COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, April 28, 1998 12:40 p.m. - - - BILL 970403 - Amending Section 9-601 of the Philadelphia Code entitled Garages, Parking Lots, Sales Lots and Sales Showrooms by deleting the existing provisions and enacting new provisions regulating valet parking. BILL 970843 - Requesting City Commissioners to submit to the qualified registered electors of Philadelphia the question whether an electronic voting system shall be used. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JOHN F. STREET, Chair COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, Vice-Chair COUNCILWOMAN HAPPY FERNANDEZ COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center Plaza, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X BILL 970843 PAGE Alex Talmadge, City Commissioner--------------- BILL 970403 Joseph Zuritsky, President, Parkway Corp.------ 10 Harvey Spear, President E-Z Park--------------- 12 Richard DiPiero, DLC Management, Inc.---------- 14 Judith Eden, Officer, Center City Residents Association--------------------------------- 17 Brian Lipkin, Vice-President, Operations, Park America------------------------------------- 18 Ed Sullivan, Manager, Valet Services, Park America------------------------------------- 31 Rina Cutler, Executive Director, PPA----------- 40 Richard Dixon, Director, Parking Management---- 59 Edward McLaughlin, Commissioner, Department of Licenses & Inspections---------------------- 109 John Campbell, Manager, Legislative Regulatory Affairs------------------------------------- 109 - - - 3 BILL 970843
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is a Public Hearing of the Council Committee of the Whole. Today we are scheduled to have a Public Hearing on two bills, Bill No. 970403, which is an Ordinance amending Section 9-601 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Garages, Parking Lots, Sales Lots and Sales Showrooms," by deleting the existing provisions and enacting new provisions regulating valet parking. We also are scheduled to hear Resolution No. 970843, requesting the City Commissioners, in their capacity as the Philadelphia Board of Elections, to submit to qualified registered electors of Philadelphia the question whether an electronic voting system shall be used at polling places in Philadelphia. It is my understanding that on the resolution, we have Alex, Commissioner Alex Talmadge and Commissioner Joseph Duda. Are they here? Commissioner, would you please identify yourself for the record. COMMISSIONER TALMADGE: City Commissioner Alexander Talmadge, Jr. 4 BILL 970843
Please proceed with your statement. COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER TALMADGE, JR.: Council President Street, members of City Council, ladies and gentlemen, I am City Commissioner Alexander Talmadge, Jr. And as one of three duly elected Commissioner of Elections, which also constitutes the Board of Elections here in Philadelphia, I come before you representing my colleagues, Chairwoman Tartaglione and Commissioner Duda. I am pleased that the City Council has proposed Resolution No. 970843 requesting submission to qualified registered electors of Philadelphia the question whether an electronic voting system shall be used at the polling places in Philadelphia. We in our capacity as the Philadelphia County Board of Elections have discussed the matter, and we are in full agreement with Resolution No. 970843. We will do whatever we can, within the boundaries of the law, to support this resolution. 5 BILL 970843 Indeed, I have no doubt that this legislation will win overwhelming support by the registered voters across the City of Philadelphia. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna.
Thank you, Mr. President. Commissioner, can you tell us, if this question is approved by the voters, when we could anticipate that the machines would be purchased? COMMISSIONER TALMADGE: In speaking with the other Commissioners, what we will do first is hold a mini forum, which will demonstrate all of the possible available machines that the Secretary of the Commonwealth has already approved and we may be willing and can purchase here in the City of Philadelphia. That's the first thing. Following that, I believe we have 103 weeks to implement the system itself.
Do we have any 6 BILL 970843 indication as to what the cost of the machines would be? COMMISSIONER TALMADGE: Purchasing machines for 1,681 divisions across the City of Philadelphia, it will cost between and 28 million 7 dollars. 8
All right. It 9 is my understanding that Mr. Vignola has identified 10 $15 million. 11 Do you know if that is specifically 12 set aside for voting machines? Or is it monies that 13 are merely available that could be used for any 14 number of items? 15 COMMISSIONER TALMADGE: Well, it is 16 my understanding in my last conversation with 17 Mr. Vignola that that is not specifically set aside 18 for voting machines. 19
Thank you very 22 much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, 7 BILL 970843 Mr. President. Just to follow up on a couple of the questions raised by Councilwoman Verna. Circulated in the materials yesterday in anticipation of this hearing, and I think it was circulated back at the time, Mr. Vignola from PICA did say in a letter on December 3, 1997, that PICA could possibly make available, should the city decide to pursue it, up to $15 million for the voting machines. These are capital funds that were allocated to projects that were deemed at the time, in 1992, to be of an emergency nature. Those projects were never completed, and those dollars, actually more than $15 million, are still sitting at PICA. My colleague may recall that we in City Council back on December 11, 1997, passed a resolution asking the Council President and the Mayor to officially request that PICA affirmatively review capital dollars which were borrowed in 1992 and remain unspent, and to make a determination if they would reallocate those dollars for the voting machine purpose. In addition, the city Administration 8 BILL 970843 in the Capital Budget and program that we recently passed in March put in the Capital Program, I believe, starting in FY 2000, in excess, I believe, of $20 million, spread out over a two- or three-year time period, for the purchase of voting machines. I think internally we have an issue to work out between the Council and the Administration as to whether or not that timetable could be moved up. But dollars have been identified on a short-term basis to be able to procure the machines once the City Commissioners have the authority to go forward.
Any other questions? Thank you very much, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER TALMADGE: Thank you, President Street.
Is there anyone else here to testify on Resolution No. 970843? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you. From the City Solicitor's Office, if 9 BILL 970843 there were any questions, there was a memo attached to the package distributed yesterday regarding the process that has to be followed in order to secure the voting machines. The Solicitor's Office did send over Mr. Michael Echert, if anyone had any questions for him, although I am not trying to generate questions for him.
Right. The opinion may stand on its own. Lastly, I did want to correct myself slightly. In the recommended 1999 to 2004 Capital Program, the city Administration did allocate in Line Item No. 67, on , a total of $21 million for new voting machines spread out over three fiscal years.
Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Is there anyone else to testify on Resolution No. 970843? 10 BILL 970403 Thank you very much. At this time the committee will consider Bill No. 970403. Now, there are a number of representatives here. What I would like to do is hear from the representatives from the private sector who are here, Mr. Zuritski, Mr. DiPiero, and Mr. Spear, all of whom have an interest, and I think Mr. Malley is here. If these men would like to come up now at the witness table, I would like to hear from you first. I know you have very, very busy schedules. And we would like to try to accommodate the general public, as best as we can, first. And then the rest of us can stay and argue about the details later. Please identify yourself for the record.
Joe Zuritski, President of Parkway Corporation, Acting President of the Philadelphia Parking Association.
Good afternoon. I am 11 BILL 970403 here today to speak in favor of the valet parking bill introduced by Councilman Frank DiCicco. Valet parking from the street needs to be regulated by the City of Philadelphia. People who use a valet service assume that their car will be parked safely off the street in a licensed parking facility, that the valet driver is licensed, and the valet operator is a legitimate tax-paying company with adequate insurance. While on the subject of taxes -- not a favorite topic of mine -- the parking industry is the highest taxed of any industry in the entire city, with most private facilities paying between 15 and 35 percent of their gross receipts to the city 16 in the way of various city taxes. 17 Back to valet parking. We have all 18 heard the many horror stories over the past few 19 years of cars being damaged, ticketed, or stolen 20 while in the care, custody, and control of fly-by-night valet operators. When the owners of these cars sought compensation for their loss, they were usually frustrated, when they tried to go to court against the valet operator, when they were unable to serve 12 BILL 970403 them because they found they had no registered address. Obviously the city cannot permit a situation like this to continue unchecked because it defeats all of the city's efforts to bring people downtown to its restaurants and other attractions. The city must bring responsible management to the street valet business by passing this bill, and we respectfully request that you do so. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions? Please identify yourself for the record.
I am Harvey Spear, President of E-Z Park, and a member of the Parking Association.
Mr. Spear, just before you get to your statement, are you still running?
I wanted to say I am in favor of the bill, also. And I wanted to say that there's been numerous problems in the city over this valet issue because, as it is today, almost anybody can put a sign out and park cars all over the city streets. And we have had numerous problems with valet, so-called valet companies that are not responsible to pay taxes, as we are. We also have had problems with insurance issues. And one company in particular used our parking facility to park cars when there was no space left on the street. We found they didn't have proper insurance. And three years later, after defending the claim, we ended up settling the claim because the valet company didn't have the proper insurance. So instead of repeating what Joe just said, we are in favor of the bill and strongly suggest it passes. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 14 BILL 970403 Please identify yourself for the record. MR. RICHARD DiPIERO: Richard DiPiero, DLC Management, Incorporated. DLC Management is a Philadelphia-based company which has been providing parking and transportation services over the last 9 years. 10 Valet parking has become an important 11 part of the customer service provided by various 12 types of entities; such as hospitals, retail 13 establishments, and restaurants. Valet parking 14 service, when properly provided, can enhance the 15 customer's overall experience. 16 As the City of Philadelphia enters 17 the 21st century, its economy has become 18 increasingly dependent on service-based businesses. 19 The quality of those services will impact 20 Philadelphia's ability to gain prominence as a destination city. Our company provides valet parking services at several locations in the area, including many hospitals and medical centers. Bill No. 970403 attempts to regulate 15 BILL 970403 curbside valet parking services which have become important service enhancements offered primarily by our city's restaurants and night clubs. The proposed amendments will establish control of curbside valet parking drop-off areas by requiring companies to secure permits for this type of activity and, therefore, establishing standards for curbside valet services by eliminating confusion to police officers, parking enforcement officers, and most importantly the public, by establishing valet parking zones which will be clearly defined with appropriate signage, minimizing traffic congestion by encouraging that vehicles be expeditiously removed from the street and stored in a legitimate parking facility, enforcing better handling of damage claims by requiring valet operators to furnish proof of insurance. In summary, I am pleased to appear before you today to give favorable consideration to the legislation pending before you. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions of the witnesses? 16 BILL 970403 The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Mr. President. Could you describe for me how the valet, these reserved areas for valet parking, will be handled when the valet operation is not active, not in operation? What happens to that space at 10 o'clock or 9 o'clock in the morning, if it is a restaurant that uses it in the evening? Is parking going to be allowed in those areas?
I would think the Parking Authority would be able to answer that better.
We would appreciate it, Councilman, if you could address those kind of technical questions to the representatives from the Parking Authority. They are the ones who have that. I mean, they are --
But I will wait and have the Parking Authority answer the question. 17 BILL 970403 Thank you, Mr. President.
Anyone else? Gentlemen, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Judith Eden Eden.
My name is Judith Eden. I am an officer in the Center City Residents Association, and we are here today to support the valet parking bill. Our members are very interested, particularly in the provisions that the cars be parked in licensed off-street public parking facilities. As the industry is currently operating, the cars are often parked at illegal, on-street parking spaces, or at legal on-street parking spaces from which the general public is prevented from parking. There are also instances where there are vacant lots or private or accessory parking. The cars are also being parked there, and it is disruptive in a mixed-use neighborhood. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 18 BILL 970403 Is there any other member of the general public that's here whose name I might not have? Please come forward, identify yourself for the record.
