IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Transcription

1 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Metro Transportation Co., : Appellant : : v. : No C.D : Argued: October 6, 2014 Philadelphia Parking Authority : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: December 3, 2014 Metro Transportation Company (Metro), the owner of Taxicab Medallion 1313, appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which denied Metro s appeal and affirmed the order of the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) declaring that: (1) Medallion 1313, currently in possession of the PPA, cannot be transferred to a new owner and is essentially valueless; (2) the cancellation of Metro s certificate of public convenience in 1999, which precluded Metro from further operating with Medallion 1313, left only 1599 certificates and medallions remaining in service; (3) the PPA is authorized to issue a new medallion to fulfill the statutory permitted maximum of 1600 medallions and certificates of public convenience in service; and (4) the PPA may issue a new medallion with an identifying number other than 1313 without any financial

2 liability or compensation due to Metro. The primary issue before the court on appeal is whether Metro is entitled to any compensation if the PPA issues a new medallion to allow taxicab service to replace that previously offered by Metro under its surrendered medallion. The procedural history leading to the PPA s possession of Medallion 1313 is not disputed. Prior to 2004, regulation of taxicab service in Philadelphia rested with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC). See generally Ronald Cab, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Utility Comm n, 76 A.3d 74, 75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (discussing history of regulation of taxicabs in Pennsylvania). Initially, only a certificate of public convenience was required to operate a taxicab in Pennsylvania. Id. at 75 (citing Section 1101 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S. 1101). In 1990, however, the Medallion system was created, 1 which provided that in order to operate a taxicab in the City of Philadelphia, both a certificate of public convenience (CPC) and a medallion were required. See former 66 Pa. C.S. 2404(a), repealed by the Act of July 16, 2004, P.L. 758 (hereinafter Act 94 ). 2 Under the former Medallion Act, the PUC was authorized to issue up to 1600 medallions, which it did. 66 Pa. C.S (repealed). While operating under the jurisdiction of the PUC, Metro accumulated outstanding fees, assessments and penalties in the amount of approximately 1 See Chapter 24 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S (commonly referred to as the Medallion Act ), added by the Act of April 4, 1990, P.L. 93, and subsequently repealed by the Act of July 16, 2004, P.L. 758 (hereinafter Act 94 ). A medallion taxicab is authorized to provide citywide taxicab service. 52 Pa. Code The provisions of the former Medallion Act have largely been reenacted in 53 Pa. C.S. Ch. 57 (relating to regulation of taxicabs and limousines by parking authority in first class city). 2

3 $118, Consequently, the PUC initiated proceedings in 1999 that ultimately led to the cancellation of Metro s sole remaining CPC, which corresponded to Medallion Because Metro needed both a CPC and a medallion to operate a taxicab in a first class city, the cancellation of its CPC precluded Metro from continuing to provide taxicab service. Pursuant to the former Medallion Act, Metro had six months to sell its medallion after its CPC was cancelled. See 66 Pa. C.S (repealed). 4 The average price of a medallion at that time was $60,000. As noted by the PPA in its order: Because the proceeds of the sale of Medallion 1313 would first be applied to the PUC Debt [$118,000], Metro saw no pecuniary gain for itself in selling Medallion 1313, so it did nothing. Metro simply stopped providing taxicab service in 1999 and never did again. Order entered 3 Apparently, Metro initially possessed several medallions but sold all of them but for No. 1313, the medallion at issue here. The above balance remains unpaid. 4 Former Section 2403 provided, in pertinent part: (b) Licensing rights. A certificate of public convenience is a licensing right which accompanies each medallion and authorizes the operation of one taxicab in cities of the first class. No property interest shall exist in the certificate itself. A certificate may not be pledged to lenders or creditors as security on debt. A certificate may be canceled by the commission, upon due cause shown, for violation of this title or commission regulations. If the commission cancels a certificate, the certificate holder shall have the right to sell the accompanying medallion within six months of the date of cancellation, and the certificate holder must turn the medallion over to the commission office within five days of cancellation of the certificate for safekeeping until the medallion is sold. This sixmonth time period shall be extended during the pendency of a petition for reinstatement of the certificate of public convenience. If the medallion is not sold within the statutory period, the medallion will become nontransferable, and possession must be surrendered to the commission. 66 Pa. C.S (emphasis added) (repealed). 3

