Is it anticipated that our collections will continue at that pace or are we on a slowdown or being more aggressive, uptick in the collections? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would hope we would continue at that pace or better. I can't really tell you right now. Again, that's with -- the Law 88 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Department manages that contract with Lineberger right now.
Okay. I don't know if you guys can answer this question, but I think somehow Revenue is involved to some degree. Under the NTI program in the acquisition phase, using condemnation, every property that was demolished or had any other liens, those liens should have been settled at the time of the condemnation of those properties and then subsequently the funds associated with the settling at the time -- I'm sorry; associated with the revenue the liens at the time were closing should have been recycled back into Councilmembers' acquisitions budgets. And I'm understanding -- I know there was some controversy in the latter part of last year with some of the members about that money. Do you know where we are with that? Because I understand it's like $700,000, the recycling amount and then 89 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. there should be substantially more.
That program is still in place. What we do is look at how the revenue comes in through the year, and then at the end of the year, in the year-end transfer ordinance, we move money over to OHCD. It sounds like it's not a giant number so far this year, but it's still there.
Well, my concern is that it's going to be merged into the General Fund and not be recycled, because I didn't get a sense that people were paying significantly detailed attention to that process, and when that money gets recycled, I'm concerned, and actually somebody told me that it was getting funneled back into the General Fund.
My understanding, that it isn't, but I will check and make sure.
Who is responsible for administering that? 90 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
OHCD provides information to Budget and says, This is what should be transferred back as part of the recycling agreement.
Is it OH and RDA or just OH? Because RDA is actually dealing with the condemnation. That's my concern. There's like a lot of people in this.
So OHCD has to determine from Redevelopment Authority what the liens were on the property?
And then they contact the Administration and say, This is the amount that should be recycled back into the individual Councilmembers' acquisition budget?
We can check into that. We'll go back and make sure that 91 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. the process is working correctly.
Given the fact that I've depleted my budget, that's kind of important.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez.
Thank you, Madam President. I had a couple of areas of concern. On the reassessment piece, until we resolve the issue of full value, I have a real concern, because I have a district where we're at 60 percent assessment at the highest rates. So when you talk about some of your income projections are based on them going out and reassessing, I have a serious concern, because that's going to impact me more, because our assessment 92 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. percentages has always been higher, proportionately higher. So I want to put that on the record that I have a concern about that. As it relates to collections -- and I brought this up during the testimony of the City Solicitors -- in dealing with some of these companies that are doing some of the collections, I find that the application of the rules and the process is different. And I have some specific concerns as we deal with a more aggressive collection strategy and how we deal with homeowners versus speculators or, slash, investors, in my case some speculators, because we've had a couple of cases where people have gone in and made a significant payment, but then they still wouldn't give them an agreement. So they took the check. The person was under the understanding that they can get into an agreement, and then they didn't enter into the agreement. So I have some concerns that as 93 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. you revisit that, that how we deal with homeowners, in particular low-income homeowners who want to figure out how they comply and how we deal with other folks, that we're considerate of that situation. And the other thing, going to what Councilman Clarke said in terms of the liening of properties, particularly those under NTI, my understanding is -- and this was done -- my understanding is that it was done just for expediency. We've been doing a lot of remediation work on the lots. In my particular case, I have 200-and-something new lots as a result of NTI, with very little acquisition, but the remediation work that we're doing on the lots, we're not liening them. So potentially for us to acquire these lots that I'm going to have to take care of until I can redevelop it, we need to create a process by the work that Commerce is doing and some of the 94 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. other ones in terms of the lot maintenance, that we begin a process to lien those. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. We'll look into, first and foremost, those taxpayers that are getting payments and not getting receipts or agreements, and also with the lot situation, too.
And the reassessments. That's a real concern, because if not, I'm going to have to be very aggressive on that, because, again, until we have full value, we understand as a city that there's parts of the City whose percentage is much higher than others. We want to be aggressive and collect, but we already know that proportionately poor folks have paid a lot more taxes. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes 95 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm actually waiting for a matter I wanted to put on the record, but while I wait for that copy from my office, on of your testimony you talk about displaying signs of weakness in a residential real estate tax. It in some ways may be a follow-up by a question raised by Councilman Green. In addition to that having potentially an impact on taxes going to the School District, what might be some of the other negatives or positives with the displaying signs of weakness in the residential real estate tax?
