8 by 250 people, was not acceptable in any9 way, shape or form, and that I would not10 be forced to sell the unit today with11 that threat of that rooftop deck pending12 out there.13 That roof deck, I think -- and14 I believe almost everybody who lives on15 the 5th floor believes -- it will be the16 demise of the value of their units.17 You're sitting there saying that you're18 going to put a bar with 200 people 5019 feet from their bedroom windows, and if20 you think that's going to enhance values,21 well, come on over, because I'd love to22 have you buy the unit.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: There are24 bars within 50 feet of most residential25 188 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 neighborhoods in the City everywhere you2 go. El Vez, 13th and Sansom, is directly3 across the street from a condominium.4 People live within 50 feet of that.5 We live in the City. We don't6 live --7
Not up in the sky8 and not requiring a variance.9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well,10 you're going to debate that and we'll11 have that discussion later, but I also12 need to ask you one more question. Did13 you ever have a discussion with the14 developer about his purchasing your15 fiancee's unit?16
The developer has17 offered to buy her unit multiple times.18 I have that in writing. I have numerous19 offers from him.20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Did you21 make that offer to the developer?22
No. The developer23 made it to me. I have it from his lawyer24 and from him directly, and if you'd like25 189 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 to see copies of it, I'm happy to share2 them with you and anyone else on the3 panel.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And why5 did you turn down the offer?6
Why did I turn7 down the offer? Very simple. The offer8 was that he would not put enough money9 down. He wanted me to no longer be10 involved in the representation of her.11 He asked me to sign an agreement that I12 would represent an entity of his, since13 you're asking me this and putting this on14 the record, so that I would be stopped as15 a lawyer from being able to represent16 anyone else in the building. And I'm17 happy to share that agreement with you18 since you've asked me that as well and19 you've implied that there's something20 improper about that. As a matter of21 fact, I'll send a copy of it over to you22 today so you can see it with your own23 eyes. And the reason I turned it down24 was because all the developer would do25 190 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 then is not close under the agreement of2 sale and I would get the deposit back,3 which would not be sufficient to cover4 what the loss would be along the way.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I didn't6 imply anything. I just asked you a7 question.8
Again, I will12 send --13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And you14 will say on the record --15
I will send you16 all of the copies of all of the offers17 from the developer and his counsel.18 There are multiple offers.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And you20 didn't say, for the record, you didn't21 call me up and tell me that you're22 being -- you may be forced to sell your23 fiancee's unit at the low market value?24
No, I did not. I25 191 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 said I would not be forced to sell it2 because of this ordinance.3
Excuse me, sir. May6 I just make a quick point, two quick7 points?8
One is, with all due11 respect, I am not Mr. Kaskey. My client12 is not Mr. Kaskey. I represent the Condo13 Association and certain other owners. I14 think I've made my position clear, and15 apropos of what you've said, Mr. Kenney,16 I don't want to prolong the proceeding17 today, but I would like to reserve my18 right to respond to whatever19 Mr. Patterson or his client says either20 in writing or at a subsequent hearing.21
Thank you.23 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:24 Mr. Patterson, I'm going to ask you to25 192 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 please --2
Sure. Ronald11 Patterson.12 Since Mr. Gowa mentioned my13 name in conversations and he so14 eloquently misrepresented the facts of15 our conversations and I appreciate how he16 tried to bait me in the conversation17 yesterday, this agreement that two of the18 other property owners have signed has19 been out on the table for a year, as the20 Councilman has said, at least since the21 summertime. We've heard no discussions22 from that side, from Mr. Gowa's clients,23 probably since December, and now on the24 eve of the ordinance hearings, I get an25 193 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 onerous response that probably changed a2 third of the agreement, if you look at3 everything that was changed, and then my4 response saying I can't agree to this or5 that now turns into I stymied the6 process. That's just not true. That's7 my spin on it.8 Thank you.9
We stand ready or11 sit ready, as the case may be, to12 continue negotiating in good faith with13 Mr. Patterson --14