4 March 28, 2013, at 2. Metro then surrendered possession of Medallion 1313 to the PUC. In 2004, the General Assembly transferred authority to regulate taxicab service in Philadelphia to the PPA. See Chapter 57 of the General Local Government Code, 53 Pa. C.S (pertaining to taxicabs and limousines in first class cities) (also referred to as Act 94); Ronald Cab, 76 A.3d at 76. Like the former Medallion Act, Act 94 authorized the PPA to issue a maximum of 1600 CPCs and corresponding medallions for citywide service. 53 Pa. C.S. 5711(c)(2)(i). 5 Similarly, like the Medallion Act, Act 94 provides that if a medallion accompanying a cancelled CPC is not sold within the allotted statutory time period, the medallion becomes nontransferable and possession must be surrendered to the PPA. Specifically, Section 5713 provides: (a) Property rights. Medallions are property and may not be revoked or canceled by the authority. Medallions may be pledged to lenders or creditors as security for debt. All lenders or creditors who, after the effective date of this section, accept a medallion as security shall do so in conformance with 13 Pa. C.S. (relating to commercial code). If a lender or creditor executes on or seizes a medallion, it shall immediately notify the authority in writing. Any sale of the medallion, upon seizure or execution, shall occur at authority offices pursuant to the requirements of section 5718 (relating to 5 Although the PUC had already issued 1600 CPC/medallions when jurisdiction transferred, William Schmid, the Deputy Director of the PPA s Taxicab and Limousine Division (TLD) testified at the hearing in this matter that when the PPA acquired jurisdiction in 2005 to regulate taxicabs operating in Philadelphia, only 1599 medallions were on the street, because Medallion 1313 had been canceled. Hearing of November 14, 2012, Notes of Testimony (N.T.) at 16, Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 158. Notably, beginning June 1, 2013, and each June 1 thereafter, the PPA is authorized to issue an additional 15 CPCs/medallions until there are a total of 1750 CPCs/medallions in service. 53 Pa. C.S. 5711(c)(2)(ii). The record does not reflect whether the PPA has begun to issue additional CPCs/medallions pursuant to Section 5711(c)(2)(ii). 4

5 restrictions) within one year of the seizure or execution. If the medallion is not sold within one year, the medallion will become nontransferable, and possession must be surrendered to the authority unless the authority finds exigent circumstances exist which warrant extending the one-year period. (b) Licensing rights. A [CPC] is a licensing right, which accompanies each medallion and authorizes the operation of one taxicab within a city of the first class. No property interest shall exist in the certificate itself. A certificate may be canceled by the authority, upon due cause shown, for violation of this subchapter or authority regulations. If the authority cancels a certificate, the certificate holder shall have the right to sell the accompanying medallion within six months of the date of cancellation, and the certificate holder must turn the medallion over to the authority office within five days of cancellation of the certificate for safekeeping until the medallion is sold.... If the medallion is not sold within the statutory period, the medallion will become nontransferable, and possession must be surrendered to the authority. 53 Pa. C.S (emphasis added). In 2012, the PPA s Taxicab and Limousine Division (the TLD) filed a petition for declaratory judgment regarding Medallion Essentially, the TLD sought a declaratory order that (1) Medallion 1313 had reverted to public ownership and was eligible to be reissued as long as the aggregate number of medallions issued did not exceed 1600, and (2) the PPA could issue a new medallion bearing number 1601 without regard to Metro s ownership interest in Medallion See Reproduced Record (R.R.) at (Second Amended Petition for Declaratory Order). A hearing eventually followed and testimony on 5

