COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES & INSPECTIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, 5/8/01 10:14 a.m. - - - BILL 000771 - Re overhanging and encroaching trees. Bill 000772 - Held at request of sponsor. BILL 010010 - Implementing provisions of the Local Option Small Games of Chance Act under which licenses may be issued to eligible organizations to conduct or operate small games of chance PRESENT: COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 5/8/01 L&I COMMITTEE I N D E X Page Bill 000771 O. Haigler, Jr., Administrative Affairs, L&I Judith Robinson, Concerned Citizen. . . . . . 5 William Day, " " . . . . . . Leroy Ford, " " . . . . . . 6 Janice Dennis, " " . . . . . . 18 Bob King, " " . . . . . . 22 7 Earlene Green, " " . . . . . . 25 Mindy Maslin, Penn. Horticultural Society . . 26 8 Lucille Stanton, Concerned Citizen. . . . . . 30 Janet Fishman, " " . . . . . . 39 9 Humberto Perez, " " . . . . . . 45 Joyce Martinez, " " . . . . . . 49 10 Georgianna Johnson, " " . . . . . . 53 John Choice, " " . . . . . . 54 11 Margaret McClain, " " . . . . . . 60 Helen Brown, " " . . . . . . 61 12 John Jonik, newspaper item author . . . . . . 63 Sarah Lewis, Concerned Citizen. . . . . . . . 66 13 Bill 010010 14 O. Haigler, Jr., Administrative Affairs, L&I 68 15 3 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 P R O C E E D I N G S
The public hearing for Licenses and Inspections is called to order. I have myself (Councilmember Mariano), Councilman Clarke, Councilman Ortiz, Councilman DiCicco, Councilwoman Krajewski, and Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown.
Bill No. 000771, an ordinance amending Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "The Philadelphia Building and Construction Occupancy Code," by adding a new section PM-312.01, entitled "Overhanging or Encroaching Trees" by providing for certain penalties and abatement of trees that overhang or encroach adjoining property, all under certain terms and conditions.
Do we have anybody to testify? Mr. Haigler from the Administration. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilman Clarke wants to make a statement before you testify.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this bill was originally introduced as a result of several problems that we 4 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 found out in our communities with dangerous trees on abutting properties that's causing damage to numerous individuals' properties throughout the City of Philadelphia and particularly in my Councilmatic District. The original bill has some vague language that apparently concerns some individuals. I understand there was an article 10 written in the newspaper that didn't talk about the specifics of some of the changes that needed to happen. Subsequently, we will be introducing amendments -- I think they have all been circulated to all of the members of the committee, and I think those particular amendments will address, if not all, the overwhelming majority of the concerns of those individuals who have both sent letters and have called my office. I want to make sure that they understand that we heard your pleas. And we hopefully will be able to address those today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilman Clarke. (Applause.) 5 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771
Good day, Councilman Mariano and members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I am here to provide testimony on Bill 000771, which, if enacted, will amend Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code by adding a new section to the property maintenance code governing overhanging and encroaching trees. After a careful review of the amendments to Bill 000771, which has been offered by the Law Department, the Department of Licenses and Inspections offers no objections to this bill 17 with the submitted Law Department amendments. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you have at this time. In addition, I just wanted to offer one suggested amendment to the Councilman -- we had talked about this earlier -- related to the penalties section, where it talks about -- I believe it's on the last page of the proposed amendments, where, at the top, under PM 312.4.2 6 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 under "penalty" the penalty for a violation of any provision under this section shall be a fine of not less than $100, no more than $300. I would just add a suggestion to the Councilman that that last part of that be amended because it's inconsistent with what's already in our administrative code. The penalty should be 150 to $300. So I would just ask that that section be amended to reflect what's consistent with what we already have in the administrative code. So I would just say that it should be in accordance with Section A 601 of the administrative code.
Thank you. We'll take that into consideration, Mr. Haigler. Anything else on this bill?
And also, the Managing Director wanted me to mention that this only covers trees within the property line of the property. Anything that's still at the curb or curbline, that's still an issue that's for another department; that's not an issue for Licenses and Inspections.
What about 7 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 overhanging to another backyard?
That's within the property line. And also, the amendments clearly delineate and make clear that the tree would have to cause some sort of harm or damage to that person's property. It's not just a branch that hangs over somebody's fence that you probably could cut back yourself, but the tree would have to definitely cause some sort of harm or concern to somebody else's property.
It's not just an excuse if Councilman DiCicco was my neighbor and I don't like his olive tree, I just can't get rid of it, it has to cause my property harm.
And that's also with the Law Department's explanation as to the amendments.
Okay. Any other questions, Darrell? Councilman Clarke?
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Haigler. 8 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771
Mr. Haigler, there were some questions with respects to the determination of a dangerous tree. Can you kind of elaborate as to, you know, who first of all would make that judgment call? And secondly, what specifically would be determined to be a dangerous tree, a dangerous overhanging tree?
Okay, I'll try the best I can on that one. A dangerous tree is a tree that, you know, will fall, will cause harm, is a public safety hazard, it could injure somebody, it's a dead tree. Trees such as that we've been inspecting for presently now anyway. If a tree is a dead tree and it's likely to cause damage to either property or injure someone, we would at this present time send our inspectors out from our contracted services unit to inspect for that. And if it's found and made the determination that that tree in fact is a dangerous condition, we cite the property owner to remove that tree, an imminently dangerous tree. If the property owner does not act within a 9 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 prescribed time period, then it's incumbent upon us to take action on that. And that's presently, you know, our policy now. This pretty much codifies what we presently are doing.