-- and his client.16 Good faith we recognize on both sides17 means flexibility, and we welcome the18 good graces and assistance of Councilman19 DiCicco or anybody else that could bring20 two parties together.21 I've been doing zoning work for22 36 years and I got to say, 90 percent of23 the time it results in an understanding24 or an agreement, not a fight.25 194 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And that's2 all I've been trying to do, and to let it3 sit there without having this hearing, I4 believe we would not move off of square5 one for another year. And the bill may6 come out of this Committee favorably.7 You'll still have time before the final8 vote is passed to hopefully work out some9 of the additional issues that are on the10 table. I suspect -- and I said this11 earlier -- no one is going to get a12 hundred percent on either side. It just13 doesn't work that way.14
Councilman, I am15 very old and, therefore, very aware of16 what you're saying, and I would17 respectfully hope that the Committee not18 report it out favorably or unfavorably,19 but in the meantime, that the parties20 continue working in good faith.21 I did not mean to misstate22 anything about Mr. Patterson, who is a23 fine, honorable and reputable lawyer. I24 want to get to some sort of accommodation25 195 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 that works. And I think Mr. Patterson2 will agree that when his client yesterday3 criticized something I put in my draft, I4 said, Take it out, you're right, I didn't5 think of that.6
Just one last10 thing for the record. Have the applicant11 proceeded in front of the ZBA. We'd be12 six months along in the process there.13 There's no reason that we couldn't have14 been there and there's no reason for the15 applicant not to be proceeding before the16 ZBA.17
Thank you18 very much.19 Anything else on this bill?20 (No response.)21
Seeing22 none, we're going to -- we have three23 more bills dealing with parking in some24 form or another.25 196 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 First of all, I want to2 apologize to all these folks from the3 parking industry that have been here all4 this time. I never expected that the5 first bill would go as long as it did,6 and we had no knowledge that that was7 going to happen. So for all the working8 folks in the audience, we apologize for9 the length of time.10 Let me explain to you what I11 think we're going to try to do today.12 There are three bills left. The most13 important bill for me is the issue14 relative to the parking tax and its15 reduction. As we currently stand,16 Philadelphia has a higher parking tax17 than New York City, at two points higher18 than New York City. I have, as a member19 of this Council, committed to working20 with the Parking Association to attempt21 to get that number down. The Parking22 Association has an idea as to where they23 want to bring the number. I would like24 to help them get there. We have to25 197 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 continue to have the discussion with the2 Administration.3 The issue is -- and I think you4 understand this -- for whatever amount we5 bring the parking tax down, we have to do6 one of two things. We have to raise7 additional revenue, which enforcement and8 better enforcement of the existing laws9 will do. We have to change some of the10 ways in which we deal with parking now,11 which the other two bills will hopefully12 do. And whatever level we bring the13 parking tax down to, we need to try to14 show the Administration that we're15 providing additional revenue to replace16 that revenue. But I am committed -- and17 I think I can speak for the rest of this18 panel and Council. We are committed to19 getting that parking tax back down to a20 fair level.21 What I'd like to do in an22 effort to free up, if possible, some of23 the folks that are probably not lawyers24 and not getting paid by the hour, those25 198 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 who are here for the parking tax and its2 ongoing efforts to having that reduced, I3 would like you to please stand and be4 recognized so we can see the number of5 people that have come here today.6 (Most audience members7 standing.)8
I think9 that speaks quite volumes.10 Please sit down. But I wanted11 to make sure for the length of time you12 sat here today, if we don't get to13 everyone's testimony or everyone have a14 chance to testify, at least we understand15 the importance of this problem for16 working people in the City. It's not17 just parking lot owners. It's folks who18 actually go to work -- not that you don't19 go to work every day, but it's actually20 for people who go to work every day and21 are trying to make their way in the City.22 So Councilmember Brown.23
Yes.24 Mr. Chairman, I simply want to go on the25 199 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 record as well and let the record reflect2 that I've had some preliminary offline3 discussions with members of this4 community as well and stand committed as5 well to work with you, Mr. Chairman.6