6 behalf of both parties was admitted. 6 The hearing officer ultimately analyzed the various relevant statutory provisions, both former and current, and concluded that Medallion 1313 could not be resold because it became nontransferable when Metro failed to sell it within the statutory time allotted after its CPC was canceled in The hearing officer acknowledged that Metro retained a property right in the medallion but concluded that the medallion was essentially worthless because it could not be transferred. Finally, since the medallion could no longer be transferred or used to acquire a corresponding CPC, the number of operating CPCs had been reduced to 1599, thereby permitting the PPA to issue a new medallion to satisfy the statutory maximum allowed In reaching this conclusion, the hearing officer noted that the current act does not require medallions to be numbered sequentially and the PPA could, in its discretion, issue a medallion numbered 1601 without any compensation due to Metro. On appeal, the PPA adopted the hearing officer s findings, conclusions and rationale, and denied Metro s exceptions. In doing so, the PPA confirmed that once a medallion had been surrendered to it and was statutorily deemed to be nontransferable, like the surrendering owner, the PPA lacked the power to transfer or sell the surrendered medallion [citing for authority 53 Pa. C.S. 5713(b)]. The PPA further emphasized that it had authority to issue another medallion to replace the one taken out of service and rendered nontransferable. According to the PPA: Section 5713(b) [Chapter 57 of Title 53] provides for the nontransferability of a medallion and does not reference or impact the overall number of medallions authorized by 6 An analyst for the TLD testified that in 2012, the selling price of medallions was between approximately $400,000 and $500,000. N.T. at 34-35, R.R. at

7 [53 Pa. C.S. 5711(c) (providing PPA with authority to issue a maximum of 1600 CPCs/medallions)]. To determine otherwise would place the vitality and even the very continued existence of the medallion program in the hands of irresponsible or malicious medallion owners who simply fail to sell their medallions after the cancellation of corresponding CPCs. Order entered March 28, 2013, at 4. On subsequent appeal, common pleas rejected Metro s argument that the PPA was required to reissue or reinstate Medallion 1313 in order to increase the number of operating medallions. Common pleas stated in pertinent part: [Metro s interpretation] is incorrect [because] it ignores the plain meaning of the relevant statutory language, as both [the former Medallion Act and Chapter 57 of Title 53] are silent regarding reissuing of medallions in such circumstances, and both statutes use of the word nontransferable is unqualified.... Following [Metro s] logic, no replacements could ever be issued, even where a medallion is nontransferable and valueless due to the cancellation of the corresponding [CPC], as is the case in the instant matter. Given that the plain meaning of the word nontransferable indicated that medallion ownership may not be passed to anyone, this Court rejected such an interpretation. Instead, this Court chose to give effect to both the unequivocal statement that medallions become nontransferable when not sold promptly following the cancelation of the corresponding [CPC], and the fact that 1600 medallions are authorized, by statute, to be in service in Philadelphia at any given time. 53 Pa. C.S. 5711(c)(2)(i). It would have been absurd for this Court to hold that inoperable and valueless medallions may not be replaced and that, accordingly, Philadelphia would lose a taxicab anytime a medallion is rendered inert. Opinion of Common Pleas at 7-8. The court concluded that since Medallion 1313 was not transferable, even by the PPA, Metro had no right to any of the proceeds 7

8 derived from the issuance of a new medallion. Accordingly, common pleas affirmed and this appeal followed. We begin by noting that the medallion system was created by the General Assembly to provide holders of [CPCs] which authorize citywide call or demand service [in first class cities with] the opportunity to upgrade and improve the operation of taxicabs. Former Medallion Act, 66 Pa. C.S (repealed). See also 53 Pa. C.S. 5712(a). A medallion only authorizes operation of the taxicab during the fiscal year in which the medallion is issued. Former 66 Pa. C.S. 2404(a) (repealed) [currently found at 53 Pa. C.S. 5714(a)(7)]. Before the close of each fiscal year, a medallion holder is required to apply for a reissued medallion. Former 66 Pa. C.S (repealed) (currently found at 53 Pa. C.S. 5716). A medallion cannot be reissued, however, if outstanding fines, penalties and fees have not been paid in full. Id. 7 Turning to the matter before us, Metro has essentially raised two legal arguments on appeal. 8 First, Metro maintains that common pleas and the PPA have misconstrued Section 5713(b) of Act 94 to provide that the medallion owner s property right is completely extinguished if the property owner fails to sell the medallion. According to Metro, that construction is inconsistent with Section 5713(a) of Act 94 (recognizing that medallions are property and may not be 7 While not directly relevant, it is worth noting that unlike the former Medallion Act, Act 94 provides that a medallion can be confiscated and impounded if it is used to provide service without a proper CPC or in violation of the PPA s regulations. If the outstanding fees and penalties are not satisfied, the medallion and any other equipment impounded therewith can be sold at public auction. The owner can recover any net proceeds after the City is reimbursed for its costs and fees, penalties are satisfied, and lienholders are paid. See 53 Pa. C.S. 5714(g) and compare to 66 Pa. C.S. 2404(g) (repealed) (providing for confiscation of vehicles and equipment and payment of net proceeds into public fund). 8 We do not address the arguments in the order presented by Metro. 8