Councilmember, the place where you see that displayed most clearly is with the transfer tax, the real estate transfer tax, where, as we've said, the estimate that we have is for approximately one percent growth from FY08 to FY09, and we are actually 96 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. anticipating that the $205 million that we had initially put in the budget for 2008, which in and of itself was a decrease from 2007, is going to be down by another eight million. And so our estimate for '08 now is 197 million. Moving forward into '09, 199 million. Yesterday there was a report by probably one of the preeminent indicators with respect to housing prices that for the balance of the country, using their ten- or 20-city composite, they're looking at unprecedented drops in housing prices. In some cases it's or 16 percent over the past year for markets, I 17 think most notably Washington, for 18 example, or in Florida like Miami. Where we'll see that weakness is in the transfer tax. That's a bellwether for what could happen in other places. A lot of folks have been using their homes to sort of get equity lines of credit to enable them to purchase large consumer items, whether they're 97 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. automobiles or consumer durables. So that could have quite an impact and a ripple impact, and that's something that I'm certainly watching on a monthly basis whenever these reports come out, because it's something to be mindful of.
All right, then. Thank you, Madam President. I'll have to circle back, because I don't have that document yet. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilman Green, you're next. Shall I go to the --
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. I have a couple of questions regarding the economic conditions that you talk about in the Five-Year Plan and 98 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. also your testimony. Under the Economic Conditions portion of your testimony you're saying that the City estimates a 3.3 percent growth in 2008. How does this compare to the surrounding cities and what do you estimate the necessary rate of growth should be, particularly to impact poverty that we all talk about? I mean, the poverty rate here in Philadelphia is so high. So the question is, how does Philadelphia's growth, 3.3 percent growth, compare to the surrounding cities and what do you estimate that this necessary rate of growth should be?
Councilmember, we haven't really looked at the other cities. We can do that. We can look at the sort of metropolitan economy if you're interested in that, but I don't have that in front of me. My guess is that it's probably doing as well, if not a little bit better, but that's just a guess without sort of hard data to back 99 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. that up.
I notice in some part in the Five-Year Plan it talks about the decline in population here in the City and also a decline in the City's job base, and I was also wondering, also it said that in the Philadelphia suburbs that they have an employment gain of between two percent and four percent, according to the Federal Reserve Bank, and I was just also wondering if you knew what types of jobs had actually caused that increase. Was it retail? When I go to the suburbs, it's just a whole bunch of malls that are being built and sort of some business centers. I'm not really sure.
Councilmember, I think you're right. I think there are places like in the retail services sector or just retailing that you're seeing those increases, and you're probably not seeing a similar kind of growth here in the City. In the City, those areas that 100 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. have been generating the largest growth in terms of jobs and wages have been our educational sector as well as our healthcare sector. Without those two sectors, it would be a different economy for us. So it's a good thing that they're growing as robustly as they are. My guess is, you're not seeing that kind of growth in the outlying areas, but there are aspects of the sort of surrounding region outside of the City that have stronger across-the-board growth, as opposed to us where we have very strong growth in a couple of industries and sectors.
What I was hoping was that Philadelphia -- I mean, there's been a drive and a wish to reduce taxes for quite some time, and I know I've always heard that it's to help promote businesses moving into the City, but I also hope that there's somebody doing some planning and strategy to not just reduce taxes to bring in businesses, 101 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. but businesses that will be open to hiring our residents, to start to begin to decrease the poverty level and help impact the unemployment rate. So I'm hoping that that's what all of this is about.
And I haven't heard that. All I keep saying is, we need to bring in more businesses. Well, we can assume that it's to help with unemployment, but I've never read a strategy that will go out and actually figure out, well, what industries are growing here, what are the needs here. I haven't heard that.
I mean, that's definitely something that we focus on. It's something that the people in the economic development area know in a lot more detail, and I'm sure when they come in, they'll be able to walk you through that.
So 102 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. that's, what, Commerce?
Thank you. I just had a question about electronic remittance and whether or not taxpayers can electronically remit their tax payments to the City of Philadelphia. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. They can do that online. We do have it on the website.
So people don't have to come into the office? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: They do not have to come down to the office.
And that's every kind of taxpayer can do that? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. 103 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. A few questions, four to be exact. What will the gross receipts reductions under 022 and 157 cost?
They cost, over the life of the Five-Year Plan, roughly $200 million.
Oh, I'm sorry. I gave you the whole -- the whole business privilege tax cut is about 200 million and I think 77 of that --
The 104 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a point of information.