What is the position the City takes when a tree is in an alleyway? Is that public property, do we consider it -- I know the term "within the property line," but sometimes the property line may end at the fence, and literally within a eighth of an inch of that property line is where the tree is growing. It may actually have started on the property line side but the way the root system goes, it winds up in the alley. What do we do in a case like that? 10 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771
That's a very good question. But if you look under the charter, under the Streets Department's responsibility, they're responsible for alleyways. That's not an L&I responsibility; the Streets Department, under the charter, delineates what your responsibilities are, what L&I responsibilities are. All the departments are delineated as to what their responsibilities are, and the Streets Department is responsible for public ways and alleyways. That's not an L&I issue.
So if the tree that is growing in an alley directly behind my property is interfering or causing the possibility of creating some damage to my property, then in that event, the Streets Department would be the appropriate party?
I'm sure they're going to want to hear this, but anyway --
I know that, but then, again, we have nobody to cite if it's in the alleyway. 11 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771
I mean, the appropriate thing would be, when it's a little twig about this big, to pull it out, but everybody keeps watching it, and I think, you know, they keep looking at it and saying, Gee, when's somebody going to remove it, and then all of a sudden, it's feet high. I mean, the property 12 owner, I think, should have some responsibility to 13 remove it before it grows to any substantial 14 height. 15
Again, I'm sure I will 16 get disagreement on that also but, again, I go by 17 what's in the City Charter that says what your 18 responsibilities are and what you're responsible 19 for. 20
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions for this witness from members of the committee? 12 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 (No questions.)
Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Haigler. We're going to bring up, like, four witnesses at a time: Judith Robinson, William Day, Leroy Ford, and Janice Dennis, please approach the stand and grab chairs from the corner and pull them up. (Witnesses come forward.)
And Judith will be first since she called first. Are you Judith?
Good morning. My name is Judith Robinson. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today regarding Bill No. 000771. As I have looked over the bill, it's an excellent bill because encroaching trees definitely are a concern in the 5th district and all over the City. One area that concerned me, though, was 13 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 about the enforcement of it, because a lot of these bills are on the books already and are not enforced, and I think that is the problem. At some point after 30 days if a property owner does not trim a tree or remove a tree if it's harmful, then it is an abatement process. I would just like to respectfully suggest that in a lot of cases, you might have to move quickly towards abatement, as a lot of the properties are vacant where these trees are encroaching others, or they're City-owned properties or PHA. So I would suggest that some of the funds that are being cited for demolition might be spread around so that you can do some abatements on some of these other areas, as these other areas are also affecting quality-of-life issues in our community. So just as a suggestion, I would like to see more information about enforcement of this and then abatement, because a lot of the properties are vacant where these encroaching trees are. But overall, I think it's a excellent bill and I thank you very, very much for putting it across. 14 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 I would just like to digress for a minute because a lot of times we have hearings and then we don't here a follow-up. And I do have a letter from February the 15th that this committee submitted to the Mayor, and I just would like to know if there was ever a response from the Mayor on this because it also talks about these quality-of-life issues, and I think if the Mayor and everybody is all on the same page about how we should address these issues, then I think we could really move forward as it relates to transforming our city. So if I could please put this in the record and see if I could get a response as to whether the Mayor did respond to it. But overall, I think this is a great bill and I hope we can enforce it and actually remove some of these trees. Thank you.
Good morning. I'm here to support this bill because of the fact that they have you going around in a circle when you report these things. If you report 'em to one 15 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 department, they'll tell you to call the electric company. You call the electric company, and they'll refer you to someone else. And it's a ongoing thing backwards and forwards the whole year long. But, now, if the bill is passed, we should get some kind of specific answers from these people when we report these things. So I just like to say I'm all for the bill. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Day. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
And good morning to the board. I'm here this morning because I received a letter --
Mr. Ford, could you bring microphone a little bit closer to you.
I'm here this morning 'cause 16 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 I got a letter from Darrell Clarke that a bill 3 passed that they was going to move the trees. Now, the tree that I have in my -- not in my backyard but in the next-door yard is already extending over into my yard. And they came out and they cut some of the branches off and they were supposed to come back and finish it up, but that was in 1999, and I haven't seen anybody back out there since. And I'd like to know when they're going to come back and finish the job that they done to the tree. Could I get any information about that?
Mr. Ford, when you say they came about, would that be the City, some City agency or --
I guess they were the City. There was about -- oh, about seven or eight of 'em that came out.
And they chopped the tree all down up at the top. See, the tree had fell on my roof and damaged my roof and I had to put a new roof on and it fell on the little shed in the 17 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 backyard and then damaged that. So they come and they fixed it. They cut all the big leaves off but they left -- the tree is still extending over to my house.
And now it's growing again and the same thing, right?
So I'd like to know if -- it's in the alley (inaudible). And they said they had to get a crane to come back and take it out, but I haven't seen 'em since. So I'd like to know -- that's what I want to come out here and -- the reason I haven't been back before is because my wife got sick and -- or she had passed away now and I have time out, so I'll be back here a whole lot of times to see what's going to happen and what's going to be done. Thank you for your time.
Fortunately, we have a representative from Licenses and Inspections here today.
It's in the alley? Oh, so we have to call the Streets Department. Mr. Ford, before you leave today, just drop a note off if my office and I'll check on it now that we now know that the Streets Department is responsible for the trees in the alley.
Thank you. Thank you for that enlightenment, Mr. Ford.
Good morning, everyone. I also have a problem with a tree that's next door in my neighbor's yard, which is overhanging my house, and plus she also have a tree growing inside her basement, right, and the roots is coming up in our house, in the basement and in my backyard. And nobody seems to do anything about it.
Now, this bill 19 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 would apply directly to your problem.
But not Mr. Ford's. We got to get to the Streets Department for that 'cause Mr. Haigler enlightened us on that information today. Thank you.
Work with Councilman Clarke on -- are you in his district?
Councilman Clarke? He's my cousin, he'll work with you.