9 revoked or cancelled by PPA) and undermines the very purpose of the medallion system, which provides medallion holders with necessary collateral to upgrade and improve the operation of their taxicabs. Metro further believes that construction of the act diminishes the medallion s value as collateral. Construing the act to provide for a perpetually marketable and valuable property interest, Metro argues that the PPA has the power to return a medallion to service after it has become non-transferable by operation of law. Metro s appellate brief at 13. Metro also contends that common pleas and the PPA have misconstrued Section 5711(c)(2)(ii) to authorize the PPA to issue new, additional medallions beyond the 1600 medallions originally issued by the PUC. According to Metro, the PPA s jurisdiction extends only to the regulation of the original 1600 medallions put into service by the PUC; therefore, the PPA s authority is limited to only reissuing or reinstating an original medallion. We conclude these contentions lack merit. First, neither the express statutory language nor the overall statutory scheme support Metro s construction that the PPA is limited to only reinstating Medallion In fact, the opposite is true; the PPA is clearly precluded from reissuing Metro s medallion. First, Section 5713(b) expressly provides that if a medallion is not sold within six months following the cancellation of the accompanying CPC, it becomes nontransferable. A similar condition applies if a medallion is subject to execution or seizure; it becomes nontransferable if not sold within one year. See 53 Pa. C.S. 5713(a). These restrictions on transferability are unambiguous and without exception: a surrendered medallion is no longer a viable commodity if not sold within the allotted time. 9

10 Section 5716 of Act 94 (entitled, Reissuance of medallion ) provides further support for the conclusion that Medallion 1313 cannot be reissued to a new owner or reinstated. 9 Section 5716, the only provision that addresses the reissuance of a medallion, provides: Within 30 days of the close of each fiscal year, a medallion holder shall apply to obtain from the authority a reissued medallion for a fee in an amount to be determined pursuant to the requirements of section 5723 (relating to budget and fees). Each year s medallion shall designate the year of issuance and shall be identifiable by a distinctive tint or color and shape to be determined by the authority. A medallion may not be issued by the authority unless all outstanding authority fines, penalties and fees have been paid in full and unless all insurance, tariff and vehicle inspection filings are current. Immediately prior to reissuance of a medallion, a medallion holder shall remove the prior year s medallion from the hood of its taxicab and surrender it to the authority. Upon reissuance, the new medallion shall be immediately attached to the vehicle. 53 Pa. C.S Under Act 94, reissuing a medallion occurs only in the context of the annual renewal of an expiring medallion; the term is not used to describe or authorize the sale of a surrendered medallion to a new owner. Moreover, pursuant to Section 5716, the PPA is precluded from renewing or reissuing a medallion if fees, fines and penalties remain outstanding. Thus, Metro s own outstanding fees, assessments and penalties preclude reissuing Medallion 1313 if such were otherwise permissible. Construing Sections 5713(b) and 5716 together, there is simply no support for the argument that the current act 9 Our review of Act 94 did not reveal any provisions addressing the reinstatement of a surrendered medallion. 10

11 contemplates or allows a surrendered medallion to be reissued or resold to a new owner. In reaching this conclusion, we specifically reject Metro s suggestion that Section 5713(a) (providing that medallions are a property right that cannot be revoked or canceled by the PPA), mandates a different result. The holder of a CPC and medallion must submit to extensive regulations, governing, inter alia, vehicle condition and inspection, driver qualification and certification and complaint procedures. Operators of taxicabs must pay annual fees and assessments, see generally 53 Pa. C.S. 5703, , and 5710, and the violation of any statutory or regulatory provision can result in the imposition of fines and penalties. A medallion is plainly a limited property right, which can be fully exercised only in connection with a valid CPC. Pursuant to the act, a CPC can be canceled for a violation of the statutory or regulatory provisions. Section 5713(b). Due process is afforded an owner prior to cancellation of a CPC, and once the CPC is canceled, the owner can no longer use the medallion to operate a taxicab in a first class city, which essentially renders the medallion unusable to that owner. Therefore, because the medallion was purchased 10 and represents a property interest, the act permits the owner a period of time to sell the medallion in order to, inter alia, pay off any debt secured thereby, pay any outstanding monies due to the PPA and hopefully recoup some or all of its investment. Metro s failure to attempt to sell the medallion after cancellation of the corresponding CPC was purely a business decision; in a sense, 10 Former Section 2407 provided that applicants for a medallion were required to pay a fee in an amount equal to the reasonable market value of the medallions at the time of issuance as determined by the commission. 66 Pa. C.S (repealed). 11