Thank you.7 Just for the record, I hope to8 get two of the three bills out. The9 parking tax reduction bill is going to10 have continued discussion with the11 Administration and the Mayor and the12 Mayor's people, and we want to try to13 coordinate this in the course of our14 budget hearings, that we have these15 ongoing discussions on this tax16 reduction, revenue enhancement and17 whether or not we need to cut on18 something else to make it all work, and19 that's appropriately done through the20 course of our budget discussions, not21 outside of it. And that's one of the22 promises that we made to the23 Administration, that we at least have the24 discussion within the confines of the25 200 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 budget deliberations.2 So what I'm going to do now is3 read all three bills. Everyone who comes4 to the table to testify should testify on5 all three bills, and this will6 consolidate the length of time we have to7 spend here more.8 So first is Bill No. 100610,9 which is an Ordinance amending Section10 12-917 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled11 "Valet Parking Zones," by revising the12 Valet Parking Zone permit fees, all under13 certain terms and conditions.14 The second bill is Bill No.15 100611, which is an Ordinance amending16 Section 9-601 of The Philadelphia Code,17 entitled "Garages, Parking Lots, Sales18 Lots and Sales Showrooms," by requiring19 Public Parking Lots and Public Garages to20 accept credit cards and debit cards in21 payment of parking rates, by conditioning22 all licenses and permits issued under23 that Section on the authority of City and24 Philadelphia Parking Authority25 201 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 enforcement officers to enter public2 garages and parking lots to enforce the3 provisions of the Section, by revising4 the provisions governing the permitting5 and regulation of valet parking6 operators, and by making certain7 technical changes, all under certain8 terms and conditions.9 The third bill, which is the10 bill which will not move today, is Bill11 No. 110181, an ordinance amending Chapter12 19-1200 of The Philadelphia Code,13 entitled "Parking Tax," by providing for14 scheduled reductions in the rate of the15 tax beginning in Fiscal Year 2012, and by16 making certain technical amendments, all17 under certain terms and conditions.18 I would like to ask the three19 representatives of both the20 Administration and the Parking Authority21 to please take the table to start your22 testimony.23 (Witnesses approached witness24 table.)25 202 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1
And for2 those folks who are here and have been3 here for a long time who feel, after4 listening to all parameters which we've5 set to consider this, need to leave to go6 to work or to do whatever they need to do7 and if you're permitted by your employer,8 you can go, but if you want to stay,9 you're certainly welcome. 15 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Good16 afternoon, Councilman Kenney. 18 Good afternoon, Councilman19 Kenney, members of the Committee of20 Rules. 24 Bill No. 1 permit fee of $250 for each 20 feet of2 curb space and additional 250 fee for3 each parking meter that must be removed4 to install the valet parking zone in5 Center City, University City and Delaware6 Avenue Entertainment District. In these7 areas, the bill proposes to raise the8 annual permit renewal fee to $2,500 for9 each 20 feet of curb space used for the10 valet parking zone. In all the areas of11 the City, the bill proposes to increase12 the annual permit renewal fee to $775 for13 each 20 feet of curb space used for the14 valet parking zone. The Revenue15 Department supports Bill No. 19 Bill No. 110181 proposes to20 reduce the parking tax rate from the21 current rate of 20 percent to 15 percent22 over the next five years. In FY12, the23 rate would be reduced to 19 percent. 1 percent. Each year the rate would be2 reduced by one percentage point until the3 rate reaches 15 percent in Fiscal Year4 2016 and thereafter. 57 million in revenue based on these8 projections and reductions. 14 The parking tax was increased15 from 15 percent to its current level of16 20 percent on July 1st of 2008. This17 increase in the parking tax rate was a18 specific policy decision to generate19 revenue intended to be used for new20 initiatives. 1 operator that the operator then remits to2 the City. 10 Even with the economic downturn, parking11 tax revenues remained the same in Fiscal12 Year 2010 as they were in Fiscal Year13 2009. This evidence points to a healthy,14 thriving industry where customers are15 willing to pay the slightly higher16 parking rates to park in one of over 40017 lots and enjoy all the attractions that18 Philadelphia has to offer. 1 owed to the City and School District. In2 2009, the Revenue Department, in concert3 with the hiring of five new auditors,4 expanded the enforcement of the parking5 tax. 7 In 2009 and 2010, the revenue has8 assessed an additional 2 million in all9 taxes due from parking operators. The10 Department of Revenue continues to train11 new auditors to become full-performance12 auditors, which will help with additional13 audits in this area. 17 We understand that the sponsor18 is considering an amendment to begin the19 parking tax rate reductions later in the20 course of the Five Year Plan and perhaps21 limit the amount of full reductions to22 somewhere between 15 percent and the23 current 20 percent. Again, I don't think this is an onerous4 tax. It's a trust fund tax. 12