My name is Brian Lipkin. I am the Vice-President of Operations for Park America. I have been asked by Manayunk Development Corporation to come down and address the ordinance. Certainly a lot of the concerns that have been brought up today about valet parking are right, but they don't apply to all the locations in the city. Manayunk Development has started valet parking with the thought in mind as to create additional parking for Manayunk, the Manayunk Development District. All the cars in Manayunk that are valeted are taken to a parking area. The parking area is not on street; it is a lot that is not a licensed parking lot, but it is a lot that they were able to obtain as a place to store some 150 to 200 19 BILL 970403 cars a night. Probably many people are aware of some of the problems that Manayunk has right now with their parking issues. And if this ordinance was passed the way it is, you would remove that area for us to valet park cars to. And all those cars would end up going in the parking lots that have already been surfaced and licensed. And that would take about 200 spaces away from Manayunk on a peak night, usually on a Friday or Saturday night. We also, we support this ordinance, but not the way it stands, the way it is. We feel it is just a little too restrictive. We do understand the problem with fly-by-night valet parking operations, operations that either are underinsured or not insured, and it makes it difficult for people to file claims against these companies. They either don't have a face or they don't have an office. However, we feel that if you license these people and they are legitimate operators, that some of those problems will go away. But when you look at some of the 20 BILL 970403 restrictive parts of the ordinance, a lot of these issues are fine on paper, but, in actuality, they are going to be a little more difficult to actually stand by. One of the issues that we feel, that valet parking has really come a long way in helping the growth in the City of Philadelphia, including Manayunk. Many people who come to the city come there because they know they can give their car to somebody who will at least take care of it and be somewhat responsible for it, and the convenience of being able to step out of their car and go right into a restaurant. Many of these people drive very expensive vehicles, and they really don't want to put that vehicle into somebody's hands. According to this ordinance, these cars are now going to have to be removed to some area, a licensed parking lot. As a valet operator, we are very aware of the liability issues. That if some of these cars need to be repaired, it can get very costly. 21 BILL 970403 So many of these cars are actually kept in what's known as the runway. This is done not so much by our request, but our unwillingness to handle that type of vehicle, in addition to the person's car, the person who owns that car, not wanting that car to be moved. So what's going to happen is, these people are not going to bring their cars down to the city and they are also not going to patronize these restaurants. We also looked at how this ordinance 13 is going to be policed. And we're already policed by the City of Philadelphia Police Department, and as well as the Parking Authority. Personally in Manayunk, we receive many tickets, usually anywhere from 50 to 100 dollars worth of tickets a week. And that's because we are unable to remove all the cars at the peak time. If we were to staff up to the necessary levels to remove every single car as it drives up that somebody wants to have dinner, you would have an increased staff that would really not justify doing valet parking in the city. 22 BILL 970403 There really needs to be an area where these cars can be stored while the valets run back and forth and get these cars off the street.
One of the other advantages to valet parking that I think many people will realize is that it enables many more people to frequent these restaurants, many people who may be handicapped or elderly, do not wish to park in parking lots and then walk several blocks to their restaurants. So they will also stop patronizing these restaurants. I guess the bottom line is, we were wondering why it is completely necessary to have fines and a special ordinance, because we are already really very regulated in the city. And the police already regulate what goes on, as well as the Parking Authority. We were wondering if there is going to be an additional person added to the city budget that needs to police the valet parking areas. Because when you look at how much revenue is really going to be generated by the licensing fees, the fines, and the permits for the valet zones, there is really not a lot of money there. 23 BILL 970403 And I think once this ordinance is passed, there really will probably be very few companies in the valet parking business. One of the other things valet parking is very good for is, it creates jobs in the city. Many of these people that come to work for us, they are low-skilled individuals. All they really need to know is how to speak well, drive a car, and look nice. So that it creates a lot of jobs for people who might not ordinarily have a stepping stone into the workplace. That's about all I have to add. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon. Sir, I didn't get your full name.
L-I-P-K-I-N. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And the company that you represent?
Park America. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And they are in the business of valet parking?
Well, we are in the business of managing garages and parking lots. We have about 100 locations. This is really just something that's, because there has been a big growth in valet parking, a number of places seem to find that this is something they require to help them out. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are you connected in any way to the people who are doing valet parking on Main Street in Manayunk?
Yes. We are the company that's doing valet parking. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So you are doing valet parking?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right. I know this because I go to Manayunk pretty regularly. Restaurant Sinoma, Kansas City Prime, 25 BILL 970403 Kansas City Beef or Kansas City Prime, whatever it is called. And I notice that a lot of these restaurants have meters in front of their establishments, most of which have an orange bag over the meter. By whose authority are those bags placed on the meters?
Well, we only have two meters in the entire Manayunk Main Street area that we use for valet parking. Not one of them is covered by a bag. We never use bags. At one time there was a complaint that traffic cones were used, and we removed them from the street. That was at least a year ago. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Of all the meters along Main Street, there are only two establishments that have meters?
The two meters in front of Kansas City Prime, that is a loading zone, and I believe it starts at 6 o'clock. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And they are bagged?
They aren't bagged. We BILL 970403 don't put bags there. We have been told not to put bags there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Would you happen to know who is putting bags on there?
I have no idea. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: When I pull up, there is a valet employee who is standing next to the meters that are generally bagged. And you pay them to take the car, I mean, and park it someplace. And my other question to you is, what does your company do to ensure that the people who are working for you, the valet parkers, to be specific, that they are licensed, have a valid driver's license?
Each valet has to fill out a complete application. And we get a xeroxed copy of their driver's license, and then we run a background check on their license. It is also required by our insurance company. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How often do you do the background check?
We do the background 27 BILL 970403 check every year. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Once a year for that employee?
Yes. And we check their licenses, you know, not with any regularity, but we check them every quarter. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Every quarter?
Yes. But we hope that our people aren't losing their driver's licenses. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It is very possible for an applicant to fill out an application today, you run a check on their driver's license, and it comes up as being valid. But within ten days, it may turn out to be a suspended driver's license because it had not reached the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation yet. I don't know if quarterly is the way I would go. I mean, I would suggest that it be done at least on a monthly. And I don't know if we address it in this legislation. But quarterly? And I am familiar with this, because 28 BILL 970403 I was the Court Administrator of Philadelphia Traffic Court. And licenses are constantly being recommended for suspension or, in fact, suspended.
I am going to say that when we run the background check, it gives you a three-year check on the person. And if that person comes up with frequent violations, we don't hire them. And. I am not clear as to what the law is, what somebody has to do to lose their license. But usually you have to have quite a few violations before you lose your license, or you don't respond to a single -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You can lose your license for not responding to one moving violation, and you will lose your license if you don't respond. It will be suspended. And I don't know if quarterly, if that's what you are suggesting that your company is doing, I would certifiable suggest you do it on a more regular basis, at least monthly. I will yield to Councilman Nutter.
This is Ed Sullivan, by the way. He is our Special Events and Valet 29 BILL 970403 Manager. He might be able to address the issue of the bags. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Nutter has a question first.
Thank you for the yield from my colleague. In the same area, the only sense that I have been able to make of that issue that my colleague appropriately raises about background checks and the like appears to be addressed on Point No. 7 on , which only talks somewhat vaguely about a certification that each such employee or agent possesses a valid driver's license. I have not found any particular provision that talks about regular updating, regular background checks, or even who this certification would come from. It may be rather obvious, but it is not listed in the legislation. And so even with the bill, to my colleague Councilman DiCicco, while some operators may have their own internal systems about checking on their employees -- and I think that we should check on them, and it is something that should be addressed in the bill -- the bill 30 BILL 970403 presently does not require any periodic checking, that I can determine from reading the bill, or future checking once the person has, apparently, been checked upon their initial employment. I have not found such a provision that requires monthly, quarterly, yearly, every ten years, or anything else. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I think --
I think there is a provision that talks about the need for the operator or the person that receives the permit to provide some update to us. "Licensee shall notify the department within ten days of any change in the information required by Subsections 8(a) and 8(b)." But I don't think it is covered. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I think, Councilman Nutter, that when Ms. Culter gets up to testify, we will have some answers to those questions. I am not really clear. It's been a while.