12 Metro abandoned its interest when it failed to try to sell it. The PPA did not revoke or cancel Medallion 1313 in violation of Section 5713(b); it became inoperable as a result of Metro s accumulation of unpaid assessments, fines and penalties, which not only led to the cancellation of the CPC but would have precluded renewal of the medallion upon its expiration. Accordingly, the limited property interest recognized in Section 5713(a) does not compel the conclusion that the PPA must reissue Metro s medallion. We also conclude that Act 94 both contemplates and allows the PPA to issue new medallions in addition to the 1600 that were originally issued by the PUC. Specifically, Section 5717(a) (entitled, Additional certificates and medallions[;] Limitation on number ), 53 Pa. C.S. 5717(a), authorizes the PPA to increase the number of certificates and medallions subject to the limit established by Section 5711(c) (providing for a maximum of 1600 prior to June 1, 2013) (emphasis added). Clearly, use of the term additional in the section s heading 11 along with the express authority to increase the number of CPCs and medallions, demonstrates a legislative intent that new medallions are authorized as necessary to maintain 1600 vehicles in service; to conclude otherwise would render this section of Act 94 completely meaningless. Moreover, unlike the former Medallion Act, which authorized the PUC to increase the number of CPCs and medallions upon a determination of need, 66 Pa. C.S (repealed), Act 94 does not hinge issuance of additional CPCs and medallions on a finding of need. 11 Pursuant to Section 1924 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S. 1924, [t]he headings prefixed to titles, parts, articles, chapters, sections and other divisions of a statute shall not be considered to control but may be used to aid in the construction thereof. Additional is commonly understood to mean added, further or extra. See generally Webster s Third New International Dictionary 24 (1993). 12

13 53 Pa. C.S. 5717(a). 12 Rather, the authority to issue medallions is limited only by the statutory cap. Id. Finally, maintaining a full complement of taxicabs in a city recognized to have a high volume of tourism and commerce supports the stated legislative findings emphasized in the enactment of Act 94, to wit: 53 Pa. C.S (1) The health, safety and general welfare of the people of this Commonwealth are directly dependent upon the continual encouragement, development, growth and expansion of business, industry, commerce and tourism. (2) Unemployment, the spread of poverty and the heavy burden of public assistance and unemployment compensation can be avoided by the promotion, attraction, stimulation, development and expansion of business, industry, commerce and tourism in this Commonwealth through development of a clean, safe, reliable and well-regulated taxicab and limousine industry locally regulated by parking authorities of the first class. (3) Due to the size, total population, population density and volume of both tourism and commerce of a city of the first class, it may be more efficient to regulate the taxicab and limousine industries through an agency of the Commonwealth with local focus than an agency with diverse Statewide regulatory duties. Well-regulated local focus on improving these industries can be an important factor in the continual encouragement, development, attraction, stimulation, growth and expansion of business, industry, commerce and tourism within a city of the first class, the surrounding counties and this Commonwealth as a whole. need). 12 See also 53 Pa. C.S. 5711(c)(1) (providing that a CPC shall be granted without proof of 13

14 Metro s concern that construing the act to permit the PPA to issue new medallions will serve to diminish the value of existing medallions contrary to legislative intent is undermined by the recent amendment to Section 5711(c), which specifically authorizes the PPA to increase the number of CPCs and medallions incrementally to a maximum of Finally, it bears noting that while the meaning of a statute is a question of law for the court, the court will traditionally accord strong deference to the administering agency s interpretation of the statute unless that interpretation is clearly erroneous. Moonlite Café, Inc. v. Dep t of Health, 23 A.3d 1111 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). Here, the PPA has construed Section 5713(b) to prohibit it from transferring (i.e., reselling) a medallion that was surrendered following cancellation of the CPC, and construed the statutory scheme to allow the issuance of a new medallion to replace the one taken out of service. The PPA s construction cannot be deemed clearly erroneous and we conclude it provides further support for the same conclusions reached by this court. The other contention advanced by Metro is that application of the statutory scheme in a manner which renders its property interest nontransferable and therefore worthless, violates the constitutional proscriptions against the taking of private property without due process and without just compensation. See Pa. Const. art. I, 10; U.S. Const. amend. V. This assertion also lacks merit. We begin by noting that this contention has been waived. The proper time to challenge a perceived unconstitutional taking was when Metro was advised by the Secretary of the PUC that it had six months to sell its medallion and if it not sold, the medallion would become nontransferable and possession must be surrendered to the Commission. Letter dated July 27, 1999 to Metro from James 14