I'll give13 you a good example. Enforcement of other14 parts of the issues of parking impact the15 collection of the tax. For example, if16 valet operators are not following the17 current rules and regulations that we18 have in place, that they need a19 seven-year agreement with a structured or20 surface parking lot that is paying the21 tax, then if they don't do that, we don't22 collect the tax. So if they're putting23 the cars on the street or they're putting24 the cars on an unpaved lot that somebody25 209 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 they know owns just using for storage,2 obviously we're not capturing potential3 parking tax revenue, because if the valet4 operator put the particular car in one of5 our licensed lots that are paying taxes,6 we would then be collecting those taxes.7 You agree?8 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I9 agree with you. However, again, you may10 have some valet parking companies that11 are paying the tax even though they're12 not parking the cars in the lots that we13 are talking about.14
Where are15 they parking?16 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: They17 could be parking cars on the street, but18 they still could be collecting the tax.19
That's my20 point. We're on the same page. We're on21 the same page. In a perfect world, if we22 collected all the tax that was owed to23 us, everyone would share the tax burden24 equally and, therefore, we may not need a25 210 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 higher rate. Is that a fair statement?2 You don't have to hang on to the 20.3 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No,4 I'm not trying to hang on the 20. I5 guess my concern at the end of the day6 is, again, as a taxpayer, when I go into7 a parking lot, that rate I don't see --8 it doesn't bother me. So I think that's9 what we need to be looking at, not just10 hurting the companies.11
Now, you're12 certainly not a parking expert or parking13 tax expert necessarily, but why would14 Philadelphia need to have a two percent15 higher tax than New York City?16 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON:17 That's a policy decision that was made,18 and, again, that was something that was19 signed by Council back in 2008. Again,20 New York's rate is 18.375 percent as21 well.22
Thank you,25 211 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Mr. Chairman.2 Commissioner, on the two bills3 you do support, how much revenue do you4 believe that would generate?5 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: On6 the bill with regards to the Parking7 Authority piece, I couldn't tell you how8 much it would generate. I think that it9 would help them with enforcement on the10 valets and the parking lots. So it11 wouldn't be a situation that I would say12 we would generate a lot of money from13 that. We can't project.14
Do you have15 any estimate of what revenue could be16 generated from either of the bills?17 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: From18 our bill that we are opposing right now,19 it would be a reduction of about $58.520 million.21
I'm asking22 on the bills that could potentially23 generate revenue, do you have any24 estimate of how much revenue they would25 212 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 generate?2 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No.3 Again, the first bill that I testified in4 support of would go towards the Parking5 Authority. So that money potentially6 would go to the School District, not to7 the General Fund. And, again, the8 Parking Authority, if they're here, they9 can testify about this. A lot of that10 may go to their enforcement policies to11 help them out throughout the course of12 the day. And the gentleman is here.13
So there14 would not necessarily be an offset to the15 City coffers?16 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No.17
Please19 identify yourself for the record and20 clarify the ultimate recipient of the21 increased valet parking fees.22
Sure. My name is23 Richard Dixon. I'm the Senior Director24 of Strategic Planning at the Philadelphia25 213 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Parking Authority.2 Under the agreements of3 cooperation between the City and the4 Parking Authority, which have been5 codified in law, there's a formula by6 which revenue is divided between the City7 of Philadelphia and the School District8 of Philadelphia. This would be subject9 to the same percentages. So this year,10 for example, we will give about 33 and a11 half million dollars to the City, 7 and a12 half million dollars to the School13 District. So if under this bill,14 assuming that every current valet15 operator maintained the zones, it would16 generate about an additional hundred17 thousand dollars in revenue. So you18 could say that 7 and a half -- 7,50019 would go to the School District and20 33,000 -- my math is wrong. But the21 overwhelming majority would go to the22 City of Philadelphia.23
But let me24 clarify what I think is the ultimate25 214 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 benefit of that particular situation.2 The increased enforcement allows the3 Parking Authority to ensure that the4 valet parking operators are actually5 putting the cars in the places where6 they're supposed to legally; therefore,7 we're collecting the tax, as opposed to a8 vacant lot somewhere that they've secured9 that's not paying the tax, that's an10 illegal rogue lot that's not paying the11 tax. So the more valet parking cars we12 force into legitimate lots, the more13 revenue the City collects directly.14
