MCT Transp. Inc. v. Phila. Parking Auth.

• Citation: 60 A.3d 899
• Parties: MCT TRANSPORTATION INC. t/a Montco Suburban Taxi and Bucks County Services, Inc. and Concord Coach Limo t/a Concord Coach Taxi and Concord Coach USA t/a Bennett Taxi and Dee–Dee Cab Company t/a Penn Dell Cab and Germantown Cab Company, Petitioners v. PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 14 February 2013
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

60 A.3d 899

MCT TRANSPORTATION INC. t/a Montco Suburban Taxi and Bucks County Services, Inc. and Concord Coach Limo t/a Concord Coach Taxi and Concord Coach USA t/a Bennett Taxi and Dee–Dee Cab Company t/a Penn Dell Cab and Germantown Cab Company, Petitioners

v.PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY, Respondent.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Oct. 17, 2012.

Decided Feb. 14, 2013.

Henry M. Sheridan, Philadelphia, for petitioners.

Alan C. Kohler, Harrisburg, for respondent.

BEFORE: PELLEGRINI, President Judge, and McGINLEY, Judge, and LEADBETTER, Judge, and COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, and LEAVITT, Judge, and BROBSON, Judge, and COVEY, Judge.

OPINION BY Judge LEAVITT.

MCT Transportation, Inc. t/a Montco Suburban Taxi, Bucks County Services, Inc., Concord Coach Limo t/a Concord Coach Taxi, Concord Coach USA t/a Bennett Taxi, Dee–Dee Cab Company t/a Perm Dell Cab, and Germantown Cab Company (collectively, the Taxicab Companies) have filed a petition for review in this Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Their petition lodges a facial constitutional challenge to Section 5707(b) of the act commonly referred to as the Parking Authority Law,¹ by which the Philadelphia Parking Authority sets its annual budget and fee schedule. The Taxicab Companies charge that Section 5707(b) is unconstitutional because it did not impose any limitations on the Parking Authority's exercise of discretion in these activities. The Taxicab Companies also charge that Section 5707(b) effects a taking without due process of law because it deprives them of the opportunity for a hearing on the amount of licensing fees they must pay to the Philadelphia Parking Authority in order to stay in business; they claim these fees are excessive and confiscatory. The Parking Authority has moved to dismiss the petition for review on these claims, and the Taxicab Companies have moved for summary relief. For the reasons that follow, we grant summary relief to the Taxicab Companies, in part.

Background

The Taxicab Companies hold certificates of public convenience issued by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission that authorize them to provide call or demand service in certain designated areas of Philadelphia and its suburbs. ² Petition for Review ¶ 1. Prior to 2004, the Commission was solely responsible for the regulation of taxicab and limousine operations throughout Pennsylvania. In 2004, the General Assembly transferred part of this regulatory responsibility to the Parking Authority, i.e., the regulation of taxicab and limousine service in Philadelphia. See Act of July 16, 2004, P.L. 758, No. 94 (Act 94). This new regulatory regime for the City of Philadelphia is set forth in Chapter 57 of the Parking Authority Law, 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 5701– 5745.

Chapter 57 provided the Parking Authority with the funding needed to undertake its new regulatory responsibilities. Section 5708 of the Parking Authority Law established the “Philadelphia Taxicab and Limousine Regulatory Fund,” which derives its revenue from the fees paid by the various taxicab and limousine companies regulated by the Parking Authority. 53 Pa.C.S. § 5708(a). The fees paid by these companies change from year to year; the Parking Authority publishes its annual fee schedule on its website and in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.52 Pa.Code § 1001.43(b).³

In turn, Section 5707(b) of the Parking Authority Law established the process for establishing the Parking Authority's annual budget and fee schedule. It states as follows:

(b) Fiscal year budget and fees.—The fiscal year for the fund shall commence on July 1 of each year. Before March 15 of each year, the authority shall submit a budget and proposed fee schedule, necessary to advance the purposes of this chapter, for the coming fiscal year along with comprehensive financial data from the past fiscal year to the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives. Unless either the Senate or the House of Representatives acts to disapprove through adoption of a resolution by April 15 of each year, the authority fee schedule shall become effective. The authority shall notify all certificate holders of the fee schedule for the coming fiscal year. The procedure for notifying certificate holders must be specified in the regulations of the authority. If either the Senate or the House of Representatives acts to disapprove the authority's fee schedule and budget, the authority may submit a revised budget and fee schedule to the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives within 15 days of such disapproval or shall utilize the fee schedule and budget for the prior year. Unless either the Senate or the House of Representatives acts to disapprove, through adoption of a resolution within ten legislative days from the date of submission of the revised budget and fee schedule, the revised budget and fee schedule of the authority shall become effective.