125, right. I was just getting there. Yeah. So over five years, it's $125 million in foregone revenue from the decrease in the gross receipts tax.
You said gross receipts portion 125 over five years?
So, in other words, it's going to cost us 125 and the 77 over five years?
Can the City afford the business tax reductions without slowing down the wage 105 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. tax rate reductions and repeal of the Cohen tax reductions for low-income taxpayers?
The Plan has about $160 million in additional revenue from slowing down the wage tax cuts. So if we did not decelerate those reductions, we would have to find that money elsewhere in the Plan.
There's about $160 million in savings to the Plan from slowing down the wage tax cuts. So if we didn't slow them down, we'd have to find that 163 million elsewhere in the Plan.
So we are slowing down wage reductions to the tune of $160 million?
So it does not affect our low-income taxpayers to the tune of $160 million.
Well, one of the 106 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. reasons that we thought we could do that is, we expect to get money from the state that's dedicated -- the gaming money from the state dedicated to wage tax reduction, and that's worth about $95 million a year. So when you add that in, you actually have faster wage tax reduction than we had in last year's Plan.
Yeah. The state gaming law, there was an amount of money that was dedicated specifically to come to Philadelphia to reduce the wage tax rates.
What additional revenue does the City hope to collect in new fees under 080163 and 164?
Councilwoman, we're not considering those bills until we're completed with the tax bills.
Let me 107 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. in general then ask --
We'll talk about the fee bills after the tax bills.
All right. Then the bills we just mentioned, do they, in your opinion, then shift the tax burden from businesses to individual wage earners who are residents of our City?
No. I think we'll wind up with lower taxes on both sides, and when the state money comes in, lower taxes on both sides that have been anticipated in earlier Plans. So I think both sides will see reductions. The burden will be lighter on both businesses and residents.
All right. That's what we look forward to. I don't believe Council wants to be in a position of hurting wage earners who live here to help businesses who may not. 108 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Thank you, Madam President. I'll hold my other question then for now.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. I want to seize the moment and just put on the record a business privilege tax bill I introduced that's really designed to help entrepreneurs/artists, micro-businesses, like those who sell Avon and the like, and start-ups. And so I want to put it on the record, with at some point having a broader conversation about this. It does two things. It changes the BPT creating an annual license and eliminates the temporary license, because typically artists come from out of the City and they're burdened with all of the obligations that business privilege owners in the City have to honor when it 109 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. comes to business privilege licenses. So, A, I want you to be aware of it, and, B, I guess ultimately what the positive or negative impact might be, because right now it's onerous when it comes to artists, starving artists, who make no 8 money, but want to do business selling their passion. So we'll be offering that up to you for a look-see and feedback.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
I want to follow up on the last question I asked the Revenue Commissioner about electronic remittance with just a couple of questions. Some things you're going to have to get back to me with. But how much do you charge somebody who wants to remit electronically? 110 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't know that off the top of my head. I can get that to you.
It is my understanding that basically the only way to do it is to pay with a credit card. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, and there's a fee for that.
There's not direct debit from your bank account into the City system and other things that would have no fees associated with it? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Not currently.
That's correct. So the amount of money we're talking about for property taxes or business taxes or other things. Adding two percent for credit card fees to the tax bill really discourages electronic remittance.
We understand that this is an issue, and we're actually in the process of analyzing what that two 111 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. percent means in terms of discouraging people and looking at other places where they don't charge it and whether they have a much higher usage rate and what the trade-off between those two would be.
I would point you to the paper I've sent you all, Paperless City Government, and suggest that the cost of having people open mail, keystroke in checks, keystroke in this taxpayer and the cost of people standing there taking collections, if you could encourage people, give them even a discount to file electronically versus an extra charge, that the savings or the efficiencies produced from electronic remittance will over time far exceed the current costs of the whole system.
We agree with you this is an important issue and we're doing our own analysis, but we understand what you're saying.
Okay. Since you said yes, we do, I just wanted to 112 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. point out -- what percentage of people actually remit electronically; do you know? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's not a very big percentage of people that do right now.
If you could get me the percentage that do that both in percentage of total dollars remitted and percentage of actual taxpayers that remit that way, and then also all of the costs attendant with the current collection systems, I'd appreciate it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
We will now consider the fee bills: Bill 24 No. 080162 through 080165 and Bill No. 25 080168. 113 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Commissioner, I failed to congratulate you on your appointment, and I certainly want to wish you the very best. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you, Council President.