I understand. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But I know those are some of the issues we spoke about at our meetings. 31 BILL 970403
My name is Ed Sullivan. I am the Manager for Valet Services of Park America. I specifically work day-to-day on all the valet operations, and I am familiar with the bags on the meters. And I believe it was September of '96 that our company had taken over the services in Manayunk. And we were specifically directed by the Parking Authority and the Police Department on what was expected of us, and we try to live up to that. The bags on the meters which you are speaking about, there is one other vender in town that's waiting on Loading Zone signs to be delivered. I know that the Parking Authority person has a letter in his vehicle that states that that area is designed and has been approved for valet loading zone, but the signs are on order. So, in the interim, the person is using cones and bags over the meters to let the patrons know before they pull up that they can't use the metered spaces. 32 BILL 970403 Because we specifically -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And they were given authority to do that?
From what I understand. I have the person's name at the Parking Authority that has the letter. And day-to-day we know everything. So he has the letter in the car. And when someone were to pull up at the meter, there are three meters, and they have bags on them. It is not us as a vender. And they use cones also in the street. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Maybe I can get a letter for my car, because I have been getting ticketed. I will have to speak to this company when he comes to the table to testify. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Any other questions of these witnesses? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Fernandez.
Thank you, Mr. President. I will hold my question. 33 BILL 970403
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
In the past, when we have dealt with Parking Authority regulations, we have found that when there were statements such as a driver getting three tickets, we found that in the mind of the then Parking Authority some years ago -- because I am going to want to know what the interpretation is now -- that three violations could be obtained within two or three hours. In other words, the Parking Authority could ticket a car now, return in 30 minutes to half an hour, put a second ticket on because nobody moved the car, and within 30 minutes, another hour, they could come around again and put on a third ticket. So I am concerned. I notice on that it says if a valet parking operator fails to comply with any provision, there will be a written notice. And if there are three written warnings, that then a request may be made to the Parking Authority's Executive Director, makes the request, I guess, to 34 BILL 970403 Commissioner of L & I to hold a hearing which may result in a suspension. And that during the suspension period, the valet operator may be replaced by another valet operator. It's all in one section. Is there anything in the bill, do I miss it, which says over what period of time these three written violations must occur, or these written warnings to the person may be given? Could they be given in one day?
We have been known to get about four or five a night, in some cases.
Speak directly into the microphone. My guess is three or four?
Parking Authority has been known to come down and give us anywhere from two to four tickets a night.
No; it is usually different cars. 35 BILL 970403 And the reason is that they come down at a time where 70 percent of the vehicles are coming to Manayunk, trying to get parked. So we use the runway as a storing area for the car, while the runner is coming to move it to the parking lot. Generally what happens is that they come down and at 8 o'clock, and they will write us a number of tickets. And sometimes it's, you know, they don't really even give us a chance to get the car off the runway. And I guess that's, with this ordinance, we could get three or four of these violations in that loading area in ten minutes.
Well, I think your example might even be better than mine. I think each ticket could be a separate violation to support a written notice. I am just urging, because I think the purpose of the bill is a good purpose, and I'm just urging that there be real specificity as to when these violation penalties can be imposed, for everybody's sake. Parking Authority ought to know, the 36 BILL 970403 valet operator ought to know, and we ought to know, you know, what the law is that is being passed. There is a similar provision in the general provisions dealing with getting a valet parking permit. It deals with repeated violations. I don't know what a "repeated violation" is.
Councilman Cohen, can I interrupt you? I mean, these are all good concerns. What I would like for you to could is address them to Ms. Cutler from the Parking Authority.
I wanted to know whether these are realistic concerns of the people involved. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order. I think what Councilman Cohen is referring to -- I kind of think we are mixing apples can oranges here -- you, I believe, are referring to the issue of citations to a vehicle. And I think the ordinance addresses the operator, the valet operator, failing to comply with certain provisions of this chapter, of this ordinance. And they are not necessarily one in the same. 37 BILL 970403
Councilman, I have to take some responsibility for the confusion that exists here. Under ordinary circumstances what we would do is have testimony from the representatives of the Parking Authority, the Streets Department, and other people, get a clearer understanding of what is intended by the bill, and then once a member has that, then other members of the general public could come to testify. But, I mean, we are going to have to bifurcate this hearing today. I do not like having members of the general public come, and then sit here for an hour or two, and then we not be able to hear them. We are going to have to, because the Council Committee on Transportation really ran over a bit, we were supposed to start this hearing at 12 o'clock. And out of respect for both the Committee Chairperson and the subject matter, which is very important, we didn't say anything, and Councilwoman went over some time. There are some of us who have a 38 BILL 970403 commitment to attend the funeral services for a dear friend, and we will only be about 30 minutes. But we are going to have to recess the hearing, and run and pay our respects, and come right back. But I didn't want to have the general public sitting here and not be able to express its feelings on the bill, so we wanted to get them. What I would like to do is, if anybody has any other questions of these witnesses, you know, who are here, we appreciate their coming, and we know that they have other work to do, I would like for you to get them. We will have an opportunity to talk at some length with representatives of the Parking Authority. But what I would like to do is have the committee now stand in recess until 2 o'clock, give us an opportunity to pay our respects and come back. And then we can take as much time as we need, you know, with a representative of the Authority. We apologize for this, but we didn't have any clue that the other hearing was going to run over. And it happens. It is just the way 39 BILL 970403 legislative bodies work. But we appreciate the attendance of the members of the general public. We invite you to stay or come back at 2 o'clock. We know some of you are very very interested in this. It will be an interesting discussion, I'm sure. But at this time the committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock, at which time we will hear from the Parking Authority and, I think, the Streets Department, and anyone else from the city that we think we need in order to understand the bill. Is there any question from any member of Council? Thank you very much. This committee stands in recess. (Hearing stands in recess.)