The next group of witnesses: Sylvester Woody, Bob King and Leroy Johnson. And Earlene Green, you can come up too, Earlene. (Witnesses come forward.) 20 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771
Yes. Good afternoon to all of the Councilpeople, I'm glad that I have been able to get you all face-to-face. You all just about all should know my name, Sylvester Woody, because I done called just about every office about a major tree that we has that covers approximately seven houses in the back and it has did a lot of damages to several properties. And I have called from the Fairmount Park, I have called Licenses and Inspections, they have sent people out and took a look after the tree. And this been going on for over years, 16 and I haven't been able to do anything about it. 17 I have one of my neighbors here with 18 me, which tree is as of right now is on the roof 19 into they basement. And this tree covers, as I 20 have just said, approximately seven houses and as 21 of now is died and it could come down at any 22 time. If it come down, I'm pretty sure that tree 23 would do damage to just every house between Berks 24 Street and Monument Street. 25 So that's what I'm really here to 21 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 testify to see if we can get anything did to that tree. I done did everything that I know to get that tree removed, but I haven't been able to do it. Now, this is my neighbor, which the tree is going into they -- headed into they basement. And I don't know if she would have to have anything to say, but I asked her to come along anyway just in case I was pushed into a corner where I needed someone to back up what I was saying. Thank you.
This tree is not in an alleyway; it's in all of your yards, is that correct? UNIDENTIFIABLE WITNESS: Excuse me. My name is Sylvia (inaudible). Mr. Woody's at 1912 North minority 32nd and I'm 1910. The tree, originally the majority of it is in the yard of 1908, which the house is vacant now. It tore up the cement in our back and we had to have it re-cemented, but the tree is now dead. We noticed it's not even, you know, it's breaking off. But it's huge because the branches 22 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 extend -- we're between Berks and Monument. It goes out to Monument and all the way down to Berks, so it's a dead tree, but it's huge. And I don't know, you know, what damage -- you know, the people who originally lived there were supposed to have it removed, but they didn't, so now we're stuck with it.
And this is a prime example of what this bill would rectify, Mr. Haigler, correct? You can't push this one on the Streets Department, this one is -- you'll cut that down this afternoon?
You have your saw. Just teasing, Mr. Haigler. I guarantee Mr. Haigler won't be taking it down personally, but can you get that address from these fine people before you leave.
Thank you very much. Well, I'm a committeeman from the (inaudible). The 23 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 biggest complaint in our area about these trees hanging is most of it is empty houses, right, and the trees is growing from empty houses over to --
Yes. All right, these empty houses, right, you got trees in the backyard and you got these limbs hanging over your people's backyards, almost every (indiscernible). That's practically every block in my division at least have two trees like that. That's one of my biggest complaints. I'd say out of the top complaints in my division, one of the top ones is trees, you know, in empty houses. So the people is very concerned about that.
By what everybody's testifying today, these neighborhoods are about same age.
This happens to be North Philadelphia in this incident where there's a couple abandoned houses or some where the trees are let grow over a number of years.
What everybody else is 24 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 saying, you basically hearing the same story from me, you know, the same thing, you know. It's a lot of old empty houses and trees growing up on people's yards.
So as long as they're in somebody's yard, even if it's abandoned, L&I -- if this bill passes, L&I will be able to remove that and there will be funds for that. Now, next, we got to work on the ones in the alleyway 'cause Mr. Haigler told us, and we're checking on that, that the ones in the alleyway belong to the Streets Department, and we'll work that out with the Law Department.
Mr. Haigler's over there now, but we'll get that. I guess Councilman Clarke's your councilman?
He probably knows 25 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 about it.
Good morning. I would like to thank all of the supporting Councilmembers for introducing Bill No. 000771. I'm a committee person in the 16th Ward, 11th Division, as well as a block captain for the 2400 block of North 19th Street, and I'm the Program Director for a human service program in the City that serves families in Philadelphia, and they're homeowners, and one of the chief complaints that we hear from them and that we assist them with is roof damage from overhanging trees. I could very easily just end by saying that I support all of the testimony that has been presented before mine, with the extreme emphasis 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 on Judith's Robinson's, that the enforcement be expeditious, and that where homeowners can be held accountable, that they do, and that the bill be moved on as quickly as possible.
Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for your testimony. No questions from the committee. Okay, the next group of guests will be: Mindy Maslin, Lucille Stanton, Janet Fishman, and Humberto Perez, middle weight champion of Philadelphia, Humberto Perez. Is that right, Humberto? Is it middle weight or are we cruiser weights now? All right, looking good, though, pal. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Being a professional tree hugger and the creator of the Philadelphia Green Tree Tenders Project, I was very concerned about the initial language of Bill 25 000771, entitled "Overhanging or Encroaching 27 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 Trees." I received dozens of calls from citizens alarmed that this could reverse the positive work done over the past years in preserving and enhancing our urban forest. Needless to say, we were relieved to read the amendments offered by Louis (indiscernible), Assistant City Solicitor, at the request of Robert Brown of the office of Darrell Clarke. Thank you for amending the bill to read that only limbs that are likely to damage property or that are dead or decayed such that a significant part of it may land on someone else's property should be removed. Thank you also for changing the wording to read that in these cases, only the offending portion of the tree would be removed rather than removing the tree as a whole. For the record, I'd like to take a moment and remind everyone of some of the reasons that we are so passionate about our urban trees. There are lots of financial benefits of trees, including the estimate -- including that the estimated appraised value of street trees in Philadelphia is over $291 million. When trees are 28 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 present on developed property, the sale value of that property is 3 to 10 percent greater than developed property without trees. The yearly air pollution removal value of Philadelphia's trees is over $5,400,000. Properly-located mature trees can save households $10 to $25 yearly in summer cooling costs. And then there's also many health benefits. Trees reduce ozone. In 1996, a Harvard study of public health recorded 3,250 hospital and emergency visits in Philadelphia due to ozone levels that were too high. People report more positive emotions, lower blood pressure, negative -- and fewer negative emotions when looking at urban scenes with trees than urban scenes without. Outdoor urban residential spaces with more trees are seen by residents as significantly more attractive, safer, and more likely to be used than similar spaces without trees. There's many studies -- some new studies out of Chicago that show that domestic violence is reduced in areas that have urban trees. People tend to spend more time out on 29 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 their stoop, meeting their neighbors, developing better relations in their communities, and having outlets for negative emotions so that they don't keep them bottled up inside. So thank you for changing this bill so that it doesn't mean the removal of thousands of trees in Philadelphia, and we hope that they're all included.