15 McNulty, Secretary of the PUC, R.R. at 239. Metro surrendered the medallion without further appeal and there is no record evidence that Metro challenged the former Medallion Act or its application at that time. Raising the challenge in this proceeding is nothing more than an impermissible collateral attack on a final administrative action. Even if the issue could be addressed in this context, we would conclude that Metro is not entitled to any relief. In In re Appeal of Silverman, 90 A.3d 771 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014), this court addressed the conditions which must be present in order for a governmental action to constitute a taking requiring just compensation, primarily focusing on the same concern that is at issue here, to wit: that the means employed by the government must not be unduly oppressive upon the property holder, considering the economic impact of the regulation. Id. at 782 [discussing and quoting United Artists Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 635 A.2d 612 (Pa. 1993)]. While governmental regulation can diminish the value of property to such an extent that it constitutes a taking, the mere fact that the regulation deprives the property owner of the most profitable use of his property is not necessarily enough to establish the owner s right to compensation. Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). Here, the statutory process is not unduly oppressive; Metro was afforded six months to sell its medallion after its own actions rendered it no longer usable to Metro. There is no claim that the six month period itself was oppressive or presented an inadequate amount of time to complete the sales process. Indeed, Metro made no attempt to sell the medallion in the period allotted. Moreover, while not relevant here, when a governmental taking does occur, damages are based upon the value of the property at the time of the taking. See generally 15

16 Commonwealth v Acres of Land in Washington Tp., Butler Cnty., 433 A.2d 915, 916 (Pa. 1981) (discussing damages in eminent domain proceeding). Thus, even if a taking had occurred, Metro would be entitled to the value of the medallion at the time it was surrendered in 1999 (approximately $60,000), not the market value of a medallion today. Here, because of the amount that Metro owed the PUC (approximately $118,000) when it surrendered Medallion 1313 pursuant to statutory mandate, the medallion would be essentially worthless to Metro. See PPA s Order entered March 28, 2013, at 2. Thus, Metro would not have been entitled to any payment at that time. Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, we affirm. BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge 16

17 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Metro Transportation Co., : Appellant : : v. : No C.D : Philadelphia Parking Authority : O R D E R AND NOW, this 3rd day of December, 2014, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is AFFIRMED. BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge

18 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Metro Transportation Co., : : Appellant : : v. : No C.D : Argued: October 6, 2014 Philadelphia Parking Authority : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED CONCURRING OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE COLINS FILED: December 3, 2014 I concur with the result reached by the majority. However, I cannot agree with the majority s conclusion that the mandatory surrender of Metro Transportation Company s (Metro) Medallion to the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) is not a taking. See Pa. Const. art. I, 10; U.S. Const. amend V. Medallions as distinct from a Certificate of Public Convenience, which is a mere license are property. See Chapter 57 of the General Local Government Code, 53 Pa. C.S (Act 94), 53 Pa. C.S ( Medallions are property and may not be revoked or canceled by the authority ). The statutory requirement that a medallion not sold within one year of the loss of an attendant Certificate of Public Convenience may not be transferred by its owner without an extension of the time period by the PPA, and that possession of that

19 medallion must then be surrendered to the PPA, does not change the medallion into something other than property for which the PPA must pay just compensation. Id. However, as correctly noted by the Majority, Metro would only be entitled to the value of its Medallion at the time of the taking in 1999, approximately $66, Since Metro owed approximately $118, to the PPA in 1999, Metro s Medallion was essentially worthless to Metro, serving only to offset a portion of the money owed to the PPA. On this basis, I concur in the result only. JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge JGC - 2