At this time our next witness will be Rina Cutler of the Philadelphia Parking Authority. If I could have your attention, please, our next witness will be Rina Cutler of the Philadelphia Parking Authority. 40 BILL 970403 Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your statement.
Good afternoon, President Street, members of Council. My name is Rina Cutler. I am the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Parking Authority. I come to give testimony on Bill No. 10 970403, which was introduced by Councilmembers DiCicco, Kenney, and Nutter as a result of numerous meetings held with a variety of business owners, valet parking operators, garage operators, and members of the public. It amends the ordinance approved and signed into law in 1995 to regulate valet parking operations. With the growth of hotel, restaurant and entertainment industry in Philadelphia over the last several years, valet parking has become an important and necessary amenity for those businesses to attract and keep customers. However, this has resulted in a disruption of traffic flow and increased parking congestion in several areas of the city which have 41 BILL 970403 been impacted by this growth. In the last year, we are aware of five additional restaurants in Center City which have begun valet parking operations. This is in addition to at least others already in place. 7 These numbers do not include those of 8 hospitals, hotels, and other businesses. The 9 phenomenon is not unique to Center City, as there 10 are several areas in Manayunk and on Christopher 11 Columbus Boulevard which also have experienced this 12 growth. 13 The need to regulate the valet 14 industry has become apparent due to resident 15 complaints that valet operators were taking patrons 16 cars and parking them not in off-street parking 17 facilities, but in residential areas. 18 In fact, some valet attendants, with 19 or without the approval of the valet company, have 20 used on-street public parking spaces to park patrons cars, often having charged them 10 to 15 dollars to valet park. Residents are then forced to park several blocks from their home because the on-street spaces are being used for valet parking -- as a 42 BILL 970403 valet parking lot for the valet. Even worst, complaints have been received from valet customers who received a Notice of Violation for a ticket they never saw. This occurs when a valet driver moves the car to an illegal parking space and the vehicle is ticketed. To avoid a confrontation with the customer, the valet driver removes the ticket from the car. Of course, by the time the customer knows about the ticket, not only is the fine due, but late penalties have been applied. They then call the Parking Authority, indicating that it is not possible for them to have received a ticket because they valet parked the car. I would like to point out that not every valet parking company operates in this manner. Most are serious businesspeople who try to do a good job. It is, in fact, unfair to them that other operators are able to charge lower rates because they do not conduct themselves in a professional manner. 43 BILL 970403 We also have an obligation to the people who live in the neighborhoods close to entertainment areas who are already dealing with the spillover of additional traffic, noise, and parking problems. They have a right to expect us to make whatever effort we can to mitigate against those things which diminish the quality of their lives. At the same time, when we invite people to our city to take advantage of the many opportunities which exist for dining and entertainment, they expect we will do everything in our power to ensure that businesses act responsibly. In this case, it means that when they turn their car over to a valet, it will be parked by a licensed driver, operated in a safe manner, parked in a facility that is licensed and insured, and will be secure while it is in the valet company's care. The requirements of this bill are straightforward. Anyone wishing to operate a valet license must be registered and licensed by the Department of Licenses & Inspections.
44 BILL 970403 A license will be issued if the applicant has a Business Privilege License, is current in all taxes and fees due the city, has adequate liability insurance, and pays an annual fee of $75. The legislation also establishes a new parking violation, Valet Parking Zone, setting aside a portion of the curb for the exclusive use of valet parking operators for specific hours. Applications for these zones will be made by the business wishing to establish valet parking services for its customers. They will be reviewed by the Parking Authority, and approval will be based on an evaluation of existing parking regulations, current property use, and other relevant factors. The Authority will determine the length of the zone, as well as the days and hours of operation in consultation with the business. The law also establishes fees for Valet Parking Zones. It recognizes that a higher fee is appropriate in those areas of highest parking demand. That area includes the existing 45 BILL 970403 boundaries for Center City and University City, plus the Manayunk Business District and the Delaware Avenue Entertainment District. Penalties are established for violations of parking regulations related to the new zone. If a motorist parks in a zone for a purpose other than to turn the car over to the valet operator, they are subject to a $20 fine. If the valet operator fails to remove the vehicle from the zone to an off-street parking facility, the valet operator is subject to a $25 fine. In order for the valet operator to provide the service at a specific location, a plan must be submitted which includes a copy of the contract with a licensed parking facility, proposed pattern of discharge and pickup of vehicles, estimated number of vehicles to be parked, and the number of employees to be used in valeting vehicles. This information will be evaluated to determine if the service can be provided at that location with the staff proposed and with sufficient 46 BILL 970403 off-street parking capacity. Finally, the ordinance provides for suspension or revocation of the licenses for those operators who consistently violate the provisions of the law. I have submitted to you, President Street, amendments to the bill requested by the sponsors. I support the amendments as submitted and urge the favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Mr. President. Going back to the question, I think you answered it, but I want to ask it again, when the valet operator is not in operation, could you clarify again what happens to the space?
Yes, Councilman. Rina Cutler. In most cases, given the scarcity of on-street parking, it is my sense, other than for hotels, that most valet zones will be part time, as 47 BILL 970403 the current loading zones are, evenings primarily. So in those cases, we will do mixed regulations. For instance, during the day hours, they're metered, and at 6:31, hypothetically, they could turn into a Valet Zone. In cases like that we would not remove the meter, and there would be a dual regulation. In other cases, like Valet Zone for a hotel, where they would need it hours a day, we 11 would remove the meter and make it a full-time Valet 12 Parking Zone. 13
My next question 14 is, in the bill, how many valet parking operations 15 could exist? 16 Let's use one that I know well -- and 17 I hate to keep picking on Manayunk -- but let's say 18 that five or six more restaurants would want valet 19 parking. That would pretty much cancel the 20 on-street parking on Main Street. 21 Is there going to be a lottery? How 22 will the process be? First come, first serve? Or 23 are you going to have an allotment of how many valet 24 operations can exist in one business district?
It is actually the case 48 BILL 970403 currently on Walnut Street, where we have a tremendous number of restaurants within a three-block area, all of whom requested what is now a Loading Zone, which I'm sure all will be converted to Valet Parking Zones. We basically took a look at the street and indicated to the restaurants that we were prepared to give them the block, but that they needed to share it as a valet operation for more than one establishment, and that we would only allow one valet operator to operate it. So, in many cases, that will be the model that we will use. It is likely we will not be able to set up an individual zone for everybody who wants one in a very limited area. There is just not enough curb space. So, in that case, we will try to merge and create common zones, with one operator, in order to manage more than one restaurant parking.