Clearly, that is15 one of the financial incentives of doing16 this. There's also a public policy17 motivation to do this, that if we -- if18 some of these valet operations could19 consolidate operations for multiple20 facilities using the same valet operator,21 we turn some of those other spaces back22 to the public for the general public to23 have access to them.24 We're trying to balance the25 215 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 needs of those people who want to run2 valet operations, the public who also has3 a demand on the space and who deserve to4 be compensated for those spaces that are5 taken from public use and turned over to6 a private operator for their exclusive7 use.8 COUNCILMAN GOODE:9 Mr. Chairman?10
I was not12 questioning the other merits of the bill13 or whether it has financial merits beyond14 direct merits, but in terms of what we15 know right now, your estimate is that it16 would only bring in about $100,000 in new17 revenue; is that correct?18
Councilman21 DiCicco.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.23 I think there's another24 component to this, and I don't know if25 216 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 anyone spoke about it. I was distracted2 earlier. And Councilman Kenney and I3 many years ago tried to do some work with4 valet parking with the Parking Authority5 and L&I.6 For every patron who comes to7 the City of Philadelphia and either goes8 to a theatre, most likely to a restaurant9 and uses valet parking, when that car is10 not parked in a parking lot as per the11 valet companies' agreement and that car12 is parked on the street, there is a very,13 very good chance that that car will be14 ticketed. The owner of the vehicle15 doesn't know about that ticket until he16 or she gets a notice 10, 12 days after17 the fact. What that causes is a ripple18 effect in the region for people saying,19 I'm not going back to Philadelphia again20 because I paid somebody $15 or $20 to21 valet my car and I wound up getting a $4522 or $55 ticket. It is bad business all23 the way around. And I know many24 restauranteurs who have over the years25 217 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 complained to me and have showed me2 stacks of tickets, parking violations,3 that they paid for from patrons who wrote4 back to them and said, I valeted in front5 of your restaurant and I got a ticket,6 I'm not coming back again. And in order7 to keep these patrons, the restauranteurs8 have to wind up paying for those tickets,9 for those who even take the time to do10 it.11 So there's a much even greater12 revenue loss to the City, because we lose13 the patron, we lose the sales tax and the14 other taxes that we collect, liquor tax,15 drink-by-the-liquor tax, in those16 restaurants. So the policing and17 enforcement of valet is more -- there's18 another layer to it that I think is just19 as important, if not more important.20
Thank you,23 Mr. Chairman.24 Out of curiosity, how are and25 218 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 how were the valet agreements negotiated2 and based on what value were they3 originally given as an estimate to the4 City and to the particular -- who worked5 that deal out?6
The original valet7 ordinance I believe was enacted around8 1995 or '96. The fees for those zones9 were made pretty much equal to the10 application for a loading zone. The11 difference between valet zones and12 loading zones, however, are that in a13 loading zone, it is not the exclusive14 use -- it's not for the exclusive use for15 anyone. They're available to the public.16 Just because they happen to be placed in17 front of a particular business, they're18 not the exclusive domain of that19 business. Valet zones, on the other20 hand --21
Excuse me.22 Do I understand you to say that when you23 pull up to a restaurant, they valet park,24 often in Parking Authority spots -- have25 219 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 you ever seen that? Valet parking parks2 in what would be metered parking. And3 then it is not the exclusive of the4 restaurant or the valet -- the5 restaurants?6
Valet zones are the7 exclusive use of that valet operation.8 Contrary to a loading zone, which was9 where the original price was, loading10 zones are available to anyone. Valet11 zones are only for the exclusive use of12 that valet operation. And that's why I13 think that the Councilman is now saying14 by removing that from public use and15 turning it over to the exclusive use of a16 private operation, that the City and the17 public should be compensated for the lost18 revenue that derives from that.19
That's20 exactly my line of thinking. And then if21 we did not have valet parking, where22 would those individuals park? They would23 be parking in lots probably, right?24
They would be25 220 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 parking on lots or on the street, spaces2 that are available to the public.3
You're6 welcome, Councilman.7 Mr. Haigler, could you please8 add your testimony to -- and I assume,9 Mr. Dixon, you're here for illumination10 of issues relative to the Parking11 Authority or do you have specific12 testimony?13
I didn't16 think so.17 So, Mr. Haigler, please, and18 could you please testify on all three19 bills.20
Well, then23 testify on one bill. That's even better.24