Miss Maslin, I just wanted you to know, as Councilpeople, we also love trees. Councilman Nutter has a special relationship with a couple of trees in his district, but we won't talk about that.
He was concerned. He came over and he said, the trees I -- you know, we're not getting rid of all trees, I just want you to know. But you see the problem that some of the previous people have testified.
Some of these trees have long -- I mean, they'd probably be great trees to be in a park somewhere, but they've outgrown their usage, some of them were dead in 30 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 some of these neighborhoods, and it's a really big thing on their quality of life to 'cause when they fall, so we're not -- we appreciate it. Thanks.
He spends a lot of time in that park. Thank you, ma'am .
I'm Lucille Stanton and I'm right here to testify about the bill, 00771.
Lucille, right to the microphone. It's a very bad, bad system.
Can you understand me now? Okay, then. It's a tree that's sitting in my back -- it's not in my yard, it's next door to me and 31 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 it's leaning over on my roof.
And it's leaning over on my roof. And she tried to cut it down but it still don't do no good. And now it's really into my window and it's coming into my roof, destroying my roof. And then I have another one that's 2203, which is a abandoned house, and the people that have the house next door, it's rooting up to the windows. And that tree is coming up through the house and he's doing damage to the next-door house property. And I would like for someone to come out there to see about them trees out there.
Miss Stanton, if you'll let me -- Mr. Haigler, could you approach the bench. This is a good question. Could we just get back on there. You know, we're not going to jackpot you. 32 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 (Mr. Haigler returns to witness table.)
She has one that's -- she actually has a neighbor, and it's not in an abandoned house.
She has a tree next to her and the neighbor's living there, and for whatever reason, the neighbor can't afford to remove it or whatever it is, she cut some limbs. But if there's someone living in the house and you get a complaint, what do you do in that case? It's still in the yard but it's not an abandoned house. So L&I is still responsible. What do you do to --
L&I will issue the citation but the ultimate responsibility for any property is the property owner. The property owner is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of their property. L&I will enforce property maintenance laws against the property 33 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 owner but it's the property owner's responsibility ultimately to take care of and maintain the property.
Let's set a scenario where the property owner can't for whatever reason; what happens then? You just go around and -- I mean, L&I writes a citation.
We write a citation against the property owner to remove that tree. We will try our best to get the property owner to do that. We still have to follow prescribed enforcement procedures; we just can't take over --
The responsibility of somebody else's property automatically.
The procedure, as is outlined under the bill, is that first, we cite 34 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 the property owner with a normal violation notice, giving them 30 days to correct the violation. After the 30-day time period, we also have written in the proposed amendments that we will issue tickets at a minimum of $50 per day against the property owner to try to get that person to --
-- to take care of the problem. Now, again, if the problem is a situation where it's causing damage or it is a situation where the tree is a public-safety threat, a public-safety hazard, then we have abatement proceedings, abatement issues that we can abate that condition because it does cause a threat to public safety and health. That's presently under the code that we currently have to enforce now.
Could you explain that to us that aren't sophisticated to use them big words like "abatement"? What happens there?
'Cause she still has that tree next to her house, now we're into month three or four, and it's ready to fall on her house. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but that's what comes with this stuff. You know, for whatever reason, the neighbor can't remove it, do you actually come out, eventually remove that tree, and charge the homeowner?
If the tree is dead or is dying or it will topple over and cause damage to property or safety, yes. On average, the City-- and I have a cost estimate on average now. For the average homeowner, it probably won't cost them this much to remove a tree, but on average for the City, it costs about $1500 to remove a tree.
So if it gets to that point where we have to actually do this, then we will do this and we will lien the property and assess whatever administrative costs there are against the property owner.
Mr. Haigler, what does it cost the homeowner, like $500, depending 36 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 on the size of the tree?
It could vary, depending on the contract. I had a tree removed from my house last year, and it only cost me somewhere around $300, a little bit more than $300 to remove the tree as well as the stump. So it all depends on who you contract with.
And the million dollar question is, the reason it costs the City so much is because of our procedures and procurement.
Because there are other costs that are involved in things that go out on the bid process, there are contracts. These things -- I don't know all of the nuances of these things.
But, Mr. Haigler, I could understand the price of removing a tree can vary from contractor to contractor, but I also 37 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 think that the other issue can be -- is in the location of the tree. Some trees are more accessible to get to.
I had a similar problem with a property I owned and the neighbor next door -- it was well -- in a South Philadelphia rowhouse, I think, at the time, maybe seven eight, years ago. It was about $600 to remove because there was no alley.
And they literally had to come in and dismantle this tree branch by branch and carry it out through the house. I mean, that's how bad it was. So, I mean, that drives the cost up.
I just don't want anybody leaving hear thinking that everybody can get a tree removed for $300.
There are some trees that can cost you a thousand or several 38 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 thousands to remove, depending on the size.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. There had actually been a companion bill to this bill that capped the amount that would be able to be liened by the City of Philadelphia, and I'm holding that bill so we can determine with the Administration what the ultimate cost of these potential tree removal will be. We will be discussing that and hopefully having a hearing on that at a later date. But until we can get a sense of what that cost should be, we're going to hold that companion bill.
Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Thanks for answering that. 39 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 Janet Fishman.