My final question is pretty much motivated at this legislation, the problems that you just described with the irresponsible operators. 49 BILL 970403 My question is, when this legislation becomes law, the oversight, will it be the Parking Authority? Now, if an operator doesn't do all the things, they're busy, the lot is full, and now they have cars that they need to deal with, if they do start doing the same things again, parking the car at a meter, parking it in a residential area, whose responsibility will it be, or is there no 11 oversight at that point?
The responsibility for the enforcement of the on-street regulation will be the Parking Authority. The enforcement for the licensing of the valet operators and to hear the complaints relative to the operations of that company will actually be with L & I. So it is a split supervision. For instance, if you are a valet operator, you take a car, take $15 to put that car off-street, and then park it at a meter and it gets a ticket, and through the process of noticing for that ticket you contact my agency and indicate you shouldn't have received the ticket because you were 50 BILL 970403 valet parked at such and such a restaurant, we will then go back to the company. Basically, that would be sort of a friendly warning. Let's say you need to deal with this ticket, this is not the customer's responsibility, you had the car in your possession and you parked it at a meter, don't do that. So eventually they will come. If it is an on-street parking enforcement issue, the Parking Authority will have jurisdiction.
My concern is that I know valet parking operations that are smart enough to pay the ticket. Okay? There are many of them that, rather than face the music, will just pay the ticket. Now, my question is, if a valet operator, after this passes, that moves a car to a meter and drops the appropriate change in the meter, is that, in this ordinance, legal for that operator to do or not? If he is observed parking at a meter and dropping the appropriate --
Well, first of all, I would need some level of proof that he was behaving in a manner that was inappropriate. We would probably send somebody out to observe the operation. And at that point, if that, in fact, is true, under this bill, he could be fined $25, the operator -- not the owner of the vehicle, the valet operator would be fined $25 -- because that would be one of the restrictions to operate at the curb. You cannot use a legal public parking space or an illegal public parking space to park those vehicles. Once you move them from in front of the restaurant, you need to put them in an off-street facility.
You mentioned L & I, you mentioned the Parking Authority. Does the Police Department have no 23 role in the enforcement of this at all?
They, like any other parking violation, could also write the citation, 52 BILL 970403 yes.
But not from what you just described. If I am a valet operator and park it in front of a meter and drop the money in the meter, that is not a violation.
If this ordinance is passed, that would become part of the parking ticket. Those violations will be added to the current parking ticket. So, yes, the Police Department could write them the same as the Parking Authority.
So, in other words, the Police Department can enforce it if there is a complaint that four meters are taken up by a valet operator, that the police could come out. And it wouldn't be fair to ticket the car.
By either the Parking 53 BILL 970403 Authority or the Police Department.
Well, you can tell. Councilwoman Verna indicated, how would you know that the car was parked improperly by a valet operator?
We would have had to receive a complaint, and at that point we would send somebody out.
Especially when you see a person with a red jacket jump out of a car with "Valet" written across the back. And you see it all the time.
Most of the complaints we currently get, they will be required to have valet ticket and numbers in the dashboards. But most of the complaints now that we get from the public relative to valet operators using public parking spaces, the residents are reasonably vigilant in these areas because they are the people being displaced. And while I'm not comfortable taking their word for it, a complaint to my office about it will have somebody go out and observe their 54 BILL 970403 operation. And if they do it one night, they will do it the next night, as well.
So there is going to be some monitoring of the valet parking operators by the Parking Authority --
-- if there is a complaint? No just normal observation without complaints?
Well, there are several. As you know, we have been doing this for some period of time under the current Loading Zone regulation which exists. And, so, over the years we have a fairly good sense of the number of complaints that come in on any particular establishment. So there are locations now that my folks monitor regularly on weekends just because I know there will be complaints, and I would prefer to be a little preemptive about it.
Thank you very 55 BILL 970403 much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. President. Ms. Cutler, I didn't want to start with this, but there has been so much discussion about valet operators parking cars, if I am understanding the previous discussion, parking cars in on-street locations. Was that the nature of the earlier exchange?
Wait a minute. Of course there is a law that prevents people from parking cars in illegal places.
I am sorry. You are correct, President Street. There is a law that prohibits them 56 BILL 970403 from parking illegally, but there is no law that prohibits them from driving up the street and parking at a meter and putting money in that meter, no. 6
All right. Because I was reading from the '95 law that was passed. And it does seem to indicate that you can park in a legal on-street parking location.
Is that correct? Okay. And apparently you run into the problem where if it is a legal on-street parking location which may have a meter, the person could put money in the meter, space is now legal, time runs out, Parking Authority comes along, tags the person for an expired meter?
So it was legal when it went in the space, potentially.
An hour or two hours, three hours later, depending on what the signs say, it could become illegal? 57 BILL 970403
Well, under that scenario, you are absolutely correct. I think the more serious problem is, should a valet operator who has just been paid to 6 15 dollars to valet park the car get to use a public 7 parking space in a public meter to provide that 8 service. I believe the answer is no. 9
That is correct. It is one of the amendments that we are seeking.
Okay. Now, what's the current implementation of the '95 bill? Is it being utilized?
Well, that was passed three years ago. Why wasn't it ever implemented?
There were operational problems. And the ordinance as passed did not address the issues relative to the problems. The proliferation of zones has caused it to be even more problematic. But neither the 58 BILL 970403 Department of Licenses and Inspections nor the Parking Authority could operationally make the previous ordinance work.
So should we understand that for the past three years, you have been trying to figure that out?
No. Actually, I believe I had indicated prior to the law being passed in 1995, that there were going to be operational problems with it, and that there were certain portions of it that I recommended needed to be amended. And I think it has been pretty much under discussion since then.
Okay. And why don't we talk about those discussions. Who has it been under discussion with?
Originally we went to, I believe it was, Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Kenney, who did the initial bill. Your office was brought in, at the request of several Councilpeople. We met for the last year with the Restaurant Association, the Hotel Association, a 59 BILL 970403 variety of valet parking operators, a variety of garage operators, and tried to figure out what the better balance was. And those amendments, I believe, are what you have in front of you today.
Well, could you tell me which of the amendments -- because your testimony seemed to indicate that the amendments were being put forward at the request of the sponsors. Now, I haven't had a chance to talk to Councilman Kenney. I did chat briefly with Councilman DiCicco. He can certainly speak for himself; he is here today. Can you tell me which of the amendments address any of the issues that may have been raised by my office or by me directly?
My name is Richard Dixon. I am the Director of Parking Management. We met with a member of your staff and members of the staff the Councilman DiCicco, President Street, and Councilman Kenney. Some questions were raised at that 60 BILL 970403 time. Specifically from your office there was an omission in the bill concerning whether multiple businesses could request a zone. And we amended each of the sections of the bill to indicate that a business or businesses could together apply for zones. I mean, do you want me to go through each of the amendments that are on here?
There aren't that many. And I don't you have addressed many of my concerns, so I think this will be a very brief conversation.
Can I get a Sergeant At Arms here, please, to distribute the amendments.
We met with those staff 61 BILL 970403 people about six weeks ago and circulated to each of the sponsors, each of the staff people of the sponsors with whom we discussed it, the amendments that we had discussed in that meeting and what the revisions to the bill were, probably at least four weeks ago.
Right. All right. So you think you have addressed the concerns?
Well, based on the meeting that we had with the staff people from those Councilmembers, we think that we addressed the things that were raised at that meeting.
And tell me, who did you meet with in either the restaurant or business community or the parking community in Manayunk?
We met with the business -- I'm sorry, Councilman, the restaurant association, who put together a task force of restaurateurs, which were represented by, essentially, restaurants in each of the key corridors. 62 BILL 970403 And we met with that group, I personally met with them, at least a half a dozen times. But we allowed the restaurant association to set up that membership.
Well, I appreciate the response. But could you tell me who from the Manayunk business community specifically participated in any of those meetings?
I believe the Manager of Kansas City Prime was on the committee.
And you have addressed their concerns, as well, or any issues that were raised?
Well, there were many issues that they raised -- not many. There were several issues that they raised, as well as some issues raised by your staff in the meeting four or five weeks ago --
-- that we did not support, and in fact explained why we did not support them. Obviously -- 63 BILL 970403
Explained them in the meeting or explained them in a subsequent memo?
And many of the restaurants issues actually were articulated, particularly in Manayunk, by the Park America gentleman, who testified earlier, at the earlier hearing, meeting. They had concerns relative to not being able to handle the influx of vehicles. For me, that was a staffing issue. The problem with not being able to move the vehicles from the curb, particularly on Main Street, creates double and triple parking up there during prime time. That was not an acceptable alternative for us, to have people leave the car in the running lane. And they raised the issue of currently parking vehicles in an unlicensed parking lot. I do not believe that I have the authority, nor the inclination, to think that that parking lot cannot be regulated. 64 BILL 970403 So while I have heard a lot of issues that are not addressed in these amendments, and there obviously may be amendments added to this list by members of Council, I think we explained, at least, whether they agreed with us or not, why we couldn't support some of the other pieces that they were looking for in this bill.
One last preliminary question. The person that you made reference to who participated in the earlier part of this hearing, a valet parking operator, were they a part of this task force?
Let's talk about the bill. On , letter F reads, "A valet parking operator's license may be suspended, revoked, or not renewed on the following grounds," and then there is a list, Items No. Point through Point 4. ForPoint No. 3, repeated violations of the Philadelphia Code in the operation of the business, how many is "repeated"? 65 BILL 970403
Oh, I'm sorry; I was in the wrong place. Well, it seems to -- and I'm not sure that's defined. Although as normally what happens in the course of actions by the City Council, we will write an internal set of regulations for the law. I suppose my own personal opinion is, if you have had discussions with an operator three or four times, and nothing has changed, that that would qualify for "repeated." That doesn't necessarily mean if I request a hearing in front of the L & I Commissioner on violations, that at that point their operation will be suspended, but certainly they will get written warnings from us.
I understand about written warnings. But this is going to go in the Philadelphia Code. And I think any rational, reasonable 66 BILL 970403 person should be able to pick up the Philadelphia Code and have a pretty decent understanding of what the rules and regulations are, and not have to go running around Aunt Sally's hat band trying to figure out what something means. So if someone says "repeated violations," I know that "a couple" is two and "a few" is three, and I don't know what goes beyond that. But most agencies have a number. You get three violations, you get this. You have five violations, you get that. So I am not familiar with the notion of "repeated violations of the Philadelphia Code," which, I believe, has at least sections. And I 16 don't know what qualifies under the concept of 17 "repeated violations of the Philadelphia Code." 18 And all of that same questioning 19 would then go to Point 4, repeated instances of 20 violations of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, which I 21 assume starts to get into how many tickets they have received. And an issue raised by Councilman Cohen in the earlier hearing, you can get a ticket at 1:00, you can get a ticket at 3:00, you can get a 67 BILL 970403 ticket at 5:00, you can get a ticket at 7:00, you can get a ticket at 9:00, that sounds like it is fairly repeated, which could lead to some problems.
Councilman, if I may, the original bill passed by Council, the original, if you look at the pink, I believe it says, "three," .
That's item No. 10 D; that's your process. Right. That talks about three written warnings. That's later on in the bill. This is talking about what leads to suspension, revocation, or not renewed. On all I am asking you, for Point No. 3 and Point No. 16 4, what qualifies as "repeated violations"? It is undefined. It is unclear. You come back on , Item E, and say, "If a valet parking operator fails to comply with any provision of this chapter," which I assume includes Points and Point on the previous pages, "or regulations issued pursuant thereto, the Authority shall send a written warning to the valet parking operator and to the business with which the valet parking operator has a contract. 68 BILL 970403 "After three such written warnings are issued, the Authority's executive director may request the Commissioner of L & I, or his or her designee, to hold a hearing on whether the suspension" -- and there apparently is no other reference made to revocation or nonrenewal, but there only appears to be a process set up for suspension -- "to hold a hearing on whether suspension of the valet parking permit for a period of up to one year. No suspension is effective until at least days notice has been provided to the 13 business." 14 I guess my experience, mostly with L 15 & I, is that you usually get 30 days to cure 16 whatever your problem is, unless it is an imminently 17 dangerous building. And so it goes on and on to 18 talk about expansion. 19 Again, in the example laid out by 20 Councilman Cohen earlier, I don't know what the time period is during which you would get three such written warnings. Is it back to repeated violations, which could happen multiple times in the course of a day? Is it repeated instances of violations of the 69 BILL 970403 Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code?
Let me see if I can clarify it. Because I think we are confusing, at least I think Councilman Cohen this morning, was referencing parking, multiple parking tickets in one day.
He may or may not have been talking about multiple parking tickets in a day. But if you are saying in here, in Items No. 3 or 4, that repeated instances of violations can make you subject to suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal, and if your suspension process says --
-- if a valet parking operator fails to comply with any provision of this chapter or regulations, then it seems to me that Points and Point are part and parcel to your provision on that says that you are failing to comply with any provision of this chapter. Right? 70 BILL 970403
Our intention in this section was that each of those provisions on Pages and would provoke a written warning. Any one of those could initiate a written warning.
And then after three written warnings, the process for suspension would kick into place.
Unfortunately, you still haven't answered the question. You are saying to me that repeated violations of the Philadelphia Code, whatever they may be, titles in the Code, or repeated instances 18 of violations of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code make 19 you subject to suspension, revocation, or 20 nonrenewal. 21 And your suspension process says that 22 if you fail to comply with any provision of this chapter. So let me take you back through it. If you get repeated tickets on your cars that you are responsible for, it would seem to 71 BILL 970403 me that you are now in noncompliance with this particular provision of the chapter. That initiates a warning from you today.
You are found to be subject to having repeated instances of violations of the Motor Vehicle Code later on today. That gets a warning from you on that violation. And later on today, you have repeated violations of the Motor Vehicle Code, which gets you another notice. You have now three. In the course of the day you have three written warnings from the Parking Authority, you are now subject to suspension. I'm just trying to understand that Items No. 3 and 4 are a part of the suspension process, which immediately lead to three warnings. Because in the one instance you have not defined what "repeated violations of the Philadelphia Code" are, or what are "repeated instances of violations of the Motor Vehicle Code." And there is no discussion about any other process except suspension. 72 BILL 970403
I haven't even gotten to the hearing and what happens at the hearing.
Let me see if I can try to clarify this. Written warnings to a valet operator are not parking tickets.
For a violation. They are, in fact, a written notice to the operator and the restaurant which has hired that company that they are doing something that is against the regulations; i.e., parking cars illegally, not removing them from the curb on such and such a date. It is not my expectation that you could ever get -- I shouldn't say "ever." 73 BILL 970403 It is not my expectation that you would get a warning for operational reasons, as the operator, more than once in a 24-hour period. Because I assume, in most cases, even now under current Loading Zone regulations, if we tell you there is a problem, you generally will clear it up. So it is not my sense. No, it is not specific enough. And I understand what you are saying, and I have no problem with putting specificity in. But I want to differentiate between a notice to a valet operator who is not behaving under the rules of engagement and a parking citation for parking illegally. One could generate the other. But seven illegally parked cars on a block on a Thursday night, in my opinion, would generate a warning to the operator.
Well, that is my sense of how these regulations will get written. So, yes, it is not only my theory or 74 BILL 970403 hope, but will be written in regulations.
Well, I hope you can certainly appreciate, at least for myself and some other members may share this concern, notwithstanding whatever your best intentions are, we don't usually get to write regulations, we write with goes in the Code. And then it goes off to wherever it goes off. I have no involvement in that particular process. And I'm not saying that I want to. And I think that I should have said this earlier. I think that we need a valet system. I'm not particularly pleased at some of the things that I see going on out there. Having said that, that doesn't alleviate any concerns I have about this particular bill.
Excuse me. Council, couldn't that ambiguity be cleared up by just simply saying, on , at the top, strike "repeated," and just put "violations of the Philadelphia Code in the operation of the business as defined under Section 9(e) of this bill," or something? 75 BILL 970403 I mean, isn't that what is really intended here?
Yes. And then when you get to 9(e), you say how the process, what the violations are, and how they work.
You could deal with it there. Although I would ask the director again, let me ask you this question: How will you find out if a person has violations or repeated violations of the Philadelphia Code --
Excuse me, Councilman Cohen. I would appreciate it if you would lower your voice just a little bit. We are trying to hear this.
How will the Parking Authority find out if a person has one or repeated violations of the Philadelphia Code, and which do you care about? And how will you find out if they have repeated instances of violations of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, and which ones do you 76 BILL 970403 care about? And what's your process for getting that information?
If they have violations of the Vehicle Code, Councilman, I have, obviously, access to those violations. And so when somebody files an application for, currently, a loading zone, in the future potentially a Valet Parking Zone, there will be a file attached and a computer record. That is where we will eventually log in the complaints. Mostly how I know about violations of the Code, other than for parking, is somebody has complained, and the appropriate agency will go out. So it is an easy share of information at this point, I think, for L & I relative to a Valet Parking Zone, or the Police Department relative to a Parking Zone, or the Parking Authority to be able to share that information. And I would certainly hope it would all be in a file, and that's how I would know. I suppose I care about them all. Obviously I think some are more egregious than others. 77 BILL 970403 But they are all violations, and all would constitute a notice or ticket, if they are found to be guilty of them.
But it sounds like you are primarily going to rely on a complaint-driven system, as opposed to any proactive methodology?
For the most part. Although, as I referenced earlier, we are very aware, at least based on a historical number of complaints, where there are more problems than others. And as I explained earlier, my supervisors are aware that, particularly on weekend nights, they need to make sure that those operators are behaving appropriately. So, I mean, I think it is both proactive and reactive, depending on how long you have been in business and how many issues we have had with you in the past.
Let me just ask this last question for this round. The Chair has been most accommodating. I know some of my colleagues have questions, as well. 78 BILL 970403 Bottom of leading into , we are now in No. 9, Valet Parking Permit, you have talked about a plan, valet parking plan, submitted in the form required by the Authority. I would be intrigued if there is an actual form developed at this point, but that's not my question. Then you talk later on about a copy of the agreement with the business to operate valet parking at the particular location. I would be intrigued to know whether there is a standard agreement form that's going to be required. But my question goes to Point No. 4, which talks about the proposed pattern of discharge and pick-up of vehicles, including the estimated number of vehicles that will be valet parked during each hour of operation and the number of agents or employees that will provide valet parking during each hour of operation. Now, how many agents or employees will the valet operator have to have?