Good afternoon,25 221 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Council President Verna, Chairman Kenney2 and members of the Committee. I am Otis3 Haigler, Jr., Director of Enforcement and4 Emergency Services for the Department of5 Licenses and Inspections. Today I am6 here to provide testimony on Bill 100611,7 which, if enacted, will amend Section8 9-601 of The Philadelphia Code related to9 parking garages, parking lots and valet10 parking operations.11 We support the substantive12 measures of the bill, which we understand13 to be designed to promote efforts to14 ensure that all businesses are paying15 taxes they owe. We have some concerns16 about language of the bill that relates17 to the Parking Authority's enforcement of18 Code provisions regarding the obligations19 of parking garages and parking lots. We20 understand that the sponsor will be21 proposing amendments to the bill to state22 that any such enforcement activity would23 be contingent upon the City entering into24 a memorandum of understanding with the25 222 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Authority that would outline the PPA's2 authority, and we agree with any PPA3 enforcement activity -- we agree that any4 enforcement of PPA activity should be5 contingent upon this agreement.6 Thank you for the opportunity7 to provide this testimony. I'll be happy8 to answer any questions at this time.9
Thank you10 very much for your measured testimony. I11 appreciate that, Mr. Haigler.12 Any questions for Mr. Haigler?13 (No response.)14
Or15 Commissioner or Mr. Dixon?16 I'm sorry. Councilwoman Brown.17
What21 monitoring strategies, practices do you22 have in place to ensure that all of those23 who show up saying that they are valet24 are indeed that?25 223 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1
Monitoring valet2 operations is incredibly labor intensive.3 It really requires following almost every4 vehicle that leaves the valet zone to5 determine whether or not it's actually6 put in the garage that it's supposed to7 be taken to. As Councilman DiCicco8 indicated, the one complaint that we get9 with some frequency is that someone10 turned their vehicle over to a valet11 operator and then 15 or 30 days later,12 they got a notice from the Parking13 Authority saying they got a ticket for14 being parked in front of a fire hydrant,15 with late charges on it, after they had16 assumed that it had been parked in a17 legally licensed garage after being18 turned over to a valet operator.19
Just let me20 interrupt. There's a provision in the21 second bill, Bill No. 100611, which would22 require the valet operator to present a23 receipt from the garage where the car is24 parked to the owner, so that at least the25 224 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 owner would have some proof that his or2 her car was at that location for that3 period of time.4
Which really7 reduces the amount of labor that's8 required from our officers, which is an9 almost impossible task to follow these10 vehicles. So if there's a paper11 documentation of this, it really reduces12 the likelihood that there would be13 violations of that provision.14
And,15 therefore, the Parking Authority would16 take the responsibility to ensure that17 consumers know that, know this, this new18 practice?19
The provisions of20 the bill require posting of all of these21 kinds of things at the locations.22
All right,23 then. Thank you.24 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.25 225 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1
Thank you2 very much.3 Any other questions for these4 witnesses?5 (No response.)6
Seeing7 none, we thank you for your testimony.8 Mr. Dixon, if you could hang9 for -- I think you guys are all right,10 but I think I might need Rick.11 Mr. Zuritsky, Corie Moskow and12 Jane Lipton. Whoever is with your folks,13 please come forward and we'll just14 testify in turn.15 (Witnesses approached witness16 table.)17
Good afternoon,18 Madam Chairperson and members of the19 Committee. My name is Robert Zuritsky20 and I represent the Philadelphia Parking21 Association. 2 I want to begin by3 acknowledging a reality that all of us in4 the parking business understand. People5 don't necessarily like paying for6 parking. 10 But the fact is, parking lots11 and garages are an essential component of12 any city. A percentage of people going13 to work, restaurants, theatres, seeing a14 doctor or conducting business need places15 to park, and they have the right to16 expect professionally operated, clean and17 safe parking facilities with courteous18 staffs. 21 What the citizens of22 Philadelphia may not know is that23 licensed parking operators here pay a 2024 percent tax on parking revenue. 6 The first chart here will show7 anyone who has run a business or a8 household budget can see what we are up9 against. 11 The parking tax, property tax, use and12 occupancy tax, wage tax are just some of13 the 11 taxes and fees we pay. That means14 that we have already paid out 55 percent15 in taxes before we begin to pay our16 employees, maintenance and repair, our17 utility bills and our insurance. 17 The Philadelphia Parking18 Association is made up of legitimate19 businesspeople. We are licensed. We pay20 every dime of tax owed. 1 of 100 rogue parking lots that do not2 play by the rules. They run their3 parking lots and garages without being4 registered with the City. 11 We as an association have been12 working with the City to crack down on13 these entities. I want to use this14 occasion to publicly thank the City's15 Revenue Department for its partnership in16 going after some of these operators. 