Good morning. I am also one of the persons who read the newspaper article 5 and got frightened. I -- certainly listening to the other witnesses, I'm sensitive to the problems that trees can cause property, but I also feel that lack of trees is also a damage. I live on 51st Street between Walton and (indiscernible) -- I believe that's Councilperson Blackwell's district. And all of the trees were cut down on our block before we moved --
And I have to correct you. She's not a District Councilwoman, so it's not her district. Oh, Blackwell. I thought you said -- you looked at Blondell and meant Blondell Reynolds Brown.
Yeah. And all of those trees were cut down before we moved there because, apparently, the roots damage pipes is what I was told. From other sources, I found out that it's 40 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 only when the pipe's already broken that that's the case. Anyway, now we have no trees on that street, so I really appreciate the amendments, the 30-day space, and also the amendment that only trees that are causing damage need to be cut down. And also that -- this is my main concern, that if a tree is overhanging and it's causing damage, the easy thing is to just cut it down. Is there anything in the amendment or in the bill that could be added that would encourage people to have the tree pruned rather than cutting it? Because once it's cut, that's that.
I believe that the intent of the bill -- and the sponsor can answer -- is not to necessarily have every tree removed because the adjacent neighbor is not in favor of the tree. I think that the object is if you would trim the tree back so it's not encroaching on your neighbor's property, I think, then the neighbor has no legitimate argument, unless the root system 41 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 is causing damage to his or her property, the adjacent property.
I don't think this bill is intended to remove trees in Philadelphia.
No, the original language was admittedly rather vague, and that's why in the amendments we speak specifically of the portion of the tree that is creating a dangerous hazard to the abutting property owner. So that is the only portion that should be removed under the bill.
And what happens if the -- it seems like there are many situations where the property owner's absent and they can't be contacted and the City comes in to get rid of the problem. Are they encouraged to just prune the tree, or is the idea that once we cut it down, then we don't have to deal with it anymore, so we'll just cut it down because --
Knowing how fiscally prudent the Department of L&I is, we will probably just trim it to within the inch of the 42 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 property line. I do not see us -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Haigler.
If the City, in fact, does have to come in to a non-responsive property owner, the City of Philadelphia will only abate the nuisance up into that property line.
Mr. Haigler likes trees too. And his boss Commissioner McLaughlin, likes trees too, so. . .
I have one other suggestion. Would it be possible to -- if the property owner would rather just get rid of the tree or the person on who -- or the property owner doesn't respond --
I would think if it's my property, I can do whatever I want with the tree. If I'm a tree hater, it probably goes down. That's probably not the answer you want.
But I don't think we make people keep trees up on their property, as 43 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 much as we can't make 'em take 'em down until they become dangerous to the public health or, you know, to the public at all.
Mm-hmm. Would it be possible to have as part of this bill a mediation system so that if the two neighbors can't work it out, they can come in and --
I would think not, but we could talk about it. Councilman?
In the experience I had and I spoke to a little bit earlier, the property owner adjacent to the property that I owned, which was an investment property at the time, did not want to agree with me to have the tree removed. It was causing -- the root damage was causing a lot of damage to both yards. And ultimately, we wound up in court, and the judge made a decision that it was 50/50: 50 percent of the costs were related my property and 50 percent of the costs were related to the adjacent property owners. I mean, unfortunately, if you can't work it out in a neighborly way, the court is the 44 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 last place to go to get the issue resolved. So there's a process in which you can get to eventually to decide that.
I don't think it's necessary to be in the bill. If you feel aggrieved in any way because of a tree in this case that may or may not be -- you allege that the tree is causing damage to your property and the adjacent property owner whose property the tree is on feels as though it is not, eventually you're going to wind up in court if you can't resolve it in a neighborly way. It doesn't have to be by legislation. You have the right to sue and bring action against the property owner.
Mm-hmm. Well, I'd like to thank you for the amendments, and I do feel that keeping trees in the neighborhood is a value in and of itself, and anything the bill can do to support that, I appreciate it.
Yes, we do love trees. I'm here on behalf of some of the residents in my area that have trees problems, and I just took hold of a property that I had to remove trees myself. I just couldn't wait for L&I or PECO or, before it became Verizon, Bell Atlantic to come and remove the trees. The trees grew so much that the lines all got locked into the trees and they were in the backyard. PECO couldn't get to them or nobody could have gotten to them. And I was just calling and calling. So at that time, I said I'm not going to call anymore and I went in and hired a contractor. And it's not cheap. You're looking at 15, $1600 just to remove them. The damage that it caused -- the leaves clogged the drain, always constantly falling, and I just had to always re-clean and always go rent a machine to just unclog the drains, 'cause 46 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 constantly the leaves keep falling. My concern is that some of these trees that are running between lines that PECO should also take the responsibility and Verizon to make a commitment to come and help some of the private residence owner remove that problem.
Humberto, our resident PECO expert is absent from this hearing and I'm sure he would have something to say. We'll leave his name out of this. But it's been my experience that PECO would rather trim the trees than have them lines fall down. Once they start getting in the wires -- they've been responsive, as much as I can remember, to do that, sure, because it's a money thing to them. It's cheaper for them to trim the trees -- 'cause they have crews on contract that do that -- than to knock some wires down, 'cause that becomes a big deal, then they got to pay people more money to come out. And I'm sorry that happened. I wish we could have worked that out.
Also, my last question. I had to remove the trees and also was neighboring 47 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 trees and the neighbors just couldn't afford also to pay some of the expense to remove the trees. So it was just left on just me to remove the trees. Is there a way to also amend on the bill that if a resident and a joint resident have trees next to them, there could be an agreement that both residents should hold the responsibility to get this tree removed and not leave the burden on just one resident.
You could do that privately. I mean, every time we put something on -- no good deed goes undone, you know, and every time we try to do something, it just makes Mr. Haigler and his department more work. You know, I see what you're after but I think if you and I can work something out, it might be fine, but Councilman DiCicco and I may not be able to. And if we can agree to do that. And you know people, that's how it works out. The less people that are involved, the easier it is; the move involved, the more complicated.