Good luck. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Chairperson Verna and members of the Committee. My name is David Perri. I'm the Chief Engineer for Surveys and Design for the Department of Streets. With me today is Deputy Commissioner Michael Zaccagni and Nancy Sen, who is the Director for Transportation Planning and Analysis. I will briefly summarize our testimony in support of Bills 080162, 114 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. 080163 and 080164. Combined, these three bills will support the following seven objectives: No. 1, to transfer the permit issuance responsibility for the use of the right-of-way for temporary storage and construction materials in the roadway from the Department of Licenses and Inspections to the Department of Streets; No. 2, will provide the Department of Streets with the authority to charge supplemental inspection fees whenever work or activities that are regulated under Title 9 or Title 11 occur without first obtaining a permit; 3, will provide the Department of Streets with the authority to establish permit fees by regulation for activities that are regulated under Title 11; 4, will provide the Department of Streets with the authority to establish optional accelerated services for survey activities and for the review of private paving plans; 5, it will provide the 115 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Department with the authority to charge permit fees for the placement of pods, dumpsters and other construction equipment in the right-of-way; 6, it will provide the Department of Streets with the authority to charge permit fees for partial and full street closures; and, 7, it will change the valid operative time for a street opening permit from two weeks to 30 days and eliminate renewals of those permits. These seven objectives support three goals of the Department: No. 1, to improve customer service; No. 2, to obtain cost recovery for our services; and, No. 3, to improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation by providing a disincentive for the extended use of the public roadways and sidewalks for staging construction, maintenance and loading activities. Thank you for consideration of these bills, and we're available to answer any questions. 116 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Thank you very much, Mr. Perri. Under Bill 080162, it would be for permits for the street openings and the excavations. What is the revenue implication of this bill to the Proposed Budget and Five-Year Plan?
In terms of all the bills together, the bill for occupancy on the street for closing a lane or a sidewalk, right now we collect no revenue for those activities and we are projecting $800,000 per year.
$800,000 a year for occupancy on the sidewalk or for a travel or parking lane or for a full street closure. The additional revenue under Bill 080162 for the breaking and restoring of streets, we're still looking at the exact revenue projections for that activity, but it's not expected to be a minor increase -- it's not expected to be 117 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. a major increase.
Is it in the Plan? Is it in the Five-Year Plan? Is it in the Proposed Budget? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZACCAGNI: The breaking of streets is not in the revenue stream for the proposed budget.
When do you think you would have some estimation as what the implications would be of this bill? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZACCAGNI: We can have that relatively soon.
Bill 16 No. 080163, what are the revenue implications of this bill to both the Proposed Budget and the Five-Year Plan? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZACCAGNI: That's actually referring to --
I'm sorry. You're going to have to identify yourself for the record. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZACCAGNI: Okay. My name is Michael Zaccagni, 118 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Deputy Commissioner for Streets. That bill for survey services would increase our revenue stream by approximately -- including increases in the cost for surveys, accelerated survey fees, which is a new service that we'd like to provide, and also for hauling permits, which hasn't been changed, I believe, since 1981, about the total cost for increase in revenue is about $550,000.
And is that reflected in the Five-Year Plan? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZACCAGNI: Yes, it is. The only one that is not was the one for the breaking of the streets. Everything else is.
And can you tell us what your justification of these proposed changes are? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZACCAGNI: What we're looking at is trying to do cost recovery for our survey fees, which at the moment are below what it costs us 119 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. to actually provide the service. So we're looking at that. It has not changed, I think, since 2006. In addition, we're including a fee for accelerated service, so if someone wants to provide better service where we're going to have to do something a little more extraordinary to get them, we're establishing a fee there. The third part is for hauling permits, and that fee, I believe, hasn't been changed since 1981. So there's two things, and Mr. Perri can talk to actually the efficiency part. If I remember, there's a piece on us trying to get those things done more quickly, but also readjust fees so that it's a simpler fee structure, and that also will result in additional revenues.
Thank you. Let's go to Bill No. 080164. Again, I would ask what is the revenue implication on this bill to the Proposed 120 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Budget and the Five-Year Plan? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZACCAGNI: That's one that Mr. Perri mentioned earlier. It's the closure of streets.
The 800,000. Very good. Bill No. 080165, I would ask a question that shouldn't have to be asked. Why -- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZACCAGNI: I'm sorry to interrupt, but that one is not actually a Streets Department. I believe that's L&I.
Just a moment. Mr. Perri, is 68 yours? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZACCAGNI: No. 23
Okay. Just a moment. Would you mind staying there? 121 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZACCAGNI: Sure.
Does anyone have any questions of the Streets Department? Councilman Greenlee.
Just quickly, Madam President. On the issue of the cost for the placement of construction equipment and also on the storage, do you see -- because I know we get complaints once in a while -- that sometimes the construction companies take liberty on that, that they don't really need to do that and they're taking away parking spots or they're taking away access to the sidewalk? I guess this maybe fee isn't enough. Do you think that would get people to maybe think, Well, do I really need to do this in certain occasions, or do you not think the fee is enough that it would make that much of a difference? 122 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
I think the fee will provide a disincentive for contractors to occupy the street for an indeterminate amount of time and make their closure larger than it needs to be. What we're looking at is a fee that's based upon the size of the closure and the length of time. So there are two disincentives in there. We want them to keep it small and we want them to get in and get out as quickly as possible.
Because that is obviously a complaint. I'm sure you hear it, too, from residents who say, Geez, it seems like they're there forever and do they really need eight parking spots instead of two or three?
That's exactly right. That's the problem that we're trying to solve with this bill.
Thank 123 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. you. And thank you so much for all the work you do. I personally want to thank you publicly. I think you do a magnificent job.
You're welcome. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZACCAGNI: We appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay. L&I regarding Bill No. 16 080165. (Witness approached witness table.)
My first question, sir, is, why didn't we receive testimony of this bill ahead of time?
I was not aware that I would be testifying on the bill 25 today. There was some miscommunication 124 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. with the coordinator of the bill. I was under the impression that the testimony would be given by the Budget Director and the Finance Director.
Well, I think we're going to hold very firm to our rule that we receive a copy of the testimony. Mr. Dubow.
Yes. We know that we did not do this the right way this time and we'll make sure it does not recur.
Thank you. For the record, can you tell us what this bill does?
Yes, ma'am. Good day, Council President Verna and members of the Committee. I am 125 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill 080165, which, if enacted, will amend provisions of the Administrative and Zoning Codes related to the fees the Department charges for the issuance of certain construction permits and real estate seller certifications in order to cover its costs to administer and enforce provisions involving this activity. The Department proposes to increase the fee for construction permits that are issued for one- and two-family dwellings from the current $25 to $50 to adequately cover the cost involved with permit issuance and conducting inspections of the activity to ensure compliance with safety codes. This $50 fee is comparable to fees that are charged by other urban municipalities in the country; in particular, Baltimore and Pittsburgh, which charge similar fees of 126 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. $50 and $40 respectively for the administration and enforcement of a regulatory program geared toward the issuance of construction permits involving one- and two-family dwellings. We conducted a survey of eight other municipalities in addition to Baltimore and Pittsburgh to compare our fees for this activity with theirs and found that on average our proposed fee increase is equal to or less than the fees charged by many of these municipalities. The proposed fee increase will also generate $236,850 in additional revenue for the City. With regard to the increase in fees related to the issuance of real estate seller certificates from the current $50 to $100, due to the Department's ability to now issue these certificates online utilizing our computer system for code enforcement as developed by Hansen Technologies, the purpose of this amendment is to eliminate 127 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. the fee we now charge for accelerated manual processing of real estate certifications, which is $100, as this service is no longer necessary due to technology, and to charge a uniformed fee of $100 for the issuance of all certifications to cover the Department's costs. The $100 fee that is proposed is the same fee we currently charge for automated transactions. The issuance of real estate seller certifications is mandated by state law, Act 652 of 1961, which requires the property owner/seller to obtain a certification statement from the City in order to be given to the buyer prior to settlement which indicates the legal zoning classification for the property in question as well as whether the Department has any recorded violations affecting property maintenance, building, fire or safety of the property. Act 652 does not prohibit municipalities from charging a fee for 128 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. the issuance of this certificate in order to cover its costs related to reviewing records and processing applications. The fee increase that we propose mirrors the fees charged by the City of Pittsburgh, which is the only other comparable municipality in the Commonwealth that is subject to the same requirements for the issuance of real estate seller certifications. We estimate that the proposed increase in fees for this activity will generate $313,330 in additional revenue for the City. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's testimony. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you again, Madam President. Good afternoon, Mr. Haigler. 129 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Just a quick one on the certifications. Is there an estimate now like once all this is computerized how much time it will take when somebody applies?