8 million. Millions19 more can be found by auditing every20 parking facility in the City. 1 recommending that the audits be regularly2 conducted. The City could hire two3 additional auditors to handle only this4 work. 12 An important point to remember13 is that many of these rogue parking14 facilities are open next door to or near15 our licensed facilities. When a driver16 pulls into a lot, he or she does not have17 any way of knowing if it's a legitimate18 business. That means the driver doesn't19 have the assurance his car will be20 insured. In addition, the City loses all21 of the taxes I listed before. 2 As I mentioned, we know that3 many people don't like parking companies,4 but that's not a reason to make us an5 easy target of a 20 percent tax. Think6 about it. Think about paying 20 percent7 tax on your next purchase. 9 When the parking tax was10 increased to 20 percent in 2008, the11 national recession had just hit. That12 combination of recession and this onerous13 tax have devastated our industry. 9 percent real estate16 tax increase that everyone else has, and17 the water runoff tax will be doubling for18 parking lot operators over the next five19 years. Who pays that tax load over the20 long haul? 21 I say that because without22 profits in our industry, we won't have23 the resources to maintain our properties24 or invest in new facilities. 1 that would lead to smaller supply of2 parking lots and garages. And when that3 supply shrinks, the prices will rise even4 further. A perfect example of this is a5 garage at 219 South Broad Street, right6 down the street, right across the street7 from the Bellevue. It's a 60-year-old8 parking garage that has an elevator that9 operates, gets the cars up and down. Two10 months ago that garage stopped using nine11 of its ten floors. The owners determined12 that it was -- that they could not afford13 to rehab that business, to rehab the14 elevators and the concrete in that15 garage. It's a very good location for16 parking and, at its peak, it parked 40017 cars a day. Now it parks 45 cars. The18 monthly rate went from 173 to $289 per19 month. Jobs were lost. 22 We come before you today not to23 ask that you roll the tax back five24 percent in one fell swoop.
1 will take time for the auditors to do2 their work and bring the unlicensed3 operators into compliance. 6 The first reduction of one7 percentage point would take effect on8 July 1st and would bring Philadelphia9 closer to New York's tax. 12 The legislation simultaneously13 calls for five steps that would balance14 the revenue scales, including enforcement15 of the existing laws on the 100 rogue16 operators. And I've been informed that17 we have found another 32 rogue parking18 facilities since the last book was19 published. 22 The parking industry is an23 important component of Philadelphia's24 transportation infrastructure. 1 other components, roads, bridges, mass2 transit, are subsidized by taxpayers. 17 The 17 companies represented by18 our Association are very proud. As you19 could see, we had at least 160 of them20 here, and they hung in for close to four21 hours. I really appreciate that. 23 Most of them live in the City of24 Philadelphia. 1 citizens. 5
Whoever is9 next, please identify yourself for the10 record.11
Madam President12 and honorable Councilmembers, my name is13 Tsegaye Arrefe. I'm the City Manager for14 Ampco System Parking doing business as15 Five Star.16 Five Star/Ampco System Parking17 operates 11 large to mid-sized surface18 lots and garages throughout the City of19 Philadelphia. We have about 10020 employees. We pay decent salaries and21 benefits. Although we do not question22 the City's right to tax us, we do feel23 that our 20 percent parking tax, almost24 two percent higher than the New York City25 236 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 parking tax, is unfairly high.2 The tax on parking, a service3 that enables visitors to enjoy the City's4 shops, restaurants and cultural5 activities, is far higher than taxes on6 those other industries. Without clean,7 safe places to park, visitors and8 tourists would not be able to spend time9 downtown and experience everything the10 City has to offer.11 In fact, during our current12 recession, parking is down, causing some13 operators to consider layoffs or the14 possibility of closing their lots.15 The parking industry makes a16 valuable contribution to the City's17 economy, and we believe we should be18 taxed fairly, but not excessively.19 We also face unfair competition20 from parking lots around the City that21 are not licensed. While we play by the22 rules paying not only the parking tax but23 property tax, use and occupancy tax and24 the wage tax, these other garage owners25 237 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 pay no taxes at all.2 We urge the City to do two3 things. We ask you to gradually reduce4 the parking tax to 15 percent as it was5 in 2008. That would enable us to lower6 our fees and fill our spaces, keep our7 employees and bring more people into the8 City to spend the money they save on9 parking.10 And we ask you to crack down on11 the over 100 unlicensed parking lots12 throughout the City and make them play by13 the rules as we do. We're certain that14 the income from these unlicensed15 operators will more than compensate for16 the reduction in the parking tax.17 Thank you very much for your18 time and consideration.19
Thank you20 very much.21 Councilman Goode.22 (Applause.)23