But I appreciate 48 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 your comments and we'll talk to the prime sponsor and see if he wants to do something about that, okay?
Okay, we're going to bring up -- there's five or six more people, but everybody seems to be talking about the same thing. So here's who I have left: Joyce Martinez, John Choice, Georgianna Johnson, Margaret McClain, Helen Brown, and John Jonik. If we're all going to testify to the same thing, if you're going to say the same thing that's been said -- if you have something different, come up. You're certainly welcome to talk, but for the -- if you could summarize it, it would be nice. You know, we're getting -- we got the point and we know what needs to be done, but you're certainly welcome to --
No, go ahead, 49 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 you're fine.
Seventh and Hunting, the 5th District Council. I want to know if I could get reimbursed for having this tree cut down that's the responsibility of L&I because, like this guy just told this guy here, he hemmed and hawed, We don't know when or whatever. "When or whatever" could mean somebody's life, and when that winded start blowing, the actual root from the bottom of this tree begin to --
Where was the tree at, ma'am? Was it in an abandoned house or in an alleyway or on abandoned property?
Oh, that's not L&I, then, right? Otis? That's the property 50 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 owner's responsibility.
But, I mean, some plan need to be set up where people can be reimbursed because he talking about issuing citations $50, $50, $50. And like you said before, there going to be people that just can't afford it, and that is true. There are people that just can't afford it, opposed to making this $50, $50 situation, which this tree eventually going to fall on this lady house and which is going to end up costing thousands of dollars. I think a program needs to be set up with the City, where they contract somebody or somebody within the City that they can have a program where people that have to pay to have they trees cut down work with a program that's within 51 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 the system to cut these trees, because now, once this bill hit the street, the tree hustle begin, okay? Like you said, you got people charging $600 for a tree 'cause they claim they can't get to the alley, which is true, and people making they own prices on a lot of things. I have a tree in the alley that if it don't get caught, firemen, me, you, or nobody else going to be able to walk through the alley.
That's our next one, the alley, the Streets Department. We just found that out today.
Because they know that's been going on for a long time and they should have been taking care of that because, although we had a street cleanup and this and that, nobody is really pursuing any things on the alley. At one time, they used to enforce that the alleys be 52 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 clean that people kept their alleyways clean or whatever, but now it's a "don't care" attitude, you know, they do or they don't. And instead of sending citations out to people is not the answer, because you have two homeowners in a block of 100 PHAs, so that's a big problem right there in itself.
Well, I think PHA's got to take some responsibility to removed some of these trees too.
Yeah, but we know that's not happening. So, you know, that's why we need to come up with some kind of plan where you contract somebody in the City or -- and I can call it as a homeowner and say, I need this tree removed, and it's a set price or whatever, 'cause I had a tree removed that cost $1500, plus another $300 for the stump. So that's two different issues when you getting a tree cut.
Thank you for that 53 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 point and we'll take that into consideration.
My name's Georgianna Johnson, and I have a question to the committee and I want to say good morning.
I would like to know why L&I and the Streets Department can't inform each other of their responsibilities of these overhanging trees and thereby write a report and send it to -- a copy to each individual department and a copy to the Councilman. I believe in the paper trail. You saying that these trees need to be done, but the men who come out to cut them down, they don't even talk to the people that call them. They just go and cut them down and they don't know who's cutting them down, who did what, or whatever. And I think it's about time that the citizens in this city start knowing who's doing what. And I happen to be a person who's very nosey. I'll go out and ask them, and they'll say, Well, I don't know, somebody sent me here. So I have a problem with that. So that is my problem. 54 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 I don't have any trees on my block that need cutting down, but I would like to know if somebody could inform -- if Macy's could tell Gimbel's, we would be very happy. Thank you. (Laughter.)
Good morning, Councilman. My name is John Choice and I'm from North Philadelphia, the 32th Ward.
My issue is basically, they're going to prune the trees, they're going to cut back to the property lines. Who's going to deal with the height of these trees? In my area, most of these trees are as tall as three-story homes that the people are living in. When they fall, they take out a lot. I've had homes take out fences, second floor levels, sides of walls, everything. So pruning the trees is going to be a good thing but the height of the tree is going to be the problem. When the weather changes, it gets cold or the storms blow through the houses and the 55 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 trees that are old and rotten are going to fall. Now, if you prune it, it's fine, but you only prune it to the property line. The tree's not on the property, the tree's as tall as a three-story house. So when it falls, it's going to take out two or three homes, fences, electric lines everything. So, I mean, the bill's great and I appreciate Councilman Clarke working on it, but my issue is basically in my neighborhood, where he's been around, they've looked at a number of issues in the trees. The smallest tree's rounder than this table. Three stories is a long ways up when a tree falls, and it falls on a lot of people's homes and it takes out a lot. And many of the people that can't afford to have these trees cut are going to be senior citizens who have been in those homes, who've raised families over the years and afford to be paying 15, $1600 to help take out these trees. Now, L&I said they're going to prune, they're going to cut so much of a line, and the Streets Department's going to work with the alleys. I just want to know if collectively, can 56 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 the three departments, four departments, work together to try to take out some of the height of these trees when they do the pruning. And if you cut 'em back on the property line, you still got 2, 300 feet up. Can they cut back some of the height so if it does fall, it don't take out as much damage that can be done?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Choice. Mr. Choice, realistically, I can see several reasons why I don't think we'd be in a position to do that. First, you've heard from testimony from individuals who are tree lovers, and I think --
I understand that. I mean, I'm not against the tree but, you know, some of them are old.