Well, it's pretty much instantaneous. It's already been computerized, from what I understand. The public can now access the system that we have in place to get their real estate seller certification instantaneously.
Specifically for one- and two-family dwellings. For occupancies other than that, there is some research that's required to determine what the zoning classification is for the property and whether or not there are any violations, any additional violations that might be on the property. But it's pretty quick as we're speaking now, and we receive a lot of feedback 130 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. from the real estate community. They're very satisfied with this service.
No. We always go by what complaints we don't get, that it must be going well, and we haven't received complaints like we used to. I know the time frame was always a big complaint that people had. Just on the multi-family dwellings above two, though, any rough idea how long that would take?
You said the one and two you can get instantaneously, but the others take a little bit more research. What kind of rough time are we talking about?
It takes a little time to do some research in our zoning records. Our zoning records are not computerized. They're still manually paper records. I would surmise, just a guesstimate, roughly maybe a couple of 131 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. weeks.
You're welcome. Any other questions? (No response.)
Can I ask the Administration to come back to the witness table regarding the fee bills, and the Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, gentlemen. I apologize.
Good afternoon. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I was 132 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. sitting in my office doing some phone calls and I didn't realize that the previous witnesses would have been gone so quickly. I got a whole list of questions here, but first off, let me start out by asking, it's my understanding that a couple of weeks ago members of the Administration met with folks from the utilities to talk about the fee structures that the utilities have been working on for about a year. Are you familiar with that?
I'm not familiar with that. I can check. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, it's my understanding that there was never any mention at that meeting with the utility companies about any of these fee structures or these bills that were being introduced, and I don't think that was the fair thing to do, obviously, because I think we do need their input. At the end of the day, we may 133 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. support these, we may not. We may adjust them. But without their input and comments about how this may affect their operations, with all due respect, Madam President, I just can't imagine us voting these bills out at this particular time. I can go through each bill and ask a question, but I would think it would be more appropriate to have those folks that would be impacted with these proposals part of that overall discussion --
I understand. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: There's issues on will it drive costs up, will it have an impact on future construction in the City. We talk about timing of closing of streets. One of the bills talks about going from two weeks to 30 days. Would that encourage small contractors to take 30 days as opposed to getting a street fixed and closed in two 134 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. weeks? I got probably about 4 different questions here, but, again, 5 without -- I know that, Madam President, 6 but with all due respect, you were in a 7 side-bar conversation. Without the 8 companies and, in particular, utility 9 companies who would be immediately 10 impacted by these proposals, I don't know 11 how we can have a real discussion on 12 whether or not this is the appropriate 13 measures we want to take. And I'm not 14 being critical. I just -- 15
No. I understand 16 what you're saying. 17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I 18 remember working on this stuff a few 19 years ago and I remember having 20 conversations with some of the utility companies who testified as to what impact it would have on them. So in the interest of fairness, if you will, I would like to ask that. I don't know if you want to continue this 135 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. hearing to another date so we can invite those folks in to get their input into this conversation.
So you're talking about all three bills to be continued to a later date? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes, Madam President. That's my request.
You're welcome. We do have another bill to consider. However -- can I have the attention of the Councilmembers, please. We do have another bill to consider, but I am fearful that we may lose a quorum. So since we have a quorum at this time, we're going to go into a public meeting regarding -- Councilwoman Blackwell. 136 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.
Thank you. I don't know if I missed the answer. Maybe you asked the question and maybe we can get it later, but I'm still not clear on the revenues that the City gets for Bills 163, 4 and 5, because in our pink copies, they only generally say fees, but they don't cost them out. They don't spell them out. And I would like us before we vote on this --
I'm sorry. What bills are you referring to, Councilwoman? The fee bills?
As I indicated, we're going to go into a public meeting regarding Bill Nos. 080022 137 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. and 080157. The Chair at this time recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll be offering amendments to Bill 080022 and to Bill No. 8 080157, with Councilwoman Tasco's permission.
And I believe copies of the amendments have been circulated to all Councilpersons.
Copies of the amendments have been circulated. If the bills are amended, they will become identical, and the purpose of the bills is to create a schedule that would eliminate the gross receipts portion by the year 2015 and to reduce the net income portion to 5.7 percent. And as mentioned, copies have been circulated. It's meant to make the bills identical and adopt the same long-term schedule going to 2015. So I move for the approval of 138 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. the amendments to Bill No. 080022. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments to Bill No. 080022 stand approved. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Goode regarding Bill No. 18 080157.
Thank you, Madam President. I also move the amendments to Bill No. 080157 be approved. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that 139 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. the amendments to Bill No. 080157 be approved. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. All right. We will now resume our public hearing and we will be considering Bill No. 080168, and after that, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues that we do have public testimony commencing, I believe, at 1:30. So this bill shouldn't take us too long to hear. All right, Mr. Dubow. Again, we didn't receive any testimony.
Oh, it's not your bill. We'll forgive you this time. 140 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Please proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. My name is Rob Dubow. I'm the City's Finance Director. I'm here to present testimony on Bill No. 080168. The Administration has no 9 opposition to this bill.
This is the bill 13 that changes the way business licenses are done for -- temporary licenses --
This is actually Councilwoman Reynolds Brown's 141 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. bill, but I co-sponsored it. It creates a separate class of business privilege license, originally intended to benefit artists who do not want to have a permanent one-time fee for the business privilege license of $250. So instead they can have, I believe, an annual fee for $50. But it would not only benefit those artists, which it is originally intended to benefit, but it would benefit any number of different micro-enterprises and cottage industries, those people who are just starting a business and, as strange as it may sound, don't want to invest in the full $250 as a one-time fee, but would prefer to just have an annual $50 fee. And for very small micro-enterprises, I think it's a great bill. I'm glad that Councilwoman Reynolds Brown did it and I was glad to co-sponsor it.
I was really hoping 142 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. that he would do that.
Any other questions from members of the Committee regarding this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will stand in recess until 1:30, at which time we will have public testimony. Thank you very much. (Short recess.)
The Committee of the Whole is now back in session. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the name of our first witness. MR. McPHERSON: Robert Zuritsky, Philadelphia Parking Association. And I would also like to acknowledge that we've received testimony 143 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. from PathWays PA, and that has been offered as written testimony -- (Off-the-record discussion between Mr. McPherson and Ms. Ortiz.) MR. McPHERSON: Right now the first witness is Robert Zuritsky. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Robert Zuritsky and I am here representing the Philadelphia Parking Association, which is a group of 14 operators managing over 200 parking facilities with 2,500 employees in Philadelphia. I am here again to express my concern with the new Administration's intention to increase Philadelphia's parking tax 33 percent. As many of you know, the parking tax is at 15 percent and is already the highest gross tax that 144 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. citizens of Philadelphia and our guests pay. It also is one of the highest in the country. Drivers who decide to work, live, shop or go to our arts and cultural institutions already have to contend with record-high energy prices. Philadelphia businesses are already complaining about a sharp drop in business due to recession fears. I am very happy that the new budget talks about lowering some of the terrible burden that our businesses in the City face, but increasing the highest gross tax at this time sends a different message. Since we read about this proposed tax, we have reached out to business, hospitality, cultural and residential groups, and have heard back unanimously that they are also very concerned that this tax will negatively impact all of the business in Center City. We know that this is not the intent of the Nutter Administration or 145 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. City Council. There is a perception that this tax is an easy way to gain revenue from suburban residents and visitors, the people who do not vote, but a survey that we took indicates that 50 percent of our customers were Philadelphia residents. There is also the perception that we will just pass through this increase to our customers. In many of our locations, that will not be possible, and where it is possible, it is just unfair to your constituents and our customers. In 2004 and 2005, this tax increase was proposed, and City Council in its wisdom determined that these taxes are regressive and would be counterproductive to the tax base of Philadelphia. If people are deterred by this increase and decide not to drive to the City, then the tax will, in effect, create a negative impact to tax consequences. 146 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Over the next several weeks, we will be meeting with you to discuss this issue and the negative implications it will have on the City. We have worked well with this City Council in the past and are hopeful that we will be able to have a substantive conversation about this issue during this period. We would request a separate hearing on this parking tax so its implications can be fully explored. We would also hope that other sources of potential revenue be explored. Thank you for your consideration in this important matter.
Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Zuritsky. This is the hearing. It had been publicized, and I think anybody that was interested certainly 147 2/27/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. should have been here today. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Stan Shapiro. (Witness approached witness table.)