One second.24 Councilman Goode has a meeting at 1:3025 238 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 and has some questions he'd like to ask2 before he leaves.3
Just a4 couple questions. Thank you for your5 testimony, and even though the witness6 that has not testified can answer this7 question as well.8 You've testified that there are9 17 companies that employ as many as 3,00010 employees. I have several questions11 about that. The first question is, if we12 were to lower the parking tax back to 1513 percent immediately, would that actually14 create jobs?15
I'm not18 asking for anecdotal information. I'm19 asking, do you know how many jobs it20 would create?21
I can answer22 that. I just had a conversation with --23 I can't speak for the entire industry,24 for my company, but I had a conversation25 239 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 with a gentleman from Towne Park, and he2 mentioned that during that recessionary3 period, he laid off 43 people.4
That's not5 my question. My question is, if we6 lowered the parking tax to 15 percent7 immediately, do you know how many jobs it8 would create?9
I was going to10 get there.11 If you lowered the rate -- if12 you lowered the tax immediately, the13 rates would come down in the City for14 sure, and the data that I got from Towne15 Park just recently showed that they had16 laid off 43 -- they had to lay off 43 of17 their people. They have 350 people in18 the City. They laid off 43 people in19 that period of time. They're parking20 fewer cars at a much higher rate, and21 they would be able to lower their rate,22 probably attract more business and hire23 more people. So, yes, I would say that24 the employment would go up.25 240 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1
Did you not2 hear the Chairman say I'm working with a3 short period of time?4 Do you have a number of how5 many jobs it would create?6
The second8 question is, do we have any guarantee9 that if we lower it to 15 percent or to10 16 percent or to 17 percent or to 1811 percent, competitive with New York, these12 jobs would be guaranteed anyway?13
Do I have more14 than a second to answer? No, there's no15 guarantee.16
I have a17 better question for you, then. You said18 in the second page of your testimony that19 we are licensed, we pay every dime of tax20 we owe. I will leave that up to License21 and Inspection to determine and the22 Revenue Department to determine. But23 then you say, We pay our employees decent24 salaries and benefits. I'm interested --25 241 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 and you go on to say we play by the2 rules. I'm interested in knowing what3 your minimum wage and minimum benefits4 are that you offer.5
Minimum wage,6 our starting wage, $8.50 to $10 depending7 on the position.8
Minimum11 benefits, they get healthcare immediately12 or after a month?13
After 60 days,16 they get healthcare, they get life17 insurance.18
What type of19 healthcare and life insurance do they20 get?21
And they24 have earned paid sick leave?25 242 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1
In terms of4 the wage rate, are you familiar with the5 City's minimum wage rate, the standard6 that we have set?7
I'm sure we are8 aware of it. I think we are well above9 it, I would assume.10
You are not.11 The City has set a minimum wage rate of12 150 percent of the federal minimum wage,13 would be at least $10.88 per hour.14
I can say that19 our employment rate has been -- the20 openings that we have had for our company21 have been record lows. We have22 unbelievably low turnover. I think we're23 a very good company. We pay benefits, we24 pay fair wages, and we have -- I would25 243 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 defend -- if you want me to come down and2 sit with you and defend our -- what we're3 doing as a company -- what my company is4 doing, I would love to do that.5
I have not6 criticized your company or your industry.7 All I've said is that the City has a8 minimum wage standard. That minimum wage9 standard is actually 150 percent of the10 federal minimum wage, which at this point11 works out to be $10.88, per hour, at12 least $10.88 per hour. I ask you to13 respond to that standard that we have14 set.15
I would respond16 to that by saying that 55 percent of my17 operating expenses go to the City in some18 form of taxation and it's very19 challenging to pay wages and fair20 benefits, and we have had to have wage21 freezes and benefits rollbacks because22 this taxation has come in and we have23 lost money the last three years. This is24 the tipping point. This is where you25 244 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 look at your businesses in the City and2 you say do you want them to survive or do3 you want the hundred --4
No. I said that7 the taxation on the businesses are too8 high.9
The wage tax is12 too high? The wage tax is one of 1113 taxes that we pay --14
Wage15 standard. Do you think our minimum wage16 standard is too high?17
The wage18 standard is too high? I am not in a19 position to answer that.20
You are an21 employer, an employer who didn't know how22 much you paid your employees, but I'm23 asking you now, do you know how much you24 pay your employees, and I tell you what25 245 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 our minimum wage rate is.2
That's our3 starting wage. Most of our people, I4 would believe, are well above what the5 number that you had quoted.6