Let me ask you a question. Now, I think based on the speculative nature of when the tree is going to fall and where it may fall, I don't think that we should have the wherewithal to cut the tree off at a particular height, and I just think politically, I don't 57 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 think -- and I think practically, that's probably not a good thing to do. And I understand your concern 'cause I have walked in your community and I see the potential at some point in time where one of those trees may fall, but if the tree is still living, I know that we're not going to be in a position to decrease the height of that particular tree. Maybe somewhere down the line, after this program is implemented, we can look at possibly dealing with some trees that are dead and potentially dangerous. But at this point, I'm just really --
But I was speaking basically more to the ones that are kind of old. Some of the ones that are still living and blooming, you know, if they trim 'em back, then the wires and things will be out of the way, which is fine. But you have some that are --
Yeah, that is the responsibility of the property owner and, you know, there will already be a cost incurred by a property owner based on the implementation of this bill. And I'm concerned that if we go a step further, there will be an additional cost 58 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 associated with the property owner. And I don't know at this point -- and I can't speak for my colleagues, but I don't know at this point if government is willing to do that and create an additional burden to that property owner, who, in many cases, as we have just heard, may not be able to pay for this particular program. So I'm a little concerned about that. But I do understand your problem.
All right. The second issue is then if you're going to trim back the lines around the electric lines and what have you, are they going to come out where they have the open, empty lots and take out those trees, or are just going to trim those too?
This bill only speaks to a situation where there's a abutting property owner and the tree is causing, or potentially causing, damage or danger to that abutting property owner. That's all this bill 22 speaks to. If there's a vacant lot and there's no 23 abutting property owner that is complaining about that, this bill doesn't speak to that. Now, that vacant property is owned by 59 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 somebody. So if there is a tree on a vacant property, a lot, and it is potentially creating a dangerous situation for the abutting property owner, it's my understanding that this bill can be implemented in that particular situation.
And also, I think this $250 million for this blight program, like there's a little part in it that everyone seems to be ignoring. If we introduce it this week, hopefully, we'll find that there's a private initiative bond -- Darrell's making faces, but I'm going to say it, that if that was something that Councilwoman Krajewski wanted to do, she should be able to do that 'cause only she knows her district. If it's something that another District Councilman wants to do -- you understand? It might be working in his district but not in mine. So if it's a City-owned lot, we should take it down possibly. So if it's by some speculator that's been sitting on it for 50 years, he should take it down; we shouldn't pay for that.
Yeah, but then you find out you have a bunch of empty lots that you can't find the owner. 60 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771
Somebody owns the lot somewhere, though, and we got to get to that, and then maybe we can address all that in this blight program that we're going to get through here. Thank you. Next witness?
Good morning, Council. My name's Margaret McClain. I live in a home where I have been fighting a issue with a tree for four years. It's (indiscernible) from the root and it's not where in the tree sits on someone else's property -- maybe the City's or halfway in between. I bring to you the root of a tree that I've been fighting (Displaying piece of tree root) where from above, the birds may have brought in some of it's little twigs and planted it in the corner of my roof. When we thought we had the root and we cleaned everything out, we thought, but up jumped the tree again. Right now, the bark of this tree is growing out of my house, and at the bottom of it, it does not exist. And I agree with the prunement [sic] of the tree along with 61 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 Councilman Darrell Clarke and assisting him. I also work in the area of the community in different ways with children where some of the trees are diseased. And I feel as though that we should also look in that area to make sure that the (indiscernible) of the trees are not hazardous to the health of not only our children, our seniors that may have respiratorial [sic] systems and issues of health matters. Some of those trees drip a dew on you and it burns your skin and it does break you out. But I thank Councilman Darrell Clarke for bringing this issue up, and I hope we do get this matter addressed quickly. And I thank the Council.
Good morning. My name is Helen Brown, and I'm a committee person and I'm here to support the bill. And I have a question. I didn't quite understand what the L&I person said about the tree from your next-door neighbor, they are 62 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 responsible. My neighbor is also a tree lover and it's causing damage to my roof, which I had to have repaired. And I'd like to know what do I do with him and his tree?
The question was, I think, if you didn't hear it, her neighbor has a tree and she wants the tree to be big and bountiful, but it's destroying her quality of life.
If the neighbor -- it's am occupied property, the neighbor is responsible for the tree, as they are responsible for anything else that goes on in their property. Give us the information, we will send our inspectors out. We will follow due process to notify the person that they are in violation of the City law and that they do have time to correct this violation. If they do not correct this violation -- because, again, we can't do this for them -- they have to be notified that they do have a 63 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 problem, and we do have to give them the opportunity to correct that problem. If they do not correct that problem, then we will take them through the proper necessary enforcement action, including, with this bill, this bill specifically has a mechanism in there to cite the violation to the property owner immediately to give them -- instead of taking them to court and waiting for the court to issue a fine against this person, this bill has provisions in there where we can issue a ticket immediately to that person on an every day basis if necessary to try to gain compliance. It's the ultimate responsibility of code enforcement to try to gain voluntary compliance. Again, the City can only do but what it can do legally.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. In questions? (No questions.)
My name is John Jonik, J-O-N-I-K. I wrote that article that was 64 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 apparently mentioned before I got here. Only knowing of the two original versions of the bill 4 771 and 772, I heard later that this amended version was available for three months but the Chief Clerk's Office didn't have it, so I ran with what was available. I ran with the copies of the bill that the Chief Clerk's Office had available, and they did not advise me to go to Mr. Clark's office or anyplace else, that that would be anything but the one that would be treated in the hearing today. So I just have a few things to add. I do have testimony, which I have submitted 15 copies of that's back there somewhere, but I want 16 to point out one thing that people are talking 17 about 1500, $2,000 charges. That may be just the tip of the iceberg. Since the City seems to have exempted itself from insurance here, unlike every car owner in the City supposed to be, this could be millions of dollars. If, you know, a City contractor knocks a wire thing down and the whole neighborhood goes up or whatever conceivable nightmare happens. I don't know how anybody could afford that or whether or not temporary insurance 65 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 will be available to a person when the City would be taking down a tree or pruning it. That insurance thing seems very worrisome. Some people may have home -- maybe it's covered in most people's homeowner's insurance, but a lot of people don't even have that in the City, even through the fair plan. I do like the idea that since trees benefit everybody in the City -- this is Penn's green country town, and tree blocks away can benefit somebody by shading in the evening or shading the sun or just cooling the air, by supplying birds to eat the West Nile virus mosquitos or whatever. And so, therefore, since it is a public benefit, even if a tree is on somebody's private land, it benefits a lot of people, notwithstanding the people who don't like leaves and, you know, twigs. So I think there has to be some kind of public subsidy or some kind of program where people could have a problem tree corrected without going bankrupt. I don't know how that can be done, whether there's any precedence for it. 66 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 And I did make one point about the high cost and fines and this insurance thing or whatever, it will prompt do-it-yourself lumberjacks to start climbing up the trees. I've seen my neighbors do this -- tough guys up in the tree with ropes, huge logs swinging down, missing their kids by two inches, things like this. It's incredibly frightening to -- if anybody ever dealt with a tree, they're not called widow-makers for no reason. I think that sometimes that really tough penalties end up causing more problems than they may solve sometimes. So I hope that's considered along with the insurance angle.