53 Pa.C.S. § 5707(b) (emphasis added).

To recap, by March 15th of each year, the Parking Authority submits “a budget and proposed fee schedule” for the coming fiscal year “along with comprehensive financial data from the past fiscal year” to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 53 Pa.C.S. § 5707(b). If neither committee takes action within 30 days to move a disapproval resolution through its respective chamber, the Parking Authority's budget and fee schedule “become effective.” Id. In the event of a disapproval resolution, the Parking Authority has 15 days to submit a revised budget and fee schedule to the Appropriations Committees. If neither committee acts within 10 days, the revised budget and fee schedule become effective. Id.

On March 9, 2012, the Parking Authority's Board ⁴ approved an annual budget and fee schedule for fiscal year 2013 and submitted them to the Appropriations Committees. Petition for Review ¶ 35. Because neither committee took action to disapprove the proposed budget and fee schedule, they became effective on April 15, 2012.

Consistent therewith, the Parking Authority invoiced the Taxicab Companies for the 2013 fees. Petition for Review ¶¶ 37–38. When the Taxicab Companies did not pay the invoiced fees by June 15, 2012, the Parking Authority issued citations to them. Petition for Review ¶ 39. The Taxicab Companies are, or shortly will be, subject to sanctions by the Parking Authority including “impoundment of their vehicles, imposition of fines, penalties, and late fees and suspension, revocation, or cancellation of their certificates of public convenience.” Petition for Review ¶ 41.

The Taxicab Companies responded by filing the instant petition for review. ⁵ The Taxicab Companies contend that the Parking Authority lacks the statutory power to regulate them, let alone charge them a licensing fee. Petition for Review ¶ 42(a). They also contend that the fee schedule is arbitrary and confiscatory because the Taxicab Companies, which operate in a small area of Philadelphia, are charged a higher fee ($1,500 per vehicle) than medallion taxicabs that have citywide call and demand rights ($1,275 per vehicle). Petition for Review ¶ 42(b). The Taxicab Companies contend that the Parking Authority has improperly imposed higher fees on them to favor medallion taxicabs and to recoup from the Taxicab Companies the Parking Authority's past expenses of litigation with the Taxicab Companies. Petition for Review ¶ 42(c), (d). The Taxicab Companies allege that the “per vehicle” fee is unlawful because it bears no rational relationship to the revenue or profitability of individual taxicab operators; imposes fees that are excessive; and imposes de facto limitations on their certificates of public convenience by making it economically impossible to put additional vehicles into service as public need dictates. Petition for Review ¶ 42(e), (f). Finally, the Taxicab Companies allege that Section 5707 improperly subjects them to double taxation because they also pay an annual licensing fee to the Commission. In fact, the Parking Authority's fees are nearly ten times the amount paid to the Commission for the regulation of their activities in a much larger territory than their small Philadelphia service area. Thus, the Parking Authority's fees are confiscatory. Petition for Review ¶ 42(g),(h).

The Taxicab Companies seek a declaration that Section 5707(b) is unconstitutional. They contend that the General Assembly has delegated its legislative power to the Parking Authority because it has given no “guidance, standards for, or restrictions on” the Parking Authority's power to formulate an annual budget or fee schedule. Petition for Review ¶ 26. The Taxicab Companies also seek a declaration that Section 5707(b), which does not provide them a hearing by which to challenge the Parking Authority's fee schedule, effects a taking without due process of law. Petition for Review ¶¶ 27–28. Finally, the Taxicab Companies seek a declaration that Act 94 is void and unenforceable in its entirety because Section 5707(b) is not severable from the remainder of Act 94. This is because it cannot be presumed that the General Assembly would have enacted the remainder of Act 94 without the funding mechanism in Section 5707(b). Petition for Review ¶¶ 50–55.

The Taxicab Companies request an order enjoining the Parking Authority from taking any action under authority of Section 5707(b) “including the imposition, collection, or enforcement of past, present and future fee schedules” and from implementing, administering or enforcing all other provisions of Act 94. Petition for Review ¶ 57. Believing that their right to this requested relief is clear, the Taxicab Companies have filed a motion for summary relief.⁶

The Parking Authority filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer asserting that the Taxicab Companies have failed to state a claim because its 2012–2013...