Good morning. And I'm here to support the bill that Councilman Darrell Clarke 67 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 000771 is opposing. My name is Sarah Lewis, I'm a committee person out of the 32nd Ward, Division 30. I'm here (indiscernible) have a report against L&I. I have called L&I about a property at 1735 North (indiscernible) Street.
Excuse me, ma'am. If you could speak directly into the mic, we'll be able to hear you better.
All right. I have called L&I hundreds of times about 1735 (indiscernible) Street where there's a big tree in the backyard. The lady, she's 85 years old, and the tree is actually like tearing her roof off. L&I had told me over and over that they've got in touch with the owner, but nothing hasn't been done, okay. At 1707 (indiscernible) Street, where the City had gave me a vacant property where I have a garden out there, but when Mr. Waver (ph.), who worked for the City, came out there and tore that building down, they left all of the bricks and stones in the back of that alleyway. They have not came back and removed it. I'd appreciate L&I doing their responsibilities. 68 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 010010 And thank you.
Thank you, ma'am. We have nobody else to testify so we're going to move on to the next bill. The clerk will read the next bill.
Bill 010010, an ordinance 9 amending Chapter 9-700 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Amusement Businesses," by adding a new section implementing provisions of the Local Option Small Games of Chance Act under which licenses may be issued to eligible organizations to conduct or operate small games of chance in the City, under certain terms and conditions.
It's more than bingo. Anyone to testify on this bill? Mr. Haigler from the Administration? (Witness comes forward.)
Good day, Councilman Mariano and members of the Committee Licenses and 69 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 010010 Inspections. I am Otis Haigler, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 010010, which, if enacted, will amend Section 9-700 of the Philadelphia Code by regulating the requirement to operate small games of chance in the City of Philadelphia. Since the requirements of this bill is mandated by passage of the Local Options Small Games of Chance Act by the State legislature, the Department of Licenses and Inspections offers no 14 objections to the enactment of the bill and is prepared to administer the licensing provisions. I had other portions of the testimony, but I understand that there are some issues with that portion of the testimony.
Yeah, and you have some problems with the temporary license, and we're waiting for an opinion from the Law Department. We'll report it out like this and we'll amend it on the floor if we have to.
Okay, 'cause I just wanted to make that known, that we did have an 70 5/8/01 L&I - BILL 010010 issue with the fee for the limited option license.
We'll let the Law Department decide. Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Thank you very much.
Seeing none, we're going to go on to the next bill, and I think Councilman Clarke's holding that, right? You're going to hold 72.
So we're going to hold 000772, and that will be the end of the public hearing and we'll go right into the public meeting. - - - 71 5/8/01 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 6 771 be reported out of committee as amended. I believe all members --
Oh, I'm sorry, my mistake. Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the amendments that have been submitted to all members. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved, so moved and seconded. What's your choice, everyone? I'm sorry. All those in favor, aye? Anybody against, no? The amendments pass.
All right. Thank 72 5/8/01 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 771, as amended, be reported out with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the rules so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
So moved and seconded on this bill 000771, as amended.
Actually, Mr. Chairman, there was also a request by the Administration on to insert Section 13 312.2.2, to insert $150.
That would be another amendment or do we do that administratively?
That would be an addendum to the amendment. Give me one second here. Yes, under PM 312.4.2, where it says "Penalty," it reads: "The penalty for a violation of any provision of this section shall be. . . " And at that point I would strike out 73 5/8/01 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING everything after "shall be" and insert "in accordance with Section A-601 of the Administrative Code," which covers the $150 to $300 fine provision.
Okay, so that's another amendment. I recognize Councilman Clarke for I move for the amendment that Mr. Haigler just read.
I'd like to move for the amendment, the second amendment on Bill 17 No. 771, as testified by Mr. Haigler, to insert $150. (Duly seconded.)
Okay, it's been amended and seconded. 74 5/8/01 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING All those in favor? So the amendment passes. Now we have to vote on the bill as amended twice.
All right. Could you make that motion, Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I move that Bill No. 771, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a suspension of the rules as to allow reading on first calendar this Thursday. (Duly seconded.)
It's been amended and amended and it's to read it without -- suspend it regular -- how do you say that now?
Suspend the rules for the next session of Council to make the first reading. All those if favor for this bill, as 75 5/8/01 L&I - PUBLIC MEETING amended, with a suspension of the rules? Any nays? The bill's approved, thank you. The next one. Darrell, you going to read that one too, Councilman Clarke?
Yes, certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010010 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the rules so as to allow first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor? All those opposed? Seeing none, the bill is approved as out with a suspension of the rules. So that will close the public meeting of the L&I Committee. There's no other bills, right? That's it. Thank you.
Thank you. (Adjourned 11:20 a.m.) 76 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, May 8, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LICENSES & INSPECTIONS BILL NO.'S __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter